diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..717d7a68e7d0410ae48d3a11a9bc91233cf79fb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x SEALED INDICTMENT 20 Cr. + +20 Cr. 330 + +COUNT ONE + +(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +# OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with aminor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with aminor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for aminor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when aminor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would + +massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, + +directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +#### MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg) + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg) + +c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg) + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for + +and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of asexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to amovie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing + +an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of asexualized massage. + +## MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the + +abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +# STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +# Overt Acts + +11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +## COUNT TWO + +# (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with acriminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +#### COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to + +wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GBISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +# Overt Acts + +17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +- a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. +- b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the + +New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +## COUNT FOUR (Transportation of aMinor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with acriminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +## COUNT FIVE (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with acase then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have ascheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. + +A. I don't know what you're talking about. + +Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? + +A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff) who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +# COUNT SIX (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> 0: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A: No, not that I recall. . . . + +Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +A. No. + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +• • • + +Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q• You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q• You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +PERS7Dtr-- AUDREY S RAUSS Acting nited States Attorney Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## INDICTMENT + +(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) + +> AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +Foreperson \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e5751c226f11fd6254984beaa62ce039942580e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/EFTA02829305.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1078 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 19618, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.24, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 334.0190734863281, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 334.0190734863281, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 372.6 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 370.70123291015625, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 370.70123291015625, + 267.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 267.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 405.22747802734375, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 405.22747802734375, + 164.58416748046875 + ], + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 164.58416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 448.0926818847656, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 448.0926818847656, + 608.3100000000001 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 608.3100000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.216, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 380.8837890625, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 380.8837890625, + 165.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 165.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 344.81866455078125, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 344.81866455078125, + 584.9541625976562 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 584.9541625976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 338.21893310546875, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 338.21893310546875, + 610.8341674804688 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 610.8341674804688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.55999755859375, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 523.6710205078125, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 523.6710205078125, + 624.3341674804688 + ], + [ + 84.55999755859375, + 624.3341674804688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \n(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.04399999999998, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 466.31500244140625, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 466.31500244140625, + 480.0158386230469 + ], + [ + 145.04399999999998, + 480.0158386230469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 344.06866455078125, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 344.06866455078125, + 377.57415771484375 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 377.57415771484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Transportation of aMinor with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.18, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 451.08001708984375, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 451.08001708984375, + 455.6108093261719 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 455.6108093261719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 340.7255554199219, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 340.7255554199219, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 285.12 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.1947937011719, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.1947937011719, + 247.07415771484375 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 247.07415771484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 407.0639953613281, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 407.0639953613281, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 274.59000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 390.7698669433594, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 390.7698669433594, + 315.82623291015625 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 315.82623291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 342.67205810546875, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 342.67205810546875, + 435.82623291015625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 435.82623291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 250 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 257 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 291 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 256 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 274 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 256 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 224 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 231 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829305" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52186e248f565b1e442cdb9b3693970f45f75893 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:18c65669311a8b5009fde19000a2073c1bbdcdd6ddefdbf2f886183466546d05 +size 43335 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c58621d288b41106941149406b0edb2743b4762 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8570877536c99d7d140fe20df9b8ab88d87944e3e062772307ebadb6a6c855bc +size 110970 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..221cc6013d16c33aff25aa8aff3bb313fd440d54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5c1bacbaf301bcbdfb25fb23038be0104b8d4a735de270d7376e0a574197fa48 +size 84297 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1b52673bbb3da2d92e8b8a9184b85ef79df6e64 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829305/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b74e8966670fb6112ef7f3a8e39538c5d327200380b3aca97bc66e788c320a4b +size 96938 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a828d3d43250f778fbe0a4322f1902aa97c69cbe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# Unsealing Order + +20 Cr. 330 + +Upon the application of the United States, by the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss, by Assistant United States Attorney Alex Rossmi I ler; + +It is found that the Indictment in the above-captioned case is currently sealed and the United States Attorney's Office has applied to have that Indictment unsealed, and it is therefore: + +ORDERED that the Indictment in the above-captioned action be unsealed and remain unsealed pending further order of the Court. + +Dated: New York, New York + +July 2, 2020 nota.uo + HONORABLE KATHARINE H. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v . + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## ORDER + +20 Cr. 330 ( ) + +(18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423(a), 1623, 371, & 2.) + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6782d5ab474b9b4624a5abad696d6f3d0ddd50f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323/EFTA02829323.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829323.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1052, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 87.040283203125 + ], + [ + 280.0360412597656, + 87.040283203125 + ], + [ + 280.0360412597656, + 115.43701171875 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 115.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Unsealing Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 440.64, + 130.41 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 130.41 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 144.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 440.64, + 144.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 411.5639953613281, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 411.5639953613281, + 194.32122802734375 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 194.32122802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 217.26, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 394.5198669433594, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 394.5198669433594, + 247.95123291015625 + ], + [ + 217.26, + 247.95123291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 329.03350830078125, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 329.03350830078125, + 377.57916259765625 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 377.57916259765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829323" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..feadb474bc34840948a3360db5f3879a2d943c8d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.md @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +## THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION + +For the reasons set forth herein, the Government respectfully submits that Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant, poses an extreme risk of flight; that she will not be able to rebut the statutory presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3XE); and that the Court should therefore order her detained. + +The charges in this case are unquestionably serious: the Indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell, in partnership with Jeffrey Epstein, a serial sexual predator, exploited and abused young girls for years. As a result of her disturbing and callous conduct, Maxwell now faces the very real prospect of serving many years in prison. The strength of the Government's evidence and the substantial prison term the defendant would face upon conviction all create a strong incentive for the defendant to flee. That risk is only amplified by the defendant's extensive international ties, her citizenship in two foreign countries, her wealth, and her lack of meaningful ties to the United States. In short, Maxwell has three passports, large sums of money, extensive international connections, and absolutely no reason to stay in the United States and face the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence. + +#### BACKGROUND + +On June 29, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and 2; one count of conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and 2; and two counts of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. + +The charges arise from a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls at Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, between approximately 1994 and 1997. During that time, Maxwell had a personal and professional relationship with Epstein and was one of his closest associates. + +Beginning in at least 1994, the defendant enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein, through a variety of means and methods. In particular, she played a key role in Epstein's abuse of minors by helping Epstein to identify, groom, and ultimately abuse underage girls. As a part of their scheme, the defendant and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which the defendant knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. + +As the Indictment details, the defendant enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example, she attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. She put victims at ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior. Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, the defendant would encourage victims to accept Epstein's offers of financial assistance, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by Maxwell and Epstein, both of whom knew that their victims were minors. + +The Indictment further alleges that the defendant lied under oath to conceal her crimes. In 2016, the defendant gave deposition testimony in connection with a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. During the deposition, the defendant was asked questions about her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. The defendant repeatedly lied under oath when questioned about her conduct with minor girls. + +## ARGUMENT + +# I. Applicable Law + +Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant's detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. , 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995); Patriarca, 948 F.2d at 792; Chhnurenga, 760 F.2d at 405. + +The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (I) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person: (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character . . . [and] financial resources"; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See + +18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings, and the Government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (Government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings). + +Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3XE). + +# H. Discussion + +For the reasons set forth below, the defendant presents an extreme risk of flight, and therefore she cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case. Every one of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk — the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant — counsel strongly in favor of detention. + +# A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence + +The "nature and circumstances" of this offense favor detention. As the Indictment alleges, the defendant committed serious crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1) (specifically enumerating "whether the offense. . . involves a minor victim" as a factor in bail applications). Indeed, the crimes of enticing and transporting minors for illegal sex + +acts are so serious that both crimes carry a statutory presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (eX3)(E). The defendant repeatedly engaged in this conduct, targeting girls as young as 14 years old, for a period of years, and involving multiple minors. + +These offenses carry significant penalties, and the defendant faces up to 35 years' imprisonment if convicted. The possibility of a substantial sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at \*2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) ("[T]he steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—M, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide a compelling incentive for anyone to flee from prosecution, but the incentive to flee is especially strong for this defendant, who, at age 58, faces the very real prospect of spending a substantial portion of the rest of her life in prison. + +The strength of the evidence in this case underscores the risk that the defendant will become a fugitive. As the facts set forth in the Indictment make plain, the evidence in this case is strong. Multiple victims have provided detailed, credible, and corroborated information against the defendant. The victims are backed up contemporaneous documents, records, witness testimony, and other evidence. For example, flight records, diary entries, business records, and other evidence corroborate the victims' account of events. This will be compelling evidence of guilt at any trial in this case, which weighs heavily in favor of detention. + +The passage of time between the defendant's conduct and these charges does not counsel otherwise. As an initial matter, all of the conduct is timely charged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for conduct that was timely as of the + +date of the amendment,' to permit a prosecution at any point during the lifetime of the minor victim. See United States v. Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because Congress extended the statute of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still running, the extension was permissible); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same). Moreover, while the conduct alleged in the Indictment may have occurred years ago, the risk of a significant term of incarceration — and thus the motive to flee — is of course only very recent. + +Each of these factors — the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the possibility of lengthy incarceration — creates an extraordinary incentive to flee. And as further described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so. + +## B. The Characteristics of the Defendant + +The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. As an initial matter, the defendant's extensive international ties would make it exceptionally easy for her to flee and live abroad. The defendant was born in France and raised in the United Kingdom, where she attended school. Although she became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2002, she also remains a citizen of the United Kingdom and France. Travel records from United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") reflect that she has engaged in frequent international travel, including at least fifteen international flights in the last three years to locations including the United Kingdom, Japan, and Qatar. In addition, CBP records reflect that, consistent with her citizenship status, the defendant appears to possess passports from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. + +Prior to the amendment, the statute of limitations for sexual offenses involving minors ran until the victim reached the age of 25, and as such, all of the relevant charges in the Indictment remained timely as of the 2003 amendment described above. + +In addition, the defendant appears to have access to significant financial resources that would enable her flight from prosecution. Based on the Government's investigation to date, the Government has identified more than 15 different bank accounts held by or associated with the defendant from 2016 to the present, and during that same period, the total balances of those accounts have ranged from a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than \$20 million. During the same period, the defendant engaged in transfers between her accounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time, including at least several such significant transfers as recently as 2019. For example, the defendant transferred \$500,000 from one of her accounts to another in March 2019, and transferred more than \$300,000 from one of her accounts to another in July 2019. She has also reported, including as recently as 2019, that she holds one or more foreign bank accounts containing more than a million dollars. + +The defendant also appears to have reaped substantial income from a 2016 property sale. In particular, in 2016, the defendant appears to have sold a New York City residence for \$15 million through a limited liability company. On or about the date of the sale, amounts totaling more than \$14 million were then deposited into an account for which the defendant was listed as the owner. Several days later, more than \$14 million was transferred from that account into another account opened in the name of the defendant.2 In short, the defendant's financial resources appear to be substantial, and her numerous accounts and substantial money movements render her total financial picture opaque and indeterminate, even upon a review of bank records available to the Government. + +2 The Government additionally notes that, somewhat further back in time, in transactions occurring between 2007 and 2011, approximately more than \$20 million was transferred from accounts associated with Jeffrey Epstein to accounts associated with the defendant, including amounts in the millions of dollars that were then subsequently transferred back to accounts associated with Epstein. + +The defendant's international connections and significant financial means would present a clear risk of flight under normal circumstances, but in this case, the risk of flight is exacerbated by the transient nature of defendant's current lifestyle. In particular, the defendant has effectively been in hiding for approximately a year, since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019. Thereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone number (which she registered under the name "G Max") and email address, and ordering packages for delivery with a different person listed on the shipping label. Most recently, the defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections. + +The defendant appears to have no ties that would motivate her to remain in the United States. She has no children, does not reside with any immediate family members, and does not appear to have any employment that would require her to remain in the United States. Nor does she appear to have any permanent ties to any particular location in the United States. As such, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant will not be able to meet her burden of overcoming the presumption of detention, because there are no bail conditions that could reasonably assure the defendant's continued appearance in this case. + +In particular, home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to mitigate the high risk that the defendant would flee, as she could easily remove a monitoring device. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would merely reduce her head start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at \*1 + +(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at \*9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. , 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same). + +# CONCLUSION + +As set forth above, the defendant is an extreme risk of flight. The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied. + +Dated: New York, New York July 2, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +"it's 3A-• Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51e0c97c9730320a23349b86c033553fae761753 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325/EFTA02829325.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,654 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829325.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 17286, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.38, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM \nIN SUPPORT OF DETENTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 421.48095703125, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 421.48095703125, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM \nIN SUPPORT OF DETENTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 421.0848693847656, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 421.0848693847656, + 293.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 293.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 260.1, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 351.39642333984375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 351.39642333984375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 260.1, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.668, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 342.9605712890625, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 342.9605712890625, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 268.668, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 196.82611083984375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 196.82611083984375, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 172.24057006835938, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 172.24057006835938, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 537.336, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 537.336, + 583.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 583.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Characteristics of the Defendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 333.22216796875, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 333.22216796875, + 361.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 361.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 555.192, + 263.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 569.448, + 263.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 569.448, + 347.0217590332031 + ], + [ + 555.192, + 347.0217590332031 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829325" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0910a8c35d044db9a0840dc1bd1ecab039142974 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +July 5, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in the above referenced case. On July 2, 2020, the defendant was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire on the charges contained in the abovecaptioned Indictment and presented before a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of New Hampshire. At that appearance, the defendant waived her right to an identity hearing, consented to detention without prejudice to making a later application for bail, and consented to her transfer to the Southern District of New York. + +While the Government has no control over the timing of the defendant's transport, the Government understands from the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") that the USMS is acting expeditiously to transport the defendant into this District. In particular, the Government understands that the USMS expects that the defendant will arrive in this District early this week, well within the ten days contemplated by the Speedy Trial Act for transfer of a defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). + +The Government has consulted with defense counsel, Christian Everdell, Esq., who has requested that the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter take place on July 10, 2020. In advance of that proceeding, the parties jointly request that the defense be permitted to file a written bail application to the Court by 3:00 p.m. on July 9, 2020, and that the Government be permitted to file a written reply by 12:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. If that schedule is acceptable to the Court, the parties respectfully request that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter for the afternoon of July 10, 2020. + +Additionally, the Government respectfully requests that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act between the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020 and the date of the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing before Your Honor. In addition to part of this time being necessary to transport the defendant to this District, and thus subject to an automatic exclusion of up to ten days from Speedy Trial Act calculation, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(hX1)(F), the Government + +United States District Judge + +July 5, 2020 + +Page 2 + +also intends to use the time until any initial appearance before Your Honor to discuss the terms of a protective order with defense counsel. Such a protective order will be necessary to facilitate the production of discovery while also protecting, among other things, the privacy and identity of third parties, including victims of the conduct charged in the Indictment. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court exclude time both for the transportation of the defendant from another district, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F), and to allow the parties to engage in discussions regarding a protective order, which will serve the interests of justice by facilitating the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties, including potential victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who consents to this request. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2415 / 2225 / 2324 + +Cc: Christian Everdell, Esq. (by email) + +Mark Esq. (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae49f8f72850233d4b1dd2414424c45bd58246c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/EFTA02829335.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3941, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829335" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae8d46dbbc2e365a7d0f46efa166c3a0e33c4c21 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829335/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9a782a5b8c7ab5af1d2c30c1088af24ba87751126b5f6f8e089140448d4ebd08 +size 3336 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99a0025143098456e1130ca2227c448050fa46a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.md @@ -0,0 +1,623 @@ +# U.S. District Court District of New Hampshire (Concord) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-mj-00132-AJ All Defendants + +Case title: USA v. Maxwell Date Filed: 07/02/2020 + +Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone + +### Defendant (II + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Pending Conn% Disposition + +18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (I) + +18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2 ENTICEMENT OF A MINOR TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (2) + +18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (3) + +18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and 2 TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (4) + +PERJURY (5-6) + +# Highest Offense Level (Opeujag) + +Felony + +# Terminated Counts + +None + +# Diohest Offense Level (Terminated) + +# Disposition + +#### Complaints + +None + +#### Disposition + +# Plaintiff + +USA represented by John S. US Attorney's Office (NH) James C Cleveland Federal Bldg 53 Pleasant St, 4th Fir Concord, NH 03301 603 230-2574 Email: john.davis8eusdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Assistant US Attorney + +| Date Filed | # | Page | Docket Text | +|------------|----------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 07/02/2020 | | | Arrest (Removal) of Ghislaine Maxwell.(kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | +| 07/02/2020 | 1 | | COPY of Warrant and Indictment from Southern District of New York ( ██████████ Plains, NY), Case No. 20 CR 330. (kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | +| 07/02/2020 | | | NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Removal Hearing via Video Conference set for 7/2/2020 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | +| 07/02/2020 | 2 | | Public Access Findings as to Ghislaine Maxwell. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (bt) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | +| 07/02/2020 | | | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone: REMOVAL HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell held on 7/2/2020. The court found the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived and in-court hearing. Defendant: advised of rights and charges, waived identity hearing. Detention hearing to be held in prosecuting district. (Court Reporter: Susan Bateman) (Govt Atty: Alison Moe, John ██████████ ) (Defts Atty: ██████████ Vogelman) (USP: Janice Bernard)(Total Hearing Time: 17 min.) (kad) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | +| 07/02/2020 | 3 | | COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant committed to District of Southern District of New York. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (kad) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the + +Southern District of New York + +United States of America +v. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +*Defendant* + +**20 CR 330** + +Case No. + +**ARREST WARRANT** + +To: Any authorized law enforcement officer + +**YOU ARE COMMANDED** to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay +(name of person to be arrested) Ghislaine Maxwell, +who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: + +- Indictment      Superseding Indictment      Information      Superseding Information      Complaint +- Probation Violation Petition      Supervised Release Violation Petition      Violation Notice      Order of the Court + +This offense is briefly described as follows: + +- Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to entice minors) +- Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2 (enticement of a minor) +- Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to transport minors) +- Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2 (transportation of a minor) +- Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623 (perjury) + +*Lisa Margaret Lee* + +Date: 06/29/2020 + +*Issuing officer's signature* + +City and state: Plains, NY + +Hon. Lisa Margaret         , U.S. Magistrate Judge + +*Printed name and title* + +**Return** + +This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date) at (city and state) . + +Date: + +*Arresting officer's signature* + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x SEALED INDICTMENT 20 Cr. 20 Cr. 330 + +#### COUNT ONE + +(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +#### OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: + +![](_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg) + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with aminor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with aminor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for aminor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when aminor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would + +massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. /n some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, + +directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +### MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg) + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_8_Picture_2.jpeg) + +c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg) + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed ih front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for + +and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of asexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to amovie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing + +an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of asexualized massage. + +### MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the + +abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +# STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +# Overt Acts + +11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT TWO + +# (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with acriminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +#### COUNT THREE + +### (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to + +wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +16. It was apart and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +#### Overt Acts + +17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +- a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. +- b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the + +New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GRISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with acriminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +#### COUNT FIVE (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with acase then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have ascheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. + +A. I don't know what you're talking about. + +• • • + +Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? + +A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +### COUNT SIX (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A: No, not that I recall. . . . + +Q• Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +A. No. + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +• • • + +Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q. You never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +FPERION-- AUDREY RAUSS Acting nited States Attorney + +Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +--- + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +--- + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +--- + +INDICTMENT + +(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), +and 2) + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +![]()Foreperson + +--- + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE + +United States of America + +v. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Case No. 20-mj-132-AJ-1 + +#### Public Access Findings + +# I. Background + +This hearing is taking place during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. All parties to this proceeding, including the court, are appearing remotely via video. In light of the anticipated volume of public and media interest and the operational/capacity limitations of videoconference technology, public and media access to the proceeding will be via telephonic conference. The court's protocols for this hearing are laid out in Standing Order 20-7 (Mar. 23, 2020).' The court finds that conducting this hearing via video — under the unique circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic — is the best way to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, and the public at large. All findings made in the court's prior standing orders are + +1 Standing Order 20-7 was extended to August 1, 2020 by Standing Order 20-21 (June 17, 2020). + +incorporated herein. See Standing Orders 20-5 (Mar. 20, 2020) and 20-21 (June 17, 2020).2 + +The hearing held today will be an initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Today's hearing has been noticed as a video hearing. In the event defendant consents to proceed, the court makes the findings below. + +Before convening this video/telephone hearing, the court carefully considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to public court proceedings and the public's and press's First Amendment rights to in-person access to such proceedings. See Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)); Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-10 (1984). This Order details my findings. + +## **II. Partial Rather Than Total Closure** + +The court first finds that this video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of these proceedings. The court so finds because the goals of public access will still be achieved: this proceeding is not being held in secret and the public, including members of the press, maintains the + +--- + +2 All the court's Standing Orders regarding the COVID-19 outbreak can be found here: . + +opportunity to access this proceeding in real time. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555. 593-97 (1980) ( J., concurring) (discussing the functions of public access to court proceedings, including ensuring that procedural rights are respected and that justice is afforded equally, maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, promoting accurate fact-finding, and enabling the public to act as a check on judicial power); see also Bucci, £62 p.3d at 72 (discussing benefits of openness in criminal proceedings). Under the extraordinary circumstances presented by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, the court finds this partial closure is necessary. + +# III. Findings in Support of Necessity for this Partial Closure + +A. First, the court finds that protecting the health and safety of the public and the parties to this proceeding from the spread of COVID-19 is a substantial interest that would be jeopardized and prejudiced if the court did not impose this partial closure. + +Since the first announced case in New Hampshire on March 2, 2020, the state has reported 5,802 confirmed cases of COVID-19.3 So far, 373 deaths have been attributed to the disease in this + +3 COVID-19, N.H. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., https://www.nh.gov/covid19/ (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020); Explore the Data: Tracking COVID-19 in New Hampshire, N.H. Pub. Radio, https://www.nhpr.org/post/updated-trackingcovid-19-cases-and-testing-new-hampshirOstream/0 (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020). + +state. Further, in New Hampshire approximately 3,475 people are being monitored for signs of COVID-19 infection, over 120,307 total tests have been reported (both positive and negative test results), and community-based transmission has been confirmed.4 Nationally, the number of confirmed cases has grown to over 2,797,737, with 130,984 cases resulting in death.5 + +Given the contagious nature of the virus and the exponential growth in cases, COVID-19 presents an enormous danger to the health and safety of the public, including the litigants, security, and court personnel involved in this proceeding. The court's interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and preserving the health of all hearing participants, including the public, is a weighty and substantial interest that would likely be prejudiced if the court were not to impose this partial closure. See United States v. , 426 F.3d 567. 572- 21 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that U.S. Marshal's policy after September 11th of requiring unknown visitors to court to produce photo identification constituted partial closure of courtroom + +4 COVID-19, N.H. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., https://www.nh.gov/covidl9/ (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020); Explore the Data: Tracking COVID-19 in New Hampshire, N.H. Pub. Radio, https://www.nhpr.org/post/updated-trackingcovid-19-cases-and-testing-new-hampshireistream/0 (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020). + +5 Real Clear Politics, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (last visited 12:45 p.m. July 2, 2020). + +that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security and preventing terrorism). + +B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current in-court hearing protocols. + +Allowing the public to access these proceedings through telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to COVID-19. + +Importantly, the court finds that, in light of the court's current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone, even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from entering the courthouse — for example, people who have tested positive for COVID-19 — now have access (even though virtual) to the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020) (prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse, including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the + +substantial interest of public health and safety. See United States v. Alimehmeti, 284 F. SnPp. 3d 477. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (granting partial closure of courtroom to protect identity of undercover agents: courtroom was closed to public during undercover agents' testimony but audio of testimony was livestreamed into different courtroom during partial closure and transcripts of testimony were made available to public promptly). + +### C. Third, the court has considered reasonable alternatives to this partial closure. + +The court has considered alternatives to this partial closure and finds they are neither reasonable nor feasible under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and this case, particularly the necessity that this hearing be conducted promptly. + +### IV. Conclusion + +In sum, the court finds that in this case a partial closure of court proceedings is necessary in that today's hearing will be conducted by video and telephone conference. This partial closure is justified by the substantial interest of protecting public health and safety from the spread of COVID-19 and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest. The public maintains the opportunity to access these proceedings in full by telephone. + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()Andrea K. Johnstone +United States Magistrate Judge + +July 2, 2020 + +cc: Counsel of record + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE + +United States + +Case No. 20-mj-132-01-AJ + +v. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Charging District Case No. 20 CR 330 + +**COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT** + +The defendant has been charged by way of with a violation of , alleged to have been committed in the Southern District of New York. + +Brief Description of Charge(s): + +18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS + +18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2 ENTICEMENT OF A MINOR TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS + +18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY + +18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and 2 TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY + +PERJURY + +CURRENT BOND STATUS: + +- Bail fixed \$ \_\_\_\_\_ and conditions were not met. +- Government moved for detention and defendant detained after hearing in District of Arrest. +- Government moved for detention and defendant detained pending detention hearing in District of Offense. +- Other (specify): + +REPRESENTATION: [REDACTED] Vogelman, Esq. + +INTERPRETER REQUIRED: No + +The United States marshal must transport the defendant, together with a copy of this order, to the charging district and deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for that district, or to another officer authorized to receive the defendant. The marshal or officer in the charging district should immediately notify the United States attorney and the clerk of court for that district of the defendant's arrival so that further proceedings may be promptly scheduled. The clerk of this district must promptly transmit the papers and any bail to the charging district. + +SO ORDERED. + +*Andrea K. Johnstone* + +Andrea K. Johnstone +United States Magistrate Judge + +July 2, 2020 + +| RETURN | | | +|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------| +| THIS COMMITMENT WAS RECEIVED AND EXECUTED AS FOLLOWS: | | | +| DATE COMMITMENT ORDER RECEIVED | PLACE OF COMMITMENT | DATE DEFENDANT COMMITTED | +| DATE | UNITED STATES MARSHAL | (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL # | + +MIME-Version:1.0 + +Prom:ecf\_bounceOnhd.uscourts.gov + +To:nefOnhd.uscourts.gov + +Bcc: + +--Case Participants: John S. (caseview.ecfOusdoj.gov, john.davisBOusdoj.gov, kristina.mcnamarasusdoj.gov, usanh.ecfcriminaleusdoj.gov, usanh.ecfdocketsusdoj.gov) + +--Non Case Participants: US Marshal (brenda.mikelson2Ousdoj.gov, eugene.robinson2Ousdoj.gov, kathleen.renaudSusdoj.gov, kimberly.dowSusdoj.gov, wanda.dechainegusdoj.gov), US Probation (nhpdb\_cmec£enhp.uscourts.gov) + +--No Notice Sent: + +Message-Id:2213049Onhd.uscourts.gov + +Subject:Activity in Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ USA v. Maxwell Notice of Hearing + +Content—Type: text/html + +#### U.S. District Court + +### District of New Hampshire + +### Notice of Electronic Filing + +The following transaction was entered on 7/2/2020 at 12:09 PM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020 + +Case Name: USA v. Maxwell + +Case Number: I :20-mj-00132—AJ + +Filer: + +Document Number: No document attached + +Docket Text: + +NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Removal Hearing via Video Conference set for 7/2/2020 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (kad) + +1:20-mj-00132—AJ—I Notice has been electronically mailed to: + +John S.     john.davis8@usdoj.gov. CaseView.ECF4usdoj.gov. kristina.rnenamara@usdoj.gov, USANH.ECFCriminalgusdoj.gov, USANH.ECFDocketgusdoj.gov + +1:20-mj-00132—AJ—I Notice, to the extent appropriate, must be delivered conventionally to: + +MIME-Version:1.0 + +Prom:ecf\_bounceenhd.uscourts.gov + +To: nefenhd.uscourts.gov + +Bcc: + +--Case Participants: John S. (caseview.ecfOusdoj.gov, john.davisSeusdoj.gov, kristina.mcnamarareusdoj.gov, usanh.ecfcriminaleuedoj.gov, usanh.ec£docketeusdoj.gov) + +--Non Case Participants: + +--No Notice Sent: + +Message-Id:2213529enhd.uscourts.gov + +Subject:Activity in Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ USA v. Maxwell Removal Hearing + +Content—Type: text/html + +# U.S. District Court + +### District of New Hampshire + +# Notice of Electronic Filing + +The following transaction was entered on 7/6/2020 at 9:45 AM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020 + +Case Name: USA v. Maxwell + +Case Number: I :20-mj-00112—AJ + +Filer: + +Document Number: No document attached + +# Docket Text: + +Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone: REMOVAL HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell held on 7/2/2020. The court found the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived and in-court hearing. Defendant: advised of rights and charges, waived identity hearing. Detention hearing to be held in district. Court Reporter: Susan Bateman) (Govt Atty: Alison Moe, John ) (Defts Atty: Vogelman) (USP: Janice Bernard)(Total Hearing Time: 17 min.) (kad) + +1:20-mj-00132—AJ—I Notice has been electronically mailed to: + +John S.     john.davis8@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF®usdoj.gov, kristina.mcnamara@usdoj.gov, USANH.ECFCriminal®usdoj.gov,USANH.ECFDocket@usdoj.gov + +I:20-mj-00132—AJ-1 Notice, to the extent appropriate, must be delivered conventionally to: + +MIME-Version:1.0 + +Prom:ecf\_bounceenhd.uscourts.gov + +To:nefOnhd.uscourts.gov + +Bcc: + +--Case Participants: + +--Non Case Participants: + +--No Notice Sent: + +Message-Id: 221294Senhd.uscourts.gov + +Subject:Activity in Case 20-132 Sealed v. Sealed (Redacted Notice) + +Cmitent-Type:text/html + +NOTE: This docket entry (or case) is sealed, no email notices have been sent + +# U.S. District Court + +# District of New Hampshire + +# Notice of Electronic Filing + +The following transaction was entered on 7/2/2020 at 9:45 AM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020 + +Case Name: USA v. Maxwell + +Case Number: :20—mj-00132—AJ \*SEALED\* + +Filer: + +Document Number: No document attached + +Docket Text: + +Arrest (Removal) of Ghislaine Maxwell.(kad) + +1:20—mj-00132—AJ \*SEALED\*-1 No electronic public notice will be sent because the case/entry is sealed. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d42c4832afdd55810c4faab18d5878437518ea0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/EFTA02829337.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2460 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 33, + "chars": 41988, + "elapsed_seconds": 15.91, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. District Court \nDistrict of New Hampshire (Concord) \nCRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-mj-00132-AJ All Defendants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 93.024, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 556.0283203125, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 556.0283203125, + 108.8994140625 + ], + [ + 93.024, + 108.8994140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant (II", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 149.90188598632812, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 149.90188598632812, + 227.34405517578125 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 227.34405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Pending Conn% Disposition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 341.28466796875, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 341.28466796875, + 279.84405517578125 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 279.84405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 339.048, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 339.048, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 278.64 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Highest Offense Level (Opeujag)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 608.7240600585938 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 608.7240600585938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terminated Counts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 646.38 + ], + [ + 177.14842224121094, + 646.38 + ], + [ + 177.14842224121094, + 661.6040649414062 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 661.6040649414062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Diohest Offense Level (Terminated)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 254.5234832763672, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 254.5234832763672, + 715.2240600585938 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 715.2240600585938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disposition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 646.38 + ], + [ + 340.02642822265625, + 646.38 + ], + [ + 340.02642822265625, + 661.6040649414062 + ], + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 661.6040649414062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Complaints", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 139.2257080078125, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 139.2257080078125, + 86.34405517578125 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 86.34405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disposition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.744, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 341.2178955078125, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 341.2178955078125, + 86.34405517578125 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 86.34405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Plaintiff", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 123.526123046875, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 123.526123046875, + 151.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 151.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 440.02799999999996, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 440.02799999999996, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 81.81 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARREST WARRANT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 266.49 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Return", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 287.64, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 324.36, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 324.36, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 287.64, + 619.6500000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 337.8366394042969, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 337.8366394042969, + 292.46417236328125 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 292.46417236328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 334.01190185546875, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 334.01190185546875, + 369.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 369.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 370.70123291015625, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 370.70123291015625, + 267.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 267.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 196.452, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 406.35748291015625, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 406.35748291015625, + 165.32415771484375 + ], + [ + 196.452, + 165.32415771484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 448.526611328125, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 448.526611328125, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 609.12 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.216, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 379.7637939453125, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 379.7637939453125, + 165.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 165.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 344.5594787597656, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 344.5594787597656, + 584.9541625976562 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 584.9541625976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 338.21893310546875, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 338.21893310546875, + 611.2041625976562 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 611.2041625976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.17000579833984, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 524.169921875, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 524.169921875, + 624.7041625976562 + ], + [ + 84.17000579833984, + 624.7041625976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.67236328125, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 346.57830810546875, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 346.57830810546875, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 264.67236328125, + 453.6 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.432, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 467.68463134765625, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 467.68463134765625, + 480.75958251953125 + ], + [ + 144.432, + 480.75958251953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 340.64361572265625, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 340.64361572265625, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 375.03000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.18, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 451.46380615234375, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 451.46380615234375, + 456.3507995605469 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 456.3507995605469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 340.7255554199219, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 340.7255554199219, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 285.12 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 339.0647888183594, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 339.0647888183594, + 247.07415771484375 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 247.07415771484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 402.08400000000006, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 402.08400000000006, + 273.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 273.78000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 337.21200000000005, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 337.21200000000005, + 435.7800000000001 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 435.7800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 435.8319091796875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 435.8319091796875, + 97.963134765625 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 97.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Public Access Findings", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 392.9055480957031, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 392.9055480957031, + 238.963134765625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 238.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 187.48590087890625, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 187.48590087890625, + 274.213134765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 274.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Partial Rather Than Total Closure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 490.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 490.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 503.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Findings in Support of Necessity for this Partial Closure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 525.9287109375, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 525.9287109375, + 423.33416748046875 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 423.33416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Third, the court has considered reasonable alternatives to \nthis partial closure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 300.51 + ], + [ + 533.6368408203125, + 300.51 + ], + [ + 533.6368408203125, + 327.8331298828125 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 327.8331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 187.28485107421875, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 187.28485107421875, + 501.463134765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 501.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 398.41200000000003, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 398.41200000000003, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 189.72, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 419.22, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 419.22, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 189.72, + 232.46999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Brief Description of Charge(s):", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 112.608, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 112.608, + 311.85 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRENT BOND STATUS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 521.64 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 521.64 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 535.41 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.624, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 371.3710021972656, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 371.3710021972656, + 240.8341064453125 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 240.8341064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "District of New Hampshire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 390.1372375488281, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 390.1372375488281, + 267.0841064453125 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 267.0841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 219.98495483398438, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 219.98495483398438, + 293.3341064453125 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 293.3341064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.624, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 371.3691101074219, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 371.3691101074219, + 219.2005615234375 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 219.2005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "District of New Hampshire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 390.13836669921875, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 390.13836669921875, + 245.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 245.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 220.0412139892578, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 220.0412139892578, + 272.070556640625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 272.070556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Docket Text:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 144.0905303955078, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 144.0905303955078, + 404.83056640625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 404.83056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.624, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 371.3709716796875, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 371.3709716796875, + 235.22406005859375 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 235.22406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "District of New Hampshire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 390.2913513183594, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 390.2913513183594, + 261.47406005859375 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 261.47406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 219.5454864501953, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 219.5454864501953, + 287.4505920410156 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 287.4505920410156 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Text", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 244 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 256 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 286 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 256 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 269 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 223 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 252 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 230 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 226 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829337" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..354a5cdc86518f74d2634fe696281de7be13f1bd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3ca5b217ef1342b510075fc1b803175c30b863102185795d4c252db79f8d4bec +size 41813 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67ba2149c9823a47168f82a9482285fde22ef4be --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f417f45fdbaee3ad326255c96a90d06c33ec1c07a9f66b48b60ba1273b7a1eca +size 111434 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40f5c42207683aad73d85e4118c724f4af673102 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a7d43a7a94c79d9f9fc2427de220cd9a7df37e701e54c5c383541de2834cf3ec +size 83731 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f803af33f93e60c2a412a16cfe551fdc0c0dd25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829337/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2c1cd089c82a6df7845757c8807fd6889a878dc93ac2403d2ce13983059475ba +size 93896 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2b220e6d3770dfb87dd0e15d192d182916c9dc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.md @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +6 **USC 4 SDNY** +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 7/6/2020 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. + +If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint + +letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, +as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant's bail application. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 6, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING + +## Check Proceeding that Applies + +Date: Signature of Defendant + +Date: Signature of Defendant + +Arraignment + +Defendant. + +X + +-CR- ( ) + +I have been given a copy of the indictment containing the charges against me and have reviewed it with my attorney. I understand that I have a right to appear before a judge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York to confirm that I have received and reviewed the indictment; to have the indictment read aloud to me if I wish; to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty before the judge; and to have an attorney beside me as I do. By signing this document, I wish to advise the court that after consultation with my attorney I willingly give up my right to appear in person before the judge for my arraignment. By signing this document, I also wish to advise the court that I willingly give up any right I might have to have my attorney next to me for my arraignment so long as the following conditions are met. I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Print Name + +Bail Hearing + +I am applying or in the future may apply for release from detention, or if not detained, for modification of the conditions of my release from custody, that is, my bail conditions. I understand that I have a right to appear in person before a judge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York at the time that my attorney makes such an application. I have discussed these rights with my attorney and wish to give up these rights due to the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met. I request that my attorney be permitted to make applications for my release from custody or for modification of the conditions of my release, even though I will not be physically present. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Print Name + +Conference + +I have been charged in an indictment with violations of federal law. I understand that I have a right to be present at all conferences concerning this indictment that are held by a judge in the Southern District of New York, unless the conference involves only a question of law. I understand that at these conferences the judge may, among other things, 1) set a schedule for the case including the date at which the trial will be held, and 2) determine whether, under the Speedy Trial Act, certain periods of time should be properly excluded in setting the time by which the trial must occur. I have discussed these issues with my attorney and wish to give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference. By signing this document, I wish to advise the court that I willingly give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference in my case on account of the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met. I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Date: + +Signature of Defendant + +Print Name + +I hereby affirm that I am aware of my obligation to discuss with my client the charges contained in the indictment, my client's rights to attend and participate in the criminal proceedings encompassed by this waiver, and this waiver form. I affirm that my client knowingly and voluntarily consents to the proceedings being held in my client's absence. I will inform my client of what transpires at the proceedings and provide my client with a copy of the transcript of the proceedings, if requested. + +Date: + +Signature of Defense Counsel + +Print Name + +## Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an interpreter: + +I used the services of an interpreter to discuss these issues with the defendant. The interpreter also translated this document, in its entirety, to the defendant before the defendant signed it. The interpreter's name is: + +Date: + +Signature of Defense Counsel + +Accepted: + +Signature of Judge + +Date: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9cb5710ed0c826d9ca6a837a5c1ac7156c3b4a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370/EFTA02829370.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829370.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6265, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.42, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Check Proceeding that Applies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 201.09896850585938, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 201.09896850585938, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 211.41 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an interpreter:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 354.5128173828125, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 354.5128173828125, + 528.7175903320312 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 528.7175903320312 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829370" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0968d2cac5588ccbcac835482f054720fb13d06 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. +1 (212) 957-76(X) mcohen@cohengresscr.cont + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 tcycniclItikohengtcsscr.tom + +July 6, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +8O0 Thad Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wvnvoohengresseroom + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to the Cowl's order from earlier today regarding the scheduling of the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter. We have been attempting to contact our client at the Metropolitan Detention Center; we were able to speak to her for the first time today just before 9:00pm this evening. She has agreed to waive her physical presence for these proceedings. + +As directed by the Court, we have met and conferred with the Government regarding scheduling. All parties will be able to proceed remotely on the morning of July 14, 2020. The defense will not be able to proceed on July 9, 2020. + +We will meet and confer further with the Government tomorrow regarding a proposed briefing schedule and anticipate providing a joint proposed briefing schedule for the Court's consideration by the end of the day. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 6, 2020 Page 2 + +> New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: Alison Moe (by e-mail) Alex Rossmiller (by e-mail) Maurene Comey (by e-mail) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6549a432b7183f810d96dc0e398f31cef46e53a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/EFTA02829374.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1689, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.08, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829374" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..115d3301b3ee842695d535ac41f36c46c5bfc78d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829374/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cb085c64dc8118b36a38629d8a515938a962b8dfc105b61fad666ea2b9033395 +size 5590 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5f33eb2848a26107b8be1a773b16075930eb013 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of J ustice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +July 7, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order dated July 6, 2020 (the "Order") (Dkt. 7) and the defendant's letter of July 6, 2020 (the "Defense Letter") (Dkt. 8). Pursuant to the Order, the parties have conferred regarding the scheduling of an initial proceeding in the above-captioned case. As set forth in the Defense Letter, the parties are available to proceed remotely on the morning of July 14, 2020. Additionally, the parties jointly respectfully propose the following briefing schedule in connection with the Government's Memorandum in Support of Detention, dated July 2, 2020 (Dkt. 4): + +- Defense response to be due by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, July 10, 2020 +- Government reply to be due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020 + +The Government also respectfully renews and amends its request that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, see Government Letter dated July 5, 2020 (Dkt. 5), between the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, and the revised proposed date of the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing. In the interim, the Government intends to confer with defense counsel regarding the terms of a protective order and initial discovery, to facilitate the production + +July 7, 2020 + +Page 2 + +of discovery, which will serve the interests of justice by facilitating the timely production of discovery materials. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). I have conferred with defense counsel, who consent to this request. + +Very truly yours, + +AUTIREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2415 + +Cc: Christian Everdell, Esq., and Mark =, Esq., counsel for defendant \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2bb1c3b53a65e1b45496cd3b672d050061491a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/EFTA02829376.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2208, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.76, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of J ustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.4216613769531, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.4216613769531, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829376" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54025c9936c1c2f5616387a10e22e4b616c5f4bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829376/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:60e521ff9fa5794b5750efead6e59e14a9676cf0a88ec6bc4f5d684fcdb063ca +size 3365 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..016597534bf0dcf4329ba58a8efd1e6433e53a4e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an Internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. + +To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited capacity of the Internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. + +Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. + +As discussed in the Court's previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant's signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant's signature to the form. + +Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I), the Government must "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights" provided to them in that section. This includes "[t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime or of any release ... of the accused" and "Nile right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release." Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by + +email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. + +Finally, the time between the Defendant's arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds "that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion) outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 7, 2020 + +New York, New York c + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +All members of the public, including attorneys, appearing at a Southern District of New York courthouse must complete a questionnaire and have their temperature taken before being allowed entry into that courthouse. + +On the day you are due to arrive at the courthouse, click on the following weblink, or scan the following QR code with a mobile device camera to begin the enrollment process. Follow the instructions and fill out the questionnaire. If your answers meet the requirements for entry, you will be sent a QR code to be used at the SDNY entry device at the courthouse entrance. + +hups://app.certifv.me/SDNYPublic + +![](_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Note: If you do not have a moone pnone or moone pnone numoer, you must complete the questionnaire and temperature screening at an entry device at the courthouse. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9dd00d77e5219f3b8f40e5ba066d4ef31c262e8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/EFTA02829378.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5432, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829378" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1433778bf7d9b7768023b4920825ceb4eb3de7b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829378/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0fb0743ad8c350f7393803fb2d4ff9b30ca4b6eec4965bc632ae718bd0ca5c96 +size 26342 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30e039c2d42a51183f1365405e8af1bb23d422f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_167.jpeg) + +| DOC #: | | +|-------------|----------| +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 7/8/2020 | + +**U.S. Department of Justice** + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of New York* + +*The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007* + +July 7, 2020 + +**VIA ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order dated July 6, 2020 (the "Order") (Dkt. 7) and the defendant's letter of July 6, 2020 (the "Defense Letter") (Dkt. 8). Pursuant to the Order, the parties have conferred regarding the scheduling of an initial proceeding in the above-captioned case. As set forth in the Defense Letter, the parties are available to proceed remotely on the morning of July 14, 2020. Additionally, the parties jointly respectfully propose the following briefing schedule in connection with the Government's Memorandum in Support of Detention, dated July 2, 2020 (Dkt. 4): + +- • Defense response to be due by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, July 10, 2020 +- • Government reply to be due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020 + +The Government also respectfully renews and amends its request that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, *see* Government Letter dated July 5, 2020 (Dkt. 5), between the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, and the revised proposed date of the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing. In the interim, the Government intends to confer with defense counsel regarding the terms of a protective order and initial discovery, to facilitate the production + +The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. +**SO ORDERED.** + +**SO ORDERED. 7/8/20** + +![]()Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +July 7, 2020 + +Page 2 + +of discovery, which will serve the interests of justice by facilitating the timely production of discovery materials. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). I have conferred with defense counsel, who consent to this request. + +Very truly yours, + +AUTIREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2415 + +Cc: Christian Everdell, Esq., and Mark =, Esq., counsel for defendant \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9dd71f0c673c0bbb1abff641ef5fd406d7c10b97 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/EFTA02829382.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2715, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_167.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 200.07 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 200.07 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829382" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/_page_0_Picture_167.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/_page_0_Picture_167.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8480dae67e291d5058384f2b32d3d1319d89fbf6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829382/_page_0_Picture_167.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:92e78bf9cf477bdc7747f331f49df8289ea401b8ffe29ecf1f58043892ae25a9 +size 3282 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6ebdd553d06f30f6dca257d8362ad023bed609b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears for purposes of arraignment, initial appearance and a bail hearing only (until final retainage issues are completed) as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. The undersigned counsel certifies that he is admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: New York, New York July 8, 2020 + +& GRESSER LLP + +Is/ Mark S. Mark S. 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca3919be72339b8eeb90c3163c8a6e27af179aeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384/EFTA02829384.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829384.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 723, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.51, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829384" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b393d7c6f968dba791b66b6a71f9faf81aacfe8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears for purposes of arraignment, initial appearance and a bail hearing only (until final retainage issues are completed) as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. The undersigned counsel certifies that he is admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: New York, New York July 8, 2020 + +& GRESSER LLP + +Is/ Christian It Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8f747ea16aa1ed31fe2b6c2458220312747c38c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385/EFTA02829385.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829385.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 752, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829385" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60564a04bf94d53606cd18a836cc1b54a3b14531 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Laura A. Menninger, who is a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned proceeding. + +Dated: Denver, Colorado July 8, 2020. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Laura A. Menninger + +Laura A. Mennin er (LN,74) + +HADDON, AND P.C. + +150 East 1 Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303.831.7364 + +Fax: 303.832.2628 + +Imenninger@hmflaw.com + +Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aab343dacfff2e9805ad6f89da8a13acd678f69b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386/EFTA02829386.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829386.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 671, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.28, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.168, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.168, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 213.588, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 398.3897705078125, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 398.3897705078125, + 332.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 213.588, + 332.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829386" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee1e6607e22400d2ed2a160769c95889ea705067 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +## Declaration of Jeffrey S. Paaliuca in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice + +I, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows: + +I. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, P.C., I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of my Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. + +2. I have not ever been convicted of a felony. + +3. I have not ever been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or + +readmission by any court. + +4. There are no disciplinary proceedings presently against me. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. + +Executed on July 8, 2020. + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that on July 8, 2020, I electronically served this Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice via ECF on the following: + +Alex Rossmiller Alison Moe Maurene Comey U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Nicole + +![](_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12d19151804a9e966a533fa6bbace3bc7bf3d056 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/EFTA02829387.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1267, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.01, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Jeffrey S. Paaliuca in Support of \nMotion for Admission Pro Hac Vice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 171.36, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 440.7296142578125, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 440.7296142578125, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 171.36, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829387" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5870cca3bdcebc410d1c5449d35d3020b9de75b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829387/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cde65bd2a3abb5a4dd899d37a4ed4db811b96adfe4c33b5b35fde10e9d621961 +size 1123 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da7e7d721d22d2ac177e938531b37319b66cea68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_81.jpeg) + +STATE OF COLORADO, ss: + +*I, Cheryl Stevens Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that* + +JEFFREY S PAGLIUCA + +*has been duly licensed and admitted to practice as an* + +*ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW* + +*within this State; and that his/her name appears upon the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors at Law in my office of date the 19th day of October A. D. 1982 and that at the date hereof the said JEFFREY S PAGLIUCA* + +*is in good standing at this Bar.* + +![](_page_0_Picture_89.jpeg) + +*IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of said Supreme Court, at Denver, in said State, this +7th day of July A. D. 2020* + +*Cheryl Stevens* + +*Clerk* + +*By* + +*Deputy Clerk* \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1484680564b6ca6e987c74a4403de8496859e86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/EFTA02829389.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 749, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.96, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_81.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_89.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829389" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_81.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_81.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78aed765cb1121134d3f56d877650724158465d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_81.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:338105678c8907a898821bfb6fdfee6bbb5bd761535d5ec74c0e2bbcbcae8742 +size 45520 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_89.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_89.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eebe5d3f8093c185f14dacafbf7f8de4c2245b8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829389/_page_0_Picture_89.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:475aacc92903e5ea4e1469647a61d1eb48308445eef6e2968d91861ec2ca23f4 +size 13377 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1b54146eadebce1e2ec6772deedbc5c7ba7d367 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +## ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +The motion of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca for admission to appear and practice pro hac vice in this action is GRANTED. + +Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the state of Colorado; and that his contact information is as follows: + +> Jeffrey S. Pa liuca Colorado Att Reg. #12462 HADDON, AND P.C. 150 East 1 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action, + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in his action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. + +Date: + +United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..128d840f11dcfc35839684c9154d235e1cd4760f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390/EFTA02829390.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829390.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1101, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.63, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 435.3077392578125, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 435.3077392578125, + 347.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 347.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829390" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14634bdcfc6d1bc414a4f58d9b6d2e97a308cb17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.md @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +# MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +I respectfully mover under Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York for an Order for admission to appear and practice Pro Hac Vice as counsel for the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. + +I submit in support of the Motion the attached Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca. + +July 8, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. iI i, Colorado Reg. #12462 HADDON, AND P.C. 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 jpagliucaOhmflaw.com + +Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that on July 8, 2020, I electronically served this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice via ECF on the following: + +Alex Rossmiller Alison Moe Maurene Comey U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Nicole + +![](_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg) + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +## Declaration of Jeffrey S. Paaliuca in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice + +I, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows: + +I. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, P.C., I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of my Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. + +2. I have not ever been convicted of a felony. + +3. I have not ever been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or + +readmission by any court. + +4. There are no disciplinary proceedings presently against me. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. + +Executed on July 8, 2020. + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that on July 8, 2020, I electronically served this Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice via ECF on the following: + +Alex Rossmiller Alison Moe Maurene Comey U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Nicole + +![](_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg) + +![](_page_4_Picture_81.jpeg) + +STATE OF COLORADO, ss: + +*I, Cheryl Stevens Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that* + +JEFFREY S PAGLIUCA + +*has been duly licensed and admitted to practice as an* + +*ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW* + +*within this State; and that his/her name appears upon the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors at Law in my office of date the 19th day of October A. D. 1982 and that at the date hereof the said JEFFREY S PAGLIUCA* + +*is in good standing at this Bar.* + +![](_page_4_Picture_89.jpeg) + +*IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of said Supreme Court, at Denver, in said State, this +7th day of July A. D. 2020* + +*Cheryl Stevens* + +*Clerk* + +*By* + +*Deputy Clerk* + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. X + +20-CR-330-AJN + +# ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +The motion of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca for admission to appear and practice pro hac vice in this action is GRANTED. + +Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the state of Colorado; and that his contact information is as follows: + +> Jeffrey S. Pa liuc Colorado Reg. #12462 HADDON, AND P.C. 150 East 1 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action, + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in his action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. + +Date: + +United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3047cb5afd06574f09d9542134eb9773a8cd4e24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/EFTA02829392.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,488 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 4301, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_81.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_89.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 438.4476623535156, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 438.4476623535156, + 347.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 347.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Jeffrey S. Paaliuca in Support of \nMotion for Admission Pro Hac Vice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 170.74800000000002, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 440.7296142578125, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 440.7296142578125, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 170.74800000000002, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.7930908203125, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 435.3077392578125, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 435.3077392578125, + 347.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 347.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829392" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..681c737ae81cd0f1cc70d5ec2ed55b673f741519 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_1_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7f8f604bf75b0f1498344569b687477ffc754d63471a238a95a8dece232f724d +size 966 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..681c737ae81cd0f1cc70d5ec2ed55b673f741519 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7f8f604bf75b0f1498344569b687477ffc754d63471a238a95a8dece232f724d +size 966 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_81.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_81.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2152ac8a1ceac76b5ed06983626dc34e20c8c63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_81.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bbc6ae605ce5ad306eed6c476b503f02697b39cc049fa3fe087e3fb27a257465 +size 45363 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_89.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_89.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eebe5d3f8093c185f14dacafbf7f8de4c2245b8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829392/_page_4_Picture_89.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:475aacc92903e5ea4e1469647a61d1eb48308445eef6e2968d91861ec2ca23f4 +size 13377 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53fd6319639aad42c78aebddf5d63d6144814a65 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. + +The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney's Office should email with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. + +As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be + +limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. + +Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive's Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court's previous order of July 7, 2020. *See* Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. + +Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 9, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fcdd53dca2584f75840f13b09bf780a8cc9e609 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399/EFTA02829399.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829399.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2828, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.19, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829399" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e74fee246c6a9d9682dbdad5729839c874944e63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +# COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +# OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with a minor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman . was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would + +massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, + +directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +#### MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg) + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg) + +c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg) + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for + +and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing + +an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +# MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the + +abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +#### STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +## Overt Acts + +11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT TWO + +#### (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +#### COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to + +wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +# Overt Acts + +17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +### COUNT FIVE (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. + +A. I don't know what you're talking about. + +- Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? +- A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +#### COUNT SIX (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +- Q: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? A: No, not that I recall. . . +- Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? +- A. No. + +• • • + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +• • • + +Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q• You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +4, /14 Sth1 6 OFj PERSON AUDREY RAUSS + +Acting nited States Attorney + +Form No. USA-338-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +### SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +(18 U.S.C. SS 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +l'•••,-r\* • Foreperson \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0de65770886723fc0f0eb30c2edc09bbd207fee6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/EFTA02829401.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1101 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 19678, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.05, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "COUNT ONE \n(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in \nIllegal Sex Acts)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 129.7899932861328, + 280.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 502.78729248046875, + 280.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 502.78729248046875, + 323.25 + ], + [ + 129.7899932861328, + 323.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 280.12, + 360.31600000000003 + ], + [ + 348.9598083496094, + 360.31600000000003 + ], + [ + 348.9598083496094, + 374.97 + ], + [ + 280.12, + 374.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.16799999999998, + 252.566 + ], + [ + 381.889404296875, + 252.566 + ], + [ + 381.889404296875, + 267.8331298828125 + ], + [ + 243.16799999999998, + 267.8331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 205.62, + 146.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 424.84075927734375, + 146.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 424.84075927734375, + 159.47 + ], + [ + 205.62, + 159.47 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.092, + 608.572 + ], + [ + 462.647216796875, + 608.572 + ], + [ + 462.647216796875, + 622.9631195068359 + ], + [ + 165.092, + 622.9631195068359 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.208, + 145.67800000000003 + ], + [ + 397.7984619140625, + 145.67800000000003 + ], + [ + 397.7984619140625, + 159.463134765625 + ], + [ + 237.208, + 159.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.15999999999997, + 580.988 + ], + [ + 356.3961181640625, + 580.988 + ], + [ + 356.3961181640625, + 595.2131042480469 + ], + [ + 274.15999999999997, + 595.2131042480469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.14, + 605.986 + ], + [ + 351.76348876953125, + 605.986 + ], + [ + 351.76348876953125, + 619.5931243896484 + ], + [ + 277.14, + 619.5931243896484 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.5199966430664, + 619.778 + ], + [ + 546.0256958007812, + 619.778 + ], + [ + 546.0256958007812, + 633.463134765625 + ], + [ + 85.5199966430664, + 633.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \n(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.42399999999998, + 445.65400000000005 + ], + [ + 484.04864501953125, + 445.65400000000005 + ], + [ + 484.04864501953125, + 487.213134765625 + ], + [ + 145.42399999999998, + 487.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.15999999999997, + 362.902 + ], + [ + 356.505126953125, + 362.902 + ], + [ + 356.505126953125, + 377.7131652832031 + ], + [ + 274.15999999999997, + 377.7131652832031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 164.496, + 416.346 + ], + [ + 466.93255615234375, + 416.346 + ], + [ + 466.93255615234375, + 457.963134765625 + ], + [ + 164.496, + 457.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 272.96799999999996, + 255.15200000000002 + ], + [ + 354.49285888671875, + 255.15200000000002 + ], + [ + 354.49285888671875, + 283.213134765625 + ], + [ + 272.96799999999996, + 283.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 275.35200000000003, + 218.086 + ], + [ + 349.8310546875, + 218.086 + ], + [ + 349.8310546875, + 244.213134765625 + ], + [ + 275.35200000000003, + 244.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 174.628, + 243.084 + ], + [ + 393.3912658691406, + 243.084 + ], + [ + 393.3912658691406, + 270.9552001953125 + ], + [ + 174.628, + 270.9552001953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.912, + 299.976 + ], + [ + 375.76983642578125, + 299.976 + ], + [ + 375.76983642578125, + 314.0751953125 + ], + [ + 191.912, + 314.0751953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 199.66, + 424.966 + ], + [ + 368.20001220703125, + 424.966 + ], + [ + 368.20001220703125, + 438.9552001953125 + ], + [ + 199.66, + 438.9552001953125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829401" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15b6e2e1d7c7055317f9a789b4f76fc3e809d115 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dfc3a8e5031eb3b1d485b9528282d8864bca78621ed81f1d9d99c53b8dcd2562 +size 38179 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3c34603e3a05c108c898662c8e06525e2cb7a16 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0181d26c4d9f9e3c1f25760d50a20060ca4751693f24f3907563609ec3bbd174 +size 127450 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91b9275bfdef0310a8c86fd71304f78372733268 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c2c1be7112550885514a9c4e2438b187e22d7d79035c5164daedfe402ad10a72 +size 75650 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c19da65e5999b39a176985e63a0980503355bf0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829401/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:260ba967b0c709d9f0399549cb193e43dba1cb69fca3c22b05f7f1b4b4d05f72 +size 89308 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d99c7590a4b44efe36be083ad7e451a735f02cd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.md @@ -0,0 +1,261 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & FORMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. The Conditions Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Mandate the Release of | | +| Ms. Maxwell. | 5 | +| II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. | 9 | +| A. Applicable Law | 9 | +| Presence In Court | 11 | +| 1. Ms. Maxwell's Personal History and Characteristics | | +| Demonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk | 12 | +| 2. | The Nature and Circumstances of the Charges and the Weight of | +| the Evidence Militate in Favor of Bail | 17 | +| 3. | The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than Adequate to Secure | +| Ms. Maxwell's Presence | 20 | +| CONCLUSION | 22 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Hung v. United States, | Page(s) | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 439 U.S. 1326 (1978) United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem, | 16 | +| No. 19-CR-646 (AJN), 2020 WL 3440515 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) United States v. Alindato-M, | 17 | +| 627 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.P.R. 2009) United States v. Bodmer, | 18 | +| No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28. 2004) United States v. Boustani, | 16 | +| 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) | 20 | +| United States 19-CR-867 (PAC), | | +| 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) United States v. Conway, | 8, 9 | +| No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011) United States v. Crowell, | 10, 18 | +| No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) United States v. Deutsch, | 11 | +| No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2020) United States v. DiGiacomo, | 11, 18 | +| 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) United States v. Dominguez, | 14 | +| 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986) United States v. Dreier, | 10 | +| 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) United States v. English, | 21 | +| 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) | 10, 11 | + +| United States v. Epstein, | | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) | 17 | +| United States v. | | +| 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) United States v. | 21 | +| 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988) United States v. Hansen, | 13, 18 | +| 108 F. App's 331 (6th Cir. 2004) United States v. Hanson, | 16 | +| 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) United States v. Karni, | 16 | +| 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) United States v. Kashoggi, | 16 | +| 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) United States v. Mattis, | 16 | +| No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020) United States v. Moscaritolo, | 10 | +| No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) United States v. Sabhnani, | 18 | +| 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) United States v. Salerno, | 9, 10, 16, 18 | +| 481 U.S. 739 (1987) United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), | 9 | +| 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) United States v. Veres, | 5, 6, 7, 8 | +| No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020) | 18 | +| United States v. -Bethea, | | +| No. 18-CR-78 (AJN), 2020 WL 2848098 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) Statutes | 6 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3142 | passim | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Opposition to the government's July 2, 2020 Memorandum in Support of Detention ("Gov. Mem."). + +It is difficult to recall a recent case that has garnered more public attention than the government's prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). In July 2019, Epstein was indicted for offenses relating to sexual misconduct, amid overwhelming media attention focused on the nature of the charges and Epstein's wealth and lifestyle. On August 10, 2019, Epstein died in federal custody, and the media focus quickly shifted to our client—wrongly trying to substitute her for Epstein—even though she'd had no contact with Epstein for more than a decade, had never been charged with a crime or been found liable in any civil litigation, and has always denied any allegations of claimed misconduct. Many of these stories and online posts were threatening and harassing to our client and those close to her. + +But sometimes the simplest point is the most critical one: Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She was not named in the government's indictment of Epstein in 2019, despite the fact that the government has been investigating this case for years. Instead, the current indictment is based on allegations of conduct that allegedly occurred roughly twenty-five years ago. Ms. Maxwell vigorously denies the charges, intends to fight them, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Far from "hiding," she has lived in the United States since 1991, has litigated civil cases arising from her supposed ties to Epstein, and has not left the country even once since Epstein's arrest a year ago, even though she was aware of the pending, and highly publicized, criminal investigation. She should be treated like any other defendant who comes before this Court, including as to bail. Under the Bail Reform Act, case law in this Circuit and other circuits, as well as decisions of this Court, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail, subject to the strict conditions proposed below. + +Background. Ms. Maxwell, 58, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has resided in the United States since 1991. She is also a citizen of France, where she was born, and of the United Kingdom, where she was educated and spent her childhood and formative years. Ms. Maxwell graduated from Oxford University. She moved to the United States in 1991, and has lived in this country ever since that time. Ms. Maxwell has maintained extremely close relationships with her six siblings and her nephews and nieces. They all stood by her in the aftermath of the July 2019 indictment of Epstein and continue to stand by her now. She is especially close to two of her sisters and their children, all of whom reside in the United States. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous friends in the United States who themselves have children, and she is a godmother to many of them. Ms. Maxwell's family and friends have remained committed to her because they do not believe the allegations against her, which do not match the person they have known for decades. + +The Government's Position. The government has the burden of persuasion in showing that detention is warranted, and that there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will secure a defendant's appearance in court. In seeking to carry this burden, the government relies on the presumption of detention in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE), and argues that Ms. Maxwell poses a flight risk because she supposedly lacks ties to the United States; is a citizen of the United Kingdom and France, as well as a citizen of the United States, and has passports for each country; has traveled internationally in the past; and has financial means. And echoing recent media stories, the government speculates that Ms. Maxwell was "hiding" from law enforcement during the pendency of the investigation, even though she has been in regular contact with the government, through counsel, since Epstein's arrest. Finally, the government argues that the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence warrant + +detention. Importantly, in contrast with the bail position it took with Epstein, the government does not and cannot assert that Ms. Maxwell presents a danger to the community under Section 3142(g)(4). + +Ms. Maxwell's Response. The Court should exercise its discretion to grant bail to Ms. Maxwell, on the strict conditions proposed below (or as modified by the Court), for two compelling reasons. + +First, the COVID-19 crisis and its impact on detained defendants warrants release. As this Court has noted, the COVID-I9 pandemic represents an unprecedented health risk to incarcerated individuals, and COVID-19-related restrictions on attorney communications with pretrial detainees significantly impair a defendant's ability to prepare her defense. Simply put, under these circumstances, if Ms. Maxwell continues to be detained, her health will be at serious risk and she will not be able to receive a fair trial. (See infra Section I, pages 5 to 9). + +Second, the Court should grant bail because the government has not met its burden under the Bail Reform Act and controlling case law. The presumption relied on by the government may be rebutted, and is so here. Ms. Maxwell has strong ties to the community: she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in this country for almost 30 years; she ran a non-profit company based in the United States until the recent media frenzy about this case forced her to wind it down to protect her professional colleagues and their organizations; and she has very close ties with family members and friends in New York and the rest of the country. Nor does her conduct indicate that she is a flight risk: she has no prior criminal record; has spent years contesting civil litigation arising from her supposed ties to Epstein; and has remained in the United States from the time of Epstein's arrest until the present, with her counsel in regular contact with the government. She did not flee, but rather left the public eye, for the entirely understandable + +purpose of protecting herself and those close to her from the crush of media and online attention and its very real harms—those close to her have suffered the loss of jobs, work opportunities, and reputational damage simply for knowing her. The government's remaining arguments about Ms. Maxwell's passports, citizenship, travel and financial means— also fail because they would require that every defendant with multiple citizenship and financial means be denied bail, which is simply not the law. Finally, as discussed below, the government's position regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense and weight of its evidence, which relates to alleged conduct that is roughly twenty-five years old, is not persuasive and does not alter the bail analysis. (See infra Section II, pages 9 to 21). + +Proposed Bail Conditions. In light of the above, we propose the following bail conditions, which are consistent with those that courts in this Circuit have imposed in analogous situations: (i) a \$5 million personal recognizance bond, co-signed by six financially responsible people, all of whom have strong ties to Ms. Maxwell, and secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth over \$3.75 million; (ii) travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; (iii) surrender of all travel documents with no new applications; (iv) strict supervision by Pretrial Services; (v) home confinement at a residence in the Southern District of New York with electronic GPS monitoring; (vi) visitors limited to Ms. Maxwell's immediate family, close friends and counsel; (vii) travel limited to Court appearances and to counsel's office, except upon application to Pretrial Services and the government; and (viii) such other terms as the Court may deem appropriate under Section 3142. + +The Bail Reform Act does not discard the presumption of innocence; Ms. Maxwell is entitled to that presumption here, as she is in all aspects of this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j) ("Nothing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of + +innocence."). The government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Ms. Maxwell presents an "actual risk of flight" and must be detained under Section 3142. The strict bail conditions outlined above are appropriate under the circumstances and are the "least restrictive" set of conditions that will "reasonably assure" Ms. Maxwell's appearance in Court, without the health and access to counsel risks inherent in the government's request that Ms. Maxwell be detained pending trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (c)(1XB). Under the controlling legal standards, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail. + +# ARGUMENT + +There are two compelling reasons why the Court should order Ms. Maxwell's release on bail pursuant to the strict conditions she has proposed: + +First, Ms. Maxwell will be at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 if she is detained, and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense due to the restrictions that have been placed on attorney visits and phone calls in light of the pandemic. + +Second, the government has failed to carry its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 that no combination of conditions can be imposed that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. + +# I. The Conditions Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Mandate the Release of Ms. Maxwell. + +Impact of COVID-19 on the Prison Population. We submit that the conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic compel Ms. Maxwell's release pursuant to appropriate bail conditions. Four months ago, this Court held in United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020), that COVID-19 is an "unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous" threat that justifies release on bail. Id. at \*2. In that case, the defendant, who had no underlying medical conditions, filed an emergency motion for reconsideration of the Court's + +prior detention order based in part on the risks brought on by COVED-19. At the time, COVID-19 had only begun to take its devastating toll on New York, and there was no known outbreak in the prison population. Nevertheless, the Court noted that "inmates may be at a heightened risk of contracting COVID- 19 should an outbreak develop," and, based in part on this changed circumstance, ordered the defendant released. Id. + +Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, the COVID-19 risks to inmates have increased dramatically, as there have been significant outbreaks of COVID-I9 in correctional facilities. In the last month alone, the number of prison inmates known to have COVID-19 has doubled to 68,000, and prison deaths tied to COVID-19 have increased by 73 percent.' Indeed, as of July 2, 2020, nine of the ten largest known clusters of the coronavirus in the United States are in federal prisons and county jails.2 As this Court noted last month, "the 'inability [of] individuals to socially distance, shared communal spaces, and limited access to hygiene products' [in correctional facilities] make community spread all but unavoidable." United States V. M. Bethea, No. 18-CR-78 (MN), 2020 WL 2848098, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The risks are further enhanced by the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus cases.3 + +In particular, COVID-19 has begun to spread through the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell has been housed since the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transferred her there on July 6, 2020. According to the MDC's statistics, as of April 3, 2020, two inmates and + +Timothy et al., Coronavirus Cases Rise Sharply in Prisons Even as They Plateau Nationwide, N.Y. Times, available at hups://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/uskoronavirus-inmates-prisons-jails.html(last updated June 30, 2020). + +2 Coronavints in the US: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-eases.html#clusters (last updated July 2, 2020). + +3 See, e.g.. Audrey Cher, WHO's ChiefScientist Says There's a "Pay Real Risk" of a Second Wave of Coronavirus As Economies Reopen, CNBC, June 9, 2020, available at httos://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/who-says-theres-realrisk-of-second-coronavirus-wave-as-economies-reopen.html. + +five staff had tested positive; by June 30, 2020, those numbers had risen to 14 and 41, respectively.4 The increased spread among prisons means that the COVID-19 risks that were present in the Stephens case four months ago are far more serious for Ms. Maxwell now and mandate her release. + +Impact of COVID-19 on the Ability to Prepare the Defense. The Stephens opinion provides yet another independent basis that, we submit, requires Ms. Maxwell's release: if she is detained, her ability to meet with her attorneys and prepare for her defense will be significantly impaired and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. + +In Stephens, the Court found that this factor required the defendant's release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), which provides for temporary release based on a determination that such release is "necessary for preparation of the person's defense." Stephens. 2020 WL 1295155 at •3. The Court noted that the spread of COVID-19 had compelled the BOP to suspend all inperson visits, including legal visits, except as allowed on a case-by-case basis. Id. at \*3. That suspension persists to this day.5 In a case such as this, which will require assessing evidence relating to events that occurred approximately twenty-five years ago, including documents and personal recollections, numerous in-person meetings between counsel and Ms. Maxwell will be critical to the preparation of the defense. The recent resurgence of the pandemic calls into question whether these meetings will ever be able to happen in advance of her trial. As in + +4 See April 3, 2020 Report from the BOP regarding the Metropolitan Detention Center and Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MDC and MCC Report"), available at https://img.nyetuscourts.gov/filesireports/bop/20200403 BOP Report.pdf; and June 30, 2020 MDC and MCC Report, available at httos://www.nved.uscourts.uovmub bon/MDC MCC 20200630 071147.odf. + +5See BOP COVID-19 Modified Operations Plan, available at https://w.bop.govicoronaviruskovid19 status.jsp. + +Stephens, Ms. Maxwell's inability to meet with her attorneys while this policy is in effect constitutes a "compelling reason" requiring her release. Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155 at \*3.6 + +Even speaking by phone with Ms. Maxwell presents daunting challenges due to COVID-19-related protocols requiring at least 72 hours' notice to schedule a call, unless it is urgent, in which case counsel can email a request to the MDC. As counsel learned this past week, however, even an urgent call request does not mean the call will take place in the time required. At approximately 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2020, the Court ordered us to confer with Ms. Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing, and ordered counsel for both sides to jointly report back by 9:00 p.m. that night with a proposed date and time for these proceedings. We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call, making specific reference to the Court's Order, but were not connected with Ms. Maxwell until 9:00 p.m. There will no doubt be other orders of the Court with no guarantees we will be able to reach our client in time if she is detained.' In addition, during this past week, Ms. Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents and has had limited access to writing materials. + +The prohibition on in-person visits means we must read to her any documents requiring her review, and she has virtually no ability to take notes. The age of the allegations in this case compound these problems. Under the current circumstances, Ms. Maxwell cannot review + +6 Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, numerous other courts in this District have ordered defendants released on bail, over the government's objection, due to the pandemic and its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020) (releasing undocumented defendant in drug conspiracy case because of inability to meaningfully communicate with lawyer and risk of COVID-I9); United States it Hudson, 19-CR-496 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (releasing defendant in drug conspiracy, loansharking, and extortion case, whose two prior, pre-COVID-19 bail apS were denied, because of inability to prepare for upcoming trial and risk of COVID-19); United States v. I9-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120, at "1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (releasing defendant on felon in possession case, with prior manslaughter conviction, due to inability to prepare for trial due to COVID-I9 restrictions). + +7 The government has recently worked with the BOP to set up a standing call between counsel and Ms. Maxwell each morning until the initial appearance to facilitate attorney-client communications. While we greatly appreciate these efforts, they are a short-term patch to a persistent problem that shows no signs of abating. Nor would it be appropriate, on an ongoing basis, for the prosecutors to be involved in and dictate the date and time of our communications with our client in connection with the preparation of our defense. + +documents and other evidence from approximately twenty-five years ago and meaningfully assist in the preparation of her defense. These restrictions are additional "compelling reasons" justifying her release. See id.8 + +# II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden Under 18 U.S.C. 4 3142. + +The grave concerns raised by the current COVID-19 crisis notwithstanding, Ms. Maxwell must be released because she has met her limited burden of production showing that she does not pose a flight risk, and the government has entirely failed to demonstrate that no release condition or combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. + +# A. Applicable Law + +As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Pretrial detention is appropriate only where "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant]." United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)). The Bail Reform Act provides that a court "shall order the pretrial release" of the defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)) (emphasis added), but may impose bail conditions if "such release will not reasonably assure the appearance" of the defendant in court. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c). Where conditions are necessary, such release shall be "subject to the least restrictive . . . set of conditions that [the court] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(IXB) (emphasis added). Consequently, "[u]ndcr this statutory scheme, 'it is only a limited group of offenders who should be denied bail pending trial.' Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +8 See also Letter of Sean Hecker to Hon. Margo K. Brodie (July 8, 2020), Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al, No. 19 Civ. 660 (E.D.N.Y.) (Doc. No. 78) (detailing absence of in-person visitation, highly limited VTC and telephone call capacity, and issues pertaining to legal mail and legal documents). + +The government bears a dual burden in seeking pre-trial detention. First, the government must show "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant ... presents an actual risk of flight." Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (emphasis added). If the government is able to satisfy this burden, it must then "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court." Id. + +In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, the court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). + +In this case, unlike in the Epstein case, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, and therefore the fourth factor does not apply. + +The Bail Reform Act contains a rebuttable presumption, applicable based on certain of the crimes charged here, that no conditions will reasonably assure against flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3XE). In cases where this presumption applies, the "defendant bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [she] does not pose ... a risk of flight." See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at \*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a category listed in § 3142(g) can affect the operation" of the presumption. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713, + +2020 WL 3536277, at \*4-5 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020). Although the presumption "remains a factor to be considered" even after the defendant has met her burden of production, "[a]t all times ... the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by ... a preponderance of the evidence" that the defendant poses a flight risk that cannot be addressed by any bail conditions. English, 629 F.3d at 319 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398, at \*5 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020). And regardless of the presence of the presumption or the nature of the charges alleged, "[n]othing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j); see also United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736, at \*3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) (those charged with crimes involving minors "continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence in setting conditions of release."). + +M. Maxwell Has Rebutted the Presumption That She Poses a Flieht Risk, and the Government Has Not Carried Its Burden That No Combination of Conditions Can Be Imposed To Reasonably Assure Her Presence In Court + +The government has not carried its burden of establishing that no set of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance in court. As set forth below, Ms. Maxwell's personal history, her family and other ties to this country, and her conduct prior to her arrest easily rebut the presumption that she presents a risk of flight. For these same reasons, the government cannot establish that the strict bail conditions she proposes, which are consistent with a number of cases in this Circuit in which courts have ordered release, will not "reasonably assure" her presence in court. Accordingly, the Court should order Ms. Maxwell released pursuant to her proposed conditions. + +### 1. Ms. Maxwell's Personal History and Characteristics Demonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk + +- a. Ms. Maxwell Has No Prior Criminal Record, and Has Significant Ties to the United States and the New York Region + +Ms. Maxwell's history and characteristics do not "strongly support detention," as the government contends (Gov. Mem. at 6), but instead demonstrate that she is firmly rooted in this country and that her appearance can be reasonably assured with appropriate bail conditions. Ms. Maxwell has no criminal record, which includes the approximately twentyfive-year period from the time the conduct alleged in the indictment took place to the present. Ms. Maxwell also has significant ties to the United States. She has lived in this country for almost 30 years and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. Ms. Maxwell also has strong family ties to this country. Two of her sisters, who have agreed to co-sign her bond, live in the United States, and they have several children who are U.S.-born citizens. Ms. Maxwell is very close with her sisters and maintains regular contact with them, as well as with her nieces and nephews. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous close friends and professional colleagues who reside in this country. In sum, the United States has been Ms. Maxwell's home for decades. + +> I •. Maxwell Has Actively Litigated Civil Cases in this District and Has Not Left the United States Since Epstein's 2019 Arrest + +Ms. Maxwell has never once attempted to "hide" from the government or her accusers, and has never shown any intent to leave the country. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has always vehemently denied that she was involved in illegal or improper conduct related to Epstein, and her conduct has been entirely consistent with someone who fully intends to remain in this country and fight any allegations brought against her. For example, since 2015, and continuing through today, Ms. Maxwell has actively litigated several civil + +cases related to Epstein in the Southern District of New York and has sat for depositions in those cases. Similarly, throughout the course of the criminal investigation of this case, which has been publicly reported on for nearly a year, Ms. Maxwell has remained in the United States. Indeed, on July 7, 2019, the day after Epstein's arrest, Ms. Maxwell reached out to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, through counsel, and maintained regular contact with them right up to the point of her arrest. + +The government's broad assertion that Ms. Maxwell has engaged in "frequent international travel" in the last three years (Gov. Mem. at 6) obscures the critical point: she has not left country even once since Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell's decision to remain in the United States after Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in August 2019 is particularly significant because any incentive she may have had to flee would have been even more acute at that time. Within days of Epstein's death, a steady stream of press articles began turning the public's attention to Ms. Maxwell—wrongly substituting her for Epstein—and speculating that she had become the prime target of the government's investigation.9 Adding even more fuel to this fire, several of the women claiming to be victims of Epstein's abuse began publicly calling for her immediate arrest and prosecution. Despite the increasing risk of being criminally charged, and the media firestorm that was redirected toward her after Epstein's death, and despite having ample opportunity to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell stayed in the United States for almost an entire year until she was arrested. These actions weigh heavily in favor of release. See United States v. + +9 See, e.g., Spotlight turns on Jeffrey Epstein's British socialite fixer' Ghislaine Maxwell after his suicide — but will she be prosecuted?, Daily Mail (Aug. 10, 2019), https://www.dai ymail.co.uk/news/article-7344765/Spotlighmurns- ,leffrey-Ensteins-fixer-Ghislaine-Maxwell-suicide.html: Ghislaine Maxwell: the woman accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein groom girls, The Guardian (Aug. 12, 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/ghislaincmaxwell-woman-accused-jeff iy-epstein-groom-girls• British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell in spotlight after Epstein's apparent suicide, NBC News (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/british-socialitcghislaine-maxwell-spotlight-atter-epslein-s-apparent-suicide-n1041 III + +837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d Cr. 1988) (overturning district court's decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the ground that the defendant took "no steps" to flee jurisdiction in three-week period between execution of search warrant at home and arrest); United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176, 1179-80 (D. Mass. 1990) (concluding defendants did not present a flight risk because each of them "for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before indictment"). + +Indeed, the absence of any allegation by the government that Ms. Maxwell was taking steps to leave the country at the time of her arrest is conspicuous. The government has offered no proof that she was making plans to leave the country. In fact, had the government alerted her counsel that she was about to be arrested, we would have arranged for Ms. Maxwell's prompt, voluntary surrender. Instead, the government arrested Ms. Maxwell without warning on the day before the July 4th holiday, thus ensuring that she would be in federal custody on the one-year anniversary of Epstein's arrest. + +- c. Ms. Maxwell's Actions to Protect Herself From Intrusive Media Coverage and Death Threats Do Not Demonstrate an Intent to Flee + +Furthermore, the steps Ms. Maxwell took to leave the public eye after Epstein's arrest are not indicative of a risk of flight. The government notes that Ms. Maxwell dropped out of public view after Epstein's arrest, which the government seeks to portray as "hiding" from the law. The government further argues that she has taken several steps to avoid detection, including moving residences and switching her phone and email address. (Gov. Mem. at 8). But Ms. Maxwell did not take these steps to hide from law enforcement or evade prosecution. Instead, they were necessary measures that Ms. Maxwell was forced to + +take to protect herself, her family members, her friends and colleagues, and their children, from unrelenting and intrusive media coverage, threats, and irreparable reputational harm. + +Ever since Epstein's arrest, Ms. Maxwell has been at the center of a crushing onslaught of press articles, television specials, and social media posts painting her in the most damning light possible and prejudging her guilt. The sheer volume of media reporting mentioning Ms. Maxwell is staggering. Since Epstein's arrest, she has been mentioned in literally thousands of media publications, news reports, and other online content. The media attention also spawned a carnival-like atmosphere of speculation about her whereabouts. In November 2019, the British tabloid, The Sun, even offered a L10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwell's location. A headline reminiscent of a West wanted poster read: "WANTED: The Sun is offering a £10,000 reward for information on Jeffrey Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell."10 And in the days leading up to her arrest, there was a deluge of media reports (all untrue) claiming that Ms. Maxwell was hiding out in an apartment in Paris to avoid questioning by the FBI." She has seen helicopters flying over her home and reporters hiding in the bushes. Indeed, since Ms. Maxwell's arrest on July 2, 2020, her counsel has been flooded with hundreds of media inquiries and solicitations from members of the public. + +The "open season" declared on Ms. Maxwell after Epstein's death has come with an even darker cost - she has been the target of alarming physical threats, even death threats, and has had to hire security guards to ensure her safety. The media feeding frenzy, which has only intensified in recent months, has also deeply affected her family and friends. Some of Ms. Maxwell's closest friends who had nothing whatsoever to do with Epstein have lost their jobs or + +3° See https://www.the-sun.cominews/74018/the-sun-is-offering-a- I 0000-reward-for-information-on-jeffrey-epsteinpal-ghislaine-maxwcW. + +" See, e.g. https://www.dai Iymai 1.co.uldnews/ article-8444137/Jeffity-Epsteins-fugitive-madam-Ghislaine-Maxwel I -hiding-luxury-Paris.hi ml. + +suffered severe professional and reputational damage simply by being associated with her. Ms. Maxwell therefore did what any responsible person would do — she separated herself from everyone she cares about and removed herself from the public eye in order to keep herself and her friends out of harm's way.'2 + +Lacking any evidence required under the governing standard that Ms. Maxwell presents an "actual risk of flight," Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75, the government's flight risk argument is reduced to the following: Ms. Maxwell is a woman of means who has foreign citizenship and has traveled internationally in the past, and who now faces serious charges. But if that were sufficient, then virtually every defendant with a foreign passport and any meaningful amount of funds would need to be detained as a flight risk. See Hung v. United States 439 U.S. 1326, 1329 (1978) (to detain based on risk of flight, government must show more than "opportunities for flight," and instead must establish an "inclination on the part of [the defendant] to flee"). That is not what the Bail Reform Act requires. Indeed, courts in this Circuit and elsewhere commonly find that bail conditions can adequately address risk of flight, even where individuals have foreign citizenship and passports or otherwise substantial foreign connections, and financial means. See. e.g., Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 66; United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at \*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). + +Finally, the ongoing travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would pose a significant hurdle to Ms. Maxwell's ability to flee the United States, particularly to + +12 The media spotlight has also drawn out people who claim to speak for Ms. Maxwell, and even purport to have had direct communications with her, but who, in fact, have no ties to Ms. Maxwell whatsoever. One such person has even given numerous television interviews on news shows in the United Kingdom. + +France and the United Kingdom." Notably, two weeks ago, this Court recognized in United States v. Abdellatif El Mokadem, No. 19-CR-646 (AJN), 2020 WL 3440515 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) that "concerns regarding risk of flight are mitigated by the ongoing [COVID-19] pandemic, which has understandably curtailed travel across the country, and, indeed, around the world." Id. at \*1. In that case, despite finding detention to be warranted on two prior occasions, the Court concluded that the government could no longer establish flight risk and ordered the defendant released pending sentencing. Id. ("Taking account of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had not yet reached this country when the Court last considered Defendant's custody status, the balance now clearly and convincingly tips in Defendant's favor .. ."). Consideration of this factor weighs heavily in favor of release on the proposed bail conditions here. + +### 2. The Nature and Circumstances of the Charges and the Weight of the Evidence Militate in Favor of Bail + +The Defense Has Rebutted the Presumption Relating to Certain of the Charges. The government relies on the statutory presumption of detention applicable to offenses involving minor victims. (Gov. Mem. at 4-5.) But unlike the position it took with Epstein, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, or that she suffers from compulsive or addictive sexual proclivities. See United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 314-15 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Even according to the indictment, Ms. Maxwell's alleged participation in offenses involving minors ended in 1997. Here, the only + +13 See, e,g., E.U. Formalizes Reopening, Barring Travelers From U.S., N.Y. Times, (June 30, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/worIcVeuropeku-reopening-blocks-us-travelers.html (confirming that the European Union will not open its borders to travelers from the United States, and "Wravelers' country of residence, not their nationality, will be the determining factor for their ability to travel to countries in the European Union"); England Drops Its Quarantine for Most Visitors. but Not Those From the U.S., N.Y. Times (July 3, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/worldkumpeibritain-quarantine-us-coronavirus.html (confirming that England will leave mandatory 14-day quarantine restrictions in place for travelers coming from the United States). + +applicable presumption relates to risk of flight, and, as noted, Ms. Maxwell has rebutted that presumption based on her ties to the United States, her decision to remain in this country after Epstein's arrest, and all of the other reasons discussed above. This Court should follow other courts in this Circuit and elsewhere that have found that defendants rebutted the presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged offenses against minors. See Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398, at \*5-6; United States v. Veres, No. 3:20-CA-184-32MT, 2020 WL 1042051, at \*3-4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Conway, 2011 WL 3421321, at \*4-5. + +The Impact of the Potential Penalties Is Overstated. The government asserts that detention is warranted because of the potential for a long sentence in this case. (Gov. Mem. at 4-5.) This oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit "require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight." 837 F.2d at 49-50 (district court's finding that defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for "long sentence of incarceration"); see also Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact that they faced a "lengthy term of incarceration"). Accordingly, the asserted potential for a long sentence does not meet the government's burden of persuasion.14 + +" The government relies on United States v. Alindato-M, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009), cited approvingly by United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at \*2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) for the proposition that "[t]tle steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government .. ian. Gov. Mem. at 5.) But Alindato-= is easily distinguished on its facts from Ms. Maxwell's case. Mindato-= was a narcotics case that did not involve 20-year old conduct as here, but instead involved a conspiracy that "continu[ed] until the date of the indictment." 627 F. Supp. 2d at 60-61. The evidence included eleven "clearly incriminating video tapes" and testimony from various cooperating witnesses, and the defendant faced a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 61-64. These factors are not present in this case. + +Moreover, the government overstates the potential for Ms. Maxwell to spend "decades in prison" if she is convicted. (Gov. Mem. at 5.) In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all counts is 10 years, assuming the Court were to follow the traditional practice in this District and impose concurrent sentences. Although a 10-year sentence would be significant, it is a far cry from the government's forecast, further demonstrating that the government has not met its burden of showing Ms. Maxwell is an actual risk of flight. + +The Government's Case Is Subject to Significant Challenges. In evaluating the strength of the government's case, we note that Ms. Maxwell intends to mount several legal challenges to the indictment, including that: (i) this prosecution is barred by Epstein's September 24, 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"; (ii) the conspiracy, enticement of minors, and transporting of minors charges are time-barred and otherwise legally flawed; and (iii) the two perjury charges are subject to dismissal on several legal grounds." In addition, as we understand from the face of the indictment, the government's case is based primarily on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997. It is inherently more difficult to prosecute cases relating to decades-old conduct. These issues further call into question the strength of the government's case, and provide an independent basis justifying release on bail. + +1S The defense is also considering whether the government's comments in connection with this case conform to Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and whether to seek appropriate relief from the Court. + +#### 3. The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than Adequate to Secure Ms. Maxwell's Presence + +For the reasons stated above, the Court should release Ms. Maxwell because the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic will greatly increase her personal risk and prevent her from meaningfully participating in her defense, and because the government has not carried its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. We respectfully submit that the proposed bail package represents the "least restrictive" set of conditions that will reasonably ensure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (cX1)(B). + +The package includes six co-signers—Ms. Maxwell's siblings, relatives and friends—many of whom reside in the United States, and all of whom continue to support her despite the unrelenting media attacks that Ms. Maxwell and they, themselves, have suffered as a result of this case. Each of them has voluntarily agreed to assume responsibility for an extremely large bond amount of \$5 million, in order to secure her appearance. The bond is also to be secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth roughly \$3.75 million. The package also includes stringent travel and physical restrictions, including surrendering all passports and no new travel applications, travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and home detention with electronic GPS monitoring. Ms. Maxwell, for personal reasons, will continue to need security guards to protect her upon release. Under the circumstances, if the Court requires it, the security guards could report to Pretrial Services.16 + +16 In United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit curtailed the circumstances under which a court can pant pretrial release to a defendant on the condition that the defendant pays for private armed security guards. Boustani, nevertheless, held that a defendant may be released on such a condition if the defendant "is deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth. In other words, a defendant may be released on such a condition only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained." Id. (emphasis in original). We submit that a similarly situated defendant who, like Ms. Maxwell, had no prior criminal record, significant ties to the United States, and a demonstrated lack of intent to flee the country, as well as numerous, supportive co-signers, but who did + +Ms. Maxwell has a number of other family members and friends who, under normal circumstances, would also co-sign and secure her bond. She is not relying on them in connection with this bail application in an effort to safeguard their privacy and protect them and their families from harm. + +The proposed bail conditions are consistent with those approved by courts in this Circuit in other high-profile cases, and should be approved here. See, e.g., United States v. , 309 F. Supp. 3d 24, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (alleged leader of Genovese crime family who was charged with racketeering and extortion granted release subject to conditions), aff'd, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Marc Dreier, accused of "colossal criminality" and alleged to be a "high flight risk," granted release subject to conditions); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Bernie Madoff, charged with "largest Ponzi scheme ever" and alleged to be a "serious risk of flight," granted release subject to conditions). + +not have Ms. Maxwell's means, would be released on bail conditions. Accordingly, if the Court deems it necessary, it may impose private security guards as a condition of release. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed. + +Dated: July 10, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, & FORMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fb5bdf7228a2d09f552e5a83ab0dec051593ac5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419/EFTA02829419.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1312 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829419.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 26, + "chars": 51972, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.37, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 508.8299560546875, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 508.8299560546875, + 361.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 361.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.32, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 279.363037109375 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 279.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Conditions Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Mandate the Release of \nMs. Maxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 509.49 + ], + [ + 524.484, + 509.49 + ], + [ + 524.484, + 539.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 539.6030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden Under 18 U.S.C. 4 3142.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 489.4231262207031, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 489.4231262207031, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 232.15072631835938, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 232.15072631835938, + 305.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 305.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Ms. Maxwell's Personal History and Characteristics \nDemonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 464.15997314453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 464.15997314453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Nature and Circumstances of the Charges and the \nWeight of the Evidence Militate in Favor of Bail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 476.5834655761719, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 476.5834655761719, + 403.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 403.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than \nAdequate to Secure Ms. Maxwell's Presence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 420.63775634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 420.63775634765625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829419" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4d86f0c8ac2a7d3f719c9ac261ab6fa8d5ba0f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. The undersigned counsel certifies that he is admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: New York, New York July 10, 2020 + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S. Mark S. 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26456f2cf7217571fc7e5913cd8ccbb0865d033b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445/EFTA02829445.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829445.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 607, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.51, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829445" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb747346aa9e4a90dee7e92a4a4b7420ddd75b74 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. The undersigned counsel certifies that he is admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: New York, New York July 10, 2020 + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Christian It Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7730283232720448a17614daf7799ba23dd75fed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446/EFTA02829446.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829446.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 636, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829446" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cc431b83f025a1c761de7a081043112e2221443 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. x + +## Check Proceeding that Applies + +X Arraignment + +WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING + +20-cr-330 (AlN) + +have been given a copy of the indictment containing the charges against me and have reviewed it with my attorney. I understand that I have a right to appear before a judge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York to confirm that I have received and reviewed the indictment; to have the indictment read aloud to me if I wish; to enter a plea of eitherguilty or not guilty before the judge; and to have an attorney beside me as I do. By signing this document, I wish to advise the court that after consultation with my attorney I willingly give up my right to appear in person before the judge for my arraignment. By signing this document, I also wish to advise the court that I willingly give up any right I might have to have my attorney next to me for my arraignment so long as the following conditions are met. I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Date: + +4110 020 + +X + +Giti5Ltke tiA16411 Signature of Defendant itt at4- - + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Print Name + +Bail Hearing + +I am applying or in the future may apply for release from detention, or if not detained, for modification of the conditions of my release from custody, that is, my bail conditions. I understand that I have a right to appear in person before a judge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York at the time that my attorney makes such an application. I have discussed these rights with my attorney and wish to give up these rights due to the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met. I request that my attorney be permitted to make applications for my release from custody or for modification of the conditions of my release, even though I will not be physically present. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Date: 6/114•Jr", 114 7,04 lb y 1/101)430 SignatureofDefendant + +X + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Print Name + +Conference + +Ihave been charged in an indictment with violations of federal law. I understand that I have aright to be present at all conferences concerning this indictment that are held by a judge in the Southern District of New York, unless the conference involves only a question of law. I understand that at these conferences the judge may, among other things, 1) set a schedule for the case including the date at which the trial will be held, and 2) determine whether, under the Speedy Trial Act, certain periods of time should be properly excluded in setting the time by which the trial must occur. I have discussed these issues with my attorney and wish to give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference. By signing this document, I wish to advise the court that I willingly give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference In my case on account of the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met. I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at anytime during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +CA'tilai timuutilillfit/ 14.---loboati Signature of Defendant + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Print Name + +Ihereby affirm that I am aware of my obligation to discuss with my dient the charges contained in the indictment, my client's rights to attend and participate in the criminal proceedings encompassed by this waiver, and this waiver form. I affirm that my client knowingly and voluntarily consents to the proceedings being held in my client's absence. Iwill inform my client of what transpires at the proceedings and provide my client with a copy of the transcript of the proceedings, ifregyejted. + +Date: 1/101)0)0 Signature of Defense Counsel + +> Christian R. Everdell Print Name + +## Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an interpreter: + +Iused the services of an interpreter to discuss these issues with the defendant. The interpreter also translated this document, in its entirety, to the defendant before the defendant signed it. The interpreter's name is: + +Date: Signature of Defense Counsel + +Accepted: Signature of Judge Date: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bff2ed97142d38d6cb908c794ac39e710f408184 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447/EFTA02829447.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829447.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4709, + "elapsed_seconds": 17.43, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Check Proceeding that Applies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.4800033569336, + 210.49591064453125 + ], + [ + 205.63200000000003, + 210.49591064453125 + ], + [ + 205.63200000000003, + 222.96112060546875 + ], + [ + 82.4800033569336, + 222.96112060546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an interpreter:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 350.6249084472656, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 350.6249084472656, + 520.1807250976562 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 520.1807250976562 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 423 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829447" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e4641b4f89c52603c114cf688dc1b01906e9b93 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.md @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +#### THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Alison Moe Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DETENTION + +The Government respectfully submits this reply memorandum in further support of its motion for detention, dated July 2, 2020 (the "Detention Memorandum") (Dkt. 4), and in response to the defendant's memorandum in opposition (the "Opposition Memorandum") (Dkt. 18). + +The charges against Ghislaine Maxwell arise from her essential role in sexual exploitation that caused deep and lasting harm to vulnerable victims. At the heart of this case are brave women who are victims of serious crimes that demand justice. The defendant's motion wholly fails to appreciate the driving force behind this case: the defendant's victims were sexually abused as minors as a direct result of Ghislaine Maxwell's actions, and they have carried the trauma from these events for their entire adult lives. They deserve to see her brought to justice at a trial. + +There will be no trial for the victims if the defendant is afforded the opportunity to flee the jurisdiction, and there is every reason to think that is exactly what she will do if she is released. For the reasons detailed in the Detention Memorandum, and as further discussed below, the defendant poses a clear risk of flight, and no conditions of bail could reasonably assure her continued appearance in this case. Among other concerns: (1) she is a citizen of a country that does not extradite its own citizens; (2) she appears to have access to considerable wealth + +domestically and abroad; (3) her finances are completely opaque, as her memorandum pointedly declines to provide the Court with information about her financial resources; and (4) she appears to be skilled at living in hiding. These are glaring red flags, even before the Court considers the gravity of the charges in this case and the serious penalties the defendant faces if convicted at trial. + +Instead of attempting to address the risks of releasing a defendant with apparent access to extraordinary financial resources, who has the ability to live beyond the reach of extradition in France, and who has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in hiding, the defendant instead proposes a bail package that amounts to little more than an unsecured bond. Among other things, the proposed bail package contemplates the defendant pledging as the sole security a property that is beyond the territory and judicial reach of the United States, and which therefore is of no value as collateral. She proposes six unidentified co-signers, an unknown number of whom even reside in the United States, and none of whose assets are identified. The Court and the Government have no information whatsoever regarding whether these co-signers would be able to able to pay the proposed \$5 million bond should the defendant flee — or if, of equal concern, the co-signers are themselves so wealthy that it would be no financial burden whatsoever to do so. The defendant does not identify what residence she proposes to live at in the Southern District of New York, nor does she identify any meaningful ties to the area. And most importantly, the defendant's memorandum provides the Court with no information whatsoever about her own finances or her access to the wealth of others, declining to provide the Court the very information that would inform any decision about whether a bond is even meaningful to the defendant — and which the Government submits would reveal the defendant's financial means to flee and live comfortably abroad for the rest of her life. + +Finally, the Government recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is — and should be — a relevant factor for the Court and the parties in this case. However, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is taking very significant steps to address that concern, and the defendant has offered no reason why she should be treated any differently from the many defendants who are currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pending trial, including defendants who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk. Inmates at the MDC are able to assist in their own defense, especially long before trial, through established policies and procedures applicable to every pretrial detainee. This defendant should not be granted the special treatment she requests. + +The defendant faces a presumption of detention, she has significant assets and foreign ties, she has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's crimes seek her detention. Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the Government urges the Court to detain her. + +## ARGUMENT + +Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk — the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant weigh strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant's proposed package would do absolutely nothing to mitigate those risks. + +# I. The Defendant's Victims Seek Detention + +As the Court is aware, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), a crime victim has the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving release. IS U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and their counsel in connection with its application for detention. Counsel for one victim has already conveyed to the Government that their client opposes bail for the defendant, and has asked the Government to convey that view to the Court. The Government also expects that one or more victims will exercise their right to be heard at the July 14, 2020 hearing in this matter, and will urge the Court not to grant bail. More generally, as noted above, the Government is deeply concerned that if the defendant is bailed, the victims will be denied justice in this case. That outcome is unacceptable to both the victims and the Government. + +## II. The Government's Case Is Strong + +The defendant's motion argues, in a conclusory fashion, that the Government's case must be weak because the conduct charged occurred in the 1990s. That argument, which ignores the many specific allegations in the Indictment, could not be more wrong. As the superseding indictment (the "Indictment") makes plain, multiple victims have provided detailed, credible evidence of the defendant's criminal conduct. And while that conduct did take place a number of years ago, it is unsurprising that the victims have been unable to forget the defendant's predatory conduct after all this time, as traumatic childhood experiences often leave indelible marks. The recollections of the victims bear striking resemblances that corroborate each other and provide compelling proof of the defendant's active participation in a disturbing scheme to groom and sexually abuse minor girls. In addition to compelling victim accounts, as the Government has explained, the victims' accounts are corroborated by documentary evidence and other witnesses. + +In particular, the victims' accounts are supported by contemporaneous documents and records, such as flight records, diary entries, and business records. The powerful testimony of these victims, who had strikingly similar experiences with Maxwell, together with documentary + +evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.' + +The defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ("A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the "Government." Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. + +Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment + +Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger. + +charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment, and to violations of statutes not charged in this Indictment. In this respect, the Government further notes that the Indictment brought in this District is entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation, and two of the victims referenced in the Indictment were never approached or interviewed by the SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with our Office in 2019. + +Nor is there any force to the defendant's assertion — without explanation, much less legal authority — that the charges in the Indictment are untimely. As the Government explained in its opening brief, the charges in this case are timely, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which permits the prosecution of crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors at any time during the life of the victim. The defendant's claim that the Indictment is barred by the statute of limitations has no basis in law. For similar reasons, the Court should not give any weight to the defendant's bare assertions that the indictment is somehow "legally flawed" in unspecified ways or that the perjury counts are \*\*subject to dismissal" for unspecified reasons. Opposition Memorandum at 19. These conclusoly claims are baseless. + +### III. The Defendant Poses An Extreme Risk of Flight + +As the Government detailed in its opening brief, the defendant's international ties, considerable financial resources, and transient lifestyle all make her a risk of flight. That risk is further exacerbated by the fact that the defendant is a citizen of France, which does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to law. In addition, and as detailed further below, the defendant has not only the motive to flee, but the means to do so swiftly and effectively. The defendant appears to have access to extensive sources of wealth. She does not have a job that would tie her to the United States, much less the Southern District of New York, and she does not + +appear to depend on any job — or to have depended on any employment in the past 30 years — for the privileged lifestyle she has maintained for the entirety of that period. The defendant clearly has the means to flee. + +More troubling still, the defendant's conduct at the time of her arrest further underscores the risk of flight she poses. When FBI agents arrived at the defendant's remote property in New Hampshire on the morning of July 2, 2020, they discovered the property was barred by a locked gate. After breaching the gate, the agents observed an individual who was later determined to be a private security guard. As the agents approached the front door to the main house, they announced themselves as FBI agents and directed the defendant to open the door. Through a window, the agents saw the defendant ignore the direction to open the door and, instead, try to flee to another room in the house, quickly shutting a door behind her. Agents were ultimately forced to breach the door in order to enter the house to arrest the defendant, who was found in an interior room in the house. Moreover, as the agents conducted a security sweep of the house, they also noticed a cell phone wrapped in tin foil on top of a desk, a seemingly misguided effort to evade detection, not by the press or public, which of course would have no ability to trace her phone or intercept her communications, but by law enforcement. + +Following the defendant's arrest, the FBI spoke with the security guard, who informed the agents that the defendant's brother had hired a security company staffed with former members of the British military to guard the defendant at the New Hampshire property, in rotations. The defendant provided one of the guards with a credit card in the same name as the LW that had purchased the New Hampshire property in cash. The guard informed the FBI that the defendant had not left the property during his time working there, and that instead, the guard was sent to + +make purchases for the property using the credit card. As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding. + +The defendant asks the Court to ignore many of the obvious indicators of a flight risk by arguing that she has lived in hiding because of unwanted press attention. This argument entirely misses the point. First, the defendant's conduct is clearly relevant to the Court's assessment of her risk of flight, because it evidences her readiness and ability to live in hiding, and to do so indefinitely. As such, even if her behavior in the last year could be attributed solely to her desire to avoid media attention, that should give the Court serious concerns about what steps she would be willing to take to avoid federal prison. Second, the fact that the defendant took these measures to conceal herself after Epstein was indicted in this District — and after the Government announced that its investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators was ongoing — cannot be ignored. To the contrary, these measures are at least equally consistent with the notion that the defendant also sought to evade detection by law enforcement. + +In attempting to sidestep the evidence of her ability and willingness to hide, the defendant points to her decision to remain in the United States for the past year while the Government's investigation remained ongoing. She claims that because she did not flee the country during an ongoing investigation, she will not do so while under indictment. This argument ignores the world of difference between believing that an investigation is ongoing and being indicted in six counts by a federal grand jury. The defendant now faces the reality of serious charges, supported by significant evidence, and the real prospect of spending many years in prison. The return of the indictment fundamentally alters the defendant's incentives and heightens the incentive to flee far beyond the theoretical possibility of a charge during an investigation (one the defendant may have wrongly believed would or could not reach her). That is especially so when the defendant has spent the last two decades without facing consequences for her criminal actions. For years before her arrest in this case, the defendant likely believed she had gotten away with her crimes. That illusion has now been shattered, and she has a host of new reasons to use her considerable resources to flee. + +Moreover, the defendant's willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct, including some of the conduct charged in the Indictment, strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes, rather than to avoid the media. As alleged in the Indictment, in 2016, when the defendant was given the opportunity to address her conduct with minors in the context of a civil suit, she lied repeatedly. Those lies are, of course, the subject of two counts of perjury, and they evidence her willingness to flout the law in order to protect herself. The defendant's lies under oath should give the Court serious pause about trusting this defendant to comply with conditions of bail. + +## IV. The Defendant's Rail Proposal Offers No SecuriP. For !ler \ppcarance + +In its opening memorandum, the Government highlighted the defendant's extensive means to flee and her opaque finances. In her response, the defendant's brief provides zero information about her assets in the United States or abroad. The Court should be troubled by this. First, so far as the Government is aware, the defendant has not filled out a financial affidavit, under penalty of perjury, in connection with her application for bail, meaning that the Court has no reliable insight into the magnitude or scope of the defendant's resources.2 However, what the Court does have are strong indicia that the defendant has access to enormous resources, including the large property she was found on, the private security guard being retained to live with her on that + +2 The Government understands from Pretrial Services that the defendant has indicated that she has less than a million dollars in bank accounts. The report has not yet been released. As discussed below, the Court should have serious pause before accepting this unverified information. + +property, and the multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom being offered as collateral. Indeed, it is revealing that the defendant's memorandum declines to discuss her assets or the assets to which she plainly has access. Without knowing the full scope of the defendant's financial resources, it would be impossible for the Court to even begin to evaluate whether conditions of bail would mitigate her risk of flight. More importantly, the defendant cannot claim that she has met her significant burden to rebut the presumption of detention in this case when she has failed to provide comprehensive, verified financial information under penalty of perjury. + +Although the Government submits that no conditions of bail could reasonably assure the defendant's continued appearance, the defendant's proposed bail package offers almost no security whatsoever. The defendant appears to have significant assets, she has extensive foreign ties and is a citizen of a country that does not extradite its citizens to the United States, and she is charged with serious crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors — and yet, she asks the Court to grant her bail secured only by a foreign property, which provides effectively no security at all. + +Indeed, it is curious that a defendant who appears to have access to millions of dollars has not offered to post a single dime as collateral for the bond she proposes. Instead, as noted, she offers as security a foreign property, which is effectively meaningless. As a practical matter, the Government has no direct way to proceed against foreign property or sureties through bail forfeiture, because the Government cannot seize a foreign citizen's assets abroad or sell property in another nation based on a United States bail forfeiture judgment. The Government would be required to attempt to litigate a property dispute in another country, with a lengthy process and an uncertain outcome. + +Additionally, the defendant proffers no information about her proposed co-signers other than that they are friends and relatives — in particular, she provides no information about the assets of those individuals, including where they are based or whether the Government would be able to collect from them. Nor does she provide information sufficient to know whether her proposed co-signers are so wealthy that they would be willing to purchase the defendant's freedom for \$5 million, an entirely too modest sum for a person of the defendant's means. In any event, as further described below, the defendant appears to have the financial resources to make her cosigners whole if she were to flee. + +The defendant's failure to pledge any liquid assets, or to provide detailed financial information about herself or her proposed co-signers, is particularly jarring because she appears to have access to millions of dollars, principally in foreign accounts. In recent years, the defendant has been associated with multiple accounts with a Swiss bank (the "Swiss Bank") and multiple accounts with at least one bank headquartered in England (the "English Bank"). In 2018 and 2019, Form 114 ("FBAR") submissions on behalf of the defendant filed with the United States Treasury Department list accounts at the English Bank with maximum values totaling well over \$2 million. In connection with the Swiss Bank, the defendant appears to be the grantor of a trust account (the "Trust Account") with a balance in June 2020 of more than \$4 million. Among other transactions, the defendant appears to have transferred approximately \$500,000 in March 2019 from one Swiss Bank account in her name to the Trust Account, and records further reflect a transfer between those same accounts in June 2019 of more than \$750,000. The Trustees of the trust account, each of whom may act independently according to relevant Trust Account documents, appear to include both a relative and a close associate of the defendant. Additionally, the defendant was arrested last week at a property in New Hampshire that was purchased for more than \$1 million in cash in December 2019. It is unknown whether the defendant purchased the property in cash, or whether she has a wealthy patron who did so on her behalf, but either scenario should raise concerns about the defendant's access to fmancial resources that would enable her to flee. + +Moreover, and as set forth in the Detention Memorandum, the defendant has been associated with more than a dozen bank accounts from 2016 to the present, and during that period, the maximum total balances of those accounts have exceeded \$20 million. Those accounts engaged in transfers in amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time. including as recently as 2019. To the extent the defendant now refuses to account for her ownership of or access to vast wealth, it is not because it does not exist — it is because she is attempting to hide it. + +The defendant's proposal of ankle-bracelet monitoring should also be of no comfort to the Court. In particular, a GPS monitoring bracelet is of no persuasion because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant's flight after it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce her head start should she decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is "hardly foolproof."), aff'd, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). + +The defendant has no children in the United States, she does not reside with any immediate family members, and while the Government does not dispute that she is close with several of her siblings, as her time in hiding makes clear, she is clearly capable of maintaining those relationships remotely, which of course she could continue to do from abroad. Moreover, she has citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens, has access to untold financial resources, and has every motivation to escape accountability for her appalling crimes. See United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 255 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ("[T]he combination of Defendant's alleged deceptive actions, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, complete lack of ties to the United States, and extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight.") (citing United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2016 WL 3681423, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)). The defendant's proposed bail package is essentially nothing more than an unenforceable promise to return to Court. Given the gravity of the charged crimes, the defendant's substantial resources, her willingness to evade detection, and her lies under oath, the Court should take the proposed bail package for what it is worth: nothing. + +# V. The COVID-19 Pandemic Does Not Warrant The Defendant's Release + +Finally, the current pandemic is not a reason to release this defendant. Indeed, courts in this district have regularly rejected applications for release based on assertions about the generalized risks of COVID-19. See, e.g., United States v. Paulino, No. 19 Cr. 54 (PGG), 2020 WL 1847914, at •6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2020) (Gardephe, J.) (denying bail application by defendant with hypertension, stating that "[a]s serious as it is, the outbreak of COVID-19 simply does not override the statutory detention provisions [of the Bail Reform Act]" (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Ortiz, 19 Cr. 198 (KPF), 2020 WL 2539124, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) (quoting United States v. Nunez, No. 20 Cr. 239 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (Ramos, J.) ("[B]ecause there is a pandemic does not mean that the jailhouse doors ought to be thrown open")). Significantly, the defendant has not claimed that she is at a higher risk from COVID- I 9 than any other inmate at the MDC, and thus she cannot claim any greater need for bail than the many inmates awaiting trial there; + +The virus, of course, presents new and complex challenges for protecting inmates' health, but the BOP generally, and the MDC specifically, are prepared to handle the risks presented by COVID- I 9 and other health issues. The MDC's response to the pandemic was the subject of extensive evidentiary hearings in the context of a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. See Chunn v. Edge, No. 20 Cr. 1590, 2020 WL 3055669 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020). In Chun», the District Court conducted extensive fact gathering about the conditions at the MDC before concluding that "MDC officials have recognized COVID-19 as a serious threat and responded aggressively." Id. at \*I; see also id. at 25 ("The MDC's response to COVID-19 has been aggressive and has included, among other steps, massively restricting movement within the facility, enhancing sanitation protocols, and creating quarantine and isolation units. And the data though limited—suggests that these measures have been quite effective in containing COVID- I 9 thus far."). + +Numerous judges in this District have rejected applications for release based on assertions about the hypothetical risks of COVID-19, including multiple cases involving defendants who, unlike this defendant, suffer from underlying health conditions. See, e.g., United States v. Calugaru, No. 19 Cr. 651, ECF No. 257 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020) (Swain, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant who was on MDC's initial high-risk list but subsequently removed following new CDC guidance (see ECF Nos. 239, 242, 257)); United States v. Curry, 19 Cr. 742, ECF No. 37 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) (Hellerstein, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by + +3 The defendant also argues that the circumstances of the pandemic would pose a "significant hurdle" to the defendant's ability to flee. Opposition Memorandum at 16. The Government submits that the defendant has the means and resources to find her way out of the country, and a short quarantine period abroad would be a small price to pay to avoid years in prison. + +defendant with asthma); United States v. Medina, 19 Cr. 351, ECF No. 68 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (Marrero, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with diabetes and hypertension); United States v.M, No. 19 Cr. 632, ECF No. 34 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (Daniels, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with high blood pressure and obesity (see ECF Nos. 29, 33, 34)); United States v. Vizcaino, No. 20 Cr. 241, 2020 WL 1862631, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (=, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application and collecting cases in which bail applications have been denied even where defendants have underlying health conditions); United States v. Irizzaty, 17 Cr. 283, 2020 WL 1705424 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020) (Preska, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with asthma and anxiety); United States v. Daniels, 20 Cr. 69, ECF No. 26 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2020) (, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application (see ECF Nos. 19, 26)); United States v.=, 14 Cr. 139, ECF No. 51 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) (Preska, J.) (denying pre-VOSR hearing bail application by inmate on MDC highrisk list with asthma (see ECF Nos. 48, 51)); United States v. Conley, No. 19 Cr. 131, ECF No. 366 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (Engelmayer, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant on high-risk list with asthma, partial lung removal, diabetes, high blood pressure, and hypertension (see ECF Nos. 363, 366)); United States v. No. 20 Cr. 135, 2020 WL 1530746 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (Furman, J.) (denying pre-trial bail application by defendant with asthma); United States v. Acosta, No. 19 Cr. 848, ECF No. 14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (Buchwald, J.) (denying bail application by defendant that relied on general reasons to release inmates because of the spread of the COVID- I 9 virus). As the foregoing citations make clear, the defendants in many of these cases asserted underlying health conditions that purportedly placed them at heightened risk with respect to COVID-19, but courts nevertheless denied their applications in view of the applicable factors under the Bail Reform Act. This Court should reach the same conclusion based on the extraordinary risk of flight described in detail above. + +The defendant's argument that bail is required for her to prepare her defense is equally unpersuasive. Judges in this district have repeatedly held that the current restrictions on inmate access to counsel do not warrant releasing defendants who should otherwise be detained under the Bail Reform Act. See United States v. Tolentino, 20 Cr. 007 (DLC), 2020 WL 1862670, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); United States v. Adamu, 18 Cr. 601 (PGG), 2020 WL 1821717, at \*6 (Apr. 10, 2020); United States v.M, 20 Cr. 63 (PGG), 2020 WL 2521458, at \*5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2020); United States v. Ellison, 18 Cr. 834 (PAE), 2020 WL 1989301, at \*1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27), United States v. Melanted, No. 19 Cr. 443 (LAK), 2020 WL 1644205, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); United States v. Pena, No. 18 Cr. 640 (RA), 2020 WL 1674007, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020). Just last week, a district judge in the Eastern District of New York denied bail to a defendant who argued that restricted access to his counsel at the MDC required his release, while noting the volume of decisions reaching the same conclusion. United States v. Shipp, No. 19 Cr. 299 (NGG), 2020 WL 3642856, \*34 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (collecting cases). + +This Court's decision in Stephens does not compel a different result here. In that case, this Court concluded that bail was necessary in order to permit the defendant to prepare for a significant hearing, which was scheduled for six days later. United States v. Stephens, No. 15 Cr. 95 (MN), 2020 WL 1295155, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding that the limitations on the defendant's access to counsel "impacts the Defendant's ability to prepare his defenses to the alleged violation of supervised release in advance of the merits hearing scheduled for March 25, 2020."). By contrast, no evidentiary hearings have been requested, much less scheduled, in this case, and a trial date has not yet been set. See United States v. , No. 19 Cr. 906 (JMF), 2020 WL 1911209, + +at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020) a fails to demonstrate that temporary release is 'necessary' for the preparation of his defense because, among other things, his trial is not scheduled for another five months."); United States v. Eley, No. 20 Cr. 78 (AT), 2020 WL 1689773, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2020) ("Defendant's request for release is not compelled under the Sixth Amendment; with trial scheduled for nine months from now, this case is distinguishable from other instances in which an imminent evidentiary hearing may support a defendant's temporary release."). + +In fact, the defendant's own motion makes clear that the MDC has been responsive to defense counsel's concerns and has ensured that they have access to their client. As their motion notes, the MDC provided defense counsel with access to their client within three hours of a request earlier this week, despite having zero notice and receiving the request after close of business in the evening. See Opposition Memorandum at 12. For non-emergencies, defense counsel can avail themselves of the scheduling system tint has been instituted at the MDC to request regular calls with their client and will be able to coordinate with MDC legal counsel should an urgent need arise. + +# CONCLUSION + +As set forth above, the defendant is an extreme risk of flight. The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied. + +Dated: New York, New York July 13, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alison Moe + +Alex Rossmiller Maurene Comey + +Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..352e6368c7b058e4ae3d94feda428b23bfb94e46 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449/EFTA02829449.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,968 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829449.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 19, + "chars": 35240, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.26, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM \nIN SUPPORT OF DETENTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.3, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 443.2182312011719, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 443.2182312011719, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 168.3, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM \nIN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DETENTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.3, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 443.2182312011719, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 443.2182312011719, + 293.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 168.3, + 293.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 344.96209716796875, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 344.96209716796875, + 417.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 417.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Defendant's Victims Seek Detention", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 327.7685546875, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 327.7685546875, + 555.4335327148438 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 555.4335327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government's Case Is Strong", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 294.7226867675781, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 294.7226867675781, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Defendant Poses An Extreme Risk of Flight", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 365.7264709472656, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 365.7264709472656, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Defendant's Rail Proposal Offers No SecuriP. For !ler \\ppcarance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 486.2624816894531, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 486.2624816894531, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The COVID-19 Pandemic Does Not Warrant The Defendant's Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 480.0245056152344, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 480.0245056152344, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 707.2560000000001, + 262.08 + ], + [ + 721.5120000000001, + 262.08 + ], + [ + 721.5120000000001, + 350.0912780761719 + ], + [ + 707.2560000000001, + 350.0912780761719 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829449" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e05fd9da0c0a61e6cf815ea420510760cec85075 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +| USDC 1 | +|------------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 7/14/2020 | + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +For the reasons stated on the record at today's proceeding, the Government's motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 14, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc2fbfce80d59a1b26448fa9f690d4e7e04cb52e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468/EFTA02829468.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829468.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 641, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829468" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..add5f12da4f1ec9ab401517112e0a61f63b80f2c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK • - X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. X + +## Check Proceeding that Applies + +x Arraignment + +Date: + +4110\$ 20 + +X + +DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 7/14/2020 + +WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +Ihave been given acopy of the indictment containing the charges against me and have reviewed it with my attorney. I understand that I have aright to appear before ajudge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York to confirm that I have received and reviewed the indictment; to have the indictment read aloud to me if I wish; to enter aplea of either guilty or not guilty before the judge; and to have an attorney beside me as I do. By signing this document, I wish to advise the court that after consultation with my attorney I willingly give up my right to appear in person before the judge for my arraignment. By signing this document, I also wish to advise the court that I willingly give up any right I might have to have my attorney next to me for my arraignment so long as the following conditions are met. I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +G11Oaf te 111.4 k;cl Signature of Defendant kl + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Print Name + +Bail Hearing + +Iam applying or in the future may apply for release from detention, or if not detained, for modification of the conditions of my release from custody, that is, my bail conditions. I understand that I have aright to appear in person before a judge in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York at the time that my attorney makes such an application. I have discussed these rights with my attorney and wish to give up these rights due to the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met. I request that my attorney be permitted to make applications for my release from custody or for modification of the conditions of my release, even though I will not be physically present. I also want the ability to speak privately with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +Date: 6/1/461.1m. 144/Wcak ib v ioI ac4cSignature of Defendant ll + +i + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +X + +Print Name + +Conference + +I have been charged in an indictment with violations of federal law. I understand that I have a right to be present at all conferences concerning this indictment that are held by a judge in the Southern District of New York, unless the conference involves only a question of law. I understand that at these conferences the judge may, among other things, 1) set a schedule for the case including the date at which the trial will be held, and 2) determine whether, under the Speedy Trial Act, certain periods of time should be properly excluded in setting the time by which the trial must occur. I have discussed these issues with my attorney and wish to give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference. By signing t his document, I wish to advise the court that I willingly give up my right to be physically present at the upcoming conference in my case on account of the COVID-19 pandemic so long as the following conditions are met I want my attorney to be able to participate in the proceeding and to be able to speak on my behalf during the proceeding. I also want the ability to speak privatety with my attorney at any time during the proceeding if I wish to do so. + +L114 1141l1Wel Dat7oho\* Signature of Defendant + +Ghislaine Maxwell, by Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Print Name + +I hereby affirm that I am aware of my obligation to discuss with my client the charges contained in the indictment. my clients rights to attend and participate in the criminal proceedings encompassed by this waiver, and this waiver form. I affirm that my client knowingly and voluntarily consents to the proceedings being held in my clients absence. I will inform my client of what transpires at the proceedings and provide my client with a copy of the transcript of the proceedings, if reqyead. + +Date: — Signature of Defense Counsel + +> Chnstian R. Everdell Print Name + +## Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an Interpreter: + +I used the services of an interpreter to discuss these issues with the defendant. The interpreter also translated this document, in its entirety, to the defendant before the defendant signed it. The interpreter's name is: + +Date: Signature of Defense Counsel + +Accepted: Signature of Judge Date: + +7/14/20 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d18eb36bb4f572795e6f02583c0eac09015e7f03 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469/EFTA02829469.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829469.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4782, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.31, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Check Proceeding that Applies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 208.4298858642578, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 208.4298858642578, + 223.8175048828125 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 223.8175048828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Addendum for a defendant who requires services of an Interpreter:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 349.7110900878906, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 349.7110900878906, + 519.9811401367188 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 519.9811401367188 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 518 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829469" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adfad1ec0442d861d4f69c9182f08769c6ab41c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +| USDC 1 | +|------------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 7/15/2020 | + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +At yesterday's proceeding, the Court set the following schedule for this matter: + +- • Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020 +- • Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020 +- • Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020 +- • Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021 +- • Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021 +- • Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 15, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1bdb1d13ecfbdb25f12e5460907df865f970acd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471/EFTA02829471.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829471.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1026, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829471" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0aa309a9804bff6abead17ea9d41570f39c19444 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|-----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 7/21/2020 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 21, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9dd575b7437598b0bb56dd2684613b95297f3fc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472/EFTA02829472.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829472.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 818, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.15, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829472" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b1fe61cf50b441a8834c0d7c2893ae67aa0cefd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON aN N + +July 21, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and MI P.c Jeffrey PagRua° + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com jpagEuca4hmtlaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1 + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant's basic right to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the accused, has "an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity." Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses. + +## Lewd Standard + +More than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the Supreme Court directed trial judges to take "such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (emphasis added). + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 2 + +In an effort to protect the trial process from "prejudicial outside interferences," this Court promulgated Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) which provides, in relevant part, that: + +> It is the duty of the lawyer or law firm, ... and government agents and police officers, not to release or authorize the release of nonpublic information or opinion which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication, in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated, if there is a substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. + +To avoid any confusion this Court identified seven "subject matters" that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." Id. at (d). Accordingly, lawyers for parties and witnesses and their agents are prohibited from publicly disseminating information concerning: + +- (1) The prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments or other charges of crime), or the character or reputation of the accused...; +- (2) The existence or contents of any confession, admission or statement given by the accused, or the refusal or failure of the accused to make any statement; +- (3) The performance of any examinations or tests or the accused's refusal or failure to submit to an examination or test; +- (4) The identity, testimony or credibility of prospective witnesses, except that the lawyer or law firm may announce the identity of the victim if the announcement is not otherwise prohibited by law; +- (5) The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense; +- (6) Information the lawyer or law firm knows is likely to be inadmissible at trial and would if disclosed create a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an impartial trial; and +- (7) Any opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case. + +Id. at (d)(1-7) (emphasis added). + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 3 + +## Recent Prejudicial Public Statements by the Government, its Agents and Counsel to Prospective Witnesses + +Recent public statements by the Government, its agents and counsel for prospective witnesses have included presumptively prejudicial information. + +On July 2, 2020 Ms. Maxwell was arrested without notice to her lawyers who had been in active communication with the Government for one year. Because plain vanilla surrenders lack the fanfare and attendant media coverage afforded to secret, armed, raids at dawn, the Government chose to invade Ms. Maxwell's New Hampshire residence, arrest her, and stage a media presentation that included numerous statements that prejudice Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial. + +Immediately following Ms. Maxwell's arrest, Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss held a press conference in which she commented on Ms. Maxwell's credibility and her incorrect opinions concerning "guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case" in violation of Local Rule 23.1(d)(1), (4) and (7): + +Per the New York Law Journal: + +'Maxwell lied because the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable,' Strauss said at a press conference announcing the charges. 'Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her and then delivered them into the trap that that she and Epstein had set for them. She pretended to be a woman they could trust, all the while she was setting them up to be sexually abused by Epstein and, in some cases, by Maxwell herself.' I + +As reported in the Washington Post, + +Strauss, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said the socialite told that lie and others in deposition because the truth 'was almost unspeakable.' + +Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss called the sex abuse described in the Maxwell case 'the prequel' to the charges they lodged against Epstein.... + +Maxwell played a critical role in helping Epstein to identify, befriend, and groom minor victims for abuse' ... 'In some cases Maxwell participated in the abuse itself.'2 + +httos://www.law.comMewvorklawiourna1/2020/07/02/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-inconnection-with-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-ring/?slreturn=20200614124921 + +2 hups://www.washingtonpost.cominational-security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffreyepstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6 story.html + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 4 + +Although Ms. Strauss sprinkled her comments with the phrase "as alleged," she presented certain of her statements as facts Regardless, after Ms. Strauss's remarks, FBI Special Agent William Sweeney went even further, calling Ms. Maxwell "one of the villains in this investigation" and compared her to a snake that "slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire." Thus, Mr. Sweeney offers the Government's, again flatly wrong, opinions about character and guilt while, at the same time, invoking a semi-biblical reference involving a snake slithering away to a garden in New Hampshire. These types of comments, which serve no compelling law enforcement or investigatory purpose, are prohibited by the local rules of this District. + +New York attorney David Boies and his partner Sigrid McCawley, who represent several witnesses in this matter, have also made public and presumptively prejudicial statements in recent days, notwithstanding the fact that such conduct is prohibited by Local Rule 23.1, which applies to lawyers practicing in this District, generally, and lawyers for witnesses, specifically. See Rule 23.1(a) and (b). + +As reported by the Washington Post, Mr. Boies expressed his views on the prohibited subject of "the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense" in violation of sections (d)(5) and (7) of the Rule: + +Boies said he thinks Maxwell will be 'under tremendous pressure to cooperate' as she looks for ways to shave time off what may be a significant prison sentence. Maxwell could potentially help prosecutors shed light on Epstein's dealings with other wealthy and influential people who may have had encounters with underaged victims, he said, adding 'There were a lot of people with a lot of public stature who were involved with Epstein.'4 + +Ms. McCawley echoed Mr. Boies, saying that, "The pain [Maxwell] has caused will never go away but today is a step toward healing." Id. + +another attorney representing witnesses in this matter made similar presumptively prejudicial statements following Ms. Maxwell's arrest:5 + +'The reality of how this organization worked was that 99.9% of it was orchestrated for Jeffrey Epstein's personal sexual satisfaction. So to the degree that um there was a main facilitator that started the whole thing, it was Ghislaine. + +3 A purported transcript of the press conference is contained on the intemet at hups://www.rev.corniblog/transcripts/announcement-transcript-of-charges-against-ghislainemaxwell-in-new-york-jeffrey-epstein-associate-arrested. + +4 hups://www.washingtonpost.cominational-security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffreyepstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6 story.html + +hups://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKHdzix2kO + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 5 + +So to cooperate in the way that that kind of rumors out there would mean that she's cooperating downwards. She'd be cooperating with people who are much less culpable than her. Will she name names to try to shave years off of what would be a lengthy prison sentence maybe, I think you should probably expect that if she's going to share information that's going to actually help her, it's probably gonna be about unrelated crimes that she may be aware about because with respect to this particular operation, in terms of living people, she's as high as it gets. ... I think like most of my clients would really hope that she does cooperate, at least shares the information that she has. I mean I know that it would only be to help herself but the public deserves to know who was involved besides her and Jeffrey Epstein, and only she knows that. + +The violations of Rule 23.1 did not stop after Ms. Maxwell's arrest and detention. Following the detention hearing on July 14, 2020, Mr. Boies, counsel for one of the accusers who spoke at the hearing, commented on the content of the hearing. As reported by Bloomberg, Mr. Boies offered his gratuitous critique of defense counsel, commented on the credibility of Ms. Maxwell and his client, and commented on what Mr. Boies considers "evidence" in this case, all in violation of subsections (1), (4), (6), and (7) of the Rule: + +That's a dangerous tactic that might backfire at trial, said David Boies, who represents and several other women who say they were sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. ... It's "a tone-deaf argument" that cost Maxwell her credibility, said Boies, who listened to the hearing remotely. + +`To mount a `blame the victim' defense, particularly in today's world and trying to blame these girls for what happened is so contrary to the evidence, is so contrary to people's normal sense of morality,' Boies said. 'I think that's just going to enrage a jury if she goes to trial -- which I would not do if I were representing her.' + +Boies said he was confident would stand up to cross-examination if there's a trial. =, who addressed the court by telephone, urged the judge not to grant Maxwell bail, calling her a `sexual predator who groomed and abused me.' Maxwell `lied under oath and tormented her survivors,' said. Boies said that was a 16-year-old who `wanted to go to college' when she met Maxwell. `Maxwell and Epstein tell Annie and her mother `we're having a group of high school students to this ranch to help them get into college,' Boies said. 'But when Annie gets there, there are no high school students, all these claims are fraudulent and she's in this isolated place in New Mexico.'6 + +6 + +defense-I.1465631 + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 6 + +Mr. Boies and Ms. McCawley gave on-air interviews with ABC News following Ms. Maxwell's detention that contained repeated, presumptively prejudicial quotes, including: 7 + +Boles: Remember these girls were abused twice, once sexually years ago and then a second time when Epstein and Maxwell and all their enablers began these vicious attacks on their credibility. ... No question about it. Maxwell knows where a lot of the bodies are buried. If I was somebody who had participated in their sex trafficking, um, I would not be sleeping easily tonight. + +Boies: I think that [the accusers] want to see her go to trial. On the other hand, the arrest and conviction that would come from a plea deal is an enormous step and I think they also recognize that Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell did not act alone. There are lots of other people that need to be brought to justice. + +McCawley: I think that the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have done an incredible job and they're being very meticulous, they want to make sure that the Indictments stick. ...They took a lot of time to be very careful and thoughtful and that gives me a lot of hope that she will remain in prison for the remainder of her life. ... This morning was a very joyful and tearful filled morning, it was a wonderful moment in my journey with these survivors, to be able to call them and tell them that the one person's who's been out in the public without being held accountable was finally in prison....She was really, Ghislaine was really the central figure, so she worked hand-in-hand with Jeffrey Epstein to be able to facilitate these crimes over the course of more than two decades; and she was the main person who assisted him and allowed him to be able to perpetrate so many crimes against young females. + +These comments violate subsections (6) and (7) of the Rule. + +It appears that given any opportunity lawyers associated with the prosecution of this case will offer any opinion that damages Ms. Maxwell's opportunity for a fair trial. Entry of an order prohibiting extrajudicial statements, therefore, is a necessary remedy to avoid further dissemination of prejudicial information. The Court, under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) should enter an Order, punishable by contempt, that all lawyers associated with this case, and their agents, comply with the Rule and refrain from publicly commenting on the seven prohibited topics identified in subsection (d). + +7 hups://abcnews.go.com/US/ghislaine-maxwelLpsteins-alleged-recruiter-private-battlepublic/story?id=71705375 + +July 21, 2020 + +Page 7 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +![]()Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +cc: + +Alex Rossmiller + +Allison Moe + +Maurene Comey + +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York + +Mark [REDACTED] + +Christian Everdell + +[REDACTED] & Gresser LLP + +Laura A. Menninger + +Haddon, [REDACTED] & [REDACTED], P.C. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04d57663690eacf34d70f188ee7c78f536cefb79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/EFTA02829473.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 15190, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.53, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 124.60272216796875, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 124.60272216796875, + 231.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 231.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Lewd Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 190.21353149414062, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 190.21353149414062, + 596.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 596.6030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Recent Prejudicial Public Statements by the Government, its Agents and Counsel to \nProspective Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 540.3369140625, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 540.3369140625, + 119.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 119.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829473" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f2467dda2300a3722aebe6aaafab9d083b4dcca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829473/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:19e5a9dbfcc3da49682e220ba54ea51de3594d272fa8e34390eaa0c814e8a23b +size 2914 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84ba36f221dcb2b4e6672c0534233ab12caa60b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| Page 1 of 1 | USDC SDNY | +|-----------------------|-----------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: _____ | | +| DATE FILED: 7/23/2020 | | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Defense has moved for an order "prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case." Dkt. No. 27 at 1. + +The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant's motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant's right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: New July 23, York, 2020 + +New York AL. irik`u4tr + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b31a7ef50bd521474276e149f00a2d99fb5d828 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480/EFTA02829480.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829480.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1518, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829480" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74427175b66fbf3cf729b72018d1b19a6b44e302 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.md @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +## Exhibit A + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Government intends to produce to GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, certain documents and materials that (i) affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government's ongoing investigation; (iii) would risk prejudicial pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iv) is not authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond that which is necessary for the defense of this action, and other materials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and pursuant to any other disclosure obligations (collectively, the "Discovery"), which contain sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information; + +WHEREAS, the Government seeks to protect sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information contained in the materials it produces consistent with Rule 16 or other disclosure obligations; + +WHEREAS the defendant, through her counsel, consents to the entry of this Order; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. The Discovery disclosed to the defendant ("Defendant") and/or to the defendant's criminal defense attorneys ("Defense Counsel") during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be copied or otherwise recorded or transmitted by the Defendant except to Defense Counsel, or except as necessary for the Defendant to take notes, which are not to be further transmitted to anyone other than Defense Counsel; + +c) Shall not be disclosed or distributed in any form by the Defendant or her counsel except as set forth in paragraph 1(d) below; + +d) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to the following persons ("Designated Persons"): + +i. investigative, secretarial, clerical, or paralegal personnel employed full-time, part-time, or as independent contractors by the defendant's counsel ("Defense Staff"); + +ii. any expert or potential expert, legal advisor, consultant, or any other individual retained or employed by the Defendant and Defense Counsel for the purpose of assisting in the defense of this case ("Defense Experts/Advisors"); + +iii. such other persons as hereafter may be authorized by Order of the Court ("Other Authorized Persons"); + +e) May be provided to prospective witnesses and their counsel (collectively, "Potential Defense Witnesses"), to the extent deemed necessary by defense counsel, for trial preparation. To the extent Discovery materials are disclosed to Potential Defense Witnesses, they agree that any such materials will not be further copied, distributed, or otherwise transmitted to individuals other than the recipient Potential Defense Witnesses. + +2. The Defendant and Defense Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to any Designated Persons to whom they disclose Discovery materials. Prior to disclosure of Discovery materials to Designated Persons, any such Designated Person shall agree to be subject to the terms of this Order by signing a copy hereof and stating that they "Agree to be bound by the terms herein," and providing such copy to Defense Counsel. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by Defense Counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated. The Defendant and her counsel need + +not obtain signatures from any member of the defense team (i.e., attorneys, experts, consultants, paralegals, investigators, support personnel, and secretarial staff involved in the representation of the defendants in this case), all of whom are nonetheless bound by this Protective Order. + +3. To the extent that Discovery is disseminated by the Government to prospective witnesses and their counsel during the course of its investigation and preparation of the Government's case at trial ("Potential Government Witnesses"), the Discovery shall be used by such Potential Government Witnesses and their counsel solely for purposes of preparing for the trial of this criminal action, and shall not be used by such Potential Government Witnesses or their counsel for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than preparing for the trial of this criminal action. + +4. To the extent that Discovery is disseminated to Defense Experts/Advisors, Other Authorized Persons, or Potential Defense Witnesses, via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel shall encrypt and/or password protect the Discovery. + +5. The Government, the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, Potential Government Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from posting or causing to be posted any of the Discovery or information contained in the Discovery on the Internet, + +including any social media website or other publicly available medium. + +6. The Government (other than in the discharge of their professional obligations in this matter), the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are strictly prohibited from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery. This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, or Other Authorized Persons from disclosing the identity of victims or witnesses to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial. Nor does this Order prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation - criminal or otherwise - relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. + +7. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery, who have not identified themselves publicly as such, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the + +Court. Any such filings much be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +8. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "confidential" stamps, or designated as "confidential" as described below, and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "confidential" in a folder or document title, are deemed "Confidential Information." The Government shall clearly mark all pages or electronic materials containing Confidential Information, or folder or document titles as necessary, with "confidential" designations. + +9. Confidential Information may contain personal identification information of victims, witnesses, or other specific individuals who are not parties to this action, and other confidential information; as well as information that identifies, or could lead to the identification of, witnesses in this matter. The identity of an alleged victim or witness who has identified herself or himself publicly as such shall not be treated as Confidential Information. + +10. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +11. Confidential Information disclosed to the defendant, or Defense Counsel, respectively, during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall be maintained in a safe and secure manner; + +c) Shall be reviewed and possessed by the Defendant in hard copy solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall be possessed in electronic format only by Defense Counsel and by appropriate officials of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), who shall provide the defendant with electronic access to the Discovery, including Confidential Information, consistent with the rules and regulations of the BOP, for the Defendant's review; + +e) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel or when provided access to Discovery materials in electronic format by BOP officials; + +f) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to Designated Persons; + +g) May be shown to, either in person, by videoconference, or via a read-only document review platform, but not disseminated to or provided copies of to, Potential Defense Witnesses, to the extent deemed necessary by Defense Counsel, for trial preparation, and after such individual(s) have read and signed this Order acknowledging that such individual(s) are bound by this Order. + +12. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "highly confidential" stamps or otherwise specifically designated as "highly confidential," and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "highly confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "highly confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "highly confidential" in an index, folder title, or document title, are deemed "Highly Confidential Information." To the extent any Highly Confidential Information is physically produced to the Defendant and Defense Counsel, rather than being made available to the Defendant and Defense Counsel for on-site review, the Government shall clearly mark all such pages or electronic + +materials containing Highly Confidential Information with "highly confidential" stamps on the documents or materials themselves. + +13. Highly Confidential Information contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals. + +14. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Highly Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Highly Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +15. Highly Confidential Information disclosed to Defense Counsel during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be disseminated, transmitted, or otherwise copied and provided to Defense Counsel or the Defendant; + +c) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall not be possessed outside the presence of Defense Counsel, or maintained, by the Defendant; + +e) Shall be made available for inspection by Defense Counsel and the Defendant, under the protection of law enforcement officers or employees; and + +f) Shall not be copied or otherwise duplicated by Defense Counsel or the Defendant during such inspections. + +16. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information referenced in the Discovery, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings much be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +17. The provisions of this Order shall not be construed as preventing disclosure of any information that is publicly available or obtained by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel from a source other than the Government. + +18. Except for Discovery that has been made part of the record of this case, Defense Counsel shall return to the Government or securely destroy or delete all Discovery, + +including but not limited to Confidential Information, within 30 days of the expiration of the period for direct appeal from any verdict in the above-captioned case; the period of direct appeal from any order dismissing any of the charges in the abovecaptioned case; the expiration of the period for a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 45 2255; any period of time required by the federal or state ethics rules applicable to any attorney of record in this case; or the granting of any motion made on behalf of the Government dismissing any charges in the abovecaptioned case, whichever date is later. + +19. The foregoing provisions shall remain in effect unless and until either (a) the Government and Defense Counsel mutually agree in writing otherwise, or (b) this Order is modified by further order of the Court. + +20. The Government and Defense Counsel agree to meet and confer in advance of any hearings or trial to discuss and agree to any modifications necessary for the presentation of evidence at those proceedings. In the absence of agreement, Defense Counsel may make an appropriate application to the Court for any such modifications. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York July , 2020 + +> HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: + +Dated: July , 2020 New York, New York + +> AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +By: Alison Moe / Alex Rossmiller / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys + +Dated: July , 2020 New York, New York + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +By: Mark Esq. Christian Everdell, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Laura Menninger, Esq. Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1519730a681219368010aa6f60d27c7aacd6bc37 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481/EFTA02829481.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,490 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829481.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 13, + "chars": 14715, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.67, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 335.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 378.4438781738281, + 335.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 378.4438781738281, + 370.2633361816406 + ], + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 370.2633361816406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829481" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d58bcf7523e048a7e1b3546c313edce6c2e9ff8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohcngresser.com + +Christian R. Everdcll +1 (212) 957-7600 cacMcIl@cohengresscr.com + +July 27, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +8O3 Thud Averxre New York, NY 10322 +1 212 957 7600 phone "v\ 6thengresser can + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully request that the Court enter a protective order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. + +The government has indicated that it requires the entry of a protective order before producing any discovery material to Ms. Maxwell. On July 9, 2020, the government provided defense counsel with an initial draft of a proposed protective order. Since that time, the parties have conferred several times on conference calls and by email, and have been able to reach agreement on almost all of the provisions of the proposed protective order. + +Two key disputes remain, however, which require the Court's guidance. First, the defense believes that potential government witnesses and their counsel should be subject to the same restrictions as the defense concerning appropriate use of the discovery materials—namely, if these individuals are given access to discovery materials during trial preparation, they may not use those materials for any purpose other than preparing for trial in the criminal case, and may not post those materials on the Internet. Second, the defense believes it should not be restricted from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victims or potential witnesses referenced in the discovery materials who have already identified themselves by speaking on the public record. + +As set forth below, we believe that the proposed protective order contains appropriate restrictions that are no broader than necessary to protect the privacy interests of individuals + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +July 27, 2020 +Page 2 + +referenced in the discovery and guard against prejudicial pretrial publicity, while still ensuring that Ms. Maxwell and defense counsel may adequately prepare and present a full defense at trial. + +### Legal Standard + +Where the government seeks to curtail the use of pretrial discovery, Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that it “show good cause for the issuance of a protective order.” *United States v. Annabi*, No. 10 Cr. 7 (CM), 2010 WL 1253221, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2010). To establish that good cause exists for proposed restrictions in a protective order, the government must show that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” *United States v. Wecht*, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3d Cir. 2007). A finding of harm “must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements.” *United States v. Gangi*, 1998 WL 226196, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not support a good cause showing.” *Wecht*, 484 F.3d at 211. + +Courts must be careful not to impose a protective order that is “broader than is necessary” to accomplish its goals. *United States v. Lindh*, 198 F. Supp. 2d 739, 742 (E.D. Va. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, courts are instructed to “weigh the impact” of requested protections and their extent against a defendant’s “due process right to prepare and present a full defense at trial.” *Id.* + +### Discussion + +#### 1. Restrictions on Use of Discovery Materials + +The government and the defense agree that the protective order should include a restriction prohibiting Ms. Maxwell and defense counsel from (i) using discovery materials “for any civil proceeding or any purpose” other than defending or preparing for this criminal action; or (ii) posting discovery materials on the Internet. *See Ex. A ¶¶ 1(a), 5.* The defense’s proposed protective order would make those same restrictions applicable to potential government witnesses and their counsel so that they are on equal footing with the defense. *See Ex. A ¶¶ 3, 5.* The government has indicated that it cannot agree to such a restriction, despite acknowledging that it will very likely share discovery materials with those individuals during the course of trial preparation. + +As the Court is aware, there is active ongoing civil litigation between Ms. Maxwell and many of the government’s potential witnesses. Moreover, numerous potential witnesses and their counsel have already made public statements about this case to the media since Ms. Maxwell’s arrest. There is a substantial concern that these individuals will seek to use discovery materials to support their civil cases and future public statements. It is therefore vital that the government’s potential witnesses and their counsel be subject to the same restrictions as Ms. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 27, 2020 Page 3 + +Maxwell with respect to using the criminal discovery material solely for the purpose of this criminal case. + +# 2. Victim/Witness Identities + +Ms. Maxwell's proposed protective order prohibits Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials, but does not prohibit defense counsel from publicly referencing individuals "who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation—criminal or otherwise—relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." Id. ¶ 6. This language, which is nearly identical in all material respects to the language in the protective order approved in the government's criminal prosecution of Mr. Epstein, see United States v. Epstein, 19-CR-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019), ensures appropriate privacy protections for alleged victims and should be approved here. + +In contrast to the more permissive language it agreed to with respect to Mr. Epstein, the government has taken the position that Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel should only be allowed to disclose the identity of alleged victims or potential witnesses who have spoken by name on the public record "in this case." The government's proposal, however, advances no compelling privacy protections, and instead prevents the defense from making reference to individuals who have already voluntarily publicly disclosed their identities by, among other things, pursuing civil suits in their own name against Ms. Maxwell and/or Mr. Epstein; speaking by name in the public record in Mr. Epstein's criminal proceedings; participating in on-the-record media interviews; or posting comments under their own names on social media. The government's proposed restriction is therefore "broader than necessary" to protect the privacy interests of these individuals who have already chosen to self-identify, and will hinder the defense's ability to conduct further factual investigation, prepare witnesses for trial, and advocate on Ms. Maxwell's behalf. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 27, 2020 Page 4 + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the Court should enter Ms. Maxwell's proposed protective order. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc2db94b8cbce1bb557cd34b25e7fe5efed3963c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/EFTA02829494.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,286 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7594, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.2, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 202.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.012, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 276.012, + 472.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Restrictions on Use of Discovery Materials", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 353.124, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 353.124, + 498.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 498.15000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Victim/Witness Identities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 270.10662841796875, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 270.10662841796875, + 203.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 203.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829494" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45bb80232e159de6d1dae5f59e274312f1ff6d3d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829494/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:13a81b4a9a9e8b30443c01827e26801377f437ececa2261a533c86eeaab9d71e +size 1578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7773241954ec49f56996333599ec7b7b05629aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PURSUANT TO LOCAL GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +## AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +I, Christian R. Everdell, an attorney duly admitted to practice in New York State and before this Court, declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: + +- 1. I am a partner at & Gresser LLP, counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned case. +- 2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that defense counsel has conferred in good faith with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller, and Maurene Comey regarding the government's proposed protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. +- 3. While the parties have been able to agree on most of the provisions of the protective order, we have been unable to resolve two narrow areas of dispute. + - a. First, the defense believes that potential government witnesses and their counsel should be subject to the same restrictions as the defense concerning appropriate use of the discovery materials—namely, if these individuals are given access to discovery materials during trial preparation, they may not use + +those materials for any purpose other than preparing for trial in the criminal case, and may not post those materials on the Internet. + +- b. Second, the defense believes it should not be restricted from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victims or potential witnesses referenced in the discovery materials who have already identified themselves by speaking on the public record. + +I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. + +Dated: July 27, 2020 /s/ Christian R. Everdell + +New York, New York Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..169854c9743104aabd10a2adc127e0cf41fa1357 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498/EFTA02829498.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829498.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2022, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION \nCRIMINAL RULE 16.1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 347.616, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.1561889648438, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.1561889648438, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 179.01 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829498" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ff4171edafcb4db833152276f48bd74c0269233 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio). Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +July 27, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request the opportunity to respond to defense counsel's letter motion seeking the entry of a protective order, which was filed this morning. The Government and defense counsel were in discussions — as recently as 6 p.m. last night — in the hopes of jointly proposing a protective order. Until seeing the filing on ECF this morning, the Government had understood those discussions to be ongoing. In light of the defense's letter, however, the Government respectfully requests until 5 p.m. tomorrow to submit a response. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: /s Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a3e752fd4aba7fb6a8868ac6756879aba16f860 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/EFTA02829500.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1268, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 71.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 199.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 199.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829500" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a830633b99d58ab006af31ce9ea7dcbbf0dbbab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829500/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e3e392fe502c72ef01bf3a01bd3e9a92cd6887bafa9ab788127a923a11958eb2 +size 3115 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e65f0f934ab6bafb91a253c824ce141c8ec8352 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg) + +**U.S. Department of Justice** + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of New York* + +*The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007* + +July 27, 2020 + +| USDC SDNY | +|------------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 7/27/2020 | + +**VIA ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request the opportunity to respond to defense counsel's letter motion seeking the entry of a protective order, which was filed this morning. The Government and defense counsel were in discussions – as recently as 6 p.m. last night – in the hopes of jointly proposing a protective order. Until seeing the filing on ECF this morning, the Government had understood those discussions to be ongoing. In light of the defense's letter, however, the Government respectfully requests until 5 p.m. tomorrow to submit a response. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS +Acting United States Attorney + +By: /s +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey +Assistant United States Attorneys +Southern District of New York +Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record (by ECF) + +The Government's response to the Defense's letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government's response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. +SO ORDERED. + +SO ORDERED. 7/27/20 + +![]()Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5d6183d8a7f50dae1579f3d0678aa656b3a8b2a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/EFTA02829501.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1922, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.11, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 71.28 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829501" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be23f619351a65318da64dbf84afda449e30e827 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829501/_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2cb49ea679b40bc42cb8dea42df4c74413e96492e0b448409d8913a35965ce2d +size 2773 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..420852f3497c6a46c127ca1ee82a39d4928e3111 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Government intends to produce to GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, certain documents and materials that (i) affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government's ongoing investigation; (iii) would risk prejudicial pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iv) is not authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond that which is necessary for the defense of this action, and other materials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and pursuant to any other disclosure obligations (collectively, the "Discovery"), which contain sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information; + +WHEREAS, the Government seeks to protect sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information contained in the materials it produces consistent with Rule 16 or other disclosure obligations; + +WHEREAS the Government has applied for the entry of this Order; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. The Discovery disclosed to the defendant ("Defendant") and/or to the defendant's criminal defense attorneys ("Defense Counsel") during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be copied or otherwise recorded or transmitted by the Defendant, except to Defense Counsel, or except as necessary for the Defendant to take notes, which are not to be further transmitted to anyone other than Defense Counsel; + +c) Shall not be disclosed or distributed in any form by the Defendant or her counsel except as set forth in paragraph 1(d) below; + +d) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to the following persons ("Designated Persons"): + +i. investigative, secretarial, clerical, or paralegal personnel employed full-time, part-time, or as + +independent contractors by the defendant's counsel ("Defense Staff"); + +ii. any expert or potential expert, legal advisor, consultant, or any other individual retained or employed by the Defendant and Defense Counsel for the purpose of assisting in the defense of this case ("Defense Experts/Advisors"); + +iii. such other persons as hereafter may be authorized by Order of the Court ("Other Authorized Persons"); + +e) May be provided to prospective witnesses and their counsel (collectively, "Potential Defense Witnesses"), to the extent deemed necessary by defense counsel, for trial preparation. To the extent Discovery materials are disclosed to Potential Defense Witnesses, they agree that any such materials will not be further copied, distributed, or otherwise transmitted to individuals other than the recipient Potential Defense Witnesses. + +2. The Defendant and Defense Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to any Designated Persons to whom they disclose Discovery materials. Prior to disclosure of Discovery materials to Designated Persons, any such Designated Person shall agree to be subject to the terms of this Order by signing a copy hereof and stating that they "Agree to be bound by the terms herein," and providing such copy to Defense Counsel. All + +such acknowledgments shall be retained by Defense Counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated. The Defendant and her counsel need not obtain signatures from any member of the defense team (i.e., attorneys, experts, consultants, paralegals, investigators, support personnel, and secretarial staff involved in the representation of the defendants in this case), all of whom are nonetheless bound by this Protective Order. + +3. To the extent that Discovery is disseminated to Defense Experts/Advisors, Other Authorized Persons, or Potential Defense Witnesses, via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel shall encrypt and/or password protect the Discovery. + +4. The Government, the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from posting or causing to be posted any of the Discovery or information contained in the Discovery on the Internet, including any social media website or other publicly available medium. + +5. The Government (other than in the discharge of their professional obligations in this matter), the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are strictly prohibited from publicly + +disclosing or disseminating the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery. This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel or Defense Staff from referencing the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant to the defense to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial. Any Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel who are provided identifying information by Defense Counsel or Defense Staff are prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating such identifying information. This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken by name on the public record in this case. + +6. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery, who have not spoken by name on the public record in this case, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings must be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +7. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "confidential" stamps, or designated as "confidential" as described below, and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "confidential" in a folder or document title, are deemed "Confidential Information." The Government shall clearly mark all pages or electronic materials containing Confidential Information, or folder or document titles as necessary, with "confidential" designations. + +8. Confidential Information may contain personal identification information of victims, witnesses, or other specific individuals who are not parties to this action, and other confidential information; as well as information that identifies, or could lead to the identification of, witnesses in this matter. The identity of an alleged victim or witness who has identified herself or himself publicly as such on the record in this case shall not be treated as Confidential Information. + +9. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +10. Confidential Information disclosed to the defendant, or Defense Counsel, respectively, during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall be maintained in a safe and secure manner; + +c) Shall be reviewed and possessed by the Defendant in hard copy solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall be possessed in electronic format only by Defense Counsel and by appropriate officials of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), who shall provide the defendant with electronic access to the Discovery, including Confidential Information, consistent with the rules and regulations of the BOP, for the Defendant's review; + +e) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel or when provided access to Discovery materials in electronic format by BOP officials; + +f) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to Designated Persons; + +g) May be shown to, either in person, by videoconference, or via a read-only document review platform, but not disseminated to or provided copies of to, Potential Defense Witnesses, to the extent deemed necessary by Defense Counsel, for trial preparation, and after such individual(s) have read and signed this Order acknowledging that such individual(s) are bound by this Order. + +11. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "highly confidential" stamps or otherwise specifically designated as "highly confidential," and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "highly confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "highly confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "highly confidential" in an index, folder title, or document title, are deemed "Highly Confidential Information." To the extent any Highly Confidential Information is physically produced to the Defendant and Defense Counsel, rather than being made available to the Defendant and Defense Counsel for on-site review, the + +Government shall clearly mark all such pages or electronic materials containing Highly Confidential Information with "highly confidential" stamps on the documents or materials themselves. + +12. Highly Confidential Information contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals. + +13. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Highly Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Highly Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +14. Highly Confidential Information disclosed to Defense Counsel during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be disseminated, transmitted, or otherwise copied and provided to Defense Counsel or the Defendant; + +c) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall not be possessed outside the presence of Defense Counsel, or maintained, by the Defendant; + +e) Shall be made available for inspection by Defense Counsel and the Defendant, under the protection of law enforcement officers or employees; and + +f) Shall not be copied or otherwise duplicated by Defense Counsel or the Defendant during such inspections. + +15. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information referenced in the Discovery, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings must be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +16. The provisions of this Order shall not be construed as preventing disclosure of any information, with the exception of victim or witness identifying information, that is publicly available or obtained by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel from a source other than the Government. + +17. Except for Discovery that has been made part of the record of this case, Defense Counsel shall return to the Government or securely destroy or delete all Discovery, including but not limited to Confidential Information, within 30 days of the expiration of the period for direct appeal from any verdict in the above-captioned case; the period of direct appeal from any order dismissing any of the charges in the abovecaptioned case; the expiration of the period for a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; any period of time required by the federal or state ethics rules applicable to any attorney of record in this case; or the granting of any motion made on behalf of the Government dismissing any charges in the abovecaptioned case, whichever date is later. + +18. The foregoing provisions shall remain in effect unless and until either (a) the Government and Defense Counsel mutually agree in writing otherwise, or (b) this Order is modified by further order of the Court. + +19. The Government and Defense Counsel agree to meet and confer in advance of any hearings or trial to discuss and agree to any modifications necessary for the presentation of evidence at those proceedings. In the absence of agreement, + +Defense Counsel may make an appropriate application to the Court for any such modifications. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York , 2020 + +> HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17c83cb818d7b783b2ed341085ffc74a6d2ef4fe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502/EFTA02829502.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,432 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829502.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 13852, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.53, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829502" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0e56147aeaa5140efa54f722bb0649bcc15d10e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.md @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York R)007 + +July 28, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement on much of the proposed protective order. However, the parties disagree as to two inclusions sought by the defendant which the Government objects to and for which, as detailed herein, the Government submits there is no legal basis. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court enter its proposed protective order (the "Government Proposed Order"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which differs from the defendant's proposed order in those two respects, as further described below. + +## A. The Defendant's Request to be Permitted to Publicly Name and Identify Victims + +As detailed herein, the Government seeks to protect the identities of victims, consistent with their significant privacy interests and the well-established law in this Circuit, and proposes a protective order consistent with those very significant interests. In contrast, the defendant insists that the protective order be modified such that she and her counsel would be permitted to "publicly referenc[e]" individuals, by name, who have "spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation — criminal or otherwise — relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell."' + +I Specifically, the defendant's proposed protective order differs from the Government's in that it adds a sentence, in its paragraph 6 (which is paragraph 5 of the Government Proposed Order), stating the following: "Nor does this Order prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken on the record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation — criminal or otherwise — relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." The defendant also either adds + +July 28, 2020 + +Page 2 + +The defendant's demand that she and her counsel be permitted to name any individuals who have ever publicly identified themselves as a victim of either Epstein or the defendant in any "public fora," and at any time, without limitation, is extraordinarily broad, unnecessary, and inappropriate, and should be denied. + +As an initial matter, there can be no serious question that there are significant privacy and victim interests at issue here, which the Government Proposed Order seeks to protect. Particularly in the context of victim witnesses, there are compelling reasons to limit public disclosure of victim identities and other sensitive information. Indeed, the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, requires district courts to implement procedures to ensure that crime victims are accorded, among other rights, "[t]he right to be reasonably protected from the accused," in addition to "[t]he right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Id. (a)( I), (a)(8) (emphasis added). Moreover, "the public generally has a strong interest in protecting the identities of... victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." United States v. Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007). + +Moreover, and consistent with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at stake, while Corley's interests are minimal, the Court fords good cause to modify the protective order in this case to prevent Corley from learning the surnames of the minor victims."); United States v. Kelly, 07 Cr. 374 (SJ), 2008 WL 5068820, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2008) ("Given the potentially explicit nature of the government witnesses' expected testimony, the government argues that it is necessary to conceal their identity to protect them from public humiliation and embarrassment. This Court agrees. Thus, the parties [...] are hereby prohibited from releasing to anyone, including members of the press, the identity or any identifying information of the government's witnesses."). It is similarly routine in this District for parties in a criminal case to refer to witnesses by pseudonyms (such as "Victim-1" or "Witness-1") to protect the privacy interests of third parties unless and until they testify publicly. + +The Government's proposed order endeavors to protect those interests by generally requiring the parties to abstain from identifying any victim by name in any public statement or filing while also ensuring that the defendant and her counsel are fully able to prepare for trial. Indeed, to facilitate the defendant's investigation and preparation for trial, the Government's proposal makes clear that defense counsel and defense staff, including defense investigators, should not be prohibited from referencing identities of individuals in conversations with prospective witnesses, so long as those witnesses and their counsel abstain from further disclosing or disseminating any such identities. See Government Proposed Order ¶ 5. The terms of the Government's proposed order also would permit defense counsel to refer to any individual by name in any filing under seal, merely requiring redaction of identifying information or the use of a pseudonym in public filings. The Government further proposes that defense counsel not be prohibited from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken—or who at some future time + +or deletes language in furtherance of its desire to publicly reference victim identities in defense paragraphs 7, 9, and 17 (which are Government Proposed Order paragraphs 6, 7, and 16). + +Page 3 + +speak—by name on the public record in this case, as one victim has already chosen to do, because those victims, and only those victims, have affirmatively chosen to be publicly identified in connection with this case. These proposals are reasonable, narrowly tailored, and not broader than necessary to protect victims' privacy interests, safety, and well-being, to avoid potential harassment of witnesses by the press and others, and to prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences. At this stage in the case, permitting defense counsel to refer to witnesses by name in sealed filings, to refer to witnesses by name in the course of private conversations during their investigation, and to refer by name to individuals who have made the affirmative choice to be identified by name in connection with this criminal case is more than enough to enable the defendant ability to vigorously pursue her defense. + +The defendant has rejected this proposal because, as noted above, she believes that she and her counsel should be permitted to "publicly referenc[e]" individuals, by name, who have "spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation – criminal or otherwise – relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." In support of the defendant's application for such sweeping ability to publicly name any such individuals, defense counsel provides only the conclusory assertion that an inability to publicly reference the names of victims, in court proceedings and beyond, will hinder their ability to investigate, prepare witnesses for trial, and advocate on the defendant's behalf. The Government has repeatedly asked defense counsel to explain how or why it would need to publicly name victims of sexual abuse to prepare for trial, and the defense repeatedly has declined to do so, presumably because the argument borders on the absurd.2 + +The Government's proposed protective order would do no such thing. As described above, the Government's proposed order would permit defense counsel and defense staff to reference the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant to the defense to potential witnesses and their counsel (who then would be prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating such identifying information). Government Proposed Order ¶ 5. It would further permit the defendant to publicly identify individuals who have chosen to speak on the record on this case. *Id.* ¶ 6. And it would permit the defendant to reference identifying information in filings made under seal. *See id.* + +--- + +2 Despite the Government's requests for clarity on the need for the defendant's requested modification, the sole additional reason provided by defense counsel for why it would be appropriate or necessary to publicly name victims is that certain of these victims have obtained what defense counsel described as the "benefit" of publicly identifying themselves as victims (and thus, as the defendant presumably would have it, deserve whatever public identification and scrutiny the defendant intends to invite upon them). Beyond the offensive notion that victims of sexual abuse experience a "benefit" by making the incredibly difficult decision to share their experience publicly, the suggestion that victims who receive this supposed "benefit" should receive fewer protections than the law ordinarily offers to victims in criminal cases is alarming. Permitting defense counsel to publicly identify witnesses who have not identified themselves on the record in this case risks subjecting witnesses to harassment and intimidation, with no conceivable benefit to the defense other than perhaps discouraging witnesses from cooperating with the Government. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +July 28, 2020 +Page 4 + +Moreover, the defendant is able, at any time, to apply to the Court for a modification of the protective order should she be able to identify a particularized need to publicly name victims who have not yet identified themselves on the record in this case—as opposed to redacting their names from court filings, or referring to them in an anonymized fashion. As noted, to date, defense counsel has declined to identify to the Court or to the Government *any* example of why doing so would be necessary or helpful to the defense, or even under what circumstances the defense might want to do so. + +The defendant's proposal is also extraordinarily broad, and without any temporal or subject matter limitation as to the phrase "public fora." Adopting the defendant's proposal would mean that any individual who has *ever* self-identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell publicly in *any capacity* would be subject to public identification by the defendant and her counsel in connection with this case. This would include, as hypothetical examples, someone who spoke to a journalist for a local story in 1997, or posted on a MySpace page followed by a handful of friends in 2005, or made a statement on a small podcast in 2009, or posted on Twitter to a handful of followers in 2013. But none of these examples of ventures into the "public fora" can possibly be construed as efforts by hypothetical victims to consent or choose "to self-identify," Def. Ltr. at 3, in a future criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell subject to extraordinary public attention and scrutiny. + +Additionally, while some individuals have identified themselves as victims without providing any details or additional information about their abuse, the defense contemplates no limitation of publicly associating those individuals with the details of their abuse in public defense statements or filings. In essence, the defendant's proposal seeks authorization to drag into the public glare any victim who has ever made any type of public statement of victimization—no matter how long ago or how brief—without that victim's knowing consent and without any substantive justification. That is particularly troubling given that the Government expects to make productions of discovery and 3500 materials well surpassing its obligations. Those productions will necessarily include the identities of individuals whom the Government does not expect to call as witnesses, and whose accounts—much less identities—will have no bearing on this case. But the defendant's proposal would allow her and her counsel to publicly name them in any public statement or filing at their sole discretion. This is plainly unnecessary for any investigative steps or trial preparation, would be grossly inappropriate and unfair, and would be inconsistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act. + +Conversely, the Government's submission proposes that the defendant and her counsel not be precluded from discussing publicly individuals who identify themselves on the record in this criminal prosecution, because any such individuals will have made a conscious and informed choice to be associated publicly with this case. *See* Government Proposed Order ¶¶ 5, 6, 8. The identity of any other individuals should be protected from public broadcast by the defendant and her counsel. + +The defendant argues that her proposed language is "nearly identical in all material respects" to the protective order entered in *United States v. Epstein*, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (Dkt. 38). Def. Ltr. at 3. In the first instance, that is false. The protective order in the *Epstein* case included + +July 28, 2020 + +Page 5 + +a provision stating that it did not prohibit defense counsel from publicly referencing individuals who had spoken on the public record in litigation relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Id. ¶ 4. Here, defense counsel seeks permission to publicly identify any individuals who have self-identified as victims of either the defendant or Epstein "to the media or in public fora, or in litigation"—a vastly broader allowance. Indeed, as a comparison, none of the hypothetical examples described above would have been subject to public naming and identification under the Epstein protective order, but every single one would be under the defendant's proposed order in this case. + +Additionally, beyond the differences in the language itself, there are two significant differences between the circumstances of the Epstein prosecution and this case. First, at the time the Epstein protective order was entered, there were exceptionally few victims who had identified themselves by name in litigation. Accordingly, the practical application of that provision was extremely limited. Second, and related, in the time between when the Epstein protective order was entered and the indictment in this case, many more victims have made public statements about their victimization at the hands of Epstein, and the defendant, on their own terms and in their own ways, including by exercising their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the context of the dismissal of the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein following his suicide. Those victims could not possibly have predicted, much less chosen, that their names would be publicly broadcast by defense counsel in connection with a subsequent criminal case. Victims should be able to continue to come forward, in the ways and in the venues they themselves choose, without fear of reprisal, shaming, or other consequence arising from having their identities broadcast by defense counsel in this case. + +In sum, the requested modification to the Government's proposed order sought by the defendant is contrary to precedent and the compelling privacy interests of victims. Moreover, it is without basis in fact or law, and, despite the Government's repeated requests for clarity, the defendant and defense counsel have offered no legitimate reason for their desire to be able to publicly identify any number of victims, in the context of this criminal case and elsewhere, other than a minimal, conclusory statement, without factual examples or legal support.' At bottom, the defendant and her counsel seek an unlimited ability to name victims and witnesses publicly, for no discernible reason, and without justification or legal basis. The victims of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein have suffered enough, and the Crime Victims' Rights Act, applicable law, and common decency compel far more protection of their privacy interests here than the defense proposal would afford. + +## B. The Defendant's Demand that the Government Restrict Use of its Own Documents + +The defendant and her counsel also ask the Court to impose restrictions upon the Government in its use, through potential witnesses and their counsel, of documents it currently possesses, beyond the already-extensive restrictions and protections applicable to the + +3 To the extent defense counsel attempts to provide such examples or arguments for the first time in a reply filing, the Government respectfully requests leave to reply to those examples or arguments. + +July 28, 2020 + +Page 6 + +Government.' The defendant cites not a single example in any district court in the country where such a restriction has been imposed in a protective order. Indeed, it is nonsensical for a protective order to require limitations of the Government in its use of material already in its possession so that the Government may provide a defendant with discovery. The defendant's attempt to refuse to agree to receive discovery unless the Government agrees to additional restrictions upon the use of its own materials should be rejected. + +As an initial matter, the Government's use of materials it has gathered through its investigation, including through the grand jury process, search warrants, interviews, and voluntary disclosures, is already subject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the Government has informed defense counsel, the Government has no intention of providing witnesses, victims or their counsel with the entirety of discovery produced to the defendant, nor anything even close to that. Indeed, consistent with its standard practice, the Government rarely provides any third party, including a witness, with any material they did not already possess. While the Government does more commonly show a witness materials in connection with proffers or trial preparation, the Government rarely if ever shows a witness material she has not already seen, does not have personal knowledge of, or would not have some specific reason to opine upon. Practically speaking, therefore, the concerns defense counsel raises about future use in civil litigation are not likely to occur. + +Nevertheless, a criminal protective order is not the appropriate forum for the defendant to demand restrictions on the Government's use of its own materials. To the contrary, as noted above, many of those restrictions are already established by rule and law—standards the defendant makes no suggestion the Government has failed to adhere to in this case. Moreover, the Government as a whole, including those beyond the prosecutors on this case, may have obligations that would conflict with such language in a protective order. For example, the Government has obligations under various statutory and regulatory regimes, including but not limited to the Freedom of Information Act and Touhy v. Roger:, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), that cannot be bargained away through a protective order. Indeed, the Government can represent that the Department of Justice has received both FOIA and Touhy requests in connection with this investigation, requests to which the Department has a legal obligation to respond appropriately. The Government respectfully submits it would be inappropriate for the defendant to seek—or the Court to order—language in a protective order that conflicts with or supersedes those obligations. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority or precedent for her request regarding this issue. + +By contrast, to the extent the defendant intends to produce reciprocal discovery to the Government, it may in that case be appropriate to limit the Government's use, or third parties' use, + +Specifically, the defendant's proposed protective order differs from the Government's in that it adds a paragraph, its paragraph 3, proposing restrictions upon the Government and its potential witnesses, and their counsel, as well as adding language to its paragraph 5, which is Government paragraph 4, further restricting potential government witnesses and their counsel. + +July 28, 2020 + +Page 7 + +of such materials provided by the defendant to the Government. But there is no basis to add additional restrictions upon the Government's use of materials gathered by the Government itself. + +The defendant's only counter-argument, as noted—that this Court should put third parties "on equal footing with the defense"—is both unlikely to be relevant given the Government's standard practice, as described above, and, the Government submits, an irrelevant consideration in the context of a criminal protective order. Indeed, the Government respectfully submits that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases. + +In sum, the defendant's attempt to restrict the Government and to restrict third parties in this way appears to be unprecedented, and is without legal basis, and should be denied. + +Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court should enter the Government's proposed protective order, which is enclosed, and deny the defendant's motion. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AU REY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2415 + +Cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4188eefe3468a74773059c7819f93d6f4c0086e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/EFTA02829514.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 22488, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 71.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Defendant's Request to be Permitted to Publicly Name and Identify Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.084, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 516.4884033203125, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 516.4884033203125, + 551.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 96.084, + 551.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant's Demand that the Government Restrict Use of its Own Documents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 578.34 + ], + [ + 527.7410888671875, + 578.34 + ], + [ + 527.7410888671875, + 594.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 594.3630218505859 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829514" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5cb35f2b561450d65a0da22a86d8a86d0b58bf1c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829514/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:82c5dcef18e6416f2edba1e5a56833a33f57efe32af862d80063afeb9d01a613 +size 3359 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6542d64d291d64195c7418a3804cf000a333720d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Defendant. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) x SS.: + +ALEX ROSSMILLER, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury: + +I. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the Assistants who represents the Government in these proceedings. + +2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that the Government has conferred in good faith with counsel to the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding the Government's proposed protective order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. + +3. The parties have been able to agree on most of the provisions of a protective order. However, the parties have been unable to resolve two areas of dispute. + +a. First, the defendant and her counsel have objected to the Government's proposal that the defense be permitted to reference identities of witnesses and victims to prospective defense witnesses (so long as those witnesses and their counsel abstain from further disclosing or disseminating any such identities), and be permitted to reference publicly any victim + +who has spoken—or who at some future time speaks—by name on the public record in this case, and otherwise be permitted to identify victim names in sealed filings, or identify victims by pseudonyms in public filings, or redact victim names in public filings, but that the defendant and her counsel be restricted from otherwise publicly referencing witness or victim identities. That disagreement is reflected in the differences between the Government's proposed order paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 16 and the corresponding defense proposed paragraphs 6, 7, 9, and 17. + +b. Second, the defendant and her counsel have proposed certain restrictions on the Government and potential Government witnesses and their counsel. For the reasons set forth in the Government's accompanying letter, the Government does not believe that such restrictions are warranted or appropriate. That disagreement is reflected in the defendant's proposed paragraph 3, which does not have a corresponding paragraph in the Government's proposed order, and in the differences between the Government's proposed order paragraph 4 and the corresponding defense proposed paragraph 5. + +4. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. + +Dated: New York, New York July 28, 2020 + +Alex Rossmiller Assistant United States Attorney Telephone: (212) 637-2415 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97a4468f2798c45c843f8dbe35bbfd0946251fa2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521/EFTA02829521.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829521.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2729, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 101.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829521" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0eda0ccea6844c4be140c89ed5b6c31bbfe507ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +Mark S. +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohengresser.com + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 tacniclItkohengrcsscr.rom + +July 29, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter to reply to the government's response letter and submission regarding the proposed protective order in the above-captioned case, dated July 28, 2020 ("Government's Response" or "Gov't Resp.") (Dkt. 33). + +The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order. The parties agree that there are two areas of dispute as to which we require guidance from the Court. As noted in our opening letter and below, we respectfully submit that the arguments made by the government are unavailing, and that the defense's proposed protective order, attached as Exhibit A to our initial submission (Dkt. 29), should be entered by the Court. + +## I. Referencing Individuals Who Have Publicly Identified Themselves + +The starting point for evaluating the scope of a proposed protective order is whether there are valid privacy interests at issue. It is the government's burden to establish "good cause" that disclosure will cause "a clearly defined and serious injury." United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Court should also ensure that the proposed restriction is "no broader than is necessary" to protect that interest, and must consider the impact that the restriction may have "on a defendant's due process right to prepare and present a full defense at trial." United States v. Lindh, 198 F. Supp. 2d 739, 742 (E.D. Va. 2002). Throughout its letter, the government inverts this standard, claiming that the burden is on the defense (which, + +of course, has not had access to the discovery materials) to anticipate and respond to government hypotheticals regarding what the discovery might contain, and how language might address such hypotheticals. But that is not the standard. + +The defense submits that when the relevant privacy interests are appropriately considered, it should not be restricted from publicly referencing individuals who have chosen to publicly identify themselves. Accordingly, the defense has proposed that the protective order include the following language: "Nor does this Order prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation — criminal or otherwise — relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." (Dkt. 29, Ex. A ¶ 6). + +In the present context, many of the alleged victims have chosen to identify themselves by name in numerous public fora, including: self-identifying and speaking on the record in criminal proceedings in the Jeffrey Epstein case and this case; as named plaintiffs in civil suits against Ms. Maxwell and others; in on-the-record interviews with media and tabloid publications and newspaper articles; publishing memoirs; appearing on air in Netflix documentaries and other television and film productions; appearing in YouTube videos; and making, in their own name, all manner of social media posts. Indeed, a Google search will reveal any number of videos and articles in which alleged victims not only identify themselves, but make specific allegations against Ms. Maxwell. As a matter of common sense, and under the law, such persons do not have any privacy interest that needs to be addressed by the proposed order. See Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 494-95 (1975) (noting, in a case where the identity of a minor rape victim was disclosed in publicly filed indictments, that "the interests in privacy fade when the information involved already appears on the public record."). + +Yet, the government asserts that such persons nevertheless have "significant privacy interests" (Gov't Resp. at I), and proposes the much more limited formulation: "This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken by name on the public record in this case" — i.e., in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). (Dkt. 33, Ex. A ¶ 5 (emphasis added)). As a practical matter, the government's proposed language would permit the defense to publicly reference a total of one person — the individual who spoke under her own name at Ms. Maxwell's bail hearing. (See Tr. at 40). It would not include the 11 alleged victims who spoke or submitted letters under their own names at the August 27, 2019 hearing in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, I 9-CR-00490-RMB, even though five of those individuals made allegations against Ms. Maxwell. (See Dkt. 53 at 43-44, 55, 56, 57, 58). It would not include the four individuals who have civilly sued Ms. Maxwell under their own names alleging conduct similar to that alleged in the indictment. Nor would it include numerous other individuals, described above, who have spoken out publicly to the press or on social media and made accusations against Ms. Maxwell. Indeed, the government's proposed language is even more restrictive than what they previously agreed to in the Epstein case, which allowed Epstein's counsel to publicly reference individuals who had identified themselves in + +both the criminal case and in civil suits against him. United States v. Epstein, 19-CR-00490- RMB (Dkt. 38 ¶ 4). + +The government's position would unfairly limit the defense, and goes further than is required to protect valid privacy interests. More to the point, it does not meet the government's burden under the law. As this Court recently recognized in v. Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Hosp., No. 14-CV-5910 (AJN), 2019 WL 4640054 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019), an individual's privacy interest in sensitive information is relinquished by knowing and intentional public disclosure. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that hospital staff violated his privacy rights by disclosing his HIV status to patients and other staff. Nevertheless, because the plaintiff had, himself, disclosed his HIV status to the entire hospital he "forfeited any reasonable expectation that this information would remain confidential[.]" Id. at \*5; see also In re Avaya, Inc., No. 17-10089 (SMB), 2019 WL 1750908, at \*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019) ("[A] a n waives his right to privacy when he puts the private information at issue in a lawsuit."); v. NBC Universal, 524 F. Supp. 2d 315, 328-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that facts disclosed in video broadcast on national television with plaintiff's express permission "cannot be considered private"); id. at n. 84 ("There is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff that is already public.") (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. b (1977)). The cases that the government cites in its letter are inapposite, as none addressed the privacy rights of victims and witnesses who had voluntarily disclosed their identities to the public. (Gov. Resp. at 2.).2 + +Moreover, the language proposed by the defense will permit it to conduct a full and meaningful investigation, upon receiving the discovery, which is required for the effective assistance of counsel. Our client, of course, is presumed innocent, and intends to fight the charges against her. The defense believes that there are individuals who have exculpatory evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell, and information bearing on the credibility of the alleged victims and witnesses. Although the government's proposed protective order would allow for some investigation in this regard, permitting defense counsel and defense investigators to + +I The government indicates that there may be alleged victims and witnesses who have chosen to remain anonymous. (Gov't Rap. at 4). As reflected in our proposed order, the defense has agreed not to mention publicly the identities of any such individuals. Instead, to satisfy its burden, the government posits a series of "hypothetical examples" relating to individuals and the type of interactions they may have had with various public fora. (Id.). Hypothetical examples are not a showing of "good cause." Moreover, the defense cannot address these scenarios without knowing if they relate to actual persons, and if so, the nature of such interactions. + +2 See United States v. Corley, No. 13-CR-48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*3-\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (this Court denied the defendant's request for the disclosure of the Ml names of victims whose surnames had previously been concealed from the public record); United States v. Paris, No. CR. 3:06-CR-64 (CFD), 2007 WL 1484974, at •2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007) (permitting several victim witnesses to testify at trial without disclosing their full names where they had not previously been publicly identified as sex workers); United States v. Kelly, No. 07-CR-374 (SI), 2008 WL 5068820, at •2 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2008) (prohibiting public disclosure of identities of government witnesses where there was no indication that the names previously appeared in the public record). + +reference the identities of the alleged victims in conversations with prospective witnesses (Gov't Resp. at 2), the defense will be limited in our ability to locate these witnesses without the broader language proposed in our protective order. It is therefore important to the defense investigation and Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial that the protective order not restrict the defense's ability to publicly reference the names of Ms. Maxwell's accusers who have already chosen to publicly identify themselves.3 + +Finally, the government's claim that the discovery will include the identities of individuals "whom the Government does not expect to call as witnesses, and whose accounts much less identities—will have no bearing on this case" is beside the point. (Gov't Resp. at 4). If the government were prepared to represent that it will base its case solely on the three individuals referenced in the indictment, the analysis might be different. But that is unlikely. And it goes without saying that since the defense does not have a single page of discovery yet, much less the government's witness list, we cannot know which of the individuals referenced in the discovery the government plans to use as a witness at trial, or whether such witnesses may be relevant to a potential defense presentation. Accordingly, the defense needs the ability to conduct an appropriate investigation and the protective order should not curtail that ability when there is no countervailing privacy interest to protect. + +## 2. Preventing the Improper Use of Discovery Materials by Potential Government Witnesses and Their Counsel + +The defendant's proposed protective order subjects potential government witnesses and their counsel to the same restrictions as the defense concerning appropriate use of the discovery materials—namely, if these individuals are given access to discovery materials during trial preparation in this case, they may not use those materials for any purpose other than preparing for trial in the criminal case and may not post those materials on the Internet. (See Dkt. 29 at 2; Ex. A ¶¶ 3, 5). + +The government construes the defense's proposal as one that "impose[s] restrictions upon the Government" itself. (Gov. Resp. at 5 (emphasis added)). It then provides a list of other statutes and regulations that might impose restrictions on the government that may be in conflict with the protective order, arguing that this possibility for conflict warrants rejection of the defense's proposed language.4 + +3 It is not, as the government gratuitously asserts, so that the defense can engage in witness intimidation. (Gov't Resp. at 3 n.2). + +4 The government does not explain why, in the event of such conflict, it could not apply to the Court for resolution of potentially competing obligations. + +But this argument misses the point. The defense does not seek to impose any restrictions on the government's ability to share discovery materials with prospective witnesses and their counsel in whatever manner it deems necessary and appropriate. Instead, the defense is seeking a restriction, not on the government, but on what the prospective witnesses and their counsel can do with those materials in the interest of fairness to the defendant. + +The government argues that the defense's proposal should be rejected because there does not appear to be a similar precedent. (Id. at 6). But the defense's proposal is necessary given the uncommon circumstances of this case. Here, there are numerous women who may be witnesses in the government's case who have simultaneously sued Ms. Maxwell, alleging the same conduct as that alleged in the indictment. Indeed, the criminal case and the civil cases are already intertwined because significant portions of the indictment appear to be based on a 2019 civil complaint filed against Ms. Maxwell by one of her accusers. Many of the accusers have also repeatedly made public allegations against Ms. Maxwell in the press and on social media. The defense has a legitimate concern that these individuals and their counsel will impermissibly use any discovery materials that are shared with them in this case to bolster their civil cases or to run to the press. As such, it is appropriate for the Court to require that the government's witnesses and their counsel, like the defendant and defense counsel, must use the discovery materials only for the purpose of preparing the criminal case. + +For the reasons set forth above, and in our opening letter, we respectfully submit that the Court should enter the defendant's proposed protective order. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17df5eca1568c335258730e0e64d31f55c0f674a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/EFTA02829523.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 14167, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.14, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Referencing Individuals Who Have Publicly Identified Themselves", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 592.11 + ], + [ + 451.9918518066406, + 592.11 + ], + [ + 451.9918518066406, + 607.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 607.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Preventing the Improper Use of Discovery Materials by Potential Government \nWitnesses and Their Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 436.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 436.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829523" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5aef54ebc76e5ab3419e153253aaeab8f82d61a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1aeb1564d4579b778730c2e1c02e01ddd22cec97d9ff82be8c42f4c66da2a591 +size 1578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68b541ce78d382fe1800b4f82a197b16785034e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829523/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0b8887d76de94a892548436c7930ee98fda3f9fb6a8d39ce9305613ce110b740 +size 5008 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bc6a413d9d7781cc79c24e3b61c28f1d712c65c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.md @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:7/30/2020 + +## PROTECTIVE ORDER + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Government intends to produce to GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, certain documents and materials that (i) affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government's ongoing investigation; (iii) would risk prejudicial pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iv) is not authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond that which is necessary for the defense of this action, and other materials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and pursuant to any other disclosure obligations (collectively, the "Discovery"), which contain sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information; + +WHEREAS, the Government seeks to protect sensitive, confidential, or personal identifying information contained in the materials it produces consistent with Rule 16 or other disclosure obligations; + +WHEREAS the Government has applied for the entry of this Order; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. The Discovery disclosed to the defendant ("Defendant") and/or to the defendant's criminal defense attorneys ("Defense Counsel") during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be copied or otherwise recorded or transmitted by the Defendant, except to Defense Counsel, or except as necessary for the Defendant to take notes, which are not to be further transmitted to anyone other than Defense Counsel; + +c) Shall not be disclosed or distributed in any form by the Defendant or her counsel except as set forth in paragraph 1(d) below; + +d) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to the following persons ("Designated Persons"): + +i. investigative, secretarial, clerical, or paralegal personnel employed full-time, part-time, or as + +independent contractors by the defendant's counsel ("Defense Staff"); + +ii. any expert or potential expert, legal advisor, consultant, or any other individual retained or employed by the Defendant and Defense Counsel for the purpose of assisting in the defense of this case ("Defense Experts/Advisors"); + +iii. such other persons as hereafter may be authorized by Order of the Court ("Other Authorized Persons"); + +e) May be provided to prospective witnesses and their counsel (collectively, "Potential Defense Witnesses"), to the extent deemed necessary by defense counsel, for trial preparation. To the extent Discovery materials are disclosed to Potential Defense Witnesses, they agree that any such materials will not be further copied, distributed, or otherwise transmitted to individuals other than the recipient Potential Defense Witnesses. + +2. The Defendant and Defense Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to any Designated Persons to whom they disclose Discovery materials. Prior to disclosure of Discovery materials to Designated Persons, any such Designated Person shall agree to be subject to the terms of this Order by signing a copy hereof and stating that they "Agree to be bound by the terms herein," and providing such copy to Defense Counsel. All + +such acknowledgments shall be retained by Defense Counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated. The Defendant and her counsel need not obtain signatures from any member of the defense team (i.e., attorneys, experts, consultants, paralegals, investigators, support personnel, and secretarial staff involved in the representation of the defendants in this case), all of whom are nonetheless bound by this Protective Order. + +3. To the extent that Discovery is disseminated to Defense Experts/Advisors, Other Authorized Persons, or Potential Defense Witnesses, via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel shall encrypt and/or password protect the Discovery. + +4. The Government, the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from posting or causing to be posted any of the Discovery or information contained in the Discovery on the Internet, including any social media website or other publicly available medium. + +5. The Government (other than in the discharge of their professional obligations in this matter), the Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel, and Other Authorized Persons are strictly prohibited from publicly + +disclosing or disseminating the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery. This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel or Defense Staff from referencing the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant to the defense to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial. Any Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel who are provided identifying information by Defense Counsel or Defense Staff are prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating such identifying information. This Order does not prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken by name on the public record in this case. + +6. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery, who have not spoken by name on the public record in this case, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings must be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +7. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "confidential" stamps, or designated as "confidential" as described below, and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "confidential" in a folder or document title, are deemed "Confidential Information." The Government shall clearly mark all pages or electronic materials containing Confidential Information, or folder or document titles as necessary, with "confidential" designations. + +8. Confidential Information may contain personal identification information of victims, witnesses, or other specific individuals who are not parties to this action, and other confidential information; as well as information that identifies, or could lead to the identification of, witnesses in this matter. The identity of an alleged victim or witness who has identified herself or himself publicly as such on the record in this case shall not be treated as Confidential Information. + +9. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +10. Confidential Information disclosed to the defendant, or Defense Counsel, respectively, during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall be maintained in a safe and secure manner; + +c) Shall be reviewed and possessed by the Defendant in hard copy solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall be possessed in electronic format only by Defense Counsel and by appropriate officials of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), who shall provide the defendant with electronic access to the Discovery, including Confidential Information, consistent with the rules and regulations of the BOP, for the Defendant's review; + +e) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel or when provided access to Discovery materials in electronic format by BOP officials; + +f) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to Designated Persons; + +g) May be shown to, either in person, by videoconference, or via a read-only document review platform, but not disseminated to or provided copies of to, Potential Defense Witnesses, to the extent deemed necessary by Defense Counsel, for trial preparation, and after such individual(s) have read and signed this Order acknowledging that such individual(s) are bound by this Order. + +11. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "highly confidential" stamps or otherwise specifically designated as "highly confidential," and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "highly confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "highly confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "highly confidential" in an index, folder title, or document title, are deemed "Highly Confidential Information." To the extent any Highly Confidential Information is physically produced to the Defendant and Defense Counsel, rather than being made available to the Defendant and Defense Counsel for on-site review, the + +Government shall clearly mark all such pages or electronic materials containing Highly Confidential Information with "highly confidential" stamps on the documents or materials themselves. + +12. Highly Confidential Information contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals. + +13. Defense Counsel may, at any time, notify the Government that Defense Counsel does not concur in the designation of documents or other materials as Highly Confidential Information. If the Government does not agree to de-designate such documents or materials, Defense Counsel may thereafter move the Court for an Order de-designating such documents or materials. The Government's designation of such documents and materials as Highly Confidential Information will be controlling absent contrary order of the Court. + +14. Highly Confidential Information disclosed to Defense Counsel during the course of proceedings in this action: + +a) Shall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action; + +b) Shall not be disseminated, transmitted, or otherwise copied and provided to Defense Counsel or the Defendant; + +c) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel; + +d) Shall not be possessed outside the presence of Defense Counsel, or maintained, by the Defendant; + +e) Shall be made available for inspection by Defense Counsel and the Defendant, under the protection of law enforcement officers or employees; and + +f) Shall not be copied or otherwise duplicated by Defense Counsel or the Defendant during such inspections. + +15. The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information referenced in the Discovery, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings must be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +16. The provisions of this Order shall not be construed as preventing disclosure of any information, with the exception of victim or witness identifying information, that is publicly available or obtained by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel from a source other than the Government. + +17. Except for Discovery that has been made part of the record of this case, Defense Counsel shall return to the Government or securely destroy or delete all Discovery, including but not limited to Confidential Information, within 30 days of the expiration of the period for direct appeal from any verdict in the above-captioned case; the period of direct appeal from any order dismissing any of the charges in the abovecaptioned case; the expiration of the period for a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; any period of time required by the federal or state ethics rules applicable to any attorney of record in this case; or the granting of any motion made on behalf of the Government dismissing any charges in the abovecaptioned case, whichever date is later. + +18. The foregoing provisions shall remain in effect unless and until either (a) the Government and Defense Counsel mutually agree in writing otherwise, or (b) this Order is modified by further order of the Court. + +19. The Government and Defense Counsel agree to meet and confer in advance of any hearings or trial to discuss and agree to any modifications necessary for the presentation of evidence at those proceedings. In the absence of agreement, + +Defense Counsel may make an appropriate application to the Court for any such modifications. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York +July 30, 2020 + +![]() + +--- + +HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c307ab0c469d1f56ee414bd21d3701e43546384f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528/EFTA02829528.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829528.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 13936, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 372.096, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 499.22540283203125, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 499.22540283203125, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 372.096, + 153.89999999999998 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829528" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f69f92e78fdbf16b5e442e1f9908ce50e1f21d8c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +ELECTRONICALLY FILED + +DOC + +DATE FILED:7/30/2020 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. + +Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief." The good cause standard "requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others ... whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant," and "the public's interest in the information." United States v. 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). + +First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should "prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government's proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to "referenc[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant . .. to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial." Dkt. No. 33-1, 1 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at + +stake. And as the Government's letter notes, *see* Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. + +Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. *See* Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense's papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. + +This resolves Dkt. No. 29. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 30, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abf4fe4fe9d4ea0db97a646ddc2c47132c984e27 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540/EFTA02829540.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829540.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5490, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.36, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829540" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eba91eef0111943d989bc7a3213f916ac473d84d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohengresser.com + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 tacniclItkohengtcsscr.rom + +August 10, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +830 Thud Averxre New York,NY 10322 +1 212 957 7600 phone vomvccibengresser corn + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter motion seeking the Court's assistance with two critical issues that greatly impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial on the schedule set by the Court. First, we request that the Court enter an order directing the government to disclose to defense counsel the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment ("Victims 1-3"), subject to the restrictions of the protective order entered by the Court, so that Ms. Maxwell and defense counsel can meaningfully investigate the alleged conduct, which is now over 25 years old. Second, we request that the Court enter an order directing the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. + +## 1. Disclosure of Victim Identities + +The Court should order the government to disclose the identities of Victims 1-3 to defense counsel, subject to the restrictions of the protective order, because Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare for or receive a fair trial without this information. Moreover, the requested disclosure is authorized under the law in this Circuit, and is narrowly-tailored and reasonable under the circumstances of this case. + +Here, it is clear from the face of the indictment that the government's case is based on the accounts of Victims 1-3, the three individuals specifically referenced in the indictment. It is therefore critical for the defense to know the names of these individuals as soon as possible, so + +that we can mount an effective defense investigation and adequately prepare for trial. This is especially true in this case where the alleged misconduct took place on unspecified dates roughly 25 years ago in multiple locations—namely, New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the United Kingdom—and where the central figure, Jeffrey Epstein, is alleged to have engaged in misconduct with dozens, if not hundreds, of alleged victims. The defense should not have to speculate which of these individuals are Victims 1-3 referenced in the indictment. + +It is now almost six weeks since Ms. Maxwell's arrest, and the government is just now beginning to produce Rule 16 discovery, despite confirming to the Court that discovery would begin as soon as the Court entered a protective order. Moreover, the government still has not confirmed to the defense the identities of Victims 1-3. Ms. Maxwell was arrested on July 2, 2020. On July 14, 2020, during her arraignment and bail hearing, the government indicated that it had "begun preparing an initial production" and would be "prepared to produce a first batch of discovery as soon as a protective order [was] entered by the Court."1 The Court entered the protective order on July 30, 2020. (Dkt. 36). The following day, July 31, 2020, defense counsel contacted the government and requested disclosure of the identities of Victims 1-3. The government refused to do so, stating that it would only disclose the identities of alleged victims through its production of Rule 16 discovery, or as part of its production of Jencks Act material closer to trial. That same day, per the government's request, the defense provided a hard drive to load the Rule 16 discovery. However, the government did not make its first production until after 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 2020. + +The government's initial production was a subset of non-electronic discovery materials, totaling nearly 13,000 pages, which the defense expeditiously reviewed for high-level content. Upon initial review, the materials contain certain records related to one specific individual. However, nothing in the production specifically identifies this individual as Victim 1, 2, or 3. The defense should not be required to speculate whether this individual is one of the three alleged Victims, and if so, which one. Moreover, the initial production does not appear to contain any materials identifying the other two alleged Victims. Although the government has indicated that it will provide additional discovery on a rolling basis, if the initial production is any guide, it seems unlikely that later productions will sufficiently identify the remaining alleged Victims. Furthermore, the defense should not be forced to wait almost two additional weeks until August 21, 2020 (the deadline for the production of initial non-electronic discovery) or potentially months until November 9, 2020 (deadline for the completion of all discovery) before learning information that is vital to the defense. Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial depends on the defense's ability to adequately investigate the charges against her, and that investigation will be significantly impaired until we know for certain the names of Victims 1-3. + +--- + +1 July 14, 2020 Tr. at 12:14-17; *see also id.* at 12:25-13:3 ("Following the entry of [the] protective order . . . the government is prepared to make a substantial production of discovery."). + +District courts have the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Such disclosure is warranted when there is a specific showing that the disclosure is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case. See id. at 302; United States v. Rueb, No. 00 CR. 91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (ordering disclosure of government witness list where defendant "ha[d] met his burden to show a particularized need that outweighs the possible dangers of disclosure").2 This principle has been applied in sex crimes cases, where the right of the defendant to prepare a defense can outweigh the privacy interests of alleged victims referenced in the indictment and warrant the disclosure of their identities. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at •2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where "defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim"); see also id. ("Absent knowing the identity of Victim 1, the defendant is precluded from investigating the facts surrounding the crime charged."). + +The defense's narrowly-tailored request, which only seeks the disclosure of the identity of Victims 1-3, and not the government's entire witness list, is also reasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. And because the protective order prohibits Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials (Dkt. 36 ¶ 5), the disclosure will have no impact on the privacy interests of Victims 1-3. Nor is there any basis for the government to claim that there is a risk that witnesses will face intimidation or refuse to testify.; To the contrary, many alleged victims have already chosen to speak on the record in criminal proceedings in the Epstein case and in this case; to file civil suits against Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and others, and to provide deposition testimony and discovery in those suits; and to give interviews to the press and other television and film productions. Moreover, Victims 1-3 are no longer minors, but are now adults in their late 30s or early 40s, which provides additional assurance that they will be willing to appear for trial. Disclosure is therefore warranted here. + +2 In determining whether to order pretrial disclosure of the identity of witnesses, some district courts have considered the following factors: (I) Did the offense alleged in the indictment involve a crime of violence? (2) Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence? (3) Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to documents (which by their nature are not easily altered)? (4) Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses' names prior to trial will increase the likelihood that the prosecution's witnesses will not appear at trial, or will be unwilling to testify at trial? (5) Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time, making preparation of the defendants' defense complex and difficult? (6) Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their defense? Rueb, 2001 WL 96177, at •7.8 (citation omitted). The Second Circuit, however, has not adopted these factors, nor do they constitute an exhaustive list of factors that the Court may consider in determining whether to disclose the identities of alleged victims. + +/ Notably, the government did not argue at the bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell posed a danger to the community. (See 7/14/2020 Tr. at 37:15-21). + +See Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at \*2 (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where "the government has not demonstrated that disclosing the identity to the defendant would subject the victim to a significant risk, or to increase the likelihood that victim will refuse to appear or testify"). + +With each day that passes without knowing the identities of Victims 1-3, the defense is losing crucial time to conduct a meaningful investigation and prepare its defense so that Ms. Maxwell can receive a fair trial on the schedule set by the Court. For these reasons, we respectfully request the Court to order the government to disclose the identities of Victims 1-3 to defense counsel, consistent with the provisions of the protective order. + +## 2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery + +We also seek the Court's assistance to improve Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), and her access to the discovery in this case, so that she can meaningfully participate in her defense. As discussed below, Ms. Maxwell has been treated less favorably than a typical pretrial detainee, and this has impacted her ability to assist in her defense. + +It has become apparent that the BOP's treatment of Ms. Maxwell is a reaction to the circumstances surrounding the pretrial detention and death of Mr. Epstein. On July 6, 2019, Mr. Epstein was arrested and detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC") on sex trafficking charges, and was subsequently assigned to the MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU") due to risk factors for suicide and safety concerns. After an apparent suicide attempt on July 23, 2019, Mr. Epstein was transferred to suicide watch and then psychological observation. On August 10, 2019, Mr. Epstein's body was discovered in his cell. Thereafter, the government indicted the two correctional officers who were assigned to the SHU at the time of Mr. Epstein's death. + +As a result of what occurred with Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell is being treated worse than other similarly situated pretrial detainees, which significantly impacts her ability to prepare a defense and be ready for trial on the schedule set by the Court. Since arriving at the MDC over a month ago, on July 6, 2020, Ms. Maxwell has been held under uniquely onerous conditions. Ms. Maxwell has been confined alone in an area outside of the general population for the entire 36 day period (40 days if we include her confinement in New Hampshire), which is over three weeks longer than the 14-day quarantine period required for all new arrivals to the MDC under current COVID-19 protocols, and there is no indication that this will change. She continues to be surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and by multiple prison guards, many of whom do not appear to be regular MDC personnel. These prison guards constantly observe Ms. Maxwell and take notes on her every activity, including her phone conversations with defense counsel. Until recently, Ms. Maxwell was subjected to suicide watch protocols, including being woken up every few hours during the night and being forced to wear special clothing, despite the + +fact that she, unlike Mr. Epstein, has never been suicidal and was never diagnosed as exhibiting risk factors for suicide. Her cell is searched multiple times a day and she has been forced to undergo numerous body scans. In addition, Ms. Maxwell's access to the standard prison resources available to other pretrial detainees in the general population has been extensively curtailed or eliminated altogether. + +This treatment threatens Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to participate in her defense. This case will require time-consuming review of voluminous discovery materials. Ms. Maxwell must therefore have adequate time to review the materials, to confidentially take notes on them, and to discuss them with her attorneys. But there currently is no such structure in place. Indeed, although the government agreed that Ms. Maxwell would have access to a hard drive containing the discovery in the MDC, it is our understanding that the hard drive containing the first production has not yet been made available to Ms. Maxwell. + +Defense counsel understands that the BOP has proposed (but not yet implemented) a procedure that would permit Ms. Maxwell to use a computer on her floor to review discovery materials during the three-hour period each day that she is not confined to her cell. But there are two significant flaws in this proposal: + +- The three-hour period is specifically designated to be used by Ms. Maxwell for recreation, exercise, and personal hygiene, including showers. The BOP should not be permitted to force Ms. Maxwell to choose between maintenance of her physical and mental health and participating in her own defense. +- Even if Ms. Maxwell were to forgo personal maintenance altogether, three hours a day is on its face an insufficient amount of time for reviewing documents in a complex case with voluminous document discovery, such as this one. As an illustration, the government's first set of production materials consists of nearly 13,000 pages of documents. Assuming it takes Ms. Maxwell an average of one minute to review each page of those materials, based on the GOP's proposed cap of three hours per day of review, Ms. Maxwell would conceivably finish reviewing this first set of documents at the earliest by mid-November 2020. This is entirely unworkable under the schedule set by the Court. + +Ms. Maxwell does not seek special treatment at the MDC; but she does ask that she not be specially disfavored in her treatment in detention, especially when it comes to preparing her defense to conduct that allegedly took place over 25 years ago. In light of the voluminous discovery that we expect to receive, Ms. Maxwell would normally be spending 40 hours a week or more reviewing the discovery. Ms. Maxwell should be granted a comparable amount of time + +to review the discovery in the MDC so that she can engage in her defense full-time. We therefore request that Ms. Maxwell: + +- Be released to the general population and be granted the privileges given to other pretrial detainees. +- Be given significantly increased access to a computer terminal in order to review the discovery in this case. + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the Court should grant Ms. Maxwell's motion. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0dcfd04bca26e76ae5b02068c45b99a6dc4e2447 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/EFTA02829543.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,328 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 16158, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.54, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Disclosure of Victim Identities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 302.2198181152344, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 302.2198181152344, + 596.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 596.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 453.36114501953125, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 453.36114501953125, + 312.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 312.3630676269531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829543" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17f59e48faed2beaa2529e56b21cdf1edcb7bd12 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829543/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:93446961e3fe7e6a17990239fc2a86bba5c70232ec87da3c30631c6ebc5429f3 +size 1582 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a6a780adb5b84a608b8612ade87c254429f2e9e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PURSUANT TO LOCAL GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +## AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +I, Christian R. Everdell, an attorney duly admitted to practice in New York State and before this Court, declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: + +- 1. I am a partner at & Gresser LLP, counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned case. +- 2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that defense counsel has conferred in good faith with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller, and Maurene Comey regarding the defense's request for the disclosure of the identities of Victims 1-3 referenced in the indictment, subject to the restrictions of the protective order entered by the Court. The government did not agree to the request, and instead indicated that it would disclose the identities of Victims 1-3 through its production of Rule 16 discovery, or as part of its production of Jencks Act material closer to trial. + +I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. + +Dated: August 10, 2020 Is/Christian R. Everdell New York, New York Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, New York 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e2422a411b02d89744cf8f2653abb6a38c4cf49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549/EFTA02829549.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829549.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1461, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.58, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION \nCRIMINAL RULE 16.1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 347.616, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.1561889648438, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.1561889648438, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 179.01 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829549" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a263a6444f68422055753cbeb1f24783565b8cea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. — +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohengresser.com + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 tacniclItkohengrcsscr.rom + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +August 10, 2020 + +SO ORDERED. 8/11/20 + +AL ger + +Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +eco Thud Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone %.wwccibengresser corn + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC A: DATE FILED: 8/11/20 + +The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant's letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant's reply, if any. is due on or before Monday. August 17, 2020. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter motion seeking the Court's assistance with two critical issues that greatly impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial on the schedule set by the Court. First, we request that the Court enter an order directing the government to disclose to defense counsel the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment ("Victims 1-3"), subject to the restrictions of the protective order entered by the Court, so that Ms. Maxwell and defense counsel can meaningfully investigate the alleged conduct, which is now over 25 years old. Second, we request that the Court enter an order directing the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. + +## 1. Disclosure of Victim Identities + +The Court should order the government to disclose the identities of Victims 1-3 to defense counsel, subject to the restrictions of the protective order, because Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare for or receive a fair trial without this information. Moreover, the requested disclosure is authorized under the law in this Circuit, and is narrowly-tailored and reasonable under the circumstances of this case. + +Here, it is clear from the face of the indictment that the government's case is based on the accounts of Victims 1-3, the three individuals specifically referenced in the indictment. It is therefore critical for the defense to know the names of these individuals as soon as possible, so + +that we can mount an effective defense investigation and adequately prepare for trial. This is especially true in this case where the alleged misconduct took place on unspecified dates roughly 25 years ago in multiple locations—namely, New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the United Kingdom—and where the central figure, Jeffrey Epstein, is alleged to have engaged in misconduct with dozens, if not hundreds, of alleged victims. The defense should not have to speculate which of these individuals are Victims 1-3 referenced in the indictment. + +It is now almost six weeks since Ms. Maxwell's arrest, and the government is just now beginning to produce Rule 16 discovery, despite confirming to the Court that discovery would begin as soon as the Court entered a protective order. Moreover, the government still has not confirmed to the defense the identities of Victims 1-3. Ms. Maxwell was arrested on July 2, 2020. On July 14, 2020, during her arraignment and bail hearing, the government indicated that it had "begun preparing an initial production" and would be "prepared to produce a first batch of discovery as soon as a protective order [was] entered by the Court."1 The Court entered the protective order on July 30, 2020. (Dkt. 36). The following day, July 31, 2020, defense counsel contacted the government and requested disclosure of the identities of Victims 1-3. The government refused to do so, stating that it would only disclose the identities of alleged victims through its production of Rule 16 discovery, or as part of its production of Jencks Act material closer to trial. That same day, per the government's request, the defense provided a hard drive to load the Rule 16 discovery. However, the government did not make its first production until after 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 2020. + +The government's initial production was a subset of non-electronic discovery materials, totaling nearly 13,000 pages, which the defense expeditiously reviewed for high-level content. Upon initial review, the materials contain certain records related to one specific individual. However, nothing in the production specifically identifies this individual as Victim 1, 2, or 3. The defense should not be required to speculate whether this individual is one of the three alleged Victims, and if so, which one. Moreover, the initial production does not appear to contain any materials identifying the other two alleged Victims. Although the government has indicated that it will provide additional discovery on a rolling basis, if the initial production is any guide, it seems unlikely that later productions will sufficiently identify the remaining alleged Victims. Furthermore, the defense should not be forced to wait almost two additional weeks until August 21, 2020 (the deadline for the production of initial non-electronic discovery) or potentially months until November 9, 2020 (deadline for the completion of all discovery) before learning information that is vital to the defense. Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial depends on the defense's ability to adequately investigate the charges against her, and that investigation will be significantly impaired until we know for certain the names of Victims 1-3. + +--- + +1 July 14, 2020 Tr. at 12:14-17; *see also id.* at 12:25-13:3 ("Following the entry of [the] protective order . . . the government is prepared to make a substantial production of discovery."). + +District courts have the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Such disclosure is warranted when there is a specific showing that the disclosure is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case. See id. at 302; United States v. Rueb, No. 00 CR. 91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (ordering disclosure of government witness list where defendant "ha[d] met his burden to show a particularized need that outweighs the possible dangers of disclosure").2 This principle has been applied in sex crimes cases, where the right of the defendant to prepare a defense can outweigh the privacy interests of alleged victims referenced in the indictment and warrant the disclosure of their identities. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at •2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where "defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim"); see also id. ("Absent knowing the identity of Victim 1, the defendant is precluded from investigating the facts surrounding the crime charged."). + +The defense's narrowly-tailored request, which only seeks the disclosure of the identity of Victims 1-3, and not the government's entire witness list, is also reasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. And because the protective order prohibits Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials (Dkt. 36 ¶ 5), the disclosure will have no impact on the privacy interests of Victims 1-3. Nor is there any basis for the government to claim that there is a risk that witnesses will face intimidation or refuse to testify.; To the contrary, many alleged victims have already chosen to speak on the record in criminal proceedings in the Epstein case and in this case; to file civil suits against Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and others, and to provide deposition testimony and discovery in those suits; and to give interviews to the press and other television and film productions. Moreover, Victims 1-3 are no longer minors, but are now adults in their late 30s or early 40s, which provides additional assurance that they will be willing to appear for trial. Disclosure is therefore warranted here. + +2 In determining whether to order pretrial disclosure of the identity of witnesses, some district courts have considered the following factors: (I) Did the offense alleged in the indictment involve a crime of violence? (2) Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence? (3) Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to documents (which by their nature are not easily altered)? (4) Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses' names prior to trial will increase the likelihood that the prosecution's witnesses will not appear at trial, or will be unwilling to testify at trial? (5) Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time, making preparation of the defendants' defense complex and difficult? (6) Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their defense? Rueb, 2001 WL 96177, at •7.8 (citation omitted). The Second Circuit, however, has not adopted these factors, nor do they constitute an exhaustive list of factors that the Court may consider in determining whether to disclose the identities of alleged victims. + +/ Notably, the government did not argue at the bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell posed a danger to the community. (See 7/14/2020 Tr. at 37:15-21). + +See ;name, 2009 WL 427111, at •2 (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where "the government has not demonstrated that disclosing the identity to the defendant would subject the victim to a significant risk, or to increase the likelihood that victim will refuse to appear or testify"). + +With each day that passes without knowing the identities of Victims 1-3, the defense is losing crucial time to conduct a meaningful investigation and prepare its defense so that Ms. Maxwell can receive a fair trial on the schedule set by the Court. For these reasons, we respectfully request the Court to order the government to disclose the identities of Victims 1-3 to defense counsel, consistent with the provisions of the protective order. + +## 2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery + +We also seek the Court's assistance to improve Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), and her access to the discovery in this case, so that she can meaningfully participate in her defense. As discussed below, Ms. Maxwell has been treated less favorably than a typical pretrial detainee, and this has impacted her ability to assist in her defense. + +It has become apparent that the BOP's treatment of Ms. Maxwell is a reaction to the circumstances surrounding the pretrial detention and death of Mr. Epstein. On July 6, 2019, Mr. Epstein was arrested and detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC") on sex trafficking charges, and was subsequently assigned to the MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU") due to risk factors for suicide and safety concerns. After an apparent suicide attempt on July 23, 2019, Mr. Epstein was transferred to suicide watch and then psychological observation. On August 10, 2019, Mr. Epstein's body was discovered in his cell. Thereafter, the government indicted the two correctional officers who were assigned to the SHU at the time of Mr. Epstein's death. + +As a result of what occurred with Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell is being treated worse than other similarly situated pretrial detainees, which significantly impacts her ability to prepare a defense and be ready for trial on the schedule set by the Court. Since arriving at the MDC over a month ago, on July 6, 2020, Ms. Maxwell has been held under uniquely onerous conditions. Ms. Maxwell has been confined alone in an area outside of the general population for the entire 36 day period (40 days if we include her confinement in New Hampshire), which is over three weeks longer than the 14-day quarantine period required for all new arrivals to the MDC under current COVID-19 protocols, and there is no indication that this will change. She continues to be surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and by multiple prison guards, many of whom do not appear to be regular MDC personnel. These prison guards constantly observe Ms. Maxwell and take notes on her every activity, including her phone conversations with defense counsel. Until recently, Ms. Maxwell was subjected to suicide watch protocols, including being woken up every few hours during the night and being forced to wear special clothing, despite the + +fact that she, unlike Mr. Epstein, has never been suicidal and was never diagnosed as exhibiting risk factors for suicide. Her cell is searched multiple times a day and she has been forced to undergo numerous body scans. In addition, Ms. Maxwell's access to the standard prison resources available to other pretrial detainees in the general population has been extensively curtailed or eliminated altogether. + +This treatment threatens Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to participate in her defense. This case will require time-consuming review of voluminous discovery materials. Ms. Maxwell must therefore have adequate time to review the materials, to confidentially take notes on them, and to discuss them with her attorneys. But there currently is no such structure in place. Indeed, although the government agreed that Ms. Maxwell would have access to a hard drive containing the discovery in the MDC, it is our understanding that the hard drive containing the first production has not yet been made available to Ms. Maxwell. + +Defense counsel understands that the BOP has proposed (but not yet implemented) a procedure that would permit Ms. Maxwell to use a computer on her floor to review discovery materials during the three-hour period each day that she is not confined to her cell. But there are two significant flaws in this proposal: + +- The three-hour period is specifically designated to be used by Ms. Maxwell for recreation, exercise, and personal hygiene, including showers. The BOP should not be permitted to force Ms. Maxwell to choose between maintenance of her physical and mental health and participating in her own defense. +- Even if Ms. Maxwell were to forgo personal maintenance altogether, three hours a day is on its face an insufficient amount of time for reviewing documents in a complex case with voluminous document discovery, such as this one. As an illustration, the government's first set of production materials consists of nearly 13,000 pages of documents. Assuming it takes Ms. Maxwell an average of one minute to review each page of those materials, based on the GOP's proposed cap of three hours per day of review, Ms. Maxwell would conceivably finish reviewing this first set of documents at the earliest by mid-November 2020. This is entirely unworkable under the schedule set by the Court. + +Ms. Maxwell does not seek special treatment at the MDC; but she does ask that she not be specially disfavored in her treatment in detention, especially when it comes to preparing her defense to conduct that allegedly took place over 25 years ago. In light of the voluminous discovery that we expect to receive, Ms. Maxwell would normally be spending 40 hours a week or more reviewing the discovery. Ms. Maxwell should be granted a comparable amount of time + +to review the discovery in the MDC so that she can engage in her defense full-time. We therefore request that Ms. Maxwell: + +- Be released to the general population and be granted the privileges given to other pretrial detainees. +- Be given significantly increased access to a computer terminal in order to review the discovery in this case. + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the Court should grant Ms. Maxwell's motion. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b273854977f9e8aaf3aeb34fd7d7cd93ded22fb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/EFTA02829551.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,328 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 16482, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.57, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Disclosure of Victim Identities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 302.2198181152344, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 302.2198181152344, + 596.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 596.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 452.9590148925781, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 452.9590148925781, + 312.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 312.3630676269531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829551" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b802b96c6cb1308895cb9f9442269176ce7ab523 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829551/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0e31ca6c92b61b9b2d0f0954d747ff11aa9e6833ea60b7a5b217728d1f219138 +size 1578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6383c52292edc1ee81b5444f880d305eacdaf14d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +# U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 13, 2020 + +# VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's letter of August 10, 2020 (the "Defense Letter" or "Def. Ltr."), requesting that the Court order the Government to disclose the names of certain Government witnesses 11 months prior to trial, and requesting that the Court intervene in the protocols and individualized inmate determinations of the Bureau of Prisons. Both applications should be denied. + +### A. The Defendant's Demand That the Government Name Certain Trial Witnesses + +For the third time in as many weeks, the defendant and her counsel have applied to the Court for relief that is premature, meritless, or both. See Order dated July 23, 2020 (Dkt. 28) (denying the defendant's request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government and attorneys for non-parties from making extrajudicial statements "concerning this case"); Order dated July 30, 2020 (Dkt. 37) (denying the defendant's application for a protective order that would allow the defense to publicly name and identify victims). In the defendant's most recent application, she asks the Court to order that the Government disclose a partial witness list, in the form of identifying certain victims referenced in the Superseding Indictment (the "Indictment"), fully 11 months prior to trial. This request is at best premature given that the production of discovery, on the schedule agreed to by the defendant, has just begun. Moreover, the parties have had no discussions about—let alone asked the Court to set—a schedule for pretrial disclosures, including for witness lists and 3500 material. + +In the first instance, the defendant complains about the status of discovery production, arguing that "almost six weeks since" the arrest of the defendant, the Government is "just now beginning to produce Rule 16 discovery, despite confirming to the Court that discovery would begin as soon as the Court entered a protective order." Def. Ltr. at 2. The suggestion that the Government somehow delayed that initial production is nonsense. As the Court is aware, the + +Page 2 + +protective order was docketed on Friday, July 31, 20201—the timing of which was principally the result of the defendant's own refusal to agree to the terms of the proposed protective order. The Government then promptly produced an initial discovery production totaling more than 12,000 pages the following Wednesday, August 5, 2020. Additionally, the Government continues to produce discovery and earlier today made a second production, as the Government advised defense counsel last week it intended to do, totaling more than 150,000 pages, principally consisting of financial records.2 Although the Government expects to continue to produce a large amount of electronic discovery, the two productions already made constitute the vast majority of initial discovery, including search warrant applications and subpoena returns, which the Government has now produced more than a week in advance of its deadline of August 21, 2020, and approximately 11 months prior to trial. + +In sum, the Government has acted expeditiously in meeting its initial discovery obligations, providing more than 165,000 pages of discovery materials in less than two weeks following the entry of the protective order—all of which was accompanied by detailed indices describing the general topics and sources of the materials. + +Against this backdrop, the Defense Letter claims that over the course of just five days, defense counsel determined, having "expeditiously reviewed [the discovery] for high level content," Def. Ltr. at 2, that they cannot possibly investigate the charges against their client based on the materials provided thus far, and asking the Court to order the Government to provide the defendant with a partial witness list. That request should be denied. + +Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority that requires the relief requested at this stage in the litigation—*i.e.*, prior to the completion of discovery and approximately 11 months before trial—nor is the Government aware of any. For example, in the lead case cited by defense counsel, *United States v. Cannone*, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975), although the opinion acknowledged the ability of district courts to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses, the Second Circuit *reversed for abuse of discretion* the district court's decision to do so in that case because the defendant there, as here, had made "only an abstract, conclusory claim that such disclosure was necessary to its proper preparation for trial." *Id.* at 301-02. In *United States v. Rueb*, 00 Cr. 091 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001), while the Court ordered the Government to provide the defendant with its witness list, it did so *one month before trial*, following the completion of discovery production and in the context of pretrial motions. Those circumstances plainly are not present here. Finally, in *United States v. Warme*, a Western District of New York opinion from 2009 that has never been cited by another court, although the Court + +--- + +1 The Defense Letter states that the protective order was "entered" by the Court on July 30, 2020. While that is the date the protective order was signed by the Court, it was posted to the docket on July 31, 2020. + +2 The Government's most recent discovery transmittal letter also included the months and years of birth of the three victims identified in the Indictment, to enable the defendant to evaluate whether she will make any motions or legal arguments—more than four months in advance of the deadline for any such motion—relating to the ages of the victims. + +August 13, 2020 + +Page 3 + +ordered disclosure of a certain victim identity shortly after the indictment, the Court noted that the Government had already confirmed to the defendant the identities of three of the four relevant victims, and that a fourth victim, whose identity was at issue, was the subject of a charge that failed to identify the date of her alleged rape or any prior encounters between the victim and the defendant. 2009 WL 427111, at \*2. None of those facts are present here—by contrast, here, the Indictment particularly describes relevant time periods and events, including referring to the defendant's conversations with victims, interactions with victims, and specific relevant locations.3 + +To the extent the defendant is arguing that she cannot identify the nature of the charges against her, the proper vehicle for such an argument is a motion for a bill of particulars. Any such motion can be made in December with all other motions and following the completion of discovery. While the Government anticipates opposing such a motion as baseless on the facts of this case, the Government respectfully submits that in any event such a motion could not be meaningfully evaluated at this stage, prior to the completion of discovery. See United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (denying a motion for a bill of particulars that sought, among other things, the "alleged victim and noting that "[a] bill of particulars is not required unless the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused. The government can also discharge its obligation to disclose this information by other means, such as by presenting evidence in discovery. . . . A bill of particulars is not meant to provide the details of the government's evidence, or to be used as an investigative tool.") (emphasis added, quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Thompson, 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying a motion for a bill of particulars and noting that such motions are not "a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the government to disclose evidence or witnesses to be offered prior to trial") (emphasis added) (quotations and citation omitted); cf. United States v. Sindone, 01 Cr. 517 (MBM), 2002 WL 48604, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2002) (denying a motion for a bill of particulars to identify "the unnamed alleged victim(s)" but instructing the government to disclose the name of any victim it did not intend to call as a witness at trial by 14 days prior to the start of trial). + +Alternatively, to the extent defense counsel is unable to assess or comprehend the discovery produced by the Government, the Government is more than willing to discuss with the defense + +3 Defense counsel's invocation of the protective order in support of its argument, Def. Ltr. at 1, 3, should be of little comfort. The Government is deeply concerned by the recent actions of the defendant's counsel who represent her in both this criminal matter as well as in certain civil matters, and who in a recent public filing in a civil case referred to their receipt of sealed materials in discovery in this case. In particular, the defendant's counsel publicly claimed in a civil filing that they purportedly had received "critical new information" from the criminal case that it could not disclose "because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action," and further noting publicly a desire to seek modification of the protective order in this case to use such materials in the civil case, which the protective order expressly precludes. See v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) (Dkt. 1100). Moreover, even assuming the defendant intends to scrupulously adhere to the terms of the protective order, that would not change the relevant legal standards, which weigh heavily against granting the requested relief. + +August 13, 2020 + +Page 4 + +any such issues as the discovery process continues. To date, the defendant has yet to ask the Government a single substantive question about the discovery. The Government is also prepared to engage in good faith discussions with the defense about an appropriate schedule for disclosure of 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, all of which the Government expects to produce reasonably in advance of the trial date in July 2021 to permit the defense to investigate witnesses. But particularly given the nature of the charges, the Government's strong desire to protect the privacy of the alleged victims, and the lack of any legal precedent for the defendant's request, the Government respectfully submits that at the present time—eleven months prior to trial, nearly three months prior to the discovery deadline, and more than four months prior to the pretrial motions deadline—there is no basis for the defendant to demand the Government disclose the identity of its witnesses. + +# B. The Defendant's Request that the Court Dictate the Conditions of Her Confinement + +The defendant's requests with respect to the conditions of her confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") are similarly premature and unavailing, and her request that the Court dictate the terms of her confinement to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") should also be denied.4 + +As an initial matter, the defendant's argument that she is being treated "worse" than other inmates is incorrect. There is no merit to her complaints about being monitored by staff, as it is entirely appropriate for BOP to carefully monitor any inmate, particularly a new inmate who has never before been incarcerated and who faces the strong likelihood of serving many years in prison. Additionally, like all inmates, the defendant may be subject to observation or searches of her person or space as appropriate.5 It is otherwise entirely unclear what specific "privileges given to other pretrial detainees" the defendant believes she is being denied. + +More generally, the defendant, like all pretrial inmates, is subject to an individualized assessment by the BOP with respect to his or her placement in a facility. Here, for reasons including safety, security, and the orderly functioning of the facility, BOP has made the determination that, at present, the defendant should not be fully integrated into the dorm-style accommodations of the general population. The Government understands from BOP that it will + +4 Once again, defense counsel has rushed to seek Court intervention on issues they have made little or no meaningful effort to address with the Government or, in this case, the BOP. The Government learned of the defendant's specific objections to her conditions of incarceration for the first time from the Defense Letter, and has since conferred with BOP to understand and to address the issues as appropriate. Moreover, as noted below, the defendant filed the instant challenge to the BOP's plan to permit her time to review discovery before the BOP had a chance to implement (and ultimately modify) that plan. + +3 Defense counsel claims that prison staff "constantly observe" the defendant "including her phone conversations with defense counsel." This is misleading. As with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff. Among other reasons, this is so MDC staff can ensure that inmates do not complete calls with their counsel and then call other individuals on a non-recorded line. + +August 13, 2020 + +Page 5 + +continue to evaluate where the defendant should be housed within the facility and that the defendant will be placed into the general population if and when BOP is assured that such placement would not pose a threat to the orderly operation of the institution. The defendant identifies no basis for the Court to disturb that determination by the BOP, particularly given that, as detailed below, her housing assignment will not negatively affect her ability to review discovery in this case. + +Regarding the defendant's request in connection with access to discovery, the Government understands from BOP that the defendant had not even yet received her copy of the Government's first discovery production at the time the Defense Letter was filed—she received the materials on Tuesday, August II. While it is correct that BOP's initial plan was to provide three hours per day of access to the discovery—the same access that is granted to every other pretrial inmate, including those with trial dates scheduled for far earlier than July 2021—as of earlier this week, and given the volume of expected discovery, BOP informed the defendant that she will have the opportunity to access to her discovery from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. Although this arrangement will be subject to continued evaluation on an ongoing and individualized basis, and is subject to ordinary considerations of prison operations, BOP intends to provide that access on an ongoing basis to the extent it remains reasonably practicable to do so. Accordingly, this application should be denied as moot. + +# C. Conclusion + +For the reasons set forth above, the defendants' requests, as set forth in the Defense Letter. should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AU REY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2415 + +Cc: All counsel of record, via ECF \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df4e3d6154099918b4c221afd03d1b5623f91d8b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/EFTA02829557.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,332 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 15781, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Defendant's Demand That the Government Name Certain Trial Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 506.77197265625, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 506.77197265625, + 468.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 468.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant's Request that the Court Dictate the Conditions of Her Confinement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 530.256591796875, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 530.256591796875, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 183.50405883789062, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 183.50405883789062, + 389.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 389.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829557" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..288badc499aa48888edbcc50d4d724c892d8693d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829557/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bb339652e833bc39a81d2d2fc03a60f9175d601d42e0b27af29d7ffe9c67109f +size 3359 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4caa1930b543e33d52ec5609c9a53813cfbc356 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. +1 (212) 957-760t) mcohen@cohengresscr.com + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 cacniclItkohengresscr.rom + +August 17, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +8C0 Thud Averxre New York, NY 1CO22 +1 212 957 7600 phone vilmv6thengresser. COM + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter to reply to the government's letter, dated August 13, 2020, responding to Ms. Maxwell's request that the Court (i) direct the government to disclose the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment, subject to the restrictions of the protective order in this case; and (ii) order the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials ("Government's Response" or "Gov't Resp.") (Dkt. 41). + +With regard to the issue of alleged victims' identities, the government concedes, as it must, that this Court has the authority and discretion to order the relief sought, but claims that Ms. Maxwell's application should be denied as untimely and without merit. (Gov't Resp. at 2- 4). Instead, the government asserts that the appropriate and timely way for Ms. Maxwell to seek confirmation of their identities is through a request for a bill of particulars, which should be filed in December 2020. (Id. at 3). The government then notes that it would oppose such a motion, which it claims should also be denied. (Id.). The government concludes that it will finally provide confirmation of their identities in the 3500 material and a witness list to be provided shortly before trial. (Id. at 4). + +The upshot of this is clear: in the government's view, Ms. Maxwell should not know the identity of the three witnesses referenced in the indictment until at best just before trial, and should have to spend the next eleven months (or longer) trying to conduct a defense investigation, in a case in which she is presumed innocent, without having this information. This information is critical to conducting a meaningful defense investigation, given that the + +indictment alleges 25-year-old conduct that supposedly occurred on unspecified dates in multiple locations on different continents, and involves numerous alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Moreover, the government's position is based on the claimed privacy rights of the alleged victims, now all adults, who may well have sued Mr. Epstein and/or Ms. Maxwell in public civil actions or otherwise identified themselves by name in public fora. As discussed below and in our opening letter, under the relevant legal standards, the relief sought can and should be ordered here. + +With regard to Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement, the government asserts, in essence, that such matters should be left not to this Court, but to the discretion of the BOP. We do not agree. Under the BOP's original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case, on the one hand, or taking a shower, eating a meal or exercising, on the other. That would not be consistent with her right to meaningfully review materials and prepare for trial. Indeed, the very filing of the present motion apparently prompted the BOP to make certain of the changes the defense had requested. We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order, along with the other relief requested. + +## 1. Disclosure of Alleged Victim Identities + +The government concedes that this Court has the authority to order it to disclose to defense counsel the identities of the three individuals referenced in the indictment. (Gov't Resp. at 2). As we understand it, these three individuals are the core of the government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Yet, according to the government, the defense must make assumptions about their identities until they are finally revealed a few weeks prior to trial. If that occurs, it is very possible that the defense will waste the next several months investigating someone whose name appears in the discovery, but who is not one of the three alleged victims, and whom the government does not even intend to call as a witness at trial. + +Indeed, the defense has again conducted a high-level review of the second discovery production and, at first glance, there does not appear to be any information that specifically identifies these three witnesses. According to the government, the two productions they have made "constitute the vast majority of initial discovery." (Id. at 2). But the defense still does not know for certain who these individuals are and will likely not know until the eve of trial, if the government has their way. That is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of a fair trial, especially when it is inherently difficult to investigate instances of abuse that allegedly occurred 25 years ago (even when the identity of the alleged victim is known), and when the alleged victims do not have a strong countervailing privacy interest to protect, as discussed below.' + +The government's attempt at a compromise solution—providing the birth months and years of the alleged victims—is insufficient. (Gov't Resp. at 2 n.2). Such partial information only helps confirm the identity of + +The government relies on two grounds to justify its position: (i) the need "to protect the privacy of the alleged victims," and (ii) the "lack of any legal precedent" granting such a request. (Gov't Resp. at 4). Both of these reasons are unpersuasive. + +As to the privacy interest, the government glosses over the facts and circumstances of this case, which significantly diminish any privacy interest that may exist. As we stated in our initial letter motion, many of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims are actively litigating civil suits against Ms. Maxwell and have made public statements identifying themselves by name in court proceedings, to the press, and in other public fora. Although we cannot say for certain whether the three individuals referenced in the indictment have done this—because at this point we can only guess who they are—it seems likely that they, too, fall into this category. Furthermore, although these individuals claim to have been minors when the conduct alleged in the indictment occurred roughly 25 years ago, they are no longer minors; they are now adults in their early 40s. Nor has the government argued that these alleged victims would be subject to any risk of intimidation or that they would likely refuse to appear for trial if their identities were disclosed. Hence, any privacy interest that may exist is diminished and should not supersede Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense to ensure a fair trial. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at \*2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of alleged rape victim and stating, "Inasmuch as the government has not demonstrated that disclosing the identity to the defendant would subject the victim to a significant risk, or to increase the likelihood that victim will refuse to appear or testify, the interest of the defendant in being able to prepare a defense outweighs the government's interest in keeping the name of [the alleged victim] undisclosed."). + +The government's assertion that there is no legal precedent for Ms. Maxwell's request is incorrect. (Gov't Resp. at 4). The case law in this Circuit is unambiguous that the Court has the power to grant the requested relief. As we stated in our initial letter, the Second Circuit formally recognized that district courts have the authority to order the disclosure of the identities of government witnesses in United States v. Cannone, 598 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Although Cannone, itself, found that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of witness identities under the facts of that case, the government acknowledges that this Court has the authority under Cannone to issue such an order in this case. (Gov't Resp. at 2). + +The defense also cited in its initial letter United States v. Warme, a directly analogous precedent in which a district court in this Circuit relied on Cannone and its progeny to order the government to disclose the identity of a rape victim to the defendant roughly one month after indictment—the exact same relief that Ms. Maxwell requests here. (Dkt. 38 at 3-4). In Warme, the defendant asked the district court to order the government to disclose the identity of a victim who was allegedly raped by the defendant a little over two years before the indictment was filed, + +someone if you already know who that person is. Moreover, it raises the question of why the government is unwilling to go the extra step and simply provide the defense with the actual birthdays of the alleged victims. + +in stark contrast to the 25-year-old conduct alleged in this case. Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at \*1-2. The district court recognized "the sensitive nature of the charges and the difficulties facing rape victims," but found that "the defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge [would be] significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim." Id. at \*2. The district court found that disclosure was appropriate because, as in this case (i) the defendant was seeking disclosure of the identity of an alleged victim who was the basis for a specific crime charged in the indictment, and not just a government witness; (ii) the indictment did not state "the exact dates" of the alleged abuse or the prior encounters between the defendant and the alleged victim; and (iii) the government did not articulate any basis to conclude that the alleged victim would be subject to intimidation or would refuse to appear at trial as a result of the disclosure. Id. For the same reasons articulated in Warme, this Court should order the government to disclose immediately the identities of three alleged victims referenced in the indictment, subject to the terms of the protective order.2 + +## 2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery + +The government asserts that Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement should be left to the discretion of the BOP. (Gov't Resp. at 4). But the BOP cannot be the sole arbiter on these issues if the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement impact her right to a fair trial and to meaningfully prepare her defense. Indeed, under the BOP's original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between taking a shower and reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case. It is only because the defense filed its motion that the BOP modified its original plan and gave Ms. Maxwell increased access to the discovery two days later. We now understand, and the government has confirmed, that Ms. Maxwell can review discovery from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. (Id. at 5). We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order to the BOP. + +However, the defense continues to believe that Ms. Maxwell is being subjected to uniquely onerous conditions of confinement because of the death of Mr. Epstein in BOP custody. For example, Ms. Maxwell continues to be surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and is + +2 The government attempts to distinguish Warme by asserting that, unlike Warme, the indictment in this case "describes relevant time periods and events, including referring to the defendant's conversations with victims, interactions with victims, and specific relevant locations." (Gov't Resp. at 3). That is incorrect. In fact, the indictment in IVarme was far more specific as to the dates of the relevant events, alleging that the rape took place "sometime in and around October of 2006." Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at \*2. By contrast, the indictment in this case alleges vague instances of "grooming" that supposedly took place over the course of a year (in the case of Victim 2), two years (in the case of Victim 3), or even four years (in the case of Victim I). Those are hardly "exact dates." The criminal complaint in IVanne also alleged specific interactions between the defendant and the alleged victim; namely, that they "had met and exchanged phone numbers perhaps as long as 10 months prior to the alleged rape." Id. Nevertheless, the district court held that the defendant's right to prepare his defense required disclosure of the identity of the alleged victim and outweighed any privacy interest that the victim might have. Id. + +under constant observation by multiple prison guards.; She is also still being awakened several times in the middle of the night. Even on more routine matters, Ms. Maxwell's treatment has been worse than other pretrial detainees. For example, Ms. Maxwell has no access to email and has been given 30 minutes per month for personal phone calls, far fewer than the 500 minutes granted to other pretrial detainees since the COVID-19 crisis. Unlike defendants in the general population, she does not have a desk or a writing surface where she can take notes when reviewing the discovery. And until recently, Ms. Maxwell was denied access to the prison commissary for no apparent reason. + +We respect that the BOP needs to ensure the orderly operation of the MDC. But Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are unique to her and seem punitive rather than anything necessary to ensure that the MDC as a whole is running smoothly. Accordingly, we respectfully request that, going forward, Ms. Maxwell be monitored in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.4 + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the Court should grant Ms. Maxwell's motion. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) + +3 The defense recently learned that some of these prison guards were, in fact, BOP psychologists who were observing Ms. Maxwell and evaluating her for hours each day without her knowledge. We are aware of no other pretrial detainee receiving such treatment. + +4 In our original letter, the defense asked the Court to order the BOP to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population because we had been informed that Ms. Maxwell would not receive certain privileges, like access to a desk and the prison commissary, unless she were housed there. As long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..963c0c41577e91d7cc3f101008ea62739ab29e24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/EFTA02829562.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,298 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 14886, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.1, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 258.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 258.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Disclosure of Alleged Victim Identities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 308.0014953613281, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 308.0014953613281, + 408.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 408.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 453.5853576660156, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 453.5853576660156, + 355.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 355.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829562" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d750872ad84fe1198899fdac783346658774944 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829562/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:370ac553a91e1c8327f0154bea2aed71de0cc551e7a6c3df4ce1e1f5fb155f56 +size 1578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fcaa1cbae78f6b759f8557b729b70c1191b8072 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON N + +August 17, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and MI P.0 Jeffrey Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.corn jpog6uco4hmtlaw.com + +Re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Pursuant to your Revised Individual Practices in Criminal Cases, specifically Practice 2.B, we re uest rmission to exceed the three-page limitation and submit contemporaneously to the letter motion ("motion,") under seal, which is eight pages, exclusive of the attachments. We felt that a substantial amount of background and factual information was necessary to place the relief requested in the motion into context. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell spent considerable time editing the motion to eliminate extraneous information and present the motion as succinctly as possible. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..921e06c6066fe87d23d3844c24b8adfe2e547c04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/EFTA02829567.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1143, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829567" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f61af7e98b9b139d61aaf6a97d8ed67cf550c57 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829567/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1dfed4e4473a8cb70a8d703df682012e31a32c5a8922dda8134d7f022ff79554 +size 2922 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a052a00e7cec62186225b1b650e2b4c63f78110 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +DOC 0: + +DATE FILED: 8/18/20 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court's Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Government's opposition to Defendant's letter motion is hereby due Friday, August 21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant's reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 18, 2020 + +New York, New York fit/) kJ + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb66ab1797f6b902e67b66f07edd80dc2450ff8b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568/EFTA02829568.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829568.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 899, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829568" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45fca672a9b8dd3933a643ad761c548d53224305 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Notice of Appearance GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. X + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +TO: Clerk of Court United States District Court Southern District of New York + +The undersigned attorney respectfully requests the Clerk to note her appearance in this case and to add her as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +by: s/ Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorney (212) 637-2343 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b20e601ab9ed8b57130a2f25292aaf87147f0f86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569/EFTA02829569.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829569.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 613, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829569" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9767fc9acc492037deb58bd6e01446f0333e3493 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.md @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 21, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's letter of August 17, 2020 (the "Defense Letter"), requesting that the Court enter an order permitting the defendant to file under seal in certain civil cases (the "Civil Cases") discovery materials produced by the Government in the instant criminal case, and to refer to, but not file, additional other discovery materials produced by the Government in the Civil Cases. Those applications should be denied.' + +As an initial matter, the Government has already produced, and will continue to produce, substantial volumes of materials in discovery consistent with its obligations. Those include materials the Government obtained via search warrant, grand jury subpoenas, or other investigative methods available only to the Government. Indeed, the Government has already produced more than 165,000 pages of discovery to the defense, including the materials relevant to the Defense Letter. Through her most recent application, the defendant seeks permission to use, in unrelated civil litigation, materials produced pursuant to the protective order in this case and designated "Confidential" thereunder. As detailed herein, the Government's designation is entirely appropriate given that the materials—court orders and applications—have been kept under seal by the issuing judges, and pertain to an ongoing criminal investigation. + +I The Government has drafted this letter in a manner that avoids revealing the contents of sealed materials and grand jury information. Accordingly, the Government does not seek permission to seal or redact this submission. Because the Defense Letter repeatedly references, and attaches as exhibits, materials that are sealed and that would jeopardize an ongoing grand jury investigation if filed publicly, the Government intends to submit a separate letter, under seal, proposing redactions to the Defense Letter and requesting that the attachments to the Defense Letter be filed under seal. + +August 21, 2020 + +Page 2 + +In particular, the Defense Letter seeks this Court's authorization to use materials relating to applications the Government made seeking the modification of certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. By way of background, the Government sought such modifications to permit compliance with criminal grand jury subpoenas (the "Subpoenas"). Those Subpoenas were issued to a certain recipient (the "Recipient") after the Government opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators. For obvious reasons and in keeping with its standard practice, the Government did not notify the defendant or her counsel that it had issued the Subpoenas. In response to receiving the Subpoenas, the Recipient advised the Government that it believed that certain existing protective orders precluded full compliance. Accordingly, in or about February 2019, the Government applied ex pane and under seal to each relevant court to request modification of the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the Subpoenas. In or about April 2019, one court ("Court-1") granted the Government's application, and permitted that the Government share its order—and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination—to the Recipient. 2 Subsequently, the second court ("Court-2") denied the Government's application. Because the relevant grand jury investigation remains ongoing, both Court-1 and Court-2 have ordered that the filings regarding the Subpoenas remain under seal, except that both have expressly permitted the Government to produce those filings to the defendant as part of its discovery obligations in this criminal case. The Defense Letter now seeks to use those discovery materials in the Civil Cases. + +At base, the defendant's application fundamentally misapprehends the nature and process of criminal proceedings, and it further reflects an inappropriate effort to blur the lines between the criminal discovery process and civil litigation. To be clear: the purpose of criminal discovery is to enable the defendant to defend herself in the criminal action, not to provide her with a trove of materials she can mine to her advantage in civil discovery. Her motion is nothing more than an effort to evade the directives of the protective order entered by this Court just three weeks ago. It should be denied for multiple reasons. + +First, and as the defendant concedes, the protective order in this case expressly provides that any and all discovery material produced to the defendant by the Government, regardless of designation, Is. be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action." Protective Order III 1(a), 10(a), 14(a) (emphasis added) (Dkt. 36). Indeed, the defendant included that same provision, word-for-word, in her own proposed protective order. This was not a provision about which the defendant and the Government disagreed. See Defendant's Proposed Protective Order ¶ 1(a) (Dkt. 29-1). Yet less than a month later, the defendant is asking the Court to sanction her effort to utilize materials produced by the + +2 In the Defense Letter, the defendant argues that the Government "must have given a copy of the sealed order" to the Recipient, which defense counsel suggests is inconsistent with the Government's statement that it rarely provides discovery material to third parties. The defendant's suggestion is patently incorrect. The relevant order was signed in April 2019 and was issued for the purpose of being provided to the Recipient. Indeed the order contained an explicit provision that it could be transmitted to the Recipient. Accordingly, the order was conveyed to the Recipient well over a year before it became "discovery" in this criminal case. + +August 21, 2020 + +Page 3 + +Government in discovery in this criminal case, and to which the protective order unquestionably applies, to litigate her Civil Cases. There is no basis to modify the Protective Order here. + +Second, there is good reason why both parties proposed, and the Court ordered, a protective order that prevents the defendant from using materials obtained through the process of criminal discovery in any of the many civil cases in which she is, or could become, a party. To allow the defendant to do so would permit the dissemination of a vast swath of materials, including those that are confidential due to witness privacy interests, personal identifying information of third parties, and relevance in ongoing grand jury investigations. Here, the Government was particularly concerned about the defendant's interests in bluffing these lines because, among other reasons, her counsel in the criminal case are also her counsel in the Civil Cases. It would be grossly inappropriate for defense counsel to be permitted to sift through the criminal case discovery and cherry-pick materials they may believe could provide some advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse by victim plaintiffs, delay court-ordered disclosure of previouslysealed materials, or any other legal effort the defendant may be undertaking at any particular time. And yet that is what the defendant proposes. + +Third, the specific documents at issue pertain to ex parse applications made as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Those documents were filed under seal and presently remain under seal because the relevant judicial officers have ordered that all filings regarding those matters, including the discovery materials referenced in the Defense Letter, remain sealed.3 As the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant in this case and other possible co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein remains active. The full scope and details of that investigation, however, have not been made public.° Accordingly, the materials the defendant seeks to file in the Civil Cases were produced under a "Confidential" designation. Any argument that such materials are not "confidential" would not only run contrary to the sealing orders entered by other courts, but also misapprehends the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of criminal investigations.5 See, + +3 The only exceptions to those sealing orders are (1) as noted above, the permission from Court-1 to provide the April 2019 order alone to the Recipient, and, (2) pursuant to separate permissions the Government has obtained in connection with its discovery obligations, that the entirety of the record relating to the Subpoenas may be provided to the defendant as discovery in this case. The defendant's claim that the relevant materials were produced to the defendant in discovery without any application to the sealing courts, Def. Ltr. at 7, is incorrect. + +4 To the extent it would be useful to this Court for the Government to further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation, the Government is prepared to file a supplemental letter specifically on that subject a parse and under seal should the Court request such an explanation. + +\$ Moreover, if counsel for the defendant in her Civil Cases believe that certain documents are improperly sealed, there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials. Presumably they have not done so because + +Page 4 + +*e.g., United States v. [REDACTED]*, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“As a general proposition, courts have repeatedly recognized that materials, including even judicial documents which are presumptively accessible, can be kept from the public if their dissemination might ‘adversely affect law enforcement interests.’”) (*citing United States v. Amodeo*, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050)); *see also United States v. Park*, 619 F. Supp. 2d 89, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the need to “maintain the secrecy of the Government’s investigation” outweighed the public’s right of access to certain sentencing documents). + +*Fourth*, defense counsel cites not a single case to support the argument that a criminal defendant should be permitted to use criminal discovery materials in her civil cases. Nor is the Government aware of any. Though precedent on this issue appears to be somewhat sparse—perhaps because few defendants attempt such a maneuver—*see United States v. Calderon*, 15 Cr. 025, 2017 WL 6453344, at \*3 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2017) (discussing the relative lack of specific guidance in the context of an application to modify protective orders in criminal cases), *see also United States v. Morales*, 807 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[m]otions to modify protective orders in criminal cases appear to be infrequent”), decisions that do exist have rejected the kind of blurring of the line between criminal and civil proceedings that the defendant attempts here. *See Calderon*, 2017 WL 6453344, at 5-6 (denying a defendant’s application for modification of a criminal protective order so he could use certain discovery materials in a FOIA suit); *United States v. DeNunzio*, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1495880, at \*2-3 (D. Mass. March 27, 2020) (denying a defendant’s motion to modify two protective orders in his criminal case for the purpose of pursuing claims in a civil action, even following the completion of trial). + +Absent any authority upon which to rely, the defendant, in urging a contrary conclusion, makes various assertions and accusations, none of which warrant a different outcome. In particular, there is no merit or particular relevance to the defendant’s argument that the Government secretly obtained a volume of materials relevant to its criminal case without telling the defendant. That is how grand jury subpoenas and investigations frequently work. Defense counsel’s overheated rhetoric notwithstanding, there is simply nothing nefarious about the Government obtaining materials through grand jury subpoena process, let alone anything about the manner in which the Government obtained these materials that warrants the relief requested. + +Certainly to the extent the defendant asserts that her adversary in civil litigation has engaged in some sort of improper conduct—assertions the Government by no means intends to suggest agreement with—such arguments even if credited would not be a proper basis to circumvent the plain language of the protective order (or the existing sealing orders) in this case. In any event, of the materials at issue, the only document the defendant’s civil adversary has access to is the lone April 2019 order, meaning any purported imbalance between the parties in the Civil Cases at this stage is significantly overstated. And to the extent the defendant may seek to make similar accusations against the Government or challenge the manner in which the Government obtained the materials at issue—a challenge that itself would not justify the relief presently + +--- + +they recognize that the materials are appropriately sealed as relating to an ongoing grand jury investigation. + +August 21, 2020 + +Page 5 + +requested—the defendant can make such arguments, and the Government can and will vigorously oppose them, at the appropriate stage in this case. + +Finally, to the extent the defendant contends that the relief requested is somehow necessary to her ability to bring issues to the attention of other courts, the Defense Letter completely fails to explain what legal argument she wishes to make in her Civil Cases based on the discovery materials she has identified or what relevance those materials have to the litigation of the Civil Cases. The fact that the Government issued grand jury subpoenas and obtained court authorization for compliance with one of those subpoenas has no conceivable relevance to disputed issues in the Civil Cases. To the extent the defendant argues that the requested relief is necessary to ensure that courts adjudicating the Civil Cases are aware of the existence of the documents at issue, the defendant identifies no specific reason why these materials are relevant to the issues pending in those cases, other than to falsely accuse the Recipient and the Government of some sort of malfeasance.' + +In sum, the defendant's arguments in favor of her application offer no explanation of the relevant legal theory the materials would support, not to mention a compelling reason for this Court to permit an end-run around the protective order and permit the use of criminal discovery to litigate a civil case. Accordingly, the application in the Defense Letter should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +By: /s Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record, via ECF + +6If anything, the Defense Letter suggests that the defendant intends to use criminal discovery materials to attack the Government in the Civil Cases, attacks of no discernable relevance in those cases and made in a forum in which the Government is not a party and would have no opportunity to respond. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6351837d3c1147596067a6a176511f69710dd86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/EFTA02829570.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,259 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 15755, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829570" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11ed1c9956962d229879e3bc3dcb4d5b93ea9ca3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829570/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:63407e78070b152b4e39d270b2611a365086d9b3392df75b40f7e130e6983e1b +size 3370 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ced4ff006844df45d2a18647a82444333638b99e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +August 21, 2020 + +## TO BE FILED PARTIALLY UNDER SEAL + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to propose certain redactions to the defendant's letter of August 17, 2020 (the "Defense Letter") and to request that the exhibits attached to the Defense Letter be filed under seal during the pendency of an ongoing grand jury investigation. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the filing of the Defense Letter with the proposed redactions contained in Exhibit A hereto (which itself will be submitted to the Court under seal), and that the Court permit all of the exhibits to the Defense Letter to be filed under seal. The Government does not object to the public filing of the affidavit attached to the Defense Letter in unredacted form. Additionally, the Government will file a redacted version of this letter on the public docket, and separately will submit an unreduced version to the Court. + +As an initial matter, the proposed redactions, and the request that the exhibits be filed under seal, are consistent with the Government's designation of the underlying material as "Confidential" within the meaning of the Protective Order in this case. See Protective Order 1 15 (Dkt. 36). Moreover, as detailed more fully in the Government's companion submission, that designation is appropriate given the nature of the documents at issue, all of which pertain to the Government's pending grand jury investigation.' That alone strongly weighs in favor of permitting the redactions and sealed filings at issue: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(eX6) provides, in relevant part, + +I To the extent it would be useful to this Court for the Government to further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation, the Government is prepared to file a supplemental letter specifically on that subject ex pane and under seal should the Court request such an explanation. + +August 21, 2020 + +Page 2 + +that "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." + +Relatedly, the exhibits at issue—all of which pertain to several ex parte applications made by the Government—have previously been ordered to kept under seal by the relevant judicial officers, who have made the requisite findings to warrant sealing. The requested redactions and sealing would thus be necessary to ensure compliance with those sealing orders and is justified based upon them.2 Cf. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) ("Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy ... is an integral part of our criminal justice system."). + +Assuming without agreeing that these materials constitute "judicial documents" within the meaning of First Amendment right-of-access jurisprudence, such a determination would not be dispositive. The First Amendment presumptive right of access applies to civil and criminal proceedings and "protects the public against the government's arbitrary interference with access to important information." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. ("NYCTA"), 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Circuit has applied two different approaches when deciding whether the First Amendment right applies to particular material. The "experience-and-logic" approach asks "both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second approach—employed when analyzing judicial documents related to judicial proceedings covered by the First Amendment right—asks whether the documents at issue "are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). + +Even when it applies, the First Amendment right creates only a presumptive right of access, and the "presumption is rebuttable upon demonstration that suppression 'is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'" Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510(1984)) (internal citation omitted). "What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to [exclude the public] without sufficient justification," NYCTA, 684 F.3d at 296, not the simple act of exclusion itself. Thus, the presumptive right of access may be overcome by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124. + +2 The only exceptions to those sealing orders are the permission contained in a certain order issued in April 2019, namely that the order itself may be provided to the recipient of a subpoena, and, pursuant to separate permissions the Government has obtained in connection with its discovery obligations, that the entirety of the relevant filings may be provided to the defendant as discovery in this criminal case. + +Page 3 + +Here, even assuming the materials at issue constitute judicial documents, any presumption in favor of access is overcome because of the nature of the documents themselves, namely materials related to a grand jury investigation. + +As described above, the grand jury investigation is active and ongoing, and resulted in new charges being brought just last month in this case. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In sum, the Government respectfully submits that the exhibits to the Defense Letter, which consist entirely of filings that have been ordered sealed by other judicial officers, should similarly be filed under seal in this case while the grand jury investigation remains ongoing. For the same reasons, the Government proposes redacting any portions of the Defense Letter that [REDACTED]. + +[REDACTED] + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the redactions to the Defense Letter proposed in Exhibit A hereto and that both the unredacted Defense Letter and the exhibits thereto remain under seal until further order of the Court. Additionally, because the instant letter discusses the Government's ongoing investigation and references [REDACTED]. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] the Government also respectfully requests that it be permitted to file a redacted version of this letter on the public docket and that the unredacted version of this letter as well as Exhibit A to this letter be filed under seal. + +August 21, 2020 + +Page 4 + +Finally, the Government respectfully proposes that the Court set a date approximately 180 days from now, or as soon thereafter as the Court believes would be appropriate, for the Government to update the Court on its position regarding sealing in connection with this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +By: /s Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record, by email \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c536a377531f3cee7cf06a49e73496976b11908 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/EFTA02829575.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7958, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.17, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 71.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TO BE FILED PARTIALLY UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 304.84735107421875, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 304.84735107421875, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 241.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 241.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829575" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acc059452cf5e269cf738f4fdec15424cc473f50 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829575/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bb10a7e6b770c2b91b3b0e56bfebd02ae0f3a18f3df61122ace99f0a98ba2b0a +size 3301 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b451e7c168ed7e667d1b560939aa9aed1e64e736 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +August 24, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Haddon, ond -,P.0 Laura A. Menninger + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com Imenningenthmflaw.com + +Re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +This is a letter motion to file under seal Ms. Maxwell's Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order ("Proposed Redactions") as well as her Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order ("Reply"). + +The Protective Order in this case states: + +The Defendant, Defense Counsel, Defense Staff, Defense Experts/Advisors, Potential Defense Witnesses, and Other Authorized Persons are prohibited from filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information referenced in the Discovery, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. Any such filings must be filed under seal, unless authorized by the Government in writing or by Order of the Court. + +See Protective Order (Doc. 36) at 1 15. + +The Proposed Redactions and the Reply contain content designated as Confidential Information by the Government under the terms of the Protective Order. + +Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Proposed Redactions and Reply under seal, at least until such time as the Court has ruled on the proposed redactions set forth therein. + +Hon. Alison J. Nathan August 24, 2020 Page 2 + +Sincerely, + +HADDON. AND P.C. + +/s/ Laura A. Menninger + +Laura A. Menninger + +CC: All Counsel of Record (Via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96df899b08a84821cdbe0d6fa841aa5272f018b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/EFTA02829579.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1847, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 142.17080688476562, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 142.17080688476562, + 227.60302734375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 227.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829579" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdcf5b4c9e0572a225aaafb85c37e8d8e2467588 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829579/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c5efc01dcf5e856609fa1917078fdfb338823775a7504458a20fa95b97c680df +size 6532 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..488e5976a1186fab0d319c49038cc5c81b8c0b40 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 8,25 20 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's requests are DENIED without prejudice. + +## I. The Disclosure of Alleged Victims' Identities + +The Defendant first seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Dkt. No. 38 at 1. Her request is premature. Production of discovery, which may itself identify alleged victims and relevant witnesses to the defense, has just begun. Moreover, the parties have not yet engaged in discussions regarding an appropriate schedule for pretrial disclosures, including witness lists and § 3500 material. The Court is mindful of the factors pointed to by the Defendant—in particular the fact that charges in this matter relate to conduct that allegedly took place many years ago—and anticipates that such a schedule would require the disclosure of + +alleged victims and witnesses substantially in advance of trial. But that alone does not justify such relief at this very early stage. Following the close of discovery, the parties should meet and confer on an appropriate schedule in light of all relevant factors. If the parties are unable to reach agreement as to a pretrial disclosure schedule, the Defendant may renew her request. The denial is therefore without prejudice. + +## II. The Defendant's Conditions of Confinement + +In her August 10,2020 letter motion, the Defendant also sought "an order directing [BOP] to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense." Dkt. No. 38 at 1. The Government responded that the BOP has modified the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement so that she has access to discovery materials thirteen hours a day, seven days a week. Dkt. No. 41 at 5. The Defendant's reply credited the GOP's change in policy but nonetheless asked the Court to "confirm these changes in an order to the BOP" and "that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees." Dkt. No. 42 at 4-5. + +The Court denies this request. The BOP is providing the Defendant with conditions that allow her access to discovery materials so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. Further action by the Court as this juncture is therefore unnecessary. Should facts on the ground change such that the Defendant is not being provided sufficient access to her legal materials, defense counsel may seek intervention by the Court. + +The Defendant also requests that the Court order BOP that Ms. Maxwell "be monitored in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. + +Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees." Dkt. No. 42 at 5. In a footnote, the defense clarifies that "[a]s long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population." Dkt. No. 42 at 5 n.4. + +The Court sees no basis for granting the Defendant's request for an order directed to BOP. First, the Government has assured the Court that lajs with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff," thereby ensuring that Ms. Maxwell's ability to communicate with her counsel is in no way interfered. Dkt. No. 41 at 4 n.5. And as to the more general implementation of surveillance procedures, the Court credits GOP's duty to ensure the safety and security of the Defendant as justifying the measures BOP has adopted. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) ("Prison administrators .. . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security."). Nor does the Defendant provide any basis for the Court to conclude that the level of surveillance is punitive. Dkt. No. 42 at 5. Though pretrial detainees "may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law," Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535, it does not follow that surveillance measures are punitive just because the Defendant deems them "onerous." Dkt. No. 42 at 4. The Defendant has provided the Court with no evidence, and no reason to believe, that the surveillance measures are motivated by improper purposes. + +As a result, Defendant's request is denied. To ensure that Ms. Maxwell is able to continue to adequately participate in her defense, however, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the + +conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. + +### **III. Conclusion** + +For the reasons stated above, Defendant's requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 25, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a665a39562ecebe04c8d3de0afb911d023ded524 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581/EFTA02829581.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829581.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6469, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Disclosure of Alleged Victims' Identities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 357.7590637207031, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 357.7590637207031, + 497.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 497.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Defendant's Conditions of Confinement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 356.119140625, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 356.119140625, + 251.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 251.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 167.67000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829581" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..827440ecac35d04addcb0b76862ef26ad59a357e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 9/2/20 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case.' Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases ("Civil Cases") materials ("Documents") that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to + +'This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo If')). The Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant's letter motion is "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo f'), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the second element. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forth—including, most notably, the threat that public disclosure of the redacted sections would interfere with an ongoing grand jury investigation—favor the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. + +In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute. + +reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's requests are DENIED. + +Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), a Court may enter a protective order only after it finds that good cause exists. Within this framework, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure leave it to the discretion of the Court to determine whether modification of an existing protective order is warranted.2 To make that decision, the Court takes into account all relevant factors, including the parties' reliance on the protective order and whether the moving party has sufficiently substantiated a request to deviate from the status quo in the instant matter. + +On July 30, 2020, this Court entered a protective order in this case, having determined that good cause existed. Dkt. No. 36. The parties agreed that a protective order was warranted. See Dkt. No. 35 at 1 ("The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order."). The Defendant's Proposed Protective Order included a provision that stated that all discovery produced by the Government "[s]. be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action." Dkt. No. 29, Ex. A ¶ 1(a). That language was included in the Court's July 30, 2020 protective order. See Dkt. No. 36 ¶¶ 1(a), 10(a), 14(a). Shortly thereafter, the Government began to produce discovery. + +Upon receipt of some of the discovery, the Defendant filed the instant request, which seeks modification of the protective order in order to use documents produced in the criminal + +2 In the civil context, there is a "strong presumption against the modification of a protective order." In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Courts in the Second Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCH), 2017 WL 6453344, at •2 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a criminal case); United States v. Kerik, No. 07-CR-I 027 (LAP), 2014 WL 12710346 at •1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (same). See also United States v. Morales, 807 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2015) (applying the standard for "good cause" in the civil context when evaluating whether to modify a protective order entered in a criminal case); United States v. Week, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3rd Cir. 2007) (same). + +case in other civil proceedings. She bases her request on the premise that disclosure of the Documents to the relevant judicial officers is allegedly necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of issues being litigated in those civil matters. But after fourteen single-spaced pages of heated rhetoric, the Defendant proffers no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions as to why that is the case. She provides no coherent explanation of what argument she intends to make before those courts that requires the presentation of the materials received in discovery in this criminal matter under the existing terms of the protective order in this case. And she furnishes no substantive explanation regarding the relevance of the Documents to decisions to be made in those matters, let alone any explanation of why modifying the protective order in order to allow such disclosure is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of those matters. In sum, the arguments the Defendant presents to the Court plainly fail to establish good cause. The Defendant's request is DENIED on this basis. + +Indeed, good cause for the requested modification of the protective order is further lacking because, as far as this Court can discern, the facts she is interested in conveying to the judicial decisionmakers in the Civil Cases are already publicly available, including in the Government's docketed letter on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. In the opening paragraph of her reply letter dated August 24, 2020, the Defendant states that she is essentially seeking to disclose under seal to certain judicial officers the following factual information: + +- I. Grand jury subpoenas were issued to an entity ("Recipient") after the Government opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible coconspirators; +- 2. The Recipient concluded that it could not turn over materials responsive to the grand jury subpoena absent a modification of the civil protective orders in the civil cases; + +- 3. In February 2019, the Government, ex parte and under seal, sought modification of those civil protective orders so as to permit compliance with the criminal grand July subpoenas; +- 4. In April 2019, one court ("Court-1") permitted the modification and, subsequently, another court ("Court-2") did not; +- 5. That as a result of the modification of the civil protective order by Court-1, the Recipient turned over to the Government certain materials that had been covered by the protective order; and +- 6. That the Defendant learned of this information (sealed by other courts) as a result of Rule 16 discovery in this criminal matter. + +With the exception of identifying the relevant judicial decision makers and specific civil matters, all of the information listed above is available in the public record, including in the letter tiled on the public docket by the Government on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. Although this Court remains in the dark as to why this information will be relevant to those courts, so that those courts can make their own determination, to the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by the protective order in this matter, the Court hereby permits the defendant to provide to the relevant courts under seal the above information, including the information identifying the relevant judicial decision makers and civil matters. + +In addition, the Government has indicated that "there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials." Dkt. No. 46 at 3 n.5. In her reply, the Defendant asserts that she is amenable to such a solution if the Court agrees with the Government that doing so would not contravene the protective order in this case. To the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by the protective + +order in this matter, the Defendant may make unsealing applications to those Courts if she wishes. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: September 2, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d314af2c2abd63f990d5378959197f894cc0d0a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585/EFTA02829585.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829585.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 9814, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829585" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64b48cf71fe8b4f6d5009f578c1fb15d7d6690dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.md @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +August 17, 2020 + +#### VIA EMAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|--------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 9/2/20 | + +Jeffrey Paglwc a + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 PX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagluca@hmtlaw.com + +Re: Request to Modify Protective Order (UNDER SEAL)' United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, pursuant to paragraph 18 of this Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 36), requests that the Court enter an Order allowing her to refer to and file under seal, in (the "Other Matters"), certain discovery materials produced by the government on August 5, 2020. She also seeks to refer to (but not file) discovery materials produced by the government on August 13, 2020, specifically 2 + +Disclosure to the judicial officers in the Other Matters is necessary for fair determination of important issues + +Ms. Maxwell seeks leave to file this Letter Motion under seal because it relates and refers to discovery materials deemed Confidential under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. + +2 + +[REDACTED].3 The items to be referred to (and not filed) are confidential; accordingly, referring to them under seal in the Other Matters will not prejudice the government. + +**Relevant Facts and Procedural History** + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +3 The Materials to be filed are attached, under seal, as exhibits [REDACTED]. Although marked by the government as "Confidential," the Materials are not "Confidential" as that term has been defined by the Second Circuit. They consist of [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The Second Circuit has characterized these types of documents as "judicial documents" with a presumptive right of public access. See [REDACTED] v. *Maxwell*, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell objected to the government's Confidential designation, under paragraph 9 of the Protective Order, and requested that the government withdraw the designation. The Court does not need to decide the issue of whether the Material is confidential at this time given that Ms. Maxwell seeks only to provide the Material to judicial officers under seal as information necessary to fairly decide pending issues in those cases. + +5 [REDACTED] + +August 17, 2020 + +Page 3 + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +**The Material** + +The government apparently contacted [Redacted] at some time before February 2019 [Redacted] +[Redacted] Based on some discussion with [Redacted] +[Redacted], the government served [Redacted] with a subpoena to produce [Redacted] +[Redacted]. Ms. Maxwell was not served with + +any subpoena. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +In or about February 28, 2019 the government first applied to [REDACTED] for relief. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] During these *ex parte* proceedings, the government made numerous unchallenged factual assertions. To Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, no one disclosed the pendency of these applications to [REDACTED]. Certainly, no one -- not the government, any court, or [REDACTED] -- disclosed to Ms. Maxwell [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**The indictment** [REDACTED] +On July 2, 2020, [REDACTED], the government arrested Ms. Maxwell. On July 8, the government filed a superseding indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell "assisted, facilitated, and contributed" to Epstein's abuse of minors. [REDACTED] the indictment alleges that in 2016 Ms. Maxwell made "efforts to conceal her conduct" by "repeatedly provid[ing] false and perjurious statements" in deposition testimony. Superseding Indictment, Doc. # 17 at 29 ¶ 8. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED]. On the two applications referenced above [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] the two SDNY courts rendered a split decision. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] granted the *ex* + +6 The first batch of discovery was provided by the government to NY counsel on August 5, 2020 in the late afternoon on a hard disk. Due to the time upload and securely transfer files, undersigned counsel for Ms. Maxwell (also counsel for her in the [REDACTED] case) only received these materials at 11:38 a.m. on Friday, August 7, 2020. + +*parte* application. [REDACTED] denied the application. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] .7 + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell then learned, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The pressing issue that necessitates the filing of this request concerns [REDACTED] + +These issues, in turn, impact her rights as the accused in this matter, constitutionally presumed innocent unless and until the government proves her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. + +**The Protective Order in this case** + +The Protective Order in this case prohibits the use of the discovery materials or confidential-designated materials “for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action” absent mutual agreement in writing between the government and defense counsel or if “modified by further order of the Court.” Doc. # 36 at ¶¶ 1(a), 10(a), 18. Ms. Maxwell agreed to that limitation after assurances by the government, consistent with their representation to this Court, that “the Government rarely *provides* any third party, including a witness, with any material they did not already possess,” and therefore “concerns defense counsel raises about future use in civil litigation are not likely to occur.” Letter of Alex Rossmiller at 6 (Doc. # 33) (July 28, 2020). This Court relied on that representation in its ruling that government witnesses should not be limited in their use of materials gained from the government in any related civil litigation. Memorandum Op’n & Order at 3 (July 30, 2020). Yet as described above, the government must have given a copy of the sealed order to [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Paragraph 18 of the Protective Order permits modification by the Court. Further, any concerns that the government may raise concerning their on-going grand jury investigation will be obviated by submission of these materials under seal in the other matters. + +**The reasons this Court should grant the request** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +--- + +7 [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +August 17, 2020 + +Page 6 + +There are at least three compelling reasons to modify the Protective Order. First, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The partial secrecy surrounding the Material has also fundamentally undermined the fairness of the adversarial process. Although the grand jury subpoena and government investigation were known to [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] “The rule does not impose any obligation of secrecy on witnesses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6, Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision 6(e)2. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Too many questions remain unanswered including exactly what was said between the government and [REDACTED], when was it said, and precisely what was turned over. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Without the ability to use the Material in the very limited fashion proposed Ms. Maxwell she is unfairly disadvantaged [REDACTED] Moreover, instead of candidly revealing the fact of the subpoena [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Second, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Further, and as this Court knows, ample Second Circuit authority supports staying a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case. *See SEC v. Blaszczak*, No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN), 2018 WL 301091, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion to stay civil case and holding that "[a] district court may stay civil proceedings when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so" (quoting *Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.*, 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012)))). Among other things, the stay vindicates the Fifth Amendment and guards against witnesses learning information in the civil case and then "conforming" their testimony in the criminal case to what was disclosed in the civil case. This concern is all the more real when [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Ms. Maxwell further anticipates the very immediate need to disclose the Materials to [REDACTED] + +Notably, the Material at issue is not accuser-related or sensitive in any regard. These *ex parte* pleadings, hearings, and rulings are already known to [REDACTED]. These materials, absent sealing, would enjoy a presumptive right of public access as judicial documents. Given that the Material has been *disclosed in this case* by the government under the terms of this Court's Order, and without any application to the sealing courts, the government has conceded that this Court has the authority to authorize use of the Material under the terms of this Court's Protective Order. And, the government has previously agreed that the appropriate forum to consider issues related to the civil Protective Order is in the civil litigation, positing the opinion "that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases." Doc. # 33 at 7. What Ms. Maxwell asks is that she be allowed to disclose, under seal, the Material so that [REDACTED] + +**The Protective Order in this case** [REDACTED] + +The Material, as part of the court files in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, [REDACTED] + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +August 17, 2020 + +Page 8 + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] ).8 + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**Conclusion** + +Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court modify the Protective Order to allow her to refer to and file under seal in [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] he Material at issue in this letter motion. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +![]()Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via Email) + +\_\_\_\_\_ +8 +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..493be53eecb3e662226e2bff232eba327abac830 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/EFTA02829590.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 10707, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Relevant Facts and Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 407.592, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 407.592, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 146.60999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 655.29 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 655.29 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Protective Order in this case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 311.85 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The reasons this Court should grant the request", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 321.3, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 321.3, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 587.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Protective Order in this case [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 523.26, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 523.26, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 603.45 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 130.968, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 130.968, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 213.03000000000003 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829590" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f56f84af58d6379373450a390b699c41dc9c9ce0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829590/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6592a0a6cf1dd230df2155877bbf23461e1d0ee559f2b3454c2505b9d01f9e64 +size 6352 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0516d432b8dee6b66a7d3eab4a8b76998eda95ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg) + +H A D D O N +[REDACTED] A N +[REDACTED] N + +Haddon, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], P.C. +Jeffrey Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue +Denver, Colorado 80203 +PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 +www.hmflaw.com +jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +August 24, 2020 + +**VIA EMAIL** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal) +*United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +In accordance with this Court's Order of August 18, 2020 (Doc. 44), Ms. Maxwell hereby respectfully submits under seal her proposed redactions to her Request to Modify Protective Order ("Request"), filed under seal on August 17, 2020. Ms. Maxwell also has filed her Reply under seal and contemporaneously submits her proposed redactions to that pleading.1 + +Ms. Maxwell has no opposition to keeping under seal, and redacting from her Request and Reply, the contents, description and discussion of the sealed materials themselves; because the government has marked them Confidential, the Protective Order requires as much. *See* Doc. 36, ¶ 15. + +The government's proposed redactions, however, go further and propose to redact [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. The government would have this Court redact [REDACTED] on the premise that it would "risk jeopardizing the government's investigation." + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +1 To the extent this Court believes this letter also should be filed publicly, counsel also has indicated her proposed redactions to this letter. + +August 24, 2020 + +Page 2 + +Moreover, the government has made repeated, highly public statements, including at the press conference following Ms. Maxwell's indictment,2 in the press conference following Mr. Epstein's indictment? in a press conference convened at the doorstep of Mr. Epstein's former New York mansion,' and in other publicly-released statements5 that its investigation into associates of Mr. Epstein is ongoing and active. + +. The process to evaluate whether a judicial document should remain under seal is clear. Once a determination is made that the materials are judicial documents the Court is required to determine whether any countervailing interests outweigh the presumptive right to public access. v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019). + +Frankly, Ms. Maxwell does not believe that the government has established a countervailing interest compelling enough to justify continued sealing of the documents. + +It is also likely that these same documents will be the subject of future motion practice in this Court, + +However, Ms. Maxwell has no interest in additional pretrial publicity related to any of these documents and submits that protecting her right to a fair trial is the countervailing interest that, at this point, requires her proposed redactions and the continued sealing of the materials with the exception of her limited request to file the materials under seal + +2 "These charges to be announced today, are the latest result of our investigation into Epstein, and the people around him who facilitated his abuse of minor victims. That investigation remains ongoing." (https://www rev.comiblogitranscriptriannouncement-transcript-of-charges-against-ghislaine-maxwell-in-new-yorkjeffrey-epstein-associate-arrested). + +3 "This in no way is over, OK. There's going to be more investigative steps they're going to take place and the FBI with the U.S. attorney here is going to continue to investigate." lutp://transcripts.cnn.comffRANSCRIPTS/1907/08/ath.0l html). + +`Sarah Nathan and Kate Sheey, "Prince Andrew refuses to cooperate with feds in Jeffrey Epstein probe," NY Post (Jan. 27, 2020) (https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/prince-andrew-refuses-to-cooperate-with-feds-in-jeffrey-epsteinprobe°. + +5 Alan Fetter, "Prince Andrew and U.S> Prosecutor in Nasty Dispute Over Epstein Case," NY Times (June 8, 2020) (https:/Anvw nytimes.com/2020/06/08/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew html). + +The Honorable Alison 7. Nathan + +August 24, 2020 + +Page 3 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +![](_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via Email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac91a9fecceb05f761a9161b119efa467c44cbb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/EFTA02829598.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4308, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 138.924, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 138.924, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 222.75 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829598" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79678010971008346891068c928aec5c2dc3a0ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:832d506a233b624385900d706a3146dc2ecbd0bae8c0546ce8a91db08dc6c976 +size 2855 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..869692f234d968963c3b8816f78cd90084bc08d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829598/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:09c335e1369f4b8e6f0cccb2851bf1822a498908c0dbd17736c7613b058eb449 +size 3336 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf0e24fa64fd3535c92e2f5b6da892a467acca96 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON a P4 N + +August 24, 2020 + +## VIA EMAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and Jeffrey Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628 www.hmflow.com jpagilucaghmllaw.com + +Re: Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)' United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a simple request: that she be permitted to disclose under seal to (the "Civil Litigation") the fact that her adversary already handed over + +M, to the U.S. Attorney's Office pursuant to a subpoena + +The government proposes to keep in the dark about the fact and method of the disclosure. They claim the civil litigation is "unrelated," that issuance of the subpoena was "standard practice: and that disclosure will jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation and "permit dissemination of a vast swath of materials." Each of the government's arguments lack merit. + +The Civil IA + +First, the government claims the civil action is frivolous. Resp. at 1. The assertion is + +Ms. Maxwell has filed a letter motion which seeks leave to file this reply under seal. while providing the unredacted version to the government and the Court. This reply describes and discusses sealed materials and materials subject to the Protective Order in this case. Ms. Maxwell also simultaneously files under separate cover her proposed redactions to her Request to Modify Protective Order (Aug. 17. 2020). and this Reply. in accordance with the Court's Order of August 18. 2020 (Doc. 44). + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +August 24, 2020 +Page 2 + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED]. The government's *ad hominem* suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has "cherry-pick[ed] materials" to seek an "advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse" or "delay court-ordered disclosure of previously sealed materials" reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of understanding [REDACTED]. It also begs the question, to be fleshed out at a later time, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts about which her adversary is already aware. + +Issuance of the Subpoenas Not "Standard Practice": + +Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as "standard practice." Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, *Martindell v. Int'l Telephone & Telegraph Corp.*, 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different procedure: the use of a non-*ex parte* subpoena with an opportunity for the aggrieved party to move to quash. Similar cases in this district demonstrate the "non-standard" nature of the government's conduct regarding these subpoenas. For example, Judge Koeltl observed when considering whether to release a single deposition transcript to the government: "the Second Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its 'awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff's discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action." *Botha v. Don* [REDACTED] *Prods., Inc.*, No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing *Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.*, 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and *Martindell*, 594 F.2d at 297). [REDACTED] + +August 24, 2020 + +Page 3 + +see also Palmieri v. State of New York 779 F.24 861 (2d Cir. 1987); Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA, + +Case 2015-cv-5826 (CBA) (MDG), 2016 WL 11613256 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a presumption in favor of enforcing protective orders against grand jury subpoenas."); United States v. Kerik, 07 CR 1027, 2014 WL 12710346 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014). It seems that a majority of courts in this district have rejected the claimed "standard practice" arguments made by the Government A notable difference is that the other applications were not conducted ex parte. + +asking this Court to decide that question today. Ms. Maxwell is not + +But Ms. Maxwell is seeking + +The Government Does Not Explain How Any "Secret" Investigation Will be Compromised. Third, the government claims that the materials at issue are "Confidential" because the "full scope and details" of their very-public proclamations of an ongoing criminal investigation "have not been made public." Resp. at 3. This argument too is nonsensical: the sealed materials that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file, under seal, + +Certainly the subpoena recipient, otherwise known as counsel for the adverse party to the Civil Litigation, knows the two things that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal in + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +August 24, 2020 +Page 4 + +that matter: [REDACTED] +[REDACTED].2 + +The government does not explain, because they cannot, how it will harm an ongoing criminal investigation to reveal the sealed materials under seal to two arbiters: [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Clearly those judicial officers are fully capable of maintaining files under seal and confidences. Nor is there any support for the argument that this limited request will “permit dissemination of a vast swath of materials.” Resp. at 3. The slippery slope contention is belied by the limited nature of Ms. Maxwell’s request. The sealed materials are a discrete set of judicial documents, not a “vast swath of materials,” and Ms. Maxwell seeks to file them under seal for those Courts to use in their determinations. Hyperbole aside, the request is appropriately limited. + +Further, the government’s suggestion that “there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials” is, at best, baffling. Resp. at 3 n.5. Such a “sealed application” in furtherance of her Civil Litigation would be “using” the materials for the civil case, exactly the conduct proscribed by the Protective Order here. If the Court disagrees, Ms. Maxwell is more than happy to make such sealed applications to those judicial officers. The government does not explain its thinking, nor did the government suggest this course of action during the conferral process. + +The Sealed Materials Are Important to [REDACTED] +Fourth, the government decries the sealed materials’ lack of relevance to [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +2 Ms. Maxwell strenuously opposes the government’s suggestion that it “further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation” in a supplemental *ex parte* and sealed pleading. This Court is overseeing the criminal case pertaining to Ms. Maxwell and any *ex parte* pleading concerning this case to this judicial officer is inappropriate. *See* Standard 3-3.3 Relationship with Courts, Defense Counsel and Others, “Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function,” American Bar Ass’n (4th ed. 2017) (“A prosecutor should not engage in unauthorized *ex parte* discussions with, or submission of material to, a judge relating to a particular matter which is, or is likely to be, before the judge.”). + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +August 24, 2020 +Page 5 + +[Redacted text block] + +Protective Orders May Be Modified As Circumstances Change + +Finally, the government suggests in a myriad of ways without directly arguing that this Protective Order cannot be modified, that Ms. Maxwell somehow waived her ability to seek modification by agreeing to a Protective Order before she knew what was contained in the criminal discovery, or that there is no precedent for such a modification. These suggestions are disingenuous. Of course, the Government ignores that the Protective Order itself provides that it may be modified “by further order of the Court.” *Id*, ¶ 18(b). + +There is no precedence for this case. That is true because the Second Circuit has outlined a process for the government to seek civil materials subject to protective orders for use in grand jury investigations, a process the government circumvented. It also is true because typically, the government is the party to intervene in civil cases and seek a stay where materials the government has marked “Confidential” may be disclosed publicly or where the government contends the rules of criminal discovery will be circumvented. Finally, there is no other case that defense counsel has located where [Redacted] + +[Redacted text block] + +That Ms. Maxwell did not know what was in the sealed materials before she signed the Protective Order, or proposed a draft, is self-evident. That a Court can modify a protective order at any time is likewise well-established. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) authorizes the Court to regulate discovery through protective orders and modification of those orders. *See* [Redacted] [Redacted] *Beecham Corp. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.*, 210 F.R.D. 163, 166 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (“[c]ourts have the inherent power to modify protective orders, including protective orders arising from a stipulation by the parties”); *see also United States v. Gurney*, 558 F.2d 1202, 1211 n.15 (5th Cir. 1977) (trial court’s decisions as to which documents “will be placed in the public domain, and which are entitled to privacy and confidentiality” are discretionary and “form an integral part of trial management”); *United States v. Wecht*, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (July 2, 2007) (“it would have been proper for the District Court to unseal the records pursuant to its general discretionary powers”); *Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc.*, 989 F.2d 527, 532 & 535 (1st Cir. 1993). + +“The standard of review for a request to vacate or modify a protective order depends on the nature of the documents in question. There is a presumptive right of public access to judicial + +August 24, 2020 + +Page 6 + +documents, that is, documents that are `relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.'" Kerik, 2014 WL 12710346, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014), (quoting United States v. Atnodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). + +The Materials that Ms. Maxwell seeks to disclose (to judicial officers under seal) are, without question, judicial documents. + +And, at a minimum, Ms. Maxwell's opponent in the Civil Litigation knows both that the Government obtained an ex pane order to subpoena the information and what was produced. Accordingly, the argument that somehow grand jury secrecy will be compromised by disclosure, under seal to judicial officers reviewing the very material at issue, is absurd. Ms. Maxwell has demonstrated good cause for her very limited request to present a discrete set of sealed materials under seal to + +The government has not articulated a cogent reason for that information to be kept from the other judicial officers. + +![](_page_5_Picture_9.jpeg) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17b8e0ac913647f270eb851ff81e85580dbf6e64 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/EFTA02829601.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,329 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 11374, + "elapsed_seconds": 91.36, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_9.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Issuance of the Subpoenas Not \"Standard Practice\":", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 321.3, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 321.3, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 518.4000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Protective Orders May Be Modified As Circumstances Change", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 229.23 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 229.23 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829601" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49895799a6f5cb85c7795c910ae7dcec8333a33c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:54f31b4e5688b70a3e69a642779adb4ae6db5a4e348fbca9302d4523228f77d1 +size 2882 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_5_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_5_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..175316d2c5f414e07ea6ce9b0b90986a355a85c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829601/_page_5_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8f66fbfbbd8703f807c72b4d01636a2ffba13b398023ccdaa2c67d4c56a06280 +size 3116 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cffd555487f042926f7b0b1414f24dfba78e6709 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.md @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +X + +X + +![](_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +## NOTICE OF APPEAL + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal). + +Dated: September 3, 2020. + +Res ectfully submitted, 0' ura A. Menninger (LM-1374) HADDON, AND effrey S. Pa (pro hSel a + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303.831.7364 + +Fax: 303.832.2628 + +Imenninger@hmflaw.com + +jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that on September 3, 2020, I filed this Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Court by mail pursuant to Section 17 of the CM/ ECF Rules and served all parties of record by email. + +Is/ Nicole + +| Court Name: District Court | +|------------------------------| +| Division: 1 | +| Receipt Number: 465481266836 | +| Cashier ID: Swooten | +| Transaction Date: 89/89/2020 | +| Payer Name: GHISLANE MAXWELL | + +--- + +NOTICE OF APPEAL/DOCKETING FEE +For: GHISLANE MAXWELL +Amount: \$585.00 + +--- + +CHECK +Check/Money Order Num: 329 +Amt Tendered: \$585.00 + +--- + +| Total Due: | \$585.00 | +|-----------------|----------| +| Total Tendered: | \$585.00 | +| Change Amt: | \$0.00 | + +20CR000338 + +![](_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg) + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorodo 80203 PH 303.831.7364 ix 303.832.2628 wvnv.hmflow.com + +September 3, 2020 + +## VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY + +Southern District of New York Court Clerk's Office 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-13122 + +Re: US v. Ma well, Case No. 20 cr. 330 (MN) Notice of Appeal + +Dear Clerk of Court: + +Attached hereto is the Notice of Appeal for filing and a check in the amount of \$505.00 for the docketing and processing fees. + +If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the phone number referenced above. + +Very truly yours, + +Ala ak-AStea + +Nicole + +Enclosures + +RENEE MCREYNOLDS LTR 1 OF 1 3038317 HADDON, AND P. 150 EAST UE DENVER CO 80203 + +SHIENK OF COURT US DISTRICT COURT - SDNY 500 PEARL STREET DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN US COURTHOUSE NEWYORK NY 10007 + +![](_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg) + +NY 102 9-10 + +![](_page_5_Picture_8.jpeg) + +UPS NEXT DAY AIR + +TRACKING #. 1Z F46 61F 01 9417 6904 1 + +![](_page_5_Picture_12.jpeg) + +BILLING P/P UPS CARBON NEUTRAL SHIPMENT + +Reference CI: Maxwell 20 cr. 330 (AJN) i=:' 1= + +![](_page_5_Picture_16.jpeg) + +Ma 30 .KM .41145 >1St 07/2010. + +t + +![](_page_6_Picture_15.jpeg) + +**e** + +US DISTRICT COURT - SDNY + 500 PEARL ST + NEW YORK NY 10007 + +**P: PURPLE S: FRNT 1:028** + +**A18-1416** + +**0904** + +**1 030** + +SATO 08485 SSP 4 00:08:18 2020 + US 10001 HIPPS 20.3.0 SATO 08485 LL + +**Express Env** + +![](_page_7_Picture_2.jpeg) + +## Tracking Details + +1ZF4661F0194176904 + +Updated: 09/09/2020 10:55 A.M. EST + +# Delivered + +![](_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg) + +![](_page_7_Picture_8.jpeg) + +Delivered On + +Friday 09/04/2020 + +Delivery Time + +at 10:11 A.M. + +Send Updates + +Delivered To + +NEW YORK, NY, US + +Left At: Dock + +Received By: EDDIE + +Proof of Delivery. + +## This website uses cookies X + +We this to e underst nd ow visitors use our sit nd offer y a re rsona mrPM anP J rn 'ence. Please see e) for more information. You can manage your preferences by selecting Cookie Settinga. + +## Shipment Progress V + +![](_page_8_Picture_3.jpeg) + +## Shipment Details + +### Service + +UPS Next Day o L (taps://www.umomkgatent/usien/shipjYrjEtime/service/next daylitml) with UPS Carbon Neutral 01 + +Show More + + +![](_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg) + +![](_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg) + +lr Track + +Help 0, + +Track + +Copyright ©1994- 2020 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved. + +## This website uses cookies X + +![](_page_8_Picture_16.jpeg) + +We do this to better understand how visitors use our site and to offer you a more personal experience. Please see our privacy Notice (httSups.comius/en/help-center/legal-terms-conditions/privacy-notice.Da.ge) for more information. You can manage your preferences by selecting Cookie Settings. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3709a5013119b9c411a5d6125454f13b638a3b02 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/EFTA02829607.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,674 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 4840, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.1, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_8.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_12.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_16.jpeg", + "_page_6_Picture_15.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_8.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_16.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 423.9033508300781, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 423.9033508300781, + 112.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 112.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.964, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 371.7273254394531, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 371.7273254394531, + 336.2335510253906 + ], + [ + 242.964, + 336.2335510253906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.32, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.7691955566406, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.7691955566406, + 99.603515625 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 99.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 131.57999999999998, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 297.1233825683594, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 297.1233825683594, + 238.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 131.57999999999998, + 238.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 151.47 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Tracking Details", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 172.28311157226562, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 172.28311157226562, + 149.20355224609375 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 149.20355224609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Delivered", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 247.0294189453125 + ], + [ + 376.68731689453125, + 247.0294189453125 + ], + [ + 376.68731689453125, + 278.6859130859375 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 278.6859130859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "This website uses cookies X", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 690.7902984619141 + ], + [ + 577.2075805664062, + 690.7902984619141 + ], + [ + 577.2075805664062, + 706.4470367431641 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 706.4470367431641 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Shipment Progress V", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 48.96, + 64.221923828125 + ], + [ + 548.7518310546875, + 64.221923828125 + ], + [ + 548.7518310546875, + 81.64593505859375 + ], + [ + 48.96, + 81.64593505859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Shipment Details", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 48.96, + 114.1019287109375 + ], + [ + 157.21340942382812, + 114.1019287109375 + ], + [ + 157.21340942382812, + 131.14593505859375 + ], + [ + 48.96, + 131.14593505859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 48.96, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 95.2863540649414, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 95.2863540649414, + 160.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 48.96, + 160.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "This website uses cookies X", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 690.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 576.0875854492188, + 690.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 576.0875854492188, + 706.8170394897461 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 706.8170394897461 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829607" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1ce20f3f6cb777ac4bfc0e0b8e62e4239746566 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:42e369fb2d48dc722d45cddb9e6b392eef6d7503726b5307f1f20aeaaf481ea8 +size 13101 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..481a059d67569bb6c5d0c44ee6063d6860773a49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b1d11d26052115287411cfaeb5e926351fc42879436aeb202fb4e67723608812 +size 4775 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_12.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f4febda5b940b0fa8af346417903a015766255a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_12.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c73dfccd1619e285ca64a8bc408828915842b06e6fc278fd90bad803acca216a +size 24440 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_16.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da30678a3bec4b6af433c4ea7e3954484d9dd81c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_16.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0aaa58e9182e2b06101101286c13a46d862dd0dab5f44c95c56aa18796f0b0f9 +size 2173 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8294772c50626c16e55f2cdc57f8cace7fe4839d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:14f3b8e887bc3e1708354286fe258a04c3dac415a8efe77f3d5099a98f42d43d +size 13638 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d131464b27426db7a0fd09c46dc6bb818cec459 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_5_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:84aa788c676db9a3cd06c35508e70e214f8f40172a6113107b4c4c0890593f76 +size 6143 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_6_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_6_Picture_15.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7617424492d39920983f924e9ac7007f6dbdb8bf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_6_Picture_15.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2f37fdbb2724d8578dab298860d4482b3ade6b7550ceceb2d49e3ca0811a4d37 +size 18481 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4059763d0c7bee02fc3905cfb124cf53c479e9d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a99804dbc360253e08f55edc01f6616f20a226cefc81be60f1872803fa3eccf8 +size 2712 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81b5d616c7974abec96d35a299ebd0fe5587eb49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:aca5dd08b66b57d3999ae9022a9c45f5ee0c93c351f145ea457725b320379e5f +size 1113 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b274a9ced4bb1d41c60bf708a0996fe52c74cfe8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_7_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:43d5f84b52da5269f59489f4cd1d8c2d97343370ed1894922fa2c96c0eaf1cc1 +size 906 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_16.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..464929a0c6c95b9a8810750dee1e6f0513ccb628 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_16.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a0f8956cfe0148473bba70f09f32c92e9e49aa28ea709da3595f5876a309347b +size 918 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f04c687b96ebca27863e97ff1900e43337a625d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f8d42d8fa14dc3ce82c9e7882dc47363e279fb6bd3106fc982e8bf76009405b0 +size 832 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d259f05992c4cfd2573fef0e8de5d4bf52f620c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3db166125e54c891e56b24d38fc285f1c9770714e28baf09a18203c86efeabb3 +size 843 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c7569ef593190a59ff6784abb5d96ab3a84e4cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829607/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:de699c656db9bb01566612a2edeaec80cda1439096422573f1525f6e361ee12c +size 1349 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e318dde8e35b5ede89fc49f03c4f3d70981ffd07 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +To the Clerk of Court and all parties of record: + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney admitted to practice in this Court hereby appears as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. + +Dated: October 3, 2020 + +/s/ Bobbi C. Sternheim + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street — 4'h Floor New York, NY 10011 212-243-1100 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf4f77ae7ce91f0155fce9612950da63e90dc595 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616/EFTA02829616.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829616.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 558, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.9045104980469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.9045104980469, + 100.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.23248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829616" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6aae25d37e3f43c99c85c74fb50fdedf375d5760 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +October 6, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court grant the Government permission to delay disclosure to the defense of certain photographs of and documents regarding victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. These materials relate to abuse that postdated the time period charged in the Indictment, and the Government does not intend to offer them at trial. Although the Government intends to produce these materials to the defendant in advance of trial, premature disclosure of these materials could jeopardize the Government's ongoing investigation and would reveal sensitive victim information months in advance of trial. For these reasons and as set forth below, the Government respectfully submits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), that good cause exists to delay disclosure of these items to defense counsel until eight weeks prior to trial. The Government has conferred with defense counsel, who have indicated that they object to this request and intend to submit a letter in opposition. + +As the Court is aware, the superseding indictment in this case (the "Indictment") charges the defendant in six counts. Count One of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. + +At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte. + +A finding of good cause "'must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements."' United States v. Gangi, No. 97 Cr. 1215 (DC), 1998 WL 226196, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (quoting v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1986)). + +' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 provides for the production of discovery to a defendant, upon request, of certain materials, such as documents that are material to the preparation of the defense and documents the Government intends to use in its case-in-chief at trial. However, Rule 16(dX1) also provides that: + +§ 371. Count Two of the Indictment charges Maxwell with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and 2. Count Three of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four of the Indictment charges Maxwell with transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge Maxwell with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Counts One through Four focus on conduct between approximately 1994 and 1997. + +The charges in the Indictment arose out of a broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, which covered time periods beyond that included in the Indictment. During the course of that broader investigation, the Government has interviewed dozens of victims who were sexually abused by Epstein. As part of that broader investigation, the Government has obtained a limited number of sensitive documents and photographs regarding certain victims who were sexually abused by Epstein after 1997 (the "Materials"). These Materials include, for example, school photographs of certain victims and records, such as bank and travel records, for certain victims. The Government does not anticipate offering these Materials as evidence at trial in this case, and the Materials do not relate to individuals whom the Government currently anticipates calling as witnesses at trial. Moreover, the Materials post-date the time period charged in the Indictment. + +The Government has reviewed the Materials for any potentially exculpatory material, and has found none. Nevertheless, because the Government is taking an expansive approach to disclosures in this case, the Government intends to produce these Materials to the defendant along with 3500 material for non-testifying witnesses sufficiently in advance of trial in order to enable the defendant to review and, if appropriate, make use of the Materials in her defense. In particular, the Government intends to produce to the defendant, pursuant to a protective order, statements of all witnesses the Government has interviewed during its broader investigation, even if the Government does not intend to call those witnesses at trial. Should the Court grant the instant application, the Government would produce the Materials, along with any witness statements pertaining to the victims identified in the Materials, at the same time as all other statements by non-testifying witnesses. The Government is prepared to make that production as early as eight weeks in advance of trial. Because the volume of the Materials is limited to approximately 40 photographs and approximately 40 pages of documents, defense counsel's review of the Materials is unlikely to be unduly time consuming, thus minimizing any potential prejudice to the defendant from the delayed production. + +Delayed disclosure of the Materials is warranted because they include identifying information for victims who are not expected to testify in this case and who have provided information as part of the Government's ongoing investigation, the immediate disclosure of which would risk interfering with the Government's ongoing investigation. *See United States v. Mannino*, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (permitting delayed production of documents whose immediate disclosure to the defense would interfere with ongoing investigation); *cf. United States v. [REDACTED]*, 985 F. Supp. 506, 531-32 (2d Cir. 2013) (risk of interference with ongoing investigation sufficient good cause for entry of Rule 16 protective order). Immediate disclosure of these materials would have the effect of prematurely revealing to the defendant the identities of certain Epstein victims who are not referenced in the Indictment but who have spoken with the + +Government as part of its ongoing investigation, well in advance of any trial in this matter. Premature disclosure of these witnesses' identities and sensitive information about those witnesses risks jeopardizing the Government's ongoing investigation in at least two respects. First, disclosure would tend to reveal to the defendant the scope of and evidence gathered during the Government's ongoing investigation, the details of which are not currently public or known to the defendant. Second, an order requiring the immediate production of these Materials would risk deterring other victims from coming forward to be interviewed and from providing evidence to the Government. Victims who may be considering cooperating with the Government's investigation may decline to do so if they believe that the information they provide—even information outside the period charged in the Indictment—must be immediately disclosed to the defense in this case. Given the sensitivity of the Materials, the need to protect the Government's ongoing investigation, and the minimal (if any) relevance of the Materials to the offenses charged in the Indictment, the Government respectfully submits that good cause exists pursuant to Rule 16(d) to delay their disclosure. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government's request to delay disclosure of these Materials. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e7a91f4c2253b539c466affb1b5e09049a4b2c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/EFTA02829617.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8153, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.65, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829617" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b585bf04c34974bc66a06bdc4339745413045de3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829617/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6d2cc82e84d4e67d17e0c379e3d692b732fb89887833cc224bc7ba5249bd9577 +size 3431 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f36210489eb2d4acf47f4650880c6a41c2413b6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) SS.: + +MAURENE COMFY, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury: + +I. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the Assistants who represents the Government in these proceedings. + +2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that the Government has conferred in good faith with counsel to the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding the Government's request to delay disclosure of certain materials to the defense, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, and that the parties have been unable to reach agreement. + +3. In particular, the Government has asked defense counsel whether they will consent to delayed disclosure of certain materials related to victims who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein outside the period charged in the Indictment in this case (the "Materials"). Defense counsel has indicated that they will not consent to delayed disclosure of the Materials and that they intend to + +file an opposition to any motion by the Government seeking authorization to delay disclosure of the Materials. + +- 4. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. + +Dated: New York, New York October 6, 2020 + +-Maiiieneromey Assistant United States Attorney Telephone: (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b2e0f199b93faf2c3e3066e67f4fc6659658529 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620/EFTA02829620.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829620.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1653, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 101.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829620" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9baae6f0e5e24910665a8b75b3d8813e6bf1a30 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Th• SiMoJ Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Pla:a New York, New York /0007 + +October 6, 2020 + +SO ORDERED. 10/7/20 + +Alison J. Nathan, US.D.J. + +Re: United Stain v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 10/7/20 + +The Defendant shall file any opposition to the Government's request by October 14, 2020. The Government's reply, if any, is due by October 20, 2020. SO ORDERED. + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court grant the Government permission to delay disclosure to the defense of certain photographs of and documents regarding victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. These materials relate to abuse that postdated the time period charged in the Indictment, and the Government does not intend to offer them at trial. Although the Government intends to produce these materials to the defendant in advance of trial, premature disclosure of these materials could jeopardize the Government's ongoing investigation and would reveal sensitive victim information months in advance of trial. For these reasons and as set forth below, the Government respectfully submits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(dX1), that good cause exists to delay disclosure of these items to defense counsel until eight weeks prior to trial. I The Government has conferred with defense counsel, who have indicated that they object to this request and intend to submit a letter in opposition. + +As the Court is aware, the superseding indictment in this case (the "Indictment") charges the defendant in six counts. Count One of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. + +At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte. + +A finding of good cause "'must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements." United States v. Gangi, No. 97 Cr. 1215 (DC), 1998 WL 226196, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (quoting v. Gyovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1986)). + +I Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 provides for the production of discovery to a defendant, upon request, of certain materials, such as documents that are material to the preparation of the defense and documents the Government intends to use in its case-in-chief at trial. However, Rule 16(dX1) also provides that: + +§ 371. Count Two of the Indictment charges Maxwell with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and 2. Count Three of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four of the Indictment charges Maxwell with transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge Maxwell with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Counts One through Four focus on conduct between approximately 1994 and 1997. + +The charges in the Indictment arose out of a broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, which covered time periods beyond that included in the Indictment. During the course of that broader investigation, the Government has interviewed dozens of victims who were sexually abused by Epstein. As part of that broader investigation, the Government has obtained a limited number of sensitive documents and photographs regarding certain victims who were sexually abused by Epstein after 1997 (the "Materials"). These Materials include, for example, school photographs of certain victims and records, such as bank and travel records, for certain victims. The Government does not anticipate offering these Materials as evidence at trial in this case, and the Materials do not relate to individuals whom the Government currently anticipates calling as witnesses at trial. Moreover, the Materials post-date the time period charged in the Indictment. + +The Government has reviewed the Materials for any potentially exculpatory material, and has found none. Nevertheless, because the Government is taking an expansive approach to disclosures in this case, the Government intends to produce these Materials to the defendant along with 3500 material for non-testifying witnesses sufficiently in advance of trial in order to enable the defendant to review and, if appropriate, make use of the Materials in her defense. In particular, the Government intends to produce to the defendant, pursuant to a protective order, statements of all witnesses the Government has interviewed during its broader investigation, even if the Government does not intend to call those witnesses at trial. Should the Court grant the instant application, the Government would produce the Materials, along with any witness statements pertaining to the victims identified in the Materials, at the same time as all other statements by non-testifying witnesses. The Government is prepared to make that production as early as eight weeks in advance of trial. Because the volume of the Materials is limited to approximately 40 photographs and approximately 40 pages of documents, defense counsel's review of the Materials is unlikely to be unduly time consuming, thus minimizing any potential prejudice to the defendant from the delayed production. + +Delayed disclosure of the Materials is warranted because they include identifying information for victims who are not expected to testify in this case and who have provided information as part of the Government's ongoing investigation, the immediate disclosure of which would risk interfering with the Government's ongoing investigation. *See United States v. Mannino*, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (permitting delayed production of documents whose immediate disclosure to the defense would interfere with ongoing investigation); *cf. United States v. [REDACTED]*, 985 F. Supp. 506, 531-32 (2d Cir. 2013) (risk of interference with ongoing investigation sufficient good cause for entry of Rule 16 protective order). Immediate disclosure of these materials would have the effect of prematurely revealing to the defendant the identities of certain Epstein victims who are not referenced in the Indictment but who have spoken with the + +Government as part of its ongoing investigation, well in advance of any trial in this matter. Premature disclosure of these witnesses' identities and sensitive information about those witnesses risks jeopardizing the Government's ongoing investigation in at least two respects. First, disclosure would tend to reveal to the defendant the scope of and evidence gathered during the Government's ongoing investigation, the details of which are not currently public or known to the defendant. Second, an order requiring the immediate production of these Materials would risk deterring other victims from coming forward to be interviewed and from providing evidence to the Government. Victims who may be considering cooperating with the Government's investigation may decline to do so if they believe that the information they provide—even information outside the period charged in the Indictment—must be immediately disclosed to the defense in this case. Given the sensitivity of the Materials, the need to protect the Government's ongoing investigation, and the minimal (if any) relevance of the Materials to the offenses charged in the Indictment, the Government respectfully submits that good cause exists pursuant to Rule 16(d) to delay their disclosure. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government's request to delay disclosure of these Materials. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..777b4469b390725b50c07f989d89e2f6f19ea3ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/EFTA02829622.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8428, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.41, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 123 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829622" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24c17e33c47d4274347a42994bf13cdee5a3c91e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d8f0202202d84debf5f4f0dd904cca209390e4319a9500182d57844e7b87aab5 +size 3348 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ca59a4d6af9dbd66cee627e859a8df9abf51e7b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +### U.S. Deparhnent of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +October 7, 2020 + +### VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide additional information in response to the Court's prior inquiry regarding the Government's plan to obtain and review other investigative files, created and maintained by other offices, which are related to the abovereferenced case. In particular, at the initial conference in this matter on July 14, 2020, the Court asked the Government about its plan to ensure timely review the files of other agencies for potential disclosures in this case and highlighted the Court's expectation that the Government would be thoughtful and probing in its assessment of such a review. Consistent with the Government's commitment to take a thorough and transparent approach to its disclosure obligations, this letter outlines the relevant investigative files of which the Government is currently aware and describes the Government's approach as to each. + +### I. Background Regarding the Government's Rule 16 Discovery Productions + +The charges in this case arise out of an investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") New York Office, and the New York Police Department (the "NYPD") (collectively, the "Prosecution Team"). That investigation was opened in 2018 and remains ongoing. The Government has copies of the full investigative files for this case from the USAO-SDNY, the FBI New York Office, and the NYPD (the "Prosecution Team Files"). The bulk of the productions to date have come from the Prosecution Team Files. The Government is continuing to review the Prosecution Team Files for any additional materials that warrant disclosure. + +Specifically, to date, the Government has produced approximately 328,863 pages of discovery to the defense in this case. Those materials include, among other things, photographs, documents seized during searches, search warrants, search warrant applications, financial records, travel records, property records, phone records, law enforcement reports, and other subpoena + +October 7, 2020 + +Page 2 + +returns. The Government is continuing the process of reviewing and preparing productions of electronic discovery materials, which include extractions of data from numerous electronic devices. The Government expects that it will meet the November 9, 2020 deadline for the completion of electronic discovery productions. Additionally, the Government recognizes that its disclosure obligations are ongoing, and the Government will continue to review the Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. + +The Government's Rule 16 discovery productions do not include witness statements or material under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and its progeny, consistent with the common practice and law within this Circuit. As indicated in a prior letter, the Government intends to produce all such materials to the defense well in advance of trial.' Specifically, although the parties have not yet conferred regarding a schedule for disclosure of witness statements, the Government is prepared to produce all statements and impeachment material for witnesses it expects to call at trial as early as four weeks prior to trial. Additionally, the Government is prepared to produce any statements by witnesses who it does not expect to call at trial as early as eight weeks prior to trial, subject to restrictions to protect those individuals' privacy to be negotiated by the parties. + +# II. Applicable Law Governing Disclosure of Other Investigative Files + +The disclosure obligations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, Brady, and Giglio apply to materials in the Government's "possession." As a general matter, though "[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed ... to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the case[,] ... knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor . . . ." United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 94849 (2d Cir. 1993) (declining to "infer the prosecutors' knowledge simply because some other government agents knew about" additional evidence where federal prosecutors were unaware of documents in possession of FBI agents who were "uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants"); United States v. Quinn, 445 F.2d 940, 944 (2d Cir. 1971) (declining to impute knowledge of prosecutor in Florida to prosecutor in New York and noting that the "Department of Justice alone has thousands of employees"). The imposition of such "an unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor's office on the case in question would inappropriately require [courts] to adopt 'a monolithic view of government' that would 'condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis.'" Avellino, 136 F.3d at 255 (quoting United States v. Gambino, 835 F. Supp. 74, 95 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)). Thus, discovery and disclosure obligations only extend to "information known + +The Government recognizes that its Brady obligations include the disclosure of witness statements containing exculpatory information. To date, the Government is not aware of any exculpatory material contained in any witness statements, but it will continued to review its files, including witness statements, for such material. If the Government becomes aware of any Brady material from any source, it will promptly disclose such material to the defense. + +October 7, 2020 + +Page 3 + +to persons who are a part of the 'prosecution team' ... who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case," including "police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation." United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 298 (2d Cir. 2006)). + +In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at \*4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") where PCAOB was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. , 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 24143 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between U.S. Attorney's Office and SEC where the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Su 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Exchange ("NYSE") where documents sought were "the product of an investigation that was undertaken by the NYSE of its own practices, and there [wajs no suggestion that the Government participated in that investigation"). + +Moreover, the involvement of agents from one component of an agency in an investigation does not render the entirety of that agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. M, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("While the prosecution's disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned."); see also Locascio, 6 F.3d at 949 (refusing to impute to AUSAs knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were "uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants"); cf. United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and progress of the case were part of the "government" for Rule 16 purposes). + +As the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records are in the "possession" of the Government include whether the agency or component: "(1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings." Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at \*4. + +October 7, 2020 + +Page 4 + +# III. The Government's Plan to Review Certain Files from the Florida Investigation + +## A. Relevant Background Regarding the Florida Investigation (2005-2010) + +Between approximately 2005 and 2010, and as detailed further below, members of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for his sexual abuse of minors in Florida (the "Florida Investigative Team" and the "Florida Investigation," respectively). The Prosecution Team in this case had no involvement in the Florida Investigation, which predated the instant investigation by approximately eight years.2 Similarly, the Florida Prosecution Team and the agencies involved in the Florida Investigation have had no involvement in the investigative, charging, or prosecutorial strategy decisions of the Prosecution Team in this case. Accordingly, under the governing law of this Circuit as discussed above, there is no basis for deeming the Florida Prosecution Team a part of the current Prosecution Team, and the Government does not believe it has any legal obligation to obtain or review the investigative files of those agencies. As discussed below, however, the Government is nevertheless prepared to go significantly above and beyond its disclosure obligations by requesting files from the Florida Investigation that have at least some potential to contain materials that could be relevant to the instant case, and by reviewing and producing those materials as appropriate in this case.; + +2 As detailed herein, during the course of its investigation, the Prosecution Team has gathered some documents related to the Florida Investigation, principally consisting of the FBI Florida Office's case file for the Florida Investigation. Those materials are being treated as a part of the Prosecution Team's files and will be produced, to the extent covered by Rule 16 or any other disclosure obligation, to the defendant in this case. + +3 In addition to the Florida Investigation, the Government is aware, through public reporting among other means, of a number of other investigations into matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein. For example, it has been publicly reported that local agencies in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Paris, and London have conducted and may still be conducting investigations into Epstein, which may include investigation into his sexual abuse of minors. There has also been public reporting regarding investigations into Epstein's finances, including an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and into the conditions of Epstein's confinement while serving his sentence following the Florida Investigation. Additionally, the USAO-SDNY conducted an investigation into Epstein's suicide and is currentlyprosecuting two corrections officers as a result of that investigation. See United States v. Noel and 19 Cr. 830 (AT). Separately, the FBI Florida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that case. The Government does not intend to further seek out or review the investigative files of any such cases, which are completely unrelated to the subject matter of the instant prosecution and/or have been conducted by entities that are not part of this Prosecution Team and, in some instances, the Department of Justice. + +October 7, 2020 + +Page 5 + +#### B. The Government's Plan for Obtaining and Reviewing Certain Files from the Florida Investigation + +As an initial matter, beginning during the course of its investigation, the Government has obtained the entirety of the FBI Florida Office's case file from the Florida Investigation. The Government has already made productions from that file, is continuing to review that file, and intends to produce at the appropriate point any additional material in that file warranting disclosure in this case. That file includes, among other things, any FBI-302 of any relevant witness interview; any relevant materials obtained pursuant to federal grand jury subpoena as part of that investigation; and any relevant material seized during a search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence conducted as part of that investigation. The Government believes the FBI file contains substantially all of the prior witness statements made during the Florida Investigation, including, if applicable, any prior statements made by witnesses the Government intends to call at trial in this case. + +In total, the Government has identified six potential sources of material related to the Florida Investigation, and has been requesting and reviewing materials from those sources as follows: + +First, the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in or about 2005. During the course of that investigation, the PBPD, among other things, conducted numerous witness interviews, issued multiple subpoenas for documents,' and executed a search warrant at Epstein's Palm Beach Residence. In or about 2006, the PBPD referred its investigation to the FBI Florida Office. It is the Government's understanding that the PBPD provided its entire investigative file to the FBI Florida Office. As discussed above, the Prosecution Team already has a copy of the full FBI Florida Office file and, as such, has been reviewing and will continue to review the PBPD file for any material that warrants disclosure in this case. Additionally, the Government has contacted the Records Specialist at the PBPD, who informed the Government that the PBPD has no additional investigative files beyond what it already provided to the FBI Florida Office. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Government asked the Records Specialist to provide the Prosecution Team with a copy of the files still in PBPD's possession related to the Florida Investigation. In response, the PBPD Records Specialist provided the Government with 60 pages of documents, which the Prosecution Team reviewed for any material that is non-duplicative and warrants disclosure in this case. The Prosecution Team has identified five of those pages as non-duplicative and intends to produce those five pages as part of its next discovery production to the defense. + +Second, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office (the "PBSA"), working with the PBPD, among other agencies, handled the Florida state investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 2005 and 2010 (when Epstein completed his sentence). As a result of that investigation and prosecution, Epstein pled guilty to procuring an underage girl for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute. Prior to September 14, 2020, the Prosecution Team had never received any documents directly from the PBSA and did not have the PBSA's full investigative file. + +4 As detailed below, these subpoenas were issued by the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office. + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan +October 7, 2020 +Page 6 + +Although the PBSA is not part of the Prosecution Team, the Government has nevertheless communicated with the PBSA and requested that the PBSA provide the Prosecution Team with its entire investigative file, to the extent it still exists. In response, on September 14, 2020, the PBSA provided the Prosecution Team with an electronic copy of its entire case file regarding the Florida Investigation, which consists of 4,421 pages of documents, 43 audio files, and 6 video files. The Government is reviewing that file for any material that is non-duplicative of other material previously obtained and that warrants disclosure in this case. + +*Third*, the FBI Florida Office conducted a prior federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 2006 and 2010. As noted above, the electronic files from the FBI Florida Office are accessible by the FBI New York Office, which has provided the Government with a complete set of FBI electronic files from both its Florida Office and its New York Office for this case. The Government has reviewed those files for discoverable materials. The physical files from the FBI Florida Office, which are contained in approximately 24 boxes, have all been transferred to the FBI New York Office and are in the possession of the Prosecution Team. Those files have been scanned and put into an electronic review platform. The Government has previously reviewed those files and is continuing to do so for discoverable materials. In addition, and as noted above, some items from the FBI Florida Office file have already been produced as part of prior discovery productions in this case. + +*Fourth*, the USAO-SDFL participated in the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 2006 and 2010. Before today, the Prosecution Team had never received any documents from the USAO-SDFL and did not have the USAO-SDFL's investigative file. Indeed, aside from notifying the SDFL at an executive level that the SDNY was opening its own Epstein investigation in 2018, the Prosecution Team had no substantive communications with the USAO-SDFL about the Prosecution Team's investigation or prosecution until after indicting this case. However, after the initiation of this prosecution, the Government communicated with the USAO-SDFL and requested that the USAO-SDFL provide the Prosecution Team with a copy of its entire investigative file, so that the Prosecution Team could review the files for material that warrants disclosure in this case. The USAO-SDFL agreed to provide its entire file, which is contained in approximately 28 boxes, to the Prosecution Team. Accordingly, the Government hired a vendor to copy the entire USAO-SDFL file and load that file into an electronic review platform. The Government received the electronic copy of the USAO-SDFL file from the vendor today and intends to review that file for materials that warrant disclosure in this case. + +*Fifth*, internal Department of Justice emails relating to the prior Florida Investigation have been gathered by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR"), as part of its unrelated investigation into the resolution of the prior Florida Investigation.5 In particular, during the course of its investigation, OPR gathered a significant volume of emails, to the extent they had been preserved and remained accessible, from a number of USAO-SDFL attorneys, including a number of supervisors in that office and the primary line Assistant U.S. Attorney who worked on the Florida Investigation ("Attorney-1"). + +--- + +5 This OPR investigation has been publicly acknowledged by the Department of Justice. + +Page 7 + +Although the Government does not believe it has any obligation to gather or review emails sent or received by attorneys at the USAO-SDFL as part of their separate, prior investigation, the Government nonetheless intends to gather and review the emails sent to or from Attorney-1 to the extent those emails were preserved and gathered by OPR. As noted, Attorney-1 was the primary line assistant on that investigation, and Attorney-1's emails are thus the most likely to contain communications with or regarding potential witnesses. The Government has already obtained Attorney-1's emails from OPR, and given the volume, the Government intends to load those emails into an electronic review platform and then conduct targeted searches of those emails for terms relevant to this case, including the defendant's name and the names of victims and witnesses. Based on our understanding of the USAO-SDFL investigation, we do not believe that there are a substantial number of overlapping victims or witnesses between that investigation and this prosecution. But to the extent searches of Attorney-1's emails reveal non-duplicative *Giglio* or 3500 material for any such victims or witnesses, the Government will produce any such identified material consistent with any schedule for pre-trial disclosures set by the Court. The Government does not intend to request or review emails for any other USAO-SDFL or Department of Justice attorney or otherwise perform a comprehensive review of the internal e-mails of that prosecutor's office from its wholly separate investigation, including by asking for any other material gathered by OPR as part of its investigation. + +*Sixth*, beginning in or about 2019, attorneys with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia ("USAO-SDGA") were designated to participate in the representation of the United States in civil litigation brought by Epstein victims for violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act ("CVRA") by the USAO-SDFL in connection with the Florida Investigation after the USAO-SDFL was recused from that civil litigation. The Government intends to contact the USAO-SDGA and ask whether it (a) had any substantive communications with witnesses relevant to this prosecution during its participation in the CVRA civil litigation, or (b) gathered any information regarding the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, the Government will request any and all records regarding those topics and will review those records for materials that warrant disclosure in this case. Otherwise, the Government does not intend to request or review any materials from the USAO-SDGA. + +\* \* \* + +As noted above, none of these other offices or agencies has played any role in the investigation or prosecution of this case. In particular, none of these offices and agencies has participated in witness interviews or taken any other investigative steps with the Prosecution Team. Nor did any representative of these other offices or agencies play any role in developing strategy, making charging decisions, or presenting this case to the grand jury. Accordingly, although the Government maintains that none of these agencies is part of the Prosecution Team in this case, given the similarity of the nature of the conduct investigated in this case and the conduct investigated by those other offices and agencies, the Government is prepared to undertake the extensive efforts described above to obtain and review additional material. The Government will continue to produce any portion of those materials that warrants disclosure in this case, including in connection with its production of *Giglio* and 3500 material. + +October 7, 2020 + +Page 8 + +#### IV. Conclusion + +Consistent with its representations to the Court at the initial conference in this matter, the Government is committed to maintaining a thorough, careful, and comprehensive approach to its disclosure obligations. The Government is prepared to address any questions the Court may have or to provide any additional information upon request. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +By: Th + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record, via ECF \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3a718680cf7d8d1cfc25921a9b193236fbc6880 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/EFTA02829625.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 25024, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.6, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Deparhnent of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background Regarding the Government's Rule 16 Discovery Productions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 522.45 + ], + [ + 523.9137573242188, + 522.45 + ], + [ + 523.9137573242188, + 537.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 537.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Applicable Law Governing Disclosure of Other Investigative Files", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 484.3245544433594, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 484.3245544433594, + 389.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 389.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Government's Plan to Review Certain Files from the Florida Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 542.5404052734375, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 542.5404052734375, + 116.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 116.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Relevant Background Regarding the Florida Investigation (2005-2010)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 128.79 + ], + [ + 506.5076904296875, + 128.79 + ], + [ + 506.5076904296875, + 144.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 144.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Government's Plan for Obtaining and Reviewing Certain Files from the \nFlorida Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 542.907470703125, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 542.907470703125, + 130.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 130.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 204.76736450195312, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 204.76736450195312, + 116.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 116.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829625" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef2a6065303e0f6f763a56b5e49e768dcaaf003a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829625/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:97850fffe11dcb0182c21157bacec2a208e643c160f330dda13501cb036f413b +size 3357 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bc65b57018cebdc3cb7e29708c062e754f6ff91 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-760(1 ccvcrdclICicohengrcsscr.com + +October 14, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Oven.\* New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7W0 phone www.cchongronor.com + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in opposition to the government's October 6, 2020 letter requesting the Court's permission to delay the disclosure of photographs and documents relating to certain alleged victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein (the "Materials"), pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Dkt. 60). The government's request should be denied for two reasons. + +First, it is clear from the government's letter that the Materials pertain to individuals who claim to have been "sexually abused by [Jeffrey] Epstein" (id. at 2), but who have not accused Ms. Maxwell of participating in or facilitating that conduct in any way. Accordingly, the Materials identifying these witnesses and their prior statements are exculpatory evidence, which must be disclosed pursuant to the government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny.' + +Second, the Court should order the government to disclose the Materials under Rule 16 because the Materials are "material to preparing the defense" and the government has not shown good cause to delay production of the Materials under Rule 16(d)(1). + +I We note that yesterday we sent the government a letter making specific Brady requests, including "[aim, statements or written communications made by any witness who has alleged that she was sexually abused or assaulted by Mr. Epstein, but has not alleged that Ms. Maxwell participated in, was involved in, or facilitated the alleged sexual abuse." + +# A. Applicable Law + +## 1. Brady + +"Under Brady and its progeny, 'the Government has a constitutional duty to disclose favorable evidence to the accused where such evidence is 'material' either to guilt or to punishment.'" United States v. Certified Envtl. Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 91 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Favorable evidence" that must be disclosed for purposes of Brady "includes not only evidence that tends to exculpate the accused, but also evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a government witness," id., also known as "Giglio material," as well as any statements of witnesses "which are contradictory or inconsistent with the government's theory of the case." United States v. Harris, No. 00 Cr. 105 (RPP), 2000 WL 1273720, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2000) (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). + +# 2. Rule 16 + +Rule 16 provides, in pertinent part: + +Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and ... the item is material to preparing the defense[.] + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(aX1)(E). Evidence is material under Rule 16 if it "could be used to counter the government's case or to bolster a defense." United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1180 (2d Cir. 1993). "The materiality standard [of Rule 16] normally is not a heavy burden; rather, evidence is material as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness reparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal." United States v. , 488 F. Supp. 2d 350, 356-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348, 351 (D.C. Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted)). + +Rule 16(d)(1) provides that a party may seek a protective order from the court to "deny, restrict, or defer discovery" upon a showing of "good cause." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). To establish good cause, the party must show "that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury." United States v. , 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). A finding of harm "must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements." Id. (citations omitted). + +## B. Discussion + +## 1. The Materials Are Subject to Disclosure Under Brady Because Thep Refute the Government's Theory of the Charged Crimes + +The government states that, as part of its "broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors," it interviewed "dozens" of alleged victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and obtained sensitive documents and photographs from certain alleged victims who claim they were assaulted after 1997 — i.e., after the end of the time period charged in Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment (the "Indictment"). (Dkt. 60 at 2). Stated differently, the government has interviewed and collected evidence from numerous witnesses who have never asserted that Ms. Maxwell participated in Epstein's alleged sexual abuse, or "groomed" them for Epstein, or had anything whatsoever to do with any episode of sexual abuse they may have experienced. Although the government represents that these women were sexually abused by Epstein after the time period charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment, this evidence is still fundamentally inconsistent with the government's theory that Ms. Maxwell was Epstein's "madam" and the principal facilitator of his sexual abuse scheme. + +Furthermore, this evidence directly contradicts the government's theory of the perjury counts. The government insists that the Materials are irrelevant to the charges in the Indictment because they relate to instances of sexual abuse that took place after 1997, and therefore "post-date the time period charged in the Indictment." (Dkt. 60 at 2). That is incorrect. The government forgets that it chose to put at issue Epstein's sexual abuse that occurred after 1997 when it included the perjury counts in the Indictment. + +The perjury counts stem from a defamation suit brought against Ms. Maxwell in 2015 by one of Epstein's alleged victims ("Accuser-1"). In December 2014, Accuser-1 filed a motion to join a lawsuit challenging the validity of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement executed in 2007. Accuser-I's motion "described Maxwell's role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme." ([Accuser-!J v. Maxwell, 15-CV-07433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 1 at ¶ 27). Ms. Maxwell publicly denied Accuser-I's allegations, claiming that they were untrue. Accuser-1, in turn, claimed that these statements were defamatory and sued Ms. Maxwell. + +Counts Five and Six allege that Ms. Maxwell lied at two different depositions in this case. The scope of these depositions was not limited to the 1994-1997 timeframe. On the contrary, Ms. Maxwell was asked questions about, among other things, her knowledge of Epstein's sexual activities in general. Whether Ms. Maxwell knew about Epstein's sexual abuse after 1997 is therefore directly relevant to whether she lied at these depositions. + +For example, Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange: + +Q: Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. + +A: I don't know what you're talking about. + +Similarly, Count Six alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange: + +Q: Other than yourself . . . with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A: I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q: I want to make sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Ms. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself ... ? + +A: That is my testimony, that is correct. + +The government has spoken to numerous individuals who claim to have been assaulted by Epstein after 1997, but do not implicate Ms. Maxwell in the assault or claim that she knew about it in any way. That bolsters Ms. Maxwell's defense that she was not aware of either Epstein's scheme to recruit and sexually abuse underage girls, or that Epstein was engaging in sexual activities with others, and therefore did not perjure herself in response to those questions. + +Accordingly, the Materials and the prior statements of the witnesses to whom they pertain are exculpatory evidence inconsistent with the government's theory of the charges in the Indictment and must be disclosed pursuant to the government's Brady obligations. + +# 2. The Government Has Not Shown Good Cause that Disclosure of the Materials Will Interfere with an Ongoing Investigation + +Even if the Court does not find this evidence to be exculpatory, the Materials are "material to preparing the defense" and therefore should be disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E). The government agrees that the Materials should be produced, but asserts that there is good cause to delay the production of the Materials until eight weeks before trial, pursuant to Rule 16(d). (Dkt. 60 at 2-3). The government's justification for the delay, however, is entirely inadequate to establish good cause. + +The government asserts that disclosing the Materials will prematurely reveal to the defense the identities of certain victims of Epstein who are not referenced in the Indictment, as well as + +sensitive information about them. (Id.). The government further asserts that such disclosure will "jeopardize the government's ongoing investigation" because it will reveal to the defendant the scope of the government's investigation and may deter other alleged victims from coming forward to provide evidence. (Id. at I, 3). Essentially, the government is arguing that disclosure of the Materials should be delayed because it would rather not let Ms. Maxwell know, at this stage of the proceedings, who the government spoke to, and because it is concerned that other people might not come forward to provide additional evidence against Ms. Maxwell. + +These are not the sorts of concerns that courts have found may jeopardize an ongoing investigation and establish good cause for delaying disclosure. Courts typically allow delayed disclosure on these grounds when immediate disclosure may alert other potential targets of the investigation that they are being investigated or may identify individuals who are proactively cooperating with the government to gather evidence against other potential targets. The cases cited in the government's own letter make this clear. Seeig -985 F. Supp. 2d at 531-32 (disclosure of certain discovery materials might "alert the targets of the investigation and could lead to efforts by them to frustrate the ongoing investigations"); United States v. Mennino, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (government's ongoing investigation into other potential defendants could be disrupted by disclosure of certain discovery materials). Similarly, courts often grant protective orders in this context when the government has made a sufficient showing that disclosure may lead to witness intimidation or threats to their safety. See United States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 262-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting cases). + +The government has done neither here. The government has not made any showing that disclosure would thwart an ongoing investigation into other potential targets, or would jeopardize the safety of any potential witnesses. Instead, the government asserts a speculative and selfserving concern that disclosure of the Materials it might make it more difficult to recruit additional witnesses for its existing case against Ms. Maxwell. That is not the type of "clearly defined, specific and serious injury" that establishes good cause to delay disclosure under Rule 16(d)(I). + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's requested relief under Rule 16(d)(1) and instead order the government to immediately produce the Materials and the prior statements of these witnesses to the defense. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: Mark S.=, Esq. Jeff Pagliuca, Esq. Laura Menninger, Esq. Bobbi C. Stemheim, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ca239f2b8c1e3654d12830711d9a5ac461abee8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/EFTA02829633.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,416 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 12567, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.2, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 210.59771728515625, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 210.59771728515625, + 164.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 164.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Brady", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 176.5924530029297, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 176.5924530029297, + 191.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 191.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Rule 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 184.95492553710938, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 184.95492553710938, + 371.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 371.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 182.9769287109375, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 182.9769287109375, + 164.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 164.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Materials Are Subject to Disclosure Under Brady Because Thep Refute the \nGovernment's Theory of the Charged Crimes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 529.0274658203125, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 529.0274658203125, + 205.863037109375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 205.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Government Has Not Shown Good Cause that Disclosure of the Materials Will \nInterfere with an Ongoing Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 548.0903930664062, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 548.0903930664062, + 592.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 592.1030120849609 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829633" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ec43eb3eaf1eb183c30e8ee7dccffb4fb01b93a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829633/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6f1c6cb0097a4a9365068d5c07b78184f3e81b2a181b10a29d65feff0b7bcd05 +size 1589 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..defc9c99a484cc9299ce4d76753d600244669c60 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +October 20, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in further support of its request to delay disclosure to the defense of certain photographs of and documents (the "Materials") regarding victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Contrary to the defense's assertions, the Materials are not exculpatory as to the charges contained in the Indictment. But in any event, the Government is not suggesting that the defense should never receive these Materials. The Government fully intends to provide the defense with these Materials, along with the statements of every witness it has interviewed as part of its broader investigation, eight weeks in advance of trial. Because that investigation remains ongoing, however, and because the Materials are unrelated to the charges contained in the Indictment, production at this stage would be premature and would reveal the scope and focus of the Government's ongoing investigation. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that it be permitted to produce the Materials eight weeks prior to trial. + +First, Maxwell's opposition misconstrues the Government's description of the Materials and conflates them with witness statements about the Materials. To be clear, the Materials at issue here include documents regarding and photographs of victims of Jeffrey Epstein who were abused during time periods that post-date the Indictment. These Materials do not include witness statements from those victims, which, as the Government noted in its opening papers, the Government will produce eight weeks in advance of trial. The Materials in and of themselves thus do not, as the defendant incorrectly suggests, make clear one way or the other whether the defendant ever had any involvement in those victims' abuse. Regardless, as detailed below, whether or not the defendant participated in any criminal activity that she is not charged with that postdates the time period in the Indictment is simply not relevant, much less exculpatory. + +Second, even accepting the defendant's mischaracterization, the Materials are not exculpatory as to Maxwell. At base, the defense opposition stretches the concept of exculpatory material beyond recognition in a way that is wholly unsupported by the law of this Circuit. Under the defense's view, if Jeffrey Epstein ever sexually abused any victim after 1997 without the defendant's involvement, that somehow exculpates her with respect to an Indictment charging her with participating in Epstein's abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997. (Def. Ltr. 3-4). The defense's position is essentially that once the Government has accused a defendant of participating in a crime with a particular co-conspirator, any time that co-conspirator commits a similar crime without the defendant is somehow exculpatory. The defense cites no authority for such a broad interpretation of Brady, nor is the Government aware of any. To the contrary, the well-established law of this Circuit generally precludes a defendant from offering evidence that a defendant did not participate in criminal conduct on a particular occasion—or of her law-abiding conduct during uncharged periods or uncharged events—to rebut the Government's evidence with respect to the charged crimes or events. See, e.g., United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish h[er] innocence . .. through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions."); United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) ("A single occurrence of lawful conduct is `simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of lawful conduct." (quoting United States v. M, 191 F.3d 321•11 Cir. 1999)); United States v. M, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) ("We reject assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the gove sment did argue that had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips."); United States v. Fiumano, No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) ("The principle is rather elementary. A defendant charged with robbing a bank in Manhattan on April 22 cannot offer as evidence to disprove the charged crime that he did not rob the bank's branches in Brooklyn or the Bronx on April 22 or that he did not rob the Manhattan branch on April 20, 21, 23, and 24, because this evidence is irrelevant to the charge that he robbed the Manhattan bank on April 22."); United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Defendants also claim that the Southern District was in possession of exculpatory materials which it did not disclose, namely that Gravano had discussed drug deals with a number of 'captains' in the Gambino crime family, but had no such conversations with John Gambino. Even if the Southern District had knowledge that Gravano had conversations with other captains about specific instances of drug crimes, the fact that Gravano did not have such conversations with Gambino does not make such evidence exculpatory. . . . Since a defendant cannot introduce evidence of innocent behavior on other occasions to prove his innocence, such testimony would not be exculpatory within the requirements of Brady").' + +The implications of the defense's proposed expansion of Brady would be sweeping. There are any number of cases in which a defendant is charged with participating in a criminal conspiracy for a discrete period of time outside of which co-conspirators may have committed similar crimes without that defendant. Such a set of facts is common in, for example, racketeering conspiracies and narcotics conspiracies, in which defendants may conspire with each other for a certain period of time before and after which they commit similar crimes on their own or with others. The fact that a co-conspirator may continue to commit similar crimes after a defendant ceases participation in a charged conspiracy does not somehow exculpate the defendant who did not continue participating in those crimes. See, e.g., United States v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2002) (co-conspirators in narcotics case continued to commit crimes without defendant during defendant's incarceration); United States v. M, 176 F.3d 52, 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (co-conspirators in racketeering case continued to commit crimes without defendant after defendant's incarceration). + +Third, the defense's claim that the Materials are "material to preparing [her] defense" under Rule 16, and thus subject to immediate disclosure, is premised on a reimagining of the charges against the defendant. (Def. Ltr. I, 4). An item is "material to preparing the defense" under Rule 16 only insofar as "it could be used to counter the government's case or bolster a defense." United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1180 (2d Cir. 1993). Thus, materials that are wholly irrelevant to the Government's case or the charges in the Indictment do not fall under Rule 16. That is the case here. Contrary to the defense's claim, the Government has not charged Maxwell with being Jeffrey Epstein's "madam" and "principal facilitator of his abuse." (Def. Ltr. 3). Instead, the defendant is charged with helping Epstein identify, groom, and sexually abuse multiple minor victims between 1994 and 1997. The Indictment does not allege that the defendant engaged in such conduct after 1997. As such, the Materials are simply not relevant to the charges in the Indictment, much less exculpatory to the defendant. + +Maxwell's argument is equally flawed with respect to the perjury counts. (Def. Ltr. 3). The Indictment alleges that the Government's evidence on Counts One through Four based on her conduct from 1994 to 1997 is also evidence of the falsity of the answers provided in the deposition. Specifically, the portions of her deposition that the Government alleges in the Indictment are false are all contradicted by the allegations contained in paragraphs one through seven of the Indictment, which focus exclusively on the period 1994 through 1997. Indeed, paragraph eight of the Indictment notes that the defendant's statements during her deposition contradicted "some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed" in paragraphs one through seven of the Indictment, which focus exclusively on the period from 1994 through 1997. (Indictment, Docket No. 17, at 10). Consistent with that position, Counts Five and Six both incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight of the Indictment. (See id. at 15-16). Accordingly, evidence that the defendant did or did not participate in Epstein's abuse of minor victims at different times or on different occasions not charged in the Indictment would not undercut the Government's theory or exculpate the defendant on those counts. + +Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the Government is not suggesting that these Materials should be kept from the defense indefinitely. Rather, the Government requests authorization to provide these Materials eight weeks prior to trial, along with its production of statements of other non-testifying witnesses. Even assuming arguendo that the Materials constitute Brady or Rule 16 evidence—which they do not for all of the reasons discussed above the defendant cites no case law for the proposition that she is entitled to their production now, rather than eight weeks in advance of trial. The Second Circuit has held that "as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all exculpatory and impeachment material upon request by a defendant." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 146 (2d Cir. 2001). Instead, "the Government 'suppresses' evidence within the meaning of Brady only if it fails to disclose Brady and Giglio material in time for its effective use at trial or at a plea proceeding." Id. What constitutes sufficient time for "effective use at trial" depends on the "materiality of that evidence" and "the particular circumstances of the case." Id. + +Here, the defendant has made no showing as to why eight weeks in advance of trial would not be enough time to make "effective use" of the Materials at trial or how she would otherwise be prejudiced by the Government's proposed disclosure timeline. Coppa, 267 F.3d at 146. Indeed, given that the Materials constitute approximately 40 pages of records and approximately 40 photographs of victims who were abused during periods of time that post-date the Indictment and who the Government does not anticipate calling to testify at trial—and as such, do not constitute Brady material, Rule 16 evidence, or impeachment material for any trial witnesses—the defendant is not entitled to their immediate production. This is particularly so when weighed against the risks of early production to the Government's ongoing investigation. + +By contrast, the Government has met its burden under Rule 16(d)(1) by explaining why the requested delay is necessary and how the Government would be prejudiced by the immediate production of the Materials. In particular, the proposed delay will allow the Government to continue its investigation into conduct outside the period charged in the Indictment without revealing to the defendant the identities of the witnesses in that investigation. The premature revelation of this information would give the defendant the opportunity to interfere with the Government's investigation before it is complete. Such information could allow her to contact and intimidate witnesses, destroy evidence relevant to the investigation, or alert other targets of the investigation. Moreover, the requirement that any evidence of any victim's abuse by Jeffrey Epstein at any point in time must be immediately disclosed to the defense in this case, even when it has no bearing on the charges in the Indictment, risks deterring additional victims from coming forward to assist in the Government's investigation. Allowing the delayed production of these materials would permit the Government to complete its investigation without interference while still giving the defense everything it is asking for well in advance of trial. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government's request to delay disclosure of these Materials. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +— + +By: + +Maurene Convey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..240702bc12a6349b5abe2d4dc0812e46fd8b8ad8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/EFTA02829639.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 13001, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.99, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829639" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35f49a9db3d42e211cd6d7c711b0646588e0ff89 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829639/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c571a24dc88beece3f0e7758f1bd341f6a231b74d29574fc90b76e6611de2323 +size 3434 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..573ff21bd43ab4ec86aa4fc10d2ca6d4a6645a82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.md @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON aN N + +October 23, 2020 + +# VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: Response to the Government's October 7, 2020 letter, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Haddon, and MI P.c Jeffrey Pagnuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmftaw.com jpagFuco 4hmflaw.com + +At the initial conference in this case, the Government promised Ms. Maxwell and the Court that it would review and produce "prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida," which it characterized as part of "the core of the case" against Ms. Maxwell,2 after a "careful and exhaustive and through review of all of the materials," with the "bulk" of the discovery produced by "the end of this summer [2020]."3 Summer is gone, Winter is coming, and the Government has failed to make good on its promises. + +Although it casts the October 7, 2020 letter to the Court as a "response to the Court's prior inquiry regarding" its plan to produce discovery, the Government is, in fact, abandoning the deadlines to which it already agreed and reneging on (or redefining) its assurances to the Court that it would engage in "thoughtful and critical pushing and pressing of questions and issues with respect to actively retrieving any appropriate files."4 In fact, the promised "substantial" production of discovery is "substantial" in size, not substance. Approximately one fourth of the production relates to materials gathered in civil litigation to which Ms. Maxwell was a party. The remainder of the discovery contains documents from the 2000s that relate largely to Jeffrey Epstein and therefore have nothing to do with the time period of the conspiracy charged in the + +I July14, 2020 Tr. p. 12:20-13. + +2 1d., 12:11. + +3 /d., 13:8-14. + +4 /d., 15:13-18. + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 2 + +Indictment. Although the Government represented to this Court during the detention hearing that "the strength of the Government's evidence" provided a strong incentive for Ms. Maxwell to flee, it has failed to produce any of the corroborating documentation that they claimed to have at the initial hearing in this case. And, to the contrary, the dearth of evidence reinforces why Ms. Maxwell has never intended to flee. She steadfastly maintains her innocence and vehemently denies the charges against her, as she has in prior civil lawsuits since the allegations against her first surfaced. + +Furthermore, the Government's production of discovery to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC has been deficient and inadequate. For example, Ms. Maxwell only received the Government's October 2, 2020 production yesterday afternoon, almost three weeks after the production date, and she still cannot read all of the documents in the government's prior productions. Defense counsel have discussed these issues at length with the Government, and despite the Government's assurances that it has spoken to the BOP and that the problems have been or will be corrected, the problems persist. The defense has done what it can to alert the Government to these issues so that they can be remedied, including three letters, three conference calls, numerous emails, and countless hours of time and effort that should have been spent on preparing the defense. It should not be Ms. Maxwell's responsibility to intercede with the Government and the BOP to ensure that the discovery is produced on time and in a readable format. The Government created these problems by insisting that Ms. Maxwell be detained before trial, and it is up to the Government to properly discharge its discovery obligations, which they have not done. + +The Government's failure to produce relevant discovery in a timely manner, and in a format that Ms. Maxwell can effectively review, is prejudicing her ability to investigate, prepare substantive motions, and defend against these charges. Given that these allegations are decades old and were investigated over many years by the Government prior to indictment, it should not have been difficult for the Government to produce the relevant discovery by the appropriate deadlines. Its October 7, 2020 letter is simply the harbinger of future delay, obfuscation, and impairment of Ms. Maxwell's ability to defend herself. + +#### Background Regarding the Lack of Substantive Disclosure by the Government Regarding Counts One Through Fours + +The "speaking" indictment in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in the indictment are the years 1994-1997. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7 provides that "[tjhe indictment ... shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(I). A criminal defendant is entitled to an indictment that alleges the essential elements of the charge against him. See v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 232 + +5 Similar discovery problems exist regarding Counts Five and Six. Evidence of Ms. Maxwell's non-involvement with other Epstein accusers after 1997 would, in fact, undercut the Government's perjury theory because the materiality of any statements must be evaluated in the context of the allegations made in the civil proceeding, i.e., post1997. + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 3 + +(1999); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974) ("[A]n indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense."); Fed.R.Crim.P.7(c). An indictment that fails to allele ad ssential elements of the crime charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 760-61 (1962). + +Ms. Maxwell recognizes that in most cases the bar for sufficiency of an indictment is very low. It is also true that courts find, in certain cases, that the discovery provided in connection with the matter may cure various pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., United States v. Jain, No. I9-CR-59 (PKC), 2019 WL 6888635, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019) (When supplemented by discovery material, no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already provided to the defendant, allows [him] both to prepare his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial. It also gives him sufficient protection from a prosecution that would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause."). + +This, however, is not those cases. Neither the indictment nor the discovery inform Ms. Maxwell about critical information necessary to prepare her defense. For example, the discovery provides no information about exactly when and where the alleged instances of sexual abuse took place. Because there are no dates provided, other than a three-year period beginning 26 years in the past, Ms. Maxwell cannot properly investigate where she and other witnesses were when the alleged crime supposedly occurred. And because the crimes alleged in Counts One through Four are based largely on vaguely stated, non-criminal acts of so-called "grooming" (talking to or being nice to someone, or taking them to a movie), it is impossible to know what act or acts she needs to defend against at trial. + +## The Discovery Provided to Date Contains No Corroborating Information and Omits Exculpatory Evidence + +At this point, roughly two months after the Government promised to produce the "core" of their evidence against Ms. Maxwell, their case appears to rest almost exclusively on claims of three unidentified accusers, as to which they have not provided any detail about the dates or exact locations of the alleged encounters, or the specific acts taken by Ms. Maxwell. Nor has this information been provided in the discovery. There is no identified witness who claims Ms. Maxwell did any of the things alleged in the indictment. Apart from the bare allegations in the indictment, there are no statements from any witness claiming Ms. Maxwell did anything and there has been almost nothing in the discovery for Ms. Maxwell to investigate. + +Importantly, the Government has not produced any of the potentially exculpatory information necessary to conduct an adequate defense investigation. We know, for example that dozens of women accused Jeffrey Epstein of misconduct and that the Government interviewed these women in connection with the Florida proceedings. None of these women implicated Ms. Maxwell in any wrongdoing, nor was Ms. Maxwell accused or involved in the Florida + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 4 + +investigation. The substance of this information is critical to the defense because it negates the entire theory of prosecution. + +The Government has not provided any information about the genesis of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") that the Government entered into with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. This is information will form the basis of substantial defense motions and argument. + +According to recent press reports, lawyers for the accusers met with the Government in 2016 during the pendency of ongoing civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell in an effort to convince the Government to open an investigation of Ms. Maxwell — an effort which did not ultimately succeed. Neither the fact of these meetings nor the content has been disclosed. This is significant exculpatory information that is needed to investigate, prepare motions, and defend at trial.6 + +We assume that many of the potential Government trial witnesses either participated or benefited from Epstein's NPA because the plea agreement provided for a mechanism where the claimants were paid money by Epstein, who could not challenge liability, only the amount. The Government presumably has this information which is unquestionably favorable evidence which "includes not only evidence that tends to exculpate the accused, but also evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a government witness...." United States v. Tetuan, No. 19-CR-696 (PAE), 2020 WL 3034034, at ■43 **(S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2020) (citations omitted); see also, Bagley v. Luntpkin, 798 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Librach, 520 F.2d 550, 554 (8th Cir. 1975).** + +# **The Government is the Team** + +**In an attempt to minimize what it promised, the Government redefines who it believes is on the Team. The Government claims no responsibility for investigations into these allegations by either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Office of the United States Attorney unless part of the Southern District of New York. This stands in stark contrast to the on-the-record assurances that it gave the Court on July 14, 2020:** + +**"...the materials with respect to the core of the case also include prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida...." Tr. p. 12:10-13** + +**"The physical files [from the Florida investigation] were shipped to New York and are at the New York F.B.I. office. They have been imaged and scanned and photographed to make sure that a comprehensive review can be conducted, and they are physically in New York so that we can have access to those files." Id., 14:10-14** + +**Now, the Government seeks to distance itself from its own files, which are in New York, not Florida, by arguing that they are excused from reviewing or producing information because it** + +**6 Pursuant to this Court's practice standards regarding discovery, Ms. Maxwell, on October 13. 2020. sent a detailed letter requesting the production of discovery materials under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Government has yet to respond.** + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 5 + +came from another state, agents, or lawyers. In addition, the Government has disclosed the existence, for example, of additional files and investigations including 28 boxes of material from the United States Attorney's Florida office, the Department of Justice, and the United States Attorney's Georgia office. + +It is unclear precisely what the Government will do with this material. On the one hand the Government suggests it "intends' to review the files for "materials that warrant disclosure in this case." On the other hand, the Government's letter includes a lengthy disclaimer about why the Government believes it has no obligation to locate, obtain, or produce the discovery. The authority cited by the Government in support of its disclaimer is easily distinguishable. This case does not involve material gathered independently by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the New York Exchange. See United States v. M, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 24143 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at \*4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). + +The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument will be held on another day. It is troubling, however, that instead of simply proSlin the information to Ms. Maxwell the Government goes to great effort to preview why it M. Maxwell submits that all this material is discoverable for the reasons already discussed. + +#### The Method and Timing of the Government's Revised Discovery Plan is Inadequate and Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. + +Ms. Maxwell agreed, in advance of her detention hearing, to a trial more than one year from her detention. She agreed to this plan on the representation that she would be provided with full discovery no later than November 9, 2020. See ECF #25, "Completion of Discovery to include electronic materials is due by Monday, November 9, 2020." This representation now seems incorrect. The Government, in its letter to the Court, is simply fronting the reasons why the completion of discovery will likely not occur by November 9, 2020. + +Ms. Maxwell, when agreeing to a trial in July 2021, outside the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161, thought that she would be provided with meaningful discovery with sufficient time to prepare. This assumption also seems incorrect. In its letter to the Court the Government proposes that witness statements be provided a mere four weeks prior to trial, for the important witnesses, and eight weeks for the unimportant witnesses. This is a case with 26-year-old claims, allegedly occurring in multiple states and countries. It is a certainty that material witnesses live in other countries, and that these witnesses cannot be compelled to appear in New York. Securing out-of-country testimony is difficult even where a defendant has been provided with the names of her accusers and details about the allegations. The parties have not yet met and conferred about the timing of disclosure of witness statements, so it is premature to discuss these issues with the Court. We note, however, that under the Government's proposed timetable, it will be impossible for Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare for trial. + +The Government's suggested timeline also impairs Ms. Maxwell's ability to effectively address significant legal issues including motions to suppress evidence, motions to dismiss the + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 6 + +indictment, of counts, disclosure of expert testimony, disclosure of materials to potential experts, F.R.E. 702 challenges to experts, and various motions in limine. Without substantive discovery Ms. Maxwell cannot be prepared to advance or meet any of these matters. + +## The Government Has Not Complied with Its Discovery Obligations to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC. + +Setting aside what the Government has not produced, the discovery that it has produced to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC thus far has been incomplete and portions are still unreadable. On August 27, 2020, after the Government had completed its first three discovery productions, the defense alerted the Government that there were a substantial number of documents in all three productions that Ms. Maxwell was unable to access on the hard drives that had been sent to the MDC, and even proposed possible technological solutions that we thought might alleviate the problem. Later that same day, the defense sent the Government a follow-up letter listing the unreadable documents and requesting that the Government immediately reproduce to Ms. Maxwell a new set of all of the discovery materials produced to date in a format that she could access on her computer at the MDC, and shipped a new hard drive to load the replacement production. + +The new hard drive was not made available to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC until the late afternoon of September 9, 2020, almost two weeks later. While some of the previously unreadable documents were fixed, Ms. Maxwell still could not access a substantial portion of the discovery materials. The defense sent another letter to the Government on September 21, 2020, listing the unreadable documents and demanding that the problems be addressed. On conference calls on September 22, 2020 and September 29, 2020, the Government advised that it was working on resolving the issues, but that the defense could, in the meantime, create its own laptop computer with a copy of the production that it could bring to the MDC to review the discovery with Ms. Maxwell. The defense responded that, while it would create the laptop, it was the Government's responsibility to ensure that Ms. Maxwell had a complete set of readable discovery which she could access at the MDC herself, without defense counsel present. + +It was not until October 2, 2020 that the Government created a replacement set of the unreadable discovery, which it said it would include on the same hard drive as the next production of discovery materials. That production was only made available to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC yesterday afternoon, almost three weeks since the production date. The Government also advised that it had asked MDC legal counsel to send an IT staff member to examine the computer and load any necessary software to view the files on the existing hard drives. But the IT staff member did not look at the computer until October 7, and did not fix the problem. Instead, the IT staff member collected Ms. Maxwell's computer and hard drives and kept them for two days. When Ms. Maxwell inquired about them, the IT staff member said he had been too busy to look at them. And when they were finally returned to Ms. Maxwell in the afternoon on October 9, several files were still unreadable. As of the date of this letter, Ms. Maxwell still does not have a complete, readable set of the discovery produced to date, which severely impairs her ability to prepare her defense. Accordingly, we ask the Court to order the Government to address this problem immediately. + +October 23, 2020 + +Page 7 + +The BOP, for their part, has only exacerbated these problems. For example, on a legal visit today to review images on a laptop computer provided by the Government, we were told that we could not sit on the same side of the table as Ms. Maxwell to review the ima es simultaneous) . Instead, we were directed by MDC prison guards to sit across from MI that we could not see what she was reviewing or meaningfully discuss the materials. + +To compound the problem, we were told by the team leader that defense counsel would not be permitted to pass Ms. Maxwell papers for her to review or sign. This required a break in the meeting so that defense counsel could call the prosecutors to intervene. The prosecutors agreed to call the MDC to ensure that defense counsel could pass legal papers to Ms. Maxwell. But that message was clearly not received by the MDC. After returning to the MDC, we were told that we could pass Ms. Maxwell only documents that required her signature, but not documents that needed her review. It is impossible for Ms. Maxwell to participate in her defense and adequately prepare for trial if she cannot review documents prepared by her attorneys. Accordingly, we ask the Court to order the BOP to allow defense counsel to pass legal papers to Ms. Maxwell for her review during prison visits. + +The Government cannot discharge its discovery obligations by partially completing them. The Government must fully complete them and do so on the deadlines they agreed to with the Court. And it goes without saying that the Government cannot discharge its discovery obligations by producing the discovery to defense counsel. Ms. Maxwell has a right to review all the discovery to participate in her own defense. As such, she must have a complete set of readable discovery in the MDC, which she does not have. The Government has created these problems by insisting on detention prior to trial. It is their burden to fix them. + +The Government has not requested any relief in its letter of October 7, 2020. Ms. Maxwell anticipates that once the Government responds to her discovery requests and after further conferrals the parties will be in a better position to seek relief from the Court. It may be appropriate for the Court to schedule a status conference after November 9 to consider these issues. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffriy S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..174076c5d993dd41ba6772bd06542b6a00ad4e62 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/EFTA02829643.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 21787, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.42, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 250.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 250.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Background Regarding the Lack of Substantive Disclosure by the Government Regarding \nCounts One Through Fours", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 535.3916625976562, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 535.3916625976562, + 541.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 541.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Discovery Provided to Date Contains No Corroborating Information and Omits \nExculpatory Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 506.27294921875, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 506.27294921875, + 500.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Government is the Team", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 413.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 225.70257568359375, + 413.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 225.70257568359375, + 429.4694519042969 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 429.4694519042969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Method and Timing of the Government's Revised Discovery Plan is Inadequate and \nPrejudicial to Ms. Maxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 526.2958984375, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 526.2958984375, + 403.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 403.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Government Has Not Complied with Its Discovery Obligations to Ms. Maxwell in the \nMDC.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 532.3779296875, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 532.3779296875, + 173.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 173.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829643" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6a9fedd1926fd961f47399d5eaf151f2c7b34a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829643/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:604cb978b5512a853c81518d05a2561b853945f051e6ff8b37487de9c8866d0f +size 2919 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36a340708690ff8e200865af6c3902eba4df7a05 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New lark 10007 + +October 30, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defense letter dated October 23, 2020 in the above-referenced case (the "Defense Letter"). For all of its innuendo and accusations, the Defense Letter is at base an effort to preview again motions that the Court has already found to be premature, and to cast the Government's efforts to be transparent with the Court and the defense in a nefarious and deeply misleading light. The Government writes to correct the inaccuracies in the Defense Letter, to update the Court regarding the status of the Government's ongoing discovery productions, and to address the defense complaints regarding the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"). + +## 1. The Government Has and Will Continue to Satisfy Its Discovery Obligations + +The Defense Letter raises numerous accusations, including that the Government has "abandon[ed]" the discovery deadlines in this case. (Def. Ltr. I). The Government strongly disagrees, and notes that it has produced considerable Rule 16 discovery to the defense, which, to date, consists of more than 350,000 pages. Contrary to the defense's assertions, that discovery does include both "[c]orroborating [i]nformation" regarding the conduct charged in this case as well as potentially "[e]xculpatory [e]vidence," (Def. Ltr. 3), and the Government remains available to discuss that material with defense counsel. Moreover, in anticipation of the November 9, 2020 discovery deadline, the Government is preparing to make additional productions, including a production of electronic discovery, which will consist of over 1.2 million documents from devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences) In that regard, the Government is currently waiting on + +I Despite the defense's insinuations to the contrary, this is entirely consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court. Specifically, the Court ordered the Government to produce "[i]nitial nonelectronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns" by August 21, 2020, and the Government made three productions containing those materials, and more, by August 21, 2020. (Order dated July 15, 2020, Dkt. No. 25). It is the Government's expectation that its upcoming productions will substantially complete its production of Rule 16 discovery. As is not uncommon in a case of this magnitude, however, it is possible that the + +its outside vendor to image, stamp, and download that electronic discovery, which the Government finished preparing for production last week, from an electronic database. The volume of that production is large and takes significant time for the vendor to prepare. It is therefore possible that the vendor may need a limited amount of additional time to complete that process. That said, the Government has repeatedly informed the vendor of the November 9, 2020 deadline, and the vendor is making every effort to meet it. The Government expects an update from the vendor early next week and will promptly alert the Court and the defense if it appears the vendor will need additional time beyond November 9 to finalize this production. But contrary to the defense's suggestion, the Government has made numerous productions consistent with the discovery schedule in this case and is working diligently to continue to meet the discovery deadlines in this case. + +With respect to the defense's other claims and accusations, the Government is prepared to respond in detail at the appropriate stage. But in short, many of the defense's accusations about the Government's allegedly deficient productions are not only factually or legally incorrect, but also include complaints that the Court has already directed the defense to renew only if unable to reach agreement with the Government "[f]ollowing the close of discovery," which has not yet occurred. (Order dated Aug. 25, 2020, Dkt. 49, at 2). Others turn on the defense's baseless attempts to redefine classic *Giglio* or Jencks Act material as Rule 16 discovery, or on a faulty definition of exculpatory material that has no basis in law. (*See* Gov. Ltr. dated Aug. 13, 2020, Dtk. No. 41, at 2-3 (noting law supporting delay of production of witness list until shortly before trial); Gov. Ltr. dated Oct. 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63, at 2 (noting that Rule 16 does not require production of witness statements or *Giglio*); Gov. Ltr. dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65, at 1-2 (noting well-established law in this Circuit precluding defense from offering evidence that a defendant did not participate in criminal conduct on a different occasion than that charged by the Government)).2 + +With respect to the Government's October 7 letter regarding other agency files, the defense's claims that the Government has "minimize[d]" what it promised and "redefine[d] who it believes is part of the Prosecution Team" are deeply misleading.3 (Def. Ltr. 4). To be clear, the Government has always viewed FBI files from both the prior Florida investigation and the more + +--- + +Government may identify additional discoverable materials after the deadline. Should that happen, the Government will promptly produce such materials to the defense. + +2 In addition to repeating previously made arguments, the defense now contends that evidence about the "genesis" of the non-prosecution agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein, is exculpatory. (Def. Ltr. 4). The defense makes this assertion despite the fact that neither this Office nor the defendant were party to that agreement, the agreement covered conduct spanning a different period of time than that charged in this case, and the agreement does not mention the defendant by name. To the extent the defense nevertheless believes it is entitled to those materials, the appropriate forum to raise those arguments is on the pretrial motion schedule established by the Court. + +3 It bears mention that at no point did the defense seek to confer with the Government regarding any concerns about the Government's October 7 letter or the Government's planned productions prior to filing the Defense Letter with the Court. + +recent New York investigation as part of the Prosecution Team's files, and stated as much at the initial pretrial conference and in its October 7, 2020 letter.' Because the Palm Beach Police Department files were incorporated into the Florida FBI files and were so at the time of charging, they are also part of the Prosecution Team's files. Thus, far from trying to "distance itself from its own files" (Def. Ltr. 5), the Government has thoroughly reviewed those files for Rule 16 material and potential Brady material, has made discovery productions from those files beginning in August through this month, and is continuing to make productions from those files. + +By contrast, and as explained more fully in the Government's October 7 letter, this Prosecution Team—which played no role in the Florida Investigation—had not, prior to August 2020, received the materials identified in that letter from other prosecutor's offices. The Government has now obtained those materials not because they constitute Rule 16 discovery, but rather because the Government is prepared to go above and beyond its obligations in an effort to identify any arguable 3500 or Giglio material for Government witnesses in this case, or any Brady material held in the files of those other offices. The Government is in the process of reviewing those materials, as set forth in its October 7 letter, and to the extent the Government identifies material within those files that constitutes Giglio or Jencks Act material, it will produce any such material in advance of trial consistent with any agreed upon or ordered schedule for pretrial disclosures. If the Government identifies potential Brady material within those files, the Government will promptly produce it to the defense. + +In sum, through its October 7 letter, the Government sought to be transparent about the files it has been collecting and reviewing from other offices for disclosures in this case. The Government fully intends to discharge its obligations carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly, and will continue to make itself available to confer with defense counsel regarding discovery. + +## 2. The Government Has Made Considerable Efforts to Address Concerns and Complaints Raised by Defense Counsel Regarding the MDC + +The Defense Letter raises two complaints that the Government has gone to significant lengths to address over the past several weeks. First, the defense complains about technical issues the defendant has experienced in reviewing discovery at the MDC. (Def. Ltr. 6-7). The Government has worked expeditiously and continuously to provide the defendant with discovery that is reviewable at MDC. In that vein, the Government has repeatedly spoken with MDC legal counsel regarding these issues, and is continuing to work with MDC legal counsel and its own IT staff to ensure that the defendant is able to review all of her discovery, including the subset of files + +The suggestion to the contrary in the first sentence of the Defense Letter is similarly misleading. (Def. Ltr. 1). At the initial conference, the Government explained that discovery in this case would come, in part, from "prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida," (July 14, 2020 Tr. at 12), and Government counsel clarified, "the files in particular that I am referring to are the files in the possession of the F.B.I. in Florida in connection with the previous investigation of Jeffrey Epstein." (Id. at 14). Consistent with that representation, the Government's October 7, 2020 letter noted that the Prosecution Team has reviewed and made discovery productions from those same Florida FBI files. (Dkt. 63 at 5, 6). + +that the defendant has had difficulty opening on the MDC computer system.5 Because those efforts are already underway and remain ongoing, there is no need for an order directing them. + +Second, the Defense Letter complains about issues within the MDC that are not in the Government's control, but that the Government has nevertheless spent significant time addressing at the defense's behest. (Def. Ltr. 6-7). MDC legal counsel has informed the Government that MDC staff has been instructed to allow defense counsel to pass papers to their client for her to review during visits. Accordingly, there is no need for an order to address this issue. MDC legal counsel also noted that the table in the attorney visiting room is equipped with a Plexiglas barrier down the middle to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Attorneys and clients are required to sit on opposite sides of that barrier for their health and safety, but they can position any laptop they may be reviewing in such a way that both the client and attorneys can view it while remaining on opposite sides of the table. Finally, the Government understands from MDC legal counsel that the defendant has access to her discovery for approximately 13 hours per day and therefore receives more time to review her discovery than any other inmate in the MDC. + +\* \* \* + +The Government is working expeditiously to meet its obligations and discovery deadlines, which it takes very seriously. The Government's primary objective, of course, is to finalize the production of discovery as quickly as possible, while also ensuring that its productions are complete. At any point, should the defense have questions or concerns about the discovery, the Government has been and remains available to discuss any such issues directly with counsel. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: \_ \_ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +5 It is not clear to the Government what documents the defendant is unable to view at this point, but to be clear, the technical issues have, at their worst, impacted the defendant's ability to view only a subset of the hundreds of thousands of pages produced to her. The defense has previously provided the Government with lists of documents that the defendant could not open. In response, the Government has sent the defendant replacement productions with reformatted versions of each identified document after consulting with MDC staff to ensure that the files would be viewable on the MDC computer system. Yesterday, defense counsel informed the Government that the defendant still cannot view certain files, but the defense has not identified all of the specific unreviewable documents. In any event, the Government will continue to work with the defense and the MDC to ensure that the defendant can review all discovery. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0436f02ed51815b217046457e5d10d7f1a3efa28 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/EFTA02829650.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,271 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 13284, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.21, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Government Has and Will Continue to Satisfy Its Discovery Obligations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 424.44000000000005 + ], + [ + 502.45849609375, + 424.44000000000005 + ], + [ + 502.45849609375, + 439.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 439.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Government Has Made Considerable Efforts to Address Concerns and \nComplaints Raised by Defense Counsel Regarding the MDC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 477.363037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 477.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829650" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d87fd01ec0ff1d1d71d1b698e98bf576376e50a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:146d99d423a264ac9bed551178be4eef9e2bb9edf6874901d7157cf01dbe13a6 +size 3366 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af45b0ae2ea02b81b40d2c266819288c410367c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X IN RE: FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 5(F) : ORDER X + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), to confirm the Government's disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, and to summarize the possible consequences of violating those obligations. + +The Government must disclose to the defense all information "favorable to an accused" that is "material either to guilt or to punishment" and that is known to the Government. M. at 87. This obligation applies regardless of whether the information would itself constitute admissible evidence. The Government shall disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case. + +As part of these obligations, the Government must disclose any information that can be used to impeach the trial testimony of a Government witness within the meaning of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and its progeny. Such information must be disclosed sufficiently in advance of trial in order for the defendant to make effective use of it at trial or at such other time as the Court may order. + +The foregoing obligations are continuing ones and apply to materials that become known to the Government in the future. Additionally, if information is otherwise subject to disclosure, it must be disclosed regardless of whether the Government credits it. + +In the event the Government believes that a disclosure under this Order would compromise witness safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other substantial government interest, it may apply to the Court for a modification of its obligations, which may include in camera review or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the information otherwise subject to disclosure. + +For purposes of this Order, the Government includes all current or former federal, state, and local prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, and other officers who have participated in the prosecution, or investigation that led to the prosecution, of the offense or offenses with which the defendant is charged. The Government has an affirmative obligation to seek from such sources all information subject to disclosure under this Order. + +If the Government fails to comply with this Order, the Court, in addition to ordering production of the information, may: + +- (1) specify the terms and conditions of such production; +- (2) grant a continuance; +- (3) impose evidentiary sanctions; +- (4) impose sanctions on any responsible lawyer for the Government; +- (5) dismiss charges before trial or vacate a conviction after trial or a guilty plea; or +- (6) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 5, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef4c2b09965ab00e1551ece46b847a2cdead7391 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654/EFTA02829654.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829654.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3153, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 62.424, + 64.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 274.2991943359375, + 64.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 274.2991943359375, + 92.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 62.424, + 92.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829654" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad1b94829874b39a577968b040bb6aabb7529f5b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio). Motto Building One UV Andrew's Plata New York. New York 10007 + +November 6, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request an extension of the deadline for the production of a subset of the electronic discovery in the above-referenced case from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. This extension is necessary solely to allow adequate time for an outside vendor to finalize the preparation of documents extracted from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein for production. Over the past two days, the Government has conferred with defense counsel, who indicated this morning that they would only consent to the extension on four conditions, detailed below. Although the Government agrees to meet two of the defense conditions, it will not agree to the other two, which have no connection to the delay in discovery and no basis in law. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the extension to produce electronic discovery to November 23, 2020. + +To date, the Government has produced more than 350,000 pages of discovery to the defense over the course of five productions, and the Government expects to make a sixth production by the existing November 9, 2020 deadline, as detailed below. However, the Government's outside vendor has advised the Government that it requires additional time to prepare a seventh and final production of electronic discovery. By way of background, that final production comes from electronic devices that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2019. Specifically, in July of 2019, the FBI conducted multiple searches of Epstein's residence in New York, and in August of 2019, the FBI searched Epstein's residence in the Virgin Islands. During both searches, the FBI seized dozens of electronic devices. Pursuant to court-authorized warrants, the FBI then initiated the months-long process of gaining access to and extracting data from those devices. + +In or about January of 2020, the FBI provided some, but not all, of the data from those devices to the Government. At the request of Epstein's estate, a filter team conducted a review of that subset of data for potentially privileged materials. In or about February of 2020, the privilege team completed its review of a subset of data that the FBI had provided. In or about late February of 2020, the Government initiated a responsiveness review of that subset of data. + +search of 62 of the electronic devices seized from Epstein. After the issuance of that new warrant, the Government requested that the FRI re-produce the data from all 62 devices because the FBI's prior production had only included a subset of the seized data and had not identified which file came from which seized device. On or about August 3, 2020, the FBI finished providing the Government all of the documents from the seized devices, this time organized by device. Because this production included data that the filter team had not previously reviewed, the Government's filter team conducted a full privilege review on this entire set of data. + +On October 7, 2020, the filter team completed its privilege review of that data and released to the case team the non-privileged documents for responsiveness review. The Government completed its responsiveness review on October 21, 2020, having identified approximately 1.2 million documents as responsive to the either the original or the ex anded warrant. That same night, the Government requested that its outside vendor image, stamp, and download all of the responsive documents for production to the defense. Although the Government believed at the time that it had left its outside vendor, which the Government has repeatedly informed of the November 9, 2020 discovery deadline in this case, sufficient time to complete the process of stamping and downloading these materials for production, unfortunately, despite the vendor's best efforts, it does not appear the vendor will be able to complete that process by November 9. + +In particular, on November 4, 2020, the vendor informed the Government that although it has finished imaging the responsive documents, it does not expect to finish stamping the responsive documents and loading them onto an external hard drive until November 19, 2020. The vendor will then send that drive to the Government. Once the Government receives the drive, it will need a short amount of time to spot check the production and confirm it can be sent to the defense. Given these estimates from the vendor, it will not be technologically possible to produce these responsive documents by the November 9, 2020 deadline. Accordingly, on November 4, 2020, the Government contacted defense counsel to confer regarding an extension of the discovery deadline solely for this production. + +After conferring, the parties have been unable to reach agreement on an extension. This morning, the defense indicated that they would consent to an extension of the deadline for this production to November 23, 2020 on four conditions. First, the defense asked that the motion deadlines in this case be extended by three weeks. The Government agrees with that proposal and accordingly requests that defense motions be due on January 11, 2021, Government responses be due on February 12, 2021, and defense replies be due on February 19, 2021. Second, the defense asked that the Government provide a laptop for the defendant to use to review her discovery inside the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") by November 23, 2020. The Government has already purchased a laptop for such a purpose, and the MDC has agreed to allow the defendant use that laptop for discovery review once the Government's IT department has disabled all wireless and communications capabilities on the laptop. Accordingly, the Government agrees to meet this condition. Third, the defense asked that the Government provide it with the names of the three Minor Victims listed in the Indictment by November 23, 2020, and fourth, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with all Jencks Act material by November 23, 2020. + +The Government cannot agree to the final two conditions set out by the defense, which have no connection to the two-week delay in completion of discovery and no basis in law. The first two conditions are reasonably related to the delayed production. The three-week extension of the defense's deadline to file motions will ensure the defense has adequate time to review discovery before finalizing its motions and is therefore rationally related to the two-week delay in this production. Similarly, the requested laptop will expedite and streamline the defendant's review of discovery by avoiding technological delays on the MDC computer system that may otherwise slow the defendant's discovery review. + +By contrast, a two-week delay in the completion of discovery, caused by technical constraints on the part of an outside vendor, has no bearing on the defense's entitlement to a witness list or witness statements. This Court has already ruled that such a request is premature when the "parties have not yet engaged in discussions regarding an appropriate schedule for pretrial disclosures, including witness lists and § 3500 material." (Dkt. 49 at I). The Court accordingly ordered that the parties "meet and confer on an appropriate schedule" "[f]ollowing the close of discovery." (Id. at 2). Consistent with that order, the Government is prepared to engage in good faith discussions with the defense about an appropriate schedule for disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material. The standard practice in this District is to produce such material shortly in advance of trial, a practice that has been widely held to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that Giglio be produced "in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously." United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). Immediate disclosure of such material is not warranted simply because the defendant prefers it. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651, at \*23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) (denying defendant's motion for immediate disclosure of Giglio material as defendant "fails to articulate any persuasive reason why immediate disclosure is required in this case, and the Court otherwise sees no basis to deviate so substantially from the typical practice"); United States v. Thompson, 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying request for early production of Jencks Act material); United States v. M, No. 06 Cr. 911 (LBS), 2009 WL 637164, at \*14 (S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2009) ("The Second Circuit has held that a request for immediate or early disclosure [of Giglio material] has no basis in the law."). Because the Government's two-week delay in completing discovery does not entitle the defense to such materials more than seven months in advance of trial, the Government respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for this production to November 23, 2020 solely on the first two conditions set out by the defense. + +Other than these responsive documents from Epstein's electronic devices, the Government expects to complete its production of Rule 16 discovery to the defense by the November 9, 2020 deadline. In that vein, the Government is currently preparing its sixth discovery production to the defense, which will include, among other things, thousands of images and videos from Epstein's electronic devices identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, portions of iPads and an iPhone seized from Epstein identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, the four emails quoted in the Government's application for an expanded warrant, and documents from the FBI's Florida files. The Government expects to make that sixth production to the defense on November 9, 2020. + +Moreover, while the Government appreciates that the volume of materials it proposes to produce after the deadline is large, the Government has no reason to believe these materials will be central to any motion the defendant may seek to make. In particular, as noted above, all of these materials come from devices seized from Epstein's residences, and none of the devices is believed to have belonged to the defendant. Further, of the approximately 1.2 million documents to be produced, only a handful were specifically relied upon by the Government in the investigation that led to the charges in the current Indictment, and the Government intends to produce those documents on November 9 with the rest of the sixth production. Additionally, as a result of the work being completed by the vendor, these materials will be produced to the defense in a manner that is readily sortable and searchable which should facilitate and expedite its review. + +The Government therefore respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for production of documents being prepared by an outside vendor to November 23, 2020, and that the Court similarly extend the motions schedule in this case by three weeks as requested by the defense. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +IIn particular, the application in support of the July 2020 warrant included quotations from four emails extracted from the devices, and, as noted, the Government will produce all four of those documents to the defense by November 9, 2020. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13687fe222f23f25d9d04fa24bf588dbad7b7ec3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/EFTA02829656.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 12027, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of .lustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.560546875, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.560546875, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 169.863037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 169.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829656" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36552d176d5cc475d13064a51e6379b86238bb76 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829656/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:31ec928dbc9964abd7839346d8134ae2fa6415ced3b74202c8df20bd54b86095 +size 3447 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30142e8bb25761fd9214dd72e909bd6997db5535 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. • • x AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) SS.: + +MAURENE COMEY, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury: + +I. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the Assistants who represents the Government in these proceedings. + +2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that the Government has conferred in good faith with counsel to the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding the Government's request to extend the deadline for the production of documents extracted from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein (the "Production") from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020, and that the parties have been unable to reach agreement. + +3. In particular, on November 4, 2020, the Government asked defense counsel whether they would consent to a two-week extension to allow adequate time for an outside vendor to finish stamping and downloading the Production. On the morning of November 6, 2020, + +defense counsel indicated that they would consent to the requested extension on four conditions. First, the defense asked that the motion deadlines in this case be extended by three weeks. Second, the defense asked that the Government provide the defendant with a laptop on which to review her discovery at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Third, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with the names of the three Minor Victims listed in the Indictment by November 23, 2020. Fourth, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with all Jencks Act material by November 23, 2020. In response, the Government agreed to the first two conditions, but did not agree to the second two conditions. Accordingly, the parties have been unable to reach agreement on the requested two-week extension of the deadline for the Production. + +- 4. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. + +Dated: New York, New York November 6, 2020 + +- Matifeile my Assistant United States Attorney Telephone: (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94fc512cc1bb3973cc1a2ac17a8470c5d67149b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660/EFTA02829660.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829660.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2354, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 101.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829660" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2dc4182d6b1c01f2fc323ad54af2bd6172c0432 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +# MAK + +20-3061 United States st Maavil + +#### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT + +## SUMMARY ORDER + +N.Y.S. D. Case # 20-cr-0330(AJN) + +Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. + +At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of October, two thousand twenty. + +PRESENT: JOSE. A CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. PoOLER, REENA RAGGI, CitruitJudges. + +UNITED STATES, + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Appellee, + +v. + +Defendant-Appellant. + +#### FOR APPELLEE: + +#### FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: Nov 09 2020 + +20-3061-cr + +LARA POMERANTZ, Assistant United States Attorney (Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, NY. + +ADAM MUELLER (Ty Gee, on the Enid), Haddon, and EM P.C., Denver, CO. + +Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). + +### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. + +Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks interlocutory relief from a September 2, 2020 denial of her motion to modify a protective order entered on July 30, 2020. In the alternative, she argues that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the protective order. Shc also moves to consolidate the instant appeal with the appeal pending in v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Meanwhile, the Government moves this Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and opposes Maxwell's motion to consolidate on the grounds that the issues presented on appeal are both factually and legally distinct. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. + +This Court has jurisdiction over the "final decisions of the district courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. "Finality as a condition of review is an historic characteristic of federal appellate procedure." Cobbledirk v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324 (1940). The "final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits." Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue litigiousness and leadenfooted administration of justice, particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases." Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962) (citing Coakdicle, 309 U.S. at 324-26). The final judgment rule is therefore "at its strongest in the field of criminal law." United States A Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982). In criminal cases, "finality generally is defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence." Florida v.=, 532 U.S. 774, 777 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). + +There is a "narrow" exception to the final judgment rule that permits appeals from "decisions that do not terminate the litigation, but must, in the interest of achieving a healthy legal system, nonetheless be treated as final." Digital Eve. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867- 68 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court has described the "conditions for collateral order appeal as stringent' in general, Digital Egg). Corp., 511 U.S. at 868 (emphasis added), and, with respect to criminal cases, it has "interpreted the collateral order exception with the utmost strictness." Midland Asphalt Corp. A United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). To fall within this limited category of appealable collateral orders, a decision must "(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively + +unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." United Stales v. Minn, 737 F.3d 1, 5 (2d Cir. 2013) ('internal quotation marks omitted). + +Thus far, the Supreme Court has identified just four circumstances in criminal cases that come within this exception: motions to dismiss invoking double jeopardy, motions to reduce bail, motions to dismiss under the Speech or Debate Clause, and the forced administration of antipsychotic medication. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (holding that an order permitting the forced administration of antipsychotic medication is immediately appealable), see also Midknd ibpbalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (listing the recognized exceptions). Maxwell dots not appeal from an order falling within one of these categories. Instead, she appeals from a denial of her motion to modify a protective order, which we have held does not fall within the collateral order exception. See Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107-08 (2009) (holding that pretrial discovery orders are not immediately appealable absent a showing that "delaying review until the entry of a final judgment would imperil a substantial public interest or some particular value of a high order" (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.E.C. v. Reryaratnam, 622 F.3d 159, 168 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory "discovery orders allegedly adverse to a claim of privilege or privacy); United States v. Capatros, 800 F.2d 23, 26 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory protective orders governing "the right of a criminal defendant to disclose information given to [her] in discovery"). We decline to exercise jurisdiction where we have none, and accordingly dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. + +In the alternative, Maxwell asks that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the protective order. This Court will issue the writ as an exception to the finality rule "only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion." Inn City of Nov York, 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[M]ere error, even gross error in a particular case, as distinguished from a calculated and repeated disregard of governing rules, does not suffice to support issuance of the writ." United Stater v. DiStefano, 464 F.2d 845, 850 (2d Cir. 1972). Here, Maxwell failed to demonstrate that such exceptional circumstances exist and that the District Court usurped its power or abused its discretion. Accordingly, we decline to issue a writ modifying the protective order. + +Finally, Maxwell also seeks to consolidate the instant appeal with the civil appeal pending in Glen v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413-cv. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Maxwell's appeal of the denial of her motion to modify her protective order, and because mandamus relief is not warranted, we deny as moot her motions to consolidate this appeal with the civil appeal. In any event, this Court has heard Maxwell's criminal appeal in tandem with her civil appeal. To secure the further relief of formal consolidation, Maxwell "beads] the burden of showing the commonality of factual and legal issues in different actions." Inn Repetitive Stress kftig Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir. 1993). Here, the parties, Judges, and legal issues presented in these appeals lack common identity. The criminal appeal concerns a denial of Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order while the civil + +appeal concerns an unsealing order. Further, as the District Court correctly noted, Maxwell "provide[s] no coherent explanation" connecting the discovery materials at issue in the criminal case to the civil litigation. + +### CONCLUSION + +We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is **DISMISSED** and the motion to consolidate is **DENIED** as moot. + +Any appeal in this criminal case shall be referred to another panel in the ordinary course. + +FOR THE COURT: + +Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk + +![]()A True Copy + +Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe Clerk + +United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3de57b46a6b50ab525ac33fa2f47bb3379ec245d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662/EFTA02829662.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,334 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829662.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 8904, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.37, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MAK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + -0.4099999964237213, + 7.80889892578125 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 7.80889892578125 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 80.2635498046875 + ], + [ + -0.4099999964237213, + 80.2635498046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS \nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 419.79217529296875, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 419.79217529296875, + 134.853515625 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 134.853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 147.7874755859375 + ], + [ + 392.5606689453125, + 147.7874755859375 + ], + [ + 392.5606689453125, + 168.91876220703125 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 168.91876220703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FOR APPELLEE:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 170.47506713867188, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 170.47506713867188, + 573.6035461425781 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 573.6035461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 666.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 263.3830871582031, + 666.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 263.3830871582031, + 681.6035385131836 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 681.6035385131836 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, \nADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is \nDISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 526.8200073242188, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 526.8200073242188, + 176.103515625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 176.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.324, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 144.99 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829662" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e3153008a4f558a78dba89dae6d75134290620d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SilvioLW:10 Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 6, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 11/9/20 | + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request an extension of the deadline for the production of a subset of the electronic discovery in the above-referenced case from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. This extension is necessary solely to allow adequate time for an outside vendor to finalize the preparation of documents extracted from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein for production. Over the past two days, the Government has conferred with defense counsel, who indicated this morning that they would only consent to the extension on four conditions, detailed below. Although the Government agrees to meet two of the defense conditions, it will not agree to the other two, which have no connection to the delay in discovery and no basis in law. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the extension to produce electronic discovery to November 23. 2020. + +To date, the Government has produced more than 350,000 pages of discovery to the defense over the course of five productions, and the Government expects to make a sixth production by the existing November 9, 2020 deadline, as detailed below. However, the Government's outside vendor has advised the Government that it requires additional time to prepare a seventh and final production of electronic discovery. By way of background, that final production comes from electronic devices that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2019. Specifically, in July of 2019, the FBI conducted multiple searches of Epstein's residence in New York, and in August of 2019, the FBI searched Epstein's residence in the Virgin Islands. During both searches, the FBI seized dozens of electronic devices. Pursuant to court-authorized warrants, the FBI then initiated the months-long process of gaining access to and extracting data from those devices. + +In or about January of 2020, the FBI provided some, but not all, of the data from those devices to the Government. At the request of Epstein's estate, a filter team conducted a review of that subset of data for potentially privileged materials. In or about February of 2020, the privilege team completed its review of a subset of data that the FBI had provided. In or about late February of 2020, the Government initiated a responsiveness review of that subset of data. + +search of 62 of the electronic devices seized from Epstein. After the issuance of that new warrant, the Government requested that the FBI re-produce the data from all 62 devices because the FBI's prior production had only included a subset of the seized data and had not identified which file came from which seized device. On or about August 3, 2020, the FBI finished providing the Government all of the documents from the seized devices, this time organized by device. Because this production included data that the filter team had not previously reviewed, the Government's filter team conducted a full privilege review on this entire set of data. + +On October 7, 2020, the filter team completed its privilege review of that data and released to the case team the non-privileged documents for responsiveness review. The Government completed its responsiveness review on October 21, 2020, having identified approximately 1.2 million documents as responsive to the either the original or the expanded warrant. That same night, the Government requested that its outside vendor image, ██████ stamp, and download all of the responsive documents for production to the defense. Although the Government believed at the time that it had left its outside vendor, which the Government has repeatedly informed of the November 9, 2020 discovery deadline in this case, sufficient time to complete the process of stamping and downloading these materials for production, unfortunately, despite the vendor's best efforts, it does not appear the vendor will be able to complete that process by November 9. + +In particular, on November 4, 2020, the vendor informed the Government that although it has finished imaging the responsive documents, it does not expect to finish ██████ stamping the responsive documents and loading them onto an external hard drive until November 19, 2020. The vendor will then send that drive to the Government. Once the Government receives the drive, it will need a short amount of time to spot check the production and confirm it can be sent to the defense. Given these estimates from the vendor, it will not be technologically possible to produce these responsive documents by the November 9, 2020 deadline. Accordingly, on November 4, 2020, the Government contacted defense counsel to confer regarding an extension of the discovery deadline solely for this production. + +After conferring, the parties have been unable to reach agreement on an extension. This morning, the defense indicated that they would consent to an extension of the deadline for this production to November 23, 2020 on four conditions. First, the defense asked that the motion deadlines in this case be extended by three weeks. The Government agrees with that proposal and accordingly requests that defense motions be due on January 11, 2021, Government responses be due on February 12, 2021, and defense replies be due on February 19, 2021. Second, the defense asked that the Government provide a laptop for the defendant to use to review her discovery inside the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") by November 23, 2020. The Government has already purchased a laptop for such a purpose, and the MDC has agreed to allow the defendant use that laptop for discovery review once the Government's IT department has disabled all wireless and communications capabilities on the laptop. Accordingly, the Government agrees to meet this condition. Third, the defense asked that the Government provide it with the names of the three Minor Victims listed in the Indictment by November 23, 2020, and fourth, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with all Jencks Act material by November 23, 2020. + +The Government cannot agree to the final two conditions set out by the defense, which have no connection to the two-week delay in completion of discovery and no basis in law. The + +first two conditions are reasonably related to the delayed production. The three-week extension of the defense's deadline to file motions will ensure the defense has adequate time to review discovery before finalizing its motions and is therefore rationally related to the two-week delay in this production. Similarly, the requested laptop will expedite and streamline the defendant's review of discovery by avoiding technological delays on the MDC computer system that may otherwise slow the defendant's discovery review. + +By contrast, a two-week delay in the completion of discovery, caused by technical constraints on the part of an outside vendor, has no bearing on the defense's entitlement to a witness list or witness statements. This Court has already ruled that such a request is premature when the "parties have not yet engaged in discussions regarding an appropriate schedule for pretrial disclosures, including witness lists and § 3500 material." (Dkt. 49 at I). The Court accordingly ordered that the parties "meet and confer on an appropriate schedule" "ifJollowing the close of discovery." (Id. at 2). Consistent with that order, the Government is prepared to engage in good faith discussions with the defense about an appropriate schedule for disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material. The standard practice in this District is to produce such material shortly in advance of trial, a practice that has been widely held to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that Giglio be produced "in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously." United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). Immediate disclosure of such material is not warranted simply because the defendant prefers it. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651, at \*23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) (denying defendant's motion for immediate disclosure of Giglio material as defendant "fails to articulate any persuasive reason why immediate disclosure is required in this case, and the Court otherwise sees no basis to deviate so substantially from the typical practice"); United States v. Thompson, 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying request for early production of Jencks Act material); United States v. M, No. 06 Cr. 911 (LBS), 2009 WL 637164, at \*14 (S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2009) ("The Second Circuit has held that a request for immediate or early disclosure [of Giglio material] has no basis in the law."). Because the Government's two-week delay in completing discovery does not entitle the defense to such materials more than seven months in advance of trial, the Government respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for this production to November 23, 2020 solely on the first two conditions set out by the defense. + +Other than these responsive documents from Epstein's electronic devices, the Government expects to complete its production of Rule 16 discovery to the defense by the November 9, 2020 deadline. In that vein, the Government is currently preparing its sixth discovery production to the defense, which will include, among other things, thousands of images and videos from Epstein's electronic devices identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, portions of iPads and an iPhone seized from Epstein identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, the four emails quoted in the Government's application for an expanded warrant, and documents from the FBI's Florida files. The Government expects to make that sixth production to the defense on November 9, 2020. + +Moreover, while the Government appreciates that the volume of materials it proposes to produce after the deadline is large, the Government has no reason to believe these materials will be central to any motion the defendant may seek to make. In particular, as noted above, all of + +these materials come from devices seized from Epstein's residences, and none of the devices is believed to have belonged to the defendant. Further, of the approximately 1.2 million documents to be produced, only a handful were specifically relied upon by the Government in the investigation that led to the charges in the current Indictment, and the Government intends to produce those documents on November 9 with the rest of the sixth production. Additionally, as a result of the work being completed by the vendor, these materials will be produced to the defense in a manner that is readily sortable and searchable which should facilitate and expedite its review. + +The Government therefore respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for production of documents being prepared by an outside vendor to November 23, 2020, and that the Court similarly extend the motions schedule in this case by three weeks as requested by the defense. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: r-s + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +SO ORDERED. 11/9120 + +Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government's production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties' request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant's motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government's responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +IIn particular, the application in support of the July 2020 warrant included quotations from four emails extracted from the devices, and, as noted, the Government will produce all four of those documents to the defense by November 9, 2020. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35d897dc442618f0c9eaa89a04b11e71f1d70c5c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/EFTA02829666.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 12712, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.42, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829666" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42eb4098fda55d09deafe8319a282b45e5f0c4c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829666/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:30b6aeeb9681ad7a70e2b4c80535b91e5a74684f78986db237bc629000378314 +size 3506 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77798297220a682045d2c8a0fa67a7a4492b2159 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +October 6, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +USDC SDNY +DOCU: [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 11/18/20 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court grant the Government permission to delay disclosure to the defense of certain photographs of and documents regarding victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. These materials relate to abuse that postdated the time period charged in the Indictment, and the Government does not intend to offer them at trial. Although the Government intends to produce these materials to the defendant in advance of trial, premature disclosure of these materials could jeopardize the Government's ongoing investigation and would reveal sensitive victim information months in advance of trial. For these reasons and as set forth below, the Government respectfully submits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), that good cause exists to delay disclosure of these items to defense counsel until eight weeks prior to trial. I The Government has conferred with defense counsel, who have indicated that they object to this request and intend to submit a letter in opposition. + +As the Court is aware, the superseding indictment in this case (the "Indictment") charges the defendant in six counts. Count One of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. + +At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte. + +A finding of good cause "'must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements."' United States v. Gangi, No. 97 Cr. 1215 (DC), 1998 WL 226196, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (quoting v. Clyovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1986)). + +I Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 provides for the production of discovery to a defendant, upon request, of certain materials, such as documents that are material to the preparation of the defense and documents the Government intends to use in its case-in-chief at trial. However, Rule 16(dX1) also provides that: + +§ 371. Count Two of the Indictment charges Maxwell with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and 2. Count Three of the Indictment charges Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four of the Indictment charges Maxwell with transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge Maxwell with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Counts One through Four focus on conduct between approximately 1994 and 1997. + +The charges in the Indictment arose out of a broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, which covered time periods beyond that included in the Indictment. During the course of that broader investigation, the Government has interviewed dozens of victims who were sexually abused by Epstein. As part of that broader investigation, the Government has obtained a limited number of sensitive documents and photographs regarding certain victims who were sexually abused by Epstein after 1997 (the "Materials"). These Materials include, for example, school photographs of certain victims and records, such as bank and travel records, for certain victims. The Government does not anticipate offering these Materials as evidence at trial in this case, and the Materials do not relate to individuals whom the Government currently anticipates calling as witnesses at trial. Moreover, the Materials post-date the time period charged in the Indictment. + +The Government has reviewed the Materials for any potentially exculpatory material, and has found none. Nevertheless, because the Government is taking an expansive approach to disclosures in this case, the Government intends to produce these Materials to the defendant along with 3500 material for non-testifying witnesses sufficiently in advance of trial in order to enable the defendant to review and, if appropriate, make use of the Materials in her defense. In particular, the Government intends to produce to the defendant, pursuant to a protective order, statements of all witnesses the Government has interviewed during its broader investigation, even if the Government does not intend to call those witnesses at trial. Should the Court grant the instant application, the Government would produce the Materials, along with any witness statements pertaining to the victims identified in the Materials, at the same time as all other statements by non-testifying witnesses. The Government is prepared to make that production as early as eight weeks in advance of trial. Because the volume of the Materials is limited to approximately 40 photographs and approximately 40 pages of documents, defense counsel's review of the Materials is unlikely to be unduly time consuming, thus minimizing any potential prejudice to the defendant from the delayed production. + +Delayed disclosure of the Materials is warranted because they include identifying information for victims who are not expected to testify in this case and who have provided information as part of the Government's ongoing investigation, the immediate disclosure of which would risk interfering with the Government's ongoing investigation. *See United States v. Mannino*, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (permitting delayed production of documents whose immediate disclosure to the defense would interfere with ongoing investigation); *cf. United States v. [REDACTED]*, 985 F. Supp. 506, 531-32 (2d Cir. 2013) (risk of interference with ongoing investigation sufficient good cause for entry of Rule 16 protective order). Immediate disclosure of these materials would have the effect of prematurely revealing to the defendant the identities of certain Epstein victims who are not referenced in the Indictment but who have spoken with the + +Government as part of its ongoing investigation, well in advance of any trial in this matter. Premature disclosure of these witnesses' identities and sensitive information about those witnesses risks jeopardizing the Government's ongoing investigation in at least two respects. First, disclosure would tend to reveal to the defendant the scope of and evidence gathered during the Government's ongoing investigation, the details of which are not currently public or known to the defendant. Second, an order requiring the immediate production of these Materials would risk deterring other victims from coming forward to be interviewed and from providing evidence to the Government. Victims who may be considering cooperating with the Government's investigation may decline to do so if they believe that the information they provide—even information outside the period charged in the Indictment—must be immediately disclosed to the defense in this case. Given the sensitivity of the Materials, the need to protect the Government's ongoing investigation, and the minimal (if any) relevance of the Materials to the offenses charged in the Indictment, the Government respectfully submits that good cause exists pursuant to Rule 16(d) to delay their disclosure. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government's request to delay disclosure of these Materials. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Marene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +SO ORDERED. 11/18/20 + +g Air + +Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government's letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government's request to delay disclosure. However, the Government's proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..248742242c7bc3a7bd147553ee290512e3a3ea3d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/EFTA02829670.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 9122, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.95, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6324768066406, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829670" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67bb9f02371e77b6c18a0bf23b06197fdfe50eb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829670/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3d690c6ce3b329cb2e972e19fb289a43d67263bd4332a22b7f8882f3357c9a5e +size 3543 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6d3c2cf0589e119d176535d8ad4c5b44c6cdec9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Sibio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 23, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 25, 2020. (Dkt. No. 49). Over the past three months, the Government has had multiple conversations with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal during those conversations. + +Last week, a staff member who was assigned to work in the area of the MDC where the defendant is housed tested positive for COVID- I 9. In response, the MDC implemented the same quarantine protocols that apply whenever an inmate has potentially been exposed to the virus. Specifically, on November 18, 2020, the defendant was tested for COVID-19 using a rapid test, which was negative. That same day, the defendant was placed in quarantine. As with any other quarantined inmate, the defendant will remain in quarantine for fourteen days, at which point she will be tested again for COVID-19. If that test is negative, she will then be released from quarantine. To date, the defendant has not exhibited any symptoms of COVID-19. + +During her time in quarantine, the defendant will be housed in the same cell where she was already housed before she was placed in quarantine, and medical staff and psychology staff will continue to check on the defendant every day. Like all other MDC inmates in quarantine, the defendant will be permitted out of her cell three days per week for thirty minutes. During that time, the defendant may shower, make personal phone calls, and use the CorrLinks email system. In addition, the defendant will continue to be permitted to make legal calls every day for up to three hours per day. These calls will take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. + +On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC with a laptop for the defendant to use to review discovery. During quarantine, the defendant has been and will continue to be permitted to use that laptop in her isolation cell to review her discovery for thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. Accordingly, the defendant is receiving the same amount of time to review her discovery and the same amount of time to speak with her lawyers as she received before entering quarantine. The defendant will not, however, be permitted to meet in person with her lawyers until she tests out of quarantine. + +After the defendant tests out of quarantine, she will resume the same schedule that the MDC implemented approximately three months ago. Specifically, from 7am to 8pm every day, the defendant will be permitted out of her isolation cell. During those thirteen hours, the defendant will have access to a computer on which to review her discovery outside of her cell. Also during the day, the defendant will be permitted to, among other things, make legal calls, make personal calls, access CorrLinks, and shower. From 8pm to 7am, the defendant will remain in her isolation cell. The defendant will also be permitted to have in-person visits with her attorneys up to three days per week for multiple hours per visit. On days when the defendant does not have in-person legal visits, she will have access to legal calls for up to three hours per day. + +As was the case three months ago, the defendant continues to have more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC, even while in quarantine. The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys, even while in quarantine. + +As noted above, over the past three months, the Government has repeatedly communicated both with MDC legal counsel and defense counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. Whenever the defense has raised a concern on this topic, the Government has immediately contacted MDC legal counsel to inquire about and, where appropriate, to address the concern. The Government will continue to keep those lines of communication open and will remain responsive to any concerns raised by the defense regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will promptly provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: \_ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bedca8ceb38403f2a83bf43a0a20420464a97dc3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/EFTA02829673.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5068, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829673" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b0cb8bfd9cf182445fab6d5bce6c39e8fe25450 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829673/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d7a9a82e174c229e0f36a64f7a48b7317d1afb7981b69dc7676985fad69c8edf +size 3494 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0799fd238a77476b4188e9a9eb1adb8d8e29fd90 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +November 24, 2020 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, I write in response to the government's letter, dated November 23, 2020 (see Dkt 74), reporting Ms. Maxwell's conditions of detention and confirming that she is currently in quarantine due to contact with a staff member, assigned to her isolation pod, who tested positive for COVID-19. + +The government recites a variety of allowances given Ms. Maxwell, including being permitted out of her cell three times a week during quarantine for a maximum of 30 minutes, the total time allotted for showering, making personal calls, and using the CorrLinks email system to communicate with family and counsel. However, the letter presents an incomplete picture of Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. + +The government fails to mention a variety of issues brought to the attention of the MDC, including but not limited to the fact: that all email correspondence between Ms. Maxwell and counsel was deleted in advance of the 180-day period, when deletion is expected to occur; that after being administered two nasal swab tests, under threat of 21-day quarantine if she declined to be tested, Ms. Maxwell was ordered to remove her COVID-protection mask for an in-mouth inspection, further risking exposure to the virus; that Ms. Maxwell was initially quarantined without soap or a toothbrush; that medical and psychology staff, who checked on Ms. Maxwell daily pre-quarantine, have ceased doing so daily since quarantine and have neither informed her of results of the COVID tests nor provided information in response to her inquiry regarding what she should do if she becomes symptomatic. + +The letter omits the fact that while staff are not supposed to enter Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell during quarantine, an unidentified man entered to take photographs and a guard entered to search. Further, while counsel assumed that an in-person legal visit scheduled for Saturday, November 21, would be canceled as a result of Ms. Maxwell's quarantine status, no notification was provided; and a request for a substituted legal call was not accommodated. + +The government highlights what Ms. Maxwell is permitted but not what she is denied: equal treatment accorded other inmates in general population. Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirely of her pretrial detention in de facto solitary confinement under the most restrictive conditions where she is excessively and invasively searched and is monitored 24 hours per day. In addition to camera surveillance in her cell, a supplemental camera follows her movement when she is permitted to leave her isolation cell and is focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during in-person legal visits. And despite non-stop in-cell camera surveillance, Ms. Maxwell's sleep is disrupted every I5-minutes when she is awakened by a flashlight to ascertain whether she is breathing. + +Ms. Maxwell is a non-violent, exemplary pretrial detainee with no criminal history, no history of violence, no history of mental health issues or suicidal ideation. She is overmanaged under conditions more restrictive than inmates housed in 10South, the most restrictive unit in the MCC; or individuals convicted of terrorism and capital murder and incarcerated at FCI Florence ADMAX, the most restrictive facility operated by the BOP. The MDC concedes that it is unable to place her in general population for her safety and the security of the institution but fails to explain why she is deprived of all other opportunities provided to general population inmates. + +Stating that Ms. Maxwell "continues to have more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC, even while in quarantine" gives the unfair impression that she is being given a perquisite. However, given the voluminous discovery in this case, the most recent production alone being 1.2 million documents, the time accorded Ms. Maxwell remains inadequate for her to review and prepare the defense of her life. + +Due to the failure of MDC's Warden and Legal Department to respond to recurring problems and complaints, counsel have reached out to the government. While we appreciate any assistance provided by government counsel, it has done little to redress the many concerns regarding the disparate treatment of Ms. Maxwell. + +Rather than receive second-hand information from counsel, the defense requests that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to report directly to the Court and counsel on Ms. Maxwell's conditions of detention. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +Rota C. 54444aa BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f96e0a50da3747fa74ec24f73013e10c77660bc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675/EFTA02829675.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829675.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4908, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829675" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3554c4d271f1a0b4a76a1b397bee7f050ac2576 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fox + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 In@skornholmlaw.com + +November 24, 2020 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOGS: DATE FILED: 11/24/20 + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, I write in response to the government's letter, dated November 23, 2020 (see Dkt 74), reporting Ms. Maxwell's conditions of detention and confirming that she is currently in quarantine due to contact with a staff member, assigned to her isolation pod, who tested positive for COVID-19. + +The government recites a variety of allowances given Ms. Maxwell, including being permitted out of her cell three times a week during quarantine for a maximum of 30 minutes, the total time allotted for showering, making personal calls, and using the CorrLinks email system to communicate with family and counsel. However, the letter presents an incomplete picture of Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. + +The government fails to mention a variety of issues brought to the attention of the MDC, including but not limited to the fact: that all email correspondence between Ms. Maxwell and counsel was deleted in advance of the 180-day period, when deletion is expected to occur; that after being administered two nasal swab tests, under threat of 21-day quarantine if she declined to be tested, Ms. Maxwell was ordered to remove her COVID-protection mask for an in-mouth inspection, further risking exposure to the virus; that Ms. Maxwell was initially quarantined without soap or a toothbrush; that medical and psychology staff, who checked on Ms. Maxwell daily pre-quarantine, have ceased doing so daily since quarantine and have neither informed her of results of the COVID tests nor provided information in response to her inquiry regarding what she should do if she becomes symptomatic. + +The letter omits the fact that while staff are not supposed to enter Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell during quarantine, an unidentified man entered to take photographs and a guard entered to search. Further, while counsel assumed that an in-person legal visit scheduled for Saturday, November 21, would be canceled as a result of Ms. Maxwell's quarantine status, no notification was provided; and a request for a substituted legal call was not accommodated. + +The government highlights what Ms. Maxwell is permitted but not what she is denied: equal treatment accorded other inmates in general population. Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirely of her pretrial detention in de facto solitary confinement under the most restrictive conditions where she is excessively and invasively searched and is monitored 24 hours per day. In addition to camera surveillance in her cell, a supplemental camera follows her movement when she is permitted to leave her isolation cell and is focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during in-person legal visits. And despite non-stop in-cell camera surveillance, Ms. Maxwell's sleep is disrupted every I5-minutes when she is awakened by a flashlight to ascertain whether she is breathing. + +Ms. Maxwell is a non-violent, exemplary pretrial detainee with no criminal history, no history of violence, no history of mental health issues or suicidal ideation. She is overmanaged under conditions more restrictive than inmates housed in 10South, the most restrictive unit in the MCC; or individuals convicted of terrorism and capital murder and incarcerated at FCI Florence ADMAX, the most restrictive facility operated by the BOP. The MDC concedes that it is unable to place her in general population for her safety and the security of the institution but fails to explain why she is deprived of all other opportunities provided to general population inmates. + +Stating that Ms. Maxwell "continues to have more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC, even while in quarantine" gives the unfair impression that she is being given a perquisite. However, given the voluminous discovery in this case, the most recent production alone being 1.2 million documents, the time accorded Ms. Maxwell remains inadequate for her to review and prepare the defense of her life. + +Due to the failure of MDC's Warden and Legal Department to respond to recurring problems and complaints, counsel have reached out to the government. While we appreciate any assistance provided by government counsel, it has done little to redress the many concerns regarding the disparate treatment of Ms. Maxwell. + +Rather than receive second-hand information from counsel, the defense requests that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to report directly to the Court and counsel on Ms. Maxwell's conditions of detention. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +golitt C. 54444as BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All Counsel SO ORDERED. 11/24/20 + +Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant's request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant's concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. SO ORDERED. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f179c5d8ebd1fcab76a22d3ff3e92fe72ccdbc86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677/EFTA02829677.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829677.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5310, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829677" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f8f4e8d216b22e68d86ba09e12c6b0ef7e8fc80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 12/1/20 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 1, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..630e9c622ba8e5061b37e2e7d0232693827f1f25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679/EFTA02829679.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829679.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 887, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.32, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.63 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829679" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e562bd528ce648c4c07925432c69076905ed485 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio!. Mollo Building One Solni Andonv's Pla:a New York. New York 10007 + +December I, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties jointly submit this letter in response to the Court's November 24, 2020 order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the defendant's request that the warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") report directly to the Court and counsel on the defendant's conditions of detention. (Dkt. No. 76). Over the past week, the Government has spoken with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement and has tried to gather additional information regarding the concerns raised by the defendant, which the Government has shared with defense counsel. The Government has also conferred with defense counsel three times regarding the same, as well as the defense's request relating to MDC Warden Heriberto Tellez. The parties have been unable to reach agreement. Our respective positions follow. + +The Government respectfully submits that the Court should allow MDC legal counsel to respond directly in writing to the Court and defense counsel regarding the concerns defense counsel has raised relating to the defendant's conditions of confinement. The Government understands that MDC legal counsel is prepared to submit a letter by this Friday, December 4, 2020. Such a letter is the appropriate next step at this time, as it will allow the Court to hear directly from MDC legal counsel who can address the defendant's conditions of confinement. The letter will allow the Court to ascertain whether further inquiry, including a personal appearance by the Warden or other MDC personnel, is necessary. Moreover, the Government does not understand the concerns raised by the defense to implicate the defendant's access to legal materials or her ability to communicate with her counsel. As noted in the Government's letter dated November 23, 2020, the defendant continues to have more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. (Dkt. No. 74). + +The defense disagrees. As communicated to the Government, the defense's position is as follows: Warden Heriberto Tellez should appear before the Court to directly address concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement, which specifically target her. On October 29, 2020, the defense emailed a letter to Warden Tellez detailing the onerous and restrictive conditions, including but not limited to concerns regarding the supplemental camera; excessive + +searching (e.g., weekly body scan, 15-minute interval flashlight checks at night, and open-mouth inspection) despite being surveilled 24/7 by a dedicated three-guard security detail and two cameras; and the reason she is not being moved to the day room, which we understood was the original plan (and would reduce searching). Receipt of the letter was acknowledged, but to date there has been no response and little, if any, redress to the most serious conditions. Upon information and belief, decisions concerning Ms. Maxwell's specialized detention are made by Warden Tellez, or from others outside the MDC. A report from the MDC Legal Department would provide second-hand information. Accordingly, Warden Tellez should be directed to provide a first-hand accounting to the Court and counsel why Ms. Maxwell is being detained under such individualized conditions. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47e9b45ca5fa055ddf0a7eb8254d852e190689d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/EFTA02829680.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4052, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of ,Instiee", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9413146972656, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9413146972656, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 169.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829680" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e78d2005cca7e42974b47ca8aeb42ba72df6c286 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829680/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:98a5175f058a736551f7f31de47f67686ced6f97dcaaf686d0a230fccd800112 +size 3403 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a46eee15e8400474406cf1b66ba61d98b0efa414 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio!. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plata New York. New York 10(107 + +December I, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 12/2/20 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties jointly submit this letter in response to the Court's November 24, 2020 order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the defendant's request that the warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") report directly to the Court and counsel on the defendant's conditions of detention. (Dkt. No. 76). Over the past week, the Government has spoken with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement and has tried to gather additional information regarding the concerns raised by the defendant, which the Government has shared with defense counsel. The Government has also conferred with defense counsel three times regarding the same, as well as the defense's request relating to MDC Warden Heriberto Tellez. The parties have been unable to reach agreement. Our respective positions follow. + +The Government respectfully submits that the Court should allow MDC legal counsel to respond directly in writing to the Court and defense counsel regarding the concerns defense counsel has raised relating to the defendant's conditions of confinement. The Government understands that MDC legal counsel is prepared to submit a letter by this Friday, December 4, 2020. Such a letter is the appropriate next step at this time, as it will allow the Court to hear directly from MDC legal counsel who can address the defendant's conditions of confinement. The letter will allow the Court to ascertain whether further inquiry, including a personal appearance by the Warden or other MDC personnel, is necessary. Moreover, the Government does not understand the concerns raised by the defense to implicate the defendant's access to legal materials or her ability to communicate with her counsel. As noted in the Government's letter dated November 23, 2020, the defendant continues to have more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. (Dkt. No. 74). + +The defense disagrees. As communicated to the Government, the defense's position is as follows: Warden Heriberto Tellez should appear before the Court to directly address concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement, which specifically target her. On October 29, 2020, the defense emailed a letter to Warden Tellez detailing the onerous and restrictive conditions, including but not limited to concerns regarding the supplemental camera; excessive + +-mouth open and night, at checks ashlight fl interval -minute 15 scan, body weekly (e.g., searching two and detail security -guard three dedicated a by 24/7 surveilled being despite inspection) the was understood we which room, day the to moved being not is she reason the and cameras; date to but acknowledged, was letter the of Receipt searching). reduce would (and plan original Upon conditions. serious most the to redress any, if little, and response no been has there by made are detention specialized Maxwell's Ms. concerning decisions belief, and information would Department Legal MDC the from report A MDC. the outside others from or Tellez, Warden a provide to directed be should Tellez Warden Accordingly, information. second-hand provide such under detained being is Maxwell Ms. why counsel and Court the to accounting first-hand conditions. individualized + +appreciated. greatly is consideration Your + +submitted, Respectfully STRAUSS AUDREY Attorney States United Acting + +s/ By: Pomerantz Lam / Moe Alison / Comey Maurene Attorneys States United Assistant York New of District Southern 637-2324 (212) Tel: + +ECF) (By Record of Counsel All Cc: + +their submit shall counsel legal MDC 4, December by Court the to letter the letter, that of review Upon 2020. any whether determine will Court required. is information additional writing. in or orally either 12/2/2020 ORDERED. SO U.S.D.J. Nathan, J. Alison + +ORDERED. SO \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3cbc7ef55712f8141dbc305763d31c62431edb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/EFTA02829682.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4395, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.87, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829682" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56ba75578a21e90a75286c9f5d385208e6179c80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829682/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6c422bf21e669b23ba573db7d1304c91e348e79b760b4faac1dcde164cfdad4f +size 3405 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa7089d42dec41486991c4c0e95aeff5e968abbd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Sibio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. Neu• York 10007 + +December 2, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defense requests for sealing and for an in camera hearing in connection with the defendant's anticipated renewed application for bail. The Government has reviewed the proposed redactions to the defense letters dated November 25, 2020 and November 30, 2020. Because those proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties, the Government has no objection to the defense's proposed redactions. The Government objects, however, to the defense request for a sealed in camera hearing to discuss further sealing requests from the defense. As demonstrated by the defense's recent letters, any request for sealing of third party information can be made in writing with narrowly tailored redactions. Based on defense counsel's proffers regarding the potential harms that may come from publicly identifying proposed cosigners, the Government has no objection to the redaction and sealed filing of any identifying information for those individuals. Given the availability of redacted filings, the Government sees no reason for an entire hearing to be conducted without the opportunity for the public or the victims in this case to observe. Indeed, given that crime victims have a statutory right to be present and heard at any proceeding regarding the defendant's "release," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), the Government would object to any proceeding addressing aspects of a renewed bail application that was conducted entirely in camera. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9896ddc00cde22a99e3f82b61156197743d9d0e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/EFTA02829684.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 2163, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.01, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829684" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bd53bae868f55817b3cf209d56fd021be1cac14 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829684/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eaf6db985fb9ddac531c0272a5f2bb4bb1b330af2f40ba0b059d2a4176fa92b4 +size 3532 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..965c308005ca0b5d6bde6f313dfd0549d6b42fc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. + +After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court's decision is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo + +The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant's letter motions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo 1"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. + +For the reasons outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. + +The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 3, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +cAL g Alor \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..733c6a91e9b6d46dce469c6394b1d698bfed5803 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/EFTA02829685.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3147, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829685" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0d2cc0d3f9e76425d4606e3a8e362ab3e5b87eb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fbcadb27231840de97bddc4450131e1ad774de36cbe4ff043e68438aa067ae30 +size 11401 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab218cd2ef47dafb89df47621bfac1739a2fc47a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957.7600 mcohcnOcohengrcsscr.com ccverdclItikohcngrcsscr.com + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +December 4, 2020 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Thad Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wynecohengressercom + +Per the Court's order (Dkt. 81), the parties have conferred regarding the briefing schedule for Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail. The defense respectfully requests that the hearing take place before the holidays and the government is amenable to that schedule. Accordingly, the parties propose the following briefing schedule: + +Defense submission: Government response: Defense reply due: Hearing: December 7, 2020 December 16, 2020 December 18, 2020 December 21, 2020 (subject to the Court's availability) + +Per the Court's order, the defense will send our submissions to the Court under seal on the dates mentioned above and will include a proposed redacted version of the submission to be filed on the docket for the Court's consideration. We ask that the Court order the government to follow the same procedure for its submission. + +Also, although the Court's Individual Practices in Criminal Cases do not contain a page limit for motions, we are mindful of the Court's 25-page limit for civil motions. In light of the numerous topics the defense must cover in connection with the renewed bail application, the defense respectfully requests leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The defense does not object to the government receiving a similar enlargement of pages to respond. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 4, 2020 Page 2 + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..127bf0afcf1409147b1ee232ec242bd6a0e0ae29 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/EFTA02829687.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2050, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829687" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c43eee33f8b83da17c26a7c63d29c567a8c9b5a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829687/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a2a42808c5cecb47f9c24228779f72d9f528a0f82ebed7a38a9c8e92edd564b3 +size 1596 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb18d49559c043bfc58a0a7edece0eeb4a82a807 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957.764K) mcohcnacohcrigresscr.com ccvadclItecohcngrcsscr.com + +November 25, 2020 + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +## VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +8O0 Thad Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone nvnecohengressercom + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the "Motion") and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal. We believe an in camera conference would be the most efficient form to address these issues and other confidentiality concerns related to the Motion. We intend to provide a full set of materials to the government, Pretrial Services, and the Court when the Motion is filed. We are merely requesting that sensitive contents of the submission be accorded confidentiality protections similar to those that the government routinely requires in protective orders, including the one in this case. + +In the four months since this Court denied Ms. Maxwell's request for bail and granted the government's motion for detention, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have assembled substantial information that was not available to present at the initial hearing, as well as a comprehensive bail package co-signed by sureties who were unable to come forward at that time. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell now seeks to renew her request for bail pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). + +Ms. Maxwell's renewed application will rely on sensitive and private information that, if made public, would be highly damaging to both Ms. Maxwell and third parties, including: + +- Letters from Ms. Maxwell's family members and close friends, who have agreed to serve as sureties to support Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application. The letters contain personal details that, if made public, would invite identification and + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 25, 2020 Page 2 + +> harassment of the sureties and other third parties, including minor children. They are legitimately afraid that if their identities become public, they will be subjected to the same relentless media scrutiny and threats that Ms. Maxwell has experienced for more than a year, like the following sample of social media posts: + +"they need to get this bitch n string her up by her neck . . . Peking monster . . . #GhislaineMaxwell." + +"I hope someone finds her and kills her. That would be justice. Obviously her lawyers know's where she is. someone should stick them up to batteries until! we find out where she is." + +"SHE'S HERE in #Massachusetts ?! The bitch #GhislaineMaxwell who #SexTraffieked young girls for #Epstein ?!?! Why the hell isn't she being brought in for questioning ®ManchesterMAPD ?! WE DO NOT WANT HER HERE! #SleczyLeach She is CLOSE ENOUGH to me, I could grab her myself' + +- A financial report, prepared by the accounting firm Macalvins Limited, that provides a summary of Ms. Maxwell's financial condition from 2015-2020 and discloses all of her assets, all assets held in trust, and assets held by other family members. +- A discussion and analysis of certain materials produced by the government in discovery marked "Confidential" and their impact on the government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which must be filed under seal pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. 36). + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.I(d) provides that "a court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record." While the Second Circuit has recognized a presumption of access under both common law and the First Amendment, it is appropriate to permit the filing of documents under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion to seal evidentiary exhibits and finding that privacy interests "outweigh any public interest in disclosure, whether derived from the First Amendment or the common-law right of access"). + +Moreover, a lower presumption of public access applies to documents submitted in connection with powers that are "ancillary to the court's core role in adjudicating a case" than to "material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions." v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying lower presumption to documents submitted in connection with discovery and evidentiary motions than to summary judgment filings). Thus, a lower presumption of public access attaches the parties' pretrial bail submissions than to exhibits introduced at trial or in connection with a motion to dismiss. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +November 25, 2020 +Page 3 + +Here, that lower presumption is far outweighed by the significant privacy interests implicated by the materials at issue. *See United States v. Amodeo*, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation”). If Ms. Maxwell’s sureties are publicly identified, they will be harassed simply for their association with and support of her. Indeed, some of Ms. Maxwell’s closest friends and family have already suffered significant consequences. For example, [REDACTED] + +The sureties are legitimately scared that they and their children will suffer the same consequences, and may not be able to come forward at all, if the Court does not allow their letters and their identities to be sealed. *See id.* at 1051 (“[C]ourts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal[.]”). These individuals are entitled to the same privacy as Ms. Maxwell’s accusers, no longer minors, who have been permitted to remain anonymous even though many have revealed their identities. + +The presumption of public access is also outweighed by Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interest in details regarding her financial condition, as well as the privacy interests of third parties that would be implicated if Ms. Maxwell’s assets were publicly disclosed. *See id.* (personal financial records traditionally considered private, not public). + +Similar privacy interests led the court to permit the redaction of bail submission materials in *United States v. Nejad* (“Sadr”), Case 1:18-cr-00224-AJN (S.D.N.Y.). Like this case, *Sadr* involved a defendant with meaningful assets and a bail package with numerous co-signers. At the initial bail hearing, Judge Carter ordered both defense counsel and the government to redact attachments to their submissions because they contained “sensitive private information with respect to a whole series of individuals.” (*Id.*, Dkt. 21 at 25.) The privacy interests at stake here are significantly higher, given the documented threats against Ms. Maxwell and harassment of her family and friends. + +For the reasons set forth above, we believe that portions of the Motion, and certain materials submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, should be filed under seal. We respectfully request an *in camera* conference to address these issues and other confidentiality concerns related to the Motion. We have consulted with the government, which consents to the redaction and sealed filing of (1) the names and identifying information of any proposed cosigners, (2) any discovery materials designated confidential under the Protective Order in this case, and (3) any information derived from confidential discovery materials in this case. The government does not consent to the *in camera* conference. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 25, 2020 Page 4 + +Respectfully submitted, + +ekvislia,A R. 'EveAt-Gee-OE. + +Mark S. + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue. 21st Floor + +New York. New York 10022 + +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d932461087e9b6e3d90ea8d2b4c09ce2ebc4d87c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/EFTA02829689.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 8641, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 231.3473663330078, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 231.3473663330078, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) \nOF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.2690734863281, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.2690734863281, + 244.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 244.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829689" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..906257cb226ce739ca45222d65d773a381a73987 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829689/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2798fb17bcc36679408c29074feb6de3330d12426ed71d4ff8d8c7cfc885198d +size 1573 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec441b61436babe4b7bfdf556fab9463c3786bd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957.7600 mcohcnacohcrigrcsscr.com ccvadclItecohcngrcsscr.com + +November 30, 2020 + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +## VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +800 Thud Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone nvnecohengressercom + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's order, dated November 25, 2020, directing Ms. Maxwell to justify why her letter of the same date requesting an in camera conference to discuss confidentiality concerns related to her Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the "Motion") should be sealed or redacted. + +We continue to believe that sealing the November 25, 2020 letter (the "November 25'h Letter") in its entirety is warranted and appropriate under the governing case law. However, in response to the Court's order, we ask the Court to file a redacted version of the November 25th Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which redacts only the information necessary to protect third parties from threats and harassment. In addition, because this letter must make reference to the same confidential information contained in the November 25`h Letter in order to justify the proposed redactions, we further ask the Court to file a redacted version of this letter, attached as Exhibit B. If the Court is not inclined to allow any of these redactions, we request leave to withdraw both letters and refile the November 25ih Letter with the redacted sentences deleted. + +Every submission related to the Motion, including this letter, presents the defense with a Catch-22. To support Ms. Maxwell's position regarding sealing and confidentiality, we are asked to provide the Court with specific information about the people supporting Ms. Maxwell's bail application and the need for sealing. But until we know what confidentiality protections the Court is willing to put in place, we are obligated to protect these people from the potentially devastating consequences of being publicly identified by divulging as little information about them as possible. We therefore continue to believe that an in camera conference, attended by all counsel, is the best way to address all of the confidentiality issues related to the Motion. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 30, 2020 Page 2 + +With regard to the November 25th Letter, Ms. Maxwell requests redaction of three sentences. The first sentence must be redacted because it contains information that will identify a proposed co-signer. The government, itself, concedes that such information should be redacted. (See November 25th Letter at 3). The reference in this sentence to + +Even assuming, arguendo, that there is some minimal public interest in knowing the identity of a particular surety, it is vastly outweighed by the significant privacy concerns in this case. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.... [C]ourts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal[.]"). I + +Similarly, redaction of the second and third sentences, like the first, is necessary to protect the privacy and safety of people who have suffered, or legitimately fear they will suffer, terrible personal and professional consequences for having been linked to Ms. Maxwell. People close to Ms. Maxwell have been physically stalked by members of the tabloid press and have had . a' arazzi .um. out of bushes and in front of their cars to sna. • ictures of them. + +And several have been h get of repeated physical threats. Many of the people who want to support Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application are older and do not have the financial means to hire a personal security detail to protect themselves. Nor should they have to. They are all people of good character who are simply trying to support Ms. Maxwell's constitutional right to seek release on bail. They should be given appropriate protections so that they can step forward without having their lives upended or, worse, destroyed. + +The November 25th Letter, as submitted, intentionally avoided naming these individuals for this very reason. But removing or redacting their names, as the government proposes, is not enough. This case has generated so much media attention and public opprobrium that public + +2 Given the sensitive subject matter of this case, the sureties have legitimate fears for their safety if they are publicly identified. Numerous social media posts have advocated killing Ms. Maxwell as a perverse form of -justice" for her alleged role in Epstcin's sex trafficking crimes. As we have all been recently reminded with the tragic cast of the death of Judge Esther Salas's son, there are people who are capable of committing horrible acts of violence—even against innocent third parties—by convincing themselves that their actions are justified. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 30, 2020 Page 3 + +disclosure of even the smallest personal detail about anyone connected to Ms. Maxwell whether or not they are named or anonymized—will ignite a frenzy of media speculation seekin to identify them. To name 'list one exam + +We have every reason to expect that the same will occur with anyone even obliquely mentioned in connection with the Motion. + +Accordin I the reference in the second sentence to + +We do not make this request for redaction lightly. We are acutely mindful that courts are generally reluctant to seal anything in a court filing beyond what is required by statute or local court rules. We are therefore proposing targeted redactions, consistent with the case law in this Circuit, that are no more extensive than necessary to protect these third parties. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, .1.) (granting motion to seal evidentiary exhibits on privacy grounds). Ultimately, we seek the same privacy protections for these people that the government has sought and obtained for Ms. Maxwell's accusers and for other information covered by the Protective Order in this case. + +By making this request for redaction, we are not trying to litigate this case in secret. We are merely seeking the ability to file a renewed bail application for Ms. Maxwell without further risking the safety and privacy of sureties needed to support that application. This is the first of several confidentiality issues that will arise in connection with the Motion, and the sureties will be looking at the Court's ruling as an indication of the level of confidentiality they can expect to be afforded. These individuals have requested that their privacy and safety be appropriately protected by the Court. + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court file the proposed redacted version of the November 25'h Letter, attached as Exhibit A, and the proposed redacted version of this letter, attached as Exhibit B. In the alternative, we request leave to withdraw both letters and refile the November 25th Letter with the redacted sentences deleted. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 30, 2020 Page 4 + +Respectfully submitted. a.) + +k""1-,a,R.Gm",,dze, + +Mark S. Christian R. Fverdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae75f34f4a78e58cbab105377ae19a647da58a36 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/EFTA02829693.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7784, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.24, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) \nOF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.2690734863281, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.2690734863281, + 244.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 244.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829693" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b17e5cd24c9ee72369208c476d894c73c24fc26 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829693/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:307010b7ba5c7ff27c34728ca877aa352ed81232197cc0cca1c4f66149c28cf4 +size 1570 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee5ffbebf4aa25ceefcd50558c0fb5deeae05e8c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center + +80 290 Street Brooklyn. New York 11232 + +December 4, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United Stares v. Ghislaine MRXWelh 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. No. 01379-509 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 12/7/20 + +This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's confinement and well-being. + +The Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) policies and procedures are designed to ensure staff and inmates can work and live in a safe and secure environment. In determining Ms. Maxwell's current housing assignment, MDC Brooklyn considered various factors including Ms. Maxwell's expressed concern for her safety and well-being amongst the general inmate population. We have discussed our decision with Ms. Maxwell several times and provided her with guidance as to how to address any concerns through her Unit Team or the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program, 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 — 542.19. To date, staff have addressed her complaints in accordance with BOP policies. + +In her current assignment, Ms. Maxwell, like other inmates housed at MDC Brooklyn, is allowed access to the common area of the housing unit from 7:00 AM through 8:00 PM, daily. She has access to recreational space, social calls, television, shower, legal telephone calls, email, computers, and discovery material. A discovery laptop is available to her from 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM. When Ms. Maxwell returns to her cell at 8:00 PM, like other inmates she has access to drinking water, snacks she purchased through the commissary, and discovery material. Since August 3, 2020, Ms. Maxwell has been able to purchase items from the full commissary list. She receives commissary every second week like all other inmates. + +MDC Brooklyn correctional staff utilize flashlights when viewing inmate cells overnight to ensure + +inmates are breathing and not in distress. Inmates in BOP custody are subject to searches, including body scanners, and inmates may be searched prior to moving from one area of the facility to another. The removal of Ms. Maxwell's face mask complies with the BOP's COVID-19 Pandemic Response Plan. + +Since Ms. Maxwell's arrival, she has been provided three (3) meals a day in accordance with BOP policy and its National Menu. Food Service staff have addressed Ms. Maxwell's requests. Ms. Maxwell is served her breakfast upon entering the common area of the housing unit at 7:00 AM; at noon she is served her lunch; and at 5:00 PM she is served dinner. Her medical records show that she currently weighs 134 lbs., which fluctuates plus or minus 2 lbs. Health Services staff make regular rounds of her housing unit and she has been instructed on how to request medical care through the sick call procedures. Furthermore, while there has been a number of inmates whom have tested positive for COVID-19, Ms. Maxwell remains in good health and is not in contact with those individuals. The BOP staff is assigned to Ms. Maxwell's unit do not come in contact with the other individuals whom have tested positive. Lastly, the temperature of Ms. Maxwell's cell is checked three times daily to ensure it is in compliance with national standards. + +In accordance with the BOP's COVID-19 Pandemic Response Plan, inmates are allotted 500 minutes per month of social telephone calls, which Ms. Maxwell has used throughout her time at MDC Brooklyn. While Ms. Maxwell has received one legal video conference, she continues to have full access to legal telephone calls and in person legal visits. Pursuant to the District Courts guidance, legal telephone calls are scheduled through the Federal Defenders, who should be afforded an opportunity to address any concerns Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have with the legal calls. + +I trust this has addressed your concerns. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Sophia Papapetra + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons + +Is! John raw + +John Wallace Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc15e49d11624d5c6d0633e175cad5357df1864a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/EFTA02829697.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4394, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE \nFederal Bureau of Prisons \nMetropolitan Detention Center", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 321.3, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 97.33056640625 + ], + [ + 321.3, + 97.33056640625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829697" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef3fe4c756365a761b07dee42176407af77a06da --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829697/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:df369d4120fad972e87035657a30a438f9bfba1212bc737f41c229f5ee8cdf3a +size 9999 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bf7d87d561dca490d0777888dd555ffd2636b7e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: + +The Defendant's submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government's response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant's reply is due December 18, 2020. + +After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. + +The Court grants the Defendant's request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. + +Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Government's response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant's reply shall not exceed 10 pages. + +SO ORDERED. cAs4, g. AI + +Dated: December 7, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9825deb8663da25233051dc7472af296b32ba6f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/EFTA02829699.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1134, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829699" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dcd3a6d170b8a187c437f8dc791104a96ca5f5b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829699/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:438edf18ef75792f3c3700920adef4a86b15737e42800da3e907bcec2d3833da +size 11781 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..613677c2a3c708ab750d46037c87243a00e04002 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark . • +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohengtesset corn ceveviell@cohengicsset corn + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +8O3 T hrd Avgrus NIS,/ York. NY 10022 +1 212 951 7.:O0 phone www.coningrossitccm + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 12/7/20 | + +November 25, 2020 + +## VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United Stales is Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of ow client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the "Motion") and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal. We believe an in camera conference would be the most efficient form to address these issues and other confidentiality concerns related to the Motion. We intend to provide a full set of materials to the government, Pretrial Services, and the Court when the Motion is filed. We are merely requesting that sensitive contents of the submission be accorded confidentiality protections similar to those that the government routinely requires in protective orders, including the one in this case. + +In the four months since this Court denied Ms. Maxwell's request for bail and granted the government's motion for detention, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have assembled substantial information that was not available to present at the initial hearing, as well as a comprehensive bail package co-signed by sureties who were unable to come forward at that time. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell now seeks to renew her request for bail pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). + +Ms. Maxwell's renewed application will rely on sensitive and private information that, if made public, would be highly damaging to both Ms. Maxwell and third parties, including: + +- Letters from Ms. Maxwell's family members and close friends, who have agreed to serve as sureties to support Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application. The letters contain personal details that, if made public, would invite identification and + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 25, 2020 Page 2 + +> harassment of the sureties and other third parties, including minor children. They are legitimately afraid that if their identities become public, they will be subjected to the same relentless media scrutiny and threats that Ms. Maxwell has experienced for more than a year, like the following sample of social media posts: + +"they need to get this bitch n string her up by her neck . . . Pacing monster . . . #GhislaineMaxwell." + +"I hope someone finds her and kills her. That would be justice. Obviously her lawyers know's where she is. someone should stick them up to batteries untill we find out where she is." + +"SHE'S HERE in #Massachusetts ?! The bitch #GhislaineMaxwell who #SexTrafficked young girls for #Epstein ?!?! Why the hell isn't she being brought in for questioning @ManchesterMAPD ?! WE DO NOT WANT HER HERE! #SleezyLeach She is CLOSE ENOUGH to me, I could grab her myself' + +- A financial report, prepared by the accounting firm Macalvins Limited, that provides a summary of Ms. Maxwell's financial condition from 2015-2020 and discloses all of her assets, all assets held in trust, and assets held by other family members. +- A discussion and analysis of certain materials produced by the government in discovery marked "Confidential" and their impact on the government's case against Ms. Maxwell, which must be filed under seal pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. 36). + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.I(d) provides that "a court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record." While the Second Circuit has recognized a presumption of access under both common law and the First Amendment, it is appropriate to permit the filing of documents under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion to seal evidentiary exhibits and finding that privacy interests "outweigh any public interest in disclosure, whether derived from the First Amendment or the common-law right of access"). + +Moreover, a lower presumption of public access applies to documents submitted in connection with powers that are "ancillary to the court's core role in adjudicating a case" than to "material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions." v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying lower presumption to documents submitted in connection with discovery and evidentiary motions than to summary judgment filings). Thus, a lower presumption of public access attaches the parties' pretrial bail submissions than to exhibits introduced at trial or in connection with a motion to dismiss. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 25, 2020 Page 3 + +Here, that lower presumption is far outweighed by the significant privacy interests implicated by the materials at issue. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation"). If Ms. Maxwell's sureties are publicly identified, they will be harassed simply for their association with and support of her. Indeed, some of Ms. Maxwell's closest friends and famil have ahead ffer si •i' a cant cons -' uences. For exam' le, + +The sureties are legitimately scared that they and their children will suffer the same consequences, and may not be able to come forward at all, if the Court does not allow their letters and their identities to be sealed. See id. at 1051 ("[C]ourts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal[.]"). These individuals are entitled to the same privacy as Ms. Maxwell's accusers, no longer minors, who have been permitted to remain anonymous even though many have revealed their identities. + +The presumption of public access is also outweighed by Ms. Maxwell's privacy interest in details regarding her financial condition, as well as the privacy interests of third parties that would be implicated if Ms. Maxwell's assets were publicly disclosed. See id. (personal financial records traditionally considered private, not public). + +Similar privacy interests led the court to permit the redaction of bail submission materials in United States v. Nejad ("Sadr'), Case 1:18-cr-00224-AJN (S.D.N.Y.). Like this case, Sadr involved a defendant with meaningful assets and a bail package with numerous co-signers. At the initial bail hearing, Judge Carter ordered both defense counsel and the government to redact attachments to their submissions because they contained "sensitive private information with respect to a whole series of individuals." (Id., Dkt. 21 at 25.) The privacy interests at stake here are significantly higher, given the documented threats against Ms. Maxwell and harassment of her family and friends. + +For the reasons set forth above, we believe that portions of the Motion, and certain materials submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, should be filed under seal. We respectfully request an in camera conference to address these issues and other confidentiality concerns related to the Motion. We have consulted with the government, which consents to the redaction and sealed filing of (1) the names and identifying information of any proposed cosigners, (2) any discovery materials designated confidential under the Protective Order in this case, and (3) any information derived from confidential discovery materials in this case. The govenunent does not consent to the in camera conference. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 25. 2020 Page 4 + +Respectfully submitted. + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) + +SO ORDERED. 11/25/20 + +Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. + +CkriSilavv Eve, tae + +Mark S. Christian R. EvcrdeII + +& GRESSER LLP 800 I ard Avenue. 21st Floor New York. New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +> The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant's letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. SO ORDERED. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00e0ee8fad4cf77b4f53eb5c1b769aea2c39d24a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/EFTA02829700.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 9318, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.65, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) \nOF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.08245849609375, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.08245849609375, + 244.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 244.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829700" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0889f721aa12448557fe37821ced999c216389ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829700/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:822363a529ed0401936de89ad2572c51ccb12759f9f9e8200ce00bd124b24ab9 +size 1568 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2880481a4ac9c47eb57191e0fd69dc8ff0294ef4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +212-243-1100 • Male 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +BY ECF + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlaw.com + +December 7, 2020 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, we write in response to the letter from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace, MDC staff attorneys. (See Dkt. 88.) The letter fails to address a number of concerns raised in our October 29th letter to Warden Heriberto Tellez and raised with the Court. The MDC's letter also contains inaccuracies and omissions and raises more questions than it attempts to answer. Rather than paraphrase our letter, we are providing it for the Court's consideration. (See Exhibit A.) We renew our request that Warden Tellez respond directly to the Court and counsel and explain why Ms. Maxwell must be detained under such harsh and restrictive conditions. + +Using the term "[i]n her current assignment," the letter attempts to present a picture of compliance with total disregard of the deficiencies of Ms. Maxwell's treatment up to this point. While her meals may currently be in accordance with BOP policy, until September they were not. While her weight may currently be fairly consistent, she had lost over 15 pounds, and she is sustaining hair loss. It took approximately six weeks following arrival to the MDC for Ms. Maxwell to be permitted personal calls on par with other inmates; previously she was given two calls per month unless authorized by the warden. While generally permitted to be out of her isolation cell and confined to the day room from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm with one hour of recreation time, general population inmates are permitted to be out of their cells until 9:30 pm and given more extensive recreation time. While flashlight checks may be performed during regular rounds, Ms. Maxwell is subject to such checks every 15 minutes. Further, because Ms. Maxwell is kept in isolation, she in not permitted to participate in activities accorded inmates in general population, such as programming (educational, leisure and wellness), movies, religious services, job assignment. + +Touting that Ms. Maxwell is not in contact with "a number of inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19," the MDC's letter totally ignores that she was in contact with a member of her revolving security team who tested positive, necessitating that Ms. Maxwell be quarantined for 14 days. This further diminished her ability to prepare her defense and resulted in cancelled legal visits. While the letter accurately states that one video teleconference (VTC) was + +scheduled for August 17th, it fails to report that the VTC was unsuccessful because the audio connection failed; and, despite constant ongoing requests, no subsequent VTCs have been scheduled. + +The letter ignores the fact that there is an outbreak of COVID in the MDC, with some 80 inmates testing positive, far in excess of the number of positive cases reported from March to December. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/BOP (reported 12/7/20). While Ms. Maxwell is isolated from general population inmates, the crew of security guards who monitor her 24/7 are not subject to mandatory testing, with some guards assigned to her detail rotating in from BOP facilities where inmates and staff have tested positive. And while I not be exposed to other inmates, she is exposed to individuals while escorted to a common area for body scanning, further risking her exposure to COVID. + +While reciting BOP policy, the letter fails to address: + +- why as an isolated inmate, Ms. Maxwell is subject to repeated searching; +- **why Ms. Maxwell is under 24/7 surveillance by a cadre of officers who are required to report her status every 15 minutes;** +- **why Ms. Maxwell is constantly surveilled by a hand-held camera, even during attorney-client conferences;** +- **why all of Ms. Maxwell's legal emails were erased from the CorrLinks system;** +- **why immediately after receiving two nasal swab COVID tests, Ms. Maxwell was required to remove her mask for an in-mouth inspection, heightening her exposure to COVID as she was placed in quarantine;** +- **why Ms. Maxwell's legal papers are repeatedly inspected.** + +**Warden Tellez has failed to respond to our assertion that the MDC has imposed extraordinarily onerous conditions of constraint on Ms. Maxwell to avoid the catastrophic consequences of negligence occurring at the MCC that resulted in the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The Attorney General of the United States has said as much. Beyond the decision to not place Ms. Maxwell in general population, to which we have no objection, the letter virtually concedes that other restrictions imposed on Ms. Maxwell are not in response to any concern specific to her and tacitly suggests the heightened restrictions are in response to the high-profile nature of the case and the acknowledged failure by the BOP to keep Epstein — an actual threat to himself alive. As ABC News reported:** + +**Attorney General William Barr told ABC News on Wednesday that he is keeping a close watch to make sure that Maxwell makes it to trial after Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial last year. Barr said he was "livid " Epstein died while in custody last August. The investigation into Epstein has continued even after his death. I believe very strongly in that case," Barr told ABC News on Wednesday. . . . "And as** you will recall, after he committed suicide, I said that I was confident that we would continue to pursue this case vigorously and pursue anyone who's complicit in it. And so I'm very happy that we were able to get Ms. Maxwell." + +A source said the BOP is taking extra preventative measures to regain the public's trust and confidence as well as preserving the integrity of the Justice Department.' + +It is obvious that Ms. Maxwell is bearing the brunt of BOP incompetence. Being "livid" over the death of Epstein, the Department of Justice is seeking to repair the BOP's tarnished reputation by placing Ms. Maxwell under extraordinarily harsh conditions, not in any response to Ms. Maxwell's requirements, but rather in response to the failed handling of a completely different inmate. + +Ms. Maxwell has been an exemplary detainee. The psychological and physiological impact of solitary isolation is well documented. Ms. Maxwell has not, by her conduct or by virtue of the charges, brought this type of overly restrictive confinement upon herself. The conditions under which she is detained are punitive, unwarranted, deleteriously impacting her ability to prepare her defense, and interfering with counsel's ability to provide the legal representation to which she, and any other detainee, deserves. + +The MDC's letter is insufficient. The warden of the institution bears responsibility for the conditions under which Ms. Maxwell is confined. Warden Tellez should be directed to respond to the numerous concerns that have been brought to his attention. + +Very truly yours, + +C. s; .Az BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Enc. cc: All Counsel Ms. Sophia Papapetru Mr. John Wallace + +https://abcnews.go.corn/US/ghislaine-maxwell-paper-clothes-correctional-center-avoidsuicide/story?id=7 1699000 (emphasis added). + +# EXHIBIT A + +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +#### Via EmaiUReeular Mail + +Warden Heriberto Tellez Metropolitan Detention Center Office of the Warden 80 29th Street Brooklyn, New York 11232 + +Dear Warden Tellez: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternholmlow.com + +October 29, 2020 + +Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, we again seek your urgent attention concerning issues related to conditions of her detention at the MDC.I Our immediate goal is to rectify these problems and improve the extraordinarily restrictive conditions under which Ms. Maxwell is presently confined within your facility. + +On July 14, 2020, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan entered an order of detention remanding Ghislaine Maxwell to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. She has been detained since her arrest on July 2, 2020 and has been incarcerated at MDC under conditions that rival those at USP Florence ADMAX. An exemplary inmate who poses no threat to her personal safety or danger to anyone, she has spent the entirety of her detention in de facto solitary confinement, tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on death row. The conditions of her detention are utterly inappropriate, especially so for a non-violent defendant with no prior criminal history facing non-violent charges a quartercentury old. + +Without a doubt, the BOP has imposed extraordinarily onerous conditions of constraint on Ms. Maxwell to avoid the catastrophic consequences of negligence occurring at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC- Manhattan) which resulted in the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The Attorney General of the United States has said as much. The BOP has admitted that the sanctions are not in response to a specific threat that Ms. Maxwell has shown; rather they are in response to the high-profile nature of the case and the acknowledged failure by the BOP to keep Epstein — an actual threat to himself — alive. Ms. Maxwell is bearing the brunt of incompetence on MCC's watch. As ABC News reported: + +' Previous letters were sent to you on August 28, 2020 and September 9, 2020. + +Attorney General William Barr told ABC News on Wednesday that he is keeping a close watch to make sure that Maxwell makes it to trial after Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial last year. Barr said he was "livid " Epstein died while in custody last August. The investigation into Epstein has continued even after his death. "I believe very strongly in that case," Barr told ABC News on Wednesday. "And I was very proud of the work done by the department, the Southern District [of New York], on that case. And as you will recall, after he committed suicide, I said that I was confident that we would continue to pursue this case vigorously and pursue anyone who's complicit in it. And so I'm very happy that we were able to get Ms. Maxwell." A source said the BOP is taking extra preventative measures to regain the public's trust and confidence as well as preserving the integrity of the Justice Department."2 + +What is clear is that the Government is "livid" over the death of Epstein and is seeking to repair its reputation by placing Ms. Maxwell under extraordinarily harsh conditions; not in any response to Ms. Maxwell's requirements, but rather in response to the failed handling of a completely different defendant. + +Ms. Maxwell has been an exemplary detainee who has never received a disciplinary demerit. The purpose of this letter is not simply to express complaint due to the institutional violations and denial of rights suffered by Ms. Maxwell in relation to her pretrial incarceration. Rather, it seeks to bring an unwarranted situation to your attention - conditions that are unduly cruel and punitive and circumstances that are deleteriously impacting our client's ability to prepare her defense which, in turn, interferes with our ability to provide the legal representation to which she, and any other detainee, deserves. + +We continue our ongoing attempt to resolve these matters without court intervention. We have voiced complaint through the MDC Legal Department, your office, the AUSAs in charge of this case, and the Federal Defenders of New York.; Ms. Maxwell has attempted to resolve these matters by following the internal prison procedures, filing written complaints to her unit counselor (BP8), to the warden (BP9), and to the regional office (BPI0), to seek remediation as set forth in the BOP manuals and inmate handbook. All to no avail. + +#### Draconian Conditions of Pretrial Detention + +Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are extraordinarily onerous - and unlike those of any other inmate at the MDC (or in BOP custody, to our knowledge). In fact, in the time that Ms. Maxwell has been at the MDC, she has met with five separate wardens and interim wardens, many who have remarked that they have never seen in their collective years of experience + +2 See, "Ghislaine Maxwell given paper clothes at correctional center to avoid suicide attempt: Sources Jeffrey Epstein, her associate, died by suicide in jail last August huos://abenews.go.com/US/uhislainemaxwell-paper-clothes-correctional-center-avoid-suicide/story?id=7 1699000 (emphasis added). + +3 The Federal Defenders of New York has been tasked with scheduling of attorney-client communication in connection with ongoing litigation against the MDC based on conditions of confinement during COVID pending in the Eastern District of New York before the Honorable Margo K. Brodie. See Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., 19-CV-660 (MKB). + +anything like her current regime.° The following conditions and circumstances of her detention, individually and collectively, compromise her opportunity to confer with counsel and prepare her defense for trial and are detrimental to her physical health and psychological well-being: + +De Facto Solitary Confinement: Ms. Maxwell is the sole inmate in a housing unit. By this Court's order she is permitted out of her approximately 9-by-7-foot isolation cell from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, however, she is frequently picked up late and returned to her cell promptly. When out of her cell, she is the sole inmate in a fenced off area of an unoccupied dormitory unit, where she eats, showers, and reviews legal work while continually guarded by three officers. + +Despite being housed on an entire floor by herself, Ms. Maxwell is forced back into a tiny corner of the floor. She is needlessly kept in a 63-square-foot space. She gets very little sleep, as she is frequently woken up by flashlights every 15 minutes, loud discussions among the guards, and adjustments of the supplemental camera. Ms. Maxwell is effectively being kept in solitary confinement (she has now been housed alone for well over 100 days) and treated as if she were on suicide watch even though she is not and has never been suicidal. + +The psychological and physiological impact of solitary confinement is well documented. Ms. Maxwell has not, by her conduct or by virtue of the charges, brought this type of confinement upon herself. This must be considered punishment. + +Further, she has been required to stand for an hour waiting for the lieutenant to move her and during "the count" of inmates she is restricted to her bunk despite being housed in a oneinmate unit. She has at times been forced to do a standup count after midnight. Now she is required to remain on a bed for the duration of the count. + +Excessive Scanning and Strip Searching: Ms. Maxwell is searched more frequently and extensively than any other pretrial detainee of which we are aware. All security scans to which Ms. Maxwell have been subjected have returned negative results. Each time Ms. Maxwell is moved from the isolation cell, she is searched and her cell is searched, and the dormitory is searched prior to when she arrives at the dormitory area. Her cell and possessions including her legal papers are searched after she has been moved to the dormitory. The process is repeated when Ms. Maxwell is brought back to the isolation cell. Recently, Ms. Maxwell was searched at least five separate times and strip-searched twice during one day. + +Ms. Maxwell is subjected to a body scans each week, and until recently, she received approximately three per week. We assume these are to see if Ms. Maxwell has secreted anything inside her body. We do not understand why it is necessary for the BOP to administer body scans on such a regular and frequent basis — and thereby repeatedly expose Ms. Maxwell to radiation — + +° Undersigned counsel has represented clients charged with terrorism-related offenses confined to the most restrictive unit in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Unit 10 South, aka "the terrorist SHU". In addition, counsel is Curcio counsel for a client authorized for the death penalty who is in general population at the MCC. Having visited BOP facilities during the past 35 years and representing clients charged with the most heinous and violent crimes of murder, counsel had never had a client subjected to such punitive conditions of pretrial (or post-conviction) incarceration as in the present case. + +especially when she is already under constant surveillance and the scans have all come up negative. + +In addition, Ms. Maxwell is required to remove her PPE mask during physical searches, subjecting her to higher risk of exposure to COVID. The impact of such unwarranted and disparate treatment is dehumanizing and demoralizing. On October 24th, she was subjected to a wanded, full pat down search yielding negative results. Within 10 minutes, she was subjected to a strip search. The guard performing these searches remarked that never in 28 years of employment as a correctional officer has she heard or witnessed such a thing. During these searches, guards are within inches of Ms. Maxwell. Prevented from wearing a protective mask, she is forced to open her mouth, stick out and move her tongue left and right. She is continuously and unnecessarily exposed to contracting COVID, causing increased stress and vulnerability. + +Deprivation of Food: Ms. Maxwell's meals have been a persistent problem. She has requested a vegetarian diet, been given non-vegetarian meals, and has been denied food on the prison menu. For example, she often receives meals with no protein and has been given only bread and butter for several meals with no additional food. It was not until Ms. Maxwell was given access to the menu for the first time on September 151, after she complained that she had been given a non-vegetarian meal, that she realized that she had not been receiving full meals with all of the nutritional components since arriving at MDC. + +Moreover, she has often been given spoiled food and has not been fed at all for long stretches of time. For example, a recent weekend she was not fed anything for a period of more than 20 hours from Saturday late afternoon until Sunday at midday. As a result of this inadequate nutrition, she has lost upwards of 15 to 20 pounds since arriving at MDC. For the same reason, she is losing hair as well. Her prison medical records reflect that she is suffering from telogen effluvium (hair loss due to stress and poor diet). The lack of food also severely affects her ability to concentrate and review discovery to prepare her defense. Further, she has been denied use of a toothbrush, heightening her risk for tooth decay and gun disease. + +In addition, at various times and for various reasons, Ms. Maxwell has been denied access to commissary, the only opportunity to purchase food to supplement her diet. Although the MDC nominally approved Ms. Maxwell's request for permission to purchase from the full prison commissary list in August 2020, in fact, her access to the commissary was extremely limited and requested items were denied to her. None of these restrictions are a result of any misconduct or refusal on her part and deprive her of her only chance to remedy the BOP's failure to provide adequate nutrition. Hunger and poor nutrition inhibit her ability to focus and concentrate and negatively impact her overall health and wellbeing. + +Deprivation of Sleep: Ms. Maxwell is held in a housing unit in which she is the sole inmate. On various evenings during sleep periods, she is awakened every 15 minutes by flashlights shined into her eyes. The unit is excessively noisy. The noise and constant flashlight checks deprive her of uninterrupted, restful sleep. Repeated disruption of restorative sleep negatively impacts her concentration and ability to focus on document review and defense preparation. + +#### Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends: The impact of Ms. + +Maxwell's solitary confinement is aggravated by the deprivation of communication with friends and family. She was limited in the number of familial and social calls to a degree far less than any other detainee of which we are aware; and far less than even those who have been convicted of crimes and held in the same facility. + +Compromised Communication with Legal Counsel: As a consequence of COVID-19, restrictions have been placed on exercise of attorney-client relationship for all inmates but seemingly more so for Ms. Maxwell. Scheduled calls have been mishandled by the institution, resulting in missed legal calls. Despite numerous requests, only one video conference has been scheduled for Ms. Maxwell during the entirety of her detention. Recently, legal calls have been repeatedly denied even when confirmed by the Federal Defenders. + +All of Ms. Maxwell's CorrLinks emails — all legal correspondence between Ms. Maxwell and counsel - have been deleted, well before the 180-day period in which they may be purged. During in-person legal conferences, Ms. Maxwell has not been permitted to physically handle and review legal documents provided by counsel. Rather, counsel must hold each page against the plastic partition requiring Ms. Maxwell to read these documents, at times from a distance of approximately four feet through a cloudy plastic shield. This method of discovery review in a case involving hundreds of thousands of documents consumes the majority of a time-limited legal conference. It is painstakingly slow and, often, impossible. + +Additionally, Ms. Maxwell is denied water or food and the use of toilet facilities during legal visits. She has been told that if she uses the toilet, the conference will be suspended while she is searched, returned to her unit, and then brought back to the visiting room. This process is time-consuming and limits the duration of the legal conference. + +In advance of each meeting, officers review her legal materials, slowly and deliberately, and appear to be reading content and breaching confidentiality of privileged information rather than conducting a routine security check. In addition to experiencing difficulty reviewing electronic discovery because files do not open, the officer delivering a hard drive last week appeared to intentionally let it fall to the ground, damaging to the device. + +While meeting with counsel, guards set up a tripod with a camera focused on Ms. Maxwell during the entirety of the legal conference. When counsel inquired why the conference was being recorded, the officer claimed the camera was not recording. When counsel inquired why the camera was being focused on the legal conference, the officer responded that Ms. Maxwell must be watched at all times. + +#### Conclusion + +These arbitrary and onerous restrictions imposed on Ms. Maxwell are contrary to prison rules and protocols, are not imposed on other inmates, and are utterly disproportionate to her detention. At no time has Ms. Maxwell been deemed a threat to herself or others or posed any disciplinary issues. Ironically, she has achieved two of the highest certifications offered at the MDC: suicide counselor and teacher/instructor. + +We request that these onerous conditions be eliminated immediately. Otherwise, please explain why Ms. Maxwell must be detained under such harsh and restrictive conditions. We request that you address our concerns as quickly as possible. + +Very truly yours, + +Seta C. Stowitze + +Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. + +cc: via email + +Mark S. Esq. + +Christian R. Everdell, Esq. + +Jeff Pagliuca, Esq. + +Laura Menninger, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34fbe42b6ccc4cf4567178d2cedd10e0cfa0f022 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704/EFTA02829704.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,593 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829704.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 23758, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.32, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 690.12 + ], + [ + 365.04644775390625, + 690.12 + ], + [ + 365.04644775390625, + 716.7676010131836 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 716.7676010131836 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Via EmaiUReeular Mail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 198.8111114501953, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 198.8111114501953, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Draconian Conditions of Pretrial Detention", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 419.8907470703125, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 419.8907470703125, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends: The impact of Ms.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 496.62286376953125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 496.62286376953125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.176, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 337.7822265625, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 337.7822265625, + 624.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 624.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF 8O13131 C. STERNHEIAN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7228393554688, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7228393554688, + 48.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 48.06353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829704" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc3dc44cc6161288894bc300e1631f831148dec3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 10: DATE FILED: 12/8/20 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel's letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant's conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel's December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. + +Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. + +The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. + +SO ORDERED. + +A 4k A] + +Dated: December 8, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9dd8317038139e9ed1a3f9ae63f15a54dc4d189a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714/EFTA02829714.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829714.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1811, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829714" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ace17de1292493f65fa1c548e147b27607eddeda --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.md @@ -0,0 +1,4003 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +5 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +7 8 9 10 x Teleconference Arraignment Bail Hearing July 14, 2020 3:05 p.m. + +11 Before: + +12 13 HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge + +14 + +## 15 APPEARANCES + +16 17 18 19 AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: ALISON J. MOE MAURENE R. COMEY ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER Assistant United States Attorneys + +20 21 22 & GRESSER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARK S. CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL + +23 24 25 HADDON , P.C. Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA LAURA A. MENNINGER + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. New York, N.Y. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan presiding. + +This is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I will take appearances from counsel, beginning with counsel for the defendant. + +MS. MOE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Mark & Gresser, for Ms. Maxwell. Also appearing with me today is my partner Chris Everdell of & Gresser and Jeff Pagliuca and Laura Menninger of the Haddon firm. Good afternoon, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. + +And for the government. + +MS. MOE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Alison Moe for the government. I'm joined by my colleagues Maurene Comey and Alex Rossmiller. And also, with the court's permission, we learned that the executive staff for the U.S. Attorney's office were unfortunately not able to Connecticut at the overflow dial-in so, with the court's permission, we would like to dial them in from a phone here if that's acceptable to the court. + +THE COURT: The last word, the overflow dial-in was not full. Just a moment and we will make sure that they can connect in. + +And let me say good afternoon, Ms. Maxwell, as well. + +THE DEFENDANT: Good afternoon, Judge. + +4 5 THE COURT: And are you able to hear Mr. and counsel for the United States as well? + +6 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Thank you. + +7 8 9 10 THE COURT: All right. If at any point you have difficulty with any of the technology, you can let someone there know right away, let me know, and we will pause the proceedings before going any further. Okay? + +11 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Judge. + +12 THE COURT: All right. + +13 Just a minute while we check on the call-in line. + +14 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +15 (Pause) + +16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. MOE: Your Honor, apologies. We have also heard from colleagues in the office that the line is full. We have, however, been able to dial in the executive staff to a phone number here and my understanding is that they can hear and participate that way, if that's acceptable to the court. But of course we defer to the court's preference. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are concerned about feedback from being on a speakerphone in that room. The phone number for nonspeaking co-counsel that was provided, that line is not full, and I would assume the executive leadership of the office + +THE COURT: Ms. Maxwell, are you able to hear me and see me okay? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, thank you. + +falls within that category, so they may call in to that number. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. We will do that. + +4 THE COURT: All right. + +5 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +6 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Then we will go ahead and proceed. + +8 9 10 I have called the case. I have taken appearances. Counsel, let me please have oral confirmation that the court reporter is on the line. + +11 12 THE COURT REPORTER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Kristen Carannante. + +13 THE COURT: Good afternoon, and thank you so much. + +14 15 We also have on the audio line Pretrial Services Officer Leah Harmon and -- + +16 17 THE PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: Hello, your Honor. Good afternoon. + +18 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. + +19 20 We are here today for the arraignment, the initial scheduling conference, and bail hearing in this matter. + +21 22 23 24 25 As everyone knows, we are in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am conducting this proceeding remotely, pursuant to the authority provided by Section 15002 of the CARES Act and the standing orders issued by our Chief Judge pursuant to that act. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I am proceeding by videoconference, which I am accessing remotely. Defense counsel and counsel for the government are appearing remotely via videoconference and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is accessing this videoconference from the MDC in Brooklyn. + +Ms. Maxwell, I did confirm that you could hear me and see me; and, again, if at any point you have any difficulty with the technology, please let me know right away. Okay? + +THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honor. I will do that. + +THE COURT: Thank you. And if at any point you would like to speak privately with Mr. , let me know that right away, and we will move you and your counsel into a private breakout room where nobody else will be able to see or hear your conversation, okay? + +THE DEFENDANT: Again, thank you, your Honor. I appreciate that. Thank you. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Mr. , likewise, should you request to speak with Ms. Maxwell privately, don't hesitate to say that. + +MR. : Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: We will turn now to the waiver of physical presence. I did receive a signed waiver of physical presence form dated July 10, 2020. + +Mr. , could you please is describe the process by + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +which you discussed with Ms. Maxwell her right to be present and the indication of her knowing and voluntary waiver of that right provided on this form. + +MR. : Yes, your Honor. We, given the press of time, we were not able to physically get the form to our client, but my partner Chris Everdell and I went through it with her, read it to her, and she gave us authorization to sign on her behalf and that's reflected on the form in the boxes where indicated, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Maxwell, is that an accurate account of what occurred? + +THE DEFENDANT: That is completely accurate, your Honor. Yes. + +THE COURT: And you have had the form read to you or you have it physically now at this point? + +THE DEFENDANT: That is correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Okay. And you have had time to discuss it with your attorney? + +THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor. Thank you. + +THE COURT: Okay. And do you continue to wish to waive your right to be physically present and instead to proceed today by this videoconference proceeding? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. I do find a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to be physically present for this + +4 5 Counsel, as you know, to proceed remotely today, in addition to the finding I have just made, I must also find that today's proceeding cannot be further delayed without serious harms to the interests of justice. + +6 Ms. Moe, does the government wish to be heard on that? + +7 + +8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 The government submits that proceeding remotely in this fashion would protect the interests of the parties and the safety in view of the pandemic. We further submit that this proceeding can be conducted remotely with full participation of the parties in view of the preparation and steps everyone has taken to ensure proper participation. + +15 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +16 Mr. + +17 18 MR. : Your Honor, we have agreed to proceed remotely as your Honor just laid out. + +19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Okay. I do find that today's proceeding cannot be further delayed without serious harms to the interests of justice for, among other reasons, that the defendant, who is currently detained, seeks release on bail. + +23 24 25 The final preliminary matter I will address is public access to the proceeding, which has garnered significant public interest. As I have indicated in prior orders, the court has + +arraignment, scheduling conference, and bail hearing. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +arranged for a live video feed of this proceeding to be set up in the jury assembly room at the courthouse. This is the largest room available and, with appropriate social distancing, it can safely accommodate 60 people. The court has further provided a live video feed to the press room at the courthouse where additional members of the credentialed in-house press corps can watch and hear the proceeding. + +Additionally, the court has provided a live audio feed for members of the public. My prior order indicated that the line can accommodate 500 callers, but with thanks of the court staff, that capacity has been increased to 1,000 callers. + +Lastly, the court has provided through counsel a separate call-in line to ensure audio access to nonspeaking co-counsel, any alleged victims identified by the government, including those who wish to be heard on the question of pretrial detention, and any family members of the defendant. That line is operational now as well. + +Counsel, beginning with Mr. , any objection to these arrangements regarding public access? + +MR. : No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Then I will make the following findings: + +First, COVID-19 constitutes a substantial, if not overriding, reason that supports the court's approach to access + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +in this case. As the chief judge of the district has recognized in order number 20MC176, COVID-19 remains a national emergency that restricts normal operations of the courts. Conducting this proceeding in person is not safely feasible. + +Second, the measures taken by the court are no broader than necessary to address the challenges posed by the pandemic. Although the number of seats in the jury assembly room is limited to 60, it is necessary to do so for public and courthouse staff safety and is closely equivalent to the number of people who would be able to watch an in-court proceeding in a regular-sized courtroom. The number of people who will be able to hear the live audio of this proceeding far exceeds access under normal in-person circumstances. + +Lastly, given the safety and technology limitations, there are no reasonable alternatives to the measures the court has taken. + +Accordingly, the access provided is fully in accord with the First and Sixth Amendment public trial rights. + +With those preliminary matters out of the way, counsel, I propose we turn to the arraignment. + +Ms. Moe, am I correct that this is an arraignment on the S1 superseding indictment? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Can you explain what the difference is between the S1 and the original indictment? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +The difference is a small ministerial correction, a reference to a civil docket number contained in the perjury counts, which are Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment. Aside from the alteration of those docket numbers, the reference to them, there are no other changes to the indictment. + +THE COURT: All right. Again, I will conduct the arraignment on the S1 indictment. + +Ms. Maxwell, have you seen a copy of the S1 indictment in this matter? + +THE DEFENDANT: I saw the original indictment, your Honor. The original -- + +THE COURT: Okay. + +All right. Mr. , did you have an opportunity to discuss with Ms. Maxwell the ministerial change that was completed by way of the superseding indictment? + +MR. : Yes, yes, Judge. We have, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Any objection to proceeding on the arraignment of the S1 indictment, Mr. + +MR. : No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. + +Ms. Maxwell, have you had an opportunity to discuss the indictment in this case with your attorney? + +THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor. + +4 5 THE DEFENDANT: No. I said I have been able to discuss it, your Honor, with my attorney. + +6 THE COURT: Thank you. + +7 8 9 You are entitled to have the indictment read to you here in this open court proceeding or you can waive the public reading. Do you waive the public reading? + +10 THE DEFENDANT: I do, your Honor. I do waive + +11 THE COURT: How do you wish to -- + +12 THE DEFENDANT: -- your Honor. + +13 14 THE COURT: Thank you. And how do you wish to plead to the charge? + +15 THE DEFENDANT: Not guilty, your Honor. + +16 17 THE COURT: All right. I will enter a plea of not guilty to the indictment in this matter. + +18 19 Counsel, we will turn now to the scheduling conference. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 I would like to begin with a status update from the government. Ms. Moe, you should include in your update a description of the status of discovery. Please describe the categories of evidence that will be produced in discovery. I will also ask you to indicate how you will ensure that the government will fully and timely meet all of its constitutional + +THE COURT: All right. + +(Indiscernible crosstalk) + +THE COURT: Go ahead. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 With respect to the items that the government anticipates will be included in discovery in this case, we expect that those materials will include, among other items, search warrant returns, copies of search warrants, subpoena returns, including business records, photographs, electronically stored information from searches conducted on electronic devices. In addition, the materials with respect to the core of the case also include prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida among other items. + +14 15 16 17 With respect to the status of discovery, the government has begun preparing an initial production and are prepared to produce a first batch of discovery as soon as a protective order is entered by the court. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With respect to the status of the proposed protective order, the government sent defense counsel a proposed protective order last week. We have touched base about the status of that with defense counsel, and they conveyed that they would like to continue reviewing and discussing it with the government, which we plan to do shortly after this conference, with an eye towards submitting a proposed protective order to the court as soon as possible. Following + +and federal law disclosure obligations. + +Go ahead, Ms. Moe. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the entry of that protective order, as I noted, your Honor, the government is prepared to make a substantial production of discovery. + +Your Honor, in advance of the conference, the government and defense counsel proposed a joint schedule for discovery, motion practice, and a proposed trial date, in particular, the date selected in that schedule with an eye towards assuring that there was sufficient time for the government to do a careful and exhaustive and thorough review of all of the materials that I just referenced to make sure that the government is complying with its discovery obligations in this case, which we take very seriously. We expect that the bulk of the relevant materials will be produced in short order, primarily by the end of this summer, with additional materials to follow primarily in a category I mentioned before, your Honor, of electronically stored information, which is subject to an ongoing privilege review which we discussed and communicated with defense counsel about. We have proposed a scheduling order again to be very thorough in our review of discovery and in files in various places where they may be located and we are taking an expansive and thoughtful approach to our obligations in this case, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Let me just follow up specifically, since you have referenced prior investigative files, to the extent we have seen in other matters issues with complete disclosure of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +materials, it has been in some instances due to precisely that factor. So has there been a plan developed to ensure that down the road we are not hearing that there were delays or problems with discovery as a result of the fact that part of the disclosure obligation here includes materials from other investigative files? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +The files in particular that I am referring to are the files in the possession of the F.B.I. in Florida in connection with the previous investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The physical files themselves were shipped to New York and are at the New York F.B.I. office. They have been imaged and scanned and photographed to make sure that a comprehensive review can be conducted, and they are physically in New York so that we can have access to those files. And again, as we have heard in ongoing information, we are particularly thoughtful about those concerns given the history of this case and the volume of materials and the potential sensitivities, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Beyond the paper files which you have just indicated, the physical files, have you charted a path for determining whether there is any other additional information that must be disclosed? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, just to clarify, is your question with respect to the previous investigation or apologize, your Honor. I wasn't sure what you meant. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: Among other things, but, yes, I'm drilling down specifically on that since that has been, in somewhat comparable circumstances in other matters, the source of issues related to timely disclosures. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Our team met personally with the F.B.I. in Florida to make sure that we had the materials, and it was represented to us that the materials that the F.B.I. provided in Florida were the comprehensive set of materials. We will certainly have ongoing conversations to make sure that that is the case and if, in our review of files, we discover other materials, we will handle that with great care, and we are particularly sensitive to that concern. + +THE COURT: And I expect here, and in all matters, not just accepting of initial representations made regarding full disclosure, but thoughtful and critical pushing and pressing of questions and issues with respect to actively retrieving any appropriate files. Are we on the same page, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Very much so. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +With that, why don't you go ahead and lay out the proposed schedule that you have discussed with Mr. and then I will hear from Mr. that proposal. if he has any concerns with + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +We would propose the completion of discovery, to + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +include electronic materials, to be due by Monday, November 9 of this year, and following that we would propose the following motion schedule: that defense motions be due by Monday, December 21 of this year; that the government's response be due on Friday, January 22, 2021; and that replies be due on Friday, February 5, 2021. + +THE COURT: All right. Mr. , based on the government's description of both the quantity and quality of discovery, is that schedule that's been laid out sufficient from your perspective to do everything that you need to do? + +MR. : Your Honor, just two points in that regard. I think counsel for the government did not mention in the e-mail we had sent to your Honor's law clerk that August 21 would be the deadline for production of search warrant applications and the subpoena returns. I think she just failed to mention it for the record. That would also be part of the schedule. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Ms. Moe, do you agree? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. I apologize. We did include that in the e-mail to your Honor's , and that is correct. + +And thank you, counsel, for clarifying that. + +MR. : Two additional points, your Honor. The trial schedule that we are agreeing to, of course subject to + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the court's approval, assumes there will be no substantive superseding indictment. If there is one, which the government has advised us they don't believe is imminent or I assume not at all, we might have to come back to the court to address not just trial schedule but other schedule as well. + +And I am assuming -- we take your Honor's points about the issues on discovery, and we agree with them, particularly as to electronic discovery; and I am assuming that, as this unfolds, if we spot an issue we think needs further attention, we will be able to bring it to the court's attention. + +Those are my points. + +THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. + +Let me go ahead and ask, has made a representation but I will ask if you do anticipate at this time filing any further superseding indictments adding either defendants or additional charges? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, our investigation remains ongoing, but at this point we do not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment. + +THE COURT: All right. So with that -- and also let me ask, Ms. Moe, just because it is next on my list, what processes the government has put in place to notify alleged victims of events and court dates pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I am happy to give the + +courts details about the process we used for notification for this conference and also what we anticipate to use going forward. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +So to begin with, the government notified relevant victims or their counsel immediately following the arrest of the defendant on July 2 about the fact of the arrest and the initial presentment scheduled for later that day. + +In advance of the initial presentment, those victims were provided the opportunity to participate through the court's protocol for appearances in New Hampshire. + +On July 7, the court set a date for arraignment and bail hearing on July 14, today, and by the following day from the court's order, the government had notified relevant victims or their counsel of that scheduling order and advised victims and counsel of their right to be heard in connection with the bail hearing. + +On that same day, the government posted to its victim services website, including a link to the indictment, as well as scheduling information relating to the hearing. + +On July 9, the government updated the website to include the dial-in information that the court provided. + +In addition, on July 8, the government sent letter notifications to individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein that were not specifically referenced in the indictment. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Our process going forward, as we noted in that letter to victims, is that we will use an opt-in process so we will not notify individuals who do not wish to receive additional notifications but will continue to provide ongoing information about upcoming conferences and relevant details on the government's victim services website. + +With respect to this specific hearing, the government has been advised by counsel to three victims of their interest in being heard in connection with today's bail proceeding. One victim's views are expressed in the government's reply memorandum; one victim has submitted a statement to the government and asked that the government proceedings; and one victim has asked to the government anticipates that she will read it during today's be heard directly, and make a statement at any time during this proceeding as necessitated by the court. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +Then, with that, returning to the schedule that you have laid out, and I thank counsel for conferring in advance, as to a proposed schedule, Mr. you agree to the proposed schedule that has been laid out by Ms. Moe and supplemented by you? , let me just finalize if + +MR. : Yes, your Honor. + +schedule? And, Ms. Moe, you continue to support the proposed + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +4 5 THE COURT: All right. Then I will set the schedule as jointly proposed by counsel. To reiterate, I am setting - let me ask, Ms. Moe, if we are going to proceed to trial, how long of a trial does the government anticipate? + +6 7 8 9 10 11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government anticipates that its case in chief would take no more than two weeks. But in terms of the length of time to block out a trial date, in an abundance of caution, in view of the need for jury selection and the defense case, we would propose blocking three weeks for trial. + +12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +13 14 15 With that, I will adopt the schedule. I hereby set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, with the following pretrial schedule: + +16 17 18 Initial nonelectronic disclosure generally, to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, to be due by Friday, August 21, 20. + +19 20 Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, to be due by Monday November 9, 2020. + +21 22 23 Any initial pretrial defense motions, based on the indictment or disclosure material and the like to be due by Monday, December 21, 2020. + +24 25 If any motions are filed, the government's response due by Friday, January 22, 2021. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +4 If any motions seek an evidentiary hearing, I will reach out, will reach out to schedule an evidentiary hearing. + +5 And, as indicated, trial to commence on July 12, 2021. + +6 7 8 In advance of trial, following motion practice, the court will put out a schedule regarding pretrial submissions, including in limine motions and the like. + +9 10 With that, counsel, other matters to discuss regarding scheduling? + +11 Mr. ? + +12 13 MR. : Not at this time, your Honor, not from the defense at this time. + +14 THE COURT: Thank you. + +15 Ms. Moe? + +16 17 MS. MOE: Nothing further from the government regarding scheduling, your Honor. Thank you. + +18 19 THE COURT: Okay. And, Ms. Moe, does the government seek to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act? + +20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In view of the schedule and the interests of producing discovery and permitting time for the defense to review discovery, contemplate any motions and pursue those motions, the government would seek to exclude time from today's date until our trial date as court set forth today. + +Any replies due by Friday, February 5, 2021. + +THE COURT: Mr. , any objection? + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: Okay. I will exclude time from today's date until July 12, 2021, which I have said is a firm trial date. I do find that the ends of justice served by excluding this time outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The time is necessary for the production of discovery and view of that by defense, time for the defense to consider and prepare any available motions and, in the absence of resolution of the case, time for the parties to prepare for trial. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 To Ms. Moe and Mr. , although I have not set an interim status conference in the case, we do have our motion schedule, but for both sides, if at any point you wish to be before the court for any reason, simply put in a letter and we will get something on the calendar as soon as we conceivably can. + +18 19 20 With that, Mr. , let me ask counsel if there is any reason that we should not turn now to the argument for bail? + +21 MR. : No, your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +24 25 THE COURT: All right. I will hear on that question. It is the government's motion for detention, so I propose + +MR. : No, your Honor. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +hearing from the government first, and then any alleged victims who have indicated that they wish to be heard pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(4), and then I will hear from Mr. + +Any objection to proceeding thusly, Mr. + +MR. : No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +Your Honor, as we set forth in our moving papers, the government strongly believes that this defendant poses an extreme risk of flight. Pretrial Services has recommended detention, the victims seek detention, and the government respectfully submits that the defendant should be detained pending trial. + +Your Honor, there are serious red flags here. The defendant has significant financial means. It appears that she has been less than candid with Pretrial Services. She has not come close to thoroughly disclosing her finances to the court. She has strong international ties and appears to have the ability to live beyond the reach of extradition. She has few, if any, community ties, much less a stable residence that she can propose to the court to be bailed to. And she has a strong incentive to flee to avoid being held accountable for her crimes. + +Because the defendant is charged with serious offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors, your Honor, there is a + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +legal presumption that there are no conditions that could reasonably assure her return to court and, your Honor, the defendant has not come anywhere close to rebutting that presumption. + +Turning first to the nature and seriousness of the offense and the strength of the evidence, the indictment in this case arises from the defendant's role in transporting minors for unlawful sexual activity and enticing minors to travel to engage in unlawful sexual active and participating in a conspiracy to do the same. The indictment further charges that the defendant perjured herself, that she lied under oath to conceal her crimes. + +Your Honor, the charged conduct in this case is disturbing and the nature and circumstances of the offense are very serious. The defendant is charged with participating in a conspiracy to sexually exploit the vulnerable members of our community. In order to protect the privacy of the victims, I'm not going to go into details, your Honor, about the particular victims beyond what's contained in the indictment and our briefing; but, as the indictment alleges, the defendant enticed and groomed girls who were as young as 14 years old for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a man who she knew was a predator with a preference for underaged girls. The indictment alleges that the defendant participated in some of these acts of abuse herself, including sexualized massages in which the victims + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +were sometimes partially or fully nude. She also encouraged these minors to engage in additional acts of abuse with Jeffrey Epstein. The indictment makes plain, your Honor, this was not a single incident or a single victim or anything isolated but, instead, it was an ongoing scheme to abuse multiple victims for a pattern of years. This is exceptionally serious conduct. + +Given the strength of the government's evidence and the serious charges in the indictment, there is an incredibly strong incentive for the defendant to flee, an incentive for her to become at that fugitive to avoid being held accountable and to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. + +The history and characteristics of the defendant underscores the risk of flight that she poses. The Pretrial Services report confirms that the defendant has been moving from place to place for some time, your Honor; and most recently it appears that she spent the last year making concerted efforts to conceal her whereabouts whilst moving around New England, most recently to New Hampshire, which I will discuss momentarily with respect to that particular -- + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: -- property. + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe, there is one assertion in the defense papers that I don't think I have seen the government's response to, and that is the contention that Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, kept in touch with the government since the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +arrest of Mr. Epstein. Is that accurate and did that include information as to her whereabouts? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, that information did not include information about her whereabouts for starters; and, second, your Honor, the defendant's communications through counsel with the government began when the government served the defendant with a grand jury subpoena following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. So it is unsurprising that her counsel reached out to the government, which is in the ordinary course when an investigation becomes overt. + +The government's communications with defense counsel have been minimal during the pendency of this investigation. Without getting into the substance, those contacts have not been substantial, your Honor. And to the court's question, they certainly have not included any information about defendant's whereabouts. + +THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +It appears that the defendant has insufficient ties to motivate her to remain in the United States. With respect to her family circumstances, she does not have children, she does not appear to reside with any immediate family members, and she doesn't have any employment that would require her to remain in the United States. + +But, by contrast, she has extensive international + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +ties. While she is a naturalized citizen of the United States, she is a citizen of France and the United Kingdom. She grew up in the United Kingdom and has a history of extensive international travel. She owns a property in the United Kingdom. Your Honor, there is a real concern here that the defendant could live beyond the reach of extradition indefinitely. + +The government has spoken with the Department of Justice attaches in the United Kingdom and France. + +With respect to France, we have been informed that France will not extradite a citizen to the United States as a matter of law, even if the defendant is a dual citizen of the United States. + +As well, we have been informed that there is an extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States. The extradition process would be lengthy, the outcome would be uncertain, and it's very likely that the defendant would not be detained during the pendency of such an extradition proceeding. + +Those circumstances raise real concerns here. Particularly because the defendant appears to have the financial means to live beyond the reach of extradition indefinitely. As we detailed in our briefing, your Honor, the defendant appears to have access to significant and undetermined and undisclosed wealth. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +In addition to the financial information described in the government's memoranda, we note, your Honor, that in the Pretrial Services report it appears that the defendant tried initially to brush off the subject of her finances when the Pretrial Services officer asked her, noting that she didn't have those details. The defendant ultimately provided limited, unverified, and questionable information that now appears in the Pretrial Services report. She listed bank accounts totaling less than a million dollars and a monthly income of nothing. Zero dollars per month of income. + +In addition to the matter of her finances, the report raises other concerns about whether the defendant has been fully transparent with the court or whether she is being evasive. + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe, you have emphasized the indication on the financial report of zero dollars of the income. Does the government think that there is income? Is there some uncertainty as to whether that is investment income as opposed to employment income or the like? What is the reason for the emphasis on that or to the extent it is an indication that the government finds that implausible? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +Separate from the matter of employment, it is very unclear whether the defendant is receiving proceeds from trust accounts or an inheritance or means of other kinds. It is + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +simply implausible that the defendant simply has a lump set of assets and no other stream of income, especially given the lifestyle that she has been living and as detailed in the Pretrial Services report. It just doesn't make sense. Either there are other assets or there is other income. We can't make sense of this lifestyle and this set of financial disclosures. This just doesn't make moment, your Honor, it reference we have been sense. And as I will detail in a is inconsistent with the limited able to obtain as we have been making an effort to trace the defendant's finances. + +On that subject, your Honor, the report does raise concerns about whether the defendant has about her finances. As one example, the Pretrial Services that the New Hampshire been fully transparent defendant told property was owned by a corporation, that she does not know the name of the corporation, but that she was just permitted to stay in the house. It is difficult to believe that that was a forthcoming answer because it is implausible on its face and very confusing, but the government has continued to investigate the circumstances surrounding the purchase of that New Hampshire property. + +This morning, your Honor, I spoke with an F.B.I. agent who recently interviewed a real estate agent involved in that transaction in New Hampshire. The real estate agent told the F.B.I. that the buyers to the house introduced themselves to + +her as Scott and Janet Marshall, who both have British accents. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Scott Marshall told her that the -- that he was retired from the British military and he was currently working on writing a book. Janet Marshall described herself as a journalist who wants privacy. they told the agent they wanted to purchase the property quickly through a wire and that they were setting up an LLC. Those conversations took place in November 2019. Your Honor, following the defendant's arrest, the real estate agent saw a photograph of the defendant in the media and realized that the person who had introduced herself as Janet Marshall, who had toured the house and participated in these conversations about the purchase, was the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 That series of facts, which I just learned about this morning, your Honor, are concerning for two reasons. First, additionally, it appears that the defendant has attempted to conceal an asset from the court, and at the very least she has not been forthcoming in the course of her Pretrial Services interview; and, second, it appears that the defendant has used an alias and that she was willing to lie to hide herself and hide her identity and we discussed the additional indicia in our briefing your Honor. So that raises real concerns. + +23 24 25 Moreover, the defendant's claims about her finances to Pretrial Services should be concerning to the court for additional reasons. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. Moe, if I may pause you before moving on from those points. + +There is a basic dispute within the papers as to, I think, efforts similar to the ones you have described that are efforts to hide from authorities, which would certainly be an indication of risk of flight or whether, in light of the notoriety and public interest that the case has generated following the indictment of Mr. Epstein, whether it was an effort to protect privacy and hide from press for privacy reasons. + +How does the government suggest that that factual determination be resolved, if you agree that it should, and what is your general response to the veracity of that assertion? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +As we discussed in our reply brief, your Honor, in our view, there is no question these circumstances are relevant to the court's determination with respect to bail for a number of reasons. + +The first is, irrespective of the defendant's motive, these facts make clear to the court that the defendant has the ability to live in hiding, that she is good at it, that she is willing to do it even if it compromises her relationship and contacts with other people and, as the information provided by the real estate agent underscores, she is good at it and that + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 she passes. In other words, even though, as defense claims, that she is widely known, that there is press everywhere, she was able to pass during the purchase of a real estate transaction under a fake name and not be detected. So there really can be no question that the defendant is willing to lie about who she is, that she can live in hiding, that she has the means to do so. All of those things should be extremely concerning to the court, your Honor, as the court evaluates whether the defendant has the ability and willingness to live off the grid indefinitely. A year is an extremely long period of time to live in hiding, undetected by the public. And so all of those things are concerning. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 With respect to the question of motive, your Honor, the government submits the court need not reach that ultimate issue, but we noted, your Honor, that there are indicia during the circumstances of the defendant's arrest that suggested that there was a motive to evade detection by law enforcement. But the bigger picture, your Honor, is the defendant's -- + +19 THE COURT: Ms. Moe -- + +20 MS. MOE: -- ability -- + +21 22 23 THE COURT: -- I was surprised that that information wasn't provided until the reply brief. Was there a reason for that? + +24 25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The government wanted to be very careful to make sure we had full and accurate + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +information. So we were first notified about the circumstances the morning of the defendant's arrest, but I wanted to personally confer with the agent who was involved in breaching the door and verify that before including that information in a brief before the court. That's the reason for the delay, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Okay. But the government has done that confirmation process and is confident of the information provided and the basic contention there is -- the basic contention there is that she resisted opening the door in the face of being informed that authorities were seeking entry and there is a suggestion of an effort to conceal location monitoring of some type by placing a cell phone in foil of some kind. + +Could you explain what the government's understanding factually is and what you think I should derive from that? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +And, with apologies, we were very careful to make sure that the specific language in our briefing was accurate in consultation with the agents, so I don't want to add additional facts or speak extemporaneously about that; but, in short, that is correct that the defendant did not respond to law enforcement announcing their presence and directing her to open the door; that, instead, she left and went into a separate room. + +And then, separately, the details about the cell phone, as the court noted, are contained in our brief and we submit that there could be no reason for wrapping a cell phone in tinfoil except for potentially to evade law enforcement, albeit foolishly and not well executed. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +I believe I was discussing the defendant's finances, which underscore the concern about the defendant's ability to flee and about her questionable candor to the court. We submit there are concerns there for two reasons, your Honor. + +The first is that we learned that records relating reflecting to client information for a SWIFT bank include self-reported financial information from the defendant. In other words, when the account was opened, there were disclosures made about the defendant's finances. In those records, which are dated January 2019, the defendant's annual income is listed as ranging from \$200,000 to approximately half a million dollars. And both her net worth and liquid assets are listed as ranging from \$10 million and above. + +Second, as we noted in our reply, the defendant is the grantor of a trust account in the same SWIFT bank with assets of more than S4 million as of last month. Bank documents reflect that the trust has three trustees, one of whom has the authority to act independently. One of those trustees is a + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +relative of the defendant and the other appears to be a close associate. + +Despite having put millions of dollars into this trust, your Honor, and despite its assets being controlled by a relative and close associate, the defendant mentions it not once in her motion before the court or in her Pretrial Services interview; and, in fact, despite the fact that the government said in its opening brief that the defendant's finances and her uncertain amount of wealth, including issues about whether her wealth was stored abroad, are serious concerns with respect to the defendant's risk of flight, the defendant's opposition does not discuss this at all. There is no mention of the defendant's finances and no effort to address those concerns whatsoever. + +In sum, your Honor, the court has been given virtually no information about the defendant's possession of and apparent access to extensive wealth. The court should not take that concealment, your Honor, we respectfully submit, as an invitation to demand further details, but instead to recognize that if the court can't rely on this defendant to be transparent at this basic initial stage, the court cannot rely on her to return to court if released. In short, she has not earned the court's trust. + +Finally, your Honor, turning to the defendant's proposed bail package, in light of all of the red flags here + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the defendant's demonstrated willingness and ability to live in hiding, her ability to live comfortably beyond the reach of extradition, her strong interactional ties and lack of community ties, significant and unexplained wealth, and the presumption of detention in light of very serious charges -- in light of all that, your Honor, it is extremely surprising that the defendant would propose a bail package with virtually no security whatsoever. + +In addition to failing to describe in any way the absence of proposed cosigners of a bond, the defendant also makes no mention whatsoever about the financial circumstances or assets of her spouse whose her identity she declined to provide to Pretrial Services. There is no information about who will be cosigning this bond or their assets and no details whatsoever. + +The government submits that no conditions of bail would be appropriate here. But it is revealing, your Honor, that the defendant had both declined to provide a rigorous, verified accounting of her finances and that she does not propose that she pledge any meaningful security for her release. She identifies no stable residence where she could reside. Instead, she proposes, among other proposals, that she stay at a luxury hotel in Manhattan, the most transient type of residence. And it is curious, your Honor, that the defendant offers to pay for a luxury hotel for an indefinite period and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +yet does not offer to post a single penny in security for the bond she proposes. + +Your Honor, the defendant is the very definition of a flight risk. She has three passports, large sums of money, extensive international connections, and absolutely no reason to stay in the United States to face a potential significant term of incarceration. + +The government respectfully submits that the defendant can't meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this case, and we respectfully request that the court detain the defendant pending trial. + +Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moe. + +Just to make explicit what is clear by the government's written presentation and oral presentation, you are not resting your argument for detention on dangerousness to the community at all. It is resting on risk of flight, correct? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +Ms. Moe, you have indicated that you have heard from victims who are entitled, under federal law, to be heard at this proceeding. Could you indicate -- I think you indicated + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that you have a written statement and then that there is an alleged victim who wishes to be heard. Is that correct? + +MS. MOE: That is correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Why don't you begin with the written statement and then after that you can identify, as you like, the alleged victim who wishes to be heard, and my staff will unmute at that time that person so that they can be heard. + +Go ahead. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +As I mentioned before, your Honor, the government has received a written statement from a victim who prefers to be referred to as Jane Doe today in order to protect her privacy. The following are the words of Jane Doe which I will read from her written statement. + +Jane Doe wrote: + +"I knew Ghislaine Maxwell for over ten years. It was her calculating and sadistic manipulation that anesthetized me, in order to deliver me, with full knowledge of the heinous and dehumanizing abuse that awaited me, straight to the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Without Ghislaine, Jeffrey could not have done what he did. She was in charge. She egged him on and encouraged him. She told me of others she recruited and she thought it was funny. She pretends to care only to garner sympathy, and enjoys drawing her victims in with perceived caring, only to entrap them and make them feel some sense of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +obligation to her through emotional manipulation. She was a predator and a monster. + +"The sociopathic manner in which she nurtured our relationship, abused my trust, and took advantage of my vulnerability makes it clear to me that she would have done anything to get what she wanted, to satisfy Mr. Epstein. I have great fear that Ghislaine Maxwell will flee, since she has demonstrated over many years her sole purpose is that of self-preservation. She blatantly disregards and disrespects the judicial system, as demonstrated by her perjuring herself and bullying anyone who dared accuse her. + +"I have great fear that she may seek to silence those whose testimony is instrumental in her prosecution. In fact, when I was listed as a witness in a civil action involving Maxwell, I received a phone call in the middle of the night threatening my then two-year-old's life if I testified. + +"I have fear speaking here today, even anonymously. However, I have chosen to implore the court not to grant bond for Ms. Maxwell because I know the truth. I know what she has done. I know how many lives that she has ruined. And because I know this, I know she has nothing to lose, has no remorse, and will never admit what she has done. + +"Please do not let us down by allowing her the opportunity to further hurt her victims or evade the consequences that surely await her if justice is served. If + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +she believes she risks prison, she will never come back. If she is out, I need to be protected. I personally know her international connections that would allow her to go anywhere in the world and disappear at a moment's notice or make others disappear if she needs to." + +Your Honor, those are the words of Jane Doe. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +Ms. Moe, would you indicate how the victim who wishes to be heard should be recognized? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +The government has been informed through the victim's counsel that the victim wishes to speak in her true name, which is + +unmute THE COURT: All right. I will ask my staff to please + +: Can you hear me, your Honor? + +THE COURT: I can, + +: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. + +I met Ghislaine Maxwell when I was 16 years old. She is a sexual predator who groomed and abused me and countless other children and young women. She has never shown any remorse for her heinous crimes, for the devastating, lasting effects her actions caused. Instead, she has lied under oath and tormented her survivors. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The danger Maxwell must be taken seriously. She has associates across the globe, some of great means. + +She also has demonstrated contempt for our legal system by committing perjury, all of which indicate to me that she is a significant flight risk. + +We may never know how many people were victimized by Ghislaine Maxwell, but those of us who survived implore this court to detain her until she is forced to stand trial and answer for her crimes. + +Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Thank you, All right. + +And, Ms. Moe, is the government aware of any other victims who are entitled to -- alleged victims who are entitled to and wish to be heard at this proceeding? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +THE COURT: And, Ms. Moe, again, just to confirm, because there was allusion in the statements of the victims to fear and danger, the government is not seeking the court to make any findings regarding danger to the community in coming to its ultimate conclusion regarding pretrial detention, correct? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. Ms. Moe, anything further before I hear from Mr. + +II. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you very much. + +THE COURT: Thank you, + +you may proceed. + +MR. : Thank you, your Honor. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard and also for accommodating us with regard to the briefing schedule. We appreciate that, your Honor. + +Your Honor, this is a very important proceeding for my client. It is critical and we submit, as we laid out in our papers, that under the Bail Reform Act and related case law, none of which, by the way, was discussed in the government's presentation, she is -- she ought to be released on a bail package with strict conditions, your Honor. + +And, frankly, in order to defend a case like this during the COVID crisis, with the extent of discovery which was discussed earlier in the proceeding, that's going to take the government until November to produce to us, the notion of preparing a defense with our client while she is in custody under these conditions is just not realistic. + +I would also like to take a moment, your Honor, to address a few things. As we noted in our papers, our client is not Jeffrey Epstein, and she has been the target of essentially endless media spin that apparently the government has picked up in its reply brief and in its presentation today, trying to portray her before the court as a ruthless, aimless, sinister person. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I do want to note, before I go further, to pick up on something the court said. We have a proceeding now where the government is dribbling out facts or what they claim are facts that they could have and should have put in their opening memorandum so we would have had an opportunity to address them in writing before the court. That's not how this is supposed to proceed, your Honor, and I thank your Honor for pointing that out. Each -- + +THE COURT: But, Mr. , please, by all means, you have had the reply in the time that I have as well. You shouldn't hesitate to respond to any of those facts now. + +MR. : I appreciate that, your Honor, and I'm going to proceed by proffer. I would have preferred to be able to submit something in writing, but obviously the way it was done, we were deprived of that chance. + +I also want to make clear that our client is not Epstein. She is not the monster that has been portrayed by the media and now the government. She is part of a very large and close family, with extensive familial relations, extensive friendships, extensive professional relationships. Many of these folks are on the call today, your Honor, and thank you, your Honor, for making that available, though not identified, which is something one would normally do in a traditional bail hearing, because of the very real concern that they have and our client has about her safety and about her privacy and her + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +confidentiality, as your Honor pointed out. And as you will see in a moment, that explains a lot of the spin the government is putting on facts in this case. + +Your Honor, people have received physical threats. My client has received them. Most of those close to her have received them. They have received death threats. They have been injured in their jobs, in their work opportunities, in their reputations, simply for knowing my client. It's real. It's out there. The facts of all the steps the court had to go through just to make the public access available to this proceeding is also a reality. + +There is a real thing out there having a very significant impact on our client. There are folks who would normally come forward as part of a bail package who your Honor is aware of from the Pretrial Services report who can't now, at least at this point, because of the safety and confidentiality concerns. Since last week our firm alone and my colleagues at Haddon have been besieged with e-mails and posts, some of them threatening. This is all very real. The government attempts to poo-poo it, to give it the back of the hand. It is very real, and we submit it is a factor for the court to consider in its discretion. + +Before I go further, your Honor, I would like to go through the 3142(g) analysis. But before I do that, I would like to make one comment about the CVR CVRA proceeding under + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +377(1), and we understand that the court is following the statute. The statute gives alleged victims the right to speak through counsel, through the government, or directly, and be heard, and we understand that, your Honor. + +The question today before the court, we submit, is whether or not our client could be released or should be released on a condition or combination of conditions to assure her appearance. And as to that question, the presentations today do not speak, they do not speak to risk of flight, and the courts have -- in this circuit have thought about and researched what weight should be given to that. There is an opinion by Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District, United States v. Turner, from April 2005, not cited by the government, in which the court, after carefully surveying the legislative history and background of the CVRA and its interplay with the bail reform statute, concluded, "In considering how to ensure that the rights are afforded, I am cognizant that the new law gives crime victims a voice but not a veto. Of particular relevance to this case, a court's obligation to protect the victim's rights and to carefully consider any objections that victim may have never requires it to deny a defendant release on conditions that will adequately secure the defendant's appearance," going on to cite the Senate legislative history that's being cited with approval of United States v. Rubin, also an Eastern District case. + +So we understand why the court has to follow this process, but we submit that these presentations just are not relevant to the determination before the court today. And, again, we don't have spin. The big fact that the government, Ms. Moe tried to put before you through the victim is that supposedly someone had called in a civil action threatening the two-year-old child. Notice how carefully that was phrased, your Honor. It wasn't tied to Ms. Maxwell. It's more spin, spin, spin. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +So we are here to consider bail. We should consider the statute. We should consider your Honor's guidance under the statute. So let me just put that to one side. I determine that that really disposes of the issue of what weight to give. + +In turning to the statute, your Honor, turning to the factors, I don't want to spend a lot of time on the standard, because I know your Honor is very familiar with it, but I do want to point out that, in an opening brief and reply brief and now an oral presentation, the government has not once represented the standard to your Honor nor the burden that it has. And that is the statute, under 3142(c), says that "even the case where there is not to be release ROR" -- which this is not that case -- "the court shall order pretrial release subject to the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions." That as you now read, of course, in light of 3142(e), (f), and (g), the provisions on detention, that the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +law of the statute, by its structure, favors release. The Supreme Court has and the Second Circuit has advised us that a very limited number of people should be detained prior to trial because of the statute's structure, and the government nowhere mentions that. It basically acts as if all it has to do is invoke the presumption on the client and then we are done, and that's just not the legal standing, your Honor. + +They also say nothing about the burden, which is discussed on a case written for the Second Circuit by Judge Raggi, and also the U.S. v. English case. Without going into a lot of detail, as the court is aware, the burden of persuasion is the government's. It never shifts. The presumption can be rebutted, and we submit it is here, and then it is the burden of the government to show that the defendant is a risk of flight and that there are no conditions or combination of conditions to secure the release, which we submit they haven't done here. + +So let me turn, your Honor, if I may, to the factors under 3142(g), and before I do that, I also want to address some of the government's comments about the bail package. We decided that we should come before your Honor with a package that was set out subject, of course, to the ruling provided by the court, subject of course to verification as to suretors by Pretrial Services and the court. We didn't want to just walk in and say, Judge, we should be entitled to bail, please set + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +conditions. So what we did is we went through all the high profile cases in this courthouse in the past several years and other cases, cases like Madoff, cases like Dreier, cases like , where Judge Marrero ruled in 2018 relating to an alleged member of organized crime, and we went through those cases to find the conditions that were listed under 3142(c), and in those cases that would we believe be relevant and applicable here, and we believe we have listed them all. We understand that of course they would be subject to verification; and as we noted in our papers and I noted today, if we could have a guarantee of safety, if we could have a guarantee of privacy and confidentiality, and if the court required it, we believe there are other suretors who we could provide and perhaps other amounts of property as well. That is an issue. It is a real issue in this case. It is something the government is just avoiding, but it is real. + +So let me talk now, your Honor, if I might, about the 3142(g)(3) factors, which are the factors relating to the history of the defendant. + +The government said -- + +THE COURT: Mr. , just before you move to that, the three cases that you cited -- , Dreier, Madoff factually did any of those cases involve defendants with substantial international and foreign connections? + +MR. : No, I don't believe they did. The cases + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that are relevant to that, which I was going to get to, your Honor, are Khashoggi, U.S. v. Khashoggi, U.S. v. Bodmer, U.S. v. Hanson, and Sabhnani itself, all of which involve defendants with substantial connections. + +And I might follow up on your Honor's question, when you take off the spin and you take off the media -- and I'm going to get to it in a moment, because your Honor is going to allow me to respond -- here is their case: Defendant is a citizen of more than one country, England and France, not exactly exotic places. The defendant has three passports. The defendant has traveled internationally in the past, not in the past year. There is no refutation from the government on that, and they have been all over her travel records. The defendant has resided here in the past year. She has traveled internationally and, according to the government, she has financial means. I will get to that in a moment, Judge. But let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that she has financial means and not the lies that the government laid out. What do those cases teach? They teach that that is something the court can and should address in the bail conditions. They teach that they may require stricter bail conditions. They don't teach that that means there should be no bail at all. In Sabhnani, a Second Circuit case, the allegation was that the defendants have held two individuals in slavery for five years, and they had many more international ties or international + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +travel than alleged as to our client, certainly in the past year, and strict release was approved with strict bail conditions. + +In Bodmer, which was before Judge Scheindlin in 2004, the defendant was a Swiss citizen, and Switzerland had taken the position it would not extradite its citizens for proceedings in the United States. And Judge Scheindlin observed, well, if that becomes the test for bail, then no citizen of Switzerland can ever get bail in the United States. So, too, here. If that's the test for France, then no citizen, under the government's reasoning, could ever get bail in the United States. + +And in Bodmer it was even the allegation -- the case was a fraud case -- the allegation was that the defendant who was a Swiss attorney had, according to the government, been opening up Swiss accounts overseas and that that was some form of hiding. Even with all that, the court said what many courts have said in this courthouse, to be addressed in the conditions. Doesn't mean the government has carried its burden of showing there is no combination of conditions. + +In the Khashoggi case, written by Judge Keenan in 1989, this was a person of extraordinary wealth, way more than anything the government alleges that our client has, he was, according to the government, a fugitive, a Saudi citizen who had not been in the United States for three years prior to his + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +arrest. That defendant was released on bail conditions, strict bail conditions. + +And I mention which is the 2019 case from Judge Marrero, that is a case in which the allegation was that the defendant was a senior ranking member of organized crime and had access to financial means as well. + +But all of those cases, as well as Madoff and Dreier, which I'm sure the court is familiar, with involved allegations of defendants with hundreds of millions of dollars, in all of those cases, the courts held that bail should be set subject to strict conditions. And by the way, Judge, in all of those cases, the defendants appeared for court. They all made appearances and appeared for trial. + +There are also cases from the context involving pornography or sex crime allegations, such as the Deutsch case coming from the Eastern District several years ago, the Conway case in the Northern District of California. Again, understanding those are the allegations, the decision was made that release could be awarded on conditions. + +You even had one recently in the Second Circuit that I'm sure everyone is familiar with United States v. Mattis, different setting, because that was a dangerousness case and the government is not proceeding on dangerousness grounds, but that is the case where the allegation is that two attorneys threw a Molotov cocktail into a police car; challenge to bail + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 appealed by the government; decision of the court, release on strict conditions. That is how the law works and comes out in this area, but that's something, your Honor, that the government did not address. And if the court determines that the conditions that we have proffered are insufficient or need further verification, as long as we can have some assurance of safety and confidentiality, we would recommend that the court keep the proceeding open, and we should be able to get whatever the court needs to satisfy it. So that's the legal analysis that was absent in the government's presentation today and its papers. + +12 13 14 15 16 Let me now, because I have to, because this has been put out before your Honor in, of course, a public proceeding, let me respond to some of the allegations made for the first time in the reply brief, trying to spin facts to make my client look sinister to your Honor. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Here is fact one: She is a risk of flight because she has been hiding out. Well, let's think about this. She has been litigating civil cases in this courthouse and other parts of the country since 2015, denying, as she does here before your Honor, that she did anything improper with regards to Mr. Epstein. We submit, your Honor, that is the opposite of somebody who is looking to flee. And in fact, one of the people who spoke before your Honor is a plaintiff in one of those lawsuits seeking millions of dollars from our client and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +seeking millions of dollars from a fund that's being set up. Something for the court to consider. + +She has also, as we mentioned, remained in the United States, even though she has known of the investigation. How could she not? It's been unbelievably public for the past year. And we have been in regular contact with her -- with the government. Your Honor asked that question, very careful question from the court, and we got a shimmy from the government in response. We have been in contact with them, conservatively -- as we checked last night, because we thought you might ask -- conservatively eight to ten times in the past year, all for the same purpose, to urge them not to bring this case, which shouldn't have been brought. + +The notion that experienced counsel, and counsel at Haddon is also experienced, is in regular contact with the government, would surrender their client, and they turn around and deny that to the court and deny that voluntary surrender would and could have and should have been possible here is, we submit, another factor for the court to consider. + +So let me turn to the reply brief. + +THE COURT: Sorry. If I may, Mr. , I just want to make sure I understand that last point. Are you saying that defense counsel indicated to the government that, should there be an indictment returned, you were seeking to arrange a voluntary surrender? Is that the contention? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MR. : To be precise, we were urging them not to return an indictment and saying we were always available to speak. And, frankly, your Honor, I have been doing this kind of work for 33 years, everyone knows what that means. + +THE COURT: So you were implying + +(Indiscernible crosstalk) + +THE COURT: You were implying that, though you were urging -- + +MR. : Yes. + +THE COURT: -- or seeking to forestall the indictment, should there be an indictment, you were implying that you should be contacted for voluntary surrender. + +MR. : Yes, of course. And the day after our client was arrested, we got a note from the government sending the application to detention addressed to us and Haddon saying your client, Ms. Maxwell, was arrested yesterday. So there was no doubt that we represented her along with Haddon . There was no doubt that we were available and could have been contacted and worked this out. There was no doubt that we are confident we would have. + +Let me turn to the reply brief and the effort to throw some more dirt on my client that we again submit should not be considered as part of the governing legal standards here and the precise question before the court. You heard it today and in the brief we hear that at the time of her arrest, the agents + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +breached the gate and they saw her through the window try to flee to another room in the house, quickly shutting the door, and that she -- agents were ultimately forced to breach the door. So here is the spin. It's as if the government is just sort of giving it for the media, here is the spin given to your Honor to try to influence your Honor's discretion. What actually happened? At least the court has said we can respond by proffer. We weren't given a chance to respond in writing. My client was at the property in the morning in her pajamas. She was there with one security guard. Two people in the house. The front door was unlocked. All the other doors of the house were open. The windows were open. Dozens of agents came storming up the drive, creating a disturbance. My client had to hire security because of the threats to her that I have already relayed before, and the protocol was that in a disturbance to go into new room. That's all she did. Not running out of the house, not, you know, looking for some secret tunnel, went in the other room. The F.B.I. knocked down the door which, by the way, was open, and my client surrendered herself for arrest. That's far from the picture painted by the government. + +Let me turn to another thing that the government mentioned today in an effort to sort of spin the facts, make everything look sinister with respect to my client. The government said in its opening brief, well, Judge, she is + +hiding. She is a risk of flight because she changed her e-mail and phone number. That's what we heard in the opening brief. Well, what happened? Something the government, frankly, should know about, because it was certainly public, last year, in a civil litigation, in August of 2019, right around the time of the arrest of Mr. Epstein, the Second Circuit ruled that certain records in one of the civil cases should be unsealed and released to the public. That was done. There was no stay at the moment. The demand was issued, and the documents were released. Certain of those documents were supposed to be redacted and sometimes they were and sometimes they were not, documents including e-mail addresses, Social Security numbers, names, phone numbers, the sorts of things your Honor, I am sure, has to deal with all the time in these kinds of situations. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +But as it turned out, for whatever reason, some of the documents were not redacted and her e-mail address was revealed. Shortly after that, she starts getting strange e-mails. Her phone is hacked, and she had to change e-mails and change the account. + +Now she has got a phone that has legal materials on it, correspondence with her counsel in civil litigation that's been hacked, so she keeps it. Why does she keep it? Because she is in civil litigation. Her obligation is to keep evidence, not destroy it, and is advised that a way to keep it + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 from being hacked, again, is to put it in the equivalent of a Faraday bag, whether it be tinfoil or the bags they now make in briefcases, and that's it. That's all that she does. And I guarantee to your Honor, given the tenor of the government's presentation, that had she said, well, this phone was hacked, I'm just going to throw it away, the government would be standing before your Honor today say, ah-ha, she destroyed evidence, that adds to risk of flight. And she had she put it in a safe deposit box, rather than to destroy it, they would be saying we cracked into a safe deposit box, your Honor. This is evidence of a risk of flight. It just does not fit the test, we submit. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 And the last point on this, your Honor, which, frankly, in some ways is the most telling point of all, the agents do a security sweep, considering this is a house where there are two people in it -- and I will put that to one side for a moment -- they talk to the security guard, apparently now they are going to do the thing multiple times because the government is dribbling out facts, and they say, well, who lives in the house? Ms. Maxwell does. Okay? She lives in the house. What do you -- how do you get groceries and so forth? I go out and get them for her. + +23 24 25 So let's stop and think about this, your Honor. The government's allegation is that the person who is aware of a criminal investigation in the United States, has her counsel in + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +regular contact with the government, is removed in a property in the United States. That's the opposite of hiding. So we think that those kinds of facts, I'm sure, your Honor, if your Honor decides to keep the proceedings open and give us a chance to come on some issues, I'm sure we will have some more facts tomorrow and the next day, all with the disclaimer, we just learned this, your Honor. They have been investigating this case for ten years, your Honor, okay? + +So let me turn now to another factor that the government made argument about briefly, two more factors under 31(g)(3), the history and characteristics of the defendant. We heard several times that there was a -- that detention should be warranted because there is a perjury charge. Very quickly, your Honor, we submit this does not tip the balance in the 3142 analysis that the court has to perform. + +First and foremost, the defendant is, of course, presumed innocent; and, secondly, the allegation and nature of the perjury, if the court has been through the indictment, is someone who denies guilt, who says they are innocent, is asked in a deposition did you do that and says no, the government charges them with perjury. That is not -- other than the fact that it's an indicted charge, they are still entitled to the weight the court would give a not indicted charge. That's all the weight it should be given + +Let me turn to another factor that the government + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +mentioned in its presentation, both in its papers and today, that relates to 3142(g)(3), which is the defendant's financial situation. + +Again, when you look at the case law, which is not addressed by the government at all, this is a person who has passports that can be surrendered, who has travel that can be restricted, who has citizenship that the courts have taking account of, and does have financial means. Does she have the financial means that the government says she has? We doubt it. But does she have hundreds of millions of dollars like those in the Madoff and Dreier case? No. + +But it doesn't matter. Even if the court were to assume for purposes of today's proceeding that she has the means that the government claims she does, it does not affect the analysis. That is to be addressed in conditions, to be addressed if the court requires it, through verifications and further proceedings before the court. + +And let me just address some of the allegations made in the government's brief about her financial situation. The government goes out and arrests our client even though she would have voluntarily surrendered, arrests her the day before a federal holiday, so she spends extra time in the New Hampshire prison before being transported here, and then says, how come you don't have a full account of your financial condition? How come, when Pretrial Services asked about it, + +you can't, off the top of your head, explain your financial condition to them? You must be lying. That assertion is absurd. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +We have been working since our client was detained, with our client, trying to access family members to put, as best we could, a financial picture before the court to the extent it is relevant to this application and only this application. This bail proceeding should not turn into some mini investigation of our client's finances. The government has had ten years to investigate my client. + +Let me address some of the specific allegations in the government's brief. They point to a sale of property in 2016. According to the government, the property was sold for \$15 million. There is no secret about that. Those records are out there. The government claims our client cleared \$14 million from that in 2016 and apparently has it all today, which would probably make it the first New York real estate transaction to that effect. There has been liabilities. There has been expenses. Our client has been through extensive, substantial litigation all over this country denying these claims. We think the number is far less than what the government asserts. But even taking that number, it's a number far lower than that in Khashoggi, far lower than that in Dreier, far lower than in many cases, and the impact of that, in the court's discretion, should be addressed by bail conditions. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The government also says, well, she has 15 different bank accounts -- and here we get some hedging language -- that are by or associated with her. No detail, no explanation to the court, just more dirt. Well, she has three bank accounts that she disclosed. She believes that there are more, for example, with respect to the not-for-profit that she ran for almost a decade before she was forced to shut it down because of the issues in the media and the attention and the firestorm. So it is some number less. And if it's important to the court, we will do our best to pull it together. But under the relevant cases, it doesn't change the analysis. + +And then we go through the last one, your Honor. They say in their brief that she did transfers of funds. One was a transfer of 500,000. We believe that what that is was a bond maturing. So when a bond matures, it is transferred out. + +And then there was another one, and the government sort of changes its mind between its opening brief and its reply brief and I'm sure by tomorrow they will have some new speculation for your Honor, but essentially let's call it a several hundred thousand transfer out of and account in June and July of 2019. What's that refer to? It refers to one of the themes we have been talking about in our submission and today your Honor. When Mr. Epstein was arrested, it had all kinds of effects on our client, one of which was that the bank in question referenced in the government's submission dropped + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +her. Well, when the bank drops you, you have to transfer your funds out. That's true. That's what happened. So there is nothing in there that's sinister, there is nothing in there that shows an intent to evade, an intent to evade, and nothing there that we think warrants detention. + +One last point on the financial stuff, your Honor, if I might. In the reply brief, we get a new allegation that an SDAR, a foreign filing was made in 2018 and 2019, disclosing that our client had a foreign bank account. Let's stop there. Our client makes a legally required filing with the Treasury Department, obeys the law, and discloses a foreign bank account, and the government is claiming that's evidence of hiding. This is all upside-down, your Honor. These are not factors to be considered in exercising your discretion under 3142. + +Let me turn very quickly to the other two factors that are relevant for today's purposes because, as your Honor has pointed out, the government is not proceeding on a dangerousness claim. That is the (g)(1) and (g)(2) factors, the nature and circumstances of the case, and the weight of the evidence. + +Here, I think we -- if you bear with me a moment, your Honor, here, one thing to keep in mind is an observation Judge Raggi made in the Sabhnani case, at page 77, where she said, "The more effectively a court can physically restrain the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +defendant, the less important it becomes to identify and restrain each and every asset over which defendants may exercise some control in order to mitigate risk of flight." So if the court -- and we have suggested them, but they may be modified by the court -- can put in place stringent bail conditions, we don't need to have a side-long, month-long hearing about my client's assets which is just designed to keep her in detention. That was an observation by Judge Raggi in Sabhnani. + +Judge, very quickly on the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence, we don't think, your Honor, this is the place to litigate legal motions. This is a bail hearing. It is not the place to litigate complex legal questions that we will be presenting to your Honor. It's very soon on the motion schedule, and we thank the court for agreeing to the schedule. But there are a few things that are worth pointing out. + +We believe there are very significant motions here that will affect whether this indictment survives at all or the shape of this indictment and, given the government's representation that it is not planning to supersede, will affect the shape of the entire case, or any case at all that proceeds before the court at trial, if there is a trial. That is exactly what we submit the court can consider, again, in exercising its discretion as to the weight of the evidence. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 We believe there are significant motions relating to the reach of the NPA, which we are not going to litigate here before your Honor in a bail proceeding, that are not even foreclosed by the cases the government does cite to you. They cite to you the -- I'm going to skip this one, the Annabi case, A-N-N-A-B-I case, which says, "The plea agreement binds only the office of the U.S. Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction," and that in part is going to be our argument. So we will make it to your Honor at the appropriate time. For today's purposes, it should be in the mix in evaluating the weight of the evidence as should the points I just made about the perjury charge and we think that there are other significant legal challenges to the indictment. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We also think there are significant issues with the weight of the evidence. The government chose to indict conduct that's 25 years old, your Honor. You will see when you get our motions that this, we think, is an effort to dance around the NPA, to come into an earlier time period, a related time period. It's all tactics. That's all this is about. This case is about tactics. It's an effort to dance around the NPA. But the fact of the matter is the government -- + +23 24 THE COURT: Mr. , I'm sorry, by that do you mean that the time period charged is not covered by the NPA. + +25 MR. : Right. Exactly. There is going to be + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 litigation before your Honor about what is in the NPA, and the government, we expect, is going to take the position that unlike '07 is covered and nothing else. We disagree with that, which we will lay out for your Honor. What do they do? They decide we will reach back and indict '94 to '97, totally tactical, your Honor. So now we have a case where the conduct is 25 years old, no tapes, no video, none of the sort of things you would expect in that age of case, that we are going to have to defend, and we are going to defend. And I think it goes to the court's consideration of the weight in the context of the only application that's before your Honor, which is how to weigh the 3142 factors with the structure of the statute, with the guidance of the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, which is in favor of bail, in favor of bail on appropriate conditions. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So we submit that the package we laid out for the court is sufficient that we are certainly willing if the court deems it necessary to leave the proceeding open and we think we could be back before the court within a week if that is what the court wants or there is more detail which has been hammered by the fact that our client has been, by design, by design, kept in custody. And let me just give your Honor a little flavor. + +24 25 THE COURT: Wait, Mr. . I missed that last point could you repeat it, please. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. : I'm sorry. If the court desires to leave the proceeding open for a week and allow us to come back, if the court has concerns about the number of suretors, for example, verification information, information about financial issues, we think that, now that we have some ability to breathe a little bit, that we should be able to pull this together for the court's consideration. We came forward with the best package we could put together on a limited notice with a client who was arrested, held in custody, has been since she came to the MDC held in, I will call it, the equivalent of the layman's term of solitary confinement. There is probably a BOP word, like administrative seg., or some other word they have for it now. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We have had a client who has been kept alone in a room with the lights on all the time, is not allowed to speak with us in the jail at all, wasn't allowed to shower for 72 hours, had her legal materials taken away from her, only recently given back. So working with that, we have been trying to answer questions about financial situation and others, but it is very difficult, your Honor, under circumstances that are of the government's creation, of the government's creation, and we -- + +23 24 25 THE COURT: So I do want to understand that point. I think that's the "by design" point that you are making. Just for clarity, I understand that there was consent to detention + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +originally without prejudice obviously for precisely the proceeding we are having, but it sounded like you were suggesting that her current detention was in some way by design to prevent you from providing a full picture of her financial situation. Is that the implication you are making? + +MR. : No, I am not saying that, your Honor. I am not going that far. What I am saying is, when you have a client who will voluntary surrender, who is staying in the country despite an investigation, and chooses to arrest her and detain her, instances your access to the client. the government instead that limits in the early It is complicated by the COVID crisis and the other factors your Honor has pointed out in Stephens and in -Bethea, and so it is very hard for us to pull together this financial information, and we have done it as quickly as we could before the court. But the notion that my client should have been able to answer off the top of her head the questions from Pretrial Services about a real estate transaction, for example, just doesn't make any sense. That's the point we are making. + +THE COURT: Okay. + +MR. : One last point in that regard, your Honor, in the schedule we set today -- thank you, your approving that -- the government is saying that least until November to complete all discovery, Honor, for it needs at including electronic discovery. They have told us that there are two + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigations. There is the investigation of our client and there is the investigation of Mr. Epstein. And they are, in the government's words, in our words together, voluminous materials. We haven't seen any of it yet, but voluminous, including voluminous electronic materials. The notion that we would be able to in any meaningful way review these with our client to prepare the case for motion and for trial under the current pandemic situation is just not realistic. It is not meaningful. It is not fair. And I should say, as your Honor noted, in the Stephens case, we are not faulting the Bureau of Prisons. We are not faulting the Marshal Service. We understand they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. But this is just not realistic. We have conduct that's alleged to be 25 years old. You have extensive discovery that's going to take the government, if they hit the deadlines your Honor set -- and we all know that sometimes it doesn't happen -- four and a half months to provide, and the government wants our client time, without being able to limited access in some form to remain in custody that whole meet with us in person, with of administrative seq., apparently because they are afraid of what happened with Mr. Epstein, I don't know, and it is just not a realistic way to prepare a case, particularly, your Honor, when, as conditions and combination of conditions can be satisfied here under your Honor's we submit, the to secure her release guidance. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And in response to that, the government said, well, too bad, COVID crisis, too bad, Ms. Maxwell, we are not going to let you out. We are not going to let you out because you might get infected, we are not going to let you out because, you know, because it will be tough preparing your trial. And they cite to your Honor, in reply, two pages of cases, very limited parentheticals. If you actually read those cases, they are totally different from our situation, your Honor. The cases they cite on health risks in the prison environment, they cite 14 cases, 12 of them are dangerousness cases, people who are convicted of multiple felonies, including weapons felonies. The courts in those cases determined the COVID factors do not outweigh that analysis. They cite nine cases on the preparation and access to counsel. Several of them are dangerousness cases, and the other ones that have some discussion of flight risk are so extremely different from our case as to not be relevant. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Judge, I don't know how we could possibly prepare this case, getting four months of discovery, including electronic discovery, and in over 25 years of conduct, with a client who is in custody, who we can't meet with in person. And I'm not faulting the BOP. I understand why they have to do what they have to do, and your Honor has made the same point, but it is just we have to be in the real world here. We have to -- + +25 THE COURT: Whether defendants are detained because of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +risk of flight or dangerousness, they are still entitled to the same Sixth Amendment rights to access defense counsel to prepare their case. + +MR. : Of course, your Honor. My point was a more narrow point. My point is that the facts in those cases are different from our case in a meaningful way and the court was doing a different evaluation. That was the point I was making on this case. + +So in conclusion, we believe this is a compelling case for bail. We believe that the government, which has the burden of persuasion that never shifts, has not made a showing as required, that our client is a risk of flight. When you consider the risk, as Judge Raggi put it, in Sabhnani, the actual risk of flight, not fantasy and not speculation, when you consider that the only factors they really point to are ones that the cases have already addressed, such as international travel and passports. + +We also submit that the government has not carried its burden of showing there is no condition or combination of conditions that secure release. + +So we would ask the court to grant bail today. And if the court needs more information from us, we would respectfully request that the court leave the proceeding open for a week so that we can try to satisfy the court because we want to. + +Thank you, your Honor, for your time. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. + +II. Moe, would the government like a brief reply? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you very much. + +Your Honor, I want to begin by addressing head on the notion that the government's presentation in this case is somehow about spins or about throwing dirt or Your Honor, my colleagues and I are appearing of the United States Attorney's Office of the about the media. today on behalf Southern District of New York. Our presentation of the defendant's conduct is detailed in an indictment that was returned by a grand jury in this court. These are the facts. It is not dirt. It is not spin. That is the evidence and that is what we have proffered to the court. + +And the notion that anyone could read the indictment that has been returned in this case and now reach the conclusion that underage girls, exploited by an an adult woman, cultivating the traffic of knowing that they will be sexually abused and adult man, and conclude that that is chilling conduct, that is, on the face of the indictment, your Honor. + +Turning to the facts we have proffered to the about the defendant's finances, and particularly about defendant's conduct in hiding, it appears, your Honor, court the that it is undisputed that the defendant was living in hiding and took those actions. There cannot be any spin or characterization of this spin. Those are the facts that appear to be undisputed. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Turning to several specific points, your Honor, that I would like to respond to. I want to address the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if the government had asked her to. As defense counsel conceded, no offer along those lines was ever made. And of course the government doesn't have to accept the defense counsel's representation that their client would surrender. + +In fact, the fact that the government took these measures to arrest the defendant reflects how seriously the government takes the risk of the defendant of flight. Why on earth would the government notify the defendant through her counsel that she was about to be indicted and arrested if the government had serious concerns that she was a risk of flight? That is exactly what occurred here. + +In addition, it is interesting that defense counsel notes that it should have been obvious to the government that the defendant would have surrendered when, at the same time, in civil litigation in this district, defense counsel declined to accept service on behalf of plaintiffs who were seeking to sue the defendant in connection with some of these allegations, and they were required to seek leave of the court to serve the defendant through their counsel. + +Your Honor, turning to the question of the defendant's finances there is still at this point no substantive response regarding defendant's finances or about the lack of candor to + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the court, significantly. + +And while we recognize that it appears that the defendant's extensive resources may be in complicated banking records, at a basic level, the defense argument is that she cannot remember off the top of her head just how many millions of dollars she has. That should cause the court serious concern. + +A bail hearing, your Honor, is not an opportunity for the defendant to slowly reveal information until the court deems it sufficient. That is not sufficient process here. That is not appropriate. This information is coming out in dribs and drabs, and defendant should not be in a position to slowly but surely concede, as the government reveals, that she has been less than candid with the court about her finances. There are serious concerns here. + +With respect to the notion that the defendant could just surrender her passports, there are of course no limitations this court could set on a foreign government issuing travel documents to defendant or accepting her if she were to enter into that country. + +And finally, your Honor, with respect to the case law that defense has cited, they ignore the obvious comparator case, which is Judge Berman's decision regarding Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested both on risk of flight grounds and on dangerousness grounds. And as Judge Berman detailed, the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +detention was appropriate in that case on risk of flight alone. And, again, that conduct was -- at that point significant time had passed, and Jeffrey Epstein was not a foreign citizen. + +I want to respond with respect to the NPA. At this point, your Honor, the defense has articulated no legal basis to suggest that the defendant is shielded by the nonprosecution agreement, and it simply doesn't make sense that the decision in this case is somehow tactical to avoid concerns about the NPA, when the government charged Jeffrey Epstein with conduct that fell within the scope of the time period within the nonprosecution agreement and stated before the court in connection with bail proceedings in that matter that this is the government's strong view that that agreement does not bind this office whatsoever with respect to any kind of conduct or any kind of individual. That agreement does not bind this office whatsoever. + +Your Honor, in short, it is important for the court to evaluate the question of bail given the totality of the circumstances. The defense's argument, in essence, attempts to view each of the government's arguments as absolute. But when you review the totality of the circumstances -- the defendant's extensive international ties, her conduct over the past year, her unknown finances and unwillingness to be more candid with the court about her resources to flee, her specific bail proposal which provides absolutely no security to the court -- + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +it is clear that defendant has not met her burden to rebut the presumption of detention in this case. The government urges the court to detain this defendant, consistent with the recommendation of Pretrial Services and the request of the victims. It is important, your Honor, that there be a trial in this case, and the government has serious concerns that the defendant will flee if afforded the opportunity. + +Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Briefly, Ms. Moe, just a couple of legal questions. + +Mr. argued that you failed to address directly the standards, the burdens under the statutory provision, and that you have avoided the fact of the government continuing to carry the burden by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to risk of flight and whether there are measures that could assure appearance. Do you dispute anything legally suggested by Mr. in terms of the standard that applies? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government submits that the standard is clear. It is the defendant's burden of production to rebut the presumption that there are no set of conditions that could reasonably assure her continued appearance in this case. The government has the ultimate burden of persuasion, but it is the defendant's burden of production. She has failed to meet that burden for the reasons we set forth in our briefing and arguments today. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: Okay. + +And then the other legal question + +Mr. began his presentation by noting + +I had, I think + +-- by raising case + +law suggesting the lack of relevance of the statements of the + +alleged victims, although fully recognizing their entitlement + +under the law to be heard. What is the government's position + +with respect to the relevance of the alleged victim statements + +in the 3142 analysis? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government has not proffered + +victim's testimony or information in an effort to support its + +motion. To the contrary, the victims have appeared consistent + +with their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Of + +course, as we noted in our reply brief, it is very important to + +the government that the victims receive justice in this case + +and that there be a trial so that that could happen. That is + +very important to the government, and we respectfully submit + +that the court should take that into account. However, again, + +the victims' participation in this proceeding is pursuant to + +their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. It is not + +part of the government's presentation in this case. + +THE COURT: Okay. So I should not consider it + +should not consider the substance of the statements in the + +overall bail analysis. + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the nature and + +circumstances of the offense, the offense conduct, the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +government submits that the statements of the victims certainly shed light on the gravity of the offense conduct, the harm it has caused, and how serious that conduct is. The court can and should take that into account. My point was a procedural one; that it is not the case that the government is submitting this as evidence in support of its motion, but it is certainly the case that the victims' experiences, the harms that they have been caused can be considered by the court with respect to the nature and circumstances of the offense conduct, which we submit is gravely serious. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +Mr. very briefly, any final points? + +MR. : Yes, your Honor, very briefly. I won't get into it, but I don't think she just answered your question about what they are doing with respect to the CVRA victims, but I will leave that to the court. + +Just very quickly, two points, your Honor. + +The government says in its response now that the case to be relied upon and distinguished is U.S. v. Epstein. They didn't raise it in their opening memorandum or their reply or in their oral presentation before your Honor. To the extent your Honor considers it, and we have certainly looked at it and the transcript of the proceeding before Judge Berman, most of that case is about dangerousness, your Honor, which is something the government is expressly not proceeding under here + +4 5 6 7 8 9 And as to the risk of flight factors, Mr. Epstein had a prior felony conviction for conduct similar to that alleged in the indictment. The package before Judge Berman was only two suretors, and any properties that were offered to Judge Berman at the proceeding were already subject to forfeiture and so could not be proposed. So it is a very, very different situation in that case which was not raised by the government, and that's why we didn't address it. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The last point which I meant to raise earlier, your Honor, and I will end with this, and I should have raised it earlier, what we sometimes see in bail cases, and I'm sure your Honor has seen this, defendant was hiding defendant was making is the government says, well, the and we have evidence, your Honor, that the plans to leave the country. That is the situation, frankly, in the U.S. v. Zarger case, the case by Judge Gleeson in 2000, that the government cites in its brief, but of course doesn't discuss the facts. There is nothing to that effect here. To the contrary, the defendant, our client, is sitting in New Hampshire at the time of the arrest. So there is no evidence that there was some sort of imminence for the court to consider. + +23 24 25 So not to repeat all the arguments we made, we thank the court for your time and for reading the submissions and listening, and we just think, Judge, when you step back, the + +because the conduct is 25 years old, among other reasons. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +concerns raised by the government can be addressed, they have not carried their burden, and this is really a case that should be subject to strict bail conditions to be set by the court, among other things, to give us any reasonable chance of fighting this -- preparing and fighting this case to trial. + +Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. + +I am prepared to make my ruling. + +Several provisions of federal law govern the court's determination whether to detain the defendant or release her on bail pending trial. A court must apply that law equally to all defendants no matter how high profile the case or well off the defendant. It is therefore important to begin here with a clear articulation of the governing law. + +It is also important to bear in mind that Ms. Maxwell, like all defendants, is entitled to a full presumption of innocence, that is, she is presumed innocent and the only grounds for detention at this stage are, under the law, risk of flight or danger to the community. + +I may consider the weight of the evidence proffered by the government at this stage in making this determination, but unless this matter is resolved by a plea, it will remain entirely for a jury to decide the question of Ms. Maxwell's guilt as to the charges contained in the indictment. + +Turning to the government's standard under Title 18 of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the United States Code, Section 3142, the court may order detention only if it finds that no conditions or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person in the community. + +In making a bail determination the court must consider the defendant's dangerousness, if that's raised, and the defendant's risk of flight. A finding of dangerousness, if that were an issue, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. A finding that a defendant is a flight risk must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. + +In a case such as this one, where the defendant is accused of certain offenses involving a minor victim, federal law requires that it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. That's citing 18 U.S.C. 3142(a)(3). + +The Second Circuit has explained that, in a presumption case such as this, a defendant bears a limited burden of production, not a burden of persuasion, to rebut the presumption by coming forward with evidence that she does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Furthermore, once a defendant has met her burden of production relating to these two factors, the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court. But + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +even in a presumption case, the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a danger to the community, if that were an issue, and a showing by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight. + +The statute further mandates that the court take into account four factors in making its determination: the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against the person, the history and characteristics of the person, and the nature and circumstances of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. That is 18 U.S.C. 3142(g). + +Now that the court has laid out the federal statutory requirements that guide its bail determination, it turns to the government's specific application in this case for detention pending trial. + +The government does not argue, as has been repeatedly made clear today, for detention based on danger to the community. Instead, it rests its argument for detention on Ms. Maxwell's alleged risk of flight. As noted in a flight-risk case, the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant presents an actual risk of flight and that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure her presence in court. And I'm + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +quoting there from United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, (2d Cir. 2019). + +The court concludes as follows: + +First, the nature and circumstances of the offense here weigh in favor of detention. As noted, the crimes involving minor victims that Ms. Maxwell has been accused of are serious enough to trigger a statutory presumption in favor of detention. And to reiterate, Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but if she were convicted of these crimes, the sentences she faces is substantial enough to incentivize her to flee. In total, Ms. Maxwell, who is 58 years old, faces up to a 35-year maximum term of imprisonment if convicted. And even if sentences are run concurrently, she would still face up to a decade of incarceration. + +Second, noting again that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the full presumption of innocence, it is appropriate to consider the strength of the evidence proffered by the government in assessing risk of flight. The government's evidence at this early juncture of the case appears strong. Although the charged conduct took place many years ago, the indictment describes multiple victims who provided detailed accounts of Ms. Maxwell's involvement in serious crimes. The government also proffers that this witness testimony will be corroborated by significant contemporaneous documentary evidence. While the defense states that it intends to assert + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +legal defenses based on untimeliness and the nonprosecution agreement, those arguments are asserted in a conclusory fashion and have been directly countered by the government with citations to law. Although the court does not prejudge these matters at this stage, based on what's been asserted thus far, they do not undermine the strength of the government's case at the bail determination stage. Ms. Maxwell is now aware of the potential strength of the government's case against her and arguments countering these defenses, thus creating a risk of flight. + +Third, the court considers the defendant's history and characteristics and finds that paramount in a conclusion that Ms. Maxwell poses a risk of flight. Ms. Maxwell has substantial international ties and could facilitate living abroad if she were to flee the United States. She holds multiple foreign citizenships, has familial and personal connections abroad, and owns at least one foreign property of significant value. And, in particular, she is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens. + +Moreover, as the government has detailed in its written submission and today, Ms. Maxwell possesses extraordinary financial resources which could provide her the means to flee the country despite COVID-19-related travel restriction. Given the government's evidence, the court + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +believes that the representations made to Pretrial Services regarding the defendant's finances likely do not provide a complete and candid picture of the resources available. + +Additionally, while Ms. Maxwell does have some family and personal connections to the United States, the absence of any dependents, significant family ties or employment in the United States leads the court to conclude that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her, as is often the case in assessments of risk of flight + +In sum, the combination of the seriousness of the crime, the potential length of the sentence, the strength of the government's case at this stage, the defendant's foreign connections, and this defendant's substantial financial resources all create both the motive and opportunity to flee. + +Now, in the face of this evidence, the defendant maintains she is not a flight risk. She notes that even after the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein and even after the implication by authorities and the press that there was an ongoing investigation into his alleged coconspirators and that she may be implicated, she did not leave the United States. She hasn't traveled, apparently, outside the United States in over a year + +To the contrary, through counsel, she has stayed in contact with the government. The government doesn't contest these factual representations. The fact that Ms. Maxwell did not flee previously, given these circumstances, is a + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant consideration, but the court does not give it controlling weight here. + +To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution, have expected to avoid prosecution. After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The case was therefore distinguishable from United States v. , 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier. + +Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact with the government means little if that was an effort to stave off indictment and she did not provide the government with her whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and here today, but even if true, the reality that face such serious charges herself may not have set in until after she was actually indicted. + +Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and + +incentive she had before this indictment may very well have changed after it. In other words, her federal indictment may well change her earlier decisions and, given the defendant's resources, the court concludes that Ms. Maxwell poses a substantial actual risk of flight. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Having made this determination, the court next turns to whether the government has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence. The court is persuaded that the government has met this burden and concludes that even the most restrictive conditions of release would be insufficient. + +As an initial matter, the financial component of Ms. Maxwell's proposed bail package appears to represent a relatively small component of the access available to her and is secured only by a foreign property said to be worth about several million dollars. But even a substantially larger package would be insufficient. The extent of her financial resources is demonstrated by some of the transactions and bank accounts discussed in the government's submission and here today, and Ms. Maxwell has apparently failed to submit a full accounting or even a close to full accounting of her financial situation. She has provided the court with scarce information about the financial information of her proposed cosigners, for example. Without a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the resources available to her, it is practically impossible to set financial bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court. + +Even if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be appropriate. Personally, the defendant not only has significant financial resources, but has demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself. After the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, Ms. Maxwell retreated from view. She moved to New England, changing locations on multiple occasions, and appears to have made anonymous transactions both big and small. The defense said that she did all of this not to hide from the government but to maintain her privacy and avoid public and press scrutiny. Even assuming that Ms. Maxwell only wanted to hide from the press and public, an assumption that the court does not share, but even assuming that's the case, her recent conduct underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her. + +Because of these concerns, even a bail package with electronic monitoring and home security guards would be insufficient. Were she to flee, the defendant could simply remove the monitoring bracelet and, as other courts have observed, home detention with electronic monitoring does not prevent flight. At best it limits a fleeing defendant's head + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +start. Likewise, the possibility that Ms. Maxwell could evade security guards or monitoring is a significant one. + +The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure her presence in court. The risks are simply too great. + +Defense cites a number of cases, including Dreier, and Madoff, as examples of serious and high-profile prosecutions where the courts, over the government's objection, granted bail to defendants with significant financial resources. But unlike those defendants, Ms. Maxwell possesses significant foreign connections. + +This case is distinguishable for other reasons, as well. For example, the risk of flight in appears to have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found. + +In Madoff, the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought detention. The court there found there were no circumstances in the intervening period showing that the defendant had become a flight risk. Because of these crucial factual differences, the court finds the cases not on point and not persuasive. + +Finally, in arguing for release, the defense raises the challenges and risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +court is greatly concern by the Bureau of Prisons' ability to keep inmates and detainees safe during the health crisis and has found those considerations to be significant in other cases. The argument nonetheless fails in this case for several reasons. Most importantly, unlike almost all of the cases in which this court has granted release as a result of COVID-19, Ms. Maxwell has not argued that her age or underlying health conditions make her particularly susceptible to medical risk from the virus. In other words, she doesn't argue that she is differently situated than many other federal inmates with respect to the risk posed by COVID-19. In light of the substantial reasons that I have already identified favoring Ms. Maxwell's detention and her not making any arguments based on her age or health, the COVID-19 pandemic alone does not provide grounds for her release. + +Second, the defense argues that pretrial release is necessary for Ms. Maxwell to prepare her defense, as COVID-19-related restrictions at the prison at which she is held, the MDC, will hamper her ability to meet counsel and review documents. The court notes that this case is at the early stages. There will be no hearings, let alone a trial, for a significant period of time. The case does stand in stark contrast to United States v. Stephens, invoked by the defense, in which this court at the beginning of the pandemic granted temporary release to a defendant who was scheduled to have an + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 evidentiary hearing within one week. In contrast, the defendant is in the same position as any newly indicted defendant who is incarcerated in terms of the need to access counsel. Indeed the defense's logic, all pretrial detainees currently incarcerated at MDC and any federal facility would need to be released to prepare their defense. To the contrary, the MDC has continued to develop procedures to ensure attorney-client access at the facility, and the defendants detained at MDC are able to conduct video and phone conferences with their attorneys. There is ongoing litigation before Judge Brodie in the Eastern District of New York about the adequacy of attorney-client access at the MDC. That is case No. 19 Civ. 660. Public filings from the court-appointed mediator in that case describe the availability of legal phone calls and video calls, video conferences for the purposes of reviewing discovery between detained defendants and their counsel, and that same report indicates that MDC is currently developing a plan to resume in-person attorney-client visits in the near future. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 At this stage in this case and at this point in the pandemic in New York City, these measures are sufficient to ensure Ms. Maxwell has access to her counsel. To further assuage these concerns, the court orders the government in this case, and frankly all others before it, to work with the defense to provide adequate communication between counsel and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +client. If the defense finds this process inadequate in any way, it may make a specific application to this court for further relief. + +In sum and for all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the government has met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at court. + +The defendant is hereby ordered to be detained pending trial. + +Counsel, is there anything else that I can address at this time? + +Mr. + +MR. : Not from the defense, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank you. + +THE COURT: All right. My thanks to counsel for your advocacy and my thanks to the staff of the court who worked hard to provide the access to these proceedings in the pandemic. + +We are hereby adjourned. + +oOo \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..368fca7313bd23628c9432acf475d5b9e5e29f22 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716/EFTA02829716.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3142 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829716.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 91, + "chars": 127628, + "elapsed_seconds": 16.66, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "15 \nAPPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 371.9327392578125, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 371.9327392578125, + 439.83416748046875 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 439.83416748046875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 61 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 53 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829716" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e130b0d43e43381907f48cc8770d09245f9c4d5b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AM + +USA / Plaintiff(s) + +Case No.: 20 Cr. 330 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant(s) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT + +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference held on 7/1 4/20 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter. + +/S KRISTEN CAI + +( 'OuI t Reporter/Transcriber Date \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa94df5c012fc94655bbb49f6634d770a75e82b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807/EFTA02829807.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829807.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1446, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.612, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 96.363037109375 + ], + [ + 153.612, + 96.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 167.688, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 167.688, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829807" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ebe80dd9b634cd7c6c115b9e9ef8429506f4c59 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her renewed application for bail under seal with proposed redactions, in accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. + +After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions. The Court's decision to adopt those redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo II")). + +The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant's letter motions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. + +*United States v. Amodeo* ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. *Id.* at 146; *see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*, 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored to properly guard the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the Defendant's submission and in the corresponding exhibits. + +The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 14, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d27e1d2c06b704136fe4aeeea3965cece2745d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/EFTA02829808.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2334, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.69, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829808" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bc843ef7d06bf2ddfa8172d21751750deaf1c2e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829808/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:008d4881e47002e22dd3020f143cce04a84ad7b199587e362d32a2c446e0dfda +size 11913 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38d5ee2be06fcdeb89df1d7d2f0fffb150bea326 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957.764K) mcohcnacohcrigresscr.com ccvadclItecohcngrcsscr.com + +December 8, 2020 + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +## VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +800 Thad Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wynecohengressercom + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, and pursuant to the Court's order (Dkt. 89), we respectfully submit under seal two versions of the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail (the "Motion") and accompanying exhibits: an unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with proposed narrowly tailored redactions. The proposed redactions are based on the following: (1) privacy concerns, as articulated in our letters of November 25, 2020 (Dkt. 86) and November 30, 2020 (Dkt. 87); and (2) the Motion's reference to, and discussion of, Confidential Information, including financial documents and other materials produced in discovery and governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e58323319b4f7c1475750df833023ceaba0137f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/EFTA02829810.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1622, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B) \nOF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.73822021484375, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.73822021484375, + 243.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 243.80352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829810" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca696952bd722a03442e6676c287446d38bb409f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7ca9d7ca9f71d5b9cf6f3246a4b1986cd24073c8dbcb3770b309aa4843f5aced +size 1598 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3242eadf67c39cddb7538f9204d645a7f87ff33b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +# Exhibit A + +CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED/SEALED + +November 19, 2020 + +[REDACTED] + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +I respectfully submit this letter in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. + +**History** + +1. [REDACTED] + +2. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +3. [REDACTED] + +4. The person described in the criminal charges is not the person we know. I have never witnessed anything close to inappropriate with Ghislaine; quite to the contrary, the Ghislaine I know is a wonderful and loving person. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +5. Until the explosion of media interest that followed the arrest and subsequent death in custody of Jeffrey Ep [REDACTED] in July thru August 2019, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +**Privacy** + +6. [REDACTED] + +7. I was, of course, aware of Ghislaine's previous relationship with Epstein, a person I have never met nor had any communication. The media coverage of Epstein is very different today than it was [REDACTED] + +8. The "reporting" of Ghislaine over the past year has exploded exponentially. From the time of Epstein's arrest and death in custody in the summer of 2019 until Ghislaine's own arrest in July of this year, huge and increasingly frightening levels of media interest meant [REDACTED]. There are many examples of violence whose seeds were born in conspiracy theories, and the experiences of QAnon, Pizzagate, and the recent Judge Salas attack are terrifying. + +[REDACTED] + +Twitter comments have been particularly galling, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] There are many other gross and disgusting posts like this on the web that a simple search will bring up. I have also received threatening messages through social media, which I have reported and blocked. + +It is hard to communicate in words the feeling of being stalked, spied upon and trapped by constant, 24/7 media intrusion [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +At one point, *The Sun* even put a "bounty" on her head. + +[REDACTED] + +Despite our best efforts there have still been life alterin media's harassment. consequences as a result of the + +There are other examples of painful and real loss like this due to the media's aggressive treatment of those who simply know Ghislaine; the entire experience has been most regrettable. + +## My support for her hail application + +12. I believe that Ghislaine had nothing to do with Epstein's crimes. She has pleaded not guilty and denied the criminal allegations against her, and I fully believe that it is her intent and desire to remain in the U.S. to face the ensuing process and to clear her name. + +Over the past few years she has had dozens of alternative places she could have gone, but she did not want to be perceived as running or as having done something wrong. She was adamant to not only stay in the United States to fi t the smears a • ainst her, but to be within drivin distance of New York. + +Her arrest came as a s oc e was not m t e s e + +13. I did not initially come forward as a co-signer of her first bail application for the reasons stated above, I i\_LH. to 'rotect from ferocious media a ession. + +13. I believe wholeheartedly in Ghislaine's commitment to stand trial and not to seek to leave the jurisdiction should her bail application be successful. + +I pray for Ghislaine's safety. I am praying for justice. And I pray for her constitutionally afforded due process. + +With humility and deep compassion, I am also praying for Epstein's victims. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5832065fe8d18ad2ffb24ff620c0c7293385c8f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811/EFTA02829811.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,261 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829811.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 3397, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.99, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0247802734375, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0247802734375, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.425, + 237.05 + ], + [ + 112.45499999999998, + 237.05 + ], + [ + 112.45499999999998, + 251.70399999999995 + ], + [ + 68.425, + 251.70399999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.425, + 705.978 + ], + [ + 113.05000000000001, + 705.978 + ], + [ + 113.05000000000001, + 721.4939999999999 + ], + [ + 68.425, + 721.4939999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "My support for her hail application", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.42500000000001, + 250.842 + ], + [ + 256.6209716796875, + 250.842 + ], + [ + 256.6209716796875, + 266.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 68.42500000000001, + 266.73248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829811" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d94d2fa877be241219ce817bb784fb324961dea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +## Exhibit B + +[REDACTED] + +17 November, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Confidential Letter in Support of Ghislaine Maxwell. + +Your Honor: + +My name is [REDACTED] + +I submit the following letter in support of [REDACTED] Ghislaine Maxwell's character and for bail. + +I have known Ghislaine [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] I observed her [REDACTED] grow up and become a lovely, witty, resourceful, scrupulous +and trustworthy human being. [REDACTED] +key values such as "consideration of others; that everyone is important, no matter if they are a [REDACTED] or a +street cleaner - there is something to be learned from every person, and they should be treated with +equal respect. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Additionally, [REDACTED] a ferocious work ethic and Ghislaine was no +exception in deeply absorbing, exhibiting and living these values and training. + +Cont/.... + +*Letter in Support of Ghislaine Maxwell Cont/...* + +As far as allowing my own young children and or their friends to visit [REDACTED], both before and at any time in the future, the answer is an unequivocal YES. [REDACTED] As a growing teenager, he visited [REDACTED] in New York on his own [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] I was very happy whenever [REDACTED] and she made sure they were safe and happy and well looked after - always. They would come back exclaiming "we had a wonderful time with [REDACTED]" and "it was awesome!" I have not and I would not hesitate now, to allow any youngster to visit with [REDACTED] and stay with her for any length of time with or without my presence. + +I wish further and most critically as it obtains to this bail hearing, to attest to the loving relationship she has with her husband [REDACTED] which I have personally witnessed on many different occasions. [REDACTED] But I have been so moved at [REDACTED] constant worry for them and protecting them from the press and from any intrusion into their lives. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] That speaks to me, volumes about trust and about the true reality of [REDACTED] character and values. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Her love for [REDACTED] her husband was a principal reason that she stayed close by as possible while fighting for her innocence, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] I recall on one particularly bad occasion [REDACTED] when [REDACTED] a pack of photographers were converging on us all at once. [REDACTED] -they were so aggressive. I am no stranger to aggressive tactics by the press. + +[REDACTED] + +I can attest to calmness and courage and focus and consistency in immediately stating why each allegation that comes up, was/is not true and why. She was completely consistent no matter how many times it came up or what variations of it came up. + +I know that unlike the late Mr. Epstein and others, did not take the 51h in civil litigation. She underwent many hours of deposition because she has nothing to hide. + +The thousands by now of stories and accusations against her reported in the press have morphed into a figurative tsunami of monikers —"madam", "procurer", "witch", "monster" and ni=l architect" public opprobrium and character assassination. Absolutely anyone who dares to put their head above the parapet so to speak, to question any of the accusers' allegations, let alone support Ghislaine personally, gets it shot off immediately amid of hail of social vilification and malignancy and reputational slaughtering. + +I can attest that when she moved, it was always and only due to fear of being discovered by the press or 'vigilantes' — the fear was palpable. + +The only reason that she was forced to find quiet places to be in all this time, is due to the howling 'mobs' screaming for her 'scalp' on Twitter and other social media outlets. has been forced to 'hide' from the crazy people who seem to want to take matters into their own hands and grab her themselves or worse, aided and abetted by the media — The Sun for example in the UK has offered a E10,000 "bounty" on her head for anyone who can get them "in front of her" - - this on November 19, 2019 - was extremely shocking and scary it felt like incitement to violence can attest to the fear that it engendered. + +With this kind of 'vigilante' publicity, her life has absolutely been in danger and she has herself received death threats and also even her own attorneys too. This is not a joke. This is the sole reason why she has had to find private homes that are independent - - Literally any person at all who has had even the most small of interactions has been vilified in the press - - did not "slither away" anywhere she was finally able to locate a place where she could not be moving around constantly and collect herself to fight for her life and to clear her name. That is all she has been doing. + +I also want to address the widely published statements and media views that was "a fugitive from justice and from the FBI", a "proven criminal", and that she was reported as being in places as far flung as Brazil, London, Israel, France, in a submarine, on a yacht, being protected by the Mossad, Special Forces, etc. Nothing was further from the factual truth. never left nor intended to leave the United States. She wanted only to stay close to her family and fight her case and was in constant contact with her lawyers all the time-Up until the day of her arrest, she had never been in any criminal situation whatsoever and had neither been charged, arrested, or interviewed and therefore had no reason at all to be "hiding from the police" - which she categorically was not. + +has only and always maintained her absolute innocence of these accusations, and how she has felt 100% frustrated that she cannot come out and fight against each and all allegations in the civil suits that have come against her. I know deeply and expect that she will welcome a fair legal process to clear her name. + +Further she has been at ALL times inside the United States, contrary to the many. and unsubstantiated rumors in the media. She has never left the country wants only to fight the case and remain in the country to do that. The United States has been her home since 1991— and she has \*always• returned here. I have witnessed her great humility, I have witnessed her personal warmth and bravery, and her humanity and great resilience in the face of the tidal waves of negative adverse publicity in the social media and by the Press, all over the world. + +I attest that Ghislaine was only laying low for her own protection against vigilantes and the 'mob' who have been baying for her blood to this day. She has never hid from the authorities and is frustrated that she never had the opportunity to talk to them personally to counteract all the lies pouring out in the media. + +In regard to bail, I know in every fiber of my being that will NOT skip bail and am co-signing IMIIa bond in the value of \$1,500,000 which is secured by I myself■ **do not own any property or I would have put it up without hesitation.** + +**There is another critical reason I know she will not skip bail if released on remand —This is because I am willing, to stay with Ghislaine 24 x 7 if she is released into my personal custody— in a residence in New York that we have located - for as long as necessary. I am prepared to stay with her 24/7 indefinitely and I have complete confidence that will utterly not seek to flee her bail and I completely assure the court that if she is released into my custody that she will remain with me 24x7x365 and will not leave the premises unless required to do so by the court and in direct coordination with them.** + +**Yours respectfully,** + +![](_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1f8aec623d145e74f486f893426976d420b9184 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/EFTA02829815.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7836, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.856, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 412.2907409667969, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 412.2907409667969, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829815" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad194f7128c6323a07336e912bf18da1fe849ca9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829815/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:11c8c2638e706b84957e9279e6d7e9e3c82471f08c1a056a0dd940ecd3b1e12f +size 4719 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a9eb6f0e6e20102eed3cee2fe130c78be7fdc50 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +## Exhibit C + +[Redacted] + +30th November 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +**Dear Judge Nathan:** + +[Redacted] + +[Redacted] I have known Ghislaine [Redacted] all her life. +[Redacted] Ghislaine and I have always enjoyed +sharing the personal experience of our lives with each other. [Redacted] she was +full of 'vim and vigor' and always just lovely to be with. [Redacted] she and I have seen our +relationship strengthen through shared common interests. In particular, Ghislaine's passion +for making a positive difference in the world, notably through her creation of the non-profit +TerraMar Project focusing on the protection of the world's oceans, gave me [Redacted] +[Redacted] Although always in touch we have talked +and met up much more consistently over the past seven years [Redacted] +[Redacted] It is a joy to +be [Redacted] one of her best friends. + +[Redacted] + +[Redacted] +[Redacted] +[Redacted] +[Redacted] +Throughout her school life Ghislaine always had friends and seemed to be genuinely grounded in her love of life and learning. We were all quite proud when she graduated from Oxford with her Bachelor's degree. She, [Redacted] learned early on the value of hard work [Redacted] + +[Redacted] +[Redacted] +Around 1990, Ghislaine came to live in New York to continue Maxwell Corporate Gifts, a successful company she had founded in the UK which was subsequently absorbed [Redacted] + +[Redacted] in 1991, Ghislaine had to rely on her personal compass, inner resilience and sheer determination to build a fresh life for herself. Her prior 'big picture' experience, top-level entertaining skills and talent for organizing, coupled with her multi-cultural and multi-lingual sophistication, opened doors into New York society. Although it is true that for many years Ghislaine was frequently involved in high society and attended fashionable social gatherings; what irks me greatly is the press's one dimensional 'socialite' focus on Ghislaine, that completely denies and refuses to acknowledge the very serious, highly intellectual and passionate caring sides of Ghislaine. For example, since 2003, Ghislaine devoted all her energy, her own financial resources and intellectual skills to helping save the Oceans, through her establishment of the not-for-profit company, *The Terramar Project*. Ghislaine's deep knowledge and appreciation of the significant role the oceans play in our world's fragile ecosystem enabled her to work with key partners to influence the United Nations in 2014 in enunciating its Sustainable Development Goal 15 "To conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development." Indeed, it seemed so clear to me that this mission encompassed her life's passion and offered a way for her proactively to give something back of real value to society. + +Ghislaine showed a huge amount of courage and forbearance in the face of great adversity [Redacted] and in the years that followed. I have seen this strength more than ever during the times [Redacted] + +Despite the tremendous daily pressures she has been under, notably from the world's media, universally hostile to her, she has shown simultaneously a deal of humility and fortitude. She has the profoundly deep conviction (through every fibre of her being) of her innocence in the face of all the unsupported accusations and criminal charges latterly filed against her. + +To the best of my knowledge and belief, [Redacted] Ghislaine has never been brought in for questioning, arrested, or charged with any criminal offense by law enforcement until now. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offenses with which she has been charged, as a US Citizen, she has the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. For the purpose of increasing their profits by boosting TV ratings and / or newspaper readership, the world's media has aired or printed the most heinous accusations against her, in some cases for years now, that have never been cross-examined in a criminal court in front of an + +independent judge and jury. Ghislaine is not a malicious or jealous person. In all the [REDACTED] I have known her, I have never seen her be violent or act inappropriately against anyone, let alone young adults or children as has been alleged. + +I [REDACTED] believe in her innocence. I know she would never do anything to put my life or my family's life in jeopardy in any way, which is why I have no hesitation in placing the one property that I own – which is my only nest-egg for my retirement—up as part of her bail application. The value is \$1.5 Million dollars. I do not have any other savings and it would be completely devastating financially and in every way to my own family were the house to be taken over by the Government due to a breach of [REDACTED] bail conditions. I know in every fibre of my being that [REDACTED] Ghislaine will never try to flee and will absolutely turn up to her trial, to have the opportunity to fight the charges against her. Based on my deep knowledge and experience with Ghislaine [REDACTED] I totally trust and believe that I do not have to worry in any way about my home being put up as a part of her bail application. + +Until her arrest, I spoke often with Ghislaine over the phone and in the early summer of this year, two to four times a week. [REDACTED] + +I witnessed how hard she worked every day and well into the nights going through the ever-growing tsunami of press clippings, videos, audio files, etc, that so gravely traduced her and continue to do so. Ghislaine is completely horrified and flabbergasted by these unfounded and completely horrendous accusations, as indeed am I. + +I feel totally safe around Ghislaine, in fact, I feel *safer* with her. I have never had any hesitation in my children visiting her or being with her – as they have been – both as young children and now they are older. Neither they nor I have ever seen any signs or signals of the alleged criminal conduct. I personally witnessed her be a warm, lovely, understanding and caring [REDACTED] When visiting Ghislaine more recently as well as in the past [REDACTED] I was impressed by her interaction with them and by their evident trust in and great affection for her which was entirely natural and unforced. Every exchange was totally normal and just lovely to watch how each of these [REDACTED] clearly liked [REDACTED] and she them. Although Ghislaine was certainly part of the New York social scene in the past, for many years, it had become clear to me that she was happy in a long-term loving relationship with her previous partner of over 7 years far away from the New York scene and with [REDACTED] leading a happy family life with people she loved and trusted and who were similarly equally loving and trusting of her. I saw the same pattern of strong domesticity and family happiness with her spouse [REDACTED] I have personally witnessed how much they love being with and being loved by Ghislaine. + +In terms of character, Ghislaine is compassionate, capable, and proactive. Ghislaine is very kind and caring. She brought [REDACTED] to stay with her in New York for extended periods so that they could spend quality time together. She took them all around the US to see the sights and to visit with family and friends. Even under the terrible weight of her present circumstances, she has consistently demonstrated her consideration for others. Whenever we spoke, she asked about [REDACTED] The fact that she could care enough and not just be thinking only of herself at this impossible time remains deeply moving to me. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] has called the United States her home for almost 30 years. She has deep affective family ties here in this country [REDACTED] Most of all, her own husband [REDACTED] are here. During the past 18 months in particular Ghislaine has gone out of her way to continue to stay in the United States expressly so that she could put her case forward in a court of law should it ever come to that. I therefore feel great consternation and deep shock and sadness when I hear about the conditions of her present incarceration, which include over 150 days of solitary confinement and other extreme deprivations and restrictions. The great toll that this physical, mental, and emotional stress is taking on [REDACTED] makes it even more impossible for her to adequately prepare her defence from inside jail. + +If she is granted bail, I will be in continuous touch with her during the weeks and months leading up to her trial, providing whatever support I can while she has the chance to fairly prepare for her upcoming trial and fight for her innocence. + +I am grateful for the opportunity to provide this statement. + +Sincerely, + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5938775cb3049ab6acfe928946fe29c3a40c12e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820/EFTA02829820.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829820.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8901, + "elapsed_seconds": 48.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.856, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 409.95587158203125, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 409.95587158203125, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829820" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03fc175f25501fef0ff5d193c5cb91eadc3fcc62 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## Exhibit D + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +1St December 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Sauare New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL + +I am sending this letter of support knowing it is to be presented to the Court in connection Maxwell's renewed bail application. The content of this letter is true and within my knowIeciE,E. + +I first met Ghislaine Maxwell in we remained in touch and became close friends and have been in regular contact ever since. I staved with her in her apartment in New York for some weeks immediately after her father's death in 1991 and have visited with her on numerous occasions and see her whenever she travels to the UK. She has also staved with me and my family at our home + +I have always found Ghislaine to be open, honest and trustworthy in all her dealings and therefore had no hesitation when she asked me to be + +Ghislaine is transparent in everything she does including in her financial dealings of TerraMar which, following unwarranted press speculation last year, was investigated by the Charity Commission. No wrongdoing was found whatsoever but the Charity was subsequently dissolved as the connection with Ghislaine allied to relentless media pressure made it an untenable enterprise. + +Ghislaine knows m famil well my children have known her all their lives, love an. a •ore er an. s e as always been a great support to them. + +Speaking for myself and my family I can confirm that we stand absolutely behind her in her fight to clear her name. I have never known Ghislaine to be involved in anything unlawful and she has always been a loyal, genuine and generous friend. Nor have I ever witnessed any inappropriate behaviour on her part. + +In 2017 I lived with Ghislaine and her family for a few weeks. helping move them into their house. Her Spouse. + +It is very obvious that they love her + +deeply. They are an incredibly strong and close family unit. + +Ghislaine has lived in the United States since the beginning of the 1990s and has had to deal with fluctuating amounts of press interest in her life. This was notwithstanding her huge and understandable mistrust of the media which started with the fall-out from the sudden death of her Father and has continued to this day. Despite the tremendous ramping of press interest in her following the death of Jeffrey Epstein in August 2019 Ghislaine remained living in the States. This was primarily so that she could be with her family but also to ensure she was available to deal with any civil or even criminal allegations arising from her past connection to Epstein should these arise. When the press intrusion became too intense, she removed herself from the family home to protect her Spouse. Any reports to the effect Ghislaine took that decision to evade law enforcement are as far from the truth as they are offensive. + +My husband and I experienced first-hand what it felt like to be on the receiving end of such relentless press intrusion in our own lives in the UK. We had to leave our home for a week because the press presence was so aggressive and so constant: we had phone calls, emails, letters, visits – and everyone in our village was spoken to. Even my parents and children were harassed. Ghislaine's house in London and today still there are journalists knocking on the door and filming the house. Ghislaine was terrified of being found by the press, or by deranged individuals and conspiracy theorists who threatened to harm her. A UK newspaper (The Sun) put up a bounty for information leading to her discovery. She had to isolate herself to protect her family and friends as much as herself. I spent a couple of days and nights with her in October 2019 – we went for a walk and I directly experienced for myself the pressure and fear she was living under. Any car or person that went by the house, or any unusual sounds she heard when we were in the house, she thought the press or bounty hunters might have found her. She was genuinely terrified for her safety and this ended up making me feel terrified too. + +Ghislaine has always met problems head on and has never been afraid of the truth. I have personally witnessed this at many points in her life when she has had to pick herself up and rise to the challenge in front of her. Ghislaine has been a constant and very important part of my life and I have no doubt – particularly if she is permitted properly to prepare her defence in a non-custodial environment conducive to that end (the primary rationale for her renewed bail application) - that she will attend her trial to fight these heinous charges and to clear her name. + +Respectfully + +[Redacted signature area] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4294b07f1e474c47ac6bc0ea0f0f08091e128940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/EFTA02829825.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4803, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.98, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.88983154296875, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.88983154296875, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Page 2 \u2013 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 40.221000000000004, + 70.416 + ], + [ + 595.467, + 70.416 + ], + [ + 595.467, + 95.355 + ], + [ + 40.221000000000004, + 95.355 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829825" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba8c4ac12536564e36d6f2b4f8169d0285a9919b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829825/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7401b9a0c429168ab2627f4f71956db65da3b71c8ba5a51ec67f1d94608d7542 +size 8242 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4132aad0f933cc4ba81f9fc8e6b7425fd85800dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +## Exhibit E + +[Redacted] + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +November 23rd 2020 + +Your Honor + +This statement is in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's request for bail and her character. + +My name is [Redacted] + +I write this letter in support of [Redacted] Ghislaine Maxwell. [Redacted] + +We remain close and have been in communication by phone and videolink most weeks up until her arrest on July 2nd 2020; I have historically regularly visited her in the United States at least a couple of times a year and she has always caught up with me when she has visited the UK or Europe. I have historically and continue to act as one her closest confidants and advisors, [Redacted] + +Ghislaine has always faced up to every challenge she has met in her life whether it involved [Redacted] or decisions involving either her business interests or philanthropic interests. I consider her to be absolutely straight, clear and honest in all her dealings with third parties - this attitude applies to her filing her tax returns as it does to every other aspect of her life: organised, clear and straight. + +Until these charges, [Redacted] has never been involved in any allegation of breaking the law in any jurisdiction. + +Speaking for myself, [Redacted] I can confirm that I stand absolutely behind her in her fight to clear her name. [Redacted] she has been a constant visitor to my family homes, has had my children to stay with her in her homes [Redacted] and I would not hesitate to leave any of my kids or grandkids in her care. I have never witnessed, nor heard from my children or grandchildren any reports of any inappropriate behaviour [Redacted]. + +Ghislaine has stayed at all times in the jurisdiction of the United States since the new charges against the late Jeffrey Epstein and has from the outset confirmed to me personally on + +numerous occasions that she wanted to be available to deal with any civil or criminal allegations, to confront these and to deal with them in situ. She provided evidence under oath in deposition in civil litigation rather than stay silent which is a good illustration of her candour. + +From my own experience, I can confirm that Ghislaine is kind, thoughtful and generous whether it is helping friends who have fallen on difficult times such as a friend who was recently widowed and to whom Ghislaine provided her own home in London immediately; or inviting my children and their friends when on their gap year to stay with her and to sort out transport, housing and friends to support them on their travels; or whether devoting considerable resources and time to her philanthropic activity primarily in oceans conservation. + +I have offered to co-sign a bond in the amount of US\$3,500,000 where the amount of the bond would be secured by properties owned by [REDACTED] as this represents the entirety of realisable family wealth; I do this in support of [REDACTED] judgement in relation to Ghislaine's integrity and commitment to attend court and to underline that the family would be left without resources in the event that the bond was called. + +Yours sincerely + +![](_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb20cff2783efbb301e3a17531dd5082720f59f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/EFTA02829828.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3262, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.51, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 408.1819152832031, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 408.1819152832031, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829828" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43d0d46800f0ac25a74b01e76392bb7d193fa6bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829828/_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7c4c00ba9f34c3c49cbe03b915213ea9a5fb7eaa1cf47d65e64f528d83e26f9d +size 3590 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16550c17ab7465cbb044b19f3c951187919d02d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## Exhibit F + +The honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor: + +November 23' 2020 + +This statement is in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's frailest for bail and her chazactua + +My name is I am resident in + +I have known Ghislaine since 1979 when she was years o wing at CI am y orne in Oxford. At that time, when we first met, my first impression was the same as it remains now, that she is extraordinarily vivacious, friendly and intelligent. She has her father's charisma and has agenuine warmth. She was then diligently working for her final years of school exams to achieve her place at Oxford University, which she succeeded in. + +Throughout the last couple of years. she has been in touch as she was based in + +Itouted alarge family event hosted by Ghislaine and her husband in which she was very hospitable and obviously very much at home and in love. We all met her new family, and extended family,' I. Prior to this, at various points in the lives of my children, as they have expressed a desire to see New York, Ghislaine has welcomed them, hosted them, and entertained them with friends and their children. At no time did I have any hesitation about them making those trips. The older children would have been in their early teens at that time. + +Irecall when we all descended on her home in Manhattan in 2011. She was extremely busy with her philanthropic work that was very important to her regarding the Oceans and marine conservation, and her work took her to presentations at the UN and TED talks, 1 believe. + +It has been clear for many years that Ghislaine regards the US as her home, retaining her London house as a place to stay on return visits to sce family and visit her mother (who + +died in 2013). In recent years she has not been in the UK at all, I believe, for any length of time. She is a person who my children always regarded as sparkling and engaging, and dedicated to her oceans conservation work and other business projects. + +I would describe her as a woman of principle; very disciplined with an extraordinary work ethic, instilled by both her parents. She is the youngest of seven surviving siblings, all of whom are close and all of whom have the same work ethic and integrity. + +I have at no point given any credence to the ridiculous and defamatory statements in the press about her being in hiding from law enforcement; this has never been the case. She would just like an opportunity to prepare her defence in an appropriate manner. + +I am totally confident that Ghislaine will appear in court as required, and I am prepared to sign a bond in the amount of \$3.5 million in support of her bail application. This amount represents the value of effectively all of my assets, including my home [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] If I lost these assets because Ghislaine violated the conditions of her release, I would be financially ruined. I make this pledge without reservation because I know that Ghislaine will remain in the United States to face the charges against her, which she vehemently denies. + +Yours sincerely + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26b80784579dfc91e3fbecdf865bd3a92cba94b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831/EFTA02829831.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829831.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3182, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.29, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit F", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 406.6830749511719, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 406.6830749511719, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 372 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 246 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829831" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79a15419130d1e53a5e4f8f04d968974677da623 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +## Exhibit G + +![](_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg) + +1st December 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor, + +This letter is provided by way of support for the release on bail of [REDACTED] +Ghislaine Maxwell. [REDACTED] + +Ghislaine and I have always remained in close touch. During the last 30 years or so this has been primarily by phone and email as Ghislaine has lived for the greater part of that time in the US whilst I live in London. On my last two trips to the US in February 2013 and in December 2018 I stayed with her for about a week on both occasions and she always made a point of seeing me whenever she came through London. [REDACTED] in areas where we would both consider I have some knowledge I would certainly think of myself as a trusted advisor of hers. + +![](_page_1_Picture_19.jpeg) + +[REDACTED] +Ghislaine eventually excelled academically and ended up graduating with honours from Oxford University and has gone on to achieve many and varied professional goals. Determination is a notable characteristic of hers, as is her naturalness and honesty – which I have never doubted - whether in her dealings with me personally or to my knowledge with [REDACTED] and friends, or in her business interests or charitable activities. Until the laying of these charges against her, I am not aware there have ever been any allegations of criminal conduct against Ghislaine whether in the US or in any other country for that matter. + +Ghislaine has always been an exemplary [REDACTED] surrogate mother and friend. My son travelled with me on both my trips to the US mentioned above when he was aged [REDACTED] staying with Ghislaine at her then homes in New York and [REDACTED] Together with me, my son [REDACTED] stands four-square behind her as she seeks to defend and clear her name. She has spent many hours with my son and he and I have never witnessed any inappropriate behaviour on her part. I + +have personally seen n man settin • s over the years, sometimes with young children =nd Ghislaine has always behaved totally appropnaey. n my eyes s e is a o a y trustworthy individual and I would have no hesitation at any time leaving children or young adults in her care. + +Regarding the extremely serious charges she is now facing. Ghislaine has repeatedly denied any knowledge of, or involvement in. any such improper and criminal conduct. Based on my knowing her very well.c and the nature of her character I believe in her innocence an I have no doubt that she will deal with all the allegations head on and will attend trial for the opportunity it provides her finally to put her side of the story without it being intermediated by an overwhelmingly hostile media. + +have no doubt will not shirk the responsibility she has to attend her trial in this matter and will fight the case throw h to the finish to clear her name. Knowing her as I do. for Ghislaine too there is simply no other option + +Respectfully, + +![](_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8e39d81335c401393d9254733942e173fcbe3ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/EFTA02829834.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3090, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_19.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit G", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 412.80548095703125, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 412.80548095703125, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829834" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b25a142b065f499d41aa72d0c05abbd6b4e0953 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c95fb3201ca309425b3c63b60e6dcbcfd3ba0493bc48dfa273766040cec88e01 +size 4632 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_19.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e36cbf6c6477ec1cb947406584690c8a74ea3a35 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_1_Picture_19.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3e777d1912e88315c35a7ea07159f3943ac32db4c43872fbd1640ba2670cd776 +size 14130 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8338e68be4c9eb233eb8ec082f70c0a133ed02f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829834/_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f0ee10ede074fa923e9a819b0192a44eaa4789aa9038541adcee8111260e0c19 +size 5840 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8707b11f1ffc5c23edf87dc4ee16e68b19bbe48 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +## Exhibit H + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +29 October, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +United States District Court + +Southern District of New York + +United States Courthouse + +40 Foley Square + +New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor: + +This statement is in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's request for bail and her character. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +I have [REDACTED] known [REDACTED] Ghislaine since [REDACTED] and witnessed her develop into a lovely, energetic and capable young woman. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Ghislaine, also learned a relentless work ethic and the importance of key moral values [REDACTED] such as "concentration, consideration and conciseness" [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Though Ghislaine left the United Kingdom for America [REDACTED] [REDACTED] we have always remained close [REDACTED] and kept in contact. I know that many of [REDACTED] and their friends have visited and benefitted from staying with Ghislaine during their vacations and for life experience over the years, and Ghislaine asked if [REDACTED] would like to come over for a few months after she finished university [REDACTED]. It was a + +kind and generous invitation from her and we had no hesitation whatsoever in sending her to spend time with Ghislaine. + +I must attest to my utter shock at the arrest of [REDACTED] on the charges she is facing. From all I know of her [REDACTED] she would not be capable of such behavior. I never witnessed Ghislaine be violent or remotely sexually inappropriate with anybody of any age or gender, ever. She is a warm, loving and generous human being and I am told she is bearing up with great courage and fortitude inside the detention center and those are some of the qualities in her character that are sustaining her in her current awful circumstances. I believe she is innocent of the charges brought against her and determined to prove her innocence. I believe she wants nothing else but to fight these charges in court in July 2021 and to clear her name and therefore would never seek to flee anywhere if she were granted bail. She, like all people so charged, have a constitutional right to due process and indeed she has declared herself to be innocent of all charges. She is innocent until proven otherwise and she like all people so charged – is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of her peers. + +I, [REDACTED] have complete faith in Ghislaine's respect for the judicial process and in her determination to fight all the charges brought against her. I am certain and confident of Ghislaine's trustworthiness and of the importance of her achieving bail in order to properly be able to prepare her defense to the charges she faces. + +Yours respectfully, + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f581db6dc588e157f854d34c6d079506e8342ac7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837/EFTA02829837.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829837.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3082, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit H", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.98675537109375, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.98675537109375, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 295 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829837" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47159775764f6b0542855dfe883175622549269d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +## Exhibit I + +1\* December 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor: + +This statement is provided in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail and by way of character reference. + +[REDACTED] + +I have clear memories of Ghislaine since I was 6 years old. I cared for her very much and she always showed me so much love, kindness and compassion. [REDACTED] I remember calling her and asking if I could live with her. Although that did not happen, she subsequently invited me to stay with her in New York. + +Whenever I needed Ghislaine she was always there for me and I felt that she was supportive of my dreams and ambitions to be an independent and creative person. She was charismatic, charming, intelligent, generous and kind. I held her on a pedestal when I was growing up. I was always so inspired by how she went out on her own to America to start a new life and she did it with style and courage but also with determination and integrity. In 2009 she again invited again to stay with her as an Intern. I wanted to quit university in UK and she wanted to show me how important it was to become an expert in something. She introduced me to her set in New York and I realised if I wanted to fulfil my potential, I had to specialise in an area to become truly expert. She was then devoting herself to her Oceans charity [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Ghislaine has always visited Europe sporadically but America has been her home since I can remember. With everything that has happened with Jeffrey in the press and Ghislaine being dragged into the coverage every time, she simply sought a quiet life in the States. [REDACTED] + +Ghislaine was one of the original 'it' girls in London back in the day. Perhaps because of that 'tag' the media followed her activities for many years and on the back of the Epstein connection have now written defamatory and appalling statements about her quality of character. What the Press has written about her with no personal knowledge of her could not be further from the truth. Throughout my life she has shown nothing but integrity. She loves her family and is a committed and loyal person with morals that are unwavering. My parents entrusted Ghislaine with me when I was aged 12, 15 and 19, all key points during my adolescence. Because of her I have known more of the world, have had my imagination ignited and expanded in ways I could not have imagined and that has had a profound and positive + +[REDACTED] + +impact on me. She did not have to show me the kindness and dedication that she has showed me throughout my life, but she did. When my parents could not provide me with the emotional support I needed at various times, she was always there for me. + +I know for sure that what Ghislaine would most like is to have the time and the opportunity to prepare her defence properly against the serious charges she is facing. [REDACTED] + +I do not have any assets of my own to put forward but I do know that Ghislaine is an honest, committed, loyal and compassionate person who needs her family's support as much as we have needed hers in the past, so it is an honour as much as a personal obligation for me to be able to provide this letter of support for her in her hour of need. + +Respectfully yours. + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f10669bb89e2786f3fe539ebe56fee874b72ed1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840/EFTA02829840.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829840.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3392, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 401.4718322753906, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 401.4718322753906, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829840" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91353d7b9a9f72336f28280e5ec62ac2912280a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## Exhibit J + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +November 25. 2020 + +Honorable Alison J Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York Uni ted States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York. NY 10007 + +Your Honor + +This statement is in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's character and her request for bail + +![](_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg) + +I sincerely hope you will see fit to grant Ghislaine Maxwell, bail to properly prepare for trial. However, should you not do so, I am afraid for her life given the conditions to which she is being subjected. If I may, just because Jeffrey Epstein died in Federal pretrial custody, should NOT mean that Ghislaine should become the scapegoat, and be treated so harshly. I sincerely hope that Ghislaine's life will not be forfeited due to the adverse extreme conditions in which she is being held, or that she have a severe mental health or physical health breakdown as a consequence of her current conditions and treatment + +Accordingly. I join with who have extremely strong taith in Ghislaine's respect tor the judicial process and her absolute determination and right to prove her innocence at trial. I am demonstrating my faith that she will not seek to flee if she is granted bail. by placing \$25,000 cash in good faith towards her bond. Ghislaine Maxwell has NO reason to flee. When she could have left the country, she chose not to. The people she loves most, her husband are here. She remained in the US to prove her innocence. The US is her home. + +Yours respectfully, + +![](_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a952c46cc7885a016e4f6ba1543af91bfd804e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/EFTA02829843.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1542, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.69, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit J", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 405.1832275390625, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 405.1832275390625, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829843" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34a1280a7014dc8b6592e6004b7c4770dbb89804 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a7c885e537e79c7e6f6e9799c43ccacad762b1eb39b551320c786d99fddf0399 +size 3190 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0de2260f97d5515c90678088d195b1f3f0593e85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:252320f964f769cce49d61d852bb17093ba26245cb8d095379f2f67d33a6f138 +size 3661 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d075c6312bd62c91dadd29f6e44f0703d0f29e78 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829843/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6d3b06d80a9098799decd22dc887bb4eb5f168cfa13c1c46f5108e499c400bf7 +size 17373 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..368d4f16eeaf7c87242d2889ac0e98d3f623c1e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## Exhibit K + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +October 28, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Your Honor: + +This statement is in support of Guislaine Maxwell's request for bail and her character. + +![](_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg) + +I have maintained a fairly close relationship with the entire family for most of my life. I not only got to know the senior Maxwells but also got to know very well their children including Ghislaine, since my age of 15. + +Though I was spending more of my time with the older siblings I also chose deliberately to spend time with Ian, Kevin and Ghislaine, who were soon going to prep school together during term-time. You need to know that their father was narcissistic, highly controlling and demanding as a father, and let them know early that he was going to leave his large fortune to charity. So all the kids knew they had to "make it on their own" despite the wealth and privilege in which they were growing up. + +As I got to know each of these kids, including Ghislaine, I noticed that early on, every single one worked very hard at their jobs, as neither parent, Bob nor Betty.would easily bear any idleness, and each strove for their father's and mother's respect through that their intelligence and that hard work. So grades and a reputation as a serious student. I also noticed that personally, Ghislaine was quick-witted, full of initiative and good humor, sincerely caring towards everyone she knew. + +I've maintained a fairly close relationship with the entire Maxwell clan for most of my life. I didn't continue to visit them regularly in England, but I stayed in touch by phone, especially with Philip, Isabel, Betty and Christine from 1962 through the present. I spent time with Betty, Mrs Maxwell, as she needed support, having suddenly been left after the death of Robert Maxwell. Later on, I wrote a book explaining my gratitude to Betty for all she'd taught me about goodness and maturity. When she was finally on her deathbed with Parkinson's in 2013, I was glad Isabel, who was caring for her, read her my book. + +So I am in a position to speak to Guislaine's character. I had gotten to know her vital personality quite well when she was young. And even though I wasn't in direct touch with her later on, all these Maxwell children are quite "tight" - they've always stayed closely in touch with each other. Thus whenever I'd speak to any of her elders – Philip, Anne, Isabel and Christine, I'd also hear reports not just about their own lives and activities, but also Kevin's and Ian's, as well about Ghislaine's life. Her siblings consistently reported for about a decade that she was enjoying life while starting her own charity. + +So what kind of a character is Ghislaine? I can testify without the least doubt that she is mature, sensitive, thoughtful, honest and, like all her siblings, strong-willed, determined and quite obviously grounded in good human values. She does not lie. She is no "chicken" - it would be totally unlike her to run away from the charges leveled against her by the Government. In fact, the idea of not "facing the music" is totally against the values of every single Maxwell, because both their parents always emphasized personal responsibility – specifically to face Bob's temper. These people consider running away their greatest shame. Furthermore, in facing their father's criticisms, they were trained, over and over, to defend themselves with real courage. So I have no doubt that not only did Ghislaine – despite the blaring headlines in the press and the governments' own opposition to bail alleging incorrectly that she is a "flight risk" – made absolutely no attempt to leave the US at any time in 2019, but has stayed to fight the civil accusations against her starting earlier. Nor do I have any doubt whatsoever that she fully intends to defend herself to the limit of her energy based upon her actual innocence and that above all she wants to go to trial and she is categorically not a flight risk. + +Yours sincerely, + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee5baaa8c4b52920b8de84c259e8e579b11d4bd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/EFTA02829845.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4129, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.94, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit K", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.6628723144531, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.6628723144531, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829845" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c631dbc3f1836ae3aaca891f5f2cd12e1541eaf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ae6f25ff4b3dfeceaabd74fe48eb5a2b72f5c794e7c4406b702397bb96406393 +size 4999 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b27771ff8e60deb362dc07fed188baf35cd4a1fb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829845/_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b484d0cdf5122611f84b2a9aac530cd5e4ce1ebb213d1cf8cb7346eaaa1908ca +size 9036 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33cf3239194dc4b02e3387a6dbb4180cb89156c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +## Exhibit L + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +4th November 2020 + +Your Honor, + +I am [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] I have no idea what value, if any, you will place on my words -- but I write anyway in the hope that she can be granted bail. + +We are all living through extraordinary times - across the world people have had their liberties curtailed due to the spread of Covid-19. Here [REDACTED] we are about to enter into another month long lockdown and must stay at home. + +This loss of all our liberties, I think, has had the impact of making us all reflect on what liberties it is we most value - the ability to see our families and friends; the ability to hug them; the ability to feed ourselves and do exercise. + +I appreciate that Ghislaine is one of many in the MDC right now - however it does strike me as deeply troubling that a person - though innocent until proven guilty - can be treated in a way that on any measure is inhumane and degrading. I can think of no justification whatever for her not having been fed properly, or not having access to glasses so she can read, or indeed the majority of the letters I have written to her being sent back. For any trial to be fair, she must have the opportunity to defend herself and to do that she needs a functioning mind - solitary confinement since July and potentially until next July surely puts that at risk. + +I understand you are balancing any perceived risk against the odds of her fleeing - she is of no danger to the public. + +It cannot be beyond the realms of possibility and practicality to define terms that guarantee her presence - not least because I firmly believe she intends to defend herself. She should be allowed to sleep. She should be allowed to eat. She should be allowed to have the support of friends and family as she prepares her defence. + +Her treatment to date feels punitive and unjust. She had ample opportunity to leave the US legally prior to her arrest and did not do so. It is less likely not more likely that she would do so now. + +[REDACTED] + +Since she is no danger and the only fear is flight, I urge you to look at her history of not fleeing and use the practical and technological tools at your disposal to assuage any fears of flight. + +Yours sincerely + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cefc3e578367409007207e799e42e5eaa925f50e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848/EFTA02829848.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829848.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2377, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.52, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit L", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 407.7742004394531, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 407.7742004394531, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829848" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a4af4eadaf13e4b1767bc5bab6b3a20305ce7d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +## Exhibit M + +![](_page_1_Picture_333.jpeg) + +17 November, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Confidential Letter in Support of Ghislaine Maxwell. + +Your Honor, + +I, [REDACTED] am petitioning the court to release on bail [REDACTED] Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell. It is my belief that she is of good character to warrant this release. I am also setting aside cash money in case it is needed as security for her bond. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] We have always been close to Ghislaine's family. + +[REDACTED] We have all remained close. I would dine with Ghislaine a few times a year and she came over to my place of business for a lovely lunch the Summer before last. + +I live in [REDACTED] and have six-decade roots in that community. I am on staff at [REDACTED] I've worked there for nearly three decades as [REDACTED] and am a respected member [REDACTED] + +I have a reputation to hold fast. I treat this petition seriously. I don't have lots of cash, but I am putting up \$ 2,000 as bond towards her bail because I believe in Ghislaine's innocence and I believe that the only way Ms. Maxwell will be able to defend herself against the charges is out on bail. Her conditions of confinement are extreme even for the BOP. + +As to her "fleeing" she didn't before, she won't. I believe that. The Court should release her on bail. + +Respectfully, [REDACTED] + +![](_page_1_Picture_346.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0beccca932619deef24d53b026b9010a0ad7e4a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/EFTA02829850.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1554, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.27, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_333.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_346.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit M", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 416.46923828125, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 416.46923828125, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 289 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829850" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_333.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_333.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b42306ff9d96b28e34d15eee78daeb2a306a73ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_333.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8b6c6a720359ee2235f5891441b28fd65d2d59229618087f52314f8a3739bf0d +size 2034 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_346.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_346.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ccf65fc6c248e50c02ab5fa72720c7fcbf530f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829850/_page_1_Picture_346.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e7e409b636b6329cfd92161e4f570d99588c9a90493f978891f238f8300d9677 +size 2945 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e19e5af9000e5277e0f7f55a7196ab560f31513 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +## Exhibit N + +![](_page_1_Picture_263.jpeg) + +December 1st 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +**Ghislaine Maxwell** + +Your Honor, + +Ghislaine has been a friend of mine for over 25 years. + +![](_page_1_Picture_269.jpeg) + +Ghislaine, without judgment or prejudice, offered me a roof over my head [REDACTED] free of charge or bill payments until I could get back on my feet so to speak. I had nothing to give her and she had nothing to gain from me living there. Given those circumstances I think it says a great deal about Ghislaine's moral character: in particular her loyalty and kindness towards someone who could offer her nothing in return. When another friend subsequently offered to pay rent for me this was still at a substantially lower than market rate. + +I want to conclude by saying that never in my wildest dreams do I think Ghislaine could be guilty of the terrible charges against. Like anyone charged with any crime, she is innocent unless proven guilty and has a right to due process and humane treatment and should be treated accordingly. + +Yours respectfully, + +![](_page_1_Picture_273.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd71537372380eb305a9c4fd3f996be563b5048f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/EFTA02829852.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1243, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.72, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_263.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_269.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_273.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit N", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 413.04290771484375, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 413.04290771484375, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 227 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829852" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_263.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_263.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..607cda66d28a330f37ca532ce559248f31c20c1f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_263.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f89b593d22beabc73face443815065d64fa1f164379f09630ee1e7cb84ea67f0 +size 1748 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_269.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_269.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69cfaf03e23b013b78e9f9dca66df566c8a81e5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_269.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d4eccc9704a082e27b38865769eeee81b97487ce9d3299a578bc1c9ff45e097a +size 5014 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_273.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_273.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40cb054ab5fac100bb872504d48b63ede611b4bf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829852/_page_1_Picture_273.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f4f03f4f7b88a94653f7a2a3c573417a1d35d7df1f48917e795a9d4377259f91 +size 2323 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7b616fbc0785e8c1be2d8c2eb1917fa0a6641d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.md @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ +# Exhibit 0 + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +FINANCIAL CONDITION REPORT: 2015 — 2020 + +INDEPENDENT REPORT Be COMMENTARY PREPARED BY MACALVINS LIMITED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS + +FOR + +& GRESSER LLP + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL FINANCIAL CONDITION REPORT 2015 - 2020 + +#### Table of Contents + +| Independent Accountants’ Commentary | 3 | +|-------------------------------------|---| +| | | +| Statement of Financial Condition | 9 | +| | | +| Appendices | | + +#### Independent Accountants' Commentary + +& Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +- 1. In accordance with our engagement of 10 August 2020, we have prepared a summary of the financial condition of Ghislaine Maxwell based on the following information + - (i) Copies of her US tax returns filed in the years 2015 to 2020' + - (ii) Documentation provided by Ghislaine Maxwell's office and her spouse including bank statements and financial correspondence relating to bank accounts, pension fund, and investments2 + - (iii) Documentation provided by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York under disclosure in the criminal proceedings3 +- 2. We have assisted in the preparation of this statement of financial condition in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)4 on behalf of your client Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 3. The information supplied by Ghislaine Maxwell's office and by her spouse is incomplete due to the limited ability to access historic banking information from some banks that have terminated their relationship either with Ghislaine Maxwell and/or her spouse. However, we are satisfied from the review we have carried out that the absence of some contemporaneous documentary evidence does not invalidate or cast doubt on the conclusions we have reached nor on the overall reliability of the financial information as presented in the summary of the financial condition of Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 4. We are not able to perform a full audit of the statement of financial condition, nor have we performed any audit type procedures, due to the current circumstances relating both to the impact of the Covid- 19 pandemic and the conditions of the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 5. Accordingly, our opinion is reliant on the information provided to us, which is outlined in paragraph 1(i)-1(iii) above. + +Tax returns filed for the years 2015-2020 are attached as appendices to this report. + +2 Attached as appendices to this report. + +3 Relevant discovery materials reviewed pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order issued in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) are attached as appendices to this report. + +4 See appendices to this report + +- 6. In our professional opinion, notwithstanding the issues highlighted above, the conclusions that we reach in this report are substantiated by all of the data that we have been able to review. +- 7. We have not carried out nor commissioned any independent valuation of assets and have recorded valuations at the lower of historic cost or net realisable value in accordance with IFRS. The accounting policies adopted are to value investments at cost, motor vehicles and have been depreciated at 20% per annum. The carrying value of jewellery and chattels is presented at lower of cost or estimated net realisable values based on the information provided by Ghislaine Maxwell's spouse. For the purposes of this Report and exchange of £1: US\$1.30 has been used throughout the period. +- 8. The statement of financial condition does not include the following categories of asset and liability: + - Contingent assets including any contingent proceeds arising from inheritances; cash recoveries from litigation against third parties; future income derived from intellectual property rights; + - Taxation liabilities including a potential \$1,500,000 liability arising from the New York state audit for the year ending 31 December 2016; + - Any other contingent liabilities including potential damages or costs arising from civil litigation in the United States or other jurisdictions + +#### Summary of Facts and Conclusions & Summary of Assets (E&OE) + +- 9. This Financial Condition Report summarizes the total assets of Ghislaine Maxwell and her spouse in the time period from 2015-2020. +- 10. All of Ghislaine Maxwell's assets either owned directly by her, or transferred by her to trusts, or owned by her spouse are fully recorded in this Financial Condition Report. +- 11. Ghislaine Maxwell's net worth at 1 January 2015 was approximately US\$20,200,000. +- 12. The 2015 tax return records the sale of a residential property in New York City for \$15,075,000. The address of this property is This report tracks the application of these proceeds all of which arc accounted for at all times under review. The proceeds were deposited at +- 13. Ghislaine Maxwell married her spouse in 2016 and commenced filing joint US tax returns from the 2016 tax year until today. In 2016 Ghislaine Maxwell transferred the majority of her assets into a trust controlled by her spouse + +- 14. Ghislaine Maxwell's net worth varied in the period under review.s +- 15. Ghislaine Maxwell and her spouse's net worth at 31 October 2020 is approximately US\$22,500,000. This is an estimate based on the 2019 tax filings to the end of December 2019 and review of bank statements and explanations provided by her spouse where bank statements are currently unavailable. This figure includes approximately \$7.67m of advance legal retainer fees. +- 16. There has been no alienation of any assets in the period 2015-2020 other than expenditure in the ordinary course of family life and more recently since 2019 very substantial expenditure on professionals engaged in the defense of Ghislaine Maxwell from the criminal charges she faces. +- 17. In light of our inability to access all of the bank statements for the entire period for the reasons already explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, we have not been able to review every movement of cash from every account; we can, however, deduce from starting or opening balances and the closing balances that we have reviewed in each year that no significant sum of cash has been transferred outside of the control of Ghislaine Maxwell and or her spouse. All of the principal sources and uses of cash from 2015 through 2020 are covered by this report of financial condition without exception. + +#### Summary of Specific Transfers and Accounts + +- 18. We noted that accounts controlled either by Ghislaine Maxwell and/or her spouse, either directly or indirectly, maintained substantial cash and equity balances of approximately \$16 million during the period under review. The cash and equity balances clearly increased from the time of the disposal of the New York property. There are many examples of transfers between accounts, movements triggered by the closure of one banking relationship and the opening of new relationship (examples include the movement of cash and assets from ) as well movements of cash maturing on deposit and other financial investments. +- 19. In its initial bail submission, the Government referenced transfers totaling more than \$20 million in the earlier period of 2007-2011 which the Government described as transfers from Jeffrey Epstein's accounts to Ghislaine Maxwell's accounts and vice versa. We noted in our review of the financial disclosure materials, that during the period 2007-2011 Ghislaine Maxwell acted as an officer of various corporate entities related to aircraft and air travel associated with Jeffrey Epstein and we noted substantial transfers involving these corporate entities. We did not note any transfers of this nature or the nature described by the government in the 2015-2020 period which forms the subject of our Financial Condition Report. + +5 Macalvins prepared a report of financial condition for Ghislaine Maxwell dated April 30th 2017 (see appendices to this report). The report recorded assets legally and beneficially owned by Ghislaine Maxwell on the balance sheet date. The specific liability recorded arose from a personal guarantee given by Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter was resolved by the year end of 2017 without diminution of assets. + +1. 20. We have reviewed available accounts and filings of Terramar Project Inc, a 501C charitable corporation in the United States, and the available accounts and filings of Terramar UK, a charity registered in the United Kingdom. Both charities were established by Ghislaine Maxwell who sat on the respective boards of each. The objects of the charity are to promote for the public benefit: a) the conservation, protection and improvement of the environment, and in particular the environment of the oceans, seas, coastlines and tidal areas b) the conservation and protection of endangered marine flora and fauna c) the education of the public in the [REDACTED] of marine conservation, marine ecology and related areas. +2. 21. Terramar Project Inc was founded in 2012 and Terramar UK was formed in 2014. Both organizations ceased operations in 2019 and were dissolved as corporations and charities in 2019/2020. During this period of time, Ghislaine Maxwell contributed US\$560,650 to the running costs of Terramar Project and approximately \$10,000 to Terramar UK. +3. 22. We have identified one donation outside of the time period of this report from Epstein Interests Foundation of US\$57,000 which was recorded as a donation to Terramar Project Inc in the financial year ending 1/21/2013.6 All funds received by Terramar Project Inc were disbursed for the charitable purposes of Terramar Project Inc. No personal, financial benefit was obtained by Ghislaine Maxwell. + +#### **Summary of Materials Reviewed** + +1. 23. The principal US bank accounts (i.e., bank accounts with US registered and licensed banks) covered by this report are accounts in the names of Ghislaine Maxwell, her spouse, trusts of which her spouse was a beneficiary and she could have been a beneficiary, and various Limited Liability Corporations owned either by Ghislaine Maxwell or her spouse or trusts of which her spouse was a beneficiary and she could have been a beneficiary held with: + +1. 1) [REDACTED] (accounts closed in April 2014) +2. 2) [REDACTED]7 +3. 3) [REDACTED] (accounts closed in 2020) +4. 4) [REDACTED] (accounts closed in 2020) +5. 5) [REDACTED] (account opened in 2020) + +We have not been able to review the bank statements of [REDACTED] due to the termination of the accounts in 2020 and the lack of access to the underlying documents. We have therefore had to rely on information provided by the Spouse which we can confirm is consistent with our conclusions + +--- + +6 See appendices to this report. + +7 [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +- 24. We have reviewed information for other USA banks and financial institutions including and UK banks and financial institutions including but have concluded that these accounts operated outside of the relevant time period, were closed by 2015 (or in the case of in 2017), and/or the sums involved (unless recorded in the summary analysis) are immaterial to the reliability of the overall presentation. +- 25. All of Ghislaine Maxwell's foreign bank accounts are listed each year in her US FBAR filings + +(closed 2017) + +(closed c2010) + +(closed c2012) + +- 26. All of the Limited Liability Corporations associated with or controlled by either Ghislaine Maxwell, her spouse, and/or Trusts of which her spouse was a beneficiary and she could have been a beneficiary have been reviewed: + +| Name | Purpose | +|--------------------|--------------------| +| [Redacted name] | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| | [Redacted purpose] | +| [Redacted purpose] | | +| [Redacted purpose] | | +| [Redacted purpose] | | + +- 27. In our review the cash balances on accounts for most of the LLCs did not exceed S150,000 at any time and the total balances for all LLCs (with the exception of did not exceed S200,000 in total. +- 28. This report does not cover any analysis of personal living or travel expenditures. However, Ghislaine Maxwell's personal expenditure appears well within her reported annual income in any year. + +- 29. We report on all of the real estate owned either by Ghislaine Maxwell in her own name, in the name of trusts or Limited Liability Corporations owned by trusts of which she was potentially a beneficiary or of which her spouse was a beneficiary, or in her spouse's name or in Limited Liability Corporations owned by her spouse. + +| Property Address | Ownership Structure | Ultimate Beneficial Owner | +|------------------|---------------------|---------------------------| +| [Redacted] | [Redacted] | [Redacted] | +| [Redacted] | [Redacted] | [Redacted] | +| [Redacted] | [Redacted] | [Redacted] | +| [Redacted] | [Redacted] | [Redacted] | +| [Redacted] | [Redacted] | [Redacted] | + +#### Conclusion + +- 30. This report confirms that the bank accounts, investments and assets owned by Ghislaine Maxwell have been properly declared in her US tax filings at all times. +- 31. We have spoken to Ghislaine Maxwell's husband and he has confirmed, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, the accuracy of the information contained in this analysis and for the reasons stated above, we believe that the contents of this Financial Condition Report accurately summarize the net worth of Ghislaine Maxwell and her spouse during the period 2015-2020 based on our review of all of the information provided. +- 32. As previously noted, the net worth of Ghislaine Maxwell and her spouse at 31 October 2020 is approximately USDS22,500,000. + +For and on behalf of Macalvins Limited + +| Client | Trusts | Spouse | Joint Tax | | 31-Dec-14 | 31-Dec-15 | 31-Dec-16 | 31-Dec-17 | 31-Dec-18 | 31-Dec-19 | 31-Dec-20 | +|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------|------------|-------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| +| ASSET CLASS | | | | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | +| CASH | | | | | | | | | | | | +| A ██████████ | | | | 1,268,330 | 990,463 | 3,629,962 | 2,882,983 | 2,423,768 | 501,673 | 435,299 | | +| B ██████████ | | | | 55,668 | 46,276 | 50,778 | 48,115 | 49,573 | 50,000 | 50,000 | | +| C ██████████ | | | | 1,164,654 | 968,155 | 3,000 | | | | | | +| D ██████████ | | | | 8,885,685 | 10,497,852 | 2,698,969 | 1,643,622 | 1,563,754 | | | | +| ████████████████████████ | | | | 165,248 | 120,000 Est | 116,482 | 80,000 Est | 23,054 | | | | +| E ████████████████████████ | | | | | | 17,000,000 | 13,000,000 | 11,300,000 | 5,444,570 | 4,143,460 | | +| F ████████████████████████ | | | | | | 110,000 | 110,000 | 110,000 | | 110,000 | | +| G ████████████████████████ | | | | | | 100,000 | 100,000 | 150,000 | | 200,000 | | +| H ████████████████████████ | | | | | | | | | 6,536,913 | | 0 | +| I ████████████████████████ | | | | | | | | | | 451,000 | | +| INVESTMENTS | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Major cash movements for purchase on investments | | | | -1,700,000 | -1,700,000 | -5,000,000 | -2,000,000 | -1,070,750 | | | 0 | +| LLCs (at cost) | | | | | | | | | | | | +| M ████████████████████████ | | | | 1,917,570 | 1,917,570 | 110,000 | 110,000 | 110,000 | | | 0 | +| N ████████████████████████ | | | | 0 | 0 | 1,924,983 | 1,924,983 | 1,924,983 | | 1,924,983 | 1,924,983 | +| P ████████████████████████ | | | | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | | 200,000 | 200,000 | +| N2 ████████████████████████ | | | | | | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 100 | 100 | +| LIABILITIES | | | | | | | | | | | | +| O ████████████████████████ | | | | | | -2,500,000 | -2,500,000 | -2,500,000 | | -2,500,000 | -975,000 | +| REAL ESTATE | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Properties held | | | | | | | | | | | | +| W ████████████████████████ | | | | 6,800,646 | 6,800,646 | 0 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | +| X ████████████████████████ | | | | 377,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | 2,067,000 | | 2,067,000 | | +| Y ████████████████████████ | | | | | | | | | | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | +| Z ████████████████████████ | | | | | | | | | | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | +| ZZ ████████████████████████ | | | | | | 2,450,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | +| | | | | | | 2,550,000 | | | | | | +| CHATTELS | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Motor Cars | | | | | | 100,000 | 80,000 | 60,000 | 200,000 | 140,000 | 80,000 | +| ████████████████████████ | | | | | | | | | 150,000 | 120,000 | 90,000 | +| Jewellery | | | | 900,000 | 800,000 | 750,000 | 700,000 | 650,000 | 650,000 | 650,000 | 650,000 | +| Other chattels | | | | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | +| ADVANCE LEGAL RETAINER FEES | | | | | | | | | | | | +| | | | | | | | | | | | 7,671,000 | +| NET WORTH | | | | 20,234,801 | 23,007,962 | 26,541,274 | 25,626,801 | 25,622,232 | 23,645,239 | | 22,487,842 | +| Total Income as per tax return | | | | 243,496 | 1,453,970 | 581,037 | 637,994 | 854,230 | | | | +| Total tax as per tax return | | | | 30,286 | 299,017 | 100,038 | 145,887 | 211,876 | | | | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..249da4a6c4984f2110c0460ffe1d5754d27b0ba6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854/EFTA02829854.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,648 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829854.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 22165, + "elapsed_seconds": 92.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit 0", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 415.684814453125, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 415.684814453125, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.912, + 112.92200000000001 + ], + [ + 404.02545166015625, + 112.92200000000001 + ], + [ + 404.02545166015625, + 135.16033935546875 + ], + [ + 191.912, + 135.16033935546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nFINANCIAL CONDITION REPORT \n2015 - 2020", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 195.488, + 69.822 + ], + [ + 397.9691162109375, + 69.822 + ], + [ + 397.9691162109375, + 142.10302734375 + ], + [ + 195.488, + 142.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Contents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.31999999999996, + 193.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 344.28533935546875, + 193.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 344.28533935546875, + 210.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 250.31999999999996, + 210.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent Accountants' Commentary", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.468, + 69.822 + ], + [ + 396.6844787597656, + 69.822 + ], + [ + 396.6844787597656, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 198.468, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Summary of Facts and Conclusions & Summary of Assets (E&OE)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.896, + 403.4160000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9187927246094, + 403.4160000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9187927246094, + 420.363037109375 + ], + [ + 104.896, + 420.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Summary of Specific Transfers and Accounts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.29999999999998, + 366.35 + ], + [ + 343.7928161621094, + 366.35 + ], + [ + 343.7928161621094, + 383.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.29999999999998, + 383.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Summary of Materials Reviewed", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.49199999999998, + 368.936 + ], + [ + 277.736, + 368.936 + ], + [ + 277.736, + 382.728 + ], + [ + 105.49199999999998, + 382.728 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.896, + 341.35200000000003 + ], + [ + 168.28225708007812, + 341.35200000000003 + ], + [ + 168.28225708007812, + 358.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 104.896, + 358.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829854" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bc24a4af96dd2e2ce9988328108f769b7beef08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## Exhibit P + +![](_page_1_Picture_75.jpeg) + +**Statement of [REDACTED]** + +1. 1. I, [REDACTED], am a forensic accountant and private investigator, and the owner of [REDACTED]. I received a BA in Economics from Lehman College in 1973 and an advanced degree in Personal Financial Planning from Lehman College in 1997. I have been a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) since receiving that designation in 1997. +2. 2. Prior to entering the private sector, I was a Special Agent with the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID) from 1973 until my retirement in 1998. As a Special Agent, I worked on numerous financial fraud investigations, including several with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In addition, during the last five years of my employment with the IRS, I received the designation of Cross-Designation Authority from the FBI while being a member of the joint task force with the FBI and the NYPD whose responsibilities were to investigate the federal money laundering statutes on a national and international scale. +3. 3. I have over forty years of experience in complex financial fraud investigations, including: income tax violations, [REDACTED] collar crime, and securities fraud. I also have extensive field experience in the tracing of assets and reviewing books and records to recognize, identify, and trace suspicious + +financial activity. I have also conducted numerous forensic investigative audits. + +- 4. I have been hired by federal and state law enforcement agencies on numerous occasions to serve as a forensic accountant/investigator for corporate monitorships and other compliance programs. For example, I was a member of the World Trade Center Integrity Compliance Program administered by the New York City Department of Investigation. My responsibilities included preventing and detecting wasteful or abusive practices by contractors at the World Trade Center site. My work consisted of reviewing the books and records, including workers payroll records and invoices, and detailing any fraud discovered in final summary reports. +- 5. For this engagement, I was hired by & Gresser LLP to conduct an independent review of a Financial Condition Report prepared by Macalvins Accountants summarizing the financial condition and assets of Ghislaine Maxwell for the time period 2015-2020. I was asked to verify the accuracy of the representations contained in the Independent Accountants' Commentary and the accompanying Statement of Financial Condition including related Excel schedules documenting the findings. +- 6. I reviewed the Independent Accountants' Commentary, the Statement of Financial Condition, and the Excel schedules. To complete my review, I was given access to all of the underlying documents relied upon by Macalvins to prepare the Financial Condition Report, and I reviewed these underlying documents to the extent necessary to verify the representations in the + +Financial Condition Report. I also posed questions to the Macalvins accountants and requested additional documents that I required to confirm the amounts listed in the Financial Condition Report and accompanying schedules. At all times, I was given complete access to the relevant documents and allowed to ask any questions I thought pertinent to my analysis. + +**Conclusion** + +1. 7. Based on my review, I believe that the Financial Condition Report represents a complete and accurate summary of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her husband, as well as assets that were, or are currently, held in trust for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, for the time period from 2015-2020. + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60fe77e6cc447036fbfd6839b3288bb56890252c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/EFTA02829864.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 3632, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.33, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_75.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit P", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 406.58477783203125, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 406.58477783203125, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statement of [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.62, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 372.096, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 372.096, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 235.62, + 203.31 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 337.21200000000005, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 337.21200000000005, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 251.10000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829864" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/_page_1_Picture_75.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/_page_1_Picture_75.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1e218865fa167a6527aa6ed54313add990fc3fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829864/_page_1_Picture_75.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:62138f16469efe1af22d647e03fe10054dbfd82bcdce3090d5cdca8c915c6410 +size 7861 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..419cbe19a31243fa9d64369d5b31377139335481 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.md @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +# Exhibit Q + +## Ghislaine Maxwell Media Analysis + +# Ms. Maxwell Becomes Media Target + +JULY 15, 2019 + +**The New York Times** + +***The 'Lady of the House' Who Was Long Entangled With Jeffrey Epstein*** + +![](_page_2_Picture_112.jpeg) + + + +AUGUST 10, 2019 + +**The Washington Post** + +**Epstein's accusers still deserve justice and will go after his alleged enablers, their lawyers say** + +![](_page_2_Picture_117.jpeg) + +[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epsteins-accusers-still-deserve-justice-and-will-go-after-his-alleged-enablers-their-lawyers-say/2019/08/10/f8cd8df4-bb88-11e9-bad6-609f75bfd97f\\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epsteins-accusers-still-deserve-justice-and-will-go-after-his-alleged-enablers-their-lawyers-say/2019/08/10/f8cd8df4-bb88-11e9-bad6-609f75bfd97f_story.html) + +AUGUST 10, 2019 + +**NEW YORK POST** + +**Meet Jeffrey Epstein's gang of accused slave 'recruiters'** + +![](_page_2_Picture_122.jpeg) + + + +AUGUST 21, 2019 + +**VANITY FAIR** + +**How to Pronounce "Ghislaine," as in Ghislaine Maxwell, America's Most Wanted Woman** + +![](_page_2_Picture_127.jpeg) + + + +# Bounty On Ms. Maxwell + +NOVEMBER 19, 2019 + +![](_page_3_Picture_35.jpeg) + +**WANTED** The Sun is offering a £10,000 reward for information on Jeffrey Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell + +![](_page_3_Picture_37.jpeg) + + + +### 1:20-cr-lpg6dTh + +![](_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg) + +JUL 21, 2019 + +![](_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg) + +This crazy, pedophile, pimp, bitch, #GhislaineMaxwell, just said, "The #Ocean is too big to fail..." #OhNoDi-eDidnt #DeathPenalty Meanwhile, the very program she discusses was recently suspended, on July... huffpost.com/entry/ghislain... + +![](_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg) + +AUG 14, 2019 + +![](_page_4_Picture_19.jpeg) + +SHE'S HERE in #Massachusetts ?! The bitch #GhislaineMaxwell who #SexTrafficked young girls for #Epstein ?!?! Why the hell isn't she being brought in for questioning @ManchesterMAPD ?! WE DO NOT WANT HER HERE! #Sleezyleach She is CLOSE ENOUGH to me, I could grab her myself! + +![](_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg) + +ammo a a a — + +AUG 12, 2019 + +![](_page_4_Picture_8.jpeg) + +Can I just say here that I hope #GhislaineMaxwell is the first of the bunch!! She just needs to be made someone's bitch for arranging AND participating in the sexual assault of juveniles with one Jeffrey Epstein. Rot in jail access to nothing. vice.com/en\_us/article/... + +![](_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg) + +AUG 15, 2019 + +![](_page_4_Picture_23.jpeg) + +they need to get this bitch n string her up by her neck... fuckin monster #GhislaineMaxwell + +![](_page_4_Picture_25.jpeg) + +AUG 14, 2019 + +IoeIetedI The bigger question r. + +HOW THE FUCK IS THIS SUBHUMAN CUNT NOT IN CUSTODY BEING GRILLED". + +In the Epstein Case. she is "Person #2". second only to the person whose name is the fucking case + +IE is dead, so now she's "Person 01" In the Epstein Case. + +Yet she is sitting at home. with her feet up. with nary a care in the world .. + +![](_page_4_Picture_17.jpeg) + +MAP 19, 2020 + +6 months ago + +Ghislaine Maxwell, citing death threats and extensive legal fees, sues Jeffrey Epstein's estate + +I hope someone finds her and kills her. That would be justice. Obviously her lawyers know's where she is, someone should stick them up to batteries until' we find out where she is. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f40dbecbbb3d237ea2b26a03df8a2f350dfa003 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/EFTA02829868.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,351 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 3604, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_2_Picture_112.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_117.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_122.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_127.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_35.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_37.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_19.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_8.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_23.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_25.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_17.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit Q", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 410.7218322753906, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 410.7218322753906, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ghislaine Maxwell Media Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.24, + 239.07000000000005 + ], + [ + 716.5477905273438, + 239.07000000000005 + ], + [ + 716.5477905273438, + 276.0 + ], + [ + 138.24, + 276.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ms. Maxwell Becomes Media Target", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.59999999999997, + 39.232 + ], + [ + 685.4399999999999, + 39.232 + ], + [ + 685.4399999999999, + 63.751999999999995 + ], + [ + 273.59999999999997, + 63.751999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Bounty On Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 341.76, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 615.36, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 615.36, + 64.365 + ], + [ + 341.76, + 64.365 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1:20-cr-lpg6dTh", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 316.8500061035156, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 600.0, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 600.0, + 62.687042236328125 + ], + [ + 316.8500061035156, + 62.687042236328125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829868" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_112.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_112.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb0cfdaa68132dea133ae4f265c459d091687c18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_112.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b3c5ec542a4ec7b0ba6d894762e16b5e6d449afdb8473dd7c0539697e3336c6a +size 7511 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_117.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_117.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..411e9a605a845ffa7f382676c641984cd96a97af --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_117.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e723dd1884b79c278ef72a0136ff168150b44669dfc73f2beaa1896002faa5c0 +size 9401 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_122.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_122.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f79013c949248753645ad53c542b5f07c9bf5702 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_122.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d1f33081a000b4343449e28a9fb2924ca40e6bb4a7465aad03b0ae31c6595477 +size 10161 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_127.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_127.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b592c7a79e6c12157dfbce0671caef3b2206e2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_2_Picture_127.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:34bfc30f03f80b9426fa34a0360d63a4d98c466daa906000713e4a4f54b7254b +size 7970 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_35.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_35.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9b6542c69e58d34cfb416b46a20bf47ad23b959 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_35.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:656deb4623aa91eca1a00b51c2e4edbf0848bf739155a28af34f3c03d212b58c +size 5605 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_37.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_37.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2de935eca94a235ceb9cd3dcd3a9cf63aa8a9d99 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_3_Picture_37.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9b0052b2c59d2f5c11953f2165dc3e7a8efbdc69f39607cdc831a5d4e91b8116 +size 21472 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ef0d66779d9d4cb029bb27bd2af64eda39c53ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0660b893319e5e3de89d256895f5aed6d14cb4dbf443a335982779ff450aae6d +size 3784 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_17.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81585536d9a3a47b180189c70a5bb97879da066c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_17.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4934c8d4e721291e60388acffee3b0f7560ee74ccfc6cfbcc65d680d90c75254 +size 3847 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_19.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9f7c0d63850e1b917c1f7a8f4e2eb92f51bcee0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_19.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d758c942a446a25f4ed1c600e44cabd5519be0c9a65cfd03eb9a7b8d25a02034 +size 2033 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b21ba9a101d8d120d9c44b7090051860bd55ee8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:649cac9490365daa4c20817524f948610d7a0d1d5cd184fed8d0f773e4a73cf5 +size 3543 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfe67fe1d435df0c91d2373e0e351709f86f8113 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ab65de4c3ce97de52a80c4e5f5f276044b8981805ad7c7df14314726bbc3bda9 +size 3764 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_23.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_23.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b624b78bdf26e709d46eaa6baa92a35d7e4033bd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_23.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3c7c745f24fc71a87bb50f323ef399ceca25b953870a25d7d1eb806337763754 +size 1309 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_25.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_25.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b56c9cdc86b16465285f5c6c3f9dc808095ec98 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_25.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:877f5a9bb1929192fac8a4bc10599fd3debc7403d1cc89ca843a18200aa88e7e +size 4092 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec1ec2eba471502f8e8993ae0db49dbe22a84400 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4aa7f8aee2704f4d1a7628c16129e708e3851128e0eb0a7b642456c532a29ecf +size 2462 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..764e4b2ee85c86470d85a23747a86d2de9c92b8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8da6124b677b2c75dc71f4fe752fca83acea51aff7a53d81e61a5e5bcf341f68 +size 3528 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6ad4f810151627f06c99799749506c7b97c4976 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829868/_page_4_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6939b89cabc40a21554b787c71308149081a340142f8e6731863fce4514ef402 +size 1693 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..698f068b4b6e2d9b71136b50cff03580998c2c7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## Exhibit R + +## Timeline of Discussions with SDNY Prosecutors + +## Maxwell's AttorneSgWei'lextfil4bgttl fiteifirciet TIM SDNY Prosecutors + +Pagliuca and SDNY prosecutors + +Pagliuca and SDNY prosecutors + +Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +, Everdell, and SDNY prosecutors meet at SDNY offices + +Jul 31 - Aug 2 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +C August 7 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +August 14 - 15 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +C August 15 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +September 3-5 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +> Everdell, Pag iuca, and SDNY prosecutors + +September 10 - 11 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors PhoneCa mail, Meetings + +October 2 Everdell and SDNY prosecutors + +> October 8 Everdell, Pagliuca, and SDNY prosecutors meet at SDNY offices + +, Everdell, and SDNY prosecutors + +Everdell, an SDNY prosecutors + +2 0 1 9 2020 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a90baa06ac113199779552bc9bcfb18638a82e85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873/EFTA02829873.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829873.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 849, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit R", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.8989562988281, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.8989562988281, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Timeline of Discussions with SDNY Prosecutors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.24, + 239.07000000000005 + ], + [ + 935.596923828125, + 239.07000000000005 + ], + [ + 935.596923828125, + 275.8454284667969 + ], + [ + 138.24, + 275.8454284667969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Maxwell's AttorneSgWei'lextfil4bgttl fiteifirciet TIM SDNY Prosecutors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.64000000000001, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 881.823974609375, + 37.393 + ], + [ + 881.823974609375, + 65.48703002929688 + ], + [ + 80.64000000000001, + 65.48703002929688 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829873" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2c6f67b3c64e9bfec0a7fa04f7cf9f9be96e344 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +## Exhibit S + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +## STATEMENT OF SECURITY CONSULTANT + +- served for 25 years in the United Kingdom military. For 15 of those years, I served in the United Kingdom Special Forces. I have worked in the security industry for ten years and have gained a level 6 Security Risk Management Consultants (SRMC) qualification, working towards a degree in Risk Management. I hold numerous instructional and operational licenses qualifying me to deliver several types of security services under the UK Security Industry Authority, including a certification to provide close protection services for individuals facing physical threats. I am a member of the Academy of Security Intelligence and Risk Studies and have owned and operated security companies in all capacities in a number of different countries. +- 2. As part of my security portfolio, I have secured global assets and have protected numerous high value persons. As an example, I was contracted to guard the UKs third richest person, according to Forbes, after he broke his agreed bail conditions with another consultant. Under my protection never escaped again and completed his high-profile court appearances to cessation. +- 3. I have provided security consultation and services for the Maxwell family for a number of years in both the United Kingdom and United States. I provided security services for Ghislaine Maxwell from approximately July 2019 through up to the time of her arrest on July 2, 2020. +- 4. Ms. Maxwell faced a number of security issues. For example, I was aware that she received a number of death threats connected to her relationship with Jeffery Epstein some 20 years previously. She was also the target of aggressive behavior by members of the press who were trying to achieve a `scoop.' This kind of behavior is not only harassing, but can be life threatening. A good example is the case of Princess Diana, who unfortunately lost her life due to + +![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg) + +press intrusion into her personal space. My consultants conduct meticulous planning and preparation to avoid such instances. + +- 5. After the announcement of Epstein's death on the 10\* August 2019, my risk assessment showed that Ghislaine Maxwell was at substantial risk. It was therefore paramount for her safety that we implement certain security protocols, which we did. +- 6. On the morning of July 2, 2020, my operative/consultant was providing security and administrative support for Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell at a residence in Bradford, New Hampshire. He had been assigned to Ms. Maxwell since approximately May 2020. I had informed that Ms. Maxwell needed security because she was being harassed by the press and had been the target of physical threats by unknown third parties. +- 7. was on duty alone on the morning of July 2, 2020. He called me twice after being disturbed at approximately 6:30am. He had heard and noticed a helicopter flying above the general area of the property. He assumed it was members of the press. He telephoned me and informed me of the situation. At this stage, we believed the press had discovered the property. I instructed that Ms. Maxwell be informed and she should be prepared to move into a safe room if any perimeters were breached. +- 8. At approximately 8:30am, noticed and subsequently reported to me that vehicles were coming up the driveway and that he had approached the vehicles to check what was happening. +- 9. again assumed it was members of the press. He reported to me that he called Ms. Maxwell on the radio to alert her that the press was on the grounds and approaching the house. +- 10. There was an established security protocol in place that Ms. Maxwell was to follow in the event that her security was threatened while she was inside the house. This protocol was communicated to when he was assigned to Ms. Maxwell, and he had reviewed it with Ms. Maxwell when he started. + +![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg) + +- 11. According to the protocol, Ms. Maxwell was to move away from the windows, if possible, and move into a safe room inside the house. This is normal protocol in these situations. A safe room typically has water, food and communications. It is also able to be locked and barricaded from the inside to ensure it gives enough time for a 911 call to be placed and the police to arrive before exposure to the threat. +- 12. reported to me immediately after Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest. He confirmed to me that after radioing Ms. Maxwell, one or two vehicles pulled up and stopped near where was standing. He was told to stop and move no further by a number of individuals who got out of the vehicles. At that time, he could see that they were federal agents because they were wearing FBI jackets and had weapons visible. The agents physically searched and questioned him. +- 13. was later taken to a vehicle where Ms. Maxwell was sitting. She asked him if he would look after the dogs and the cat, which he agreed to do. 14.1 understand that, as part of her renewed bail application, Ms. Maxwell is proposing a substantial bail package that will include the following conditions, among others: (i) Ms. Maxwell will surrender all of her travel documents, and (ii) she will be subject to home confinement with electronic GPS monitoring. I also understand that, upon release, Ms. Maxwell will be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by our security teams. +- 15. In light of the proposed bail package and the strict conditions of her confinement post-release, as well as our long-standing relationship with Ms. Maxwell, my company will be posting a SI million bond in support of her bail application. 16.1 have never once posted a bond for a client in the past. I am happy to post a bond for Ms. Maxwell in light of the factors discussed above and my relationship with her, because I am confident that she will not try to flee. + +![](_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg) + +All of the above is true and to the best of my knowledge + +Signed: + +![](_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg) + +25/11/2020 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac05223b1206b2d128fb41e8fad72620bcefda70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/EFTA02829876.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 6107, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit S", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 409.0071105957031, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 409.0071105957031, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATEMENT OF SECURITY CONSULTANT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 135.790283203125 + ], + [ + 469.13421630859375, + 135.790283203125 + ], + [ + 469.13421630859375, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 149.85000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 10 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829876" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72230ef3d5e2740cae7f53ebaf3bc889c03937ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1ad019190364ede6a82bedda1e32f6f0edb5bb4b8bf241f102dad8bcd163d891 +size 6120 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59ad2951f153e07bf7ab1b4d95d9c485f6077c89 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3ad7c0041d04b8e108fbff3013b25a1af22f42a54e9991f1d9bfac9dede52e14 +size 6332 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81609583b4a7d3fdc622be3c472473ef05a3aff5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e07fd4d61b24fa0ad5672f5a30b1dd08aef0ef50b5c60fddcc32f06e4a114cb8 +size 5753 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54fbe56219d7807b91ba74c4298891f350adffe3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:07375fab5aea6880a60dfa95f18004ca41f6206869560aca8679c6aef0f6074d +size 6401 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b22ac8a9277041dc43e6223b3f5c03f2f0e1eadb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:020323ed38f742e8b2807a4e5f74b8101be3a88a5941e63043ccfe60736c219a +size 5340 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e128768bbb62a48005047c8d5593406ab43b7ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4facc467ee3417db4ae4fe45898fdd212e903dcf0327c0e46462e19625f51319 +size 6259 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e93dd519a64bb4e9de8c027ac8e8340d281dab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c5354c9a05210549f583de7c72cdec7212da56aabcea15753486c647ff079572 +size 5742 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c17c380292e172c927dc137b3ea2cebe25f80bb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:19437f8f0ca2db6a6422716ad5f113fce601a87a45e773d6abc33244e33e9bad +size 6280 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7d90303f7ba7ca68398b2ec49bf694c45fd2d79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829876/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4f1d137ca47fe5cb7ac7e6ed1e6f2b13b58bcf9f3d63d7f0b6ec3a14fed7f032 +size 3609 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..490ccd478a0f397297cd7f5e43d77c30a2e11829 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +## Exhibit T + +# Waiver of Extradition: United Kingdom + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +- against - + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Docket No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) + +#### AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION + +Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: + +I. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. + +2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. and Christian R. Everdell of & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and United Kingdom counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act 2003 (the "Act"), which gives effect to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (the "Treaty"). I understand that, in proceedings in the United Kingdom under the Act in respect of an extradition request by the United States under the Treaty in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to the United States. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be + +surrendered to the United States authorities unless and until a court in the United Kingdom issues a ruling finding that there are no bars to my extradition. + +3. If I am released on bail in connection with the Indictment, I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably waive any rights to contest any extradition request by the United States under the Treaty with respect to the offenses charged in the Indictment. Specifically, I consent to extradition pursuant to Part 2 sections 127 and 128 of the Act in connection with the offenses charged in the Indictment. In addition, to the extent that it might be relevant, I waive any rights to assert that any bars to extradition apply, and I confirm that no such bars apply. + +4. In the event that I violate my bail conditions after being released, I understand that the purpose of this affidavit is for the government to offer it to the authorities in the United Kingdom when my extradition is sought by the United States government in relation to the charges in the Indictment. I understand that the United Kingdom authorities may use this affidavit to assist in determining my extraditability. + +5. I make this waiver freely and voluntarily, after having consulted with counsel. Dated this day of December 2020. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +I hereby certify that on this day of December 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell personally appeared before me and made his oath in due form of law that the statements herein are true. + +> The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York + +# Waiver of Extradition: France + +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +- against - + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Docket No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) + +#### AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION + +Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: + +I. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. + +2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. and Christian R. Everdell of & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under law on extradition, under the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and France signed 23 April 1996 (the "Treaty") , under the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed 25 June 2003 (the "USA/EU Agreement on Extradition"), under the Instrument Amending the Treaty of April 23, 1996 between the United States of America and France signed 30 September 2004 (the "Instrument Amending the Treaty"), and under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I understand that, in proceedings in France under the aforementioned provisions in respect of an extradition request by the United States + +under the Treaty as amended by the Instrument Amending the Treaty and/or under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to the United States on the ground of my citizenship. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be surrendered to the United States authorities unless and until a court in France issues a ruling finding that there are no bars to my extradition, followed by an extradition decree issued by the government. + +3. If I am released on bail in connection with the Indictment, I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably waive any rights to contest any extradition request by the United States under the Treaty as amended by the Instrument Amending the Treaty as well as under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition with respect to the offenses charged in the Indictment. Specifically, I consent to extradition in accordance with Article 11 of the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition as incorporated in the Treaty by the Instrument Amending the Treaty, in connection with the offenses charged in the Indictment. In addition, to the extent that it might be relevant, I waive any rights to assert that any bars to extradition apply, and I confirm that no such bars apply. + +4. In the event that I violate my bail conditions after being released, I understand that the purpose of this affidavit is for the government to offer it to the authorities in France when my extradition is sought by the United States government in relation to the charges in the Indictment. I understand that France authorities may use this affidavit to assist in determining my extraditability. + +5. I make this waiver freely and voluntarily, after having consulted with counsel. + +Dated this day of December 2020. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +I hereby certify that on this \_ day of December 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell personally appeared before me and made her oath in due form of law that the statements herein are true. + +> The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0431bfaf0fe9a9dde638241c0ff1c5d38fba7afa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881/EFTA02829881.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,458 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829881.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 6658, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit T", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 408.515380859375, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 408.515380859375, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Waiver of Extradition: United Kingdom", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 524.484, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 524.484, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 317.52 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF \nEXTRADITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 505.3321533203125, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 505.3321533203125, + 211.863037109375 + ], + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 211.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Waiver of Extradition: \nFrance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 534.878173828125, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 534.878173828125, + 318.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 318.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 280.2991943359375, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 280.2991943359375, + 98.60302734375 + ], + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 98.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF \nEXTRADITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 323.74800000000005, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 504.5821533203125, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 504.5821533203125, + 210.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 323.74800000000005, + 210.43353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829881" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88f7a4423e7082a6f735c7c53ffeac89ab3e7989 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.md @@ -0,0 +1,498 @@ +# Exhibit U + +#### IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION ON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES + +RE GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +#### Overview + +- 1. This Opinion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLPI dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waiver of her right to extradition that could be exhibited to a future extradition request made by the United States and relied upon in any extradition proceedings. The specific questions asked by Peters and Peters are attached at Annex A. A summary of counsel's relevant experience is attached at Annex B. The waiver is attached at Annex C. +- 2. In summary: + - (a) Extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom are governed by the Extradition Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act') and, in general, comprise; (i) a hearing before a designated 'appropriate judge' (the extradition hearing); and (ii) an appeal, subject to a leave requirement. + - (b) In proceedings under the 2003 Act, a requested person may consent to their extradition which has the effect of removing the need for an extradition hearing and waiving the person's statutory appeal rights. + - (c) In the majority of cases, proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition requests are concluded in under two years2. The process is significantly shorter if the requested person consents to their extradition and in those cases the timescales are approximately between one and three months. + - (d) It is extremely unlikely that bail would be granted in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person had absconded from criminal proceedings in the United States prior to trial and in breach of bail. + +The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell, dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defendant dated 2 July 2020; (d) the Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Detention dated 10 July 2020; (e) and the Government Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention dated 13 July 2020. + +2 There is no data as to the duration of extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland and Scotland but it may be inferred that the timescales arc similar. + +- (e) On the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020. + +### The extradition arrangements + +- 3. Extradition relations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America are governed by an extradition treaty signed on 31 March 20033, which is given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom4 by the 2003 Acts. + +# Overview of the extradition process + +- 4. The United States of America has been designated as a 'Part 2 territory' (also referred to as a 'Category 2 territory') for the purposes of the 2003 Act`. The effect of this designation is that extradition requests from the United States fall to be considered under Part 2 of the 2003 Act', and the United States is exempted from the requirement to provide evidence sufficient to make a case to answer against the requested person ('the prima facie case requirement')8. +- 5. Once a valid9 request for extradition is made by a Part 2 territory, the Secretary of State must, subject to very limited exceptions1 ' not applicable here, issue a certificate under section 70. Once a certificate is issued, the Secretary of State must send the request and certificate to the appropriate judge. In practice, it is extremely rare for the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a certificate under section 70. +- 6. Under Part 2 of the 2003 Act, a requested person may be arrested pursuant to either a full extradition request", or a provisional request pending the service of a full extradition request12. In both cases, there is an 'initial hearing' at which the requested person is produced before 'the appropriate judgei13 + +3 Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, signed 31 March 2003 and ratified on 26 April 2007. + +4 The Extradition Act 2003 governs extradition to and from the United Kingdom. The Act applies in the three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom: (a) England and Wales; (b) Scotland; and (c) Northern Ireland. There are limited regional variations of which the only one of relevance to this Opinion is that the forum bar in s. 83A of the 2003 Act (see para. [34] below) is not yet in force in Scotland. + +Extradition Act 2003, c.41, given Assent on 20 November 2003. + +6 Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, Art. 2. + +7 Extradition Act 2003, s. 69. + +8 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 84(7) and 86(7). + +9 The conditions governing whether a request is valid are in ss. 70(3)-(4A) and (7) of the 2003 Act. + +la These relate to cases where: (a) there is a competing extradition request from another state (ss. 70(2Xa) and 126); and (b) the requested person has been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK (s. 70(2Xti) and (c)). + +IIExtradition Act 2003, s. 71. + +17 Extradition Act 2003, s. 73. + +13 As defined ins. 139 of the Extradition Act 2003. + +who must consider, amongst other things, whether to remand the person in custody or on bail". In cases where the person appears before the court pursuant to a full extradition request, the judge must set a date for the extradition hearing to begin's. In provisional arrest cases, this date is set after the full request is served which, in US extradition cases, must be within 65 days of arrest". + +- 7. At the extradition hearing, the appropriate judge must decide: (a) whether the extradition request meets certain technical requirements17; (b) whether the person appearing before the judge is the person whose extradition is requested18; (c) whether the offence(s) specified in the extradition request are extradition offence(s)19; (d) whether there are any bars to extradition20; (e) whether extradition would be compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR') within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 199821; and, where applicable, (0 whether extradition would be oppressive by reason of the person's mental or physical condition22. +- 8. If the appropriate judge decides all the statutory questions in favour of the requesting government, then they must send the case to the Secretary of Staten who must decide whether any of the bars to extradition that she must consider24 apply. These bars are different to those considered by the appropriate judge. The Secretary of State has no power to consider any human rights objections to extradition33. If she decides that no bars apply, she must order the person's extradition,26 subject to very limited exceptions which are not applicable here27. + +" Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7Xc) and 74(7)(c). + +13 Extradition Act 2003, s. 75. + +16 Extradition Act 2003, s. 74(1 1)(b) and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, Art. 4. + +12 Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(2). The request must contain: (a) the documents specified in s. 70(9) (the extradition request and the Secretary of State's certificate); (b) particulars of the offence(s) specified in the request; (c) an arrest warrant or a certificate of conviction and, where applicable, sentence. The judge must also decide whether the relevant documentation has been served on the requested person: s. 87(4Xc). + +IS Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(4Xa). + +14 Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(4Xb). + +20 The bars to extradition are: (a) the rule against double jeopardy (s. 80); (b) extraneous considerations (s. 81); (c) passage of time (s. 82); (d) hostage-taking considerations (s. 83); and (e) forum (s. 83A). The bars to extradition arc considered further at pants. 26 to 35 below. + +21 Section 87. The rights undcr the ECHR apply to every person within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: ECHR, Art. I. + +22 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91. + +23 Extradition Act 2003, s. 87(3). + +24 The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider arc: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95); (c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A). + +25 Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(11). + +- 9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both, except in consent cases where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appeal. Where the requested person is discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may appeal the decision to discharge10. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal31. +- 10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court32. Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss it33. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court". +- II. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined33. Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR76, are also very rare. + +26 Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4). + +27 The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4Ra)); (b) there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security (s. 208). + +28 Extradition Act 2003, u.103 and 108. + +29 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(2) and 108(2). + +38 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 105 and 110. + +31Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules ('CrimPR'), r. 50.17(4)0). + +32 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(4). + +33 Extradition Act 2003, s. 115(1). + +S1Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487. + +" ECHFt, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights. Rules of the Court, r. 39. + +36 ECHR, Art. 34. + +- 12. The timescales applicable to extradition proceedings arc defined by statute and arc set out in Annex D, along with the circumstances in which the time-limits can be extended. +- 13. There are few publicly available figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude17. In practice, contested US extradition cases can take longer than 10 months, although the majority conclude within two years. +- 14. These timescales are significantly reduced in cases such as this one where the requested person consents to his or her extradition at an early stage in the process. In those cases, extradition would be likely to take place within three months. + +### B. Consent to extradition + +- 15. At the initial hearing where a requested person is first produced before the court, the appropriate judge is required to give them "the required information about consent"". This information is: (a) that the person may consent to extradition; (b) an explanation of the effect of consent and the procedure that will apply if consent is given; and (c) that consent must be given in writing and is irrevocable19. +- 16. Where consent is given before the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, it must be given at a hearing before the appropriate judge10. Once the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, consent must be given to the Secretary of State01. +- 17. Where consent is given before the case is sent to the Secretary of State, the consequences are as follows: + - (a) If the appropriate judge has not fixed a date for the extradition hearing, they are not required to do SO42. + - (b) If the extradition hearing has begun, the appropriate judge is no longer required to proceed with it43; + +b1 HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94. + +" Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7)(b) and 74(7)(b). + +" Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(8) and 74(8). + +J0 Extradition Act 2003, s. 127(4), (6)47). + +41Extradition Act 2003, s.127(5). + +42 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(2). + +43 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(3). + +- (c) The appropriate judge is required to send the case to the Secretary of State; +- (d) The speciality bar to extradition no longer applies45. +- 18. In all extradition cases, a requested person who consents to extradition loses the right to appeal against either the decision to send the case to the Secretary of State or the order for extradition46. +- 19. The main effect of a decision by a requested person to consent to extradition is that the overall extradition procedure is substantially shortened. In the context of US extradition cases, this means that removal can take place within months, sometimes weeks, as compared to the longer timescales considered above. + +#### C. Bail in extradition cases + +- 20. Where extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person for an offence, the person has the same right to bail as a defendant in domestic criminal proceedings, namely there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 applies° . The three exceptions in Schedule 1 that most commonly apply in extradition proceedings are where there are substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if released on bail, would: (a) fail to surrender to custody; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. +- 21. In considering whether to grant bail in an extradition case, the appropriate judge must have regard to as many of the statutory considerations as appear to be relevant° . Those considerations are: (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the requested person; (c) the requested person's record as respects the fulfilment of their obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) the strength of the evidence against the requested person; and (e) any risk that the requested person may cause physical to mental injury to another person. +- 22. The approach taken by the High Court in a number of recent US bail appeals gives an indication as to the way in which the statutory considerations are approached in practice. In all five cases bail was refused". + +44 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(4). + +i5 Extradition Act 2003, s.95(2). The principle of specialty is a rule of extradition law that is intended to ensure that an extradited person is not dealt with in the requesting state for any offence other than that for which they have been extradited. + +46 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 100(2), 103(2) and 108(2). + +47 Bail Act 1976, s. 4(2A). There is no presumption of bail where extradition is sought in a conviction case: s. 4(2B). + +44 Bail Act 1976, Schedule I, para. 2(1). + +49 Bail Act 1976, Schedule I. para. 9. + +30 Adeacho v Government of the United States of America, 5 August 2020 (unreported) (wire fraud, money laundering and identity theft); Singh v Government of the United States of America 12019] EWHC 1800 (Admin) (drug trafficking); + +In three of the five cases the applicant was either a British citizen or had significant community and family tics to the UK5I but these were outweighed by the risk of flight, and in the other case, the lack of substantial community ties was cited as a factor in refusing bails2. + +- 23. As to the question in Peters and Peters' instructions, namely whether a person who absconded from US criminal proceeding in breach of bail would be likely to be granted bail in any subsequent UK extradition proceedings, such a person is extremely unlikely to be granted bail. While every bail application falls to be considered by reference to all the circumstances that are relevant at the time that the application is made, in practice evidence of both a clear desire to evade prosecution for the offences in the extradition request, and a previous history of failure to comply with bail conditions, would militate strongly against the grant of bail in almost all factual circumstances. + +# D. The bars to extradition that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020 + +- 24. The offences in the superseding indictment are extradition offences within the meaning of section 137 of the Extradition Act 200353. +- 25. On the basis of the information available, there does not appear to be any arguable basis upon which the bars of double jeopardy3°; hostage-taking considerations"; death penalty56; speciality"; or earlier extradition or transfer could be engaged58. +- 26. On the information available, the remaining bars abuse of process/political motivation; passage of time; forum; and mental and physical condition - would almost certainly fail in this case. + +fn 44, (kidnapping); Ahdullah v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 2609 (Admin) (fraud); Government of the United States of America r Panotus [2018] EWHC 921 (Admin) (fraud). + +5I Ahdulfalr• Panovas;M; and Adeagho. + +52 Singh. + +"Had the conduct alleged occurred in the United Kingdom it would have amounted offences that include: (a) conspiracy to commit indecent assault contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1967; (b) aiding and abetting or inciting indecent assault contrary to common law; (c) indecent assault contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1957; and (d) perjury contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. + +54 Extradition Act 2003, s. 80. This bar is engaged "if (and only ij) it appears that [the person] would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction if he were charged with the extradition offence in the part of the United Kingdom where the judge exercises his jurisdiction". + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 83. One of the requirements of this bar is that the act or omission constituting the extradition offence also constitutes an offence under s. I of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 which prohibits the taking of hostages in the context of international terrorism. + +56Extradition Act 2003, s. 94. + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 95. See fn 46 above for a definition of 'specialty'. + +" Extradition Act 2003, ss. 96 and 96A. + +- 27. Extradition requests arc rarely discharged on the basis that the case in the requesting state is politically motivated or abusive. It is well established that there is a presumption of good faith in relation to a requesting state, such as the US, which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with the United KingdomS9 +- 28. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to establish that the US prosecutor had acted in bad faith, for example by seeking her extradition for a collateral motive in circumstances where they knew there was no real case against her60. +- 29. It is also highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her extradition was sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing her on account of her political opinions, or that she might be prejudiced at her trial or punished, detained or restricted in her personal liberty by reason of those opinions° . + +#### Passage of time + +- 30. Notwithstanding the date of the allegations in the superseding indictment, a judge is unlikely to conclude that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Ms Maxwell by reason of the passage of time since the alleged commission of the offences° . The courts have upheld orders for extradition in cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell's case, including two cases involving historic allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the courts placed emphasis on the public interest in ensuring that extradition arrangements were honoured and in ensuring that serious allegations were tried63. +- 31. As to oppression, the graver the offence the higher the threshold for oppressionTM. Given the seriousness of the offences in Ms Maxwell's case, it is unlikely that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public + +" Ahmed v United Kinrclont(2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. + +R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. + +01Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. + +62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range for the offences in the superseding indictment is 1994-1997. + +63 Short v Falkland Islands [2020] I WLR 1644, pmts. 41-49 and— a•snrwmttroAusrmlia c f [2015] EWHC 1421 (Admin). pares. 19-26. + +" Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 at 784. + +65 Oppression requires personal or family hardship greater than that inevitably inherent in the act of extradition when facing what is likely to be long criminal trial process in another country Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] I WLR 1038, para. 36.Norris v Government of United States of America [2007] I WLR 1730. + +interest in these offences being tried° . Similarly, there is a high threshold in relation to injustice67, and it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to meet it. There is a general presumption that justice will be done despite the passage of time and the burden is on the requested person to establish the contrary° . In assessing injustice, the appropriate judge would have regard to the procedural safeguards that exist under US domestic law69. Further, the judge is very likely to place weight on the fact that Ms Maxwell had, in the hypothetical scenario under consideration, absconded from ongoing proceedings that would otherwise have resulted in her trial in the US. As the English High Court expressed it in Taman "the vety fact that the accused invokes justice to prevent [their] extradition requires consideration of the circumstances which have led to the fact that [they are] not facing justice in the country from which (they have] fled"7°. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of passage of time to defeat extradition. + +#### Forum + +- 32. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of forum, which applies where extradition would not be in the interests of justice because: (a) a substantial measure of the requested person's 'relevant activity" occurred in the UK; and (b) having regard to 'the specified matters'] relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), the extradition should not take placeJ3. +- 33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in London", three of the 'specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the offending73 alleged in the superseding indictment occurred in the United States. An extradition judge would treat + +66 Kakis at 784. Although the passage of time bar was successfully relied on in the US extradition case of Eason v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin) the case-law is clear that a fact-specific enquiry is required. and that authorities are of "very limited value" when considering the facts of individual cases: Steblins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13. + +67 Gomes. para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of 8ialvstock (Polan41[2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), pare. 9. + +65 Gomes para. 36. + +69 Woodcock v Government of New Zealand (2004] I WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes. para. 32; Linkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania 2006 EWHC 3481 (Admin) at para. 17; and Crean v Government of Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin) at para. 21; pans. 19-26. + +-I° Government of the United States of America v Tollman [2008] EWHC 184 (Admin), para. 53. + +71 Relevant activity' means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and is alleged to have been performed by the requested person: Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(6). + +72 As defined ins. 83A(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. + +73 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(I) and (2). + +" Superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020, pan. 6. + +75 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). + +this as a weighty factor". Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims" would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the interests of victims" "will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so" 70. Third, Ms Maxwell's connections to the UK80 do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context. + +#### Mental and physical condition + +34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the 'unjust' category relate to the persons' fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily sumtountable" and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient"'. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be providedTM, or an undertaking to return an individual if they arc later found to be unfit to plead", and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person's medical problems. + +76 love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28. + +88 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). + +78 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). + +VUnited States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell's bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40. + +80 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g). + +E1Extradition Act 2003, s. 91. + +22Love v Government of the United States para. 122. + +81Dewani v Government of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73. + +Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37. + +ss Deivani. + +# E. The human rights objections that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020 + +35. Finally, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to demonstrate that her extradition would be incompatible with her rights under the ECHR86. The human rights grounds that might potentially be relied upon by Ms Maxwell are considered in the paragraphs that follow87. + +### Article 3 Unison conditions) + +36. Article 3 protects the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The test is whether substantial grounds have been shown that, if extradited, the person faces a "real risk" of treatment contrary to Article 388. The test is a stringent one and a strong case is required to make good a violation of Article 389. Mistreatment must attain a minimum level of severity before Article 3 is engaged. Prison conditions can meet that test although, whether they do, depends on all the circumstances, including the personal characteristics of the detainee90. Although Article 3 complaints based on prison conditions are not uncommon in US cases, the courts have repeatedly rejected such submissions91 92. Further, even if there were to be a case where the systemic conditions at one or more US detention facilities were found to give rise to a serious risk that Article 3 would be breached by extradition, such difficulties are capable of being surmounted by the provision of assurances that the requested person will not be detained in those particular prisons, or by giving guarantees in relation to + +86 Extradition Act 2003, s. 87. + +87 There does not appear to be any basis upon which it could be said that the following rights arc engaged: (a) Art. 2 (the right to life); (b) Art. 4 (freedom from slavery); (c) Art. 5 (unlawful detention); An. 7 (no punishment without law); Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion); Art. 10 (freedom of speech); Art. 11 (freedom of assembly); Art. 12 (the right to many); Art. 14 (discrimination); Arts. 1-3 of the First Protocol (protection of property; right to education; right to free elections); and Art. I of the Thirteenth Protocol (abolition of the death penalty). + +t`ISoering v United Kingdom(1989) 11 EHRR 439, pares. 88 and 91. + +89 Elashmany v Court of Brescia. Ita(y and On[2015] EWHC 28 (Admin), para. 49. + +9° Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, para. 162. + +91 Including: Ahmad v United Kingdom (2013) 56 EHRR I. pants. 207-210; Pham v Government of the United States of America [2014] EWHC 4167 (Admin), pans 44-51- Bedwell v Government of the United States [2019] EWHC 3131 (Admin), para. 36- Demostv. paras. 35-50; v Government of the United States of Amerim [2020] EWHC 508 (Admin); and afra, para. 41. + +92 The conditions at the New York detention facilities, MDC and MCC were a factor in the court's conclusion in Les (sec fn 76 above) that extradition would be oppressive in light of Mr Love's "rather particular circumstances" which included a serious health condition (pans 102 and 106-108). The decision in Love was based on section 91 of the 2003 Act, and the court made no finding under Article 3 (para 123). In Hafeez which was decided in January 2020, the High Court received the same evidence as has been before the court in /gm, and concluded that "the evidence in this case falls well short of the necessary threshold" to prove a breach of Article 3 based on the conditions at MDC and MCC (see flafeez v Government of the United States of Americo [2020] EWHC 155 (Admin), para. 66). + +specific concerns, such as access to medical care. In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on Article 3 to defeat a request for her extradition. + +### Ankle 6 (/air trial) + +37. Article 6 ECHR protects the right to a fair trial, and the European Court of Human Rights has noted that Article 6 is "strikingly similar" to the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution". An issue may exceptionally be raised under Article 6 in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country95. The test of 'flagrant denial' is particularly high, requiring a court to find not only that the trial would be unfair, but that there would be "a total nullification of the right to a fair trial "A6 In practice, this threshold is rarely overcome in extradition cases and it has never been met in a US extradition case. In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to successfully invoke Article 6 to resist her extradition. + +### Ankle 8 (private and family life) + +38. Article 8 ECHR protects the right to private and family life. In assessing Article 8, the court is required to conduct a balancing exercise where factors in favour of extradition, including the "constant and weighty" public interests in honouring extradition treaties and ensuring that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial, are weighed against any personal or other factors that would render extradition an interreference with private or family life. The test is whether any interference would be disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by extradition". In practice, the more serious the offence, the more difficult it is to establish that extradition would be disproportionate. Given the nature of the charges that she faces, it is highly unlikely that such an argument would succeed in Ms Maxwell's case. + +#### Conclusion + +39. In conclusion, if the United States were to request Ms Maxwell's extradition in circumstances where she had absconded to the United Kingdom in breach of bail conditions imposed in the United States, it is extremely unlikely that she would be granted bail and highly unlikely that she would be able + +" See, for example. Miao at para. 37 where the court stated that: "Assurances are commonly given in extradition cases in order to mitigate risks which might otherwise bar extradition. it is common for assurances to be given in respect of conditions of detention and the treatment of physical and mental illness (and associated suicide prevention) and they form an important part of extradition law". + +Alimad v United Kingdom SI EHRR SE6, para. 133. + +Othman v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR I, para. 258. + +96 Othman. para. 260. + +97R (on the application of Hifi v Westminster Cie,Magistrate? Court [2013] 1 AC 338, para. 30. + +successfully to resist the request for her extradition. Further, the waiver of her right to extradition (Annex C) would be admissible in any extradition proceedings and, in cases, such as this one, where the requested person consents to their extradition, the extradition process is likely to take between one and three months to complete. + +> David 6KBW College + +8 October 2020 + +# Annex A + +#### Annex A — Questions set out in the Peters and Peters instructions dated 12 Aueust 2020 + +Counsel is instructed to prepare an expert opinion in respect of the following: + +- (a) Outline the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States, including an overview of the general manner in which the arrangements work and the general timeframe for UK extradition proceedings in relation to requests from the US. Address any means by which UK extradition proceedings may be expedited. +- (b) Describe the manner in which a requested person may consent to extradition (at all stages of the extradition process), and the impact of any such consent on the process by which the requested person may be subsequently removed. +- (c) Outline the arrangements in respect of bail pending extradition, and whether a requested person is likely to be remanded on bail pending the hearing of an extradition request by the US, and any subsequent removal of that person from the UK. In a case where a person, subject to prosecution in US criminal proceedings, flees to the UK in breach of bail conditions imposed by a US court, outline the likelihood of that person being remanded on bail in the UK pending the hearing of the extradition request, and their subsequent removal from the UK. +- (d) Outline the bars to extradition, and identify those which might, based on current instructions, be conceivably open to Ms Maxwell were she to be arrested in the UK and subject to UK extradition proceedings pursuant to a request from the US, such as passage of time (section 82), forum (section 83A) and physical or mental condition (section 91). Address, in general terms, the prospects of Ms Maxwell successfully availing herself of any such bars, given the current approach in UK extradition caselaw and the general thresholds required. +- (e) Outline the nature of the obligation for any extradition to be compatible with the requested person's human rights (section 87) and identify those arguments that might conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell in any future extradition proceedings, such as Article 3 and Article 6. Address, in general terms, the prospects of Ms Maxwell successfully availing herself of any such bars, given the current approach in UK extradition case-law and the general thresholds required. + +# Annex B + +# Annex R — CV of David OC + +# 1. David QC + +1.1. David QC is a barrister and former head of at 61O3W College From 1991 to 1997, he was one of the Standing Counsel to the Department of Trade and Industry. From 1997 to 2001, he was Junior Treasury Counsel to the Crown at the Central Criminal Court and Senior Treasury Counsel from 2001 until 2006, when he 'took silk' (i.e. was appointed Queen's Counsel). He is a deputy High Court Judge and a judge of the Court of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey. + +1.2. Mr prosecutes and defends and has extensive experience of extradition and mutual legal assistance cases, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Criminal Law Review and a joint editor of Blackstone's Criminal Practice, a leading practitioners' work. + +### 2. Extradition — Experience and Expertise + +2.1. Mr is widely considered one of the UK's pre-eminent extradition practitioners and is listed as such in the leading industry journals. He has acted on behalf of many overseas governments and appeared in the High Court, House of Lords and Supreme Court in the leading cases. He has acted as an expert consultant to the Commonwealth Secretariat on international co-operation and has advised overseas governments on the drafting and implementation of their domestic legislation. + +#### 3. Independent review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements + +3.1. In 2011/12, together with Lord Justice Scott Baker and Anand Doobay, Mr was appointed by the UK Government to conduct the Home Office's Independent Review of the UK's extradition arrangements. The review formed the basis of changes to the Extradition Act 2003. + +- 3.2. The year-long review looked in detail at the following five areas: + - the Home Secretary's discretionary powers to stop extradition. + - the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, which deals with extradition requests between European countries. + - where a crime is mainly committed in the UK, whether the person should be tried in the UK. + - whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced. +- whether requesting countries should be required to provide sufficient evidence to prove an allegation. 3.3. The report, totalling 488 pages and presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011, made a series of recommendations in respect of the UK's extradition arrangements. Part 7 of the report looked specifically at extradition arrangements between the United States and United Kingdom under the 2003 UK-US Treaty on Extradition. It assessed the effectiveness of the tests used in each jurisdiction and laid out the authors' observations on the procedures under the treaty. Their conclusion was that the 2003 treaty was operating fairly and there was no basis to seek its renegotiation. + +### 4. Practical Experience + +- 4.1. Mr has acted for governments and individuals in the most important and highprofile extradition matters, including extradition requests between the United Kingdom and the United States: + - USA v Mackellar: Acted on behalf of the Governor of the Cayman Islands in extradition proceedings brought on behalf of the Government of the United States. + - USA v Brian Dempsey [2020] EWHC 603 (Admin): Appeared for the Government of the United States in relation to an extradition request for an individual who had travelled to Syria as part of the on-going conflict. + - Russia v Alexander Zmikhnovskiy Westminster Magistrates Court, 15 April 2019 (unreported): Extradition request of former CEO of Oboronenergosbyt JSC, who was alleged to have been involved in fraud by the Russian Federation, his extradition was refused on several grounds. + - Russia v Yurov, Westminster Magistrates Court, 28 September 2018 (unreported): Appeared for Ilya Yurov, former Chairman of a large Russian bank and previously accused of fraud, to successfully resist an extradition request from Russia. + - Russia v A: Instructed to advise A in respect of a prospective extradition request from Russia. The issues in the case relate to prison conditions, health, and fair trial. + - R (HH) v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] UKSC 25; [2012] 3 WLR 90: one of the leading cases on the application of Article 8 ECHR in extradition proceedings + - Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9; [2010] 2 AC 487: Represented the Government of the United States in the Supreme Court in the leading case on the application of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in extradition proceedings. + - Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920: Represented the Government of the United States in the House of Lords in the leading case on cartels and competition law, and the requirement of double criminality in extradition proceedings. + - R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] EWHC 200 (Admin); [2007] QB 727: the extradition of the `Natwest Three', one of the first cases US cases to proceed under the Extradition Act 2003. + +# Annex C + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +- against - + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Docket No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) + +#### AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION + +Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: + +I. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. + +2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. and Christian R. Everdell of & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and United Kingdom counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act 2003 (the "Act"), which gives effect to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (the "Treaty"). I understand that, in proceedings in the United Kingdom under the Act in respect of an extradition request by the United States under the Treaty in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to the United States. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be + +surrendered to the United States authorities unless and until a court in the United Kingdom issues a ruling finding that there are no bars to my extradition. + +3. If I am released on bail in connection with the Indictment, I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably waive any rights to contest any extradition request by the United States under the Treaty with respect to the offenses charged in the Indictment. Specifically, I consent to extradition pursuant to Part 2 sections 127 and 128 of the Act in connection with the offenses charged in the Indictment. In addition, to the extent that it might be relevant, I waive any rights to assert that any bars to extradition apply, and I confirm that no such bars apply. + +4. In the event that I violate my bail conditions after being released, I understand that the purpose of this affidavit is for the government to offer it to the authorities in the United Kingdom when my extradition is sought by the United States government in relation to the charges in the Indictment. I understand that the United Kingdom authorities may use this affidavit to assist in determining my extraditability. + +5. I make this waiver freely and voluntarily, after having consulted with counsel. Dated this day of December 2020. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +I hereby certify that on this day of December 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell personally appeared before me and made his oath in due fonn of law that the statements herein are true. + +> The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York + +# Annex D + +#### Annex D — time-limits in relation to US extradition requests under the lAtraddion Act 2003 + +| Stage | Time-limit | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Preliminary stages | | +| Certification of the extradition request | No statutory time-limit 1

Comment [1]: there is no consistent practice as to the length of time that it takes to certify an extradition request. Some requests are certified within days; in other cases, certification takes several months. Requests are certified more quickly in cases where the US authorities request expedition | +| The sending of the request and the certificate to the extradition judge | No statutory time-limit 2

Comment [2]: in practice, the documents are usually sent to the appropriate judge on the same day that the request is certified | +| Arrest under a provisional warrant | The requested person must be brought before the extradition judge "as soon as practicable" after arrest, unless bail is granted by the arresting officer 3

The full extradition request must be served within 65 days 4

Comment [3]: bail is rarely granted prior to the requested person's production in court and never in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service objects to bail | +| Arrest pursuant to a full extradition request | The requested person must be brought before the extradition judge "as soon as practicable" after arrest, unless bail is granted by the arresting officer 5

Comment [4]: see Comment [3] | + +I Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(1). + +2 Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(9). + +3 Extradition Act 2003, s. 74(3). + +Extradition Act 2003, s. 74(11)(b) and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, An. 2. + +5 Extradition Act 2003, s. 72(3). + +| Sending the case to the Secretary of State | No statutory time-limit6 State straight away | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Order for extradition Two months of the date on which the case is sent to the | Secretary of State person before ordering extradition: section 93(7) | +| Removal 28 days of the order for extradition' Cases where there is an extradition hearing The date of the extradition hearing (provisional arrest) | | +| parties where the judge considers it to be | "in the interests of | +| justice" to fix a later | date. The time-limit can be extended more than once' | +| "opens" The date of the extradition hearing (arrest pursuant to a | the extradition hearing at the initial hearing with the effect that this time-limit ceases to run | +| parties where the judge considers it to be full request) | "in the interests of | +| justice" to fix | a later date. The time-limit can be extended more than once10 | +| "opens" | the extradition hearing at the initial hearing with the effect that this time-limit ceases to run | + +6 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128. + +7 Extradition Act 2003, s. 99(3). + +3 Extradition Act 2003, s. 117(2Xa). + +9 Extradition Act 2003, s. 76(3)-(4). + +1° Extradition Act 2003, s. 75(2)-(3). + +| Sending the case to the Secretary of State | No statutory time-limit 11

Comment [9]: in practice, the judge sends the case to the Secretary of State straight away | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Order for extradition | Two months of the date on which the case is sent to the Secretary of State 12

Extradition may not be ordered during the first four weeks of this period ('the permitted period') to allow the requested person to make representations 13 | +| Cases where there is no appeal | | +| Removal | 28 days starting with: (a) the day on which the requested person is informed that an order for extradition has been made (in cases where no in-time appeal is lodged); or (b) the day on which leave to appeal is refused by the High Court 14 | +| Cases where there is an appeal | | +| Lodging an application for permission to appeal a decision to send the case to the Secretary of State | Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the day on which the requested person was informed of the Secretary of State's decision to order extradition 15

This time-limit may be extended if the person "did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be given" 16 | +| Lodging an application for permission to appeal against an order for extradition | Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the day on which the requested person was informed of the Secretary of State's decision to order extradition 17 | + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 87. + +12 Extradition Act 2003, s. 99(3). + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(5)-(6). + +14 Extradition Act 2003, s. 117(1H2). + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 103(9). + +"Extradition Act 2003, s. 103(10). + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. 108(4)00. + +| | An application may be lodged out of time only where it appears to the High Court that (a) the appeal is necessary to avoid real injustice, and the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate for the appeal to be heard; or (b) the person did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be given 18 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Lodging an application for permission to appeal against discharge at the extradition hearing | Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the day on which the order for discharge was made 19

This time-limit may not be extended | +| Lodging an application for permission to appeal against discharge by the Secretary of State | Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the day on which the requesting government is informed of the order for discharge 20

This time-limit may not be extended | +| Lodging an application for leave to appeal to the High Court | 14 days, starting on the day on which the court makes it decision on the appeal to it 21 | +| Lodging an application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal | 14 days, starting on the day on which the High Court refuses leave to appeal 22 | +| Lodging an appeal if leave it granted | 28 days starting on the day on which leave is granted 23 | +| Extradition following appeal | | +| Removal | 28 days starting with: (a) the day on which the decision of the relevant court becomes final, or (b) the day on which proceedings on the appeal are discontinued 24 . | + +" Extradition Act 2003, s. I08(7A) and (8). + +"Extradition Act 2003, s. 105(5). + +20Extradition Act 2003, s. 110(5). + +21 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(5). + +22 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(6). + +23 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(7). + +24 Extradition Act 2003, s. 118(2). + +| |

In cases where there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, the relevant court is the High Court and the decision becomes final when the period for applying for permission to appeal ends and there is no such application, or leave to appeal is refused25.

In cases where there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, the relevant court is the Supreme Court and the decision becomes final when it is made26.

| +|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| + +35 Extradition Act 2003, s. 118(3) and (4). + +36Extradition Act 2003, s. 118(3) and (6). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85178172aa0eb9174ddf7ade425dbd116ab4662e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889/EFTA02829889.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1967 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829889.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 29, + "chars": 63014, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit U", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.7769470214844, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.7769470214844, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION \nON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.364, + 51.388 + ], + [ + 458.5262756347656, + 51.388 + ], + [ + 458.5262756347656, + 79.60406494140625 + ], + [ + 154.364, + 79.60406494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overview", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.944, + 167.45399999999998 + ], + [ + 120.2582015991211, + 167.45399999999998 + ], + [ + 120.2582015991211, + 183.10406494140625 + ], + [ + 67.944, + 183.10406494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 50.502 + ], + [ + 435.9436950683594, + 50.502 + ], + [ + 435.9436950683594, + 65.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 65.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The extradition arrangements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 81.512 + ], + [ + 228.68556213378906, + 81.512 + ], + [ + 228.68556213378906, + 97.46759033203125 + ], + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 97.46759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overview of the extradition process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 180.74399999999997 + ], + [ + 252.60324096679688, + 180.74399999999997 + ], + [ + 252.60324096679688, + 197.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 197.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "An overview of the timeframes in relation to US extradition requests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.944, + 52.273999999999994 + ], + [ + 384.22515869140625, + 52.273999999999994 + ], + [ + 384.22515869140625, + 67.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 67.944, + 67.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Consent to extradition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.25599999999999, + 288.83599999999996 + ], + [ + 175.34768676757812, + 288.83599999999996 + ], + [ + 175.34768676757812, + 304.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 51.25599999999999, + 304.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Bail in extradition cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.25599999999999, + 232.132 + ], + [ + 182.6788787841797, + 232.132 + ], + [ + 182.6788787841797, + 247.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 51.25599999999999, + 247.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The bars to extradition that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to \nthe US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 264.914 + ], + [ + 533.0325927734375, + 264.914 + ], + [ + 533.0325927734375, + 299.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 299.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abuse of process/political motivation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 52.273999999999994 + ], + [ + 259.4870300292969, + 52.273999999999994 + ], + [ + 259.4870300292969, + 67.353515625 + ], + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 67.353515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Passage of time", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 327.81999999999994 + ], + [ + 164.00328063964844, + 327.81999999999994 + ], + [ + 164.00328063964844, + 342.9735107421875 + ], + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 342.9735107421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 272.00199999999995 + ], + [ + 125.10821533203125, + 272.00199999999995 + ], + [ + 125.10821533203125, + 287.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 287.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Mental and physical condition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 158.594 + ], + [ + 231.19017028808594, + 158.594 + ], + [ + 231.19017028808594, + 173.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 85.82399999999998, + 173.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The human rights objections that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face \nextradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 51.388 + ], + [ + 544.2203369140625, + 51.388 + ], + [ + 544.2203369140625, + 85.8446044921875 + ], + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 85.8446044921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Article 3 Unison conditions)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 169.226 + ], + [ + 220.1645965576172, + 169.226 + ], + [ + 220.1645965576172, + 185.5946044921875 + ], + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 185.5946044921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ankle 6 (/air trial)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 101.004 + ], + [ + 180.94508361816406, + 101.004 + ], + [ + 180.94508361816406, + 116.83056640625 + ], + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 116.83056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ankle 8 (private and family life)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 314.53 + ], + [ + 242.48719787597656, + 314.53 + ], + [ + 242.48719787597656, + 330.570556640625 + ], + [ + 86.41999999999999, + 330.570556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 528.942 + ], + [ + 109.92050170898438, + 528.942 + ], + [ + 109.92050170898438, + 543.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 50.660000000000004, + 543.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 203.96783447265625 + ], + [ + 405.0936584472656, + 203.96783447265625 + ], + [ + 405.0936584472656, + 255.03216552734375 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 255.03216552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex A \u2014 Questions set out in the Peters and Peters instructions dated 12 Aueust 2020", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.995, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 523.0050000000001, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 523.0050000000001, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 71.995, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 204.51092529296875 + ], + [ + 404.3361511230469, + 204.51092529296875 + ], + [ + 404.3361511230469, + 254.40325927734375 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 254.40325927734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex R \u2014 CV of David OC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 208.25, + 70.68400000000001 + ], + [ + 387.3105163574219, + 70.68400000000001 + ], + [ + 387.3105163574219, + 87.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 208.25, + 87.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. David QC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 97.40600000000002 + ], + [ + 187.51690673828125, + 97.40600000000002 + ], + [ + 187.51690673828125, + 116.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 116.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Extradition \u2014 Experience and Expertise", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 286.184 + ], + [ + 306.2745056152344, + 286.184 + ], + [ + 306.2745056152344, + 302.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 302.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Independent review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 407.726 + ], + [ + 468.2802734375, + 407.726 + ], + [ + 468.2802734375, + 423.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.61500000000001, + 423.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Practical Experience", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.42500000000001, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 209.43954467773438, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 209.43954467773438, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.42500000000001, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 214.812, + 203.96783447265625 + ], + [ + 403.2052917480469, + 203.96783447265625 + ], + [ + 403.2052917480469, + 255.40216064453125 + ], + [ + 214.812, + 255.40216064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF \nEXTRADITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 505.3321533203125, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 505.3321533203125, + 211.863037109375 + ], + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 211.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 204.42437744140625 + ], + [ + 404.609130859375, + 204.42437744140625 + ], + [ + 404.609130859375, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Annex D \u2014 time-limits in relation to US extradition requests under the lAtraddion Act \n2003", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.375, + 70.68400000000001 + ], + [ + 520.625, + 70.68400000000001 + ], + [ + 520.625, + 100.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 74.375, + 100.09759521484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829889" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eeb16354ee0107476de35b9b6c492de7d57fcd16 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.md @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ +# Exhibit V + +## Ghislaine Maxwell + +## Opinion on Extradition Law + +## OVERVIEW + +- This report was written pursuant to a request from Olivier Laude, a partner at the firm Laude Esquier Champey acting on behalf of & Gresser LLP as counsel for Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, in the context of ongoing bail proceedings involving the latter in the United States of America (hereafter "USA"), where Ms Ghislaine Maxwell is being detained pre-trial on charges relating to her alleged role in sexual activities between Jeffrey Epstein and certain minor girls, from 1994 to 1997. +- Olivier Laude has instructed me to draft an opinion regarding the extradition procedure and the possibility for Ms Ghislaine Maxwell to be extradited from France to the USA if she were to flee to France after being released on bail in the USA. +- As requested, I have attached a resume. (See Exhibit A). + +## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +- The principle against the extradition of nationals does not constitute a binding rule of international law and is not considered a constitutional principle under law. +- The extradition of nationals can be prohibited under the terms of an international treaty. However, the existing Extradition Treaty between France and the USA of 23 April 1996 does not contain such prohibition. As a result, the extradition of a national to the USA is legally permissible under law. +- In order to assure the US authorities that she will not attempt to contest her extradition as a citizen or otherwise, we are informed that Ms Maxwell is about to execute an irrevocable waiver of her right to seek the protection of the Courts to fight + +any extradition request from the US Government to the competent Authorities ("The Waiver"). (See Exhibit B). + +- All extradition requests from the USA to France must be examined by the Investigating Chamber of the competent Court of appeal, which has jurisdiction over the legality of extradition requests in France. +- Under the circumstances of this case, where Ms Maxwell would have fled from the USA to France prior to her trial in violation of her bail conditions, it is highly likely that Ms Maxwell would be placed in custody in France from the earliest stages of the extradition proceedings. +- As the principle against the extradition of nationals is not part of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, the Investigating Chamber of the Court of appeal would not oppose the extradition of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell on the ground that she is a citizen. +- The final decision to extradite and its execution would ultimately be a matter for the executive. +- In the recent past, I am not aware that the authorities would have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a citizen who was also a United States citizen. Thus, there is no precedent to draw from in that regard. However, it is our view that under the specific and unique facts of this case, it is highly unlikely that the government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell because of several critical factors, namely: her United States citizenship; the fact that she has signed an irrevocable Waiver in the USA; the fact that in the present situation, the only way the issue would be raised in France is if Ms. Maxwell would have already fled to France in violation of very strict bail conditions, and the fact that a failure by authorities to grant extradition would result in an obligation to try in the Indictment. Finally, France would be inclined to preserving the interests of the USA for obvious diplomatic reasons. courts for the conduct described +- With regard to timing, if the requested person has consented to extradition, the Investigating Chamber must deliver its ruling no later than 14 working days after the + +person has first appeared before the Public Prosecutor'. If the legal conditions of extradition are satisfied, the Investigating Chamber must issue a positive opinion to extradition, which is not subject to appeal. Following the Investigating Chamber's ruling, there is no specified time frame within which the government must issue an extradition decree. However, if the requesting State emphasizes the urgent nature of the request, the extradition decree is generally issued in only a few weeks. Therefore, the overall procedure is likely to be disposed of expediently under these circumstances. + +I The 14 days period is divided as follows: the requested person must appear before the Public Prosecutor within 2 days of arrest, he or she must be heard by the Investigating Chamber no later than 5 working days after appearing before the Public Prosecutor, and the Investigating Chamber must then deliver its final opinion on the legality of the extradition request within 7 days. This procedure will be explained in more details in Part I of this opinion. + +## Table of Contents + +## Background + +## Part — The Extradition Procedure + +- A. Request for temporary arrest +- B. Application for extradition (Ministerial phase) +- C. Arrest and presentation before the Prosecutor General (beginning of the judicial phase) +- D. Decision of the Investigating Chamber of the competent Court of appeal +- E. Decision of the government (Extradition Decree) +- F. Possible application before the European Court of Human Rights + +## Part ll — The likely outcome of an extradition request from the United States of America to France in the case of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell + +- A. General bars to extradition +- B. The protection of nationals from extradition under law and the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France: Lack of an absolute protection + +## Conclusion + +## Background + +- 1. At the bail hearing of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell on 14 July 2020, the US Government made the following point in support of its motion to detain the defendant: + +"The government has spoken with the Department of Justice attache's in the United Kingdom and France. With respect to France, we have been informed that France will not extradite a citizen to the United States as a matter of law, even if the defendant is a dual citizen of the United States. + +- 2. The international ties of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell and her nationality appear as one of the grounds for which bail was denied by the Court, which found that: + +"Ms Maxwell's history and characteristics support the position of her posing a risk of flight. Ms Maxwell has substantial international ties and could facilitate living abroad if she were to flee the United States. She holds multiple foreign citizenships, has familial and personal connections abroad, and owns at least one foreign property of significant value. In particular, she is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens". + +- 3. The present report intends to evaluate whether the contention that France is a nation that does not extradite its citizens is correct as a matter of law. +- 4. It will first set out the various steps of the extradition procedure (Part I), and then outline the grounds on which extradition requests are analyzed under law, and especially the status of the rule against extradition of nationals, in order to assess the application of these principles to an extradition request made by the USA, in particular where, as in this case, the requested person has executed an irrevocable waiver of his/her right to contest extradition and is present in France only because she fled the United States in violation of her bail conditions. (Pan H). + +2 At p. 27 of the transcript. + +## Part I — The Extradition Procedure + +- 5. Extradition requests between the United States and France are governed by the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France signed in Paris on 23 April 19963, the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed in Washington on 25 June 20036, and the Instrument Amending the Treaty of 23 April 1996 between the United States of America and France signed in the Hague on 30 September 20045. +- 6. For matters not covered in theseements, extradition requests made by the USA are governed by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 696 et seq.). + +## A. First stage: Request for temporary arrest + +- 7. Under Article 13.1 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, in case of urgency, the requesting State may seek the provisional arrest of the person sought pending the presentation of the request for extradition6. +- 8. This procedure can be summarized as follows: Based on a request for provisional arrest, the Prosecutor General may order the arrest of the requested person. Upon arrest, the requested person must appear within 48 hours before the Prosecutor General, who informs him/her of the existence and contents of the request for temporary arrest and of his/her rights. The Prosecutor may decide to release the requested person, based on the relevant flight risks. If the Prosecutor considers that the requested person should be detained, the requested person appears before the I" President of the Court of appeal, who can decide to order either his/her release (without any control, or under judicial + +3 The Extradition Treaty between the USA and France entered into force in France on February 1, 2002 (by Decree n° 2002-117 of 29 January 2002). + +The object of this agreement is "to provide for enhancements to cooperation in the context of applicable extradition relations between the Member States and the United States of America governing extradition of offenders" (Article 1). + +s The Instrument Amending the Treaty of April 23, 19% between the USA and France entered into force in France on February I, 2010 (by Decree n° 2010490 of 12 May 2010). + +° A request for provisional arrest may be transmitted direct) between the United States Department of Justice (hereafter, "DOJ") and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic, through INTERPOL or the diplomatic channel. + +supervision, or under house arrest with electronic surveillance) or incarceration at the remand prison of the Court of appeal in which jurisdiction he/she has been apprehended. + +- The decision of the President of the Court of Appeal can be challenged before the Investigating Chamber of the Court of Appeal. In case of incarceration, the requested person can file an application for release before the Investigating Chamber of the Court of appeal at any time during the extradition procedure. +- 9. Under Article 13.4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, if, within 60 days of arrest, the government of the requested State has not received from the requesting State the formal extradition request as well as supporting documents required by the Treat?, the requested person is discharged from custody. If the government has received the relevant documents, the normal extradition procedure may begin. +- 10. If the person has been discharged from custody pursuant to Article 13.4 of the Treaty, such release does not preclude a subsequent re-arrest if an extradition request and supporting documents are delivered at a later date (Article 13.5). + +## B. Second stage: Application for extradition (Ministerial phase) + +- 11. Article 10.1 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France provides that "all requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel". +- 12. The Extradition Treaty between the USA and France does not specify which internal procedures must be followed in each contracting State following the transmission of the extradition request through the diplomatic channel pursuant to Article 10. We must therefore refer to provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to outline the procedure followed by institutions upon receipt of an extradition request made by the USA. +- 13. Under Article 696-9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure followed in France is as follows: + +7 Article 10 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France + +- The Minister of Foreign Affairs first verifies that the file is properly constituted in accordance with the requirements of the Extradition Treaty. The Minister of Foreign Affairs only verifies that the request contains all the required documents. The file is then transmitted to the Minister of Justice, which verifies the regularity of the request. At this stage, the nationality of the requested person does not influence the control of the Minister of Justice. +- The Minister of Justice must then forward the file to the Prosecutor General. This obligation to transmit the file to the Prosecutor General is binding, as Article 696-9 uses imperative language requiring the Minister of Justice to do so. + +## C. Third stage: Arrest and presentation before the Prosecutor General (beginning of the judicial phase) + +- 14. Any person arrested pursuant to an extradition application must be transferred to the territorially competent Prosecutor General within 48 hours after the arrest'. +- 15. The Prosecutor General informs the requested person, in a language he or she understands, of: the existence and the content of the extradition application; + - **the right to be assisted by an advocate and to have an interview with this advocate immediately; the right to consent to or to oppose his or her extradition, and the legal consequences of consenting to extradition;** + - **the right to waive the principle of specialty (according to which the person who is extradited can be prosecuted only for the crimes specified in the extradition request), and the legal consequences of such renunciation.** +- **16. The Prosecutor General hears the statements of the person and his or her counsel, and in particular, the consent or opposition to extradition, which shall be officially recorded.** +- **17. The Prosecutor General decides whether to release the requested person or not. If he considers that the requested person should remain in detention, the requested person then appears before the In President of the Court of appeal, who may order the person's release (without any control, or with judicial supervision, or under house arrest with electronic surveillance) or his/her incarceration. The President's decision may be** + +**Article 696-10 of the lllllllll Code of Criminal Procedure.** + +appealed before the Investigating Chamber of the Court of appeal, by the Prosecutor General or the requested person. + +## D. Fourth stage: Decision of the Investigating Chamber of the competent Court of appeal + +- 18. Once the requested person has declared to the Prosecutor General whether he consents or not to extradition, the Investigating Chamber is immediately seized of the case. This phase varies depending on whether the requested person consents to extradition. +- 19. If the requested person has declared to the Prosecutor General that he or she consents to extradition, Article 696-13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that he or she must appear before the Investigating Chamber within 5 working days from the date of presentation before the Prosecutor General. The same provision states that the requested person may also decide to waive the rule of specialty before the Prosecutor General. +- 20. If, at this appearance, the requested person confirms his or her consent to be extradited and the legal conditions for extradition are fulfilled, the Investigating Chamber informs the person of the legal consequences of such consent and formally acknowledges this consent within 7 days from the date of appearance, unless additional investigations have been ordered9. +- 21. The rules of this simplified extradition procedure must be read in light of Article 11 of the Agreement on Extradition between the European Union and the USA of 25 June 2003 ("Simplified extradition procedures"), which states that "if the person sought consents to be surrendered to the requesting State, the requested State may, in accordance with the principles and procedures provided for under its legal system, surrender the person as expeditiously as possible without further proceedings. The consent of the person sought may include agreement to waiver of protection of the rule of specialty"10. This provision, together with Article 696-13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, demonstrates that extradition law is considerate of the requested + +9 Article 696-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. + +10 Such Article I I of the Agreement on Extradition between the European Union and the USA of 25 June 2003 has been directly incorporated in the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France signed in Paris on 23 April 1996 by the Instrument Amending the Treaty of 23 April 1996 between the United States of America and France signed in the Hague on 30 September 2004. + +person's intentions and recognizes that the person may legally waive some of the rights that attach to extradition proceedings. + +- 22. Where the requested person has consented to extradition, the Investigating Chamber's ruling is not subject to appeal or any other legal challenge". +- 23. If the requested person has declared to the Prosecutor General that he or she does not consent to extradition, he or she must appear before the Investigating Chamber within a period of 10 working days from the date of presentation before the Prosecutor's. +- 24. If the requested person reiterates to the Investigating Chamber that he or she does not consent to extradition, the Court delivers a reasoned opinion on the extradition request. Unless additional investigations have been ordered, the Court delivers its opinion within one month from the requested person's appearance before it's. +- 25. The Investigating Chamber may authorize the requesting State to participate in the hearing. This possibility is expressly provided for in the Agreed Minute on Representation annexed to the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France. +- 26. The Investigating Chamber issues a positive opinion if it considers that the legal requirements of extradition are satisfied. + +## E. Fifth stage: Decision of the government + +- 27. Extradition is authorized by a decree of the Prime Minister upon the advice of the Minister of Justice. +- 28. The decree may impose conditions to authorize extradition, such as guarantees not to seek or impose the death penalty against the requested person. +- 29. The decree of extradition can only intervene after the end of the judicial phase. + +" Id. + +12 Article 696-15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. + +" Id. + +30. The requested person has to be handed over by the agents of the requested State within one month after the extradition decree has been notified to the requesting State14. + +" Article 15.4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996. + +## F. Sixth stage: Possible application before the European Court of Human Rights + +- 31. Once all domestic remedies have been exhausted, it is possible to file a written application against France before the European Court of Human Rights, within six months from the date of the final decision at the domestic level, alleging the violation of human rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, such as the rights to life, to a fair trial, not to be tortured, etc. +- 32. An application before the European Court of Human Rights may be accompanied by a written request for interim measures, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, such as a request to suspend the extradition of the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings. + +## Part H — The likely outcome of an extradition request from the United States of America to France in the case of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell + +- 33. In this case, if an extradition request were to be transmitted by the USA against Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, the judicial authorities would most certainly decide that she has to remain in custody given her flight from the USA and the violation of her bail terms and conditions in this requesting State. +- 34. Having outlined the different stages of the extradition procedure, the second part of this opinion will examine the likely outcome of an extradition request against the person of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, if she were to be released on bail and decided to flee from the USA to France. It will first outline the general bars to extradition (A), and then analyze the status of the protection of nationals from extradition in the legal system and in the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France (B). It will conclude that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell's extradition from France to the USA would not be legally barred by her citizenship, and that it is highly unlikely, under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, that authorities will refuse to enforce an extradition decree. + +## A. General bars to extradition + +- 35. Several bars to extradition may classically be invoked before courts, namely (i) a claim that the requested person would be at risk of human rights violations in the requesting State (with regards to the right to a fair trial and the right to be free from torture, inhumane or degrading treatment); (ii) the dual criminality rule; and (iii) a claim that the extradition request is politically motivated. + +## (i) Human rights bars + +- 36. Under the case law of the Cour de cassation, the Investigating Chamber of the Court of appeal must consider allegations of human rights violations pertaining to the conditions of trial and detention in the requesting State's. These claims center on the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR)16 and the right to be free from torture, inhumane + +IS Cass. Crim., 26 March 2019, nNo. 19-81731. + +16 Einhorn v. France, 16/10/2001, Application No. 71555/01. + +and degrading treatments in custody (Article 3 ECHR)17. If the Investigating Chamber finds that the requested person would face a risk of being subject to violations of their Article 3 rights, or that there is a risk of a Vagrant denial ofjustice" in the requesting State, it must deliver a negative opinion to the extradition request. + +- 37. In the recent years, human rights bars to an extradition request made by the United States of America are only the subject to in-depth scrutiny by courts when the requested person faces the imposition of the death penalty's or the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole in the USA. We understand that this is not the case here. It can be underlined that, when needed, the USA can commit not to impose such a sentence and that such a commitment suffices to allow extradition. +- 38. As long as the government receives necessary assurances related to human rights when requested, such an argument would be very likely to be rejected in this case. +- (ii) Dual criminality +- 39. A further possible bar to extradition is the dual criminality rule, which requires the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought to constitute a criminal offense in the law of both requested and requesting States. +- 40. Article 2.1 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France expressly states that "fajcts shall be extraditable if they are punished under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a maximum of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. If extradition is requested for purposes of enforcing a judgment, the time remaining to be served must be at least six months." +- 41. There is no doubt that the conduct referred to in the Grand Jury charges against Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, contained in the Superseding Indictment SI 20 Cr. 330 (MN), filed on July 8's, 2020, also constitutes criminal conduct under law, as the crime of "proxinetisme". +- 42. Article 225-5 of the Criminal Code defines the crime of "proxinetisme" as "the fact, by anyone, in any manner whatsoever: I° To aid, assist or protect the prostitution + +17Soering v United Kingdom. 07/07/1989, Application No. 14038/88; Cass. Crim., 26 March 2019, No. 19-81731. + +Is In this rcgard. sec Article 7 of the Extradition treaty between France and the USA. + +of others: 2° To profit from the prostitution of others, to share the proceeds of prostitution or to receive subsidies from a person habitually engaged in prostitution: 3° To hire, entice or divert a person to engage in prostitution or to exert pressure on him or her to engage or continue to engage in prostitution.' Article 225-6 of the Criminal Code provides that the crime is also established by "the fact, by whoever, in any way whatsoever: I° To act as an intermediary between two persons, one of whom engages in prostitution and the other exploits or remunerates the prostitution of others1°". + +- 43. In law, the conduct charged in all four counts' would qualify as the crime of "proxinetisme" under Articles 225-5 and 225-6 of the Criminal Code. +- 44. When committed against a minor, Article 225-7 of the Criminal Code provides that the crime is punished by an enhanced sentence, namely a statutory maximum of 10 years imprisonment (as opposed to 7 years, when committed against an adult)22. +- 45. Thus, dual criminality would not constitute an obstacle to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell's extradition from France to the USA. +- (iii) Political offense and manifest inconsistency +- 46. Finally, the requested person may argue that the extradition request is politically motivated, or that the charges contained in the extradition request are manifestly inconsistent with the conduct thereunder. + +19 In « Le proxinetisme est le fait, par quiconque, de quelque maniere que ce soil :1° D'aider, d'assister ou de proteger la prostitution d'autnii : 2° De firer profit de la prostitution d'autreit d'en panager les produks ou de recevoir des subsides d'une personne se !Aram habituellement a la prostitution ; 3° D'embaucher, deentrainer ou de detourner une personne en vue de la prostitution ou d'crercer sur elle uneression pour qu'elk se prostitue ou continue a le faire ». + +3D In « Est assimik au proximetisme et puni des peines primes par Particle 225-S k fait. par quiconque, de quelque maniere que ce soit : I° De faire office d'intermediaire entre deux personae: dont Pune se Byre a la prostitution et I'autre exploite ou remunere la prostitution deceitful + +31Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts; Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts; Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity; Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity. + +22 "Proxinetisme is punishable by ten years imprisonment and a fine of 1,500.000 euros when committed: I° With regard to a minor f...1". In 14 Le proxenetisme est puni de dix arts d'empriconnement et de I 500 000 euros d'amende lorsqu'il est commis : 1° A Pegard fun miner ». + +- 47. Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France provides that lektradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives". +- 48. A political motivation claim requires the Investigating Chamber to examine, to some extent, the merits of the case. The Court is also required to look into the merits of the case where the requested person argues that there is a manifest inconsistency between the conduct and the legal offenses in respect of which the extradition is sought23. +- 49. The conduct described in the indictment does not appear to be manifestly inconsistent with the offenses charged therein. +- 50. As to political motivation, courts have never opposed extradition requests from the USA on this ground24. In fact, in the past ten years, only one published decision of the Cour de cassation has denied an American extradition request, on the ground that the Investigating Chamber had not verified that the criminal conduct described in the request constituted a crime in France at the time of commission". All other published decisions which have ruled on a request from the USA have granted extradition". +- 51. In light of the elements contained in the Superseding Indictment, Ms Ghislaine Maxwell could not oppose her extradition to the USA on the basis of a political motivation claim, that would have no serious ground, and therefore the Investigating Chamber would not look into the merits of the case against her. +- B. The protection of nationals from extradition under law and the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France: Lack of an absolute protection + +33 Cass. Crim., 21 November 2007, No. 07-87540. + +24 Sec by contrast, a 2016 recent decision of the Conseil d'Etat to deny extradition to Russia of a prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition, Moukhtar Abliazov, on the ground that the request was politically motivated (available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.frketzilid/CETATEXT0000335811870. + +26 Cam. Crim., 14 October 2015, No. 15-84426. + +26Cass. Crim., II March 2020, No. 19-84023 ; Cass. Crim., 21 February 2017, No.16-87102 ; Can. Crim., 23 February 2010, No. 09-88021 ;Conseil d'Etat -2ime et 7ime SSR, 15 April2016, No.390860 ; Conseil d'Etat - r- et r- SSR, 19 October 2018, No. 421762 ; Cam. Crim.. 4 June 2019, No. 1844398 ; Cam. Crim., 26 November 2019, No. 19-80274 ; Conseil d'Etat — 2sw et 7`14/1" SSR, I June 2011, No. 342419 ; Can. Crim" 21 June 2016, No. 1641981 ; Can. Crim" 4 October 2016. No. 16-84450 ; Cass. Crim., II May 2011, No. 11- 80942, No. 11-80943 ; Cass. Crim., 10 May 201, No. 11-80989 ; Conseil d'Etat, - rine et 7"" SSR, 7 May 2012, No.352573 ; Can. Crim, 13 February 2008, No. 07-88009 ; Cass. Clint., 3 March 2015, No. 14-88308 ; Cam. Crim., 11 June 2013, No. 13-81979. + +- 52. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 696 to 696-47-I) sets out legislative provisions pertaining to extradition. +- 53. The rule against the extradition of nationals is set out under Article 696-4, which states that extradition shall not be granted when the requested person is a national, and that nationality shall be assessed at the time of the facts in respect of which extradition is sought (« Extradition is not granted: 1° When the person sought has the nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offence for which extradition is requested. »27). +- 54. The rule under Article 696-4 only applies "in the absence of an international convention stipulating othenvise"28. Therefore, we must determine whether the rule against the extradition of nationals contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure applies in respect of an extradition request made by the USA. +- 55. Extradition requests between the United States and France are governed by the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France 1996, which supersedes law as mentioned explicitly in Article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. +- 56. Article 3(1) of the Extradition Treaty between France and the United States provides: + +"There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed". + +27 In : « L'extradition n'est pas acconlee : 1° Lorsque la personne reclamie a la nationalise francaise. cette dentate &ant appreciee a l'epoque de ?infraction pour !ague& ?extradition est requise + +27 Article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "Irr the absence &an international convention stipulating otherwise the conditions, procedure and effects of extradition shall be determined by the provisions of this chapter. lei seirovisions shall also apply to matters %lack could not have been regulated by international conventions". (In o En ?absence de convention internationale en stipulant autrement, les conditions, la procedure et les effets de !'extradition sont determines par les dispositions du present chapitre. Ces dispositions s'appliquent egalement aux points qui n'auraient pas ete regkmentes par les conventions internationales »). + +29The Extradition treaty between the USA and France was signed in Paris on April 23, 1996 and entered into force on February I. 2002 (by Decree No. 2002-1 l7 of 29 January 2002). + +- 57. If extradition is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, Article 3(2) requires the requested State to submit the case to its authorities for prosecution, if so requested by the requesting State. +- 58. Consequently, the Extradition Treaty between France and the USA does not contain any prohibition on the extradition of nationals. Instead, it merely states that there is no obligation upon the requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is one of its nationals. +- 59. The Extradition Treaty between France and the USA must therefore be distinguished from several international agreements on extradition ratified by France, which, by contrast, contain a clear rule against the extradition of citizens". +- 60. For example, France has made the following declaration pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957, which gives Contracting States "the right to refuse extradition of nationals": "Extradition shall be refused when the person sought had nationality at the time of the alleged offence " 31. +- 61. Therefore, France does not surrender citizens under the European Convention on Extradition32. +- 62. The Extradition Treaty between France and the USA is similar to other international agreements signed by France which also do not contain a prohibition against the extradition of nationals. These are generally treaties signed with Common law jurisdictions, which do not oppose the extradition of their nationals33. + +1D See, for example, the Extradition treaty between France and Morocco, or the Extradition treaty between France and China. + +31 See France's instrument of ratification of the European Convention on Extradition, deposited on 10 February 1986. + +31 The European Convention on Extradition 1957 is an instrument of the Council of Europe which was signed in Paris on December 13", 1957 and came into force on April 18", 1960. The European Convention on Extradition is open to signature by non-Council of Europe States, as such it was ratified by South Africa, Israel, and the Republic of Korea. It was ratified by France on February 10v°. 1986. + +33 For example, the Extradition Treaty between France and Canada, signed in Ottawa on 17 November 1988, contains a similar provision to the United States Treaty: "The requested State shall not be bound to extradite its own nationals. Nationality shall be determined as of the date of the offence for which extradition is requested" (Article 3). + +- 63. The wording of these international agreements, which do not contain a prohibition on the extradition of nationals, raises some important questions. In particular, could France decide to extradite its nationals on the basis of these international agreements without violating applicable international law, European law, or constitutional law? +- 64. In order to determine whether the government may grant an extradition request relating to a citizen under the Extradition Treaty between France and the USA, it is thus necessary to evaluate the strength and status of the prohibition of the extradition of nationals under (i) applicable international law, (ii) European law, and (iii) constitutional law. + +## (i) International law + +- 65. As outlined, international treaties pertaining to extradition generally leave Contracting States a right not to extradite their nationals, and State practice largely varies in this regard. Some States are strongly committed to the rule against the extradition of nationals and have conferred the principle constitutional status (Germany, Poland, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Austria). Others have codified the principle in their national legislation (France, Lebanon, Chili, Qatar, Slovenia). By contrast, many States - in particular, Common law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and the USA, extradite their own citizens. +- 66. Thus, there is no uniform rule regarding the extradition of nationals under international law. +- (ii) European law +- 67. European law does not prohibit the extradition of nationals either. As mentioned, Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957 provides States with a discretionary right on whether or not to extradite their own citizens. +- 68. More interestingly, the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (hereafter, "EAW FD"), which governs extradition matters between Member States of the European Union, does not allow Member States the possibility to refuse the surrender of their nationals when the EAW is issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. In fact, the surrender of a national who is the subject of criminal proceedings in another Member State of the European Union is at the cornerstone of the EAW FD. + +- 69. Articles 3 and 4 of the EAW FD set out a number of grounds for refusing the enforcement of a EAW, that are respectively mandatory and optional. Article 4(6) on optional grounds provides that a Member State may refuse the execution of a EAW « issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law ». This article is the only provision in the EAW FD that allows Member States to consider nationality in the execution of a EAW. As such, nationality can only act as a bar to the execution of a EAW issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence, not conducting a criminal prosecution. +- 70. It follows that European Union law does not prohibit the extradition of nationals. +- (iii) constitutional law +- 71. As regards the status of the protection of nationals from extradition under law, the fact that France did not have to change its Constitution or domestic laws regarding the extradition of nationals to incorporate the EAW FD effectively means that the prohibition against the surrender of a citizen to foreign authorities does not constitute an absolute prohibition per se under Iaw34. +- 72. The Conseil Constitutionnel ( constitutional Court) has long considered that France could not ratify an international amendment which went against the Constitution, thereby necessitating a modification of the text of the Constitution prior to the ratification of the purported international treaty". For example, the Constitution had to be amended prior to the ratification of the Rome Statute, to create an exception to the rule that the President of the Republic cannot be found criminally liable in respect of acts committed during his mandate. By contrast, the provisions of the Rome Statute which require Contracting Parties to surrender their nationals when the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is established did not trigger an amendment to the Constitution. Like the EAW FD, the example of the Rome Statute must be taken as evidence that there is no constitutional principle against the extradition of nationals in France. + +34By contrast, several Member States of the EU such as Germany. Poland or Cyprus. had to amend their national constitutions prior to incorporating the EAW FD, following constitutional courts' rulings. + +35 Decision No. 98-408 DC, 22 Janvier 2009. + +- 73. The Conseil d'Etat was once asked by the government to deliver an opinion precisely on this point. It stated that the government's practice of refusing the extradition of nationals "finds no basis in a principle of constitutional value. None of the rights and liberties of the citizen, as proclaimed by the Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizens of 1789 and by the preamble of the Constitution of 1946, implies that nationals cannot be extradited I ...I No doubt the laws adopted and the international conventions signed by France attest to the authority of the rule that nationals are not extradited. But, in support of this rule, there are no grounds for considering it as a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, having constitutional value by virtue of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946. »36. +- 74. Therefore, the citizens. Constitution does not prevent the executive from extraditing +- 75. It follows from this opinion and the above that the decision to apply the principle against the extradition of nationals is a matter for the executive, which could choose not to enforce it and thus choose to extradite a national without violating constitutional law, European law or international law, taking into account the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996 which supersede law and do not prohibit the extradition of nationals. + +## Conclusion + +- 76. In the event that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell were to flee to France and become the subject of an extradition request, and where she has already executed an irrevocable waiver of her right to contest extradition, the Investigating Chamber would have to rule on the legality of the extradition request in accordance with the procedure described in Part I. Because the extradition of nationals is not prohibited by the Constitution or the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, the Investigating Chamber would not be legally bound to oppose to the extradition request. It would then become a matter for the government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 77. In the recent past, I am not aware that the authorities have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a citizen who was also + +« Avis Consuliatif, Conseil d'Etat, 24 November 1994, No. 356-641 ,, available at https://www.conceilctat.fr/iadctileavisadm/356641.adf + +a United States citizen. Thus, there is no precedent to draw from in that regard. However, it is our view that under the specific and unique facts of this case, it is highly unlikely that the government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell because of several critical factors. + +- 78. First, under the applicable Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, a State party may refuse extradition on the basis of nationality, however if it does so, it is obliged to prosecute the requested person itself, on the basis of the conduct and the allegations contained in the request. In the case of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, it is highly unlikely that the government would be inclined to conducting such prosecution, considering that all the relevant facts were committed in the USA, a long time ago, and that witnesses are also located in the USA. +- 79. Secondly, France is mindful to preserve its good extradition relations with the United States, as evidenced by a number of recent cases we reviewed or conducted in which competent authorities proved highly cooperative with US authorities. If Ms Ghislaine Maxwell were to flee to France, and the USA decided to issue an extradition request, it would be difficult for authorities — from a diplomatic point of view — to deny such an extradition request, considering that no legal bar applies.37 +- 80. Thirdly, the fact that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell also holds American nationality, and has substantial tics to the USA, would, in all likelihood, be taken into account by the government as one more element weighing in favor of extradition. +- 81. Similarly, and fourthly, the fact that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell signed a legally binding Waiver under US law, and would have subsequently fled to France in violation of her bail conditions, could equally be taken into account by the not to grant Ms Ghislaine Maxwell the benefit of her extradition. government as an incentive nationality as a ban to + +William Julie + +"Of the 36 reported Supreme Court decisions involving extradition requests from the United States in the last 20 years. the authorities granted extradition in 34 of these cases. Lower court decisions granting extradition were quashed only twice for procedural deficiencies not at issue in this case. + +# Exhibit A + +#### WILLIAM JULIE AVOCAT 51, rue Ampere, 75017 Paris + +Date of birth: 16.07.1973 0033678374713 + +English and German national w jot wiavocats.com + +Set up my own practice in 2002 www.wjavocats.com + +Marathon Runner (Paris, 2013, 2h57) + +## EMPLOYMENT + +Since 2002 Founding partner of William Julie Avocats + +## INTERNSHIPS & LAW STUDIES + +2000-2002 Internships specialized in human rights and criminal law: + +- Henri Leclerc (President of the Ligue des Droits de l'Hornme) +- Eric Plouvier (Human Rights barrister) + +2000 Admitted to the Paris Bar + +1999 Postgraduate Specialization Diploma: Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Policy in Europe + +Thesis Supervisor Mme Delmas Marty, University of Paris Sorbonne + +1999 Certificate of criminal sciences, University of Paris Assas + +## EXTRADITION LAW + +- Extradition cases in and outside the EU, including USA, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Irak, Iran, Lebanon, India +- Regularly appears as judicial expert before Common law courts on extradition issues and prison detention conditions (UK, Hong Kong, USA) +- Mutual legal assistance: cooperation with various investigation authorities on international cases (DEA, FBI, SFO, OCTR1S), cross-border penitentiary law (repatriation) +- Obtained in 2017 a major change in extradition law (right to challenge European arrests warrants issued against foreigners - Michael Ofsowitz case) + +## CRIMINAL LAW + +- Testified before the Parliamentary Enquiry into miscarriages of justice during the Outreau trial +- Fraud cases, including Emmanuel Henning 40 million pounds mobile phone VAT fraud in the UK, and Marseilles 385 Million carbon gas fraud +- Business criminal law (money laundering, bribery and corruption, misappropriation of public funds, misuse of company assets, offenses related to public tenders, exchange law) +- Important drug cases involving international issues and organized crimes (Morocco, Lebanon, Holland, Germany, GB), including 4 tons cocaine Tobago clipper case + +## LEGAL ADVICE + +- Presidential party members and officials in Dakar, Senegal +- Former Tunisian Ambassador in Paris and prominent Tunisian diplomats +- Members of the family of Saudi Arabia +- Members of leading Lebanese political party +- Opposition leaders in Irak and Lybia +- Italian State + +## MEMBERSHIPS + +- International criminal law Officer of the IBA (International Bar Association) +- Member of DELF (Defense extradition Lawyers Forum, UK) +- Co-Chair of the criminal committee of the corporate firms lawyers accnriation (France) +- Member of the ECBA (European Criminal Bar association) +- Member of the Franco British Lawyers Society + +## Exhibit B + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +- against - + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Docket No. 20-CR-330 (MN) + +## AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION + +Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: + +1. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. + +2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. and Christian R. Everdell of & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under law on extradition, under the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and France signed 23 April 1996 (the "Treaty") , undcr the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed 25 June 2003 (the "USA/EU Agreement on Extradition"), under the Instrument Amending the Treaty of April 23, 1996 between the United States of America and France signed 30 September 2004 (the "Instrument Amending the Treaty"), and under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I understand that, in proceedings in France under the aforementioned provisions in respect of an extradition request by the United States + +under the Treaty as amended by the Instrument Amending the Treaty and/or under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to the United States on the ground of my citizenship. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be surrendered to the United States authorities unless and until a court in France issues a ruling finding that there are no bars to my extradition, followed by an extradition decree issued by the government. + +3. If I am released on bail in connection with the Indictment, I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably waive any rights to contest any extradition request by the United States under the Treaty as amended by the Instrument Amending the Treaty as well as under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition with respect to the offenses charged in the Indictment. Specifically, I consent to extradition in accordance with Article 11 of the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition as incorporated in the Treaty by the Instrument Amending the Treaty, in connection with the offenses charged in the Indictment. In addition, to the extent that it might be relevant, I waive any rights to assert that any bars to extradition apply, and I confirm that no such bars apply. + +4. In the event that I violate my bail conditions after being released, I understand that the purpose of this affidavit is for the government to offer it to the authorities in France when my extradition is sought by the United States government in relation to the charges in the Indictment. I understand that France authorities may use this affidavit to assist in determining my extraditability. + +5. I make this waiver freely and voluntarily, after having consulted with counsel. + +Dated this day of December 2020. + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +I hereby certify that on this \_\_\_\_ day of December 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell personally appeared before me and made her oath in due form of law that the statements herein are true. + +> The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f836102689fdd76b9e9774c20f0150d009837a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918/EFTA02829918.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829918.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 30, + "chars": 50794, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.74, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit V", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 413.4775390625, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 413.4775390625, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ghislaine Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.964, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 369.4160461425781, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 369.4160461425781, + 118.38043212890625 + ], + [ + 242.964, + 118.38043212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Opinion on Extradition Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.66, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 425.9330749511719, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 425.9330749511719, + 163.38043212890625 + ], + [ + 186.66, + 163.38043212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.116, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 340.21759033203125, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 340.21759033203125, + 215.103515625 + ], + [ + 271.116, + 215.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 373.4574890136719, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 373.4574890136719, + 479.4735412597656 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 479.4735412597656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Contents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 356.3609619140625, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 356.3609619140625, + 116.103515625 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 116.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 151.58908081054688, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 151.58908081054688, + 167.18701171875 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 167.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Part \u2014 The Extradition Procedure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 318.9978942871094, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 318.9978942871094, + 200.947021484375 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 200.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Part ll \u2014 The likely outcome of an extradition request from the United States of America \nto France in the case of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 521.2893676757812, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 521.2893676757812, + 369.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 369.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 147.54348754882812, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 147.54348754882812, + 470.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 470.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 100.55029296875 + ], + [ + 154.62106323242188, + 100.55029296875 + ], + [ + 154.62106323242188, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 114.20999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Part I \u2014 The Extradition Procedure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 419.8243713378906, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 419.8243713378906, + 115.73358154296875 + ], + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 115.73358154296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. First stage: Request for temporary arrest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.696, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 320.1240234375, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 320.1240234375, + 302.85357666015625 + ], + [ + 96.696, + 302.85357666015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Second stage: Application for extradition (Ministerial phase)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 421.3501281738281, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 421.3501281738281, + 430.4470520019531 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 430.4470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Third stage: Arrest and presentation before the Prosecutor General (beginning of \nthe judicial phase)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 268.11 + ], + [ + 523.2528076171875, + 268.11 + ], + [ + 523.2528076171875, + 299.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 299.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Fourth stage: Decision of the Investigating Chamber of the competent Court of \nappeal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 150.790283203125 + ], + [ + 522.8828125, + 150.790283203125 + ], + [ + 522.8828125, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 181.44 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Fifth stage: Decision of the government", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 355.5321044921875, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 355.5321044921875, + 485.1035461425781 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 485.1035461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Sixth stage: Possible application before the European Court of Human Rights", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 503.1554260253906, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 503.1554260253906, + 113.947021484375 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 113.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Part H \u2014 The likely outcome of an extradition request from the United States of \nAmerica to France in the case of Ms Ghislaine Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.86, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.6192626953125, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.6192626953125, + 152.18701171875 + ], + [ + 94.86, + 152.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. General bars to extradition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 260.0555725097656, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 260.0555725097656, + 457.3535461425781 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 457.3535461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(i) Human rights bars", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 235.40257263183594, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 235.40257263183594, + 591.9735412597656 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 591.9735412597656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(i) International law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 228.02171325683594, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 228.02171325683594, + 299.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 299.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 149.44497680664062, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 149.44497680664062, + 464.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 464.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 361.7037048339844, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 361.7037048339844, + 246.82708740234375 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 246.82708740234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "WILLIAM JULIE \nAVOCAT \n51, rue Ampere, 75017 Paris", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.904, + 65.61 + ], + [ + 371.60662841796875, + 65.61 + ], + [ + 371.60662841796875, + 102.714599609375 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 102.714599609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EMPLOYMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 172.08929443359375, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 172.08929443359375, + 211.0946044921875 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 211.0946044921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERNSHIPS & LAW STUDIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 251.36903381347656, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 251.36903381347656, + 263.5946044921875 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 263.5946044921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXTRADITION LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 423.63 + ], + [ + 196.66769409179688, + 423.63 + ], + [ + 196.66769409179688, + 437.9745788574219 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 437.9745788574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CRIMINAL LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 177.16769409179688, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 177.16769409179688, + 586.8445739746094 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 586.8445739746094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LEGAL ADVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 65.61 + ], + [ + 174.58367919921875, + 65.61 + ], + [ + 174.58367919921875, + 79.0946044921875 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 79.0946044921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMBERSHIPS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 173.3678436279297, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 173.3678436279297, + 227.214599609375 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 227.214599609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 363.3447265625, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 363.3447265625, + 246.25408935546875 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 246.25408935546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 280.4045104980469, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 280.4045104980469, + 98.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 98.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF \nEXTRADITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 323.74800000000005, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 504.5806884765625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 504.5806884765625, + 210.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 323.74800000000005, + 210.86248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829918" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f98fa287fb85975a700974822bb2c9f9f1db4336 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +## Exhibit W + +December 7, 2020 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +I am writin this letter on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. a woman who I grew up knowing and looking up to. ■ we continue to be in touch today. + +I do not write this to discuss the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, to plead that she is innocent or argue that she is guilty. I am simply hoping to offer a more well-rounded picture of Ms. Maxwell as a person outside of the o anions of the media. As a kid. I saw Ghislaine as an ex le of a strop • , carin • woman. + +ion, er passion or saving oceans was msparing. At a very impressiona e age, G i 'slain taught me a lot about generosity, determination, and resilience. + +Thank you for the opportunity to write this letter. I hope you will consider granting bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. Given the seriousness of the situation, I would not have considered taking action if I did not feel it necessary. Whatever the outcome, I felt it was important for me to share my unique perspective and stand up for what I believe in. + +Sincerely. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36ce09b16c7e44050ca5f20d4918039e59cba6fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948/EFTA02829948.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829948.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1200, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.62, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit W", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.348, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 415.05023193359375, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 415.05023193359375, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 201.348, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829948" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e59497131880bc0d42dc1b7f5d445dae9bbbe0f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +## Exhibit X + +![](_page_1_Picture_443.jpeg) + +The Honourable Alison J Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Your Honour, + +2nd November 2020 + +**R:E: Miss Ghislaine Maxwell - Bail Application** + +I am sending this character reference in the knowledge that it will be presented to the court at Ghislaine's bail hearing. The content of this letter is the truth and within my knowledge. + +I first met Ghislaine [REDACTED] Both Ghislaine and her immediate family have been family friends for decades [REDACTED] Following our first encounter we became close friends and remained in constant touch ever since. We would always speak on her birthday which falls on Christmas Day. + +Ghislaine and I would regularly socialize together and [REDACTED] amongst many other adoring friends and family members. I was immediately drawn to Ghislaine when I first met her and both her honesty and integrity shone through from the moment we first met and I was therefore delighted to be asked [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] adores Ghislaine and it deeply disturbs me that a country as great as the United States would even think that Ghislaine poses a danger to children or minors and further to this I would have absolutely no hesitation in allowing Ghislaine to look after [REDACTED] at any time. + +Ghislaine is a prominent individual and I believe she will fight these charges to the end. She will not evade justice and is not in any way a flight risk. She should be granted bail immediately so that she can form a proper defence to these horrendous charges. She has faced monstrous allegations in the press that forced her to have to worry about her safety. + +I am not being paid or retained to provide this letter. I would however respectfully be prepared to offer any financial surety that I can afford in order to meet any bail pledge that the court may set. I await the courts decision and remain on standby should I be asked to fulfil any such commitment. + +Yours faithfully + +![](_page_1_Picture_455.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e300aa79bab85a51eff98398e09318293c917f58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/EFTA02829950.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2092, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.85, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_443.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_455.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit X", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 412.9654235839844, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 412.9654235839844, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "R:E: Miss Ghislaine Maxwell - Bail Application", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.86, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 94.86, + 279.45 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 391 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829950" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_443.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_443.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed6f5c6fb04fc7d92fe3da17d93ac00509342f73 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_443.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eaaccdac19b5384e364c38f7b59d10ed3891fdcd7e6794c6d8b7204c974fef45 +size 3822 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_455.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_455.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..261282c3dc6cb08c5978dc9d323f7fdbde82ce7a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829950/_page_1_Picture_455.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:649e65ccb5d49ebfe178562808f61b58e9a58e968b547b7aad283ed5b705ffc3 +size 9345 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef4ac3002fe407e59ec743da025baf9e9f54ac60 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.md @@ -0,0 +1,477 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +# MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | +| ARGUMENT | 7 | +| I. | Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. | +| § 3142(t) | 7 | +| II. | Ms. Maxwell Should Be Granted Bail Under the Proposed Strict Bail | +| Conditions | 10 | +| A. | Ms. Maxwell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous | +| | Sureties to Support Her Bond 10 | +| | 1. Ms. Maxwell is Devoted to Her Spouse and | +| | Would Never Destroy Her Family By Leaving the Country 11 | +| s | 2. A Number of Ms. Maxwell's Family and Friends, and the Significant Bonds Past Five Years | +| C. | Ms. Maxwell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Arrest | +| | 1. Ms. Maxwell Was Trying to Protect Herself from a Media Frenzy and from Physical Threats | +| | 2. Ms. Maxwell's Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government Prior to Her Arrest | +| | 3. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She "Good At" Hiding | +| D. | Ms. Maxwell Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seek Refuge in the United Kingdom or France | +| E. | The Discovery Contains No Meaningful Documentary Corroboration of | +| F. | The Proposed Bail Package Is Expansive and Far Exceeds What Is | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases United States v. Boustani, | Page(s) | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Bradshaw, | 3 | +| No. 00-40033-04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) United States v. Chen, | 8 | +| 820 F. Supp. 1205 (N.D. Cal. 1992) United States v. Grillo, | 27 | +| No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) United States v. Karni, | 26 | +| 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) United States v. Khashoggi, | 27 | +| 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) | 27 | +| United States v. Lee, | | +| No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) United States v. Orta, | 8 | +| 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) United States v. Petrov, | 35 | +| No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) United States v. | 8 | +| No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) United States v. Salvagno, | 8 | +| 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) United States v. Stephens, | 27 | +| 447 F. Supp. 3d 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) United States v. M. | 7, 38 | +| 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999) | 7 | + +# Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1XB)(i) | 3 | +|-----------------------------|------| +| 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) | 7, 8 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3142 | 3 | + +# Rules + +## TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +Exhibit A. Letter of Exhibit B. Letter of Exhibit C. Letter of Exhibit D. Letter of Exhibit E. Letter of Exhibit F. Letter of Exhibit G. Letter of Exhibit H. Letter of Exhibit I. Letter of Exhibit J. Letter of Exhibit K. Letter of Exhibit L. Letter of Exhibit M. Letter o Exhibit N. Letter of Exhibit O. Financial Condition Report Exhibit P. Statement of Exhibit Q. Media Analysis Exhibit R. Timeline of Discussions with SDNY Exhibit S. Statement of Exhibit T. Extradition Waivers Exhibit U. UK Extradition Opinion Exhibit V. France Extradition Opinion Exhibit W. Letter of Exhibit X. Letter of - + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Renewed Motion for Release on Bail. + +As set forth more fully below, Ms. Maxwell is proposing an expansive set of bail conditions that is more than adequate to address any concern regarding risk of flight and reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. Ms. Maxwell also provides compelling additional information in this submission, not available at the time of the initial bail hearing (which was held 12 days after her arrest), that squarely addresses each of the Court's concerns from the initial hearing and fully supports her release on the proposed bail conditions. This information includes: (I) evidence of Ms. Maxwell's significant family ties in the United States; (2) a detailed financial report, which has also been reviewed by a former IRS CID special agent, concerning her financial condition and assets, and those of her spouse, for the last five years; (3) irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United Kingdom and France and expert opinions stating that it would be highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to resist extradition in the implausible event of her fleeing to either country; (4) evidence rebutting the Government's contention that Ms. Maxwell attempted to evade detection by law enforcement prior to her arrest; and (5) a discussion of the weakness of the government's case against Ms. Maxwell, including the lack of corroborative, contemporaneous documentary evidence in support of the three accusers. + +Ms. Maxwell vehemently maintains her innocence and is committed to defending herself. She wants nothing more than to remain in this country to fight the allegations against her, which are based on the uncorroborated testimony of a handful of witnesses about events that took place over 25 years ago. The Court should grant Ms. Maxwell bail on the restrictive conditions proposed below to ensure her constitutional right to prepare her defense. + +#### The Proposed Bail Conditions + +Ms. Maxwell now proposes the following \$28.5 million bail package, which is exceptional in its scope and puts at risk everything that Ms. Maxwell has—all of her and her spouse's assets, her family's livelihood, and the financial security of her closest friends and family—if she were to flee, which she has no intention of doing. + +- A \$22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, and secured by approximately S8 million in property and S500,000 in cash. As noted in the fmancial report, the \$22.5 million figure represents the value of all of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's assets. The three properties securing the bond include all of the real property that Ms. Maxwell and her spouse own in the United States, including their primary family residence. +- Five additional bonds totaling approximately S5 million co-signed by seven of Ms. Maxwell's closest friends and family members. The individual bonds are in amounts that would cause significant financial hardship to these sureties if Ms. Maxwell were to flee. These include: o A \$1.5 million bond co-signed by Miboth U.S. citizens and rest ents, an i y secure y primary residence o A S3.5 million bond co-si ed b w o are U.K. citizens an rem ents. e . m ion sum represents virtually all of assets. is the guarantor of the existing mortgages on these assets. o A \$25,000 bond co-signed by U.S. citizen and resident, and fully secured by \$25,000 in cash. ,a o A \$25,000 bond signed bylIAMI, a close family friend, and full secured by S25,000 in cash. e cas security is money that planned to set aside for his own daughter's future, but he is pr to pledge it for Ms. Maxwell. o A S2,000 bond signed by a close family friend, who is a U.S. citizen and resident, an y secured by S2,000 in cash. +- A SI million bond posted by the security company that would provide security services to Ms. Maxwell if she is granted bail and transferred to restrictive home confinement. This bond is significant as we are unaware of a security company ever posting its own bond in support of a bail application. The head of the security + +company has confirmed that they have never done this for any client, and that he is willing to do so for Ms. Maxwell because he is confident that she will not try to flee. + +- Ms. Maxwell will remain in the custody o a U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States for 40 years. wt serve as Ms. Maxwell's third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 c 1 B)(i) and will live with Ms. Maxwell in a residence in New York City until this case has concluded. We have identified an appropriate residence in the Eastern District of New York that has been cleared by Ms. Maxwell's security company. +- Travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and limited as necessary to appear in court, attend meetings with counsel, and visit with doctors/psychiatrists/dentists, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. +- Surrender of all travel documents with no new applications. +- Ms. Maxwell will provide the Court irrevocable written waivers of her right to contest extradition in France and the United Kingdom. +- Strict supervision by Pretrial Services. +- Home confinement at her residence with electronic GPS monitoring. +- Visitors to be approved in advance by Pretrial Services, with counsel and family members to be pre-approved. +- Such other terms as the Court may deem appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. + +For her own safety, Ms. Maxwell will also have on-premises security guards 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The security guards will prevent Ms. Maxwell from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and will escort her when she is authorized to leave. If the Court wishes to make private security a condition of her bond, the guards could report to Pretrial Services.' We believe these conditions are more than sufficient to reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. + +As we argued in our initial bail application. this case involves the limited circumstance under which the Second Circuit approved granting pretrial release to a defendant on the condition that she pays for private armed security guards. United States r. Boustam. 932 F.3d 79. 82 (2d Cir. 2019) (defendant who "is deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of [her) wealth . may be released on such a condition only where. but for [her] wealth. (s)he would not have been detained- (emphasis in original)). Therefore, be released on the condition that she pay for private armed security. (Dkt. 18 at 20 n.16.) + +#### New Information for the Court's Consideration + +The defense has devoted substantial time and effort to compile information that was not available to Ms. Maxwell at the time of the initial bail hearing that squarely addresses each of the factors the Court considered at that hearing. Because of these efforts, Ms. Maxwell can now present the following additional information in support of her renewed bail application: + +- Letter from Ms. Maxwell's spouse. This letter demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell has powerful family ties to the United States that she will not abandon. It describes the committed relationship between Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, who is a U.S citizen, and how they lived a quiet family life together in the United States for over four years immediately prior to her arrest. The letter further explains that Ms. Maxwell was forced to leave her family and drop out of the public eye, not because she was trying to evade law enforcement, but because the intense media frenzy and threats following the arrest and death of Jeffrey Epstein threatened the safety and wellbeing of herself and her family, For these same reasons, Ms. Maxwell's spouse did not come forward as a co-signer at the time of the initial hearing. (Ex. A). +- Letters from numerous other friends and family members. These letters from Ms. Maxwell's other sureties and several family members and friends attest to Ms. Maxwell's strong, forthright character and their confidence that she will not flee. The sureties also describe the significant financial distress they would suffer if Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions. (Exs. B-N, W-X). +- Financial report. The financial report, prepared by the accounting firm Macalvins Limited, provides an accounting of Ms. Maxwell's financial condition from 2015- 2020, and discloses (i) all of her own assets, (ii) all assets held in trust, and (iii) all of the assets held by her spouse over that same time period. The report reflects that the total value of assets in all three categories is approximately \$22.5 million, which is the amount of the proposed bond. (Ex. O). +- Report from former IRS agent. a former IRS agent with over 40 years of experience in criminal tax an mancial fraud investigations, reviewed the Macalvins report and confirmed that it presents a complete and accurate picture of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's assets from 2015-2020. (Ex. P). +- Statement from the person in charge of Ms. Maxwell's security. This statement rebuts the government's claim that she attempted to hide from law enforcement at the time of her arrest. (Ex. S). +- Extradition waivers and expert affidavits. To address the Court's concerns about extradition, Ms. Maxwell will present irrevocable written waivers of her right to + +contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France.2 We also provide opinions from experts in the extradition laws of the France and the United Kingdom stating that it is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to resist extradition from either country in the event she were granted bail and somehow fled to either country, which she has no intention of doing. Their opinions also state that any extradition proceeding would be resolved promptly. (Exs. T-V). + +- Lack of corroborating evidence. The government represented to the Court that it had "contemporaneous documents," including "diary entries" in support of its case. (Dkt. 4 at 5). The defense has now reviewed the discovery produced to date, including all of the documents that the government described as the core of its case against Ms. Maxwell. As explained more fully below, the discovery contains no meaningful documentary corroboration as to Maxwell and only a small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. As an example, the government produced onl + +e evidence m t s case r s wn to witness testimony a ut events t t took place over 25 years ago. Far from creating a flight risk, the lack of corroboration only reinforces Ms. Maxwell's conviction that she has been falsely accused and strengthens her long-standing desire to face the allegations against her and clear her name in court. + +- Oppressive conditions of confinement Ms. Maxwell has now been detained for over 150 days in the equivalent of solitary confinement since she was indicted and arrested on July 2, 2020, despite the fact that she is not a suicide risk and has not received a single disciplinary infraction. The draconian conditions to which Ms. Maxwell is subjected are not only unjust and punitive, but also impair her ability to review the voluminous discovery produced by the government and to participate meaningfully in the preparation of her defense. Furthermore, the recent COVID-19 outbreak at the MDC threatens her safety and well-being. + +# Ms. Maxwell Should Be Placed on Restrictive Bail Conditions + +During her more than five months in isolation, Ms. Maxwell has had to watch as she has been relentlessly attacked in a deluge of media articles that spiked over a year ago when Epstein + +2Ms. Maxwell has not yet signed these waivers because we have not been able to visit her in the MDC to obtain her signature since she was quarantined over two weeks ago. She will sign them as soon as legal visits resume. + +In a letter dated October 13. 2020. we asked the ovemment to other thin• ide additional discos incl anion + +t o senous w c Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (see Dkt. 68). the govenunent's failure to obtain s case pursuant to Rule 5 F) of the is curious and bons in recent cases ore owl, a e recent o concerning. + +was arrested and has shown no signs of abating. Indeed, in the three months after her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of over 6,500 national media articles. That exceeds the number of articles that mentioned such high-profile defendants as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquin "El Chapo" Locra, and Keith Raniere in the 90-day period following their arrests, combined. The media coverage has ruthlessly vilified her and prejudged her guilt, and has exposed her family and friends to harassment, physical threats, and other negative consequences. + +But Ms. Maxwell is not the person the media has portrayed her to be; far from it. And her response to these unfounded allegations remains unchanged: she resolutely and vehemently denies them, and she is steadfastly committed to remaining in this country, where she has been since Epstein's arrest in July 2019, to fight them in court. For Ms. Maxwell to flee, she would have to abandon her spouse She will not risk destroying the lives and financial well-being of those she holds most dear to live as a fugitive during a worldwide pandemic. In fact, every action Ms. Maxwell has taken from the time of Epstein's arrest up to the time of the first bail hearing was designed to protect her spouse from harassment, economic harm, and physical danger. Ms. Maxwell wants to stay in New York and have her day in court so that she can clear her name and return to her family. + +Justice is not reserved solely for the victims of a crime; it is for the accused as well. Here, justice would be served by granting Ms. Maxwell bail under the comprehensive conditions we propose. The alternative is continued detention under oppressive conditions that are unprecedented for a non-violent pretrial detainee, which significantly impair her ability to participate in her defense and prepare for trial and which jeopardize her physical health and psychological wellbeing. + +### ARGUMENT + +# 1. Reconsideration of the Court's Rail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. 4 3142fft + +A prior determination that a defendant should not be released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering its decision in light of new information. To the contrary, a bail hearing + +may be reopened ... at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. + +18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). + +Courts have relied on § 3142(0 in revisiting bail determinations where the defendant presents material testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the time of the initial hearing, even if the underlying facts might have been within the defendant's knowledge. For example, in United States v. M. 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court granted the defendant's request to reopen his bail hearing to present evidence of his immediate family's willingness to act as sureties for his release. Id. at 1207. The court held that although "his immediate family and relatives were obviously known to" the defendant at the time of his arrest, his inability to contact them and secure their appearance at his initial bail hearing justified reconsideration. Id. + +Courts also have found § 3142(0 satisfied where there is new information regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense—facts generally not known to a criminal defendant at the time of the initial hearing—particularly where the evidence undermines the government's prior representations to the Court regarding the strength of its case. See, e.g., United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) + +(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government's case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at •3 (D.N.M. 2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense that defendant "could have not have martialed" in the 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when the change was within the defendant's control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033- 04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing). + +In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision. "[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing." United States v. M, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). + +Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7 million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the Court's consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application. + +It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of § 3142(0: that it have a "material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release + +that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." The evidence submitted herewith relates directly to factors on which the Court relied in its initial detention order. Among the bases for the Court's initial order denying bail were its findings that: + +- Ms. Maxwell's lack of "significant family ties" in the United States suggested "that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her" (Tr. 84); +- the Court lacked "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the resources available to her" that would allow it to set reasonable bail conditions (Tr. 87); +- "[c]ircumstances of her arrest ... may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government" (Tr. 85); +- Ms. Maxwell "is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens" (Tr. 83); and +- the government had proffered that its "witness testimony will be corroborated by significant contemporaneous documentary evidence" (Fr. 82). + +The additional evidence submitted herewith demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell does have significant family ties in the United States; that her assets have been thoroughly disclosed and reasonable bail conditions can be set; that Ms. Maxwell has never attempted to hide from the government; that Ms. Maxwell has waived her extradition rights and it is highly likely she would be extradited from the United Kingdom or France; and that the government's case against her is not supported by the corroborating documentary evidence which the government represented at the initial hearing. + +The evidence submitted herewith is significant and substantial, and it could not have reasonably been obtained, assembled, and submitted in the 12 days between Ms. Maxwell's arrest and her initial detention hearing. This evidence has a material bearing on whether reasonable bail conditions can be set, and it shows that the proposed set of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance in court. + +## II. Ms. Maxwell Should Be Granted Bail Uncle, the l'ro osed Strict Bail Conditions + +#### A. Ms. Maxwell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous Sureties to Support Her Bond + +Attached to this submission are letters from Ms. Maxwell's spouse and from numerous close family members and friends, many of whom have agreed to serve as sureties to support Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application. (See Exs. A-N, W-X). Far from the cruel caricature that the press has so recklessly depicted since the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, these letters demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell is generous, loving, and devoted to her family and friends, and that her life is firmly rooted in this country with her spouse- -. The signatories of these letters have known Ms. Maxwell for decades, and some for her entire life. All know her to be the antithesis of what the government has alleged. They trust her completely, including with their minor children. + +These people have stepped forward to support Ms. Maxwell, despite the considerable risk that, if their names ever become public, they will be subjected to some of the same relentless and harassing media intrusion and personal threats that Ms. Maxwell has experienced for years. As a sign of their confidence that Ms. Maxwell will remain in this country, the sureties have agreed to sign their own bonds and to post meaningful pledges of cash or property in amounts that would cause them significant financial distress if Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions. + +These letters directly address the concern the Court expressed at the last bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell did not have "any dependents [or] significant family ties" to the United States. (Tr. 84). If Ms. Maxwell were to flee, she would be leaving behind the family that has been the center of her life she would be abandoning her spouse E + +who are already suffering without her presence, and she would cause financial min to herself and her closest family and friends. + +- 1. Ms. Maxwell is Devoted to Her Spouse and Would Never Destroy Her Family By Leaving the Country + +The letter submitted by Ms. Maxwell's spouse powerfully demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell has deep roots in the United States and is not a flight risk. The letter describes Ms. Maxwell's domestic life with her spouse in the four years prior to her arrest. Her spouse describes Ms. Maxwell as a "wonderful and loving person," who does not remotely resemble the person depicted in the indictment. (Ex. A ¶ 4). Contrary to the government's assertion that Ms. Maxwell lived a rootless, "transient" lifestyle (Dkt. 4 at 9), Ms. Maxwell lived a quiet family life with her spouse until Epstein's arrest in July 2019 ignited a media frenzy that has ripped the family apart. + +The person described in the criminal charges is not the person we know. I have never witnessed anything close to inappropriate with Ghislaine; quite to the contrary, the Ghislaine I know is a wonderful and loving n. + +Until the explosion of media interest that followed the arrest and sub uent death in custod ofJeffre E in Jul thin Au t 2019, + +(Id. ¶¶ 4-5). + +The letters from Ms. Maxwell's family members similarly describe how Ms. Maxwell's home is in the United States with her spouse committed she is to her family. See Ex. D and how deeply + +It is very obvious that they love her deeply. They are an incredibly strong and close family unit."); Ex. F ("I joined a large family event hosted by Ghislaine and her husband in which she was very hospitable and obviously very much at home and in love."); Ex. C ("[Ghislaine) has called the United States her home for almost 30 years. She has deep affective family ties here in this country all, her own husband are here."): Ex. B ("I wish ... to attest to the loving relationship she has with her husband many different occasions.") . Most of which I have personally witnessed on + +Indeed, it was because of Ms. Maxwell's devotion to her family, and her desire to protect her spouse from harassment and threats, that she went forward at the first bail hearing without relying on her spouse as a co-signer, even though she knew his support would greatly strengthen her bail application. As her spouse writes: + +I did not initially come forward as a co-si er of her first bail application ... [because we were in to rotect from ferocious media a ssion.... + +(Ex. A ¶ 13). Her spouse is coming forward now because he is deeply concerned about how she is being treated in the MDC and because the terrible consequences that lie and Ms. + +Maxwell were trying to prevent have already occurred. + +(Id.lri 10-11). + +Ms. Maxwell's spouse fully supports her and is prepared to put up all of his and Ms. Maxwell's assets to ensure that Ms. Maxwell abides by the strict conditions proposed. He + +has agreed to co-sign Ms. Maxwell's \$22.5 million bond and to post all three properties he owns—all located in the United States and worth a total of approximately \$8 million combined—as security for the bond. As the financial report discussed later in this submission makes clear, \$22.5 million represents all of the current assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse. One of the properties is the family home where Ms. Maxwell, her spouse, have lived together-. If Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions, which she has no intention of doing, she would be leaving her spouse. with virtually nothing. It is unfathomable that Ms. Maxwell would abandon her family, which she has fought so hard to protect, under these circumstances. + +## 2. A Number of Ms. Maxwell's Family and Friends, and the Security Company Protecting Her. Are Prepared to Sign Significant Bonds + +In addition to her spouse, a number of Ms. Maxwell's family members and friends, many of whom are U.S. citizens and residents, have volunteered to step forward as cosigners. These sureties, as well as the others who have written letters on Ms. Maxwell's behalf, know that Ms. Maxwell has never run from a difficult situation and will not do so now. To show the depth of their support and their confidence that Ms. Maxwell will abide by her bail conditions and remain in this country, the sureties have agreed to sign separate bonds for Ms. Maxwell in amounts that are significant and meaningful to them, and each would cause severe financial hardship if she were to violate her bail conditions. + +For example, one surety, who is a U.S. citizen and resident, will post the only property she owns. This property is worth approximately \$1.5 million and is her "only nestegg for retirement." (Ex. C). She writes: + +I do not have any other savings and it would be completely devastating financially and in every way to my own family were the house to be taken over by the Government due to a breach of bail conditions. + +(Id.). Nevertheless, she has "no hesitation" posting her home because she knows "in every fibre of [her] being" that Ms. Maxwell "will never try to flee." (Id.). + +Similarly, another surety who has agreed to sign a \$3.5 million bond writes: + +This amount represents the value of effectively all of my assets, including my home I If I lost these assets because Ghislaine violated the conditions of her release, I would be financially mined. I make this pledge without reservation because I know that Ghislaine will remain in the United States to face the charges against her. + +(Ex. F). Two other sureties, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and resident, will post cash bonds in the amount of \$25,000, and another will post \$2,000 in cash, which are significant pledges for these individuals. + +In addition to these bonds, the security company that will provide security services to Ms. Maxwell upon her transfer into home confinement has agreed to post a \$1 million bond in support of her bail application. In our collective experience as defense counsel, we are not aware of a previous example where a security company has posted a bond for a defendant. The head of the security company has confirmed that they have never done this for a defendant in the past but are willing to do so here because of his company's "longstanding relationship with Ms. Maxwell" and because he is "confident that she will not try to flee." (Ex. S). + +In sum, these bonds reflect the depth of support that Ms. Maxwell has from her family and friends, who are risking their livelihoods, their safety, and their ability to live without constant media harassment to support her. (See Ex. B) ("Absolutely anyone who dares to put their head above the parapet so to speak, to ... support Ghislaine personally, gets it shot off immediately amid a hail of social vilification and malignancy and reputational slaughtering."). Ms. Maxwell would never destroy those closest to her by fleeing, after they have risked so much to support her. + +# Maxwell Has Provided a Thorough Review of Her Finances for the Past Five Years + +The government raised concerns at the initial bail hearing about the accuracy and completeness of the financial disclosures that Ms. Maxwell provided to Pretrial Services. (Dkt. 22 at 11-12; Tr. 28-29, 34-35). The Court stated that it did not have "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the resources available to her" and therefore had no way "to set financial bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court." (Tr. 86-87). + +To address the Court's questions about Ms. Maxwell's finances, defense counsel retained Macalvins, a highly reputable accounting firm in the United Kingdom, to conduct an analysis of Ms. Maxwell's assets and finances for the past five years. The Macalvins accountants reviewed thousands of pages of financial documents, including bank statements, tax returns, FBAR filings, and other materials to create a clear picture of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as well as any assets held in trust for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, and the source of those assets from 2015-2020. This analysis, which is based in substantial part on documents that the government provided in discovery, has involved a significant amount of work and has taken substantial time to complete. It was not possible to perform this analysis in the brief time between Ms. Maxwell's arrest and the initial bail hearing, especially with Ms. Maxwell detained following her arrest. + +The Macalvins report was also reviewed by , a Certified Fraud Examiner and a former IRS Special Agent with over 40 years of experience in complex financial fraud investigations. As a Special Agent, investigated numerous financial fraud and criminal tax cases, including several in this District. reviewed the Macalvins report and the underlying documents and determined that it presents a complete and accurate summary of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as well as assets that were, or are currently, held in + +trust for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, from 2015-2020. The Macalvins report and 's report are attached as Exhibits O and P.4 + +As set forth in the Macalvins report, Ms. Maxwell's net worth at the beginning of 2015 was approximately \$20,200,000. (Ex. O ¶ 11). The 2015 tax return records the sale of a residential property in New York City for \$15,075,000. The address of this property is The proceeds of the sale were deposited at (Id. ¶ 12). The sale of Ms. Maxwell's New York apartment coincided with her intention to live with her spouse-(See Ex. A ¶ 2). + +Ms. Maxwell married her spouse in 2016 and commenced filing joint U.S. tax returns from the 2016 tax year until today. (Ex. O ¶ 13). In 2016, Ms. Maxwell transferred the majority of her assets into a trust controlled by her spouse and . (Id.). All assets in the trust were distributed to Ms. Maxwell's spouse in 2019. (Id. at 9). Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's net worth as of October 31, 2020 was approximately \$22,500,000. (Id. ¶ 15).5 + +There has been no alienation of any assets and no significant sum of cash has been transferred outside of the control of Ms. Maxwell or her spouse in the period from 2015- + +4 We have not provided the Court with the appendices to the Macalvins report because they are voluminous. If the Court would like copies of the appendices, we are happy to provide them. + +\$ At her Pretrial Services interview, Ms. Maxwell reported that she believed she had approximately \$3.8 million in assets, which included her London residence worth approximately \$3 million, and approximately \$800,000 in bank accounts. Ms. Maxwell was detained at the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, these figures are a close approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of her arrest. (Id. at 9). For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything about her husband and expressed that to Pretrial Services. + +2020, other than daily living expenditures for her family and for professional services in the defense of Ms. Maxwell from the charges she faces. (Id. ¶ 16). + +The Macalvins report confirms that Ms. Maxwell disclosed all of her foreign bank accounts in FBAR filings and properly disclosed her bank accounts, investments and other assets in her U.S. tax filings at all times. (Id.¶1125, 30). The report also explains that the transfers of funds between various accounts in the past few years, which the government highlighted in their initial bail submission (Dkt. 22 at 11-12), reflected movements between banks triggered by the closure of one banking relationship and the opening of new relationship, as well movements of cash maturing on deposit and other financial investments. (Id. 1 18). + +At the last bail hearing, the government suggested that Ms. Maxwell's finances were "opaque" and that she potentially had "significant [] undetermined and undisclosed wealth." (Tr. 27; Dkt. 22 at 11-12). The Macalvins report lifts this cloud of unjustified intrigue and provides a straightforward answer: Ms. Maxwell and her spouse currently have assets worth approximately \$22.5 million.6 Accordingly, the proposed bond amount of \$22.5 million represents all of the couple's current assets. + +The report further shows that Ms. Maxwell has no undisclosed wealth and is not hiding assets overseas. To the contrary, for the past several years, Ms. Maxwell and her husband have disclosed their foreign assets by submitting FBAR filings regarding their + +6 We have redacted the name of the bank where ough the ce o e account is disclosed in t ca VMS . we e t tt neces to ct name of the bank because + +e vn . o course. o f ow t e out/ s gin ce on • w to proc pion • e t name o t to e ourt and the government. if required. In that event, we ask that the Court establish guidelines limiting what the government can do with the information. + +foreign bank accounts. Ms. Maxwell is not trying to hide anything from the government. She has been entirely transparent with her finances and has filed accurate and timely joint tax returns with her spouse for the last four years, and she has put it all at risk of forfeiture if she flees under the proposed bail package. The Macalvins report and the report of give the Court a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances. Accordingly, the Court should have no pause about granting her on bail on the proposed terms. + +# C. Ms. Maxwell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Arrest + +# 1. Ms. Maxwell Was Trying to Protect Herselfl from a Media Frenzy and from Physical Threats + +The letter from Ms. Maxwell's spouse also forcefully debunks the fiction that Ms. Maxwell was trying to conceal her whereabouts from the government before her arrest, as the government argued at the first bail hearing. (Tr. 25). Ms. Maxwell made efforts to remove herself from the public eye solely to prevent the intrusion of the frenzied press into her personal family life and to protect herself, her spouse, from third parties who threatened violence. To suggest that she was a fugitive is patently wrong. + +After Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in BOP custody, the media coverage of Ms. Maxwell spiked dramatically, as the press rushed to substitute Ms. Maxwell for Epstein as the target of the scandal. The graph below illustrates the volume of press articles relating to Ms. Maxwell over the course of the last five years.7 The graph shows that Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in news articles only sporadically between October 2015 and June 2019. It was not until Mr. Epstein's arrest in July 2019 that Ms. Maxwell was thrown into the media spotlight. For example, Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in only 59 articles in total from October 2015 to June 2019. Immediately following Epstein's arrest, however, she was + +7 In order to quantify the number of articles published about Ms. Maxwell, we used Nexis NewsDesk, a media monitoring and analytics service provided by LexisNexis. + +named in 97 articles in the month of July 2019 alone. The level of press coverage spiked again in November 2019 when the British tabloid *The Sun* ran an advertisement offering a £10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts and it continued at a heightened level over the next several months. + +![](_page_24_Figure_8.jpeg) + +This graph depicts in stark visual terms the sea change in media attention that upended Ms. Maxwell's life at the time of Epstein's arrest. But it was not only harassment from the press that Ms. Maxwell suddenly encountered at this time. She also faced a deluge of threatening messages on social media in the days immediately following Epstein's arrest and death. (*See Ex. Q*). The hatred directed towards Ms. Maxwell in these posts is palpable and unsettling. Despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell was not charged—indeed, not even mentioned—in the Epstein indictment, and had not been charged with any crimes, the authors referred to her as a “crazy, pedophile, pimp, bitch” and a “subhuman c\*nt,” and called for her to “rot in jail.” These people also encouraged all manner of violent acts + +against Ms. Maxwell. For example, one post stated "they need to get this bitch n string her up by her neck . . . f\*ckin monster." Another stated: + +I hope someone finds her and kills her. That would be justice. Obviously her lawyers know's [sic] where she is, someone should stick them up to batteries until we find out where she is. + +These posts were particularly chilling because some of them suggested that the authors [REDACTED] might [REDACTED] carry out the violent acts they had been threatening. For example, in response to an August 14, 2019 news report that Ms. Maxwell might be living in Massachusetts, one person wrote: + +SHE'S HERE in #Massachusetts ?! The bitch #GhislaineMaxwell who #SexTrafficked young girls for #Epstein ?!?! Why the hell isn't she being brought in for questioning @ManchesterMAPD ?! WE DO NOT WANT HER HERE! #SleezyLeach She is CLOSE ENOUGH to me, I could grab her myself! + +The intense media attention and violent threats made it no longer possible for Ms. Maxwell [REDACTED] to live a quiet life and required Ms. Maxwell to take more drastic steps to protect herself [REDACTED]. Rather than see [REDACTED] harmed by even more unwanted media attention, Ms. Maxwell made the difficult decision to separate herself [REDACTED] and leave her home. As her spouse writes: + +The "reporting" of Ghislaine over the past year has exploded exponentially. From the time of Epstein's arrest and death in custody in the summer of 2019 until Ghislaine's own arrest in July of this year, huge and increasingly frightening levels of media interest meant [REDACTED] [REDACTED] There are many examples of violence whose seeds were born in conspiracy theories, and the experiences of QAnon, Pizzagate, and the recent Judge Salas attack are terrifying.... + +It is hard to communicate in words the feeling of being stalked, spied upon and trapped by constant, 24/7 media intrusion [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +(Ex. A ¶¶ 8-10). Ms. Maxwell had no choice but to separate herself [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] (*Id.* ¶ 11). + +Since Ms. Maxwell’s own arrest in July 2020, the press attention has exploded. It significantly dwarfs the media attention given to other recent high-profile defendants such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquín “El Chapo” [REDACTED] Loera, and Keith Raniere. As reflected in the graph below, in the 90-day period immediately following her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in more national media articles than in the analogous 90-day periods for Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Cosby, Mr. [REDACTED] Loera, and Mr. Raniere combined. + +![](_page_26_Figure_81.jpeg) + +#### 2. Ms. Maxwell's Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government Prior to Her Arrest + +At no time, however, did Ms. Maxwell intend to flee or hide from the government, as the government argued at the last bail hearing. In fact, her intent was exactly the opposite. As her spouse's letter makes clear, after spending a few months away , Ms. Maxwell moved so that she could be within driving distance of the prosecutors in New York in case they wished to speak to her. (Ex. A ¶ 12) ("[Ghislaine] was adamant to not only stay in the United States to fight the smears against her, but to be within driving distance of New York."). Contrary to the impression given by the government, Ms. Maxwell was not "changing locations on multiple occasions" as if she were a fugitive from justice. (Tr. 87). After Ms. Maxwell moved into the house in New Hampshire in December 2019, she remained there continuously for approximately seven months until her arrest. (See Ex. B) ("[S]he was finally able to locate a place where she could not be moving around constantly and collect herself to fight for her life and to clear her name."). + +Ms. Maxwell, through her counsel, was also in regular contact with the government from the moment of Epstein's arrest up the time of her own arrest, as would be customary in such situations. Defense counsel corresponded by email, spoke on the phone, or had inperson meetings with government in July, August, September, and October 2019, and also in January and March 2020. The timeline attached to this submission illustrates the extent of these contacts. (Ex. R). Defense counsel also requested an opportunity to be heard in the event that the government was considering any charging decisions against Ms. Maxwell. We were never given that opportunity, which is uncharacteristic for the Southern District of New York, nor were we given any notice of her impending arrest. + +The government argued to the Court that defense counsel's contact with the prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest prove little about her intent to stay in this country simply because she never disclosed her location. (Tr. 26). While Ms. Maxwell was understandably not in the habit of volunteering her whereabouts given the intensity of the press attention, her counsel would have provided that information had the government asked for it. The government never did. + +# 3. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She "Good At" FErgt + +Similarly, had the government reached out to defense counsel before Ms. Maxwell's arrest, we would have willingly arranged for her self-surrender. We were never given that chance. Instead, the government arrested her in a totally unnecessary early morning raid with multiple federal agents at her residence in New Hampshire, on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, creating the misimpression that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from them. That is simply not the case. + +The government argued that the events of Ms. Maxwell's arrest—in particular, that she moved herself into an interior room when the officers approached the house and that they found a cell phone wrapped in tin foil—evidence an attempt to evade law enforcement. (Tr. 32-34). As we previously explained to the Court, Ms. Maxwell was protecting herself from the press, not trying to avoid arrest. (Tr. 54-57). + +Since the hearing, we have obtained the accompanying statement from the head of the security company guarding Ms. Maxwell at the time of her arrest, which was not available at the time of the initial hearing. (Ex. S). statement demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell was not avoiding arrest, but was following an agreed-upon procedure to protect herself in the event of a potential threat to her safety or security. + +According to , the security guard on duty that day had seen helicopters flying over the house, which he assumed to be the press. (Id.). When the guard saw the FBI agents walking up the driveway to the house, he again assumed that they were members of the press. (Id.). Accordingly, he radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that the press was on the grounds and approaching the house. (Id.). In accordance with the procedure that Ms. Maxwell's security personnel had put in place for . Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. (Id.). Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest; she was simply following the established security protocols to protect herself from what had been informed was an ambush by the press. + +Regarding the cellphone wrapped in tin foil, we explained to the Court at the initial bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone after the Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed certain court records with the phone number unredacted. (Tr. 55-56). Having now reviewed the discovery produced by the government, it is clear that Ms. Maxwell was not at all the't= spy" the government makes her out to be and was not wrapping the phone in order to evade detection by law enforcement. + +First, the cellphone in question was subscribed in the name of "Terramar Project, Inc.," which is easily identifiable through a simple Google search as Ms. Maxwell's charity. Second, Ms. Maxwell used the phone to make calls as late as May 2020, just before her arrest. She would never have used the phone if she had been concerned that the authorities were using it to track her. Third, Ms. Maxwell had another phone subscribed in the name of "G Max" that she was using as her primary phone, which was not covered. It would make no sense for her to try to wrap one phone in tin foil to avoid detection and not the other. + +Indeed, the discovery reflects that it was not hard at all for the government to locate Ms. Maxwell when they wanted to find her by tracking her primary phone. + +In sum, the cellphone clearly shows that Ms. Maxwell was not "good at" hiding or that she was avoiding arrest, as the government claimed. (Tr. 31-32). She was trying to protect herself as best as she could from harassment by the press, not capture by law enforcement. Moreover, this should not be a bar to granting bail. The proposed conditions ensure her presence at home in plain sight of (and the security guards), GPSmonitored, and under strict Pretrial supervision. + +# D. Ms. Maxwell Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seek Refuge in the United Kingdom or France + +At the initial hearing, the government argued that Ms. Maxwell, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States for almost 30 years, might flee to the United Kingdom or France if granted bail, despite the fact that she did not leave the country for nearly a year after Epstein's arrest. (Dkt. 22 at 6.) The government asserted in its reply brief that France "does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to law." (Id.) At the bail hearing, the government represented that "France will not extradite a citizen to the United States as a matter of law, even if the defendant is a dual citizen of the United States," and that extradition by the United Kingdom would be "lengthy" and "uncertain" with bail "very likely" pending the extradition proceeding. (Tr. 27.) These assertions are incorrect, particularly given Ms. Maxwell's irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France. + +As we noted for the Court at the initial hearing, the concern that Ms. Maxwell would attempt to flee the United States is entirely unfounded given that Ms. Maxwell had every motive and opportunity to flee after the arrest and death of Jeffrey Epstein, but chose to remain in this + +country. (Dkt. 18 at 12-14, Tr. 52-53). It is even more unfounded in light of the daily avalanche of media coverage of Ms. Maxwell. She is now one of the most recognizable and infamous people in the world. She is being pursued relentlessly by the press, which would no doubt be camped out by her front door every day if she were granted bail. The notion that Ms. Maxwell could somehow flee to a foreign country during a worldwide pandemic (presumably, by plane), while being supervised and monitored 24 hours a day and with the eyes of the global press corps on her every minute, without being caught, is absurd. + +To the extent the Court is concerned that her calculus may have changed since her arrest because the threat of prosecution has now crystallized into concrete charges (Tr. 85-86), Ms. Maxwell has addressed that concern head-on—she will execute irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. (Ex. T). These waivers demonstrate Ms. Maxwell's firm commitment to remain in this country to face the charges against her. Moreover, as discussed more fully in the attached expert reports, because of these waivers and other factors, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to successfully resist an extradition request from the United States to either country, in the extremely unlikely event she were to violate her bail conditions. (Exs. U-V). Moreover, any extradition proceedings in either country would be resolved promptly. (Id.). + +Courts have addressed concerns about a defendant's ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waivers by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release—including in cases where the defendants, unlike Ms. Maxwell, were not U.S. citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at \*2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) (vacating district court's detention order and reinstating magistrate's release order, which required foreign citizen and resident to sign an "irrevocable waiver of extradition" as a condition of release); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (ordering each of two defendants to "execute and file with the Clerk of the Court a waiver of extradition applicable to any nation or foreign territory in which he may be found as a condition of his continued release"); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2004) (requiring Israeli citizen who lived in South Africa and had "no ties to the United States" to sign waiver of rights not to be extradited under Israeli and South African extradition treaties with United States); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (ordering as a condition of release that defendants "execute waivers of challenges to extradition from any nation where they may be found"). Moreover, a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order has been recognized as an indication of the defendant's intent not to flee. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (Judge Keenan found defendant's extradition appeal waiver "manifests an intention to remain here and face the charges against him"). + +In response to the government's assertions, Ms. Maxwell has obtained the accompanying reports of experts in United Kingdom and extradition law, who have analyzed the likelihood that Ms. Maxwell, in the event she were to flee to the United Kingdom or France, would be able to resist extradition to the United States after having executed a waiver of her right to do so. Both have concluded that it is highly unlikely that she would be able to resist extradition successfully. + +United Kingdom. With respect to the United Kingdom, submitted herewith is a report from David (1.1 Rep."), a U.K. barrister who is widely considered one of the United Kingdom's preeminent extradition practitioners. Rep. Annex B1 2.1) (attached as Exhibit U). Mr. has acted on behalf of many overseas governments in extradition proceedings; has + +appeared in the High Court, House of Lords and Supreme Court in leading extradition cases; and has acted as an expert consultant to the Commonwealth Secretariat on international cooperation. (Id.). In 2011 and 2012, Mr. was part of a select team appointed by the U.K. government to conduct a review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, a review that formed the basis of changes to the 2003 Extradition Act. (Id. Annex B ¶ 3.1). + +In Mr. opinion, it is "highly unlikely that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States" in connection with this case. ( Rep. ¶ 2(e)). After concluding that none of the potentially applicable bars to extradition or human rights objections would prevent Ms. Maxwell's extradition, Mr. Maxwell's waiver of her extradition rights "would be admissible in any extradition proceedings and, in cases, such as this one, where the requested person consents to their extradition, the extradition process is likely to take between one and three months to complete." (Id. 111124-39). Mr. report also undercuts the government's representation at the initial hearing regarding likelihood of bail (see Tr. 27), opining that "a person who absconded from [a] US criminal proceeding in breach of bail... is extremely unlikely to be granted bail" in a subsequent U.K. extradition proceeding. ( Rep. ¶ 23). + +France. The accompanying report of William Julie ("Julie Rep.") reviews the extradition process as it would likely be applied to Ms. Maxwell. Mr. Julie is an expert on extradition law who has handled extradition cases both within and outside the European Union and regularly appears as an extradition expert in courts. (Julie Rep.) (attached as Exhibit V). Mr. Julie explains that, contrary to the government's representation, "the extradition of a national to the USA is legally permissible under law." (Id. at 1). + +Mr. Julie opines that the entity with jurisdiction over the legality of extradition requests would not oppose Ms. Maxwell's extradition on the ground that she is a citizen, and that it is "highly unlikely that the government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree" against her. (Id. at 2). Mr. Julie bases his opinion largely on (i) Ms. Maxwell's U.S. citizenship; (ii) her irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United States; (iii) the fact that the issue would arise only if Ms. Maxwell had fled to France in violation of strict bail conditions in the United States; (iv) the fact that a failure to extradite would obligate authorities to try courts for the same 25-year-old conduct alleged in the indictment, which did not take place in France; and (v) France's diplomatic interest in accommodating an extradition request from the United States. (Id.). Mr. Julie adds that the extradition process would likely be "disposed of expediently"; where the requesting state emphasizes the urgent nature of the extradition request, "the extradition decree is generally issued in only a few weeks." (Id. at 2-3). And in any event, while the extradition proceedings are pending, "the judicial authorities would most certainly decide that [Ms. Maxwell] has to remain in custody given her flight from the USA and the violation of her bail terms and conditions in this requesting State." (Id. at 12). + +Ms. Maxwell has no intention of fleeing the country and has relinquished her rights to contest extradition. She has always maintained her innocence and will continue to fight the allegations against her here in the United States, as she has in the past. Even if she were to flee after being granted bail (which she will not), it is likely that Ms. Maxwell would be extradited expeditiously from France or the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court should give no weight in the bail analysis to the fact that Ms. Maxwell is a dual citizen of these countries.8 + +8Ms. Maxwell would also have very little incentive to flee to France. According to recent press reports, authorities recently broadened their existing criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Ms. Maxwell. See + +#### E. The Discovery Contains No Meaningful Documentary Corroboration of the Government's Allegations Against Ms. Maxwell + +At the initial bail hearing, the government represented to the Court that "the evidence in this case is strong" and that the allegations of the alleged victims were "backed up [by] contemporaneous documents .. . [including] flight records, diary entries, business records, and other evidence." (Dkt. 4 at 5.) The Court credited those representations and accepted the government's proffer that the witness testimony would be "corroborated by significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Tr. 82) (emphasis added). The defense, of course, could not rebut the government's representations at the hearing because the government had not yet produced discovery. + +Since then, the government has produced, and the defense has reviewed, hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery, including the entire initial tranche of discovery that the government represented was the core of its case against Ms. Maxwell.9 The discovery contains no meaningful documentary corroboration of the allegations whatsoever, much less "significant" corroboration that the Court was led to believe existed. The vast majority of the discovery that the defense has reviewed relates to the time period in the 2O0Os and the 201Os, well after the conspiracy charged in the indictment (1994-1997). These documents include + +In fact, only + +Daily Mail,' prosecutors probing Jeffrey Epstein over rape and abuse of children in Paris widen probe to include Ghislaine Maxwell to see if British socialite was involved in his offending," (Oct. 25, 2020), https://www.dailymail.co.u1c/news/artiele-887882aprosecutors-probing-Jeffrey-Epstein-widen-probeinclude-Ghislaine-Maxwell html. + +9 The defense has not yet completed its review of the over 1.2 million documents produced on November 9, 2020 and November 18, 2020. This production includes documents and images seized from electronic devices found at Epstein's residences in searches of his residences in 2019. Our initial review, however, shows that the documents are from the 2000s and 2010s, well after the charged conspiracy. + +a very small fraction of the discovery pertains in any way to the individuals we believe to be the three complainants named in the indictment, and none of it corroborates any allegations of "grooming" or sexual assault or a conspiracy with Epstein involving Ms. Maxwell. + +For example, the government represented to the Court that it had "diary entries" that corroborated the witness testimony, suggesting that more than one of the complainants had kept contemporaneous diaries that implicated Ms. Maxwell. (Dkt. 4 at 5). The discovery produced thus far contains only + +I0 + +In addition, the flight records that the government touted at the bail hearing, which include + +10 + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The discovery also does not contain any police reports in which the people we believe to be the complainants reported the alleged crimes to law enforcement. To the contrary, the only police reports provided are exculpatory. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In sum, the discovery contains not a single contemporaneous email, text message, phone record, diary entry, police report, or recording that implicates Ms. Maxwell in the 1994-1997 conduct underlying the conspiracy charged in the indictment. The few documents in the discovery that pertain to the people we believe to be the three complainants referenced in the indictment do little, if anything, to support the government's case against Ms. Maxwell: + +• [REDACTED] + +• [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In addition, the discovery appears to show that, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] the government did not issue subpoenas for documents related to Ms. Maxwell until *after* Epstein's death. Although the discovery does not include the grand jury subpoenas themselves, the subpoena returns appear to indicate that the government began issuing subpoenas for Ms. Maxwell's financial information on August 16, 2019, six days *after* Epstein's death, and issued additional subpoenas in the months that followed. The facts strongly imply that government only chose to pursue a case against Ms. Maxwell—who was not named in the Epstein indictment—because the main target, Jeffrey Epstein, had died in their custody. The lack of corroboration in the discovery confirms that the case against Ms. Maxwell was an afterthought and was reverse engineered based on allegations of 25-year-old conduct from a small number of alleged victims. + +Thus, notwithstanding the statement in the government's bail submission, we have been provided with no meaningful documentary corroboration in this case. It appears that the evidence in this case boils down to witness testimony about events that allegedly took place over 25 years ago. Far from creating a flight risk, the lack of corroboration only reinforces Ms. Maxwell's conviction that she has been falsely accused and strengthens her long-standing desire to face the allegations against her and clear her name in court. This factor should weigh heavily in favor of granting Ms. Maxwell bail. + +**F. The Proposed Bail Package Is Expansive and Far Exceeds What Is Necessary to Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell’s Presence in Court** + +In light of the additional information that Ms. Maxwell has provided in connection with this submission, which responds to each of the concerns raised by the government at the initial bail hearing, the government cannot meet its burden to establish that no set of bail conditions would reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s appearance in court. The proposed bail package is exceptional in its scope, addresses all of the factors that the Court considered in evaluating risk of flight, and is more than sufficient to warrant her release from BOP custody and transfer to restricted home detention. + +Courts in this Circuit have ordered release of high-profile defendants with financial means and foreign citizenship on bonds in lower amounts with less or no security with similar or less restrictive conditions: + +![]()The Court should also not give any weight to the government’s speculative assertions that others might provide money and other support to Ms. Maxwell if she were to flee. (Dkt. 22 at + +11-12). Ms. Maxwell is not obligated to rebut every theoretical possibility that the government might raise that may contribute to a potential flight risk in order to be granted bail. That is not the standard. Cf. United States v. Oro, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4, 892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) ("The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees."). Ms. Maxwell has no intention of fleeing. If she did, then under the proposed bail conditions she would lose everything and destroy the family she has been fighting so hard to protect since Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell will not do that, and should be granted bail. + +# G. The Alternative to Bail Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions that Impact Ms. Maxwell's Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense + +Granting bail to Ms. Maxwell is all the more appropriate and necessary because the past few months have shown that Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately participate in her defense and prepare for trial from the inside the MDC. The alternative to release is her continued confinement under extraordinarily onerous conditions that are not only unjust and punitive, but also meaningfully impair Ms. Maxwell's ability to review the voluminous discovery produced by the government and to communicate effectively with counsel to prepare her defense. + +Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her detention—now over five months—in de facto solitary confinement, under conditions that rival those used at USP Florence ADMAX to supervise the most dangerous inmates in the federal system and are tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on death row. In fact, multiple wardens and interim wardens have remarked that in their collective years of experience they have never seen anything like her current regime. The restrictive regulations to which Ms. Maxwell is subjected are not reasonably related to a legitimate goal to ensure the security of Ms. Maxwell or the MDC. Instead, it seems clear that the overly restrictive conditions are an + +exaggerated response to Epstein's death, effectively punishing Ms. Maxwell for the BOP's own negligence with respect to Epstein." + +Counsel has attempted to address the restrictions in numerous letters, emails and calls to the MDC warden, the MDC legal department, and the prosecutors, but to no avail. Rather than repeating these points here at length, we refer the Court to our letter to the MDC warden, dated October 29, 2020, which details the most serious and extraordinarily restrictive conditions of confinement.12 These include: + +- De Facto Solitary Confinement +- **Excessive Surveillance** +- **Excessive Scanning and Strip Searching** +- **Deprivation of Food** +- **Deprivation of Sleep** +- **Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends** +- **Compromised Communication with Legal Counsel** + +**The conditions of Ms. Maxwell's detention are utterly inappropriate, and totally disproportionate for a non-violent pretrial detainee with no prior criminal history facing non-violent charges a quarter-century old. Moreover, they adversely impact her ability to prepare her defense and compromise her physical health and psychological wellbeing.** + +**In addition to these intolerable conditions, Ms. Maxwell has had to contend with numerous unacceptable delays and technical problems with the discovery that the government has produced to her thus far. We have raised these issues with the prosecutors on numerous occasions. As we advised the Court in our letter of October 23, 2020, defense counsel first** + +" These conditions arc especially inappropriate because Ms. Maxwell has been an exemplary inmate and has not received any disciplinary infractions since her arrest. In fact, she has been made a suicide watch inmate, which is the highest and most trusted responsibility that an inmate can have. It is the height of irony that Ms. Maxwell is being constantly surveilled as if she were a suicide risk when she, herself, is trusted enough (if she were ever released from isolation) to monitor inmates who are truly at risk of suicide. + +12 The Warden never responded to the letter. In our response to the government's 90-day status report concerning MDC conditions, counsel requested that the Warden provide a first-hand report to the Court and counsel. Following Court directive for a report from the MDC, MDC Legal submitted a letter that recited BOP policy but failed to address a number of concerns. + +alerted the government on August 27, 2020 that there were significant portions of the first three discovery productions that Ms. Maxwell could not read. (Dkt. 66). Despite numerous attempts to fix these problems over the succeeding weeks, including producing a replacement hard drive containing these productions, the problems were not resolved and the replacement hard drive was broken. In addition, the fourth and fifth productions, which were produced after the defense alerted the government to these problems, contained some of the same technical problems and included a significant number of unreadable documents. Most recently, the hard drives for the sixth and seventh productions have stopped functioning properly. As a result, Ms. Maxwell has not had access to a complete set of readable discovery for over four months.13 Ms. Maxwell cannot defend herself if she cannot review the discovery. + +Most recently, Ms. Maxwell has had to endure the added burdens of quarantine. On November 18, 2020, Ms. Maxwell was given a COVID test and placed in 14-day quarantine due to contact with a staffer who tested positive. The revolving team of guards assigned to Ms. Maxwell, some coming from other BOP institutions confronting their own COVID outbreaks, heightens her exposure to the virus. As reported by the associate warden to the Criminal Justice Advisory Board on December 2, MDC does not mandate testing among its staff. A temperature check and response to a few questions does little to detect an asymptomic carrier. The constant strip searching, touch wanding, and in-mouth checking of Ms. Maxwell heightens her risk for exposure to COVID-19. + +" On November 18, 2020, the government, at our request, provided a laptop computer to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC, which it believed would remedy the issues with unreadable documents, and has agreed to provide a new hard drive containing all of the discovery. It is too early to tell whether the new laptop and hard drive will solve all of the technical problems. We note, however, that now that Ms. Maxwell has been released from quarantine, she only has access to the laptop from 8am-5pm, five days a week, which will effectively limit her review time to that time slot because of compatibility issues between the recently produced hard drives and the prison computer. + +Ms. Maxwell's quarantine period also resulted in cancellation of weekly in-person legal visits. This is likely to continue in light of the spike in COVID infection within and outside the MDC. Within a two-day period from December 1 to December 3, 55 inmates tested positive, compared with 25 from March to December 1. As of the date of this filing, the BOP reports 80 MDC inmates and staff with COVID. 14 If legal visits are suspended, it will further limit our ability to review the voluminous discovery (well in excess of one million documents) with Ms. Maxwell and will further compromise her ability to prepare her defense. Moreover, as this Court observed in United States v. Stephens, if an outbreak occurs "substantial medical and security challenges would almost certainly arise." Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh the threat of COVID as a factor favoring release in this case, as it did in Stephens. + +# CONCLUSION + +Ghislaine Maxwell is committed to defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in this country, with her family and friends by her side, so that she can fight the allegations against her and clear her name. She is determined to ensure that her sureties and her family do not suffer because of any breach of the terms of her bond. We have presented a substantial bail package that satisfies the concerns of the Court and the government, which contains more than ample security and safeguards to reasonably assure that Ms. Maxwell remains in New York and appears in court. The Court has the obligation to ensure that a defendant's constitutional right to prepare a defense is safeguarded. The correct—and only legitimate—decision is to grant Ms. Maxwell bail on the proposed strict conditions. + +14 See https:/Avww.bop.govicoronavirust + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed. + +Dated: December 4, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1146f0571d24d6908da8ff89a55a7d5862eb7743 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/EFTA02829952.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2340 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 45, + "chars": 77612, + "elapsed_seconds": 82.07, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_24_Figure_8.jpeg", + "_page_26_Figure_81.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 460.2078857421875, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 460.2078857421875, + 319.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 319.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 116.67357635498047, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 116.67357635498047, + 97.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 97.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 201.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 201.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 71.6015625 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 71.6015625 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Proposed Bail Conditions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 265.1173095703125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 265.1173095703125, + 85.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 85.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "New Information for the Court's Consideration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 354.77081298828125, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 354.77081298828125, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ms. Maxwell Should Be Placed on Restrictive Bail Conditions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 426.3673095703125, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 426.3673095703125, + 527.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Reconsideration of the Court's Rail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. \n4 3142fft", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.870849609375, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.870849609375, + 126.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 126.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Ms. Maxwell Should Be Granted Bail Uncle, the l'ro osed Strict Bail Conditions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Ms. Maxwell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous \nSureties to Support Her Bond", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 97.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 528.940673828125, + 97.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 528.940673828125, + 125.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 125.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. A Number of Ms. Maxwell's Family and Friends, and the Security \nCompany Protecting Her. Are Prepared to Sign Significant Bonds", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 518.976, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 518.976, + 347.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 347.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Maxwell Has Provided a Thorough Review of Her Finances for the \nPast Five Years", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 529.5490112304688, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 529.5490112304688, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Ms. Maxwell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Arrest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 528.12109375, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 528.12109375, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Ms. Maxwell Was Trying to Protect Herselfl from a \nMedia Frenzy and from Physical Threats", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 523.7667236328125, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 523.7667236328125, + 290.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 290.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Ms. Maxwell's Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government \nPrior to Her Arrest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She \"Good At\" \nFErgt", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 530.4053344726562, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 530.4053344726562, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Ms. Maxwell Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seek \nRefuge in the United Kingdom or France", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 505.23138427734375, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 505.23138427734375, + 320.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 320.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Discovery Contains No Meaningful Documentary Corroboration of \nthe Government's Allegations Against Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.052, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.052, + 99.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 99.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The Proposed Bail Package Is Expansive and Far Exceeds What Is Necessary to Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell\u2019s Presence in Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 503.676, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 503.676, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. The Alternative to Bail Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions \nthat Impact Ms. Maxwell's Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 524.7669067382812, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 524.7669067382812, + 293.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 293.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829952" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_24_Figure_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_24_Figure_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adcfb685c2ea60017f6c014d4b9656ba33b41bea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_24_Figure_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5e4b5c9d6555549092e993239676c16ec2a6b5166a937d7b3f59c09cd0c0381b +size 53303 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_26_Figure_81.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_26_Figure_81.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae2022fa8005cc2d3c93767872a3ca1644253450 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829952/_page_26_Figure_81.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2d218e63427cc5dd958467a42a370e231d3e9ed4763fe37e2e2d43149ce7ac16 +size 44805 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8592c73610d8074580eb8cc041b6ed48a927b6e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v - GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant. X + +TO: Clerk of Court United States District Court Southern District of New York Notice of Appearance + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +The undersigned attorney respectfully requests the Clerk to note his appearance in this case and to add him as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +by: /s/ Andrew A. Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorney (212) 637-2345 + +TO: Counsel of record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45a8c705452acc11a7ef737047263e7b48fcd900 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997/EFTA02829997.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829997.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 657, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.02825927734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.02825927734375, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829997" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..845fe2770277266a43486fbd8b49dd34cf9e5d47 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Defendant did not file any opposition to the Government's proposed redactions. + +The Court will adopt the Government's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo //"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). + +The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Government's submissions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the + +*Lugosch* test. *United States v. Amodeo* ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. *Id.* at 146; *see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*, 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties' personal privacy interests. *See Under Seal v. Under Seal*, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). + +The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2020. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 18, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9951053210523a04a9c467d558ebfbd4fb7db1e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/EFTA02829998.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2369, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02829998" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd8a8ead7181a2eaf677e1bf41776a288bf019ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02829998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:56671bf687f7c4796703590b0ba629b0eab2ada518e107931ded8197ef0fcd7d +size 11005 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a922ee04d5fd8bc0ef63f8bd1dd4b195cc7d2ea5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +December 15, 2020 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Manna 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +motion for bail. submits the following statement in opposition to the Defendant's renewed + +\*\*\* + +I appreciate the opportunity to again be heard by the Court in this matter and once more request that Ghislaine Maxwell not be released prior to her trial. I write this not only on behalf of myself, but all of the other girls and young women who were victimized by Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused me as a child and the government has the responsibility to make sure that she stands trial for her crimes. I do not believe that will happen or that any of the women she exploited will see justice if she is released on bail. She has lived a life of privilege, abusing her position of power to live beyond the rules. Fleeing the country in order to escape once more would fit with her long history of anti-social behavior. + +Drawing on my personal experience with Maxwell and what I have learned of how she has lived since that time, I believe that she is a psychopath. Her abuse of me and many other children and young women is evidence of her disregard for and violation of the rights of others. She has demonstrated a complete failure to accept to responsibility in any way for her actions and demonstrated a complete lack of remorse for her central role in procuring girls for Epstein to abuse. She was both charming and manipulative with me during the grooming process, consistent with what many of the women she abused have described. She has frequently lied to others, including repeatedly lying about me and my family. Maxwell has for decades lived a parasitic lifestyle relying on Epstein and others to fund her lavish existence. + +Maxwell has repeatedly demonstrated that her primary concern is her own welfare, and that she is willing to harm others if it benefits her. She is quite capable of doing so once more. She will not hesitate to leave the country irrespective of whether others will be on the hook financially for her actions because she lacks empathy, and therefore simply does not care about hurting others. She would in fact be highly motivated to flee in order to reduce the possibility of continued imprisonment, the conditions of which she has continuously complained. Her actions over the last several years and choice to live in isolation for long periods suggest that being comfortable is more + +important to her than being connected. Even more concerning, is if she is let out she has the ability to once again abuse children and the painful consequences of that type of trauma can last a lifetime. I implore the Court to make sure that Ghislaine Maxwell does not escape justice by keeping her incarcerated until her trial. + +\*\*\* + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae78aeecc89aad70b946c6710b6b6a7a65c4ec3a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000/EFTA02830000.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830000.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2991, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830000" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afa11417208e987bd7c93cff05c09fee0788a166 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE + +Liberté Égalité Fraternité + +## Direction des affaires criminelles et des grâces + +Sous-direction de la justice pénale spécialisée Bureau de l'entraide pénale internationale + +Paris, le 11 décembre 2020 + +Monsieur le garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice + +à + +Department of Justice (D.O.J) + +Par l'intermédiaire d Andrea,FLNKELMAN, magistrat de liaison Ambassade des Etats-Unir d'Amérique à Pani + +J'ai l'honneur de vous informer de ce que l'article 696-2 du code de procédure pénale français prévoit que la France peut extrader cr toute personne n'ayant pas k nationalité française », étant précisé que la nationalité s'apprécie au jour de la commission des faits pour lesquels l'extradition est demandée (article 696-4 1°). + +Le code de procédure pénale français proscrit donc de manière absolue l'extradition l'extradition d'une personne qui avait la nationalité française au moment de la commission des faits pour lesquels l'extradition est demandée. + +La loi pénale étant d'interprétation stricte, il n'y apas lieu de discriminer entre les nationaux et les binationaux. A partir du moment où elle était française au moment des faits, la personne réclamée est inextradable, peu importe qu'elle soit titulaire d'une ou de plusieurs autres nationalités. + +Lorsque le refus d'extrader est fondé sur la nationalité de la personne réclamée, la France applique le principe « aut tradere, aut judicare » selon lequel l'Etat qui refuse la remise doit juger la personne. Ainsi, l'article 113-6 du code pénal donne compétence aux juridictions françaises pour juger des faits commis à l'étranger par un auteur de nationalité française. + +Certains Etats, en général de droit anglo-saxon, acceptent d'extrader leurs nationaux et n'ont en revanche pas compétence pour juger les faits commis par leurs ressortissants sur un territoire étranger. C'est notamment le cas des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. + +L'article 3 du Traité bilatéral d'extradition signé le 23 avril 1996 entre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et la France stipule que «/état requis n'est pas tenu d'accorder l'extradition de l'un de ses ressortissants, mais k Pouvoir exécutif des Etats-Unis ala faculté de k faire, discreionnairement, s'il k juge approprié». + +En application de ce Traité et du principe général de non-extradition des nationaux en droit français, la France refuse systématiquement d'accorder l'extradition de ressortissants français aux autorités judiciaires américaines tandis que les autorités américaines acceptent régulièrement d'extrader leurs ressortissants vers la France. + +Il convient de faire observer que le principe de non-extradition des nationaux vaut non seulement à l'égard des Etats-Unis mais également de tous les autres Etats à l'exception des Etatsmembres de l'Union européenne, aux termes de la loi du 9 mars 2004 transposant la décision-cadre du 13 juin 2002 sur le mandat d'arrêt européen qui prévoit que la remise de la personne réclamée ne pourra pas être refusée au seul motif de sa nationalité française. + +Ce tempérament au principe de non-extradition des nationaux s'inscrit dans le contexte particulier de la construction de l'espace judiciaire européen qui s'inscrit lui-même dans un processus d'intégration politique très spécifique entre les Etats-membres de l'Union européenne. Ce haut niveau d'intégration politique existant entre les Etats membres de l'Union européenne va de pair avec une certaine homogénéité, au sein de ces Etats, en matière d'échelle des peines ainsi qu'en ce qui concerne les modalités d'aménagement de peine, les Etats membres étant liés par les mêmes obligations internationales (notamment les obligations découlant de la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales et de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne dés droits de l'homme). + +En tout état de cause, le principe de non-extradition des nationaux est un principe du droit de l'extradition auquel la France n'a jamais dérogé en dehors du cadre de l'Union européenne. + +Le Chef du Bureau d Intenarionale + +Philippe JA + +[logo' MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Liberty Equality Fraternity + +## Directorate of Criminal Affairs and Pardons + +Specialized Criminal Justice Sub-Directorate Office for the international Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters + +Paris, December 11, 2020 + +Mr. Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice + +to + +Department of Justice (DO]) + +Through Andrew FINKELMAN, Liaison Magistrate Embassy of the United States ohlmerica in Paris + +I have the honor to inform you that Article 696-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that France can extradite "any person not having nationality," it being specified that nationality is assessed on the day of the commission of the acts for which extradition is requested (Article 696-4 I°). + +The Code of Criminal Procedure therefore absolutely prohibits the extradition of a person who had nationality at the time of the commission of the acts for which extradition is requested. + +The penal law being of strict interpretation, there is no reason to discriminate between nationals and binationals. From the moment they were at the time of the facts, the person claimed is inextradible, regardless of whether they hold one or more nationalities. + +When the refusal to extradite is based on the nationality of the requested person, France applies the principle "aut tradere, autjudicar" according to which the State which refuses the surrender must judge the person. Thus, Article 113-6 of the Penal Code gives competence to the courts to judge acts committed abroad by a person of nationality. + +Some countries, generally under Anglo-Saxon law, agree to extradite their nationals and, at the same time, have no jurisdiction to judge acts committed by their nationals on foreign territory. This is particularly the case of the United States of America. + +13, place Vendome - 75042 Paris Cedex 01 Telephone: 01 44 77 60 60 www.justice-gouv.fr + +Article 3 of the Bilateral Extradition Treaty signed on April 23, 1996 between the United States of America and France stipulates that "The requested State is not bound to grant the extradition of any of its nationals, but the Executive Power of the United States has the right to do so at its discretion if it deems it appropriate." + +In application of this Treaty and of the general principle of non-extradition of nationals under law, France systematically refuses to grant the extradition of nationals to the American judicial authorities, while the American authorities regularly agree to extradite their nationals to France. + +It should be noted that the principle of non-extradition of nationals applies not only to the United States but also to all other States except the Member States of the European Union under the terms of the Law of March 9, 2004 transposing the framework decision of June 13, 2002 on the European arrest warrant, mail rovides that the surrender of the requested person may not be refused on the sole ground of his nationality. + +This principle of non-extradition of nationals fits into the context of the construction of the European judicial area which itself is part of a very specific process of political integration between the Member States of the European Union. This high level of political integration existing between the Member States of the European Union goes hand in hand with a certain homogeneity within these States in terms of the scale of penalties as well as in terms of adjustment of penalty methods; the member states being bound by the same international obligations (in particular the obligations arising from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). + +In any event, the principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union. + +Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters + +Philippe JAEGLE [signature) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ba383f01e05556d4d8d2f4c3081d83f21c7a6d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/EFTA02830002.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 8035, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.48, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Direction des affaires criminelles et des gr\u00e2ces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.876, + 55.965 + ], + [ + 531.1286010742188, + 55.965 + ], + [ + 531.1286010742188, + 74.99615478515625 + ], + [ + 256.876, + 74.99615478515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Directorate of Criminal Affairs and Pardons", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.09999999999997, + 107.75 + ], + [ + 498.54779052734375, + 107.75 + ], + [ + 498.54779052734375, + 122.853515625 + ], + [ + 283.09999999999997, + 122.853515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 362 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 385 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830002" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e120762099620d23df3349b6f2228cfe0f7a42f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830002/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8ae36c8a43724f5f60f5aa6ef0bb8b38a9055142d0de6a1e9729599ffcc2a293 +size 1391 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..167c1f369770241a1d9d5d08b0cacb41b1a49223 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.md @@ -0,0 +1,285 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE | 1 | +|------------------------------------------------|----| +| BACKGROUND | 2 | +| APPLICABLE LAW | 6 | +| DISCUSSION | 8 | +| A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense | 8 | +| B. The Strength of the Evidence | 9 | +| C. The Characteristics of the Defendant | 12 | +| D. Conditions of Confinement | 29 | +| CONCLUSION | 33 | + +**TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** + +| ██████████ v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)..... | 27 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------| +| United States v. Abdullahu , 488 F. Supp. 2d 433 (D.N.J. 2007) ..... | 19 | +| United States v. Banki , 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010), aff'd , 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2010). | 26 | +| United States v. Benatar , No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) ..... | 26 | +| United States v. Bodmer , No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) ..... | 28 | +| United States v. Bohn , 330 F. Supp. 2d 960 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Botero , 604 F. Supp. 1028 (S.D. Fla. 1985) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Boustani , 356 F. Supp. 3d 246 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd , No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019)..... | 28 | +| United States v. Boustani , 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019) ..... | 6, 25, 26 | +| United States v. Chen , 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 1992)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Cilins , No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) ..... | 16, 19 | +| United States v. Cirillo , No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. ██████████ , No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Dreier , 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)..... | 27 | +| United States v. English , 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) ..... | 7 | +| United States v. Epstein , 155 F. Supp. 2d 323 (E.D. Pa. 2001) ..... | 28 | +| United States v. Epstein , 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)..... | 15, 29 | +| United States v. ██████████ , 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)..... | 27 | +| United States v. ██████████ , No. 08-1220-M, 2008 WL 4306750 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Karni , 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Kazeem , No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Khashoggi , 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ..... | 15, 28 | +| United States v. Madoff , 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)..... | 27 | +| United States v. Mercedes , 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001)..... | 7, 29 | +| United States v. ██████████ , No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Namer , 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) ..... | 19 | +| United States v. ██████████ , Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018)..... | 28 | +| United States v. Petrov , 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) ..... | 7, 8 | +| United States v. ██████████ , 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)..... | 7 | +| United States v. Sabhani , 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) ..... | 6 | +| United States v. Salvagno , 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Stanton , No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)..... | 18 | +| United States v. Stroh , No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Young , Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Zarger , No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000)..... | 26 | + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +#### THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the "Renewed Bail Motion"). Five months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. The defense now asks this Court to reverse that finding by essentially repackaging its prior arguments and presenting a more specific bail package. However, at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing in this case, this Court rejected the defendant's request to keep the record open to allow the defendant to do precisely what she has done here—namely, present more detailed information about her finances and a more concrete package—determining that further information about her financial picture would be irrelevant because no combination of conditions could ensure this defendant's appearance. The Court's conclusion was plainly correct, and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it. The offense conduct outlined in the Indictment remains incredibly serious, the evidence against the defendant remains strong, and the defendant continues to have extensive financial resources and foreign tics, as well as the + +demonstrated ability to live in hiding for the long term. In short, the defendant poses an extreme flight risk, no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably ensure her appearance in this District, and the Court should not alter its prior finding to that effect. + +### BACKGROUND + +As detailed in the Indictment, the defendant is charged with facilitating the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997. The defendant played a critical role in the scheme by helping to identify, entice, and groom minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein. The defendant's presence as an adult woman normalized Epstein's abusive behavior, and she even took part in at least some acts of sexual abuse. Together, the defendant and Epstein conspired to entice and cause minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which the defendant knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Then, in an effort to cover up her crimes, the defendant lied under oath during a civil deposition, including when asked about her interactions with minor girls. + +Based on that conduct, the Indictment charges the defendant in six counts. Count One charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charges the defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. + +On July 2, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") arrested the defendant. Following extensive briefing, on July 14, 2020, the Court held a lengthy bail hearing. In its written and oral submissions, the defense urged the Court to release the defendant on bail. + +Among other things, the defense emphasized the defendant's family ties and residence in the United States (Dkt. 18 at 2, 3, 12), offered to hire a private security company to monitor the defendant (Id. at 20), noted that the defendant remained in the country and was in touch with the Government through counsel following Epstein's arrest (Dkt. 18 at 12-13; Tr. 49, 52-55), argued that the defendant went into hiding to avoid a media frenzy (Dkt. 18 at 14-16; Tr. 55-56), and argued that detention would hamper the ability to prepare a defense (Tr. 42, 67-69). Responding to the Government's concerns about the lack of transparency about the defendant's finances and six proposed co-signers, the defense specifically asked the Court to keep the proceedings open if the Court believed additional information or a more fulsome bond would be useful to the bail determination. (Tr. 52 ("And if the court determines that the conditions that we have proffered are insufficient or need further verification, as long as we can have some assurance of safety and confidentiality, we would recommend that the court keep the proceeding open, and we should be able to get whatever the court needs to satisfy it."); Tr. 59 ("Even if the court were to assume for purposes of today's proceeding that she has the means that the government claims she does, it does not affect the analysis. That is to be addressed in conditions, to be addressed if the court requires it, through verifications and further proceedings before the court"); Tr. 66 ("If the court desires to leave the proceeding open for a week and allow us to come back, if the court has concerns about the number of suretors, for example, verification information, information about financial issues, we think that, now that we have some ability to breathe a little bit, that we should be able to pull this together for the court's consideration."); Tr. 70 ("And if the court needs more information + +from us, we would respectfully request that the court leave the proceeding open for a week so that we can try to satisfy the court because we want to.")). + +The Court declined the defense's request and instead concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. First, the Court found that "the nature and circumstances of the offense here weigh in favor of detention," given the statutory presumption of detention triggered by charges involving minor victims and the potential penalties those charges carry. (Tr. 82). Second, the Court determined that "[t)he government's evidence at this early juncture of the case appears strong" based on the "multiple victims who provided detailed accounts of Ms. Maxwell's involvement in serious crimes," as well as corroboration in the form of "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Id.). Third, the Court found that the defendant's history and characteristics demonstrate that the defendant poses a risk of flight. (Tr. 83). + +In addressing that third factor, the Court emphasized the defendant's "substantial international ties," which "could facilitate living abroad," including "multiple foreign citizenships," "familial and personal connections abroad," and "at least one foreign property of significant value." (Tr. 83). The Court also noted that the defendant "is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens." (Id.). The Court further found that the defendant "possesses extraordinary financial resources" and that "the representations made to Pretrial Services regarding the defendant's finances likely do not provide a complete and candid picture of the resources available." (Tr. 83-84). + +Although the Court recognized that the defendant "does have some family and personal connections to the United States," the Court highlighted "the absence of any dependents, significant family ties or employment in the United States" in support of the conclusion that "flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her." (Tr. 84). The Court recognized the defense arguments that the defendant did not leave the United States after Epstein's arrest and was in contact with the Government through counsel, but emphasized that the defendant may have expected that she would not be prosecuted. (Tr. 84-85). The Court also noted that the defendant "did not provide the government with her whereabouts," and that the "[c]ircumstances of her arrest . . . may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and here today, but even if true, the reality that face such serious charges herself may not have set in until she was actually indicted." (Tr. 85). Based on all of those factors, the Court found that the Government had carried its burden of demonstrating that the defendant "poses a substantial actual risk of flight." (Fr. 86). + +The Court then concluded that "even the most restrictive conditions of release would be insufficient" to ensure the defendant's appearance. (Id.). Acknowledging that the defense's initial bail package represented only a fraction of the defendant's assets, the Court found that "even a substantially larger package would be insufficient." (Id.). Although the defendant "apparently failed to submit a full accounting or even close to full accounting of her financial situation," the Court implicitly rejected the defense's offer to provide additional information by determining that "[elven if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be appropriate." (Tr. 86-87 (emphasis added)). That conclusion was informed not only by the defendant's "significant financial resources," but also her "demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself." (Tr. 87). "Even assuming that Ms. Maxwell only wanted to hide from the press and the public," the Court emphasized that the defendant's "recent conduct underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her." (Id.). Given that sophistication, the Court concluded that electronic monitoring and home security guards "would be insufficient" because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards. (Tr. 87-88). Finally, the Court rejected the defense's arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of preparing a defense with an incarcerated client. In so doing, the Court noted that the defendant has no underlying conditions that place her at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and emphasized that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Tr. 89-90). + +Viewing all of these factors together, the Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial. (Tr. 91). + +## APPLICABLE LAW + +Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant detained pending trial upon a determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). When seeking detention on this ground, "[t]he Government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant 'presents an actual risk of flight' and that 'no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court." United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)). The Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered in the detention analysis when the Government seeks detention based on flight risk: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character . . . [and] financial resources." See 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(g). If a judicial officer concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required ... such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). + +Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In such a case, "the defendant 'bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.' United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)). The act of producing such evidence, however, "does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention." Id. Rather, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court," while the Government retains the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the defendant presents a risk of flight. Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436. + +When the Court has already issued a detention order, the Bail Reform Act provides that the detention hearing "may be reopened .. . if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance" of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0. Accordingly, "[a] court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk." United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that "a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing," United States v. 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments "warrant + +reconsideration" by, for example, demonstrating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at \*3. + +## DISCUSSION + +Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this case, the defense now asks this Court to reverse itself based on virtually the same arguments it already rejected. The Renewed Bail Application largely reiterates the same claims regarding the defendant's ties to the United States and her behavior after Epstein's arrest that the Court already found unpersuasive. To the extent the Renewed Bail Application presents new information, it consists primarily of financial data that was certainly known to the defendant at the time of her initial bail application and that the Court already assumed could be made available (and thus rejected as immaterial) when ordering detention. Ultimately, nothing in the Renewed Bail Application alters the analysis that led this Court to conclude that the defendant "poses a substantial actual risk of flight," and that no combination of conditions could assure her appearance. (Tr. 86). All three of the relevant Bail Reform Act factors still weigh heavily in favor of detention, and the defense claims to the contrary do not warrant a revisiting of this Court's wellreasoned and thorough prior decision. + +# A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense + +The first Bail Reform Act factor indisputably weighs in favor of detention in this case. The egregious conduct charged in the Indictment gives rise to a statutory presumption of detention, and the Renewed Bail Motion makes no effort to challenge this Court's prior conclusion that the nature and circumstances of the offense support detention. The charges in the Indictment describe horrendous conduct involving the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims. If convicted, the + +defendant faces up to 35 years of incarceration, and may very well spend the remainder of her natural life in prison. The seriousness of the offenses make such a steep penalty a real possibility upon conviction, thereby giving the defendant an overwhelming incentive to flee if given the chance. + +In light of that strong incentive to flee, all three of the victims listed in the Indictment have asked the Government to convey to the Court that they continue to seek the defendant's detention. Additionally, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, one of the victims has provided a written statement urging the Court to deny bail, which is attached as Exhibit A hereto. That unanimous view of the victims reflects three related reasons that this factor weighs so heavily in favor of detention. First, the victims sincerely fear that if the defendant is released, she will be able to evade justice. Second, the pain that the victims still feel to this day as a result of the defendant's conduct supports the conclusion that this offense is especially serious and may result in a lengthy sentence. Third, as discussed further below, the victims' attention to this case and willingness to convey their views reflects their commitment to take the stand and testify at the defendant's trial, demonstrating the strength of the Government's case. + +In short, this factor offers no reason to reverse the prior detention order. + +# B. The Strength of the Evidence + +Further incentivizing the defendant to flee, the Government's evidence remains strong. As the Court recognized when analyzing this factor at the July 14, 2020 hearing, the central evidence in the Government's case will come from the detailed testimony of three different victims, who will each independently describe how the defendant groomed and enticed them to engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. (Tr. 82). The Indictment itself contains a description of the accounts these victims have provided law enforcement, which corroborate each other in meaningful part. Further, and as set forth below, those victims' accounts are corroborated by other evidence, including contemporary documents and other witnesses. + +In challenging this factor, the defense essentially restates its prior arguments on this score. At the original hearing, the defense argued that the Government's case was weak because it rested heavily on witness testimony regarding events from 25 years ago. (See Dkt. 18 at 19; Tr. 64-65). Having received and reviewed the discovery, the defense now contends the Government's corroborating evidence—some of which the Motion itself identifies—is insufficient and reiterates defense complaints that the discovery does not include other types of evidence.' (See Mot. at 30- 33). + +None of the defense arguments on this score changes the calculus for this factor. Three different victims are prepared to provide detailed testimony describing the defendant's role in Epstein's criminal scheme to sexually abuse them as minors. As demonstrated by the information outlined in the Indictment, these accounts corroborate each other by independently describing the same techniques used by the defendant and Epstein to groom and entice minor girls to engage in sex acts. Each victim will describe how the defendant befriended her, asked detailed questions about her life, and then normalized sexual activity around Epstein. Each victim will describe the use of massage as a technique to transition into sexual activity. Each victim will describe how the presence of an adult woman manipulated her into entering an abusive situation. In other words, this is a case that involves multiple witnesses describing the same course of conduct, substantially corroborating each other. + +At the initial bail hearing, the defendant also raised a series of legal challenges she intended to make on the face of the Indictment, all of which she contended weighed in favor of granting bail. After receiving discovery, the defense now appears to have abandoned those arguments, at least insofar as they pertain to the issue of bail. + +In addition to corroborating each other, these victims' accounts are further corroborated by other witnesses and by documentary evidence, which has been produced in discovery. That evidence will make it virtually indisputable that these victims in fact met and interacted with both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein at the times and locations they describe. + +Beyond this documentary evidence, additional witnesses will confirm that both the defendant and Epstein knew and interacted with certain minor victims when those victims were minors. In other words, the Government's evidence strongly corroborates the victims' testimony that they met and interacted with the defendant and Epstein at particular times and in particular places. + +In the instant motion, the defendant complains that the documentary evidence relevant to the three victims identified in the Indictment and produced to date is not sufficiently voluminous + +2 In its Renewed Bail Motion the defense co lams + +and that certain of the corroborating documentary evidence does not specifically name Maxwell. Leaving aside the fact that volume is not a reliable proxy for quality, by its very nature, abusive sexual contact is not the type of crime that leaves extensive documentary evidence. But, as described above, + +. To the extent other corroborative documents refer only to Epstein, they still support these victims' testimony, which will detail their interactions with both the defendant and her co-conspirator, Epstein. In other words, documentary evidence does exist, and as the Court has already found, the combination of multiple victims describing the same scheme, together with documents and other witnesses confirming that those victims did indeed interact with the defendant and Epstein at the times and places they say they did, makes this a strong case. (Tr. 82). + +Taken together, this evidence confirms that the Government's case remains as strong as it was at the time of the defendant's arrest. Accordingly, this factor continues to weigh heavily in favor of detention. + +# C. The Characteristics of the Defendant + +The defendant's history and characteristics include significant foreign ties, millions of dollars in cash that she largely transferred to her spouse in the last five years, among other assets, and a demonstrated willingness and sophisticated ability to live in hiding. The bulk of the arguments in the Renewed Bail Motion focus on this factor in a manner that largely rehashes claims that this Court already considered at the July 14, 2020 hearing. Any new information provided was either known by the defense at the time of the initial hearing, assumed to be the case when the Court analyzed this factor at the initial hearing, or, in the case of the defense report regarding + +law, is simply incorrect. Accordingly, the defendant's foreign ties, wealth, and skill at avoiding detection continue to weigh in favor of detention. + +First, there can be no serious dispute that the defendant has foreign ties. She is a citizen of three countries and holds three passports. As was already noted at the original hearing and is again evidenced in the Renewed Bail Application, the defendant has close relatives and friends who live abroad, as well as a multi-million dollar foreign property and at least one foreign bank account. (Tr. 83). In an attempt to minimize the defendant's foreign ties, the defense emphasizes the defendant's relatives and friends in the United States, history of residence in the United States, and United States citizenship. But the Court was already aware of those factors when making its original detention decision. (See Tr. 84; Dkt. 18 at 2, 12). The letters and documentation included in the Renewed Bail Motion simply prove points that were not in dispute. What that documentation does not do, however, is suggest that the defendant has the kind of ties to this country that come with any employment in the United States or any dependents living here. Indeed, as noted in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant stated in July that she has no children and has no current employment. (Pretrial Services Report at 3). + +The Renewed Bail Motion fails to establish sufficiently strong ties to the United States that would prevent her from fleeing. Although the defendant now claims her marriage would keep her in the United States, her motion does not address the plainly inconsistent statements she made to Pretrial Services at the time of her arrest, when, as documented in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant said she was "in the process of divorcing her husband." (Id.). On this point, it bears noting that the defendant's motion asks that she be permitted to live with if granted bail, not her spouse. Moreover, the fact that the defendant's spouse has only now come forward to support the defendant should be afforded little weight given that he refused to come forward at the + +time of her arrest. While a friend's desire to avoid publicity may be understandable, a spouse's desire to distance himself in that manner—particularly when coupled with the defendant's inconsistent statements about the state of their relationship—undermine her assertion that her marriage is a tie that would keep her in the United States.; As for the defendant's asserted relationships with and other relatives in the United States, the defendant did not appear to have an issue living alone without these relatives while she was in hiding in New Hampshire, which undercuts any suggestion that these ties would keep her in the United States. In any event, the defendant could easily receive visits from her family members while living abroad, and, as noted, the defendant has multiple family members and friends who live abroad. + +In addition to those foreign connections and ample means to flee discussed further below, the defendant will have the ability, once gone, to frustrate any potential extradition. Attempting to downplay that concern, the defense relies on two legal opinions to claim that the defendant can irrevocably waive her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France. (Mot. at 25; Def. Ex. U; Def. Ex. V). But the defendant's offer to sign a so-called "irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights" is ultimately meaningless: it provides no additional reassurance whatsoever and, with respect to France, is based on an erroneous assessment of France's position on the extradition of its nationals. (Mot. at 25). + +As an initial matter, the Government would need to seek the arrest of the defendant before such a waiver would even come into play. Even assuming the defendant could be located and apprehended—which is quite an assumption given the defendant's access to substantial wealth and + +3 Adding to this confusion, bank records reflect that when the defendant and her spouse established a trust account in or about 2018, they filled out forms in which they were required to provide personal information, including marital status. On those forms, both the defendant and her spouse listed their marital status as "single." It is unclear why the defendant did not disclose her marital status to the bank, but that lack of candor on a bank form mirrors her lack of candor with Pretrial Services in this case, discussed further below. + +demonstrated ability to live in hiding—numerous courts have recognized that purported waivers of extradition are unenforceable and effectively meaningless. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into [play] only after [the defendant] has fled the Court's jurisdiction."); United States v. No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at \*4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at \*3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at \*7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at \*9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at \*5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985).4 For very good reason: Any defendant who signs such a purported waiver and then flees will assuredly contest the validity and/or voluntariness of the waiver, and '' ill get to do so in + +4 The defense argues that several courts "have addressed concerns about a defendant's ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waiver by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release." (Mot. at 26). In the cases cited by the defendant, the courts approved the release of the defendants based on the particular facts, but did not address at all the question of whether a waiver of extradition is enforceable. See United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (noting, among other things, that the Government's case was "novel," and presented an "untried theory of liability" and that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country's government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying Government motion to remand after trial where court found defendant not likely to flee); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (reconsidering pretrial release where case had "taken a number of surprising turns," including the "suppression of video evidence, the indeterminate stay of proceedings, the overall uncertainty of the government's evidence"); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Cirillo No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at \*2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); see also United States v. No. 08-1220- M, 2008 WL 4306750, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) (distinguishing Cirillo on the facts and noting that "defense counsel concedes that a waiver of extradition may not be enforceable in Canada, a fact the court in Cirillo did not mention in its opinion"). + +the jurisdiction of her choosing (i.e., the one to which she chose to flee). The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs ("OIA") is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. Indeed, the defendant's own experts' conclusion—that "because of these waivers and other factors, it is highly unlikely that she would be able to resist extradition successfully," (Mot. at 27)—leaves open the possibility that she could avoid extradition. + +Such an outcome is virtually a certainty as to France, a country of which the defendant is a citizen and which does not extradite its citizens to the United States. To confirm this fact, after receiving the Renewed Bail Motion, the Government, through OIA, contacted the Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") to clarify whether there is any circumstance under which France would extradite a citizen to the United States. In response, the MOJ provided the Government with a letter setting forth the relevant law and conclusively stating that France does not extradite its citizens to the United States. That letter in its original =, as well as an English translation of the letter, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. In that letter, the MOJ makes clear that France does not extradite its nationals outside the European Union (regardless of the existence of dual citizenship), including to the United States, and has never derogated from that principle outside the European Union. See Ex. B; see also United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) ("Because France refuses to extradite its citizens, Cilins can avoid prosecution on this Indictment if he can reach soil."). + +In other words, even assuming the Government could locate the defendant, if she flees to France, her citizenship in that country will completely bar her extradition. Any purported waiver of extradition executed in the United States would not be enforceable against the defendant in France because law embodies an inflexible principle that its citizens will not be extradited + +to other countries outside of the European Union, including the United States. As set forth in Exhibit B, according to the MOJ, the Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits the extradition of a person who had nationality at the time of the commission of the acts for which extradition is requested." (Ex. B at 3). That the defendant is a citizen of multiple countries is of no moment. (See id.). In applying the Bilateral Extradition Treaty between the United States and France and the "general principle of non-extradition of nationals under law, France systematically refuses to grant the extradition of nationals to the American judicial authorities." (Id. at 4). Thus, contrary to the suggestion of the defense submission, any anticipatory waiver of extradition would not be effective under law, and would not be recognizable by courts in any extradition process, or otherwise enforceable. + +The defendant's expert writes that "[i]n the recent past," he is "not aware that the authorities would have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a citizen who was also a United States citizen. Thus, there is no precedent to draw from in that regard." (Def. Ex. V. at 2). That is not so. France has previously rejected such a request. For example, in 2006, Hans Peterson, an American citizen and national, turned himself in to authorities in Guadeloupe and confessed to committing a murder in the United States. Despite turning himself in to authorities, Peterson remained beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement despite the repeated requests of O1A and U.S. officials. See Durbin, Schakowsky, Emanuel Urge Justice Minister To Ensure Justice Is Done During Hans Peterson Retrial (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.durbin.senate.govinewsroom/press-releases/durbin-schakowskyemanuel-urgajustice-minister-to-ensure-justice-is-done-during-hans-peterson-retrial; see also Senators' letter to government (Mar. 14, 2008), https://www.nbcnews.corn/id/wbna23601583 (citing a letter from the MOJ to the Department of Justice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the "Ministry of Justice considers the Americanborn, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a national and that the extradition request has been denied"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited a citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 ("[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union.")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83). + +The defendant's supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United Slates v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at •2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant's bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an "enforceable undertaking"). Under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, "if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge." Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at § 127. In other words, consent given + +to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad. + +Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual's mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands from O1A that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming. + +Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant's written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant's flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at \*2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at \*2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) ("The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention."). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy, complicated, and expensive process, which would provide no measure of justice to the victims who would be forced to wait years for the defendant's return. The strong possibility that the defendant could successfully resist extradition only heightens the defendant's incentive to flee. + +Second, the defendant's behavior in the year leading up to her arrest demonstrates her sophistication in hiding and her ability to avoid detection. The Court noted as much in denying bail, and the Renewed Bail Application also does nothing to change that conclusion. (Tr. 87). Indeed, the defendant's time in isolation in the year leading up to her arrest makes clear that, even to the extent she has loved ones and property in this country, she has proven her willingness to cut herself off entirely from them and her ability to live in hiding. She did so by purchasing a home using a trust in another name and introducing herself to the real estate agent under an alias, placing her assets into accounts held under other names, registering cellphones and at least one credit card under other names, and living in near total isolation away from her loved ones. + +The Renewed Bail Application again tries to cast those steps as efforts to avoid the media frenzy that followed Epstein's death. (Tr. 44, 56-57). However, as the Court already recognized, regardless of the defendant's reasons for taking these steps, that course of conduct clearly establishes her expertise at remaining hidden and her willingness to cut herself off from her family and friends in order to avoid detection. (Tr. 87). Rare is the case when a defendant has already demonstrated an aptitude for assuming another identity and concealing her assets, including when purchasing property, registering cellphones, and managing finances. Here, the defendant has indisputably taken all of those steps. She was able to do so because of both her finances and her willingness to take extreme measures and to experience social isolation away from her loved ones. And she was so good at assuming another identity that she was able to avoid notice by locals and the media even when a bounty was offered for her location and when numerous media outlets were searching for her. + +The charts, graphs, and affidavits proffered by the defense do not undercut the defendant's skill at evading detection, and do nothing more than restate the justification for those actions that the defense already made at the prior hearing. (See Dkt. 18 at 14-16). That said, there is still reason to believe that the defendant was hiding not just from the press, but also from law enforcement. It is undisputed that defense counsel, even while in contact with the Government, never disclosed the defendant's location or offered her surrender if she were to be charged. (Tr. 53-54). The Court already inquired about defense counsel's interactions with the Government in the year leading up to the defendant's arrest, and the Renewed Bail Application offers nothing new on that score. (Id.). Defense counsel contacted the Government when the FBI attempted to serve the defendant with a subpoena, but were unable to locate her, on July 7, 2019. Prior to her arrest, the Government and defense counsel communicated on multiple occasions between July and October of 2019, and communicated briefly on two additional occasions, most recently in March of 2020. At no point did defense counsel disclose the defendant's location, offer to surrender the defendant, or offer to bring the defendant in to be interviewed. + +Moreover it is undisputed that when the FBI located the defendant, she ignored their directives and ran away from the arresting agents. Although the defense has submitted an affidavit from the defendant's private security team, nothing in that affidavit should alter the Court's determination that detention is appropriate here. The defense already informed the Court at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing that the defendant's security protocol was to move to an inner room if her security was breached. (Tr. 55). Even still, the new affidavit makes clear that the agents who entered the defendant's property were wearing clothing that clearly identified them as FBI agents. (Def. Ex. S ¶ 12). Moreover, the FBI announced themselves as federal agents to the defendant when they first approached her. Thus, even if the defendant was following her private security's protocol when she fled, she did so knowing that she was disobeying the directives of FBI agents, not members of the media or general public. Those actions raise the very real concern, particularly in light of the terms of her proposed package, that the defendant would prioritize the directives of her private security guards over the directives of federal law enforcement. Further, the act of wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press. The defense argues that the defendant only took those measures because that particular phone number had been released to the public, but that just suggests the defendant believed that was the only number of which law enforcement was aware. In other words, there is still reason to believe, as the Court previously found, that in the year leading up to her arrest, the defendant sought to evade not only the press, but also law enforcement. (Tr. 87). + +Third, the defendant has access to significant wealth. At the initial bail hearing, the Government expressed doubt that the defendant's assets were limited to the approximately \$3.8 million she reported to Pretrial Services, and noted that it appeared the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control. (Tr. 28-30, 72-73). The finances outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government's suspicion that the defendant has access to far more than \$3.8 million, confirm that the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services (and, by extension, the Court) during her interview, and confirm that the defendant is a person of substantial means with vast resources.' The defendant's apparent willingness to deceive + +3 As noted above, the Court effectively assumed the defendant had considerably more assets than those disclosed to Pretrial Services in rejecting defense counsel's repeated offer to provide a more fulsome picture of the defendant's finances and concluding that even assuming the defense could provide a clearer description of the defendant's assets, detention was still warranted. (See Tr. 87). + +this Court already weighed in favor of detention, and confirmation of that deception only reemphasizes that this defendant cannot be trusted to comply with bail conditions. + +Now, the defense has submitted a financial report that reflects the defendant has approximately \$22 million in assets—far more than the figure she initially reported to Pretrial Services. (Def. Ex. O). Accepting the financial report at face value, it is clear that the defense's proposed bail package would leave the defendant with substantial resources to flee the country. Not only would she have millions of dollars in unrestrained assets at her disposal,' but she would also have a \$2 million townhouse in London, which she could live in or sell to support herself. In other words, even with the proposed bond—which is only partially secured—the defendant would still have millions of dollars at her disposal. She could absolutely afford to leave her friends and family to lose whatever they may pledge to support her bond, and then repay them much of their losses. In fact, the defendant could transfer money to her proposed co-signers immediately following her release,' given the large sums of money that would be left unrestrained by her proposed bail package. + +Moreover, the schedule provided by the defense is notably silent regarding any future revenue streams to which the defendant may have access. The financial report only addresses the defendant's assets without detailing her income at all. The defendant has similarly provided the Court with no information about what resources her spouse might have access to on a prospective + +In particular, according to the report, the defendant would have more than \$4 million in unrestrained funds in accounts, in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry and other items. Moreover, the Government presumes the defendant has not yet spent all \$7 million of the retainer paid to her attorneys, which would still belong to the defendant if she fled. + +The Government notes that two of the defendant's proposed co-signers are citizens and residents of the United Kingdom, against whom the Government could not realistically recover a bond amount. These co-signers have not offered to secure this bond with any cash or property, and as a result, such a bond would effectively be worthless if the defendant were to flee. + +basis, in addition to their substantial assets. The financial report submitted by the defense is also careful to note that it does not account for any possible income from inheritances. (Def. Ex. O at 5). + +The financial report further shows that the defendant apparently spent the last five years moving the majority of her assets out of her name by funneling them through Mists to her spouse. That pattern suggests the defendant has used the process of transferring assets as a means to hide her true wealth. As the Renewed Bail Application points out, the defendant currently has approximately \$3.4 million worth of assets held in her own name, which is close to the amount of wealth she told Pretrial Services she possessed in July 2020. Importantly, though, that number omits the millions of dollars of assets that she has transferred from her name through trust accounts to her spouse, including funds that were used to purchase the New Hampshire property where the defendant was residing when she was arrested.8 This confirms that the Government was right to be concerned that the defendant had refused to identify her spouse or his assets to Pretrial Services. That practice further demonstrates the defendant's sophistication in hiding her assets and maintaining assets that are under her control in other names. + +In this vein, the financial report suggests that the defendant originally brought more than S20 million to her marriage, but that her husband brought only 5200,000.9 (See Def. Ex. O at 10). + +8On this score, it bears noting that that defendant told Pretrial Services that the property was owned by a corporation, and that she was "just able to stay there." (Pretrial Services Report at 2). The defendant's lack of candor does not inspire confidence that she can be trusted to comply with bail conditions. + +9 The Government has not been able to verify this financial information—in part because the defense has declined to provide the Government with the spouse's current banking information but + +Setting aside whether the defendant's spouse has additional assets beyond those included in the financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report. it seems clear that the defendant slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to tntsts and into her husband's name over the last five years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant's proposed bail package and the defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant's submission does not change the Government's position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and could live a comfortable life as a fugitive. + +The combination of all these factors, including the defendant's foreign ties, demonstrated ability to live in hiding. and financial resources, confirm that the defendant's characteristics continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention, this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani. 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The Second Circuit has squarely held that "the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails," and that "a defendant may be released on such a condition + +e Court need not resolve this question. however, because regardless of whether the defendant's husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse's reported assets, upon which the proposed bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if the defendant fled. + +only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained." Id. Here, detention is warranted not only because of the defendant's financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant's private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which she has no personal stake losing SI million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a "privately funded jail" is not warranted here. Id. at 83. + +Relatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant's flight once it has been removed At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce a defendant's head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is "hardly foolproof."), ard, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JO), 2002 WL 31410262, at •3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court. + +In urging a different conclusion, the defense again cites the same cases discussed in its initial briefing and at the July 14, 2020 hearing to argue that the proposed bail conditions are consistent with or exceed those approved by courts in this Circuit for "high-profile defendants with financial means and foreign citizenship." (Mot. at 34; see Dkt. 18 at 16, 21; Tr. 48-51). The Court should reject the defense's efforts to raise the same precedent that the Court already took into consideration when denying bail. "A motion for reconsideration may not be used ... as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court." Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court already considered and rejected the defendant's efforts to liken her case to other "serious and high-profile prosecutions where the courts, over the government's objection, granted bail to defendants with significant financial resources." (Tr. 88). Noting "crucial factual differences," the Court described those cases, including United States v.M, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the defendant's "significant foreign connections." (Tr. 88; see id. (distinguishing where the risk of flight appeared to "have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found"); id. (distinguishing Madoff where "the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought detention")). + +The Court already engaged in a fact-specific analysis in ordering the defendant detained. Among the reasons provided, the Court found that the "the defendant not only has significant financial resources, but has demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself." + +(Tr. 87). Following the analysis the Court has already conducted, several of the cases cited by the defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country's Government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at \*I, \*3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the Government—whose argument was "based, in large part, on speculation" as to the defendant's financial resources—had "failed to meet its burden"). And there is support in the case law for detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), afrd, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible sentence, strength of Government's evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, "minimal" ties to the United States, and "extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition"); United States v. Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant's risk of flight and citing the strength of the Government's evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and "potential ties in foreign jurisdictions"); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding that defendant's dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the fact that defendant and his wife owned "substantial" property and other significant assets in the + +United States). Further, unlike those cases and the cases cited by the defendant, the crimes charged here involving minor victims trigger a statutory presumption in favor of detention, weighing further in favor of detention. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436. + +"Each bail package in each case is considered and evaluated on its individual merits by the Court." Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 326. Unlike the cases cited by the defense, the Government seeks detention not solely on the basis that the defendant is of financial means and has foreign citizenship. Rather, detention is warranted because the defendant is a citizen of multiple foreign countries, including one that does not extradite its nationals, with "substantial international ties," "familial and personal connections abroad," and "substantial financial resources," (Tr. 83-84), with a demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets, who, for the myriad reasons discussed herein and identified at the original hearing—including the seriousness of the offense, the strength of the Government's evidence, and the potential length of sentence—presents a substantial flight risk. (Tr. 82-91). The defendant continues to pose an extreme risk of flight, and the defense has not offered any new information sufficient to justify reversal of the Court's prior finding that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. + +# D. Conditions of Confinement + +Finally, the Renewed Bail Application reiterates the same argument about the potential harms of detention on the defendant that this Court rejected at the initial bail hearing. (Tr. 42, 68- 69). As was the case in July, these complaints do not warrant the defendant's release. + +The defendant continues to have more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys. Specifically, the defendant currently has thirteen hours per day, seven days per week to review electronic discovery. Also during that time, the defendant has access to email with defense counsel, calls with defense + +counsel, and when visiting is available depending on pandemic-related conditions, the defendant has access to legal visits. Due to the recently implemented lockdown at the MDC, visitation is not currently available, but MDC legal counsel is arranging for the defendant to receive a VTC call with legal counsel three hours per day every weekday, starting this Friday. Defense counsel will also be able to schedule legal calls on weekends as needed. Given those facts, the defense argument essentially suggests that no defendant could prepare for trial while housed at the MDC a patently incorrect claim. + +The defendant is able to review her discovery using hard drives provided by the Government, discs that defense counsel can send containing any copies of discovery material defense counsel chooses within the confines of the protective order, or hard copy documents provided by defense counsel. The Government has taken multiple steps to address technical difficulties the defendant has encountered when reviewing her hard drives. These steps included modifying and reproducing productions in new formats, asking MDC IT staff to assist the defendant in viewing her hard drives on the MDC computer, and then purchasing and providing a laptop for the defendant's exclusive use.10 Even when the defendant was temporarily unable to review some files from some hard drives, she was always able to review other portions of her discovery. + +10 The Government understands from MDC legal counsel that the defendant has access to the laptop thirteen hours per day during weekdays and has access to the MDC desktop computer thirteen hours per day seven days per week. The use of the laptop is limited to weekdays because the MDC restricts the number of employees who carry the key to the secure location where the laptop is kept, and the employees with that key do not work regularly on weekends. The MDC previously accommodated an exception to this rule while the defendant was in quarantine and arranged for her to use the laptop in her isolation cell on weekends because otherwise she would not have had access to a computer during weekends while in quarantine. Now that she is out of quarantine, the defendant will have access to the MDC desktop computer on weekends. + +As to the defense's most recent complaints, the malfunctioning of the sixth production that the defense complains of resulted from the defendant herself dropping the hard drive onto the ground, and that drive has been replaced. When the defense informed the Government that the drive containing the seventh production may be malfunctioning, the Government offered to have IT staff review the drive. In response, the defense indicated the drive was in fact still viewable and declined to have IT staff review it. Accordingly, it is the Government's understanding that the defendant currently has a full, readable set of discovery at the MDC. At the defense's request, the Government is preparing yet another copy containing all productions to date on a single drive so that the defendant will have a backup copy of discovery materials at the MDC." Throughout the defendant's pretrial detention, the Government has been responsive to the defense's concerns regarding access to discovery and counsel. The Government will continue to work with MDC legal counsel to ensure that the defendant is able to review her discovery and to communicate with defense counsel over the seven months still remaining before trial. + +As to the defense complaints regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement, the defense notably does not suggest that the defendant should be housed in general population. Indeed, the defense appears to agree that the best way to ensure the defendant's safety while detained is to be away from general population. Unlike other inmates in protective custody, however, the defendant is released from her isolation cell for thirteen hours per day, has her own shower, has exclusive use of two different computers, has her own phone to use, and has her own television. Those conditions set her far apart from general population inmates, not to mention + +" On this score, the Government notes the tension between the defense claim that the discovery produced to date contains little of value or relevant to the charges set forth in the Indictment, and the simultaneous claim that the defendant has been prejudiced by technical difficulties that have temporarily delayed her ability to review portions of those productions, productions which, according to the defense, counsel have already been able to conclude are essentially unimportant. + +other inmates in protective custody. Additionally, psychology and medical staff check on the defendant daily, MDC legal staff are highly attuned to any complaints the defendant has raised, and following initial complaints about the defendant's diet early in her incarceration, the MDC has ensured that the defendant receives three full meals per day and has access to commissary from which she can supplement her diet. + +The MDC has taken numerous steps to strike the balance between the security of the institution and providing the defendant with adequate time and resources to prepare her defense. In that vein, many of the searches the defendant complains of—such as searches after every visit, searches of her cell, pat downs when she is moved, and directing her to open her mouth for visual inspection (while the searching staff member is wearing a mask)—are the same searches to which every other inmate is subjected for the security of the institution. MDC legal counsel has assured the Government that MDC staff does not record or listen to the substance of the defendant's calls and visits with legal counsel. To the extent MDC staff conducts additional searches or monitoring of the defendant, MDC legal counsel has indicated that those steps are necessary to maintain the security of the institution and the defendant. + +With respect to the defense concerns regarding COVID-19, the Government recognizes, as it did in its initial bail briefing, that the virus presents a challenge at any jail facility. At least for this defendant, the MDC's precautionary measures appear to have worked. When the defendant was potentially exposed to the virus, she was placed in quarantine, remained asymptomatic, tested negative, and then was released from quarantine. As the Court found at the initial bail hearing, the defendant has no underlying health conditions that would place her at greater risk of complications from COVID-19. (Tr. 89). For that same reason, the Court should again reject the suggestion that the pandemic warrants the defendant's release. + +#### CONCLUSION + +As this Court previously found, the defendant "poses a substantial actual risk of flight." (Tr. 86). Nothing in the defense submission justifies altering the Court's prior conclusion that there are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, the Renewed Bail Motion should be denied. + +Dated: New York, New York December 16, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ad6dba1c7e509c90f5ff86e260e0631d43b1b87 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006/EFTA02830006.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1620 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830006.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 36, + "chars": 74054, + "elapsed_seconds": 18.58, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION \nTO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 479.2151794433594, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 479.2151794433594, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 98.60302734375 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 98.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 381.88800000000003, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 381.88800000000003, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 110.16000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S \nRENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 284.31 + ], + [ + 538.0191040039062, + 284.31 + ], + [ + 538.0191040039062, + 313.10302734375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 313.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 175.10302734375 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 175.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 363.169677734375, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 363.169677734375, + 313.10302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 313.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DISCUSSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.832, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 345.66357421875, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 345.66357421875, + 175.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 266.832, + 175.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 331.0731201171875, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 331.0731201171875, + 565.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 565.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Strength of the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 252.05215454101562, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 252.05215454101562, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Characteristics of the Defendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 287.84356689453125, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 287.84356689453125, + 472.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 472.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Conditions of Confinement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 241.86322021484375, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 241.86322021484375, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830006" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7f89112efa592fb3d1174a3d541efbd2feea2d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. + +The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to `the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo ("An:ode° II"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). + +The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the + +Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties' personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. + +The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. + +SO ORDERED. + +k irke Air + +Dated: December 23, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1155c2b264b152cf449032677705ab9aa5eba72 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/EFTA02830042.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2409, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830042" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db8cb31bd633e846e29696c1fad2d0a8dc2cd3d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830042/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1954ef118871c38a3214e6745b7d4bc1c811526eeaea85c91a89efcbe8a99973 +size 10945 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..741289155d7b9ce657cbd4648f21dcc8bd496b9d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957.764K) mcohcnacohcrigresscr.com ccvadclItecohcngrcsscr.com + +December 18, 2020 + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +## VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B1 OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +8O0 Thad Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone nvnecohengressercom + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, and pursuant to the Court's order (Dkt. 89), we respectfully submit under seal two versions of the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail (the "Reply") and accompanying exhibits: an unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with proposed narrowly tailored redactions. The proposed redactions are based on the following: (1) privacy concerns, as articulated in our letters of November 25, 2020 (Dkt. 86) and November 30, 2020 (Dkt. 87); and (2) the Reply's reference to and discussion of Confidential Information, including financial documents and other materials, produced in discovery and governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..067f4e76d887791582730fb8480986a192363450 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/EFTA02830044.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1626, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B1 \nOF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.73822021484375, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 479.73822021484375, + 243.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 243.80352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830044" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45b5ba4c07eeddd82e8a7de3e9035cb2ecfbdfe7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830044/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d6d735cee67b3c5085cda469f193f1b1b9db48304816bd630c309751014aa031 +size 1604 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aa6a56fda9199fc165ab9a3c75e85e9b4e4f3ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +## Exhibit A + +December 18, 2020, Paris. + +## Response to the government's memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release. + +I was asked to review the United States government's memorandum and notably pages 15 to 17 alongside the Minister of Justice's letter dated 11 December 2020 produced as Exhibit B to this memorandum. + +## 1 The Minister of Justice's letter (Exhibit B) + +The letter of the Minister of Justice, on which the US government relies to argue that the government does not extradite its citizens outside the European Union and thus to the United States, quotes Article 696-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that France can extradite "any person not having nationality". + +It remains unclear whether the author of such letter had actually access to my opinion which is not even quoted, and more generally it seems the letter responds to a question which unexpectedly was not disclosed. + +The letter fails to mention, however, that Article 6% of the same Code provides that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conditions of extradition apply in the absence of an international agreement providing otherwise (Article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "In the absence of an international agreement stipulating otherwise, the conditions, procedure and effects of extradition shall be determined by the provisions of this chapter'. These provisions shall also apply to matters which would not have been regulated by international conventions"). The provisions of Article 6% of the Code of Criminal Procedure are a reminder that under Article 55 of the Constitution, international agreements prevail over national legislation (Article 55 of the Constitution: "Treaties or agreements that have been duly ratified or approved have, upon their publication, an authority superior to that of laws, subject, for each agreement or treaty, to its application by the other party"). It follows from these provisions that the key question is whether France may extradite a national under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France and/or under the Extradition Treaty between the European Union and the USA, not whether France extradites its citizens under legislation. + +In accordance with this constitutional rule, the administrative circular of 11 March 2004, published by the Ministry of Justice, which aims at specifying how the then recently amended legal provisions regarding extradition should apply and be understood, states the following: "Article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reaffirms this principle of + +The relevant chapter includes Articles 696-1 to Article 696-47-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thus includes Article 696-2. + +subsidiarity of domestic law in relation to international instruments as stated by the aforementioned law of 10 March 1927: the legislative provisions on extradition are applicable only in the silence or in the absence of international conventions."2 + +It follows from the provisions of Article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the key question is whether France may extradite a national under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France and/or under the Extradition Treaty between the European Union and the USA, not whether France may extradite its citizens under legislation. + +As previously outlined, the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France does not preclude the government from extraditing a national and must therefore be distinguished from a number of other international agreements signed by France which contain a clear prohibition to that extent. The Treaty between the USA and France gives the government discretion as to whether or not to extradite its own citizens to the USA. + +It is noted that the letter of the Minister does not provide any answer on this issue. + +## 2 The DOJ Memorandum and the Peterson Case + +In support of its argument that the government would not extradite Ms Ghislaine Maxwell to the USA, the government relies on the case of Mr Hans Peterson, a dual American citizen whose extradition to the US was denied by France in 2007. + +The Peterson precedent should only be cited with great caution. First, I am not aware that this case has given rise to a published judicial decision, therefore it should not be interpreted as the support of any legal rule or principle. In addition, in regards to the documents that the DOJ has referred to in its memorandum, I doubt that a judicial decision has ever occurred in this case: as mentioned by the 2007 letter of US Senators Richard J. Durbin and Barack Obama to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice communicated its decision refusing extradition on August 22nd 2007, only a few days after the suspect was arrested (at the beginning of August 2007). This decision is not a Court decision but a discretionary decision from the Ministry of Justice. It actually seems very unlikely that a court decision could have been rendered in this timeframe. This indicates that the case must not have been handed on to the court by the Ministry of Justice in the earliest stage of the extradition process. + +A refusal to extradite may possibly be challenged by the requesting government before the Conseil d'Etat, which is the Supreme Court for administrative matters, as for example the United Kingdom and Hong Kong successfully challenged a decision from the authorities not to extradite an individual whose extradition they had requested (Conseil d'Etat, 15 October1993, no. 142578). In the Peterson case, the American government did not + +2 Circulairc Mandat d'arret curopecn ct Extradition n° CRIM-04-2/CAB-11.03.2004 du I I mars 2004 + +challenge the refusal before courts, while such challenge could have led to a judicial review of the request, in accordance with the ordinary extradition procedure. + +Secondly, in the absence of a published judicial decision, it is impossible to determine what the outcome of this case would have been if it had come before the courts. + +Third, as was rightly pointed out by US Senators Richard J. Durbin and Barack Obama in their aforementioned letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which the government cites in its memorandum: + +"Article 3 of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France provides in pertinent pan that "There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State". While this Article does not require the extradition qf a national to a requesting state, it also does not appear to preclude extradition. To tin' extent there is discretion available in such extradition decisions, we urge the government to exercise that discretion in favor of ertradition". + +I am satisfied that this is the right interpretation of Article 3, as this is exactly the conclusion I came to in my first report. To the extent that there is a discretion, there can be no absolute rule against the extradition of nationals under law. A discretionary power is not a legal rule. Indeed, there is no constitutional principle against the extradition of nationals. For these reasons, the Peterson case does not alter my view that under the specific and unique facts of this case, it is highly unlikely that the government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms. Maxwell, particularly if Ms. Maxwell has signed an irrevocable waiver in the USA. + +Finally, if an extradition request were to be issued against a citizen today, the obligations of the government under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France would also need to be read in light of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America, which came into force on February P. 2010, several years after the Peterson case. Article I of this Agreement, which enhances cooperation between Contracting Parties, provides that: "The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, to provide for enhancements to cooperation in the context of applicable extradition relations between the Member States and the United States of America governing extradition of offenders". The existence of this Agreement would need to be taken into account by the government in the exercise of its discretion as to whether or not to grant the extradition of a national to the USA. + +William JULIE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6105c7912e7f44bbb3c9f1935add785df7b3ce9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045/EFTA02830045.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830045.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 8384, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.95, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 411.693603515625, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 411.693603515625, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Response to the government's memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed \nmotion for release.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 127.57600000000001 + ], + [ + 513.0215454101562, + 127.57600000000001 + ], + [ + 513.0215454101562, + 160.10302734375 + ], + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 160.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 The Minister of Justice's letter (Exhibit B)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 234.46400000000003 + ], + [ + 366.4834289550781, + 234.46400000000003 + ], + [ + 366.4834289550781, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2 The DOJ Memorandum and the Peterson Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 361.178 + ], + [ + 350.43060302734375, + 361.178 + ], + [ + 350.43060302734375, + 376.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.23500000000001, + 376.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830045" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3fdfaae723f6a5050e0e82fc30666423c82c93a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +## Exhibit B + +## IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION ON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES + +RE GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +## ADDENDUM OPINION + +- 1. This Addendum Opinion is provided in response to the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Release dated 16 December 2020, insofar as it pertains to matters of English extradition law and practice. +- 2. The primary conclusions of the Opinion dated 8 October 2020 ('the Opinion') remain unchanged, namely: (a) in the majority of cases, proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition requests are concluded in under two years; (b) it is virtually certain that bail would be refused in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person had absconded from criminal proceedings in the United States prior to trial and in breach of bail; and (c) on the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely' that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020. In addition to those conclusions, the following three points may be made. +- 3. First, as noted in the Opinion2, Ms Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible in any extradition proceedings in England and Wales. While such a document cannot compel a requested person to consent to their extradition once in the United Kingdom, the document would be a highly relevant factor in any contested extradition proceedings. In particular: + +(a) If Ms Maxwell were to rely on such a waiver to secure bail in the United States and then, having absconded, renege on the undertakings in that + +I The Government observes, at p.I 6 of the Motion, that this leaves open a 'passibility" that extradition could be resisted. Absolute certainty in any legal context is rare but the practical effect of the conclusion in the Opinion is that, at this stage and on the basis of the information currently known, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which Ms Maxwell could successfully resist extradition, and her extradition would be a virtual foregone conclusion. + +2 Opinion. para. 39. + +document to seek to resist her extradition, bail would almost certainly be refused for the duration of the extradition proceedings. + +- (b) The majority of the bars that might be relied upon by Ms Maxwell3 require the extradition judge to make a finding that extradition would be oppressive. Quite apart from the other factors rendering those bars unavailable to Ms Maxwell, as set out in the Opinion, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a finding of oppression could be made in relation to the serious charges faced by Ms Maxwell in circumstances where she had absconded from the United States and was contesting her extradition in breach of good faith undertakings relied upon to secure her bail. Similar considerations apply to the balancing exercise required in assessing whether extradition would breach the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. The remaining bars to extradition and human rights bars are unlikely to be available to Ms Maxwell for the reasons given in the Opinion4. +- (c) A breach of the undertakings in the waiver of extradition would be highly likely to be viewed as a sign of bad faith and cause the extradition judge to treat any evidence given by Ms Maxwell with scepticism. + +- 4. Second, it is not correct that section 93 of the Extradition Act 2003 (`the 2003 Act') confers a general discretion on the Secretary of State to refuse extradition if a case is sent to her by the extradition judges. The ambit of the power in section 93 is described at paragraph 8 of the Opinion. The Secretary of State may only refuse extradition on the grounds provided for in that section, namely: (a) if an applicable bar to extraditions is found to exist; (b) the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdravd; (c) there is a competing claim for extradition from + +3Opinion, pan. 26. Those bars are passage of time; forum; and mental and physical condition. + +4 Opinion, pans. 27-29 and 36-37. + +5 As appears to be submitted by the Government at p.19 of the Memorandum. + +6 The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider arc: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95); (c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A). + +7Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4Xa). + +another states; (d) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom9; or (e) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security10. On the information currently known, none of these bars or exceptions would arise in the case of Ms Maxwell. + +- 5. The exceptional nature of the Secretary of State's power is illustrated by the fact that it has been exercised in the favour of a requested person on only one occasion since the enactment of the 2003 Act, and that that single exercise of the power was based on grounds on which reliance may not now be placed.° +- 6. Third, as to the timescales of extradition proceedings arising from requests for extradition made by the Government of the United States, it is to be noted that the purpose of the 2003 Act to streamline extradition procedures12 and, in practice, the legislation works to facilitate extradition. As noted in the Opinion13 the majority of extradition cases conclude within two years, or three months in cases where consent to extradition is given. + +David C 6KBW College + +17 December 2020 + +8 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 93(4X6), 126(2) and 179(2). + +° Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4)(c) and (6A). + +I°Extradition Act 2003, s. 208. + +viz. in the case of Gary M. whose extradition was refused by the Secretary of State in 2012 on the basis that he was seriously mentally ill and that there was a high risk of suicide were he to be extradited; since that decision, the Secretary of State has been barred from refusing extradition on the basis of human rights grounds: Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(11 ) (as inserted by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 with effect from 29 July 2013). + +12 Welsh v United Stales[2007] I WLR 156 (Admin) para. 26. + +13 Opinion, para. 13. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82281822934533ae7adb101cf62328b2c0e2ee16 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049/EFTA02830049.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,270 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830049.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6410, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0407409667969, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0407409667969, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION \nON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.60999999999999, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 472.5272521972656, + 71.546 + ], + [ + 472.5272521972656, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 141.60999999999999, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM OPINION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.645, + 168.95200000000003 + ], + [ + 365.01763916015625, + 168.95200000000003 + ], + [ + 365.01763916015625, + 185.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.645, + 185.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830049" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9276ac2c158d39abfbc1754540c39b4825fe27d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +# REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| ARGUMENT | 2 | +| I. The Government Concedes that Its Case Relies Almost Exclusively on the | | +| Testimony of Three Witnesses | 2 | +| II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden | 4 | +| A. | The Government Asks the Court to Ignore Ms. Maxwell's Substantial | +| of Her and Her Spouse's Assets in Support of Her Bond | 5 | +| C. | The Government's Assertion that Ms. Maxwell Is "Adept" at Hiding and | +| Therefore a Flight Risk Is Specious | 7 | +| D. Refusal of Extradition from France or the United Kingdom Is Highly | | +| Unlikely | 8 | +| E. The Recent COVID Surge at MDC Further Justifies Bail | 10 | +| CONCLUSION | 10 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| United States v. Chen , 820 F. Supp. 1205 (N.D. Cal. 1992) ..... | 10 | +| United States v. Orta , 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) ..... | 1 | + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +Exhibit A. Julie Addendum Opinion (France) + +Exhibit B. Addendum Opinion (U.K.) + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The only issue before the Court is whether conditions exist that can reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance during this case. On this renewed application, Ms. Maxwell has put before the Court a significant bail package, supported by detailed submissions, which warrant her release on strict conditions. She and her spouse have committed to signing a bond in the full amount of their net worth, regardless of the ownership of the underlying assets. She has proffered seven additional sureties, consisting of her family and close friends, many of whom are U.S. citizens and long-time residents, who have come forward at great personal risk and have pledged meaningful assets. The government does not challenge the good faith and bona fides of these proposed sureties. She has provided a detailed report from a respected accounting firm, which was further reviewed by a former IRS special agent, setting forth a statement of her financial condition, supported by voluminous documentation. The government does not challenge the report's findings, nor its underlying documentation. She has agreed, in writing, to give up any right she has or could have to contest extradition and submit to all other standard travel restrictions. And she has noted that a key representation made by the government at the initial bail hearing as to the strength of its evidence is simply not accurate - and there is no "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence" that corroborates its case. + +With regard to any other defendant, this record would readily support release on strict bail conditions, perhaps even on consent. But this is Ghislaine Maxwell, the apparent substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. So, instead, in its response the government urges the Court to disregard the significant additional evidence proffered to the Court and further argues that a defendant cannot be eligible for bail (apparently on any conditions), unless she can provide an absolute guarantee against all risks. But this is not the legal standard. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4, + +892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) ("The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees."). Under, the Bail Reform Act, a defendant must be released unless there are "no conditions" that would reasonably assure her presence. Here, the proposed package satisfies the actual governing standard, and the Court should grant bail. + +# ARGUMENT + +## 1. The Government Concedes that Its Case Relies Almost Exclusively on the Testimony of Three Witnesses + +In evaluating the strength of the government's case in its prior ruling, the Court relied on the government's proffer that the testimony of the three accusers would be corroborated by "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Tr. 82 (emphasis added)). The government now expressly retreats from this position. It is abundantly clear from the government's response that it has no "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence"—in fact, it has virtually no documentary corroboration at all—and that its case against Ms. Maxwell is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified, concerning events that took place over 25 years ago. Moreover, the government offers no specificity about when within the four-year period of the charged conspiracy the alleged incidents of abuse took place. This, alone, is grounds for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. + +The few examples of documentary corroboration referenced by the government—which are the same examples that the government touted at the initial bail hearing—pertain to Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell. The government concedes that + +government further states that (Gov. Mem. at 11 (emphasis added)). The (Id. + +here. Whether or not the accusers' recollections as to Epstein are corroborated is irrelevant to the strength of the evidence against Ms. Maxwell. + +The only purported corroboration that pertains in any way to Ms. Maxwell is of marginal value. The government references + +■ **(Id. at 11). But even the government concedes that, at best,** + +**It is clear that the only evidence that Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" the accusers or knowingly facilitated or participated in Epstein's sexual abuse of minors will come solely from the testimony of the three accusers. The government's case against Ms. Maxwell therefore rests entirely on the credibility and reliability of these three witnesses.2 Moreover, the substantive counts (Counts Two and Four) are based on the testimony of only one witness, Minor Victim-1. It is also telling that the government does not even attempt to rebut the defense's assertion that it did not begin issuing subpoenas for documents related to Ms. Maxwell until just after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. This confirms that the case against Ms. Maxwell was assembled after the fact** + +**I The government also proffers that they will have "additional witnesses." (Gov. Mem. at I I). But these are not "outcry" witnesses who will corroborate a contemporaneous account of abuse from one or more of the accusers. Instead, they will testify only that "both [Ms. Maxwell] and E stein knew and interacted with certain minor victims when those victims were minors." (/d.). Again, the fact that have "met and interacted with" someone when they were a minor proves absolutely nothing.** + +**2 One of the witnesses has submitted a letter to the Court. While the CV RA permits the right to be heard, the letter should be given no legal weight in the Court's bail analysis. Sec United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 331- 32 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)** + +as a substitute for its prosecution of Epstein.3 The government's case is not what it represented to the Court at the initial bail hearing, which should weigh heavily in favor of granting bail.' + +# II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden + +### A. The Government Asks the Court to Ignore Ms. Maxwell's Substantial Ties to the United States, Including Her Spouse + +The government incorrectly argues that the renewed bail application offers no new information and that the Court was "already aware of the defendant's friends and family in the United States. (Gov. Mem. at 13). The government ignores that, since the initial bail hearing, Ms. Maxwell's spouse has come forward as a co-signor and has submitted a detailed letter describing his committed relationship with Ms. Maxwell for over four years and the important role she has played, and continues to play, It also ignores that several of Ms. Maxwell's closest friends and family, many of whom are U.S. citizens and residents, have also come forward, at considerable personal risk, to support her bond with pledges of assets or letters of support. This information, which was not available to the Court at the time of the initial hearing, demonstrates Ms. Maxwell's strong ties to this country and weighs heavily in favor of bail. + +Rather than address the merits, the government attempts to dismiss the significance of Ms. Maxwell's relationship with her spouse, noting that Ms. Maxwell told Pretrial Services that she was in the process of getting a divorce and that her spouse did not step forward as a co-signer at the initial bail hearing. (Id. at 13-14). The government is entirely + +3Moreover. the govenuneut failure to request regardless of whether it was legally obligated to do so. shows that the government has accept e accusers accounts without serious scrutiny. Given the ovenunent's ongoing Bradt. obligations, it is unsettling that the government would simply acc + +4 Contrary to the government's assertion, the defense has not abandoned our legal challenges to the indictment. (Gov. Mem. at 10 n.1). We believe we have strong arguments that have only gotten stronger with the production of discovery. We will be making those arguments to the Court in our pretrial motions to be filed next month. + +mistaken. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Maxwell and her spouse had discussed the idea of getting a divorce as an additional way to create distance between Ms. Maxwell and her spouse to protect him from the terrible consequences of being associated with her. Nevertheless, in the weeks following the initial bail hearing, + +She and her spouse therefore had no reason to continue discussing divorce, which neither of them wanted in the first place. Nor was there any reason for her spouse to refrain from stepping forward as a co-signer. In sum, the government has offered nothing but unsupported innuendo to suggest that Ms. Maxwell's relationship with her spouse is not a powerful tie to this country. + +The government's assertion that Ms. Maxwell must not have a close relationship with and belied by the facts. (Gov. Mem. at 14). As her spouse explains, is particularly callous + +(Ex. A 1 12). + +# M Maxwell Has Thoroughly Disclosed Her Finances and Pledged All of Her and Her Spouse's Assets in Support of Her Bond + +The government's attempts to rebut the financial condition report are unavailing. Significantly, the government does not contest the accuracy of the report, nor the voluminous supporting documentation. In fact, the government has proffered nothing that calls into question the report's detailed account of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse's assets for the last five years, which addresses one of the Court's principal reasons for denying bail. + +Rather than question the report itself, the government attempts to argue that Ms. Maxwell deceived the Court and Pretrial Services about her assets. (Gov. Mem. at 22-23). The report shows nothing of the sort. Ms. Maxwell, who was sitting in a jail cell at the time, was asked by Pretrial Services to estimate her assets. Accordingly, she gave her best estimate of the assets she held in her own name, which the government concedes she did with remarkable accuracy considering that she had not reviewed her financial statements? + +The government's arguments further confirm that it has lost all objectivity and will view at any fact involving Ms. Maxwell in the worst possible light. For example, the government asserts that Ms. Maxwell has demonstrated "sophistication in hiding her assets" and characterizes her transfers to a trust as "funneling" assets to her spouse to "hide her true wealth." (Id. at 24). There is nothing unusual, let alone nefarious or even particularly sophisticated about transferring assets into a trust or a spouse. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell fully disclosed these transactions on her joint tax returns. More importantly, all of the assets disclosed in the financial report, whether they are owned by Ms. Maxwell or her spouse, are included in the bond amount and are subject to forfeiture if she flees. + +The government further argues that the financial condition report shows that Ms. Maxwell has access to millions of dollars of "unrestrained funds" that she could use to flee the country and reimburse any of her sureties for the loss of their security. (Id. at 23). That characterization is simply untrue. First, as disclosed in the financial report, Ms. Maxwell has procured significant loans on the basis of a negative pledge over her London property. Second, the \$4 million controlled by her spouse could only be liquidated with considerable difficulty. + +The government also faults Ms. Maxwell for not including a valuation of future contingent assets and income that may never materialize. (Id. at 23-24). For example,. + +5 Moreover, for the reasons discussed in our initial memorandum, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything about her spouse and clearly expressed her reluctance to Pretrial Services early on in the interview. + +Similarly, the financial report does not include a future income stream for Ms. Maxwell or her spouse because it presents only historical and current assets. Even so, Ms. Maxwell has no certain future income stream. Her spouse + +and has had to liquidate his existing investments to help Ms. Maxwell. Finally, the reference to is gratuitous. Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge of + +But the larger point is this: Ms. Maxwell has proposed a substantial bail package with multiple co-signers and significant security. She and her spouse have pledged all of their assets in support of the bond. Ms. Maxwell's wealth is not a reason to deny her bail. It is a reason to set appropriately strict conditions that will result in significant financial consequences to Ms. Maxwell and her friends and family if she leaves the country. The proposed bail package does exactly that.6 + +# C. The Government's Assertion that Ms. Maxwell Is "Adept" at Hiding and Therefore a Flight Risk Is Specious + +The government continues to assert the sinister narrative that Ms. Maxwell had "an expertise at remaining hidden," and that it would therefore be easy for her to become a fugitive. + +6 The government's argument that her spouse's moral suasion is diminished because Ms. Maxwell brought the majority of assets to the relationship is nonsensical. (Id. at 24-25). Regardless of whose mono it was to begin with, all of the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse will be forfeited if she flees and her spouse will be left with nothing. Furthermore, the government's assertion that they could not verify the spouses mane' information because Ms. Maxwell did not provide his current banking information is false. (Id. at 24 n.9). The defense provided the spouse's current banking records and only redacted the name of the bank. + +(Gov. Mem. at 20). The government suggests that purchasing a home using a trust and providing a pseudonym to a real estate broker are indicative of her willingness and ability to live in hiding and somehow forecast Ms. Maxwell's intention to flee. (Id.). These arguments are just further evidence that the government will frame every fact about Ms. Maxwell in the worst possible light. As the defense has already argued extensively in its initial brief, these steps were borne out of necessity to protect Ms. Maxwell and her family from harassment and physical threats. Moreover, they are not predictive of flight. There is simply no basis to conclude, based on the measures that Ms. Maxwell was forced to take to protect herself and her family, that she would then willingly abandon that family to become a fugitive from justice. To the contrary, she remained in the country precisely to remain close to them and to defend her case. + +# D. Refusal of Extradition from France or the United Kingdom Is Highly Unlikely + +The government dismisses Ms. Maxwell's willingness to waive her extradition rights as to France and the United Kingdom as "meaningless" because Ms. Maxwell cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that either country will enforce the waiver. (Gov. Mem. at 14). The government misses the point: Ms. Maxwell's willingness to do everything she can to eliminate her ability to refuse extradition to the fullest extent possible demonstrates her firm commitment to remain in this country to face the charges against her and, as and U.K. experts confirm, there is every reason to believe that both authorities would consider the waiver as part of any extradition request. + +In an attempt to counter William Julie's expert report stating it is "highly unlikely" that the government would refuse to extradite Ms. Maxwell (Def. Mem., Ex. V at 2), the government attaches a letter from the Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") that references neither Mr. Julie's report nor Ms. Maxwell, but states generally that the Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits" the extradition of a national. (Gov. Mem., Ex. B). But + +as Mr. Julie's accompanying rebuttal report explains (see Ex. A), the MOJ letter ignores that the extradition provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure apply only in the absence of an international agreement providing otherwise. (Id. at 1). This rule is necessitated by the Constitution, which requires that international agreements prevail over national legislation. (Id.). Thus, extradition of a national to the United States is legally permissible if the extradition treaty between the United States and France provides for it—which it does. (Id. at 3). + +The government's reliance on a 2006 case—in which France refused to extradite a national who was also a U.S. citizen—provides no precedent as to how a court would rule on an extradition request regarding Ms. Maxwell because, as Mr. Julie notes, the United States did not challenge the refusal in the courts. (Id. at 2-3). Nor does it undermine Mr. Julie's opinion that, in the unusual circumstance where a citizen of both countries has executed an extradition waiver and then fled to France in violation of bail conditions set by a U.S. court, it is "highly unlikely" that an extradition decree would not be issued. (/d. at 3). + +The government offers no rebuttal to the opinion of Ms. Maxwell's U.K. extradition expert, David Nor does it dispute Mr. opinion that Ms. Maxwell would be "highly unlikely" to successfully resist extradition from the United Kingdom, that her waiver would be admissible in any extradition proceeding, and that—contrary to the government's representation at the initial bail hearing (Tr. 27)—bail would be "extremely unlikely." (See Def. Mem. Ex. U at ¶ 39). Mr. addendum opinion (attached as Ex. B) reiterates these points, opining that the waiver would be "a highly relevant factor" in the U.K. proceeding, both to the likelihood of extradition and to the likelihood of bail while the proceeding is pending. (Id. 13).7 + +7Nor, as the government suggests, does the Secretary of State have general "discretion to deny extradition" after a court has entered a final extradition order. (See Gov. Mem. at 19). That discretion is limited to a handful of exceptional circumstances that would likely be inapplicable to Ms. Maxwell's case. (M.114-5). + +Finally, the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell could always flee to some country other than the United Kingdom and France holds her—and any defendant—to an impossible standard, which is not the standard under the Bail Reform Act. (See Gov. Mem. at 19). By the government's reasoning, no defendant with financial means to travel could be granted bail, because there would always be a possibility that they could flee to another country (even if they had no ties there), and there could never be an assurance that any extradition waiver would be enforced. However, "Section 3142 does not seek ironclad guarantees." United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1208 (N.D. Cal. 1992). To the extent that Ms. Maxwell's ties to France and the United Kingdom—where she has not lived for nearly 30 years—create a flight risk, her extradition waivers along with the substantial bail package proposed reasonably cure it.8 + +# E. The Recent COVID Surge at MDC Further Justifies Bail + +The government suggests that the Court ignore COVED concerns because Ms. Maxwell, though quarantined because of contact with an officer who tested positive, did not become infected. This ignores the daily (sometimes multiple) inspections of Ms. Maxwell's mouth, which heightens her risk of contracting the deadly virus, which has now surged to 113 positive cases in the MDC. Further, Deputy Captain B. Houtz recently issued a memo stating that "[i]t has not been determined whether legal calls and legal visits will continue." As the Court is well aware, legal visits with Ms. Maxwell already have been suspended. Should legal calls also be discontinued, her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel will be further eroded. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the strict conditions she has proposed. + +Any incentive Ms. Maxwell might have to flee to France has been greatly diminished by the recent arrest in France of Jean-Luc Brunel, who reportedly is under investigation for alleged sexual assaults by Jeffrey Epstein. See. e.g.. France Details Modeling Agent in Jeffrey Epstein Inquiry https://www.theguardian.comtworld/2020/dec/17/francedetains-modellint-attent-ican-luc-bruncl-in-ieffrev-eostein-inouirv. + +Dated: December 18, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1419ad34201a1804de182eda7989982d21fae324 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053/EFTA02830053.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,948 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830053.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 15, + "chars": 24020, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.99, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 459.2588195800781, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 459.2588195800781, + 319.863037109375 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 319.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.9604187011719, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.9604187011719, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 370.53631591796875, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 370.53631591796875, + 79.38 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 79.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 64.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 64.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 78.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 78.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 347.3873291015625, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 347.3873291015625, + 187.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 187.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Government Concedes that Its Case Relies Almost Exclusively on the \nTestimony of Three Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 506.47808837890625, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 506.47808837890625, + 227.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government Has Not Carried Its Burden", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 119.07 + ], + [ + 356.38812255859375, + 119.07 + ], + [ + 356.38812255859375, + 134.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 134.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Government Asks the Court to Ignore Ms. Maxwell's Substantial \nTies to the United States, Including Her Spouse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 521.9799194335938, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 521.9799194335938, + 173.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 173.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "M Maxwell Has Thoroughly Disclosed Her Finances and Pledged All of \nHer and Her Spouse's Assets in Support of Her Bond", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 499.2206115722656 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 499.2206115722656 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 534.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Government's Assertion that Ms. Maxwell Is \"Adept\" at Hiding and \nTherefore a Flight Risk Is Specious", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 538.3583984375, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 538.3583984375, + 562.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 562.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Refusal of Extradition from France or the United Kingdom Is Highly \nUnlikely", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 517.663330078125, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 517.663330078125, + 368.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 368.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Recent COVID Surge at MDC Further Justifies Bail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 452.71942138671875, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 452.71942138671875, + 355.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 355.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 586.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 349.4591369628906, + 586.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 349.4591369628906, + 601.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 601.4830169677734 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830053" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..544b91c39c8e467f228d8f65c461b982101ec805 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC X: DATE FILED: 12/28/20 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for release on bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion. + +In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Court's Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuit's decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d I10(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. + +This Order provides the bottom line of the Court's resolution. On July 14, 2020, this Court conducted an extensive bail hearing and determined that pre-trial detention was warranted because the no conditions or set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(O, a bail hearing may be reopened if the Court finds "that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required." The Court concludes that + +none of the new information that the Defendant presented in support of her application has a material bearing on the Court's determination that she poses a flight risk. + +Furthermore, for substantially the same reasons as the Court determined that detention was warranted in the initial bail hearing, the Court again concludes that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings. In reaching that conclusion, the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the weight of the evidence against the Defendant, the history and characteristics of the Defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger that the Defendant's release would pose. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Government does not contend that the Defendant poses a danger to the community. Nonetheless the Court determines that the other three factors warrant detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Court also finds the Defendant's proposed bail conditions would not reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings. + +As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pre-trial detention continues to be warranted. + +On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. + +This resolves Dkt No. 97. + +SO ORDERED. + +A Stj Q. ik\* - + +Dated: December 28, 2020 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3ac9dee0f8c4d5b5e3f6cb810dbb2f40e18594c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068/EFTA02830068.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830068.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3209, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830068" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aff8e103df19084862ef3dbef6bf860294bf5480 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +December 30, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties jointly submit this letter in response to the Court's December 28, 2020 Order directing the parties to indicate whether they propose any redactions to the Court's December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order denying the defense's renewed bail motion. (Dkt. No. 104). After conferring, the parties agree that no redactions need be applied to the Court's December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order. Accordingly, the parties have no objection to the public filing of the complete Opinion and Order without redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7b8f48519cf423b38e3ef2b54aef61efd818d6f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/EFTA02830070.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1180, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.87138366699219, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.87138366699219, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830070" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ea9167df5ac4e3b03273628b5c690ef5af1d39b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830070/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:315ffe805f5dadef7c98bf51e24a5a08b96c381bcc0bdfb8cd7eeb6aeed4face +size 3497 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a19f20c1df25eeb643785d118c209671213b43b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +ESDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE flLED: 12/28/20 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +OPINION AND ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Bail was therefore denied. + +The Defendant has now filed a renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, which the Government opposes. In her renewed motion, the Defendant attempts to respond to the reasons that the Court provided in denying bail and proposes a substantially larger bail package. But by and large, the arguments presented either were made at the initial bail hearing or could have been made then. In any event, the new information provided in the renewed application only solidifies the Court's view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no + +combination of conditions can ensure her appearance. This is so because: the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first motion for release on July 14, 2020, the Court DENIES the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.' + +#### 1. Background + +On June 29, 2020, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a six-count Indictment against the Defendant, charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of multiple minor victims between approximately 1994 and 1997. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 2, 2020, the Indictment was unsealed, and that same day, the Defendant was arrested in New Hampshire. On July 8, 2020, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment, which contained only small ministerial corrections. Dkt. No. 17. + +On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail. After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The + +This Opinion & Order will be temporarily sealed in order to allow the parties to propose redactions to sensitive or confidential information. + +Defendant did not appeal the Court's determination that detention was required, and she has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time. + +### II. Legal Standard + +Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of "[e]xcessive bail," and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant "subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(I)(B). Only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community," may the Court order that the defendant be held without bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX1). + +If there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure" the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3). In such circumstances, "the defendant 'bears a limited burden of production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.' United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption."). Nonetheless, "'the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the + +defendant presents a danger to the community,' and `by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.' English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) ("The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case]."). Even when "a defendant has met his burden of production," however, "the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020). + +After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if "information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue" of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at \*2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that "[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another" the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2) are met); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant until trial). + +### III. Discussion + +The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0 and the Court's inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7-9. As already noted, § 3142(0 provides that a bail hearing "may be reopened ... at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the + +hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." A court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even where the circumstances do not match § 3142(0's statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) (noting that "a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). + +In line with this, the Defendant's new motion aims to address the reasons that the Court provided when it originally determined that no conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that pretrial detention was warranted. First, the Defendant proposes a more expansive set of bail conditions that she claims addresses any concerns regarding risk of flight. The newly proposed conditions include a \$28.5 million bail package, which consists of a \$22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse and secured by approximately \$8 million in property and \$500,000 in cash, along with six additional bonds five co-signed by the Defendant's friends and family members and the sixth posted by the security company that would provide security services to the Defendant if she were granted bail and transferred to home confinement. See Def. Mot. at 2. The proposed conditions also provide that the Defendant would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as her third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(BXi); that she would be placed in home confinement with GPS monitoring and that her travel would be restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and would be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with + +counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. Id. at 2-3. + +Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3. + +The motion also presents new information that, according to the Defendant, addresses the concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant's family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at 10-14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the Defendant's financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15-18; evidence that according to her rebuts the Government's original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior to her arrest, see id. at 18-25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25-29; and evidence that she argues lays bare the weakness of the Government's case against her, see id. at 30-34. + +Finally, the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34- 38. + +Having carefully considered all of the Defendant's arguments, the Court again concludes that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that + +detention without bail is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Court accordingly denies Defendant's request to reopen the original bail hearing and denies her renewed motion for bail. + +### A. The presumption in favor of detention applies + +The Court is required to presume that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. The Bail Reform Act provides that if a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, "it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person committed." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3)(E). The Defendant's indictment by a grand jury suffices to establish that there is probable cause to believe that she committed the offenses charged in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting that that an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury "conclusively determines the existence of probable cause" and that "the return of an indictment eliminates the need for a preliminary examination at which a probable cause finding is made by a judicial officer pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." (citations omitted)). In light of the crimes charged in the indictment, the Court begins with the presumption that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. + +When the presumption applies, the Defendant bears a limited burden of production "tending to counter the § 3142(e) presumption of flight," Contreras, 776 F.2d at 53 n. 1. The Defendant's burden of production only requires that she "introduce a certain amount of evidence contrary to the presumed fact." United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 380 (1st Cir. 1985), + +abrogated on other grounds by United States v. M, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990). That burden is "limited." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Defendant's proffer of evidence and information—including information relating to her financial conditions and her family ties to the United States, among other things—satisfies this limited burden. As the Court discussed at the July 14, 2020 hearing, these factors bear on the question of whether the Defendant poses a flight risk. And the evidence she advances in her renewed motion for bail reasonably disputes the presumption that she poses a flight risk. In that sense, this evidence is relevant to the ultimate determination and satisfies the relatively low threshold imposed by the burden of production. + +The presumption of flight does not disappear entirely, however, and it "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, "[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that 'a strong probability arises' that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance." Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted). + +### B. The new information does not alter the Court's initial determination + +When determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, courts are required to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the defendant's history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community posed by pre-trial release. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(g). + +At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court considered these factors before concluding that no conditions of release could reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. And the first and fourth factors remain unchanged. As already noted, the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and it is undisputed that the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment weighs in favor of continued detention. On the other hand, the Government has not advanced any evidence that the Defendant poses a danger to any person or to the community, a factor that weighs against detention. The Defendant's arguments therefore focus on the second and third factors. + +As explained below, neither the arguments put forth in the Defendant's renewed motion for bail nor the evidence she submitted in conjunction with her motion rebut the Court's conclusions, and the Court continues to find, after again applying these factors, that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings. + +# 1. The Weight of the Evidence + +The Court will address the strength of the Government's case first. The Defendant argues that the Government lacks any meaningful documentary corroboration of the witness testimony and that the discovery produced to date has included only a "small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy." Def. Mot. at 5. And she claims, as a result, that the Government overstated the strength of its case in advance of the July 14, 2020 bail hearing. See id. at 30-33. So she argues that the second § 3142(g) factor supports release. + +The Court disagrees. Arguing that the case against her "is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified," the Defendant contends that the weight of the evidence is weak. Def. Reply at 2. But she too easily discredits the witness testimony. According to the Government, and as reflected in the indictment, it is anticipated that the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant's alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts. See Gov't Opp'n at 10; see also Dkt. No. 17, SI Superseding Indictment,11117, I I, 13,17. Moreover, the Government proffers that additional evidence, including flight records and other witnesses' corroborating testimony, will further support the main witnesses' testimony and link the Defendant to Epstein's conduct. Gov't Opp'n at 10-11. And while the Defendant contends that much of this evidence focuses on Epstein, not the Defendant, the nature of the conspiracy charge (along with the evidence linking the Defendant to Epstein) renders this evidence relevant to the Government's charges against her. As the Court stated in the July 14,2020 hearing, although the Court does not prejudge the merits of the Government's case or of the Defendant's defenses, for purposes of the bail determination stage, the Government's proffered case against the Defendant remains strong. See Dkt. No. 93 ("Tr.") at 83:4-83:10. The Court again concludes that the Defendant's awareness of the potential strength of the government's case against her creates a risk of flight, and none of the Defendant's new arguments meaningfully alter that conclusion. As a result, the second factor supports detention. + +### 2. The Defendant's History and Characteristics + +At the July 14,2020 bail hearing, the Court determined that the Defendant was a flight risk in part because of her substantial international ties, including multiple foreign citizenships and familial and personal connections abroad and her ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value. See Tr. at 83:13-83:18. And the Court further noted that the Defendant's extraordinary financial resources could provide her the means to flee the country even despite + +COVID-19 related travel restrictions. Id. at 83:21-83:25. The Court also observed that the Defendant had family and personal connections to the United States but concluded that the absence of any dependents, significant family ties, or employment in the United States also supported the conclusion that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her. Id. at 84:4-84:9. While the Defendant's renewed motion for bail addresses some of these factors, it does not alter the Court's conclusion. + +The first few considerations remain relatively unchanged. The Defendant continues to have substantial international ties and multiple foreign citizenships, and she continues to have familial and personal connections abroad. None of the evidence presented in support of the present motion fundamentally alters those conclusions. To address the Court's concern that the Defendant's citizenship presented the opportunity that she could flee to France and that she would be able to resist extradition on that basis, see Tr. at 83:18-83:20, the Defendant now offers to waive her right to extradition from both the United Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions reports claiming that such waivers would likely make it possible to resist an extradition request from the United States to either country. See Def. Mot., Exs. T, U, V. As the Government points out in its brief, however, the legal weight of the waivers is, at best, contested. The Ministry of Justice, for instance, indicated in a letter submitted in conjunction to the Government's opposition that the Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits" the extradition of a national. See Gov't Opp'n, Ex. B. And while the Defendant's own expert attempts to rebut the Ministry of Justice's letter, see Def. Reply, Ex. A, even the Defendant's own experts use probabilistic, rather than absolute, language, leaving open the possibility that extradition would be blocked. See, e.g., Def. Mot., Ex. U at 2 ("On the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able + +successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020."); Def. Mot., Ex. V ¶ 76 ("It would ... become a matter for the government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell."); id. 177 ("[1]t is highly unlikely that the government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell. . . ."). Nor has the Defendant presented any cases where courts addressed the question of whether an anticipatory waiver of extradition is enforceable; while she cites cases where defendants offered to waive extradition, the reasoning in those cases turned on other factors and the courts did not dwell on the enforceability of such waivers. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at •2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992). In those cases, the courts included such waivers as one among several conditions of release, but they did not make any express determination that such waivers are enforceable. On the other hand, some courts have expressly opined that such waivers are unenforceable. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (describing the "Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights" as "an empty gesture."); United States v. No. 16-MR-I 18, 2016 WL 7421924, at \*4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) ("Although the defendants have signed a waiver of extradition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at •5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any country to which he fled would enforce any waiver of extradition signed under the circumstances presented in this case. At any event, + +extradition from Israel (or any other country) would be, at best, a difficult and lengthy process and, at worst, impossible."). + +Having carefully reviewed the experts' reports and the cases cited by the Defendant,2 the Court's analysis of the relationship between the Defendant's citizenship and the risk of flight remains fundamentally unchanged. Its reasoning is guided in part by the substantial legal questions regarding the legal weight of anticipatory extradition waivers and the likelihood that any extradition would be a difficult and lengthy process (including, for instance, the likelihood that the Defendant would contest the validity of those waivers and the duration it would take to resolve those legal disputes). The likelihood that the Defendant would be able to frustrate any extradition requests—even if she were correct that she would be unable to stop extradition entirely—weighs strongly in favor of detention. + +In addition, the Defendant's extraordinary financial resources also continue to provide her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected. To be sure, this factor alone does not by itself justify continued detention. But as the Court noted at the initial bail hearing, the Defendant's financial resources, in combination with her substantial international ties and foreign connections and her experience avoiding detection (whether from the government, the press, or otherwise), do bear significantly on the flight risk analysis. See Tr. at 88:6-88:23 (distinguishing this case from United States v. 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), + +2 The Defendant also argues that "a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order has been recognized as an indication of the defendant's intent not to flee." Def. Mot. at 27 (citing United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The Court places little weight on this argument. Under the Defendant's theory, a defendant could strategically offer to waive the right to extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. + +United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). + +The Court's concerns regarding the absence of any dependents, significant family ties, or employment in the United States, meanwhile, apply with somewhat less force in light of the evidence submitted in support of this motion. See id. at 84:4-84:9. The Defendant has submitted a litany of letters of support written by friends and family members. See Def. Mot., En. A—N, W—X. These letters, according to the Defendant, support her claim that she has significant ties to the United States and attest to the Defendant's character. The Defendant places particular emphasis on the letter written by her spouse, whose identity and connection to the Defendant was withheld from the Court at the initial bail hearing. See Def. Mot. at 11-13. In that letter, her spouse expounds on the lives they led before her arrest, noting in particular that the Government's characterization of the Defendant's "transient" lifestyle, Dkt. No. 4 at 9, was belied by the "quiet family life" that they had enjoyed. Def. Mot. at 11; see also Def. Mot, Ex. A ¶14-5. Other letters similarly highlight that the Defendant's family and affective ties in the United States are stronger than was originally presented to the Court in the initial bail hearing. + +These letters substantiate the Defendant's claim that she has important ties to people in the United States, but they leave unaltered the Court's conclusion that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for the Defendant. Among other things, the Defendant now argues that her newly revealed relationship with her spouse signals her deep affective ties in the country, but at the time she was arrested, she was not living with him and claimed to be getting divorced. See Pretrial Services Report at 3. Indeed, she does not propose to live with him were she to be released on bail, undercutting her argument that that relationship would create an insurmountable burden to her fleeing. Furthermore, the fact that she has friends and family in the United States + +does not mean that those people would be unable to visit her were she to flee to another country. In addition, the Defendant continues to lack any employment ties to the United States—another factor weighing in favor of detention. Furthermore, it is apparent from the letters that the Defendant has significant ties to family and friends abroad. In light of this, nothing in the renewed motion for bail alters the Court's fundamental conclusion that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden to the Defendant. + +Other factors that similarly speak to the Defendant's history and characteristics weigh in favor of detention. Most notably, the Defendant's pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly on the Court's application of the third factor to the present case. Among other things, in July 2020 the Defendant represented to Pretrial Services that she possessed around \$3.5 million worth of assets (while leaving ow her spouse's assets and assets that had been transferred to trust accounts) and the representation that the New Hampshire property was owned by a corporation and that she was "just able to stay there." See Pretrial Services Report at 2. The Defendant now claims that she "was detained at the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, [the financial figures] are a close approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of her arrest.... For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything about her [spouse] and expressed that to Pretrial Services." Def. Mot. at 16 n.5. Even if the Defendant was unable to provide an exact number, however, the difference between the number she originally reported to Pretrial Services and the number now presented to the Court in the Macalvins report, a report on the Defendant's finances prepared by a prominent accounting firm for purposes of this motion, see Def. Mot., Ex. O, makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation + +was the result of the Defendant's misestimation rather than misdirection. And while the Defendant's concerns regarding her spouse's privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant's representations to Pretrial Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. + +For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the third factor continues to weigh in favor of detention. + +### C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted + +In light of the reasons stated above, the Government has again met its burden of persuasion by "a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight." English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the § 3142(g) factors into account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the Defendant's proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court's original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered. + +As already noted, the Defendant now proposes a \$28.5 million bail package, which includes a \$22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse and secured by approximately \$8 million in property and \$500,000 in cash, along with six additional bonds—five co-signed by the Defendant's friends and family members and the sixth posted by the security company that would provide security services to the Defendant if she were granted bail and transferred to home confinement. See Def. Mot. at 2. At the initial hearing, the Court noted that the opaqueness of the Defendant's finances rendered it difficult to set financial bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court. The financial information that the Defendant presented to the Court at the initial bail hearing was undisputedly incomplete, and as the Court noted, the Court lacked "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the resources available to her." Tr. at 86—87. + +The Defendant has now presented to the Court what is perhaps a more thorough report on her finances prepared by Macalvins, an accounting firm in the United Kingdom. Macalvins analyzed the Defendant's assets and finances for the past five years, basing its analysis on, among other things, bank statements, tax returns, and FBAR filings, providing a summary of the assets held by the Defendant and her spouse as well as the assets held in trust for the benefit of the Defendant for the period stemming from 2015 to 2020. See Def. Mot., Ex. O. In addition, the Defendant retained a Certified Fraud Examiner and a former IRS Special Agent, who reviewed the Macalvins report and the underlying documents and determined that report accurately represents the assets held by the Defendant and her spouse. See Def. Mot., Ex. P. The Defendant's new bail proposal is based on the numbers derived from the Macalvins report. + +But even assuming that the financial report provides an accurate analysis of the Defendant's finances, the Court is unpersuaded by her argument that the bail package reasonably assures her appearance. As the Government argues, the bail package would leave unrestrained + +millions of dollars and other assets that she could sell in order to support herself. See Gov't Opp'n at 23. Furthermore, the proposed bond is only partially secured. Taking into account the vast amounts of wealth left relatively unrestrained by the bail package, that amount, standing alone, cannot reasonably assure that she would appear before the Court. Nor is the Court's conclusion altered by the fact that a number of third parties have pledged to support her bond; the amount of wealth that she would retain were she to flee, in addition to contingent assets and future income streams that are not accounted for in the bail package, would plausibly enable her to compensate them, in part or in full, for their losses. And while the Defendant argues that she has procured "significant loans on the basis of a negative pledge" over a property and that \$4 million is invested in an "illiquid hedge fund that could only be liquidated with considerable difficulty," see Def. Reply at 6, these arguments do not alter the Court's ultimate conclusion that the financial package does not meaningfully mitigate the possibility of flight. + +The proposed conditions also provide that the Defendant would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as the Defendant's third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(BXi); that the Defendant would be placed in home confinement with GPS monitoring and that her travel would be restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and would be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services; that she would be under the strict supervision of Pretrial Services; and that she would surrender all travel documents. Id. at 2-3. Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards who would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3. + +None of these conditions would reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. Here, too, the Court's original determination applies with equal force. As the Court noted at the original hearing, the Defendant has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to evade detection, "[e]ven in the face of what the Defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her." Tr. at 87:4-87:19. Indeed, regardless of whether the Defendant sought to evade the press, rather than law enforcement, in the months leading up to her arrest, her sophistication in evading detection reveals the futility of relying on any conditions, including GPS monitoring, restrictive home confinement, and private security guards, to secure her appearance. See Tr. at 87:4-88:2. As other courts have observed, "home detention with electronic monitoring does not prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States v. Zarger, No. 00- CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the Defendant now represents that she would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as the Defendant's third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i), and that she secured a residence in the Eastern District of New York, see Def. Mot. at 3, that does not outweigh the other significant factors weighing in favor of detention. And finally, the Defendant's argument that private security guards could ensure her appearance at future proceedings runs afoul of the Bail Reform Act, which the Second Circuit has held "does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails." United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). As in Boustani, the Defendant in the present case would be detained regardless of her wealth, and "if a similarly situated defendant of lesser means would be detained, a wealthy defendant cannot avoid detention by relying on his personal funds to pay for private detention." Id. + +In light of the above, the Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight and that the Defendant's proposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all support that conclusion, and none of Defendant's new arguments change the Court's original determination. + +### D. The Defendant's conditions of confinement do not justify release + +Lastly, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that the conditions of her confinement are uniquely onerous, interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and thus justify release. See Def. Mot. at 35-38. Indeed, the Defendant does not meaningfully dispute that she has received "more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys." Gov't Opp'n at 29. To the extent that the Defendant has concerns regarding some of the measures taken by BOP, including a recent lockdown due to COVID-I9 that curtailed in-person legal visitations, the Defendant provides no authority to conclude that this, standing alone, violates her constitutional right to participate in her defense. And while the Court acknowledges the Defendant's concerns regarding the conditions of her confinement, the Defendant has failed to provide any basis to conclude that release is warranted on those grounds—even after the Court has determined that she continues to pose a flight risk.' + +3 The Court will continue to ensure that the Defendant has the ability to speak and meet regularly with her attorneys and to review all necessary discovery materials to prepare for her defense. Defense counsel shall confer with the Government on any specific requests. To the extent they are not reasonably accommodated, an application may be made to the Court. + +Finally, as the Court expressed at the initial bail hearing, it has deep concerns about the spread of COVID-19 at BOP facilities, including at the MDC. Indeed, in recent weeks, the incidence of COVED-19 among the inmate population where the Defendant is housed is truly alarming. See COVID-19: Coronavirus, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/ coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2020) (noting that the MDC currently has 99 inmates and I I staff members who have tested positive for COVID-19). It could be argued that in the face of this, only those defendants who pose a danger to the community ought to be detained pending trial. If that were the law and in light of the increasing positivity rate, the Court would not hesitate to reopen the detention hearing and release the Defendant on bail since the Government rests none of its arguments on dangerousness. But that is not the law. Moreover, as the Court found at the initial bail hearing, the Defendant has no underlying health conditions that put her at heightened risk of health impacts were she to contract COVID. The pandemic, including increasing positivity numbers in the MDC, is not a basis for release in this case where the Court finds that the Defendant poses a substantial and actual risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance. + +### E. A hearing is unnecessary + +Having carefully reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court determines that a hearing is unnecessary and that it can resolve the motion on the papers. The briefing from both sides comprehensively lays out the parties' respective arguments For the reasons stated above, none of the new information has a material bearing on the Court's determination that the Defendant poses a flight risk. Indeed, many of the reasons that the Court provided at the July 14, 2020 hearing continue to apply with equal, if not greater, force. The Court need not hold another + +hearing to evaluate Maxwell's motion, and it declines to do so. *See United States v. Raniere*, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at \*2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018). + +**IV. Conclusion** + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is + +DENIED. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 28, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65e022c4c59f45fb722b2c234f2096ecb279535c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071/EFTA02830071.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830071.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 42760, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.7159881591797, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.7159881591797, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 208.61923217773438, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 208.61923217773438, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 183.37094116210938, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 183.37094116210938, + 583.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 583.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The presumption in favor of detention applies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 382.13690185546875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 382.13690185546875, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The new information does not alter the Court's initial determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 497.28973388671875, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 497.28973388671875, + 555.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 555.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Weight of the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 325.164306640625, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 325.164306640625, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Defendant's History and Characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 413.33489990234375, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 413.33489990234375, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 374.9706115722656, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 374.9706115722656, + 361.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 361.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Defendant's conditions of confinement do not justify release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 476.7103271484375, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 476.7103271484375, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. A hearing is unnecessary", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 275.0099182128906, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 275.0099182128906, + 500.60302734375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 500.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 140.13 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830071" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..433fecabc7eb45a3cf4d273689de4ea8413ad06f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ccvcrdcllia:,,cohengresscr.com + +December 31, 2020 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New 'fork NY 10022 +1 212 957 7W0 phone vAwe.0 thong( ono. Corn + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a two-week extension of time to file our pretrial motions and to shift the other motion deadlines forward by two weeks. We have conferred with the government, which has consented to the requested extension and the modified briefing schedule. The requested extension is necessary given the large volume of discovery produced by the government, which we are still reviewing, and to ensure that defense counsel can adequately discuss the motions with our client and have her review them. As the Court is aware, Ms. Maxwell was recently placed in quarantine for 14 days and in-person legal visits at MDC have been indefinitely suspended due to COVED, which has constrained our ability to confer with her. + +Under the Court's original briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on December 21, 2020, the government's response was due January 22, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 5, 2021. (Dkt. 25). The Court agreed to move those deadlines by three weeks because the government needed additional time to finish producing discovery. (Dkt. 72). Under the current briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions are due on January 11, 2020, the government's response is due February 12, 2021, and the defendant's reply is due on February 19, 2021. (Id.). We respectfully request that the Court so order the briefing schedule below. The next scheduled appearance before the Court is the first day of trial on July 12, 2021. + +January 25, 2021 February 26, 2021 March 5, 2021 Defendant's pretrial motions due Government's response due Defendant's reply due + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 31, 2020 Page 2 + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f38bc57654be0db0bad0ac3b3f69b1b9cd693dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/EFTA02830093.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2338, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.5 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830093" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bebb49525a3e529ab6d9cd25306bedbc5f625da --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830093/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bdb48a58db4195442e0af16486151fedaae63b428ba8d44dc0c982156a484bcf +size 1590 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37339474931dd75ab54861d0f0c3390b78059b9c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_181.jpeg) + +800 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 ++1 212 957 7600 phone +www.cohengresser.com + +Christian R. Everdell ++1 (212) 957-7600 +ceverdell@cohengresser.com + +| USDC SDNY | +|-----------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 1/5/21 | + +December 31, 2020 + +**BY ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a two-week extension of time to file our pretrial motions and to shift the other motion deadlines forward by two weeks. We have conferred with the government, which has consented to the requested extension and the modified briefing schedule. The requested extension is necessary given the large volume of discovery produced by the government, which we are still reviewing, and to ensure that defense counsel can adequately discuss the motions with our client and have her review them. As the Court is aware, Ms. Maxwell was recently placed in quarantine for 14 days and in-person legal visits at MDC have been indefinitely suspended due to COVID, which has constrained our ability to confer with her. + +Under the Court's original briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on December 21, 2020, the government's response was due January 22, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 5, 2021. (Dkt. 25). The Court agreed to move those deadlines by three weeks because the government needed additional time to finish producing discovery. (Dkt. 72). Under the current briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions are due on January 11, 2020, the government's response is due February 12, 2021, and the defendant's reply is due on February 19, 2021. (*Id.*). We respectfully request that the Court so order the briefing schedule below. The next scheduled appearance before the Court is the first day of trial on July 12, 2021. + +| January 25, 2021 | Defendant's pretrial motions due | +|-------------------|----------------------------------| +| February 26, 2021 | Government's response due | +| March 5, 2021 | Defendant's reply due | + +SO ORDERED. + +1/5/21 + +![]()The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 31, 2020 Page 2 + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7953157286722ae5797d74096a2038870c9177f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/EFTA02830095.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2680, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_181.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 202.5 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830095" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/_page_0_Picture_181.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/_page_0_Picture_181.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4671644299d987957d821f1f4a0a73c4e773bcd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830095/_page_0_Picture_181.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dfcb5477ae5c99b89ff378ef1183e6288780cc4b4a88d60870693e5212373eb0 +size 1584 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..244b16b1522747fca4030723ec86a110386b0ab3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-760(1 avcrdclICicohengrcsscr.com + +January 8, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone vAwe.Cohongrossof Corn + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a 30-day extension of time under Rule 4(bX4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to file our notice of appeal of the Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. (Dkt. 104, 106). + +Rule 4(bX4) provides that a district court may, upon a finding of "good cause," extend the time to file a notice of appeal "for a period not to exceed 30 days." Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). In criminal cases, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed "within 14 days after ... the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed." Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1XA)(i). The Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail was entered on December 28, 2020. (Dkt. 104, 106). Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell's notice of appeal of that order must be filed on or before Monday, January 11, 2021. + +There is good cause for an extension here. Ms. Maxwell is considering whether to submit a third bail application to the Court, which would propose even more stringent and restrictive bail conditions than those proposed in the renewed bail application. The requested extension will give Ms. Maxwell the opportunity to research whether and to what extent these additional conditions are legally and practicably available, without forfeiting as untimely a possible appeal from the Court's December 28 Order denying the renewed bail application. The additional time is also warranted because it will enable the defense to continue its review of recently produced documents and to file our pretrial motions (each of which may bear on the merits of a possible third bail application); to research whether an appeal of the December 28 Order might deprive this Court of jurisdiction to address a third bail application; and because of logistical challenges posed by the continued effects of the pandemic. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan January 8, 2021 Page 2 + +A brief extension of the time to appeal would also promote judicial efficiency because a third bail application may moot the need to appeal from the December 28 Order (or, in the event the third application is denied, permit a consolidated appeal). Conversely, denying the extension will require Ms. Maxwell to file a notice of appeal on January I I, 2021, which may lead to unnecessary parallel proceedings in this Court and in the Court of Appeals. + +We have conferred with the government and it objects to the requested extension. + +For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant a 30-day extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to file our notice of appeal of the Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. (Dkt. 104, 106).1 + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +In the event this motion is denied (or not granted by the close of business on January 11, 2021), Ms. Maxwell will file a notice of appeal to preserve her right to appeal the December 28, 2020 Order denying the renewed motion for bail (Dkt. 104, 106). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..712c1f49eb929d18188281ec6346906f8612ee33 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/EFTA02830097.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3599, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.5 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830097" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5bd8ad7aa3f1ffce1c0bb9a38f3b3abd5a104ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830097/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6a2a017b6c4b55ed7d6ca46ba93b9afb3b0b89f0eb0d66716ee097d93344d24a +size 1590 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9472f7eb6f2ac82c9488f47e019a5a1cd74c8fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Ever& +I (212) 957-7600 ccvcrdcllicitcohengrcsssr + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 1/11/21 | + +January 8, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a 30-day extension of time under Rule 4(bX4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to file our notice of appeal of the Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. (Dkt. 104, 106). + +Rule 4(bX4) provides that a district court may, upon a finding of "good cause," extend the time to file a notice of appeal "for a period not to exceed 30 days." Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). In criminal cases, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed "within 14 days after ... the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed." Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1XA)(i). The Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail was entered on December 28, 2020. (Dkt. 104, 106). Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell's notice of appeal of that order must be filed on or before Monday, January 11, 2021. + +There is good cause for an extension here. Ms. Maxwell is considering whether to submit a third bail application to the Court, which would propose even more stringent and restrictive bail conditions than those proposed in the renewed bail application. The requested extension will give Ms. Maxwell the opportunity to research whether and to what extent these additional conditions are legally and practicably available, without forfeiting as untimely a possible appeal from the Court's December 28 Order denying the renewed bail application. The additional time is also warranted because it will enable the defense to continue its review of recently produced documents and to file our pretrial motions (each of which may bear on the merits of a possible third bail application); to research whether an appeal of the December 28 Order might deprive this Court of jurisdiction to address a third bail application; and because of logistical challenges posed by the continued effects of the pandemic. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan January 8, 2021 Page 2 + +A brief extension of the time to appeal would also promote judicial efficiency because a third bail application may moot the need to appeal from the December 28 Order (or, in the event the third application is denied, permit a consolidated appeal). Conversely, denying the extension will require Ms. Maxwell to file a notice of appeal on January 11, 2021, which may lead to unnecessary parallel proceedings in this Court and in the Court of Appeals. + +We have conferred with the government and it objects to the requested extension. + +For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant a 30-day extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to file our notice of appeal of the Court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. (Dkt. 104, 106).1 + +SO ORDERED. + +Sincerely, + +The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. + +1/1 1/21 + +s) \* A ,i. Q. ) + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +In the event this motion is denied (or not granted by the close of business on January 11, 2021), Ms. Maxwell will file a notice of appeal to preserve her right to appeal the December 28, 2020 Order denying the renewed motion for bail (Dkt. 104, 106). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc8fb4f676122e93ead097bca175bab83b548b4b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/EFTA02830099.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3935, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.31, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 202.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830099" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9e809d48435fb62f912979b965d7559f11f04ff --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830099/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7641bd26cd0d6e376d22e50520d87d3c917095d1af2e1b41e0bf2241c5176fe1 +size 1594 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f1a7c5ff3fab76d38c9107daa13b33fe52092fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A + +## NOTICE OF APPEAL + +## United States District Court + +Southern District of New York + +Caption: United States + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Caudal othon °Wet Dry'Cc DISArlenn Rawson Motion Ice Rams on ES Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment entered in this action on 12/28/2020 (date) (specify) + +DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED:January 11. 2021 + +Docket No 1 20-CR-00330 Alison J. Nathan (04strICI Coat Judge) + +This appeal concerns: Conviction only I Sentence only Conviction & Sentence [ Other I + +Defendant found guilty by plea i [trial [N./A II + +Offense occurred after November 1: 1987? Yes I I No I N/A [ + +Date of sentence: N/A j + +Bait/Jail Disposition: Committed I I Not committed I N/A + +Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes I No I If yes. provide tho following information. + +Defendant's Counsel. Counsel's Address: Counsel's Phone: Christian Everdell & Grosser LLP 800 Third Avenue, New York. NY 10022 212-957-7600 + +Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA's Address AUSA's Phone: Maurene Coney 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 212-637-2200 + +> (-1.N'Istan IR. acid& is/ SS Signature \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c93389d1943747790261014a0c90686507091ffa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101/EFTA02830101.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830101.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1215, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.92, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.275, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 224.91000000000003, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 224.91000000000003, + 74.12445068359375 + ], + [ + 86.275, + 74.12445068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 245.14000000000001, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 354.62, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 354.62, + 105.945556640625 + ], + [ + 245.14000000000001, + 105.945556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.38000000000002, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 361.76000000000005, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 361.76000000000005, + 126.99444580078125 + ], + [ + 240.38000000000002, + 126.99444580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830101" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d897824c455abbac0d3683e72f178fbc322d0cea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +[Search bop.gov](#) + +| Home | About Us | Inmates | Locations | Careers | Business | Resources | Contact Us | +|------|----------|---------|-----------|---------|----------|-----------|------------| +|------|----------|---------|-----------|---------|----------|-----------|------------| + +# COVID-19 Coronavirus + +The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is carefully monitoring the spread of the COVID-19 virus. As with any type of emergency situation, we carefully assess how to best ensure the safety of staff, inmates and the public. + +### [BOP COVID-19 Modified Operations Plan](#) + +#### **BOP's Emergency Response** + +Every institution is like a small city and to cope with major emergencies or other significant interruptions of normal operations, they each have continuity of operations (COOP) plans that provide guidance to staff. + +[Learn More](#) + +#### **BOP's COVID-19 Response** + +In February 2020, the BOP's Public Health Service (PHS) staff were placed in operational dress uniforms to be ready to respond to COVID-19 incidents by the Assistant Secretary for Health. + +[Learn More](#) + +#### **BOP's COVID-19 Collaboration Efforts** + +BOP PHS Officers have been deployed for national travel-related screening at airports and NIC has been asked to share BOP-related guidance with state and local corrections. + +### Coronavirus.gov + +The primary lane of information for the public regarding Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a portal for public information published by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Task Force at the ██████████ House, working in conjunction with CDC, HHS and other agency stakeholders. + +[Go to coronavirus.gov](#) + +### CDC.gov + +The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has established a resource portal on [CDC.gov](#) with the latest information from CDC and the overarching medical community on COVID-19. + +[Go to cdc.gov](#) + +### USA.gov + +To learn about international travel restrictions, how you can prepare for coronavirus, and what the U.S. government is doing in response to the virus, visit [https://www.usa.gov/coronavirus](#) + +[Go to usa.gov/coronavirus](#) + +## COVID-19 Cases + +Loading data ... + +## COVID-19 Inmate Test Information + +### Completed Tests + +**95,830** + +Number of inmates who have completed testing + +Cited in CS v. [Redacted] +20CR330 Declined on 1/4/21 +Achieved on 1/4/21 +Further reproduction is prohibited by copyright. + +### Pending Tests + +**2,220** + +Number of inmates with pending tests and no previous completed test. + +### Positive Tests + +**38,569** + +Number of inmates that have ever had a positive test. + +[Learn more about the data and view individual facility stats +](#) + +Given the surge in positive cases at select sites and in response to the Attorney General Barr's directives, the BOP began immediately reviewing all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors, as described by the CDC, to determine which inmates are suitable for home confinement. Since the release of the [Attorney General's original memo](#) to the Bureau of Prisons on March 26, 2020 instructing us to prioritize home confinement as an appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP has significantly increased its placement of offenders on home confinement. Currently, the BOP has --- inmates on home confinement. The total number of inmates placed in home confinement from March 26, 2020 to the present (including inmates who have completed service of their sentence) is ---. + +**COVID-19 Home Confinement Information Frequently Asked Questions** + +**Resources** + +- • **Correcting Myths and Misinformation About the BOP and COVID-19** +- • **COVID-19 Visitor/Volunteer/Contractor Screening Tool** +- • **COVID-19 Inmate Screening Tool** +- • **COVID-19 Staff Screening Tool** +- • **Coronavirus (COVID-19) Precautions/Modified Operations for Residential Reentry Centers.** +- • **Coronavirus (COVID-19) Religious Accommodations** +- • **Coronavirus(COVID-19) Resumption of Normal RRC Operations** + +**Federal Bureau of Prisons** + +![](_page_3_Picture_32.jpeg) + +**Protecting Society. Changing Lives.** + +**About Us** + +About Our Agency +About Our Facilities +Historical Information +Statistics + +**Inmates** + +Find an Inmate +First Step Act +Communications +Custody & Care +Visiting +Voice a Concern + +**Locations** + +List of our Facilities +Map of our Locations +Search for a Facility + +**Careers** + +Life at the BOP +Explore Opportunities +Current Openings +Application Process +Our Hiring Process + +**Business** + +Acquisitions +Solicitations & Awards +Reentry Contracting + +**Resources** + +Policy & Forms +News Stories +Press Releases +Publications +Research & Reports + +**Resources For ...** + +Victims & Witnesses +Employees +Federal Executions +Former Inmates +Media Reps \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d87e5b630e70669a5cb2575a2d5bcb79bdfb86f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/EFTA02830102.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,688 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4694, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_3_Picture_32.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "COVID-19 Coronavirus", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 364.14, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 364.14, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 188.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BOP COVID-19 Modified Operations Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 217.26, + 258.39 + ], + [ + 391.68, + 258.39 + ], + [ + 391.68, + 271.35 + ], + [ + 217.26, + 271.35 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BOP's Emergency Response", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.62, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 384.75 + ], + [ + 235.62, + 384.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BOP's COVID-19 Response", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.62, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 370.26, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 370.26, + 546.75 + ], + [ + 235.62, + 546.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BOP's COVID-19 Collaboration Efforts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 696.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 696.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 708.75 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 708.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Coronavirus.gov", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 145.8 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CDC.gov", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 281.52, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 308.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "USA.gov", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 281.52, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 470.6099999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COVID-19 Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 578.34 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 578.34 + ], + [ + 373.32, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 597.78 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COVID-19 Inmate Test Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.18, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 447.37199999999996, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 447.37199999999996, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 277.83000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Completed Tests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.324, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 348.84, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 348.84, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 334.53 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Pending Tests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 423.63 + ], + [ + 341.49600000000004, + 423.63 + ], + [ + 341.49600000000004, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 438.21000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Positive Tests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 526.5 + ], + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 526.5 + ], + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 540.27 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COVID-19 Home Confinement Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.06, + 738.72 + ], + [ + 454.716, + 738.72 + ], + [ + 454.716, + 756.54 + ], + [ + 156.06, + 756.54 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COVID-19 Home Confinement Information Frequently Asked Questions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 151.776, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 452.26800000000003, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 452.26800000000003, + 174.96 + ], + [ + 151.776, + 174.96 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Resources", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 115.66799999999999, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 115.66799999999999, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 243.81 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "About Us", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 43.452, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 43.452, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Inmates", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 124.23600000000002, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 124.23600000000002, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Locations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Careers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Business", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 376.38, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 376.38, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Resources", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 420.4440000000001, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 462.67199999999997, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 462.67199999999997, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 420.4440000000001, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Resources For ...", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 495.108, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 560.592, + 612.36 + ], + [ + 560.592, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 495.108, + 622.08 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830102" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/_page_3_Picture_32.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/_page_3_Picture_32.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd30b7b3218419dba57a9071846298a198dd0739 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830102/_page_3_Picture_32.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:02a181475bc591d30758d28cb71f684619c5bfcad2898a771b66f6f2cf6293f2 +size 3156 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55b171b61049fb46f8019e4306832b51a297a9dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ccvcrdcllia:,,cohcngresscr.com + +January 14, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7W0 phone vAwe.Cohongrossof corn + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request that the Court order the Bureau of Prisons to give Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop computer provided by the government so that she can review discovery on weekends and holidays. + +At the request of defense counsel, the government provided Ms. Maxwell with a laptop computer to review the voluminous discovery, which was produced on a series of external hard drives. Currently, Ms. Maxwell is given access to the laptop only on weekdays. On weekends and holidays, Ms. Maxwell must use the prison computer on her floor to review discovery. However, the prison computer is not equipped with the software necessary to read large portions of the discovery recently produced by the government. As a result, Ms. Maxwell loses several days of review time every weekend and every holiday because she does not have access to the laptop. If Ms. Maxwell is to have any hope of reviewing the millions of documents produced in discovery so that she can properly prepare her defense by the July 12, 2021 trial date, she must have access to the laptop every day, including weekends and holidays. + +Defense counsel has raised this issue with the government and it has no objection to Ms. Maxwell having access to the laptop seven days a week. At the request of defense counsel, the government has contacted officials at the MDC on several occasions in the past few weeks to request that they lift this restriction, but without success. + +There is no principled justification for this restriction. Ms. Maxwell was given access to the laptop every day (including weekends and the Thanksgiving holiday) for the entire 14-day period that she was quarantined in her isolation cell in November-December 2020 because she had come into close contact with a member of the MDC staff who had tested positive for COVID. In addition, the laptop is kept in a locker in the same room where the prison computer is located, so it + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan January 14, 2021 Page 2 + +would not require any change in Ms. Maxwell's movements to give her the requested access. Furthermore, on at least three occasions since she was released from quarantine, Ms. Maxwell's security team gave her the laptop to review discovery on the weekend. + +There is clearly no actual impediment preventing the MDC staff from providing Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop on weekends and holidays. Given the millions of documents that Ms. Maxwell must review before trial in order to prepare her defense, it is critical that she be given as much time as possible with the laptop to review the discovery. We therefore respectfully request that the Court order the BOP to give Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. + +Sincerely, + +Is/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46cedb8dc7ff899be1144d5064b0f0a527d24142 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/EFTA02830106.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3432, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830106" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d4c77d9cae7346c7fb78fab796919e8c51fe718 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830106/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c64148dc19cdab4f71052095c4abbb6cdca5676f2a3983e06fa323d807a636ea +size 1575 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3953dbb48492ac38f5b49c315e4f8882a50cebed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Evcrdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ccvcrdclI®onhengrcsscr.com + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 1/15/21 + +January 14, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request that the Court order the Bureau of Prisons to give Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop computer provided by the government so that she can review discovery on weekends and holidays. + +At the request of defense counsel, the government provided Ms. Maxwell with a laptop computer to review the voluminous discovery, which was produced on a series of external hard drives. Currently, Ms. Maxwell is given access to the laptop only on weekdays. On weekends and holidays, Ms. Maxwell must use the prison computer on her floor to review discovery. However, the prison computer is not equipped with the software necessary to read large portions of the discovery recently produced by the government. As a result, Ms. Maxwell loses several days of review time every weekend and every holiday because she does not have access to the laptop. If Ms. Maxwell is to have any hope of reviewing the millions of documents produced in discovery so that she can properly prepare her defense by the July 12, 2021 trial date, she must have access to the laptop every day, including weekends and holidays. + +Defense counsel has raised this issue with the government and it has no objection to Ms. Maxwell having access to the laptop seven days a week. At the request of defense counsel, the government has contacted officials at the MDC on several occasions in the past few weeks to request that they lift this restriction, but without success. + +There is no principled justification for this restriction. Ms. Maxwell was given access to the laptop every day (including weekends and the Thanksgiving holiday) for the entire 14-day period that she was quarantined in her isolation cell in November-December 2020 because she had come into close contact with a member of the MDC staff who had tested positive for COVID. In addition, the laptop is kept in a locker in the same room where the prison computer is located, so it + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +January 14, 2021 +Page 2 + +would not require any change in Ms. Maxwell's movements to give her the requested access. Furthermore, on at least three occasions since she was released from quarantine, Ms. Maxwell's security team gave her the laptop to review discovery on the weekend. + +There is clearly no actual impediment preventing the MDC staff from providing Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop on weekends and holidays. Given the millions of documents that Ms. Maxwell must review before trial in order to prepare her defense, it is critical that she be given as much time as possible with the laptop to review the discovery. We therefore respectfully request that the Court order the BOP to give Ms. Maxwell access to the laptop on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell +Christian R. Everdell +**[REDACTED] & GRESSER LLP** +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor +New York, New York 10022 +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +1/15/21 + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. SO ORDERED. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd078a85acb1c528ca22dafedfa980d0a931dffe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/EFTA02830108.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3754, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.68, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830108" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a01bd9b5f183704c6596dc226b798e296ad3147 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830108/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8722ef2db30eafc63f392f0a99fbb26185978be738757426e0b47f7253cda1a3 +size 1591 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..668e02c2583afec9c22600ab1b037b699ae47e82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 1/25/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Government-provided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. + +The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP's letter within one week of this Order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()\_\_\_\_\_ +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center + +80 291i Siren Brooklyn. New York 11232 + +January 25, 2021 + +ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. No. 02879.509 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +This letter is written in response to Order granted on January 15, 2021, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") in Brooklyn, New York. The MDC Brooklyn respectfully requests that Your Honor vacate the Order given MDC Brooklyn was not given the opportunity to object to defense counsel's claims, although the objection had been reiterated to the U.S. Attorney's Office numerous times. + +Defense counsel expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's confinement limiting her access to discovery. However, Ms. Maxwell has received a significant amount of time to review her discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC Brooklyn with a laptop for Ms. Maxwell to use to review discovery. Ms. Maxwell has been and will continue to be permitted to use that laptop to review her discovery for thirteen (13) hours per day, five (5) days per week. In addition to the Government laptop, she has access to the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers. Although defense counsel has indicated that the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers are not equipped to read all of her electronic discovery, the computers are capable of reviewing most of the electronic discovery. Despite defense counsel's claim that Ms. Maxwell's lacks sufficient time to fully review her discovery, her consistent use of Government laptop and MDC Brooklyn's discovery computers undercuts this claim. + +Moreover, Ms. Maxwell continues to have contact with her legal counsel five (5) days per week, three (3) hours per day via video-teleconference and via telephone; this is far more time than any other MDC inmate is allotted to communicate with their attorneys. + +We respectfully request that Your Honor vacate the order of Januan 15, 2021, and allow the institution to resume the prior schedule of laptop access, Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM — 8:00 PM. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Sophia Papapetra + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7756fbdd9769dcc4637a5ac62b93cd2c2eabbef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/EFTA02830110.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,195 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3391, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.68, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE \nFederal Bureau of Prisons \nMetropolitan Detention Center", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 320.688, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 97.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 320.688, + 97.7005615234375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830110" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e42fad1904f2d49e54d61d2d6028970c8807d650 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830110/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:405596a725f651bffc7fd777490f03c7155c13542eb4d8060357d003595e5a49 +size 10202 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..697eb383142e8705414f4336338898c32ca431ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Mark S. Christian R. Evcrdcll +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohcnCcohengresscr.com tcverdell@tnhongresscr.«)m + +January 25, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Thad Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengressercom + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing the following pretrial motions with accompanying exhibits: + +- I. Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement +- 2. Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred +- 3. Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six +- 4. Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements Are Not Penurious as a Matter of Law +- 5. Motion for a of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment +- 6. Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment +- 7. Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay +- 8. Motion to Dismiss Either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous +- 9. Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment +- 10. Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures +- II. Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six +- 12. Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +January 25, 2021 +Page 2 + +Several of the motions reference or discuss Confidential Information produced in discovery and are therefore redacted pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). In an abundance of caution, and to give the government the chance to review the proposed redactions, we will not file on the public docket any motions containing redactions until we are instructed to do so by the Court. Instead, we will submit by email to the Court and the government two versions of those motions—an unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with proposed redactions—pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice. We will file on the public docket any motions that do not contain redactions. + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. [REDACTED] + +Mark S. [REDACTED] + +Christian R. Everdell + +**& GRESSER LLP** + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor +New York, New York 10022 +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c53529a223bd7e1e2ba2a4fd23546915ebc35dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/EFTA02830113.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2971, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.68, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 216.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 216.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830113" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44fb4d449d013d2b94f722805474b6c202911ac9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830113/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:77f3a2ebaaf47a6df08846e0d9bb794f5bbac7170465c86bb822074348cdb3dc +size 1582 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6847921dd8a4e102eef306e04fb7a4aefbf68555 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR A OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT (Pretrial Motion # 5) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves for a of and separate trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..129f4558ad7c04b7c3b1071f7821fabea8b527ec --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115/EFTA02830115.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830115.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1010, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF MOTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 191.60302734375 + ], + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 191.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR A \nOF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING \nINDICTMENT \n(Pretrial Motion # 5)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 532.5162353515625, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 532.5162353515625, + 341.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 341.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830115" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..920627c8f82e1ed49010326251dad3da7c3eccf5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.md @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Munn.. HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +| OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS | 2 | +| A. Counts One through Four (the = Act Counts") | 2 | +| B. Counts Five and Six (the "Perjury Counts") | 3 | +| APPLICABLE LAW | 3 | +| A. Joinder of Offenses | 3 | +| B. of Offenses | 5 | +| ANALYSIS | 6 | +| A. The Perjury Counts Are Improperly Joined Under Rule 8(a) and Must Be Severed | 6 | +| B. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their Inclusion Will | | +| Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial | 9 | +| CONCLUSION | 13 | +| Certificate of Service | 15 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Drew v. United States, | 331 F.2d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1964) | 6 | +|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| +| United States v. Blakney, | 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) | 4 | +| United States v. Botti, | No. 3:08-cr-00230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) | | +| United States v. Bradford, | 487 F. Supp. 1093 (D. Conn. 1980) | 5 | +| United States v.=, | No. 07-0296-1, 2008 WL 161146 (ED. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) | 4, 7 | +| United States v. | , 789 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) | 5, 6, 12 | +| United States v. Chevalier, 776 | F. Supp. 853 (D. Vt. 1991) | 6 | +| United States v. Halper, | 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) | passim | +| United States v.M, | 562 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1977) | 5 | +| United States v.M, | 626 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1980) | 6 | +| United States | Nos. S2 92 Cr. 839 (SWK), 1993 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, | | +| 1993) | | 4, 7 | +| United States v. Mitan, | No. CRIM.A 08-760-01, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) 5, 9 | | +| United States v. Potamitis, | 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) | 4, 8 | +| United States v. Ramos, | No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912 | | +| (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2009) | | 5, 6, 11 | +| United States v. Randazzo, | 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996) | 4 | +| United States v. | 546 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2008) | 4 | +| United States v. Sampson, | 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) | 5 | +| United States v. Turoff, | 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir.1988) | 3, 5, 10 | +| United States v. | 142 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1998) | 5 | +| United States v. Werner, 620 | F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) | 3, 4, 10 | +| United States v. Winchester, | 407 F. Supp. 261 (D. Del. 1975) | 5 | + +#### Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 1613 | 3 | +|---------------------|---| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | 2 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 2 | + +### Rules + +### INTRODUCTION + +Ms. Maxwell, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) and 14, requests that the Court enter an order severing Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") from Counts One through Four because these Counts have been improperly joined and a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell made materially false statements at two civil depositions in 2016 that were part of a defamation action brought against her more than twenty years after the conduct alleged in Counts One through Four supposedly took place (1994-1997). The plaintiff in the defamation action, made and false accusations that she had been sexually trafficked by Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to dozens of famous politicians, professors, foreign leaders, and others. When Ms. Maxwell denied these allegations as false, sued for defamation. Discovery conducted in the defamation action established that stories, sold to tabloids for large sums of money, were in fact false. Those accused by M=, Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, denounced her as a "serial liar." Regardless, is not one of the three accusers identified in Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment and her claims relate to a different time period entirely. Allowing Counts Five and Six to be tried along with Counts One through Four will significantly prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it will allow the government to introduce testimony of alleged sexual abuse that purportedly occurred outside of the time period alleged in Counts One through Four, despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell (unlike Jeffrey Epstein) was never criminally charged with that conduct. As a result, the jury Maxwell of Counts One through Four based on an improper inference of criminal propensity. + +Furthermore, the Court and the jury and the Court will have to resolve numerous complex legal and factual issues in connection with the perjury charges that will lengthen and complicate + +the trial, raise a substantial risk of juror confusion, and may operate to deprive Ms. Maxwell of her counsel of choice. Accordingly, the Court should sever Counts Five and Six. + +## OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS + +# A. Counts One through Four (the S Act Counts") + +Counts One and Three of the Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein and "others known and unknown" to violate two separate provisions of the Act. Count One alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to entice "one or more individuals" to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Indictment TI 9-10. Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to transport "an individual" in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Id. 11 15-16. + +Counts One and Three each allege four identical oven acts in furtherance of the conspiracy involving three accusers.' Id. ¶4 11, 17. All of the overt acts allegedly occurred at unspecified times "between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997" in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London, England. Id. + +Counts Two and Four charge Ms. Maxwell with substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423(a). Id. 1113, 19. Counts Two and Four allege offenses as to Accuser-1 only, not Accusers-2 or -3. Id. Like Counts One and Three, Counts Two and Four are based on conduct that allegedly occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. Id. ¶ 13, 19. + +The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-I, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. We will refer to them as Accuser-I, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3. + +### B. Counts Five and Six (the "Perjury Counts") + +Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 by testifying falsely at two separate civil depositions—one on April 22, 2016 (Count Five) and the other on July 22, 2016 (Count Six). Id. ¶1 21, 23. + +#### APPLICABLE LAW + +#### A. Joinder of Offenses + +Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part, + +(a) Joinder of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged--whether felonies or misdemeanors or both—are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. + +Rule 8(a) sets forth three different circumstances in which separate offenses may be properly joined in the same indictment; namely, when the offenses: (I) "are of the same or similar character," (2) "are based on the same act or transaction," or (3) "are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Although charging separate offenses in the same indictment and allowing them to be tried together "inevitably involves some danger of prejudice" to the defendant, Rule 8 permits joinder of offenses in circumstances where "gains in trial efficiency outweigh the recognized prejudice that accrues to the accused." United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037, 104243 (2d Cir.1988); see also United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 928 (2d Cir. 1980) (purpose of Rule 8 is to promote "trial convenience and economy of judicial and prosecutorial resources"); United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978) ("efficiency and economy" are the "customary justifications for joinder"). + +In conducting a Rule 8(a) analysis, "no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish 'similarity' of offenses ... and each case depends largely on its own facts." United States v. + +Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (quotations and citation omitted). "'Similar' charges include those that are 'somewhat alike,' or those 'having a general likeness' to each other." United States v. 546 F.34 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 926). Offenses are "connected" or part of a "common scheme or plan" if the counts "grow out of related transactions." United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623, 627 (1st Cir. 1996). By contrast, offenses are not "connected" and joinder is inappropriate when "[c]ommission of one of the offenses neither depended upon nor necessarily led to the commission of the other; proof of the one act neither constituted nor depended upon proof of the other." Halper, 590 F.2d at 429. + +Similarly, offenses that are separated by time and location, and were allegedly committed under different circumstances, are not sufficiently connected to warrant joinder. See United States v. , Nos. S2 92 Cr. 839 (SWK), 1993 WL 322768, at \*8-\*9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) (granting of firearm possession and narcotics conspiracy counts where firearm was seized in different location over four months after narcotics conspiracy ended "under circumstances having no bearing on either the alleged narcotics conspiracy, or any of [defendant's] coconspirators"); United States v. , No. 07-0296-1, 2008 WL 161146, at \*5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) (granting where a firearm possession count was unrelated "both physically and temporally" to the narcotics counts in the indictment (emphasis original)). + +Although the Second Circuit has recognized that it is generally permissible to join "underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts" where the false declarations "concern the substantive offenses," United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.24 784 (24 Cir. 1984), joinder is not appropriate when the perjury or false statement allegations do not relate to, or have only a speculative connection to, the other charges in the indictment. See United States v. Botti, No. 3:08-cr-00230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent from separate corruption counts due to "speculative nature of the link" between the structuring and corruption offenses); United States v. Milan, No. CRIM.A 08-760-01, 2009 WL 2328870, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (joinder improper where alleged perjury did not arise from same transaction or comprise part of common plan with fraud counts in indictment). + +If one or more counts are improperly joined in an indictment, the court must sever the misjoined counts. United States v. Bradford, 487 F. Supp. 1093, 1097 & n.5 (D. Conn. 1980) ("The remedy for the misjoinder is the of the misjoined count.") (citing United States v. M, 562 F.2d 789, 797 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1977)); United States v. Winchester, 407 F. Supp. 261 (D. Del. 1975) (a finding of misjoinder requires the court to sever the offenses as a matter of course "without regard to the merits of defendant's claims of prejudice" under Rule 14). + +# B. of Offenses + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 provides, in relevant part, + +(a) Relief. If the joinder of offenses ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires. + +Rule 14(a) allows a district court to grant even if joinder is proper under Rule 8. United States v. 789 F. Supp. 2d 395, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Turoff, 853 F.2d at 1043). To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant must show that failure to sever will cause "substantial prejudice." United States v. Ramos, No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2009) (citing United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)). The prejudice must be "sufficiently severe to outweigh the judicial economy that would be realized by avoiding multiple lengthy trials." United States v. 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). + +Prejudice sufficient to justify under Rule 14 may exist when: (I) the defendant might become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses, (2) the jury might use evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition to commit the other crime or crimes charged, or (3) the jury might cumulate evidence of the various crimes charged to find guilt on a count, which if considered separately, it would not so find. Halper, 590 F.2d at 440 (citing Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1964)); United States v. Chevalier, 776 F. Supp. 853, 857 (D. Vt. 1991) (citing United States v. 626 F.2d 940, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The decision to sever is "committed to the sound discretion of the district court" and is "virtually unreviewable" on appeal. Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at \*1; =, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398. + +## ANALYSIS + +### A. The Perjury Counts Are Improperly Joined Under Rule 8(a) and Must Be Severed + +The Perjury Counts (Counts Five and Six) were improperly joined and should be severed from the Act Counts (Counts One through Four) as a matter of law. The Perjury Counts and the Act Counts are entirely separate offenses that involve different time periods, different alleged victims, and different substantive charges. The Act Counts are confined, purposefully, to a very narrow time period and allege that Ms. Maxwell enticed and transported minors to engage in illegal sexual activity from 1994 to 1997. Indictment 11 9, 13, 15, 19. The Perjury Counts allege that Ms. Maxwell purportedly made false statements in 2016 in a civil defamation action that concerned allegations of purported sexual abuse in a later time period (1999-2002) for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally. Id. 11 21, 23; Ex. A at 3-5. The plaintiff in the defamation action, is not one of the three accusers referred to in the Act Counts. Similarly, the people we believe to be the three + +accusers were not part of the subject matter of the defamation action, nor were they deposed as witnesses in that case. The Perjury Counts therefore are not "of the same or similar character," nor are they "based on the same act or transaction" as the Act Counts and cannot be joined. Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a); see Halper, 590 F.2d at 430 (temporally and factually distinct Medicaid fraud and tax evasion offenses were not based on same transaction, nor were they "of the same or similar character" simply because both involved attempts to submit false information to government agencies). + +Furthermore, the perjury offenses purportedly occurred more than twenty years after the offenses alleged in the Act Counts. There is no allegation that Ms. Maxwell continued conspiring with Epstein, or engaged in any misconduct at all, in the intervening time period. In fact, the government did not charge Ms. Maxwell in connection with the investigation that led to Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in 2007, or in its 2019 indictment of Epstein, which charged Epstein with sex trafficking offenses from 2002-2005. Joinder is improper when the offenses are separated by such a significant time period and do not relate to each other. See 1993 WL 322768, at \*8-\*9 (joinder of firearm possession and narcotics conspiracy counts improper under Rule 8(a) where firearm was seized in different location over four months after narcotics conspiracy ended "under circumstances having no bearing on either the alleged narcotics conspiracy, or any of [defendant's] coconspirators"); , 2008 WL 161146, at \*5 (joinder improper under Rule 8(a) where a firearm possession count was unrelated "both physically and temporally" to narcotics counts in indictment (emphasis original)). + +The Perjury Counts and the Act Counts are also not "parts of a common scheme or plan." Fed. IL Crim. P. 8(a). As a general matter, perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice offenses are sufficiently connected to and appropriately joined with underlying + +substantive crimes when the false declarations "concern the substantive offenses." Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791. Such cases typically involve situations where the defendant was aware that he was being investigated and either lied to the grand jury or made false statements to law enforcement officers in an effort to thwart the existing investigation into the other offenses with which he was charged. See, e.g., id. at 789-90 (joinder of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice counts proper where defendant made false statements to FBI agents and perjured himself in the grand jury); see also id. at 791 (collecting cases). + +Here, the circumstances are very different and joinder is not appropriate. The government does not allege that Ms. Maxwell lied to the grand jury or the FBI to derail its investigation into the conduct underlying the Act Counts. Instead, it alleges that Ms. Maxwell made false statements in two depositions in an unrelated civil defamation action which occurred in April and July 2016. Moreover, although the government alleges that some of the questions posed at the depositions related to some of the alleged victims in this case (Indictment 11 2, 8), the questions were tangential to the defamation action, which was based on Ms. Maxwell's denial of a purported conspiracy with Epstein from 1999-2002 involving The alleged false statements underlying the Perjury Counts therefore do not "concern" the Act Counts and cannot be joined as part of a "common scheme or plan." Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791. + +The government makes only a half-hearted, and ineffective, attempt to allege a connection between the Perjury Counts and the Act Counts sufficient to satisfy Rule 8(a). Paragraph 2 of the Indictment alleges: + +[I)n an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +(Indictment 1 2; accord id.1 8.) As discussed in Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, because the statements at issue are not perjurious, the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed. None of the questions, or any answers, were material to any issue in the defamation action. There were no "crimes" concealed by Ms. Maxwell's answers which were both true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff's lawyers. The Government does not articulate how statements like: "I don't know what you are talking about," an admission that Ms. Maxwell "could not make a list" upon demand, her lack of knowledge about undefined "devices" or "toys" could possibly "conceal her crimes." Accordingly, the government's purported connection between the Perjury Counts and the Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule 8(a). See Botti, 2009 WL 3157582, at \*5 (joinder improper due to "speculative nature of the link" between structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent and separate corruption counts); Mitan, 2009 WL 2328870, at \*3 (joinder improper where alleged perjury arose from false statement in connection with defendant's bail application, not an attempt to "cover up" underlying scheme to defraud with which defendant was charged). + +### B. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their Inclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial + +Even if the Court finds that joinder is proper under Rule 8, the Court should nevertheless exercise its discretion to sever Counts Five and Six under Rule 14(a) because of the substantial prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and these proceedings. A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking over the trial. Substantial amounts of evidence that would be inadmissible and irrelevant as to the Act Counts will, necessarily, be presented in order to prove the Perjury Counts. For example, there will need to be a collateral trial on whether statements about an alleged conspiracy from 1999-2002 were in fact lies, even though the Act Counts have nothing to do with and are based on an entirely separate time period. The jury will also need to be instructed on the elements of civil defamation and the various defenses, and they will need to evaluate whether the alleged perjurious statements were material to the defamation action. At the time the defamation case was dismissed, more than 50 substantive motions were pending before the District Court. Resolution of the materiality question would necessarily involve adjudicating those motions. Accordingly, joining the Perjury Counts would substantially lengthen the trial and unnecessarily complicate the factual issues put before the jury; it would not serve the goals of trial efficiency and judicial economy, which joinder is supposed to promote. See Turoff, 853 F.2d at 104243; Werner, 620 F.2d at 928; Halper, 590 F.2d at 430. + +A joint trial with the Perjury Counts would also substantially prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it would necessarily introduce allegations of purported sex abuse from 1999-2002 for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally and which is well outside of the time period alleged in the Act Counts. The Palm Beach Police Department thoroughly investigated allegations of Epstein's sexual abuse in the early-mid 2000s and did not find any evidence against Ms. Maxwell. The documents produced in discovery show that none of the more than 30 alleged victims who were interviewed in that investigation testified that they met, talked to, or identified Ms. Maxwell as someone involved with Epstein's alleged scheme. Moreover, had the government credited allegations against Ms. Maxwell, it would no doubt have charged Ms. Maxwell in the 2019 indictment, which charged Epstein alone with sex trafficking offenses from 2002-2005. It did not. Allowing the government to introduce purported evidence of an uncharged and unsubstantiated conspiracy with Epstein through the vehicle of the Perjury Counts would be extremely prejudicial and create a substantial risk that the jury would convict Ms. Maxwell on the Act Counts based on a false inference of criminal propensity. Similarly, it would create a substantial risk that the jury will confuse the legal and factual issues pertinent to the Perjury Counts and convict Ms. Maxwell without independently considering those counts. See Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at \*2 (severing "temporally distinct" drug counts involving a different controlled substance from other drug counts because of "the potential for jury confusion, or improper propensity inferences, with respect to the thug-related aspects of the original charges"). + +Furthermore, the government's decision to allege violations only in the narrow 1994- 1997 time period was deliberate—it did so, in part, to try to avoid the impact of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell's initial bail application, the government argued that the NPA did not protect Ms. Maxwell from prosecution principally because the Indictment did not charge conduct covered by the NPA, which the government argues "was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment." (Dkt. 22 at 5-6).2 The government now wants it both ways. It has confined the allegations in the Indictment to the earlier time frame to try to prevent a legal challenge that would result in the dismissal of the Act Counts, but at the same time it seeks to introduce conduct from the later time period by joining the Perjury Counts. The government should not be permitted to do so. + +In addition, joinder of the Perjury Counts would prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it could impact the ability of Ms. Maxwell's counsel of choice to participate in the criminal trial. The Perjury Counts will involve complicated legal issues about permissible deposition questions, whether the answers to the poorly formulated questions would have been allowed, the role of a + +2 The defense disputes that the coverage of the NPA is so limited. See Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement. + +lawyer in a deposition, and a legal opinion about what was "material" in the context of the civil proceeding. It is unclear how the Government intends to address these issues, however, a trial with the perjury counts will necessarily involve litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial, making the trial of this case unnecessarily lengthy and confusing. By May, 2017, shortly before the civil defamation case was dismissed, the matter had generated over 900 docket entries. Approximately 50 substantive motions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony, deposition testimony, and the admissibility of evidence remained unresolved. Judge Sweet had yet to rule on evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes wheeled into his courtroom on dollies. A trial involving the perjury counts may well involve revisiting all of these unresolved issues. + +Inclusion of the Perjury Counts injects into this case the performance and credibility of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers and . Maxwell's counsel of choice to testify. Presumably, this would result in disqualification of lawyers who have represented Ms. Maxwell for over five years from the entire trial, even though there is no reason why their testimony would be required in connection with the Act Counts. See, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7. + +is still appropriate even though the government alleges that some of the questions posed at the depositions related to some of the alleged victims in this case. Indictment la 2, 8. Even if the government uses some minimal amount of overlapping evidence to prove both the Perjury Counts and the Act Counts, the miniscule gain in efficiency of introducing proof is far outweighed be the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial and by the risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant discussed above. See=, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398 (severing witness tampering charges from RICO conspiracy charges in the interests of judicial economy, despite fact that government would have to present "some overlapping proof' and "five limited overlapping witnesses" to prove both charges). + +Finally, is appropriate because a joint trial including the Perjury Counts will necessarily introduce into the trial the issue of Ms. Maxwell's credibility, even if she decides to assert her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. By alleging that Ms. Maxwell lied about sexual and other salacious topics, the Government is explicitly putting its very big thumb on the credibility scale. The Government will attempt to argue to the jury that Ms. Maxwell lied about the allegations in the Perjury Counts and that Ms. Maxwell is a liar in general. This is a tool not normally afforded to the accuser in a criminal case. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Ms. Maxwell to lodge appropriate objections and the Court to make appropriate rulings and provide limiting instructions on the evidence. There is a substantial risk that the jury will convict Ms. Maxwell on Counts One-Four because her credibility was attacked in connection with the Perjury Counts. In short, a joint trial on Counts One through Six guarantees a mess. The Court should therefore sever the Perjury Counts under Rule 14(a). + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Court should sever the Perjury Counts (Counts Five and Six) from the Act Counts (Counts One through Four) and order that they be tried separately, pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro bac vice) + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Mark S. + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I electronically filed the fore oing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion for a of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03983a23513e8cad118d5fab7e5cfa4973a27017 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117/EFTA02830117.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1164 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830117.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 19, + "chars": 31837, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.83, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL \nON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 533.6680908203125, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 533.6680908203125, + 308.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 308.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 116.69601440429688, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 116.69601440429688, + 86.103515625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 86.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 103.76190948486328, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 103.76190948486328, + 189.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 189.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 421.732666015625, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 421.732666015625, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Counts One through Four (the S Act Counts\")", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 422.76702880859375, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 422.76702880859375, + 169.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 169.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Counts Five and Six (the \"Perjury Counts\")", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 376.64703369140625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 376.64703369140625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 368.3900146484375, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 368.3900146484375, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Joinder of Offenses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 240.9512176513672, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 240.9512176513672, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. of Offenses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 254.34129333496094, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 254.34129333496094, + 390.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 390.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 342.8768005371094, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 342.8768005371094, + 363.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 363.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Perjury Counts Are Improperly Joined Under Rule 8(a) and Must Be \nSevered", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 542.8902587890625, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 542.8902587890625, + 405.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 405.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their \nInclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 533.0855102539062, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 533.0855102539062, + 516.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 516.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 473.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 473.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.40533447265625 + ], + [ + 367.9513854980469, + 72.40533447265625 + ], + [ + 367.9513854980469, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830117" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d53ddec4d0333110d882db2e5f4e2d2314d7e5f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ..... \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ..... \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, NOTICE OF MOTION x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Defendant. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS EITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS MULTIPLICITOUS (Pretrial Motion # 8) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d054ed2a4d6736dd0602db4b31a448770ca0aba6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136/EFTA02830136.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830136.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1107, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS \nEITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nAS MULTIPLICITOUS \n(Pretrial Motion # 8)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 535.5408325195312, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 535.5408325195312, + 341.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 341.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830136" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d30f5d1b1e2932fe200eca45dff403f9c566614d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS EITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS MULTIPLICITOUS + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | i | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +| APPLICABLE LAW | I | +| APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR TEST | 3 | +| I. The overlap of participants. | 3 | +| IL The overlap of time | 3 | +| III. Similarity of operation | 3 | +| IV. The existence of common overt acts. | 4 | +| V. The geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred. | 4 | +| VI. Common objectives. | 4 | +| VII. The degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies. | 4 | +| CONCLUSION | 4 | +| Certificate of Service | 6 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) | 2 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------|------| +| United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (4'h Cir. 2000) | 1 | +| United States v.=, 886 F3d. 146 (D.C. Cir. 2018) | 3 | +| United States v. Diallo, 507 Fed. App'x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) | 2 | +| United States v. , 320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) | 1, 2 | +| United States v. 482 F.34 60 (24 Cir. 2006) | 1 | +| United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985) | 2 | +| United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662 (24 Cir. 1994) | 2, 4 | +| United States v. Swaim, 757 F.24 1530 (56' Cir. 1985) | 1 | + +## Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 371 | 1, 2 | +|-----------------|------| +| 18 U.S.C.§ 2422 | 1 | + +#### Other Authorities + +#### Rules + +## Constitutional Provisions + +Ms. Maxwell, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(ii), requests that the Court dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as multiplicitous because these Counts, as alleged, charge the same offense twice and therefore violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. + +### INTRODUCTION + +Count One of the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") charges Ms. Maxwell with conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Indictment ¶19-11. Count Three of the Superseding Indictment again charges Ms. Maxwell with the same crime: conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Id. ¶1 14-17. The only difference between the two counts is the purported crime underlying the § 371 conspiracy charged. In Count One, it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sexual activity). Id. 9111 9-10. In Count Three, it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (transporting minors with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity). Id. 15-16. This minor variance is insufficient to avoid the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy bar. + +# APPLICABLE LAW + +"An indictment is multiplicitous when a single offense is alleged in more than one count." United States v. M, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For a claim of multiplicity to succeed, the charged offenses must be "the same in fact and in law." Id. (quoting United States v. 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003). "[T]he principle danger created by multiplicity is that a defendant will receive multiple punishments for a single offense." United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 910 (4th Cir. 2000). "The second danger [of multiplicity] is the adverse psychological effect on the jury prejudicing + +the defendant from the repetition of detail of a single course of conduct." United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir. 1985). + +Generally, "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test . . . to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). However, where an accused is charged with two or more conspiracies in violation of the same statutory provision—in this case, the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 37I—the Second Circuit has adopted a multifactor test for determining whether the conspiracies amount to the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. These factors include: (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence of common oven acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where oven acts occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies. United States v.M, 320 F.3d 173, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing the "Korfant factors" from United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); accord United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667-68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Diallo, 507 Fed. App'x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (referring to Korfant factors as correct test to determine whether two conspiracies charged in same indictment are same offense and therefore multiplicitous). "[No dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared conspiracies are in law and fact the same." , 320 F.3d at 181 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). + +### APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR TEST' + +Paragraph 14 of the Superseding Indictment (the first paragraph in Count Three) incorporates by reference all of the factual allegations made in Count One. The government has, therefore, based Count Three on the exact same factual allegations as Count One, rendering the two counts clones of one another. The commonality between these counts is complete and fatal to one of the alleged conspiracies. + +## I. The overlap of participants. + +The alleged co-conspirators, Epstein and Maxwell, are identical. See Indictment 9 and 15. The accusers are identical. See id. 11 7 and 17. + +#### II. The overlap of time. + +The time period of the alleged conspiracies, 1994 to 1997, is identical. See id. 11 1 and IS. + +### III. Similarity of operation. + +The government claims, in paragraph 2 of Count One, that the operation was a "scheme to abuse minor victims" and that Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein "enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse." Id. 12. This is the identical "scheme alleged, first by reference, and then explicitly, in Count Three: "Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55." Id.1 17(b). + +The first factor, an analysis of the criminal offenses charged in "successive indictments" is inapplicable here because Ms. Maxwell has been charged with two § 371 conspiracies in e indictment. The multifactor test, however, remains applicable. See, e.g., United States v. 886 F3d. 146, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (appellate court applied the Second Circuit multifactor test to two conspiracies charged in the same indictment and determined that the charges were multiplicitous, remanding the case to the district court with directions to vacate one of the convictions). + +### IV. The existence of common overt acts. + +The overt acts alleged in Count 1, paragraph 11, are identical to those alleged in Count 3, paragraph 17. See id. 3 and 17. + +#### V. The geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred. + +The geographic scope is likewise identical: New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the United Kingdom. See id. 111 11 and 17. + +# VI. Common objectives. + +As alleged in the Indictment, the "objective" of the conspiracies was to entice and cause "minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states" for the purpose of sexual abuse. See id. TI 2 and 17. + +# VII. The degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies. + +This factor requires the Court to consider the extent to which the success or failure of one alleged conspiracy is independent of a corresponding success or failure by the other. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 671. The conspiracy alleged in Count Three is logically dependent on the success of the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The object of both, as claimed by the government, is to first entice and then to transport minors across state lines for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. If the conspiracy to entice fails there would, logically, be no one to transport. + +## CONCLUSION + +The government has alleged the same conspiracy twice in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court should therefore dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the Indictment as multiplicitous. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb7b6352753a361b326c9f055e037c85b22e4c87 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/EFTA02830138.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,852 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 11362, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.82, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS EITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT \nTHREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS MULTIPLICITOUS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 529.5159301757812, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 529.5159301757812, + 328.863037109375 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 328.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.27716064453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.27716064453125, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.80755615234375 + ], + [ + 105.16126251220703, + 98.80755615234375 + ], + [ + 105.16126251220703, + 113.4200439453125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.4200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 117.17668151855469, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 117.17668151855469, + 371.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 371.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 433.35 + ], + [ + 167.30406188964844, + 433.35 + ], + [ + 167.30406188964844, + 448.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 448.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 104.23051452636719, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 104.23051452636719, + 500.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 205.06088256835938, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 205.06088256835938, + 552.1125030517578 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 552.1125030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 360.9827880859375, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 360.9827880859375, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 367.9692077636719, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 367.9692077636719, + 500.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 500.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR TEST'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 452.4836120605469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 452.4836120605469, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The overlap of participants.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.68, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 266.690673828125, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 266.690673828125, + 252.363037109375 + ], + [ + 85.68, + 252.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The overlap of time.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 223.8344268798828, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 223.8344268798828, + 334.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 334.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Similarity of operation.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 241.5397186279297, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 241.5397186279297, + 416.60302734375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 416.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The existence of common overt acts.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.1120910644531, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.1120910644531, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts \noccurred.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 536.3316650390625, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 536.3316650390625, + 184.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 184.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Common objectives.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 224.4503173828125, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 224.4503173828125, + 266.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 266.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. The degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.992, + 359.64 + ], + [ + 492.25946044921875, + 359.64 + ], + [ + 492.25946044921875, + 376.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 70.992, + 376.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 553.23 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 553.23 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 569.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 569.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.864501953125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.864501953125, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830138" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a64ad8313bb63664d2aaf268195f4fb6f795c1c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830138/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0419e07c8d74ea90429083331860be77cfa9453ae29ff2d17828d2528970995d +size 1163 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3020db0cd52ee519cd21e45eaaf8455472ad352 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY (Pretrial Motion # 12) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8cbdb29e9bd87eddc553f5c7ef4a4c87f35def6d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147/EFTA02830147.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830147.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1026, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS \nCOUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK \nOF SPECIFICITY \n(Pretrial Motion # 12)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 341.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 341.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830147" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abfee0873493e131333f084e91cb1910fc8fd8c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.md @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Meni HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. MI Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | i | +|------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +| ARGUMENT | 1 | +| CONCLUSION | 4 | +| Certificate of Service | 5 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| Handing v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) | 1 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) | 1 | +| United States v. Jain, No. I9-CR-59 (PKC), 2019 WL 6888635 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019) | 1 | +| United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) | 1, 2 | + +### Rules + +## INTRODUCTION + +The Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in the Indictment are the years 1994-1997, often combined with phrases such as "from at least in or about" and "beginning in at least." This mishmash of a pleading was carefully crafted to not provide Ms. Maxwell with the necessary information to adequately investigate these false allegations and prepare for trial. Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly refuses to identify or disclose. The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of Particulars. + +# ARGUMENT + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) requires, among other things, that an indictment contain "a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . ." There are two constitutional requirements for an indictment to be sufficient: (1) it must contain "the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend," and (2) it must enable the defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (quoting Hamlin& v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 760-61 (1962). + +In many cases the bar for sufficiency of an indictment is low. It is also true that courts find, in certain cases, that the discovery provided in connection with the matter may cure various pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., United States v. Jain, No. 19-CR-59 (PKC), 2019 WL 6888635, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019) ("When supplemented by discovery material, no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise."). However, "while an indictment parroting the language of a federal criminal statute is often sufficient, them are crimes that must be charged with greater specificity." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 at 109. + +These are those crimes. + +Here, neither the Indictment nor the discovery inform Ms. Maxwell about critical information necessary to prepare her defense. The Indictment contains multiple open-ended time periods: + +- "from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997" 11 1, 9, 13, 15; and +- "beginning in at least 1994" 1 4. + +These phrases make the time frame alleged limitless and meaningless for application of the statute of limitations or any defense. + +In addition to not identifying the individuals accusing Ms. Maxwell of a crime, the Indictment, through the use of inconsistent and vague phrases, makes it impossible to know who may, or may not, be someone that the Government claims is a "victim." + +- "minor girls" 1 1; +- "victims" 1 1; +- "victims were as young as 14" 1 1; +- "certain girls were in fact under the age of 18" 1 1; + +- "some of the minor girls"1 2; +- "multiple minor girls"1 4; +- "Epstein's minor victims"1 4a; +- "a minor victim"14b; +- " Among the victims ... were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3., 7; and +- "engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims...." + - 17. + +The inconsistent and interchangeable use of seemingly defined alleged victims, i.e., Minor Victim-1, with generic undefined "victims," "minor victims", and "girls," prevents Ms. Maxwell from knowing what alleged conduct with what alleged person formed the basis of this Indictment and allows for multiple variances of proof at any trial. + +Random acts are disbursed throughout the indictment, some tied to generic alleged "victims" other to a defined alleged "Minor Victim:" + +- "befriend" 14a; +- "being present"1 7a; +- "groomed" \$7a: +- "undressing" ¶7a: and +- "took Minor Victim -2 to a movie's 7b. + +The discovery provides to Ms. Maxwell provides no information about when and where the alleged instances of sexual abuse took place. Because there are no dates provided, other than a three-year period beginning (perhaps) 27 years in the past, Ms. Maxwell cannot properly investigate where she and other witnesses were when the alleged crime supposedly occurred. And because the crimes alleged in Counts One through Four are based largely on vaguely stated, non-criminal acts of so-called "grooming" (talking to or being nice to someone, or taking them to a movie), it is impossible to know what act or acts she needs to defend against at trial. + +# CONCLUSION + +Neither the Indictment nor the discovery provide Ms. Maxwell with enough information so that she can prepare her defense as to Counts One through Four, and these Counts should be dismissed for a lack of specificity in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Alternatively, the Court should direct the government to provide Ms. Maxwell with a Bill of Particulars and discovery as requested in her contemporaneously filed Memorandum in Support of Motion for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14b607ff16804af94e8ecff56e07f3989c62f429 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/EFTA02830149.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,573 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 8007, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.47, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF \nTHE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 535.6290283203125, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 535.6290283203125, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.948, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 87.603515625 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 87.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.27716064453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.27716064453125, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.80755615234375 + ], + [ + 105.16126251220703, + 98.80755615234375 + ], + [ + 105.16126251220703, + 113.4200439453125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.4200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 104.45954132080078, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 104.45954132080078, + 242.41998291015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 242.41998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 347.9120178222656, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 347.9120178222656, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9513854980469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9513854980469, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830149" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47c340986adb58013d5024642f3c1d53bb5892d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830149/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fb49b240472a48109d095d7e62c2ed434120578f7f276472657d3cd23135dd9f +size 1165 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5094c18cdc5edf7d92a44814456182cf6517473f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (Pretrial Motion # 9) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the superseding indictment as it was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. mcohen@cohengressercom Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 9574514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger + +HADDON, & P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96b20e802aaef2be145878b086baac96c7f9ea3c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157/EFTA02830157.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830157.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1107, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S \nNOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nAS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT \n(Pretrial Motion # 9)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 505.93621826171875, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 505.93621826171875, + 333.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 333.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830157" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11fcb8af1008bf6d5503b38d0a9ecb1b966f67ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|------------------------------|------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | I | +| STATEMENT OF FACTS | 2 | +| A. Procedural History | 2 | +| B. This District's Jury Plan | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 4 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Duren v. Missouri, | Page(s) | +|------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 439 U.S. 357 (1979) Holland v. Illinois, | 5, 7 | +| 493 U.S. 474 (1990) Taylor v. Louisiana, | 1 | +| 419 U.S. 522 (1975) United States v. Jackman, | 4 | +| 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. | 5, 7 | +| 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) United States v. Kenny, | 5 | +| 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) United States v. Osorio, | 6 | +| 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) | 4 | +| United States v. M, | | +| 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.N.Y 1996) United States v. Rimer, | 3, 4 | +| 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) Statutes | 5 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a) | 2 | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +When the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily limited the availability of grand juries in the Manhattan courthouse, the government responded v. ith an extraordinary measure. Rather than wait a short time until residents of counties constituting the Manhattan Division of this District could appear for grand jury service, the government, in its apparent determination to mark the anniversary of its indictment of Jeffrey Epstein with a July 2, 2020 announcement of the indictment and arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, sought and obtained an indictment of Ms. Maxwell through a grand jury drawn from the Plains Division. In doing so, the government procured Ms. Maxwell's indictment using a grand jury pool that excluded residents of the community in which Ms. Maxwell allegedly committed the offenses with which she is charged, and in which she will be tried, in favor of a grand jury drawn from a community in which Black and Hispanic residents are significantly underrepresented by comparison. The government thus violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury drawn from a faircross section of the community. I + +It was unnecessary for the government to take this step. According to an email from a court official filed in connection with a similar challenge to the government's practice, a Manhattan grand jury was seated as early as June 25, 2020-four days before Ms. Maxwell was indicted. See Exhibit A to Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, U.S. v. Balde, No. 1:20-cr-0028I-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 70-1 (filed Dec. 23, 2020). Had the government waited until that time, it might have been unable to meet its arbitrary July 2 deadline, and its press conference touting the indictment and arrest of Ms. Maxwell might have had slightly less + +3 The fact that Ms. Maxwell herself is neither Black nor Hispanic does not deprive of her of standing to raise this challenge. "[T]he Sixth Amendment entitles every defendant to object to a venire that is not designed to represent a fair cross section of the community, whether or not the systematically excluded groups are groups to which he himself belongs.- Holland v. Illinois. 493 U.S. 474, 477 (1990). + +impact. But the government would have avoided violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right. Its failure to do so mandates dismissal of the indictment. + +## STATEMENT OF FACTS + +## A. Procedural h istory + +On June 29, 2020, the government filed a sealed indictment of Ms. Maxwell in the Manhattan Division of this Court. The government has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the Plains Division. At no point, however, has the government alleged that Ms. Maxwell engaged in any unlawful conduct in the Plains Division, or that any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracies occurred in the Plains Division. To the contrary, the only specific location within this District that is referenced in the indictment is Epstein's residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, the location at which Ms. Maxwell allegedly intended for Minor Victim-I to engage in unlawful sexual activity with Epstein. Sealed Indictment ("Indictment"), Dkt. No. I (filed Jun. 29, 2020), at ¶¶ 6a, 11b, 17b. + +The indictment of Ms. Maxwell, and apparently others in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, was a deviation from the established practice of indicting defendants in the division where the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government apparently chose to stop using the Manhattan Wheel and to indict Ms. Maxwell using a Plains grand jury. + +# B. This District's Jury Plan + +The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 mandates that each federal district court "devise and place into operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit jurors." 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). This District's current plan was adopted in 2009. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors in the United States District Court for the + +Southern District of New York ("Jury Plan"), available at + +https://nysd.uscourts.govisites/defauWfiles/pdf/juryplan feb 2009.pdf. The Jury Plan uses voter registration lists as the exclusive source of names of prospective jurors. Jury Plan, Art. III.A. From these names, two jury wheels are constructed: one for the Manhattan courthouse and one for the Plains courthouse. + +The Jury Plan provides that to fill the wheels, jurors are to be drawn from each county's voter registration list. For each county, the proportion of jurors drawn should be the same as the proportion of that county's number of registered voters to the total number of registered voters for all of the counties in the respective wheels. Id., III.A.1, + +The Manhattan wheel contains names drawn from New York, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties. The Plains wheel contains names from Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, M, and Dutchess counties. For the three overlapping counties (Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland), the names are apportioned among the two wheels so as to "reasonably reflect the relative number of registered voters in each county" within the respective wheels. Id., Art. IV.B. According to the Jury Plan, the Jury Wheels shall be emptied and refilled by not later than September I following the date of each Presidential Election." Id., Art. III.B; see also United States v. M, 934 F. Supp. 553, 555 (S.D.N.Y 1996). + +The Jury Plan further provides that at least once a year, names are to be drawn randomly from the jury wheels in an amount sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for jurors for the next six months. Jury Plan, Art. llI.D. Those whose names are drawn are sent questionnaires to determine their qualifications to sit as jurors, which they are instructed to return within ten days. Id. Art. III.E. The qualified jury wheels comprise those individuals who complete and + +return the questionnaire (and who are found to be qualified as jurors). Id., Art. IV.A. As with the wheels, two separate qualified jury wheels are maintained: one for Manhattan and one for Plains. When jurors are needed, names are drawn at random from these wheels, and summonses are sent to those whose names are drawn. Id., Art. IV.C; M, 934 F. Supp. at 556. + +In United States v. Balde, a case currently pending in this District before Judge Failla, the defendant recently submitted, in connection with a similar challenge to the use of a Plains grand jury in a Manhattan case, an analysis from jury composition expert Jeffrey =, who analyzed the racial and ethnic composition of the and qualified jury wheels for Manhattan and Plains. See Declaration of Jeffrey in Support of Motion to Dismiss, U.S. v. Balde, No. 1:20-cr-00281-KPF, Dkt. No. 61-1 (filed Nov. 9, 2020), Exhibit A (a Decl."). Because the jury wheels are emptied and refilled only every four years, following a presidential election, and the defendant in Balde, like Ms. Maxwell, was indicted in June 2020, Ms. Maxwell's grand jury was presumably drawn from the same wheels Mr. analyzed. + +Mr. found significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons within the Plains qualified jury wheel—not only when compared to the eligible juror population in the Manhattan counties (IM Dec1.11 61-62, 69-70), but also when compared to the eligible juror population of the District as a whole (id. ¶¶ 59-60, 67-68). + +## ARGUMENT + +The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a grand jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). Ms. Maxwell's right under the Sixth Amendment to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community applies to the grand jury that indicted her. See, e.g., United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966, 973-74 (D. Conn. 1992) (rejecting argument that Sixth Amendment's fair crosssection protection does not apply to grand juries). Here, the use of a Plains jury resulted in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons from the jury selection process, in violation of Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right. + +In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court set forth the three elements that must be shown to establish a prima fade violation of the fair cross-section requirement: (i) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (ii) that the representation of the group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (iii) that the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). Once a prima fade showing has been made, the government bears the burden of showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest. Id. at 368. + +With respect to the first element, there can be no serious dispute that Blacks and Hispanics are "distinctive" groups in the community. A claim of underrepresentation of those groups thus satisfies the first element of a fair cross-section claim. United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1246 (2d Cir. 1995). + +In considering the second element—whether the representation of the group is fair and reasonable—the Court must determine "whether either or both of these two `distinctive' groups are `significant[ly] underrepresent[ed]' in the jury selection process." Id. As constituted, the qualified jury wheels are a proper measure for evaluating the degree of underrepresentation as compared to the relevant community. United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 655-56 (2d Cir. 1996). + +While Duren did not define which community is relevant for a fair cross-section analysis, it is widely understood to mean "the district or division where the trial is to be held." United + +States v.M, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). The only geographic nexus in this case to this District—Epstein's New York residence—is in the Manhattan Division, and the case will be tried within the Manhattan Division. The appropriate comparison here is therefore between the Manhattan Division and the qualified wheel for Plains. + +Mr. analysis found significant underrepresentation of both Black and Hispanic persons in the Plains qualified wheel when compared to the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division. Mr. found that the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division is 20.92% Black and 28.06% Hispanic (= Dec1.1 20), while the Plans qualified wheel refilled in February 2017 (and thus in effect in 2020) was 8.76% Black and 10.48% Hispanic (id.1 55). Thus, Mr. found an "Absolute Disparity" of 12.16% underrepresentation for Black jurors (20.92% minus 8.76%) and an "Absolute Disparity" of 17.58% for Hispanic jurors (28.06% minus 10.48%). Id. ¶¶ 61-62. Mr. also found significant underrepresentation using a "Comparative Disparity" analysis (id. ¶¶ 69-70), which reflects a cognizable group's absolute disparity as a percentage of the population percentage of that group, and a standard deviation analysis (id. ¶¶ 74-75), which measures the statistical significance of a group's underrepresentation. + +Mr. further found that there would be significant underrepresentation even if the Plains qualified wheel were compared to the eligible juror population of the entire Southern District of New York. For the whole District, the eligible juror population is 18.09% Black and 23.41% Hispanic. Id. ¶ 19. Thus, when compared to the whole District, an absolute disparity analysis of the Plains qualified wheel showed an underrepresentation of 9.33% for Black jurors and 12.93% for Hispanic jurors. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. As with the comparison to the + +Manhattan Division, Mr. found statistically significant underrepresentation using both the comparative disparity and standard deviation analyses. Id. ¶¶ 67-68, 74-75. + +To satisfy the third Duren element, a party need only establish that the underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of a cognizable group during the jury selection processes—Le., that the discrepancy is "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized." Duren, 439 U.S. at 366. Regardless of whether the Plains qualified jury wheel is compared to the eligible jury population of the Manhattan Division or to that of the entire Southern District of New York, the primary reason for the significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors on the Plains wheel is the choice to pursue an indictment from a grand jury drawn from the Plains Division, as opposed to the Manhattan Division or the District as a whole. This decision resulted in the systematic exclusion of eligible jurors residing in the southern counties of this District. + +Moreover, Mr. standard deviation analysis found that regardless of whether the Manhattan Division or the entire District is used as the point of comparison, the percent of both Black and Hispanic jurors in the Plains jury wheel differs from that in the comparison population by more than three standard deviations. Decl. ¶¶ 74-75. According to Mr. if there is no systematic overrepresentation or underrepresentation of a distinctive group, the divergence of demographics should exceed three deviations only approximately 0.5% of the time. Id. ¶ 73. Thus, the underrepresentations here are "not the result of random factors, chance, or luck" but "the result of a systematic process that under represents" each group. Id. ¶¶ 74-75. See Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1248 (finding fair cross-section violation due to systematic exclusion of residents from communities with large minority populations). + +Thus, regardless of whether the Plains qualified jury wheel is compared to the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division or that of the entire District, Black and Hispanic jurors are systematically underrepresented. Ms. Maxwell has therefore made a prima facie showing of a violation of the fair cross-section requirement. + +Accordingly, the government has the burden of showing that attainment of a fair crosssection would have been incompatible with a significant state interest. The government cannot do so. To the extent that the government asserts a significant state interest in containing COVID-19, it cannot show that attainment of a fair cross-section would have been incompatible with that interest. As noted above, a Manhattan grand jury convened as early as June 25, 2020; there appears to have been no reason, other than a publicity-driven desire to arrest Ms. Maxwell on the anniversary of the Epstein indictment, why the government could not have waited until that time. The indictment therefore violates Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right and should be dismissed. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Mark S. Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue P.C. + +Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +1 hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57e8794d20ce259fdb86ba46e7f663d1c4b026b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159/EFTA02830159.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,729 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830159.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 13, + "chars": 17768, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.33, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nAS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.248, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 518.3577270507812, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 518.3577270507812, + 333.4335632324219 + ], + [ + 94.248, + 333.4335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATEMENT OF FACTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 378.2370300292969, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 378.2370300292969, + 141.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 141.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Procedural h istory", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 245.9192657470703, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 245.9192657470703, + 166.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 166.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. This District's Jury Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 591.3 + ], + [ + 273.8639221191406, + 591.3 + ], + [ + 273.8639221191406, + 607.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 607.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 344.96209716796875, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 344.96209716796875, + 582.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 582.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830159" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e8c65b6d56a446f7a41036f4223fdaa5efd361e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 1/26/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Because there is a request to redact sensitive or confidential information, several of the motions have been filed under temporary seal. The Government may respond to the Defendant's proposed redactions within two days of this Order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: January 26, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()\_\_\_\_\_ +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..beeefe7f57b9bb53a9c448c1c48687dd67f1565a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172/EFTA02830172.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830172.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 798, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.14, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830172" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..448b66c320798aa36c0be14254d63f498364990c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvia1. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New• York. New York 10007 + +January 28, 2021 + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's order dated January 26, 2021 providing the Government with an opportunity to respond to the defendant's proposed redactions to its pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The Government notes at the outset that the defendant has not proposed any redactions to certain motions filed on the docket. (Motions 5, 8, 9, & 12; Dkts. 119-126). The Government agrees that no redactions are necessary as to those particular motions. The Government agrees with the defendant's proposed redactions to the remaining pre-trial motions for the following reasons: + +- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss for breach of the nonprosecution agreement (Motion I) and the motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay (Motion 7) refer to documents designated by the Government as "Confidential" within the meaning of the Protective Order in this case (see Protective Order1115 (Dkt. 36)), and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) ("Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy ... is an integral part of our criminal justice system."). +- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as time-barred (Motion 2) and her motion to strike surplusage from the Superseding Indictment (Motion 6) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses. +- The proposed redactions to the motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six (Motion 4) refer to documents designated by the Government as "Confidential" within the + +January 28, 2021 + +Page 2 + +meaning of the Protective Order in this case, and relate to third-party privacy interests or materials that remain sealed in the civil proceeding. + +- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures (Motion 10) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses and protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. +- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to suppress under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Motion 11) are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. + +In addition, the Government has no objection to the defendant's proposed redactions to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3) as the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government's ongoing investigation. The Government respectfully submits that a limited number of additional redactions would be appropriate with respect to Motion 3 in order to be consistent with the other redactions proposed by the defendant in that particular motion. The Government will submit those additional proposed redactions under seal by email. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: 5/ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All counsel of record, by email \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b363ea82d82413492e702ca57d6933e8eb92872f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/EFTA02830173.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3753, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 250.86537170410156, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 250.86537170410156, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830173" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..426d8d92f107a2a930dfada2e849cde082bc3952 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0a591056063c19e1598b016004ef12d8131fb244e9b515760e9b36cbc8eac588 +size 3403 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..234730fbce679ebb6b135acaae5ee5aa23233899 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Sabi., J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. Nen• York 10007 + +February 1, 2021 + +## BY EC F + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's January 25, 2021 order allowing the parties to respond to a letter from legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") also dated January 25, 2021. (Dkt. No. 117). In particular, MDC legal counsel asks the Court to vacate its January 15, 2021 order directing the MDC to permit the defendant to use a laptop to review discovery on weekends and holidays. While the Government has no objection to the defendant's request for additional laptop access, the Government also generally defers to the MDC regarding how it manages its inmate population. The Government will continue to defer to the MDC here, particularly because the defendant has had ample access to discovery even without laptop access on weekends and holidays. + +Given the volume of discovery in this case, which totals more than two million pages, the Government and the MDC have both made significant efforts to ensure that the defendant has extensive access to her discovery materials. Since the Government made its first discovery production in August 2020, the defendant has had exclusive access to a BOP desktop computer in the MDC on which to review her discovery. When the defendant complained of technical issues reviewing portions of her discovery on that desktop computer, the Government produced reformatted copies of discovery materials and instructions regarding how to open particular files. Because the defendant continued to complain that she was unable to review certain discovery files on the desktop computer, the Government agreed to provide a laptop for the defendant to use in her review of discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government hand delivered the laptop to the MDC for the defendant's exclusive use. + +As the Court is aware, the defendant has received, and continues to receive more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. In particular, the MDC pennits the defendant to review discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. On weekdays, the MDC permits the defendant to use the laptop during her thirteen hours of daily review time. On weekends and holidays, the MDC would ordinarily only allow the defendant to use the BOP desktop computer, which provides access to much of the discovery material. While, as noted above, the Government has no particular objection to the defendant's request for weekend access to the laptop, the Government generally defers to the judgment of the MDC in managing inmates at its facility, and sees no reason to depart from that practice here. In this respect, the Government notes that the trial date remains approximately six months away, the BOP was already affording the defendant access to the laptop for some 65 hours a week, and the BOP was further providing weekend access to a desktop computer should the defendant wish to spend more than 65 hours each week reviewing discovery. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d259339c032d0c4067313bf6751c29d96c2dfd35 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/EFTA02830175.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3594, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EC F", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.63878631591797, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.63878631591797, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830175" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83bbe401f3052183ac6a35de0f9f34dc5aad82c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830175/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:87b3dd13020da712f02d667817d3153f0525015f05f932f241d487992f220f5e +size 3485 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1bfa428305666ac9c0f39f1eca8f1399be525c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +February I, 2021 + +Re. United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +By letter to the Court, dated January 25, 2021 (Dkt.117 at 2-3), the MDC raised objection to the Court's order, unopposed by the government, directing the MDC to permit Ms. Maxwell to use on a laptop computer on weekends and holidays. (Dkt. 116 at 2). The MDC has failed to state a valid or compelling reason for opposing the Court's directive. + +The MDC does not identify any valid reason why Ms. Maxwell cannot have access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays. The MDC does not argue, for example, that access to the laptop cannot be provided because of issues related to safety or security, staffing, or (to quote the government) the need to "manade1 its inmate population." Instead, in opposition to the Court's order, the MDC repeats its . Maxwell has received significant amount of time to review her discovery and has more contact with counsel than any other MDC inmate is allotted. The MDC's fixation on the relative time Ms. Maxwell has been given to review discovery is totally misguided. The government has produced millions of pages of discovery. Ms. Maxwell has the right to review all of them in order to prepare her defense for trial. To do that, she needs access to the laptop for as much time as possible, including the weekends and holidays because the prison computers are incapable of reading the millions of discovery documents. Ms. Maxwell loses 10 or more hours per week due to delay in receiving the laptop, problems caused by the MDC computer, and inability to access the computer during morning and afternoon counts on the weekends. Comparing Ms. Maxwell to other inmates does not justify restricting her use of the laptop to review discovery. + +The MDC's proposed solution—that Ms. Maxwell can simply use the prison computer on the weekends and holidays to review discovery—is utterly inadequate. As Ms. Maxwell has pointed out on many occasions, the prison computer is incapable of reading a significant portion of the discovery, including but not limited to native files, Excel files, some video and audio files, and anything requiring Cellebrite software. The MDC concedes this fact in their letter—Ms. Maxwell cannot review all of her discovery on the prison computer. And using it causes a colossal waste of time. For example, if Ms. Maxwell locates a document on the prison computer + +for which she needs to review the native image, many of which are embedded in other files, she must write down the number for that document and then wait until Monday to find the same document using the laptop computer so that she can review the full document. Moreover, the MDC computer shuts down every two hours, requiring Ms. Maxwell to reboot the computer and find her place in the documents to resume her review. This process can take 20-30 minutes, all of which is lost time. In addition, the power of central processing unit of the MDC computer is very slow. Uploading videos can take up to a half hour, time that cannot be used to review other documents. When the computer automatically shuts down, videos need to be re-opened, requiring Ms. Maxwell to locate the portion of the video she was viewing when the computer shut down. In sum, using the prison computer is a problem, not a solution. + +Ms. Maxwell's review of discovery is challenging enough on the laptop computer that was provided. Even with the laptop, Ms. Maxwell is unable to search, unable to print, and unable to tag or highlight documents for later review. She must review millions of pages of unwieldy documents produced in various formats native, image, text) one page at a time—with no filtering or organizing—and record millions of numbers and notes of her review by hand on the limited amount of paper she is provided. And she is not permitted to have any supplies to organize the voluminous legal papers. Hard drives provided by the government have been mishandled by MDC staff (dropped on the floor and slammed on a cart) causing them to become degraded and unstable and to randomly shut down. While the laptop does not solve all of these issues, it performs far better than the MDC computers. The time, resources and funds expended on problems caused by the electronic discovery and the computers is unnecessary, wasteful, and frustrating. The MDC is in no position - and is neither qualified nor experienced to challenge Ms. Maxwell's and her counsel's claim that she needs access to the laptop on the weekends and holidays to even hope to finish reviewing the millions of pages of documents produced in discovery. + +The MDC's assertion that Ms. Maxwell's access to her attorneys is a reason to deny her access to the laptop computer on weekend and holidays is non-sensical. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. And it ignores the fact that, aside from time to review discovery or communicate with counsel, Ms. Maxwell is far more restricted than all other MDC inmates. Other inmates have unlimited time to communicate with other inmates. With exception of inmates detained in the SHU for disciplinary reasons, all other MDC inmates have unlimited time to interact with other inmates. Other than calls with family or communication with counsel, Ms. Maxwell has no human contact except with guards who wield power over her, overmanage her, and have psychologically and physically abused her. And complaints regarding mistreatment by guards have led to reprisals against Ms. Maxwell. + +Rather than state a valid reason for opposing the Court's directive, the MDC's opposition shines a klieg light on the deficiencies of its electronics and the limitations imposed on all inmates, most especially those detained pretrial. The restrictions placed on pretrial detainees goes beyond deprivation of liberty. Their ability to prepare for trial is compromised, their access to counsel is restricted, and their right to effective assistance of counsel is jeopardized. The pandemic has made the situation even more dire. Requiring pretrial detainees, including Ms. Maxwell, to review terabytes of electronic discovery on inadequate computers further tips an already unlevel playing field to the detriment of criminal defendants. + +There are no reasonable conditions to assure that as a pretrial detainee Ms. Maxwell will be as prepared for trial as a defendant on bail. Permitting Ms. Maxwell to use the laptop on weekends and holidays is a reasonable and minimum accommodation for the difficulties entailed in reviewing enormous amounts of electronic discovery, and one that imposes no burden on the BOP nor any security issues. The Court's order directing the MDC to permit Ms. Maxwell access to the computer on weekends and holidays should remain in effect. + +Very truly yours, + +goll4C.Swole.o. BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Sophia Papapetru, MDC counsel Government Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72019906ed531203b3d12b99bf6c3c8c7112deb0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177/EFTA02830177.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830177.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7128, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.76, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830177" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4380b3caf908d52cc7e5a8ee0d289eb90bc860c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Centel + +January 25, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +80 2918 Street Brooklyn. New York 11232 + +emtk. gAIJ ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. No. 02879829 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 2/2/21 + +Having considered the request submitted by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 117, as well as the Government's and the Defendant's responses, Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, the Court hereby DENIES the GOP's request to vacate the Order. SO ORDERED. + +This letter is written in response to Order granted on January 15, 2021, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC') in Brooklyn, New York. The MDC Brooklyn respectfully requests that Your Honor vacate the Order given MDC Brooklyn was not given the opportunity to object to defense counsel's claims, although the objection had been reiterated to the U.S. Attorney's Office numerous times. + +Defense counsel expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's confinement limiting her access to discovery. However, Ms. Maxwell has received a significant amount of time to review her discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC Brooklyn with a laptop for Ms. Maxwell to use to review discovery. Ms. Maxwell has been and will continue to be permitted to use that laptop to review her discovery for thirteen (13) hours per day, five (5) days per week. In addition to the Government laptop, she has access to the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers. Although defense counsel has indicated that the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers are not equipped to read all of her electronic discovery, the computers are capable of reviewing most of the electronic discovery. Despite defense counsel's claim that Ms. Maxwell's lacks sufficient time to fully review her discovery, her consistent use of Government laptop and MDC Brooklyn's discovery computers undercuts this claim. + +Moreover, Ms. Maxwell continues to have contact with her legal counsel five (5) days per week, three (3) hours per day via video-teleconference and via telephone; this is far more time than any other MDC inmate is allotted to communicate with their attorneys. + +We respectfully request that Your Honor vacate the order ofJanuary 15, 2021, and allow the institution to resume the prior schedule of laptop access, Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM — 8:00 PM. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sophia Papapeira + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ff8b9d5e5c5a8336e6cc74885502b765e0c1be8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/EFTA02830180.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2890, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.1, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE \nFederal Bureau of Prisons \nMetropolitan Detention Centel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 320.688, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5876770019531, + 97.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 320.688, + 97.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 125.40694427490234, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 125.40694427490234, + 224.72406005859375 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 224.72406005859375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830180" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d9223e716c1ddfc70a099b1739a129774a0d9ba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3aec719cd893c9d7a58d699d7d7df5bec80bcd08daf3a513bb7822d9fe677cfc +size 10209 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b1caa06ec9062a8c411748ea4aa75a629008d98 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 2/4/21 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Four of those were filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because pending the Court's resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant's proposed redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3), the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128. + +The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant's original redactions and the additional redactions that the Government proposed. The Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to `the danger of impairing law + +enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo + +The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant's motions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests. Most notably, these redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government's ongoing investigation. In addition, many of the Defendant's proposed redactions crucially serve the interest of protecting the personal privacy interests of third parties. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). + +The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government's proposed redactions in addition to her own. + +SO ORDERED. + +004' Q.AJ + +Dated: February 4, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c309dac691bcb275a7c4da43d34030a1de5e00a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182/EFTA02830182.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830182.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3110, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830182" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f261f961787cb24bc8814f88807ea33c9e8fec46 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ .... \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_-\_\_\_ ...... \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, NOTICE OF MOTION x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Defendant. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX (Pretrial Motion # 3) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, respectfully moves to suppress under the due process clause all evidence obtained from the government's subpoena to and to dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dad556877963bdc6c6a10d44238d142939023569 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184/EFTA02830184.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830184.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1209, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER THE DUE \nPROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE \nGOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS \nFIVE AND SIX \n(Pretrial Motion # 3)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 534.2760000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 534.2760000000001, + 355.863037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 355.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830184" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c12ed0a864f6737e2d17e87f29257ed3f5dfff87 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +## United States District Court Southern District Of New York • r + +Plaintiff, v. Chislaine Maxwell, Defendant. X X + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +## PROTECTIVE ORDER + +Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case, IT IS ORDERED: + +- 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +- 2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIv.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. + +- 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case. +- 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: + - a. attorneys actively working on this case; + - b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; + - c. the parties; + - d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; + - e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; + - f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; + - g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and + +- h. other persons by written agreement of the parties. +- 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. +- 7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the number. +- 8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. + +- 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. +- 10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. +- II. A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an + +appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL, and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. + +- 12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements arc agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. +- 13. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. + +- 14. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. + +13Y THE + +STATES DISTRICT JUDGE - 7 - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73a94806e3693fca96e63ab267b9287d0f3b87b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/EFTA02830186.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 6844, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.1, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court \nSouthern District Of New York \u2022 r", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.216, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 409.21734619140625, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 409.21734619140625, + 133.98748779296875 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 133.98748779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 377.3567199707031, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 377.3567199707031, + 364.23748779296875 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 364.23748779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830186" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4caf2c8aa1933f65687c4e9a41045704fab3e56 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830186/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eb4a1ccb950acc2a5dff8b3676ec4f529a079fd6dde61016fa487a98d67bb5e9 +size 12040 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4642cee73426e082ea43c89fd937966ff16b2de8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.md @@ -0,0 +1,331 @@ +# EXHIBIT B + +# United States District Court Southern District of New York + +Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS + +v. + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +# DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + +I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: + +- I. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. + - 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff + +Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. + +- 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit I, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's February 5, 2016 Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the Re-Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. + - 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel, + +Laura Menninger's February 25, 2016 Email Correspondence to Sigrid McCawley. + +6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's proposed Protective Order in redline format and clean format sent to Laura Menninger on February 25, 2016. + +7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's proposed Protective Order in redline format and clean version. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Dated: March 4, 2016 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP + +By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley + +Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 + +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 + +(954) 356-0011 + +David Boles + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +333 Main Street + +Armonk, NY 10504 + +Ellen Brockman + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +575 Lexington Ave + +New York, New York 10022 + +(212) 446-2300 + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 4, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. + +Laura A. Mennin el% Esq. HADDON, 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger®hmflaw.com , P.C. + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley + +# EXHIBIT 5 + +United States District Court +Southern District Of New York + +----- +[REDACTED], + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +15-ev-07433-RWS + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +----- + +**PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER** + +Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information, including sensitive personal information relating to a victim of sexual abuse, copyright or trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or proprietary information, or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case; + +**Purposes And Limitations** + +The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery. Designations under this Order shall be made sparingly, with care, and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth herein. If it comes to a Designating Party's attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. + +**Formatted:** List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Indent: First line: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double + +#### -IT IS ORDERED: + +- 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information. including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +- 2. As used in this Protective Order. "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. +- 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and itnplieates-is covered by common law and statutory privacy interests-protections of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell origlany non-pany that was subject to sexual abuse. +- 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and Dial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement. +- 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: + - a. attorneys actively working on this case; + +formatted: Indent: First line: Dr, Space Belay: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double + +- b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case: +- c. the parties; +- d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; +- e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; + +f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; + +gdeponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and + +h. any person ( I ) who authored or received the particular Protected Material; (2) who has or had at any point in time access to the Protected Material outside of the context of this action; or (3) for which there is a good faith basis to conclude that the individual has earlier received or seen such Protected Material; and + +hi. any other persons by written agreement of the parties or by Order of a Court of competent iurisdiction. + +- 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters). counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and + +Pannatted: Fait 12 at + +agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. + +- 7. Documents arc designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL" Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the number. + +Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party. that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party. and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. + +- 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the + +designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. + +10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. + +A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Tab stops: 1", Left + Not at 0.5" + 0.65" + +Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. + +**11. Challenging Designations Of Protected Material** + +(a) A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of dDiscovery mMaterial under this Order at the time the designation is made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. Moreover, failure to challenge the designation of any dDiscovery mMaterial as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY shall not in any way constitute an admission that such material contains any competitively sensitive information, trade secret information, or other protectable material. + +12. (b) In the event that counsel for the Party receiving CONFIDENTIAL Protected Material objects to the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation of any or all such items, said counsel shall provide the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party written notice of, and the basis for, such objections. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve such objections among themselves. Should the Receiving Party, the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party be unable to resolve the objections, the Receiving Party may seek a hearing before this Court with respect to the propriety of the designation. The + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Normal, No bullets or numbering + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: 1", + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +Designating Party will cooperate in obtaining a prompt hearing with respect thereto. Pending a resolution, the discovery material in question shall continue to be treated as CONFIDENTIALProteeted—Material as provided hereunder. The burden of proving that dDiscovery mMaterial is properly designated shall at all times remain with the Designating Party. + +12 At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements arc agreed upon, each\* document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the panics agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all panics with an affidavit confirming the destruction. + +13, With respect to any dDiscovery mMaterial produced by such non-party. the non-' party may invoke the terms of this Order in writing to all Panics by designating dDiscovery mMaterial "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". Any such pProtected mMaterial produced by the non-party designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or —HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" shall be subiect to the restrictions contained in this Order and shall only be disclosed or used in a manner consistent with this Order. + +14. In the event that any Producing Party inadvertently products dDiscovery\* Material eligible for designation as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY without such designation, the + +Formatted: Font: 12 p1. Font color: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pi. Font color: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font coke: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', Tab stops: I', List tab + Not at 0.5' + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stops: r, List tab + Not at 0.5' + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', Tab stops: List tab + Not at 0.5' + +Panics agree that the Producing Party may retroactively apply the correct designation. If a Producing Party makes a subsequent designation, the Receiving Party will treat the Protected Material according to the retroactive designation. including undertaking best efforts to retrieve all previously distributed copies from any recipients now ineligible to access the Protected Material. + +1-31-15. Limitations. Nothing in this Order shall restrict in any way the use or disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL materiallaseteeted-Material by a Receiving Party + +(a) that is or has become publicly known through no fault of the Receiving Party- + +(b) that is lawfully acquired by or known to the Receiving Party independent of + +the Producing Party; (c) that was previously produced, disclosed, and/or provided + +by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party or a non-party without an + +obligation of confidentiality and not by inadvertence or mistake: (d) with the + +consent of the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party: (c) + +pursuant to Order of the Court: or (f) for purposes of law enforcement. + +441—I6S This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any + +CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. + +-1-77I7. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause + +shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', Hanging: 0.5', No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: 1', Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +Formatted: Indent: Left: or, Tab stops: It List tab + 6.25", Right • Not at 0.5' + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +Formatted: Font: Font color: MAO + +Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: Hanging: t', No bullets or nurntenng + +BY THE COURT + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE + +--- + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +# United States District Court Southern District Of New York + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Chislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +I 5-cv-07433- RWS + +# jPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER + +Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information, including sensitive personal information relating to a victim of sexual abuse, copyright or trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or proprietary information. + +# Purposes And Limitations + +The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery. Designations under this Order shall be made sparingly, with care, and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth herein. If it comes to a Designating Party's attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. + +# IT IS ORDERED: + +- 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +- 2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. +- 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and is covered by common law and statutory privacy protections of + - (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell or + - (c) any non-party that was subject to sexual abuse. +- 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement. +- 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: + - a. attorneys actively working on this case; + +- b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; +- c. the parties; +- d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; +- e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; +- f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; +- g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; +- h. any person (I) who authored or received the particular Protected Material; (2) who has or had at any point in time access to the Protected Material outside of the context of this action; or (3) for which there is a good faith basis to conclude that the individual has earlier received or seen such Protected Material; and +- i. any other persons by written agreement of the parties or by Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. +- 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and + +agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. + +- 7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the number. +- 8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. +- 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the + +designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. + +- 10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. + +# 11 Challenuinv. Decitmations Of Protected Material + +- (a) A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of discovery material under this Order at the time the designation is made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. Moreover, failure to challenge the designation of any discovery material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY shall not in any way constitute an admission that such material contains any competitively sensitive information, trade secret information, or other protectable material. +- (b) In the event that counsel for the Party receiving CONFIDENTIAL Material objects to the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY designation of any or all such items, said + +counsel shall provide the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party written notice of, and the basis for, such objections. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve such objections among themselves. Should the Receiving Party, the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party be unable to resolve the objections, the Receiving Party may seek a hearing before this Court with respect to the propriety of the designation. The Designating Party will cooperate in obtaining a prompt hearing with respect thereto. Pending a resolution, the discovery material in question shall continue to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL as provided hereunder. The burden of proving that discovery material is properly designated shall at all times remain with the Designating Party. + +- 12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. +- 13. With respect to any discovery material produced by such non-party, the non-party may invoke the terms of this Order in writing to all Parties by designating discovery material "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". Any such protected material produced by the + +non-party designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or ""HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" shall be subject to the restrictions contained in this Order and shall only be disclosed or used in a manner consistent with this Order. + +- I 4. In the event that any Producing Party inadvertently produces discovery material eligible for designation as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY without such designation, the Parties agree that the Producing Party may retroactively apply the correct designation. If a Producing Party makes a subsequent designation, the Receiving Party will treat the Protected Material according to the retroactive designation, including undertaking best efforts to retrieve all previously distributed copies from any recipients now ineligible to access the Protected Material. +- 15. Limitations. Nothing in this Order shall restrict in any way the use or disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL material by a Receiving Party (a) that is or has become publicly known through no fault of the Receiving Party; (b) that is lawfully acquired by or known to the Receiving Party independent of the Producing Party; + - (c) that was previously produced, disclosed, and/or provided by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party or a non-party without an obligation of confidentiality and not by inadvertence or mistake; (d) with the consent of the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party; (e) pursuant to Order of the Court; or (1) for purposes of law enforcement. + +- 16. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any + +CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. + +- 17. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause + +shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. + +BY THE COURT + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed4d66ae436fca03de80b06937268211a72853a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193/EFTA02830193.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1236 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830193.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 26101, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.8571472167969, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.8571472167969, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court \nSouthern District of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 387.9205627441406, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 387.9205627441406, + 100.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 100.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S \nRESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 283.5 + ], + [ + 517.208251953125, + 283.5 + ], + [ + 517.208251953125, + 311.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 311.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.0959167480469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.0959167480469, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.46499999999997, + 305.14799999999997 + ], + [ + 384.37, + 305.14799999999997 + ], + [ + 384.37, + 339.628 + ], + [ + 206.46499999999997, + 339.628 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court Southern District Of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 178.09199999999998, + 172.53 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 323.136, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 323.136, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 362.88 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Purposes And Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 491.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 491.66999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "-IT IS ORDERED:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 167.87501525878906, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 167.87501525878906, + 159.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 159.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "11. Challenging Designations Of Protected Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 239.76 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 239.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court \nSouthern District Of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 389.52752685546875, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 389.52752685546875, + 102.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 102.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "jPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 410.30316162109375, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 410.30316162109375, + 348.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 348.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Purposes And Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 209.1901397705078, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 209.1901397705078, + 486.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 486.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IT IS ORDERED:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 204.48141479492188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 204.48141479492188, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "11 Challenuinv. Decitmations Of Protected Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 393.8995666503906, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 393.8995666503906, + 368.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 368.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830193" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df84226b2bbe4e5ae8f61a38cffbf9d46f18281a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216/EFTA02830216.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830216.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 450.0531921386719 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 450.0531921386719 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 8 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830216" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d824cd8ee01acd4fa0222de95a05717e52a704f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217/EFTA02830217.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830217.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.6656494140625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.6656494140625, + 444.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 444.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830217" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57f01859c87f25996eef6fb12ee91176b84dd605 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT E FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd8ff6ebbd355b6390fb673271333c09aa83206e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218/EFTA02830218.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830218.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.988, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 426.6072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 426.6072692871094, + 444.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 182.988, + 444.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830218" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12374dee8482a97db697e59459277e9a041342d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1af5dfdf79f43ca8df616dafb2540f25ee65c276 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219/EFTA02830219.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830219.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT F \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.1656494140625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.1656494140625, + 442.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 442.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830219" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93597d33d17f3e013110e2ef867da626b7bbf139 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT G FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e12965ec3503ef4dd809d24ee2c8d52d3bafb6e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220/EFTA02830220.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830220.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT G \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.152, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 425.1656494140625, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 425.1656494140625, + 441.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 181.152, + 441.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830220" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28a8bff83606ec38dfca53acf5a4a2cae5e4ca58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT H FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07854581699767be5707976c0a4daa6549dd98a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221/EFTA02830221.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830221.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT H \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1072692871094, + 442.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 442.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830221" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0c097281e7754065dd60086c468f09842873e67 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT I FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67449db4cdeb7d47946198e5282131d4e8b5cfe7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222/EFTA02830222.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830222.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT I \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 427.6656494140625, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 427.6656494140625, + 443.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 443.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830222" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d6416a0483f303be4895d3e99d9866a224966b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.md @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +------------------------------------------ x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Mark S. + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New + +York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| A. B. C. D. E. ARGUMENT A. I. | TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TABLE OF EXHIBITS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Protective Order in v. Maxwell Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions The Settlement And The Government's False Statements To Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained From Evidence The role of protective orders in civil litigation | ii iv 1 2 2 4 Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 6 Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 11 And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That I I I I | +|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 2. | The government circumvented the protective order | 12 | +| 3. | The government violated due process. | 14 | +| 4. | This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression | 15 | +| B. | At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell May In uire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's Misrepresentations To | | +| CONCLUSION | | 16 | +| | Certificate of Service | 18 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Benkovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., | No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) | | +|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| v. Maxwell, | 929 F.3d 41 (24 Cir. 2019) | 3, 6 | +| v. NASCO, Inc., | 510 U.S. 32 (1991) | 17 | +| Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., | 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) | passim | +| Franks v. Delaware, | 438 U.S. 154 (1978) | 18 | +| Giglio v. U.S., | 405 U.S. 150 (1972) | 16 | +| v. Maxwell, | 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 6 | +| Klein v. Weidner, | Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) | 17 | +| Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, | 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. | | +| 21, 2017) | | 17 | +| Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., | 594 F.24 291 (2d Cir. 1979) | 12, 13 | +| S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, | 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) | 12 | +| Stewart v. Hudson | LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) 12 | | +| United States v. Avellino, | 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) | 16 | +| United States v. Cortina, | 630 F.34 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) | 16 | +| United States v. Lambus, | 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) | 16 | +| United States v. Paredes-Cordova, | No. S 103 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June | | +| 8, 2009) | | 18 | +| United States v. Rajarainam, | 719 F.3d 139 (24 Cir. 2013) | 18 | +| United States v. Valentine, | 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987) | 16 | +| Young v. United States, | 481 U.S. 787 (1987) | 16 | + +#### Other Authorities + +#### Rules + +## Constitutional Provisions + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT A: Civil Protective Order + +EXHIBIT B: Protective Order Proposal + +EXHIBIT C: + +EXHIBIT D: Transcript, 3/26/2019 + +EXHIBIT E: Transcript, 4/9/2019 + +EXHIBIT F: + +EXHIBIT G: + +EXHIBIT H: + +EXHIBIT I: + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to [REDACTED] and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. + +### **INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT** + +Counts Five and Six allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm’s clients. [REDACTED] v. *Maxwell*, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, *including* with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]. By proceeding *ex parte*, the government ensured that no one before the court would be able to contest the accuracy of its representations in support of its application. + +The government then took full advantage. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +To paraphrase Mary McCarthy's philippic about Lillian Hellman, every word of the government's representation was untrue, "including `and' and `the.'"I The government knew what was in the had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with And was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. + +The record is surpassingly clear: But for the never would have permitted the circumvention of the civil Protective Order, on which Maxwell relied in agreeing to sit for her depositions. This Court therefore has both the authority and the duty to suppress the fruits of that misrepresentation, including the and the two perjury counts based on those transcripts. If the Court is disinclined to exercise that inherent authority on the present record, Maxwell should be granted a hearing to examine the circumstances that resulted in the + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +# A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell + +Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions taken in v. Maxwell, a civil defamation case filed in 2015. claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell's attorney-hired press agent denied as "untrue" and "obvious lies" numerous allegations, over the span of four years, that Maxwell had participated in a scheme to cause to be "sexually abused and trafficked" by Jeffrey Epstein. + +' See Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times. + +, a public figure required to prove actual malice, had an uphill battle—even she was constrained to acknowledge that many of her public statements were false. Using a timehonored if unfortunate litigation tactic, her lawyers at Boies Schiller therefore sought to turn the lawsuit into a proxy prosecution of Epstein. Not surprisingly, discovery in the case was bitter, hard-fought, and wide-ranging. It spanned more than a year and included large document productions, many responses to interrogatories, and thirty-some depositions, including depositions of and Maxwell as well as several third parties. See v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that discovery was "hard-fought" and "extensive" and noting that the court file, which includes only some of the documents created during discovery, totals in the "thousands of pages"). + +sought and obtained a wide variety of private and confidential information about Maxwell and others, including information about financial and sexual matters. 929 F.3d at 48 n.22. Given the intimate and highly confidential nature of the discovery exchanged between the parties, the district court entered a stipulated Protective Order. See Ex. A. The Protective Order included a mechanism for one party to challenge another party's confidentiality designation (such a challenge never occurred) and provided that it did not apply to any information or material disclosed at trial. (Because the case settled before trial, that sole exception to the Protective Order was never triggered.) + +Notably, Boies Schiller sought to add a "law enforcement" exception to the Protective Order, doubtless because the firm was eager to enlist the government in its campaign against Maxwell. In particular, Boies Schiller proposed to include a provision stating that "CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement." Ex. B 1 1(aX4) (emphasis supplied). Maxwell flatly rejected this proposal, and it was never included in the Protective Order. Ex. A.2 To the contrary, the order strictly limited the parties' disposition of Confidential Material, including at the conclusion of the case. In particular, paragraph 12 of the order provided that: + +[a]t the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming destruction. + +Ex. A 1 12. + +# B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions + +Relying on the confidentiality protections of the Protective Order, Maxwell declined to invoke her privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and agreed to testify at her April 2016 deposition. In that deposition, + +Following the deposition, moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional intimate and personal questions that she had previously declined to answer. In support of the motion, Boies Schiller assured the district court that "[s]uch questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective Order in this case." + +2 This proposal was rejected because of justifiable concerns about the misuse and abuse of this information by plaintiff and her lawyers including the selection and misleading leaking of confidential material to the media, other false claimants, and the government. + +The district court granted the motion. In requiring Maxwell to answer highly intrusive questions "relating to [her] own sexual activity" and "her knowledge of the sexual activity of others," the court held that Maxwell's "privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case." + +Secure in the belief that the Protective Order would be honored, Maxwell appeared at a second deposition, in July 2016. and answered hundreds of pages worth of questions about + +and From the very first question, Maxwell discussed + +She was asked + +She was asked + +Count Six of the superseding indictment alleges that Maxwell provided false testimony when she testified during her July 2016 deposition that: (1) she could not recall whether sex toys or devices were used in sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house; (2) she did not know whether Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities; (3) she wasn't aware that Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than herself when she was with him; and (4) she never gave anyone, including Accuser-23, a massage. + +3 The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-I, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. We will refer to them as Accuser-I, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3. + +### **C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller’s Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order** + +In 2017, the parties settled the defamation claim, and the case was dismissed. [REDACTED] v. *Maxwell*, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), *vacated and remanded sub nom*. [REDACTED], 929 F.3d 41. As the district court found, “a significant, if not determinative, factor” in reaching a settlement was its confidentiality. *Id.* at 446. + +After the case was settled and concluded, Maxwell repeatedly invoked Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order and demanded that [REDACTED] either return or destroy all confidential information, including her deposition transcripts. Boies Schiller refused. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +### **D. The Government’s False Statements To [REDACTED]** + +Only in August 2020, after she was indicted in this case, did Maxwell finally learn that the government had obtained the [REDACTED] file by grand jury subpoena. Maxwell also learned that, to overcome the strictures of the Protective Order, the government had instituted an *ex parte* proceeding before [REDACTED] (S.D.N.Y). [REDACTED]. + +Needless to say, neither Maxwell nor her attorneys were given the opportunity to oppose that application or to contest the government’s representations in support of the application. This was all in direct violation of Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, which provides that the order may be modified by the court only “for good cause shown *following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard*.” Ex. A ¶ 14 (emphasis added). + +In its *ex parte* application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] "That [REDACTED] the government claimed, indicated that the [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Nowhere did the government acknowledge that [REDACTED] had in fact approached the prosecutors multiple times well before the grand jury subpoena issued. + +In March 2019, in the first appearance before [REDACTED], the Government continued this refrain, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The prosecutor [REDACTED]—which sought all [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ex. D, p 17. For all the government knew, according to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, what he was seeking was [REDACTED] Ex. D, p 19. + +The government appeared a second time before [REDACTED] in April 2019. Ex. E. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told [REDACTED] +[REDACTED], omitting mention of any contacts between [REDACTED] and the government prior to that time: +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +Ex. E, 99 pp 2-3. + +Those representations were false. At the time the government claims it began the investigation ([Redacted]), its knowledge of the civil case was *not* based exclusively on public filings. It knew that [Redacted] possessed relevant information because [Redacted] had come to the government asking it to open an investigation. In particular, on February 29, 2016, AUSA Amanda Kramer met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who “urged Kramer to open an investigation of” Epstein and Maxwell.4 Then, after Maxwell’s two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking “if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury.” [Redacted], *supra* n.2. Said Mr. Boies: + +“We were saying to anyone who would listen: We’ve got clients who were abused. Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There’s a whole record that’s been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive sex trafficking ring going on.” + +*Id.* + +--- + +4 Stephen Rex [Redacted], *Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016*, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), . + +At that time, however, the government did not act. Boies "was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him saying, "We have her dead to rights."5 *Id.* All of this contradicts The government's + +representations to [redacted], who specifically [redacted] +[redacted] + +Reassured by the government that [redacted] modified the Protective Order so that [redacted] could comply with the subpoena. Ex. F. [redacted] + +[redacted] found that [redacted]. In making this finding, [redacted] + +[redacted] relied on the Assistant U.S. Attorney's misrepresentations, and she [redacted] +[redacted] from the subpoena at issue in *Chemical Bank*. Said +[redacted] + +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] +[redacted] + +Ex. G, p 21. + +--- + +5 Ms. Maxwell strenuously disagrees with Mr. Boies' comments. We reference them here only to show their connection to the perjury counts that the government subsequently charged. + +Contrary to the government's misrepresentations, did foment the investigation (or at least it tried to). And the evidence of "collusion" between the government and was ample, tracing to at least early 2016 and precisely designed to have Maxwell charged with perjury.6 + +E. Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government + +Around the same time that granted the government's ex parte request, rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil case, recognized the government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Ex. H. Indeed, rebuffed the government even after it alerted her to order. Ex. I. As found, 6. —that Ex. H, p + +was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell: + +6 Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether shared actual sealed materials or the contents of sealed materials during its meetings with the United States Attorney's Office in 2016. As noted below, the bare minimum that is required here is an evidentiary hearing to probe the extent to which "colluded," in a Chemical Bank sense, with the prosecutor's office. + +![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Ex. H, p 6. + +## ARGUMENT + +## A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained From , And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence + +# 1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation. + +Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Int 7 Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the 'secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. I). "If protective orders were easily modified ... parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Cont, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. HudsonMLLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). + +This case illustrates just how crucial a protective order is. The Maxwell depositions sought highly intrusive evidence of the most personal aspects of Maxwell's life. Her sexual practices. Her sexual preferences. Her sexual partners. In urging the district court to permit these extraordinary intrusions—in what should have been a simple defamation case + +expressly invoked the assurances of the Protective Order. So did the district court in permitting these intrusions and ordering Maxwell to sit for a second deposition. Maxwell likewise relied on the Protective Order in choosing to render such intimate details, rather than assert her Fifth Amendment privilege as she had every right to do. + +And why shouldn't Maxwell have relied on the Protective Order? The central protection in the Order was that none of Maxwell's answers could be disclosed to the government. Boies Schiller had expressly sought a law enforcement exception but was rebuffed. Instead, the law firm was required either to return the confidential material or, at Maxwell's option, to destroy it. Maxwell had every reason to take that assurance seriously, even if did not. + +## 2. The government circumvented the protective order. + +Faced with a duly entered Protective Order—which quite deliberately omitted any "law enforcement" exception—the government had lawful options to pursue the confidential discovery. It could have moved to intervene in the civil case and to amend the Protective Order. It could have issued a subpoena for the materials and given Maxwell an opportunity to respond. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. It could even have applied for a search warrant, assuming (counterfactually) that it could show probable cause in support of such a warrant. + +The government did none of those things. Instead, This was not among the lawful options available to the government. + +It cannot fairly be disputed that ruling to amend the Protective Order was based on the government's misrepresentations. Immediately before issuing her decision, held a hearing with the sole purpose of asking the prosecutor, stated reason for so inquiring was to ensure that the government and had not coordinated as the parties + +had in the *Chemical Bank* case. In no uncertain terms, [REDACTED] explained why she had haled the prosecutor back into court: + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ex. E, p 2. + +In *Chemical Bank*, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92–93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and suggested that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. *Id.* at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena, and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. *Id.* Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard of the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar which dictate that court orders be respected.” *Id.* + +In addressing the government’s application here, [REDACTED] specifically asked whether [REDACTED] had acted as the defendant did in *Chemical Bank*. The prosecutor omitted any mention of his office’s previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe that [REDACTED] had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations, [REDACTED] commented: + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Had known the truth, likely would not have granted the government's application to modify the Protective Order to allow to comply with the subpoena. + +## 3. The government violated due process. + +The government's conduct cannot be squared with elemental due process. U.S. CoNst amend. V. Pursuant to this guarantee, "[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). The government engages in misconduct and violates due process when it materially misrepresents facts before a court. See United States v. Valentine, 820 F.24 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that the government violated due process and reversing conviction when the government mischaracterized the substance of grand jury testimony). + +The prosecutor may well have known that his representations to were false (or at best misleading). But the Assistant U.S. Attorney's personal knowledge doesn't matter. "An individual prosecutor is presumed ... to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the case." United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) ("The prosecutor's office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government."). At the barest minimum, a federal prosecutor has a duty to check the entire file to ensure that his representations to a federal judge, submitted on behalf of the office he serves and under oath, are true and complete. The Assistant U.S. Attorney did not discharge that basic function. + +#### 4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression. + +Incident to its inherent power to superintend proceedings, this Court has the authority to suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation. See, e.g., United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1980) ("The court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar .... [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings ...."); Benlcovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452, at \*2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) ("District courts have 'inherent authority' to impose a variety of sanctions, including ... suppression of evidence ...."). + +It does not matter that the government made its misrepresentations to and not directly to this Court. "As long as a party receives an appropriate hearing, ... the party may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom ...." v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32, 57 (1991). "Courts have held that inherent authority sanctions may be imposed for misconduct in another court where the misconduct is ... in some way related to the case before the sanctioning court." Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260, at \*6 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) (citation and alteration omitted); Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317, \*7 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) ("The inherent power ... can punish conduct before a different court if it is intimately related to the relevant case." (citing Klein, 2017 WL 2834260, at \*4)). Here, the government's misrepresentation to was not simply "related" to Counts Five and Six; only by the government's deception was it able to obtain the factual predicate for those counts. Accordingly, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to suppress that evidence. And it should. + +### B. At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell May Inquire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's Misrepresentations To + +If the Court is disinclined to grant relief on the present record, then at a minimum it should hold an evidentiary hearing to probe the government's misstatements to and the extent to which the prosecutor's office had, in fact, coordinated with = prior to the issuance of the grand jury subpoena. These factual issues go directly to whether the predicate finding for ruling—namely, that no Chemical Bank collusion had occurred—was mistaken. See, e.g., United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) ("An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute."). + +An evidentiary hearing is warranted for an additional reason as well: If it turns out that the prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that had previously approached his office, both before and after the Maxwell depositions, in an effort to stir up a criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratmtm, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions in the warrant or wiretap application were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and, if so, whether any such misstatements or omissions were material."). + +# CONCLUSION + +For these reasons, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained from and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4b56efc90a7046937b951fb4d357bdc64e88fc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/EFTA02830223.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1426 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 34907, + "elapsed_seconds": 49.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO \nSUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA \nTO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 538.80224609375, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 538.80224609375, + 317.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 317.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 191.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 191.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 242.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 242.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.192, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 477.97200000000004, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 477.97200000000004, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 132.192, + 169.29 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 446.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 446.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 371.0866394042969, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 371.0866394042969, + 473.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 473.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 368.86376953125, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 368.86376953125, + 292.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller\u2019s Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 497.5559999999999, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 497.5559999999999, + 128.79 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 128.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Government\u2019s False Statements To [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 446.148, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 446.148, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 405.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 196.10302734375 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 196.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The \nEvidence Obtained From , And Dismiss Counts Five And \nSix, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 524.7928466796875, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 524.7928466796875, + 253.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 253.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 410.53802490234375, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 410.53802490234375, + 280.10302734375 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 280.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The government circumvented the protective order.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 442.77996826171875, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 442.77996826171875, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The government violated due process.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 364.7469787597656, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 364.7469787597656, + 182.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 182.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 512.9827880859375, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 512.9827880859375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell \nMay Inquire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's \nMisrepresentations To", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 117.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 117.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 613.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 613.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830223" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32607b91621819532ccc63d54d1ec034cb8cfa19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830223/_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:644a607096e3167ffa012fbafe0106b982948ed428f007a86891c544b0e2e10f +size 10134 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1ce3b3899740dd9d91887a61de23acf33d80d3f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-------------------------------------------- x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT PERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (Pretrial Motion # 4) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment because the alleged misstatements are not perjurious as a matter of law. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92ad1b1a1813da28bbd4a72ba68c222a2511d7ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246/EFTA02830246.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830246.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1172, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF MOTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 191.60302734375 + ], + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 191.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS \nCOUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE \nALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT PERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW \n(Pretrial Motion # 4)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 529.2210693359375, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 529.2210693359375, + 342.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 342.7330627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830246" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc03bf7f6be51666f2642bbb911ddbd3fe9335db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248/EFTA02830248.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830248.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1631164550781, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1631164550781, + 448.2250061035156 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 448.2250061035156 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830248" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5cd9177fd690b26460acedcc635f4edf2116be5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249/EFTA02830249.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830249.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 442.8788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 442.8788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830249" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d822763df68910e93127fb1ef86544b86d12f33 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250/EFTA02830250.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830250.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 450.0531921386719 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 450.0531921386719 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 8 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830250" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89c6ed4c581a881b136b8e0cb189a305a695ef0d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251/EFTA02830251.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830251.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.6656494140625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.6656494140625, + 444.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 444.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830251" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57f01859c87f25996eef6fb12ee91176b84dd605 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT E FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..851d5c6f7de76143cdbf3c7577d90ea23fe33e03 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252/EFTA02830252.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830252.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 426.6072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 426.6072692871094, + 444.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 444.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830252" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12374dee8482a97db697e59459277e9a041342d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8126f4549f0b09b8e6ec228d49b8f1f118c73905 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253/EFTA02830253.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830253.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT F \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.1656494140625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 429.1656494140625, + 442.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 442.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830253" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0582bb785ae5dd253fb4eaed808068ee6868d5fe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.md @@ -0,0 +1,329 @@ +# EXHIBIT G + +# United States District Court Southern District of New York + +Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS + +v. + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +# DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + +I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: + +- 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. +- 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. +- 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit I, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's February 5, 2016 Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the Re-Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel, Laura Menninger's February 25, 2016 Email Correspondence to Sigrid McCawley. + +6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's proposed Protective Order in redline format and clean format sent to Laura Menninger on February 25, 2016. + +7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's proposed Protective Order in redline format and clean version. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Dated: March 4, 2016 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP + +By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley + +Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 + +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 + +(954) 356-0011 + +David Boles + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +333 Main Street + +Armonk, NY 10504 + +Ellen Brockman + +Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP + +575 Lexington Ave + +New York, New York 10022 + +(212) 446-2300 + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 4, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. + +Laura A. Mennin et% Esq. HADDON, 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenningerkhmflaw.com , P.C. + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley + +# EXHIBIT 5 + +United States District Court +Southern District Of New York + +----- + +[REDACTED], + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +15-ev-07433-RWS + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +----- + +**PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER** + +Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information, including sensitive personal information relating to a victim of sexual abuse, copyright or trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or proprietary information, or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case; + +**Purposes And Limitations** + +The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery. Designations under this Order shall be made sparingly, with care, and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth herein. If it comes to a Designating Party's attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. + +**Formatted:** List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Indent: First line: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double + +## -IT IS ORDERED: + +- 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information. including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +- 1. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. +- 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and imptieates-is covered by common law and statutory privacy ilikW43646-protections of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell or fc) any non-vany that was subject to sexual abuse. +- 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to. investigations by law enforcement. +- 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: + - a. attorneys actively working on this case; + +Formatted: Indent: First hoe: OS, Space Before: 0 pt, Line SpaCing: Double + +- b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case: +- c. the parties; +- d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation. trial or other proceedings in this case: +- C. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; + +f stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; + +gdeporients, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and + +h. any person ( I) who authored or received the particular Protected Material; (2) who has or had at any point in time access to the Protected Material outside of the context of this action; or (3) for which there is a good faith basis to conclude that the individual has earlier received or seen such Protected Material; and + +hi. anv other persons by written agreement of the parties or by Order of a Court of competent iurisdiction. + +- 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and + +Pantatteds Fait 12 at + +agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. + +- 7. Documents arc designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL" Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by number. To the extent practical. the respective legend shall be placed near the number. + +Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party. that there is a valid and good faith basis for such dcsignation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party. and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. + +- 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the + +designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. + +10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. + +A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Tab stops: 1", Left + Not at 0.5" + 0.65" + +Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. + +**11. Challenging Designations Of Protected Material** + +(a) A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of dDiscovery mMaterial under this Order at the time the designation is made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. Moreover, failure to challenge the designation of any dDiscovery mMaterial as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY shall not in any way constitute an admission that such material contains any competitively sensitive information, trade secret information, or other protectable material. + +12. (b) In the event that counsel for the Party receiving CONFIDENTIAL Protected Material objects to the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation of any or all such items, said counsel shall provide the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party written notice of, and the basis for, such objections. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve such objections among themselves. Should the Receiving Party, the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party be unable to resolve the objections, the Receiving Party may seek a hearing before this Court with respect to the propriety of the designation. The + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Normal, No bullets or numbering + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: 1", + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +**Formatted:** Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black + +Designating Party will cooperate in obtaining a prompt hearing with respect thereto. Pending a resolution, the discovery material in question shall continue to be treated as CONFIDENTIALProtemed—Material as provided hereunder. The burden of proving that dDiscovcry mMaterial is properly designated shall at all times remain with the Designating Party. + +12 At the conclusion of this casc, unless other arrangements arc agreed upon. each. document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. + +13. With respect to any dDiscovery mMatcrial produced by such non-party, the non-' party may invoke the terms of this Order in writing to all Panics by designating f1Discovery mMaterial "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". Any such pProtected mMaterial produced by the non-party designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or —HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" shall be subiect to the restrictions contained in this Order and shall only be disclosed or used in a manner consistent with this Order. + +14. In the event that any Producing Party inadvertently produces dDiscoverymMaterial eligible for designation as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY without such designation, the Formatted: Font: 12 pt. Font cola: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt. Fort cola: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Fort cola: Black + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Indent: left: 0.5', Tab stops: I', List tab + Not at 0.5' + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', Hanging: 0.5", Tab stops: I', At tab + Not at 0.S' + +Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Tab stops: I', List tab + Not at 0.5' + +Parties agree that the Producing Party may retroactively apply the correct designation. If a Producing Party makes a subsequent designation. the Receiving Party will treat the Protected Material according to the retroactive designation. including undertaking best efforts to retrieve all previously distributed copies from an recipients now ineligible to access the Protected Material. + +447-15. Limitations. Nothing in this Order shall restrict in any way the use or disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL materiallareteeted-Material by a Receiving Party + +(a) that is or has become publicly known through no fault of the Receiving Party + +(b) that is lawfully acquired by or known to the Receiving Party independent of + +the Producing Party; (c) that was previously produced, disclosed, and/or provided + +by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party or a non-party without an + +obligation of confidentiality and not by inadvertence or mistake: RD with the + +consent of the Producing Party and if different the Designating Party: (e) + +pursuant to Order of the Court: or (f) for purposes of law enforcement. + +447—I6S This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any. + +CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. + +7. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause + +shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. + +Formatted: Font: 12 at + +Formatted: Indent: Left: dr, Hanging br, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +Formatted: Indent: Left: or, Tab stops: It List tab + 6.2r, Right• Net at dr + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +Formatted: Font: Font color: Auto + +Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0 ".Margery: It No bullets or numbering + +BY THE COURT + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE + +--- + +Formatted: Font: 12 pt + +# United States District Court Southern District Of New York + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Chislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant + +15-cv-07433-RWS + +# JPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER + +Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information, including sensitive personal information relating to a victim of sexual abuse, copyright or trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or proprietary information. + +# Purposes And Limitations + +The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery. Designations under this Order shall be made sparingly, with care, and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth herein. If it comes to a Designating Party's attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. + +# IT IS ORDERED: + +- 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +- 2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. +- 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and is covered by common law and statutory privacy protections of + - (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell or + - (c) any non-party that was subject to sexual abuse. +- 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement. +- 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: + - a. attorneys actively working on this case; + +- b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; +- c. the parties; +- d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; +- e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; +- f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; +- g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; +- h. any person (1) who authored or received the particular Protected Material; (2) who has or had at any point in time access to the Protected Material outside of the context of this action; or (3) for which there is a good faith basis to conclude that the individual has earlier received or seen such Protected Material; and +- i. any other persons by written agreement of the panics or by Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. +- 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and + +agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. + +- 7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the number. +- 8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. +- 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the + +designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. + +- 10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. + +# 1 I Challermini,Designations Of Protected Material + +- (a) A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of discovery material under this Order at the time the designation is made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. Moreover, failure to challenge the designation of any discovery material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY shall not in any way constitute an admission that such material contains any competitively sensitive information, trade secret information, or other protectable material. +- (b) In the event that counsel for the Party receiving CONFIDENTIAL Material objects to the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY designation of any or all such items, said + +counsel shall provide the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party written notice of, and the basis for, such objections. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve such objections among themselves. Should the Receiving Party, the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party be unable to resolve the objections, the Receiving Party may seek a hearing before this Court with respect to the propriety of the designation. The Designating Party will cooperate in obtaining a prompt hearing with respect thereto. Pending a resolution, the discovery material in question shall continue to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL as provided hereunder. The burden of proving that discovery material is properly designated shall at all times remain with the Designating Party. + +- 12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. +- 13. With respect to any discovery material produced by such non-party, the non-party may invoke the terms of this Order in writing to all Parties by designating discovery material "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". Any such protected material produced by the + +non-party designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or `HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" shall be subject to the restrictions contained in this Order and shall only be disclosed or used in a manner consistent with this Order. + +- I 4. In the event that any Producing Party inadvertently produces discovery material eligible for designation as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY without such designation, the Parties agree that the Producing Party may retroactively apply the correct designation. If a Producing Party makes a subsequent designation, the Receiving Party will treat the Protected Material according to the retroactive designation, including undertaking best efforts to retrieve all previously distributed copies from any recipients now ineligible to access the Protected Material. +- 15. Limitations. Nothing in this Order shall restrict in any way the use or disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL material by a Receiving Party (a) that is or has become publicly known through no fault of the Receiving Party; (b) that is lawfully acquired by or known to the Receiving Party independent of the Producing Party; + - (c) that was previously produced, disclosed, and/or provided by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party or a non-party without an obligation of confidentiality and not by inadvertence or mistake; (d) with the consent of the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party; (e) pursuant to Order of the Court; or (1) for purposes of law enforcement. + +- 16. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any + +CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. + +- 17. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause + +shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. + +BY THE COURT + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ace790ba5bdf9e329f0468dca244c928a0299d05 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254/EFTA02830254.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1228 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830254.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 26070, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.84, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT G", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court \nSouthern District of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 387.9205627441406, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 387.9205627441406, + 100.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 100.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S \nRESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 283.5 + ], + [ + 517.208251953125, + 283.5 + ], + [ + 517.208251953125, + 311.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 311.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.46499999999997, + 305.14799999999997 + ], + [ + 384.965, + 305.14799999999997 + ], + [ + 384.965, + 339.628 + ], + [ + 206.46499999999997, + 339.628 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court Southern District Of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 177.48, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 177.48, + 171.71999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 350.73 + ], + [ + 322.524, + 350.73 + ], + [ + 322.524, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 362.88 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Purposes And Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 490.86 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "-IT IS ORDERED:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 167.48179626464844, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 167.48179626464844, + 159.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 159.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "11. Challenging Designations Of Protected Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 239.76 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 239.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States District Court \nSouthern District Of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 389.52752685546875, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 389.52752685546875, + 102.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 102.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 410.30316162109375, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 410.30316162109375, + 348.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 348.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Purposes And Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 209.2120361328125, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 209.2120361328125, + 486.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 486.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IT IS ORDERED:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 204.48141479492188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 204.48141479492188, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 I Challermini,Designations Of Protected Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 393.9248962402344, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 393.9248962402344, + 368.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 368.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830254" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28a8bff83606ec38dfca53acf5a4a2cae5e4ca58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT H FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25ea703e2fac61868f6647475528bf7c5158c4cc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277/EFTA02830277.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830277.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT H \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1072692871094, + 442.3788757324219 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 442.3788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830277" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..022fa52c664df440b9f4e884cd0424cf634beb77 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.md @@ -0,0 +1,665 @@ +## EXHIBIT I + +1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +3 + +4 Plaintiff, + +5 v. + +6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +7 Defendant. + +8 + +9 + +10 Before: + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 16 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY + +17 18 HADDON and , P.C. Attorneys for Defendant BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER + +19 20 HOLLAND & KNIGHT Attorneys for Intervenors Julie and Miami Herald Media Company BY: CHRISTINE N. WALZ + +21 22 KRIEGER III & LEWIN, LLP Attorneys for John Doe Defendants BY: PAUL M. KRIEGER + +23 + +24 + +25 + +15 CV 7433 (LAP) + +Telephone Conference + +New York, N.Y. January 19, 2021 10:10 a.m. + +HON. LORETTA A. PRESKA, + +District Judge + +APPEARANCES + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•• (212) 805-0300 + +2 3 THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. + +4 5 Not that you are required to be present, but who is on for + +6 7 8 II. McCAWLEY: Good morning, your Honor. It is Sigrid McCawley from the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner on behalf of + +9 THE COURT: Good morning. + +10 Who is on for Ms. Maxwell, please? + +11 12 13 MS. MENNINGER: Good morning, your Honor, Laura Menninger on behalf of Ms. Maxwell from Haddon and + +14 THE COURT: Good morning. + +15 16 17 18 Counsel, as you know, today the Court announces its rulings on the unsealing of the motions associated with docket entries 231, 279, 315, 320, and 335 in v. Maxwell, as well as the documents relevant to those motions. + +19 20 21 At has become the custom, the Court will announce its general findings relevant to this round of unsealing before marching through its specific findings for each document. + +22 23 24 25 As to the Court's general findings, to determine whether materials should be unsealed, the Court's mandate is to undertake a particularized review of each document and to: (1) evaluate the weight of the presumption of public access to the + +1 2 3 materials; (2) identify and evaluate the weight of any countervailing interests; and (3) determine whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The presumption of public access attaches to judicial documents; that is, those documents filed in accordance with a decided motion or papers that are relevant to the Court's exercise of its inherent supervisory powers. The documents at issue here were submitted in connection with discovery motions decided by Judge Sweet. The Court concludes that they are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 As with the documents that the Court ordered unsealed in July, however, the motions at issue today are, as noted, discovery motions. Accordingly, the presumption of public access is somewhat less weighty than for a dispositive motion. It is, nevertheless, important to the public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of their Article III powers that the public review the documents. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With this presumption of public access in mind, the Court turns to the countervailing interests at stake. The Court has considered the arguments advanced by the parties in their briefing. It has also considered the submission from intervenors Julie and the Miami Herald Media Company. The Court has also received submissions from various Does, in addition to Does 1 and 2, who are under consideration now. + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Those additional Does have asserted privacy interests that purportedly weigh against unsealing their names and related materials. The Court will undertake its review of those submissions when it comes time to consider the unsealing of the names of those Does, after the parties have had a chance to respond to those submissions today. The only nonparty Does the Court has considered for unsealing are Does 1 and 2, who have submitted no formal objection to unsealing, but who did ask belatedly that their names not be revealed. + +10 11 Moving to the countervailing interests advanced by the parties: + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 First, Ms. Maxwell argues that the unsealing of certain documents -- and portions thereof -- will create a "media frenzy" that will unlawfully jeopardize her right to a fair trial, and which will also violate Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Local Rule 23.1 prohibits the release of nonpublic information or opinion where there is a "substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the administration of justice." Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a). By its terms, this rule applies to "lawyers or law firms, "government agents and police officers," "in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated. Id. It is not clear to the Court that this particular rule is applicable to courts' unsealing of these documents, in which the public has long had + +1 2 3 4 5 a First Amendment right to access -- pursuant to the mandate from the Court of Appeals. The Court observes, however, that "the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury selection process" may be a countervailing interest that weighs against public access to documents. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Here, however, the Court rejects Ms. Maxwell's argument that the unsealing of any of the materials under consideration today will jeopardize her right to a fair trial, let alone sufficiently enough to overcome the presumption of public access that attaches to these materials. Ms. Maxwell's observation of the general media coverage of the unsealing process does little to show how the unsealing of any specific information at issue in the current round of unsealing will jeopardize her right to a fair trial that is likely many months away, or why this cannot be cured through the normal processes in place for jury selection. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As a corollary to this countervailing interest, Ms. Maxwell argues that the unsealing process should be put on hold because the Court that is overseeing her criminal prosecution has not yet determined whether these documents will be considered admissible evidence or testimony at trial. The Court finds that this argument is entitled to little weight at this stage with respect to these specific documents. The public's First Amendment right of access to these documents is not outweighed by the prospective inadmissibility of certain of 1 2 3 4 5 them in some later proceeding. In any case, the Court takes comfort in the fact that Ms. Maxwell recognizes that she has the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence at her disposal when the appropriate time comes to fight this fight down the road. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A word about Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition. The full transcript of Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition transcript was submitted as an exhibit annexed to her motion opposing a request to reopen that deposition, at docket entry 340-4. Excerpts of that transcript were also submitted as exhibits to various other briefing. Ms. Maxwell argues that the "privacy interests of those who resist disclosure" -- in the case of her deposition, Ms. Maxwell's interests -- counsel against unsealing deposition transcript. Ms. Maxwell argues that her discussion of certain "intimate matters" during that deposition should remain sealed. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 During this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. As noted earlier, the presumption of public access does attach to this transcript (although, has the Court has observed, to a lesser extent than if it were submitted in connection with a dispositive motion). + +25 Here, however, public access to certain parts of the + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•• (212) 805-0300 + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 transcript is outweighed by Ms. Maxwell's countervailing interests in resisting disclosure of the details of her private, intimate relationships with consenting adults. This testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in v. Maxwell. Although the prurient interest of some may be left unsatiated as a result, Ms. Maxwell's interest in keeping private the details of her sexual relationships with consenting adults warrants the sealing of those portions of her testimony (and any materials that reference them). + +11 12 13 14 15 16 For the sake of efficiency, my will share with the parties a copy of the transcript that highlights the portions of Ms. Maxwell's deposition that should remain redacted. This will avoid, I know you're happy to hear, my reading into the record my line-by-line determinations regarding the full 193-page transcript. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , likewise, asserts certain privacy interests that she argues outweigh the presumption of public access in certain documents. The Court finds, as it did for the last round of motions it considered for unsealing, that privacy interests in her medical records, where they reference the medical treatment she received, outweigh any public interests in those materials. So when I refer to medical information to be redacted, I am referring to information describing medical treatment. The parties agree, + +1 2 however, that references to health care providers in their institutions + +3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 likewise argues that, for certain police reports, the privacy interests of certain persons warrant continued sealing where they were minor victims. Because these police reports were obtained through a public records request, they should be unsealed and docketed in the form that they were received from the law enforcement agency. This is also consistent with the approach that the Court of Appeals has taken. Consistent with the Court of Appeals' approach, other personal information in these police reports, such as addresses, should be redacted from previously undisclosed reports, to the extent such information has not already been redacted by the law enforcement agency. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As for the names and identifying information of nonparty Does: At this stage, unless otherwise noted, the only Does for whom names and identifying information should be unsealed are Does 1 and 2. The Court has already noted that the names of Does 1 and 2, portions of their deposition transcripts, and portions of the Palm Beach police report ascribed to them, have already been made public. Doe 1 gave a press interview about the subject matter of this action. Does 1 and 2 did, belatedly, ask that their names not be disclosed, after the horse was already out of the barn. They were given an additional opportunity to lodge formal objections, but did + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•• (212) 805-0300 + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 not do so. The Court ordered Doe transcript released after undertaking a particularized review of that transcript and finding that the presumption of public access warranted unsealing. Having received no normal objection from Does 1 or 2, the Court cannot discern a justification for continued sealing of their names in this case's documents. Accordingly, the names and identifying information for Does 1 and 2 should be unsealed. + +9 10 11 12 Additionally, Alan Dershowitz's name and information identifying him may be unsealed. By his letter at docket entry 1138, he has requested that redactions of his name in these materials be unsealed in all cases. + +13 14 15 16 Finally, excerpts of any deposition testimony for nonparty Does in the Court of Appeals that has already been unsealed may be unsealed here also with redactions, if any, ordered by the Court of Appeals. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 For efficiency, I will not repeat this caveat as to each document; I will only comment when it is not applicable. Unless there is a specific comment, personal identifying information for all nonparty Does should be redacted, with the exception of Does 1 and 2, Professor Dershowitz, and in deposition testimony already unsealed by the Court of Appeals. + +23 24 25 The other names of Does and identifying information will remain sealed until we move to particularized consideration of those Does. + +1 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The Court will now announce its findings with respect to the sealed documents that are the subject of this motion to unseal. These findings are a result of the Court's particularized review of each of the 156 documents it has considered for unsealing today. + +As before, the Court will proceed in the order of the documents listed on the chart that the parties have provided, listing their respective positions for each document. This chart is Exhibit F to Ms. Menninger's declaration, filed with Ms. Maxwell's reply brief in support of her objections to unsealing. The docket number is 1167-2. + +As before, the Court is grateful to the parties for their assistance in organizing the enormous number of documents for review. It has been a great service to the Court, and I do thank the parties for that. + +As I go through, references to page numbers are going to be those typed on the document, not those numbers assigned by the ECF system. + +Finally, as I go through, I will ask my law clerk, Malone, to interrupt if I am misreading any of this. As you can see, the parties' chart is enormous and has multiple, multiple iterations of findings listed on it. If I am misreading, I will ask Pat to interrupt so we don't have to go back at the end and confuse ourselves even more. + +Here we go. + +1 2 3 4 5 6 Document No. 231, motion for sanctions. Unseal and redact only medical information and the names and identifying information of nonparty Does, except for 1, 2 and Dershowitz. I am not going to say this every time, the except for Does 1 and 2 and Dershowitz. I am only going to say names and identifying information for nonparties. + +7 8 Docket entry 232. Declaration of Ms. Menninger. Same. Redact names and identifying information of nonparties. + +9 10 11 232-7. Excerpts from deposition. This deposition has been unsealed and, as redacted, is at docket entry 1090-32. Same. Same. + +12 13 Document 232-8. This is a transcript of a nonparty Doe. We are not up to that Doe yet. Keep it sealed. + +14 15 sealed. 232-9. medical records shall remain + +16 232-10. Same. More of medical records. + +17 18 23-11. Excerpts from the deposition of Dr. Steven Olson. Unseal the deposition as both sides agree. + +19 20 255. Letter motion to seal documents. It is not sealed. It will, of course, remain unsealed. + +21 22 23 257. Response in opposition to the motion for sanctions. Unseal and redact only medical information and names and identifying information of nonparties. + +24 25 258. Declaration of Ms. McCawley. Unseal and redact only names and identifying information of nonparties. I will + +1 2 3 just note here that material relating to Detective Recarey may be unsealed because, of course, he is not a Doe but a law enforcement official. + +4 5 258-1. Deposition of a Doe. We are not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +6 Same for 258-2. Not up to the Doe. + +7 Same for 258-1. The deposition will remain sealed. + +8 9 I'm sorry. That was 258-3. Forgive me. It was the deposition of a Doe. + +10 11 258-4, Detective Recarey's deposition. Unseal except for names and identifying information of nonparties. + +12 13 258-5. Correspondence to Ms. Menninger. Unseal but redact medical information. + +14 15 258-6. Medical release information. Unseal but redact medical information and addresses. + +16 17 258-7. The signed medical releases. Unseal but redact the tax returns and addresses. + +18 258-8. Keep sealed. That's medical records. + +19 20 258-9. Excerpts of a deposition of a Doe. Keep sealed. We are not up to that Doe yet. + +21 22 258-10. Excerpts from Dr. Steven Olson's deposition. Unseal but redact the medical information. + +23 24 25 261. Response in opposition to the motion for sanctions. Unseal and redact medical information and names, identifying information and deposition testimony of nonparties. 1 2 I will note that in this document, but for the redactions that I just talked about, the arguments section may be unsealed. + +3 4 5 269. Reply and response to the motion for sanctions. Unseal but redact the medical information, including the treatment noted on page 2 in the text. + +6 7 270. Declaration of Ms. Menninger. Both parties agree to unseal. + +8 9 270-1. Medical records of shall remain sealed. + +10 11 270-2. deposition previously unsealed at docket entry 10, 90-32, with the same redactions. + +12 13 270-3. A subpoena served on Dr. Olson. Unsealed, but redact the address. + +14 15 16 270-4. A chart regarding counsel's statements concerning health care providers' identities and records. Both parties agree to unseal. + +17 18 270-6. Documents produced, both sides agree to unseal. + +19 20 272. Letter motion for leave to file a surreply. Unsealed. Wasn't sealed to begin with. + +21 22 23 272-1. surreply on the sanctions motion. Unseal and redact only medical information and names and identifying information of nonparties. + +24 25 272-2. Declaration of Ms. McCawley in reply. Both sides agree to unseal. + +2 272-4. Excerpts from Dr. Olson's deposition. + +3 Unsealed but redact the medical information. + +4 272-5. Defendant's supplemental memorandum of law. + +5 Already publicly filed. + +6 272-6. January 14, 2016 hearing transcript. Already + +7 publicly filed. + +8 272-7. Defendant's response to plaintiff's + +9 interrogatories. + +10 Forgive me, counsel. + +11 Attaches the medical information therein. + +12 272-8. Medical records shall remain sealed. + +13 14 272-9. Correspondence which may be unsealed by the agreement of the parties. Correspondence between Bernadette + +15 and Meredith + +16 272-10. Excerpts from deposition. + +17 Already publicly filed at docket entry 1090-32. + +18 Document 303. Response to the letter motion. + +19 Unsealed but redact the medical information. + +20 21 304. Declaration of Ms. Menninger in support of the motion for sanctions. Both parties agree to unseal. + +22 23 304-1. Excerpts from Dr. Olson's deposition. Unseal but redact the medical information. + +24 25 304-2. Same. Dr. Olson. Keep sealed because it has medical records. + +2 304-4. Letter from Ms. Menninger to + +3 Unsealed but redact the medical information. + +4 5 313. Supplemental authority. That has already been publicly filed. + +6 7 313-1. Plaintiff's supplemental responses to interrogatories. Unsealed but redact the medical information. + +8 9 279. Motions for an adverse instruction. Unseal in full. + +10 11 12 280. Declaration of on the adverse inference instruction. Unseal but redact names and identifying information and testimony of nonparties. + +13 14 15 16 280-1. Correspondence with Ms. Menninger. Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of nonparties, including search terms that might disclose the nonparties. + +17 18 Counsel, I am going to do an aside here because I forgot something else. + +19 20 21 22 With respect to Ms. Maxwell's deposition, you are to redact the index. As we know, that might lead to premature identification of Does and, in any event, I do not believe that Judge Sweet relied on the index in making his rulings. + +23 24 25 280-1. Correspondence with Ms. Menninger. Same thing. Unseal and redact only names and identifying information of nonparties, including search terms. + +1 2 3 280-2. These are Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office public records. Unseal in the same manner as the Second Circuit allowed the unsealing. + +4 288. Letter motion regarding discovery. Not sealed. + +5 288-1. E-mail correspondence. Not sealed. + +6 288-2. More e-mail correspondence. Not sealed. + +7 8 289. Letter motion in response to the motion to seal. Not sealed. + +9 10 290. Letter response in opposition to the motion. Redact identifying information and e-mail addresses. + +11 291. Declaration of . Not sealed. + +12 13 291-1. E-mail correspondence from Ms. Menninger. The parties agree unsealed. I think it was not sealed. + +14 15 16 291-2. Letter correspondence from Unseal in full except for paragraph 1 under document request No. 1. Should remain sealed. + +17 18 19 291-3. Letter correspondence from Unseal and redact only names and identifying information of nonparties. + +20 300. Letter to Judge Sweet. Not sealed. + +21 300-1:2. E-mail correspondence. Not sealed. + +22 337. Letter motion. Not sealed. + +23 24 25 338. Memorandum of law in support of the adverse inference motion. Redact names and identifying information of nonparties and excerpts from their testimony. Redact e-mail + +1 2 addresses but, as a side note, material relating to Detective Recarey may be unsealed. + +3 4 338-1. Ms. McCawley's declaration. Unseal and redact names and identifying information with respect to nonparties. + +5 338-2. Unseal in full. Correspondence from Ty Gee. + +6 7 338-3. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's deposition. As with the full transcript, same here. + +8 9 338-4. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's July deposition. Same. Same. + +10 11 338-5. Excerpts from a Doe's deposition. We are not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +12 13 14 338-6. Excerpts from Detective Recarey's deposition. Unseal and redact only names of identifying information of nonparties. + +15 16 338-7. Excerpts from a Doe's deposition. Not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +17 18 19 338-8. Excerpts from the deposition of Doe No. 1. Unseal and redact only names and identifying information of nonparties. + +20 21 338-9. Testimony of a Doe. Keep sealed. Not up to that Doe yet. + +22 23 338-10. This is a subpoena. Both sides agree it may be unsealed. + +24 25 353. Motion to strike. Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of the nonparties. + +1 2 375. Response in opposition to the motion to strike. Not sealed. + +3 4 5 6 7 8 Document No. 77. I think it's docket entry 315. Motion to compel. Unseal and redact the names and identifying information of nonparties and their testimony. Page 12. The last bullet point shall remain redacted. It relates to private conduct. Argument may be unsealed. The public Vanity Fair article may be unsealed. + +9 10 316. declaration. Unseal and redact the names and identifying information of the nonparties. + +11 12 316-1. Excerpts from a Does deposition. We are not up to that Doe yet. Remain sealed. + +13 14 15 Document No. 80. Forgive me. I don't have the docket entry, but it is composite Exhibit 2. It's excerpts from a Doe's deposition. Not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +16 17 18 316-3. Excerpts from Detective Recarey's deposition. Unseal except for names and identifying information of nonparties. + +19 20 316-4. Excerpts of a Doe deposition. Not up to that Doe. Keep sealed. + +21 22 23 Document No. 83, which is composite Exhibit 5. These are excerpts from Doe l's deposition. Apparently, the Second Circuit already released them without redactions. + +24 25 316-6. June 20, 2016 order from Judge Sweet. This was filed at docket entry 264-1 and the same redactions shall + +2 3 316-7. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's deposition. As with the entire transcript. + +4 5 6 7 8 Document No. 86, which is composite Exhibit 8. Messages involving the defendant. Portions of this document were redacted and released by the Second Circuit. So whatever happened with respect to the Second Circuit's release, we will abide by its ruling. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 339. Response in opposition to the motion to compel. Unseal and redact the names, identifying information, and testimony of the nonparties. With respect to Ms. Maxwell's depositions, as ordered for the whole transcript. The objections to questions 9, 10, and 11 will remain sealed because it relates to Ms. Maxwell's intimate conduct. + +15 16 The material on pages 17 to 19, the shaded material there shall remain sealed. Same reason. + +17 18 19 Pages 20 to 23. Testimony from or about the Does. The shaded material shall remain sealed except for Detective Recarey. + +20 21 22 23 340. Declaration of Mr. Pagliuca. Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of the nonparties. I will note Detective Recarey is in there and Ms. Maxwell's depositions are in there, but those rulings are already out. + +24 25 340-1. deposition. This was already unsealed by us on docket entry 1090-32. + +2 340-4. Ms. Maxwell's deposition. As before. + +3 340-5. Deposition of a Doe. Not up to that Doe yet. + +4 Keep sealed. + +5 340-6. Detective Recarey's deposition. Unseal with + +6 the redaction of names and identifying information of + +7 nonparties. + +8 Document 94, Exhibit G in that series, that is Doe l's + +9 deposition. As before, unseal and redact only names and + +10 identifying information of nonparties. + +11 340-8. Nonparty Does deposition. Not up to that Doe + +12 yet. Keep sealed. + +13 Document 96, Exhibit I in that series. Deposition of + +14 a Doe. Not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +15 368. Reply memorandum of law. Unseal and redact only + +16 the names and identifying information and summaries of + +17 testimony of nonparties. By way of note, the argument may be + +18 unsealed, subject to the caveats. Detective Recarey may be + +19 unsealed, subject to the caveats. + +20 369. Declaration of Ms. McCawley. Unseal and redact + +21 only the names and identifying information of the nonparties. + +22 369-1. Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition. As + +23 before. + +24 369-2. Sealed court order. That has already been + +25 filed at docket entry 264-1. 1 2 369-3. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's June 2016 deposition. As before. + +3 4 369-4. Excerpts from a Doe's deposition. Not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +5 6 Same with 269-5. Another Doe we are not up to yet. Keep sealed. + +7 8 9 10 369-6. This is depositions of a Doe. The Second Circuit has already released this transcript, so it remains released subject to the redactions ordered by the Second Circuit. + +11 12 369-7. Excerpts from Doe l's deposition. The Second Circuit already released this transcript without redactions. + +13 14 15 369-8. Excerpts of the deposition of a Doe. The Second Circuit already released this transcript without redactions. + +16 17 369-9. Flight logs. This document was also released by the Second Circuit without redactions. + +18 19 20 21 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Judge, I need to interrupt. I was just informed that apparently somebody is broadcasting this on to YouTube, so I don't know if you want to give a reminder that that is illegal to do. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Whoever is doing it, you are operating against the law. I suspect there is a way to find out. So I will ask you, most respectfully, to stop doing it. We have had enough of lack of the rule of law around here. Let's try to + +2 3 4 I think we are up to 369-10. This is a January 22, 2015 Daily Mail article. That may be unsealed in full but, apparently, it's publicly available anyway. + +5 6 7 369-11. Excerpts from Detective Recarey's deposition. Same. Same. Unseal and redact names and identifying information of nonparties. + +8 9 369-12. Excerpts from a deposition of a Doe. We are not up to that Doe. Remain sealed. + +10 11 369-13. Excerpts from the deposition of a Doe. We are not up to that Doe yet. Keep sealed. + +12 Same with 369-14. Another Doe. + +13 369-15. Another Doe. + +14 15 And 369-16, another Doe. We are not up to any of those yet. Those transcripts shall remain sealed. + +16 17 18 19 320. This is defendant's submission regarding search terms. Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of nonparties. People's e-mails, including Ms. Maxwell's, should be redacted. + +20 21 22 321. Ms. Menninger's declaration. Unseal and keep redacted the e-mail addresses and any names, identifying information, or e-mail addresses of nonparties. + +23 24 25 321-1. Correspondence from . Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of nonparties and Ms. Maxwell's e-mail address. + +1 2 3 321-2. Correspondence from Ms. Menninger to . Unseal and redact only the names and identifying information of nonparties. + +4 5 6 7 Same with 321-3, 321-4, 321-5. That's all correspondence between the lawyers and it should be unsealed and the names and identifying information of nonparties redacted. + +8 9 10 321-6. Search terms. Unseal and redact only the names, identifying information, including identifying information in the search terms of nonparties. + +11 322. Motion to seal document. Not sealed. + +12 13 14 323. Submission of proposed search terms. Same thing. Unseal and redact the names, identifying information of nonparties, including search terms that might disclose it. + +15 329. Letter to Judge Sweet. Not sealed. + +16 335. Motion for a protective order. Unseal. + +17 18 336. Declaration of Ms. McCawley. Both sides agree to unseal it. + +19 20 336-1. Correspondence between the lawyers. The parties agree to unseal. + +21 22 336-2. Correspondence between the lawyers. The parties agree to unseal. + +23 24 336-3. Correspondence from Ty Gee to Meredith . The parties agree to unseal. + +25 380. Response in opposition to the motion for the + +2 3 381. Ms. Menninger's declaration. The parties agree to unseal. + +4 5 6 We are now coming upon a group of Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office records and later Fremont County police reports. + +7 And the answer to all of this is going to be unseal. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 This applies to 381-1, 381-2, 381-3, 381-4, 381-5, 381-6, 381-7, all of which were Palm Beach County police records and 381-8, which is a Fremont County police record. Unseal all of that. As I said at the outset, as produced. So to the extent that the producing agency redacted material, it should remain redacted. + +14 15 392. Reply memo of the law. Unseal but redact names and identifying information of nonparties. + +16 17 393. Declaration of Ms. McCawley. Unseal but redact names and identifying information of nonparties. + +18 19 20 393-1. These were unsealed by the Second Circuit and shall remain unsealed, subject to the redactions ordered by the circuit on page 24 of the composite exhibit. + +21 22 393-2. These are flight logs. They were released by the Second Circuit without redactions. + +23 24 393-3. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition. As with the entire transcript. + +25 393-4. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's April 22, 2016 + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300 + +2 3 4 5 400. Motion for leave to file a surreply. In the introduction, the sentence beginning "Ms. Maxwell never admitted" shall remain sealed. It relates to private, intimate conduct. + +6 7 Pages 1 to 2. The material under No. 1 relating to Ms. Maxwell's adult conduct shall remain sealed. + +8 9 Item 3. Detective Recarey's material. Unsealed, other than the names and identifying information of nonparties. + +10 11 Item 4. Shall remain sealed. We are not up to this Doe yet. + +12 13 Item 5. Shall remain sealed. We are not up to this Doe yet. + +14 Item 6. Unseal. Relates to Doe No. 1. + +15 16 Item 7. Shall remain sealed. We are not up to this Doe yet. + +17 18 19 20 21 The last sentence in paragraph 1 under argument may be unsealed. The next sentence, the material relating to adult consensual behavior, should be redacted. And by way of notation, Detective Recarey's information may be unsealed except for names and identifying information of nonparties. + +22 23 401-1. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition. As with the whole transcript. + +24 25 401-2. Excerpts from Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition. As with the entire transcript. + +1 2 3 401-3. Excerpts from Detective Recarey's deposition. These pages were released by the Second Circuit without redactions. + +4 5 401-4. Excerpts from the depositions of the Doe. We are not up to that Doe yet. Remain sealed. + +6 7 8 401-5. Excerpts from the deposition of Doe No. 1. Unseal and redact only names and identifying information of nonparties. + +9 10 401-6. Excerpts of the deposition of a Doe. We are not up to that Doe yet. So it shall remain sealed. + +11 12 13 14 15 Counsel, may I ask you to proceed as you did last time, confer, and prepare the documents for unsealing pursuant to this order, and post the documents within a week on the public docket. As before, give them an appropriate name, such as documents ordered unsealed on January 19. + +16 Counsel, are there any questions? + +17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. MENNINGER: I have two housekeeping questions, I think. I recognize your Honor just said one week. If it's possible to ask for one week and one day. We have all of our motions due in Ms. Maxwell's criminal case next Monday. And the burden on my paralegal staff to get these redactions done at the same time, one extra day would be very helpful. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: If that's all you need, one day, that's fine. If you need a couple more, confer with Ms. McCawley and just let me know. Certainly you have the one day. + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, when will the Court be providing us with that line itemed deposition? The reason I ask is, we would just ask for a couple days after we receive that to analyze -- I think an appeal looks unlikely. But once we see the redactions, we would have to make that determination and confer with Ms. Maxwell, who is in custody, as you know. I would just ask for a little bit of leeway to be able to do those two things. + +9 10 11 THE COURT: Yes, . I expect you will receive it in the next day or two. But if you don't and you need extra time, let me know. + +12 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. + +13 14 15 16 The last one, your Honor, is with regards, since we are all together, to the issue of the third round of unsealing. Because we already provided notice to Does 1 and 2, we are not providing notice to them, I understand. + +17 18 19 20 But there is a little bit of a gray area within the protocol as to how to calculate days for objections because they normally flow from the date on which a nonparty receives notice. + +21 22 23 24 And so if I could ask for a date certain, preferably, given the other obligations, a week from this Friday, that would allow us enough time to get those objections done as well. + +25 THE COURT: Ms. McCawley, is that OK with you? + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300 + +2 3 is done. I also have one housekeeping matter once Ms. Menninger + +4 THE COURT: A week from Friday is fine with me. + +5 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you. Those were all that I had. + +6 THE COURT: Ms. McCawley. + +7 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 My question relates to those Does in the bucket that did not object. Each time we go through these, obviously, there is a burden to redact those names, which is lessened if we don't have to worry about the individuals who have not objected. is there a mechanism by which we can address that so we won't have to labor through those in each section? + +14 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, what do you have to say? + +15 16 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think the parties have taken two pretty different views of this. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 One, Ms. McCawley asked in her briefing on this round that if someone didn't file an objection, then we should release their names. As I pointed out in another letter to your Honor on this topic, it's apparent that many of the Does didn't actually receive the notice from the Court. And so I still believe that the Court has to evaluate, as the Second Circuit did, Does even if we didn't receive an objection from them. + +25 So, unfortunately, I think it still means we go + +> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300 + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 through in the order that we have been doing, move on to the next Does, for example. And if a party, like Professor Dershowitz, has made clear that they do not object, then certainly we understand those should be unsealed. But for many of these nonparties we know for a fact that they did not actually receive the notice, despite everyone's best efforts to get them notice. + +8 9 10 11 12 So I would say that, unfortunately, we still need to continue to redact them until we take up those particular Does in the future and your Honor has an opportunity to do the particularized review that the protocol promised would happen with respect to nonparties, whether or not they objected. + +13 THE COURT: Ms. McCawley. + +14 15 16 17 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. I think it's analogous to this situation where we have got a party who is saying they are not objecting. They have the notice. They received it. They did not object. And the burden on the Court and the parties to go through this process -- + +19 20 THE COURT: You broke up a little bit. Would you go back. Somebody has another device on. + +21 22 Ms. McCawley, would you go back to the burden on the Court and the parties, please. + +23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. The burden on the Court and the parties is extensive with respect to this grouping of individuals who have not objected. So it seems to 1 2 3 4 5 6 me to make the most sense for us to look at that group and not have to go through the burden of redacting as to those individuals with each round. We can address them in one setting in some manner. Then we wouldn't have to be in each round redacting and paying attention to people who have no objection on the file. + +7 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, anything else? + +8 9 10 11 12 13 MS. MENNINGER: I just think there is a big difference between people who have not objected affirmatively, like Professor Dershowitz, and those from whom we have heard nothing or received back no confirmation that they received the notice from the Court. I think we need to treat those groups differently. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 With respect to people who affirmatively want their name out there, fine, I have no problem. For those who have not just simply not responded, we know for the half that we served, in approximately half of the cases we never received, despite a return receipt requested, any confirmation that they actually received the notice. + +20 21 MR. KRIEGER: Your Honor, if I may have a brief minute to respond. + +22 THE COURT: Yes, sir. + +23 24 25 MR. KRIEGER: Your Honor, I just want to echo Ms. Menninger's points that the mere fact that a Doe doesn't object, even if they have received notice, doesn't mean that 1 2 3 4 5 6 the Court is not obliged to do the balancing test that the Court has so carefully done today and previously. The fact that someone there is going to be many reasons why a party doesn't want to weigh in, and it doesn't absolve the Court and the parties from the obligation of taking those steps, even if it is a burden. That's part of the process here, Judge. + +7 THE COURT: Anything else, counsel? + +8 9 MS. WALSH: Christine Walsh from Holland & Knight, on behalf of the Miami Herald. + +10 11 12 13 14 We do agree with Ms. McCawley that the process seems to be duplicative with regards to the Does who are not responding that the Court will need to go back and revisit documents that are being released piecemeal. And if there is not objections, those should be considered at one time. + +15 THE COURT: Anything else, counsel? + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. One more option for you to consider, with Ms. Menninger raising the concern about people who we didn't get a return receipt from. We can also segregate out those for whom we did get a return receipt from, meaning they received it, we got the return receipt, and they did not object, so we would have that body. If that's a concern for the Court, we could narrow it at least somewhat. + +23 THE COURT: Anything else, counsel? + +24 25 Thank you. Some of you have taken the words right out of my mouth. + +1 2 3 4 First, there is a difference between people like Professor Dershowitz, who say affirmatively, I don't care, let it all out, and people from whom we just have not heard, whether they received the documents or not. + +5 6 7 8 9 Secondly, I understand that my direction from the Court of Appeals is to make a particularized finding. I don't think i can weigh the countervailing interests of any particular Doe without considering that particular Doe by himself or herself. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, I don't think we can lump them together. Should we receive indications from other Does that they affirmatively have no objection to release of their material, that makes it easy. But, otherwise, we have to go through them, and I have to make a particularized finding. It will be a long, tedious process, but even this time I think it went a little more quickly. + +17 Anything else, counsel? + +18 19 Thank you, counsel, and thank you again for your assistance in organizing the documents. Good morning. + +20 (Adjourned) + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e8c04aee51fd933682cc50cff2b3f1a65a7250f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278/EFTA02830278.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1170 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830278.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 33, + "chars": 40460, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 382.9814758300781, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 382.9814758300781, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830278" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..934624fa675c35e63d01bfceb15e3643f4417f86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT J FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3747c7839d6907eb05a20bc0eab7c81380140c08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311/EFTA02830311.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830311.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT J \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 441.8788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 441.8788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830311" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07309f4fe873445073f336dab78c8dfa8b3fafcd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT, FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54ac9d18341ab731fd0b652b43d0ad1cf91dc9d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312/EFTA02830312.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830312.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 28, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT, \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.66, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 430.6072692871094, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 430.6072692871094, + 441.8788757324219 + ], + [ + 186.66, + 441.8788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830312" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73c7272082b26cf92121df8921827839ead9c943 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.md @@ -0,0 +1,482 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT PERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennir.r. HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | i | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| TABLE OF EXHIBITS | iv | +| INTRODUCTION | I | +| FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND | i | +| I. The Underlying Civil Defamation Action | I | +| A. Plaintiff's Claims | I | +| . Maxwell's Depositions | 3 | +| II. The Indictment | 6 | +| III. Post-Indictment Proceedings in the Civil Case | 7 | +| ARGUMENT | 8 | +| I. Poorly Worded Questions and Literally Truthful Responses Cannot Support a Perjury | | +| Prosecution | 8 | +| A. Legal Authority | 8 | +| B. Count Five | 9 | +| sexual massages? If you know." | 9 | +| interacted with at any of:Jeffrey's properties?" | 11 | +| C. Count Six | 13 | +| I. Questions About | 13 | +| 2. Questions About | 15 | +| 3. Questions About | 17 | +| D. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed | 18 | +| II. None of the Questions or Answers Were Material | 19 | +| A. Materiality | 19 | +| B. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed | 20 | +| CONCLUSION | 21 | +| Certificate of Service | 22 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) | 8, 9 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| Deep S. Oil Co of Tex v. Metro. Life Ins Co., 25 F.R.D. 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) | 13 | +| v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y) | 1, 7, | +| United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643 (11th Cir. 1984) | 8 | +| United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) | 19 | +| United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) | 18, 19 | +| United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) | 19 | +| United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) | 8, 17 | +| United States v. Nitschke, 843 F. Supp. 2d. 4 (D.D.C. 2011) | 19 | +| United States v. Sainz, 772 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1985) | 8 | +| United States v. Stern, No. 03 Cr. 81, 2003 WL 22743897 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2003) | 19 | +| United States v. Tonelli, 577 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1978) | 8 | +| United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1970) | 8, 17 | +| United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1997) | 18 | + +#### Statutes + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 | 12 | +|--------------------------|----| +| Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) | 10 | +| Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 | 12 | +| Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 | 12 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b) | 19 | + +| Fed. R. Evid. 106 | 20 | +|-----------------------|----| +| Fed. R. Evid. 602 | 9 | +| Thefreedictionary.com | 16 | + +### TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT A: + +EXHIBIT B: + +EXHIBIT C: + +EXHIBIT D: + +EXHIBIT E: + +EXHIBIT F: + +EXHIBIT G: Proposed Protective Order (15-cv-7433-LAP) + +EXHIBIT li: + +EXHIBIT I: January 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript (I5-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y)) + +EXHIBIT J: + +EXHIBIT K: + +### INTRODUCTION + +Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") allege that Ghislaine Maxwell committed perjury by testifying falsely in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. According to the prosecution, these false statements were made in a civil defamation lawsuit against Ms. Maxwell when she responded to questions in her depositions on April 22, 2016 (Count Five) and was compelled by court order, with the promise of confidentiality by the Court and plaintiff's counsel, to respond to additional, immaterial questions in a second deposition on July 22, 2016 (Count Six). These counts fail, as a matter of law, because the questions posed were ambiguous, the answers given were true, and both the questions and answers were immaterial to the defamation action. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +# FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND + +# I. The Underlying Civil Defamation Action + +# A. Plaintiff's Claims + +In 2015, filed an action in this District alleging that Ghislaine Maxwell had defamed her. The alleged defamation centered on a statement from Ms. Maxwell's attorney denying as "untrue" and "obvious lies" demonstrably false claims about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and others, including that she had been sexually trafficked to foreign presidents and award-winning scientists. The complaint alleged generally that Epstein "sexually abused" between 1999 and 2002 and that Epstein abused more than 30 girls between 2001 and 2007.E + +Over the course of discovery in the defamation action, it became obvious that (and her lawyers) had lied or misstated critical facts including, inter alia, her age, the various + +' See v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y), Doc. # 001 at ¶ 9. + +men with whom she claimed to have had sex with and those with whom she had consorted. For example: + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] apparently ascribed to the "too big to fail" theory of falsehoods and there are too many other examples of [Redacted] patently false lies to document here. Notably, [Redacted] stands alone among the many accusers of Mr. Epstein to have claimed that she was + +--- + +2 Sharon Churcher, "Teenage girl recruited by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton," Daily Mail Online (Mar. 5, 2011) () + +"trafficked" to third party dignitaries, politicians and academics.3 Suffice it to say, had the defamation matter proceeded to trial, Ms. Maxwell would have had no difficulty demonstrating that had publicly made allegations that were "untrue" and "obvious lies:' defeating any civil liability. + +Because could not prove the truth of her own statements, she and her lawyers attempted to convert what should have been a relatively straightforward factual question—the truth of Ms. Maxwell's denial of fantastical allegations—into a claim that was "sexually trafficked" by Epstein to other men. This attempt, however, involved inadmissible and improper evidence, which was the subject of approximately 50 motions that remained undecided at the time that the defamation action was dismissed. + +# M. Maxwell's Depositions + +It is in this context—a weak defamation claim—that Ms. Maxwell was deposed twice. Before her first deposition, however, the Court granted at Ms. Maxwell's request a protective order to shield any "confidential" information from what was sure to be a high-publicity, media circus. Case No. 15-cv-7433, Doc. # 38. Plaintiff opposed Ms. Maxwell's proposed protective order, instead urging the Court to permit disclosure of "confidential" information in relation to "investigations by law enforcement." Id., Doc. # 40 at 3-4. Ms. Maxwell opposed this provision, and ultimately, the Protective Order was entered without proposed law enforcement exception. Ex. G. + +3 At present in a neighboring courtroo is embroiled in another defamation suit, this time against Professor Alan Dershowitz. See v. Dewrshowitz, Case No. 19-cv-3377-LAP. But Professor Dershowitz has counterclaimed against her for defamation and related torts. Id. Doc. # 90 & 127. In that matter Prof ss Dershowitz recently filed an affidavit and transcript which document ill to whom sold her story about Epstein and Maxwell revealing that she believes and her lawyers fabricated evidence including her story about Professor Dershowitz. Id. at Doc. # 210-1, 210-2. + +During the first deposition on April 22, 2016, the subject of Count 5 of the Indictment, Ms. Maxwell was peppered with ambiguous questions about decades-old events in unidentified locations at unspecified times. The questions contained argumentative, loaded words and phrases that lawyers refused to define or clarify and asked Ms. Maxwell to speculate about Epstein's intent and state of mind. The vast majority of the questions had nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of the claims of Maxwell pointed out as "obvious lies." Counsel for Ms. Maxwell was required to object to hundreds of questions that suffered from a myriad of form and/or foundational infirmities. Ms. Maxwell, when sitting for these depositions, knew she had done nothing wrong and was unaware that lawyers were encouraging the Government to initiate a criminal investigation .° And had, no motive to lie in response, particularly given that Epstein had long ago served a prison sentence in Florida arising out of the same conduct that was the subject of the defamation action. + +Although a few lines of that first deposition testimony are quoted in the Indictment, the Government improperly redacted objections to the questions and omitted important preceding and following pages of testimony. The omitted portions of the transcript include numerous objections and requests for clarification regarding terms that the Government selectively quotes in the Indictment, such as "scheme," "recruit," and "sexual massage." The two answers that the Government claims were knowingly and materially false statements were "I don't know what + +Stephen Rex =, "Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources," New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) (hitps://www.nydailynews.cominew-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013 jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7ye6bfnszu-stoty.html)(detailing David Boies' purported efforts to urge the SDNY US Attorney's Office to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in February 2016, shortly before her first deposition, and again after her second deposition, arguing in apparent violation of the protective order that she had committed perjury during her "confidential" depositions). + +you’re talking about” and an inability to “list” (sixteen years after the fact) “all of the people under the age of 18” that she interacted with at “any of Jeffrey [Epstein’s] property.” + +Because Ms. Maxwell had refused, on advice of counsel, to answer irrelevant questions at that April 2016 deposition that concerned her consensual adult sexual activity with others including Mr. Epstein, [REDACTED] counsel sought a second deposition a short time later. Ms. Maxwell opposed the second deposition and argued that her private adult consensual sexual activity had no relation to the defamation lawsuit. Ultimately, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ms. Maxwell sat for this second deposition on July 22, 2016. The testimony was marked “Confidential.” Again, plaintiff vastly exceeded the bounds of the permitted topics, including in the questions that are quoted in Count 6 of the Indictment. The excerpts reproduced in the Indictment, as with Count 5, similarly ignore the questions, answers, and objections that occurred over the course of the deposition, as well as other objections in the case concerning the relevant time frame for discovery purposes. + +In mid-2016 after this second deposition, according to media reports, lawyers urged the Government to charge Ms. Maxwell with perjury based on her testimony.3 It is unclear how the attorneys could have done so without violating the protective order, which forbade them from sharing the contents of these "confidential" depositions with law enforcement. + +### II. The Indictment + +Count Five of the Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell made two false statements during the first deposition in April 2016. Count 5 alleges that the following italicized testimony by Ms. Maxwell was both material and false: + +- Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. +- A. 1 don't know what you're talking about. +- Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? +- A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +Indictment ,' 21. + +Count Six alleges that Ms. Maxwell gave false testimony during a subsequent deposition in the same action in July 2016. Count Six alleges that the following italicized testimony from that deposition was both material and false: + +- Q. Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? +- A. No, not that I recall. ... +- Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +supra n.4. + +A. No. + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. .. . + +Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave (Minor Victim-21 a massage. + +!di 23. + +### III. Post-Indictment Proceedings in the Civil Case + +As the Court is already well-aware based on prior litigation, Judge Preska currently is overseeing both the remand unsealing proceedings in the v. Maxwell case as well as the v. Dershowitz matter. Last week, Judge Preska issued a ruling in connection with the request from and the Miami Herald to unseal the second Maxwell deposition from July 2016. As is pertinent here, Judge Preska ruled: + +"During this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. . . . This testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in v. Maxwell." + +Ex. I, Case No.15-cv-7433, Tr. of Jan. 19, 2021 Hearing at 6-7 (emphasis supplied). After finding that the questions were "far afield" from the allegations in the case, Judge Preska kept sealed or redacted the entire testimony that forms the basis of Count 6. + +### ARGUMENT + +### I. Poorly Worded Questions and Literally Truthful Responses Cannot Support a Perjury Prosecution + +# A. Legal Authority + +In the Second Circuit, "a perjury conviction which might have been based on questions that were ambiguous or on responses that were literally truthful may not be sustained." United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 369 (2d Cir. 1986). The Lighte panel reversed a perjury conviction, holding that some of the questions giving rise to the allegedly perjurious testimony were "fundamentally ambiguous" and should never have been submitted to the jury." Id. at 375- 77. "When a line of questioning is so vague as to be `fundamentally ambiguous,' the answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support the perjury conviction." Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970)). + +Where ambiguity exists on the questioner's part, the test is whether the question, as the declarant objectively understood it, is falsely answered. Perjury does not exist by implication. + +A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture of whether any unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether he does not believe his answer to be true. + +Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 358-60 (1973); see also United States v. Sainz, 772 F.2d 559, 564 (9th Cir. 1985) (declarant's testimony cannot be perjurious when declarant made to guess at question's meaning); United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643, 654 (11th Cir. 1984) (questioning cannot be vague or ill-defined); United States v. Tonelli, 577 F.2d 194, 199-200 (3d + +Cir. 1978) (deciding prosecutor's question whether accused "handled" checks too ambiguous; accused could justifiably infer "handled" meant "touched"). + +Moreover, "a perjury conviction must rest on the utterance by the accused of a false statement; it may not stand on a particular interpretation that a questioner places upon an answer." Id. at 374 (citing Bronston, 409 U.S. at 360). "[A]ny special problems arising from the literally true but unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the 'questioner's acuity' and not by a federal perjury prosecution." Bronston, 409 U.S. at 362. "The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner's inquiry." Id. at 360. + +### B. Count Five + +### 1. First question: "Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know." + +This was an improper question for many reasons and was, accordingly, the subject of well-founded objections. The question asked for Ms. Maxwell to understand and comment on Epstein's state of mind; any answer would either have been made without personal knowledge under Fed. R. Evid. 602 or have been hearsay. + +Ms. Maxwell's answer—"I don't know what you are talking about" — was completely understandable, particularly given the context. At the time of the deposition, Epstein had pled guilty to a state indictment in Florida, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the Palm Beach Police department investigation were widely known and discussed in the deposition. Ms. Maxwell's answer, "I don't know what you are talking about," was simply a true statement that the question lacked clarity. + +The Government has selectively, and misleadingly, omitted testimony and objections to questions that place Ms. Maxwell's statement in context. The complete exchange: + +[Redacted text block] + +Ex. J at 252-254. + +Thus, after repeated objections, Ms. Maxwell asked the examiner to repeat and then rephrase the question; the rephrased question was met with an identical objection; and *after* the objection the examiner, in an attempt to cure the foundation problem, added, “If you know?” Ms. Maxwell’s response to that question—“I don’t know what you are talking about”—was entirely appropriate, and could not have been perjurious. + +**2. The Second Question: "List all of the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?"** + +The second "question" was equally improper. First, this is not a question. Rather, it is a demand to do something, make a list. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) limits a deposition to "oral questions." The question was grossly ambiguous: who was "Jeffrey"; what were "Jeffrey's properties;" to what time frame did the question apply; what was the basis for Ms. Maxwell to determine who may or may not have been "under the age of 18"; and what did "interact with" mean? + +Again, the Government selectively omits objections, context, and relevant colloquy. This series of questions begins at page 382 of the April 2016 deposition: + +[Redacted text block consisting of multiple lines of blacked-out content] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ex. J at 382-384. + +Again, this series of questions was improper. The examiner asked Ms. Maxwell to “list” “all the girls” “that you have met and brought” “to Jeffrey Epstein’s house” “that were under the age of 18.” This question lacked foundation as to time and place, was compound, requested speculation as to the age of a theoretical person, and asked for the witness’ then-current ability to make a list from events that had happened nearly two decades previously. After an appropriate objection to this question, Ms. Maxwell admitted that she could not make a list. + +In response to the next, similar question, Ms. Maxwell and her lawyer objected to the word “find,” leading to the next request: [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] This question is + +different from the first question because it included the phrase [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Again, the question was objected to. After much back and forth, the examiner asked the question giving rise to the second alleged instance of perjury: “List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey’s properties?” + +This question was almost the same as the first demand for a “list,” but instead of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the examiner substituted the amorphous, ambiguous phrase “interacted with.” Ms. Maxwell had already answered that she could not “make a list.” The question was improper for the additional reason that “the taking of an oral deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26, should not be converted in effect into an interrogatory procedure (Rule 33) or an inspection procedure (Rule 34)....” *Deep S. Oil Co of Tex v. Metro. Life Ins Co.*, 25 F.R.D. 81, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 1959). + +### **C. Count Six** + +The alleged perjury in Count Six can be broken down into three topics separated by dozens of pages of objections, argument, and colloquy (including the examiner’s refusal to allow Ms. Maxwell to take a bathroom break). The topics involved [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] As in Count Five, the Government has selectively omitted context and objections. Exact quotes, in context, are set forth below, followed by analysis of the infirmities in each line of questioning: + +#### **1. Questions About [REDACTED]** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ex. K at 88-89. + +Ms. Maxwell was asked if she “was aware of the presence” of “sex toys” or “devices” used “in sexual activities” in Epstein’s Palm Beach house. The question was objected to for many reasons: it was compound and vague, contained numerous undefined terms, and lacked foundation. It is entirely unclear how someone may “be aware of the presence” of these, apparently, spectral objects. What exactly is a “device” used in “sexual activities”? Would bath oil, a tub, or a table qualify? What did the examiner mean by “sexual activities”? Kissing? Holding hands? The combination of toys, devices, and activities may be endless. The examiner did not limit the question to any time period and apparently charged Ms. Maxwell with discerning her level of “awareness” to the past, present and future. The true and predictable response to such a question was “No, not that I recall.” + +Ms. Maxwell also was asked if she knew whether Epstein possessed “sex toys or devices” used “in sexual activities.” Again, the question was objected to because it was compound, vague, contained several undefined terms, and lacked foundation, and was unbounded by time and place. Notably, the questioner did not ask whether Ms. Maxwell saw or heard Epstein use any particular “device.” + +**2. Questions About [REDACTED]** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Ex. K at 90-92. + +Here, Ms. Maxwell was asked questions about consensual sexual activity involving another woman and Mr. Epstein—questions that were wholly irrelevant to [REDACTED] defamation action against Ms. Maxwell. In the context of these questions, Ms. Maxwell was asked “with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities.” Again, this imprecise, boundless, ambiguous, and untethered question drew an objection. The answer, charged as perjury, was that “when I was with him,” *i.e.*, having sex with Epstein, Ms. Maxwell “wasn’t aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone” other than herself. Logical, and not perjury. + +The examiner then clarified: [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Not surprisingly, the answer was +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +According to Wiktionary, we are still in the 2000s: “**2000s** (*Noun*) The millennium that began on January 1, 2000 and ends on December 31, 2999.” Also as defined in: [Dictionary](#): + +**2000s** may refer to: + +- • 2000s (decade), the period from 2000 to 2009 +- • The period from 2000 to 2099, almost synonymous with the [21st century](#) (2001–2100) +- • The period from 2000 to 2999, almost synonymous with the [3rd millennium](#) (2001–3000) + +(Accessed December 18, 2020). The question posed, with the ambiguous date range was inclusive, meaning the answer would cover the entire period, not a part of that period. The answer, that Ms. Maxwell was unaware of “sexual activities” spanning more than a millennium was accurate and truthful. + +**3. Questions About [REDACTED]** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Ex. K at 113. + +These questions and answers were completely immaterial to the defamation action, were inadmissible in the action, and could not have influenced any fact finder. They were also ambiguous. Prior to the quoted testimony there were discussions about sexual and professional massages. Here, the questioner fails to clarify what type of “massage” he is referring to. + +#### D. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed + +The Second Circuit in Lighte reversed a perjury conviction on a finding that "fundamentally ambiguous" questions that gave rise to allegedly perjurious answers and should never have been submitted to the jury." Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 375-77. "When a line of questioning is so vague as to be 'fundamentally ambiguous,' the answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support the perjury conviction." Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970)). + +Here, the questions that elicited both of the allegedly perjurious statements in Count Five—"Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know." and "List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?"—were fundamentally ambiguous. So were the following questions in Count Six, which preceded each of the allegedly perjurious statements regarding sex toys and three-way sexual encounters: + +- Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? +- Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? +- Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? +- Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? +- Two questions about an undefined type of "massage." + +This Court can and should dismiss Count 5 and Count 6 as a matter of law. + +### II. None of the Questions or Answers Were Material + +#### A. Materiality + +Section 1623(a) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code states, in relevant part, that "[w]hoever under oath ... in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration" shall be subject to criminal penalty (emphasis added). Thus, to violate § 1623(a), a perjurious statement must be "material to the proceeding in which it is given." United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted). + +To be "material," a statement must have "a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995) (quotation marks omitted). When made during a civil deposition, statements are material only if "a truthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994). In proving materiality, it "is necessary . . . that the government show that the statement, if believed, could have influenced the decision" of the decision-making body. United States v. Stern, No. 03 Cr. 81, 2003 WL 22743897, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2003). + +Although issues of materiality are generally mixed questions of law and fact normally left to a jury, see Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23, under certain circumstances, like those presented in this case, a court can decide this issue under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). See United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Here, the deposition transcripts and Judge Preska's ruling provide the Court with the relevant undisputed facts to decide this motion. Thus a trial will not assist in determining whether the Government can prove to a reasonable juror that Ms. Maxwell's conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). United States v. Nitschke, 843 F. Supp. 2d. 4, 9 + +(D.D.C. 2011) (granting pretrial motion to dismiss indictment based on insufficient evidence where the only relevant evidence was internet chat transcript). + +### B. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed + +None of the questions that elicited the allegedly perjurious testimony were material to the proceeding in which the testimony was given. As Judge Preska ruled, the questions were "far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in v. Maxwell." Ex. I at 7. Ms. Maxwell was a civil defendant in a defamation action premised upon a statement issued by her lawyer in the United Kingdom that claims were "obvious lies"—a statement that was, as shown above, true. Whether Ms. Maxwell was able to make a list of "girls" who were at Mr. Epstein's properties, knew who Epstein was having sex with (apparently when Ms. Maxwell was having sex with Epstein), was aware of the "presence of toys or devices," or gave a massage to Epstein or Accuser-2 was completely irrelevant to the defamation litigation. + +Ms. Maxwell's testimony could not have influenced any fact finder in the civil case, nor could the questions—no matter how they were answered—have reasonably led to any admissible evidence in the defamation action, which required to prove that her statements about her age, her being trafficked to unspecified "foreign presidents" and Professor Dershowitz, or whether President Clinton flew on a helicopter piloted by Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as other demonstrably false statements, were true.6 + +6 In the event that Counts Five and Six are not dismissed, Ms. Maxwell would request that additional excerpts be read those to the jury beyond those set forth in the Indictment, including but not limited to those set forth in this motion, for purposes of completeness. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. + +### CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are not Perjurious as a Matter of Law upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +d Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee098c311afda7d4a8ec01d660842d5b7ebe9b38 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313/EFTA02830313.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1768 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830313.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 27, + "chars": 35060, + "elapsed_seconds": 126.15, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.921142578125, + 102.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 102.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S \nMOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING \nINDICTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT \nPERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.39349365234375, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.39349365234375, + 343.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 343.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.3244323730469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.3244323730469, + 87.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 113.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 526.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 526.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 577.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 577.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 375.63519287109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 375.63519287109375, + 87.603515625 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 87.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 453.08697509765625, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 453.08697509765625, + 362.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 362.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Underlying Civil Defamation Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 337.2966003417969, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 337.2966003417969, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 230.1595001220703, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 230.1595001220703, + 416.60302734375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 416.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "M. Maxwell's Depositions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 281.4140319824219, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 281.4140319824219, + 363.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 363.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 197.36180114746094, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 197.36180114746094, + 224.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 224.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Post-Indictment Proceedings in the Civil Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 366.04534912109375, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 366.04534912109375, + 481.863037109375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 481.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Poorly Worded Questions and Literally Truthful Responses Cannot Support \na Perjury Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 536.1217041015625, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 536.1217041015625, + 212.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 212.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Legal Authority", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 222.1160125732422, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 222.1160125732422, + 239.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 239.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Count Five", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 194.9478759765625, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 194.9478759765625, + 308.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 308.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. First question: \"Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage \ngirls for sexual massages? If you know.\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 350.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 350.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Second Question: \"List all of the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 525.708, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 525.708, + 102.87 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 102.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Count Six", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 389.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Questions About [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 342.10800000000006, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 342.10800000000006, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 609.9300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Questions About [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 369.64799999999997, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 369.64799999999997, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 225.18 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Questions About [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 246.63600000000002, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 246.63600000000002, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 398.52 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 335.6952209472656, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 335.6952209472656, + 87.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 87.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. None of the Questions or Answers Were Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 384.45025634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 384.45025634765625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Materiality", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 195.47634887695312, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 195.47634887695312, + 114.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 114.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 334.5553283691406, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 334.5553283691406, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830313" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..044f098501cfba51842f293849d4aabfb2869c4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ......... \_\_\_\_\_ .......... \_\_\_\_\_ ...... \_\_\_\_\_\_ x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, NOTICE OF MOTION x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Defendant. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY (Pretrial Motion # 7) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss Counts One through Six of the Superseding Indictment for pre-indictment delay. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a59b10d8f7c1abe612855aa86f5d6cbf0f288b7b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340/EFTA02830340.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830340.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1115, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 200.07 + ], + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 200.07 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS \nCOUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR PRE-\nINDICTMENT DELAY \n(Pretrial Motion # 7)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 341.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 341.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830340" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..074adeff1fc35c798258b0cc1c694293e59e6fad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342/EFTA02830342.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830342.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1631164550781, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 432.1631164550781, + 448.2250061035156 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 448.2250061035156 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830342" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c80239b8832f391e9bdaa0e28670a9e6dd40510 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343/EFTA02830343.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830343.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.1072692871094, + 442.8788757324219 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 442.8788757324219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830343" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aef3f39d34d62e8de9c4414069b58b76a5756703 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344/EFTA02830344.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830344.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 428.11895751953125, + 450.0531921386719 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 450.0531921386719 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 8 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830344" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a01f90f75439d6dded94b3b13716694cc56c290 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +# EXHIBIT D + +# DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +# OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY + +# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT + +Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation + +November 2020 + +### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing. + +#### I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage. Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal investigation. + +The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges. + +For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The + +As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word -girls" refers to females who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age of 18. + +NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or the NPA prior to its signing. + +The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration, however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA, to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court. + +On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.2 In responding to the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil cases against Epstein. + +2 Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as "Jane Doe 2." + +Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge in September 2009 ordered it to be made public. + +By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. + +In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. + +In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018, however, the *Miami Herald* published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.3 The *Miami Herald* reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the *Miami Herald*, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime" that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his + +--- + +3 Julie K. [REDACTED], "Perversion of Justice," *Miami Herald*, Nov. 28, 2018. . + +abuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the government's actions.4 + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA .3 The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [sic] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal prosecution of Epstein. + +On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from 2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. + +Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 Miami Herald report, the media and Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as + +4See. e.g., Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for billionaire sex abuser," The Business Insider, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse,"NBC Nightly News, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report,"McClatchy Washington Bureau, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser," Huffington Post, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. =. et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2018. + +Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08.80736-CIV-Marra). + +Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor Department. + +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide. + +As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on August 29, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings, the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims. + +On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe I" filed in her true name a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en bane and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +## II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION + +After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened + +an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6 + +After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal investigation. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. + +In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts with the USA'S, and the FBI. + +OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR + +6The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the status of the OPR investigation. + +carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions. + +Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. + +As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent information. + +OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. + +### III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK + +OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to + +In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program. + +OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews. + +investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct. + +In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. 19 + +### IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED + +In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report. + +#### A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA + +In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NPA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants + +928 C.F.R. § 0.39a(aX1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases. + +10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation. + +of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation. + +#### B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA + +To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. + +#### V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions. + +#### A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA + +With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not + +find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USA() managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NM. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +#### B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with Victims + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +#### VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT + +The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question. OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with the subjects. + +In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008 guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July 2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects' conduct. + +Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects' conduct in light of the pertinent standards. + +OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c42ccf4181cab80b81a9be6a28baa2556ae8018d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/EFTA02830345.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,904 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 43580, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.18, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.99749755859375, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.99749755859375, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.344, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9945373535156, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9945373535156, + 179.65924072265625 + ], + [ + 160.344, + 179.65924072265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OFFICE OF \nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 487.52337646484375, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 487.52337646484375, + 426.0392761230469 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 426.0392761230469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 501.4989013671875, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 501.4989013671875, + 472.9192810058594 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 472.9192810058594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7645263671875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7645263671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 240.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 240.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 479.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 479.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.78631591796875, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.78631591796875, + 358.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 358.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 452.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 344.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 530.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 530.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 527.3100000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6937866210938, + 527.3100000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6937866210938, + 557.3035125732422 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 557.3035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830345" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fea55ba0225017545d182625942abdcfdef72194 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830345/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d7d63440a8295ed534394a6b2aa5f5ae1607905e3c4082eb1b7890d23eb56e19 +size 24168 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8e0a4288585419cb98e9f78aab957bae180aeb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.md @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| TABLE OF EXHIBITS | iv | +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +| APPLICABLE LAW | 4 | +| I. Prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. | 7 | +| II. Dead Witnesses and The Lost Testimony. | 8 | +| A. Jeffrey Epstein | 8 | +| B. Paula Epstein | 9 | +| C. Michael | 9 | +| D. Detective Recarey | 10 | +| III. Lost and Missing Witnesses. | 11 | +| IV. Witnesses Whose Memories Have Failed or Corrupted. | 12 | +| V. Lost or Destroyed Records. | 12 | +| Publicity | 14 | +| VII. The Reckless, Tactical, or Bad Faith Delay. | 15 | +| A. Abuse of the Civil Litigation Process to Gain a Tactical Advantage | 15 | +| B. The government's Tactical Delay and the Civil Litigations. | 16 | +| C. The Timeline Relating to the Accuser-2 Civil Litigation. | 17 | +| D. Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (JOK). | 18 | +| CONCLUSION | 19 | +| Certificate of Service | 21 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| v. lndyke, Case No. 19-cv- 10475 (S.D.N.Y.) | 17 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 (1988) | 6 | +| Howell v. Barker, 904 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1990) | 6 | +| Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y) | 18 | +| Oregon v. Sperou, 442 P.3d 581 (Or. 2019) | 2 | +| Schuman v. Leonardo, 768 F. Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) | 6 | +| United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977) | 5 | +| United States v. Capone, 683 F.2d 582 (1st Cir. 1982) | 9 | +| United States v. Collamore, 751 F. Supp. 1012 (D. Me. 1990) | 6 | +| United States v. Crable, No. 16-40101-01-DDC, 2017 WL 4843295 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2017) | 1 | +| United States v. Drayton, No. I:04CR00009, 2006 WL 758742 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2006) | 1 | +| 461 U.S. 555 (1983) | 5, 6 | +| United States v. Glenn, No. CR 15-99-1, 2018 WL 4091786 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2018) | 1 | +| United States v. Guist, 594 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1979) | 1 | +| United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984) | 5 | +| United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982) | 3 | +| . 698 F.2d 1154, 1158 (Ilth Cir. 1983 | 5 | +| United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977) | 5, 6 | +| United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 326 (1971) | 1, 4, 6 | +| United States v. McNeal, No. 03 CR 80, 2006 WL 760186 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2006) | 6 | +| United States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1985) | 6 | +| United States v. Sabath, 990 F. Supp. 1007 (N.D. 111. 1998) | 5 | + +| 987 F. Supp. 2d 46(S.D.N.Y. 2013) | 6 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------|---| +| United States v. Scott, 579 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1978) | 1 | +| United States v. Sowa, 34 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 1994) | 6 | +| United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1986) | 6 | + +### Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C.§ 371 | 8 | +|--------------------|------| +| 18 U.S.C.§ 1591 | 8 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 | 3 | +| 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282 | 3, 4 | + +### Other Authorities + +| BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1270 (6th ed.1990) | 5 | +|----------------------------------------------------------|----| +| Criminal Prosecutions," 31 WM. & MARY L. REV. 607 (1990) | 6 | +| Supreme Court," 40 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 659 (2013) | 6 | +| N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019) | 14 | + +### Rules + +## TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +ExHisa A: + +EXHIBIT B: June 21, 2016 Deposition Transcript Excerpts + +EXHIBIT C: June 3, 2016 Deposition Transcript Excerpts + +EXHIBIT D: Department of Justice November 2020 Office of Professional Responsibility Executive Summary Report + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ms. Maxwell brings this motion under Fed. It. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(ii) which requires that motions to dismiss an indictment for pre-indictment delay be raised by pretrial motion. She respectfully requests, however, leave to supplement this motion after the government provides her with meaningful discovery. Depending on the status of the case after the disclosure of meaningful discovery, request that the Court defer ruling on this motion until after any trial if the indictment has not been dismissed on other grounds. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 326 (1971) ("Events of trial may demonstrate actual prejudice."); United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1516 (5th Cir. 1996) (except for "compelling cases, the district court, rather than grant such a motion prior to trial, should carry it with the case, and make the determination of whether actual, substantial prejudice resulted from the improper delay in light of what actually transpired at trial"; affirmed); United States v. Guist, 594 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1979) (motions to dismiss for preindictment delay taken under advisement prior to trial and granted as to one of four counts after five days of trial).1 + +## INTRODUCTION + +The claims made in the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") occurred approximately twenty-seven years ago. The world has changed significantly during the last three decades. + +See also, United States v. Scott, 579 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1978) (motion to dismiss two counts of three-count indictment denied without prejudice prior to trial, granted after close of all the evidence, jury acquittal on remaining count; affirmed); United States v. Crable, No. 16-40101-01-DDC, 2017 WL 4843295, at \*1 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2017) (defendant permitted to renew his Motion to Dismiss with authority supporting a renewed motion at the close of evidence); United States v. Glenn, No. CR 15-99-1, 2018 WL 4091786, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2018) (defendant granted the opportunity to supplement his post-trial motions so that he could assert the issue of pm-indictment delay and renew his request for discovery); and United States v. Drayton, No. I:04CR00009, 2006 WL 758742, at \*1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2006), aff'd, 267 F. App'x 192 (4th Cir. 2008) (when ruling on a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, the proper course is to reserve decision, in order to make a determination based on the actual evidence presented at trial). + +Tragedies have been forgotten, governments replaced, wars fought. Gen Y has grown up, Gen Z has finished high school and college, Gen Alpha is now in elementary school. + +In 1994, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Podcasts did not exist. Few people, young or old, communicate today in the same manner, and the record of any communications has largely moved from paper files to smart phone text messages and computer files. The dissemination of information has also changed drastically as social and digital media platforms permit anyone to publish a story, true or false. Once published, the story remains accessible on the internet with just a few search words. + +The Epstein story is not new. As early as 1996 but at least by 2006,2 the government was aware of allegations that Mr. Epstein solicited females for sex. FBI records reflect that Accuser-23 was interviewed on November 14, 2006 as part of an ongoing investigation by the government into Epstein and others as documented in FBI case file 31-E-MM-108062-49. The 2006 interview contained some of the allegations made in the Indictment. Investigative referrals appear to have been made to various FBI offices located in the same cities as those alleged in the Indictment. + +It was no secret that Ms. Maxwell was Mr. Epstein's employee and friend in the 1995-to-2000 timeframe. It also was no secret that Epstein worked out a deal with the government that + +2 According to the New York Times, in 1996 "contacted the New York Police Department, and said she then went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offering to share what she knew about Mr. Epstein and the parade of young women being brought to Mr. Epstein's houses." See, Of course, no FBI 302 has been produced corroborating this account. + +Although the Indictment refers to them as "Minor Victims" One through Three, there has been no finding by any court or jury that these now-adult women are in fact "victims." Use of those terms thus violates Ms. Maxwell's presumption of innocence, and counsel will refer to them throughout as "Accusers" One through Three or "Accusers." See, e.g., Oregon v. Sperou. 442 P.3d 581 (Or. 2019) (use of word "victim" by prosecutors and state witnesses during trial violated presumption of innocence and constituted improper witness vouching). + +resolved the allegations against himself and any potential co-conspirator. Faced with significant public pressure, the government broke that agreement and brought an indictment against Epstein, and only Epstein, in 2016. The charges were ultimately dismissed because Epstein died while in federal custody. Left with no fish to attempt to fry, the government, belatedly, turned to Ms. Maxwell. + +It is inexcusable that decades have passed while the government investigated Epstein, resolved the allegations against him by plea and non-prosecution agreements, and then changed course when these agreements were attacked by plaintiffs' lawyers who fueled the media fenzy. This dithering has allowed memories to be corrupted, conflated, and confabulated. Documents have been destroyed, altered, and lost. Witnesses have died, moved, and become afraid of discussing these matters for fear of media vilification or, as with Ms. Maxwell, tactical indictment by default. Meanwhile, the Epstein story continues to occupy the public's attention with various iterations and conflations including multiple books, podcasts, and television series available to alleged witnesses, posers, attention-seekers, copy-cats, and opportunists for study and exploitation. + +The primary guarantees against excessive preindictment delay and the prosecution of overly stale criminal charges are statutes of limitation for criminal offenses. United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982). Ms. Maxwell has separately moved to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Indictment because those counts were brought after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282, which provides, in relevant part, that "no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed." The government will argue that a much longer statute of limitation applies to the + +charges alleged in Counts One through Four, 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which as amended in 2006, authorizes the prosecution of certain specific crimes during "the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer." As a practical matter, this is tantamount to no statute of limitation and allows for substantial abuse by the government, particularly in a case with no forensic or other evidence to corroborate "she said" allegations. + +Ms. Maxwell agrees that Counts Five and Six were brought within five years of her deposition and therefore are within the applicable statute of limitation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282. However, as with Counts One through Four, the government's delay in charging Counts Five and Six resulted in substantial prejudice because the questions at issue, along with the resulting answers, are ill defined, ambiguous, and could relate to almost any time. The capricious questioning about 26-year-old claims presents the same practical problems for the defense, evidence that would exculpate Ms. Maxwell has been lost or destroyed. + +This Indictment should be dismissed because Counts One through Four are time barred and the 26-year delay in bringing the charges violates Ms. Maxwell's Fifth Amendment right to due process. Counts Five and Six should be dismissed for the variety of reasons as catalogued in other pleadings and the four-year prejudicial preindictment delay also violates due process. + +# APPLICABLE LAW + +The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal of an indictment for delay which results in a violation of the fundamental concepts of justice or the community's sense of fair play and decency. To determine whether a due process violation has occurred, the government's reasons for the delay must be weighed against the prejudicial effects of the delay on the defendant. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971). The showing of prejudice, however, does not end a preindictment delay inquiry because "proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim ... [T]he due process inquiry must + +consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused." United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977); United States v.a, 698 F.2d 1154, 1158 (11th Cir. 1983). A defendant's showing of prejudice triggers a "sensitive balancing of the government's need for an investigative delay ... against the prejudice asserted by the defendant." United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 (5th Cir. 1977). For example, a delay caused by a good-faith ongoing investigation will generally not be considered a due process violation. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 791. Governmental delay caused by "sinister" reasons that prejudice a defendant require dismissal of an indictment. "Sinister" motives include using the delay to gain tactical advantage over the accused or as a weapon to induce a defendant's cooperation. Marion, 404 U.S. at 324. + +"Tactical" delay causing actual prejudice to a defendant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 n.17. A tactical delay is one that the government employs as a "deliberate device to gain an advantage over" the accused. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 192 (1984). A due process violation also occurs with prosecutorial delay incurred in reckless disregard of circumstances, known to the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to mount an effective defense. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 n.17. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars (\$8,850) in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555, 563 (1983), interpreted Lovasco as holding that claims of prejudicial preindictment delay can succeed "upon a showing that the government delayed seeking an indictment in a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair tactical advantage over the defendant or in reckless disregard of its probable prejudicial impact upon the defendant's ability to defend against the charges." "'Reckless' conduct means acting in a way that is `indifferent to + +consequences.'" United States v. Sabath, 990 F. Supp. 1007, 1018 (N.D. III. 1998) (quoting, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1270 (6th ed.1990)). + +As noted by Chief Judge McMahon in United States v. , 987 F. Supp. 2d 465, 488-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), "Nile Second Circuit has never specifically declined to adopt the Lovasco 'Footnote 17' test (as restated in Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars). Nor has it specifically found that pre-indictment delay engendered in reckless disregard of circumstances that would likely impede a defendant's ability to mount a defense can never violate the Due Process Clause." + +Courts generally agree that (I) "tactical, reckless, or bad faith preindictment delay that unduly prejudices a defendant is constitutionally dubious," United States v. McNeal, No. 03 CR 80, 2006 WL 760186, at \*6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2006); and (2) determinations of prejudicial preindictment delay are fact-specific inquiries that will turn on the unique circumstances of a case. See Marion, 404 U.S. at 324-25; Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 797.4 + +This is that case. + +Several Circuit Courts of Appeal interpret Marion/Lovasco as requiring a balancing test that weighs the prejudice to a defendant against the government's reasons for the delay. See, e.g., United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir. 1986); Howell v. Barker, 904 F.2d 889, 895 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Sowa, 34 F.3d 447, 451 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1985). See also United States v. Collamore, 751 F. Supp. 1012, 1027 (D. Me. 1990), affd, 940 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted) (holding that a defendant may show a due process violation based on excessive preindictment delay incurred in reckless disregard of circumstances, known to the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to mount an effective defense); and Schumtan v. Leonardo, 768 F. Supp. 993, 998 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (recognizing reckless disregard standard). Legal commentators have, for many years, discussed the Circuit split regarding the test to be applied to claims of pre-indictment delay and called for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the matter. See, e.g., Phyllis Goldfarb, "When Judges Abandon Analogy: The Problem of Delay in Commencing Criminal Prosecutions," 31 WM. & MARY L. REV. 607 (1990); Eli DuBosar, "Pre-Accusation Delay: An Issue Ripe for Adjudication by the United States Supreme Court," 40 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 659 (2013); see also Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035, 1036 (1988), where Justice noted that he would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits on this important question of constitutional law. + +### I. Prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +As a threshold observation, the government has failed to provide discovery adequate to fully investigate the extent of the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. We have not been provided with: + +- The names of the Accusers; +- The dates of birth of the Accusers; +- The specific location of any overt act; +- The date of any overt act; +- Any witness statements; or +- Any supposed corroboration of any allegation in the Indictment. + +Like the preindictment delay, the delay in timely providing discovery is tactical and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Despite repeated requests, the government refuses to produce any evidence. Without knowing the who, what, when, and why of these allegations, the task of identifying dead and missing witnesses, percipient witness, travel records, phone records, or temporally relevant documents is challenging and limited by the vagueness of the claims. For example, the government produced part of its voluminous 2006 investigative case file concerning these issues. The names of the alleged witnesses, the agents who conducted the interviews and the agents who conducted the investigation are, however, redacted. Ms. Maxwell has no ability to conclusively identify these individuals much less interview them and therefore cannot represent to the Court whether they are alive, remember anything, or have useful evidence. By withholding this information, the government is purposefully preventing Ms. Maxwell from fully litigating this issue and presenting a defense. + +What we know, so far, however, will be sufficient to establish prejudice. Potential defense witnesses are dead, missing, otherwise unavailable, or unable to recall key events clearly. In contrast, the government will profit from the dimmed memories of witnesses with: (1) any inconsistency or vagary being excused by the passage of time and (2) any specific claim (to the extent any are forthcoming) being difficult to cross-examine because of the unavailability of documents or witnesses due to the passage of time. + +### II. Dead Witnesses and The Lost Testimony. + +#### A. Jeffrey Epstein. + +Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell on August 10, 2019 while awaiting trial for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 371, and sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1591. The alleged range of Mr. Epstein's crimes was from 2002 to 2005. + +Mr. Epstein is the individual with whom Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have conspired and aided in this case. See Indictment, 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 16. Had Mr. Epstein not died, he would have testified in any trial against Ms. Maxwell that: + +- She did not knowingly aid or facilitate any sex trafficking or transportation of minors as alleged in the superseding indictment; +- She was unaware of Mr. Epstein's activities that led to his indictment when the activities allegedly occurred; +- Between 1994-1997, Ms. Maxwell was not involved in any sexual act or massage with any minor including Accusers 1-3 as alleged in the superseding indictment; +- Consistent with written communications with Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein would have testified that she , she should that the accusers were liars and were lying about any alleged criminal acts attributed to Ms. Maxwell; Ex. A. +- He believed that attorneys for many alleged accusers attempted to extort money from him by fomenting meritless litigation against his former employees, including Ms. Maxwell. +- As to Ms. Maxwell, And, she Ex. A. + +Epstein's testimony would have also authenticated and provided an evidentiary foundation for numerous documents central to the defense in this case including travel records, bank records, records of payments to alleged accusers, facsimile transmissions, emails, and phone records. Presumably the government will argue that any reliance on Epstein testifying is speculative because he may have asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. See United States v. Capone, 683 F.2d 582, 589 (1st Cir. 1982). Not so. Epstein was indicted in 2019. Any privilege against self-incrimination would have been lost as a result of his acquittal or final conviction prior to any trial in this matter. + +#### B. Paula Epstein. + +Paula Epstein was Jeffrey Epstein's mother. She died in April 2004. Had this prosecution been brought in a timely manner, Ms. Epstein would have testified that Ms. Maxwell spent considerable time with her while in the Palm Beach, Florida area. Ms. Epstein would have testified that she did not observe Ms. Maxwell with any Accusers between 1994 and 1997. Ms. Epstein would have provided accurate information about Ms. Maxwell's relationship with Mr. Epstein, dates and times that she was with Ms. Maxwell, and presented a compelling counter to the specious allegations that Ms. Maxwell traveled for purposes of grooming accusers for Mr. Epstein. Ms. Epstein would have been able to portray Ms. Maxwell as a caring and compassionate human being and would have discussed the many days that the two were together. She would have testified that Ms. Maxwell was her caregiver when she was sick and injured. + +## C. Michael =. + +Mr. died on August 9, 2017. Mr. was the agent of the person believed to be, but not identified by the government, Accuser-I. Mr. had knowledge about Accuser-I's interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and the lack of any interaction with were he available to testify, would establish the whereabouts of Accuser-I during the relevant time periods and Ms. Maxwell's absence from those locations. Mr. =, while working with Accuser-1, did not relate any complaints about Ms. Maxwell to any authority, Ms. Maxwell, or + +any other known witness. Mr. would be able to testify about Accuser-I's behavior during the relevant time period, the lack of any "outcry" or "grooming" as alleged in the Indictment. + +### D. Detective Recarey + +Detective Recarey died on May 25, 2018. He joined the Palm Beach Police Department in 1991 as an officer and was promoted to police detective in 1994. During his career, he worked in the police department's Organized Crime Vice and Narcotics Unit, the Department of Justice and Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Internet Crimes Against Children Unit, and the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Public Integrity Unit. He handled high profile cases and instructed law enforcement personnel and civilian members of the community about criminal and narcotics investigations. Throughout his career, Detective Recarey received more than 150 commendations from the law enforcement community, including the Inaugural "Officer of the Year" Award by the Palm Beach Police Foundation in 2012. He was responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of the security camera systems throughout the Town of Palm Beach.5 + +Detective Recarey served as the lead detective from the Palm Beach Police Department charged with investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Ex. B at 10. That investigation commenced in 2005. Id. Recarey worked only on the Epstein case for an entire year. Id. at 274. He reviewed previous officers' reports and interviews, conducted numerous interviews of witnesses and alleged victims himself, reviewed surveillance footage of the Epstein home, participated in and had knowledge of the search warrant executed on the Epstein home, and testified regarding the case before the Florida state grand jury against Mr. Epstein. Ex. B at 212-215. Detective Recarey's investigation revealed that not one of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Ms. Maxwell's name and she + +5 See https://www.palmbeachpost.conilnews/local-obituariesidecorated-detective-rememberedfor-work-ethic-making-others-smilean9DqgNZ544V3qx0dSbWpli + +was never considered a suspect. Ex. B at 10-11, 177, 180-82, 187-96, 241-42, 278. None of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims said they had seen Ms. Maxwell at Mr. Epstein's house, nor said they had been "recruited by her," nor paid any money by her, nor told what to wear or how to act by her. Id. Indeed, none of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims ever reported to the police they had met or spoken to Ms. Maxwell. Id. Maxwell was not seen coming or going from the house during the law enforcement surveillance of Mr. Epstein's home. Id. at 214-215. The arrest warrant did not mention Ms. Maxwell and her name was never mentioned before the grand jury. Id. at 203, 211. No property belonging to Ms. Maxwell, including "sex toys" or "child pornography," was seized from Mr. Epstein's home during execution of the search warrant. Id. at 257. Detective Recarey, when asked to describe "everything that you believe you know about Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual trafficking conduct," replied, "I don't." Id. at 278. He confirmed he has no knowledge about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking anybody. Id. at 278-79. Detective Recarey was the individual from the Palm Beach Police Department who referred the Epstein case to the FBI in 2006. + +Detective Recarey entered Mr. Epstein's home in 2002 to install security cameras to catch a thief and did not observe any "child pornography" within the home, including on Mr. Epstein's desk in his office. Ex. B at 289-90. + +### III. Lost and Missing Witnesses. + +The government alleges a three-year time frame for the allegations in the Indictment for acts purportedly occurring on Epstein properties in three states and another country. Had these charges been timely brought, Ms. Maxwell would have interviewed, and subpoenaed as witnesses, the many Epstein employees that were present at the different locations during that three-year period. None of the employees would have corroborated any of the allegations made in the Indictment. + +#### IV. Witnesses Whose Memories Have Failed or Corrupted. + +Many potential witnesses have been contacted in relation to this matter and other related litigations. Significant numbers of potential witnesses no longer remember when events may have occurred, who was present, and do not have documents to refresh their memories. One example of the pervasive and prejudicial memory loss relates to the identity of passengers on Mr. Epstein's planes. Dave Rodgers was one of Mr. Epstein's pilots beginning in 1991. Mr. Rodgers kept flight logs, produced in civil litigation and subsequently released or leaked to the media. The logs contain the dates, locations of travel, and a rudimentary list of passengers, often identified only by gender, initials, or one name. Mr. Rodgers destroyed records prior to 1994. According to Mr. Rodgers, without his logs he is unable to recall who was on a particular flight. Ex. Cat 211-212. And, even with the logs he cannot identify many of the passengers. "Maria" may or may not be a witness in this matter. Id. at 41. Where the logbook describes "one or two" females, Mr. Rodgers has no memory of who those people were. Id. at 44-45. Referring to a flight involving "Nadia," Mr. Rodgers testified "I'm not sure what Nadia that would be." Id. 58. The widespread dissemination of the flightlogs combined with the vague passenger descriptions has allowed any female who might have been under the age of 18 between 1994-2013 to claim that they were on the flight and a victim of Epstein. + +## V. Lost or Destroyed Records. + +Because of the delay in this prosecution, Ms. Maxwell does not have records including but not limited to the following: + +### 1. Her own: + +- Phone records from 1994-1997; +- Emails from 1994-1997; + +- Day-Timer records from 1994-1997; +- Tax records from 1994-1997; +- Travel records from 1994-1997; +- Business records from 1994-1997; +- Credit card or ATM records including, e.g., records of shopping trips, trips to the movies and; +- Checking account records. + +### 2. Mr. Epstein's + +- Phone records from 1994-1997; +- Emails from 1994-1997; +- Day-Timer records from 1994-1997; +- Tax records from 1994-1997; +- Travel records from 1994-1997; +- Business records from 1994-1997; +- Mr. Epstein internal email "Citrix" communications; and +- Business Records in the Palm Beach, Santa Fe, or New York area reflecting purchases of goods or services. + +The documentary evidence would establish that Ms. Maxwell did not travel as alleged in the Indictment; did not conspire with Mr. Epstein, as alleged in the Indictment, and was not present with either Mr. Epstein or any Accuser for significant periods of time between 1994 and 1997. Business records associated with the property identified in the Indictment would detail various employees who worked at the properties during the relevant times. These individuals, were they to be located, would corroborate that they did not observe Ms. Maxwell behaving in any of the behavior alleged in the Indictment. The government has withheld any meaningful discovery relating to when or where any overt acts allegedly occurred. If Ms. Maxwell kid this + +information, she could articulate the prejudicial loss of these records and witnesses with more specificity. + +#### VI. Prejudice Resulting from Prejudicial Media Reporting and Inappropriate Pre-Trial Publicity. + +Beginning in 2005 and escalating in 2011 through the present, Ms. Maxwell has been a potential target of a group of personal injury lawyers who made millions of dollars suing Jeffrey Epstein or extorting those associated with him. The playbook was relatively simple: File incendiary pleadings in court to avoid defamation claims; provide the pleadings and background information to various media organizations; obtain alleged victim's names and police reports from law enforcement; share information with potential claimants who hire the lawyers after reading or hearing the reports; file a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein; get money from Mr. Epstein or associates to settle; repeat. Once Mr. Epstein had settled all of these claims against himself and the other individuals alleged to have been involved, a new play was necessary - try to invalidate the NPA; and at the same time drum up litigation against Maxwell with the expectation that either Mr. Epstein would settle any new litigation to avoid being dragged into yet another case that would further tarnish the reputation he was trying to rebuild or result in money directly from Ms. Maxwell. + +From 2011 to 2019, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of millions of media stories, posts, blogs, podcasts, and comments that simply republished the same allegations that she correctly identified as "obvious lies" in 2015. Once New York passed L. 2019, ch. 11, known as the Child Victims Act, the door was open to claimants who wanted to take advantage of Mr. Epstein's vulnerability to file new lawsuits on stale allegations. At that point it easy to make copycat + +claims about Ms. Maxwell because of the passage of time.6 A review of the media coverage of the Epstein story reflects an unwarranted transformation of Ms. Maxwell from Epstein friend to Epstein conspirator. This re-casting by the media has no basis in fact but is the cumulative effect of publishing or republishing untrue assertations about Ms. Maxwell. + +Had the government brought any charges against Ms. Maxwell in 1996-2011 it (a) would have not prevailed and (b) none of the accusers would have been able to conform their "memories" to the often republished "obvious lies." + +# VII. The Reckless, Tactical, or Bad Faith Delay. + +There is no legitimate justification for the extraordinary delay associated with this prosecution. Tactical, reckless, and bad faith motives can reasonably be inferred from the way the government has ignored evidence, delayed any prosecution, enlisted partisan lawyers to do its bidding, circumvented established precedent to illegally obtain evidence, and misleadingly quoting banal testimony so that it could be labeled "perjury." And, after having done so, prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by improper extrajudicial statements. + +# A. Abuse of the Civil Litigation Process to Gain a Tactical Advantage. + +As detailed in Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Suppress all Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, Ms. Maxwell was involved in lengthy, intrusive, and contentious litigation with + +6 A simple Google search for the name "Ghislaine Maxwell" on January 13, 2021 yielded 5,140.000 results in 0.56 seconds. Stories about Ms. Maxwell abound. Flight logs, complaints, deposition transcripts, and false accounts have been published and republished. + +![](_page_19_Figure_8.jpeg) + +About 5.140.000 results (0.56 seconds) + +plaintiff, During the course of that litigation, in 2016, lawyers made overtures to the government seeking an indictment against Ms. Maxwell. At the same time, these lawyers were engaged in ongoing efforts to void the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement in litigation that was initiated in 2008. The government was the defendant and had actual notice of the claims made by M=, her lawyers, and other Does about the allegations made in this criminal matter.' The Assistant U.S. Attorney's statements to cannot be reconciled with the facts, many of which are detailed in the Office of Professional Responsibility Report concerning the government's "2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein" Ex. D and the volumes of pleadings filed in the CVRA litigation. Ms. Maxwell was known to the government for at least 10 years prior to the AUSA's ex parte communication with + +### B. The government's Tactical Delay and the Civil Litigations. + +The v. Maxwell defamation action has been in litigation for over five years. It has been advantageous to the government to have aggressive lawyers collecting information from Ms. Maxwell as part of civil discovery and disseminating that information to the public, as part of an ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell. Using a friendly, ex-parte, the government obtained The government has not, even after indicting Ms. Maxwell, moved to stay these civil proceedings. Instead, the government has used these lawyers to do their work, both in front of, and behind, the stage. These lawyers have made multiple, inappropriate, and prejudicial extrajudicial comments with no public rebuke from the government. The document unsealing process goes on, most + +https://www.nydailynews.conilnew-yorldny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013 jmzhl7zdadgrbbs7yc6bfriszu-story.html. + +recently attracting approximately 1,000 prurient listeners, some of whom illegally broadcast the proceedings on YouTube.8 The effect of all of this on a potential juror is not lost on the government and it has been to its tactical advantage to allow as much negative press as possible, fomented by Government shills. + +### C. The Timeline Relating to the Accuser-2 Civil Litigation. + +In the civil matter, v. lndyke, Case No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS), plaintiff (presumed Accuser- 2) discussed in the Indictment, was represented by the same attorneys, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ("BSF') who also represented in her defamation action. Shortly after counsel's appearance on behalf of Ms. Maxwell on March 4, 2020, BSF served on Ms. Maxwell a Notice of Deposition for April 29, 2020, without ever having conferred with counsel for available dates. Later, BSF amended their notice of deposition to May 18, or offered dates of May 21, 26, 27 and 28'h (and demanded an in-person deposition despite the raging COVID pandemic in New York). Ms. Maxwell filed a Letter Motion on May 13, 2020, requesting a stay of discovery in the case due, in part, to the U.S. Attorney's Southern District of New York's announcements of its "ongoing" criminal investigation into alleged Epstein "co-conspirators," presumed to include Ms. Maxwell. /d., Dkt. 68. In his response opposing the stay of discovery, Mr. Boies represented to the court that "Maxwell has provided no information about the subject matter of the criminal investigation into Mr. Epstein's co-conspirators, the status of the investigation, or even disclosed whether she herself is a target of the Southern District's investigation." Id., Dkt. 72. At the time he wrote that statement, Mr. Boies knew, and Ms. Maxwell and her counsel did not, that his client, plaintiff was herself participating in efforts to criminally prosecute Ms. + +8 See httos://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/ian/19/ghislaine-maxwell-court-proceedingcianon. + +Maxwell. Indeed, BSF attorneys had met with the Southern District of New York's USAO at least once (and likely twice) in 2016, urging that office to prosecute Ms. Maxwell. + +collected in the civil litigation. Discovery in this case has not revealed when met with the prosecutors, but it is fair to assume that as of April 2020, she had done so. + +The Motion to Stay was heard on May 22, 2020 by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. Id., Dkt. 80. During that phone conference, Judge Freeman ruled that a temporary stay was justified as to discovery from Ms. Maxwell due to the ongoing criminal investigation. Id. She ruled that no deposition nor interrogatories could be sought from her for the foreseeable future, but that other discovery could proceed. Id. A short time later, on June 19, BSF reversed its position. Recognizing it could not provide further discovery to the government from Ms. Maxwell through a deposition in the case, BSF then said it did wish to have the case stayed in its entirety while plaintiff participated in the Epstein payment program. Id., Dkt. 84. The Court granted that motion on June 22, 2020. Id., Dkt. 85. The Sealed Indictment in this matter was returned one week later, on June 29 and unsealed on July 2. Id., Dkt. 1. + +The government has not provided Ms. Maxwell with discovery regarding its communications with BSF. The timing of the partial stay and the reversal of the previous aggressive posture by BSF cannot be mere coincidence. + +## D. Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (JGK). + +This action was brought against the Estate of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell by civil complaint, filed in this district on January 22, 2020. Ms. Maxwell surmises, but does not know, that the Jane Doe in this matter is so called Accuser-I. + +When it became clear that Ms. Maxwell (having been indicted) would exercise her Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination and it was therefore in the government's tactical interest to stop what would have been a one-way discovery process in favor of Ms. Maxwell, the government moved to intervene, representing to Magistrate Judge Freeman, among other things, that: + +- "should discovery in civil action go forward, multiple witnesses or potential witnesses at the criminal trial would be subject to deposition" +- "any concern regarding the potential delay of this civil suit is outweighed by the concern that Maxwell would seek to assert her Fifth Amendment rights rather than submit to a deposition in the civil action, and that depositions of other witnesses could potentially interfere with the criminal prosecution" +- "permitting any discovery to proceed in this lawsuit would enable Maxwell to seek a preview of trial testimony in the criminal case, and would afford her with a broader array of discovery than she is entitled to in the criminal case" +- "a complaint concerning sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and Maxwell will inevitably implicate documents, witnesses, and other evidence that overlaps with the criminal matter, whether or not the plaintiff in this action—or the conduct she alleges—has any direct connection to the charges in the Indictment" + +Case No. 20-cv-484, Dkt. 80. + +These admissions make clear that the government was aware of the substantial overlap between the allegations it investigated more than a decade before this Indictment. The sharp contrast between the government's actions in this Jane Doe civil matter, and the Annie Fanner civil matter, the matter, and the matter also establish a strong inference that as long as the government stood to gain a tactical advantage by delaying the indictment (the soughtafter deposition in the Fanner civil litigation), it would not move to intervene. However, where the government's tactical advantage was lost or threatened (Jane Doe) it would shut the case down. + +## CONCLUSION + +Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court dismiss the Indictment because of the prejudicial and tactical delay by the government in prosecuting this case. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Mark S. + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24c3afae8cf8eb2f9ba4a20b5cb8357ee0ef9800 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/EFTA02830359.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1784 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 26, + "chars": 44933, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.58, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_19_Figure_8.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO \nDISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR \nPRE-INDICTMENT DELAY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 314.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 314.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 113.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 189.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 189.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 318.7330017089844 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 318.7330017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 459.2699999999999 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 459.2699999999999 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 475.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 475.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.94549560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.94549560546875, + 87.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 87.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.308, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 361.0043029785156, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 361.0043029785156, + 477.2335510253906 + ], + [ + 250.308, + 477.2335510253906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 367.9692077636719, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 367.9692077636719, + 529.10302734375 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 529.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.62, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.66213989257812, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.66213989257812, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 82.62, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Dead Witnesses and The Lost Testimony.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 337.4119873046875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 337.4119873046875, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Jeffrey Epstein.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 220.83518981933594, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 220.83518981933594, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Paula Epstein.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 213.50189208984375, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 213.50189208984375, + 252.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 252.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Michael =.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 214.2, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 214.2, + 555.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 555.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Detective Recarey", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 274.49200439453125, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 274.49200439453125, + 142.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 142.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Lost and Missing Witnesses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 264.9530944824219, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 264.9530944824219, + 556.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 556.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Witnesses Whose Memories Have Failed or Corrupted.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 414.5369873046875, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 414.5369873046875, + 115.10302734375 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 115.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. Lost or Destroyed Records.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 259.8204650878906, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 259.8204650878906, + 583.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 583.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Her own:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 195.53941345214844, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 195.53941345214844, + 664.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 664.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Mr. Epstein's", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 244.61999999999998 + ], + [ + 217.63697814941406, + 244.61999999999998 + ], + [ + 217.63697814941406, + 260.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 260.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Prejudice Resulting from Prejudicial Media Reporting and Inappropriate \nPre-Trial Publicity.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 516.986328125, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 516.986328125, + 157.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 157.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. The Reckless, Tactical, or Bad Faith Delay.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 347.7879638671875, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 347.7879638671875, + 280.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 280.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Abuse of the Civil Litigation Process to Gain a Tactical Advantage.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 505.4623718261719, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 505.4623718261719, + 473.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 473.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The government's Tactical Delay and the Civil Litigations.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 458.13067626953125, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 458.13067626953125, + 391.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 391.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Timeline Relating to the Accuser-2 Civil Litigation.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 442.82769775390625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 442.82769775390625, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (JGK).", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 403.9423522949219, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 403.9423522949219, + 584.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 584.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 641.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 641.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.95086669921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.95086669921875, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 1 + ], + [ + "FigureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830359" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/_page_19_Figure_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/_page_19_Figure_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c0e18d7285029ca76b4e8e4b42d8311d992f0b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830359/_page_19_Figure_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c5420007b9fcff2de352b580b9cde4b6170c55aac2cac7632c957eb2c67bd90e +size 13151 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..810b38c846b71f01e5d23833d06656484c4fd36c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDEU, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX (Pretrial Motion # 11) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to suppress under the Fourth Amendment, Marta:dell. and the Fifth Amendment all evidence obtained from the government's subpoena to and to dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliaca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b767372649647670dc74925c3d8b41a092ebb4a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385/EFTA02830385.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830385.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1181, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER THE \nFOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDEU, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO \nSUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA \nTO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX \n(Pretrial Motion # 11)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 355.863037109375 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 355.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830385" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1518670e84d2f4e841c8d9a7bf340bb8b98b8579 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.md @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Mark S. = + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New + +York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | i | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| FACTUAL BACKGROUND | I | +| ARGUMENT | 2 | +| I. The government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression | 2 | +| A. | The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally | +| overbroad. | 4 | +| B. The government's subpoena to | was an unconstitutional warrantless Fourth | +| Amendment search | 6 | +| I. The third-party doctrine does not compel a different result. | 8 | +| C. The government's subpoena to | was an unconstitutional Fourth | +| Amendment seizure. | I 1 | +| II. The government's violation of Martindell | requires suppression 1 I | +| III. The government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression | 15 | +| Conclusion | 17 | +| Certificate of Service | 18 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| v United States, | 116 U.S. 616 (1886) | 3, 6, 15 | +|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------| +| Carpenter v. United States, | 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) | 3, 5, 6, 9 | +| Colorado v. Bannister, | 449 U.S. 1 (1980) | 3 | +| DeMassa v. Nunez, | 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir. 1985) | 10 | +| Doe v. Broderick, | 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) | 10, 13 | +| Fisher v. United States, | 425 U.S. 391 (1976) | 3, 15 | +| Hale v. Henkel, | 201 U.S. 43 (1906) | 2, 4 | +| In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, | 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) | 14 | +| In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-I5-029, | 828 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) | 4, 5, 11 | +| Katz v. United States, | 389 U.S. 347 (1967) | 2, 6 | +| v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, | 378 U.S. 52 (1964) | 2 | +| Palmieri v. State of New York, 779 | F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) | 14 | +| People v. Gutierrez, | 222 P.3d 925 (Colo. 2009) | 10 | +| People v. Mason, | 989 P.2d 757 (Colo. 1999) | 8 | +| v. Maryland, | 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) | passim | +| United States v. Calandra, | 414 U.S. 338 (1974) | | +| United States v. Di Re, | 332 U.S. 581 (1948) | | +| United States v. Dionisio, | 410 U.S. 1 (1973) | 2, 15 | +| United States v. | 425 U.S. 435 (1976) | 9, 10 | +| United States v. Oshatz, | 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) | 16 | +| United States v. Place, 462 | U.S. 696 (1983) | 3 | +| United States v. | MI 736 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2013) | 6 | + +#### Constitutional Provisions + +U.S. CONST. amend. IV passim + +U.S. CONST. amend. V passim + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. + +#### FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +Ms. Maxwell's Motion under the Due Process Clause to Suppress and Dismiss Counts 5 and 6 sets forth the facts relevant to this motion. Ms. Maxwell incorporates those facts by reference here. + +In summary, the government obtained proceeding before file, including the by way of a grand jury subpoena enforced through an ex pane Although the government claimed not to know what was in file and that Maxwell, both of these representations to had no role in instigating the investigation of were false. + +In turn, the government issued a in the See Motion under the Due Process Clause to Suppress and Dismiss Counts 5 and 6, Ex. C, at 3. The government could have been, but was not, more targeted in its approach. The government has not provided Maxwell with a copy of the subpoena, but the record shows that the subpoena was incredibly broad and, as explained below, ultimately unlawful. + +The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and because it effected a warrantless search and seizure of material in which Maxwell had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, by securing a modification of the Protective Order through a secret, ex parse proceeding, the government violated Martindell v. Intl Tel. & TeL Corp., 594 + +F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), which required the government to give Maxwell notice and an opportunity to be heard on its request. And in bypassing Martindell and eviscerating the guarantee of confidentiality provided by the Protective Order, the government trampled on Maxwell's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which she declined to invoke in reliance on the protections afforded her by Martindell and the Protective Order. + +This Court should (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained from and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +## ARGUMENT + +### I. The government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression. + +The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The "Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms `to be regarded as reasonable."' United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1973) (quoting Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906), abrogated in pan on other grounds by v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 68 (1964)). + +The government engages in a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes when its conduct encroaches on an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."). Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, a governmental search is unconstitutional unless the government conducts it under a warrant issued based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the place searched. + +*Carpenter v. United States*, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (2018) (holding that an “official intrusion into [the] private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause”). “[A] compulsory production of . . . private books and papers . . . is the equivalent of a search and seizure—and an unreasonable search and seizure—within the meaning of the fourth amendment.” [REDACTED] v *United States*, 116 U.S. 616, 634–35 (1886), *overruling in part on other grounds as recognized in Fisher v. United States*, 425 U.S. 391, 407–08 (1976). + +Finally, “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘effects’ as well as people from unreasonable searches and seizures.” *United States v. Place*, 462 U.S. 696, 716 (1983) ([REDACTED], J. concurring). It thus “protects two different interests of the citizen—the interest in retaining possession of property and the interest in maintaining personal privacy.” *Id.* (cleaned up). “A seizure threatens the former, a search the latter.” *Id.* Like a search, a seizure is “per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.” *Id.* at 701; see *Colorado v. Bannister*, 449 U.S. 1, 3 (1980). + +Here, the grand jury subpoena was unconstitutionally overbroad because it sought production of [REDACTED] entire file and was therefore akin to a general warrant. Moreover, there is no dispute the government did not establish probable cause to believe that [REDACTED] [REDACTED] file contained evidence of a crime. ([REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]) Nor is there a dispute that the government lacked a warrant. ([REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]) Since the government had neither probable cause nor a warrant, the [REDACTED] must be suppressed because the subpoena to [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] was in fact a Fourth Amendment search. And even if the government’s conduct did not amount to a search, it constituted a seizure, which likewise should have been supported by probable cause and warrant. + +**A. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally overbroad.** + +The subpoena to [REDACTED] was unconstitutionally overbroad, and this Court should suppress all evidence produced in response. + +“[A]n order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the 4th Amendment.” *Hale*, 201 U.S. at 76. Because the Fourth Amendment was drafted with a particular eye to the abuse of general warrants, *id.* at 71, a subpoena that is “unreasonably overbroad” effects an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, *In re Grand Jury Subpoena*, *JK-15-029*, 828 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016). An overbroad subpoena is “equally indefensible as a search warrant would be if couched in similar terms.” *Id.* (quoting *Hale*, 201 U.S. at 77). A subpoena is overbroad when the government fails to make a “reasonable effort to request only those documents that are relevant and non-privileged, consistent with the extent of its knowledge about the matter under investigation.” *Id.* + +Here, the government by its own admission made *no effort*—must less a reasonable effort—to tailor and target the subpoena to [REDACTED]. As the prosecutor said to [REDACTED]: + +[REDACTED]: + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +See Motion under the Due Process Clause to Suppress and Dismiss Counts 5 and 6, Ex. D, at 17 (emphasis added). The government's representations to were, of course, false. The government met with before it issued the subpoena, it knew what was in file and who was and it nevertheless disclaimed any ability to narrowly tailor any subpoena. Given "its knowledge about the matter tinder investigation," the government's failure to make any effort, much less a "reasonable effort," to request "only those documents that are relevant and non-privileged," renders the subpoena overbroad and unconstitutional. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK- 15- 029, 828 F.3d at 1088. + +So overbroad was the subpoena that actually produced to the government + +It is obvious why the Fourth Amendment requires suppression Id. at 1089. This type of overbroad subpoena is exactly what the Fourth Amendment is designed to prohibit: searches that invade "the privacies of life" from "arbitrary" power and "police surveillance" that is "too permeating." See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213 (quoting v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)). Otherwise, "when the government seeks all material of a broad generic type that a party possesses-e very piece of paper in a corporation's files, for example, or, as in this case," every piece of paper in a file, "a reasonable possibility that some of that material would be relevant would suffice to validate the subpoena, no matter how vast its sweep, and no matter the + +degree to which the subpoena would reach private material of no pertinence to the grand jury's inquiry." See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d at 1089. The Fourth Amendment does not allow such a sweeping search, which would be nothing but a modem-day general warrant. Id. at 1088.' This Court should suppress all evidence the government obtained from the subpoena to + +### B. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional warrantless Fourth Amendment search. + +Apart from its overbreadth, the subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it amounted to a warrantless search without probable cause. + +The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351. Thus, "when an individual 'seeks to preserve something as private,' and [her] expectation of privacy is 'one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,' .. . that official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause." Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213 (quoting 442 U.S. at 740). This definition of a what constitutes a "search" "seeks to secure 'the privacies of life' against 'arbitrary power' and "to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance." Id. at 2214 (quoting M, 116 U.S. at 630; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948)). A "grand jury is ... 'without power to invade a legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.' United States v. M, 736 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 (1974)). + +I It is for this reason that this Court should grant Maxwell's Motion for Discovery of every grand jury subpoena. Without being able to examine the grand jury subpoenas, Maxwell cannot evaluate whether other subpoenas issued by the grand jury in connection with this case are unconstitutionally overbroad, as the subpoena to + +Maxwell had a legitimate expectation of privacy in her because she reasonably sought to preserve them as private. Both of her were confidential under the Protective Order, which prohibited from sharing them with third parties, including law enforcement. The Protective Order deliberately excluded a law enforcement exception. While the Protective Order did not apply to evidence produced at trial, the parties settled the defamation action before trial, conclusively establishing the privacy of Maxwell's deposition testimony. Indeed, under the plain terms of the Protective Order, were required to return or destroy all confidential information at the conclusion of the case, including Maxwell's deposition transcripts. refused to do so although ordered to do so by Judge Sweet.3 + +In its application to the government Not only did the government misunderstand how the Protective Order worked, but its argument also supports rather than undermines Maxwell's legitimate expectation of privacy in her deposition transcripts. + +To be sure, the Protective Order did not apply to evidence produced at trial. That is entirely unremarkable, however, because trials are open to the public and the press. What matters is that the civil case did not go to trial; it settled before trial, and under the Protective Order's terms, + +2Not to mention all the other material she designated as "Confidential" under the Protective Order. + +Ascribing a legitimate expectation of privacy to Maxwell's also fits Martindell's admonition that the government may not "insinuate itself into a private civil lawsuit between others." 594 F.2d at 294. + +including Maxwell's [REDACTED], and not to share Confidential information with law enforcement. [REDACTED]: + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Motion under the Due Process Clause to Suppress and Dismiss Counts 5 and 6, Ex. F, at 11 (emphases in original). + +Maxwell thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her [REDACTED] and everything else she designated as "Confidential" under the Protective Order.4 Obtaining that confidential material by subpoena therefore amounted to a search under the Fourth Amendment. Because the government had neither probable cause nor a warrant, this Court should suppress the [REDACTED] and all material Maxwell designated as Confidential. + +**1. The third-party doctrine does not compel a different result.** + +It is irrelevant that Maxwell's [REDACTED] were in the possession of [REDACTED] and not her own attorneys. The third-party doctrine does not apply here because + +--- + +4 This argument adheres to *Martindell*'s holding that the government there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain the [REDACTED]. For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in *Martindell*, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, *Martindell* does not speak to what showing would have been required for the issuance of a subpoena, probable cause or something less. Even if a warrant weren't required here, a showing of probable cause was. *See People v. Mason*, 989 P.2d 757, 760 (Colo. 1999) (noting jurisdictions that recognize an expectation of privacy in subpoenaed materials and that require a subpoena *duces tecum* of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with *Martindell* because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adversary process. + +Maxwell did not voluntarily share anything with and because every other circumstance supported Maxwell's expectation that her would be private. + +The Supreme Court has held that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information [she] voluntarily turns over to third parties." M, 442 U.S. at 743-44. "That remains true 'even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose.'" Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2216 (quoting United States v. 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976)). + +In v. Maryland, the Court ruled that the government's use of a pen register—a device used by telephone companies to record the outgoing phone numbers dialed on a landline telephone—was not a search. By placing calls from his landline, the Court reasoned, "voluntarily conveyed" the dialed numbers to the telephone company by "expos[ing] that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business." 442 U.S. at 744. The Court held that has "assumed the risk" that the telephone company's records "would be divulged to police." Id. at 745. + +Similarly, in United States v.=, the Court ruled that the government could subpoena an individual's bank records, including several months of canceled checks, deposit slips, and monthly statements. The Court explained that because the checks were "not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions," and because the bank statements contained information "exposed to [bank] employees in the ordinary course of business," had only a limited expectation of privacy. 425 U.S. at 442. The Court determined that had "take[n] the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information [would] be conveyed by that person to the Government." Id. at 443. + +Neither nor supports a conclusion that Maxwell had anything but a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in her not "voluntarily convey" Moreover, Maxwell declined to answer First, Maxwell did sued her, not the other way around. None of this was voluntary. + +Second, Maxwell's expectation of privacy in her is not limited in the way expectation of privacy was limited in his bank records. To the contrary, both Maxwell's were confidential under the Protective Order. And while the Protective Order did not apply to evidence produced at trial, the case settled before trial, thereby confirming Maxwell's legitimate expectation that the would not be shared outside the attorneys working in the case and, if necessary, the district court. + +Third, Maxwell reasonably understood that the would not be shared with the government. proposed a law enforcement exception to the Protective Order's confidentiality requirement, but Maxwell rejected the exception and the district court never adopted it. Unlike in and M, Maxwell did not "assume the risk" that her would be divulged to the government. + +Had the government obtained the from Maxwell's attomeys, there would be no question that the government's conduct would constitute a Fourth Amendment search. "[C]lients of an attorney maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in their client files." DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505, 1506 (9th Cir. 1985); see Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440, 450-52 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that detective's examination of a patient file held by a methadone clinic was a search and, without probable cause, violated the patient's Fourth + +Amendment rights); see also People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925, 936 (Colo. 2009) (concluding that a taxpayer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information conveyed to his tax preparer because "state and federal laws ... shield a taxpayer's return from unfettered access by government officials"). Because she did not voluntarily offer her and because she reasonably believed was and would remain private under the Protective Order, Maxwell had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in her even though the government obtained them from a third party other than her attorneys. See In re Grand Jetty Subpoena, JK-I5-029, 828 F.3d at 1090 ("DAS's current possession of (Kitzhaber's] emails does not vitiate that claim. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Kitzhaber's interests therefore attach to the things seized, not merely to the place where they are located." (cleaned up)). + +### C. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment seizure. + +Although Fourth Amendment challenges typically involve "the subsequent search of the container rather than to its initial seizure by the authorities, ... a seizure of personal property is per se unreasonable" under the "Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized." M, 462 U.S. at 701-02. Here, the government . The government did not obtain a warrant, nor did it establish probable cause for the seizure. For this additional reason, this Court should suppress the and all material Maxwell designated as confidential. + +## II. The government's violation of Martindell requires suppression. + +By issuing a the government circumvented the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. and violated Maxwell's rights. + +In Martindell, the government tried to obtain deposition transcripts of twelve individuals deposed in a private shareholders' derivative lawsuit. 594 F.2d at 292-93. All twelve depositions were taken "pursuant to a court-approved stipulation to the effect that the depositions should be treated as confidential and used solely by the parties for prosecution or defense of the action." Id. at 292. Without seeking to intervene, and without serving a subpoena or warrant, the government called and then wrote to the district court to request access to the deposition transcripts. Id. at 293. The government claimed that the deposition transcripts were relevant to its investigation of perjury, subordination of perjury, and conspiracy related to the 1970 presidential election in Chile. Id. The government, "moreover, feared that unless it could obtain the deposition transcripts, it would be unable to secure statements from the witnesses because they would claim their Fifth Amendment rights in any investigative interviews." Id. The district court denied the government's request, "holding that the deposition testimony had been given in reliance upon the protective order, thus rendering unnecessary invocation by the witnesses of their Fifth Amendment rights, that the requested turnover would raise constitutional issues, and that principles of fairness mandated enforcement of the protective order." Id. The government appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed. + +The Second Circuit was blunt in explaining the government's missteps: + +The government may not ... simply by picking up the telephone or writing a letter to the court (as was the case here), insinuate itself into a private civil lawsuit between others. The proper procedure, as the government should know, was either to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in a pending proceeding such as a grand jury investigation or trial, in which the issue could be raised by motion to quash or modify the subpoena, see Rule 17(c), or to seek permissive intervention in the private action pursuant to Rule 24(b), for the purpose of obtaining vacation or modification of the protective order. + +*Id.* at 294. Either avenue, explained the Court, would provide the real party in interest notice of the government's request and an opportunity to be heard, either by moving to quash the subpoena or opposing intervention and modification of the protective order. *Id.* + +The Court also rejected the government's argument that the district court was too solicitous of the witnesses' Fifth Amendment rights. *Id.* at 295. According to the Government, the witnesses were under no compulsion to testify, and having given testimony, they voluntarily waived any Fifth Amendment right they may have had. *Id.* But as the Second Circuit explained, the government's argument ignored the reality of civil litigation: + +Unless a valid Rule 26(c) protective order is to be fully and fairly enforceable, witnesses relying upon such orders will be inhibited from giving essential testimony in civil litigation, thus undermining a procedural system that has been successfully developed over the years for disposition of civil differences. In short, witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders. + +*Id.* at 295–96. The Court thus held: + +[A]bsent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, none of which appear here, a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government, and that such an order should not be vacated or modified merely to accommodate the government's desire to inspect protected testimony for possible use in a criminal investigation, either as evidence or as the subject of a possible perjury charge. + +*Id.* at 296. + +Maxwell did not even know the government had her [REDACTED] until after she was + +indicted, and she didn't know for a month more just [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +*Martindell* has been binding Second Circuit law for more than forty years, and the government's violation of its holding is no trivial matter. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In *Palmieri v. State of New York*, the federal magistrate issued two sealing orders protecting the confidentiality of settlement discussions of a private antitrust case. 779 F.2d 861, 863-64 (2d Cir. 1985). Because the subject matter of the antitrust case overlapped with an ongoing state criminal antitrust case, the state Attorney General moved to intervene in the private antitrust case, to modify the seal orders, to access the settlement material, and to present the material and testimony to a state grand jury. *Id.* at 862. The district court granted the Attorney General's request, but the Second Circuit, applying *Martindell*, reversed. *Id.* The Second Circuit recognized that the state Attorney General, like the federal government, "enjoys a similarly privileged position with respect to its investigatory powers." *Id.* at 866. Those powers, in turn, "raise[d] a rebuttable presumption against modification of the orders." *Id.* Indeed, given the parties' reliance on the sealing orders, the Attorney General's "burden [was] heavier than it might otherwise be." *Id.* at 865. + +Here, the government did not even attempt the Martindell process the Attorney General attempted in Palmieri. + +## III. The government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression. + +The Fifth Amendment provides: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. CONST. amend. V. For three separate reasons + +violates the Fifth Amendment. + +First, the Fifth Amendment "proscribe[s] the compelled production of ... a Testimonial Communication that is incriminating." Fisher, 425 U.S. at 408; see Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 11 ("The grand jury cannot require a witness to testify against himself."). The subpoena to contravenes this proscription because it literally "compels production" of Maxwell's incriminating testimony + +Second, "a compulsory production of the private books and papers ... [also] is compelling ... him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." 116 U.S. at 634-35. Even if the subpoena does not literally require Maxwell to "testify against herself," Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 11, Maxwell's were private and confidential under the Protective Order. Supra Part I.B. Compelling production of these is itself a Fifth Amendment violation. + +Third, the government's circumvention of Martindell unconstitutionally burdens Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights. the government's conduct, and it authorized her to give . But Martindell protects Maxwell from under the shield of the Protective Order without worrying whether the government could "insinuate itself" into the + +case and use her own words against her. 594 F.2d at 294. The Fifth Amendment would mean nothing if an individual were told by a district court that she need not invoke its protections because the government could not use her testimony against her—or at least could not do so without notice and an opportunity to be heard—only to find out that the testimony she offered with the district court's blessing was the primary evidence against her in a criminal case and the basis of perjury charges. + +That is the lesson of United States v. Oshatz, in which this Court quashed a government subpoena issued to a court reporter for a transcript of a deposition offered by the defendant in a civil proceeding. 700 F. Supp. 696, 697 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Oshatz (who had been indicted at the time of his deposition) was deposed and did not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on "the understanding that a protective order would preserve his Fifth Amendment rights." Id. at 699. Applying Martindell, this Court quashed the government's subpoena and refused to release the deposition transcript because the "government [had] not argued that the protective order was improvidently granted or that there [were] some extraordinary circumstances or compelling need." Id. at 701. + +Here, as in Oshatz, Maxwell was deposed on "the understanding that a protective order would preserve" the confidentiality of her testimony. And even though Maxwell had not been indicted at the time of her depositions, the threat of an investigation was obvious, and that threat was the very reason the Protective Order deliberately excluded a law-enforcement exception. (Moreover, Maxwell moved the court to require to disclose any law enforcement investigation of which she was aware.) As in Oshatz, the Protective Order was designed to preserve Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights. Where this Court in Oshatz granted a motion to quash, here it should grant a motion to suppress. + +For these reasons, this Court should suppress the under the Fifth Amendment. + +from For these reasons, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. + +# Conclusion + +Dated: January 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20cfc30d55bfb33e93599ed5725f57a705900849 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387/EFTA02830387.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1205 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830387.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 35771, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.1, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, \nMARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE \nOBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO AND \nTO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 538.597412109375, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 538.597412109375, + 330.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 330.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 205.12149047851562, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 205.12149047851562, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 308.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 308.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 534.7327880859375, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 534.7327880859375, + 335.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 335.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally overbroad.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 184.68 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional \nwarrantless Fourth Amendment search.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 517.1322631835938, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 517.1322631835938, + 240.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 240.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The third-party doctrine does not compel a different result.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 481.644, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 481.644, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The government's subpoena to was an unconstitutional \nFourth Amendment seizure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 517.1322631835938, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 517.1322631835938, + 405.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 405.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 460.086181640625, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 460.086181640625, + 653.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 653.6030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 523.11279296875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 523.11279296875, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 343.20654296875, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 343.20654296875, + 144.25042724609375 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 144.25042724609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 71.46331787109375 + ], + [ + 368.5646057128906, + 71.46331787109375 + ], + [ + 368.5646057128906, + 87.8994140625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 87.8994140625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830387" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07665064c2ea93fe0497edefa655c02e00800f6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT (Pretrial Motion # 1) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the superseding indictment for breach of the non-prosecution agreement. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. mcohen@cohengresser.com Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 9574514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger + +I1ADDON, & P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0ff0d1ce68f0d138531b7332f6b28ee3633755d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409/EFTA02830409.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830409.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1100, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION \nTO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nFOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT \n(Pretrial Motion # 1)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 482.98699951171875, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 482.98699951171875, + 333.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 333.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830409" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc9f7299266d5cdfe1aa523a6a9bd18638dc5a4b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.md @@ -0,0 +1,238 @@ +# Exhibit A + +# COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A + +## NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM + +#### IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +### NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- (I) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation ofTitk 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +#### Terms of the Agreement + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of FL Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information fled by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation ofFlorida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive tams of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment and + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +- 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +- 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person end/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States. Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +- 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. +- 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +- 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +1. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +2. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Lesley Groff, or [REDACTED]. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, involate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated: 77a, + +Dated: + +Dated: + +gill;ILLAFARA AS U.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN Mil ESQ. ATTORNEY Y EPSTEIN + +yt + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. AT'T'ORNEY + +Dated; + +Dated: /Lit/ 0 7 + +Dated: + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +CO ESQ. OUNSEL TO Y EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +By: \_\_\_\_\_ + +A [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: 9-24-07 + +![]()EC RE: + +#### INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +#### ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the panics seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7), that agreement is modified as follows: + +- 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +- 711. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, Ifafter consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALE [REDACTED] ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 1/20/07 + +By: + +*(initials)* + +*Jeffrey H. Homan* FAUSA + +A. [REDACTED] VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 1/29/07 + +![]()Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED], ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendtnn, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: he/o7 Br + +Dated: + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LAFARA U.S. ATTORNEY se, trAvSti + +RALD LEFCO ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFF Y EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: + +*[Handwritten signature]* +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: 10-29-07 + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED] ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dec-07-07 04:55pm From [REDACTED] Burnett + +3057880201 + +T-966 P.003/004 F-976 + +Affirmation + +I, Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to name dated October 30, 2007. + +![]()![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78b70c88fbd2a504a5a0a25582772b503fd2e347 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411/EFTA02830411.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,772 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830411.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 19279, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.32, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0247802734375, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0247802734375, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 398.7928161621094, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 398.7928161621094, + 317.5213623046875 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 317.5213623046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND \nADDENDUM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 146.88, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 459.0714416503906, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 459.0714416503906, + 374.5213623046875 + ], + [ + 146.88, + 374.5213623046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN RE: \nINVESTIGATION OF \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 97.92, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 210.951904296875, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 210.951904296875, + 191.34405517578125 + ], + [ + 97.92, + 191.34405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 228.09405517578125 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 228.09405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 145.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 145.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVESTIGATION OF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 205.22640991210938, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 205.22640991210938, + 148.715087890625 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 148.715087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 369.10430908203125, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 369.10430908203125, + 211.3350830078125 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 211.3350830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Affirmation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 151.47 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830411" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83c987fa92e8326f70806d66ad1c4869a58c8d76 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.md @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +# Exhibit B + +# DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +# OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY + +# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT + +Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation + +November 2020 + +## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing. + +#### I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage. Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal investigation. + +The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges. + +For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The + +As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age of 18. + +NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or the NPA prior to its signing. + +The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration, however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA, to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court. + +On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.2 In responding to the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil cases against Epstein. + +2 Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforccmcnt of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as "Jane Doe 2." + +Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge in September 2009 ordered it to be made public. + +By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. + +In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. + +In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018, however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.3 The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the Miami Herald, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime" that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his + +3 Julie K. =, "Perversion of Justice," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018 banswwww miamiherald com/ newsilocalianicle220097825.html. + +abuse of minors. The *Miami Herald* report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the government's actions.4 + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5 The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [*sic*] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal prosecution of Epstein. + +On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from 2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. + +Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 *Miami Herald* report, the media and Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as + +4 *See, e.g.*, Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for billionaire sex abuser," *The Business Insider*, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," *NBC Nightly News*, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," *McClatchy Washington Bureau*, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser," *Huffington Post*, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. [REDACTED], et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," *Miami Herald*, Dec. 6, 2018. + +5 *Doe v. United States*, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV-Marra). + +Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor Department. + +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide. + +As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on August 29, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings, the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims. + +On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe 1" filed in her true name a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +## H. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION + +After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened + +an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6 + +After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal investigation. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. + +In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts with the USAO and the FBI. + +OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR + +6The federal government was dosed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the status of the OPR investigation. + +carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions. + +Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. + +As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent information. + +OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. + +#### III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK + +OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to + +In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstcin's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program. + +8OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was rccuscd from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews. + +investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct. + +In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10 + +## IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED + +In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report. + +## A. The Negotiation, Execution, and I mplementation of the NPA + +In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NM's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NM violated standards relating to (I) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants + +928 C.F.R. § 0.39a(aX1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases. + +10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation. + +of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation. + +#### B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA + +To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USA() affirmatively misled Epstein's victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. + +#### V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions. + +#### A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA + +With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not + +find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +#### B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with Victims + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +#### VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT + +The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question. OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with the subjects. + +In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008 guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July 2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects' conduct. + +Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects' conduct in light of the pertinent standards. + +OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including internal USA° and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b77d20ccf7b2791b133e808324649b98dc513e2a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/EFTA02830427.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,904 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 43611, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.6, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0407409667969, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 413.0407409667969, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.344, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9945373535156, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 453.9945373535156, + 179.65924072265625 + ], + [ + 160.344, + 179.65924072265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OFFICE OF \nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 379.89 + ], + [ + 487.52337646484375, + 379.89 + ], + [ + 487.52337646484375, + 426.0392761230469 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 426.0392761230469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 501.4989013671875, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 501.4989013671875, + 472.9192810058594 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 472.9192810058594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.12652587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.12652587890625, + 88.62091064453125 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 88.62091064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 350.78448486328125, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 350.78448486328125, + 240.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 240.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 464.12999999999994 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 464.12999999999994 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 479.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 479.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 236.26071166992188, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 236.26071166992188, + 358.67999267578125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 358.67999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Negotiation, Execution, and I mplementation of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 457.0236511230469, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 457.0236511230469, + 452.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.50921630859375, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.50921630859375, + 344.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 530.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 530.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 528.1200000000001 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 528.1200000000001 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 557.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 557.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830427" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbd7ac3f7f608bb8aa96424c8374eaa46678545c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830427/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9f96e2b3132e3ed9dcc4089fe2d857ba5012e00f01baf6cec46b5faf7e3e3028 +size 24523 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bf4e628f90c741503e6a15285fee2c60cf86a1c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit C (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c05e0037173cdbdc82ee71618d240e6473ac9ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441/EFTA02830441.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830441.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 318.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 318.6527099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830441" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..975a2651679816483deff2064578f441e568075c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8d828d0942be8bae36b6c746a9648aef9497ea7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442/EFTA02830442.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830442.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 318.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830442" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e2f97aa9b750f5005fa43799328584aca32c4fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit E (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38c5536e9fd788b33c686a84adab6c67cd069499 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443/EFTA02830443.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830443.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit E \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 318.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830443" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84d8bfda9fe1d22cb7329f96187d012caaf71b51 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit F (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e18ba85ef833bbf115a79727bd7d161c053fe6e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444/EFTA02830444.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830444.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit F \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 318.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830444" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7870761b45f7d465b6fd45795f052569023c36c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit G (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47b62d948c9dc4a22b4c1099634cc6d2d4396d17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445/EFTA02830445.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830445.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit G \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3948059082031, + 318.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.91168212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830445" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b732c0d9706fb7ede22d7c36cd393aa91822d96e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit H (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a5e3400876dce63a767dc240db5c6d5800fc97e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446/EFTA02830446.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830446.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit H \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 497.2635498046875, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 497.2635498046875, + 318.6526794433594 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.6526794433594 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830446" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46ce4d4861bbf4c08f9054e94ff9957e5e919801 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.md @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +—X + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +Mark S. = Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| STATEMENT OF FACTS | 7 | +| A. The Structure of the NPA | 8 | +| B. The Negotiation of the NPA | II | +| ARGUMENT | 12 | +| I. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. | 14 | +| A. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. | 15 | +| B. The NPA's Prohibition on Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not | | +| Limited to the SDFL. | 18 | +| I. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District | 18 | +| 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. | 19 | +| a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator | | +| immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL | 20 | +| b. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi | | +| supports Ms. Maxwell's position | 22 | +| c. To the extent that Annabi conflicts with Eleventh Circuit law, | | +| of the NPA here. | 23 | +| C. The NPA's Prohibition on the Prosecution of Potential Co-conspirators Is | | +| Particular Statutory Offenses. | 26 | +| II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Permit Discovery and Conduct an Evidentiary | | +| Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent | 28 | +| CONCLUSION | 32 | + +#### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, | Page(s) | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------| +| 140 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1998) Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, | 23 | +| 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005) Chen St v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc., | 15 | +| 226 F. Supp. 2d 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) Crutsinger v. Hess, | 15 | +| 408 F. Supp. 548 (D. Kan. 1976) Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mid-Valley, Inc., | 24 | +| 763 F.2d 1316 (I Ith Cir. 1985) Giglio v. United States, | 15 | +| 405 U.S. 150 (1972) | 13 | +| In re M, | | +| 955 F.3d 1196 (I I th Cir.), | reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 | +| (11th Cir. 2020) Index Fund, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., | 11 | +| 580 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1978) Innes v. Dalsheim, | 23 | +| 864 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1988) | 14 | +| 424 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2005) v. United States, | 21, 27 | +| Nos. 14 Civ. 846, 04 Cr. 937-1, 2015 WL 3413596 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) | 18 | +| 826 F. App'x 822 (11th Cir. 2020) Santobello v. New York, | 21, 27 | +| 404 U.S. 257 (1971) Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am.. Inc., | 12 | +| 425 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005) | 15 | + +| United States v. Aleman ,
286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002)..... | 29 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| United States v. Annabi ,
771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)..... | passim | +| United States v. Ashraf ,
320 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2009) ..... | 22 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002)..... | 23 | +| United States v. CFW Const. Co. ,
583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), aff'd , 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984) ..... | 16 | +| United States v. Clements ,
992 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1993)..... | 15 | +| United States v. D'Amico ,
734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)..... | 21 | +| United States v. El-Sadig ,
133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001)..... | 17 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019)..... | 13, 26, 29, 30 | +| United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc. ,
853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ..... | 16, 17 | +| United States v. Gebbie ,
294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002)..... | 24, 25 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) ..... | 14, 22, 27, 29 | +| United States v. Harvey ,
791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) ..... | 24 | +| United States v. Laskow ,
688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd , 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) ..... | 21 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1084 (1991)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Mozer ,
828 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ..... | 12 | + +| United States v. Papa, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1975) | 29 | +| 620 F. Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.), gird, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985) | 22 | +| 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) | 22 | +| 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) | 12 | +| 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) | 20, 21, 23 | +| 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) | 22 | +| No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) | 29 | +| 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) | 24 | +| 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) | 13 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | 26 | +| 18 U.S.C.§ 2423 | 26 | +| Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630 | 19, 21 | + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Motion"). + +One does not need to engage in complex analysis to understand what has happened here: the government has sought to substitute our client for Jeffrey Epstein, even if it means stretching—and ultimately exceeding—the bounds of the law. Yet, it is in precisely this setting—involving a defendant who, despite her years of denials, has been publicly attacked, threatened, and vilified like few others in recent memory—that the government's scrupulous adherence to the law in prosecuting a criminal defendant is most critical. As the motions being filed today demonstrate, the government has repeatedly fallen short of its obligations here. The indictment must be dismissed. + +The government's sudden zeal to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for alleged conduct with Epstein in the 1990s—conduct for which the government never even charged Epstein-follows a history that is both highly unusual and deeply troubling. The government (and state authorities) investigated Epstein thoroughly in 2006 for alleged conduct that is essentially identical to the conduct alleged in the current indictment. In 2007, the government's investigation was resolved when it entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Epstein, which was negotiated under the supervision of R. Alexander Acosta, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"), and approved by senior levels of Main Justice, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. In that NPA, the government agreed that any federal prosecution of Epstein in the SDFL would be deferred in exchange for Epstein's agreement to + +plead guilty to a single-count Florida state indictment.' Epstein did so in 2008 and went to prison for 13 months. At that time, the government did not charge Ms. Maxwell. + +In 2016, attorneys representing plaintiffs in civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell met with a section chief in the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and pitched the idea of bringing a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell for conduct similar, if not identical, to that alleged in the current indictment. The section chief appropriately declined. + +Then, in 2018, more than a decade after the NPA was executed, an explosive front-page article in the Miami Herald reported detailed allegations, including from attorneys representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, about Epstein's conduct, Acosta's handling of the 2006 investigation, the process by which the NPA had been negotiated, and its substantive terms. In the wake of the article, the government indicted Epstein in this District for conduct allegedly committed between 2002 and 2005. Again, the government did not charge Ms. Maxwell. + +Thus, at three separate junctures over more than a decade, the government had occasion to consider whether to charge Ms. Maxwell for the now 25-year-old conduct alleged in the current indictment. Every time, the government—appropriately—did not do so. Indeed, such charges would have been baseless. + +But in August 2019, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell. His death while in federal custody was not only disturbing, but publicly embarrassing for the government, characterized by the then-Attorney General as the result of "a perfect storm of screw-ups." + +Worse still, almost to the day after Epstein died, the barrage of media attention shifted from Epstein to Ms. Maxwell, including in mainstream publications. She was portrayed as + +' The government had drafted a 60-count federal indictment against Epstein, which did not refer to Ms. Maxwell. + +Epstein's equal—if not his superior—and baselessly caricatured as a villain of near-mythical proportions. Only at this time did the government, according to its own account, decide to launch an investigation of Ms. Maxwell and prosecute her on allegations that it had previously, repeatedly (and properly, since any charges would have been baseless) determined did not merit charges. In short, the government's response to the media frenzy was not to adhere to its earlier objective analysis and consideration of the facts, but to feed the frenzy and substitute Ms. Maxwell for Epstein. + +Thus, the government announced its arrest and indictment of Ms. Maxwell on July 2, 2020, the exact anniversary of Epstein's indictment. At an extraordinary press conference, the United States Attorney for this District described Ms. Maxwell's prosecution as the "prequel" to the Epstein indictment; thereafter, the then-Attorney General, in rare public comments on bail proceedings in an individual case, expressed his delight that "we were able to get Miss Maxwell." + +But in trying "to get" Ms. Maxwell, the government compromised its standards, cut corners, and exceeded its authority under the law. This is shown in the present motion and others we are filing today, and includes the following: + +- The government has pressed forward with this case even though the NPA expressly provides that "the United States . . . will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Rather than argue, as it has time and again, that such agreements should be construed as drafted, the government does the opposite here, retreating from the very agreement that its own agents negotiated and agreed to with the approval of senior levels of Main Justice. +- The government has concocted a federal Act case against Ms. Maxwell by alleging that, on some unspecified occasion during a four-year period between 1994 and 1997, and in an unspecified manner, she somehow transported and caused a single individual to travel across state lines for purposes of engaging in unlawful sexual activity with Epstein. Those charges, in turn, require the government to allege a violation of New York law relating to sexual activity. Here, the government has relied upon an alleged class B misdemeanor that, if the state statute of limitations had + +not expired, would be punishable by up to three months in prison — less time than Ms. Maxwell has already spent in pretrial detention. Yet, here, that misdemeanor has been set up as the basis for federal charges for which the government seeks to impose years of imprisonment, if not the equivalent of a life term. Not only is this troubling in approach, but even the pieced-together Act charges are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. + +- In seeking and obtaining confidential materials from pending civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell, including the deposition transcripts that form the basis of the two ury counts in the indictment, the government +- The government has based the two counts of perjury on poorly worded questions that were immaterial to the defamation case in which the depositions were taken, and has improperly joined those counts to the Act charges, as addressed in today's motions to dismiss and to sever those counts. +- In an effort to allow other accusers to testify against Ms. Maxwell, the government has added two conspiracy counts and, as alleged "overt acts" in furtherance of a purported conspiracy to cause minors to travel, has tacked on allegations from two other accusers—one of whom is not alleged to have traveled at all (and who was above the legal age of consent in England, where the alleged conduct took place). +- In its rush to arrest Ms. Maxwell on the anniversary of Epstein's indictment and maximize the announcement's appeal to the media, the government indicted Ms. Maxwell using a Plains grand jury, thereby violating Ms. Maxwell's right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. +- Finally, the government has charged multiplicitous conspiracy counts based on identical conduct, failed to disclose the names of the accusing witnesses or provide specific facts in the indictment that would permit Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare for trial, and impermissibly delayed bringing this prosecution for 25 years in violation of Ms. Maxwell's due process rights. + +The hue and cry against Ms. Maxwell is unprecedented in both scale and severity. Under our system of justice, the need for the Court's careful scrutiny of the government's conduct, and for the protection of the constitutional rights of a defendant facing the equivalent of a life sentence, is at its highest. This case is not about "getting" Ms. Maxwell (or any other + +defendant); it is about whether the government, in bringing charges, has met the governing legal standards. It has not done so here, and the indictment must be dismissed. + +• \* \* \* + +This memorandum focuses on the NPA. As this memorandum demonstrates, Ms. Maxwell's indictment violates the clear and unqualified terms of the NPA and should therefore be dismissed. The NPA was heavily negotiated over approximately eight months and involved not only Epstein and the SDFL but also senior levels of Main Justice in Washington, D.C., which approved the NPA before its execution. Given the blistering public criticism of the NPA and of Acosta's handling of the Epstein investigation, it is understandable that the current regime may wish the government had not entered into the NPA, or that it had negotiated different terms. Indeed, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") found that Acosta exercised "poor judgment" and "agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA," which OPR characterized as a "unique resolution." + +But the government is bound by the agreement it negotiated and executed. And the NPA is clear, explicit, and unambiguous. The government cannot now ask this Court to rewrite the agreement in a way more favorable to its current position, nor overlook key distinctions in the agreement, by claiming that they were drafting mistakes or omissions. Nor may the government ask this Court to construe ambiguities in its favor, in contravention of black-letter law that nonprosecution agreements must be construed strictly against the government. + +The government, in prior submissions, has raised three arguments why the NPA does not apply here, none of which has merit: + +First, the government asserts that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA because she is not a party to it and is not named in it. The government ignores that the parties to the NPA clearly intended to confer a benefit on any and all of Epstein's potential co-conspirators in explicitly giving them immunity. Under well-established principles of general contract law, and particularly under the law relating to non-prosecution agreements, any and all of Epstein's potential co-conspirators are third-party beneficiaries of the NPA. As federal courts have repeatedly recognized in enforcing third-party immunity provisions, a third-party beneficiary need not be expressly named in an immunity provision as long as she falls within the class of persons on whom the parties intended to confer immunity. Because the indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator of Epstein, she falls well within the protection provided by the NPA. + +Second, the government claims that the co-conspirator immunity provision applies only to prosecutions in the SDFL. But the NPA was a highly negotiated, non-standard agreement. It is not the standard agreement the government wishes it to be. The plain language of the NPA squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United States Attorney and/or the USAO-SDFL. Indeed, compare the NPA's immunity provision for Epstein himself, which is expressly limited to prosecutions in the SDFL, and the co-conspirator immunity provision, which contains no such limitation. Even if the language were ambiguous as to its impact on prosecutions on the SDFL, which it is not, any ambiguity must be construed against the government. + +In opposition, the government relies on the Second Circuit's statement that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." + +United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). Annabi supports dismissal here by confirming that where, as here, both the text of the NPA and the facts and circumstances of the underlying negotiations demonstrate an intent to bind the United States (other USAOs), they are so bound. Alternatively, any application of Annabi that limits the NPA's effect to the SDFL would conflict with the likely interpretation of the NPA by the Eleventh Circuit, which should apply in case of any such conflict. + +Third, the government argues that the co-conspirator immunity provision prohibits only prosecutions for (i) conduct between 2001 and 2007 and (ii) statutory offenses specifically referenced in the factual recitals to the NPA. Again, the co-conspirator immunity provision contains no such limitations and thus forecloses this argument. The text is clear, but even if it were ambiguous, it must be strictly construed against the government. + +In the alternative, to the extent there is any doubt that the NPA bars this prosecution, the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA at least raise sufficient issues regarding the parties' intent to warrant discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Accordingly, if the indictment is not dismissed, Ms. Maxwell requests leave to conduct discovery as to the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, as well as an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion. + +## STATEMENT OF FACTS + +On or about September 24, 2007, Epstein and his counsel entered into the NPA with Acosta, the United States Attorney for the SDFL.2 While USAOs in a number of judicial districts, including this District, typically use a standard template for plea agreements and other non-prosecution agreements, this NPA did not follow such a standard format. To the contrary, + +2 A copy of the NPA is attached hereto as Exhibit A. + +the NPA's language and structure, as well as the manner in which it was negotiated, were highly atypical. The result was a one-off agreement that deviated in several material respects from, and bore little resemblance to, a standard agreement. + +The Department of Justice's OPR, after investigating Acosta's handling of the Epstein case, characterized the NPA as a "unique resolution." Exh. B (Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Executive Summary of Report, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020) at x. In particular, the OPR concluded that Acosta "agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances." Id. While the co-conspirator immunity provision appears to be one of the terms to which the OPR was referring, the government is bound by it. + +# A. The Structure of the NPA + +The NPA is a seven-page document consisting of several factual recitals (NPA at 1-2), a paragraph providing for the non-prosecution of Epstein if he complies with the NPA (id. at 2), a list of enumerated "terms" (id. at 5), and, finally, five separate paragraphs containing various provisions, including the co-conspirator immunity provision at issue here (id. at 5). Although it contains no defined terms other than "State Attorney's Office" and "Epstein," the NPA clearly separates "the United States" as a whole from the USAO-SDFL, repeatedly referring explicitly to the USAO where such a limitation is intended. See, e.g., id. at 3 ("Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements ...."); id. at 5 ("the United States Attorney has no authority" to bind state prosecutors); id. at 6 ("Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution"). Thus, the + +NPA's references to the "United States" demonstrate a definitional intent not to limit such provisions to the USAO-SDFL. + +The NPA begins with several factual recitals. After noting certain details of the investigation and indictment by the Florida State Attorney's Office, the recitals state, among other things, that (i) the "United States Attorney's Office" and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") have "conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including" five enumerated federal criminal offenses; (ii) Epstein seeks "to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability" and thus is agreeing to comply with the terms of the NPA "in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement"; and (iii) "the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure." NPA at 1-2 (emphasis added). Nowhere in the recitals is reference made specifically to the SDFL or to the USAO-SDFL, nor is there any suggestion that the parties in any way intended to limit the "global[]" resolution of Epstein's liability. + +The NPA then provides that "prosecution [of Epstein] in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by" the terms of the NPA. NPA at 2. The NPA also provides that, after its terms are fulfilled, + +no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement [e.g., the five enumerated federal offenses], nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation3 will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +3 Like the various references to the United States and its agents, the term "Federal Grand Jury investigation" is not defined in the NPA. + +Id. Thus, the NPA limits the benefit to Epstein to immunity "in this District." + +Next, the NPA sets forth 13 provisions labeled "Terms of the Agreement." These include the details of Epstein's guilty plea and proposed sentence in the Florida state court, as well as Epstein's agreement to waive his right to contest jurisdiction, liability, and damages up to an agreed-upon amount in certain civil actions brought by identified victims. NPA at 3-5. + +In the paragraph following the "Terms of the Agreement," the NPA provides that "Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by" the NPA. NPA at 5. This section further provides that Epstein retains the obligation to obtain the State Attorney's Office's compliance with the NPA's procedures, "which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest," and to convince the Florida state court to accept the proposed sentence. NPA at 5. The section contains no similar provision regarding compliance by other USAOs outside the SDFL. + +The NPA then lays out the provision at issue in this motion: + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges a inst any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Lesley Groff, or + +NPA at 5 (emphasis added). Unlike the provision that Epstein will not be prosecuted "in this District" (id. at 2), the sentence regarding co-conspirators contains no provision limiting coconspirators' immunity to the SDFL. Unlike the agreement that Epstein will not be prosecuted for "offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation" and "offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation" (id. at 2), the sentence regarding co-conspirators contains no limitation on the scope of conduct for which "potential co-conspirators of Epstein" cannot be prosecuted. Nor does the NPA contain any language limiting its binding effect on other USAOs, as standard agreements typically do. + +### B. The Negotiation of the NPA + +Unlike standard non-prosecution agreements, the NPA here was heavily negotiated. Negotiations began in January 2007, lasted for a period of eight months, and were "extensive." + +In re 955 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (11th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 (I I th Cir. 2020). Discovery has revealed that + +See, e.g., Exh. C ; Exh. D + +In addition, See, e.g., Exh. E ; Exh. F Id. + +It is our understanding that the negotiations involved the entire hierarchy of the USAO for the SDFL, all of whom signed off on the NPA. Discovery indicates that . Further, the investigation leading up to the NPA was not limited to the SDFL: A privilege log produced by the government in civil litigation indicates that the USAO-SDFL involved the USA() for this District in its investigation of Epstein, and that attorneys from the USAO-SDFL traveled to New York and interviewed and/or subpoenaed New York-based witnesses. Privilege Log, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 212-1 (filed July 19, 2013) ("SDFL Privilege Log"), at 4, 5, 7. Moreover, + +discovery demonstrates that Fxh. G + +As the NPA reflects, Epstein's objective in negotiating the NPA was to obtain a global resolution that would, among other things, provide maximum protection for any alleged coconspirators, in significant part to minimize the likelihood that Epstein could be subpoenaed as a potential witness and have to testify under oath. NPA at 2 (noting that Epstein "seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability"). The NPA makes clear that its identification of four "potential co-conspirators" by name—=, Groff, and was not intended to limit the immunity provision to those four individuals ("but not limited to"), and we understand that those individuals See Exh. H + +# ARGUMENT + +The Supreme Court has long recognized the enforceability of plea agreements. "[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). + +While plea agreements are interpreted under basic principles of contract law, the Second Circuit has noted that "plea agreements . . . are unique contracts in which special due process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural safeguards obtain." United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Mozer, 828 F. Supp. 208, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("[A] prosecutor entering into a plea bargain + +agreement is not simply a party to a contract. The Government is required to observe high standards of integrity and honorable conduct, and the supervisory power of the court is designed to insure that such standards are observed."). Thus, plea agreements are construed "strictly against the government." United States v. 939 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144, 152 (2d Cir. 2005)). "Because such agreements involve waivers of fundamental constitutional rights, "prosecutors are held to meticulous standards of performance." 939 F.3d at 189 (quoting Vaval, 404 F.3d at 153). Finally, It]he prosecutor's office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed ... to the Government." 939 F.3d at 190 (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972)). + +The government's attempt to evade the NPA flies in the face of these time-honored, and honorable, principles. Rather than stand behind the promises it made in the NPA, the government tries to escape them by arguing that Ms. Maxwell has no standing to enforce them a position that is contradicted by the unambiguous text of the NPA as well as by clear precedent. The government also tries to pretend that the NPA contains geographical and temporal limitations that simply do not exist. In doing so, the government essentially turns the principles underlying the interpretation and enforcement of such agreements on their head. Confronted with an NPA that, in hindsight, the government wishes had been negotiated and drafted differently, the government cannot now manufacture ambiguity where none exists and cannot now demand that the court construe such purported ambiguity in the government's favor, when it is a well-established principle that it must be construed in the defendant's favor. + +Here, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to look beyond the four corners of the NPA to determine that it bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution. However, the Court can be comfortable + +that the facts and circumstances of the negotiation of the NPA are consistent with the parties' intent to provide potential co-conspirators with the broadest immunity possible. Even if there were ambiguity, which there is not, that ambiguity must be construed against the government and in favor of the defense. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to take discovery regarding the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, and the Court should hold an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion. + +# I. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. + +"Plea agreements have long been interpreted in accordance with contract law principles." United States 93 F. App'x 268, 269 (2d Cir. 2004). "In interpreting whether a plea agreement has been breached, this court looks to the reasonable understanding of the parties as to the terms of the agreement." Id. at 269-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the government "must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the defendant." times v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, the NPA unambiguously precludes prosecution of Epstein's potential coconspirators, and the indictment in this case must be dismissed. + +In support of its July 2020 motion for Ms. Maxwell's detention, the government raised three arguments why it contends the NPA does not bar Ms. Maxwell's prosecution: (i) that Ms. Maxwell supposedly lacks standing to enforce the NPA; (ii) that the co-conspirator immunity provision applies only in the SDFL; and (iii) that the provision is limited to conduct occurring during the 2001-07 time period and to violations of statutes specifically referenced in the NPA. Government's Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention ("Reply Mem."), Dkt. No. 22 (filed Jul. 13, 2020), at 5. None of these arguments has merit. + +#### A. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. + +The Second Circuit has long recognized that plea agreements may include promises of leniency for third parties. See, e.g., United States v. Clements, 992 F.2d 417, 419 (2d Cir. 1993) ("it is now clearly established in the Second Circuit that the government may impose conditions which relate to the conduct or treatment of others"); United States v. 909 F.2d 738, 742 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Since a defendant's plea is not rendered involuntary because he enters it to save himself many years in prison, it is difficult to see why the law should not permit the defendant to negotiate a plea that confers a similar benefit on others."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1084 (1991). Yet the government has taken the position that such promises are effectively unenforceable by any third party who is not specifically identified by name. + +Fundamental principles of contract law contradict the government's position, regardless of whether the Court applies the law of New York or that of Florida, where the NPA was negotiated and performed. Both states' laws permit enforcement of a contract by a third-party beneficiary where the parties to the contract intended to confer a benefit on the third party. Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (applying New York law); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying Florida law). Moreover, "[a]n intention to benefit a third-party may be gleaned from the contract as a whole and the party need not be named specifically as a beneficiary." Chen St v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc., 226 F. Supp. 2d 355, 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (emphasis added) (holding that garment workers had standing as third-party beneficiaries to enforce wage compliance agreement between Department of Labor and clothing manufacturer that contracted with their employer); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mid-Valley, Inc., 763 F.2d 1316, 1321 (I I th Cir. 1985) ("Florida courts have long recognized that a third party beneficiary need not be named in the contract"). + +Contrary to the government's position here, courts applying these traditional contract principles to non-prosecution agreements have recognized that third parties who claim immunity in such agreements have standing to enforce their rights as third-party beneficiaries, even where they have not been expressly named in the non-prosecution agreement. See, e.g., United States v. CFW Conn. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203 (D.S.C.) ("an intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions as against the promisor .... if the Government, in negotiating the aforementioned plea agreements, 'promised' that there would be no prosecution against [the third party] for antitrust violations arising in any jurisdiction, the promise must be enforced") (emphasis in original), aff'd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984). + +Two cases in particular illustrate the infirmity in the government's argument. In United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012), the government, following a plea agreement with a foreign air cargo provider that immunized certain classes of the provider's employees and related corporations, indicted a U.S. airline and an individual, both of whom asserted that they were within the scope of employees and corporations covered by the plea agreement. Id. at 1215-16. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that only the individual was covered by the plea agreement, but flatly rejected the proposition that either party lacked standing to invoke the plea agreement if covered by it even though the parties were not identified in the plea agreement by name. Id. at 1228-29. Applying Florida law, the court held that "the signatory parties unmistakably intended to confer immunity on a discrete class of corporations and individuals ... that could include the Defendants." Id. at 1228. The court added: + +The plea agreement unquestionably conferred a direct benefit on a class of individuals: immunity. Moreover, the Plea Agreement evinced an intent to extend this benefit to a definable class of third parties: employees of [the cargo provider], employees of [its] subsidiaries, and subsidiary corporations of [the cargo provider and a related foreign airline]. + +Id. + +An even more loosely defined immunity agreement was enforced in favor of a third party in United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001). In El-Sadig, the court held that the defendant, who was alleged to have purchased firearms unlawfully for two members of the Saudi family who had traveled with a Saudi prince to the United States, had standing to enforce an oral agreement between the government and the prince not to prosecute any of the individuals involved in the purchase. 133 F. Supp. 2d at 601. The court concluded that "even if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated to [the defendant], he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party beneficiary." Id. at 608. Moreover, the court reasoned, because the prince himself "was not involved in any of the illegal activity, his efforts to obtain a commitment not to prosecute were obviously intended by him to benefit thirdparties," and therefore the defendant was a third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the agreement. Id. at 609. + +Both Florida West and El-Sadig illustrate how the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA is contrary to bedrock principles of contract law, as applied to immunity agreements. Like Ms. Maxwell, the defendants in Florida West and El-Sadig were not parties to the agreements at issue. Like Ms. Maxwell, the defendants were not specifically named in the agreements. Yet in both cases, the courts held that the defendants were third-party beneficiaries with standing to enforce the agreements, because the parties to the agreements obviously intended to confer on them the benefit of immunity. Ms. Maxwell similarly has standing to enforce the co-conspirator immunity provision of the NPA, as the + +parties to the NPA clearly intended to confer immunity on potential co-conspirators of Epstein, + +### I. The NPA's Prohibition on Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. + +The NPA stands in contrast to the standard non-prosecution agreement used in this District and other jurisdictions, which typically is explicitly limited to prohibit only prosecutions by the USAO for the district in which the plea is entered. The standard agreement in this District contains the following language: "It is further understood that this Agreement does not bind any federal, state, or local prosecuting authority other than this Office." See, e.g., v. United States, Nos. 14 Civ. 846, 04 Cr. 937-1, 2015 WL 3413596 , at '8 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). No such language is included in the NPA. Moreover, unlike the standard agreement, the NPA refers separately to "the United States" in some places and to the USAO-SDFL in others, in ways that make clear that any reference to "the United States" was intended to refer to the government as a whole, not merely the USAO-SDFL. + +## 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District. + +The government's contention that the NPA does not bind the USAO in this District cannot be squared with the clear language of the co-conspirator immunity provision. On its face, that provision does not limit the preclusive effect of the NPA as to potential co-conspirators to prosecutions in the SDFL. Indeed, consistent with Epstein's desire to obtain the broadest immunity possible, the NPA expressly provides that, in exchange for Epstein's compliance with the terms and conditions therein, "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," with no express geographic limitation. NPA at 5 (emphasis added). In contrast, the clauses regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein expressly defer "prosecution in this District" and provide that no prosecution for the + +offenses at issue will be "instituted in this District." NPA at 2 (emphases added). In addition, the use of the term "the United States" in the co-conspirator immunity provision contrasts with the use elsewhere in the agreement of various terms that refer more specifically to the USAO-SDFL. When the government wanted a provision of the NPA to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it knew how to do so; where it chose not to do so, a different intent is demonstrated. + +Indeed, the omission of express language limiting the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL was contrary to Justice Department policy. The Justice Manual (formerly the U.S. Attorneys' Manual) expressly provides, and provided at the time the NPA was executed, that "if practicable, the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of his/her [nonprosecution] agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district." Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630. The government's deviation from a policy of which it was obviously aware—for offenses that, by their nature, involve interstate travel and are susceptible to prosecution in multiple districts—cannot be regarded as an oversight, particularly where the policy was followed elsewhere in the NPA with respect to the immunity provision as to Epstein. + +# 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. + +In support of its position, the government has cited United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985). Reply Mem. at 5. But Annabi does not support the government's position. In fact, to the extent it is relevant here, it supports dismissal. + +In Annabi, the government, following a guilty plea to one count of a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York, agreed to move to dismiss the two open counts. Unlike here, there was no written agreement; rather, the prosecutor stated on the record at the time of the plea that "the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant." 771 F.2d at 671. The defendants + +moved to dismiss a subsequent indictment in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier "plea agreement" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The Second Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." Id. at 672. + +Thus, not only is Annabi readily distinguishable from this case, but it explicitly recognizes that plea agreements can be binding in other jurisdictions, and that a plea agreement that has the "affirmative appearance" of broad applicability—as the NPA does here—will be enforced according to its terms. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi has been entirely consistent with this principle, and with Ms. Maxwell's position here. To the extent that Annabi would preclude Ms. Maxwell from enforcing the NPA outside the SDFL, it is in conflict with the likely resolution of the issue under Eleventh Circuit law, which should apply here. + +- a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL. + +The "affirmative appearance" contemplated by Annabi "need not be an express statement." United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, the "affirmative appearance" that a broader restriction was intended is evident within the four corners of the NPA, when the NPA is reviewed as a whole. As noted above, the absence of any limiting language in the co-conspirator immunity provision stands in sharp contrast to the NPA's provision regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein, which is expressly limited to prosecution "in this District." NPA at 2. It is difficult to envision a clearer "affirmative appearance" than the express inclusion elsewhere in the agreement of a limitation that is conspicuously absent here. + +Basic principles of contract interpretation require an inference that the parties considered the inclusion of the phrase "in this District" necessary to limit the scope of the non-prosecution + +provision as to Epstein. See, e.g., LaSalle Bank Nat7 Ass); v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 2005) ("In interpreting a contract under New York law, 'words and phrases ... should be given their plain meaning,' and the contract 'should be construed so as to give full meaning and effect to all of its provisions.") (citations omitted); Port Consol., Inc. v. Intl Ins. Co. of Hannover, PLC, 826 F. App'x 822, 827 (11th Cir. 2020) (same under Florida law). The Justice Manual supports this view, admonishing prosecutors who do not wish to bind USAOs in other districts to "explicitly limit the scope" of the NPA to their districts. Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630 (emphasis added). The absence of the phrase "in this District" from the co-conspirator immunity provision therefore compels the opposite inference: that the parties did not intend to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL. + +Moreover, "a promise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor." Russo, 801 F.2d at 626. One relevant factor in this analysis is the extent to which the USAO negotiating the plea agreement acted on its own, as opposed to involving other USAOs or other offices within the Department of Justice. Cf, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that defendant "offers no meaningful support for his claim that he 'reasonably understood' the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District.... He does not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated.... The Central District, unaware of defendants' potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have intended to insulate defendants from prosecution which they had no reason to foresee."), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988). + +Here, we understand that senior levels of Main Justice were directly involved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA, and the NPA itself reflects the involvement of the FBI. NPA at 1. Moreover, the USAO-SDFL's involvement of the USAO for this District in its investigation of Epstein, as well its contact with witnesses in New York, reflect a coordinated effort that transcended the USAO-SDFL. SDFL Privilege Log at 4, 5, 7. From these facts, it affirmatively appears that the government had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators in this District and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude it. + +- b. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi supports Ms. Maxwell's position. + +In nearly all of the cases in which the Second Circuit has reiterated its statement in Annabi in the context of written plea agreements, those agreements, unlike the NPA here, contained language expressly limiting the enforceability of the NPA to the district in which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia"); , 93 F. App'x at 270 ("Paragraph 13 explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico"); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 119 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[t)his agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and cannot bind other federal, state or local prosecuting authorities"); United States v. Persico, 620 F. Supp. 836, 846 (S.D.N.Y.) (finding agreements "clearly indicate that the bargains are between the defendants and the Organized Crime Strike Force for the Eastern District of New York" and noting that one + +defendant's plea agreement explicitly stated that it "is binding on the United States only in [the Eastern] district"), aff'd, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985). Because there is no such language in the NPA here, Ms. Maxwell's position is entirely consistent with these cases, and they counsel in favor of enforcement of the NPA in this case. + +Other Second Circuit cases citing Annabi also support Ms. Maxwell's position. In United States v. No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002), the defendants relied solely on their "subjective beliefs" and "implicit understanding" that they would not be prosecuted further in another district, which the court held irrelevant; they cited no "affirmative appearance" in support of their position, as Ms. Maxwell has. And in Russo, the court found it unnecessary to reach Annabi, but acknowledged that an "affirmative appearance" of an intent to bind other USAOs can be found even where a plea agreement does not contain an express statement to that effect—an interpretation that supports Ms. Maxwell's position that the NPA hinds the government here. Russo, 801 F.2d at 626. + +- c. To the extent that Annabi conflicts with Eleventh Circuit law, Eleventh Circuit law applies and would require enforcement of the NPA here. + +Under federal choice-of-law rules, which apply in non-diversity cases, factors in determining which jurisdiction's contract law applies include (i) any choice-of-law provision in the contract; (ii) the place where the contract was negotiated, issued, and signed; (iii) the place of performance; (iv) the location of the subject matter of the contract; and (v) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties. Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 162 (2d Cir. 1998). New York conflict-oflaw rules similarly require that the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant contacts and greatest interest governs the construction of a contract. See Index Fund, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 580 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (2d Cir. 1978). Under either set of rules, because the NPA was + +drafted and executed by the government's agents in the SDFL, and because Epstein performed under the contract by entering a plea in a Florida court, any conflict of laws between the Second Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit should be resolved in favor of the application of Eleventh Circuit law to the NPA. + +The Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed whether a plea agreement or nonprosecution agreement signed by one USAO is binding on a USAO in another district. But it may be presumed, as it frequently is when predicting how a state's highest court would rule in a case of first impression, that the Eleventh Circuit would follow the weight of authority. See, e.g., Crutsinger v. Hess, 408 F. Supp. 548, 554 (D. Kan. 1976) ("if state law is silent and there is a conflict of authority in other jurisdictions, the federal court construing the law of the state will assume that the state court would follow the weight of authority"). + +Here, the weight of authority holds that, at least when a plea agreement refers to "the United States" or "the Government," it binds USAOs in all districts absent a provision to the contrary. See, e.g., United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547-49 (3d Cir. 2002) (characterizing the Second Circuit's statement in Annabi as an "illogical posture" unsupported by the prior Second Circuit cases on which it relied); United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) ("Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an Assistant United States Attorney in one district will bind an Assistant United States Attorney in another district."); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986) ("It is the Government at large—not just specific United States Attorneys or United States 'Districts'—that is bound by plea agreements negotiated by agents of Government."). In Gebbie. the Third Circuit analyzed Annabi and its predecessor Second Circuit cases in detail, concluding that the statement + +articulated in Annabi "really has no analytically sound foundation [in Second Circuit case law]. It just keeps replicating itself each time it is cited." Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 547. + +It appears that the Second Circuit is the only court of appeals to take the position articulated in Annabi. Given that three circuits have held otherwise—and that one of them has addressed the Second Circuit's reasoning in Annabi in detail—it is likely that the Eleventh Circuit would follow the weight of authority and hold that absent an express provision to the contrary, a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement executed in the name of "the United States" binds USAOs in other districts. + +As previously demonstrated, there is no conflict between this position and Annabi as applied to these facts, because Annabi supports dismissal here. But to the extent that Annabi could be construed as limiting the NPA's effect to the SDFL, it would be inconsistent with the Eleventh Circuit's likely disposition of the issue and should not be followed here. + +We understand that Epstein and his counsel sought to ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that third parties would not face criminal liability in connection with his actions, in part to minimize the likelihood that he would be subpoenaed as a witness. Thus, Epstein and his counsel reasonably understood that, unlike Epstein's own immunity, the immunity for his alleged co-conspirators from federal prosecution would not be limited to the SDFL. To the extent that the government intended to impose such a limitation, it was the obligation of the government, in drafting the agreement, to ensure that such limitations were included. Having failed to do so, the government may not now ask this Court to read limitations into the co-conspirator immunity provision that it did not include at the time the NPA was negotiated. + +#### C. The NPA's Prohibition on the Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to Prosecution for Conduct Between 2001 and 2007 or for Particular Statutory Offenses. + +Finally, the government has characterized the NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision as "limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007 ... and to violations of statutes not charged in this Indictment." Reply Mem. at 5-6. This characterization is grossly inaccurate. The co-conspirator immunity provision contains no limitation as to either the time period or the statutes on which such criminal charges might be based.4 + +Just as the NPA deviates from the standard agreement in failing to include language limiting its scope to the SDFL, it also deviates from the standard agreement by failing to specify the conduct, including the time period, for which the putative defendant—or, in this case, potential co-conspirators—cannot be prosecuted. As with its failure to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL, the government may not now rewrite the NPA to limit the scope of covered conduct in a manner that it failed to do in drafting the NPA. At minimum, the absence of any such limitation renders the scope of the provision ambiguous, and any ambiguity must be construed against the government. See 939 F.3d at 189. + +While the NPA's factual recitals reference the 2001-07 time period and list five potential statutory offenses, the NPA's substantive provisions establish no such limit on the immunity for potential co-conspirators—or, for that matter, for Epstein himself—to either that time period or those offenses. As to Epstein, the NPA provides immunity for (i) "any offenses that arose" from the undefined "Federal Grand Jury investigation" and (ii) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States + +4 The government's assertion that the co-conspirator immunity provision is limited to "violations of statutes not charged in this Indictment" (Reply Mem. at 6) is incorrect for the additional reason that both the NPA and the current indictment ("Indictment") reference violations of the Act. Compare NPA at 1 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), 2423(e)) with Indictment II 10 (alleging conspiracy to violate § 2422(a)) and 15 (alleging conspiracy to violate § 2423(a)). + +Attorney's Office." NPA at 2. The latter investigation, in turn, encompasses not only "offenses" from the 2001-07 time period, but also "Epstein's background." Id. at 1. Thus, for example, prosecution of Epstein for a pre-2001 offense that arose out of the FBI/USAO investigation into Epstein's background, or for an unlisted statutory offense that arose from the grand jury investigation, would have been prohibited under the NPA. + +The co-conspirator immunity provision does not include even those broad limitations. It provides, simply, that the United States will not "institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Id. at 5 (emphasis added). The provision could not be clearer, either on its face or in the context of the NPA as a whole. As with the absence of language limiting the provision to prosecution in the SDFL, the absence of any language limiting the offenses for which potential co-conspirators cannot be prosecuted, when such language is included as to Epstein, must be presumed under contract interpretation principles to have been intentional. See, e.g., LaSalle Bank, 424 F.3d at 206; Port Consol., 826 F. App'x at 827-28. At minimum, the silence as to time period and covered conduct is an ambiguity and therefore should be resolved against the government. 93 F. App'x at 269. + +Even if the NPA were construed as placing some limitation on co-conspirator immunity, no rational limitation could exclude the conduct alleged here. The charges against Ms. Maxwell involve her alleged role as a co-conspirator of Epstein, involving alleged conduct almost identical to the alleged conduct that led up to the NPA. Indeed, the United States Attorney for this District, in announcing the current indictment, described it as "the prequel to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein." See, e.g., Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New York. July 3, 2020 (https://www.nbenewyork.cominews/localkrime-andcourtsighislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/24957620. And the government has acknowledged, by omission, that one of the three alleged victims referenced in the current indictment was interviewed by the USAO for the SDFL. See Reply Mem. at 6 ("two of the victims referenced in the Indictment were never approached or interviewed by the SDFL"). + +As noted above, Epstein and his counsel sought to prevent prosecution against his putative co-conspirators to the maximum extent possible. Had the government intended to limit that protection to a specific time period or to violations of specific statutes, it could have done so. It did not. Thus, by charging Ms. Maxwell with conduct in which she allegedly engaged as part of a conspiracy with Epstein—conduct that predates the NPA—the government has violated the NPA. + +In sum, none of the three arguments proffered by the government regarding the applicability of the NPA is meritorious. Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of the NPA with standing to enforce the co-conspirator immunity provision. The co-conspirator immunity provision binds all USAOs and is not limited to the SDFL. It imposes no limitation on the scope of covered conduct—and even if it did, the conduct alleged here would be covered. At most, the co-conspirator immunity provision is ambiguous, and thus must be construed against the government. Because the co-conspirator immunity provision bars the government's prosecution of Ms. Maxwell on charges arising out of her alleged conspiracy with Epstein, the indictment should be dismissed. + +#### II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Permit Discovery and Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent. + +The language of the NPA and the facts submitted herewith are more than sufficient for the Court to find that the NPA bars the prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, particularly when any + +ambiguities are construed, as they must be, against the government as drafter. In the alternative, however, the NPA and the circumstances of its execution merit discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent. + +To the extent that extrinsic materials do not make the parties' intent clear, the Court is obligated to make a finding as to the parties' "reasonable understanding," with ambiguities resolved in Ms. Maxwell's favor. See , 93 F. App'x at 270 (emphasis and citation omitted). Courts in this circuit have routinely recognized the need for evidentiary hearings where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute. See, e.g., id. at 270 (noting testimony from defendant's attorney); United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2002) (remanding where "the district court failed to make a record that allows us to determine the existence, scope and effect of an immunity agreement"); Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671 (noting that district court heard testimony from two prosecutors, defendant, and defendant's counsel as of the time the plea agreement was reached); United States v. Papa, 533 F.2d 815, 820 (2d Cir. 1975) (describing "two evidentiary hearings"); United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) (noting conclusion that "an evidentiary hearing was warranted . . . to determine whether an agreement existed, what its terms were, and whether there was compliance with those terms"). + +Ms. Maxwell's request for an evidentiary hearing, and for discovery, is at least as strong as that in . There, the district court denied discovery to a defendant who claimed that the government had served a writ of execution in violation of oral representations made in connection with the defendant's plea agreement, holding that the agreement's merger provision barred the consideration of any oral agreements or representations. The Second Circuit reversed, concluding that "while the district court's analysis might have been compelling with respect to a + +contract arising out of commercial negotiations among private parties, we believe the court did not correctly apply the standards that govern the interpretation of plea agreements with the government. We have long recognized that plea agreements are significantly different from commercial contracts." , 939 F.3d at 189 (emphasis added). The court explained: + +Government conduct in negotiating plea agreements must comport with the highest standard of fairness. Because such agreements involve waivers of fundamental constitutional rights, prosecutors are held to meticulous standards of performance. + +Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). The court held that given the absence of discovery and an evidentiary hearing, "the record does not furnish a basis for a complete understanding of what happened in the course of the plea negotiations," and that the defendant's evidence was "sufficient in these circumstances" to require the district court to take such action. Id. at 190. + +Unlike the agreement in , the NPA here contains no integration clause, and the co-conspirator immunity provision, on its face, bars prosecution of Epstein's potential coconspirators without limitation as to judicial district, time period of the underlying conduct, or the statutory violations alleged. Moreover, unlike the defendant in Maxwell had no role in the negotiation of the NPA, and thus all of the information relevant to its construction is in the possession of third parties. However, we understand that Epstein sought the maximum protection from prosecution possible for his potential co-conspirators and that Main Justice participated in the negotiation of the NPA, and there is evidence that the USAO-SDFL consulted with the USAO for this District in its investigation. SDFL Privilege Log at 4, 5, 7. This information could be confirmed through discovery. + +Media reports regarding the November 2020 OPR report further support Ms. Maxwell's position. Only the executive summary of the OPR report was released to the public, and the + +executive summary does not discuss the co-conspirator immunity provision. It has been reported in the media, however, that the full OPR report states that the Assistant United States Attorney who negotiated the deal recalled Epstein's counsel telling her that Epstein's intent was "to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." • J. "Key Takeaways from the Justice Department review of Jeffrey Epstein sweetheart deal." ABC News. Nov. 16, 2020 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-takeaways-justice-department-review-jeffrey-epsteinsweetheart/story?id=74222922). If the reporting is accurate, the OPR report suggests that the government understood Epstein's desire to protect his potential co-conspirators to the maximum extent possible, and that the government articulated no objection—Le., that there was no intent to limit the scope of the co-conspirator immunity provision. The accuracy of this account, as well as other information about the plea negotiations and the parties' intent, can be confirmed through discovery. + +#### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the scope of the NPA, and that Ms. Maxwell be permitted to take discovery in aid of such a hearing. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennen r HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street —4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lam.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93ae1c29eb86715e2eae09d5a03603385aef770d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447/EFTA02830447.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1828 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830447.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 38, + "chars": 71754, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.81, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nFOR BREACH OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 504.9006042480469, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 504.9006042480469, + 333.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 333.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5723571777344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5723571777344, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATEMENT OF FACTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 378.2560119628906, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 378.2560119628906, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Structure of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 278.86358642578125, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 278.86358642578125, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Negotiation of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.9425964355469, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.9425964355469, + 141.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 473.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 473.84999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 437.2892150878906, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 437.2892150878906, + 279.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 279.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.69110107421875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.69110107421875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The NPA's Prohibition on Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not \nLimited to the SDFL.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 154.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 434.9698791503906, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 434.9698791503906, + 457.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 457.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 438.30731201171875, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 438.30731201171875, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The NPA's Prohibition on the Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is \nNot Limited to Prosecution for Conduct Between 2001 and 2007 or for \nParticular Statutory Offenses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 527.4545288085938, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 527.4545288085938, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Permit Discovery and Conduct an Evidentiary \nHearing Regarding the Parties' Intent.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 651.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 651.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.9223937988281, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830447" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4a1d46e1ebe9a954b91cea5bdb291605072a002 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. • + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED (Pretrial Motion # 2) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss counts one through four of the superseding indictment as time-barred. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. mcohen@cohengresser.com Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 9574514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger + +HADDON, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c784ab9a25fecaf01d2718ed1cb7196d0e84757 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485/EFTA02830485.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830485.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1083, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION \nTO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE \nSUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED \n(Pretrial Motion # 2)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 482.98699951171875, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 482.98699951171875, + 333.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 333.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830485" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc23e95fdecbff9a615e5df3e8f25e0641e526ea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.md @@ -0,0 +1,266 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +-x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 3 | +| I. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively | 3 | +| A. | Step One: Congress did not expressly prescribe retroactivity and rejected a | +| proposal to do so. | 6 | +| B. | Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged | +| offenses would have impermissible effects. | 9 | +| II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All. | 12 | +| A. | Section 3283 applies only to offenses that necessarily entail the sexual or | +| physical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child | 12 | +| B. | The offenses charged in Counts One through Four do not necessarily entail | +| the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. | 15 | +| CONCLUSION | 18 | + +#### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp. ,
488 U.S. 204 (1988)..... | 5 | +| ██████ v. United States,
346 U.S. 209 (1953)..... | 12, 13, 15, 17 | +| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth. ,
464 U.S. 89 (1983)..... | 8 | +| Burrage v. United States ,
571 U.S. 204 (2014)..... | 15 | +| Comm'r v. Clark ,
489 U.S. 726 (1989)..... | 15 | +| Food and Drug Admin. v. ██████ & Williamson Tobacco Corp. ,
529 U.S. 120 (2000)..... | 8 | +| Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S. ,
409 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2005)..... | 8 | +| Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno ,
494 U.S. 827 (1990)..... | 6 | +| Kawashima v. Holder ,
565 U.S. 478 (2012)..... | 13 | +| Landgraf v. USI Film Prod. ,
511 U.S. 244 (1994)..... | passim | +| Lattab v. Ashcroft ,
384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004)..... | 7 | +| Leocal v. Ashcroft ,
543 U.S. 1 (2004)..... | 13 | +| ██████ v. Hadix,
527 U.S. 343 (1999)..... | 7 | +| Shular v. United States ,
140 S. Ct. 779 (2020)..... | 12, 13 | + +| Stogner v. California ,
539 U.S. 607 (2003)..... | 10 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| Thom v. Ashcroft ,
369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004)..... | 10 | +| Toussie v. United States ,
397 U.S. 112 (1970)..... | passim | +| United States v. Broxmeyer ,
616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010)..... | 17 | +| United States v. Coutentos ,
651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) ..... | 14 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)..... | 13 | +| United States v. Gentile ,
235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017)..... | 9 | +| United States v. Lawson ,
683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Leo Sure Chief ,
438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) ..... | 11 | +| United States v. McElvain ,
272 U.S. 633 (1926)..... | 15 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018)..... | 10 | +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004)..... | 13, 14 | +| United States v. Napolitano ,
761 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1985)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Pierre-Louis ,
2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018)..... | 9 | +| United States v. Rashkovski ,
301 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) ..... | 16 | +| United States v. [REDACTED]-Ventura ,
72 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 1995)..... | 11 | + +## United States v. Scharton, + +## United States v. Valle, + +## Weingarten v. United States, + +## Statutes + +## Rules + +# Other Authorities + +Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, 55147 (2003) 7 + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred ("Motion"). + +The government's late-discovered zeal to attempt to prosecute Ms. Maxwell has forced it to reach back more than 25 years and bring charges that have long been time-barred. Counts One through Four charge Ms. Maxwell with offenses allegedly committed between 1994 and 1997. But the applicable statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3282, expired five years after the alleged conduct. + +In an attempt to get around its statute of limitations problem, the government has invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3283, as that statute was amended in 2003—many years after the alleged conduct occurred. But the government's reliance on that provision is improper for two separate and independent reasons, either of which, by itself, mandates dismissal of Counts One through Four. + +First, the charges are time-barred even under § 3283 unless the Court retroactively applies the 2003 amendment to the statute to cover Ms. Maxwell's conduct from the 1990s, rather than the version of § 3283 that was in effect at the time of the alleged offenses. But Congress made surpassingly clear that it did not intend the 2003 amendment to apply retroactively. To the contrary, the conference committee considered and rejected an express retroactivity provision in the House version of the bill, and one of the bill's original Senate cosponsors acknowledged on the Senate floor that the omission was intentional. Moreover, any such retroactive application would have a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect. + +Second, even if the 2003 amendment could be applied retroactively, § 3283 does not apply to any of the offenses alleged in the indictment at all. Section 3283 is an exception to the general five-year statute of limitations, and it applies only to an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the + +phrase "offense involving" particular conduct refers to an offense whose elements necessarily entail that conduct. Because none of the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell has been charged necessarily entails or requires the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child, § 3283 does not apply here. + +#### SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS + +Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421-2424. These counts are based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. + +Count One of the indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (now § 2422(a))' by conspiring to entice "one or more individuals" to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." Indictment ¶¶ 9-10. Count Two charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive § 2422(a) violation, claiming she "persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced" an individual identified as Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York "with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55." Id. 13. + +Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport "an individual" in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Indictment ¶¶ 15-16. Count Four charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive § 2423(a) violation, claiming she "arranged for Minor Victim-I to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention + +IPrior to February 8, 1996, the provision at issue constituted the entirety of § 2422; it became § 2422(a) as a result of the enactment of additional subsections as of that date. Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, Title V, § 508, 110 Stat. 56. Thus, the provision is referred to herein as § 2422(a). + +that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55." Id. 1 19. + +### ARGUMENT + +"Except as otherwise expressly provided by law," a non-capital criminal offense must be charged "within five years next after such offense shall have been committed." 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a); see 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (1994) (same). Because Counts One through Four charge Ms. Maxwell with offenses that were completed no later than 1997, and because the indictment was not returned until July 2020, these counts are time-barred unless "otherwise expressly provided by law." Id. + +For two independent reasons, § 3283, on which the government relies (see Government's Memorandum in Support of Detention ("Gov. Mem."), Dkt. No. 4, (filed Jul. 2, 2020), at 5), does not save Counts One through Four. First, under the version of § 3283 that was in effect at the time of the alleged offenses, the limitations period expired when the accuser reached the age of 25, which indisputably occurred many years ago here. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). While Congress amended the statute in 2003 to extend the limitations period to "during the life of the child," see Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) (the "2003 Amendment"), PL 108-21, April 30, 2003, § 202, 117 Stat. 650, 660, that amendment cannot apply to conduct that occurred during the 1990s. Second, by its plain terms, § 3283 applies only to offenses "involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child." 18 U.S.C. § 3283. But the sexual or physical abuse or kidnaping of a child is not an element of any of the offenses charged here. Accordingly, § 3283—regardless of which version is considered—simply does not apply. + +## 1. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively. + +At the time of the alleged offenses, § 3283 provided as follows: + +No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years. + +18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). Thus, if an individual committed an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a 16-year-old person on June I, 1994, and the victim reached age 17 on July I, 1994, then the statute of limitations as to that offense would have expired on July 1, 2002, when the victim reached age 25—such that an indictment in 2020 would be time-barred. There is no dispute that all three of the accusers here turned 25 long ago, and thus the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the offenses has expired. + +In 2003, however, Congress amended the statute and extended the time in which a prosecution could be brought to within the life of the victim. See 2003 Amendment at 660.2 18 U.S.C. § 3283, as amended in 2003, provided as follows: + +No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child. + +18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). While the government would apply the 2003 Amendment retroactively to offenses Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed years earlier, nothing in the text suggests that the statute may be applied retroactively. + +To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed a strong "presumption against retroactive legislation" that is "deeply rooted in our jurisprudence." Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994) (emphasis added). "[T]he principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Id. (internal quotation omitted). "Retroactivity is not favored in + +2 The statute was amended again in 2006 to its current version, which further modifies the limitations period to the life of the victim or 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Because all three of the alleged victims identified in Counts One through Four are alive, the 2006 amendment does not affect the analysis here. Moreover, the government relics on the 2003 Amendment. Gov. Man. at 5-6. + +the law." Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). This presumption against retroactivity carries particular force with respect to statutes of limitations in the criminal context. "[C]riminal limitations statutes are `to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose."' Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970) (quoting United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522 (1932)). This principle transcends any particular statute or any particular defendant: "The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions." Toussie, 397 U.S. at 114. "Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past." Id. at 114-15. + +In Landgral the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework to evaluate the proposed retroactive application of a statute to a particular case: + +[T]he court's first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result. + +Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. Thus, if Congress has "expressly prescribed" that a statute will or will not apply retroactively, the inquiry ends; if not, the court proceeds to the second step to determine whether the application of the statute would have impermissible "retroactive effect." Id. + +As shown below, retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment fails both steps of the Landgrafanalysis. Regarding step one, not only did Congress fail to include an express + +retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment; it actually considered and rejected such a provision, signaling its clear intent that the amendment not be retroactive. Accordingly, the Landgrafanalysis should end at step one, with a determination that the 2003 Amendment is not retroactive and that Counts One through Four are therefore time-barred. However, even if the analysis advances to step two, application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct would create impermissible retroactive effects in violation of Landgraf by expanding a criminal statute of limitations. + +### A. Step One: Congress did not expressly prescribe retroactivity and reiected a proposal to do so. + +The first step of Landgraf asks whether Congress "expressly prescribed" the temporal reach of the 2003 Amendment. Here, Congress "expressly prescribed" that the 2003 Amendment was to apply prospectively only. Not only does the text of the 2003 Amendment omit any mention of retroactivity, but the legislative history makes it absolutely clear that Congress considered and rejected a retroactivity provision. Because such unambiguous congressional intent is sufficient to constitute an "express prescription" under the first step of Landgraf that the amendment not be retroactive, there is no need to proceed to the second Landgraf step. + +"[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). Here, the legislative history leaves no doubt as to congressional intent. The House version of the bill, which would have eliminated the statute of limitations entirely, included an express retroactivity provision. Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, 108th Cong. § 202 (2003) ("The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section."). The Senate version contained no + +retroactivity provision. PROTECT Act, S. 151, 108th Cong. (as engrossed in the Senate, Feb. 24. 2003). When the House and Senate conferenced to resolve differences between the bills, the retroactivity provision was omitted. As Senator Leahy, one of the bill's original co-sponsors and a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated on the Senate floor, the omission was intentional: "I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original Housepassed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively." Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5I47 (2003). + +Such a clear expression of congressional intent should end the Landgraf analysis at the first step. In applying Landgraf, the Supreme Court has made clear that the "expressly prescribed" analysis is not limited to the text of the statute, but may look to legislative history. See v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999) (examining "structure and legislative history" as part of first Landgraf step); see also Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F. 3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2004) ("our inquiry is not limited to the statutory text but may include an examination of standard ensigns of statutory construction, such as the statute's structure and legislative history"). Indeed, Landgraf itself included a legislative history analysis. 511 U.S. at 264. In Landgraf however, the Court concluded that the legislative history at issue did not clearly evidence Congress' intent regarding retroactivity. Id. That is not the case here. + +As Judge Katzman of the Second Circuit has recognized, unambiguous legislative history should not be disregarded: + +When courts construe statutes in ways that respect what legislators consider their work product, the judiciary not only is more likely to reach the correct result, but also promotes comity with the first branch of government. It is a bipartisan institutional perspective within Congress that courts should consider reliable legislative history and that failing to do so impugns Congress's workways. + +Robert A. Katzmann, Judging Statutes (2014), at 36. Consideration and rejection by Congress of a legislative proposal is one of the clearest expressions of congressional intent, and courts + +typically give it great weight in interpreting federal statutes. See. e.g., Food & Drug Admin. v. & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000) (noting that "Congress considered and rejected" federal bills that would have granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983) (noting that Congress had "expressly considered and ultimately rejected" proposed interpretation of Civil Service Reform Act); Hudson Valley Black Press v. IRS., 409 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that legislative history, including conference report, "plainly establishes that Congress expressly considered broader remedies" against IRS for retaliatory audits "before rejecting them"); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985) ("legislative history of the [Speedy Trial] Act clearly indicates that Congress considered and rejected defendant's suggestion" that dismissal sanction be applied to certain subsequent charges); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982) (characterizing conference committee's rejection of Senate proposal to permit use of plea bargaining statements for impeachment purposes under Fed. R. Evid. 410 as "demonstrating Congress' explicit intention to preclude use" of such statements). It cannot reasonably be disputed that Congress intended that the 2003 Amendment would not apply retroactively. + +Nothing in Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017), the only Second Circuit case that analyzes the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment, is inconsistent with this analysis. In Weingarten, the court's analysis was in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, Weingarten offers little more than a distraction from the analysis required here: The court was not required to and did not decide the merits of the issue, noting that "[t]he underlying merits question remains for another day, another case." Id. at 58. Moreover, the defendant in Weingarten did not raise, and the court did not consider, the argument that Congress had expressly prescribed that the 2003 Amendment would not be retroactive; Weingarten considered only whether there was an express prescription that the 2003 Amendment would be retroactive, concluding that the defendant's counsel could have made "colorable" arguments that there was no such prescription. Id. at 58.3 + +Congressional intent here could not be clearer. The House bill would have made the 2003 Amendment retroactive, the Senate bill did not, and the conference consciously rejected the retroactivity provision. It is unnecessary to proceed to the second Landgraf step, and Counts One through Four are time-barred. + +### B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged offenses would have impermissible effects. + +If the Court were to proceed to the second Landgraf step—whether application of the 2003 Amendment here would have an impermissible retroactive effect—that step also counsels against retroactivity. + +Any analysis of the retroactivity of a criminal statute of limitations under the second step of Landgraf must be undertaken in conjunction with the principle that unlike civil statutes of limitation, "criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.'" Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). As one court recognized in declining to extend a criminal statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, if Landgraf and Toussie "are read in conjunction," courts "must interpret the statute of limitations in a manner favoring repose for Defendant." United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017). + +3 Nor was this clear evidence of congressional intent raised or considered in United States v. Pierre-Louis. 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018), which the government cites in support of its contention that the 2003 Amendment may be applied retroactively. Gov. Mem. at 6. + +In the civil context, the Second Circuit has acknowledged a distinction between retroactively applying an extended limitations period to revive a stale claim, which has been held impermissible under Landgraf, and retroactively extending the limitations period for a live claim, which has been held permissible. See, e.g., Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 57-58 (2d Cir. 2017) (collecting and comparing civil cases). The criminal context, however, is fundamentally different. + +At a minimum, Toussie "potentially alters the second step in the Landgrafapproach" in criminal cases. United States v. , 911 F.3d 638, 645 (1st Cir. 2018) (evaluating 2003 Amendment in adjudicating ineffective assistance of counsel claim). "In other words, when Congress has sounded an uncertain trumpet, a court ought to refrain from applying an enlarged criminal statute of limitations retrospectively." Id. As shown in the first step of Landgraf, the trumpet sounded by Congress in enacting the 2003 Amendment was anything but uncertain: congressional intent is clear. + +In the criminal context, the retroactive application of an extended statute of limitations to revive a time-barred claim is not merely an impermissible effect under Landgraf; it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 618 (2003).4 As Landgraf itself recognized, however, the principle against retroactivity is not simply an application of the Er Post Facto Clause; rather, it is a "deeply rooted" presumption based on "[e]lementary considerations" of fundamental "fairness." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265-66. See also Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., writing for the majority but noting he was speaking for himself) (stating that anti-retroactivity presumption in Landgraf is "triggered + +For this reason, the government would be barred from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for any offense against the third accuser (identified in the indictment as Minor Victim-3) even if the 2003 Amendment otherwise applied, because the third accuser reached age 25 in and thus the statute of limitations as to her had expired by the time of the 2003 Amendment. + +by statutes whose retroactive application, while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of 'familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.") Thus, in the criminal context, the second step of Landgraf should be read as providing protections broader than simply violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and as prohibiting retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations—and the resulting expansion of an individual's exposure to criminal liability for completed conduct—even where the charge is not time-barred at the time of the amendment. + +Statutes of limitations "applicable to criminal prosecutions are designed principally to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges supported by facts that are remote in time." United States v. Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1995). That concern is heightened here, where the government seeks to rely on the retroactive extension of a criminal statute of limitations to prosecute a case based on conduct more than two decades old, with little, if any, evidence other than witness testimony. See Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (observing that statute of limitations "may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity"). Since the time of the alleged conduct, memories have become faded or corrupted, documents have been lost or destroyed, and witnesses have died, all to the extreme prejudice of Ms. Maxwell.5 Retroactively applying the 2003 Amendment here not only would fly in the face of congressional intent; it would violate all notions of fundamental fairness.6 + +5See Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay. + +6 In Weingarten, the court stated that if the defendant's counsel had successfully persuaded the trial court that the 2003 Amendment could not retroactively extend the statute of limitations for live charges, the trial court's holding would have been in direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006). But in Leo Sure Chief the alleged victim had not yet reached age 25 as of the time of the indictment, and thus the charges would not have been time-barred under either version of § 3283. Thus, the court in Leo Sure Chief did not perform a Landgraf analysis. + +#### II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All. + +Even if the 2003 Amendment could be retroactively applied to Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct during the 1990s, Counts One through Four would still be time-barred for a separate and independent reason: Section 3283 does not apply to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. Section 3283 extends the statute of limitations only for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years," 18 U.S.C. § 3283, but none of the offenses charged in Counts One through Four is such an offense.' + +#### A. Section 3283 applies only to offenses that necessarily entail the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child. + +A long line of cases establishes that an "offense" or "crime" that "involves" certain conduct means an offense that "necessarily requiries)" that conduct. Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 785 (2020) (internal quotations omitted). Those cases date back at least to v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which construed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act's extension of statutes of limitations for "any offense Q involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 3287 (1950) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court held that that extension was "limited strictly to offenses in which defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States is an essential ingredient of the offense charged." M, 346 U.S. at 221. Thus, the Court held that charges that the defendant knowingly made and conspired to make false statements in a naturalization proceeding, and that he aided and abetted a fraudulent certificate of naturalization, were subject to the general statute of limitations and not the exception, because "fraud is not an essential ingredient" of such offenses, and "[t]he offense is complete without proof of fraud, although fraud often accompanies it." Id. at 222. + +7 The words "or kidnaping" were added as part of the 2003 Amendment. 2003 Amendment at 660. + +Since the Court has repeatedly emphasized that statutory references to an "offense involving" or "offenses involving" certain elements call for such an approach. See Shular, 140 S.Ct. at 785; Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 484 (2012) (interpreting "offenses that involve fraud or deceit" to mean "offenses with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct") (internal punctuation omitted); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004) (stating that "offense that . . . involves" language "requires us to look to the elements and the nature of the offense ...rather than to the particular facts" at issue); see also United States v. M, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2328 (2019) ("In all but the most unusual situations, a single use of a statutory phrase must have a fixed meaning."). Thus, only if the offense "necessarily entails" the identified conduct can it be said to be an "offense involving" that conduct. Kawashima, 565 U.S. at 484. + +In United States v. the D.C. Circuit used this approach in interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), a venue statute that applies to "[a]ny offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States." The court concluded that "[t]he most natural reading" of the statute is "to construe 'any offense involving' by reference to the elements of the offense at issue." 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). The court then gave an illustrative example of a case in which a defendant travels in interstate commerce, commits a federal offense, and then returns home via interstate commerce: + +[T]he circumstances surrounding the crime include [the defendant's] travel in interstate commerce, but his crime is not an "offense involving" transportation in interstate commerce. In other words, a faithful reading of the precise words of the statute in the order in which they are written suggests that an "offense involv[es]" transportation in interstate commerce only when such transportation is an element of the offense. + +Id. Similarly, an "offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years" is an offense in which such sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping is an element of the offense. + +The Eighth Circuit concluded as much in United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011). There, the court held that § 3283 did not apply to a charge of possession of child pornography. Id. at 817-18. The court clearly looked to the elements of the statute, as the facts of the case did involve the sexual abuse of a child, including the production and possession of child pornography. Id. at 813-14. Yet the court held that, on the same set of facts, the offense of possession of child pornography did not involve sexual abuse and thus was subject to the general statute of limitations, but the offense of production of child pornography did involve sexual abuse and was subject to § 3283: "That a producer of child pornography will possess it at the time of the abuse is insufficient to change our view that the offense of possessing child pornography itself does not involve an act against a child, i.e., the sexual abuse of a child." Id. at 817. + +Coutentos demonstrates that the "offense involving" language of § 3283, as with other statutes, requires the court to look to the elements of the offense, rather than the facts of a particular case, to determine whether a particular offense "involves" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. Id. at 817. This approach makes practical sense: If the applicability of § 3283 depended on the facts of a particular case, rather than the elements of the offense, the government would effectively be required to prove conduct beyond the elements of the offense—Le., that sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping occurred—in order to prove that its charges are not time-barred. + +Such a "necessarily entails" or "elements of the offense" approach is particularly appropriate for three additional reasons here. First, like the Wartime Suspension Act in § 3283 creates an "exception" to the general five-year limitations period of § 3282, and such exceptions should be "narrowly construed." 346 U.S. at 215-16 (citing United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 639 (1926)); see also Comm'r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989) ("we usually read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the provision," particularly when the exception is "somewhat ambiguous"). Second, § 3282 itself requires that any exception to the five-year rule be "expressly provided by law." 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (emphasis added). Nowhere does § 3283 "expressly" purport to cover offenses that could (but need not) be proved by facts involving sexual or physical abuse of a minor. And third, under the rule of lenity, ambiguity with respect to criminal statutes should be construed in favor of the defendant. Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 216 (2014); see also United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508, 523 (2d Cir. 2015) ("where, as here, the Government and the defense both posit plausible interpretations of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires us to adopt the defendant's construction"). To do otherwise would violate the "longstanding congressional `policy of repose' that is fundamental to our society and our criminal law." See 346 U.S. at 215- 16; see also Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 ("criminal limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose" (internal quotation omitted)).8 + +### B. The offenses charged in Counts One through Four do not necessarily entail the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. + +Under the "necessarily entails" approach, § 3283 does not apply: None of the charged counts "necessarily" entails "the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child." See 18 + +" Nor has the Second Circuit held otherwise. In IVeingarten, because the issue arose in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded only that it was "not obvious" that § 3283 required an elementsbased approach. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 53, 58-59. + +U.S.C. § 3283. Counts One and Two arise under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), which, at the time of the alleged conduct, provided that a person could be charged with a criminal offense if she "knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (1996) (emphasis added). That statute criminalizes enticing "individual[s]," not necessarily children, to cross state lines to engage in sexual activities. In other words, the act that violates § 2422(a) does not necessarily entail the enticement of a child to travel, because the enticement of an individual of any age satisfies the statute. + +Further, § 2422(a) does not necessarily entail "sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping." 18 U.S.C. § 3283. A substantive § 2422(a) offense is complete when an individual is "persuade[d], induce[d], entice[d], or coerce[d]" to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity, and a conspiracy to commit such an offense is complete when an agreement to "persuade[], induce[], entice[], or coerce[]" an individual to engage in such travel is reached and a single overt act is committed in furtherance of the agreement. It is immaterial to either offense whether any unlawful sexual activity subsequently occurs. Moreover, the intended unlawful sexual activity required to establish a § 2422(a) offense need not involve "sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping"; § 2422(a) is frequently, if not primarily, invoked in prosecutions involving the enticement of adults to travel to engage in prostitution, including on a voluntary basis. See, e.g., United States v. Rashkovski, 301 F.3d 1133, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 2002). For all of these reasons, Counts One and Two do not charge offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child and thus are not subject to § 3283. + +Nor does § 3283 apply to extend the statutes of limitations under Counts Three and Four. Those counts arise under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which prohibits "transporting" minors across state lines "with intent that the [minor] engage in ... any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" (emphasis added).9 Neither that offense nor a conspiracy to "transport" a minor with such intent necessarily entails "the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child." 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Instead, as with § 2422(a), the offense is a "crime of intent and a conviction is entirely sustainable even if no underlying criminal sexual act ever occurs." United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120, 129 n.8 (2d Cir. 2010). For this reason, Counts Three and Four are not subject to § 3283's extended statute of limitations. + +It does not matter that the particular facts alleged in the indictment fall within § 3283. "The embellishment of the indictment does not lengthen the time for prosecution." M, 346 U.S. at 222. Nor does it matter that sexual abuse of a minor may "often accompan[y]" the offenses charged. See id. "[U]nder the statute[s] creating the offense[s]," physical or sexual abuse of a minor, or kidnapping, is not "an essential ingredient." Id. Thus, § 3283's extension for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years" does not apply. + +9 18 U.S.C. § 2423 was amended effective September 13, 1994, to add a subsection (b) and make cosmetic adjustments, immaterial here, to what is now subsection (a). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, PL 103-322, Sept. 13, 1994, Title XVI, § 16000I(g), 108 Stat. 1796. + +#### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment against her. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Mark S. Mark S. Christian It. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey®usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz®usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fc67bf452e01c1883ffef9b21ab4479f676519b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487/EFTA02830487.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1419 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830487.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 25, + "chars": 43497, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.69, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR \nOF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 511.3450012207031, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 511.3450012207031, + 333.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 333.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5611877441406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5611877441406, + 86.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Scharton,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 199.39105224609375, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 199.39105224609375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Valle,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 182.04017639160156, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 182.04017639160156, + 125.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 125.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Weingarten v. United States,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 212.13819885253906, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 212.13819885253906, + 165.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 165.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 205.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 205.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 566.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 566.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 617.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 617.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.32, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 397.0315246582031, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 397.0315246582031, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.6650390625, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 676.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 383.14178466796875, + 676.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 383.14178466796875, + 691.8630142211914 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 691.8630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Step One: Congress did not expressly prescribe retroactivity and reiected a \nproposal to do so.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 292.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged \noffenses would have impermissible effects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 520.3884887695312, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 520.3884887695312, + 320.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 320.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 294.8843994140625, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 294.8843994140625, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Section 3283 applies only to offenses that necessarily entail the sexual or \nphysical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 514.8511352539062, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 514.8511352539062, + 291.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 291.3630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The offenses charged in Counts One through Four do not necessarily entail \nthe sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 530.7171020507812, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 530.7171020507812, + 596.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 596.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 350.0912780761719, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 350.0912780761719, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830487" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21d054ea306bde7e217b3c6ab84607670b55cc1b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +0( + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT (Pretrial Motion # 6) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to strike surplusage from the superseding indictment. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S. + +Mark S. mcohen@cohengresser.com Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21° Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 957-4514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger + +HADDON, & P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e820b08fdfadf7973b80b4d27ee9dba55677b9a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512/EFTA02830512.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830512.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1004, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830512" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd4d40d9742046e383ececbfb096bbde0776e8e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.md @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS | 3 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Surplusage | 5 | +| A. | The Indictment Is Insufficient to Allege a Conspiracy as to Accuser-3. 6 | +| B. The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged | | +| Conspiracies | 7 | +| C. | The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms. | +| Maxwell. | 9 | +| II. In the Alternative, the Government Should Be Required to Demonstrate the | | +| Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). | 10 | +| CONCLUSION | 11 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Grunewald v. United States, | Page(s) | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 353 U.S. 391 (1957) Stogner v. California, | 8 | +| 539 U.S. 607 (2003) United States v. Benussi, | 7 | +| 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), afl'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 | F.3d | +| 608 (2d Cir. 2003) United States v. Curley, | 7 | +| 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Greebel, | 10 | +| No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) United States v. Hsia, | 5 | +| 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) United States v. Scarpa, | 8, 9 | +| 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) Statutes | 5 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2421 | 3 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423 | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2424 | 3 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994) | 6, 7 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003) | 7 | +| N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55 Rules | 3 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) | 5 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404 | passim | + +### Other Authorities + +| Sexual Offences Act 2003 § 9 (Eng.), 2003, c. 42 | 4 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---| +| Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, Title V, § 508, 110 Stat. 56 | 3 | +| Title XVI, § 6000I(g), 108 Stat. 1796 | 6 | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment ("Motion"). + +Although Ms. Maxwell is charged with conspiring to cause individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity, the indictment contains no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled.' Moreover, throughout the period alleged in the indictment, Accuser-3 was above the legal age of consent in England, where all alleged conduct as to her took place. Therefore, the Court should strike all allegations regarding Accuser-3 from the indictment, as they are nothing more than a transparent attempt by the government to introduce Accuser-3's testimony as evidence of a conspiracy, when it is at most "other acts" evidence subject to the balancing test required by Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). + +Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that between 1994 and 1997, Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Act: 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (now § 2422(a)), which prohibits the enticement of individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity, and 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which prohibits the transportation of individuals under age 18 in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that they engage in unlawful sexual activity. The substantive Act counts involve Ms. Maxwell's alleged enticement and/or transportation of Accuser-I. + +The indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell engaged in group sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein and Accuser-1 and that, on at least one occasion, Ms. Maxwell enticed or caused Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York for the purpose of engaging in such encounters with Epstein. But to do so, it must rely on the accusations of a single individual regarding + +I This individual is described in the indictment as Minor Victim-3. Similarly, we refer to the individuals identified in the indictment as Minor Victim-I and Minor Victim-2 as Accuser-I and Accuser-2, respectively. + +conduct that allegedly took place more than two decades ago—accusations so vague that they do not even link Ms. Maxwell to the only specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 in the indictment (see Indictment ¶¶ 1 lb, 17b). + +To try to bolster its case, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein's alleged "sexual abuse" of two other individuals, Accuser-2 and Accuser-3, and has included allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell's interactions with these two individuals in the indictment. But the allegations as to Accuser-3 cannot possibly support the charges against Ms. Maxwell: Although the gravamen of a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) offense is enticing or causing an individual to travel, there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled—let alone that Ms. Maxwell (or Epstein, for that matter) enticed her to do so or transported her. Moreover, although both § 2422(a) and § 2423(a) require an intent that the traveling individual engage in unlawful sexual activity, the indictment alleges no facts suggesting that Epstein's alleged sexual activity with Accuser-3, who was over the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, was unlawful. As a result, these allegations serve only to demonstrate a propensity on the part of Ms. Maxwell that will prejudice the jury against her. + +To enable the presentation of evidence regarding Accuser-3, the government claims the alleged "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 is somehow an "overt act" in furtherance of conspiracies to cause unspecified individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. The government's inclusion of these allegations, however, is nothing more than an attempted end-run around its obligations under Fed. R. Evid. 404(6). The "overt act" alleged as to Accuser-3 has nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 be stricken as surplusage, or in the alternative, that the + +government be required to treat any evidence supporting such allegations as Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence, subject to balancing by this Court of its probative value and prejudicial effects. + +# SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS + +Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421-2424. These counts are based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. + +Counts Two and Four allege that Ms. Maxwell substantively violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (now § 2422(a)) 2 and § 2423(a), respectively, by enticing and causing Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York in order to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein that would violate N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. Indictment ¶¶ 13, 19. The indictment does not charge Ms. Maxwell with a substantive Act violation as to any individual other than Accuser-1, nor does it allege that Ms. Maxwell personally enticed or caused any person other than Accuser-1 to travel in interstate or foreign commerce for any reason. + +Counts One and Three allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein "and others" to violate §§ 2422(a) and 2423(a), respectively. Indictment ¶1 9, 15. Count One alleges that the object of the § 2422(a) conspiracy was to "persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." Id. 1 10. Count Three alleges that the object of the § 2423(a) conspiracy was to "knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." Id. ¶ 16. + +2 Prior to February 8, 1996, this provision constituted the entirety of § 2422, it became § 2422(a) as a result of the enactment of additional subsections as of that date. Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, Title V, § 508, 110 Stat. 56. The provision is referred to herein as § 2422(a). + +In addition to the allegations regarding Accuser-1, the indictment includes factual allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell's interactions with two other individuals, Accuser-2 and Accuser-3, some of which are characterized as "overt acts" in furtherance of the two conspiracies. Ms. Maxwell is not alleged, however, to have enticed or otherwise caused either Accuser-2 or Accuser-3 to travel. + +Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 allegedly took place entirely in London, England, where Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have "groomed and befriended" Accuser-3 "between approximately 1994 and 1995." Id. 1 7c. Ms. Maxwell allegedly introduced Accuser-3 to Epstein and arranged for "multiple interactions between [Accuser-3] and Epstein," during which Ms. Maxwell "encouraged [Accuser-3] to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with [Accuser-3] during those massages." Id. + +Although the indictment alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3 during the massages (id.), it does not allege that Epstein's interactions with Accuser-3 were nonconsensual or in violation of any English law. Notably, Ms. Maxwell is not alleged to have met Accuser-3 and introduced her to Epstein until 1994 at the earliest, by which time Accuser-3 had reached age 163—the legal age of consent in England. Sexual Offences Act 2003 § 9 (Eng.), 2003, c. 42. Thus, it appears that the "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 that the indictment alleges was lawful conduct. + +Nor does the indictment allege any travel by Accuser-3, in interstate or foreign commerce or otherwise, let alone as a result of any action taken by Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, or anyone else. Yet Counts One and Three allege that Ms. Maxwell's encouragement of Accuser-3 to provide massages to Epstein in the future was somehow an overt act in furtherance of the alleged + +3 The government has disclosed that Accuser-3 was born in + +§ 2422(a) and § 2423(a) conspiracies to cause individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Id. ¶1 I I d, 17d. + +# ARGUMENT + +# I. All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Sum] SaUe. + +Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information." "This rule introduces a means of protecting the defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which may, however, be prejudicial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) Advisory Committee's Note. In the Second Circuit, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) motions may be granted "where the challenged allegations are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial." United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted); see United States v. Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (ICAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (striking language stating that defendant "orchestrated four interrelated fraud schemes" where indictment charged him in only two of those schemes). + +The paragraphs of the indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein's "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 are irrelevant, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial. The indictment is plainly insufficient to allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice Accuser-3 to travel, or to transport her in interstate or foreign commerce, let alone with the requisite intent. Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 have nothing to do with whether Ms. Maxwell conspired to violate § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) with respect to Accuser-I or Accuser-2. Thus, the only explanation for the inclusion of alleged 20-year-old allegations involving Accuser-3, and the characterization of the alleged conduct as "sexual abuse," is the likelihood that evidence submitted in support of those allegations will have an unduly prejudicial effect and would not survive a balancing analysis under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). + +### A. The Indictment Is Insufficient to Allege a Conspiracy as to Accuser-3. + +To establish a § 2422(a) conspiracy violation, the government must show that Ms. Maxwell conspired to "knowingly persuade[], induce[], entice[], or coerce[] any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce . . . to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (1996). To establish a § 2423(a) conspiracy claim, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell conspired to "knowingly transport[] an individual who ha[d] not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce . . . with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (1994); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (1986).4 + +The government cannot show that Ms. Maxwell conspired to commit either offense with respect to Accuser-3. There is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, let alone that Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, or anyone else enticed her or otherwise caused her to do so. While the indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell encouraged Accuser-3 to massage Epstein in England "knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages" (Indictment 9¶ 11d, 17d), it alleges no facts connecting those allegations to any contemplated interstate or foreign travel by Accuser-3—for any purpose. The indictment thus does not come close to alleging facts that would establish a conspiracy to violate either § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) as to Accuser-3. + +Moreover, any charge arising out of a conspiracy with respect to Accuser-3 would be time-barred. The government contends that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which, at the time of the alleged offenses, provided that a prosecution involving an "offense + +4 Section 2423 was amended effective September 13, 1994, to add a subsection (b) and make cosmetic adjustments, immaterial here, to what is now subsection (a). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, PL 103- 322, Sept. 13, 1994, Title XVI, § I60001(g), 108 Stat. 1796. + +involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years" could be brought until the victim reached age 25. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). While Congress amended the statute in 2003 to extend the time in which a prosecution could be brought to within the life of the victim, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), Accuser-3 reached the age of 25 in , and thus the statute of limitations as to her had expired before the time of the amendment. While Ms. Maxwell contends that § 3283 cannot be applied retroactively at all, and is inapplicable in any event,5 it is black-letter law that retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations to revive a time-barred claim would violate the Er Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 618 (2003). Thus, there can be no prosecution for any conduct alleged as to Accuser-3. + +### B. The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged Conspiracies. + +According to the indictment, the object of the alleged conspiracies was to entice or cause one or more individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in order to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Because, as shown above, the allegations in the indictment are insufficient to allege such a conspiracy as to Accuser-3, the only individuals as to whom the indictment even arguably alleges such a conspiracy are Accuser-1 and Accuser-2. The allegations regarding Accuser-3, however, have nothing to do with any conspiracy as to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2. + +While the government couches the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 as "overt acts" in furtherance of the conspiracies alleged in Counts One and Three, they are not. The "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), afj'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) + +sSee Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Indictment as Time-Barred. + +(quoting Grunwald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 397 (1957)). Thus, whether Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with respect to Minor Victim-3 constituted an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy depends on the scope of the alleged conspiracy. + +In United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998), for example, the defendant was charged with conspiracy, and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission, in connection with an alleged scheme to obtain illegal campaign contributions from foreign donors. The defendant moved to strike references in the indictment to acts of concealment of the alleged conspiracy. The court expressed concern that "the allegations provide little detail about the acts" and that "references to the alleged acts of concealment and cover-up suggest the inclusion of offenses that are not part of the conspiracy charged in the indictment." Id. at 25. Although the court denied the defendant's motion to strike, it ordered a bill of particulars "as to the scope of the alleged conspiratorial agreement and in particular whether and how the acts of concealment alleged in the indictment were within the scope of the conspiracy charged." Id. at 33. The court added that if the bill of particulars confirmed the defendant's assertion that the alleged acts of concealment and cover-up were not within the alleged scope of the conspiratorial agreement, her motion to strike would be granted. Id. at 26. + +Here, the object of the alleged conspiracies—necessarily, under the Act—was not to cause any individual to engage in unlawful sex acts with Epstein, but to cause individuals to travel to do so. The allegations regarding Accuser-3, even if proven, could not have furthered such alleged conspiracies. There is no basis for any reasonable inference that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 in England furthered a conspiracy to cause Accuser-I, Accuser-2, or anyone else to travel. There is no allegation that Accuser-3 even knew Accuser-I or Accuser-2, or that there is any causal relationship between the alleged incidents involving Accuser-3 in England and those involving Accuser-1 and Accuser-2 in the United States. + +To the extent there is any doubt about the scope of the alleged conspiratorial agreement, or how the allegations relating to Accuser-3 are within the scope of that agreement, the Court can resolve the issue by ordering a bill of particulars on these points, as the court did in Hsia. However, if the government cannot articulate how alleged sexual conduct with a person who never traveled falls within the scope of a conspiracy to cause another individual to travel, then allegations concerning Accuser-3 should be stricken. + +### C. The Allegations Retarding Accuser-3 Are Undulv Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. + +There can be no legitimate dispute that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are inflammatory and unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. The indictment alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3 and that Ms. Maxwell encouraged Accuser-3 to massage Epstein, "knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse" Accuser-3. Indictment¶¶ 7c, l Id, I7d. The phrase "sexual abuse" connotes criminal activity, even though the alleged conduct may well have been lawful: Accuser-3 was at or above the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, and the indictment contains no suggestion that the alleged sexual activity involving Accuser-3 was nonconsensual. Regardless of whether the conduct was lawful or unlawful in England, however, few allegations could be more prejudicial to a defendant than allegations that she participated in the "sexual abuse" of a teenager. The allegations as to Accuser-3, though irrelevant to the government's conspiracy counts, thus create precisely the prejudicial appearance the government seeks. + +Because the allegations as to Accuser-3 are both irrelevant to the charges against Ms. Maxwell and unduly prejudicial, they should be stricken as surplusage. + +### II. In the Alternative, the Government Should Be Required to Demonstrate the Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). + +At a minimum, the government should not be permitted to use the allegations regarding Accuser-3 to perform an end-run around Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Rather, the government should be required to demonstrate the admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of any evidence regarding Accuser-3. + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) "governs the admissibility of evidence of prior or subsequent `bad acts'—evidence of 'crimes, wrongs, or acts' other than those charged in the indictment." United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(6)). "The rule prohibits the admission of such evidence if it 'prove[s] the character of a person' to show his propensity to commit the charged act, but permits its admission for other purposes." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(6)). Permissible purposes include "proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX2). In a criminal case, the rule obligates a prosecutor to (i) "provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it"; (ii) "articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose"; and (iii) "do so in writing before trial" unless excused by the court. Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3). + +As shown above, evidence regarding Accuser-3 is irrelevant to the conspiracy counts. Thus, to the extent that the government intends to introduce evidence regarding Accuser-3, such evidence is "other acts" evidence, and its admissibility should be litigated under Fed. R. Evid. 404(6). + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court strike all references to Accuser-3 from Paragraph 7 of the indictment, and that the Court strike Paragraphs 7c, I Id, and I7d in their entirety. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court require the government to provide notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3) prior to introducing any evidence pertaining to Accuser-3, and that Ms. Maxwell be given an opportunity to litigate the admissibility of any such evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Mark S. Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +1 hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b7a39ad41834f4a95ff28762eb65a3c2cc7c6df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514/EFTA02830514.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,986 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830514.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 26942, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.88, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE \nFROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.612, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.84613037109375, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.84613037109375, + 319.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 153.612, + 319.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 167.05322265625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 167.05322265625, + 85.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 85.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.0315246582031, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.0315246582031, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 215.42399999999998, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.64813232421875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 346.64813232421875, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Sum] SaUe.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 444.0120544433594, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 444.0120544433594, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Indictment Is Insufficient to Allege a Conspiracy as to Accuser-3.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5346374511719, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.5346374511719, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged \nConspiracies.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 489.1566467285156, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 489.1566467285156, + 375.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 375.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Allegations Retarding Accuser-3 Are Undulv Prejudicial to Ms. \nMaxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 497.7563781738281, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 497.7563781738281, + 320.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 320.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. In the Alternative, the Government Should Be Required to Demonstrate the \nAdmissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 525.5891723632812, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 525.5891723632812, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830514" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e3ac4f66aa9f8719d5c91f1db8be276062ab6fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES (Pretrial Motion # 10) + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +& GRESSER LLP + +/s/ Mark S Mark S. mcohen@cohengresser.com Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21m Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 957-4514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger + +HADDON, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2605d4a0b1bc8db72083dccc6bc6828d4517c58e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530/EFTA02830530.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830530.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1041, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 99.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF MOTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 347.616, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.10699462890625, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.10699462890625, + 189.363037109375 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 189.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION \nFOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES \n(Pretrial Motion # 10)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 489.609619140625, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 489.609619140625, + 320.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 320.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830530" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ee57eb5ac7d3047025a33ef06fc98313a2d91d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## Exhibit A + +## LIST OF PARTICULARS + +- I. Please provide the full names and full birthdays of the individuals identified in the Superseding Indictment as Minor Victims-1-3 (¶¶ 7, II, 13, 17, 19). +- 2. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly met and/or interacted with Minor Victim-1 (¶ 7a). +- 3. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" Minor Victim-1 "to engage in sexual acts with Epstein" (¶ 7a). +- 4. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Jeffrey Epstein allegedly sexually abused Minor Victim-1 (¶ 7a). +- 5. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "was present for and involved in" Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-I (¶ 7a). +- 6. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Minor Victim-1 participated in "group sexualized massages" of Epstein (17a). +- 7. Please describe with particularity the conduct that the government contends is a "group sexualized massage" and identify the criminal statute(s) the conduct allegedly violates and the other participants in those massages (¶ 7a). +- 8. Please describe with particularity how Ms. Maxwell allegedly "involved" Minor Victim-I in these massages and how Ms. Maxwell allegedly participated in these massages (¶ 7a). +- 9. Please identify the dates when Minor Victim-1 allegedly traveled "across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein" (¶ 7a). +- 10. Please identify the dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed Minor Victim-1 "to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein" and describe with particularity the actions that Ms. Maxwell allegedly took to entice Minor Victim-1 to travel (1 7a). +- 11. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly met and/or interacted with Minor Victim-2 (17b). +- 12. Please identify the dates when Minor Victim-2 allegedly traveled across state lines to and from New Mexico in 1996 (¶ 7b). +- 13. Please identify the dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" Minor Victim-2 to engage in "acts of sexual abuse" with Epstein 7b). + +- 14. Please describe with particularity what Ms. Maxwell allegedly did as part of the "unsolicited massage" of Minor Victim-2 and identify the criminal statute(s) the conduct allegedly violates (¶ 7b, 11c, 17c). +- 15. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly met and/or interacted with Minor Victim-3 (¶ 7c). +- 16. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and the dates and locations of their subsequent "multiple interactions" (¶ 7c). +- 17. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts with Epstein (¶ 7c). +- 18. Please identify the dates when, and locations where, Jeffrey Epstein allegedly sexually abused Minor Victim-3 (¶ 7c). +- 19. Please describe with particularity the "sex acts" that Minor Victim-3 allegedly engaged in with Epstein during massages and identify the criminal statute(s) the conduct allegedly violates and the other participants in those massages (1 7c). +- 20. Please identify the dates when Minor Victim-3 allegedly traveled in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity with Epstein (¶ 7c). +- 21. Please specify when the conspiracies charged in Count One and Count Three began and ended. 9, 15). +- 22. Please identify the "others" who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in Count One and Count Three with Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. (¶¶ 9-10, 15-16). +- 23. Please identify any individuals who were enticed to travel, or were transported, in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity with Epstein during the time period of the charged conspiracies (1994-1997), apart from Minor Victims-1- 3 (¶ 10, 16). +- 24. Please identify the dates when, and the locations where, Ms. Maxwell participated in "group sexualized encounters" with Jeffrey Epstein and Minor Victim-I (¶¶ I la, 17a). +- 25. Please describe with particularity the conduct that the government believes constitutes a "group sexualized encounter" and identify the criminal statute(s) the conduct violates and the participants in those encounters (11 11 a, 17a). +- 26. Please identify who allegedly enticed Minor Victim-I to travel from Florida to New York in 1996 (¶y 1 lb, 176). + +- 27. Please identify from whom Ms. Maxwell was allegedly trying to "conceal her crimes" when she allegedly lied under oath in depositions in 2016 (¶ 2). +- 28. Please identify "the specific events and acts of abuse" about which Ms. Maxwell allegedly "repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements" (¶ 8). +- 29. As to each statement alleged to be perjurious in Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment please specify why the Government contends the statement was material MI 21, 23). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbec29c5e674085b6dd508e961149add9dba4c8a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532/EFTA02830532.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830532.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4950, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.43, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 411.693603515625, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 411.693603515625, + 254.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 254.9027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LIST OF PARTICULARS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.8673400878906, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.8673400878906, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830532" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e823286f234b4548501d40fd5e099f902e6d664 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit B (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..410fa26a8b51030df6745afe40d4b70b25a40000 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536/EFTA02830536.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830536.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 318.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 318.6527099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830536" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bf4e628f90c741503e6a15285fee2c60cf86a1c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit C (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89e8849889f929146b8b5b7bce2c2e205df50fa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537/EFTA02830537.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830537.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 318.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.6527099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830537" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..975a2651679816483deff2064578f441e568075c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1143ad36b169cae51aee03e1bee462c0e75f0ec4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538/EFTA02830538.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830538.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 496.3960266113281, + 318.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 318.6527099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830538" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..723ce986c460ed953220967bd8199a542f7a0c58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.md @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +## Exhibit E + +## DOCUMENTS RELATED TO DEFENSE MOTIONS + +- I. All written and oral communications concerning the negotiations relating to the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") signed by Jeffrey Epstein on September 24, 2007. Such communications include: + - a. All communications between the government including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI, and any other federal and state investigative agencies — and Mr. Epstein's attorneys. + - b. All communications between and among any government employees including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI, and any other federal and state investigative agencies. + - c. Unredacted copies of all emails and other correspondence between the government and Mr. Epstein's attorneys concerning the negotiation of the NPA, previously produced by the government on August 13, 2020. See, e.g., SDNY\_GM\_00134069 et seq. +- 2. All written and oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the attorneys for the accusing witnesses—including, but not limited to, , David Boles, Sigrid McCawley, Peter Skinner, Stanley Pottinger, Paul Cassell, Spencer Kuvin, and Jack Scarola (the "Attorneys")—and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. + - a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings that took place in or about 2016 in which certain of the Attorneys met with SDNY prosecutors to ask SDNY to initiate a criminal investigation into Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. See New York Daily News, "Manhattan Federal Prosecutors Declined to Pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell Case in 2016: Sources" (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nvdailvnews.com/new-york/nv-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-202 1013-jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html • see also J. Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims ofJeffrey Epstein, at + - 281. + - b. This request also includes all communications and documents related to any meetings between any of the Attorneys and SDNY prosecutors and staff concerning or relating to Mr. Epstein and/or Ms. Maxwell that took place in or about 2018, when the government asserts that it began the SDNY investigation into this case (see Dkt. 63), or at any time thereafter. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74b2d3a71a6bef2431a670987ff83c4bbfa71424 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539/EFTA02830539.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830539.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2718, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.36, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 409.26678466796875, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 409.26678466796875, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS RELATED TO DEFENSE MOTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 448.8117370605469, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 448.8117370605469, + 86.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 86.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830539" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e57dc46ceab8760b6ff6d8e27ebada1a1516bb5f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.md @@ -0,0 +1,318 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES + +Mark S. = Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | | Page | +|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | | 1 | +| I. | Motion for a Bill of Particulars | 3 | +| II. | Motion for Disclosure and Inspection of Documents | 7 | +| | A. Unredacted FBI 302 Reports and Notes of Interviews | 7 | +| | B. The Diary Pages | 10 | +| | C. Documents Related to Ms. Maxwell's Motions | 11 | +| III. | Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Material | 11 | +| IV. | Motion For a Pretrial Evidentiary Proffer or Hearing to Determine | | +| | Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Declarations | 13 | +| V. | Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements | 14 | +| VI. | Motion for a List of Government Witnesses | 15 | +| VII. | Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence | 17 | +| CONCLUSION | | 17 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Boyette v. Lefevre, | Page(s) | +|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 246 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) Brady v. Maryland, | 12 | +| 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Clemmons v. Delo, | passim | +| 124 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1997) Crawford v. Washington, | 9 | +| 541 U.S. 36 (2004) Giglio v. United States, | 13 | +| 405 U.S. 150 (1972) v. Jago, | passim | +| 575 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1978) Kyles v. Whitley, | 9 | +| 514 U.S. 419 (1995) Strickler v. | 9, 11 | +| 527 U.S. 263 (1999) United States v. Bagley, | 12 | +| 473 U.S. 667 (1985) United States v. Bortnovsky, | I I, 12 | +| 820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Cannone, | passim | +| 528 F.2d 296 (2d Cir. 1975) United States v. Geaney, | 4, 16 | +| 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) United States v. James, | 13 | +| 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979) United States v. Percevault, | 13 | +| 490 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1974) | 14 | + +| United States v. Rodriguez, | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| 496 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2007) United States v. Strawberry, | 12 | +| 892 F. Supp. 519 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) United States v.=, | 4 | +| 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) United States v. Tracy, | 9 | +| 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Turkish, | 13 | +| 458 F. Supp. 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) United States v. Wanne, | 16 | +| No. 09CR I 9A, 2009 WL 427111 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) United States v. Zagari, | 4 | +| III F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1997) v. Helling, | 6, 8 | +| 194 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 1999) | 9 | + +# Statutes + +# Rules + +| Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) | 1, 17 | +|------------------------------------------------------|-------| +| Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 14 | +| Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 14 | +| Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 1, 3 | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +This Memorandum of Law is submitted in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.' Specifically, Ms. Maxwell requests: + +- a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; +- disclosure of certain evidence within the possession of the government or its witnesses; +- immediate disclosure of exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and impeachment material under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); +- disclosure of any co-conspirator statements and a hearing to determine their admissibility; and +- accelerated production of Jencks Act material, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500, a government witness list, and any evidence the government intends to introduce at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). + +It is now almost seven months since Ms. Maxwell was charged with the offenses in the Superseding Indictment, and the government's case against her is still shrouded in mystery. Ms. Maxwell has been prevented from knowing even the most fundamental information about the allegations against her, which are based on conduct that allegedly took place over 25 years ago. First and foremost, the government still has not disclosed the identities of the witnesses who have accused Ms. Maxwell of wrongdoing. Despite requests to the government to disclose that critical information, the government has refused to do so on the grounds that it needed to protect the witness' privacy, even though some of them, we believe, have publicly identified themselves + +By letters, emails, and phone calls with government counsel, the parties have attempted to resolve pretrial discovery requests in advance of filing of pretrial motions. Unresolved requests are the subject of this motion. The defense will continue to attempt to resolve disclosure issues with the government as they arise. + +in court conferences, in lawsuits, and in the press. Without this basic information, Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately investigate the allegations against her and prepare for trial. + +The voluminous discovery provided by the government, which totals in the millions of pages—the vast majority of which was produced to the defense in November 2020—does not shed any more light on the nature of the government proof or the specifics of the alleged conduct.2 The discovery contains only a handful of documents that even pertain to the time period charged in the indictment (1994-1997), and what little exists offers almost no information about the details of, for example, exactly when and where the alleged incidents of sexual abuse took place, who was allegedly present, and how the alleged conduct violated the law. Without these details, which Ms. Maxwell is requesting through a bill of particulars, she cannot identify relevant witnesses or documents that she may wish to obtain to prepare her defense. + +It is clear that the detail about how these alleged offenses took place will come solely from the statements of the government's witnesses. Accordingly, it is critical that Ms. Maxwell receive Jencks Act material and the government's witness list, as well as 404(b) evidence, well in advance of trial so that she can conduct an adequate investigation. The unique circumstances of this case more than warrant early disclosure of this material. The conduct alleged in the indictment dates back 25 years, making investigation and preparation of the case complex and difficult. The global COVID-19 pandemic adds further complications and obstacles to trial preparation. The Court has recognized that Ms. Maxwell should be granted ample time to review documents related to witnesses in this case. (See Dkt. 73 (ordering the government to produce documents related to certain non-testifying witnesses by March 12, 2021 "to ensure that + +2 Ms. Maxwell is still reviewing the discovery, including the over two million pages produced in November 2020. In deference to the Court's schedule and in light of the trial date, we have not asked the Court to further extend the deadline to file pretrial motions. However, Ms. Maxwell reserves her right to supplement these motions at a later date if her review of discovery uncovers documents that warrant additional requests. + +the defense can adequately prepare for trial")). For the very same reasons, the Jencks Act and 404(b) evidence should be produced to the defense no later than March 12, 2021. + +For the reasons set forth below, the Court should grant Ms. Maxwell's request for a bill of particulars and her other requests for pretrial disclosures. + +### I. Motion for a Bill of Particulars + +Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court direct the government to file a Bill of Particulars, pursuant to Rule 7(t) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, because the Superseding Indictment does not sufficiently inform her of the nature of the charges against her. Counts One through Four of the indictment make vague and unspecified allegations that Ms. Maxwell purportedly enticed and caused unidentified individuals to travel to engage in illegal sex acts over a four-year period. But they provide no specifics about when these events supposedly took place or what constituted the alleged illegal sex acts. Indeed, it is now almost seven months since Ms. Maxwell was arrested and the government still has not even disclosed the identities of the three accusers that form the core of the government's case against her in Counts One through Four. Nor has the government alleged why Ms. Maxwell's supposedly perjurious responses to the deposition questions set forth in Counts Five and Six were material to the defamation proceeding in which they arose. Ms. Maxwell cannot hope to investigate these allegations and adequately prepare for trial with such limited information. A bill of particulars is therefore warranted. + +Rule 7(f) permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars "in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The decision of whether to grant a bill of particulars is within the discretion of + +the district court. Id. "In deciding whether a bill of particulars is needed, the court must determine whether the information sought has been provided elsewhere, such as in other items provided by discovery, responses made to requests for particulars, prior proceedings, and the indictment itself." United States v. Strawberry, 892 F. Supp. 519, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). + +Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her case has already been significantly impaired by not knowing the most basic information about the government's proof — she still does not know who has accused her of these alleged crimes. Without knowing this fundamental information, Ms. Maxwell has been forced to make assumptions about their identities and attempt to investigate these allegations blindly. If one of the purposes of a bill of particulars is to "prevent surprise," Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574, there could be no greater "surprise" than for Ms. Maxwell to find out that a few weeks before trial that the people she assumed to be the three accusers were not, in fact, the right people. Tf that occurs, the defense will have wasted months of investigation work and will not be able to adequately prepare for trial. + +As we have previously argued (see Dkt. 38), the Court has the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses, and should do so here. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975);3 United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at \*2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where "defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim"). On August 25, 2020, the Court denied as premature our request that the government be ordered to provide the identities of the three accusers. (Dkt. 49). We have conferred with the + +3 In Cannone, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court's order to compel disclosure of witness identities under the circumstances of that case. 528 F.2d at 300-02. Nevertheless, Cannone recognized the district courts' ability to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses in appropriate cases. Id at 301. Here, the unique circumstances of this case warrant the disclosure of the accusers' identities. + +government, but have not been able to agree on a disclosure schedule and therefore renew this request as part of this motion for a bill of particulars. + +Ms. Maxwell's efforts to prepare for trial have also been significantly impaired by the lack of specificity in the indictment. In Bortnovsky, the Second Circuit reversed the defendants' convictions for failure to grant a bill of particulars, primarily because the indictment failed to identify relevant dates. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574-75. The Circuit concluded that the defendants, accused of submitting false burglary claims for insurance purposes, "were hindered in preparing their defense by the district court's failure to compel the Government to reveal crucial information: the dates of the fake burglaries and the identity of the three fraudulent documents." Id. at 574. As a result, Bortnovsky held, "[tjhe relevance of key events was shrouded in mystery at the commencement of and throughout the trial." Id. at 575. + +Ms. Maxwell is similarly hindered. The indictment charges Ms. Maxwell with enticing or arranging travel for an unidentified individual, Accuser-1,4 from Florida to New York at some point during a four-year period. Yet the government has not alleged the dates of Ms. Maxwell's alleged interactions with Accuser-I, the dates when Accuser-1 allegedly traveled across state lines for the purpose of engaging in sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein, the dates on which Ms. Maxwell allegedly enticed the complainant to do so, and the actions Ms. Maxwell allegedly took to entice Accuser-I to travel. Ms. Maxwell has requested precisely such particulars from the government, and the government has declined to provide them. + +This information also has not been provided in discovery. Notwithstanding the government's representation that accuser testimony is corroborated by "flight records, diary entries, business records, and other evidence," (Dkt. 4 at 5), the government has not produced any such records from which it could be ascertained when or how Ms. Maxwell is alleged to + +The indictment identifies the three accusers as Minor Victims 1-3. We will refer to them as Accusers 1-3. + +have committed the offenses alleged. Instead, this information, crucial to whether an underlying violation of § 130.55 could have occurred at all, remains “shrouded in mystery.” *See* + +*Bortnovsky*, 820 F.2d at 575. To take the “flight records” as an example, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Thus, the limited information + +provided in the “flight records” lead to a dead-end when trying to ascertain any of the details + +omitted by the indictment. Similarly, the “diary entries” [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]. + +Not knowing the Accusers’ names and dates of birth compounds the difficulty associated with the absence of dates of key events in the indictment. Accuser-3, for example, purportedly was “encouraged” to provide massages to Epstein “between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995.” According to her month and year of birth, as disclosed to the defense, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] which would bear on whether she was a “minor.” + +Similarly, the government has not alleged how the supposedly false statements made by Ms. Maxwell at her two depositions in the civil defamation action were “material to the proceeding in which [they were] given,” a necessary element of the crime of perjury. *United States v. Zagari*, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted). Ms. Maxwell is therefore left to guess how she allegedly perjured herself, as charged in Counts Five and Six. The + +government should be required, at a minimum, to remove this shroud of mystery and file a bill of particulars to permit Ms. Maxwell to prepare her defense and avoid unfair surprise at trial. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574. Accordingly, we request the particulars set forth in Exhibit A. (See Ex. A). + +### II. Motion for Disclosure and Inspection of Documents + +Ms. Maxwell seeks an order directing the government to produce certain material believed to be in the possession of the government or its agents, or which could be obtained by the government from other prosecutor's offices, law enforcement officers and investigators, witnesses, or persons having knowledge of the events giving rise to this case. Ms. Maxwell requested these documents from the government, but was denied. As discussed further below, Ms. Maxwell has good reason to believe that some of these documents contain exculpatory Brady material; hence, the government has a duty to produce them to the defense, and should be ordered to do so immediately. The alternative means of obtaining the requested documents would be through subpoenas served on the government and unidentified witnesses, which is an impractical pursuit. The government would likely move to quash any subpoena, requiring court intervention; and it would be impossible to serve subpoenas on witnesses without knowing their names and locations. We therefore request that the Court direct the government to produce the documents set forth below. + +# A. Unredacted FBI 302 Reports and Notes of Interviews + +The discovery includes + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The contents of this interview are therefore exculpatory *Brady* material and should be produced to the defense. However, the notes and any reports of these interviews do not appear to be in the discovery, despite the fact that the government obtained and produced documents from the Miami FBI’s investigation. We therefore ask the Court to order the government to produce to the defense any notes or reports memorializing these interviews [REDACTED] + +There are also numerous redacted FBI reports in the discovery. The defense asked the government to produce unredacted copies of two such reports. The first is [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] (Ex. C). The second is [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] (Ex. D). Each time, the government responded that it had not applied the redactions and had produced the documents as they obtained them. As to the second, + +--- + +5 We hereafter refer to Minor Victim-2 as Accuser-2. + +the government further advised that, to the extent it had access to an unredacted copy of the report, it would produce it when it produces *Giglio* material. + +The defense believes that these reports contain *Brady* material and should be produced immediately. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +It is the government’s responsibility to obtain unredacted copies of these reports and produce them to the defense. The government cannot absolve itself of its *Brady* obligations by producing redacted documents “as is,” when they could easily obtain unredacted copies from the FBI. *See Kyles v. Whitley*, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (the government “has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police”). An informed witness who fails to mention the defendant when making a police report is certainly exculpatory under *Brady*. *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 719 F.2d 549, 555-56 (2d Cir. 1983); [REDACTED] v. *Jago*, 575 F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir. 1978); *Clemmons v. Delo*, 124 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 1997); [REDACTED] v. *Helling*, 194 F.3d 937, 944 (8th Cir. 1999). + +The timing for *Brady* disclosures is now. As this Court ruled: + +“The Government must disclose to the defense all information ‘favorable to an accused’ that is ‘material either to guilt or to punishment’ and that is known to the Government. . . . The Government shall disclose such information to the defense *promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government* so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case.” + +(Dkt. 68) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court should order the government to produce unredacted copies of these reports. + +**B. The Diary Pages** + +The government also produced in discovery [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] In opposing Ms. Maxwell's applications for bail, the government relied heavily on the diary entries as contemporaneous documentary corroboration of their case against Ms. Maxwell. Yet [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] We asked the government to produce a complete copy of the diary. The government responded that [REDACTED] +[REDACTED]. In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell's second bail application, the government further represented that [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] If the government will not obtain and produce the rest of the diary, Ms. Maxwell will have to issue a subpoena to the diary's author. But because the government refuses to disclose her name to the defense, we don't know who to subpoena and will not know until it is too late to obtain the diary in time for trial. Accordingly, we request the Court to order the government to produce a complete copy of the diary or, in the alternative, to identify the name of the diary's author. + +### C. Documents Related to Ms. Maxwell's Motions + +Along with this motion, Ms. Maxwell has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Jeffrey Epstein and two motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the government's subpoena of These motions request, as alternative relief, that the Court grant discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issues bearing on the motions. Ms. Maxwell asked the government for documents relevant to these motions, but was denied. To the extent that the Court grants discovery related to these two motions, Ms. Maxwell requests, among other things, the documents requested in Exhibit E, which were previously requested from the government. (See Ex. E). + +Ms. Maxwell also requests the Court to order the government to produce a copy of the subpoena that it issued to . As set forth in Ms. Maxwell's motion to suppress, Ms. Maxwell was not aware that the subpoena had been issued and never had the opportunity to contest it. Ms. Maxwell seeks a copy of the subpoena to determine whether she has a basis to challenge it. + +Likewise, for the reasons set forth in her motion to suppress, Ms. Maxwell requests that the government produce copies of the other grand jury subpoenas issued in connection with this case for the production of Ms. Maxwell's private and confidential records.° + +# HI. Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Material + +Ms. Maxwell moves for an order, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) compelling the government to + +6 See Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +immediately disclose all potentially favorable evidence having a reasonable probability to affect the outcome of the proceedings. It is further requested that the Court direct the government to disclose such information immediately upon its discovery. + +It is well settled that pursuant to Brady and its progeny, the government must disclose evidence, information, and facts that could be used to impeach its witnesses. See United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2007). Such evidence includes any and all evidence of a witness' prior crimes or acts of moral turpitude, prior inconsistent statements, and statements demonstrating a lack of knowledge or a denial of the facts of the case or the alleged guilt of the defendant, and specific instances of conduct from which it can be inferred the witness is untruthful. + +But disclosure of Brady material is not the end of the line. Quite the contrary, it is a launching point for an investigation that may bear critical information. In order to mount an effective defense, Ms. Maxwell must receive this material in sufficient time to investigate and develop it for effective use before and during trial. We therefore request the immediate disclosure of all Brady and Giglio material. + +The government takes the customary position that it will turn over any Giglio material at the time it provides prior statements of witnesses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500. In doing so, the government erroneously assumes that Giglio material is something other than Brady material. The Supreme Court has made clear that impeachment evidence "falls within the Brady rule." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676 (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). Favorable evidence, generally referred to as Brady material, exculpates the accused or impeaches prosecution witnesses. Id. at 674, 676; Strickler v. 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999); Boyette v. Lefevre, 246 F.3d 76, 89 (2d Cir. 2001). + +For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court order the government to immediately disclose all favorable evidence (Brady and Giglio material) within its possession and to immediately disclose all such material upon future discovery or receipt, to provide the defense will have ample opportunity to make use of it at trial. + +### IV. Motion For a Pretrial Evidentiary Proffer or Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Declarations + +Ms. Maxwell anticipates that the government may offer testimony regarding statements allegedly made by unindicted co-conspirators, including statements of Jeffrey Epstein, who is deceased. Any such testimony would be highly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell in the context of this case, especially because statements by Mr. Epstein, which would be testimonial in nature, are not subject to cross-examination. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). To avoid serious and irreparable prejudice that would result at the time of trial, it is essential that the government demonstrate the admissibility of any coconspirator declarations at a hearing prior to trial. See United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979). + +The Second Circuit instructs courts to follow the procedure enunciated in United States v. Geaney. 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969). "Under the Geaney rule, statements proffered as coconspirator statements may be admitted in evidence on a conditional basis, subject to the later submission of the necessary evidence" to establish prerequisites for admission. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Should the government fail to meet its burden of persuasion and the Court finds that the conditionally admitted coconspirator statements were not made during or in furtherance of the charged conspiracy, any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility to ensure that all jurors would disregard + +statements they already heard. Rather than risk a mistrial, the Court should require a proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible. + +### V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements + +The defense moves for accelerated disclosure of witness statements, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 ("Jencks Act") and Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In order to properly investigate and prepare for trial, the defense will need the Jencks Act material well in advance of trial. The allegations in this case date back 25 years. At the time of the alleged offenses, electronic recordkeeping was not prevalent. As a result, records and files, should they still exist, may be archived or hard to retrieve. Moreover, the conduct alleged in the indictment purportedly took place in other states and in foreign countries over a four-year period. Statements pertaining to witnesses who are located outside United States will potentially require international travel to investigate. Foreign investigation may also require depositions, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the absence of subpoena power to compel witness testimony in the United States. Investigation of witness statements is especially challenging in light of the global pandemic that has imposed numerous constraints, including restrictions on travel, mandated periods of quarantine, closure of public offices and businesses, and the reluctance of witnesses to meet in person. While these challenges cannot be eliminated entirely, early disclosure can help alleviate them and afford the defense a fair opportunity to make use of the Jencks Act material. + +On a case-by-case basis, courts can exercise their discretion and supervisory power to urge the production of Jencks Act material in advance of trial in the interests of judicial economy to avoid unnecessary delays during the course of the trial. See United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 1974). The circumstances of this case — the age of the offenses, the + +location of witnesses, the ongoing global pandemic — justify the accelerated disclosure of Jencks Act material. + +The Court has already recognized that the defense will need substantial time to evaluate and investigate materials related to potential witnesses in this case. In response to the government request to delay production of certain Rule 16 materials related to non-testifying witnesses until eight weeks prior to trial, the Court ruled that such a time frame was "insufficient" and ordered the government to produce the materials by March 12, 2021 "to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial." (Dkt. 73). The defense has conferred with the government and proposed the same date—March 12, 2021—to produce all Jencks Act material for both testifying and non-testifying witnesses. The government has denied that request. Accordingly, we ask the Court to order the government to disclose all Jencks Act material by that date, including, but not limited to the following: + +- I. Any and all rough notes of witness interviews taken or obtained in any investigation of Ms. Maxwell, including federal, state, local and other investigations whether or not the contents thereof have been incorporated in official reports; +- 2. Any notes or memoranda made by government counsel, staff, or law enforcement agents during the interview of any witness intended to be called by the government in its direct case; +- 3. Any emails, texts or voicemails (in original, transcribed and summary form) from the witness and from the witness's counseVlaw firm containing information derived from any witness intended to be called by the government in its direct case; and +- 4. Any emails, texts or voicemails (in original, transcribed and summary form) between and among government counsel and law enforcement officers containing information derived from any witness intended to be called by the government in its direct case. + +## VI. Motion for a List of Government Witnesses + +In conjunction with Ms. Maxwell's request for early disclosure of Jencks Act material, the defense also requests that the government provide a list of the witnesses it intends to call at trial. Although Rule 16 does not require the government to disclose its witness prior to trial, the + +Court may order the disclosure when a balancing of the defendant's need for disclosure and the government's need for concealment indicates that such an order would be in the interests of justice. See Cannon, 528 F.2d at 300-02. Trial courts generally exercise discretion to order such disclosure upon a finding that a defendant's request is material to the preparation of the case and is otherwise reasonable. See id. at 300-01. Courts assess the materiality and reasonableness of the request through the application of a six-factor test set forth in United States v. Turkish, 458 F. Supp. 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1978): + +- 1. Did the offense alleged in the indictment involve a crime of violence? +- 2. Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence? +- 3. Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to\_documents (which by their nature are not easily altered)? +- 4. Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses' names prior to trial will increase the likelihood that the prosecution's witnesses will not appear at trial, or will be unwilling to testify at trial? +- 5. Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time, making preparation of the defendants' defense complex and difficult? +- 6. Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their defense? + +Id. at 881. + +Here, the application of the Turkish factors favors early disclosure of the identities of the government's witnesses. The indictment does not allege crimes of violence, Ms. Maxwell has no criminal history, and the government has conceded that she is not a danger to the community. The age of the charged offenses and the complications imposed by a global pandemic makes investigation and preparation of this case complex and difficult. Disclosure of the government's witness list is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding this case. + +### VII. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence + +The defense requests that the Court direct the government to disclose any and all acts and any evidence it intends to introduce under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence or as background of the conspiracy charged in the Indictment. + +Ms. Maxwell should be put on notice as soon as possible of the exact nature of any 404(b) evidence, the witnesses pertaining thereto, the documents in support thereof and the theory upon which the government asserts admissibility rests. By providing prompt notification, the defense can investigate the allegations and file appropriate motions to permit the Court to make pretrial determinations regarding the admissibility of any potential Rule 404(b) evidence proffered by the government. We have conferred with the government and requested that all Rule 404(b) evidence be provided by March 12, 2021, but the government has denied this request. We therefore request that the Court order the government to produce all Rule 404(b) evidence by that date. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court grant the motions presented in their entirety. + +Dated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +is/ Mark S. Mark S. Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cab0c72092557561cfbf10248fc4fd15a72dc3ff --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541/EFTA02830541.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1348 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830541.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 36575, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.02, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR \nA BILL OF PARTICULARS AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.088, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 475.359619140625, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 475.359619140625, + 328.10302734375 + ], + [ + 137.088, + 328.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 403.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 403.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 454.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 454.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Motion for a Bill of Particulars", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 270.4996337890625, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 270.4996337890625, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Motion for Disclosure and Inspection of Documents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 375.0481872558594, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 375.0481872558594, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Unredacted FBI 302 Reports and Notes of Interviews", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 418.8013916015625, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 418.8013916015625, + 581.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 581.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Diary Pages", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 140.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Documents Related to Ms. Maxwell's Motions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 382.4161376953125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 382.4161376953125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 431.0295715332031, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 431.0295715332031, + 581.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 581.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Motion For a Pretrial Evidentiary Proffer or Hearing to Determine \nAdmissibility of Co-Conspirator Declarations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 472.3984375, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 472.3984375, + 210.49249267578125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 210.49249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 403.17919921875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 403.17919921875, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Motion for a List of Government Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 615.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.310791015625, + 615.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.310791015625, + 631.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 631.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.8357849121094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.8357849121094, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 427.68 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 427.68 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 443.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 443.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830541" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b53629342dcc56f151f363647a638fb88ad8293f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +-v- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +---------------------------------x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ., counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, certifies that defense counsel have conferred in good faith with government counsel in an attempt to resolve by agreement issues and requests raised in the accompanying Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. Government counsel was unwilling to agree to the requested relief. + +Dated: January 25, 2020 + +/s/Bobbi C. Sternheim, En BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0e0f9292ddd971078aaa0581321aa08fc8ee15d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564/EFTA02830564.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830564.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 659, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 16.1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 458.3174133300781, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 458.3174133300781, + 252.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 252.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830564" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42f20b7bf9ec8705c261fe1b02dddb765d8fdba8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Moll° Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +February 4, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). Over the past two months, the Government has had multiple communications with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel through those communications. + +The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to a desktop computer provided by the MDC on which to review discovery. Additionally, pursuant to the Court's January 15, 2021 Order, the defendant also has access to a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery for the full thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. + +The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Due to the elevated number of COVID-19 cases within the MDC, in-person visits have been suspended since in or about December 2020. While in-person visits are suspended, the defendant has had regular video-teleconference ("VTC") calls with her counsel. In particular, the defendant has VTC calls with her counsel every weekday for three hours per call. If defense counsel requires additional time to speak with the defendant, counsel may request to schedule an additional phone call on Saturdays as needed. All of these VTCs and telephone calls take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. + +The defendant's legal mail is processed in the same manner as mail for all other inmates at the MDC. All inmate mail is sent to the MDC's mail room, where every piece of mail is processed before being provided to the inmate recipient. Due to the large number of MDC inmates and the volume of mail received at the MDC, this process can take multiple days. As noted above, however, the defendant is able to send and receive emails with defense counsel every day and has regular communication with counsel via VTC. + +MDC staff conduct two pat-down searches of the defendant per day: once when she is moved from her isolation cell to the day room each morning, and once when returns from the day room to her isolation cell each night. As part of those searches, the defendant is required to remove her mask and open her mouth briefly so that MDC staff, who remain masked during the searches, can confirm she has not hidden contraband in her mouth. These pat-down and mouth searches are consistent with MDC's policy that all inmates be searched whenever they move to a different location within the jail facility. Previously, the defendant attended VTC conferences in a separate part of the MDC, requiring that she be searched when taken to and from her VTC calls with counsel. Recently, however, the MDC changed the location of the defendant's VTC calls so that the defendant does not need to leave her unit in order to attend VTC calls with her counsel, thereby reducing the number of searches. During the suspension of visitation, the defendant has not been strip searched. When visitation resumes, the defendant, like all other inmates, will be strip searched after any in-person visit. + +In addition, MDC staff search the defendant's cell for contraband once per day. MDC staff also conduct a body scan on the defendant once per week to check for any secreted contraband. At night, MDC staff are required to confirm that the defendant is not in distress every fifteen minutes. To do so, staff point a flashlight to the ceiling of the defendant's cell to illuminate the cell sufficiently to confirm that the defendant is breathing every fifteen minutes. The MDC continues to assess that these searches are all necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will promptly provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10eac15859f890e8597cb637f4a937cfabc59c08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/EFTA02830565.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5055, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830565" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d7a50ed9491d5f7e8e2e9d59b5e142c2c2a52d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830565/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:da7c1e0ef76abefbbb57347bb98886ebc0a8387e59e7f6757ebd3ea6115740ab +size 3478 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..919ee6b9c219e7de994dcec51e64618078a78378 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fox + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +February 16, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +The government's recent letter regarding MDC conditions (Dkt.158) essentially repeats the same points it made in defense of the MDC's request that the Court vacate its order directing the MDC to permit Ms. Maxwell to use a laptop on weekends and holidays. We appreciate the Court's concern regarding Ms. Maxwell's opportunity to review discovery and the extent to which she is required to undergo searches. The government's letter, however, does not include the concerns defense counsel has reported to MDC Legal during the past couple of months. In addition, the letter incorrectly states that legal calls are available on Saturdays. Such requests by counsel have been denied. + +By ignoring the myriad other issues reported by counsel, the government's letter misrepresents Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. Ms. Maxwell does not have access to daily discovery review for the entirety of the 13 hours. The vagaries and delays of moving her the 50 feet or so from the isolation cell to the day room are a large part of the challenge. + +The number of searches is also not correct. Ms. Maxwell is searched on every move, including to the empty concrete space, adjacent to the day room, used for recreation. Currently, she is subject to a minimum of four pat down searches a day if she goes to rec, and five pat down searches on the day of her weekly body scan. Since July 6th, Ms. Maxwell has been physically searched approximately 1400 times, including pat down searches, metal searches, mouth, hair and ear searches (posing additional health risks during COVID), and upwards of 60 body scans. In addition, there have been hundreds of physical searches of her isolation cell, locker, legal papers, and personal effects. No contraband has ever been found. + +We take issue with MDC's assessment that "the searches are all necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant." Ms. Maxwell is under 24-hour surveillance by two to six guards and approximately 18 cameras, not including the hand-held camera, focused on her throughout the areas in which she is moved and confined. Ms. Maxwell poses no danger to anyone. Her restrictive conditions, searches, and constant surveillance correlate directly to BOP negligence resulting in the death of Jeffrey Epstein. + +As the government states, a flashlight is pointed at the ceiling of her isolation cell every 15 minutes, from approximately 9:30 pm to 6:30 am. It is hard to verbally convey the power of a light that bounces off a concrete ceiling in a six-by-nine-foot concrete box into Ms. Maxwell's eyes, disrupting her sleep and ability to have any restful night. The attenuating effects of sleep deprivation are well documented. + +Ms. Maxwell continues to be at the mercy of a revolving group of security officers who are used to guarding hundreds of inmates but now focus their undivided attention exclusively on one respectful, middle-aged female pretrial detainee. Recently, out of view of the security camera, Ms. Maxwell was placed in her isolation cell and physically abused during a pat down search. When she asked that the camera be used to capture the occurrence, a guard replied "no." When Ms. Maxwell recoiled in pain and when she said she would report the mistreatment, she was threatened with disciplinary action. Within a week and while the same team was in charge, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of further retaliation for reporting the abuse: a guard ordered Ms. Maxwell into a shower to clean, sanitize, and scrub the walls with a broom. Ms. Maxwell's request to have the camera record the guard alone with her in the confined space was again denied. + +Ms. Maxwell spends an increasing amount of time in her isolation cell because her daily removal is delayed. Her movement within that cell is restricted. Despite claims by MDC Legal to the contrary, guards forbid Ms. Maxwell from standing in certain areas of her six-by-nine-foot cell: she is not allowed to stand to the left or right of the toilet, in either corner of the isolation cell, and within two feet from the door. This directive encroaches on an already restricted and confined area and limits her movement and use to the little space that remains. + +Ms. Maxwell continues to have serious problems with the food provided to her. She has repeatedly not been provided some or all parts of a meal. For the duration of her detention, she has never received a properly heated meal. Her food, contained in plastic specifically contra-indicated for use in a microwave, is designed to be heated in a thermal oven. The old microwave oven used for Ms. Maxwell's food either does not defrost the food or disintegrates it and melts the plastic container, rendering the food inedible. While guards finally acknowledged serious problems with the food, they continued to microwave Ms. Maxwell's food, rendering the food inedible and dangerous for consumption and leaving Ms. Maxwell with no meal and no replacement. Late last week, guards informed Ms. Maxwell that going forward her food will be heated in a thermal oven, like that of all other inmates. While this may be an improvement, it does little to correct seven months of deprivation impacting her nutrition and detrimental to her health. + +Recently there have been problems with odorous and non-palatable tap water. The water in the isolation cell was clouded with heavy particulates; the water in the day room was [REDACTED]. Maxwell and counsel to provide her bottled water or permit her to purchase water were denied. In addition, her legal mail does not arrive in a timely manner, daily newspapers arrive up to six weeks late, her emails have been prematurely deleted from the BOP system, and she has arrived late for VTC calls. + +It is impossible to overstate the deleterious effect of the conditions under which Ms. Maxwell is detained. Upon arrival at the MDC seven months ago, she was placed on suicide watch though no competent medical professional deemed her in any manner suicidal, nor has any psychologist or medical staffer ever found her to be suicidal at any time during her detention. For weeks she was deprived of legal material, the ability to use a telephone to make personal calls, and the opportunity to exercise and shower. Clearly, this was an effort to avoid a recurrence of the BOP's negligence regarding Jeffrey Epstein's death. Contrary to the way she is hyper-monitored, Ms. Maxwell is classified with the standard CC I-Mh designation: inmate with no significant mental health care. + +The overall conditions of detention have had a detrimental impact on Ms. Maxwell's health and overall well-being; and she is withering to a shell of her former self— losing weight, losing hair, and losing her ability to concentrate. In addition to the many difficulties impacting her review of electronic discovery materials, the over-management and stress are impacting her stamina and effectiveness in preparing her defense and conferring with counsel. + +Having been incarcerated in de facto solitary confinement for 225 days and monitored by two to six guards 24 hours a day with a handheld camera dedicated to capturing her every move, except when it would record improper conduct on the pan of the guards, it is not surprising that Ms. Maxwell feels she is detained under the control of the Bureau of "Pretrial Punishment." + +Very truly yours, + +go12:- C. 51/.44,4.4>, BOBB1 C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d7e76fad624ee3be03bc103b19c719b6a75b2b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567/EFTA02830567.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830567.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7743, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.43, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830567" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea6bfceb840a24f3a6174671553c9e711cce3372 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.md @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------- ----------------------- x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S THIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BAIL + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# INTRODUCTION + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Third Motion for Release on Bail. + +As Ms. Maxwell has stated on numerous occasions and reaffirms here: she has no intention or desire to leave this country. She is an American citizen, has lived in United States for 30 years, has strong family ties and the support of friends and family residing in this country. She wants nothing more than to remain in the United States under whatever conditions the Court deems necessary so that she can effectively prepare for trial and vigorously defend against the 25-year-old charges in the Indictment. Ms. Maxwell has already proposed an expansive and, to our knowledge, unprecedented set of bail conditions that would reasonably assure her appearance. (See Dkt. 97.) In light of the Court's denial of that application (see Dkt. 106), Ms. Maxwell now proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the extraordinarily restrictive bail package she has already offered. + +- First, Ms. Maxwell will renounce her and British citizenship to eliminate any opportunity for her to seek refuge in those countries, if the Court so requires. +- Second Ms. Maxwell will have her and her spouse's assets—excluding funds earmarked for living expenses, for legal fees and other expenses necessary to defend her against the criminal charges in this case and related civil lawsuits and for taxes—placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal District Court judge and former United States Attorney who will function as asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. + +The former condition goes well beyond the extradition waivers that the Court deemed insufficient and should satisfy any concerns the Court try to seek a safe haven in France or the United Kingdom. (See id. at 11-13). As a non-citizen, Ms. Maxwell will not be able to avail herself of any protections against extradition that may apply to citizens of those countries. The latter condition will restrain Ms. Maxwell's assets so they cannot be used for flight or harboring her outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. This should satisfy the Court's concern that the proposed bond was not fully secured and left assets unrestrained that could be used for such purposes. (See id. at 17-18). + +In addition, since the last bail application, Ms. Maxwell has submitted twelve pretrial motions that raise substantial legal and factual issues that may result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges against her. Ms. Maxwell referenced some of these motions in her initial bail application (see Dkt. 18 at 19) but was not in a position to fully articulate them until she had the chance to review the discovery and research the legal issues in advance of the motion deadline of January 25. These motions significantly call into question the strength of the government's case against Ms. Maxwell and the underlying justification for continued detention. + +Ms. Maxwell has already been denied a fair chance in the court of public opinion. She has been maligned by the media, which has perpetuated a false narrative about her that has poisoned any open-mindedness and impartiality of a potential jury. She has been relentlessly attacked with vicious slurs, persistent lies, and blatant inaccuracies by spokespeople who have neither met nor spoken to her. She has been depicted as a cartoon-character villain in an attempt to turn her into a substitute replacement for Jeffrey Epstein. Yet, Ms. Maxwell is determined and welcomes the opportunity — to face her accusers at trial and clear her name. The additional proposed bail conditions should quell any concerns that she would try to flee. The Court should therefore grant bail under the proposed conditions so that Ms. Maxwell can adequately prepare for trial. + +### 1. The Proposed Additional Bail Conditions Will Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell's Appearance in Court + +As set forth above, Ms. Maxwell now proposes two additional restrictions that eliminate any means or opportunity that she may have to leave the country. The Court should therefore reconsider its earlier ruling and grant bail under the proposed conditions. See United States v. + +M, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) ("[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); see also United States v. Petrov, No. I 5-CR-66- LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). + +### A. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship + +To demonstrate her commitment to abide by her conditions of release and to provide further assurance to the Court that she will not attempt to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell is willing to formally renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom. Should the Court feel this drastic condition is necessary, the required documents will be submitted to the appropriate authorities. Moreover, as a standard condition of bail, all of Ms. Maxwell's passports will be surrendered to the government and no further application will be made. + +If the Court deems it a necessary condition of release, Ms. Maxwell will formally commence the procedure to renounce her foreign citizenship. The requisite paperwork is in the process of being completed. Renunciation of UK citizenship can be accomplished immediately upon granting of bail. The process of renouncing her citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited. + +Citizenship is a precious and priceless asset. Ms. Maxwell's decision to give up citizenship from the county of her birth and the country of her upbringing demonstrates her earnestness to abide by the conditions of her release and underscores that she has no intention to flee and reflects her deep need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for her defense. Her renunciation of foreign citizenship obviates the Court's concerns about the validity of waivers of extradition. (See Dkt. 106 at 13). Ms. Maxwell will have no ability to contest extradition from France or the United Kingdom on the basis of citizenship, which removes any incentive the Court and government believe she may have to seek refuge in those countries. + +## B. Restraint and Monitorine of Assets + +In denying bail, the Court noted that the bond was not fully secured, and that Ms. Maxwell and her spouse would still have several million dollars in unrestrained assets that could be used to facilitate her flight from the country. (See id. at 17-18). To assuage any concerns that those assets would be available to finance flight to and shelter in a foreign country, Ms. Maxwell has taken steps to create a monitorship that will place meaningful restraints on the assets that are not used to secure the bond, while still allowing Ms. Maxwell to pay for her legal defense, for her spouse to pay for daily living expenditures and for payment of taxes. + +# 1. New Account + +All assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, with the exception of money currently held in escrow for legal fees and related defense expenses and the funds contained in the bank account in the name of Ms. Maxwell's spouse ("the Personal Accountli, will be deposited in a newly created account ("the New Account") to be overseen by an asset monitor appointed pursuant to order of the Court. The New Account will contain all of Ms. Maxwell's and her spouse's remaining cash and other liquid assets, including any proceeds that result from the pending sale + +The Personal Account is identified as Account ton page 9 of the Financial Report annexed to Ms. Maxwell's Renewed Bail Application. (See Dkt. 97, Exhibit 0.) + +of Ms. Maxwell's London house and any other assets, excluding salary, hereinafter acquired. The asset manager will approve the financial institution at which the New Account is created and must approve and co-sign any expenditure from the New Account, with the exception of disbursements for Ms. Maxwell's legal fees in connection with the ongoing criminal and civil litigation and for payment of taxes, which will not require authorization. No illiquid assets may be sold, conveyed or transferred without approval of the asset monitor. + +### 2. Other Assets + +The only funds that will not be included in the New Account are (1) the money currently held in escrow by Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, which will be used exclusively for her defense; and (2) the roughly \$450,000 in the Personal Account which her spouse will use only for living expenses. The asset monitor shall regularly receive information regarding activity of the Personal Account, including the account balance, on a weekly basis. The asset monitor must also receive five-day advance notice of any check, on-line payment, or transfer of funds in any amount exceeding \$5,000, and the reason for Maxwell's spouse agrees to be bound by these restrictions and reporting requirements. + +The asset monitor shall report to Pretrial Services any possible non-compliance or disbursement in violation of the terms and conditions specified above. + +# 3. Selected Asset Monitor + +The Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., a retired federal District Court judge and the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, has agreed to undertake the position of asset monitor. (Judge Duffey's bio is attached as Exhibit A.) Judge Duffey has extensive experience evaluating and monitoring funds held in and disbursed from financial + +accounts and will be entrusted with the authority to oversee the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as described above. + +Restraining Ms. Maxwell's assets that are not used to secure the bond and placing them under the supervision of a former federal District Court judge eliminates any concern that such funds could be used to violate the terms of release. + +### H. Ms. Maxwell's Pretrial Motions Raise Substantial Legal and Factual Issues That Could Result in Dismissal of Some or All of the Charges Against Her + +In addition to the new conditions proposed above, the numerous substantive pretrial motions now before the Court amply challenge the purported strength of the government's case. Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment. Among the dozen submissions are motions to dismiss the superseding indictment for breach of the non-prosecution agreement, for pre-indictment delay, and for being based on improperly obtained evidence in violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth the Amendments. Other motions seek dismissal of the Act charges as being time-barred and the perjury charges as based on non-perjurious statements. These motions are substantial with a likelihood of success on the merits. These motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength of the government's case and warrant granting bail on the conditions proposed. + +## III. The Court Should Grant Bail + +Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, a defendant must be released on personal recognizance or unsecured personal bond unless the judicial officer determines "that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(6). The enhanced bail package proposed by Ms. Maxwell contains financial burdens and a combination of restrictions that reasonably + +assure her appearance as required. Before preventive detention may be ordered under § 3142(e), the Court is obliged to determine both whether the defendant is likely to flee the jurisdiction if released, and whether any conditions of release will be reasonably certain to guard against this propensity to flee. The Court expressed concerns and denied bail without indicating what conditions would be reasonably certain to assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance. Ms. Maxwell is no danger to the community and not alleged to have been involved in ongoing criminal activity. To say that there are absolutely no conditions flies in the face of cases where non-United States citizens with no ties to the district, let alone the country, were released on lesser conditions for alleged criminality ongoing up to or within hours of the time of arrest, in contrast to 26-year-old claims alleged against Ms. Maxwell.' + +The additional conditions set forth above, which supplement the exceptional bail package previously proposed, are sufficient to address the hypothetical risk of flight and secure Ms. Maxwell's presence at trial. The financial magnitude of the proposed bonds, the collateral pledged to secure the bonds, the stringent requirements of home detention, the renunciation of foreign citizenship and monitoring of assets contained in a special account from which no funds can be withdrawn without the approval and signature of a retired federal District Court judge and former United States Attorney are conditions that amply satisfy the concerns expressed by the government and the Court. These cnditions are unique and unprecedented. They profoundly + +2 See Dkt. 97 at 34 (case-comparison chart in the Renewed Motion for Bail); ef People v. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, 02526/201I(S.Ct. N.Y. County). Strauss-Kahn. a citizen with no tics to the United States, was arrested on a Paris-bound flight at JFK minutes before takeoff and later charged with several counts of sexual assault, including felony charges punishable up to 25 years imprisonment, for sexual assault and attempted rape of a Manhattan hotel housekeeper on the day of his arrest. The accusations were corroborated by semen containing Strauss-Kahn's DNA on the accuser's uniform. The New York State Supreme Court granted bail in the amount of \$1 million cash, 24 hour home detention electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, and private 24/7 security guards. After surrendering his passport and posting an additional \$5 million bail bond, Strauss-Kahn was placed under house arrest in a residence in Manhattan. See httpsilwvAv.theguardian.comlworld12011/ may/20/dominique-strauss-kahn-new-vorkapartment. + +affirm Ms. Maxwell's earnestness in seeking bail to properly prepare her defense, not to flee. The Court should grant bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. + +## CONCLUSION + +The proposed additional conditions of release—renunciation of foreign citizenship and restraint and monitoring of assets by a retired District Court judge—enhance the already extraordinarily restrictive bail conditions proposed in Ms. Maxwell's Renewed Motion for Bail. In combination, these conditions satisfy the Bail Reform Act and reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance at trial. To deny Ms. Maxwell bail when such extraordinary and restrictive conditions are available would be a miscarriage of justice. + +Dated: February 23, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +g.w. C. Sit444441% + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..366f91909ce3a61088aad70234bb38d9202293c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570/EFTA02830570.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,651 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830570.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 15915, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.18, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S \nTHIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 133.416, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 479.59716796875, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 479.59716796875, + 375.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 133.416, + 375.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.9389343261719, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.9389343261719, + 112.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 112.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Proposed Additional Bail Conditions Will Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell's \nAppearance in Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 526.6942138671875, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 526.6942138671875, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 332.9724426269531, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 332.9724426269531, + 349.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 349.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Restraint and Monitorine of Assets", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 238.95 + ], + [ + 327.7746276855469, + 238.95 + ], + [ + 327.7746276855469, + 253.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 253.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. New Account", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 460.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 216.24090576171875, + 460.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 216.24090576171875, + 475.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 475.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Other Assets", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 213.0188446044922, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 213.0188446044922, + 252.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 252.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Selected Asset Monitor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 265.9102783203125, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 265.9102783203125, + 555.8035278320312 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 555.8035278320312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Ms. Maxwell's Pretrial Motions Raise Substantial Legal and Factual Issues \nThat Could Result in Dismissal of Some or All of the Charges Against Her", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 492.77655029296875, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 492.77655029296875, + 237.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 237.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Grant Bail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 262.84576416015625, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 262.84576416015625, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830570" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03d8c7cac7ab8a6419bd316769d1d0b91e9c8e25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government's response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendant's reply is due March 16, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: February 24, 2021 New York, New York c)Lpi + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e66fca95419a079df8db958f7c184f0cead92d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/EFTA02830579.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 527, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830579" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..157ccbfccfcf3aed4be3c43c000bfd4c3ad855dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830579/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:122103c5edaacad489219681a03cebcea1daededf9ffb94f8ec6057d7cf3a15e +size 11010 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25f09a63dc153eac3576b4d125a24915c386acd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SiNioJ. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plata New York. New York 10007 + +February 26, 2021 + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits under seal the enclosed unredacted version of its memorandum of law and accompanying exhibits in opposition to the defendant's twelve pre-trial motions. Additionally, the Government respectfully submits proposed redactions to its memorandum of law and three exhibits, Exhibits 1, 5, and 7. Consistent with the redactions contained in the defendant's motions, the Government's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to (1) cover information implicating the privacy interests of third parties, (2) cover Confidential Material produced by the Government in discovery and governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. 36), (3) cover information submitted under seal to other judicial officers or information another judicial officer has determined should remain under seal, and (4) protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. + +In addition, the Government respectfully requests that certain exhibits be filed entirely under seal. In particular, the Government respectfully submits that (1) Exhibits 8 and 9, filings submitted under seal to other judicial officers, should similarly be filed under seal in this case while the Government's grand jury investigation remains ongoing; and (2) Exhibit 11 should be filed under seal because it contains information which another judicial officer has determined should remain under seal. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the Government to publicly file its memorandum of law and exhibits with the enclosed proposed redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3088a5c88e1cdcb8a78b6d1dc8b73490a0a9387 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/EFTA02830580.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2263, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830580" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8fad12e3f777fdf7eea07b91a69de351a4d46e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830580/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cb3e749acd31351a7652236aec1b0880a1754646c0ad7f09304c965836a0ba09 +size 3320 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d52b6de0adcfbebb296636e6d4a4212bca43c7db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7Gfp avcrdclICicohengrcsscr.com + +March 1, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone vAwe.Cohongrossof Corn + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply to the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-dial Motions. We have conferred with the government, which has consented to the requested extension. + +The requested extension is necessary because the government filed a lengthy response that included multiple exhibits and produced additional discovery that pertains to the motion response, all of which we will need time to review, analyze and discuss with our client. It will take several days for Ms. Maxwell to receive copies of these materials in the MDC. It will not be feasible for her to receive and review these lengthy materials, discuss them with counsel, and then read and provide comments on the draft replies in a week's time. + +Under the Court's original briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on December 21, 2020, the government's response was due January 22, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 5, 2021. (Dkt. 25). The Court agreed to move those deadlines by three weeks because the government needed additional time to finish producing discovery. (Dkt. 72). Under the revised briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on January 11, 2020, the government's response was due February 12, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 19, 2021. (Id.). On January 5, 2021, at the defense's request and with the consent of the government, the Court agreed to modify the briefing schedule and set the current deadlines: the defendant's pretrial motions were due on January 25, 2021, the government's response was due February 26, 2021, and the defendant's reply is due on March 5, 2021. (Dkt. 108). + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 1, 2021 Page 2 + +We now respectfully request that the deadline for filing the defendant's reply be moved to Monday, March 15, 2021. The next scheduled appearance before the Court is the first day of trial on July 12, 2021. + +Sincerely, + +Is/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor + +New York, New York 10022 + +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21708d1615eb7317704cf0386a722fdd235fbe0a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/EFTA02830582.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2675, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830582" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6daa44976e02827ebf19de1f3aff94c42a434a35 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830582/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6ec5b621fafb428929681c5f18f4d8c5e4ee9cc5b4fbdb6bd680ddcaaaf52681 +size 1588 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9eadf541e9f61ed5e1266d04e103fd5d7a65bbf8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7G1p ccvcrdclICicohengrcsscr.com + +March 1, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Oven.\* New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7W0 phone www.cclnngrossor.com + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|--------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 3/1/21 | + +We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply to the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-trial Motions. We have conferred with the government, which has consented to the requested extension. + +The requested extension is necessary because the government filed a lengthy response that included multiple exhibits and produced additional discovery that pertains to the motion response, all of which we will need time to review, analyze and discuss with our client. It will take several days for Ms. Maxwell to receive copies of these materials in the MDC. It will not be feasible for her to receive and review these lengthy materials, discuss them with counsel, and then read and provide comments on the draft replies in a week's time. + +Under the Court's original briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on December 21, 2020, the government's response was due January 22, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 5, 2021. (Dkt. 25). The Court agreed to move those deadlines by three weeks because the government needed additional time to finish producing discovery. (Dkt. 72). Under the revised briefing schedule, the defendant's pretrial motions were due on January 11, 2020, the government's response was due February 12, 2021, and the defendant's reply was due on February 19, 2021. (Id.). On January 5, 2021, at the defense's request and with the consent of the government, the Court agreed to modify the briefing schedule and set the current deadlines: the defendant's pretrial motions were due on January 25, 2021, the government's response was due February 26, 2021, and the defendant's reply is due on March 5, 2021. (Dkt. 108). + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 1, 2021 Page 2 + +We now respectfully request that the deadline for filing the defendant's reply be moved to Monday, March 15, 2021. The next scheduled appearance before the Court is the first day of trial on July 12, 2021. + +Sincerely, + +Is/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +The Defendant's request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-trial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +3/1/2021 + +ail + +MASON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31d7dbf9f9e31229397cf9793b8d199fb3e17da1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/EFTA02830584.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3116, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.36, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830584" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..796d903b76bbedd7f6f800ce84a737d6976b9061 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830584/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:979164b5e188994bf777547bf0d43e5d3242035a9ed95b27fc331ac62d4df359 +size 1579 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17da94a1f37e9d80e7d17f4a135d68f16e5e2db5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE + +Liberté \*Alité Fraternité + +## Direction des affaires criminelles et des grâces + +Sous-direction de la justice pénale spécialisée Bureau de l'entraide pénale internationale + +Paris, le 9 mars 2021 + +Monsieur le garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice + +à + +Department of Justice (DADJ) + +Par l'iniernrédiaire d'Andrewl-INKELMAN, magistrat de liaison Ambassade des Etats-Unis d'Amérique à Paris + +J'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance que la procédure et les conditions d'extradition sont régies en France par les articles 696 et suivants du code de procédure pénale. + +L'article 696-2 de ce code prévoit ainsi que « le gouvernement français peut remettre, sur leur demande, aux gouvernements étrangers, toute personne nique pas la nationalité française qui, étant l'objet d'une poursuite intentée au nom de l'Etat requérant ou d'une condamnation prononcée par ses tribunaux, est innée sur le territoire de la République.» + +L'article 694-4 précise expressément que : + +« L'extradition n'est pas accordée : + +1° Lorsque la personne réclamée ala nationalité française, cette dernière étant appréciée â l'époque de l'infraction pour laquelle l'extradition est requise». + +Ainsi, le fait que la personne recherchée ait la nationalité française constitue un obstacle insurmontable à son extradition. Dès lors que cette nationalité s'apprécie au moment de la commission de l'infraction, la perte de la nationalité, postérieurement à la commission de cette dernière, est sans incidence sur la procédure d'extradition, et ne permet pas de lever cet obstacle. + +Le Chef du Bureau de l' tn ale Internationale + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## MINISTRY OF JUSTICE + +Liberty + +Equality + +Fraternity + +## Directorate of Criminal Affairs & Pardons + +Specialized Criminal Justice Sub-Directorate International Criminal Assistance Bureau + +Paris, March 9, 2021 + +His Honor the Keeper of Seals, Minister of Justice + +To the + +Department of Justice (D.O.J) + +Through Andrew FINKELMAN, Liaison Magistrate on behalf of the Embassy of the United States of America located in Paris, France + +I hereby inform you that in France, all removal proceedings and conditions are governed by Articles 696 et sq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. + +Article 696-2 of said Code provides that: "The overnment is able to remit to foreign governments upon their request any individual who is not a citizen and who is subject to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the requesting State, or who is subject sentence passed by the Court of said requesting State, and who is located on the territory of the Republic." + +Article 694-4 expressly specifies as follows: + +"Removal is not granted: + +I- When the individual claimed to have citizenship. said citizenship having been assessed at the lime of the offense on the bath of which removal is being requested." + +WHEREBY, the fact that the wanted individual is a national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal. As long as said nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality. + +Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau + +Philippe E(it \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13b23426fc7308cec01a6a6dce556c4cc5ecb8ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/EFTA02830586.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3278, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.17, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "MINIST\u00c8RE \nDE LA JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 53.63999999999999, + 43.910999999999994 + ], + [ + 162.24375915527344, + 43.910999999999994 + ], + [ + 162.24375915527344, + 75.768 + ], + [ + 53.63999999999999, + 75.768 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Direction des affaires criminelles et des gr\u00e2ces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 260.452, + 58.548 + ], + [ + 533.1035766601562, + 58.548 + ], + [ + 533.1035766601562, + 77.2667236328125 + ], + [ + 260.452, + 77.2667236328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MINISTRY OF JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 47.083999999999996, + 49.99600000000001 + ], + [ + 192.45648193359375, + 49.99600000000001 + ], + [ + 192.45648193359375, + 65.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 47.083999999999996, + 65.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Directorate of Criminal Affairs & Pardons", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.64399999999995, + 56.892 + ], + [ + 499.06597900390625, + 56.892 + ], + [ + 499.06597900390625, + 74.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.64399999999995, + 74.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 306 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830586" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f3bd7def8d4bb0b9fbc7b024158a68cf3ed28c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:716f394031adc9eaad975362e820ec58ecee88107844481fcf1b8e7e835c2bac +size 1487 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17bf05e99300a33666fcd36969afddd08221c7d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830586/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f9f5d525f9dbc65d7a2d1b416c0d368c6a289543d28aa205b518ad02b0e406f8 +size 2017 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d0d962de4af6bb415a480736714a0e8710b5206 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Sarin 1. Motto Building One Saint Aldine 's Plank New York. New York 10007 + +March 9, 2021 + +### BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's third motion for release on bail, dated February 23, 2021 (the "Third Bail Motion" or the "Motion"). (Dkt. No. 160). On July 14, 2020, after extensive briefing and a lengthy hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. On December 28, 2020, after the defendant renewed her motion for release on bail (the "Second Bail Motion") by essentially restating her prior arguments and presenting a more significant and specific bail package, this Court issued a thorough opinion and again concluded that the defendant "plainly poses a risk of flight" and denied the motion for "substantially the same reasons that the Court denied" her first motion for release. (Dkt. No. 106 at 1-2 ("Dec. Op.")). The defendant appealed this Court's December 2020 decision to the Second Circuit, and that appeal remains pending. Now, the defendant asks the Court yet again to reconsider its decision, and proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the bail package the Court previously considered and rejected. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion should be denied. First, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion—in which she asks this Court to reconsider its December opinion—because the defendant has appealed that December opinion to the Second Circuit. Second, even assuming the Court had jurisdiction to grant this latest bail application, the Court should adhere to its prior rulings because the defendant continues to pose an extreme risk of flight, and the additional bail conditions proposed by the defendant do not justify reversal of the Court's prior findings that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. The defendant's Third Bail Motion should be denied. + +# I. Background + +The Government's December 16, 2020 opposition to the defendant's Second Bail Motion details the background of the initial bail proceedings in this case and is incorporated by reference herein. (See Dkt. No. 100 at 2-6). After this Court denied the defendant's initial application for bail in July 2020, the defendant filed a renewed motion for release in December 2020 in which the defendant proposed a "substantially larger bail package" and presented arguments that "either were made at the initial bail hearing or could have been made then." (Dec. Op. at I). In denying that second application, the Court found that the information provided in the Second Bail Motion "only solidifies the Court's view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance." (Id. at 1-2). + +On January 11, 2021, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit appealing the Court's December 2020 opinion denying the Second Bail Motion. (Dkt. No. 113). That appeal is pending; the defendant has not yet filed her brief in support of the appeal. + +On February 23, 2021, the defendant submitted the Third Bail Motion, in which she proposed two additional bail conditions to "supplement the . . . bail package she has already offered" in the Second Bail Motion (Mot. at 2): (1) renunciation of the defendant's and British citizenship; and (2) placement of a portion of her and her spouse's assets in a new account to be overseen by an asset monitor. + +## II. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the Third Bail Motion Because of the Defendant's Pending Bail Appeal + +The defendant asks this Court to "reconsider its earlier ruling and grant bail under the proposed conditions." (Mot. at 4). More specifically, the defendant asks the Court to consider the exact same package previously considered and rejected in the December opinion, as now "supplement[ed]" by two additional conditions. (Id. at 2, 8). However, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Motion by virtue of the defendant's appeal of the Court's prior ruling to the Second Circuit. + +"As a general matter, 'the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'" United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). "The divestiture of jurisdiction rule ... is a judicially crafted rule rooted in the interest of judicial economy, designed 'to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time.'" Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 540 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also United States v. Ransom, 866 F.2d 574, 576 (2d Cir. 1989) (describing the Griggs rule as "promot[ing] the orderly conduct of business in both the trial and appellate courts"). + +In January 2021, the defendant filed an appeal from the Court's December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order denying her Second Bail Motion. The defendant's Third Bail Motion not only seeks reconsideration of the very issue presently on appeal but does so by proposing two additional bail conditions to "supplement" the bail package proposed in the defendant's Second Bail Motion, (Mot. at 2, 8), a package which this Court considered and concluded could not "reasonably assure her appearance." (Dec. Op. at 16). Accordingly, the defendant's Third Bail Motion also concerns bail and is thus an "aspect[] of the case involved in the appeal." Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251. The + +defendant cannot simultaneously pursue bail in both the Second Circuit and the district court. To allow her to seek relief in both venues runs counter to the principles of judicial economy underpinning the divestiture of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal. *See Rodgers*, 101 F.3d at 251.1 + +The Court's lack of jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion does not leave the defendant without a remedy. The defendant can withdraw her pending bail appeal to restore jurisdiction to this Court. Alternatively, the Court can follow the procedure set forth in Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if the defendant makes a timely motion for relief "that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue." However, the defendant should not be permitted to simultaneously pursue bail in both this Court and the Second Circuit. + +### III. The Court Should Not Reverse Its Prior Well-Reasoned and Thorough Bail Decisions + +Even if this Court had jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion, the motion should be denied. This Court has already twice made the determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. In particular, the Court has found, "the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, + +--- + +1 While the Government has not identified a case addressing the precise issue with which the Court is confronted, several considerations support the Government's position that the Court does not presently have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion. In addition to the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in *Griggs*, in *Ching v. United States*, the Second Circuit found that while an appeal from the denial of a Section 2255 motion was pending, the district court could not rule on a motion to amend the Section 2255 motion. 298 F.3d 174, 180 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) ("The district court could not rule on any motion affecting an aspect of the case that was before [the Second Circuit], including a motion to amend the motion, while that appeal was pending."). Here, too, while the defendant's appeal of the denial of the Second Bail Motion is pending, the Court should not grant the defendant's motion to reconsider that very same bail ruling. Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs release in a criminal case, also supports such a reading. Rule 9(b), which governs release *after* a judgment of conviction, provides that a "party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order regarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal from that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of appeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction." In *United States v. Hochevar*, 214 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit found that Rule 9(b) contemplates going to the district court first for a bail ruling after a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction is filed. Rule 9(a), which governs release *before* a judgment of conviction, does not say anything about going back to the district court for a new bail ruling after a notice of appeal from a prior bail ruling is filed. In addition, Rule 9(a)(2) provides that the court of appeals "must promptly determine" the pre-judgment bail appeal. Such promptness would not be necessary if defendants could go back to the district court with another bail motion while the bail appeal is pending. + +are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation.” (Dec. Op. at 2). In seeking bail for a third time, the defendant’s Motion rests principally on two additional bail conditions. Neither of these conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, and neither outweighs all of the other factors that make this defendant an extreme flight risk. Moreover, the Court should reject as premature the defendant’s assertion that her pretrial motions have somehow weakened the Government’s case; those motions have not been adjudicated, and, for the reasons set forth in the Government’s opposition memorandum, the defendant’s motions have no merit. + +In short, all three of the relevant Bail Reform Act factors—the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant—continue to weigh heavily in favor of detention, and the defendant’s Motion does not present any information that warrants revisiting this Court’s well-reasoned and detailed prior decisions. + +#### **A. Applicable Law** + +“After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if ‘information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue’ of whether pretrial detention is warranted.” (Dec. Op. at 4 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f))). “A court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even where the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)’s statutory text.” (*Id.* at 5). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that “a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing,” *United States v. [REDACTED]*, No. 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments “warrant reconsideration” by, for example, demonstrating “that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law,” or that failure to reconsider “would constitute manifest injustice.” *United States v. Petrov*, No. 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). + +#### **B. Discussion** + +The defendant’s Motion rests on three arguments, none of which is availing. First, the defendant offers to renounce her foreign citizenship, claiming that this eliminates the risk that she will flee from prosecution. Second, the defendant offers to place some of her assets in a monitorship with unspecified terms, and which would still leave her with substantial unrestrained assets. Third, the defendant claims that her voluminous pretrial motions have diminished the strength of the Government’s case. None of these arguments is persuasive, and the Motion should be denied. + +### 1. The Defendant's Alleged Willingness to Renounce Her Foreign Citizenship Should Not Alter the Court's Prior Bail Determinations + +The defendant contends that she has materially strengthened her proposed bail package by offering to renounce her foreign citizenship "if the Court so requires." (Mot. at 2). She claims that such a renunciation will "eliminate any opportunity for her to seek refuge" in France and the United Kingdom or "remove[] any incentive the Court and government believe she may have to seek refuge in those countries." (Id. at 2, 5). The defendant is wrong. That she is "willing" to renounce her foreign citizenship would do nothing to prevent the defendant from fleeing and then fighting extradition once abroad, and it does nothing to diminish the risk that the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty and from which extradition is impossible. The Court previously found that the likelihood that the defendant "would be able to frustrate any extradition requests .. . weighs strongly in favor of detention" (Dec. Op. at 13); the defendant's Motion provides no basis to disturb this finding. Indeed, just as the defendant's offer to execute anticipatory extradition waivers failed to provide the Court with any assurance that she would not frustrate any potential extradition, so too should her offer to renounce her foreign citizenship. + +First, the defendant's willingness to renounce her citizenship is an offer of unclear validity. As an initial matter, the defendant's offer is itself of little value, as she would at bare minimum have to follow the legal requirements attendant to each country in order to formally renounce her citizenship. Moreover, she provides no assurances—nor could she—that she will not contest the validity and/or voluntariness of such a renunciation once she is actually in France or the United Kingdom. For example, the Government understands that in order to give up one's British citizenship or status, one must be, among other things, "of sound mind (unless it's decided that it's in your best interest)." See www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality. The defendant could choose to frustrate any future extradition proceedings by claiming that her decision to give up her citizenship was compelled by some person or circumstance, or that she was not of sound mind. Simply put, while the defendant may believe that it is in her interest to give up her citizenship now, there is no way for the defendant to assure the Court that she will not take the contrary position in the future if she believes it to be in her interest at the time. And even if the defendant could not challenge her renunciation, it is unclear whether, as a separate matter, she could seek to have her citizenship rights restored. + +Second, and related, the defendant has offered no authority for the proposition that her offer to renounce foreign citizenship would have any impact on an extradition proceeding, nor has she reckoned with the Court's findings regardind. offer to sign a so-called irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights. See United States v. , No. 10 Cr. 547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at \*9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) ("Defendant's offers to turn in his passports, to 'renounce' his Israeli citizenship, and have someone 'instruct' the Israeli embassy to deny new documents or travel authorizations to defendant, as well as his offer to waive extradition—assuming he flees overseas at some point—do not sufficiently assure the Court that defendant is not still a flight risk. Defendant offers no authority about the real impact of these offers or whether they are enforceable in Israel if defendant were to flee there."). The Court placed "little weight" on the defendant's argument in the Second Bail Motion that waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order indicates + +her intent not to flee. (Dec. Op. at 13 n.2). The Court recognized that "a defendant could strategically offer to waive the right to extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result." (*Id.*). So too here. An offer to renounce her foreign citizenship "[s]hould the Court feel this drastic condition is necessary," (Mot. at 4) is another strategic, but hollow offer given that the defendant would be free to fight extradition once in the United Kingdom or France, or any other jurisdiction of her choosing (*i.e.*, the one to which she chooses to flee). + +As such, the defendant's claimed "willing[ness]" to renounce her citizenship in both the United Kingdom and France is little more than window dressing. After receiving the defendant's Third Bail Motion, the Government, through the Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs ("OIA"), contacted the [REDACTED] Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") to understand the impact of the defendant's offer to renounce her [REDACTED] citizenship on France's categorical unwillingness to deport its own citizens for crimes they have committed. In response, the MOJ provided the Government with a letter setting forth the relevant law and conclusively indicating that the defendant's offer to waive her [REDACTED] citizenship will not make her eligible to be extradited from France because, for purposes of extradition, nationality is assessed as of the time the charged offense was committed. That letter in its original [REDACTED], as well as an English translation of the letter, are attached hereto as Exhibit A. *See Ex. A* ("[A]ny loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality."); *see also* Dkt. No. 100, Ex. B at 3 (MOJ letter stating that the [REDACTED] Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits the extradition of a person who had [REDACTED] nationality at the time of the commission of the acts for which extradition is requested"). The defendant's renunciation of her [REDACTED] citizenship in 2021 would not change the fact that she was a [REDACTED] citizen at the time she is alleged to have committed the charged crimes in the 1990s and 2016. As such, the defendant's citizenship at the time of the alleged crimes would bar her extradition from France, making her offer to renounce her [REDACTED] citizenship meaningless. + +Meanwhile, the defendant's offer to give up her British citizenship does not mean that she will not fight extradition once in the United Kingdom or that an extradition request to the United Kingdom would be successful. The Government understands from OIA that a defendant's nationality has historically played little to no role in extradition from the United Kingdom. Indeed, Article 3 of the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom expressly prohibits using nationality as a basis to deny extradition. *See* at 5 ("Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought."); *see also* Crown Prosecution Service, *Extradition, Legal Guidance, International and organised crime* (May 12, 2020), (setting forth the statutory bars to extradition, which do not include nationality). In any event, assuming the Government could locate and apprehend the defendant if she were to flee, as set forth in the Government's opposition to the Second Bail Motion, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual's mental or physical condition. The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. This process is lengthy, complicated, and time-consuming, and would provide no measure of justice to the victims who + +would be forced to wait years for the defendant's return. + +As the Government has repeatedly emphasized, the strong possibility that the defendant could successfully resist extradition only heightens the defendant's incentive to flee. (Dkt. No. 100 at 19-20). Indeed, in rejecting the defendant's offer in the Second Bail Motion to execute anticipatory extradition waivers, the Court noted, among other things, "the likelihood that any extradition would be a difficult and lengthy process." (Dec. Op. at 13). The Court further noted that the "likelihood that the Defendant would be able to *frustrate* any extradition requests—even if she were correct that she would be unable to stop extradition entirely—weighs strongly in favor of detention." (*Id.*). That statement remains true even if the face of the defendant's newest offer to renounce her foreign citizenship. + +As this Court previously found, the defendant has substantial international ties, familial and personal connections abroad, and owns at least one foreign property of significant value. (Dec. Op. at 10-11). The defendant's alleged willingness to renounce her foreign citizenship should not fundamentally alter the Court's conclusions. + +## **2. The Court Should Reject the Defendant's Proposed Monitorship Condition** + +Next, the defendant has offered to place a portion of her and her spouse's assets into a new account that "will be monitored by a retired federal District Court judge and former United States Attorney who will function as asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account." (Mot. at 2). This proposed condition—the details of which are vague—is insufficient to ensure that the defendant appears in Court. + +It first bears noting that the defendant's finances—and her candor with the Court about those finances—is not an issue of first impression. Significantly absent from the defendant's Motion is any attempt to address the Court's determination that the defendant's "lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release." (Dec. Op. at 16). That is critical because the value of any proposed monitorship would depend entirely on the monitor having a completely accurate picture of the defendant's finances and access to all of her accounts and sources of wealth. Given the Court's concerns about the defendant's candor, the Court should hesitate before trusting the defendant to be transparent with a monitor under her employ. + +In any event, even if the Court were to accept the defendant's representations about her assets at face value, the defendant's proposal would leave the defendant with significant assets unrestrained. In particular, the defendant's proposal does not in any way restrain her \$2 million townhouse in London, which she could live in or sell to support herself. Although the defendant asserts that the monitor would oversee any account into which the proceeds of the sale of the defendant's properties were deposited, the defendant does not explain how the monitor—or this Court—would have the authority to force the defendant to deposit foreign assets in a domestic account. As the Government has previously explained, the Government cannot realistically recover assets abroad. Accordingly, the defendant's proposal would leave her with access to at + +least \$2 million. In addition, the defendant proposes that she retain an additional half a million dollars in liquid assets in an unrestrained account, as well as any future income.2 That figure appears to be in addition to the approximately SI million in "chattels" the defendant has disclosed among her various assets. See Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. In short, the defendant's proposal would leave her with ample resources to fund her flight from prosecution. + +Further still, the defendant's Motion provides only cursory details of the monitorship program she proposes, and it offers no legal precedent to explain what, if any, authority this Court has to establish and oversee such a monitorship. Aside from defense counsel's assertions, the Motion offers nothing that would enable the Court to meaningfully consider the details of such a monitorship. Among other things, it is unclear from the defendant's Motion whether such a program would require the defendant's voluntary compliance with the monitorship, or whether the funds would be placed in a bank account that the defendant could not access. Given that the defendant's Motion suggests that attorney's fees could be disbursed without approval, it appears that the defendant's proposal would provide her latitude to engage in financial transactions, subject only to a review that would require her voluntary compliance. + +Finally, although the defendant does not provide any detail about the amount of money she would pay the monitor, presumably the monitor would not undertake this responsibility for free. As a result, the tension between the monitor's obligation to review the defendant's finances and the monitor's employment relationship with the defendant creates a conflict of interest. But at bottom, if the Court determines that the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a flight risk to release. + +In sum, in light of this Court's determination that the defendant "has not been fully candid about her financial situation," the Court should reject the defendant's vague proposal. (Dec. Op. at 2). Nothing in the defendant's Motion should alter the Court's determination that the defendant poses a significant risk of flight, and that she has the resources and skills to flee prosecution. The Court should reject the proposed bail conditions. + +### 3. The Defendant's Pending Pretrial Motions Have Not Diminished the Strength of the Government's Case + +Finally, the defendant also argues that the "numerous substantive pretrial motions now before the Court amply challenge the purported strength of the government's case." (Mot. at 7). But the defendant cannot merely point to the sheer volume of briefing she has filed to suggest that the strength of the Government's case has diminished. To the contrary, as the Government has set forth in detail in its memorandum in opposition, the defendant's pretrial motions are entirely without merit. In any event, it is premature for the defendant to claim that her pretrial motions which have not been adjudicated, much less granted—have altered the Court's original + +2 The defendant's proposal also leaves unrestrained several million dollars in escrow for the defendant's legal fees. See Dkt. 97, Ex. Oat 9 (listing approximately \$7.6 million in retainer fees); see also Mot. at 6. If the defendant fled the country, her counsel would presumably be required to return those funds to the defendant, who would no longer need defense counsel in this case. + +determination that the Government's case is strong. + +### IV. Conclusion + +The defendant continues to represent a "plain[]" risk of flight. (Dec. Op. at 1). Even assuming the Court has jurisdiction to grant this third bail motion, the two new bail conditions offer insufficient protection against the "substantial and actual risk of flight" this Court has already found that the defendant poses. (Id. at 21). The defendant's Third Bail Motion should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c1425079fe242064cf4ec0d1821961044b15d92 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/EFTA02830588.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,598 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 28786, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.45, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 644.76 + ], + [ + 191.96511840820312, + 644.76 + ], + [ + 191.96511840820312, + 660.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 660.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the Third Bail Motion Because of \nthe Defendant's Pending Bail Appeal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 543.2973022460938, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 543.2973022460938, + 353.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 353.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Not Reverse Its Prior Well-Reasoned and Thorough Bail Decisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 322.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 351.53999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 557.28 + ], + [ + 198.89999999999998, + 557.28 + ], + [ + 198.89999999999998, + 571.05 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 571.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Defendant's Alleged Willingness to Renounce Her Foreign Citizenship \nShould Not Alter the Court's Prior Bail Determinations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.2058715820312, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.2058715820312, + 118.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 118.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Court Should Reject the Defendant's Proposed Monitorship Condition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 323.19 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 323.19 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 337.77 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Defendant's Pending Pretrial Motions Have Not Diminished the Strength \nof the Government's Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.1053466796875, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.1053466796875, + 532.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 532.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 186.26498413085938, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 186.26498413085938, + 132.363037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 132.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830588" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70d2951fa5a6984245a4b0b38b00a99eb3f0e6e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830588/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:23180e47d9f91fcf673669101f8d65a6b064cb853e70d1f38593359b94b59a4b +size 3321 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c27bffd9dd67bec6365847bc8d56095cecd513b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg) + +800 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 ++1 212 957 7600 phone +www.cohengresser.com + +Mark S. [REDACTED] +Christian R. Everdell ++1 (212) 957-7600 +mcohen@cohengresser.com +ceverdell@cohengresser.com + +March 15, 2021 + +**VIA ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing the following reply memoranda with accompanying exhibits: + +1. 1. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement +2. 2. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred +3. 3. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to [REDACTED] and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six +4. 4. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements Are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law +5. 5. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a [REDACTED] of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment +6. 6. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment +7. 7. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay +8. 8. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Either Count One or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous +9. 9. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment +10. 10. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 + +- II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six +- 12. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity + +Several of the reply memoranda reference or discuss Confidential Information produced in discovery and are therefore redacted pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). In order to give the government the chance to review the proposed redactions, we will not file on the public docket any reply memoranda that contain redactions until we are instructed to do so by the Court.' + +The remaining reply memoranda do not contain any redactions. However, we are mindful of the fact that the government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-trial Motions, to which the reply memoranda respond, has not yet been filed on the public docket. Accordingly, we will also refrain from filing the reply memoranda that do not contain redactions on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court. + +Instead, we will submit by email to the Court and the government all of the reply memoranda and exhibits pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice. For the reply memoranda and exhibits that contain redactions, we will submit two versions — an unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with proposed redactions. + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor + +New York, New York 10022 + +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) + +For documents that the government has designated as "Confidential," we have preliminarily indicated that they be filed under seal, as required by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order. However, because some of the exhibits arc "judicial documents," we intend to propose that those "Confidential" designations be amended consistent with our March 9, 2021 letter to the Court. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77ff9f1895daebc4238057ebaeba137c7ce47a24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/EFTA02830597.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4225, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 215.46000000000004 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830597" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..134393a7087b69ece3876e76895fd5c333ed6b82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830597/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c4cd1f4ec86a18e33cbce642ce70983da322a74aef0cb4019871084d413d109e +size 1552 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ca01e2b1f3c9632c3dd0355a12c6015954ef1f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Coll 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor Now York, New York 10011 bc@srornholmlow.com + +March 16, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Third Motion for Bail (the "Bail Reply") and accompanying exhibit. The Bail Reply contains references to the government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Ms. Maxwell's Pre-trial Motions (the "Pretrial Motion Opposition") for which a ruling regarding redactions is pending. Until these redactions are finalized, we are uncertain whether any redactions to the Bail Reply will be necessary. + +For now, we hereby submit by email to the Court and government the unredacted Bail Reply pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice. Should any redactions to the Bail Reply be required after the Court rules on the redactions to the Pretrial Motion Opposition, we will at that time submit two versions of the Bail Reply to the Court: an unredacted original to be filed under seal and a version for public filing containing the required redactions. + +Please contact me with any questions. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Counsel for all parties \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fd2ea7293b502fe3c279fe10b25f7004d4f0a62 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599/EFTA02830599.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830599.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1517, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.66241455078125 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.66241455078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830599" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b71e088acd4723d52c5cacc53b9533c9013312c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court's resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court will grant the Government's requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant's additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. + +To begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. "Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo + +The proposed redactions mostly satisfy this test. First, the Government's brief in opposition to the Defendant's pm-trial motions is a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Arnodeo ("Amodeo 1"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court thus concludes that there is a common law and a First Amendment presumption of access. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc its, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). The question, then, is whether the redaction and sealing requests are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests that overcome that presumption of access. + +Like the Government's previous redaction and sealing requests in this case, the Government bases its requests on its contention that redactions and/or sealing are necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation and to protect third parties' personal privacy interests. As a general matter, these interests are legitimate and provide a basis for overcoming the presumption of access. See, e.g., Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). As applied to this case, the Court concludes that the proposed redactions in the Government's brief generally serve these interests. Exhibit 1 contains a single redaction—the name of a third party—and the Court concludes that that individual's personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access that exists as to that limited portion of the exhibit. The proposed redactions to Exhibit 7 are similar in that they seek to protect from public access only the names and contact information of third parties. Here, too, the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweighs the presumption of access that attaches to those documents. + +The Court overrules the Defendant's objections to the redactions contained in Exhibit 5 of the Government's brief and adopts the Government's proposed redactions. The core of the + +Defendant's objections relate to her contention that some of the information contained in the redactions has been made public by other means. Notwithstanding this, the redactions to which the Defendant objects relate to the privacy interests of third parties, which the Second Circuit has admonished "should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo 111,71 F.3d 1044,1050 (2d Cir. 1995). At least some of the redactions to which the Defendant objects relate to private "family affairs" of a third party, a factor that "weigh[s] more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public." Id. at 1051 . And though the Defendant contends that some of the information contained in the redactions is public, she furnishes no evidence to that effect. As a result, the Court concludes that the significant privacy interests at stake justify the limited and narrowly tailored redactions contained in Exhibit 5. + +In addition, the Court adopts the Defendant's proposed additional redactions to pages 129-134 of the Government's brief. Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a "craving for that which is sensational and impure." Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 (citation omitted). The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified. + +On the other hand, the Court agrees with the Defendant's objections to the redactions contained in pages 1-128 of the Government's brief. To provide some context, the redacted portions of the brief relate to sealed proceedings that took place before different judges relating to the issuance of grand jury subpoenas in connection with the present case. See Dkt. No. 51. Because the Government's brief is a judicial document and because the presumption of access attaches, the Government's redaction requests must be "necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim." Lagosch v. Pyramid Co. of + +Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,124 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts have noted that "disclosing the details of the Government's efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice." United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420,427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). And the Government's interest in protecting an ongoing investigation from the "danger of impairing law enforcement" may be a countervailing factor that outweighs the presumption of access. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. But the Government advances no non-conclusory basis as to why its investigation at this stage of the matter would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding how it obtained the information in question, and the requested redactions are far from narrowly tailored. As a result, the Court denies the Government's redaction requests in pages 1-128 and denies its request to file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this very issue and the same reasoning applies to them. The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested information and documents. By March 22,2021, the Government may file a letter with the Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the specific redaction and sealing requests. Alternatively, by that date the Government can indicate that it will not seek to renew the request. + +Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Defendant's objections to the redactions contained in pages 187-188 of the Government's brief. While the Court previously had granted the request to redact the same information, see Dkt. No. 99, the Court no longer sees a basis for keeping this information under seal in light of the strong presumption of access. The information does not in itself contain any personally identifying information, and the Court concludes that any minimal threat of interference with the Government's investigation through the disclosure of this information is outweighed by the presumption of access that attaches to those portions. As + +above, however, the Court will give the Government an opportunity to justify the ongoing need to redact this information and these documents; by March 22, 2021, the Government may file a letter with the Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the redaction and sealing requests. + +Finally, the Court denies the Government’s request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See [REDACTED] v. *Maxwell*, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. + +In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1–128 and 187–188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant’s cover letter objecting to the Government’s proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government’s submission by March 22, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: March 18, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbfebcb7c98deefb2f6a330c5b5600438e8e685a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/EFTA02830600.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 9301, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.11, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830600" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d59290adc6721b2eba9f90b3e9f4b4ae16f17d02 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830600/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:53b0c46214307024e2d239a6a7758b342da6fe61bdcfc684488121744d5e8947 +size 11275 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7f4045c390d349394c5e087229e38b1e989a4db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. + +On July 14, 2020, the Court held a lengthy bail hearing and concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. It therefore denied bail. On December 8, 2020, the Defendant filed a renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, which was entered into the public docket on December 14, 2020. Dkt. No. 96. On December 28, 2020, the Court denied that motion, concluding that the Defendant posed a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. Dkt. Nos. 104, 106. + +The Defendant then filed a third motion for release on bail on February 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 160. In this motion, the Defendant attempts to respond to the reasons that the Court + +provided in denying bail, proposing two additional conditions to the ones she proposed in her second motion for bail. Specifically, she offers to renounce her and British citizenship, and she also proposes to have her and her spouse's assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge. See Dkt. No. 160 at 2. + +As set forth below, the Court concludes that none of the Defendant's new arguments and proposals disturb its conclusion that the Defendant poses a risk of flight and that there are no combination of conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first and second motions for release, the Court DENIES the Defendant's third motion for release on bail. + +### 1. Background + +On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail. After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Defendant has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time. + +The Defendant renewed her motion for release on bail on December 8, 2020. The Court again denied the Defendant's motion. In doing so, the Court explained that none of the Defendant's new arguments materially impacted its conclusion that the Defendant posed a risk of flight. It noted that the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, remained strong; the Defendant's substantial resources and foreign ties created considerable uncertainty and opportunities for + +escape; and that the Defendant's lack of candor regarding her family ties and financial situations raised serious doubts as to her willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. See Dkt. No. 106. + +On February 23,2021, the Defendant filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160 ("Def. Mot."). The Government opposed the Defendant's motion on March 9,2021. Dkt. No. 165 ("Gov't Opp'n"). The Defendant filed her reply under temporary seal on March 16, 2021. + +# II. Legal Standard + +The parties dispute whether the divestiture of jurisdiction rule precludes this Court from granting the Defendant's third bail motion while Defendant's bail appeal is pending. See Gov't Opp'n at 2-3; Reply at 2-3; see also United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247,251 (2d Cir. 1996) ("As a general matter, 'the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.") (citation omitted). Under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the Court unquestionably has authority to defer considering the motion, deny the motion, or state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a). Because the Court denies the Defendant's motion, it does not resolve the question of whether it would have jurisdiction to grant it. + +Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires that a court release a defendant "subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the + +person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(cX I)(B). The Court may order that the defendant be held without bail only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). + +After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the Court to reopen the bail hearing if "information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue" of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0. The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at \*2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that "rais the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another"); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant until trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(0's statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at \*I (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) (noting that "a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). + +If, as here, there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure" the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, "the defendant 'bears a limited burden of production ... to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.'" United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption."). + +Nonetheless, "'the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a danger to the community,' and `by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight."' English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) ("The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case]."). Even when "a defendant has met his burden of production," however, "the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020). + +# III. Discussion + +The Defendant bases her third motion for bail on the Court's inherent powers to review its own bail decisions, arguing that the new conditions she proposes warrant reconsideration of the Court's earlier rulings. See Def. Mot. at 4. She also argues that the strength of the Government's case is diminished in light of the arguments she advances in her pre-trial motions, which are currently pending before the Court. Id. at 7. Having considered those arguments, the + +Court's view has not changed. The Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a risk of flight and that there are no set of conditions, including the Defendant's third set of proposed conditions, that are sufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all continue to support that conclusion. The Defendant's proposed conditions do not alter the Court's determination. + +### A. The Court's assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors has not changed + +To begin with, the presumption in favor of detention continues to apply with equal force. See Dkt. No. 106 ("Dec. Op.") at 7—8. And though the Court again concludes that the Defendant has met her burden of production, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful "that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that 'a strong probability arises' that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance." Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted). + +The Court's analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors also remains unchanged. Because the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged include crimes involving a minor victim, the first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factor continues to weigh strongly in favor of detention. And the Court remains of the opinion that the Defendant does not pose a danger to any person or to the community. The fourth § 3142(g) factor thus weighs against detention. + +With respect to the second § 3142(g) factor, none of the Defendant's new arguments alter the Court's conclusion as to the weight of the evidence. The Defendant argues that the pre-trial motions "raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment," and she contends that It]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength of the government's case and warrant granting bail on the conditions proposed." Def. Mot. at 7. Those motions became fully briefed one week ago and are now pending before this Court. The Government strenuously contests each of the motions and the Court has not yet adjudicated them. Without prejudging the merits of any of those pending motions and mindful of the presumption of innocence, the Court remains of the view that in light of the proffered strength and nature of the Government's case, the weight of the evidence supports detention. See Dec. Op. at 9-10. + +The Court's assessment of the Defendant's history and characteristics has not changed. See Dec. Op. at 10-16. The Defendant continues to have substantial international ties, familial and personal connections abroad, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection. Id. at 10-11. And the Court's concerns regarding the Defendant's lack of candor regarding her assets when she was first arrested have also stayed the same. As the Court emphasized in its denial of the second motion for release on bail, the discrepancies between the information presented to the Court and to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the information presented to the Court in December 2020 raised significant concerns about candor. See Dec. Op. at 16. There remains considerable doubt as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. Id. While there continue to be certain mitigating circumstances cutting in the opposite direction, including the Defendant's family ties in the United States, these do not overcome the weight of the considerations that lean in favor of continued detention. + +As a result, none of the evidence or arguments presented in this third motion for bail alter the Court's assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors. While the fourth factor continues to favor release, the first three factors and the presumption of detention all support the conclusion + +that the Defendant poses a significant risk of flight. Thus, the Court again concludes that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably assure her appearance in future proceedings. + +# B. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted + +The thrust of the Defendant's argument in her third motion for bail is that the two new proposed conditions vitiate the Court's concerns regarding the risk of flight. The Defendant first offers to renounce her and British citizenship. Def. Mot. at 2. And she also proposes to have most of her and her spouse's assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge, who would function as an asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. Id. Those conditions are offered in addition to the bail package she proposed in December. See Dec. Op. at 16-17; see also Def. Mot. at 2. The new bail package does not disturb the Court's conclusion that the Government has carried its burden of showing that these conditions are insufficient to mitigate the flight risks, and the Court again determines that no set of conditions—including the two new ones—can reasonably assure her future appearance. + +The Court begins with the Defendant's offer to renounce her and United Kingdom citizenship. She notes that she can renounce her UK citizenship "immediately upon granting of bail," and she informs the Court that "[t]he process of renouncing her citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited." Def. Mot. at 4. As the Government notes, the offer is of unclear validity, and the relevance and practical impact of the renunciations is, at best, unclear. See Gov't Opp'n at 5. With respect to her offer to renounce her citizenship, the Court is again confronted with dueling opinions on the correct interpretation of law. The Government relies on the position of the head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, who argues that "the fact that the wanted individual is a national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal," and that "[a]s long as said + +nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality.") Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the opinion of a legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the extradition request. See Reply, Ex. Al 11. The Defendant's expert concedes that there is no case law addressing this precise issue. Id. 1 21. + +Exacerbating the uncertainty is the fact that the relevant legal materials also lend themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that "[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed." See Reply, Ex. A 1 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure similarly provides that "Extradition shall not be granted ... [w]hen the person claimed has nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested."2 Id. 1 10; see also Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to the relevance of the Defendant's offer of renunciation of her citizenship to her ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court's assessment of the risks largely + +The Court cites the translated version of the letter, though the original letter is in + +2 Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides' respective translations. The translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, "When the individual claimed to have citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being requested." Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. + +parallel those that the Court articulated when the Defendant proposed signing an extradition waiver. See Dec. Op. at 12-13. + +Similar doubts exist as to the Defendant's offer to renounce her UK citizenship. The Court is persuaded by the Government's arguments that even if the Defendant were to renounce her UK citizenship, she would still likely be able to delay or resist extradition from the UK. See Gov't Opp'n at 6-7. And for largely similar reasons, the Court again concludes that the proposed conditions do not meaningfully diminish the Court's concerns regarding the Defendant's ability to flee and to frustrate or impair any subsequent extradition attempts. The possibility that the Defendant could successfully resist or forestall extradition heightens the Defendant's incentive to flee. + +To summarize, the Defendant's willingness to renounce her and UK citizenship does not sufficiently assuage the Court's concerns regarding the risk of flight that the Defendant poses. Considerable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the renunciations cloud whatever relevance they might otherwise have to the Court's assessment of whether the Defendant poses a risk of flight. See United States v. No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at •9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010). And that same uncertainty—and the possibility that she will be able to successfully resist, or at least delay, extradition—incentivizes flight, particularly because of the Defendant's substantial international ties. + +Nor does the second proposed condition materially alter the Court's determination that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. The Defendant proposes to have a retired federal judge provide oversight authority over her financial affairs, and, if granted, he would have the authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. See Reply at 5. The Court continues to have + +concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant's assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant's and her spouse's assets. See Dec. Op. at 16-17. + +The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance. even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant's bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the \$450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5-6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. Oat 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant's total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court's weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. + +If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of" the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(eX I). + +# IV. Conclusion + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is + +DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant's reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: March 22, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +iiitu g Air + +12 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..354be314f2ec6628b0c33c1acd1571d6d55f7240 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/EFTA02830605.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,632 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 22181, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.51, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.7159881591797, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.7159881591797, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 208.61923217773438, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 208.61923217773438, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court's assessment of the 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3142(g) factors has not changed", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 507.323486328125, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 507.323486328125, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.75018310546875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.75018310546875, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.28, + 425.7350311279297 + ], + [ + 84.744, + 425.7350311279297 + ], + [ + 84.744, + 525.42 + ], + [ + 71.28, + 525.42 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830605" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..165f118451bc9d5bffdfcbd78c10045a365a537b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830605/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:168b9475a625412d693c647003489aa81d22c155988aed67e7e3dbc77278df23 +size 11529 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b18b0a76e02645561e24cb1ceca00f27dfb83de1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New loth 10007 + +March 22, 2021 + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +In accordance with the Court's March 18, 2021 order (the "Order"), the parties have met and conferred regarding proposed redactions to Exhibit II and the defendant's cover letter dated March 9, 2021. The parties have reached agreement regarding redactions as to Exhibit II and the defendant's cover letter. The parties do not believe any redactions are needed as to the defendant's cover letter. The parties' proposed redactions to Exhibit 11 are submitted under seal for the Court's consideration. + +The Government intends to file its omnibus memorandum of law and the corresponding exhibits consistent with the Court's Order, with one exception to which the defense consents. In particular, the defense has indicated that it no longer wishes the Government to remove the redactions the Government had originally proposed to pages 118 to 119 of the Government's brief. Those redactions refer to and quote from portions of an exhibit filed under seal by the defense and which the Government understands is filed under seal in v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP). Accordingly, the Government has kept those redactions in the attached omnibus memorandum of law. + +Additionally, and mindful of the presumption of public access, the Government notes that some of the defense's proposed redactions which the Court adopted in the Order include language + +that is contained in the publicly-filed Indictment in this case. In particular, the additional redactions proposed by the defense to pages 129 to 134 on March 9, 2021 relate to language that is contained in Count Six of the publicly filed Indictment in this case. Although the Government respectfully submits that there is no basis under the applicable standard to redact language that is already publicly available on the docket in this case, the Government is prepared to file the brief with redactions consistent with the Order subject to any further direction from the Court. In addition, the defense also requested earlier today an additional redaction to the bottom of page 134, which is reflected in a red box in the enclosed memorandum. The language covered by this additional redaction is also related to information that is in the publicly filed Indictment. Although, as noted above, the Government is aware of no basis to redact language that is available in the publicly-docketed Indictment, the Government is prepared to file the brief with this additional redaction, subject to any further direction from the Court. + +The Government respectfully submits under seal the enclosed version of its memorandum of law with proposed redactions consistent with the Court's Order, the redactions originally proposed by the Government and contained on pages 118 to 119, and the additional redaction proposed by the defendant on page 134. The Government will publicly file its memorandum of law with the enclosed proposed redactions, unless modified by the Court, at the Court's direction. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc899d9606835cc3804c63b8b3d89c8a96a8315e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/EFTA02830617.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3487, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 61.81200000000001, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 243.3186798095703, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 243.3186798095703, + 175.863037109375 + ], + [ + 61.81200000000001, + 175.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830617" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8557c44c70e2991f68c678418d37f634c3c6083f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830617/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e37ada2cd9b1418ea67a8b00b26456c802921aa1c15005c82c75054222bcb51e +size 3440 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5eaefbd4607d12686609c3bce049e7b781b46d28 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.md @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL JN SUPPORT OF HER THIRD MOTION FOR HMI i + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.0 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## Preliminary Statement + +The issue before the Court, as it has been since Ms. Maxwell's first bail application, is whether conditions exist that can reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance at trial. On her third application (the "Third Bail Motion") (Dkt.160), Ms. Maxwell has put before the Court significant enhancements to the already extraordinary bail package previously presented to the Court in her renewed application for bail (the "Second Bail Motion") (Dkt. 97).' Together, these two motions present a unique and comprehensive bail package with the strictest of conditions known in any bail application: + +- **\$28.5 million in bonds (including a \$1M bond co-signed by a security company);** +- **\$9.5 million in real property;** +- **\$550,000 in cash;** +- **Asset Monitoring by a retired federal district court judge;** +- **Renunciation of British and citizenship;** +- **Irrevocable written waivers of the right to contest extradition;** +- **Surrender of all travel documents;** +- **Home confinement in New York City;** +- **Electronic GPS monitoring;** +- **In-residence third-party custodian;2** + +I Ms. Maxwell's present motion (the "Third Bail Motion") (Dkt.160) incorporates her Memorandum in Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail and accompanying exhibits (Dkt. 97, including Attachments 1-24) and her Reply Memorandum in Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail (Dkt. 103, including Attachments 1-2) (collectively, the "Second Bail Motion"). + +2 To assist Ms. Maxwell in making up for lost time preparing for her upcoming trial, one of her lawyers (not trial counsel) has agreed to reside with her and serve as an additional residential custodian. + +- On-premises 24/7 private security to prevent Ms. Maxwell from leaving the residence without pre-approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and to escort her when authorized to leave the residence; +- **Visitors to be pre-approved by Pretrial Services;** +- **Strict supervision by Pretrial Services;** +- **Such other terms as the Court deems appropriate.** + +**The government goes to great lengths to oppose bail arguing technicalities and offering unfounded innuendo ripped from the tabloid headlines to avoid addressing the merits of Ms. Maxwell's exceptional bail package, which puts at risk everything she has, including the assets of her spouse and the financial security of her family and closest friends.** + +## **The Court Retains Jurisdiction to Decide Matters Related to Bail** + +**The government asserts that the Court should not consider the present bail motion because appeal of denial of the Second Bail Motion, not yet briefed, is pending before the Second Circuit. (Dkt. 165 at 2-3). It is ironic that the government takes this position given that it created this problem by opposing Ms. Maxwell's request for an enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court's denial of her Second Bail Motion. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell sought the extension to avoid this very issue. (Dkt. 109). The government should not now be allowed to turn that procedural sword into a jurisdictional shield to prevent the Court from considering the instant motion.** + +**Divestiture of jurisdiction in the district court while an appeal is pending is not a per se rule. Rather, it is a judicially crafted rule rooted in the interest of judicial economy that is designed to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time. Divestiture of jurisdiction, therefore, should not be automatic, but** + +instead guided by concerns of efficiency. Here, it is unclear whether interlocutory appeal of a district court's decision regarding bail "divests the court of its control over aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996). Were it so, a district court would have no authority to remand or modify bail conditions of a defendant released while the government appeals the grant of bail. Such a rule would detract from, rather than promote, judicial economy and would be unworkable in practice. + +Should the Court believe it does not have jurisdiction to decide the present bail motion, Ms. Maxwell will move the Circuit to withdraw her notice of appeal without prejudice and thereby remove any theoretical bar to this Court's jurisdiction over the present bail motion. Should the Court summarily deny the present motion on the merits, Ms. Maxwell will file a notice of appeal and request consolidation of both appeals. + +# Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship is a Valid and Si; niticant Condition 0 t Release + +Relying on a letter from the Ministry of Justice, the government urges the Court to give no weight to Ms. Maxwell's agreement to renounce her foreign citizenship. But the letter is wrong on the law and should be disregarded. The letter asserts that the loss of nationality subsequent to the criminal act which the person is alleged to have committed does not affect the rule against the extradition of nationals, as nationality must be assessed at the time of commission of the offense and not at the time of the extradition request. As discussed in the opinion from William Julie, legal counsel (attached as Exhibit A), the government's assertion is entirely incorrect for the following reasons: + +- **The government's argument goes against the letter of the law.** +- **The government's argument goes against the spirit of the law.** +- **The government's argument is contradicted by precedent and case law.** + +**(Julie Opinion ¶¶ 6-26).** + +The language of the extradition treaty between the United States and France and the applicable statues are clear that anyone seeking to contest extradition on the basis of citizenship must be a national at the time of the extradition request. (Id.111). The provisions on which the government relies were not intended to apply in cases where the person whose extradition is sought had lost citizenship. To the contrary, it was designed to apply to individuals who had acquired citizenship subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime "in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of offenders seeking to escape extradition." Will 15-16). If the person is no longer a national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. The government cites no case where the relevant statute was applied to protect a formerly national from extradition, and we have found none ourselves. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21). By contrast, there are numerous examples of courts deporting individuals who have lost nationality following the commission of an offense. (Id. ¶ 21). Accordingly, Mr. Julie concludes: "[I]t cannot have been the intention of lawmakers that Article 696-4 be construed as meaning that a person who has lost nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition." (Id. ¶ 26). + +Ms. Maxwell's agreement to give up both British and citizenship and waive any and all right to contest extradition is a formidable challenge to the assertion that Ms. Maxwell would likely flee if released from custody and goes above and beyond the "reasonable assurances" that the Bail Reform Act requires to grant bail. While we maintain that Ms. Maxwell's written waivers of the right to challenge extradition should suffice, her willingness to forfeit citizenship birthrights exceeds what is necessary and profoundly demonstrates her commitment to abide by conditions of release and appear at trial. + +#### Monitoring of Assets is a Valid and Significant Condition of Release + +To address the Court's concern about Ms. Maxwell's access to assets, the bail motion proposed another extremely significant and restrictive bail condition — the imposition of a monitor to supervise the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse and approve expenditures. Rather than suggest conditions to satisfy its concerns, the government urges the Court to summarily reject the proposed monitorship. + +William S. Duffey, Jr., a retired federal district court judge and the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, has agreed to undertake appointment by the Court as asset monitor. Judge Duffey has extensive experience evaluating and monitoring funds held in and disbursed from financial accounts. He has agreed to serve by appointment of the Court in a capacity similar to other trustees and receivers who serve as officers of the Court and are entrusted, pursuant to court order, with oversight authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. Similar to others who have been appointed by courts to oversee financial matters, Judge Duffey will be compensated at the same hourly rate billed for his services as an ADR panelist for Federal Arbitration (FedArb). + +The proceeds from the sale of Ms. Maxwell's London home will be restrained and monitored by Judge Duffey. As required by court order, documentation concerning the proceeds of the sale will be provided to Judge Duffey and the funds will be deposited in the financial account approved by Judge Duffey. + +The government tries to steer the Court's attention to allegations of Ms. Maxwell's lack of candor to dissuade the Court from considering the proposed monitorship as a meaningful restraint on the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse. As previously stated, despite being questioned by Pretrial Services following a period of solitary confinement, suicide watch, sleep deprivation, and other conditions adverse to her physical health and mental well-being, Ms. Maxwell responded appropriately and accurately to questions posed by Pretrial Services which were restricted to her personal assets. Since then, financial documents - collected and professionally vetted by a highly respected accounting firm — have been submitted to the government and the Court and provide full details and supporting documentation concerning Ms. Maxwell's personal assets and those jointly held with the spouse. Further, no valid challenge has been made to those submissions. + +The government challenges the Court by inanely stating that if "the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a risk to release." (Dkt.165 at 8.) This statement is fundamentally illogical as it undermines most conditions of release. For example, the same could be said of electronic monitoring — i.e., if the only way to keep a defendant from fleeing the jurisdiction is to place him on home confinement with electronic monitoring, then he is too great a flight risk to release? The Court should readily dismiss this frivolous argument. Under the Bail Reform Act, if there are appropriate conditions for release, bail should be granted. The conditions collectively proposed in the previous and present bail applications provide ample assurance that Ms. Maxwell will be present at trial. + +Moreover, in an effort to further obfuscate the merits of Ms. Maxwell's bail application, the government desperately argues that funds for legal services, presently held in attorney escrow accounts, would be released and made available to support Ms. Maxwell as a fugitive. To suggest that defense counsel would become accomplices to a violation of a court order shows utter disrespect for Ms. Maxwell's defense team. In particular, New York counsel, who have spent the entirety of their legal careers practicing in this district and establishing well-respected reputations among the bench and bar, take umbrage at the government's callous assertion. + +#### Conceded Problems Undermine the Strength of the Government's Case + +As Ms. Maxwell's period of detention passes the nine-month mark, the government has continuously upgraded Ms. Maxwell from a "plain [ ] risk of flight" to a "substantial and actual risk of flight" to a "serious flight of risk" and now to an "extreme risk of flight." (Dkt. 165 at I.) Ironically, her level of flight risk increases as the strength of government's case against her diminishes. Ms. Maxwell has challenged the strength of the government's case in pretrial motions pending before the Court. Among other things, Ms. Maxwell has persuasively argued that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Jeffrey Epstein in 2007, which immunizes "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution in this case, and that the counts charging her with alleged sexual abuse are time-barred. + +The government's response to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions shines further light of the weaknesses of its case. For example, the government concedes it cannot establish that either Ms. Maxwell or Epstein ever caused, or sought to cause, Accuser-3° to travel while she was a minor or that she was underage when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. (See Opp.I62-65 & fn. 57-58.? Hence, her allegations cannot support the conspiracies charged in the Indictment, leaving the government with only two witnesses to prove the charges against Ms. Maxwell. More importantly, in connection with the government's response, it produced documents indicating that government prosecutors misled a federal judge to obtain evidence against Ms. Maxwell (see, e.g.,. Opp. Ex. 4-7) - a shocking revelation that undermines the viability of the perjury counts, not to mention the integrity of the entire + +4 Accuser-3 is identified in the Indictment as "Minor Victim-3." + +"Opp." references arc to page numbers of the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions, dated February 26, 2021 and not yet publicly filed. + +prosecution. + +The ongoing review of discovery confirms the lack of evidence in support of the stale allegations in the indictment. Further, the government's concessions reveal that it failed to properly investigate the allegations of at least one of its three core witnesses. The passage of time continues to reveal information and lack of evidence that undermine the purported strength of the government's case. + +## Bail Must Be Granted + +The detention of Ms. Maxwell on 25-year-old allegations — based on the lowest grade misdemeanor under New York Penal Law 130.556 — presented in a sensationalized indictment containing pictures to inflame the public and entice and feed the media frenzy' is unwarranted in the face of the unique bail package before the Court. Relentless media coverage of Ms. Maxwell, which preceded and impacted the bringing of this prosecution, has increased significantly since her arrest and detention. Ms. Maxwell's continued detention - providing daily fodder for media for the past nine months—continues to severely undermine her presumption of innocence. + +In the face of this enhanced bail package, the government's claim that Ms. Maxwell poses "an extreme risk of flight" rings hollow. The government urges the Court to apply a standard that defies the law - an absolute guarantee against all risks. See United States v. Orta, 760, F.2d 887, 888 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985)("The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees."). Under the Bail + +6 Counts Two and Four allege violations of New York Penal Law § 130.55 - sexual abuse in the third degree - a class B misdemeanor punishable by maximum penalties of three months in jail or one year probation. + +7 What other purpose could be served by the inclusion of a picture of Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein taken over a dozen years after the period of the conspiracy alleged and pictures of three high-value residences? + +Reform Act, Ms. Maxwell must be released unless there are "no conditions" that would reasonably assure her presence. Here, the proposed bail package - uniquely strengthened by Ms. Maxwell's agreement to renunciate her foreign citizenship and have assets monitored by a retired federal district court judge - satisfies the actual governing standard. + +To find there are absolutely no conditions to satisfy flight risk of a 59-year-old woman with no criminal history, who poses no danger to the community, who has made America her home for the past 30 years, and who has established strong roots and forged important connections with family and friends who reside here, is incredulous. The concerns regarding foreign citizenship and restraint of assets have been addressed. To say that renunciation of foreign citizenship and strict monitoring of assets by a retired federal district court judge does not suffice when combined with an eight-figure bond secured by real property and cash and the strictest terms of home confinement and electronic monitoring strains credulity. The government gains a strategic advantage each day Ms. Maxwell remains in custody — her case is tried daily in the court of public opinion based on allegations that are inadmissible in a court of law; the likelihood of seating jurors who are not implicitly biased against her is being severely jeopardized; her physical strength and concentration are becoming increasingly impaired by the conditions of her confinement; and she is being denied a full and fair opportunity to prepare her case for trial .8 + +Ms. Maxwell continues to experience difficulty reviewing electronic discovery, including discs that can only be reviewed on the MDC computer but are not readable on that computer, and thousands of pages still not readable on either the MDC computer or the laptop. Her receipt of legal mail — including pretrial motions, responses and replies — are constantly delayed even after tracking information confirms delivery to the MDC. The visiting rooms in the East Building, where Ms. Maxwell is detained, have been reviewed by an HVAC expert retained by the Federal Defenders of New York and have been characterized as a "death trap." The MDC claims it is in the process of installing FIEPA filters, a request long overdue in light of concerns regarding ventilation in legal visiting rooms raised early in the pandemic. The alternative — to meet in the open-area where social visiting had been conductedaffords no privacy for confidential attorney-client communication, especially under constant oversight by Ms. + +#### Conclusion + +The Court should grant bail for Ms. Maxwell on the extraordinary conditions proposed. Should the Court determine that additional conditions are necessary, Ms. Maxwell is willing to satisfy and abide by those terms as well. + +Dated: March 16, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted: + +gaiL e. SVA4dAikts• + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.0 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +Maxwell's guards and a hand-held camera focused on both Ms. Maxwell and counsel. Further, confidential attorney-client communications conducted during video teleconferencing (VTC) are now further compromised by the repositioning of a camera with sensitive audio recording, putting a chill on privileged communication. During VTC conferences, counsel can hear conversation among the guards, so it is likely that the guards, who seem to be writing during those sessions, are able to hear discussions between Ms. Maxwell and counsel. Last night, prior to the filing of defense replies to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions, the MDC refused her request to speak with her lawyers to provide information bearing on those filings,. Such denial violates the BOP's Program Statement pertaining to providing legal calls upon request of pretrial inmates. See https://www.bop.gov/policv/progstat/7331 004.pdfat par. 24(c). The chronic difficulties related to Ms. Maxwell's review of the millions of documents of electronic discovery are continuing to negatively impact her ability to prepare for a trial that is only a few months away. + +# EXHIBIT A + +March 1411 2021 + +## Re: Additional opinion on the extradition of nationals by the government + +- I. This memorandum was written pursuant to a request from Olivier Laude, a partner at the firm Laude Esquier Champey acting on behalf of & Gresser LLP as counsel for Ms Ghislaine Maxwell. The request was made in the context of ongoing bail proceedings involving Ms Maxwell in the United States of America (hereafter "USA"), where Ms Maxwell is being detained pre-trial on charges relating to her alleged role in sexual activities involving Jeffrey Epstein from 1994 to 1997. +- 2. In a previous opinion, I have outlined why authorities could decide to execute an extradition request against a citizen under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, without violating any superior norm of and international law. +- 3. As I understand the defendant's nationality continues to be regarded by the Court as a bar to her release pending trial, I am informed that the defendant is prepared to renounce nationality under Article 23.4 of the Civil Code, if the Court so requires. +- 4. In a letter to the Department of Justice dated 9 March 2021, the Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, Mr Philippe Jaegle, asserts that the loss of nationality after the criminal act which the person is alleged to have committed does not affect the rule against the extradition of nationals, as nationality must be assessed at the time of commission of the offence and not at the time of the extradition request. +- 5. This report was written to provide a counter opinion on this issue, in support of the proposition that the government would be legally entitled to execute an extradition request against an individual who is no longer a national. +- 6. The Ministry of Justice's assertion must be regarded as incorrect for three reasons: + - (i) It is not supported by the letter of the law; + +- (ii) Nor is it supported by the spirit of the law; +- (iii) Case law and precedents in fact suggest the opposite. + +## 7. First, the Ministry's interpretation goes against the letter of the law. + +- 8. American extradition requests are principally governed by the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996 ("the Treaty") and the Code of Criminal Procedure for matters not dealt with under the Treaty. I +- 9. Article 3(1) of the Treaty provides: + +"There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed". + +- 10. Article 696-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the same rule, under similar wording: + +"Extradition shall not be granted: + +1° When the person claimed has nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested" + +- 11. Under a literal reading of these provisions, the nationality protection only applies where authorities are faced with an extradition request against a person who is a national at the time of the extradition request. Both the Treaty and the Code of + +1 Other relevant international treaties include: the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, and the Instrument Amending the Treaty of 23 April 1996 between the United States of America and France signed in the Hague on 30 September 2004. + +Criminal Procedure use the present tense ("a person who is a national of the Requested State"/'the person claimed has nationality"), which can only mean that the extradition of a person is denied when that person is in fact a national. If the person is no longer a national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. + +- 12. Had these provisions been intended to apply in cases where the person has lost nationality subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime, the texts would have expressly stated so or would at least have used both the present and the past tense to qualify the national affiliation of the requested person. +- 13. Furthermore, it is a well-known principle of legal interpretation across all jurisdictions that exceptions to rules must be construed strictly. The nationality ban being an exception to extradition, it must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and its application to a person who is no longer a national must be rejected. +- 14. Second, the Ministry's interpretation goes against the spirit of the law +- 15. The literal reading of Article 3 of the Treaty and Article 696-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is further supported by the fact that these provisions were in fact not intended to apply in cases where the person sought has lost citizenship, but only in cases where that person has acquired citizenship subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime. +- 16. In other words, the rule that "nationality shall be assessed at the time of the offence for which extradition is requested" seeks to deny the extension of the benefit of nationality to persons who have acquired nationality after committing an offence, in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of offenders seeking to escape extradition. + +- 17. This concern over opportunistic nationality applications is precisely the justification of the rule mentioned in academic literature (see for example Repertoire de droll penal et de procedure penale Extradition Pen. — Conditions de fond de l'extradition - Delphine Brach-Thiel-October 2018, §59). +- 18. Third, the and case law Ministry of Justice's interpretation is contradicted by precedents +- 19. The Ministry of Justice's interpretation finds no support in case law, as no case can be found where Article 696-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applied to protect a formerly national from extradition. +- 20. Instead, precedents exist in which Article 696-4,1° of the Code of Criminal Procedure was relied on by authorities to execute an extradition request against an individual who had acquired nationality after committing an offence, which is the natural use of this provision (for example, a ruling issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de cassation on 4 January 2006, n°05-86.258). +- 21. Although we have found no precedent where authorities were faced with the extradition of a person who had lost nationality, we have found cases where authorities were faced with the deportation of a person who had lost nationality. Both extradition and deportation allow for the removal of a person from territory by the police and its surrender to the authorities of a third State, with the consent and cooperation of the authorities of that State. +- 22. The European Court of Human Rights (the "ECtHR") treats extradition and deportation analogously. More specifically, the ECtHR considers that the same human rights bars apply to all types of removal of a person from the territory of a State party ("the Court considers that the question whether there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in another State cannot depend on the legal basis for removal to that State. The Court's own case-law has shown that, in practice, there may be little difference between + +extradition and other removals", ECtHR 12 April 2012, Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 24027/07, §168). + +- 23. France has no difficulty with deporting individuals who have lost nationality by application of Article 25 of the Civil Code, which enumerates the list of crimes that may give rise to a deprivation of citizenship. For example, a dual =Algerian citizen named Djamel Beghal was recently deported to Algeria after he was convicted of terrorist offences and subsequently deprived of his nationality2. +- 24. While in custody in France, Djamel Beghal was also convicted in absentia to a term of prison in Algeria, but his extradition initially seemed impossible, not because he used to be a citizen, but because the case law of the ECtHR specifically prohibits State parties from deporting persons deprived of their nationality to the State of which they remain a national, when there is a risk of torture or degrading treatment'. Beghal was eventually deported to Algeria where he was arrested upon landing for the purpose of standing trial. In this case, the government's decision to deprive Djamel Beghal of his nationality was clearly intended to allow for his removal from France, whether through extradition or deportation, as both means of removal were conceivable at the time. Had there not been a risk of violation of the ECHR at the time of the Algerian extradition request, he may well have been extradited as opposed to deported a few years later, when that risk was eliminated. +- 25. In any case, the deportation of formerly citizens shows that the loss of nationality prevents any retroactive application of domestic provisions which are intended to protect nationals, be it from deportation or extradition. + +2 https://svww.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/07/16/incertitude-sur-le-sort-de-l-islamiste-djamel-beghal-qui-sortde-prison-lundi\_5332053\_3224.html + +3 ECtHR 3 December 2009, Daoudi v. France, application no. 19576/08. + +or 4 sept. 2014. Trabelsi c. Belgique, req. n° 140/10, 17 janv. 2012, Othman c. Royaume-Uni, req. n° 8139/09. For more details, http://www.revuedlIcom/cedh/eloignement-des-etrangers-terroristes-et-article-3-de-la-conventioncuropeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme/ + +26. In these circumstances, it cannot have been the intention of lawmakers that Article 696-4 of the a person who has lost extradition since the Code of Criminal Procedure be construed as meaning that nationality would still be entitled to be protected from government has on several occasions deported to third countries individuals who had been deprived of their nationality following the commission of criminal offences. + +William JULIE + +Avocat it la Cour \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f93523a6183824ef903c68e40d69dbcf3141aeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619/EFTA02830619.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1072 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830619.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 30670, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nJN SUPPORT OF HER THIRD MOTION FOR HMI i", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 439.2505187988281, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 439.2505187988281, + 351.363037109375 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 351.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Preliminary Statement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 370.5146789550781, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 370.5146789550781, + 113.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 113.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Court Retains Jurisdiction to Decide Matters Related to Bail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 424.6596374511719, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 424.6596374511719, + 361.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 361.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship is a Valid and Si; niticant Condition 0 t Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 522.9445190429688, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 522.9445190429688, + 390.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 390.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Monitoring of Assets is a Valid and Significant Condition of Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 439.626220703125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 439.626220703125, + 85.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 85.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conceded Problems Undermine the Strength of the Government's Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 459.81573486328125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 459.81573486328125, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Bail Must Be Granted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 193.75498962402344, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 193.75498962402344, + 252.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 252.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.28741455078125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.28741455078125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 368.3995361328125, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 368.3995361328125, + 704.9799957275391 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 704.9799957275391 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Re: Additional opinion on the extradition of nationals by the government", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.46499999999999, + 151.712 + ], + [ + 506.9944152832031, + 151.712 + ], + [ + 506.9944152832031, + 167.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.46499999999999, + 167.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "WILLIAM JULIE \nAVOCAT A LA COUR - ATTORNEY AT LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 189.21, + 34.480000000000004 + ], + [ + 405.08563232421875, + 34.480000000000004 + ], + [ + 405.08563232421875, + 61.74945068359375 + ], + [ + 189.21, + 61.74945068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7. First, the Ministry's interpretation goes against the letter of the law.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.67999999999999, + 146.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 444.7265625, + 146.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 444.7265625, + 162.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 85.67999999999999, + 162.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "WILLIAM JULIE \nAVOCAT A LA COUR - ATTORNEY AT LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 189.21, + 33.618 + ], + [ + 405.1038513183594, + 33.618 + ], + [ + 405.1038513183594, + 62.21759033203125 + ], + [ + 189.21, + 62.21759033203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830619" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cb2af8787f445e6c37a886beb0435fc0631c692 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 3/24/21 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy. See e.g., United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Earls, No. 03-CR-0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004); United States v. 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). + +Rule 17(c)(3) provides that "[a]fter [an indictment) is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order," but "before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex pane Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed + +by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(cX3). + +On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. + +In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) ("[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied."). + +In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm's objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply + +within three days of the Defendant's response.' Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: March 24, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +' All filings must be double-spaced and in I2-point font with I -inch margins. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c22895b97cdce5b96b599f59c03e205ab30114c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637/EFTA02830637.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830637.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4030, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.21, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830637" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b9b7b0cdd03f6292cf8a6d8af5a47a8f6aed98f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +ORIGIN ID:MPBA (305) 379-6667 + DAVID MARKUS + MARKUS/MOSS PLLC + 40 NW THIRD STREET + PENTHOUSE ONE + MIAMI, FL 33128 + UNITED STATES US + +SHIP DATE: 24MAR21 + ACTWGT: 1.00 LB + CAD: 9297036/NET4340 + BILL SENDER + +TO **FINANCE DEPARTMENT** +**US DISTRICT COURT OF NEW NEW YORK** +**500 PEARL ST** + +**NEW YORK NY 10007** + +(212) 805-0636 + +REF: MAXWELL + +INV + PO + +DEPT + +![](_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_25.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg) + +THU - 25 MAR 10:30A + PRIORITY OVERNIGHT + +TRK# 7732 5364 9012 + +**XA PCTA** + +10007 + NY-US EWR + +![](_page_0_Picture_31.jpeg) + +FedEx Ship Manager - Print Date Your Laptop (s) + +3/27/2021 + +Court Name: District Court + Division: 1 + Receipt Number: 465481276762 + Cashier ID: Bullitas + Transaction Date: 8/29/08/21 + Payer Name: GHISLATINE MAXWELL + NOTICE OF APPEAL/ROOKETING FEE + For: GHISLATINE MAXWELL + Amount: \$595.88 + CHECK + Check/Money Order Name: 3536 + Ret Tendered: \$595.88 + Total Bur: \$595.88 + Total Tendered: \$595.88 + Change Ret: \$9.88 + 26CR0003338 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85294e01b66bd8cda28f84ccb6d02f49970ebf02 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/EFTA02830640.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1055, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.28, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_25.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_31.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830640" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7bc5a23f1cc5d47169507a86fb33495595441c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b7edb3a7f044688834e1ed89ad569051145f347b130aa1510f7aa470cb43f59e +size 3814 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_25.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_25.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef27c15471c29eb83b4eeaeb7c8c3bb10f175e4c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_25.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e6b01fee939aa02aef5db1e07cdb07c40d8341c69fb8203fecfdce4235de4d5b +size 32989 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f66bd63efa6efc8014b7061cfc280d68f8754071 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7a5117ff86a4babe0bb8b9e134c31d07ddc6c721b73f446a75ff4a6344c5f7bf +size 4403 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_31.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_31.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa852b91c416dd56b52f579e5be131e8f3db732e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830640/_page_0_Picture_31.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1289964a2e5535c543bdcddfe74422ea4959ce87f5cd1de24a485eb5097f074b +size 26682 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8439c647fc1881969e2fcfd80b3d9488e3555a86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +## NOTICE OF APPEAL + +United States District Court + +Southern District of New York + +Caption: + +United States of America + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +ELECTRONICALLY FILED + +DOC tt: + +DATE FILED: 3/24/2021 + +Docket No. 20-CR-00330-AJN --------------------- Alison J. Nathan (District Court Judge) + +Maxwell lNotice is hereby given that Ghislaine appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment . other i V Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail (Doc. 169) entered in this action on March 22, 2021 (date) (specify) + +This appeal concerns: Conviction only I Sentence only I I Conviction & Sentence I Other j\_\_\_V + +Defendant found guilty by plea I I trial [ N/A [✓ + +Offense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes I No [ N/A + +Date of sentence: N/A V I + +Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed V Not committed I N/A [ + +Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes V I No I If yes, provide the following information: + +Defendant's Counsel: David Oscar Markus + +Counsel's Address: Markus= PLLC + +Counsel's Phone: (305)379-6667 + +Assistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Lara Pomerantz + +AUSA's Address: + +AUSA's Phone: (212)637-2324 + +40 NW Third Street, Ph 1, Miami, Florida 33128 + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building + +One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York, New York 10007 + +Signature \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a6720dcbcafe70bdbe2111fefa722ece6f13222 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641/EFTA02830641.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830641.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1284, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.26, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 29.97 + ], + [ + 224.17660522460938, + 29.97 + ], + [ + 224.17660522460938, + 42.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 42.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 367.8478698730469, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 367.8478698730469, + 76.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 76.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830641" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6ff23ff42714a3140f1ee0005d6b9220c897e43 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +No. 1:20-cr-00330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, David Boies, who is a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents in the abovecaptioned action. + +Dated: New York, New York March 26, 2021 + +BOLES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP + +By: /s/ David Boies + +David Boies Boies Schiller Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Tel: (914) 749-8200 Fax: (914) 749-8300 Email: dboies@bsfl1p.com + +Attorney for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..386316edb3192280acf5a530564cd9e952eca0ea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642/EFTA02830642.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830642.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 731, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 506.5885009765625, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 506.5885009765625, + 239.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 239.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830642" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1733c35d0cac15d0d815762895a1e4064741d621 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +No. 1:20-cr-00330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Sigrid S. McCawley, hereby appears as counsel for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents in the above-captioned action. + +Dated: New York, New York March 26, 2021 + +BOLES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP + +By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley (Pro Hac Vice application pending) Boies Schiller Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 356-0022 Email: smccawley@bsflIp.com + +> Attorney for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93c4e09d33d9d750d44c3295460d63ba510ca744 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643/EFTA02830643.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830643.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 764, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.66, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 506.5885009765625, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 506.5885009765625, + 239.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 347.00399999999996, + 239.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830643" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86a3432b3b306d2cf2aa6d71aadf3b7162982c19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Case No. 20-CR-330-AJN + +v. + +DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. GHISLAINE MAXWELL MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION Defendant. PRO HAC VICE + +I, Sigrid S. McCawley, hereby declare as follows: + +- I. I have never been convicted of a felony. +- 2. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by any court. +- 3. There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. +- 4. I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Florida and Washington, D.C. + +I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. + +Dated: March 26, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley Boies Schiller Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 356 0022 Email: smccawley®bsfllp.com + +Attorney for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72b8ef58f3014ef514f4766c30e3d09813cba1d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644/EFTA02830644.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830644.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1047, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830644" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09896ee7249c844cfa1657277dc4d049746b8ce1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +# Supreme Court of Florida + +## Certificate of Good Standing + +*I, JOHN A. TOMASINO, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, do hereby certify that* + +**SIGRID ██████████ MCCAWLEY** + +*was admitted as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice law in all the Courts of the State of Florida on NOVEMBER 6, 1997, is presently in good standing, and that the private and professional character of the attorney appear to be good.* + +![](_page_0_Picture_67.jpeg) + +*WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the Supreme Court of Florida at Tallahassee, the Capital, this MARCH 24, 2021.* + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..863c6455ec71127a2f76128d407877a654df70c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/EFTA02830645.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 588, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.02, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_67.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Supreme Court of Florida", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 525.096, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 525.096, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 148.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Good Standing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 164.62800000000001, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 445.536, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 445.536, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 164.62800000000001, + 188.73000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830645" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/_page_0_Picture_67.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/_page_0_Picture_67.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a8f37daeec25f733ca095dc1f18eb646220dca4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830645/_page_0_Picture_67.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ad58fe53600c6cdde7a336b1f08dc95d59dc9c37f6fa8e6905fefcba2882ca4b +size 22655 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50e8ee66422498cf7ec2e70176fb9ef70f329fea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.md @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that + +scrudi\_vyte.4 + +was duly qualified and admitted on June 2, 2000 as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice before this Court: and is, on the date indicated below, a(n) ACTIVE member in good standing of this Bar. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +Issued By: District of Columbia Bar Membership \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88ebf0b14850776a96d388511965da86ca61d5e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/EFTA02830646.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 492, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.55, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830646" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebc0a2fae0d42e4cee162c1ec4a48b10ccb7a012 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f8ca3b286b2179c5699884e9879e9d37aecfa602ffe66bddf8c0d1c330cabfe2 +size 17104 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e44bc61c3bcda538dda02f7bc3f613346cd6b895 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:af840605be870307815049422d50a504342829a987311b08b21c503747d517d1 +size 11000 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5731a6bbe58a8d255aeb77f356ae600ee06b038f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830646/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3c2638c88a39b5018a41d63e76af7379b8adcf1fd7d9acd333e77465e6068c63 +size 29847 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d33f23881a7e6c905154a822e8ca04ea9c2244b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Case No.: 20-CR-330-AJN + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +The motion of Sigrid S. McCawley, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. + +Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Florida and Washington, D.C.; and that her contact information is as follows: + +Applicant's Name: Sigrid S. McCawley + +Firm Name: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP + +Address: 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard. Suite 1200 + +City/State/Zip: Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 + +Telephone/Fax: Tel: (954) 356-0011 / Fax: (954) 356-0022 + +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents in the above entitled action; + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. + +All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. + +Dated: + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..812bedaa7c23a8635d2bfad7e0dcef5e9c96129c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647/EFTA02830647.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830647.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1262, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 285.192, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 525.7767944335938, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 525.7767944335938, + 205.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 285.192, + 205.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830647" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16c7ab5412118ca116c4402e89caa452ef34c2ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +Defendant. + +Case No.: 20-CR-330-AJN + +## MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Sigrid S. McCawley, hereby move this Court for an Order for Admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Boles Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents in the above-captioned action. + +I am in good standing in the bars of the State of Florida and Washington, D.C. and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. + +Dated: March 26, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, + +is/ Sigrid S. McCawlev + +Sigrid S. McCawley Boles Schiller Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 356 0022 Email: smccawley@bsflIp.com + +Attorney for Intervenor Boles Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a3866dc2c16c243bd7cf0eae0cf1885e33e2bb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649/EFTA02830649.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830649.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1216, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 72.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 418.8030090332031, + 72.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 418.8030090332031, + 100.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 285.192, + 191.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 535.0577392578125, + 191.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 535.0577392578125, + 205.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 285.192, + 205.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830649" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fef5beb3e6e260785cdb4de0fde764c2dad1f6c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smccawlcy@bsfllp.com + +March 22, 2021 + +## VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER SEAL) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") with respect to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for an order authorizing a subpoena on BSF pursuant to Rule I 7(cX3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (the "Subpoena") and the Court's March 12, 2021, Sealed and Ex Pane Order requiring BSF to file a letter indicating (1) whether service on BSF can be deemed adequate notice on victims whose personal or confidential information the Subpoena is aimed at obtaining and (2) whether the victims object to or seek modification of the Subpoena. + +First, BSF does not object to service on BSF constituting adequate notice on any victims it represents. The Order and Subpoena, however, do not indicate which victims are to be provided with notice. The Order states that the Defendant identified five individuals who require notice, but the Subpoena appears to seek personal and confidential information about all of the Epstein victims that BSF represents, which is more than five individuals. Thus, in an abundance of caution, BSF will notify each of the Epstein victims it represents, unless otherwise directed by the court. Second, BSF, both on its own behalf and behalf of the women that it represents, objects to the Subpoena in its entirety for the following reasons. + +## BACKGROUND + +The Government in this case has charged the Defendant with enticing (and conspiracy to entice) minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts and transportation of (and conspiracy to transport) minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity from 1994 to 1997. The facts underlying those charges involve three minor victims: Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. The Government has also charged the Defendant with two counts of periury for lying under oath during a civil deposition in a defamation action brought by when asked if she was aware of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme and whethershe had ever given Minor Victim-2 a massage. BSF represents Minor Victim-2 ( ) and but does not represent and has never represented Minor Victim-1 or Minor Victim-3. + +Defendant has made clear since the time of her arrest that she seeks to impugn the credibility of her accusers by constructing a false narrative that BSF's cooperation with the + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 2 of 7 + +Government prior to the arrest was somehow improper and that her accusers, several of whom BSF represents, are lying in order to obtain settlements. See Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 2-3, v. Darren K. Indy/cc a al., 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 (accusing of "working during the pendency of this lawsuit with the Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney's Office to try to circumvent Ms. Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights in advance of the June 29, 2020 indictment"); id. at 3 ("The fact that al seeks, money from the Estate and from Ms. Maxwell, in the millions of dollars, at the same time she is a government witness in an upcoming criminal trial on the same topic is reason enough to suspect that her newly asserted memories of abuse—without corroboration—are not based on the truth or a desire for 'justice' so much as her desire for cash." (emphases in original)); Maxwell's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal at 4, 8-10, v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir. July 30, 2020), ECF No. 10-1 (explaining the Defendant's "concerns that and [BSF] were acting as either express or de facto agents of the government" and falsely accusing BSF of leaking a confidential deposition transcript to the Government). The Subpoena, which seeks, for example, communications between BSF and the Government and BSF's submissions on behalf of its clients to an independent claims program administered by Jeffrey Epstein's Estate, is a transparent attempt to further this false narrative and to fish for potential impeachment material. But a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material goes well beyond the scope of a permissible Rule 17(c) subpoena. The Defendant's motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied.' I I + +## THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C) + +Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule governs nonparty subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Rule 17(c) "was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698 (1974); see also, e.g., United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App'x 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2014) ("Rule 17 subpoenas are properly used to obtain admissible evidence, not as a substitute for discovery."); United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (explaining that although the civil rules permit subpoenas "to seek production of documents or other materials which, although not themselves admissible, could lead to admissible evidence," criminal "Rule 17(c) cannot be used to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant's case" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, a party seeking a Rule 17(c) subpoena must demonstrate: + +- (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the + +A motion to quash the Subpoena is not yet ripe because, without having the benefit of the Defendant's sealed briefing on her motion and any other orders pertaining to it, it appears that the Court has not granted Defendant's motion for an order authorizing service of the Subpoena on BSF. The Court, however, should exercise its discretion and deny the Defendant's motion. See United States v. Weissman, No. 01 Cr. 529 (BSJ), 2002 WL 1467845, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2002) ("Rule 17(c) expressly commits the decision whether to require pre-trial production of documents to the sound discretion of the court."). Should the Court wish to hear further from BSF prior to deciding the Motion, BSF is prepared to appear before the Court and/or move to intervene and to quash the Subpoena. + +Page 3 of 7 + +party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general “fishing expedition.” + +*Nixon*, 418 U.S. at 699–700. In other words, the proponent of a Rule 17(c) subpoena “must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” *Id.* at 700. Finally, “Rule 17(c) subpoenas may not issue prior to trial to obtain materials usable only to impeach.” *United States v. Pena*, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion to quash Rule 17(c) subpoena for all records relating to cooperating witnesses); *see also Nixon*, 418 U.S. at 701 (“Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial.”); *Cherry*, 876 F. Supp. at 553 (“[D]ocuments are not evidentiary for Rule 17(c) purposes if their use is limited to impeachment.”). + +### THE SUBPOENA FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C) + +The Defendant cannot demonstrate that the Subpoena meets Rule 17(c)’s requirements for four, independent reasons. *First*, the Subpoena is overbroad and non-specific, and a clear fishing expedition to “see what may turn up.” *See United States v. Avenatti*, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) (denying motion for issuance of Rule 17(c) subpoena). “Subpoenas seeking ‘any and all’ materials, without mention of ‘specific admissible evidence,’ justify the inference that the defense is engaging in the type of ‘fishing expedition’ prohibited by *Nixon*.” *United States v. Mendinueta-Ibarro*, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 512–513 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (granting motion to quash Rule 17(c) subpoena). + +Here, the Subpoena plainly fails *Nixon*’s specificity requirement. Requests 1 through 5 all seek “communications” between “You” and a designated individual or entity, including the U.S. Attorney and BSF’s co-counsel, about a certain subject. The Subpoena defines “communications” as “*all* forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind,” and defines “You” as “*any* owner, shareholder, partner or employee of Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, including but not limited to David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Peter Skinner and *any* former owner, shareholder, partner or employee, or independent contractor of the firm.” Such broad Requests are plainly overbroad and non-specific, and do not meet the strict requirements of Rule 17(c). *See, e.g., Mendinueta-Ibarro*, 956 F. Supp. 2d at 512–513 (quashing subpoena that requested “‘any and all writings and records’ related to the [police department’s] contact with a particular confidential witness”); *Pena*, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*3 (Nathan, J.) (holding that defendant’s subpoena “for ‘any and all’ records associated with the Government’s cooperating witnesses for an indefinite length of time takes an impermissible shotgun approach to Rule 17(c)”); *United States v. Barnes*, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) (quashing motion that “blindly seeks ‘all’ documents and records that fall into several categories for an approximate 23-month period rather than identifiable pieces of evidence” because “[s]uch a blanket request implicates all of the problems associated with a classic ‘fishing expedition’”); *United States v. Chen De Yian*, No. 94 CR. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) (denying motion for Rule 17(c) subpoena seeking “all records . . . pertaining to any and all investigations” into charged murders, + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 4 of 7 + +because "the subpoena was not crafted to call for admissible evidence. Rather, it called for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition."). + +Similarly, Request 12 asks for "EVCP Material," which is defined as "any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients." This Request does not satisfy the Nixon standard—the Defendant is not a party or otherwise privy to what information BSF has submitted to the confidential Epstein Victim's Compensation Program or on behalf of which clients BSF has submitted such information. The Defendant cannot merely request every piece of confidential information that BSF submitted to the Program in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up. This Request thus cannot pass muster under Rule 17(c). + +Second, although BSF does not know what arguments the Defendant made in her ex pane motion, the documents and items requested in the Subpoena bear no apparent relevance to the Defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in this matter. And to the extent they would be relevant solely for impeachment purposes, or relevant but inadmissible, the Defendant cannot obtain them in advance of trial pursuant to Rule 17(c). Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700, 701. + +Request I seeks communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney about the Defendant from 2015 through the present, and Requests 3 through 5 seek communications between BSF and BSF's co-counsel from 2015 through the present regarding any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's office about the Defendant. But such communications are not relevant to the Government's allegations that the Defendant enticed minors to travel, and transported minors, to engage in sex acts between 1994 to 1997, nearly 20 years prior to any such communications. Nor do such communications bear any apparent relevance to whether the Defendant perjured herself in a civil deposition. If such communications are relevant, they are only relevant to the Defendant's false narrative that BSF somehow colluded with the Government—an allegation that could serve no other purpose than impeachment of the Government's potential witnesses. Request 8—seeking any grand jury subpoena for documents related to litigation concerning the Defendant—is similarly aimed at developing some ill-informed narrative of collusion between BSF and the Government, as the Defendant has on numerous occasions accused BSF of improperly providing the Government with confidential documents governed by a protective order in a separate civil matter. See, e.g., ECF No. 134 (Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by subpoena to what appears-)? Even if these documents were relevant to anything other + +2Requests 3 through 5 also seek protected work product. Those Requests seek communications between BSF and its co-counsel in several matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Such communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Where a criminal defendant seeks to subpoena work product, the defendant can only overcome the privilege by demonstrating a "substantial need" for the requested items and that he "cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means." United States v. Weisberg, No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML, 2011 WL 1327689, at \*5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011). Given the marginal potential evidentiary value of the communications, the Defendant will be unable to demonstrate a substantial need for protected communications between BSF and its co-counsel. + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 5 of 7 + +than impeachment, many of them are procurable from the Government and are thus improper subjects of a Rule 17(c) subpoena, as explained below. + +Requests 2 through 5 also seek communications from 2015 through the present between BSF, its co-counsel, and the U.S. Attorney about Jean Luc Brunel, who is presently incarcerated in France on charges of sex crimes and is one of Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant's co-conspirators. But Brunel does not appear to be relevant to any of the Government's charges in the indictment in this case, and, again, communications from 2015 are not relevant to conduct that occurred between 1994 and 1997. The Defendant thus seeks these communications, too, so that she can fish for impeachment materials. + +Re uests 6 and 7 seek contin enc fee agreements or engagement letters between BSF and and her sister, . Such documents are irrelevant. The fact that the Farmers are represented, and the terms of their representation, is not relevant to whether the Defendant committed the crimes of which she is accused. Even the impeachment value of such documents is speculative. is not one of the minor victims described in the indictment, and thus may not be called to testify in this case. And in seeking to determine whether BSF has contingency fee arrangements with the Farmers, the Defendant appears to seek to establish some motive of BSF to drum up contingency fees by convincing women to falsely accuse the Defendant of criminal conduct. But BSF's motive for representing the Farmers would not be relevant to the Fanners' motives for testifying for the prosecution (if they testify). + +Request 9 seeks the original, complete copy of journal from when she was a teenager for inspection and copying. But all potentially relevant pages were produced from this journal to the Defendant in civil discovery in another matter, as demonstrated by the Defendant's ability to attach those pages as Exhibit A to the Subpoena. The remainder of the journal has nothing to do with the Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein. And the Defendant cannot inspect it for the purpose of fishing for something that could be potentially relevant—it is her burden to identify relevant and admissible evidence under Nixon. The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for impeachment purposes, as she highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action filed a ainst the Defendant. See Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 2, v. Darren K. Indyke, a at, 19-cv- 10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 ("[P]laintiff produced certain pages from a diary dated in early 1996 which detailed, only, that Jeffrey Epstein had held her hand in a movie theater in late 1995 which made her feel uncomfortable. This same diary contained exactly zero references to Ghislaine Maxwell, contrary to the assertions in her Complaint ...." (emphasis in original)). + +Request 12 for "EVCP Material" is not relevant to the Defendant's defense. BSF submitted claims and supporting evidence to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program on behalf of several Epstein survivors who have not made separate claims against Maxwell. The Defendant must demonstrate the relevance of all the evidence she seeks by means of a Rule 17(c) subpoena, not merely that she could turn up something that is relevant and admissible. See Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (Nathan, J.) ("Pena has failed to make the requisite showing regarding the admissibility of `any and all' other records regarding the cooperators that might exist at the MDC, MCC, or DOC."); United States v. Aguilar, No. CR 07-00030 SBA, 2008 WL 3182029, at \*6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008) ("Thus, while the Aguilars have sought some relevant evidence here, + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 6 of 7 + +they have not demonstrated the relevance of all of the evidence they seek."). The Defendant simply cannot demonstrate that all of the information submitted on behalf of all of BSF's clients would be relevant and admissible in this matter.; + +Further, the Defendant has made it clear that she seeks to use the "EVCP Material" for impeachment purposes. She has requested not only BSF's submissions to the Program, but also any releases signed by BSF's clients and any compensation received by BSF's clients. The Defendant alread attempted to obtain information about compensation by the Program in recently dismissed civil action against the Defendant. In the Defendant's submissions in that matter, she explicitly stated that she sought the information in order to impeach if she were to testify at her criminal trial: + +By contrast, there is substantial evidence that and [SSP] filed this case with a serious ulterior motive to fabricate a story against Ms. Maxwell some 24 years after the fact. The motives include, but are not limited to, increasing the cash consideration that she might receive from the Epstein Victims Compensation Program ("EVCP"). . Just as I has a public right to make her false allegations in a lawsuit and in the news, so Ms. Maxwell should have the right to make public the simple fact that plaintiff did not have a desire for "justice," she had a desire for money... + +Second, as previously explained, has publicly self-identified as one of the accusers mentioned in the indictment in the criminal case, 20-cr-330 (AJN). She will no doubt be one of the prosecution's key witnesses. The inability to obtain an unredacted copy of the release, including the consideration received b creates legal prejudice to Ms. Maxwell's ability to confront during her criminal trial on general issues of bias and motive for fabrication, as is her right under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. + +Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Lorna G. Schofield at 2-3, v. Darren K. Indyke, et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21. 2021 , ECF No. 114; see also Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 3, v. Darren K. Indyke, et at, 19-cv- 10475 il..• DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 ("Certainly, the amount of money that I has been offered by the [EVCP] in exchange for her un-tested story will be an issue in the upcoming criminal trial when plaintiff takes the stand, for the first time, and faces cross-examination. . . . The motive for fabrication could not be clearer.").4 Thus, the "EVCP + +3Further, a Rule 17 subpoena may not be used to seek the prior statements of an anticipated trial witness. Rule 17 expressly prohibits a party from serving a subpoena for this purpose. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) ("No party may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule."). The claims submitted as part of the "EVCP Material" include statements made by potential witnesses. + +Again, however, even the impeachment value of EVCP compensation determination is dubious. have received compensation after submitting a claim to the Program, but that does not show a potential motive for testifying for the prosecution in this separate criminal action. + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 7 of 7 + +Material," which is clearly sought for impeachment purposes, is not a proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. + +Third, certain of the documents that the Defendant seeks to obtain from BSF are "otherwise procurable" from the Government. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699 (documents requested pursuant to Rule 17(c) must not be "otherwise procurable" from another source). Requests 1 and 2 both seek communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney, which the Defendant can procure from the Government. Similarly, Request 8 seeks a Grand Jury Subpoena that by the Government itself, and that the Defendant can therefore procure from the Government. Thus, a Rule 17(c) subpoena to BSF for those documents is improper. See, e.g., United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("When 'many' of the subpoenaed materials are obtainable through the discovery process, a subpoena contravenes Nixon's requirement that subpoenaed materials must not be otherwise procurable in advance of trial by the exercise of due diligence."); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (quashing a 17(c) subpoena where it was "likely that many of the documents that defendant seeks in his subpoena are obtainable from another source—the United States Attorney's Office—with little or no diligence required"). + +Finally, Requests 10 and 11 seek items that can be produced at trial if they are shown to be relevant and admissible. Re uest 10 seeks a pair of cowboy boots that the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein purchased for for ins ction and copying. Request 11 seeks the original copies of various photographs of when she was a teenager, of r on Leslie Wexner's pro of on various of Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant's properties, and of Prince Andrew, and the Defendant in the Defendant's London townhome. Although the relevance of these items is minimal—the photographs, for example, do not appear to depict any conduct or event described in the indictment—the Defendant cannot show that she "cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial," which is an independentrequirement under Nixon. 418 U.S. at 699. There is simply no reason why, if the Farmers and ultimately testify and if these items prove to be relevant and admissible, these items cannot be produced for inspection at trial. + +For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2628a6c1483d23a474b3731a8342a738b2f6684c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/EFTA02830650.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 23803, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.98, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER SEAL)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 268.5531921386719, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 268.5531921386719, + 155.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 546.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 546.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 195.228, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 417.0666809082031, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 417.0666809082031, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE SUBPOENA FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 512.2439999999999, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 512.2439999999999, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 289.17 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830650" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50637ec458c8efafdd69e98ad45aea7d5f350d30 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830650/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b4f9cc56687291d313a79171adf7ce858a62bbeb52250cc9375960ec3dd3379e +size 6926 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..855e65bbbb4c93fa70ce75cd0ad7cabdad650a9b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com + +March 26, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") and the victims it represents. On March 24, 2021, the Court ordered BSF to file its March 22, 2021,1etter containing objections to the Defendant's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena to BSF on the public docket with proposed redactions. (ECF No. 172). BSF met and conferred with the Defendant's counsel on March 25, 2021. BSF and the Defendant agreed, in an abundance of caution, to redact a narrow piece of information that has remained redacted in other filings on the docket. BSF will remove those redactions from its letter if the Court so orders. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d59139d7556b62e4dc16f6251d95c5dfddb8a645 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/EFTA02830657.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1009, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830657" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..565bd102d85580c0e416e2a63017ac2ee9d72edf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830657/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1d2cfd8ae22b23ce394b7cbf0b9b2d0c48cca87309cb3fc1453615043e0de940 +size 6848 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c2c031cbf33e9104fb12cc4c6b543232c17d0df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v-JOSHUA ADAM SCHULTE, Defendant. X + +S3 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) + +# OPINION & ORDER + +Defendant Joshua Adam Schulte ("Defendant" or "Schulte") is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") who is charged with stealing national defense information from the CIA and transmitting it to Wikileaks. Schulte initially proceeded to trial in February 2020. The jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts, but failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the national security charges. The Defendant moved for a mistrial with respect to those counts, which the Court granted. + +Shortly after the first trial ended, New York City emerged as the global epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the majority of in-person proceedings throughout the Southern District of New York were suspended. Grand juries and jury trials were no exception. Nevertheless, on June 8, 2020, the Government obtained a third superseding indictment (the "Indictment") in anticipation of a second trial. + +Schulte now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the grounds that the grand jury venire that returned the Indictment did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 ("JSSA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. For the reasons set forth below, Schulte's motion is DENIED. + +#### BACKGROUND + +#### I. Procedural History + +Following an extensive investigation by law enforcement authorities, Schulte was arrested in August 2017 on suspicion of leaking national defense information that he had obtained while working for the CIA. (Schulte Br. at 2, ECF 435; Gov't Opp. Br. at 1, ECF 444.) Schulte has been in custody since his arrest. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 1.) + +On June 18, 2018, an indictment charged Schulte with thirteen counts of espionage and other offenses. (See id.) On October 31, 2018, the Government obtained a superseding indictment, which incorporated the same offenses as the initial indictment but added two additional counts of unlawful disclosure and criminal contempt of court. (See id. at 1-2.) + +On February 2, 2020, Schulte proceeded to trial on the eleven national security related charges. (Id. at 2.) On March 9, 2020, the jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts: (1) making false statements to law enforcement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and (2) criminal contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). (Id; Schulte Br. at 2.) The jury, however, was unable to reach aunanimous verdict with respect to the remaining eight national security charges. (Schulte Br. at 2.) Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for a mistrial on those counts. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 2.) + +Immediately following the trial, New York City emerged as the global epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Hawley LLC v... No. 20-CV-10932 (PAC), 2021 WL 465437, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2021) (describing the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on New York City). As a result, the vast majority of in-person proceedings throughout the Southern District of New York (the "District") were substantially dialed back or suspended altogether. See, e.g., Standing Order, M-10-468 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2020). Grand juries and jury + +trials were not spared. See id. On June 8, 2020, however, the Government sought and obtained a third superseding Indictment from a grand jury sitting in the District's Plains courthouse. (Schulte Br. at 2; Gov't Opp. Br. at 2.) The Indictment charges Schulte with nine criminal counts relating to his alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. (ECF 405.) According to the Government, the Plains grand jury that returned the superseding Indictment was the sole grand jury empaneled at the time. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 14.) + +## II. Motion to Dismiss + +Schulte now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the grounds that it was unlawfully obtained in violation of (I) the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause; (2) the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement; and (3) the JSSA. (ECF 435.) He primarily contends that the Plains grand jury venire—from which the Indictment was obtained—did not reflect afair cross-section of the African American and Hispanic American populations in the community. And he contends that these effects are symptomatic of the exclusionary processes that are inherent in the District's jury selection system. Relatedly, Schulte argues that the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from Plains was improperly made. + +## III. The District's Jury Plan + +To understand Schulte's claims, it is necessary to orient ourselves to some background knowledge of the District's jury selection process. Under the JSSA, each federal district court must "devise and place in operation awritten plan for random selection of grand and petit jurors." 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). The District's jury selection plan ("Jury Plan"), which has been in existence since 2009, provides the blueprint for the random selection of grand and petit jurors throughout the District. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter "Jury + +Plan"), hups://www.nysd.uscourts.govisites/defaultifiles/pdf/juryplan\_feb\_2009.pdf. + +The Jury Plan operates as follows. Every four years, following the date of the Presidential Election, two la jury wheels are constructed: one for Manhattan and one for Plains. See id. These= wheels, in turn, are filled with names that are randomly drawn from voter registration lists of the various counties that make up the District. Id. The Jury Plan provides that "the number of names drawn from each county should be proportionate to the number of registered voters in that county." 2021 WL 431458, \*1. + +The two wheels draw from adifferent array of counties. The Manhattan wheel randomly draws names from New York, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland, while the Plains wheel draws names from Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, and Dutchess. See , 2021 WL 431458, \*1. Because Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties are included in both wheels, the Jury Plan instructs that the names from these counties be "apportioned among the two wheels to 'reasonably reflect the relative number of registered voters of each county.' See id. + +"Periodically, names are drawn from the wheels 'in an amount sufficient to meet the anticipated demands for jurors for the next six months.' Id. (quoting Jury Plan). Those who are drawn from the wheels are sent jury questionnaires,' which determine whether a person is qualified to serve on ajury. Id. Jurors who meet the qualification requirements are then placed in the respective qualified wheels for Manhattan and Plains. Id. Finally, as + +' The Jury Plan bases its qualification criteria on neutral standards such as the ability to speak English, citizenship and age, mental capacity, and criminal record. (See Gov't Opp. Br. at 5.) Moreover, certain individuals are exempted from jury service by virtue of their professional occupations. (See id.) Finally, the Jury Plan also provides acarve-out for individuals who can demonstrate "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience" on a case-by-case basis. (See id.) + +"jurors are needed in each courthouse, names are drawn from each qualified wheel and summonses are sent to those individuals." Id. + +## APPLICABLE LAW + +#### I. Sixth Amendment + +A"representative jury array remains the expression of the community's role in securing" an impartial trial. Alston v. Manson, 791 F.2d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1986). In recognition of that promise, the Sixth Amendment guarantees adefendant the right to a jury venire drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.2 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). To establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, adefendant must prove each of the following elements: + +- (1) That the group alleged to be excluded is adistinctive group in the community; +- (2) That the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and +- (3) That this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the juryselection process. + +Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). + +Demonstrating a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, however, is not enough to prevail under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 367. Under Supreme Court teachings, "States remain free to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide reasonable exemptions so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community." Id. (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538). Accordingly, the Government may rebut the + +2 The fair cross-section guarantee has been understood to apply in the context of both grand and petit juries. See United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966, 973 (D. Conn. 1992). + +defendant's prima fade case by showing a "significant state interest" behind the jury selection process at issue. + +#### II. Fifth Amendment + +The Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment similarly forbids the exclusion of racial minorities from grand and petit juries.} Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 492 (1977). To raise a plausible equal protection challenge against a jury selection system, the defendant must show (1) a cognizable group; (2) that is substantially underrepresented; and (3) that the selection procedure is not racially neutral. Alston, 791 F.2d at 257. Although this three-part test resembles the Sixth Amendment framework, there is acritical difference: in contradistinction to afair cross-section challenge brought under the Sixth Amendment, an equal protection claim must allege intentional discrimination by the jury selection system at issue. See id. ("The equal protection clause . . . condemns underrepresentation of minorities only if it is the product of intentional discrimination."); see also United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 659 (2d Cir. 1996). + +## III. The JSSA + +Finally, the JSSA sets forth the Nation's policy that: "all litigants in Federal court entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from afair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes." 28 U.S.C. § 1861. The Second Circuit has held that fair cross-section challenges brought under the JSSA must also be analyzed using the Sixth Amendment's Duren test. See United States v. LaChance, 788F.2d 856, 864 (2d Cir. 1986). Thus, if afair cross-section challenge fails under the Sixth Amendment, it also fails under the JSSA. See id ("[B]ecause the Duren test governs fair cross + +3 The Supreme Court has incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause into the Fifth Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954) + +section challenges under both the Act and the sixth amendment, our discussion of the statutory challenge also disposes of his constitutional claim."). + +In addition to fair cross-section claims, adefendant may also assert other violations of the JSSA if those violations constitute a"substantial failure to comply with its provisions." Id. at 870(cleaned up); , 2021 WL 431458, at \*4. "Mere technical violations" of the JSSA, however, are not actionable. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 864 (cleaned up). "Whether aviolation is substantial or merely technical depends upon the nature and extent of its effects on the wheels and venire from which adefendant's grand jury was derived." Id. (cleaned up). + +## ANALYSIS + +## I. Fair Cross-Section Challenge + +Because Schulte's fair cross-section claim arises under both the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA, he must meet the three-part test set forth under Duren. See LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870. + +The parties do not dispute that the first element under Duren has been satisfied. That element asks whether "the group alleged to be excluded is adistinctive group in the community." Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. Here, Schulte alleges that African American and Hispanic American jurors were unlawfully excluded from the jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 7.) These groups have been recognized as "distinctive" by the Second Circuit. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 ("Rioux has satisfied the first prong of the Duren test: Blacks and Hispanics arc unquestionably "distinctive" groups for the purposes of afair-cross-section analysis."); United States v. Barnes, 520 F. Supp.2d 510, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Schulte has therefore satisfied the first clement under Duren. The Court holds, however, that Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements of the Duren test. Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge must be rejected. + +#### A. Underrepresentation + +The second element under Duren examines whether the groups' representation "in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community." 439 U.S. at 364. To answer this question, however, the Court must first define the relevant variables, namely (a) the jury venire and (b) the community. + +### i. Relevant Jury Venire + +The parties dispute which jury pool ought to be used to analyze the Defendant's fair cross-section challenge. Schulte relies on United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 648, and contends that the Plains qualified wheel is the relevant jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 8.) The Government argues that the Plains wheel constitutes the appropriate jury venire. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 15.) The Court agrees with the Government. + +"Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the `relevant jury pool' with any specificity." United States v. Rioux, 930 F. Supp. 1558,1565 (D. Conn. 1995) (examining caselaw); see also 2021 WL 431458 (stating that the "Second Circuit has not stated a preference for the use of one wheel over the other"). In Rioux, for example, the Second Circuit observed that the "relevant jury pool may be defined by: (1) the list; (2) the qualified wheel; (3) the venires; or (4) acombination of the three." 97 F.3d at 655-56. Although the Rioux court did designate the qualified jury wheel as the relevant venire, see id., that conclusion only followed because the parties agreed "that the qualified wheel may serve as the relevant jury pool." Id. That is not the case here, so the Court finds Rioux to be of little impact. + +Instead, the Court concludes that the Plains wheel is the relevant jury venire. As noted by the Government (Gov't Opp. Br. at 16-18) several district courts within this circuit have defined the relevant jury pool with reference to "the systematic defect identified by the defendant." Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565-66; see 2021 WL 431458, \*5 (defining jury pool as both "the Plains= wheel and the Plains qualified wheel" because the defendants' allegations impacted both venires). Under that approach, the jury venire that bears the brunt of the defendant's allegations of systematic exclusion is determined to be the relevant jury pool. See 2021 WL 431458, \*5; Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565-66. Here, Schulte's allegations of systematic exclusion center almost entirely on the juror selection procedures for the Plains wheel.' See infra 15-1'7. Accordingly, the appropriate venire is the Plains wheel. + +#### ii. Relevant Community + +The most significant point of dispute between the parties is which counties constitute the relevant community. According to Schulte, the relevant community must be the counties that feed jurors to Manhattan because that is where his trial will be held. (Schulte Br. at 8; Schulte Reply at 3-5, ECF 454.) But the Government responds that the northern counties from which Plains draws jurors represent the relevant community. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 9-14, 18.) The Court agrees with the Government. + +As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the Southern District is not statutorily divided into discrete divisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. Rather, the statutory law prescribes one District that is composed of the following counties: Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester. See id. Yet, what the statutory law leaves + +For example, if Schulte had alleged that the juror questionnaire form displayed systematic exclusion, see supra 4 n. 1, then the qualified wheel would be the appropriate jury venire for comparison. Because he does not do that, the wheel must be the relevant venire. + +undivided, the District's Jury Plan can divide territorially in the interests of "an impartial trial, of economy and of lessening the burden of attendance." United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360, 364(2d Cir. 1948); see Jury Plan. Accordingly, the rationale justifying this territorial division is based on administrative feasibility. See-, 2021 WL 431458, at \*1. + +With this background in mind, the legal issue at hand becomes straightforward. The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995), frames the inquiry and supplies its answer. In Bahna, adefendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of various narcotics crimes in the Eastern District of New York's Brooklyn courthouse. Id at 20. But following his initial trial, the defendant was granted anew trial. Id. Saliently, the defendant's second trial occurred before adifferent judge and in adifferent venue—the Eastern District's Uniondale courthouse.5 Id. + +Of concern here, the defendant raised afair cross-section challenge following his second conviction. Id. at 23-24. Under the Eastern District's jury plan, the Brooklyn courthouse drew jurors from all of the counties within the Eastern District, while the Uniondale courthouse only drew from Nassau and Suffolk counties. See id at 24. Accordingly, the defendant argued that the Uniondale courthouse's jury wheel underrepresented African American and Hispanic American jurors in comparison to their demographics in the relevant community—which he alleged to be all of the counties making up the Eastern District. Id. + +The Second Circuit, however, rejected that reasoning and held that, "Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has + +5 The trial court stated that the reason for the transfer "was to accommodate trial congestion in the court's calendar during a period of judicial emergency in the Eastern District." Soares v. United States, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). + +been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Id. (emphasis added). And in applying this principle, the Bahna court concluded that the correct community was not the entire Eastern District, but the two counties—Nassau and Suffolk—comprising the Uniondale courthouse. Id. Thus because there was no underrepresentation shown between the Uniondale jury wheel (e.g. the jury venire) and the Uniondale counties (e.g. the community), the court rejected the defendant's fair cross-section challenge. Id. + +Just as Bahna rejected the proposition that the relevant community was the entire Eastern District, this Court also rejects Schulte's contention that the relevant community is the Manhattan counties or the entire District. See id. Because Schulte's grand jury venire was drawn from Plains, Bahna instructs the Court to "look to that division" as the relevant community in assessing his fair cross-section challenge. See id. The Court must therefore conclude that the Plains counties represent the relevant community. + +There is one caveat. The precursor to applying Bohm, of course, is that it must have been proper for the Government to have sought the Indictment from Plains. 68 F.3d at 24 ("Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.") (emphasis added). And on this issue, Schulte contends that the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from Plains "deviated from the established, court-tested, and constitutional practice of indicting defendants in the division in which the offenses allegedly occurred and in which the case will be tried." (Schulte Br. at 2.) This argument must be rejected for two reasons. + +First, the Court finds no persuasive or binding authority that supports the premise that the Government must indict defendants in the same courthouse as where the trial is scheduled to + +occur. Instead, it is well established in this circuit that the "Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed," United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22, 26 (2d Cir. 2013), and that a "jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district," Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918). It should come as no surprise then that adefendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.6 See Andrades, 507 F. App'x at 26; see also FED. R. Cium. P. 18 (stating that "the government must prosecute an offense in adistrict where the offense was committed"); cf. United States v. Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) ("[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements."). + +Second, the prevalence of this practice as well as the compelling justification for it in this case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, "it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse." (Gov't Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other inperson proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2-3. Thus, in considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's allegations that + +6 Because this case concerns the grand jury phase of criminal proceedings, the principles espoused in past precedents endorsing aflexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply afortiori in the grand jury context. + +the Government had engaged in "prosecutorial gamesmanship" and forum shopping by seeking the Indictment from Plains. Commonsense compels a contrary conclusion. + +Finally, Schulte cites United States v. l, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), for the proposition that the relevant community is "widely understood to mean the 'district or division where the trial will be held.' Id. at 334-35. The differing facts in , however, make that case distinguishable from the case at bar. + +In , the defendants moved to dismiss an indictment obtained from Plains on the ground that the fair cross-section requirement had been violated. Id at 333. In assessing that claim, the court defined the relevant community as Plains because that was "where the trial [was] to be held." Id. at 335. The key fact there, however, was that the defendants' grand and petit juries were both drawn from Plains, see id., which made it only logical to conclude that the Plains counties represented the relevant community. See id. at 334-35. But the circumstances here are quite different; Schulte's grand and petit juries derive from different courthouses in the District. Accordingly, this factual distinction precludes application of conclusion that the relevant community is "the district or division where the trial is to be held."7 See 21 F. Supp.2d at 334-35. Schulte's reliance on is misplaced. + +### iii. Underrepresentation Analysis + +Having determined the relevant jury venire and community, the underrepresentation analysis itself is clear-cut. The "primary approach used in this Circuit" is the absolute disparity method. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 514 (examining case law); seel., 2021 WL 431458, at + +7 Alternatively, even if is undistinguishable, the Court is bound to apply Bahna, which bears directly on this case and is a holding of the Second Circuit. + +\*8 ("The absolute disparity method, on the other hand, appears to be the preferred method for analyzing jury underrepresentation under the Sixth Amendment in the Second Circuit."). The Court win therefore analyze the underrepresentation inquiry using the absolute disparity method. + +The absolute disparity method measures the difference between the groups' representation in the relevant community and their representation in the jury venire. See Rioux, 97F.3d at 655-56. For example, if African Americans compose 10% of the community but only 5% of the jury venire, the absolute disparity is 5%. See id. Under Second Circuit precedents, absolute disparities nearly as high as 5% have not been found to satisfy the underrepresentation element under Duren. See United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677-78 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding absolute disparities of 3.6% and 4.7% were insufficient to satisfy Duren's second element); see also Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658 (1.58% and 2.14% were insufficient); 2021 WL 431458, \*8 (3.69% and 3.64% were insufficient); Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 515 (2.8% and 2.3% were insufficient). + +The Court holds that the absolute disparities here fall comfortably within the outer limits provided by these past decisions. The parties do not dispute that African Americans make up 11.20% and Hispanic Americans make up 12.97% of the Plains wheel. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 20.) In the relevant community. African Americans make up 12.45% and Hispanic Americans 14.12% of the jury eligible population. (Schulte Reply at 6-7; Gov't Opp. Br. at 18.) Accordingly, the absolute disparities are 1.25% for African Americans (12.45% - 11.20%) and 1.15% for Hispanic Americans (14.12% - 12.97%). Because those figures fall comfortably within the tolerated disparities in past precedents, the Court concludes that Schulte has not met + +the second element under Duren.8 439 U.S. at 364. + +### B. Systematic Exclusion + +Apart from the second Duren element, Schulte's fair cross-section challenge must also fail because he cannot meet the third element: systematic exclusion, which requires a showing that the "underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. + +In Rioux, the Second Circuit explained that there is "systematic exclusion when the underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces." 97 F.34 at 658. Under the external forces principle, outside causes of underrepresentation (such as "demographic changes") do not constitute systematic exclusion. M.; see, e.g., Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir. 19%) (per curiam) (jury selection process "drawn from voter registration lists" did not constitute systematic exclusion); United States v. Little Bear, 583 F.2d 211, 414-15 (8th Cir. 1978) ("inclement weather" in North Dakota that allegedly led to the underrepresentation of rural jurors was not systematic exclusion); United States v. , 2006 WL 278248, at \*3 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2006) (Hurricane Katrina's alleged disparate impact on potential African-American jurors was not systematic exclusion). The lion's share of Schulte's systematic exclusion allegations is foreclosed by this principle. + +First, Schulte contends that the Government systematically excluded African American and Hispanic American jurors by seeking the Indictment in Plains in lieu of the more racially diverse Manhattan community. (Schulte Br. at 2.) But the reason the Government + +8 Even if, as Schulte suggests, the Plains qualified wheel is used as the relevant jury venire, the absolute disparities would be 3.69% and 3.64%. (See Gov't Opp. Br. at 20.) Those statistics do not reflect Constitutional infirmities under Second Circuit teachings. + +proceeded this way was because of an external force: the COVED-19 pandemic and its substantial curtailment of in-person proceedings throughout the District. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658. This allegation therefore does not establish systematic exclusion. + +Second, Schulte argues that the Jury Plan's replenishment of the wheels only once every four years constitutes systematic exclusion. (Schulte Br. at 14.) According to Schulte, the four-year period causes addresses to grow "stale" as people move to new residences, and because African Americans and Hispanic Americans are, on average, younger and thus more likely to move, he argues that these groups are systematically excluded. (See id. 14-15.) But even granting the dubious premises that make up this deductive reasoning, the Court remains unpersuaded because, again, the true cause of the exclusion—younger people moving more often—is an external force, not a systematic defect inherent in the Jury Plan. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658(concluding that a jury system that led to undeliverable questionnaires did not constitute systematic exclusion). At bottom, the Court cannot charge the District's Jury Plan with aSixth Amendment violation because of how often people move residences throughout the District. + +Third, Schulte asserts that the Jury Plan's exclusive reliance on voter registration lists constitutes systematic exclusion. This claim, however, is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's decision in Schanbarger. See 77 F.3d at 1424 ("[A] jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of Equal protection."). + +Finally, Schulte alleges that the exclusion of "inactive voters" in certain counties within Plains constitutes systematic exclusion because African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be inactive voters. (Schulte Br. at 15.) But again, the cause of the alleged exclusion here (e.g. people moving) is an external force.9 Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658. + +Accordingly, this argument must be rejected under Riota.1° See id. + +In sum, Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements under Duren. + +Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and JSSA must be rejected. + +### II. Equal Protection Challenge + +Schulte next contends that the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors violates the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment. (Schulte Br. at 16-17.) As noted above, the Equal Protection clause forbids the exclusion of racial minorities from grand and petit juries. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 492. But to establish a prima facie violation of equal protection, Schulte must furnish "proof of discriminatory intent." United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677 (2d Cir. 1990). Because Schulte cannot make such a showing, his Equal Protection challenge fails. His only contention on this element is that the underrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanic Americans "cannot be the result of + +9 Under New York law, voters are designated "inactive" when a "County Board received information indicating that avoter may no longer be living at her address of registration." Common Cause/New York v. Brehm, 432 F. Supp.3d 285, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (examining New York voting law). + +19 The Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's remaining allegations of systematic exclusion, which are that (1) jurors drawn from the overlapping counties were ine uitably prorated between the two courthouses, and (2) atechnical glitch in the Plains wheel excluded jurors who had provided an alternative address when registering to vote. As to the former claim, Schulte has not shown that this alleged error caused the underrepresentation at issue. See-, 2021 WL 431458, at \*11 (finding same error to have had "minimal" effect on venires). And as to the latter claim, the parties concede that this glitch actually augmented, not diminished, African American and Hispanic American representation in the Plains wheel. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.) Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the third prong under Duren. + +chance." (Schulte Br. at 17.) But the Court will not assume or infer that this District has been operating under an intentionally discriminatory Jury Plan since 2009. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 659 (rejecting Equal Protection challenge due to lack of evidence showing intentional discrimination). Therefore, the Defendant's Equal Protection claim must be rejected. + +## III. JSSA + +Schulte's remaining claims arise under the JSSA. To succeed on these claims, he must demonstrate a "substantial failure to comply" with the JSSA's provisions. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870. "Mere technical violations of the procedures prescribed by the Act do not constitute substantial failure to comply with its provisions." Id. (cleaned up). The criteria for differentiating between a substantial and technical error turns on the "nature and extent of its effects[.1" Id. The Court holds that Schulte cannot demonstrate a substantial failure to comply with the JSSA and that his statutory claims must therefore be rejected." + +As an initial matter, Schulte repleads his Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenge under the JSSA. (Schulte Br. at 19.) But given that the Duren test governs fair cross-section challenges brought under both the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA, this claim must be dismissed for the reasons stated above. See supra 7-17. + +Apart from his fair cross-section challenge, Schulte also contends that the following defects constitute substantial violations of the JSSA: (1) the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from Plains and not Manhattan; (2) the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties located in the Plains array; (3) the allegedly erroneous proration of jurors + +I I To be sure, these arguments were already rejected by the Court under the systematic exclusion prong of the Sixth Amendment analysis. See supra 15-17. But because Schulte pleads these defects as separate violations of the JSSA, the Court conducts a separate analysis here. + +from the counties that overlap both courthouses; and (4) the clerical error by which voters who had registered with an alternate mailing address were excluded from jury selection. (Schulte Br. at 19 — 22; Schulte Reply at 11-15.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these allegations do not offend the JSSA. + +The Government's Decision. The Government's appropriate decision to seek the Indictment in Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA, and customary practice. See supra 11-13. Accordingly, this prosecutorial decision cannot be said to contravene the JSSA. + +Exclusion of Inactive Voters. In United States v. S 2021 WL 431458, at \*10, Judge Roman addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties used by Plains violated the JSSA. See id. Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not, reasoning that it is "entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have since moved," see id., and even if it did, that the defect was merely a "technical violation" of the JSSA. Id Because the Court agrees with this reasoning on all counts, it concludes that the exclusion of inactive voters here does not violate the JSSA. + +Erroneous Proration & Alternate Mailing Address. Lastly, Schulte argues that prospective jurors from the overlapping counties of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland were incorrectly prorated between the two courthouses, and that a technical glitch inadvertently excluded jurors who had registered to vote with alternate mailing addresses. (Schulte Br. at 21- 22; Schulte Reply at 13-14.) The Court is unpersuaded. As to the former contention, Schulte does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a "substantial" violation of the JSSA, especially where its "effect" appears to be "minimal." 2021 WL 431458, at \*11 (rejecting the same argument on the basis that it was merely a "technical violation of the JSSA"). As to the + +latter point, it is undisputed that the alternate mailing address defect actually led to an increase of representation of the very minority groups that Schulte contends were underrepresented. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.) Thus empiricism precludes the notion that the violation was "substantial" in nature. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870 (explaining that the inquiry for whether a violation is substantial is the "extent of its effect on the wheels"); see also M, 2021 WL 431458, at \*11 (rejecting same argument on the ground that it was merely a technical violation). In sum, the Court concludes that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. + +Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED March 24, 2021 + +gaid 4.449- PAUL A. CROTTY United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bed36eae1304dbcb4fcace6860db7d1daf638372 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658/EFTA02830658.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1265 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830658.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 20, + "chars": 37443, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.2, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.096, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 279.90838623046875, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 279.90838623046875, + 104.60302734375 + ], + [ + 66.096, + 104.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPINION & ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 358.02, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 480.0233459472656, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 480.0233459472656, + 228.35302734375 + ], + [ + 358.02, + 228.35302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 364.37060546875, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 364.37060546875, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 90.72 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 106.11000000000001 + ], + [ + 222.15737915039062, + 106.11000000000001 + ], + [ + 222.15737915039062, + 120.03509521484375 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 120.03509521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Motion to Dismiss", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 218.484, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 218.484, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 256.77 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The District's Jury Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.144, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.144, + 505.1630554199219 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 505.1630554199219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 357.7906799316406, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 357.7906799316406, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 145.8 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Sixth Amendment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 217.87199999999999, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 217.87199999999999, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 174.14999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Fifth Amendment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 147.42000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The JSSA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 178.81202697753906, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 178.81202697753906, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 451.1700000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 335.77947998046875, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 335.77947998046875, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 311.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Fair Cross-Section Challenge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 324.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 324.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 339.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Underrepresentation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.66504669189453, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 92.24114990234375 + ], + [ + 101.66504669189453, + 92.24114990234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Relevant Jury Venire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 174.42, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 324.97200000000004, + 229.6619873046875 + ], + [ + 174.42, + 229.6619873046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Relevant Community", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 326.196, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 326.196, + 339.14453125 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 339.14453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "iii. Underrepresentation Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 373.6917724609375, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 373.6917724609375, + 560.2168884277344 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 560.2168884277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Systematic Exclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 118.8333740234375 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 118.8333740234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Equal Protection Challenge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.14818572998047, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 266.832, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 266.832, + 228.8602294921875 + ], + [ + 86.14818572998047, + 228.8602294921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. JSSA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 85.06800000000001, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 157.49822998046875, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 157.49822998046875, + 202.10302734375 + ], + [ + 85.06800000000001, + 202.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 260.712, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 347.1802978515625, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 347.1802978515625, + 280.7335510253906 + ], + [ + 260.712, + 280.7335510253906 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 348 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 366 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 374 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 342 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 363 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 327 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 358 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 349 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 358 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 350 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 426 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 344 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 328 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 344 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 350 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 400 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830658" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24847a8472fa8a0f394ef0bf0f29bf1f8531b44f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SilvioJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +March 26, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Marvell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully writes to bring the Court's attention to a recent decision by Judge Crotty in United States v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), which is attached hereto as Exhibit I ("Schulte Op."). In that case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on November 16, 2020 (see 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), ECF No. 435), which was virtually identical in multiple respects to the January 25, 2021 motion to dismiss the indictment filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned case (see 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), ECF No. 126). Like Maxwell, the defendant in Schulte asserted, among other things, a claim under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that the indictment should be dismissed because the grand jury sitting in Plains unfairly underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals. Judge Crony rejected those claims in their entirety and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Crotty's thorough, wellreasoned decision supports the Government's position in this case. + +In particular, in assessing the defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, Judge Crotty found that: (1) the relevant jury pool is the Plains Wheel (Schulte Op. 8-9); (2) the relevant "community" is the Plains voting age population (Schulte Op. 9-11); (3) it was entirely proper for the Government to seek an indictment in Plains, despite the fact that the trial is likely to occur in Manhattan (Schulte Op. 11-13); and (4) the appropriate method of statistical comparison is the "absolute disparity" method (Schulte Op. 13-14). Judge Crotty therefore found that the defendant had not demonstrated substantial underrepresentation under the second prong of the standard set forth in Dunn v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1974). (Schulte Op. 13-15). Judge Crotty further found that the defendant's claim failed on Duren's third prong, as well, because the defendant had not established that any underrepresentation was the product of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. (Schulte Op. 15-17). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lan Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0558cc9fa1c8fe4de48d8c9930bf441bfd9033c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/EFTA02830678.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2610, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830678" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1ce7f935973ae600edcff169dbf5f093b9fe1a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830678/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1324b53ad6f6422cb69c763d68b29824903334b57c4846e94ea0916e994a2092 +size 3559 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ab9ce28190b7deefb58d1f134b8807c835ac87a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court sees no reason to maintain the redactions on Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's March 26, 2021 letter. Dkt. No. 183. Unless the Government indicates an objection to removing those redactions by March 29, 2021, BSF shall file the unredacted version on the docket on March 30, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: March 26, 2021 New York, New York g Air) + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52734d8e00059727c369abeab4c0cda85b8e1c5d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/EFTA02830680.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 607, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830680" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6ec880b0fb3cc8a1a4ec9ebfdb7caf018ac2692 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830680/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:919daee5084b4ff3e3bb2a3b4d677eef93876373198f4727826c44476ecccce9 +size 11351 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36be84369fd6b1201d5025e9d590657118d9ef22 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.md @@ -0,0 +1,296 @@ +ORIGINAL + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. A + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### COUNT ONE + +(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +#### OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 2004, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +### FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein. Additionally, between in or about 1994 and in or about 2004, MAXWELL was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor + +victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with a minor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel + +indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"). + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"). + +c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"). + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +6. Additionally, beginning at least in or about 2001, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit Epstein's Palm Beach Residence to engage in sex acts with Epstein, after which Epstein, MAXWELL, or another employee of Epstein's would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. Epstein and MAXWELL encouraged one or more of those victims to travel with Epstein with the intention that the victim engage in sex acts with Epstein. Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, Epstein, MAXWELL, and other Epstein employees also paid certain victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by Epstein. In this way, Epstein and MAXWELL created a network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit. + +7. Between at least in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Epstein encouraged and enticed one or more minor victims to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. Epstein's employees, including, at times, MAXWELL, would call a victim to schedule an appointment for the victim to massage Epstein at his Palm Beach Residence. MAXWELL placed at least some of those calls while with Epstein in + +Manhattan, New York. Epstein would often travel from New York to Florida, where he would then have the scheduled appointments. + +b. When a victim initially arrived at the Palm Beach Residence, she would be greeted by an employee of Epstein's, including, at times, MAXWELL. The victim would then be escorted to a room with a massage table. Once inside, the victim would provide a nude or semi-nude massage for EPSTEIN, who would himself typically be naked. During these encounters, EPSTEIN would escalate the nature and scope of the physical contact to include sex acts such as groping and direct and indirect contact with the victim's genitals. EPSTEIN would also typically masturbate during these encounters, ask the victim to touch him while he masturbated, and touch the victim's genitals with his hands or with sex toys. + +c. In connection with each sexual encounter, Epstein or one of his employees or associates, including, at times, MAXWELL, paid the victim in cash. Each victim was typically paid hundreds of dollars for each encounter. + +8. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, + +placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +# MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +9. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, Minor Victim-3, and Minor Victim-4. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the + +first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +d. Minor Victim-4 was recruited to provide Epstein with sexualized massages for which Minor Victim-4 was paid by Epstein and/or one of his associates, including, at + +times, MAXWELL, at the Palm Beach Residence beginning in or around 2001. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-4 at Epstein's Palm Beach Residence when Minor Victim-4 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-4 on multiple occasions at Epstein's Palm Beach Residence, knowing that Minor Victim-4 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 2001 and 2004, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-4 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. For example, MAXWELL asked Minor Victim-4 about her family and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL also sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, discussing sexual topics in front of Minor Victim-4 and being present when Minor Victim-4 was nude in the massage room of the Palm Beach Residence. On multiple occasions between approximately 2001 and 2004, Minor Victim-4 provided nude massages to Epstein at the Palm Beach Residence, during which Epstein engaged in multiple sex acts with Minor Victim-4. Epstein's employees, including at times MAXWELL, called Minor Victim-4, including from New York, to schedule appointments for Minor Victim-4 to massage Epstein. After each massage, Epstein or one of his employees, including at times MAXWELL, paid Minor Victim-4 hundreds of dollars in cash. At some point during this period, both Epstein and MAXWELL invited Minor Victim-4 to travel with Epstein and + +offered to assist Minor Victim-4 with obtaining a passport for purposes of such travel, but Minor Victim-4 declined the invitation. On multiple occasions between approximately 2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees, including at times MAXWELL, sent Minor Victim-4 gifts, including lingerie, from an address in Manhattan, New York to Minor Victim-4's residence in Florida. Epstein and MAXWELL each also encouraged Minor Victim-4 to recruit other young females to provide sexualized massages to Epstein. In response, Minor Victim-4 brought multiple females, including girls under the age of 18, to provide sexualized massages for Epstein at the Palm Beach Residence. On such occasions, both Minor Victim-4 and the girl she brought were paid hundreds of dollars in cash. + +# MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +10. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +#### STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +11. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey + +Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +12. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +# Overt Acts + +13. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +e. Between in or about 2001 and in or about 2002, when Minor Victim-4 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL and Epstein invited Minor Victim-4 to travel from Florida to a place outside of Florida with Epstein. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +# COUNT TWO + +# (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did + +persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +### COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +16. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +17. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +18. it was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 years in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +### Overt Acts + +19. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an + +unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +e. Between in or about 2001 and in or about 2002, when Minor Victim-4 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL and Epstein invited Minor Victim-4 to travel from Florida to a place outside of Florida with Epstein. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +# COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 years in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +## COUNT FIVE (Sex Trafficking Conspiracy) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. From at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, sex trafficking of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591(a) and (b). + +24. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain, by any means a person, and to benefit, + +financially and by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in any such act, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a) and (b)(2). + +### Overt Acts + +25. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein and MAXWELL recruited Minor Victim-4 to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN at the Palm Beach Residence, after which Epstein and, at times, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-4 with hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter. Minor Victim-4 truthfully told both Epstein and MAXWELL her age. + +b. Between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-4 to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein, which she did. + +c. Between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein's employees, including at times MAXWELL, sent Minor Victim-4 gifts, including lingerie, from an address in the Southern District of New York to Minor Victim-4's residence in + +Florida. For example, on one occasion in or about October of 2002, Epstein caused a package to be sent by Federal Express from an address in Manhattan to Minor Victim-4 in Florida. + +d. On multiple occasions between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein, MAXWELL, or one of Epstein's other employees called Minor Victim-4 to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-4 to April of 2004 and May called Minor Victim-4 massage Epstein. For example, in or about of 2004 another employee of Epstein's to schedule such appointments. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +# COUNT SIX (Sex Trafficking of a Minor) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +26. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +27. From at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, willfully and knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, did recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, and did aid and abet the same, to wit, MAXWELL recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, and obtained + +individuals who were less than 18 years old, including but not limited to Minor Victim-4, as described above, and who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with Jeffrey Epstein, and aided and abetted the same. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591(a), (b)(2), and 2.) + +### COUNT SEVEN (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +28. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +29. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +- Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. +- A. I don't know what you're talking about. +- Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? + +A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +# COUNT EIGHT (Perjury) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +30. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +31. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A: No, not that I recall. . . + +Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +- A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. +- Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? +- A. That is my testimony, that is correct. p • • +- Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? +- A. I have not given anyone a massage. Q• You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? +- A. That is my testimony. +- Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? +- A. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +#### FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS + +32. As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count Six of this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(c)(1), any property, real and personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to + +facilitate the commission of the offense alleged in Count Six, and any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense alleged in Count Six, or any property traceable to such property. + +## Substitute Asset Provision + +33. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: + +- (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; +- (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; +- (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; +- (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or +- (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; + +it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853(p) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594; Title 21, United States Code, Section 853; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.) + +FOREPERSON AUQ9I STRAUSS + +United States Attorney + +Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +(18 U.S.C. SS 371, 1591, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) + +> AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +(oreperson 7 • "••••••.... \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e40cf48085cf960612a0d7a8b398b51bd99916a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681/EFTA02830681.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1439 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830681.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 24, + "chars": 29807, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.18, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "COUNT ONE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 345.2435302734375, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 345.2435302734375, + 276.463134765625 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 276.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 272.34000000000003, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 341.8398132324219, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 341.8398132324219, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 272.34000000000003, + 356.4 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 377.7593688964844, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 377.7593688964844, + 248.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 248.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.026611328125, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.026611328125, + 167.713134765625 + ], + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 167.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 157.28400000000002, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 454.8283386230469, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 454.8283386230469, + 439.963134765625 + ], + [ + 157.28400000000002, + 439.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 616.41 + ], + [ + 386.1684265136719, + 616.41 + ], + [ + 386.1684265136719, + 628.9631195068359 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 628.9631195068359 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 348.0338134765625, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 348.0338134765625, + 412.963134765625 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 412.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 272.952, + 505.43999999999994 + ], + [ + 347.12835693359375, + 505.43999999999994 + ], + [ + 347.12835693359375, + 519.463134765625 + ], + [ + 272.952, + 519.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.38999938964844, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 541.0294189453125, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 541.0294189453125, + 533.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 81.38999938964844, + 533.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \n(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 480.66864013671875, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 480.66864013671875, + 386.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 386.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 289.98 + ], + [ + 347.2838134765625, + 289.98 + ], + [ + 347.2838134765625, + 303.4631652832031 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 303.4631652832031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to \nEngage in Criminal Sexual Activity)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 397.71 + ], + [ + 457.79864501953125, + 397.71 + ], + [ + 457.79864501953125, + 439.213134765625 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 439.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \n(Sex Trafficking Conspiracy)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 411.84051513671875, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 411.84051513671875, + 261.463134765625 + ], + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 261.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Overt Acts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 347.3961181640625, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 347.3961181640625, + 222.463134765625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 222.463134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \n(Sex Trafficking of a Minor)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 412.34149169921875, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 412.34149169921875, + 372.0931701660156 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 372.0931701660156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVEN \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.324, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.4963684082031, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.4963684082031, + 248.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 248.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHT \n(Perjury)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 352.5552062988281, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 352.5552062988281, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 182.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 390.6684265136719, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 390.6684265136719, + 575.7131195068359 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 575.7131195068359 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Substitute Asset Provision", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 406.3138427734375, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 406.3138427734375, + 224.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 224.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.89999999999998, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 416.6412658691406, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 416.6412658691406, + 237.9552001953125 + ], + [ + 198.89999999999998, + 237.9552001953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.036, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 398.9674072265625, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 398.9674072265625, + 280.7052001953125 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 280.7052001953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 391.40533447265625, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 391.40533447265625, + 405.9552001953125 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 405.9552001953125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830681" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..596cc02e8c8b67635d5183f1ca5b7710e17bca8d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SilvioJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +March 29, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government writes to notify the Court that today, a Grand Jury sitting in Manhattan returned a superseding indictment in the above-captioned case (the "S2 Indictment"): The Government respectfully submits this letter (1) to identify the differences between the charges contained in the S2 Indictment and the charges contained in the prior indictment, S 1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the "Si Indictment"); (2) to address the impact, if any, of the S2 Indictment on the status of discovery and other disclosures; and (3) to address the impact of the S2 Indictment on the currently pending motions. + +I The Government noted in its February 26, 2021 Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant's Pretrial Motions that its investigation remained ongoing and that the Government would seek a superseding indictment no later than three months prior to trial. At this juncture, while the Government's investigation is still ongoing, if trial remains set for July 12, 2021 as scheduled, then the Government does not intend to seek any further indictments in this case. To the extent the Government uncovers additional evidence that it may seek to introduce at trial, it will promptly disclose such evidence to the defense as either Rule 16 or Jencks Act material. Additionally, the Government remains cognizant that its Brady obligations remain ongoing and will promptly disclose any exculpatory evidence of which it becomes aware. + +#### I. Comparison of the Si Indictment and the S2 Indictment + +Count One of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to entice minors to travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as Count One of the SI Indictment. Whereas Count One of the SI Indictment alleged that this conspiracy lasted through in or about 1997, Count One of the S2 Indictment alleges that the conspiracy continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor Victim-4, who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004. + +Count Two of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Two of the SI Indictment and is unchanged. + +Count Three of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to transport minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as Count Three of the SI Indictment. Whereas Count Three of the Si Indictment alleged that this conspiracy lasted through in or about 1997, Count Three of the S2 Indictment alleges that the conspiracy continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor Victim-4, who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004. + +Count Four of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Four of the S 1 Indictment and is unchanged. + +Count Five of the S2 Indictment adds a new charge against the defendant. In particular, Count Five alleges that the defendant participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The S2 Indictment specifically identifies Minor Victim-4 as a victim of this conspiracy. + +Count Six of the S2 Indictment adds another new charge against the defendant. In particular, Count Six alleges that the defendant participated in the sex trafficking of a minor, and aided and abetted the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2. The S2 indictment specifically identifies Minor Victim-4 as the victim of this count. + +Count Seven of the S2 Indictment is identical to Count Five of the S I Indictment and is otherwise unchanged. + +Count Eight of the S2 Indictment is identical to Count Six of the SI Indictment and is otherwise unchanged. + +## II. Disclosures + +The Government has already produced to the defense all material that constitutes Rule 16 discovery related to the new allegations and charges contained in the S2 Indictment. In particular, the Government has from the outset approached its Rule 16 productions in this case as though the allegations covered a broader time period through at least 2005, rather than limiting those productions to the time period alleged in the SI Indictment (1994 to 1997). As a result, the Government has already produced to the defense all Rule 16 material relevant to the S2 Indictment of which it is aware in the Prosecution Team's possession. These Rule 16 materials included productions from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office"), the FBI New York Office, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. + +To assist the defense in preparing for trial on the new allegations contained in the S2 Indictment, today the Government provided the defense with Minor Victim-4's month and year of birth. Additionally, in order to aid the defense in its trial preparation and review of the discovery, + +today the Government provided the defense with a list of ranges within the discovery materials produced to date that are particularly relevant to Minor Victim-4. Although that list is not exhaustive and does not include every document that may be relevant to Minor Victim-4, it identifies key pieces of evidence regarding this victim. + +Additionally, in order to ensure that the defense has adequate time to prepare for trial, the Government intends to begin its production to the defense of non-testifying witness statements by April 12, 2021, approximately three months in advance of trial. This production will include the statements of more than 250 witnesses related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates in the Government's possession whom the Government does not currently expect to call to testify at trial. The Government is continuing to review its files for witness statements and will produce any additional non-testifying witness statements that come to light on a rolling basis as promptly as possible in advance of trial. + +Finally, given the expanded charges in the S2 Indictment, the Government is prepared to produce Jencks Act and Giglio material for witnesses it expects to call at trial six weeks, rather than four weeks, in advance of trial. These productions, together with the guidance provided to the defense today regarding discovery relating to Minor Victim-4, should provide ample time for the defense to prepare for trial and proceed as scheduled on July 12, 2021. + +# III. Motions + +In light of the new allegations and charges contained in the S2 Indictment, the Government will meet and confer with defense counsel to discuss whether defense counsel wishes to bring additional motions (or supplement existing motions) based on the S2 Indictment and, if so, to discuss a proposed schedule for any additional briefing. Although the S2 Indictment should have + +no impact on several of the defendant's motions, such as the motions to suppress (Motion 3 and Motion 11), the motion to dismiss the perjury counts (Motion 4), and the motion to strike allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 as surplusage (Motion 6), the Government does not anticipate objecting to any defense request to file supplemental briefing regarding any issue that is implicated by the S2 Indictment. The Government also notes that the S2 Indictment was returned by a grand jury sitting in Manhattan, rendering moot the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the use of a grand jury sitting in Plains (Motion 9). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..804726bab5c1cc4807bd36abd6e4f9e407be0958 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/EFTA02830705.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,336 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8023, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.94, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Comparison of the Si Indictment and the S2 Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 77.558837890625 + ], + [ + 434.1051330566406, + 77.558837890625 + ], + [ + 434.1051330566406, + 91.863037109375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 91.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 205.5493621826172, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 205.5493621826172, + 312.4335632324219 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 312.4335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Motions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 189.29612731933594, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 189.29612731933594, + 560.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 560.9830169677734 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830705" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..063ea86ed4ffe10714e7c6a3092d0c6f9854fee4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830705/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:06284769b7153e125c3603ae79f72f908046a739f3be93cc138eb918867037c7 +size 3563 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..421f97b5b464334183fdcaeaa4617971ea040d80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter responding to its March 18, 2021 order regarding redactions to its omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendant's twelve pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 170. + +As the Government now indicates, the information that the Defendant sought to redact on pages 129-134 of the brief is already part of the public record in this case. SI Superseding Indictment, Dkt. No. 17, at 16-17. Once information has become part of the public record, any interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate. See United States v. Nejad, No. 18-CR-224 (MN), 2021 WL 681427, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021); Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 10892081, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019). In light of this fact and because the Court has been provided no further explanation for the request to keep this redacted, the Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129- 134 of the Government's brief be unredacted. + +With respect to the proposed redactions to pages 118-119 and Exhibit II, the Court now understands that the parties seek redactions on the basis that the material has been maintained under seal in v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the presumption of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification, and must engage in its own + +analysis, to maintain that information under seal here. Each redaction should be specifically justified and tailored, taking into account whether the information (or comparable information) is already in the public record. + +By April 1, 2021, the parties must meet and confer and either submit to the Court justification for those redactions—beyond that it has been ordered redacted in the civil matter or. in the alternative, notify the Court that the parties are no longer seeking those redactions. If the parties disagree, they shall indicate their separate views in the joint letter. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: March 29, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..915297478b74365ca1f032935329bde40a005c0e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/EFTA02830710.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2268, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830710" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b5b5cd0741017cc87bad43cb6986ac31f220847 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830710/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4e478e603b938a67880c01e297c567c9ec5d5a181adc5711e180ba7b1d129f05 +size 11280 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9beff39593211fd8c367e7d9ff32ef3e843a579e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +March 29, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to clarify a statement in its prior letter to the Court in the above-referenced case dated October 7, 2020 (the "Letter"). (Dkt. No. 63). In the Letter, the Government stated, "The Prosecution Team in this case had no involvement in the Florida Investigation, which predated the instant investigation by approximately eight years." (Letter at 4). Although it is certainly correct that none of the individual prosecutors, agents, or investigators on the Prosecution Team had any involvement in the Florida Investigation, the Government writes to bring the following additional facts to the Court's attention. + +Recently, defense counsel brought to the Government's attention information suggesting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") New York Office may have participated in certain aspects of the Florida Investigation between 2005 and 2010. In response, the Government has rereviewed portions of its files, including portions of the file of the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office"), for documentation indicating that the FBI New York Office interacted with the FBI Florida Office or with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 29, 2021 Page 2 + +District of Florida during the course of the Florida Investigation. As a result of that review, the Government has learned that agents assigned to the FBI New York Office assisted the FBI Florida Office by contacting and interviewing or attempting to interview, at the direction of the FBI Florida Office, four witnesses in the New York area between approximately 2007 and 2008 during the Florida Investigation. These interviews, as noted, were done at the direction of the FBI Florida Office—no separate New York FBI investigation was opened at that time—and consistent with that, any notes or FBI 302s documenting the interviews were then kept in the FBI Florida Office file. The Government is not aware of any indication that the FBI New York Office had any involvement in presenting the Florida case to a grand jury, developing prosecutorial strategy, attending court proceedings, or making any charging decisions in the case. + +The Government understands that it is not uncommon for an FBI Field Office to provide this sort of ancillary support without becoming a part of the prosecution team. Indeed, it appears from the FBI Florida Office's file that the FBI Florida Office contacted numerous other FBI offices, including offices in New Mexico, Australia, and Colombia, to seek similar assistance. Those other FBI offices similarly had no apparent involvement in the case beyond assisting in contacting and interviewing witnesses in their regions. Providing such ancillary assistance does not convert an FBI field office into a member of a prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between U.S. Attorney's Office and SEC where the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other). + +Regardless, the Government has identified and produced additional materials to the defense reflecting interactions between the FBI New York Office and the FBI Florida Office during the Florida Investigation. Although the Government does not believe that these materials are + +Page 3 + +discoverable under Rule 16, it has nevertheless made this production as a courtesy in light of the defense's request. Additionally, and as indicated in the Letter, the Government has already obtained the FBI Florida Office's investigative file, reviewed it for disclosures in this case, and made productions to defense counsel pursuant to the Government's *Brady* and Rule 16 obligations from that file. The Government will continue to treat that file as part of the Prosecution Team's file and will make additional disclosures from that file pursuant to its *Giglio* and Jencks Act obligations to the defense. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS +United States Attorney + +![]()![]()Cc: *All counsel of record*, via ECF \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e90f63b1f702d12c9dfc45a77216fad90043228 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/EFTA02830712.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4571, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.01, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 320.076, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 320.076, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830712" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..381e6626519b154b79620d5eefdf7e256852ede1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830712/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bb9ea648f7ec6d569133a0c77d94868ea3b3778829e1a174da8dd03d55f105bc +size 3548 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f1806a15cae0e46171ed282c2fdf913f2f34b98 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smccawley@bsffip.com + +March 22, 2021 + +## VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER SEALI + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Rule 17 Subpoena to Boles Schiller Flexner LLP + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") with respect to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for an order authorizing a subpoena on BSF pursuant to Rule 17(cX3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (the "Subpoena") and the Court's March 12, 2021, Sealed and Ex Parte Order requiring BSF to file a letter indicating (1) whether service on BSF can be deemed adequate notice on victims whose personal or confidential information the Subpoena is aimed at obtaining and (2) whether the victims object to or seek modification of the Subpoena. + +First, BSF does not object to service on BSF constituting adequate notice on any victims it represents. The Order and Subpoena, however, do not indicate which victims are to be provided with notice. The Order states that the Defendant identified five individuals who require notice, but the Subpoena appears to seek personal and confidential information about all of the Epstein victims that BSF represents, which is more than five individuals. Thus, in an abundance of caution, BSF will notify each of the Epstein victims it represents, unless otherwise directed by the court. Second, BSF, both on its own behalf and behalf of the women that it represents, objects to the Subpoena in its entirety for the following reasons. + +## BACKGROUND + +The Government in this case has charged the Defendant with enticing (and conspiracy to entice) minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts and transportation of (and conspiracy to transport) minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity from 1994 to 1997. The facts underlying those charges involve three minor victims: Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. The Government has also charged the Defendant with two counts of perjury for lying under oath during a civil deposition in a defamation action brought by when asked if she was aware of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme and whethershe had ever given Minor Victim-2 a massage. BSF represents Minor Victim-2 ( ) and but does not represent and has never represented Minor Victim- I or Minor Victim-3. + +Defendant has made clear since the time of her arrest that she seeks to impugn the credibility of her accusers by constructing a false narrative that BSF's cooperation with the + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 2 of 7 + +Government prior to the arrest was somehow improper and that her accusers, several of whom BSF represents, are lying in order to obtain settlements. See Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 2-3, v. Damn K. Jndvke, et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 (accusing of "working during the pendency of this lawsuit with the Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney's Office to try to circumvent Ms. Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights in advance of the June 29, 2020 indictment"); id. at 3 ("The fact that II seeks, money from the Estate and from Ms. Maxwell, in the millions of dollars, at the same time she is a government witness in an upcoming criminal trial on the same topic is reason enough to suspect that her newly asserted memories of abuse—without corroboration—are not based on the truth or a desire for 'justice' so much as her desire for cash." (emphases in original)); Maxwell's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal at 4, 8-10, v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir. July 30, 2020), ECF No. 10-1 (explaining the Defendant's "concerns that ISF] were acting as either express or de facto agents of the government" and falsely accusing BSF of leaking a confidential deposition transcript to the Government). The Subpoena, which seeks, for example, communications between BSF and the Government and BSF's submissions on behalf of its clients to an independent claims program administered by Jeffrey Epstein's Estate, is a transparent attempt to further this false narrative and to fish for potential impeachment material. But a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material goes well beyond the scope of a permissible Rule 17(c) subpoena. The Defendant's motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied.' + +## THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C) + +Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule governs nonparty subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Rule 17(c) "was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698 (1974); see also, e.g., United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App'x 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2014) ("Rule 17 subpoenas are properly used to obtain admissible evidence, not as a substitute for discovery."); United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (explaining that although the civil rules permit subpoenas "to seek production of documents or other materials which, although not themselves admissible, could lead to admissible evidence," criminal "Rule 17(c) cannot be used to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant's case" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, a party seeking a Rule 17(c) subpoena must demonstrate: + +(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the + +A motion to quash the Subpoena is not yet ripe because, without having the benefit of the Defendant's sealed briefing on her motion and any other orders pertaining to it, it appears that the Court has not granted Defendant's motion for an order authorizing service of the Subpoena on BSF. The Court, however, should exercise its discretion and deny the Defendant's motion. See United States v. Weissman, No. 01 Cr. 529 (BSJ), 2002 WL 1467845, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2002) ("Rule 17(c) expressly commits the decision whether to require pre-trial production of documents to the sound discretion of the court."). Should the Court wish to hear further from BSF prior to deciding the Motion, BSF is prepared to appear before the Court and/or move to intervene and to quash the Subpoena. + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 3 of 7 + +party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition." + +Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. In other words, the proponent of a Rule 17(c) subpoena "must clear three hurdles: (I) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity." Id. at 700. Finally, "Rule 17(c) subpoenas may not issue prior to trial to obtain materials usable only to impeach." United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion to quash Rule 17(c) subpoena for all records relating to cooperating witnesses); see also Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 ("Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial."); Cherry, 876 F. Supp. at 553 ("[D]ocuments are not evidentiary for Rule 17(c) purposes if their use is limited to impeachment."). + +## THE SUBPOENA FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C) + +The Defendant cannot demonstrate that the Subpoena meets Rule I 7(c)'s requirements for four, independent reasons. First, the Subpoena is overbroad and non-specific, and a clear fishing expedition to "see what may turn up." See United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) (denying motion for issuance of Rule 17(c) subpoena). "Subpoenas seeking 'any and all' materials, without mention of 'specific admissible evidence,' justify the inference that the defense is engaging in the type of 'fishing expedition' prohibited by Nixon." United States v. Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 512-513 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (granting motion to quash Rule 17(c) subpoena). + +Here, the Subpoena plainly fails Nixon's specificity requirement. Requests I through 5 all seek "communications" between "You" and a designated individual or entity, including the U.S. Attorney and BSF's co-counsel, about a certain subject. The Subpoena defines "communications" as "all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind," and defines "You" as "any owner, shareholder, partner or employee of Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, including but not limited to David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Peter Skinner and any former owner, shareholder, partner or employee, or independent contractor of the firm." Such broad Requests are plainly overbroad and non-specific, and do not meet the strict requirements of Rule 17(c). See, e.g., Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d at 512-513 (quashing subpoena that requested "'any and all writings and records' related to the [police department's] contact with a particular confidential witness"); Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*3 (Nathan, J.) (holding that defendant's subpoena "for 'any and all' records associated with the Government's cooperating witnesses for an indefinite length of time takes an impermissible shotgun approach to Rule 17(c)"); United States v. Barnes, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) (quashing motion that "blindly seeks 'all' documents and records that fall into several categories for an approximate 23-month period rather than identifiable pieces of evidence" because "[s]uch a blanket request implicates all of the problems associated with a classic 'fishing expedition"'); United States v. Chen De Yian, No. 94 CR. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) (denying motion for Rule 17(c) subpoena seeking "all records .. . pertaining to any and all investigations" into charged murders, + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 4 of 7 + +because "the subpoena was not crafted to call for admissible evidence. Rather, it called for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition."). + +Similarly, Request 12 asks for "EVCP Material," which is defined as "any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients." This Request does not satisfy the Nixon standard—the Defendant is not a party or otherwise privy to what information BSF has submitted to the confidential Epstein Victim's Compensation Program or on behalf of which clients BSF has submitted such information. The Defendant cannot merely request every piece of confidential information that BSF submitted to the Program in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up. This Request thus cannot pass muster under Rule 17(c). + +Second, although BSF does not know what arguments the Defendant made in her ex pane motion, the documents and items requested in the Subpoena bear no apparent relevance to the Defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in this matter. And to the extent they would be relevant solely for impeachment purposes, or relevant but inadmissible, the Defendant cannot obtain them in advance of trial pursuant to Rule 17(c). Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700, 701. + +Request 1 seeks communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney about the Defendant from 2015 through the present, and Requests 3 through 5 seek communications between BSF and BSF's co-counsel from 2015 through the present regarding any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's office about the Defendant. But such communications are not relevant to the Government's allegations that the Defendant enticed minors to travel, and transported minors, to engage in sex acts between 1994 to 1997, nearly 20 years prior to any such communications. Nor do such communications bear any apparent relevance to whether the Defendant perjured herself in a civil deposition. If such communications are relevant, they are only relevant to the Defendant's false narrative that BSF somehow colluded with the Government—an allegation that could serve no other purpose than impeachment of the Government's potential witnesses. Request 8—seeking any grand jury subpoena issued to BSF for documents related to litigation concerning the Defendant—is similarly aimed at developing some ill-informed narrative of collusion between BSF and the Government, as the Defendant has on numerous occasions accused BSF of improperly providing the Government with confidential documents governed by a protective order in a separate civil matter. See, e.g., ECF No. 134 (Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by subpoena to what appears to be BSF).2 Even if these documents were relevant to anything other + +2Requests 3 through 5 also seek protected work product. Those Requests seek communications between BSF and its co-counsel in several matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Such communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Where a criminal defendant seeks to subpoena work product, the defendant can only overcome the privilege by demonstrating a "substantial need" for the requested items and that he "cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means." United States v. Weisberg, No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML, 2011 WL 1327689, at \*5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011). Given the marginal potential evidentiary value of the communications, the Defendant will be unable to demonstrate a substantial need for protected communications between BSF and its co-counsel. + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 5 of 7 + +than impeachment, many of them are procurable from the Government and are thus improper subjects of a Rule 17(c) subpoena, as explained below. + +Requests 2 through 5 also seek communications from 2015 through the present between BSF, its co-counsel, and the U.S. Attorney about Jean Luc Brunel, who is presently incarcerated in France on charges of sex crimes and is one of Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant's co-conspirators. But Brunel does not appear to be relevant to any of the Government's charges in the indictment in this case, and, again, communications from 2015 are not relevant to conduct that occurred between 1994 and 1997. The Defendant thus seeks these communications, too, so that she can fish for impeachment materials. + +Re nests 6 and 7 seek contin enc fee agreements or engagement letters between BSF and and her sister, . Such documents are irrelevant. The fact that the Farmers are represented, and the terms of their representation, is not relevant to whether the Defendant committed the crimes of which she is accused. Even the impeachment value of such documents is speculative. is not one of the minor victims described in the indictment, and thus may not be called to testify in this case. And in seeking to determine whether BSF has contingency fee arrangements with the Farmers, the Defendant appears to seek to establish some motive of BSF to drum up contingency fees by convincing women to falsely accuse the Defendant of criminal conduct. But BSF's motive for representing the Farmers would not be relevant to the Farmers' motives for testifying for the prosecution (if they testify). + +Request 9 seeks the original, complete copy of journal from when she was a teenager for inspection and copying. But all potentially relevant pages were produced from this journal to the Defendant in civil discovery in another matter, as demonstrated by the Defendant's ability to attach those pages as Exhibit A to the Subpoena. The remainder of the journal has nothing to do with the Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein. And the Defendant cannot inspect it for the purpose of fishing for something that could be potentially relevant—it is her burden to identify relevant and admissible evidence under Nixon. The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for impeachment purposes, as she highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action filed a ainst the Defendant. See Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 2, v. Darren K. Indyke, et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 ("[P]laintiff produced certain pages from a diary dated in early 1996 which detailed, only, that Jeffrey Epstein had held her hand in a movie theater in late 1995 which made her feel uncomfortable. This same diary contained exactly zero references to Ghislaine Maxwell, contrary to the assertions in her Complaint ...." (emphasis in original)). + +Request 12 for "EVCP Material" is not relevant to the Defendant's defense. BSF submitted claims and supporting evidence to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program on behalf of several Epstein survivors who have not made separate claims against Maxwell. The Defendant must demonstrate the relevance of all the evidence she seeks by means of a Rule 17(c) subpoena, not merely that she could turn up something that is relevant and admissible. See Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (Nathan, J.) ("Pena has failed to make the requisite showing regarding the admissibility of `any and all' other records regarding the cooperators that might exist at the MDC, MCC, or DOC."); United States v. Aguilar, No. CR 07-00030 SBA, 2008 WL 3182029, at \*6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008) ("Thus, while the Aguilars have sought some relevant evidence here, + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 6 of 7 + +they have not demonstrated the relevance of all of the evidence they seek."). The Defendant simply cannot demonstrate that all of the information submitted on behalf of all of BSF's clients would be relevant and admissible in this matter.; + +Further, the Defendant has made it clear that she seeks to use the "EVCP Material" for impeachment purposes. She has requested not only BSF's submissions to the Program, but also any releases signed by BSF's clients and any compensation received by BSF's clients. The Defendant alread attempted to obtain information about compensation by the Program in recently dismissed civil action against the Defendant. In the Defendant's submissions in that matter, she explicitly stated that she sought the information in order to impeach if she were to testify at her criminal trial: + +By contrast, there is substantial evidence that 1 1 and [BSF] filed this case with a serious ulterior motive to fabricate a story against Ms. Maxwell some 24 years after the fact. The motives include, but are not limited to, increasing the cash consideration that she might receive from the Epstein Victims Compensation Program ("EVCP"). . Just as a has a public right to make her false allegations in a lawsuit and in the news, so Ms. Maxwell should have the right to make public the simple fact that plaintiff did not have a desire for "justice," she had a desire for money... + +Second, as previously explained, has publicly self-identified as one of the accusers mentioned in the indictment in the criminal case, 20-cr-330 (MN). She will no doubt be one of the prosecution's key witnesses. The inability to obtain an unredacted copy of the release, including the consideration received b creates legal prejudice to Ms. Maxwell's ability to confront i during her criminal trial on general issues of bias and motive for fabrication, as is her right under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. + +Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Loma G. Schofield at 2-3, v. Darren K. Indyke, et aL, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21. 2021), ECF No. 114; see also Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 3, v. Darren K. Indyke, a aL, 19-cv-10475 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 ("Certainly, the amount of money that has been offered by the [EVCP] in exchange for her un-tested story will be an issue in the upcoming criminal trial when plaintiff takes the stand, for the first time, and faces cross-examination. . . . The motive for fabrication could not be clearer.").4 Thus, the "EVCP + +3Further, a Rule 17 subpoena may not be used to seek the prior statements of an anticipated trial witness. Rule 17 expressly prohibits a party from serving a subpoena for this purpose. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) ("No party may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule."). The claims submitted as part of the "EVCP Material" include statements made by potential witnesses. + +4Again, however, even the impeachment value of EVCP compensation determination is dubious. have received compensation after submitting a claim to the Program, but that does not show a potential motive for testifringjor the prosecution in this separate criminal action. + +March 22, 2021 + +Page 7 of 7 + +Material," which is clearly sought for impeachment purposes, is not a proper subject of a Rule I 7(c) subpoena. + +Third, certain of the documents that the Defendant seeks to obtain from BSF are "otherwise procurable" from the Government. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699 (documents requested pursuant to Rule 17(c) must not be "otherwise procurable" from another source). Requests 1 and 2 both seek communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney, which the Defendant can procure from the Government. Similarly, Request 8 seeks a Grand Jury Subpoena that was served on BSF by the Government itself, and that the Defendant can therefore procure from the Government. Thus, a Rule 17(c) subpoena to BSF for those documents is improper. See, e.g., United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("When `many' of the subpoenaed materials are obtainable through the discovery process, a subpoena contravenes Nixon's requirement that subpoenaed materials must not be otherwise procurable in advance of trial by the exercise of due diligence."); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (quashing a 17(c) subpoena where it was "likely that many of the documents that defendant seeks in his subpoena are obtainable from another source—the United States Attorney's Office—with little or no diligence required"). + +Finally, Requests 10 and 11 seek items that can be produced at trial if they are shown to be relevant and admissible. Re • uest 10 seeks a pair of cowboy boots that the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein purchased for copies of various photographs of for ins ction and copying. Request 11 seeks the on final when she was a teenager, of on Leslie Wexner's pro of on various of Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant's properties, and of Prince Andrew, and the Defendant in the Defendant's London townhome. Although the relevance of these items is minimal—the photographs, for example, do not appear to depict any conduct or event described in the indictment—the Defendant cannot show that she "cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial," which is an independent requirement under Nixon. 418 U.S. at 699. There is simply no reason why, if the Farmers and ultimately testify and if these items prove to be relevant and admissible, these items cannot be produced for inspection at trial. + +For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6c7899bdcd37c0960445a7f942ab9c073217296 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/EFTA02830715.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 23817, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.38, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER SEALI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 268.9336242675781, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 268.9336242675781, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 353.0194091796875, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 353.0194091796875, + 546.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 546.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 195.228, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 417.0666809082031, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 417.0666809082031, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE SUBPOENA FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 17(C)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 513.8167114257812, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 513.8167114257812, + 291.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 291.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830715" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6361d58c23f11242844dafd3acaa20d2676e6267 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830715/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c8a02a27bb99bf1a86893cb96a8bccd135b6e4c29a8b99df1ee71186d9068dcf +size 6914 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..023d5949671f737e04a359a30560dfef926f0d68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@srernhelmlaw.com + +March 31, 2021 + +United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +This week's filing of the second superseding indictment presents new and complicating issues. In addition to expanding a three-year conspiracy to 10 years, the government has added two serious charges that drastically change the focus of this case. That the government has made this move late in the game — with trial set for July 12th— is obvious tactical gamesmanship. Adding charges that were never launched against Jeffrey Epstein based on evidence that was in the government's possession for years is shocking, unfair, and an abuse of power. More than doubling the time period of the originally charged conspiracy from 1994 to 2004 (previously 1997) and alleging two distinctly different substantive counts requires: additional investigation; requests for additional discovery; the need to supplement pretrial motions that have fully briefed and are pending before the Court; and the drafting and filing of additional motions pertinent to + +the new indictment. Accordingly, a new briefing schedule is required. + +Even more concerning is the impact this late-breaking filing has on Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. Her liberty interests now clash with her right to effective assistance of counsel. The Court is aware of the extraordinary circumstances of Ms. Maxwell's detention, its deleterious effect on her health and well-being, and the realistic concern whether she will be strong enough to withstand the stress of trial. + +Counsel have not yet determined whether to formally move for a continuance. This decision is not an easy one. Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers have been diligently preparing for trial. However, the government's continued refusal to provide the most basic discovery — names of accusers — coupled with what amounts to a new indictment (after what was supposed to be the close of discovery and the resolution of very complicated legal issues) has effectively prevented trial preparation from moving forward in an orderly manner. Accordingly, we have requested an opportunity to confer with government counsel with the goal of clarifying the necessity of moving the trial date. + +To be clear, any such request will not be made from any desire of Ms. Maxwell to delay her trial but rests squarely on the government's late, tactical, expansion of this prosecution. + +At the initial appearance on July 14, 2020, the defense agreed to the July 12th trial date based on the government's representation that is would not file a superseding indictment: + +> The trial schedule that we are agreeing to, of course subject to the court's approval, assumes there will be no substantive superseding indictment. If there is one, which the government has advised us they don't believe is imminent or I assume not at all, we might have to come back to the court to address not just trial schedule but other schedule as welt + +July 14, 2020 Transcript at 16 -17 (emphasis added). + +In response, the Court made the following inquiry: + +Let me go ahead and ask, has made a representation but I will ask if you do anticipate at this time filing any further superseding indictments adding either defendants or additional charges? + +Id. at 17. + +The government confirmed: + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, our investigation remains ongoing, but at this point we do not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment. + +Id. + +Based on that representation, Ms. Maxwell accepted a July 12, 2021 trial date and her lawyers planned accordingly, postponing trials in other cases to preserve this high-priority date. It was only after considerable judicial and defense resources were expended that the government belatedly superseded, again, with no justifiable reason given the age of these allegations. The timing suggests that the decision to supersede was prompted by the filing of defense pretrial motions and government concern about the now-apparent weakness of its case. The government may be entitled to supersede but not when its decision disrupts the schedule set by the Court and relied on by Ms. Maxwell. This delay has a prejudicial effect on counsel's readiness for trial and Ms. Maxwell's prolonged detention. + +This is no longer the "two-week" trial as represented by the government. By adding charges that encompass dozens of additional witnesses, the government has unilaterally destroyed the possibility that this case can be completed in the time allotted. The continual media attention this case garners, in addition to podcasts, documentaries, books and the like, will likely require the bulk of that time to seat a fair and impartial July, provided that constitutional right can be guaranteed. + +Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a fair trial with effective assistance of counsel. If counsel feel that additional time is required to guarantee those constitutional rights, Ms. Maxwell will suffer the consequence by her continued detention. The Court has the power — and, indeed, the discretion — to accommodate this constitutional clash. Granting a continuance and releasing Ms. Maxwell on the most restrictive conditions of home detention. Surely, the Court can impose conditions that "clip her wings" and satisfy perceived flight concerns without keeping Ms. Maxwell locked in a BOP cage. + +As counsel has notified the government, Ms. Maxwell is requesting an in-person arraignment. She will not waive that right, most especially in light of media coverage and the debacle that occurred during a remote proceeding in a related civil case before Judge Preska. In addition, Ms. Maxwell is requesting a bail hearing at which witnesses will testify regarding the purported strength of the government's case. Further, we request that these proceedings be scheduled to coincide with an evidence review session at the U.S. Attorney's Office to be attended by Ms. Maxwell with counsel. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +&at C. Ste44.140. BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d62dd1e2f8218ad3e8a8ee32662cbb7eba56fa54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722/EFTA02830722.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830722.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 6239, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C.STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.614990234375, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.614990234375, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830722" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d0e67d617ab8ccbccfb2410c8b19485163ec83d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 4/2/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +An arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment and a status conference is hereby tentatively scheduled for April 16, 2021. As requested by the Defendant, the proceeding will take place in person. The Court is making logistical arrangements and will provide more information when it is available. + +The Government is ORDERED to respond to the issues raised in the Defendant's March 31, 2021 letter, Dkt. No. 192, by April 9, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 2, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78c18d86003a2555b1551aa8861d86b727904c19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725/EFTA02830725.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830725.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 875, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.46, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830725" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f3ef8ba9051f9036a75a484277260c278c5a579 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 5, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and r c Laura A. Menninger + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 NI 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com LMenninget@hmflaw.com + +Re: Unopposed Request for One-Week Continuance of Arraignment United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell writes to request that the arraignment of the S2 Indictment (Dkt. 193), tentatively scheduled for April 16, 2021, be calendared for April 23, 2021. The government does not oppose this request. + +At present, counsel for Ms. Maxwell has a conflict on April 16, 2021 in Colorado due to a currently-scheduled hearing that day. Additionally, other members of Ms. Maxwell's defense team have previously scheduled a review of the physical evidence the weeks of April 12 and 1911' in the courthouse and would prefer to complete that review prior to the arraignment. + +Counsel appreciates that an in-person arraignment requires some logistical arrangements which may be accommodated by the requested date. Further, the extra time will permit Ms. Maxwell's family members to adjust their schedules and make travel arrangements to attend the court proceedings. + +Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court hold the arraignment on the S2 Indictment on April 23, 2021, or such other date convenient to the Court during the week of + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 5, 2021 Page 2 + +April 19, 2021. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Laura A. Menninger + +CC: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..def9df5fddb9b2609f359700a5f4fdd85c663cc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/EFTA02830726.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1633, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830726" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bef39093591ad8ebb433dbe2eea1f712de0bc45 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830726/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:23661b3ad0ac4615315087143d4489c0e210795db1f7f824b4ec998546030da5 +size 6265 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..895aff6faa72a54f00285a8aa1359038066c09c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +April 5, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order of March 24, 2021, regarding the defendant's application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for records from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF"). For the reasons set forth herein, the Government respectfully requests that the Court ( I) direct the defendant to provide the Government with a copy of the proposed subpoena to BSF and notice of all existing and future applications for subpoenas under Rule 17(c) returnable in advance of trial, and (2) direct that any productions made in response to Rule 17(c) subpoenas be produced to the opposing party and marked confidential under the protective order. + +### I. Background + +As the Court is aware, the Government has produced to the defendant more than 2.7 million pages of discovery pursuant to the Government's various discovery obligations, including Rule 16. The parties are also in discussions about the timing of further productions by the Government, including material provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Giglio material. + +Those obligations, and not Rule 17 subpoenas, provide the avenue through which defendants in criminal cases obtain discovery. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[l]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure permitting the issuance of subpoenas to seek production of documents or materials which, although themselves not admissible, may lead to admissible evidence—the criminal rules do not authorize the issuance of such broad pretrial subpoenas under Rule 17. See United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); United States v. Gross, 24 F.R.D. 138, 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) (Rule 17(c) cannot be used "to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant's case. This type of discovery, permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has not been authorized for criminal trials."). + +The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to "expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of specific materials that the parties intend to offer into evidence. See United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19 Cr. 472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (citing Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 220 (1951)); see also United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that the rule "allows parties to subpoena documents and objects to be introduced at criminal trials"), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. 751 F. App'x 44, 46 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has explained that, to require production of materials pursuant to Rule 17(c), the party seeking production must show that: + +- (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise + +of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition." + +United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974) (footnote omitted); see United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 661 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming a decision to quash subpoenas through application of Nixon); United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (ANN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*1-\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the "more liberal standard" of United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena). + +The Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defense's "application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general 'fishing expedition."' Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700; United States v. Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) (quashing subpoena that "call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition"); United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence rather than a general 'fishing expedition' that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device." (emphasis added)). Indeed, because the Rule poses such a risk of abuse and misuse, courts are stringent in holding those seeking to obtain documents to Rule 17(e) to their burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are (1) relevant, (2) admissible, (3) specifically identified, and (4) not otherwise procurable, and it is "insufficient" for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or may be admissible," United States v. RW Prof! Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (emphasis added). "[A] mere hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant's case will not suffice. Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in + +evidence; it cannot be used as a device to gain understanding or explanation." United States v. Rich, No. 83 Cr. 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, subpoenas that call for "any" and "all" records "do not evince specificity" and "read[] like a discovery request, which is not permitted under Rule 17(c)." Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004 at \*3; see Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*3. And "[g]enerally the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) ("No party may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule."). + +If a subpoena calls for "personal or confidential information about a victim," the subpoena may be served "only by court order" following "notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). After a subpoena issues, "[t]he court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). "When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them." Id. + +# II. The Court Should Direct the Defendant to Provide Notice of Prior and Future Applications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government + +The Government has legitimate and cognizable interests in Rule 17(c) subpoenas issued by the defense. In particular, courts have routinely found that the Government has standing to move to quash Rule 17(c) subpoenas that target information about anticipated Government witnesses "based on the Government's 'interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment of the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility.'" United States v. Ray, -- F.R.D. --, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PICL), 1992 WL 296440, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 + +Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at \*2-\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("Preventing the undue harassment of a cooperating witness is a legitimate governmental interest giving rise to standing in this context."); cf United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (concluding that the Government failed to establish a legitimate interest where, among other things, none of the subpoenaed entities had been "publicly identified by the Government as trial witnesses, or as particularly vulnerable witnesses"). That is particularly true where the subpoena at issue seeks material that the defendants would be entitled to, if at all, as Giglio or 3500 material given that the Government has a cognizable interest in "controlling the timing of disclosures as to" witnesses who are expected to testify at trial, and for whom the Government has various disclosure obligations. United States v. I., No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021); see Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596, at \*3. Finally, the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas that call for its own communications. See United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (quashing a subpoena for communications with the Government).1 + +The only way for the Government to vindicate those interests is with notice so that the Government may, as appropriate, have an opportunity to quash the subpoenas. There is no avenue, after a subpoena is issued and fulfilled, for the Government to protect its interests in the timing of disclosures about victims or the disclosure of the Government's own communications. That is particularly important given that a subpoena recipient may lack sufficient knowledge about the + +The Government also has standing to challenge a Rule 17(c) subpoena at the request of a victim, witness or third-party impacted by the subpoena. See Ray, 2020 WL 6939677, at \*7 ("Courts have acknowledged that the Government has standing to challenge Rule 17(c) subpoenas directed to a non-party when the non-party authorizes the Government to assert his or her right by request or by indicating its joinder in a motion to quash." (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). + +case or motivation to move to quash an otherwise improper subpoena. 2 Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought to be issued under Rule 17(c).3 + +While, as the Court noted in its Order, Rule 17(c) subpoenas are frequently issued ex parte in this district, the issue is rarely litigated. See, e.g., United States v. States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting, without extended discussion, that subpoena had issued upon ex pane application); United States v. Earls, No. 03 Cr.0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004) (noting that the defendant may seek subpoenas ex parte). When courts have considered the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c) subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte. See United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (explaining that courts have permitted ex parte requests "where a reason existed for doing so," and requiring notice "[t]n further reduce the risk that trial will be delayed, unless a party has a compelling reason for proceeding ex pane with a subpoena request"), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. St 16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) (requiring motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas and permitting ex parte applications "if the movant can articulate a reason why it should be"); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (requiring noticed motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas to "assur[e] that such subpoenas are not abused or used for impermissible discovery," and permitting ex parte applications "where a + +2 For example, a financial institution may lack sufficient knowledge about the case or motivation to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena that broadly seeks financial records for a Government cooperator or lay witness to be used for impeachment purposes, notwithstanding the fact that such a subpoena may run afoul of the Nixon standard. + +3 The Government is not seeking notice of subpoenas returnable at trial. + +party can demonstrate" a basis (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Weisman, 01 Cr. 529 (BSJ), 2002 WL 1467845, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2002) (similar); see also United States v. Fox, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1012 & n.7 (D. Neb. 2003) (surveying the caselaw and adopting the "majority view" that Rule 17(c) "does not ordinarily permit the use of ex parte applications by the government or the defense for subpoenas seeking pretrial production of documents unless the sole purpose of seeking the documents is for use at trial," and even then, only if "there is a good trialrelated reason" and generally requiring production in the presence of the opposing party); 2 & Fed. Prac. & Procedure § 275 (4th ed.) ("It has been held, however, that in limited circumstances, both the government and a defendant may make an ex parte application for a pretrial subpoena duces tecum" (emphasis added)). But see Ray, 2020 WL 6939677 at ■8 **("Courts in this District have long followed the practice of** permitting both the defense and the Government to submit ex parte applications for Rule 17(c) subpoenas."); United States v. M, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (permitting ex parte applications because a party must "detail its trial strategy or witness list in order to convince a court that the subpoena satisfies the Nixon standards"). Notice of Rule 17(c) subpoenas is similarly appropriate in this case to prevent abuse and address objections expediently. And such a requirement is consistent with the plain language of Rule 17: while Rule 17(b) expressly provides for an ex parte procedure for indigent defendants seeking to subpoena a witness for trial, it makes no such provision for an application for the production of documents and objects pursuant to Rule 17(c).4 + +In Ray, the Court concluded that Rule 17(c) is simply an extension of Rules 17(a) and (b)'s provisions of subpoenas to witnesses, which may issue without notice. See 2020 WL 6939677, at \*8 (quoting United States v. Florack, 838 F. Supp. 77, 79 (W.D.N.Y. 1993)). However, Rule 17(c) subpoenas for records are quite unlike subpoenas for trial testimony: they can be made returnable before trial, and Rule 17(c)'s text provides that materials obtained pursuant to such a subpoena may be returnable to the Court, which may in turn "permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them," and subjects the subpoenas to motions to quash. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(cX1)-(2) + +Moreover, as the information currently available to the Government about the BSF subpoena makes plain, the Government's concerns are well founded. Indeed, the defendant has already sought issuance of a subpoena that appears to directly implicate the Government's interests by expressly and improperly seeking broad categories of victim information and communications with the Government. While the Government has not seen the subpoena to BSF, it also appears that the subpoena constitutes a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material, which plainly runs afoul of the Nixon test. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 2, Dkt. No. 191).5 Insofar as the defendant is attempting to engage in such an improper expedition in this case—or even if the defendant is merely pushing the limits of a Rule 17 subpoena—the Government respectfully submits that it should be afforded the opportunity to bring its concerns to the Court's attention. + +The Government recognizes that some information. such as portions of a defendant's explanation for why a particular request in a particular subpoena meets the Nixon standard, may reveal critical defense strategy meriting a parte consideration by the Court. But the Government respectfully submits that interest can be served through specific defense requests tailored to the particular redaction or application at issue, rather than a default whereby the defendant is permitted to proceed entirely ex parte in seeking documents and materials pursuant to Rule 17(c). + +(emphasis added); see United States v. M, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("Rules 17(a) and 17(b), which govern the issuance of subpoenas returnable at trial, also do not provide guidance as to the proper procedure for obtaining a pretrial subpoena duces tecum."). These procedures are, at a bare minimum, in tension with proceeding a pane or under the rules that govern subpoenas for trial testimony. + +5 The Government has also not seen any response filing by the defendant, which per the Court's March 24, 2021 Order was to be filed on or before April 2, 2021. To the extent the defendant did file such a response, it was neither docketed nor provided to the Government, and as such, the Government is unable to address herein any arguments made by the defendant about the BSF subpoena. + +### kit:k Records Obtained Pursuant to a Rule 17(c) Subpoena Should Be Marked ( on fiden t ia I Under the Protective Order and Produced to the Opposing Party + +Additionally, and to the extent the defendant has issued or will issue other subpoenas ex pane pursuant to Rule 17(c), the responsive records should be produced to the Government and marked confidential pursuant to the protective order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(cX1). + +First, materials gathered pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena by either party should be promptly made available to their adversary. As noted above, the text of Rule 17(c) plainly provides that materials obtained pursuant to a subpoena may be returned to the Court which "may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). Nowhere does the Rule provide for one party's ability to use a subpoena to secretively gather material in advance of trial, nor does it include a categorical exception due to concerns about defense or trial strategy. Indeed, because the purpose of Rule 17 is to obtain evidence for use at trial, and not to investigate for evidence or obtain impeachment material, disclosure of the fruits of a Rule 17(c) subpoena fits neatly with Rule 16's reciprocal obligations for disclosure of evidence that the defendant intends to introduce in her case-in-chief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)( I XA); United States v. St. , 16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) ("It seems to the Court that because Rule 17(c) subpoenas are intended to obtain specific materials that the party expects to offer into evidence, Rule 16 would oblige the party to make the materials available to the other side anyway.").6 + +By contrast, to the extent the defendant has improperly obtained information through a Rule 17(c) subpoena, the Government should have the opportunity to move to preclude its use at trial. In order to permit such a motion to be made in a timely manner—and so as to avoid the + +6 To the extent the Government makes use of Rule I 7(c) subpoenas, it similarly will promptly produce all material received to the defendant. + +unnecessary delay and disruption that will occur if the Government only learns of the existence of such material during trial—the Government seeks disclosure of any records obtained in response to such a subpoena. At a minimum, the Court should order production of subpoena returns directly to the Court, so it may screen out irrelevant or improper information and determine whether any materials should be made available to the Government as well as the defendant. + +Second, the Court should direct that any material obtained pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena be marked confidential and subject to the protective order. As noted above, the BSF subpoena appears to call for a substantial amount of sensitive personal information about victims. For instance, according to the letter from BSF, the subpoena to BSF requests the "original, complete copy" of a victim's diary. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 5, Dkt. No. 191). To the extent the defendant has obtained or will obtain sensitive information about victims or witnesses, it should be treated as "confidential" under the protective order much like other such information in this case. + +## IV. Conclusion + +The Government respectfully requests that the Court order the defendant to provide notice to the Government of pending and future applications for Rule 17(c) subpoenas returnable in advance of trial, and for the Court to order that any records obtained in response to Rule 17(c) subpoenas be treated as confidential under the protective order and disclosed to the Government. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be82f204d866c343ad05646616c354897ecc2e69 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/EFTA02830728.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,587 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 21298, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.65, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 209.96511840820312, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 209.96511840820312, + 569.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 569.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Court Should Direct the Defendant to Provide Notice of Prior and Future \nApplications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 491.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 491.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "kit:k Records Obtained Pursuant to a Rule 17(c) Subpoena Should Be Marked \n( on fiden t ia I Under the Protective Order and Produced to the Opposing Party", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 76.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 543.2901611328125, + 76.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 543.2901611328125, + 105.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 105.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 203.8949737548828, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 203.8949737548828, + 91.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 91.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830728" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8cb937b6b67397b81128ad793bbb8b1cc7222ed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830728/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:19ea9e74fb4f8e8022ecb224e1b501befacc671281f92b2816f698db453e216f +size 3596 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..273ece807b4bc9cccebbf742336e874132db8b5f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The 511110 Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 6, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel regarding the conditions of the defendant's confinement over the last two months. + +The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to both a desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys.' This discovery review + +Per BOP policy, all inmate emails are routinely purged every six months. In response to complaints from the defendant and defense counsel regarding prematurely deleted emails, MDC staff examined the defendant's inmate email account. That examination revealed that the defendant had herself deleted some of her emails and had archived others. That examination revealed no evidence to suggest that MDC staff deleted any of the defendant's emails. + +takes place in a day room that is separate from the defendant's isolation cell. Accordingly, the defendant is permitted out of her cell from lam to 8pm every day. While in the day room, the defendant has exclusive access to the MDC desktop computer, the laptop, a television, a phone on which to place social or attorney calls, and a shower. The defendant is also permitted outdoor recreation every day, although she has the option of declining such recreation time if she wishes. + +The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Currently, the defendant receives five hours of videoteleconference ("VTC") calls with her counsel every weekday, for a total of 25 hours of attorney VTC calls per week. At times, unexpected incidents, such as institution-wide lockdowns or short staffing, delay the defendant's arrival to her VTC call with counsel by up to 30 minutes. When such delay occurs, however, the MDC permits the defendant to make up for any missed time either by extending that day's VTC call or by permitting the defendant extra time on the next day's VTC call. All of these VTC calls take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. During these VTC calls, MDC staff place a camera approximately 30 feet away from the door to the room where the defendant conducts the VTC calls. The camera has a full view of the door to the VTC room, but the camera cannot view either the defendant or her attorneys while the door is closed during VTC calls. The camera does not capture any sound from the defendant's VTC calls with her attorneys. In other words, the camera records who enters and exits the VTC room, but it does not record activity inside the VTC room. The defendant is also permitted to use the phone in the day room to place phone calls to her attorneys as needed. + +In addition, defense counsel now have the option of meeting with the defendant in person at the MDC. On or about February 16, 2021, the MDC resumed in-person visitation. As a result, + +in-person attorney visits are now available seven days per week. The MDC has placed HEM air filters in its attorney visiting rooms to improve air quality during visits. Additionally, the defendant has received the COVID-19 vaccine and is now fully vaccinated. The Government understands that defense counsel have thus far declined to meet with the defendant in person and instead rely on VTC calls, email, and supplemental phone calls to communicate with their client. The option of in-person visits remains available seven days per week should defense counsel wish to meet with the defendant in person. + +The defendant's legal mail is processed in the same manner as mail for all other inmates at the MDC. All inmate mail is sent to the MDC's mail room, where every piece of mail is processed before being provided to the inmate recipient. Due to the large number of MDC inmates and the volume of mail received at the MDC, this process can take multiple days. As noted above, however, the defendant is able to send and receive emails with defense counsel every day and has regular communication with counsel via VTC, which can be supplemented by phone calls. + +Like any other inmate, the defendant is patted down by MDC staff whenever she is moved to a different part of the facility. Typically, these searches include at least two pat-down searches of the defendant per day: once when she is moved from her isolation cell to the day room each morning, and once when returns from the day room to her isolation cell each night. In addition, when the defendant elects to attend outdoor recreation, she is searched two additional times: once when she is moved to the recreation area, and once when she returns to the day room from the recreation area. MDC staff also conduct a body scan, which is a non-invasive machine scan, on the defendant once per week to check for any secreted contraband. Because those scans take place in a different part of the facility than the day room, the defendant is patted down two additional times when these weekly scans occur: once when she is moved to the scan area, and once when + +she returns to the day room from the scan area. As part of every pat-down search, the defendant is required to remove her mask and open her mouth briefly so that MDC staff, who remain masked during the searches, can confirm she has not hidden contraband in her mouth.2 These pat-down and mouth searches are consistent with MDC's policy that all inmates be searched whenever they move to a different location within the jail facility. In the absence of in-person visitation, the defendant has not been strip searched. If the defendant receives in-person visits, then she, like all other inmates, will be strip searched after any in-person visit. + +In addition, MDC staff search the defendant's cell for contraband once per day. At night, MDC staff are required to confirm every fifteen minutes that the defendant is not in distress. To do so, every fifteen minutes, staff point a flashlight to the concrete ceiling of the defendant's cell to illuminate the cell sufficiently to confirm that the defendant is breathing. At night, MDC staff have observed that the defendant wears an eye mask when she sleeps, limiting the disturbance caused by the flashlight. Additionally, MDC staff have observed that the defendant regularly sleeps through these nighttime wellness checks. The MDC continues to be of the view that all of these searches are necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant. + +The Government also inquired regarding certain complaints defense counsel raised in February 2021 regarding the defendant's food, water, and physical wellbeing. In response, MDC + +2 Following defense counsel's complaint in its February 16, 2021 letter of an inappropriately conducted pat-down search, the MDC conducted an investigation and found that, contrary to the defendant's claim, the search in question was in fact recorded in full by a handheld camera. After reviewing the camera footage, the MDC concluded that the search was conducted appropriately and the defendant's complaint about that incident was unfounded. MDC legal counsel further confirmed that all pat-down searches of the defendant are video recorded. Following this incident, MDC staff directed the defendant to clean her cell because it had become very dirty. Among other things, MDC staff noted that the defendant frequently did not flush her toilet after using it, which caused the cell to smell. In addition, the defendant had not cleaned her cell in some time, causing the cell to become increasingly dirty. MDC staff directed the defendant to clean her cell in response to the smell and the dirtiness, not as retaliation for complaining about a particular search. + +legal counsel informed the Government that the defendant's meals arrive in containers that are both microwavable and oven safe. Currently, the defendant's meals are heated in a thermal oven. The tap water available in the MDC is provided by New York City. As a result, on occasions when the City has conducted maintenance near the MDC, the water has been temporarily shut off. During those periods, MDC staff have provided all inmates, including the defendant, with bottled water. After the water is turned back on, the water is sometimes cloudy or and needs to run for several seconds before becoming clear. MDC staff have not observed any instance in which the water in the defendant's cell did not clear after being run for several seconds. MDC legal counsel emphasized that MDC staff, including the legal staff, drink the same tap water from the same water system as the defendant while in the institution. + +MDC medical staff monitor the defendant daily and weigh the defendant at least once per week. During her time at the MDC, the defendant's weight has fluctuated between the 130s and the I 40s. The defendant's lowest observed weight was 133 pounds in July of 2021. Since then, her weight has fluctuated but has never been lower than 134 pounds. Most recently, when the defendant was weighed last week, her weight was 137.5 pounds. The defendant is 5' 7", meaning that even her lowest weight of 133 pounds resulted in a BMI of 20.8, which is considered a normal weight for a person of the defendant's height. MDC staff have not observed the defendant experience any noticeable hair loss. As noted above, the defendant has received a COVID- I 9 vaccine and is now fully vaccinated. In short, MDC medical staff assess that the defendant is physically healthy. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic. the Government will promptly provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: — Th• + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9d74fafae7335553cfcff1c9cff98e13a733d62 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/EFTA02830739.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 10842, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830739" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6adc2d3125ae232cc650710423df5ba2ee8c3cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830739/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d612f8262fb271a91e2271b191923d11749de64b5547d8c046239333969a7667 +size 3486 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cb726e29c75aa060a28e093aa4b4335248e6b65 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +April 7, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The government's letter of April e is yet another regurgitation of its previous letters regarding Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. No matter how often the government tries to present Ms. Maxwell's detention as superior to other inmates, it continues to miss the mark. We stand by our previous responses and reiterate that Ms. Maxwell's detention is unwarranted and overly restrictive. It is tantamount to "pay-it-forward" punishment served pretrial. + +The government's letter provides the opportunity to flush out the persistent unsanitary conditions at the MDC, which long predate Ms. Maxwell's detention. This past weekend there was a pervasive stench of sewage in Ms. Maxwell's unit necessitating guards to flush pipes by pouring water down open drains in an effort to trap and disperse gaseous emissions. As guards explained to Ms. Maxwell, there are three drains in the day area, and when the plumbing system goes unused, gases escape from the drains and cause the stench. At times the stench in Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell has been overwhelming due to overflowing of toilets in the cellblock above. Due to lack of privacy, Ms. Maxwell refrains from using the toilet in the isolation cell and, as directed by the guards, she flushes frequently to avoid plumbing problems. At times, the stench is apparent upon entering the visiting area. Of the many defense counsel who visit + +regularly, I challenge the government to identify anyone that would risk their health by drinking the tap water. Even the guards resort to drinking bottled water. + +Blaming Ms. Maxwell for the filth of her severely restricted environment is utterly misplaced. To suggest she willingly lives in squalor is absurd. In an effort to wield power, the guards use cleaning as a punishment. The MDC - especially the East Building where Ms. Maxwell is held— is permeated with mold and vermin. Cockroaches and rodents are plentiful and glue tracks have been placed in Ms. Maxwell's day area to help remediate the problem. + +While HEPA filters may improve the safety of the legal visiting rooms — characterized by an HVAC inspector as "a death trap" — in-person visiting with Ms. Maxwell is uncomfortable and unproductive. Relegated to a small "fishbowl" where chairs abut walls and a table, with no room in between, Ms. Maxwell and counsel are forced to wedge their bodies into chairs. There is no opportunity to view electronic discovery or exchange documents; and speaking while wearing a face mask while crammed on either side of a plexiglass divider under surveillance of three guards and a handheld camera places a chill on any free exchange of confidential information. While video conferencing has facilitated on-going communication between Ms. Maxwell and counsel, her request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied. + +Ms. Maxwell's health is deteriorating. She has not experienced sunshine and fresh air for the past eight months. Referring to an interior gated pen where Ms. Maxwell can exercise (and be subjected to even more searches) as the "outside" is a misnomer. Barely a breeze permeates that area. + +Medical staff monitor Ms. Maxwell's health by recording her weight in her medical chart. Guards declined Ms. Maxwell's request to know her weight, claiming they cannot look it up because it is part of her medical record, which is protected by the American Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Health Information Policy (HIPAA). She is weighed while clothed on scales that are erratic and not set to zero; on at least one occasion, the scale was set above five pounds. Her eyesight is failing, and her hair is thinning. The guards are far from qualified to assess Ms. Maxwell's physical condition. + +Releasing any inmate's medical information (i.e., weight, vaccinations, etc.) without inmate consent is a HIPAA violation. By releasing Maxwell, the MDC has violated HIPAA, a privacy breach compounded by the government's letter. Requesting medical attention puts Ms. Maxwell's privacy and HIPAA rights at risk. We request that the Court order the MDC to cease releasing Ms. Maxwell's health information. Breach aside, such information falls within the "caution" category identified in Your Honor's Individual Practice in Criminal Cases (see 8D (Redactions)). The government, ever protective of sensitive items of discovery that relate to the alleged victims, should exhibit the same concern for Ms. Maxwell's right to privacy. + +The incident of physical abuse which occurred when Ms. Maxwell was shoved into her isolation cell to be searched was previously reported to MDC Legal and the Court and investigated within the facility. The guard responsible for the abuse is a member of a rotating team that has been the subject of complaint, yet some members were reassigned to Ms. Maxwell for the past two weeks. The incident at issue occurred when Ms. Maxwell was facing forward in front of an officer whose back was in front of the handheld camera. On information and belief, the camera was not recording at that time. The government disputes Ms. Maxwell's claim by citing a video. We request that the Court direct the government to provide defense counsel with that video. In response to any misconduct of guards, the standard reply is that "the matter will be taken seriously," and just like the majority of complaints filed by inmates, the facility refuses to provide results of this and other inquiries. + +The mail and food issues persist. Even a Federal Express envelope from the government was not given to Ms. Maxwell until two weeks after it was sent, containing a discovery disc that was unreadable. In mid-March, she received a copy of the New York Times issued in October. Any claim that Ms. Maxwell deletes CorrLinIcs emails, which is disputed, does little to erase the fact that the MDC violated its own policy by prematurely deleting Ms. Maxwell's legal emails. That her food is not heated in a thermal oven does little to explain why she was given a salad containing mold earlier this week. + +Ms. Maxwell does not have an eye mask; she's not even provided a suitable face mask. She covers her eyes with a towel to shield them from glaring overhead lighting that she cannot turn off and from flashlights pointed into her cell every 15 minutes during the night. That Ms. Maxwell chooses not to respond to guards during the nighttime is no indication that she is engaged in restful sleep; rather, it's a respite from having to engage with them. + +No amount of gloss put on Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement can erase the fact that she remains in de facto solitary confinement, over-managed by multiple guards, and surveilled by multiple cameras 24 hours per day. The computer equipment provided remains inadequate to review the millions of pages of discovery under circumstances that are not conducive to preparing for trial. It is unreasonable to believe that not being able to search, mark, save, and print is sufficient to prepare this document-laden case for trial. The Court need only imagine how the government would respond if this was a 25-year-old document-driven fraud case. + +The Court's request for updates concerning Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement does little to improve her situation. Quite the contrary. The government's update letters are anything but helpful: They fuel media attention which resounds to Ms. Maxwell's detriment. The government's attempt to publicly embarrass and humiliate Ms. Maxwell in the hostile court of public opinion further erodes the likelihood that her case will be tried by a fair and impartial jury. The government's review of the MDC may be Yelp-worthy, but it does not justify Ms. Maxwell's inappropriate detention. If the government wants to compare Ms. Maxwell to other defendants, it should do the right thing and consent to bail. + +It is debatable whether the public has a "right to know" about Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement, but clearly, it does not extend to personal and medical information. The government safeguards personal information regarding its witnesses and is reluctant to release any unless mandated by statute or court order. Yet the government fails to accord Ms. Maxwell the same treatment. + +Should the Court request further updates from the government, we request that they be limited to changed circumstances and filed under seal or subject to appropriate redaction. + +Very truly yours, + +gitta a. 5.1444142,0% BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe595e08d9859f224badc8fc7f7f13417b32fb13 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745/EFTA02830745.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,222 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830745.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8841, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830745" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f21a652cb4fecc51cc9c8e62a6466bc7793451e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_121.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Defendant's request to adjourn the arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 194. The arraignment is RE-SCHEDULED to occur on April 23, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. It will take place at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 24B, New York, NY 10007. + +It is ORDERED that the parties ensure that all participants comply with the Southern District of New York's COVID-19-related orders that govern entry into and behavior within SDNY courthouses. These materials may be found at: . + +Court staff are working on the logistical arrangements related to public access (including a public dial-in number), and as soon as that information is available it will be provided in a public order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 8, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da137a43649aa43baa46dd4b7cc85b29fe85e1ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/EFTA02830750.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1108, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.15, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_121.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830750" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/_page_0_Picture_121.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/_page_0_Picture_121.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a40dd70fc5b2725e0d1cbd54ec4cf2639e6d8a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830750/_page_0_Picture_121.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b0b57cc06a8533910fa4da549f37d3d78712f1ee190a9d2ecd3f6bf2542871bf +size 10323 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e15f24b72e3d4791207a046b867c2e0787e0967 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +April 9, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defense letter dated March 31, 2021 (Dkt. No. 192), and pursuant to the Court's Order dated April 2, 2021 (Dkt. No. 193). As set forth below, the timing of superseding indictment S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the "S2 Indictment") was dictated by developments in the Government's ongoing investigation, not the nefarious motivations suggested by the defense. Although trial may be modestly longer as a result, the S2 Indictment by no means opens the floodgate of witnesses the defense imagines; to the contrary, the Government expects to present a streamlined case focusing primarily on the four minor victims referenced in the S2 Indictment. Moreover, the Government has already taken, and will continue to take, steps to ensure that the defense will be fully prepared for trial as scheduled in July. Accordingly, the Government would oppose any request for an adjournment of trial. Finally, the addition of new charges, supported by even more evidence, in no way warrants reconsideration of this Court's three prior orders denying the defendant bail. + +First, the Government obtained the S2 Indictment based on new evidence that was not available to it at the time the defendant was indicted in 2020 or at the time Jeffrey Epstein was indicted in 2019. Specifically, although Minor Victim-4 had previously been interviewed once in + +or about 2007 during the Florida Investigation, as the defendant will be able to confirm for herself upon receipt of Jencks Act material, Minor Victim-4 did not agree to be interviewed by the Government until July 2020. The Government then conducted two preliminary interviews with Minor Victim-4 by video teleconference in the summer of 2020. Because of the difficult nature of the interview topics, however, the Government was not able to fully debrief Minor Victim-4 over video. Due to travel constraints and safety concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government was unable to travel to meet with Minor Victim-4. who resides more than a day's drive away from New York, until January 2021. The Government then conducted multiple inperson interviews with Minor Victim-4, which concluded near the end of January 2021. Over the next two months, the Government worked expeditiously to conduct additional investigation to corroborate Minor Victim-4, including by interviewing additional witnesses, reviewing documents that had already been produced to the defense in discovery, and subpoenaing additional records, which the Government promptly produced to the defense upon receipt. After taking those investigative steps, the Government completed the necessary internal processes to prepare a superseding indictment, which it presented to the grand jury in late March, or approximately two months after concluding its debriefing of Minor Victim-4. + +Simply put, the S2 Indictment was brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the additional charges. The suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the S2 Indictment to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact.' Nor is there any merit to the defense's equally baseless suggestions that the Government + +' The defense's implication that the S2 Indictment somehow reflects an acknowledgment of the strength of the defense's pretrial motions is similarly baseless and entirely illogical. Were that the case, and if the Government could have (as the defense incorrectly speculates) obtained this indictment any time it wished, then it would make far more sense for the Government to obtain the S2 Indictment in the first place or, at bare minimum, immediately upon receiving the defense + +somehow misled the defendant or the Court as to its intentions. The Government was accurate in its representation at the July 14, 2020 initial appearance in this case both that the Government's "investigation remain[ed] ongoing" and that the Government "d[id] not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment." (July 14, 2020 Tr. at 17 (emphasis added)). Both statements were entirely accurate. At the time of the initial appearance in this case, the Government had not yet interviewed Minor Victim-4, so it had no way of anticipating that it would develop evidence warranting a new charging instrument. However, both at that appearance and in subsequent communications with the Court, the Government repeatedly noted that its investigation remained ongoing, and, more recently, when the Government did have some reason to believe that it might be able to seek a superseding indictment, it signaled as much in its February 26, 2021 opposition to the defense's pretrial motions. (See Gov't Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. Pretrial Mots. at 3 n.1 ("As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's coconspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial.")). Consistent with that representation, the Government obtained the S2 Indictment more than three months before the July 12, 2021 trial date. + +motions and before its response was due. In such a world, it would make no sense for the Government to spend weeks preparing a more than 200-page response to those motions if the Government could have instead just obtained a new indictment. The defense's conspiracy theories aside, the Government vigorously opposed the defense's pretrial motions because, in its view, they are all meritless. At the same time, the Government was conducting an investigation into additional criminal conduct by the defendant, and it charged her with that conduct as expeditiously as the investigation would permit. + +Second, the Government does not expect the S2 Indictment to have a significant effect on the overall length of the trial, because the Government remains committed to a streamlined presentation of evidence that primarily focuses on the experiences of the specific minor victims referenced in the indictment. While the Government expects to call a number of additional witnesses as a result of the new allegations contained in the S2 Indictment, including, of course, Minor Victim-4, the Government's overall estimation of the trial length has not significantly changed. In particular, at the July 14, 2020 conference, the Government estimated that "its case in chief would take no more than two weeks," but "propose[d] blocking three weeks for trial" in total. (July 14, 2020 Tr. at 20). Given the need to call additional witnesses, the Government now estimates that its case-in-chief will now take up to three weeks.2 Accordingly, the Government would propose reserving four weeks for trial in this matter. + +The Government further proposes that if the length of the trial is of concern, the Court may wish to conduct jury selection during the week of July 6, 2021 and/or make use of a jury questionnaire, so that a jury can be seated and the trial can proceed immediately on July 12, 2021. Such practices have been adopted in this District for other high-profile cases where jury selection is expected to take longer than usual. See, e.g., United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (making use of jury questionnaire provided to venire approximately one week in advance of trial to streamline jury selection); United States v. Percoco, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC) (same). + +Third, the Government has taken and will continue to take multiple steps to ensure that the + +2 These estimates assume the defendant will agree to standard stipulations obviating the need for custodians of records and similar witnesses. Should she not, the length of the trial may be somewhat longer, although that of course would have been true even absent the obtaining of a superseding indictment. In addition, while the Government has tried to account for anticipated cross-examinations in its estimates, the length and scope of cross-examination is obviously not within the Government's control. + +defense will be hilly prepared to proceed to trial on July 12, 2021. As noted in its March 29, 2021 letter to the Court, the Government has already produced to the defense all material of which it is aware that constitutes Rule 16 discovery related to the new allegations in the S2 Indictment. This includes material that was already in the files of the FBI, which the Government produced during its Fall 2020 productions, and new material obtained during the Government's investigation, which the Government has produced on a rolling basis as it has received such material. Additionally, the Government provided the defendant with a list of ranges within the past discovery productions that relate specifically to Minor Victim-4, which should substantially assist the defense in re-reviewing relevant materials and preparing for trial. In other words, this is not a superseding indictment that requires a huge production of new discovery that the defense will need time to review. To the contrary, the defense already had in its possession Rule 16 discovery relevant to the S2 Indictment for months. + +The Government plans to begin producing non-testifying witness statements on April 12, 2021. With these productions, the defense will have access to statements of witnesses whom the Government does not intend to call at trial, thereby providing the defense multiple months during which it can decide whether it wishes to call any of these individuals. Further, the Government plans to produce Jencks Act and Giglio material for testifying witnesses six weeks in advance of trial, which will provide the defense with far more time than is typical in this District for review of such material. Given that the defense has had discovery in this case for months, will have months with non-testifying witness statements, and will have more than one month with Jencks Act and Giglio material, there is every reason to believe that the defense will provide excellent representation to the defendant at trial as scheduled beginning July 12, 2021. + +In light of the ample time that remains before trial and the steps the Government has + +committed to taking to aid the defense in preparing for trial, the Government anticipates objecting to any request to adjourn trial, should one be made. The Government contacted defense counsel on March 29, 2021 to convey its availability for a call to discuss some of the issues above as well as a supplemental briefing schedule for certain of the defendant's pending motions, among other issues. Although such a call has not yet taken place, the Government remains available to confer with the defense regarding these issues, as well as a schedule for trial-related filings such as motions in limine and requests to charge. Indeed, the Government and defense counsel have conferred extensively by email over the last several days regarding defense requests to review certain physical evidence and other defense inquiries regarding discovery in this case. As a result of this conferral, the Government has scheduled an evidence review session for the defendant and defense counsel to review physical evidence in the custody of the FBI relating to this case in the coming days. The Government will continue to be available to confer with defense counsel and is prepared to discuss scheduling matters whenever the defense would like. + +Finally, nothing about the S2 Indictment supports reconsideration of this Court's three prior decisions ordering the defendant detained pending trial. If anything, the arguments in favor of detention are now stronger. The defendant now faces two additional charges, which increase the maximum penalty she faces to eighty years in prison. She also faces even more evidence, including a fourth victim, who is corroborated by independent evidence, including other witnesses and documents such as travel records, phone records, shipment records, and items recovered during the execution of a search warrant. Moreover, as the defense seems to implicitly recognize, the S2 Indictment undermines certain legal arguments the defense previously made in attacking the prior indictment in this case. (See Dkt. No. 192 at 2 ("The timing suggests that the decision to supersede was prompted by the filing of defense pretrial motions and government concern about + +the now-apparent weakness of its case.")). Taken together, these factors all point to the conclusion that the defendant now faces an even stronger case with even more severe consequences upon conviction. The S2 Indictment thus further increases the defendant's incentives to flee, and it does nothing to alter the other factors that the Court previously found weigh in favor of detention, including the defendant's foreign ties, wealth, skill at evading detection, and prior lack of candor with the Court. + +The Government has no objection to an in-person arraignment, but the Government objects to the defense request for yet another bail hearing. The defense has now had three bites at that particular apple and is currently appealing the issues raised therein to the Second Circuit, where argument is scheduled to take place on April 26, 2021. The introduction of additional charges, reflecting additional evidence, in no way supports a fourth argument for release, and the Court should not entertain yet another application under these circumstances, especially when this very issue is currently before the Circuit. Certainly, the fact that a grand jury has found probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed even more crimes does not somehow suggest that the Government's case is in any way weaker than it was at the time of the prior three bail applications. To the contrary, the detailed allegations in the S2 Indictment make clear that there is now more evidence against the defendant. + +Nor does anything about the S2 Indictment support the defense request that the Court take the extraordinary step of holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of bail. "It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts." United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). "[flail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce + +it." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, in this Circuit, District Courts regularly accept the Government's proffer regarding its evidence when considering a bail application. And here, of course, the Court has not only the Government's proffer but also the grand jury's determination that probable cause exists as to each of the charged offenses. Defense counsel's request to deviate from that ordinary practice appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at a fishing expedition through which the defense hopes to obtain early Jencks Act material and a pretrial opportunity to cross-examine the Government's witnesses, including victims of sexual abuse. It is to avoid such a fishing expedition, among other reasons, that courts in this Circuit proceed by proffer when considering bail motions. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) ("a detention hearing is not to serve as a mini-trial . . . or as a discovery tool for the defendant"). The S2 Indictment offers no reason to deviate from that practice. + +\* \* \* + +For the reasons above, the Government respectfully submits that trial can and should proceed as scheduled on July 12, 2021. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the in-person arraignment on the S2 Indictment also serve as a conference at which to finalize a schedule for supplemental pretrial motion briefing as well as a schedule for trial-related submissions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Cothey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ee222c2026ad08ada114628fe6bc515ee4d7aa2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/EFTA02830751.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 16757, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.2, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830751" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28574dcc5186edef4cec1f33b0ddff2b43f6af01 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830751/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6822f9c17c6353c7d5812ebd0b882c7fb76fcdeabbe14f852fd3915c05e782bd +size 3455 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad2b192fc53a4ebc6064f4e0122da6f5a12933ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +## VIA Email + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +April 13, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +I write to request that Court sign the attached proposed order directing the U.S. Marshal to permit Ghislaine Maxwell to have access to her legal papers while in the cellblock at 500 Pearl Street awaiting the evidence review being conducted in the U.S. Attorney's Office on the 5th floor. Today, she arrived at the courthouse at approximately 5:15 am and remained idle in the cellblock until approximately 8:30 am when she was brought to the to the evidence review. Ms. Maxwell will be attending the evidence review throughout this week. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +Ea C. 512.4444.4s BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Enc. cc: All counsel + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-----------------------------x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +## ORDER + +-against- + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +-----------------------------x + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal is directed to permit Ghislaine Maxwell (02879-509) to have access to her legal materials while she remains in the courthouse cellblock from arrival until she is brought to the U.S. Attorney's office on the 5th floor for evidence review during this week. + +Dated: April , 2021 + +SO ORDERED. + +HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e59053b41ebcd4118d5bbbc1a686fe500d218d8a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759/EFTA02830759.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,193 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830759.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1634, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA Email", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 127.72150421142578, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 127.72150421142578, + 171.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 171.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.44 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 419.83880615234375, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 419.83880615234375, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830759" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e91f0e4894c20bfc5fa56975e55c64b8f1af1f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +VIA Email + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +April 13, 2021 + +4/14/21 + +AJISON 1. NNE IIAN Undctl Stec> Mind Judrc + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC It: DATE FILED: 4/14/21 + +After conferring with the District Executive and the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, the Court denies the request. The U.S. Marshall has a generally applicable policy that prohibits inmates being held in the Courthouse cellblocks from possessing any materials or items. The circumstances do not warrant an exception to that policy. SO ORDERED. + +1 write to request that Court sign the attached proposed order directing the U.S. Marshal to permit Ghislaine Maxwell to have access to her legal papers while in the cellblock at 500 Pearl Street awaiting the evidence review being conducted in the U.S. Attorney's Office on the 5th floor. Today, she arrived at the courthouse at approximately 5:15 am and remained idle in the cellblock until approximately 8:30 am when she was brought to the to the evidence review. Ms. Maxwell will be attending the evidence review throughout this week. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +golt.:. a 512.4444.4s BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Enc. cc: All counsel + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +## ORDER + +-against- + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +----------------------------------x + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal is directed to permit Ghislaine Maxwell (02879-509) to have access to her legal materials while she remains in the courthouse cellblock from arrival until she is brought to the U.S. Attorney's office on the 5th floor for evidence review during this week. + +Dated: April , 2021 + +SO ORDERED. + +HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d4a22507590cc3f40c76be52080e44eaf8893e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761/EFTA02830761.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830761.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2104, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.94, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.44 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 419.8642578125, + 141.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 419.8642578125, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 356.18399999999997, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830761" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e87cc575c6ae079ce7cda8b2a89e6692cb5b030 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@srernhelmlow.com + +April 15, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write in reply to the government's April 9th letter opposing a trial continuance. The defense has been steadfastly and diligently preparing for a July 12th trial based on the original indictment, a date set on the condition that there would be no superseding indictment adding substantive charges. The recently filed superseding indictment directly contravenes that agreement and adds two new charges which vastly expand the relevant time period from a fouryear period in the 1990s to an eleven-year period stretching from 1994 to 2004. These additions significantly alter the scope of the government's case and necessarily shift the focus of the defense's trial preparation. Instead of being focused on mounting a defense to the allegations of the three accusers from the 1990s, as we have been doing, the defense will now have to spend considerable time and resources investigating allegations of new conduct in a completely different time period involving numerous additional witnesses, and with all of the difficulties that COVID restrictions still place on a meaningful defense investigation. + +We do not want to postpone the trial but have no choice but to ask for a continuance. The government bears responsibility for this need, having filed a late-breaking superseding indictment based on a witness who has been known to the government since the Florida + +investigation in 2007 (see Dkt. 199 at 1-2), long before commencing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell. We cannot adequately prepare for a trial containing the new charges and a substantially expanded conspiracy in the less than three months remaining. + +#### Government Opposition to a Continuance Is Unreasonable + +The government implies that the assumptions underlying the July 12 trial date are irrelevant because it represented, as it always does, that its investigation was "ongoing." But "ongoing investigation" does not imply superseding the indictment to enlarge the originally charged conspiracy from four to eleven years and adding two new distinct charges based on distinct alleged conduct that purportedly took place outside the time period of the original charges. This is not a situation where the government's "ongoing investigation" has yielded, for example, a new overt act to an existing conspiracy. The government has effectively added a brand new case on top of the existing case. This is a significant expansion of the case against Ms. Maxwell that requires considerable time for the defense to investigate and prepare. Indeed, by its own admission, the government needed more than two months after its January 2020 interview of Accuser-4 to properly investigate her allegations and obtain the second superseding indictment. Yet, the government confidently contends that the defense will not need any additional time to prepare to defend against this revised prosecution. The government's doublestandard approach is simply wrong. The defense is entitled to conduct a meaningful defense investigation and must have adequate time to do so. + +The government's recent production of 3500 material for non-testifying witnesses underscores the significant amount of time that the defense will need to investigate. On April 13, 2021, in a highly unusual, if not unprecedented disclosure, the government produced over 20,000 pages of interview notes, reports and other materials related to 226 separate witnesses whom the government does not intend to call as witnesses at trial. Ms. Maxwell has not yet received these + +materials in the MDC. Although defense counsel have not yet been able to fully review the materials, which are voluminous, it is apparent that the witness interviews contain exculpatory or otherwise favorable information for Ms. Maxwell, which the defense has an obligation to investigate. A number of these witnesses may testify as part of the defense case. Even if defense counsel were to attempt to contact and interview only a small number of these witnesses and conduct any necessary follow-up investigation, that would still take a significant amount of time to complete. Thus, while we appreciate receiving these materials, the disclosure has not decreased the amount of time the defense will need to investigate; indeed, it has increased it. + +It is also disingenuous for the government to argue that because it previously provided discovery regarding the new charges no additional time is required to prepare the defense of the new indictment. When the parties were originally negotiating a discovery schedule for the original indictment, the government represented that it would be providing, in an abundance of caution, a significant amount of discovery from Epstein's seized electronic devices that contained information that it was not relying on in Ms. Maxwell's case. The government reiterated this point in its November 6, 2020 letter to the Court requesting additional time to finish producing discovery. (See Dkt. 69 at 4 ("[O]f the approximately 1.2 million documents, only a handful were specifically relied upon by the Government in the investigation that led the charges in the current indictment."). These devices contain over 2.4 million pages of material, virtually none of which pertained to the time period of the original indictment. Now that the superseding indictment has expanded the time period of the alleged conduct well into the 2000s, the 2.4 million pages that were not previously relevant are now pertinent, requiring re-review and analysis.' + +The actual number of pages is, in fact, larger than 2.4 million. For example, the discovery from these devices included forensic Cellebrite images of several individual devices that were assigned a single number. + +The defense has tried to streamline its review of the discovery even before the filing of superseding indictment by using term searches and key word searches. But given the nature of the discovery, there are meaningful limits to what the defense can do to limit the number of documents it must re-review in light of the new charges. For example, the discovery contains approximately 214,000 photographs, hundreds of hours of audio-visual files, and over 250,000 documents where the text is too poor to be OCR-searchable. Those materials are not susceptible to text searching and must be reviewed individually. Moreover, they must be reviewed with Ms. Maxwell to see if she recognizes the people in the photographs and videos. In light of the new charges and the addition of Accuser-4, these must be re-reviewed, which will take weeks. + +We have already experienced the difficulties of reviewing photographs with Ms. Maxwell. Over the past three days, defense counsel have been conducting an evidence view with Ms. Maxwell. As part of that review, we have tried to use an FBI-supplied laptop and hard drive to review approximately 2,100 "Highly Confidential" photographs that were not produced to us in discovery. Because of technical issues with the laptop, we still have not completed the review. + +The re-review of the discovery will not be limited to the materials on the seized devices. The discovery also includes numerous bank records and phone records that date from the 2000s and later. None of these records were from the 1990s and were therefore largely irrelevant to the charged crimes. However, with the expansion of the charges to include the time period of the 2000s, the defense will need to carefully analyze these records for relevant payments and phone calls, which will, again, take a significant amount of time. + +The government also attempts to justify its delay in seeking the superseding indictment due to the investigative challenges posed by COVID. The government has been investigating for + +years and elected to commence prosecution of Ms. Maxwell in the throes of the pandemic. All counsel have been laboring under the difficulties caused by this unprecedented circumstance. The government's challenges pale in comparison to those experienced by the defense. Defending quarter-century-old allegations has required investigation across this country and around the world. Investigating the new allegations will require the same efforts and diligence. It is laughable for the government to use COVID as an excuse for its delay in superseding the indictment and then oppose any continuance for the defense. Defense preparation is not immune to the impact of the pandemic. + +### A Trial Continuance is Necessary + +While the government's offer to provide discovery highlights and its representation that it will streamline its case to primarily focus on the four accusers are helpful, these gestures do not eliminate the need for a continuance. As set forth above, the government's hyperbolic claim that it can "ensure that the defense will be fully prepared to proceed to trial on July 12, 2021" (Govt ltr at 4-5) ignores the reality that time is needed to: + +- **supplement pending pretrial motions;** +- **critically review voluminous discovery produced in November 2020 that the government represented was not relevant to the case against Ms. Maxwell;** +- **re-review discovery for the new time period and charges;** +- **commence new investigations based on the new charges and the government's disclosure of 3500 material for non-testifying witnesses; and** +- **refocus trial preparation and strategy.** + +**The government originally represented to the Court and counsel that this trial would last two weeks. The government now predicts the trial will last a month. The estimates are mere guesses which do not factor in time-consuming COVID jury selection in a high-publicity case necessitating sensitive and personal disclosures by prospective jurors or the presentation of defense evidence. In the absence of disclosure of the number and identity of government trial** + +witnesses, including potential FRE 404(b) witnesses, and trial exhibits, the government's speculation about the length of the trial is entirely one-sided and lacking in any reliable estimate of a defense case. The government's April 12th disclosure of information and statements regarding 226 witnesses containing exculpatory information requires intensive investigation. The delayed expansion of its prosecution and its unilateral expansion of the length of trial severely impacts defense preparation, trial readiness, and conflicts with other trial commitments. + +To assist the Court and defense counsel in accurately determining the length of trial, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court order the government to disclose: a list of trial witnesses, its alleged FRE 404(6) evidence, and a list of potential trial exhibits. With this information the Court and the parties will be making decisions based on facts, not speculative promises. + +At the barest minimum, we require a 90-day continuance. In reliance on the firm trial date set by the Court at Ms. Maxwell's arraignment on July 14'b, 2020, counsel prioritized the July 12, 2021 trial date, clearing and scheduling our calendars to avoid interference. Counsel have other clients and firm commitments to try cases specifically scheduled to follow the summer trial of this case. These commitments make us unavailable from September through December, and possibly spill over into January, make trying this case unlikely, if not impossible, before mid-January. We are extremely hard pressed to request any continuance, especially one which will prolong Ms. Maxwell's miserable and punishing detention, but the need for time to properly prepare Ms. Maxwell's defense as a result of the additional charges requires us to do so, causing Ms. Maxwell to reluctantly agree to this request. + +In addition, motion hearings, in limine motion practice, and any litigation regarding expert witnesses have not yet commenced, and issues regarding jury selection, including but not limited to a jury questionnaire, have not yet been settled. Yesterday, we met with the + +government in person to confer on a briefing schedule for supplemental pretrial motions, as well as other deadlines, which we are prepared to discuss with the Court at the arraignment. + +The government's revised trial estimate from two to four weeks remains unrealistic and does not include jury selection, which will take longer than usual in this media-saturated case. We oppose advancing jury selection beyond early distribution of questionnaires to prospective jurors. Even if the case were tried on the previous indictment on July 12th, carving off any time required for trial preparation is unwarranted and un fair. + +A continuance is justified based on the second superseding indictment. The new charges up the ante and double Ms. Maxwell's sentencing exposure. To deny her a continuance undercuts her constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. A continuance - the need for which is caused solely by the government - is reasonable and necessary in defense of Ms. Maxwell. The denial of a continuance risks a miscarriage of justice. + +## Despite Its Necessity, A Continuance Further Prejudices Ms. Maxwell + +A delay of the July 12th trial — especially one that accommodates counsel's other trial schedules — has a direct and deleterious impact on Ms. Maxwell as a result of her continued detention, the details of which are well known to the Court. In addition to her prolonged detention, she is the victim on ongoing hostile media reporting which impacts the ability to seat fair and impartial jurors. + +On April 26th, Second Circuit will hear oral argument on Ms. Maxwell's bail appeal and may moot any need for a further bail application. Nonetheless, Ms. Maxwell reserves her right to seek a bail hearing depending on the Circuit's decision. + +### Conclusion + +We raise these issues in advance of the arraignment scheduled for April 2P in support of a trial continuance that is warranted in the interests of justice. + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours. + +gaga C. citivril BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54984bbd029a2937e43b3ca0c9072275660f59d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763/EFTA02830763.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,444 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830763.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 14317, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.12, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government Opposition to a Continuance Is Unreasonable", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 376.58038330078125, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 376.58038330078125, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A Trial Continuance is Necessary", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 246.9537353515625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 246.9537353515625, + 307.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 307.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Despite Its Necessity, A Continuance Further Prejudices Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 432.70538330078125, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 432.70538330078125, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.176, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 337.7822265625, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 337.7822265625, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830763" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7eba345367b45606f5027d678f35014d98046fd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/16/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter responding to the Court's March 29, 2021 Order. The parties agree that the redactions to pages 118 and 119 are no longer necessary. The Defendant continues to press for the redactions on pages 129-134. However, for the reasons stated in the Court's March 29, 2021 Order, the information is already part of the public record in this case and accordingly the proposed redactions are unnecessary and overbroad. Dkt. No. 189; see also United States v. Nejad, No. I 8-CR-224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at •11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021). For the reasons stated in the Court's March 18, 2021 and March 29, 2021 Orders, the Court approves the limited redactions to Exhibit 11 to the Government's brief, except for the language quoted in the Indictment, which is already part of the public record. + +The Government is therefore ORDERED to docket its omnibus memorandum of law, along with the corresponding exhibits, by 3:00 p.m. today, consistent with the Court's orders regarding redactions. The parties are further ORDERED to docket their April I, 2021 joint letter; if either side believes that portions of that letter should be redacted, they shall propose redactions by April 19, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 16, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c11d6af32a6ac0f45aeccb317f67ae39e53453a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771/EFTA02830771.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830771.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1742, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830771" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..882447e7caeb50e54d28beeb084995261d11633d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +sublet +to + +Ivan Fisher + +WJ + +Serene Cano + +~~Hellgold substance in house owned~~ + +Had lease w/ state Dept and illegally +sublet to Ivan Fisher, a prominent +criminal defense atty who then sublet +to a number of others + +Very nervous about financial records +turning over + +Ties to + +![](_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg) + +became very nervous any time +name came up + +![](_page_1_Picture_25.jpeg) + +Ghidain Maxwell had a social relationship +with the real estate baker \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fed6c33a182d96ba9ad882e56000d5b385ffa95f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/EFTA02830773.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 517, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.15, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_25.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830773" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e65bc629a83ccad8bc5d0e5618a600626e22c4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0cc52367984afb0b20e31edc2eb1fc714ffa29282e3f8efd6a20b879d8088e01 +size 2636 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7316ce341542b62a1804ae79207e837aad55ca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ced49a787b8c1a18bb6e429d05fbabd7e13ea454217d5d1e156d11ffc3fad7a6 +size 9207 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85a002e295694677d79a56751dd7cd864d796dfb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:06ce8227e2e4d5931f31605b82d4866866f9eac4d38a6652f478485a5c7a0fd7 +size 3153 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_25.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_25.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3894feccbc8b2ff9d3a747a4448b1fccb36d8fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830773/_page_1_Picture_25.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7fb955538fd537031974bb1fac45571d225a538c033526be037ba574efce558f +size 2201 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..713106185bfd0b7be7da953d3f9a09eb387c3ae3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +To: Villafana, PeonKarie,p (t1W,I...5)(Aigoa.MariAia segdoi.govL. From: Nakano, Sb-t /8--WNOOLPIIVST'ABMI ogP/C1tAldeigigkNARRRANetfl2) Sent: Thur 6/14/2007 5:23:41 PM (UTC) Subject: RE: A question regarding a very old case COMPLAIN.03.wod EJECT2.BRF.wpti PECISION.02.wod DECISION.01.wpd + +Attached is a copy of the complaint, summary judgment brief and court's decisions. Please let me know if you need any further info. Good luck! + +Serene 212-510-0505 + +From: Villafana, Ann C. (USAFLS) (maifto:Ann Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:40 PM To: Nakano, Serene Subject A question regarding a very old case + +Hi Serene — I saw that you were the AUSA who worked on a case several years ago against Jeffrey Epstein involving the lease of a former embassy. Do you remember anything about the case that you might be willing to share? + +A. Villafana + +Assistant U.S. Attorney + +500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 + +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + +Phone 561 209-1047 + +Fax 561 820-8777 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b439e0317a301d4ec535d4e5e9d82801d41313f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775/EFTA02830775.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830775.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 959, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.64, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830775" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..040bef4c59b92bf5622132813180ab731031a876 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.md @@ -0,0 +1,5083 @@ +## DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +## OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT + +Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation + +November 2020 + +NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED, AND PRIVACY ACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. + +#### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing. + +#### I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage. Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal investigation. + +The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges. + +For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The + +As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age of 18. + +NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or the NPA prior to its signing. + +The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration, however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA, to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court. + +On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.2 In responding to the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil cases against Epstein. + +2 Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as "Jane Doe 2." + +Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge in September 2009 ordered it to be made public. + +By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. + +In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. + +In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018, however, the *Miami Herald* published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.3 The *Miami Herald* reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the *Miami Herald*, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime" that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his + +--- + +3 Julie K. [REDACTED], "Perversion of Justice," *Miami Herald*, Nov. 28, 2018. . + +abuse of minors. The *Miami Herald* report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the government's actions.4 + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5 The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [*sic*] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal prosecution of Epstein. + +On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from 2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. + +Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 *Miami Herald* report, the media and Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as + +4 *See, e.g.*, Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for billionaire sex abuser," *The Business Insider*, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," *NBC Nightly News*, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," *McClatchy Washington Bureau*, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser," *Huffington Post*, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. [REDACTED], et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," *Miami Herald*, Dec. 6, 2018. + +5 *Doe v. United States*, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV-Marra). + +Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor Department. + +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide. + +As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on August 29, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings, the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims. + +On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe I" filed in her true name a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en bane and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +#### II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION + +After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened + +an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6 + +After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal investigation. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. + +In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts with the USA'S, and the FBI. + +OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR + +6The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the status of the OPR investigation. + +carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions. + +Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. + +As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent information. + +OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. + +#### III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK + +OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to + +In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program. + +OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews. + +investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct. + +In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (I) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. 19 + +#### IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED + +In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report. + +#### A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA + +In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NM's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants + +928 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases. + +10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation. + +of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation. + +#### B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA + +To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. + +#### V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions. + +#### A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA + +With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to + +initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +#### B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with Victims + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government + +interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +#### VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT + +The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question. OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with the subjects. + +In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008 guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July 2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects' conduct. + +Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects' conduct in light of the pertinent standards. + +OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions. + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | i | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. | OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND | i | +| II. | THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION | v | +| III. | OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK | vii | +| IV. | ISSUES CONSIDERED | viii | +| | A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA | viii | +| | B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA | ix | +| V. | OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS | ix | +| | A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA | ix | +| | B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions | | +| | with Victims | x | +| VI. | ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT | xii | +| | CHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS | 1 | +| I. | THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES | 1 | +| | A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the | | +| | Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation | I | +| | B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies | 4 | +| II. | THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE | 4 | +| III. | JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS | 8 | +| | A. Jeffrey Epstein | 8 | +| | B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys | 8 | +| | CHAPTER TWO: THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT | I I | +| | PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND | II | +| I. | OVERVIEW | 11 | +| II. | MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM | | +| | STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE | 11 | +| | A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation | II | +| | B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State | | +| | Grand Jury | 14 | +| | C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges | 15 | +| | D. | PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's | +| | Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation | 16 | + +#### III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO 16 + +- A. May 2006 February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the USAO Opens a Case File 16 + - I. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO 17 + - 2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File 18 + - 3. July 14, 2006: Villafafia Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case 18 + - 4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation 20 + - 5. October 2006 February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting 22 + - 6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafafia and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case 24 +- B. +- C. February — May 2007: Villafafia and the FBI Continue to Investigate; Villafafia Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for USAO Managers to Review May — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges 27 +- D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which Villafafia Opposes 30 +- E. June 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum 33 +- F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel 33 + +#### IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 35 + +- A. June July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the Defense Rejects 36 + - I. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based Resolution 37 + - 2. July 2007: Villafafia and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State Resolution 40 +- B. Villafafia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts 45 +- C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation 47 +- D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Tcrm of Incarceration 48 + - I. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami 48 + +- 2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration 49 +- E. Villafana Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense 51 +- V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES 53 + - A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer 54 + - B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest 55 + - C. August September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta 59 + - I. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys 59 + - 2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafafia's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence 60 + - 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and 62 +- VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED 63 + - A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months 63 + - B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney 64 + - C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months 66 + - D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges 68 + - E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges 72 + - F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects 73 + - G. Villafafia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" 76 + - H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafafta Sends a Final Version to the Defense 77 + +| I. J. K. L. VII. A. B. C. D. E. F. | The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Leflcowitz Meet for Breakfast Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaria of Improper Conduct I. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Leflcowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafatia 2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel 3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions 4. Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct | 78 79 81 83 84 87 87 89 91 94 94 98 98 99 99 Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Accept It 100 Who 101 | +|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence | 102 | +| IX. | FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW | 103 | +| A. | February — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division | 104 | + +| B. X. A. B. XI. I. Il. A. I. | May — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court Epstein Is Placed on Work Release POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT The United States Attorneys' Manual USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution | 108 110 111 113 117 119 119 120 120 120 | +|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| +| 2. | USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy | 122 | +| 3. | USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements | 123 | +| 4. | USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements | 124 | +| 5. | USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity | 125 | +| 6. | USAMJC.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest | 125 | +| B. | Other Department Policies | 125 | +| I. | Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges | 125 | +| 2. | Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens | 127 | +| C. | Case Law | 127 | +| I. | Prosecutorial Discretion | 127 | +| 2. | Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party | 128 | +| D. | State Bar Rules | 129 | +| I. | FRPC 4-1.1 —Competence | 130 | +| 2. | FRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence | 130 | +| 3. | FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others | 130 | +| 4. | FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice | 131 | +| PART THREE: ANALYSIS | | 133 | +| I. OVERVIEW | | 133 | +| II. | ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS | | +| | ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT | 133 | + +#### III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134 + +- A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct 135 +- B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein 136 +- C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards 137 + - I. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration 137 + - 2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy 139 + - 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens 140 + +#### IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN 140 + +- A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration 141 +- B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations 142 + - I. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors 142 + - 2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences 143 + - 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims 144 +- C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences 149 + +- D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein 150 + - I. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys 150 + - 2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions 151 +- E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein 155 + - I. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations 155 + - 2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel 160 +- F. Villafafia's Emails with Defense Attorney Leflcowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafia, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences 163 +- G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential Associates 166 +- H. OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis 168 +- V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA 169 + - A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution 170 + - B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case 175 + - C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution 179 + - D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA 182 + - E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process 182 + +| AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS | 189 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND | 189 | +| I. OVERVIEW | 189 | +| II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 189 | +| A. History | 189 | +| B. Enumerated Rights | 191 | +| III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF | | +| "CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION | 192 | +| A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" | 192 | +| B. | 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance 193 | +| IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE | | +| TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION | 194 | +| A. USAO Training | 194 | +| B. The Automated Victim Notification System | 195 | +| C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets | 196 | +| V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS | 196 | +| A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters | 196 | +| B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims | 198 | +| C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered | 200 | +| VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH | | +| VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED | 200 | +| A. | The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about | +| Resolving the Federal Investigation | 201 | +| B. | Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims | +| Have Not Been Consulted | 202 | +| I. | July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel 202 | +| 2. | Villafafia Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not | +| Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions | 204 | +| 3. | September 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs | +| Was Required | 204 | +| VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE | | +| USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS | 206 | + +- A. September October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment 207 +- B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications 210 +- C. October November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is "Under Investigation" 211 +- D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan 212 +- E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution, "as Required by Law" 216 +- F. January June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein 220 + - I. Villafafia Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA 220 + - 2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims 221 + - 3. Villafafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims 224 + - 4. February March 2008: Villafaa Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay 227 + - 5. March April 2008: Villafafia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges 227 +- VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION 228 +- IX. JUNE 2008: V I LLAFARA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA PETITIONERS 229 +- X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA HEARING 231 +- XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT 234 +- XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS 235 + - A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafafia Notifies Some Victims' Attorneys 235 + +| B. | July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated ..... | 236 | +|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| +| C. | July 2008: Villafaña Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed Victims..... | 237 | +| D. | July – August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims Residing Outside of the United States..... | 238 | +| E. | August – September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter..... | 239 | +| F. | 2010 – 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding Interpretation of the CVRA ..... | 241 | +| G. | The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status ..... | 242 | +| PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS ..... | | 247 | +| I. | STATUTORY PROVISIONS ..... | 247 | +| A. | The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ..... | 247 | +| B. | The Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607)..... | 248 | +| II. | DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)..... | 249 | +| III. | FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT..... | 253 | +| A. | FRPC 4-4.1 – Candor in Dealing with Others ..... | 253 | +| B. | FRPC 4-8.4 – Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice ..... | 253 | +| PART THREE: ANALYSIS..... | | 255 | +| I. | OVERVIEW ..... | 255 | +| II. | THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS ..... | 255 | +| A. | At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges..... | 256 | +| B. | OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was Intended to Silence Victims..... | 258 | +| III. | LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION..... | 261 | +| A. | The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of the Case as “Under Investigation” ..... | 262 | + +- B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation 263 +- IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING 265 + - A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard 265 + - B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing 269 +- V. VILLAFAI;) A DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS 273 +- VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 280 CONCLUSION 283 METHODOLOGY 287 + +Exhibit 1: State Indictment + +Exhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 5: State Information + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## CHAPTER ONE SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS + +#### I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES + +#### A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation + +The Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive branch department headed by the United States Attorney General. The stated mission of the Department is to enforce federal law and defend the interests of the United States; ensure public safety; provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. The Department enforces federal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal statutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the period relevant to this Report, the Department had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 components. The Department's headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts most of its work through field locations around the nation and overseas. + +The prosecution of federal criminal laws is handled primarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices, each headed by a presidentially appointed (with advice and consent of the U.S. Senate) U.S. Attorney who has independent authority over his or her office but is overseen by the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General} The Department's Criminal Division, headed by an Assistant Attorney General, includes components with specialized areas of expertise that also prosecute cases, assist in the prosecutions handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). + +CEOS, based in Washington, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation crimes, especially those involving technology, and they assist U.S. Attorney's Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to these offenses. CEOS provides advice and training to federal prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and government officials. CEOS also works to develop and refine proposals for prosecution policies, legislation, government practices, and agency regulations. + +The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) (revised in 2018 and renamed the Justice Manual) is a compilation of Department rules, policies, and guidance governing the conduct of Department employees. It includes requirements for approval by, or consultation with, the Criminal Division + +Two U.S. Attorney's Offices, in the judicial districts of Guam and of the Northern Mariana Islands, are headed by a single U.S. Attorney. The Attorney General and the U.S. District Court have authority to appoint acting and interim U.S. Attorneys. + +or other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights Division. In this Report, OPR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time. + +During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan. + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal matters in the Southern District of Florida a district, which covers the counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and Highlands, an area of over 15,000 square miles. During the period relevant to this Report, the USAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 200 support personnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are located in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an unstaffed branch office is located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is approximately 70 miles from the Miami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the second-in-command is the First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal advisor to the U.S. Attorney and supervises all components of the USAO, including the Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions, each of which is headed by a Chief. During the period relevant to this Report, the West Palm Beach office consisted of two criminal sections and was headed by a Managing AUSA. + +The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the principal federal law enforcement agency and is part of the Department. It maintains field offices that work with U.S. Attorney's Offices. The FBI field office in Miami, headed by a Special Agent in Charge, has satellite offices, known as Resident Agencies, one of which is located in West Palm Beach and covers Palm Beach County. The Epstein investigation was handled by Special Agents assigned to a particular West Palm Beach Resident Agency squad, headed by a Supervisory Special Agent. FBI responsibility for advising crime victims of their rights and of victim services available to them is handled by non-agent Victim Specialists. + +The following chart shows the Department's organizational structure during the period relevant to this Report: + +**U.S. Department of Justice +2006 - 2008** + +![](_page_28_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +#### B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies + +Florida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney in each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year term. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected State Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this Report, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach, had more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed by Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. + +The incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island off the city of West Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD). Michael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2001 to February 2009. + +The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the City of West Palm Beach, is the largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the PBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed minimum-security detainees, including those on work release, at its Stockade facility. The current Sheriff has served continuously since January 2005. + +#### II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE + +R. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2006, President W. Bush formally nominated Acosta, and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006. + +After graduating from law school, Acosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an 18-month term as an associate at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years as a policy fellow and law school lecturer; and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, where he served from August 2003 until his appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney, and where he oversaw, among other things, the prosecution of human trafficking and child sex-trafficking cases. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta's office was in the USAO's Miami headquarters, although he traveled to the USAO's branch offices. + +During Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney, the USAO initiated the federal investigation of Epstein, engaged in plea discussions with Epstein's counsel, and negotiated the federal nonprosecution agreement (NPA) that is the subject of this Report. Acosta made the decision to resolve the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct by allowing Epstein to enter a state plea. Acosta was personally involved in the negotiations that led to the NPA, reviewed various iterations of the agreement, and approved the final agreement signed by the USAO. Acosta continued to provide supervisory oversight and to have meetings and other communications with Epstein's attorneys during the nine-month period between the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007, and Epstein's entry of guilty pleas in state court pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on June 30, 2008. On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of + +Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the firm about possible employment. + +After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the of the Florida International University College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but he resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein case. + +Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy Chief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section, and in 2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and Sloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive suite. + +As FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Divisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation. Although Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the NPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally negotiated an addendum to the NPA, which he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. After subordinates Matthew Menchel and Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly engaged with the line AUSA, Villafafia, on Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. After Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter in December 2008, Sloman became the senior USAO official supervising the matter. When Acosta left the USAO, Sloman became the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and in January 2010, the Attorney General appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO to enter private practice in June 2010. + +Matthew I. Menchel joined the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County (Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel became Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. Menchel participated in the decision to extend a two-year state-based plea proposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense. Shortly after that plea offer was extended to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the NPA were negotiated with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice. + +Andrew C. Lourie joined the USAO as a line AUSA in 1994, after having served for three years as an AUSA in New Jersey. During his 13-year tenure at the USAO, Lourie served two terms on detail as the Acting Chief of the Department's Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, first from September 2001 until September 2002, and then from February 2006 until July 2006. Between those two details, and again after his return to the USAO in July 2006, Lourie was a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, serving as the Managing AUSA for the West Palm Beach branch office. Lourie was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation and negotiated the NPA, participating in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. During September 2007, while the NPA was being negotiated, Lourie transitioned out of the USAO to serve on detail as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General + +for the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private practice. + +Ann C. Villafana joined the USAO in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served in the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm Beach branch office. Villafafia handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters. hi 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual exploitation and abuse.2 + +In 2006, Villafafia assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the line AUSA, Villafafia handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafafia determined the lines of inquiry to pursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal research to support possible charges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Department. Villafafia, along with the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct contact with Epstein's victims. She handled court proceedings related to the investigation. She drafted a prosecution memorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revised those documents in response to comments from those in her supervisory chain of command. Villafafia participated in meetings between members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein, and prepared briefing materials for management in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those meetings. Although Acosta made the decision to utilize a non-prosecution agreement to resolve the federal investigation and approved the terms of the NPA, Villafaria was the primary USAO representative negotiating with defense counsel and drafting the language of the NPA, under her supervisors' direction and guidance, and she signed the NPA on behalf of the USAO. Thereafter, Villafafia monitored Epstein's compliance with the NPA and addressed issues relating to his conduct. After two victims pursued a federal civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("the CVRA litigation" or "the CVRA case"), in July 2008, Villafafia served as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the USAO until February 2019, when the USAO was recused from handling the litigation.3 Villafafia left the USAO in August 2019 to join another federal government agency. + +The following chart shows the USAO positions filled by the subjects, or other USAO personnel, during the period of the Epstein investigation. + +2 Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the Department in May 2006 to combat the growing epidemic of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the intemet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. + +3After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government, the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. + +**USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation +Mid-2006 through Mid-2009** + +![](_page_32_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +#### III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS + +#### A. Jeffrey Epstein + +Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate from college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan from 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street firm of Bear Stearns, where he from junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited partner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was never clear, Epstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business entrepreneur through whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resided. In the early 1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also owned a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris, France. He traveled among his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet. + +Epstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in myriad businesses and other entities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to as a billionaire, the sources and extent of his wealth were never publicly established during his lifetime.5 He associated with prominent and wealthy individuals from business, political, academic, and social circles, and engaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintained a large corps of employees, including housekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous female personal assistants, several of whom traveled with him. + +#### B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys + +Jeffrey Epstein employed numerous criminal defense attorneys in responding to the allegations that he had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. As different law enforcement entities became involved in investigating the allegations, he added attorneys having particular relevant knowledge of, or connections with, those entities. At the outset of the state investigation, Epstein retained nationally prominent Miami criminal trial attorney Roy Black. He was also represented by a local criminal defense attorney who was a former Palm Beach County Assistant State Attorney, and by nationally prominent Harvard Law School professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Herskowitz, who was a selfdescribed close friend of Epstein. After initial plea negotiations with the State Attorney's Office, Epstein replaced the local attorney with Jack Goldberger, a prominent West Palm Beach criminal defense attorney whose law partner was married to the Assistant State Attorney handling the Epstein case; once Epstein hired Goldberger, the Assistant State Attorney was removed from the Epstein case on the basis of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt, + +4Epstein's background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See e.g., Landon Jr., "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery." New York, Oct. 28, 2002; Vicky= "The Talented Mr. Epstein," Vanity Fair, Mar. 2003; James Barron, "Who Is Jeffrey Epstein? An Opulent Life, Celebrity Friends and Lurid Accusations," New York Times, July 9, 2019; Lisette Voytko, "Jeffrey Epstein's Dark Facade Finally Cracks," Forbes, July 12, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, his net worth was estimated to be approximately \$577 million, based on his will and trust documents. https://time.com/5656776/jeffrey-epstein-will-estate/. + +whose law firm website cites his "national reputation for the aggressive defense" of "high-profile defendants in criminal matters." + +In late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation Epstein hired Miami criminal defense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy =, had also served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director of the Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the component charged withSling close liaison between the Department and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann , had served in the USAO and as a Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section before leaving in 2005. In August 2007, immediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two attorneys from the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contacted the USAO on Dmin's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, who was serving as ME of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; and Jay Leibowitz, a litigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the administrations of Presidents H.W. Bush and la W. Bush. They were joined by nationally prominent Boston criminal defense attorney Weinberg. After the NPA was signed, former U.S. Attorney Joe D. Whitley joined the defense team, as did the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS and another former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal judge. + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## CHAPTER TWO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +In the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) details the significant events leading to, and during, the federal investigation of Epstein; the negotiation and signing of the NPA; and the defense's subsequent nine-month effort to stop the NPA from taking effect. OPR also describes more briefly the events occurring after Epstein pled guilty in state court, as the USAO sought to hold him to the terms of the agreement. In describing events, OPR relies heavily on contemporaneous documents, particularly emails. In many instances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the participants, but also set forth the issues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the basis for certain decisions. When helpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also includes the subjects' explanations as provided in their written responses to, or interviews with, OPR, or explanations provided by witnesses. + +A timeline of key events is set forth on the following page. + +#### II. MARCH 2005 — MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE + +#### A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation + +In March 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid their daughter \$300 to give him a massage in his Palm Beach home.6 The PBPD began investigating Epstein, identified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants, who were also implicated by the complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial claim, to encompass allegations that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants + +6As previously noted, "girls" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young women previously had come to the attention of the PBPD. In March 2004, a PBPD officer documented a telephone complaint that a I7-year-old girl had been giving Epstein topless massages at his residence for several months for \$200 per massage. The girl claimed that there were nude photos of other girls throughout Epstein's home and offered to cooperate with a police investigation. The PBPD report relating to this complaint described the information as "unverified," and it was not pursued. + +On November 28, 2004, the police received and recorded information that young women had been observed coming and going from Epstein's residence. The police suspected Epstein was procuring prostitutes, but because the PBPD did not have evidence that the women seen entering Epstein's home were minors, and typically did not investigate prostitution occurring in private residences, it did not open an investigation into the matter. + +## Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation — May 2006 through October 2008 + +![](_page_37_Diagram_2.jpeg) + +and some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him massages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity. + +Through their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct. Some girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The nature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they massaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated that during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched them during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas directly or through their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturbate them, and some stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they saw him more often alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. According to one victim, an Epstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity with the victim at Epstein's direction.7 + +Although the allegations varied in the specific details, for the most part they were consistent in describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several of his assistants. According to the information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PBPD, Epstein's assistants scheduled up to three massage appointments each day, often contacting the girls to make an appointment while Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of his other residences. Typically, when a girl arrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was taken upstairs to the [REDACTED] bedroom and bathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who set up a massage table and massage oils. When the assistant left the room, Epstein entered, wearing only a robe or a towel. After removing his clothing, Epstein lay face down and nude on the massage table, instructed the girl to remove her clothing, and then explained to her how he wished her to perform the massage. During the massage, Epstein masturbated himself, often while fondling the girl performing the massage. When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. Usually, Epstein paid the girl \$200 for the massage, and if she had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact her in the future. Epstein encouraged the girls who performed these massages to find other girls interested in performing massages for him, and promised that if a girl brought a friend along to perform a massage, each girl would receive \$200. Several of the victims acknowledged to the PBPD that they had recruited other girls on Epstein's behalf. + +The evidence regarding Epstein's knowledge of the girls' ages was mixed. Some girls who recruited other girls reportedly instructed the new recruits to tell Epstein, if asked, that they were over 18 years old. However, some girls informed the PBPD that they told Epstein their real ages. Police were able to corroborate one girl's report that Epstein sent flowers to her at her high school after she performed in a school play. In addition, an employee of Epstein told the PBPD that some of the females who came to Epstein's residence appeared to be underage. + +Epstein was aware of the PBPD investigation almost from the beginning. He retained local criminal defense counsel, who in turn hired private investigators. In October 2005, the PBPD, with the assistance of the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein's residence. When police arrived at Epstein's home on October 20, 2005, to execute the warrant, + +--- + +7 According to the PBPD records, investigators obtained no allegations or evidence that any person other than this female assistant participated in the sexual activity with the girls. + +they found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance cameras, but the computer equipment itself—including video recordings and other electronic storage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home, including notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a two-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous photographs of naked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken of the interior of tein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and bedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's high school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys. + +#### B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury + +State Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein case was unusual in that police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krischer was unfamiliar with Epstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. PBPD Chief Michael Reiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State Attorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the investigation and told Reiter, "Let's go for it," because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was "somebody we have to stop." Krischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that "there were witness problems." + +Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Children Unit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told OPR that she and an experienced Assistant State Attorney who initially worked with her on the case "were at a disagreement" with the PBPD "over what the state . . . could ethically charge." According to Belohlavek, she did not believe the evidence the police presented would satisfy the elements of proof required to charge Epstein with the two felony crimes the police wanted filed, unlawful sexual activity with a minor (Florida Statute § 794.05(1)) and lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor (Florida Statute § 800.04(5)), and the police "were not happy with that."8 In addition, victims had given contradictory statements to police, and the original complainant, who could have supported a charge requiring sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation of sexual contact. Belohlavek offered Epstein a resolution that would result in a five-year term of probation, which he rejected.' + +Records publicly released by the State Attorney's Office show that, beginning in early 2006, attorneys for Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead "no contest" rather than guilty. To that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and presented the State Attorney's Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of the victims' credibility, including criminal records, victims' social media postings (such as MySpace pages) about their own sexual activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared to undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims' ages. Krischer + +• Belohlavek stated that she did not consider charging procurement of a minor for prostitution—the charge Epstein ultimately pled to pursuant to the NPA—because the police had not presented it. + +• In April 2006, the State Attorney's Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to the third degree felony of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a felony, with adjudication withheld and five years of probation with no unsupervised contact with minors. + +told OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the Assistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was "overly aggressive" and threatened, "We're going to destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls." According to Krischer, Dershowitz so "tainted the waters" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack Goldberger, with whom Krischer had "a working relationship." Because the husband of the Assistant State Attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavek recused the Assistant State Attorney to remove "even the appearance of any kind of conflict" of interest, and Belohlavek took over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Belohlavek and Krischer to dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim witnesses. + +Meanwhile, the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of preparing to present the case to a grand jury. Krischer told OPR that under state law as it existed until changed in 2016, his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution.10 The possibility that Epstein's victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused "great consternation within the office," and according to Krischer, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury." Belohlavek told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein "seriously, because . . . it was an organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we ... thought they were prostitutes ... [but] I think there was solicitation." However, she said, although Epstein's "behavior was reprehensible, . I'm limited by . . . the state statutes as to what I can charge." Krischer told OPR, "There were so many issues involving the victim-witnesses that to my mind, in consultation with my [prosecutors], the only way to achieve, to my mind, real justice was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct-file" criminal charges against Epstein. + +#### C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges + +Federal criminal procedure requires that a felony charge—that is, any charge punishable by imprisonment for one year or more—be brought by a grand jury unless waived by a defendant. t2 Under Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring criminal charges only in a death penalty case." For all other cases, a State Attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal charges by means of a document called an "information" or to seek a grand jury indictment. Although Florida criminal cases are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often utilized in sensitive or high-profile cases, such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by public officials.10 Florida grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy rules that, among + +zo Belohlavek told OPR that prostitution was a misdemeanor charge, and she did not handle misdemeanors. + +Because the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case was pending at the time OPR interviewed Krischer, he declined to further explain to OPR his office's prosccutive decisions. + +12U.S. Const. amend. V; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a), (b). The sole exception under the rule is felony criminal contempt, which need not be charged by indictment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(aK I ). + +13Fla. Const. An. I, § 15(a). + +14The Florida Bar, The Grand Juzy, Reporters Handbook — The Grand Jury, available at https://www floridabar. org/news/resources/rpz-hbk/rpt-hbk-13/. + +other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and proscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury.15 + +#### D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation + +In 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims were credible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questioning Krischer's objectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter explained in his deposition: + +> This was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in state court. It's not generally something that's prosecuted in a federal court. And I knew that it didn't really matter what the facts were in this case, it was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute this case. + +On May I, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing package relating to Epstein, one of his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein first victimized and then used to recruit other girls. In his transmittal letter, which was later made public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney's Office's "treatment of these cases [to be] highly unusual."I6 Reiter urged Krischer "to examine the unusual course that your office's handling of this matter has taken" and to consider disqualifying himself from prosecuting Epstein." + +#### III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO + +#### A. May 2006 — February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the USAO Opens a Case File + +In earl 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with AUSA Ann Villafafia on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as "the case agent"—mentioned to Villafafia in "casual conversations" having learned that the PBPD was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case agent told Villafafia that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney's Office was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor + +15Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (2007). + +16See Larry =, "Palm Beach chief focus of fire in Epstein case," Palm Beach Post, Aug. 14, 2006. + +17As noted, Krischer generally declined in his OPR interview to explain his office's prosecutive decisions; however, regarding allegations of favoritism to Epstein's defense counsel, Krischer told OPR, "I just don't play that way." + +charge. Villafafia suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office decided to charge Epstein. + +#### 1. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO + +In May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafafia and the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's investigation.18 At the time, neither Villafafia nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any knowledge of his background. + +According to Villafafia, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that "pressure had been brought to bear on . . . Krischer by Epstein's attorneys," and he and Chief Reiter were concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all.19 The Detective explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been "tipped off" in advance about the search warrant. + +During the meeting, Villafafia reviewed the U.S. Code to see what federal charges could be brought against Epstein. She focused on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce to persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423 (travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct). As they discussed these charges, the Detective told Villafafia that Epstein and his assistants had traveled out of the Palm Beach International Airport on Epstein's private airplane, and flight logs sometimes referred to passengers as "female" without a name or age, which the Detective suspected might be references to underage girls. However, the Detective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that suspicion and did not have firm evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate or internationally. Nevertheless, Villafafia believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part because of his own interstate and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse girls. Villafafia discussed with the Detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed to prove violations of the federal statutes she had identified. She told them that if the evidence supported it, the case could be prosecuted federally, but she assured them that opening a federal investigation would not preclude the State Attorney's Office from charging Epstein should it choose to do so. + +IR The Detective died in May 2018. + +19In his 2009 deposition, Reiter testified that after he referred the Epstein matter to the FBI, a Town of Palm Beach official approached Reiter and criticized his referral of the investigation to the FBI, telling Reiter that the victims were not believable and "Palm Beach solves its own problems." + +#### 2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File + +On May 23, 2006, Villafafia prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafafia told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a federal prosecution: (I) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the computer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure had affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation was named "Operation Leap Year" because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as victims of Epstein's conduct.20 + +Villafaiia told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation, she understood that the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafafia was willing to put in the effort and believed that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafafia discussed the case with her immediate supervisor, who also "thought it would be a good case" and approved it to be opened within the USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it was formally initiated. + +#### 3. July 14, 2006: Villafana Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case + +Because Villafafia was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and learned that he "took a scorched earth approach" to litigation. Villafafia was aware that Epstein had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney's Office in an effort to derail the state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal investigation. + +Therefore, Villafafia arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Sloman, who at the time was the Criminal Division Chief.2' Villafafia told OPR that she had never before asked to meet with "executive management" about initiating a case, but the allegations that Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's Office greatly troubled her. Villafaiia explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were "on board" with the Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular confidence. At this point, although Villafaiia's immediate supervisor was aware of the case, Villafafia did not inform Andrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office and her second-line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman. + +Villafafia met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at the meeting, she informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to + +20 Villafaila opened "Operation Leap Year" during the same month in which the Department launched its "Project Safe Childhood" initiative, and Acosta designated Villafafia to serve as the USAO's Project Safe Childhood coordinator. + +21Although Acosta had been formally nominated to the U.S. Attorney position on June 9, he was not confirmed by the Senate until August 3, 2006, and was not sworn in until October 2006. In September 2006, Acosta announced the appointments of Sloman as FAUSA and Matthew Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, and they assumed their respective new offices in October 2006. + +Epstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used “various types of pressure” to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the State Attorney. Villafaña said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein’s legal team would likely employ. Villafaña explained, “When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting calls about . . . you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don’t get . . . a call from out of the blue.” According to Villafaña, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to put the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she “didn’t want to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur” with a federal prosecution as had occurred with the state. She told OPR, “I remember specifically saying to them that I expected the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI’s resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end.” According to Villafaña, Acosta and Sloman promised that “if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case.” In a later email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaña recounted that she spoke with Acosta and Sloman because she “knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn’t on board,” but Acosta and Sloman had given her “the ██████ light” to go forward with the Epstein investigation. + +Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with Villafaña. Each told OPR that at the time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not previously heard of Epstein.22 + +Acosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man who was “doing sordid things” with girls, and that it “seemed a reasonable matter to pursue” federally. Epstein’s wealth and status did not raise any concern for him, because, as Acosta told OPR, the USAO had prosecuted “lots of influential folks.” When asked by OPR to articulate the federal interest he perceived at the time to be implicated by the case, Acosta responded, “the exploitation of girls or minor females.” Regarding Villafaña’s view that she had been given a “██████ light” to proceed with the investigation, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have explicitly told Villafaña to “go spend your time” on the case; rather, his practice would have been simply to acknowledge the information she shared about the case and confirm that a federal investigation “sound[ed] reasonable.” + +Sloman told OPR that he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein investigation, other than that he had a basic understanding that the State Attorney’s Office had “abdicated their responsibility” to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall with specificity Villafaña’s concern about Epstein’s team pressuring the State Attorney’s Office, but he said he was never concerned that political pressure would affect the USAO, noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff. + +--- + +22 Lourie told OPR that when he first heard about the Leap Year investigation, he likewise was unaware of Epstein. On July 24, 2006, Villafaña emailed to Sloman a link to a *Palm Beach Post* article that described Epstein as a “Manhattan money manager” and “part-time Palm Beacher who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey.” Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta. + +#### 4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation + +Several days after Villafatia spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.23 Krischer told OPR that "the whole thing" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room.24 The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.25 The indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors.26 On July 23, 2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the charges were made public. + +Villafafta told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy might preclude a federal prosecution.27 Villafafta told OPR that at the time, she "definitely believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that . . . we had sufficient evidence." + +Villafafia and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed them. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance in this Report. + +24Larry =, "Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls," Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson. + +25Indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit Ito this Report. + +26In pertinent part, the state indictment read, "[B]etween the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, [Epstein) did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, ... on three or more occasions." The 15-month time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time. + +27The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See. e.g., Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein); Abbate v United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and United States v. Lanza. 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Part Two, Section 11.A.2, for a more detailed discussion of the Petite policy. + +On July 24, 2006, Villafafia alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's Office had charged and arrested Epstein.28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafafia told Sloman that the FBI agents "are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday," and she noted that her target date for filing federal charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was "appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?" Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein."" + +Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more active role in supervising the investigation, Villafafia continued to update Acosta and Sloman directly on the progress of the case.30 Villafalia's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafafia directed her emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the immediate supervisor's view, however, "Miami" purposefully assumed all the "authority" for the case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as "highly unusual."31 + +By late August 2006, Villafafia and the FBI had identified several additional victims and obtained "some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the communication and travel in interstate commerce" by Epstein and his associates. Villafafia reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's Office would not provide transcripts from the state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter "to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI." Villafafia also told her supervisors that she expected "a number of fights" over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply "after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys." + +Villafafia's reference to anticipated "fights" and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask whether she was referring to the victims. Villafafia responded that the problems did not involve victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to document demands as overly burdensome. Villafafia explained to Sloman and Lourie that some victims were "scared and/or embarrassed," and some had been intimidated by the defense, but "everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story." Villafaila + +28On the same day, Sloman emailed Lourie, whom Villafana had not yet briefed about the case, noting that Operation Leap Year was "a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy." + +29 During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was likely that "we didn't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office," and that he believed there may have been "some type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office] and the defense team." + +After Villafafta sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: "Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?" Sloman responded, "At this point, I don't really care. If Alex says something then I'll tell her to just run it through you guys." + +31OPR understood "Miami" to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office, that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafafta told OPR, that she believed Epstein's attorneys "made a conscious decision to skip" her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta. + +also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories "have not changed," and that "[a]ny discrepancies will be noted and considered." She conceded that "[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder," but expressed confidence that the two key victims "will stay the course." She acknowledged that the case "needs to be rock solid." + +The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI "partnered up very well" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight either from the FBI or the USAO, and "we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our job done." This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial transactions. The case agent viewed the case as "strong." + +#### 5. October 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafana, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting + +Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafafia in August 2006. As the investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy =, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34 telephoned Villafafia, a call that Sloman joined at Villafafia's request. offered to provide Villafafia + +Villafafia told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation "prematurely." + +33Chapter One, Section 111.8 of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as "ham-fisted" and "clumsy." Menchel told OPR, "[O]ur perspective was this is not going to ... change anything." + +34served in the USA() for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the U.S. Attorneys. + +Early in the invaition, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that Lourie was friends with and also had a close friendship with law partner, who also was a former AUSA and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with and law partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not "covered" relationships under the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel "to make the call." Thereafter, Sloman authorized Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to did not influence his handling of the case. + +"'anything' she wanted" without the necessity of legal process. asked to meet with Villafafia and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafafia declined. + +Shortly thereafter, Lilly Ann a former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him that she also represented Epstein. was employed by the USA'S, from 2000 to September 2005 and had been a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was the Chief. According to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when indicated to him that his participation in call with Villafafia led the defense team to believe that the matter had been "elevated" within the USAO, Sloman tried to "disabuse" her of that notion. said that Epstein "wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible" in working with the USAO. Despite the fact that had already made contact with the USAO on Epstein's behalf, sent a letter to Villafafia on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafafia requested that the defense provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents and information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney's Office, and "computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media" removed from Sa's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005. In January 2007, contacted Villafafia to schedule a meeting, but Villafana wanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with td ie that + +Immediately after receiving Villafafia's response, bypassed Villafafia and phoned Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a Laurie agreed to meet with and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafana that was concerned that federal charges were "imminent," wanted to meet with the USAO and "make a pitch," and promised that once given the opportunity to do so, if the USAO "wanted to interview Epstein, that would be a possibility." Villafafia told Lourie that had not yet provided the documents she had promised, and Villafafia wanted "the documents not the pitch." Lourie explained to OPR, however, that it was his practice to grant meetings to defense counsel; he considered it "good for us" to learn the defense theories of a case and believed that "information is power." Lourie further explained that learning what information the defense viewed as important could help the USAO form its strategy and determine which counts relating to which victims should be charged. Laurie also believed that as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a presentation, because "[p]art of [the rocess is for them to believe they are heard." In addition to laya meeting, Laurie sent a narrowed document request, which responded to complaint that the USAO's earlier request was overbroad but which retained the demand for the computer-related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, and Laurie asked to provide the documents and materials to the USAO by January 25, 2007. + +Villafafia did not agree with Laurie's decision to meet with and Lefcourt. Indeed, Si after Laurie agreed to the meeting, Villafaria alerted him that she had spoken again with and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Villafafia told Laurie, "I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about how the girls are liars and drug users." She told OPR that in her view, "it was way too early to have a meeting," she already knew what the defense would say, and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation. She explained to Lourie the basis for her objections to the meeting, but Laurie "vehemently" disagreed with her position. Villafafia and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel. They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views.35 According to Villafafia, Lourie believed that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafafia told OPR, however, that while this strategy might make sense in a =collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to the conduct. Villafafia also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended to charge, which Villafafia did not want to reveal. + +#### 6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafafia and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case + +At the February I, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafafia, and Lefcourt set out arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along with documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims. + +In the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (I) the allegations did not provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that Epstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evidence existed proving that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the Petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the state; and (5) there were "forensic barriers" to prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues. The letter suggested that "misleading and inaccurate reports" from the PBPD "may well have affected" the USAO's view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's Office had taken into account the "damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime" of the state's two principal victims (identified by name in the letter), and argued that "with witnesses of their ilk," the state might have been unable "to make any case against Epstein at all." Lourie told OPR that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafafia told OPR that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded by the defense presentation at this "listening session." + +#### B. February — May 2007: Villafaila and the FBI Continue to Investigate; Villafafia Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for USAO Managers to Review + +Correspondence between Villafafia and defense counsel show that Villafaila carefully considered the defense arguments concerning the victims' credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes + +35Villafana told OPR that in a "heated conversation" on the subject, Lourie told them they were not being "strategic thinkers." Her fellow AUSA remembered Lourie's "strategic thinker" comment as well, but recalled it as having occurred later in connection with another proposed action in the Epstein case. Lourie did not recall making the statement but acknowledged that he could have. + +of the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel.36 Villafafia also pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's activity. On several occasions, Villafafia sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable national expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age. + +USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was expected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant procedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witness-related issues; expected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level supervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S. Attorney. + +Accordingly, Villafafia drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's Criminal Division Chief the previous October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May I, 2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other statutes were rejected as proposed charges; described the evidence supporting each count and potential evidentiary issues; and addressed the viability and credibility of each of the victims who were expected to testify at trial. + +Villafafia's immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum, had only a few small edits to the indictment, and advised Lourie that she approved of it. The immediate supervisor told OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized that the case was complex and that Villafafta would need co-counsel. + +In his OPR interview, Lourie recalled thinking that the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment "were very thorough and contained a lot of hard work," but that he wanted to employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that presented "the toughest cases" for Epstein—meaning those about whom Epstein had not already raised credibility issues to use in cross-examination. Lourie told OPR that although he had some concerns about the case—particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face—he did not see those concerns as insurmountable and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution. + +Although indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually did not require approval in Miami, in this case, Lourie understood that "[bjecause there was front office involvement from the get-go," he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go + +76 Lefcourt and provided the recordings during a follow-up meeting with Lourie and Villafruia on February 20, 2007, and thereafter furnished the transcripts. + +forward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to Menchel. Lourie's transmittal message read: + +> did a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going to start reading it tonight.... It's a major case because the target is one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He has a stable of attorneys, incliilliershowitz, [Roy] Black, Lefcourt, in and Lily [sic] . Jeff Sloman is familiar with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the grand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The FBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not critical, but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the indictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims), so I am not sending that yet. + +Lourie explained to OPR that by "clean" victims, he meant those for whom the defense did not have impeachment evidence to use against them. + +A few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asking if Menchel had read the prosecution memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to particular pages of the prosecution memorandum, noting that the "keys" were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some minor victims told Epstein they were 18.37 Lourie asked for Menchel's "very general opinion as to whether this is a case you think the office should do," and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's Office "went out of their way to get a no-bill on this ... and thus only charged adult solicitation, which they would bargain away to nothing." + +During his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution memorandum was his "official introduction" to the case and at that point in time, he had never heard of Epstein and had no information about his background. He recalled that the USAO had been asked to review the case because the state had not handled it appropriately. Menchel told OPR, however, that he had little memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous opinions he formed about it. + +Acosta told OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Villafalia's prosecution memorandum, explaining that he "would typically rely on senior staff," who had more prosecutorial experience, and that instead of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the case with Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, who he assumed would have read the document. Acosta + +17In various submissions to the USAO, the defense contended that the federal statute required proof that engaging in a sexual act was the "paramount or dominant purpose" of Epstein's travel, but that Epstein's travel was motivated by his desire to live outside of New York for over half of each year for tax purposes. The defense also asserted that the federal statutes at issue required proof that the defendant knew the victims were under IS, but that Epstein "took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age." In her prosecution memorandum, however, Villafaha set forth her conclusion that the statute only required proof that engaging in a sexual act was one of the motivating factors for the travel. She also concluded that the statutes did not require proof that the defendant knew the victims were minors. + +recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the discussions. + +Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to Menchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a "granular review" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel "were a team" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel was taking the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel. + +#### C. May — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges + +When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafafia intended to file charges by May 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villafafia, however, had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and after learning that the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafafia that "[t]his Office has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time."39 + +On May 10, 2007, with Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafafta's prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy and another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and describing it as a "highly sensitive" case involving "a high profile, very rich defendant."39 After CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the memorandum was "exhaustive" and "well done" and noting that Villafafia "has correctly focused on the issues as we see them." He summarized CEOS's analysis of the application of key facts to the statutes she proposed charging, concurring in Villafafta's assessments but noting that further research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's knowledge of victims' ages. Oosterbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafafia on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's email to Menchel and Villafafia. + +Meanwhile, contemporaneous emails show that Lourie, at least, was already considering an early resolution of the case through a pre-indictment plea agreement.40 After Lourie spoke with + +38Lourie later reported to Menchel that the FBI had "wanted to arrest [Epstein] in [the] Virgin Islands during a beauty pageant . . . where he is a judge." The case agent recalled that she and her co-ease agent were disappointed with the decision, and that the Supervisory Special Agent was "extremely upset" about it. After the federal investigation began, and except for his self-surrender to face the state indictment in July 2006, Epstein largely stayed away from West Palm Beach, only returning occasionally. + +19 Before becoming Chief of CEOS, Oosterbaan was an AUSA at the USAO for about ten years and was good friends with Lourie. + +40In her prosecution memorandum, Villafana argued against pre-charge plea negotiations, arguing that it "may undermine our arguments for pretrial detention." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not consider strengthening a bail argument to be a valid ground to decline to meet with defense counsel about a case. + +the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was "not happy" about the delay, adding, "I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That would have sent them thru the roof." Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.41 + +Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, "[t]his was . . . a bit of uncharted territory," involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited. Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he "probably" did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie "was not in favor of walking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do." But while Lourie "thought we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal," he "didn't think the odds were nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and . . . the things that we had to gain [through a plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case," in which the only cost of a loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government might have to "give up some jail time," there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the victims. Lourie recalled "thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can settle it" by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited charges in a criminal information. Villafafia told OPR that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal complaint charging an "omnibus conspiracy" containing "all of the information related to what the case was about" would be a good way to "get things moving" toward a pre-indictment plea. + +Although Lourie and Villafafia believed a pre-indictment plea agreement was a desired resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafafia: + +> [M]arie I believe that Epstein's att[omeys] are scared of the victims they don't know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many. Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding indictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their nightmare[]s come true. Thoughts?02 + +41Lourie explained to OPR that the government's dismissal of counts in an indictment required the court's approval, and that, while "it's rare," it was possible that a judge, seeing the nature and extent of Epstein's conduct as set forth in an extensive indictment, might not allow substantive counts to be dismissed. + +42Lourie's references to MySpacc pages and "prior testimony" referred to the impeachment information brought forward by defense counsel. + +Londe followed up his email to Villafafia with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafafia believed "the best thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The [sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict."43 Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and "[w]e can discuss after that." + +Later that afternoon, Villafafia sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel, explaining that a "conservative calculation" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted an upward departure from that range. Villafafia told OPR that although Lourie proposed some changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case. + +In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea: + +> My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely and which victims should be charged. + +> I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then try to see if he wants a pm-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts. + +Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafalia was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafafia informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchel responded that "[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow," and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at an out-of-town conference, adding, "This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure + +Louric told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general "omnibus" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years. + +he is comfortable before proceeding." Menchel told Villafafia he had "trouble understanding" why she was in a "rush" "given how long this case has been pending."44 + +OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafafia's timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafafia was "very hard charging," but her timeline for filing charges in the case was "really, really fast." Menchel described Villafafia as "out over her skis a little bit" and "ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45 Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta "was going to be the one making the call" about whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel told OPR, "This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision on." Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a "granular review" of the proposed charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and "obviously" had concluded that "the facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict." Lourie told OPR that he believed "the case was moving ahead." + +Villafafia continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed Sloman, noting that "[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good. Am I right about that?" Sloman responded, "Yes." On May 21, 2007, three weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafaita emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for "a sense of the direction where we are headed—i.e., approval of an indictment something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the current draft?" Sloman responded only, "Taken care of."46 + +#### D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which Villafafia Opposes + +Meanwhile, Epstein's defense counsel continued to seek additional information about the federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10, 2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein's attorneys "want me to tell them the statutes + +Villafafia explained to OPR that the "rush" related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls: "In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don't stop until they're behind bars. That was our time concern." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia offering this explanation to him. OPR notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR's draft report, Menchel and Villafafta expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available. + +45Sloman similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafafia was "ahead of where the office was internally" and that caused "discontent" between Villafafia and Menchel. Villafaita was not the only one, however, who was surprised that the indictment was not approved immediately. The case agent told OPR that it seemed "everything changed" after Villafafia submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafafia's immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared "Miami didn't want the case prosecuted." However, Menchel rebuked Villafaila in his July 5, 2007 email to her for having "led the agents to believe that [filing charges in) this matter was a foregone conclusion." + +46Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that he had spoken to Menchcl. and Menchel was going to take care of it. + +we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply.s47 Lourie told Menchel, "I don't see the downside," but added, '= is against it." Menchel responded that it was "premature" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically recall why he believed it was "premature" to provide the defense with the requested information, but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution. + +On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to "confirm" that Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but noted that Epstein's defense team was "really ready for the next level," rather than another meeting with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding, "Whether Alex would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call." Lourie also emailed Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges, and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to Menchel. + +Although Lourie's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers meeting with defense counsel, Villafaria opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaila on the afternoon of May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafafta drafted an email, which she planned to send to Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although the email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafaila sent it as a draft only to her immediate supervisor, seeking her "guidance and counsel" as to how to proceed. + +> Hi Jeff and Matt — I just want to again voice my disagreement with promising to have a meeting or having a meeting with Lefcourt or any other of Epstein's attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case where we will be sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case differently. Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed at the last meeting, and I am concerned that more will be disclosed at a future meeting. + +> My co-chair . . . who has prosecuted more of these cases than the rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of some of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. We have been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of our + +4? Dershowitz had joined Lefcourt and in representing Epstein for the federal case. + +IS During her OPR interview, Villafafia could not recall the meeting with specificity, but believed the purpose was to discuss whether the USAO should agree to additional meetings with Epstein's counsel. Menchel, similarly, told OPR that he could not remember anything specific about the meeting. + +opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as a collar or public corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence.49 + +With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and (3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion this would seriously undermine the prosecution. + +The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation, and to use political pressure to stop the investigation. + +I have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in agreement with the handling of the case. + +After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafafia, "Let's talk before this is sent, please."50 Villafafia told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafafia not to send the email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafafia could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told Villafafia that if Villafafia did not stay with the case, "the case would go away" and Epstein "would never serve a day in jail." + +Villafafia told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was "going down the same path that the State Attorney's Office had gone down." Villafafia believed the purpose of the defense request + +49 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of a defendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel to discuss the merits of a case. + +so The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaila that she and Villafaiia were "not driving the ship," and once "the bosses" made the decision, "there's nothing else you can do." + +for meetings was to cause delay, but "the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't want to see that," perhaps because of "their lack of experience with these types of cases" or a misguided belief "that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior." Villafafia told OPR that she "could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was a need to move with necessary speed." Nonetheless, Villafaiia followed the guidance of her immediate supervisor and did not send the email. + +Like Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good practice. Menchel told OPR that he saw "no downside" to hearing the defense point of view. Defense counsel might make a persuasive point "that's actually going to change our mind," or alternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and Menchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance. Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia ever articulating a concern that Epstein was continuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was "already under a microscope, at least in Florida," and it would have been "the height of stupidity" for Epstein to continue to offend in those circumstances. + +#### E. June 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum + +While Villafaita's supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed charges, Villafafia took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing "credibility concerns" relating to one of the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor, Villafafia reported, "another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed," and the "different strategies" about how to structure the charges left Villafafia unsure whether "to make . . . changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy." The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as the minor who "saw Epstein most frequently" and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein assistant. In the addendum, Villafafia identified documents she had found corroborating four separate statements made by this victim. + +Villafaiia told OPR that the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated specific credibility issues was the victim discussed in the addendum. Lourie told OPR that he had no specific recollection of the addendum, but it was "reasonable" to assume that the addendum addressed one particular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any other victim. Villafafia's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection, the discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims. + +#### F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel + +Menchel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly with about the arrangements. At Menchel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Villafafia sent a letter to defense counsel identifying what she described as "the statutes under consideration."5' + +51 Villafana sent copies of this letter to both Menchel and M. Villafana told OPR that she objected to sending this information to the defense. Although Menchel did not recall directing Villafana to send the letter to + +On that same day, Villafafia emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed indictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that Villafafia's request for feedback reflected her desire to "charge this case sooner than ... everybody else," but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not know whether Villafafia received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in time, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed. + +The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a 19-page letter intended to provide "an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the conduct at issue here." Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues, Lefcourt's letter argued: + +- Voluntary sexual activity involving "young adults-16 or 17 years of age"—was "strictly a state concern." +- Federal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in which the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was 18 years of age. +- One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), was intended to address use of the intemet to prey upon child victims through "intemet trolling," but Epstein did not use the intemet to lure victims. +- The "travel" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), prohibits travel "for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family, oversee his Florida-based flight operations, and "engage in the routine activities of daily living." + +Lefcourt also argued again that "irregularities" had tainted the state's case and would "have a significant impact on any federal prosecution."52 + +Lourie sent to Menchel, with a copy to Villafafia, an email dividing the defense arguments into "weaker" and "stronger" points. Lourie disagreed with the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) was limited to "intemet trolling," and described this as "our best charge and the most defensible for federal interest." On the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida "'with the purpose"' of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive. + +Lefcourt, he told OPR that he "wouldn't take issue" with Villafafia's claim that he had done so. Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia objecting at that point to providing the information to the defense. + +52Lefcourt claimed there were deficiencies in the PBPD search warrant and "material misstatements and omissions" in the PBPD probable cause affidavit. As an example, he contended that the police had lacked probable cause to search for videotapes, "since all the women who were asked whether they had been videotaped denied knowledge of any videotaping." (Emphasis in original). + +Lourie opined that the government could argue "that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else," which supported the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about "getting to the jury" on this issue and noted that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafafia told OPR that she disagreed with Lourie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him.53 Villafafia also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered "particularly weak." + +On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafafia, the case agent, and the West Palm Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black, Lefcourt, and Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO perspective, the meeting was merely a "listening session."54 Echoing the arguments made in Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case because these were "traditionally state offenses." The case agent recalled being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been involved. + +Villafafia told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be "under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed." But Menchel told OPR, "[T]hey obviously did not persuade" the USAO because "we .. . didn't drop the investigation." According to Villafafia, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general credibility of the victims, the prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense presentation had not been persuasive. Villafafia told OPR that she "left [the meeting] with the impression that we were continuing towards" filing charges. + +#### IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION + +USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would accomplish three goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein's incarceration; his registration as a sexual offender; and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary + +53 Villafana also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution's ability to prove Epstein's knowledge of the victims' ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided massages. + +54 In his written response to OPR, Menchel indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26, 2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of his recollection the USAO simply listened to the defense presentation, and in a contemporaneous email, Menchel opined that he viewed the upcoming June 26 meeting as "more as [the USAO) listening and them presenting their position." + +damages." During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both the larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of conceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their deliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all of the facts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA. + +In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal investigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth many of the numerous communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the final NPA. OPR questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue a state resolution, and OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. The subjects' memories of particular conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, the overall strength of the case that had been developed at that time, and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority to prosecute a case involving an offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated the initial plan to resolve the matter through a state plea. In any event, Acosta acknowledged to OPR that, at a minimum, he approved of the concept of a state-based resolution after being made aware of the allegations and the evidence against Epstein as set forth in Villafafia's prosecution memorandum. Furthermore, Acosta approved of the final terms of the NPA. + +#### A. June — July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the Defense Rejects + +A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting, emailed Villafafia, advising her that Epstein's defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped "to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter."56 In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafalia told Sloman, Menchel, Lourie and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea discussions by inviting "to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could + +55State laws require that a person convicted of specified sexual offenses register in a database intended to allow law enforcement and the public to know the whereabouts of sexual offenders after release from punitive custody, and, in some cases, to restrict such individuals' movements and activities. The Florida Sexual Offender/Predator Registry is administered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 established a comprehensive, national sex offender registration system called the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior laws and to strengthen the nationwide network of sex offender registrations. + +In this email, also requested a two-week extension of time for compliance with the USAO's demands for records, which included a demand for the computer equipment that had been taken from Epstein's residence before the October 2005 state search warrant and that Villafafia had been requesting from the defense since late 2006. + +include concurrent time." The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafafia did not explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail.57 Villafafia requested to be advised, "[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this." Villafafia, who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the case, explained to OPR that she made this request because "people were communicating with the defense attorneys," and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about a possible plea. + +In response to Villafafia's email, Menchel notified Villafafia that he had told state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney]," but had responded that it "was a non-starter for them."58 During his OPR interview, Menchel had no independent recollection of his conversation with and did not remember why the defense deemed the pro sal a `non-starter." However, Menchel explained that he would not have made the proposal to without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not have discussed a potential resolution with "without having discussed it with me." + +#### 1. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based Resolution + +Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta said that although he, Sloman, and Menchel "believed the victims" and "believed [Epstein] did what he did," they were concerned "about some of the legal issues . . . and some of the issues in terms of testimony."59 Acosta also recalled discussions with his "senior team" about how the victims would "do on the stand." + +Acosta told OPR that "from the earliest point" in the investigation, he considered whether, because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it. + +57Villafafia explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a substantive charge, "consistent with the Ashcroft Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense," with "a recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein] would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date." See n.65 for an explanation of the Ashcroft Memo. + +stt Villafafia was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Menchel's email, Villafafia responded to defense counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, "If you would like to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution ... that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail." + +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Sloman stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or deciding how to resolve it, and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NPA. However, Sloman also told OPR that he had little recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and Menchel. + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. . state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances. + +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."60 Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a "manifest injustice."61 Acosta explained that "no jail time" would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable offense, "it would never have come to the office in the first place," and therefore would not be viewed as a manifest injustice. + +Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between "solicitation" or "prostitution," which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and "trafficking," which was an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, "it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR, "I'm not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case." Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking. + +Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted "victim shaming," which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the state grand jury found little merit to the case.62 Acosta told OPR: + +60Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. + +61Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be "overcome ... if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence ... is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." USAM § 9-2.031.D. + +62Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney's Office had deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State + +I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when . . . more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and . . . [a] judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have . . . caused more hesitation on the part of victims ... .63 + +Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning a sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range." + +In summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR, + +The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal issues .... There were witness issues. And ... we could go to trial . .. and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at a pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a state pre-indictment resolution. + +Acosta told OPR that, in the end, "there was a preference for deferring to the state" because, in part, the facts of the Epstein case at the time appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution rather than trafficking, and a federal prosecution would be "uncharted territory." Acosta explained that he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the Epstein case played out, the federal role became "more intrusive" than he had anticipated, because the defense tried to get the state to "circumvent and undermine" the outcome. + +Attorney's Office could have proceeded against Epstein by way of an information, but decided to go into the grand jury because the State Attorney's Office "didn't like the case" and wanted "political cover" for declining the case or proceeding on a lesser charge. + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(0(1 XC) allows the parties to agree on a specific sentence as part of a pica agreement. The court is required to impose that sentence if the court accepts the plea agreement; if the court does not accept the agreed upon plea and sentence, the agreement is void. Villafaila told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida, as the "judges do not like to be told .. . what sentence to impose." Menchel similarly told OPR that the USAO viewed federal judges in the Southern District of Florida as averse to Rule 11(c) pleas, although Menchel had negotiated such pleas. Villafafia told OPR that she had never offered a Rule 11(c) plea in any of her cases and had no experience with such pleas. + +63Menchel told OPR, however, that the federal judges in West Palm Beach were highly regarded and were generally viewed as "pro-prosecution." + +61Acosta said that "dismissing a number of counts and then doing a [R]ule I I is not something that (South Florida federal district] judges tend to do." Other subjects also told OPR that the federal judges in the Southern District of Florida were generally considered averse to pleas that bound them on sentencing, commonly referred to as "Rule 11(c) pleas." + +Menchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his own "emails ... make clear that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta." He referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafalia informing her that Acosta was deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished two things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and that any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He told OPR, "I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. That was not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case." Rather, Menchel said, "The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial." + +#### 2. July 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State Resolution + +Villafatia told OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's July email explaining that he had proposed to resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In Villafatia's view, the proposed state resolution "didn't make any sense" and "did not correspond" to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect "the most serious readily provable offense."65 In her view, a plea to a state charge "obviously" would not satisfy this policy. Villafalia also told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative agency about plea negotiations, and Villafana did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state plea. Villafatia also believed the CVRA required attorneys for the government to confer with victims before making a plea offer, but the victims had not been consulted about this proposal. Villaftula told OPR she had met with some of the victims during the course of the investigation who had negative impressions of the State Attorney's Office, and she believed that "sending them back to the State Attorney's Office was not something" those victims would support. + +['In all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case, except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney in the limited circumstances described below. The most serious offense or offenses arc those that generate the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, unless a mandatory minimum sentence or count requiring a consecutive sentence would generate a longer sentence. A charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor has a good faith doubt, for legal or evidentiary reasons, as to the Government's ability readily to prove a charge at trial. Thus, charges should not be filed simply to exert leverage to induce a plea. Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges may not be dismissed except to the extent permitted [elsewhere in this Memorandum). + +See also Chapter Two, Pan Two, Section 11.8.1. + +65This policy was set forth in a September 22, 2003 memorandum from then Attorney General John Ashcroft regarding "Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing" (known as the \*\*Ashcroft Memo"), which provided, in pertinent part: + +In light of these concerns, Villafafia emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement with the process: + +> [I]t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s'] Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically, you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered, and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal. + +> Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for "show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein's attorneys directly.... + +I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff [Sloman], Andy [Lourie], and you with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength of the case. + +In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's counsel to me. + +Menchel told OPR he realized Villafaiia was "very anxious" to file charges in the case. Villafafia had put a "tremendous" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel "was not unsympathetic at all to her desires" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR, Villafafia's supervisors, including Acosta, were "trying to be a little bit more dispassionate," and her urgency was "not respectful" of Acosta's position. Menchel viewed the tone of Villafafia's email as "highly unacceptable," and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In particular, Menchel pointed out that although the Ashcroft Memo requires prosecutors to charge the "most readily provable offense," there is nevertheless room for "flexibility," and that the U.S. Attorney has discretion—directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menchel—to waive the policy. + +Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke: + +Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question. + +As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations. + +Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys' concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case." + +In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with and respond to Villafafia's complaints: + +Lilly called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lilly Mi mwas made with the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one + +B6 Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie. + +on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. + +Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you. + +As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney.° Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him. + +Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command — something you disregard with great regularity. + +Villafafia acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that meeting." Villafafia told OPR that no one had communicated to her the "concerns" Menchel mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns." + +A week later, Villafafia replied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward: + +> Hi Matt — My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your + +67Neither Menchel nor Villafana could recall for OPR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney noted that Acosta's concerns were "the possibility that bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims." + +68Menchcl confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation. + +69 Villafana characterized Menchel's email as "meant to intimidate" and told OPR that she felt "put in [her] place" by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not "jump the chain of command." Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafaiia had a "history of resisting supervisory authority" that warranted his strong response. + +e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address where we are in the case. + +First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of command. After that concern was brought to my attention several months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of command. . . . If there is a particular instance of violating the chain of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it with you. + +..... + +The statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with . . . victims, and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered lawyers. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like there is a ██████ ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while evidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in this criminal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two more victims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to give hope to more girls. + +As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone conclusion, I don't know of any case in the Office where an investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a declination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked with the agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictment package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is + +proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not hying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . . [M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights. + +In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70 + +Villafafia did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise her concerns.' Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not "order" Villafafia to refrain from raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafafia foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, "the context of this exchange is, she is running roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not in charge of it. I'm not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it." Acosta, who was apparently not aware of Villafafia's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective, Villafafia was not "frozen out" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him directly for a meeting. + +#### B. Villafafia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts + +As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although Villafafia took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts. + +TO Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman. + +71Villafaiia told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect to Villafaiia, but that Menchel responded it was not Villafana's -place" to tell him to whom he should direct communications. + +Early in the federal investigation, Villafafta recognized the potential significance of obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafafta told OPR that she and the FBI agents went through every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaria told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafafta's experience, individuals involved in child exploitation often possessed child pornography.72 Villafafta's co-counsel, who had substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, "Epstein was a billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his + +As the investigation continued, Villafafta took various steps to acquire the computer equipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide "[t]he computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs, floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from" the residence. Although Lourie subsequently narrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained. + +Villafafia learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual. After consulting the Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer equipment, Villafafia described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR + +In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafafta initiated action requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafafta on June 29, 2007, requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a "state-based resolution" to the case would soon be reached.73 Villafafta advised her supervisors of the request, and responded to that she "would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible." + +Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafafta, demanding to know + +i2 In addition, Villafana became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein's assistant, who told the victim that Epstein took pictures of the girls. + +P1 This email led Villafana to ask her supervisors if any of them had discussed with the defense a possible resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafatia's exchange of emails with Menchel about their respective views of the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part + +equipment.70 After further communications on this issue involving Black, , Villafalia, and Lourie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the USAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened because the parties entered into the NPA. + +#### C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation + +In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy "case analysis chart" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she "supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear."' + +While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS expressed its endorsement of Villafafia's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read Villafafia's prosecution memorandum "closely," and noting that "[s]he did a terrific job. As we opined to Andy [Londe] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound." Oosterbaan observed: + +> I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive, but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the law applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of available precedent favors us. From the prosecution memorandum it is clear that has anticipated the strongest legal arguments, scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly. And, while with this prosecution the government clearly faces a strong and determined defense team, it is a challenge well worth facing. 1 also happen to know that there is absolutely no concern ... about facing the challenges this case presents. + +In closing, Oosterbaan renewed his offer to have CEOS "help you with this prosecution," and to send "whatever and whoever you need" to assist. + +71Villafaiia forwarded Black's letter to Menchel, explaining the circumstances relating to the removal of the computer equipment from Epstein's home, the steps she had taken to make the required consultations in the Department, and that she and Louric had worked together on her response to Black. + +~5 The news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team led to an email exchange between Sloman and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, who commented, "By the way, let me know if you want me to put something in writing to you with our position and detailing all of the child prostitution cases she supervised with similar facts." + +#### D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of Incarceration + +The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a twoyear term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the "minimum" the USAO would accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years as the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation, but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.76 + +While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to Villafafia, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafafia continued moving toward filing charges. On July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supporting a potential prosecution, Villafafia emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps regarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafafia to "hold off... until we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next week." Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafafia to wait, but he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case. + +On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007." + +#### 1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami + +Early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafafia informed Menchel that she was preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all but three of the "travel counts" and "a large number of [the] overt acts," and the addition of overt acts and counts relating to two additional victims; she would not, however, have the revised indictment ready in time "for our discussion today" at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafafia to delay the investigative steps involving the assistants indicated that he was "trying to do something" with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the "underlying issue" of whether to proceed with federal charges. + +Acosta made that decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafalia met in Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafafia told OPR that she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the investigation. However, Villafafia told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered the room and stated that Acosta "has decided to offer a two-year state deal." According to + +T6 See Section IV.D.2 in this Part. + +T7 As early as May 4, 2007, Mcnchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter private practice. + +Villafafia, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafafia "shocked and stunned." + +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he strongly disputed Villafafta's description of events, asserting that it would have been "directly at odds with his management style" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had "decided and endorsed this resolution at some point," but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel's relaying of that decision, he said it "would have been consistent with" his decision for Menchel to do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafafia, Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment. + +Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two-year term was communicated to Villafafia and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged." + +#### 2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration + +Villafafia asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the decision was made.79 Villafafia told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view, explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafafia also told OPR that Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafafia did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision. Villafafia described the proposal as "random," and told OPR, "[W]e're all [sentencing] guidelines people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses."S0 + +78OPR notes that Villafana did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and Villafana, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a decision to resolve the case with a two-year state plea not long before the meeting. + +OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafana had knowledge of Acosta's decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it. + +so From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005. the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710, + +Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaila. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.81 Sloman added that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by Acosta following "extended consideration, research, and discussion," among Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia." + +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR, however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges, Epstein would have felt he had "nothing to lose" and "undoubtedly" would have chosen to take the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial, and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years "as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything," and "if we . . . felt we could have gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial." + +Acosta told OPR that "I had decided and endorsed" the two-year resolution "at some point," and that it resulted from "back and forth" discussion "over the course of some days or a week or two." As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO's role in this case merely as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he explained to OPR was "a polite way of saying[, ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']"83 Acosta said that he understood two years' imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation.84 Acosta also told OPR that he + +> the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government should ... endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which the sentencing decisions will be based. + +8I In Sloman's view, Menchel and Lourie were "two of the finest trial lawyers" in the USAO. + +82Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were "two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta's] front office who had tried ... gobs and gobs of cases." + +83In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney asserted that OPR's use of Acosta's quote, "a little bit more," "unfairly minimized" Acosta's and the USAO's efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta's attorney also asserted that the phrase was "clearly soft-spoken understatement," that the terms obtained were "substantially more onerous than the state's alternative resolution," and that Acosta was "clearly declining the invitation to take the State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction." + +OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in + +understood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "[T]his was, rightly or wrongly, an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to that." Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his concerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific conversation with them. + +#### E. Villafafia Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense + +A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had "some sort of discussion" with her supervisors that resulted in her creation of a "term sheet" identifying the proposed terms for resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villafafia left a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villafafia nor Menchel could recall what Villafafia said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed Villafafia: + +> I received your voicemail this morning. I don't see any reason to change our approach. I think telling them that unless the state resolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and the interests of the victims, we will seek federal charges] conveys that we are serious. While Lilly has represented in the past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the US Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture. + +The following day, July 31, 2007, Villafafia emailed a one-page "Terms of Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement" to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafafia told OPR she had never before seen or heard of a non-prosecution agreement and that it was a concept "completely foreign" to her.85 Villafafia told OPR that the idea of styling the two-year state plea agreement with Epstein + +the state indictment. OPR considered various potential state charges involving various numbers of victims and found no obvious reasonable state sentencing guidelines calculation that would have resulted in a two-year sentence. + +The terms "deferred prosecution agreement" and "non-prosecution agreement" have often been used loosely by prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and commentators. As the terms are used in these Principles [of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations), a deferred prosecution agreement is typically predicated upon the filing of a formal charging document by the government, and the agreement is filed with the appropriate court. In the non-prosecution agreement context, formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained by the parties rather than being filed with a court. Clear and consistent use of these terms will enable the Department to more effectively identify and share best practices and to track the use of such agreements. These Principles do not apply + +85 Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements were standard, though infrequently used, vehicles for resolving certain federal criminal cases against corporate entities. A 2008 Departmental memorandum explained: + +as a "non-prosecution agreement" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated that terminology to her. According to Villafafia, she asked that it include a mechanism for the victims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges." Acosta told OPR that he "developed and approved" the term sheet." + +Before the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from Villafafia's draft—one providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified victims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the month. The final term sheet was as follows: + +> to plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a court proceeding. + +Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and United States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at hnps://ww.justice.goviarchives/jmicriminal-resourcemanual-163-selection-and-use-monitors. Villafaha did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities. + +86A civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by victims of certain crimes is provided for in the federal criminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Subsection (a) of the statute, as in effect from July 27, 2006, to March 6, 2013, provided as follows: + +> Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251 A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$150,000 in value. + +Villafaha also told OPR that she asked that the terms include the requirement that Epstein plead to an offense that required him to register as a sexual offender; however, sex offender status was also mentioned in Menchel's July 3. 2007 email to Villafaha recounting his preliminary discussions with + +#### CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS + +#### TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +- **Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with:** + - **(a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4):** + - **(b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03: and** + - **(c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age. in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05.** +- **Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing: and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.** +- **Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State and the right to appeal.** +- **Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18. United States Code. Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423.** +- **After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations.** + +#### V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES + +Although the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on July 31, 2007, it took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NPA. The contemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered multiple counter-proposals to the USAO's stated terms, and alternated between working out the state plea disposition and seeking an alternative federal plea arrangement. The emails make clear that as the negotiations intensified in September 2007, the prosecutors became increasingly frustrated, particularly with what they perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and provisions but then backtracking or altering the agreed-upon terms in subsequent communications. It is apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of "at least two years in prison." The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. + +#### A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer + +Menchel Sloman, Lourie, Villafafla, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys Lefcourt, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel "leading the meeting" for the USAO.87 The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafafia distributed a federal sentencing guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months' incarceration. + +Villafaila recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein serve a sentence of home confinement or "community control"88 in lieu of incarceration, and emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility? Villafafia told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in a state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting, Villafafia emai led Menchel, stating that she had "figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2 year cap." + +Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence show that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal + +The Community Control supervision program was created as a diversion to incarceration or imprisonment; therefore it is an intensive supervision program where you are confined to your home unless you are working, attending school, performing public service hours, participating in treatment or another special activity that has been approved in advance by your officer. The program was designed to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a punishment alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control supervision (also known as "house arrest") you will not be allowed to leave your home to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation, or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do .. ., but it does allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones. + +Florida Dept. of Corrections, Succeeding on Community Control at I, http:/Avww.dc.state.fl.us/cc/ccfonns/ Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdf. + +Villafafia was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting. + +According to the Florida Department of Corrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control, + +Villafafia told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team "had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Villafafia anticipated there would be ways to "manipulate" a state sentence and the USAO would be "giving up all control," and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred. + +charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team, July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel: followed up on the + +> We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated.90 + +added, "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life." + +The "significantly punitiveLmmal described in the defense letter involved no period of mandatory incarceration. Instead, suggested two years of home confinement, with regular reporting to and visits from a community control officer, payment of restitution, damages, court and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service; psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was "prepared to fully fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007." Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody. also advised that the defense team was seeking a meeting with Acosta. + +#### B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That will Vindicate the Federal Interest + +Villafafia told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable, and she conferred with Lourie or Menchel about the government's response. Villafafia drafted for Menchel's signature a letter asserting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment to be the minimum sentence that would "vindicate" the federal interest in the Epstein investigation. Villafafia's draft stated that the USAO "has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein," but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Villafafia specified that Epstein would also be required to concede liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal investigation, "not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument." + +vo The USAO countered, however, that it "never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate" and that "a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer." Records show that throughout the Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys' conduct, OPR did not rely on uncorroborated defense assertions. + +Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafafta's draft letter. He specified that "a two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafta. + +The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91 + +91Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaria told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafana told OPR that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea. + +![](_page_82_Picture_125.jpeg) + +**U.S. Department of Justice** + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida* + +--- + +*R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY* + +*99 N.E. 4 Street +Miami, FL 33132 +(305) 961-9100 - Telephone +(305) 530-6444 - Facsimile* + +August 3, 2007 + +VIA FACSIMILE + +Lilly Ann [REDACTED], Esq. + +![](_page_82_Picture_133.jpeg) + +Re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Dear Lilly: + +Thank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the Epstein matter. + +As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we simply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penetentiary, we would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state resolution. Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer. + +We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial planned charging instrument. + +As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically changed upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. + +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +AUGUST 3, 2007 +PAGE 2 + +Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. + +Sincerely, + +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Attorney + +![]()Matthew Menchel +Chief, Criminal Division + +cc: Roy Black +Gerald B. Lefcourt +R. Alexander Acosta +Jeffrey Sloman +Andrew Lourie +A. [REDACTED] Villafaña + +Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence established a "floor" for negotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more jail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR that the USAO was "leaving our options open" by retaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was "trying . . . to get him into a federal penitentiary." The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007, for acceptance of the government's offer was intended to accommodate Villafaña's request that the deadline provide her with enough time to go to New York, pursue investigative steps involving two of Epstein's assistants, do witness interviews, and take additional legal steps to obtain Epstein's computers if Epstein rejected the deal. Menchel told OPR he considered August 17 to be a firm deadline: "[I]f you tell someone they have two weeks, it should be two weeks." Menchel signed and sent the letter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day at the USAO before joining a private law firm.92 + +The following Monday, August 6, 2007, Villafaña contacted Menchel by email at his new firm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out on Friday. Villafaña explained + +--- + +92 Menchel told OPR that the timing of the letter to [REDACTED] was a "total coincidence," and had nothing to do with his impending departure from the USAO. + +to OPR that she "wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because . . . if the letter didn't go out we can make this all go away and restart." Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter out by email. + +Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged. Villafaila told OPR that the squad supervisor "yelled at" Sloman about the USAO's decision not to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor "like [Villafafia] [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case."93 + +#### C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta + +#### 1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys + +Villafatia told OPR that Epstein's team was "incensed" that Acosta would not meet with them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time, Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate at the firm." On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: "Just saw Menchel. I didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable." During their OPR interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could provide no additional information about the contact.95 A reply email from Acosta to Sloman indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, "They are likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should be made clear." + +The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman: + +[Epstein's] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds of a process foul, i.e., that I have not met with them. I'm concerned that this will delay matters. + +I am thinking of heading this off, by (i) agreeing to meet to discuss general legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable + +41 In an email to Louric reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that "it's a tad more complicated" and commented, "The guy is killing me." The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not remember this exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being "upset" with the proposed resolution of the case and he likely would have told Sloman, "When do we indict? Why don't we just move forward?" + +94Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, he had worked on at least one matter each with Starr and Letkowitz, and since that time, he had professional acquaintanceships with both. + +95Menchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which he entered Acosta's office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, "[T]hat was Ken Starr," and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case. + +jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. + +Thoughts? + +Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and that "[i]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop this case."96 + +#### 2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafana's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence + +On August 8, 2007, Villafaiia informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th deadline." Villafafta also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that "there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea," Villafaria asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Lourie pointed out that CEOS "has no approval authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies." Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit ... it's worth it." + +As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafafta emailed Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafaila was reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant. On August 13, 2007, Villafaila advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of the litigation. However, reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, which was scheduled for September 7, 2007. + +Villafafia told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."" Villafafta suspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed." + +96 In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter. + +97Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of reasons why" defense counsel would resist lunging] over an entire computer." + +She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating position, but that her supervisors "did not seem to recognize that." Villafafia said she did not understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained. Instead, they instructed Villafafia to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation proceedings. + +Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafafia was "ordered to stand down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafafia's effort to obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possibly "could have changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR interview, Menchel was uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR, "You always want more as a prosecutor." + +On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Villafafia and the case agents and to examine the case file. He explained to OPR that he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best "represent[] the interests of the prosecution team," and that he was in favor of going forward with the case. According to Villafafia, during his review of the file, Oosterbaan told her that the case was "really good" and offered to assist Villafafia at trial. + +On September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent Villafafia an email asking, "Please refresh my recollection. What is the 'deal' on the table?" Sloman told OPR that his question reflected the fact that in his capacity as FAUSA, he was involved in "a hundred other things" at that time." Villafafia sent Sloman the term sheet and explained to him, "You and Matt [Menchel] and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an Information charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule II plea with a two-year cap, but I think Matt must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafafia continued: + +> There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means . . . September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as Drew [Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained." + +98Sloman noted that with the attention given to the Epstein investigation, "it seems like.. . this was the only case [in the office], but there were other cases." + +99As Villafaila explained in her OPR interview, when a violent crime defendant self-surrenders, the government may have difficulty winning an argument for pretrial detention or bond. Contrary to Villa fana's assertion in the email, the CVRA, even when applicable, required only victim consultation, not victim approval, and as is explained in + +Villafafia added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would report that Epstein was "going to plead to a state charge" and the PBPD Chief "wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal." Sloman forwarded Villafafia's email to Acosta with a note that read simply, "fyi." + +Later that evening, Villafafia circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA. t00 The draft federal plea agreement, following the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment. The draft NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that because she had never seen a non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the Department's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the use of non-prosecution agreements. 101 + +## 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI M ors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and + +On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, Villafafia's co-counsel, Oosterbaan, and one orsTervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm Beach office with defense attorneys and, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz. 1°2 This was Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's defense team. Villafafia understood the purpose of this meeting was to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to "make a pitch" as to why the case should not be prosecuted federally. Villafafia recalled that at a "pre-meet" before defense counsel arrived, Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case. + +Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not "a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafafia similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case should remain a state matter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafafia and her co-counsel recalled that Start addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held Senate-confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were "the only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta did not recall the comment, but he told OPR, "[B]ack in July, we had decided that we were going + +Chapter Three, the Department's position at the time was that victim consultation was not required in matters in which the government did not pursue a federal charge. The USAO's actions with respect to victim consultation and the Department's interpretation of the CVRA are discussed in detail in Chapter Three of this Report. + +100 The initial draft NPA is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report. + +101 OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied. + +102Lourie was not present. During September 2007, he was traveling between Florida and Washington, D.C., as he transitioned to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head of the Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. He served in that detail until he left the Department in February 2008. + +forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our position."103 + +Villafaila told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported that the meeting was "non-eventful," noting that defense counsel argued "federalism" and might approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument directly to her. + +#### VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED + +Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and although Villafafia continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was established, and the negotiations continued through most of September. + +The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means through which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that a two-year term of imprisonment was "the minimum" that the USAO would accept. To reach an agreement with the defense on Epstein's sentence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either federal or state court, or both, and Villafafia spent considerable time and effort working with defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with the understanding that under the state's sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15 months. + +### A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months + +Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had not been present at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer, proposing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafafia emailed Sloman, identifying issues she wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender registration. Villafafia stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was "a reasonable counteroffer in light of our starting position of 24 months," but added that it was "a really low sentence." Villafafia + +103Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Starts presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path. + +noted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence amounted to less than one month per victim. Villafafia requested that "whatever the U.S. Attorney decides to do," the agreement with Epstein should "follow . . . a version of my written nonprosecution agreement" in order to "avoid any state shenanigans and . . . keep the defense on a strict timeline." + +Later that day, Villafafia circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a 20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA contained a provision that specified, "With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least 17 months in a state correctional institution."104 Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation "to undertake discussions with the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures." Villafafia sent her version of the revised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the following day, after she learned of it. + +On September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villafaiia to inquire whether the USAO would be prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the computers the following day. At Sloman's direction, Villafafia asked the court to delay the hearing, and the court rescheduled it for the following week. At the same time, anticipating that plea negotiations would fail, Villafafia circulated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and Oosterbaan, seeking their feedback before sending it "through the chain of command." Villafafia also sent Oosterbaan the revised NPA and told him she was "still shooting for 9/25" to bring charges, assuming the defense declined the USAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, "The counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable."I°5 + +That afternoon, Lourie asked Villafafia, "What is our latest offer?" Villafafia responded, "Plead to the three specified [state] charges, a 30-month sentence, split 20 in jail and 10 in `community control,' and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in deadlines for a plea and sentencing date." + +#### B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney + +Although the USAO and defense counsel had been discussing resolving the federal investigation with a plea to state charges, there is no evidence that the USAO involved the State Attorney's Office in those discussions until September 12, 2007. On that day, Lourie, Villafafia, and another USAO supervisor who would be replacing Lourie as manager of the USAO's West Palm Beach office, and Epstein attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt, and Goldberger met with State Attorney Barry Krischer and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. Other than Villafafia, few of the participants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidence indicates that the USAO made additional concessions during the meeting. + +104Through "gain time," Florida inmates can earn a reduction in their sentence for good behavior. + +los Oostcrbaan told OPR that he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and "had no involvement with it." + +Villafafia told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed concern about proceeding as the USA() was proposing. According to Villafafia, Belohlavek explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaiia recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges, Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. 106 Lourie, however, disputed Villafafia's recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was "illogical" to conclude that he had the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally. 107 + +During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state prison. Villafafia also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the entirety of his sentence, and they did not "particularly care" whether it was in a state or local facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months—totaling 18 months—could be served in the county jail. Villafafia told OPR: + +> Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, I remember [the defense] talking about ... a one year count followed by a six-month count . . . that [Epstein] could serve them back to back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said, "But if you do that, it's still going to have to be round the clock incarceration." And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he would be kept in solitary confinement. + +Villafaiia did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a "concession" because he would be incarcerated regardless. + +Neither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was "not offended at all" when he learned of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein "was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was + +106Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not involve sexual offender registration. + +107As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafafta spokc with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement + +going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he hadn't done up to this point." Krischer asked, "Why would I turn that down?" Krischer also noted that at that time, sexual offender registration "was not the norm" in Florida, and he recognized that "it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office."108 + +Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12 meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafatia and Lourie needed "some degree of discretion to negotiate"; that "in the give and take" of negotiations, they might propose a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled "captured the conduct" in an "appropriate" way. + +Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible state resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. Later that day, Villafafia sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with Acosta and Sloman, and they were "all satisfied in principle with the agreement."'" The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafafia sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors, identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafafia also emailed defense counsel, stating that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18"—referring to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a "factual basis" for any federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering. + +#### C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months + +OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafafia, and Lourie to explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was reduced. Villafafia and Acosta offered significantly different explanations. + +Villafafia told OPR: + +We had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was + +108Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration "was a common occurrence" for enumerated state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them. + +109The email does not indicate what the panics meant by "the agreement." + +having directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18 months. + +Villafaiia further explained to OPR: + +Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion that 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gain time, so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state. Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time like that in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course, as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Leflcowitz) got Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in the [s]tate, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months. + +Regarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, ... this came from a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy or Alex where the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18 was agreed to. I also recall that, after Epstein's counsel decided that they wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked Alex why we didn't return to 20 months because the reason why we went to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with a federal statutory maximum.' l° + +However, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys, drafted by Villafaila for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the State Attorney's Office, stated that "a significant compromise" reached at the meeting "was a reduction in the amount of jail time — from [the originally proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility." Acosta also noted to OPR that Villafafta was engaged in a "tough negotiation," and he was willing to allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him "secondguessing" her. Acosta acknowledged that he "clearly approved it at some point." + +Based on this record, OPR could not definitively determine when, how, or by whom the decision was made to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 months to 18 months. It is possible that the reduction was connected to Epstein's effort to achieve a result that would allow him to serve his time in a county facility, but it may also have resulted from the parties' attempts to reach agreement on federal charges that would not result in a sentence of incarceration greater than what had been discussed with respect to state charges. In the end, the evidence shows that Acosta approved of a reduced term of incarceration from 24 months to 18 months, and the USAO understood at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount of time Epstein would spend incarcerated. + +no By "federal statutory maximum," Villafana referred to 12-month and 6-month misdemeanors. + +#### D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges + +During the remainder of September, Villafafia conducted plea negotiations and drafted the final NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, Villafafia reported that the plea negotiations were "getting fast and furious." She said that the defense wanted to establish a "victim's fund" through which Epstein could make payments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for damages, which she speculated was "to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files." + +According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had moved toward a "hybrid" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to state charges, which would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison. Villafafia informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that negotiations with Lefkowitz had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges: harassment to prevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § I512(d)(2), which was then a one-year misdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a six-month misdemeanor). Villafafia reported that Lefkowitz "put in a pitch for only 12 months, I put in a pitch that [Epstein] plead to 24 with a 20-month recommendation, and we decided that we would be stuck with the 18 months." + +Later that day, Villafafia sent to Lefkowitz a draft "hybrid" plea agreement and information mirroring the agreement in principle she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had "not yet been blessed" by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the two federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he be sentenced to the statutory maximum penalty of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release, and that he would also plead guilty to the state registrable offense of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, for which Epstein and the State Attorney's Office would make a joint, binding recommendation that he be sentenced to serve at least 20 months in prison followed by 10 months of community control (home confinement). Although not specified in the draft agreement, the negotiations evidently expected the federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition to payment of restitution, Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction or victim status for any of the victims identified in the federal investigation—at that point specified as numbering 40—who elected to file suit for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A guardian ad !item would be appointed to communicate with the defense on the victims' behalf. + +Lourie, however, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of the proposal. In response to Villafafia's email about the potential federal charges, but after Villafafia sent the proposal to Lefkowitz, Lourie told her, "The assault [charge] sounds like a stretch and factually [is] sort of silly." m Lourie also told Sloman, Acosta, and another supervisor that he did not "like the assault charge" and believed that it would not "go smooth with every judge." Acosta responded, "If we need[,] let's find a different charge." On Saturday, September IS, 2007, Villafaila emailed Lefkowitz, using her personal email address, reporting that she had "gotten some negative reaction + +The charge was to be based on "an incident in which Epstein `put great pressure' ... on [one of his female assistants] to call the girls to set up appointments." + +to the assault charge" and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge."2 At this point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafafia that in his absence Lourie had agreed "to help finalize this." Lourie spent the following work week at his new post at the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone and email. + +In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafaiia informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted a factual proffer to accompany a revised "hybrid" federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafafia also noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Miami, "which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." This email received considerable attention 12 years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evidence of the USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafafia, however, explained to OPR that she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victims' privacy. She told OPR, "[I]f [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper," and that such publicity was less likely to happen in Miami, where the press "in general does not care about what happens in Palm Beach." + +Lefkowitz responded to Villafafia with a revised version of her latest proposed "hybrid" plea agreement, in a document entitled "Agreement." Significantly, this defense proposal introduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to prosecute them, as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and a promise to forego immigration proceedings against two of the female assistants: + +> Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation . . . . Further, no immigration proceeding will be instituted against [two named female assistants] as a result of the ongoing investigation. + +The second new provision related to the USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers: + +Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement resolves any and all outstanding [legal process] that have requested witness testimony and/or the production of documents and/or computers in relation to the investigation that is the subject of the Agreement. Each [legal process] will be withdrawn upon the execution of the Agreement and will not be re-issued absent reliable + +112Villafana told OPR that she sometimes used her home email account because "[n]egotiations were occurring at nights, on weekend[s], and while I was [away from the office for personal reasons], . .. and this occurred during a time when out of office access to email was very limited." Records show her supervisors were aware that at times she used her personal email account in communicating with defense counsel in this case. + +evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are fulfilled. + +Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had suggested: "the original proposal" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence, or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafaña also told Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafaña explained: + +As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. + +With regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafaña suggested standard federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, "and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's co-conspirators, who at the time she understood to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, "[W]e considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else." She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern. Villafaña also told OPR that her reference to "all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge" related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct, the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the agreement was breached.113 + +With regard to immigration, Villafaña told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with their immigration paperwork, "and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn't any reason + +--- + +113 OPR understood Villafaña's concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a court's inquiry into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term. + +for them to be deported."I 14 As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of having committed crimes, Villafafia told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal apart from actual prosecution. + +Villafafia concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were not "closer to resolving this than it appears that we are," and offering to meet the next day to work on the agreement: + +> Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing . . ., if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well. + +Villafafia told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting negotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafafia wanted "to have a meeting where we sat down and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is, sometimes people feel better if you go to a neutral location" for a face-to-face meeting. + +On the morning of Monday, September 17, 2007, the USAO supervisor who was taking over Lourie's duties as manager of the West Palm Beach office asked Villafafia for an update on the plea negotiations, and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous aftemoon. Villafaila told the manager, "As you can see . . there are a number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open." + +Shortly thereafter, Villafafia alerted the new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just spoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to state charges under a non-prosecution agreement, and she would be forwarding to Lefkowitz "our last version of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." Acosta asked that Villafafia "make sure they know it[']s only a draft" and reminded her that "[t]he form and language may need polishing." Villafafia responded, "Absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to re-open all the loopholes that I had sewn shut." Villafafia sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided to Lefcourt on September 11, 2007, noting that it was the "last version" and would "avoid [him] having to reinvent the wheel." She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of negotiations, noting that she had told her "chain of command . . . that we are still on for the [September] 25th [to bring charges] . .., no matter what." + +After receiving the draft NPA, Lefkowitz asked Villafaiia to provide for his review a factual proffer for a federal obstruction of justice charge, and, with respect to the NPA option, asked, "[I]f + +II/ According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of any foreign national, but neither cast agcnt recalled any immigration issue rcgarding any of the Epstein employees. + +113Lefkowitz was based in New York City but traveled to Miami in connection with the case. + +we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?" Villafafia replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly accessible, the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process."16 Villafafia told OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he "did not want people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes." As she explained to OPR, Villafafia believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages. + +#### E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges + +Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Responding to Villafaiia's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge with a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release with a requirement for home detention and two years of state probation, with the first six months of the state sentence to be served under community control. Villafafia replied, "I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion)." Shortly thereafter, Villafafia emailed Acosta, Lourie, and the incoming West Palm Beach manager: + +> Hi all — I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with Mr. Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution. As I mentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend drafting Informations, changing plea agreements, and writing factual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from them yesterday, which never arrived. At that time, they were leaning towards pleading only to state charges and doing all of the time in state custody. + +> Late last night I talked to Jay Lefkowitz who asked about Epstein pleading to two twelve-month federal charges with half of his jail time being spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I told him that I had no objection to that approach but, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein would be eligible because he will not be in Zone A or B."7 This morning Jay Lefkowitz called and said that I was correct but, if we could get Mr. Epstein down to 14 months, then he thought he would be eligible. + +> My response: have him plead to two separate Informations. On the first one he gets 12 months' imprisonment and on the second he gets + +116FOIA requires disclosure of government records upon request unless an exemption applies permitting the government to withhold the requested records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. + +117Sentences falling within Zones A or B of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines permit probation or confinement alternatives to imprisonment. + +twelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run consecutively. + +I just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12 months imprisonment instead. + +As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing jail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5:00, negotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5:00 because it gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are serious about it, and if not, it gives me one day before the Jewish holiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday . . . [September 25] , when I plan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time to review the indictment package. + +Do you concur? + +A few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach manager emailed Lourie, suggesting that Lourie "talk to Epstein and close the deal."' 18 + +Within moments, Lourie replied to the manager, with a copy to Villafafia, reporting that he had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed "to two fed[eral] obstruction[] charges (24 month cap) with nonbinding recommendation for 18 months. When [Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state offenses, including against minor, registrable, and then take one year house arrest/community confinement." By reply email, Villafafia asked Lourie to call her, but there is no record of whether they spoke. + +#### F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects + +Approximately an hour after Laurie's email reporting the deal he had reached with Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Villafaila a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie believed he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted in a 16-month federal sentence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of home detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two of Epstein's female assistants. + +Villafafia circulated the defense's proposed plea agreement to Lourie and two other supervisors, and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that were "completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to." Villafafia also pointed out that the defense "wants us to recommend an improper calculation" of the sentencing guidelines + +The manager told OPR that he probably meant this as a joke because in his view the continued back-andforth communications with defense counsel "was ridiculous." and the only way to "get this deal done" might be to have a direct conversation with Epstein. + +and had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) “so he can keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language . . . was unacceptable to our office.” Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafaña noted that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and the entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. + +In the afternoon, Villafaña circulated her own proposed “hybrid” plea agreement, first internally to the management team with a note stating that it “contains the 18/12 split that Jay and Andy agreed to,” and then to Lefkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other individuals, she included the following provision: “This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement,” including but not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution. + +In her email to Lefkowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Villafaña wrote: + +Could you share the attached draft with your colleagues. It is in keeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operative “deal.” The U.S. Attorney hasn’t had a chance to review all of the language, but he agrees with it in principle. + +. . . . + +[The West Palm Beach manager] and I will both be available at 2:00. . . . One of my suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down together in the same room, including Barry [Krischer] and/or Lanna [Belohlavek], so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a signed document. + +Villafaña also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein’s attorneys to work on the plea agreement, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final approval. Acosta replied, “I don’t think I should be part of negotiations. I’d rather leave it to you if that’s ok.” Acosta told OPR that “absent truly exceptional circumstances,” he believed it was important for him “to not get involved” in negotiations, and added, “You can meet, like I did in September, [to] reaffirm the position of the office, [and] back your AUSA, but ultimately, I think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job.” Villafaña told OPR, however, that she did not understand Acosta to be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit; rather, she believed Acosta did not want to engage in face-to-face negotiations because “he wanted to have an appearance of having sort of an arm’s length from the deal.”119 Villafaña replied to Acosta’s + +--- + +119 As noted throughout the Report, Villafaña’s interpretation of her supervisors’ motivations for their actions often differed from the supervisors’ explanations for their actions. Because it involved subjective interpretations of individuals’ motivations, OPR does not reach conclusions regarding the subjects’ differing views but includes them as an indication of the communication issues that hindered the prosecution team. *See* Chapter Two, Part Three, Section V.E. + +message, "That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just want to get a final blessing." + +Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with Villafafta and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafafta made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end: + +> I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday. + +Early that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating in the week's negotiations from his new post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked Villafaila to furnish him with the last draft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense counsel, and she provided him with the "18/12 split" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing that draft, Lourie told Villafafta it was a "[g]ood job" but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be in the plea agreement. Villafana told Lourie that she had added that paragraph at the "insistence" of the defense, and opined, "I don't think it hurts us." Villafana explained to OPR that she held this view because "Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was resolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment." + +At 3:44 p.m. that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a "redline" version of the federal plea agreement showing his new revisions, and noted that he was "also working on a deferred [sic] prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here." The defense redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor counts of attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state indictment charging solicitation of prostitution, and a state information charging one count of coercing a person to become a prostitute, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.04 (without regard to age). Neither of the proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein would serve an 18-month sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges. The redline version again deleted the provisions relating to damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and replaced it with the provision requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It retained language proposed by Villafafta, providing that the plea agreement "resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement," but also re-inserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forgo a presentence investigation and a promise by the government to suspend the investigation and withdraw all pending legal process. + +#### G. Villafaiia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" + +In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafafia expressed her increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea agreement to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, identifying all of the provisions she had "specifically discussed with [the defense team] and rejected, that they have re-inserted into the agreement." (Emphasis in original). Villafafia opined, "This is NOT good faith negotiations." Lourie responded that he would "reach out to Alex to discuss." + +Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following: + +I looked at the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I must agree with . Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is out of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms and then sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell him that his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to move forward with our case. + +Acosta replied: + +Why don't we just call him. Tell him + +- I. You agree, and then change things. +- 2. That's not acceptable, and is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll indict. +- 3. Try to work it out. + +It seems that we are close, and it[']s worth trying to overcome what has to be painfully ... annoying negotiating tactics. + +Acosta explained to OPR that he recognized, + +[t]his negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make it less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you try to work it out, and if not, then you indict. + +In response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, "Ok will do." He also forwarded to Acosta the latest version of the USAO draft "hybrid" plea agreement that Villafafia had sent to Lefkowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafafia earlier that afternoon. + +Meanwhile, Villafafia sent to Lourie and his successor West Palm Beach manager a draft message she proposed to send to Lefkowitz with her objections to the defense revisions, explaining, "I know that you keep saying he is going to plead, and he will plead if we cave on + +everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court." She suggested charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense, superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of negotiations, "we are just spinning our wheels." Her proposed email to Lelkowitz detailed all of the objectionable provisions in his draft, and concluded, "If you or your client insists on these, there can be no plea agreement." + +#### H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaila Sends a Final Version to the Defense + +The next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafafia emailed Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek and informed her: + +> Our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and arraignment in the federal system. At this time, things don't look promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft, they changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from solicitation of minors for prostitution (a registrable offense) to forcing adults into prostitution (a non-registrable offense). We will not budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a mutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know. + +Acosta sent Lourie "[s]ome thoughts" about the USAO version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement he had received from Lourie the evening before, commenting that "it seems very straightforward" and "we are not changing our standard charging language" for the defense.12° Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not typically sign plea agreements and "this should not be the first," adding that the USAO "should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement."12I Lourie forwarded the email to Villafafia with a transmittal message simply reading, "I think Alex's changes are all good ones. Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay." Lourie also noted to Acosta and Villafafia that he believed the defense would want to go back to the initial offer of a state plea with a non-prosecution agreement. When Villafafia sent the revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the defense wanted to return to the original offer of a state plea only, the draft NPA she had sent to him on September 17, 2007, would control. + +120The USAO had standard federal plea agreement language, from which this "hybrid" plea agreement had substantially diverged. + +121The standard procedure was for documents such as plea agreements to be signed by an AUSA under the name of the U.S. Attorney. In his OPR interview, Acosta further explained that wanted to give -the trial team" an opportunity to voice any objections because "if it's something they don't feel comfortable with we ... shouldn't go forward with it." + +#### I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement + +After having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement, by the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties resumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges. Through multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a state charge requiring sexual offender registration. + +After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafafla. She reported to Acosta and Lourie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was "back to doing the state-chargesonly agreement" and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but that she had told defense counsel that "we need a signed agreement by tomorrow [Friday] or we are [filing charges] on Tuesday." + +Lefkowitz emailed Villafafla about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out that it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control, rather than 18 months in jail and 12 under community control, and to ask if the USAO had "any flexibility" on the § 2255 procedure. Villafatia responded: + +> The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is not a problem. On the issue about 18 [U.S.C. §] 2255, we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their [§] 2255 rights. + +> I reviewed the e-mail that I sent you on Sunday with the comments on some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday, the Office cannot and will not bind Immigration. + +> Also, your timetable will need to move up significantly. As [State Attorney] Barry [1Crischer] said in our meeting last week, his office can put together a plea agreement, [and an] information, and get you all before the [state] judge on a change of plea within a day. + +Villafitfla alerted Krischer that evening that negotiations were "not going very well" and that defense counsel "changed their minds again, and they only want to plead to state charges, not concurrent state and federal." She added, "If we cannot reach . . . an agreement, then I need to [charge] the case on Tuesday [September 25] and I will not budge from that date." + +In response to Villafafla's report of her conversation with Letkowitz about the defense preference for a "state-charges-only agreement," Lourie alerted her that, "He wants to get out of [sexual offender] registration which we should not agree to." Lourie emailed Acosta: + +I think Jay [Lefkowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable offense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us down in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an offense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to come down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of incarceration. + +Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafafia to return the call, and told Lourie that he did not want to open "a backchannel" with defense counsel. Lourie instructed Villafaiia, "U can tell [J]ay that [Apex will not agree to a nonregistration offense." + +On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafafia emailed Acosta informing him that "it looks like we will be [filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on Tuesday," reporting that the charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manager, and asking if anyone in the Miami office needed to review it. Villafafia also alerted Lourie that she had spoken that morning to Lefkowitz, who "was waffling" about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek "to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run." + +That same morning, Epstein attorney M, who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, "[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense submissions that would assist in his determination on this point . . . [U]pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign as soon as today." From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta who replied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Working with [M]arie on this." Sloman also forwarded email to Lourie and asked, "Do you know what she's talking about?" Louriewnded that "has not been in any negotiations. Don't even engage with yet another + +#### J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" + +Lefkowitz, in the meantime, sent Villafafia a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18-month sentence in the county jail, followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the provision for a trust fund for disbursement to an agreed-upon list of individuals "who seek reimbursement by filing suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255." This defense draft retained the provision promising not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed employees of the specific Epstein-owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to "any potential co-conspirators" for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation. This language had evolved from similar language that Villafafia had included in the USAO's earlier proposed draft federal plea agreement.122 Lefkowitz also again included the sentence + +173 The language in the USAO's draft federal plea agreement stated, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the (USA0) ...." + +precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings against the two assistants who were foreign nationals. + +At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: "I am happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my staff by allowing 'interlocutor[]y' appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have her set something up." + +Villafafia sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her "attempt at combining our thoughts," but it had not "been approved by the office yet." She inserted solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision. 123 Villafaha's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it to apply to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including" the four named assistants, and deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafafia deleted mention of immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that "we have not and don't plan to ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated. tea + +Later that day, Villafaila alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C. early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested "regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and commented, "I don't think it hurts us." There is no documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement with Villafafia's assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafaila re-sent her email, adding that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which Lourie responded, "No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement." Villafafia replied to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, "Any other thoughts?" When Lourie gave no further response, Villafafta informed defense counsel that Lourie had rejected the proposed immigration language. + +OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators." Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some way. In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were co-conspirators in Epstein's scheme. Lourie also told OPR, "I bet the answer was that we weren't going to charge" Epstein's accomplices, because Acosta "didn't really want to charge Epstein" in + +133 Villafaiia noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a "former corporate counsel from a hospital" about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language "addresses the concern about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent." + +124Villafana gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafana believed the agent knew two of Epstein's female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafana also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues. + +federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, "in a sense," of Epstein's conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals, Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein.125 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafafia and Lourie had "thought this through" and "addressed it for a reason." The West Palm Beach manager, who had only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was "highly unusual," and he had "no clue" why the USAO agreed to it. + +Villafafia told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of "any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . . we wouldn't be prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . . . I just didn't think that there was anybody that it would cover." She conceded, however, that she "did not catch the fact that it could be read as broadly as people have since read it." + +#### K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement + +On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed Villafafia that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree "to all the terms" of the NPA—except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so. Krischer noted that he had "reached out" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back from him. Villafafia responded, "I think Alex is calling you now." Villafafia told OPR that, to her knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term.126 + +Later that afternoon, Villafafia emailed Krischer for information about the amount of "gain time" Epstein would earn in state prison. Villafafia explained in her email that she wanted to include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein "will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early." Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood, Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafafia that a plea to a registrable offense would not prevent Epstein from serving his time "at the stockade"—the local minimum security detention faciiity.127 + +125Sloman also pointed out that the NM was not a "global resolution" and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted "by any other [U.S. Attorney's) office in the country." + +126Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein case or any other matter. + +127The State Attorney concluded his email: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." Villafana responded, "Sounds great." When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafaha said: "Everybody + +At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for Epstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafafia's Monday deadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On Saturday, September 22, 2007, sent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she "spoke to [M]att [Menchel]" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy email, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining "all arguments against registration [as a sexual offender] in this case." In this email, claimed that there had been a "miscommunication" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that "we only agreed to the solicitation with minors because we believed and [Krischer] and [Belohlavek] confirmed it was NOT registrable." complained that lifetime sexual offender registration was a "life sentence" that was "uncalled for," "does not make sense," and was "inappropriate" to impose "simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts." She listed numerous reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record or history of sexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with which he could be "tracked" without registering; and that it would be "virtualatible to comply" with four separate state registration requirements. A few minutes later, sent Lefcourt's phone number to Lourie "in case you want to speak to him directly." + +In another email sent less than two hours later, told Lourie she was writing again because "you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. [I]t is a result of a misunderstanding at a meeting." She stated that Epstein's attorneys had "consistently emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp" and "[e]veryone knew that a registerable offense precluded" a camp designation. added, "Therefore it would have been wholly inconsistent with that primary goal of [Epstein's] safety to lightly concede to registration at that meeting." concluded, "[I]mposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result." + +Lourie responded to none of the emails, but he did reach out to Acosta for a phone conversation. By email late that night, at 10:26 p.m., Letkowitz asked Lourie to phone him. + +The next day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta—with copies to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafia to "follow up on our conversation Friday," asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a "misunderstanding" at the September 12, 2007 meeting: + +> Before the meeting, Mr. Krischer and Ms. Belohlavek, a sex prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor ... is not a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, [it] is a registerable offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas—one to the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge. + +has offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I have had coffee with no one." Krischer told OPR that the "reasons" to which he referred related to the pressure he had been getting from Chief Reiter about the Epstein case. + +Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those had presented to Lourie, as to why registration "based on the facts alleged in this case ... simply does not make sense." In the event that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative "to stipulate that the state offense" would "constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist sentencing" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz further argued, "By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist sentencing for the humiliation of registration." Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta, Lourie, and Villafafia discussed the matter in a conference call. + +Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafafia that omitted identification of the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta: + +> I got a call from [M]arie who said you had rejected our proposal. Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit now to plead to the registerable offense near the end of his 18 month sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed [F]riday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some kind of federal charge). + +> But that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total, and 18 in jail. + +> How can that not satisfy you—while still ensuring that [E]pstein is not unduly endangered in jail? + +Acosta responded, "I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the AUSAs assigned to the case." Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafafia, and they had "discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate." Acosta copied Villafafia, and she emailed Acosta to thank him "for the support." + +#### L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause + +Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with Villafafia, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.) and Villafafia. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a new version of the NPA that, for the first time, included a confidentiality term: + +> It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In the event the Government must disclose this Agreement in response to a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure of this Agreement. + +After making additional revisions, Villafafia sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the "final" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she changed the confidentiality provision to the following: + +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclostre.12s + +#### VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED + +The contemporaneous emails show that Villafafia continued to update Acosta as the parties negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafafia "[s]mall edits" to the "final" NPA she had sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email, "I'm not comfortable with requiring the State Attorney to enter into a [joint sentencing] recommendation" or "requiring a State court to stick with our timeline" for entry of the guilty plea and sentencing. Accordingly, Acosta substituted language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing recommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Villafafia to restore a reference to Epstein's wish "to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities." Lourie, who had returned to the Department in Washington, D.C., had a phone conversation with Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Villafafia. Villafafia sent a new revision, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz later that morning. + +On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafafia circulated the new "final" version of the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, and asked Lefkowitz to send her the signed agreement. After Lefkowitz electronically transmitted to Villafafia a copy of the NPA signed by Epstein, she emailed her immediate supervisor and her co-counsel: "They have scanned and emailed the signed agreement. It is done." + +In his transmittal email, Lefkowitz asked Villafaiia to "[p]lease do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public." Villafafia responded: + +> I have forwarded your message only to Alex, Andy, and [the West Palm Beach manager]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. + +> When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the + +128In commenting on OPR's draft report, Lourie observed that because the NPA contained names of uncharged co-conspirators and other protected information, the USAO would have a duty to redact the information before disclosing the NPA. + +agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved.. . . [The West Palm Beach manager] is calling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone. + +OPR questioned Villafaila about this email. She explained that she generally kept confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that "the way that the [Epstein] case was resolved" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed about what happened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement was about. + +Villafaiia emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tell PBPD Chief Reiter "the good news" but "leave out the part about damages," and explained that she wanted to meet with the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would work. Villafaila also told him that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the NPA only with the PBPD Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein.'" Villafafia forwarded to Acosta, Lourie, and the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement "already binds us not to make public except as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act]," and asked, "[W]hat more does he want?" Villafafia replied, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafafia, and the West Palm Beach manager to set up a call to discuss "who we tell and how much," adding, "Nice job with a difficult negotiation." + +The final NPA, as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and M, and Villafafia, contained the following pertinent provisions: + +Charges: Epstein would plead guilty to the pending Palm Beach County indictment, plus one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense. + +Sentence: The parties would make a joint, binding recommendation for a 30-month sentence divided as follows: consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months in the county jail, without opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing and without community control or probation, followed by 12 months of community control, consecutive. 1" + +Damages: As long as the identified victims proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein would not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victims' status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals + +129The West Palm Beach manager told OPR that he called Chief Reiter, who was "fine" with the outcome. + +130Withholding adjudication or sentencing referred to a special sentence in which the judge orders probation but does not formally convict the defendant of a criminal offense. See Ha. Stat. § 948.01 (2007). + +it had identified as victims.13' The USAO, with the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims, whom Epstein would pay. + +Timing: Epstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008. + +Immunity: The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein," including four named personal assistants. + +Other: Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with this agreement. + +Epstein waived his right to appeal. + +Epstein agreed that he would not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time or other rights, opportunities, and benefits not available to any other inmate. + +The federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal process held in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the agreement. Evidence "requested by or directly related to" the pending legal process, "including certain computer equipment," would be kept inviolate until all the NPA terms had been satisfied. + +Breach: The USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the agreement within 90 days of the expiration of the term of home confinement, and would be required to initiate prosecution within 60 days thereafter. + +Disclosure: The parties "anticipate[d]" that the agreement would not be made part of any public record, and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information Act request or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, it would provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure. i32 + +That evening, Leflcowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he understood would be given to Chief Reiter, stating, "I am very concerned about leaks unduly prejudicing Jeffrey [Epstein] in the media."133 He added, "I have enjoyed working with you on + +131The USAO had not informed the defense of the victims' identities at this point. The parties anticipated that the USAO would send Epstein's attorneys a list of victims when Epstein fulfilled his obligation under the NPA to enter his state guilty pleas. + +133The final NM is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Report. + +133On October 3, 2007, the Miami FBI media officer notified the USAO that the New York Post had reported that federal authorities were not going to pursue federal charges against Epstein. According to the Post, Epstein would plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes, "in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," followed by "a shorter period of house confinement," and, according to "sources," federal authorities had "agreed to drop their + +this matter." Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only "so he does not find out about it in the paper," and he concluded: "I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was fortunate to have such excellent representation." + +#### VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS + +Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court. + +#### A. September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum + +The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims. Initially, Villafafia reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to her for that role. Villafaila notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as the victims' representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafaria told Lefkowitz that she had never met the attorney, but he had been recommended by "a good friend in our appellate section" and by one of the district judges in Miami.134 Over the next few days, Villafafta exchanged messages with the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney. + +By this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division. Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special make the selection. Although evidently frustratecaSloman's belated proposal, Villafafia conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special be appointed to select the attorney representative, rather than having the USAO make the selection.135 She provided Lefkowitz with + +probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the understanding that he will do prison time." Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moncyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages." New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. ABC News later reported that federal charges "could carry more substantial prison time. Now, Epstein's high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, ... may try to get him out of registering as a sex offender .. .." Scott Michels, "Money Manager Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitution Charges: Jeffrey Epstein may serve about 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitutes," ABC News, Oct. I I, 2007. + +134The "good friend" was an AUSA whom Villafana was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as a misconduct issue, alleging that Villafaiia was "closely accnriated" with the individual nominated for the victims' representative position. + +135In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafaith commcntcd,"[O]f course they tell me this now." + +a proposal the special responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the special explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative. + +Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafafia, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special . More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the special as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed: + +> [T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney. + +Lefkowitz also objected to Villafafia's draft letter to the special =, asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a "mutually acceptable communication" to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims "to inform them of the resolution of the case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process." + +Villafafia forwarded Leflcowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, "Can I please just indict him [Epstein]?" Days later, emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up letter, asking that Sloman "help resolve" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims' civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villaftuia explained to Sloman her views on ar ments, Sloman responded, "I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to . The more 'voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive between us." Villafafia agreed, noting that "[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we are getting triple-teamed."176 + +Villafafia sent a letter regarding the roles of the special and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a "follow up to our conversation yesterday," expressing "serious disagreements" with Villafafia's view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement + +136Villafana also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaila commented. "It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding." + +that Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would "trigger profound ethical problems," in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Villafaila's view that Epstein had waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their claims, and contended that any such victims "will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes." Finally, Leflcowitz again argued that the USAO should not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for settlement under § 2255: + +> Ms. Villafai►a **proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victims] to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the [victims] at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the [victims]. We further believe that communications between your Office or your case agents and the [victims] might well violate Rule 6(eX2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. 137** + +**Lefkowitz concluded, "I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today."138** + +**Villafaa was at that time on sick leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about crafting an addendum to the NPA to address the method of appointing an attorney representative and to articulate the representative's duties. The next day, October 11, 2007, Sloman exchanged emails with Lefkowitz about the text of a proposed addendum.** + +#### **B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Leflcowitz Meet for Breakfast** + +**On the morning after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Lefkowitz, Acosta exchanged emails with Lefkowitz, arranging to meet for breakfast the following day, on October 12, 2007, at a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously scheduled to be in West Palm Beach for a press event on October 11 and to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at the Marriott.** + +**137**Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(eX2)(B) relates to secrecy of federal grand jury matters. + +133OPR did not locate any emails indicating what happened on the call. + +However, as with Villafafla's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret agreements with the defense. + +Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter to M, Acosta stated that he had "sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach . . . . in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process."139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta + +> assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither [the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the sentence does not violate state law.14° + +However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by Sloman, adding the term "inaccurate" to describe Lefkowitz's claims that Acosta had promised not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or intervene regarding Epstein's sentence.101 The draft response stated, "[S]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this."I42 + +Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafafia had recommended "her boyfriend's partner" to serve as attorney representative.143 Acosta said that "the way this was reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast," which was inaccurate because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting.144 When asked about + +139In fact, Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. It is possible that Acosta was not aware of Sloman's efforts or had forgotten about them when writing the December 7, 2007 letter. + +140This letter is discussed further in the following section of this Report. + +141OPR did not find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent. + +12 Sloman's initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had "clarified" Lefkowitz's claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting. + +13 As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafafta recommended was a friend of another AUSA whom Villafafia was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafafta or the other AUSA. + +144For example, the Miami Herald's November 2018 investigative report stated that "on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein's crimes and the number of people involvedm rhe deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe ...." Julie K. "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,"Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed + +Lefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were "several instances" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading. + +Emails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who also later reported to Villafaila that Lefkowitz's "suggested revision has been rejected." Other emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting. + +#### C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum + +A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—citing a scheduling conflict sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in state court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email, Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he "didn't want to dictate a schedule to the state."145 Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed to the postponement. + +With Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he quickly came up against the problem Villafafia and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October 12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative's activities Epstein would be required to reimburse. Although it appeared that progress was being made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman identifying "areas of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what we accomplished this week," and raised "unnecessary" issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein, and Villafafia was concerned that "this may be the real reason for the delay in the . .. plea. She thinks that [Epstein] . .. want[s] to knock that lawsuit out before the guilty plea to deter others." Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims. + +almost three weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis at Chapter Two. Part Three, Section IV.E.2. + +145Assuming Acosta made the remark Lefkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed Villafafia to omit language requiring the State Attorney's Office to take action by a certain date, because he was "not comfortable with requiring the State" to comply with a specific deadline. During his interview, Acosta told OPR that "we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney." + +On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some defense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to "satisfy your concern."146 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special were attached, Sloman ended by stating, "[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB tomorrow ...." + +Nonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that Epstein had "every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith," and that the defense letter was not intended to be "a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NPA]." Lefkowitz added: + +> I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine finality with regard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the Agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release. + +Sloman forwarded the letter to Villafafia, commenting, "Wait [until] you see this one." Villafafia replied: + +> Welcome to my world. I love the way that they want to interpret this agreement. + +It also looks like they are planning to ask for and receive a sentence far lower than the one we agreed to. Has anyone talked to Barry [Krischer] about this? Maybe this is the real reason for the delay in entering the guilty plea? We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them than an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to "cold call" the girls. + +146The defense raised issues concerning the attorney representative, the statutory limit on damages, and inclusion of certain victims. + +Why don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him? + +Acosta also weighed in, sending both Villafaiia and Sloman an email with a subject line that read "This has to stop," in which he stated: + +Just read the letter. + +- 1. We specifically refused to include the provision saying that we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told him we could not agree to a gag order using those words. +- 2. The purpose of the agreement was not an out of court settlement. Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk re how to mi' ed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [to the special about how to select an attorney representative] at this point. + +Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent to Leflcowitz a new draft addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's terms. 147 + +On October 25 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to serve as special outlining the special duties. A few days later, on October 29, 2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and signed the NPA addendum.108 Villafaiia's name was printed as the USAO representative, but at Villafafta's request, Sloman signed the addendum for her on behalf of the USAO. + +Villafafia later emailed Sloman thanking him for "the advice and the pep talk," which apparently related to the defense attorneys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial selection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Villafafta explained to Sloman: + +> The funny thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or spoken to [the private attorney] before I asked him if he would be willing to take on this case. . . . But as soon as you mentioned the appearance problem, I saw where the problem would arise and agreed that the Special would be a safer route. I just worry that the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims. + +Sloman responded that defense counsel had "put an . . . insidious spin" on Villafaiia's role in proposing the private attorney, but Sloman added, "I hope that you understand that these ad hominem attacks against you do not diminish in our eyes what you and the agents have accomplished." + +117Acosta and Villafana were copied on this email. + +118The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report. + +#### D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea + +The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months. + +On October 29, 2007, Villafatia emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted Sloman to address with Lelkowitz. Among other things, Villafafta pointed out that the NPA required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz's attempts to limit the USAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Villafafia noted that the USAO needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's Office and the victims' attorney "to [e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement." + +That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek assured Sloman that the "plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that was agreed on by all for the sentencing."'" Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month show that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008 date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was "unacceptable," while the defense contended that Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.1" + +#### E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims + +With Epstein's plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of the NPA, this time within the Department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein. 151 At Fisher's request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher's Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could + +19 The NPA had required Epstein's plea and sentencing to occur by October 26, 2007, but provided that Epstein could rcport to begin serving his sentence on January 4, 2008. + +150Slate v. Epstein, No. 2006-CF-9454, Notice of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007). + +isi In a meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Lefkowitz informed them that Starr had placed a call to Fisher. + +not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about Epstein's wish to have the Department review the case. 152 + +On November 28, 2007, Stan• requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision and alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General "to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component" of the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter, Sloman forwarded it to Villafafia, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision evolved. Villafafta responded that she was "going through all of the ways in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict." + +In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his thoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lourie's request, Villafatia sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was "pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims." He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA "other than to say that she agrees with it." During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her "agree[ing] with it" referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she "played no role in" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed. + +As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report, Villafafta planned to notify the victims about the NPA and its § 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr, but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no evidence that it did. + +Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise his concerns about victim notification with Villafafia or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein's evident efforts to stop the NPA from being enforced: + +1S2 In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: "He was very nice. Kept me on the phone for [a) half hour talking about [Flepperdine," referring to the law school where Starr served as + +[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with that result. + +[You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr, former United States Attorney and Messrs. Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The defense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt the Agreement. Since then counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement. + +It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the Agreement. + +In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafana's and Sloman's input, Acosta responded to the substance of Starr's November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter, but she conjectured that "probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the Criminal Division wasn't] going to respond."'" + +In his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote: + +The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided . . . Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. + +Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO's intent was "to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta documented the USAO's understanding of the operation of the NPA's § 2255 + +133The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr's letter raised issucs that had not been previously raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance. + +provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded: + +Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. + +I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. + +..... + +I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. . . . We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. + +Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher) that + +the defense "[f]irst and foremost" reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein "has no intention of unwinding the agreement." + +On December 7, 2007—the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starr the defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence "Affirmation" of the NPA and its addendum, signed by Epsteinim + +#### F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaiia of Improper Conduct + +#### 1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafafia + +On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's "Affirmation" to the USAO, Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two "independent ethics opinions"—one authored by prominent criminal defense attorney and former U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and the other, by a prominent retired federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, arguing against the NPA's use of the civil damages recovery provision under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 "as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution." + +Days later, on December II, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the "background and conduct of the investigation." These submissions repeated arguments previously raised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz addressed the "improper involvement" of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized Villafaria for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in "unprecedented federal overreaching" by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, "insist[ing]" that the State Attorney's Office "charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate," and requiring that Epstein plead guilty to a registrable offense, a "harsh" condition that was "unwarranted "t55 + +Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that was "tainted" by the lead PBPD Detective's misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and interview summaries, leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed information that "compromised the federal investigation." Finally, Lefkowitz criticized federal involvement in the state plea process as a violation of "the tenets of the Petite Policy." In a second, 13-page submission, Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein's complaints about the § 2255 component of the NPA, arguing, among other things, that federal prosecutors "should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements." + +154 The Affirmation read: "I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007." + +155Villafana sent Letkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally. + +Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein “unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind” the NPA. + +**2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel** + +After reviewing Starr’s and Lefkowitz’s letters, Sloman notified Villafaña that “in light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence” he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded Menchel as Chief of the USAO’s Criminal Division, to review *de novo* the evidence underlying the proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafaña to provide Senior with all the state and FBI investigative materials. + +In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz’s December 11, 2007 submissions.156 The meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr, Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney [redacted] Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during this meeting, Epstein’s attorneys raised a new argument—that the state charge to which Epstein had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case. + +**3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO’s Actions** + +Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may “have no alternative but to seek review in Washington.” Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and “to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date.” Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previously submitted defense submissions, reviewing issues discussed at the meeting, and advising that Epstein sought a “prompt, independent, expedited review” of the evidence by “you or someone you trust.” The letter reiterated Epstein’s position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under state law or a violation of federal law, and with respect to the NPA’s § 2255 provision, that it was “improper” to require Epstein to pay damages “to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim” under the statute. + +--- + +156 As Assistant Attorney General Fisher’s Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr would speak to Acosta to “resolve the[] fairly narrow issues” raised in Starr’s correspondence with Acosta. Acosta had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December 11 forwarded to Fisher. + +#### 4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It + +Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have "any insight" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Leflcowitz, Acosta sent to a letter proposing to resolve "our disagreements over interpretation[]" by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read: + +> Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. + +Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays. ' 57 + +Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised "several troubling questions" and that "the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement."'" In a follow-up letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that "any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties," and that defense counsel had "at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible." + +Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was "increasingly frustrated" by Epstein's desire to take an "11th hour appeal" to the Department so soon before the + +1S7 As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea. + +158After Starr and Leflcowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Leflcowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was "inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable." In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19.2007 NPA modification letter. + +scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by January 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafafta, Sloman said that Epstein's local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts "did not fit the proposed state charge," and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that assessment.t59 The next day, Villafafta sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article reporting that Epstein's state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafacia an email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: "'I [Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not registrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is."'16° + +#### 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct + +On January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorne at her request. According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things, alleged that the USAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national news reporter, and "suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein." After Acosta excused himself to attend another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with "without a witness a " she left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Stan-, Lefkowitz, and itl, who expressed concern about the "leak" to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA, and pressed for the "watered-down resolution," which they specified would mean allowing Epstein to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement, avoid serving time in jail, and not register as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman's handwritten notes of the conversation reads: "We're back to where we started in September." + +That evening, Villafafia expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was affecting the USAO's ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact with "potential sources of information" in the Virgin Islands, and re-initiating proceedings to obtain Epstein's computers. + +In the meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a "soup to nuts" review of the Epstein investigation, reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence Villafrula had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined + +139Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident, but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor. + +160Although the meeting Leflcowitz had with Lourie, Villafafia, Krischer, and Belohlavek to discuss the state resolution was only four months prior, not six, Leflowitz's reference was likely to the September 12, 2007 meeting. + +that it was to establish whether, if the plea fell apart, he, as Chief, would agree "that we can go forward with" the charges. He did recall being concerned, after completing the review, that "we did not have ... a lot of victims ... lined up and ready to testify" and that some victims might "not be favorable for us." Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound, and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case. + +#### 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence + +Notwithstanding Senior's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz that they "appreciate[d]" that the defense wanted a "fresh face" to conduct a review, and noted that the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the "in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the defense." They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to "come on board" and that CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having "a national perspective" to conduct a fresh review in light of the defense submissions. Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney who Villafafta understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not "consummate" the NPA. The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case materials, and to meet with Villafafia to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After one such meeting, Villafafta wrote to Acosta and Sloman: + +> We just finished interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could have been there to see how much this has affected them. + +> One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice within a 20 minute span. She regained her composure enough to continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again, so we stopped the interview. + +> The second girl . . . told us that she was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. + +These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far, and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them. 161 + +The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases. She told OPR that in her view, the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges for a prosecution: some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein; some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages, and thus could have been charged as accomplices; some had "drug histories and ... things like that"; some could appear to have been "complicit"; and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims. She did not regard + +161Villafaiia added, "We have four more girls coming in tomorrow. Can I persuade you to attend?" + +these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a "crap shoot." In addition, she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims, however, "things just stopped" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team. + +#### IX. FEBRUARY —JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW + +Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions. ' 2 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through June 2008. + +Villafaha became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised: + +> The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code. Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "child prostitution" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest" as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual. + +In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS "has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter," he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and lijf we determine that the case should be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you." OPR did not locate a response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification. + +162On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others "that may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591." USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division, in writing, "[alt the outset of a criminal investigation . .. that may implicate federal criminal civil rights statutes, ... and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury." The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors. The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the case was of "national interest," and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter. + +![](_page_129_Diagram_1.jpeg) + +#### A. February — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division + +On February 21, 2008, soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims, Oosterbaan spoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS's role. In a subsequent email to Villafafia, Sloman, and Senior, Oosterbaan explained: + +> I told [Lefkowitz] that all I want to do is help the process move forward, and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh and objective look at the case and their arguments [then] that is what I want to do. I told him that if that's what they want — if that is what will help the process to move forward — then I don't think it's advisable for CEOS to partner with the USAO on the case. He wants to think about that (and probably talk to his co-counsel about + +whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today. + +Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to "make sure the defense is okay with that," to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review. Oosterbaan explained to OPR that "the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new problems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with it, tell us now." + +By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS role should be "review only." Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice, and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was "ready to proceed immediately" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that "in the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation," but that, "should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA]." Sloman forwarded this email to Villafana, who responded, "Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls . . . ." + +The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008.163 Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and "made it clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the prosecution." On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express "concern" about Oosterbaan's participation in the case, and indicated that "they may ask for more senior involvement." Acosta "informed them that they certainly had the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked." + +The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email: + +We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan, and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case. . . . However, due to our misgivings (engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself[)] we may well find it necessary to + +163The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January, but never got scheduled for that time. On February 25, Sloman informed Lefkowitz that the USAO was "very concerned about additional delays" in the Departmental review process, but would agree to a short extension of the March 3 deadline "to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review." + +appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr] and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to our seeking appellate review within DOJ. + +Starr, Lefkowitz, and Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team. Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a "listening session" with Starr doing most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled "some back and forth" because the defense team was saying "some outrageous things." Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a "weak pitch" that was not effective. + +After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that "have caused us serious concern," including the following: + +> "Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities"; I64 + +> the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that "had no connection to the conduct at issue"; + +> the nomination "of an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case" to serve as the victims' attorney representative; + +> the "insistence" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing; and + +> the purported existence of a "relationship" between Sloman and a law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein.165 + +164This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaha's understanding that the defense objected to USAO communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, "Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney's Office . . . raises concern." In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafana noted that she did not know whether a state "misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact with the State Attorney's Office, so I haven't spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months." Villafatia later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating with him, she explained to Krischer that "it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication." + +165In approximately 2001, Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney + +In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafaña of “encouraging civil litigation” against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. + +Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS’s review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein. + +Oosterbaan’s letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations “would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.” The letter specified that CEOS’s review addressed the “narrow question” of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a *de novo* review of the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate” and that Acosta “could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case.” + +On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta “not shunt me off to one of your staff.” Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS’s letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a “novel application” of relevant federal statutes;166 (2) CEOS’s conclusion that federal prosecution would not be “an abuse of discretion” was “hardly an endorsement” of the case;167 (3) CEOS did not address Epstein’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) “critical new evidence,” in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed “that + +--- + +represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman’s past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims’ potential civil lawsuits against Epstein. + +166 Oosterbaan’s letter stated, “Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute.” This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to “adult prostitution where no force, fraud or coercion was used.” Oosterbaan stated that “the Department’s efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children”—even if wholly local—and “the exploitation of adults through force, fraud, or coercion.” He then observed that the fact “that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive.” + +167 Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered “the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.” + +federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case."168 Leflcowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should the defense be unable to "resolve this matter directly with" Acosta. + +Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with the "trial team." That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villafafia or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO had "bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider" Epstein's objections, but "these objections have finally been exhausted." Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June 2, 2008. + +#### B. May — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General + +Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for review "of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter."169 In the letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed "a very limited review" of the Epstein case, but contended that "full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department." They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was "unwarranted," and that "the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities." They followed up with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted "the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws" and "the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws ... to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton" required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein "entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton," and that there was "little doubt" that the USAO "never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another 'John.'" This was the first defense submission mentioning Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics. + +In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case "all the more exigent." John Roth, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General's office. 1" Meanwhile, the Criminal + +168Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, defendants are permitted to depose victims, and Epstein's counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims, including victims who were not part of the state prosecution, to learn information about the federal investigation. + +169In addition to having served as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, Whitley had served as Acting Associate Attorney General, the Department's third-highest position. + +170On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed. + +Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as "an enormous amount of material" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of the proposed char in documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to + +As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafafia wrote to her immediate supervisor: "Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him." Villafitfia and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or "we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly."17I + +Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions. + +Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and because he believed the NPA was a "dead letter," he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the "mission" of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA reached the "right balance" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, "[W]e heard an appeal.... [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting and we didn't give him [any] relief." Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein's arguments "felt that it was a sympathetic appeal." In particular, he told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was "ludicrous," and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated "just seemed unserious." + +171Villafana urged Sloman, "Someone really needs to talk to Barry." + +On Monday, June 23, 2008, Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them that the office had "completed a thorough review" of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the "considerable discretion" vested by the Department in U.S. Attorneys. He added, "Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." + +Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Villafaña notified defense counsel that Epstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the NPA by entering his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On June 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to take defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case. + +Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached "the end of a long and arduous road" and adding, "While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize that we have filed and argued our 'appellate motions' and lost. . . . I would like to have . . . some closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come, neither of us will harbor any ill will over the matter." + +## **X. JUNE 2008 – JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE** + +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafaña renewed her requests to Epstein's local attorneys Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's Office, noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA. After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form, which was not yet signed, Villafaña sent another letter to Goldberger and Black, informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with the requirements of the NPA. Specifically, as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of 12 months in "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility," followed consecutively by "18 months Community Control" with a special condition that the defendant serve "the first 6 months [of community control] in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility." Villafaña objected to the community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to "make a binding recommendation of eighteen months *imprisonment*, which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail." In a subsequent email to Sloman, Villafaña recounted that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger, who "swore" that Epstein would be in custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence." Villafaña added that Goldberger "let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail, he would be at the stockade . . . . Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with [the State Attorney] months ago that Epstein would be at [the jail], this certainly violates the spirit of the [NPA] agreement."172 Villafaña told Sloman, "[S]omething smells very bad." + +--- + +172 The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum, medium, and minimum custody adult males, as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates. *See* + +The next day, Villafafta asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the word "imprisoned" after "6 months," and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafatia, however, did not ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility" meant the jail, rather than the Stockade. The final signed plea agreement form further clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, Epstein would be "sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility . . . to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence," followed by "12 months Community Control." The word "imprisoned" was hand written after "6 months" but then crossed out and replaced by "jail sentence."'" + +#### A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court + +Epstein, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, appeared in Palm Beach County court on June 30, 2008, and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution."4 At the plea hearing, which Villafatla and the FBI case agent attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts of the case; instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal information: + +> [B]etween August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit [prostitution] on three or more occasions. And . . . between August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a minor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach County also. "5 + +The court found this to be "a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas," and engaged in a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epstein's victims: + +The Court: Are there more than one victim? + +Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. + +http://www.pbso.org/inside-pbso/corrections/general/. The "Stockade" was a "lower security 'camp-style' facility" co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Both were administered by the Sheriff's Office. + +173Plea in the Circuit Court, signed June 30, 2008, and filed in court. Villafaria complained to Goldberger when she learned later about the change from "imprisoned" to jail sentence." + +174The Information is attached as Exhibit 5. + +176 State v. Epstein, case nos. 06-CF-9454 and 08-CF-9381, Transcript of Plea Conference at 41-42 (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, June 30, 2008) (Plea Hearing Transcript). Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language of the charge as the factual basis for the plea was the typical practice for a state court plea. + +The Court: Are all the victims in both these cases in agreement with the terms of the plea? + +Ms. Belohlavek: I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and I believe, yes. + +The Court: And with regard to the victims under age eighteen, is that victim's parents or guardian in agreement with the plea? + +Ms. Belohlavek: That victim is not under age 18 any more and that's why we spoke with her counsel. + +The Court: And she is in agreement with the plea? + +Ms. Belohlavek: Yes.176 + +When the court asked if the plea was "in any way tied to any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions," Goldberger and Belohlavek, with Epstein present, spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the "confidential" non-prosecution agreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court. + +After the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas, and imposed sentence on him pursuant to the plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately. + +In the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome, and Villafafta received several congratulatory messages. Oosterbaan wrote, "Congratulations, M —at long last! Your work on this matter was truly exceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well." One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted, "This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination." Another wrote, "If it had not been for you, he would have gotten away with it." The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked briefly with Villafafia told her, "But for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere wining another child's life." One victim's attorney stated, "[great job of not letting this guy off." But Villafafia was not satisfied with the outcome, responding to one colleague, "After all the hell they put me through, I don't feel like celebrating 18 months. He should be spending 18 years in jail." + +Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him "to offer congratulations" and "to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, + +176Plea Hearing Transcript at 20, 42. OPR was unable to determine to which victims Belohlavek was referring, and Belohlovek did not recall during her OPR interview, but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either the state or federal investigations. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the nature of the charges (that is, involving prostitution), she did not know whether -technically under the law" the girls were "victims" whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing. + +Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr."177 In that same later public statement, Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who "all sought to make peace" with him; Acosta referred to it as "a proud moment." + +On July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department, in federal court in Miami, alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA; a second victim joined the petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter Three of this Report. + +#### B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release + +A few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villafafia reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low-security Stockade, rather than the Main Detention Center where county prisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriff's Office, Epstein was eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of work release had not been addressed explicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether any state, county, or Sheriff's Office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day. + +The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed, when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, "so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the [NPA] he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release." + +In November 2007, Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAO's understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in "continuous confinement," pointing out that the NPA "clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated." Sloman noted that Florida's Department of Corrections's rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release, and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release program. Sloman concluded that the USAO "is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is `treated no better and no worse than anyone else' convicted of the same offense," and that if Epstein were to be granted work release, the USAO would "investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case."178 + +However, also in November, State Attorney Krischer told Sloman that Epstein was, in fact, eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place + +177Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call, but acknowledged that it could have occurred. + +178Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz. + +until after Epstein completed his sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition "if it is in the agreement." t79 On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if the State Attorney's Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release. Belohlavck was noncommittal, and when the agents asked that she include language in the state's plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney. Is° Krischer later told OPR that work release was "within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office." The state's plea agreement with Epstein did not address the issue of work release. + +The day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Villafafia and her immediate supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official to discuss work release. According to Villafafia, the official told them, "Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release," a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a jail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack Goldberger to Villafafia just days before the plea was entered, when he "specifically told [Villafafia] that [Epstein] would not get work release." Villafafia alerted the Sheriff's Office official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked "every day" for a "couple of years" at the "Florida Science Foundation," that entity did not even exist until November 2007.181 Moreover, the address Epstein provided to the court for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the office of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafafia and her supervisor asked that the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release. + +Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafatia was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get work release, and he would not have contradicted her efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein would be "treated just like everyone else," but that, as shown by "our subsequent communications with the [S]tate [A]tomey's [O]ffice," having Epstein on work release "was not what our office envisioned." + +In August 2008, Villafafia spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's compliance with the NPA, and raised the issue of work release. Villafafia later reported to Acosta and Sloman that Black assured her he had "reminded the team that . . . 18 months IN JAIL is a material term of the agreement." + +The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application. On October 10, 2008, less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed him into the work release program, permitting him to leave the Stockade + +119 According to Sloman, Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be "treated" as a "sex offender" and that' just like any other sex offender, he can petition the court for work release." + +1110In the November 16, 2007 email, on which she copied Acosta, Villafafia also indicated that she was "reviewing all of the statutes" to determine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work release. In a subsequent email, the FBI case agents informed Villafafia that they had also spoken with a "jail supervisor," who advised them that although Epstein, as a sexual offender, would not qualify for work release, the judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration. + +181During the plea hearing, Epstein told the court he was "President" of the Florida Science Foundation, it had been in existence for 15 years, and he worked there "every day." Plea Hearing Transcript at 27-29. + +for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the "Florida Science Foundation" office in West Palm Beach."2 In mid-November 2008, Villafafia learned that Epstein was on work release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an email, and asked, "Can I indict him now?" + +On November 24, 2008, Villafafia sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that the USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafafia reminded Black that she had "more than a dozen e-mails" expressing the USAO's "insistence" that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months, and that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant "confinement for twentyfour hours a day." Villafafia noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word "imprisoned" into the plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term "jail sentence." Villafafia told counsel: + +> The [USAO's] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e., confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment. The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this agreement. + +According to Villafafia, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work release coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release. + +On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was still heavily involved in the Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment. I83 As a result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein. + +Also on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Villafafia's letter, acknowledging that Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program, but denying that Epstein was in breach of the NPA. 184 Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release; the NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate; + +In Michele Dargan and David Rogers, "Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein 'treated differently," Palm Beach Daily News, Dec. 13, 2008. + +183The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December 8, 2008. + +184Black fonvarded the email to Simian, noting that Villafaiia "is very concerned about anything Epstein does" and that the defense team would "abide by" Sloman's decision on the issue. + +Florida law treated work release as part of confinement; and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta "recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release Program" and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's right to be notified "if [Epstein] is allowed to participate in a work release program." + +On December 3, 2008, in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafafia sent Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein's participation in the work release program: + +> It appears that, since Day 1, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] .. . have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged correctly. (Remember that Krisher [sic] also went along with letting us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when Epstein's folks and Krisher [sic] believed that . . . the offense was not registrable.) Krisher [sic] and Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed at the Palm [Beach County] Jail, not the Stockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release if at the jail.... + +> As part of his work release, Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriff's deputies to provide him with "protection." It appears that he is paying between \$3000 and \$4100 per week for this service, despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and the Sheriff's Office itself) from having "any business transactions with inmates . .. while they are in the custody or supervision of the Sheriff . . . ." + +Villafafia added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO "should not budge on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration" requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation, Villafaiia also pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USAO "for failing to keep them informed about the investigation," and the office had "an obligation to inform all of the victims upon Epstein's release." + +On December 11, 2008, Villafafia wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to alert the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's work release application contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Villafafia pointed out that Epstein's application identified his place of employment as the "Florida Science Foundation," and the telephone number listed in the application for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the telephone number to the law firm of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafafia also noted that the individual identified in the work release file as Epstein's "supervisor" at the "Florida Science Foundation" had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per week and earned no compensation, but that same individual had represented to + +the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per day. Finally, Villafafia pointed out that Epstein's purported "supervisor"—who as the Foundation's vice president was subordinate to Epstein, the Foundation's president—had promised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the "supervisor" lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor Epstein's activities on a day-to-day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor responded to Villafafia's letter. + +In March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it in a subsequent email, "a relaxed drink and conversation," which included a discussion of the Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman, expressing appreciation for Sloman's "assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers" Epstein's sentence "as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate." Sloman responded: + +> Regarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the terms and conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean that, if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in-home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted we will object. Naturally, I also expect that no one on behalf of Mr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or home detention. + +A week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for Sloman's "willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epstein's sentence," as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment, but adding, "[L]et's put any call off for a while." + +Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to his home for a I2-month period following his release from prison. On July 22, 2009, almost 13 months after he began serving his sentence, Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement.' At this time, he registered as a sexual offender. + +#### XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS + +In the summer of 2009, allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of investment bank Bear Stearns, and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that + +INS In Florida, what is commonly referred to as house arrest is actually the Community Control supervision program. Florida Statute § 948.001(3) defines the program as "a form of intensive, supervised custody in the community." + +cooperation.' When Villafafia spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York, however, an AUSA there told Villafafia that "[t]hey had never heard of" Epstein, and he had not cooperated with the Bear Steams case.'" During her OPR interview, Villafafia told OPR that to her knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was "completely false." + +Villafafia and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA. In August 2009, Villafafia alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of his home detention—he had been spotted walking on the beach, and when stopped by the police, he claimed that he was walking "to work" at an office nearly eight miles from his home. Villafafia passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office.188 By letter dated September I, 2009, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's agreement to transfer supervision of the community control phase of Epstein's sentence to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein maintained his "primary residence." In response, Villafafia notified Black that the USAO opposed such a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA. Three months later, Sloman met with Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of Epstein's community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein's supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +After serving his year on home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on July 21, 2010. + +186See "Out of Prison." New York Post, July 23, 2009. + +187The New York AUSA had emailed Villafatia, "We're the prosecutors in [the Bear Steams case] . . . . We saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never heard of until this morning. We've since learned that he is pretty unsavory." Villafaria reported to Sloman and other supervisors that she "just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Steams case in [the Eastern District of] New York. They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was cooperating with the feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution. They had never heard of him." In a second email, she confirmed, "There has been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York, from what they told me." + +INS Black later wrote a letter to Villafafia claiming that Epstein had "specific authorization to walk to work," the distance between his home and office was "less than three miles," and when the matter was "fully investigated," Epstein was found to be in "total compliance" with the requirements of his sentence. + +### CHAPTER TWO + +#### PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS + +#### I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK + +OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known, unambiguous obligation imposed by law, rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or policy. In determining whether an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual findings. + +An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney (1) engages in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits; or (2) engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence, and that consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when (1) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard, of an obligation or standard; (2) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard, that the attorney's conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he or she will violate, or cause a violation of, the obligation or standard; and (3) the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation. + +If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct, made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor judgment when, faced with alternative courses of action, he or she chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take. Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard. In addition, an attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding. A mistake, on the other hand, results from an excusable human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances. + +An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and standards, consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct, or took + +affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or standard. + +#### II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT + +#### A. The United States Attorneys' Manual + +Among its many provisions, the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) includes general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed, and desirable practices to be followed, by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities."' The goal of the USAM is to promote "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws," and to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made "rationally and objectively on the merits of each case." USAM § 9-27.001. + +Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of government attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms, with a view to providing guidance rather than mandating results. Id.; see also USAM § 9-27.120, comment ("It is expected that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law enforcement responsibilities .... However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case."); USAM § 9-27.110, comment ("Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law."). However, USAM § 9-27.130 provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM § 9-27.130 states that each U.S. Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth in the USAM, and that serious, unjustified departures from the principles set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate. + +U.S. Attorneys have "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and may modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9.27-140. The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource Manual, which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecutions. + +#### 1. USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution + +Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them. USAM § 9-2.020 explicitly authorizes a U.S. Attorney "to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to + +1F9 In 2018, the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual. In assessing the subjects' conduct, OPR relies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue. Accordingly, unless otherwise noted, citations in this Report are to the 1997 edition of the USAM, as revised through January 2007. + +him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise." Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM § 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense, unless (I) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor "should" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate. + +USAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person: + +- 1. Federal law enforcement priorities;19° +- 2. The nature and seriousness of the offense;191 +- 3. The deterrent effect of prosecution; +- 4. The person's culpability in connection with the offense; +- 5. The person's history with respect to criminal activity; +- 6. The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and +- 7. The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted. + +The USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should weigh "all relevant considerations," including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains: + +190 A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities. + +191A comment to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim. The comment further cautions that when restitution is at issue, "care should be taken . . . to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime." + +Some offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local jurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason, when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal prosecution. + +Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, "the Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships or other circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a thorough and successful prosecution." + +USAM § 9-27.260 identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on consideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities, or beliefs; the prosecutor's "own personal feelings" about the person or the victim; or the possible effect of the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances. When opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM § 9-27.270. + +#### 2. USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy + +Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and federal authorities, even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the Department has a long-standing policy, known as the Petite policy, governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conductin The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set forth in USAM § 9-2.031, "Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy (Petite Policy)," which contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor's exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on the substantially same act or transaction involved in a prior state or federal proceeding. The policy applies "whenever there has been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached." + +In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist. The prerequisites are as follows: + +- (1) The matter must involve a substantial federal interest. The determination whether a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis. Matters + +192See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 27-29 (1977); Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960). + +that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters. + +- (2) The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated." In general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction, if the prior sentence was "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines-is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." The government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. +- (3) + +However, the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed prosecution. + +The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts "to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved." If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy. + +#### 3. USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements + +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a plea agreement. USAM §§ 9-27.330; 9-27.400. Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure I I (c)(1).193 Regardless of whether the plea agreement is offered pre-charge or post-charge, the prosecutor's plea bargaining "must honestly reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendant's conduct." USAM § 9-27.400, comment.194 The importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM § 9-27.430, which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the + +193As previously noted, Rule I I (c)( I XC) permits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a specific sentence, subject to the court's acceptance of the agreement. + +194See also USAM § 9-27.300 ("Once the decision to prosecute has been made, the attorney for the government should charge ... the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct, and that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction."). + +defendant's criminal conduct, has an adequate factual basis, makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and order of restitution, and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others. USAM § 9-27.420 specifies: + +> In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea agreement, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including: + +- 1. The defendant's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; +- 2. The defendant's history with respect to criminal activity; +- 3. The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses charged; +- 4. The defendant's remorse or contrition and his/her willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct; +- 5. The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of the case; +- 6. The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial; +- 7. The probable effect on witnesses; +- 8. The probable sentence or other consequences if the defendant is convicted; +- 9. The public interest in having the case tried rather than disposed of by a guilty plea; +- 10. The expense of trial and appeal; +- II. The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other pending cases; and +- 12. The effect upon the victim's right to restitution. + +#### 4. USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements + +USAM § 9-27.600 authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation. The provision explains that a non-prosecution agreement is appropriate for this purpose when, in the prosecutor's judgment, the person's timely cooperation "appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation are unavailable or would not be effective." A comment to this provision explains that such "other means" include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for + +cooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a "use immunity" order. The comment observes that these alternative means "are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct" and "should be given serious consideration in the first instance." USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However, USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who "is likely to become of major public interest." + +These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation. + +#### 5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity + +Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See USAM §§ 9-23.100 et seq. + +#### 6. USAMJC.F.R. Provisions Relating to financial Conflicts of Interest + +Department employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related laws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him. See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401402. In addition, a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee's component, with the concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employee's participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Department's programs and operations. The determination must be made in writing. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-502. + +#### B. Other Depa t merit Policies + +#### 1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges + +The Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on September 22, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding "Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing" (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies "designed to ensure that all federal + +prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives” of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act “in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing practices.”195 + +The Ashcroft Memo directed that, “in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case,” except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not “readily provable” if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government’s ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft Memo explains that the “basic policy” “requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable” and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. + +The policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges “in other exceptional circumstances” with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or “designated supervisory attorney.” As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney’s Office is “particularly over-burdened,” the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve. The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that “[c]harges may be declined . . . pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent” with the policies established by the Memo. + +On January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum entitled “Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing.” That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors “must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses,” and defined that term as the offenses that would “generate the most substantial sentence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any statutorily required consecutive sentence. + +Importantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line prosecutor’s ability to decline “readily provable” charges in their entirety, no such restriction is placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In addition, the policy applies to “readily provable” charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor + +--- + +195 The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided *United States v. Booker*, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Those Guidelines were the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images. + +flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a "good faith doubt" that the law or evidence supports the charge. + +#### 2. Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens + +On April 28, 1995, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled "Deportation of Criminal Aliens:' directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States. In pertinent part, this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with alien defendants. These tools include (1) stipulated administrative deportation orders in connection with plea agreements; (2) deportation as a condition of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3853(d); and (3) judicial deportation orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). The memorandum further directs: + +> All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, absent such circumstances, Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most appropriate in a particular case. Exceptions to this policy must have the written approval of the United States Attorney. + +See also USAM § 9-73.520. A "criminal alien" is a foreign national who has been convicted of a crime. 196 + +Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based "on the conviction for an offense to which the alien will plead guilty," provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1251 as an offense that causes an alien to be deported. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2XA)(i), any alien who is convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" within five years after the date of entry (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status), and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer, is deportable. + +#### C. Case Law + +#### 1. Prosecutorial Discretion + +On many occasions, the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978), the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutor's threat during plea negotiations to seek more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense originally charged. The defendant, Hayes, opted not to plead guilty to the original offense, and + +196According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "The term `criminal alien' refers to aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol." See U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Enforcement Statistics, Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year 2020, available at https://www.cbp.govinewsroom/stats/cbp-enforcementstatistics/criminal-alien-statistics. + +the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges. Hayes was thereafter convicted and sentenced under the new indictment. The state court of appeals rejected Hayes's challenge to his conviction, concluding that the prosecutor's decision to indict on more serious charges was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. Hayes filed for review of his conviction and sentence in federal court, and although Hayes lost at the district court level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor's conduct constituted impermissible vindictive prosecution. + +The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Court opined that "acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process." *Id.* at 363. A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, "the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, *rests entirely in his discretion*." *Id.* at 364 (emphasis added). The Court explained that selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. *Id.* + +These principles were reiterated in *Wayte v. United States*, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government's policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in *Wayte* claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were "vocal" opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the government has "broad discretion" in deciding whom to prosecute, and that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutor's decision is based on an unjustifiable standard. *Id.* at 607-08. Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to have a discriminatory effect, the claim of selective prosecution failed. + +In *Imbler v. Pachtman*, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the Supreme Court considered whether a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the defendant's constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him. The Court held that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case," conduct that is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages. *Id.* at 430-31. In *Harrington v. Almy*, 977 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1992), the court applied *Imbler* to a challenge to a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. The court noted that "given the availability of immunity for the decision *to* charge, it becomes even more important that symmetrical protection be available for the decision *not to* charge." *Id.* at 41 (emphasis in original). + +Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in *Heckler v. Chaney*, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that an agency's decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-706. + +## **2. Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party** + +Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party arises in two contexts. First, defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea + +when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations. Numerous courts have made clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a promise of leniency towards a third party or in response toii ar cutor's threat to prosecute a third party if a plea is not entered. See, e.g., United States v. 909 F.2d 738, 74142 (2d Cir. 1990) (rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by the government's insistence that a defendant's wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he pled guilty); v. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (in order to satisfy "heavy burden" of establishing that the government had not acted "in good faith," a defendant challenging voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against the defendant's pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe the defendant's wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her); Stinson v. State, 839 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla. App. 2003) ("In cases involving . . . a promise not to prosecute a third party, the government must act in good faith . . . [and] must have probable cause to charge the third party."). + +The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors' promises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. 1997), as consideration for the defendant's guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant's niece and nephew, who had all been charged as a result of the same incident. When the state reneged and attempted to prosecute the niece and nephew, the trial court dismissed the charges against them, and the state appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that under contract law principles, the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were therefore entitled to enforce it. + +Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. + +#### D. State Bar Rules + +During the period relevant to this Report, the five subject attorneys were members of the bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in which they held membership.197 In determining which rules apply, OPR applied the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Local Rules) and the choice-of-law provisions of each applicable bar. Local Rule 11.1(f) incorporates rules governing the admission, practice, peer review, and discipline of attorneys (Attorney Admission Rules).198 Attorney Admission Rule 4(d) provides that any U.S. Attorney or AUSA employed full-time by the government may appear and participate in particular actions or proceedings on behalf of the United States in the attorney's official capacity without petition for admission. Any attorney so appearing + +197 The subjects' membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPR's conclusions in this case. + +198 These rules have been in effect since December 1994. + +is subject to all rules of the court.'" Attorney Admission Rule 6(bX2XA) makes clear that attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC). Moreover, the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state's rules of professional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct. + +#### 1. FRPC 4-1.1 — Competence + +FRPC 4-1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.200 Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors relevant to determining a lawyer's competence to handle a particular matter include "the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's training and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field." The comment further notes that "(i]n many instances the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner." With respect to particular matters, competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem. The comment to Rule 4-1.1 explains that "[t]he required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence." + +### 2. FRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence + +FRPC 4-1.3 specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A comment to this rule explains, "A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor." A lawyer must exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but is not required "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." + +#### 3. FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others + +FRPC 44.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." + +199See also 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state and local federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties. + +t00 The federal prosecutor does not have an individual "client," but rather represents the people of the United States. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 547 (duties of U.S. Attorney); 28 C.F.R. § 0.5(b) (the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters). + +#### 4. FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice + +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. + +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. + +In Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice of law." In Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So. 3d 166, 172 (Fla. 2010), for example, an attorney's continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client's matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC 4-8.4(d) due to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client.20' + +S01 OPR also examined FRPC 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Nothing in the text of that rule, however, was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report. A comment to FRPC Rule 4-3.8 notes that Florida has adopted the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function. These "standards," however, are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors. Indeed, the ABA has expressly stated that these standards "are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional discipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for civil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge." OPR does not consider the ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors. + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +### CHAPTER TWO + +#### PART THREE: ANALYSIS + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +Following the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public attention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart of the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13 month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal conduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from Epstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making process leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's motivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors and defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a "sweetheart deal" because they were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships with his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein. + +Through its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its specific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules or regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by improper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness interviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process. After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive interviews of subjects and witnesses, OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions concerning the NPA's origins and development. Although some questions remain, OPR sets forth its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part. + +#### II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT + +Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he approved it, with knowledge of its terms. He revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate. Acosta told OPR that he either was informed of, or had access to information concerning, the underlying facts of the case against Epstein. OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision, and Acosta did not make such a claim to OPR. As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview, the "three pronged resolution, two years . . . , registration and restitution, . . . ultimately that was approved on my authority. . . . [U]ltimately, I approved it, and so, 1 . . . accept that. I'm not . . . pushing away responsibility for it." + +In making its misconduct assessments, OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually. Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaiia were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at + +different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he returned. Villafafta and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's, Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafafta's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta. + +Under OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard, OPR's framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars, which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that Menchel, Sloman, Laurie, and VillafaIla did not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval. + +#### OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA + +A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (I) standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and + +202The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate attorney has not acted in "good faith." OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision. + +unambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, including its addendum. + +#### A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct + +The U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation's criminal laws.2°3 As a general matter, federal prosecutors "are designated by statute as the President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'" United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, a prosecutor's charging decisions—including declinations—are not dictated by law or statute and are not subject to judicial review. See United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997) ("Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors."). + +Department policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case helped ensure "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority," but did not require "a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case." USAM §§ 9-27.001, 9-27.120 (comment). Rather than mandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a prosecutor's charging decisions, including that the defendant was "subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction." USAM § 9-27.220. Importantly, U.S. Attorneys had "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and could modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, "[t]he United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authority," which includes the authority to decline prosecution. USAM § 9-2.001. + +In addition, the USAM contemplated that federal prosecutors would sometimes decline federal prosecution in deference to a state prosecution of the same conduct and provided guidance in the form of factors to be considered in making the decision, including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other jurisdiction. USAM § 9-27.240.204 A comment to this provision stated that the factors are "illustrative only, and the attorney for the government should also consider any others that appear relevant to hi[m]/her in a particular case." + +2°3 See, e.g., Wane, 470 U.S. at 607; United States v. Goodwin. 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.I I (1982); Bordenkircher. 434 U.S. at 364; Imbier, 424 U.S. 409. + +204The discretionary authority under USAM § 9-27.240 to defer prosecution in favor of another jurisdiction is distinct from the Petite policy, which establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal proceeding. See USAM § 9-2.031. + +As the U.S. Attorney, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was motivated by improper factors, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under federal law and under the USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below, OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated or influenced by improper considerations. Because no clear and unambiguous standard required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state, OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein. + +#### B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein + +OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement. + +The prosecutor's broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism, a deferred prosecution agreement. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.Y., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). These agreements "afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when, for example, it believes that a criminal conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a defendant or third parties, but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability altogether." Id. at 738. As with all prosecutorial charging decisions, the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement "resides fundamentally with the Executive" branch. Id. at 741. + +OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a nonprosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in Epstein's case. The USAM specifically authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution agreements made in exchange for a person's timely cooperation when such cooperation would put the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity (such as testimonial immunity) were "impossible or impracticable." USAM § 9-27.600 (comment).205 The "cooperation" contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another person. In certain circumstances, government attorneys were required to obtain approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation. + +Epstein, however, was not providing "cooperation" as contemplated by the USAM, and the USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of another. Notably, although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases involving cooperation, the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in other situations. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguous obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution + +205USAM § 9-27.650 required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange for cooperation be fully memorialized in writing. Although this requirement was not applicable for the reasons given above, the NPA complied by fully memorializing the terms of the agreement. + +agreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing so. + +#### C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards + +Although Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA. Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and solicitation to prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to nonprosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified "potential co-conspirators," to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity. Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals. + +After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution.206 + +#### 1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration + +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence. USAM §§ 9-27.330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). + +206OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafana failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See. e.g., FRPC 4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but does not require the attorney "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." See FRPC 4-1.3 (comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the requirements of the standard. + +Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal conduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM §§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400 (comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important exception: a U.S. Attorney or a "designated supervisory attorney" may authorize a plea that does not comport with this policy.207 Moreover, the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors "a good faith doubt," based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. + +By its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the "most serious readily provable charge" requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafafta proposed charging Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors, and Epstein's sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. The original "term sheet" presented to the defense proposed a "nonnegotiable" requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original state indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Instead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state indictment and only one additional state offense, and an 18-month sentence. + +As discussed more fully later in this Report, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Laurie perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafafia outlined in the prosecution memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which a federal prosecution would be premised. On the other hand, Villafafia felt strongly that federal charges should be brought, and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice opined that the charges were appropriate. OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable, however, because Acosta had + +Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney. This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the federal criminal justice system. For example, a case-specific approval to dismiss charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney's Office is particularly over-burdened, the duration of the trial would be exceptionally long, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office. However, such case-by-case exceptions should be rare; otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be jeopardized. + +207In addition to specified "Limited Exceptions," this authorization is available in "Other Exceptional Circumstances," as follows: + +Ashcroft Memo at § I.B.6. See also USAM §§ 9-2.001 and 27.140 (U.S. Attorneys' authority to depart from the USAM). + +authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo's "most serious readily provable offense" requirement. + +Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet, or how or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to 18 months, Acosta was aware of these changes. He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it was signed. Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement, notwithstanding any arguable failure to comply with the "most serious readily provable offense" requirement. Furthermore, the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S. Attorney from deferring to a state prosecution, so it is not clear that the Memo's terms apply to a situation involving state charges. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional misconduct. + +## **2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy** + +Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute unidentified "potential co-conspirators" amounted to "transactional immunity," which the witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy. Although "use immunity" protects a witness only against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness, and is frequently used by prosecutors, transactional immunity protects a witness from prosecution altogether and is relatively rare. + +OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity. One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied only to the exchange of "use immunity" for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege. *See* USAM § 9-23.100 *et seq.* Statutory provisions relating to immunity also address the same context. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 6002; 21 U.S.C. § 884. Moreover, apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. *See, e.g.,* [REDACTED], 909 F.2d at 741-43; *Kemp*, 760 F.2d at 1248; *Stinson*, 839 So. 2d at 909; *Frazier*, 697 So. 2d 945. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that was violated by the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "potential co-conspirators," and therefore cannot conclude that negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted professional misconduct. + +Notwithstanding this finding, in Section IV of this Part, OPR includes in its criticism of Acosta's decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its potential consequences, including to whom it would apply. + +#### 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens + +During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USA'S, from "request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings" against two female assistants. However, OPR considered whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein's two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafafia urged in her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard. + +The Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding "Deportation of Criminal Aliens" directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that "[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist." However, Epstein's two assistants were not "deportable" unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions. + +The policy guidance also requires "prompt and close coordination" with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants, who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not "defendants," no further notification was required. + +#### IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN + +OPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafafia—was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO's July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and Acosta's approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences, including the subjects' preexisting relationships with defense counsel; the subjects' numerous meetings with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys; emails between the subjects—particularly Villafafia—and defense counsel that appeared friendly, casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report. + +As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first-of main concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority. The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie—that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208 The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state. + +Although the NM and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed in the USA° and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and prominent attorne is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors. + +#### A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration + +Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation, + +201I Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed, and his attorney argued in his comments on OPR's draft report that OPR should not attribute to Sloman any input in Acosta's decisions about how to resolve the case. However, Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation. + +OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or other illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication.209 Witnesses, including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein matter's outcome—stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had perceived any, she "would have gone screaming" to the FBI's public corruption unit. The co-case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI. + +#### B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations + +Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein. However, news reports about Epstein's July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other "prominent businessmen, academics and scientists."21° Villafafia, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation, and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.211 The FBI case agent also told OPR that "we knew who had been on his plane, we knew . . . some of his connections." + +#### 1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors + +OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors, such as Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Epstein's legal team overtly raised Epstein's financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison, but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration. Defense counsel mentioned former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter, but that reference was made in the context of a + +S0D OPR's jurisdiction does not extend to the investigation of allegations of criminal activity. If OPR had found indication of criminal activity, it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies. + +S10 Larry "Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times, indictment says,"Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006; Nicole Janok, "Consultant to the rich indicted, jailed," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006. + +211Louric later made Menchcl aware of Epstein's prominence in the course of forwarding to Mcnchcl the initial prosecution memorandum. + +narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President.213 + +#### 2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences + +In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in negotiating the NPA. Villafafia, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, "[W]e tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at ... how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy." Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not believe "it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other." Lourie told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more "front office" involvement in the case, but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman "emphatically disagree[d]" with the suggestion that the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents, who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence. + +OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also + +212In the pre-NPA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable works, including a trip Epstcin took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as "a committed philanthropist." + +313In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been "politically motivated" due to Epstein's "close personal association with former President Bill Clinton." + +214OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie. and Villafafia all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with + +considered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions—to resolve the cast through an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to victims—had been made by July 31, 2007, when the USAO presented its "term sheet" to the defense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated any plans to do so. It also was well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with defense counsel Lefkowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final NPA, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw fit, and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender, despite a strong push by the defense that it do so. + +#### 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims + +Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Laurie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA, but they and Villafana identified for OPR several case-specific factors, unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations, that either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely influenced Acosta's decision-making. These considerations included assessment of the evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however, these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge disposition, but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation through a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta's concerns about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities. + +In a declaration submitted to the district court in 2017 in connection with the CVRA litigation, Villafafia explained the USAO's rationale for terminating the federal investigation through the NPA: + +> Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with members of the Office's management, and informed them that most of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their identities disclosed.... It is my understanding from these and other discussions that these factors, that is, the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and the various competing interests of the many different victims (including the privacy concerns expressed by many), together with the Office's desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein, the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims, + +Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta, or any of their colleagues, was motivated by improper influences. + +and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein . . . were among the factors [that led to the NPA].215 + +During her OPR interview, Villafaiia similarly described the victims' general reluctance to go forward with a trial: + +> [W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights.216 + +In his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villafaiia set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the USAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial: + +> [M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal + +Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims .. . A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. + +In addition, during the CVRA litigation, an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for interviews or responses to written questions regarding contacts with the USAO, OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about remaining anonymous. One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when, during the USAO's investigation, the FBI left a business card at her parents' home and, as a result, her parents learned that she was a victim of Epstein. At the time, the victim was a teenager; was "nervous, scared, and ashamed"; and did not want her parents to know about the case. + +313 Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A. Villafafia in Support of Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 8-9 (June 2, 2017). + +216These concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation, in which she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: + +record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of the names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their families. + +Although his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein, Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that "everybody at the USAO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the cooperation and desires of the victims." + +Similarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes—recalled understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein. Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein, Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh the risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained through a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual offender, and made restitution to his victims. + +Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the government's legal theories. He told OPR: + +> [1]t seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who thought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I was 18 years old. + +> You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light being shown on them because their parents didn't even know -- had very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns. + +Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims' general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not "granular" and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim's expected testimony, but he trusted that his "team" had already "done the diligence necessary" to make recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding of the facts as Villafafia. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta's statement that he reasonably believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges. + +Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony regarding witness challenges, including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims had expressed concern for their safety and "a lot of them clUdin't want to take the stand, and + +duclin't want to have to relive what happened to them." 2" The co-case agent told OPR that one of the "strategies" for dealing with the victims' fear was "to keep them off the stand," and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the victims' identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafafta on the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that "[the victims] would have testified," but would have required an extensive amount of "victim management" because they were "deeply embarrassed" about potentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that "there were obvious weaknesses in the case," from an evidentiary perspective?"' + +The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel, Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafafia's proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some minor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that "there is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafafia's prosecution memorandum] as this is uncharted territory to some degree." In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafafia, Menchel cited Acosta's and Sloman's "concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues" and Acosta's concerns about "hurting Project Safe Childhood." Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims' credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages. + +Acosta also recalled that although his "team" had expressed concern about the "trial issues," his own focus had been on "the legal side of things." Notably, during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the "background issues" that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership, and which influenced his view of the Epstein case, was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in 2007.219 + +217In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, the co-case agent noted that in early 2007. when he located a victim living outside of the United States, shc claimed only to "know Jeffrey Epstein," and stated that shc "moved away to distance herself from this situation," and "asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again." + +218In April 2007, a victim who was represented by an attomcy paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded interview with the FBI, with her attorney and his investigator present. This victim denied being involved in, or being a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as "Jane Doe #2." + +219In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed "To whom it may concern," and published online in The Daily Beast, Acosta described "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" by "an army of legal superstars." Most of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved + +The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafafia, in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she continued to have confidence in the case.22° Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pm-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. According to Acosta, "In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR that he developed "a preference for deferring to the state" to "make it clear that [the USAO was] not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue." Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the "manifest injustice" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he described as "a polite way of saying[, ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in "uncharted territory," there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be "weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender." Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet. no Sloman told OPR that Villafafla "always believed in the case." + +been concerned about policy and federalism issues.22I Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been "sensitive to" Petite policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was "overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level." During his OPR interview, Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from "a broader policy perspective" and was worried about "the impact that taking the case in federally may have on . . . other programs," although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were. + +#### C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences + +OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences. + +First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages—outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere "slap on the wrist," with "no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no restitution for the victims." Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state's original charge, standing alone, would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.222 Similarly, despite defense counsel's repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to + +we were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to. we were prosecuting him because he was wealthy. . .. That one didn't work so well. + +221Sloman stated that although Acosta "was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, ... I was not." Menchel commented, "I don't think it would have been a concern of mine." + +222Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and "had nothing to gain" by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as "this big Democratic donor." Villafaiia recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that— + +reconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys. + +Second, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's benefit. + +#### D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein + +In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other improper motivation. + +#### 1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys + +Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy M, a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Villafafia and Lourie had worked for and Lourie was close friends with one of law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Leflcowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm. + +Villafafia told OPR that she believed Acosta "was influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys." Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection, neither Villafafia nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or for any other improper reason). Villafafia explained how, in her view, the "legal prowess" of Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case: + +[O]ne of the issues in the case was the . . . defense's ability to describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex. It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be. But because they were able to convince members of our office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And because of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ] [became] something to consider. + +I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together. + +Although Villafarla was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she conceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly, throughout the case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes, and the evidence relevant to those statutes, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel. + +There is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein—although the USAO never wavered from its three core requirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein certain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled, experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying undesired outcomes for as long as possible.223 Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subjects' relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him. + +#### 2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions + +Acosta, Menchel, Sloman, and Laurie each asserted that Epstein's choice of counsel did not affect his handling of the case. Menchel told OPR that once in private practice, former colleagues often became adversaries. In Menchel's view, such preexisting relationships were useful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the defense attorney to "tailor" arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO. Menchel told OPR, however, that these advantages did not "move the needle in any major way," and he "reject[ed] the notion" that anyone in the USAO had been "swayed" because of preexisting + +223 As Chief Reiter later observed in his deposition testimony, "[T]he Epstein case was an instance of a many million dollars defense and what it can accomplish." + +friendships or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as "ham-fisted" and "clumsy." + +Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases involving former colleagues "was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches with them." In Sloman's view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not "change the equation" because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be best for the case. + +Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein's attorneys "didn't influence anything." Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the investigation, because of his acquaintance with [REDACTED] and long-time friendship with [REDACTED] law partner. OPR considered Lourie's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility Officer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. + +Acosta said during his OPR interview that he "developed" the three criteria reflected on the term sheet—a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages for the victims—before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after Kirkland & Ellis became involved in the case. + +Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and Lefkowitz. On several occasions, when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr, he directed them to address their communications to Villafaña, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis, he recognized the conflict of interest and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta's behalf, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department approval of Acosta's recusal from the case based on the fact that he had "begun to discuss possible employment" with Kirkland & Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel.224 + +--- + +224 In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was considering seeking a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School in 2009, and Dershowitz—a Harvard Law School professor—was representing Epstein "as a private, paying client, and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic or law school teaching program" and "should have no role in deciding whether Mr. Acosta is offered any position as a visiting professor." The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal. + +In its review of the documentary record, OPR examined an email written by Villafafla in 2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two-year sentence requirement in the initial "term sheet" provided to the defense was developed by Menchel as a favor to defense attorney M. OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case, Villafafia recounted in an email to a supervisory AUSA, a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case.225 In the email, Villafafia stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's decision to offer a two-year plea deal, but she added the following: "Months (or possibly years) later, I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from. He said that Lily [sic] Ann (attorney for Epstein) asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid' and convince Mr. Acosta to offer two years." + +OPR questioned both Villafafia and Sloman about the iirad "do her a solid" remark. Villafafia told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and were friends. During her OPR interview, Villafafia explained: + +> [A] lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, "Jeff, where did this two years come from?" And he said, "Well, I always figured that . . . Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid," which I thought was such a strange term, .. . "and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epstein's good graces" and that that's where the two years came from. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff Sloman asked me where the two years came from, and I had to remind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the two years came from. + +Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Villafafia whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to defense counsel, or whether he had stated that he merely "figured" that was the case, but Villafafta could not recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow-up interview, Villafaa again said that she was unable to recall whether Sloman's specific statement was "Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid, and he did it," or "I always figured Matt just wanted ... to do her a solid." Villafafia stated that she was unaware of any information that "expressly [indicated] that there was any sort of exchange of . . . a favor in either direction." + +During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall making such a remark, although he could not rule out the possibility that Villafafia, for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect, "heard that in some fashion." He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafafia about Menchel having done "a solid" for Epstein's counsel, he could not have meant it seriously, and he explained, "[I]t's not something that I would have believed. Him doing her a solid. I mean that's the furthest thing from my recollection or impression even after years later." + +223Villafana's email stemmed from a congressional inquiry received by the Department concerning the Epstein investigation and the NPA. to which the USAO had been asked to assist in responding. In her email. Villafaiia addressed several issues that she perceived to be the "three main questions" raised by the press coverage. + +Menchel told OPR that when he and were in the USAO, they had a social relationship, which included, in 2003, "a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We decided that .. . this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed to not do that."226 Apart from that, he stated they were "close" and "hung out," and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with "changed dramatically" when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with would "most likely" have been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added, "[T]hat was three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's thought." + +When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that his relationship with did "[n]ot at all" affect his handling of the Epstein case Moreover, Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term. + +OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements to OPR from Menchel, Villafafia, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel. The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel which took place sometime before June 26, 2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email, "[i]t was a non-starter" for the defense. In the lenolysnail exchange with Villafafia in early July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with about a state-based resolution was made with Acosta's "full knowledge." Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel "without having discussed it with me."228 Moreover, the defense did not immediately + +226Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Mcnchel had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on "how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be," but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but "[gliven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over." Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with had turned into something more than a handful of dates he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchcl to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality. + +227Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with on at least one occasion, in early 2006, after she left the USAO. + +226 In addition, Villafafta recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that "Alex has decided to offer a two year state deal." + +accept the two-year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of home confinement, suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and did not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of probation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early stages of the negotiations. + +As discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the twoyear offer, and a thorough review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration, as opposed to any other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of and approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the two-year term of incarceration. The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of Menchel's was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the purported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement, but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his understanding of that reason. Villafafia herself could remember little about the critical conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said. Given the lack of any corroborating evidence, and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous resistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in VillafaIla's 2018 email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of Epstein's attorneys. + +#### E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein + +OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie to meet with defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team. + +#### 1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations + +Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in M -collar criminal cases involving financial crimes, witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor, Villafafia vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein's attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them. In Villafafta's view, the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that, but for those meetings, the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and, moreover, "that term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else." + +OPR's investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the subjects through emails, correspondence, and phone calls, relatively few in-person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter. As shown in the chart on the following page, while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed, the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the caseincluding one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution—and a sixth meeting together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta attended only one pre-NPA meeting. After the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas, the subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting, one unscheduled meeting on a procedural matter, and a meeting with one defense attorney in preparation for a conference call; in addition, Acosta had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz.229 + +| Date | USAO Participants | Defense | | +|----------------|-----------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------| +| Feb. 1, 2007 | Lourie / Villafafta | Lefcourt / | Defense presents investigation | +| Feb. 20, 2007 | Lourie / Villafiula | Lefcourt / | Defense presents witness issues | +| June 26, 2007 | Sloman / Menchel / | | | +| July 31, 2007 | Sloman / Menchel / | | | +| | | Black / Lefcourt / | USAO presents NPA term sheet | +| Sept. 7, 2007 | Acosta / Oosterbaan / | | | +| | | Starr / Lettowitz / | Defense presents counteroffer | +| Sept. 12, 2007 | Lourie / Lourie | | | +| Oct. 12, 2007 | Acosta | Leflcowitz | Defense discussion of NPA | +| Dec. 14, 2007 | Acosta / Sloman / | | | +| | | | and uest for de now review | +| Jan. 7, 2008 | (1) Acosta / Sloman | | | +| | | (1) | Defense presents USAO | + +229 In addition, all of the subjects took phone calls from various defense attorneys. and although numerous documentary records refer to such calls, there may have been others for uitich OPR located no record. + +OPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense. + +Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie recognized that some prosecutors—like Villafaña—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of "weakness," but in Lourie's view, "information is power," and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were "all power to us." Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, "[Y]ou're getting the information that they think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars . . . And so you can form all of that into your strategy." Lourie also told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important "part of the process" that helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to "believe that they are getting heard." When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lourie responded, "I don't recall ever getting . . . so many requests for meetings . . . and so many appeals and so many audiences that [Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened." + +Menchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that "ethically it's appropriate" to give a defense attorney "an audience," and there was no real "downside" to doing so. Menchel added, "[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense, and it's good to know" what the defense will be. + +During his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm. He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team, before the NPA was signed, was "not the first and only time that I granted a meeting . . . to defense attorneys" who requested one. Acosta did not believe it was "atypical" for a U.S. Attorney to meet with opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys, and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel "in the normal course." Furthermore, Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other "process" granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department, "we successfully held firm in our positions" on the key elements of the resolution—that is, the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims. + +OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral, strategic purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lourie and one of Epstein's attorneys, in which the attorney asked for a chance to "make a pitch" about the victims' lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that pitch. Villafaña objected to meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lourie told her she was not being a "strategic thinker," and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow-up meeting on February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the defense arguments. After Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lourie suggested + +preparing a "short" charging document "with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up already."230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factory' into the government's charging strategy. + +The two February 2007 Villafafta/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested another meeting—this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman—to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that "[i]t would probably be helpful to us . . . to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something." The requested meeting took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafarla provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before the June 26 meeting, as "an overview" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafta viewed the meeting itself as primarily a "listening session."231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's "federalism" arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter. + +Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the "term sheet" describing the proposed terms of a non-prosecution agreement. + +By early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys—Starr and Lefkowitz—joined the defense team, Acosta believed they would likely "go to DC on the case, on the grounds . . . that I have not met with them." A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafafta, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz, and . In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, with Oosterbaan participating, "to discuss general legal policy only." In another email to Sloman and Lourie, Acosta explained, "This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it." Acosta told OPR that the meeting "was not a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and "[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our position." + +230Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document "should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all." + +During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about the government's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a break in the meeting, she engaged in a "discussion" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did not recall specifics of the discussion, however. + +The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process. + +Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233 Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear as if he "fear[ed]" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties. + +In sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm—for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys—that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO—on factual, legal, and policy grounds—to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaha met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein. + +232Acosta's October 12,2007 breakfast meeting with Lelkowitz is discussed separately in the following section. + +273 Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted. + +#### 2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel + +OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the subject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott hotel. According to the Miami Herald article, "a deal was struck" at the meeting to allow Epstein to serve "just 13 months" in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal investigation, and Acosta also agreed to "conceal" the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the victims and the public.234 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to West Palm Beach on October 11 for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel, near the USAO's West Palm Beach office, because at midday on October 12 he was to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA, or make any significant concessions relating to it, during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting. + +Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 24, 2007—more than two weeks before the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement, those key provisions remained in place thereafter. Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense, he sought three goals: (I) Epstein's guilty plea in state court to an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender; (2) a sentence of imprisonment; and 3) a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously, the USAO's original plea offer in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter expressed a "non-negotiable" demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment, and the final NPA required only an 18-month sentence, but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18 months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting with counsel. The NPA signed on September 24, 2007, required 18 months' incarceration, sexual offender registration, and a mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein, and OPR found that these terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting. + +At the time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, two issues involving the NPA were in dispute. Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed the key provisions of the NPA. First, at Sloman's instigation, the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims. This USAO-initiated request had prompted discussions about an "addendum" to the NPA. Sloman sent the text of a proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October 11, 2007.235 Although OPR found no decisive + +234Julie K. =, "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. + +235 In his December 19, 2007, letter to defense attorney M, Acosta represented that he had proposed the addendum at the breakfast meeting, but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then. + +proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafafia), noting that he "just got off the phone with Alex" and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later clarified for Villafafia that "Jay's suggested revision has been rejected." + +A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative's fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO's interpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned attorney's fees and did not materially impede the victims' ability to seek damages from Epstein under § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue. + +OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting. Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (1) not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their counsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events, and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations he had with Acosta. + +Of more significance for OPR's evaluation was a contemporaneous document—an October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Sloman drafted, and Acosta reviewed and edited for signature by Sloman—that disputed Lefkowitz's claims. The draft letter stated: + +> I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in that October 23rd letter. Your letter claimed that this Office + +> > would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter, or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. + +As we discussed and, hopefully, clarified, and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such a + +promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this. + +It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case. + +Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman. + +Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villafafia to "soften" certain language that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject, rather than any new concession. + +Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia. + +Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was "entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release." Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence, although the parties understood that he would receive the same "gain time" benefits available to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafafia, on behalf of the USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that "Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail." Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafafia wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NM required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month + +sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would "proceed accordingly." + +The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates of the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration. Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade. Moreover, Villafafia received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement "in custody." Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole authority for administering the work release program. + +After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OPR found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served pursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials' decision to permit him to participate in work release. + +#### F. Villafana's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafla, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences + +During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney, and filed under seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafafta (and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized, and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz's side of the communications, and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafana's communications to Letkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epstein's objections.236 Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafafta's emails as proof that Villafafia and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's attorneys to keep the "sweetheart" deal a secret from the victims and the public. Statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAO's improper favoritism towards Epstein. In one example, Villafana told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing not to prosecute others, but would "prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." She also offered to meet with him 'off campus' to finalize negotiations. She also proposed, "[o]n an `avoid the press' note," that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press coverage. + +236The USAO did not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal protected information. United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the [CVRA] and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (Apr. 7, 2011). The court declined to order the additional redactions. + +OPR asked Villafafia about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Villafafia acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative, and explained that generally, the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned to her: + +> [I]f you were to pull all my e-mails on every case, you would find that that is how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl, and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be. And I can be when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that given that task, the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement and, keeping in mind the terms that . . . our office had agreed to, and do that in a way that is civil. So . . . although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly, when you look at the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes, my response was always, "No, I will not make that change." + +Villafafia denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email in which Villafafia expressed reluctance to "highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge" was written in response to a defense proposal to include in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state, "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." Villafafia told OPR that the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein's assistants and was not aware of anyone else who could be charged, and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However, Villafafia was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Villafafia was not the only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts, and whether such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an earlier email, Lourie had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that required dismissal of numerous substantive counts. + +As to Villafafia's offer to meet with Lefkowitz "off campus" to resolve outstanding issues in the NPA negotiation, she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a "neutral" location—with "all the necessary decision makers present or 'on car— might facilitate completion of the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time. + +With regard to her comment about “avoid[ing] the press,” Villafaña told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami, and “if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper.” + +In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafaña, as well as Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted from the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did not locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of Villafaña’s overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record, as well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafaña consistently advocated in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the case. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafaña objected to the decision to resolve the case through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with Menchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect that resolution, Villafaña fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO’s position despite defense counsel’s aggressive tactics. + +OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafaña “was soft on Epstein . . . couldn’t have been further from the truth.” Sloman added that Villafaña “did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable.” Lourie similarly told OPR that when he read the district court’s February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails from Villafaña cited in that opinion, he was “surprised to see how nice she was to them. And she winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them. When I know the whole time she was the one who wanted to go after him the most.” The AUSA who assisted Villafaña on the investigation told OPR “everything that [Villafaña] did . . . was, as far as I could tell, [ ] completely pro prosecution.” + +Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information showing Villafaña’s consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims, a public narrative developed that Villafaña colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO’s and Villafaña’s interactions with the victims can be criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this Report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps Villafaña may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villafaña, in particular, cared deeply about Epstein’s victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of consulting with victims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafaña and Sloman committed professional misconduct by “threaten[ing] to send a highly improper and unusual ‘victim notification letter’ to all” of the listed victims. Given the full context of Villafaña’s conduct throughout her tenure on the case, OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are + +entitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in question do not themselves establish that Villafana (or any other subject) acted to improperly benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences, or sought to silence victims. + +#### C. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential Associates + +OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA—Villafai►a, **Lourie, and Acosta—to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," in addition to four named individuals, to determine whether that provision resulted from the subjects' improper favoritism towards Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Villafafia and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision.237** + +**As the NPA drafting process concluded, Villafafia circulated to Lourie and another supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision, telling Lourie it was "some of [defense counsel's] requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and commenting only, "I don't think it hurts us." In a reply email, Lourie responded to another issue** + +**237**As set forth in OPR's factual discussion, early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement, the defense sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed employees of one of his companies. Villafafia initially countered with "standard language" referring to unnamed "co-conspirators" so as to avoid "highlightlingj for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." Nonetheless, drafts of the NPA sent by Letkowitz after Villafatia's email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees. Villafana, however, internally circulated drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement." The federal plea agreement draft revised by Lourie and Acosta on September 20, 2007, included that language. When the defense team reverted to negotiation of state charges, Villafafia advised them, "In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the [USAO] may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." The next day, Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA referring to the four named assistants, "any employee" of the named company, and "any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." The language was finally revised by Villafafia to prohibit prosecution of "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [the four named assistants]." + +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafafia's counsel and Lourie both noted that the non-prosecution provision could bind only the USAO, and Lourie further opined that it was limited to certain specified federal charges and a time-limited scope of conduct. Although the non-prosecution provision in the NM did not explicitly contain such limitations, those limitations were included in other parts of the agreement. + +Villafafia had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute coconspirators or ask Villafafia to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafafia asked Lourie for "[a]ny other thoughts," but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no document that suggested Villafafia and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other individuals who were copied on Villafafia's email referencing the provision—her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office, and Villafaila's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafafia told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the nonprosecution provision "doesn't hurt us," Villafafia assumed that they agreed with her assessment. + +Villafafia told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators," but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted "to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." Villafafia told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct was his own "dirty little secret." Villafafia said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006 arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later.238 Villafafia acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her.s239 Accordingly, Villafafia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.24 Villafafia also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's investigation was Epstein, and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he entered a plea.241 Because Villafafia was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged, she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other, unspecified "co-conspirators." Villafafia told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time, it did not occur to her that the reference to other "potential co-conspirators" might be used to protect any of Epstein's influential associates. + +Lourie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division at the time Villafafia forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it. + +238Villafafia told OPR that "none of... the victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein." + +239The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein's conduct, but the conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida. + +240The FBI had learned that one of Epstein's female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one girl in Epstein's presence; this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought the government's agreement not to prosecute from the outset. Villafafia explained to OPR that this individual was herself believed to also have been at one time a victim. + +241Villafafia told OPR that the USAO had decided that girls who recruited other girls would not be prosecuted. + +Lourie described the promise not to prosecute “potential co-conspirators” as “unusual,” and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be “unlike me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful.” Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein “theoretically” could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed “co-conspirators” as “a message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.” + +Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told OPR that Epstein was always “the focus” of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face “meaningful consequences” for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, “[t]o the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein[ ] . . . going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this.” Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein’s four assistants, and it “never dawned” on him that it was intended to shield anyone else. + +This broad provision promising not to prosecute “any potential co-conspirators” is troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein’s political, celebrity, or other influential associates.242 + +#### **H. OPR’s Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis** + +One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal + +242 As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements and did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absence. Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007, before the parties drafted the NPA. + +investigation.243 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration “early” because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epstein’s former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they “had never heard of” Epstein and he was providing “absolutely no cooperation” to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior colleagues that “this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true.” Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was “completely false.” Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an “intelligence asset.”244 + +In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or “intelligence asset,” or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR’s investigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein’s purported cooperation, or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed. + +Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR’s investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter. + +#### **V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA** + +Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA. Acosta’s flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA, such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all “potential co-conspirators,” were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a + +--- + +243 *See, e.g.*, Julie K. [REDACTED], “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,” *Miami Herald*, Nov. 28, 2018. + +244 When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an “intelligence asset,” Acosta stated to OPR that “the answer is no.” Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information. + +successful federal prosecution, Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened, such as by obtaining Epstein's missing computer equipment. Finally, a lack of coordination within the USAO compounded Acosta's flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of drafting the NPA, a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it received. These problems were, moreover, entirely avoidable because federal prosecution, and potentially a federal plea agreement, existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution. + +In evaluating Acosta's conduct, OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that some of Epstein's conduct known today was not known in 2007 and that other circumstances have changed in the interim, including some victims' willingness to testify. OPR has also evaluated Acosta's decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good faith, even if the decision in question may not have led to the "best" result that potentially could have been obtained. Nonetheless, after considering all of the available evidence and the totality of the then-existing circumstances, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment. + +#### A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution + +The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to prosecute for the same act. Responding to the Court's concerns about the "potential for abuse in a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions," the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining to bring a federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct, except when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. at 28. On its face, the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state prosecutions. USAM § 9-2.031 ("This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state ... prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached."). When a state investigation or prosecution is still pending, the policy does not apply. Indeed, even when a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits, the policy permits a subsequent federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: a "substantial federal interest" exists, "the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved," and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction on federal charges. The policy also does not apply when "the prior prosecution involved only a minor part of the contemplated federal charges." + +No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial interest in prosecuting Epstein. In her prosecution memorandum, Villafafia identified five federal statutes that Epstein had potentially violated. The CEOS Chief described Villafafia's assessment of these statutes as "exhaustive," and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the facts of the case. Epstein's crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children, interstate travel, and the use of a facility of interstate commerce, all of which were areas of federal concern. + +Notably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was "an important federal interest," which in Epstein's case was compounded by the "sordidness" of the acts involved and the number of victims. + +It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy "on its face" did not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors. The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.245 + +Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism.246 In essence, Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR: + +245In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors existed, such as use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply. + +246In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his subordinates' concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR "misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws," and counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that "bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims." Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's antitrafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which, for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the state system to his benefit. + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. . state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances. + +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage ofjustice."247 Acosta told OPR that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that the USAO could avert a "manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender. + +Acosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a "miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state charges are substantially less and different, and . . . the federal government . . . stands aside and lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators, typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence." + +Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.' Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system," and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to + +247Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. + +441 Villafana estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. + +depart from the Ashcroft Memo. He told OPR, however, that he did not recall discussing the Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Instead, it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case, on the one hand, and his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about "federalism," on the other hand. OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein too narrowly and through the wrong prism. + +Furthermore, Acosta's federalism concerns about intruding on the state's autonomy resulted in an outcome—the NPA—that intruded far more on the state's autonomy than a decision to pursue a federal prosecution would have.209 By means of the NPA, the federal government dictated to the state the charges, the sentence, the timing, and certain conditions that the state had to obtain during the state's own prosecution. Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that his "attempt to backstop the state here[] rebounded, because in the process, it .. . ended up being arguably more intrusive." + +Acosta's concern about invading the state's authority led to additional negative consequences. Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to "soften" its tone, by substituting provisions requiring Epstein to make his "best efforts" for language that appeared to dictate certain actions to the state. In so doing, however, Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement, making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply. + +OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a mechanism that relied completely on state action, Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system, a system in which none of the subjects had practiced and with which they were unfamiliar. Villafaria recognized that there were "a lot of ways to manipulate state sentences," and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of negotiations about entering into the NPA, because by sending the case back to the state the USAO was "giving up all control over what was going on." Villafana also told OPR that defense counsel "had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Epstein's ability to obtain work release, a provision directly contrary to the USAO's intent with respect to Epstein's sentence, is a clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control. Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA, none of the subject attorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be eligible for work release. Acosta, in particular, told OPR that "if it was typical to provide that kind of work release in these cases, that would have been news to me." Because work release was not anticipated, the NPA did not specifically address it, and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein from applying for admission to the program. + +249The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions. It does not prevent state authorities from pursuing state charges after a federal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Nichols and State v. Nichols (dual prosecution for acts committed in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building). However, in practice and to use their resources most efficiently, state authorities often choose not to pursue state charges if the federal prosecution results in a conviction. + +The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta's decision to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein. Acosta told OPR that one of the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge requiring registration as a sexual offender. He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the beginning and from which he never wavered. However, the USAO failed to anticipate certain factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had a residence. In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender registration, the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least 16 at the time of her interactions with Epstein, even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim. The victim's age made a difference, as the age of consent in New Mexico, where Epstein had a residence, was 16; therefore, Epstein was not required to register in that state. As a 2006 letter from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney's Office made clear, the defense team had thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida's sexual offender registration requirement; OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the USAO. + +Finally, Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI's attention because of a concern that the State Attorney's Office had succumbed to "pressure" from defense counsel. Villafaña told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with Villafaña, he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was dissatisfied with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case. Shortly before the NPA was signed, moreover, additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorney's Office was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epstein's favor. Specifically, during the September 12, 2007 meeting, at the state prosecutor's suggestion, the USAO team agreed, with Acosta's subsequent approval, to permit Epstein to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, rather than the three charges the USAO had originally specified. The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to register as a sexual offender. Shortly thereafter, the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite the assurances made to Lourie, the state prosecutor had advised Epstein—incorrectly, it turned out—that a plea to that particular offense would *not* require him to register as a sexual offender. Yet, despite this evidence, which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA, Acosta did not alter his decision about proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful execution. + +OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by this case. He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman and Menchel, and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for their assessment of trial issues. Acosta was copied on many substantive emails, reviewed and revised drafts of the NPA, and approved the final agreement. Yet, rather than focusing on whether the state's prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, Acosta focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the *state's* interest, as defined in part by the state's indictment, by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of + +Epstein's state guilty plea.2" As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.25' + +#### B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case + +The leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafafia planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution of a search warrant. + +The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state + +250Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state, he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a twoyear sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter. + +231In commenting on OPR's draft report. Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta "acceptied] OPR's conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment." Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter "would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room." Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, "did not challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully." + +252Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafatia identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August 27.2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands. but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane. + +search warrant was executed on that property, the computer equipment associated with those cameras had been removed. Villafaña knew who had possession of the computer equipment. Surveillance images might have shown the victims' visits, and photographic evidence of their appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors. The surveillance video might have shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified. Such images could have been powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their visits to his home, potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple "solicitation" case. + +Epstein's personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence. Villafaña told OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and one victim told agents that Epstein's assistant photographed her in the nude. Based on this evidence, and experience in other sex cases involving minors, Villafaña and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained child pornography. Moreover, Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle; it was reasonable to assume that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the internet to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling. The interstate transmission of child pornography was a separate, and serious, federal crime that could have changed the entire complexion of the case against Epstein.253 Villafaña told OPR, "[I]f the evidence had been what we suspected it was . . . [i]t would have put this case completely to bed. It also would have completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus." + +Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence, Villafaña attempted to obtain the missing computers. After Villafaña learned that an individual associated with one of Epstein's attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home, she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the evidence. Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors, Villafaña took legal steps to obtain the computer equipment. + +Epstein's team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO's demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney [REDACTED] requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that "we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible." She agreed to extend the date for producing the computer equipment by one week until July 17, 2007. On that day, Epstein initiated litigation regarding the computer equipment. That litigation was still pending at the end of July, when Acosta decided to resolve + +Any person who . . . induces . . . any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished . . . if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be . . . transmitted using any means or facility of interstate . . . commerce or in or affecting interstate . . . commerce . . . [or] if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or . . . commerce by any means, including by computer. + +253 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) provides, in pertinent part: + +the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was “pushed under the rug” without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending. + +Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafaña continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of the computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose Epstein’s efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the defense, informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein at age 14 and had been photographed in the nude. A few days later, Villafaña told defense counsel that she had “conferred with the appropriate people, and we are not willing to agree to a stay.” Defense counsel then contacted Lourie, who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the upcoming meeting with Acosta. After the meeting, and when the court sought to reschedule the hearing, Villafaña emailed Sloman to ask if she should “put it off”; he replied, “Yes,” and the hearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed, however, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached the agreement. + +Villafaña told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epstein’s computers. She told OPR that, in her view, “the fact that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing . . . was further evidence of the importance of the evidence.” + +OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate, and continue with, the NPA negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending, and to agree to postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer evidence. Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the missing computers, but he believed that “there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly” regarding the plea. + +Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only “vaguely.” Menchel expressed surprise to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain “an entire computer” through the method utilized by Villafaña, telling OPR, “I had not heard of that.” However, the contemporaneous records show that Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie had each been aware in 2007 of Villafaña’s efforts to obtain Epstein’s missing computer equipment. + +Villafaña kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007, all discussed her proposed steps. Villafaña told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions about her proposal to obtain the evidence. Lourie also received Villafaña’s July 16, 2007 email discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it, and on one occasion he spoke directly + +with one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he "vaguely" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafatia whether to put off a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously, the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations. + +Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed, he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA itself provides that "the federal.. . investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process] will be held in abeyance," that Epstein will withdraw his "motion to intervene and to quash certain [legal process]," and, further, that the parties would "maintain . . . evidence subject to [legal process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate" until the NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be "deemed withdrawn." (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of evidence specified was "certain computer equipment." In addition, Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer equipment. + +Villafafia knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant—and potentially critical—information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USA() ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost. + +234 If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafana or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafana had consulted with the Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment. + +To be clear, OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues. Every case is different and must be judged on its own facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff, the nature and scope of Epstein's criminal conduct, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from Epstein's residence, and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal conduct, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing from the express terms of the NPA. In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge, Acosta lost sight of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be pursued. The decision to forgo the government's efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of all the costs and benefits of the proposed action. OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely.255 + +#### C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution + +The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency afforded him concerning his sentence. After offering a deal that required a "non-negotiable" 24-month term of incarceration, Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration, knowing that gain time would reduce it further, and indeed, Epstein served only 13 months. Epstein ultimately did not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his sentence. As Lourie told OPR, "[E]verything else that happened to [Epstein] is exactly what should have happened to him. . . . He had to pay a lot of money. He had to register as a sex offender," but "in the perfect world, [Epstein] would have served more time in jail." + +Due to the passage of time and the subjects' inability to recall many details of the relevant events, OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence requirement was developed or by whom. Two possibilities were articulated during OPR's subject interviews: (1) the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pled guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state; or (2) the two years represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept, thus avoiding the need for a trial. As to the former possibility, Acosta told OPR that his "best understanding" of the two-year proposal was that it correlated to "one of the original state charges." He elaborated, + +25\$ In commenting on OPR's draft report. Acosta's attorney objected to OPR's conclusion that Acosta knew or should have known about the litigation regarding the computers and that he should have given greater consideration to pursuing the computers before the NPA was signed. Acosta's attorney asserted that Acosta was not involved in that level of "granularity"; that his "'small thoughts' edits" on the NPA were limited and focused on policy; and that it was appropriate for him to rely on his staff to raise any issues of concern to him. For the reasons stated above, OPR nonetheless concludes that having developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation, Acosta had a greater obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so. + +"I'm reconstructing memories of . . . 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or someone else said ... what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone said this amount." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this method, but he believed that it likely did not result from a single specific discussion but rather from conversations over a course of time. Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had these discussions, other than that it would have been Lourie, Menchel, or Sloman. Villafafia was not asked for her views on a two-year sentence, and she had no input into the decision before it was made. Villafab told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence. OPR also examined applicable state statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines, but could not confirm that Epstein was, in fact, facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD. + +On the other hand, during his OPR interview, Lourie "guess[ed]" that "somehow the defense conveyed . . . we're going to trial if it's more than two years." Menchel similarly told OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived, but "obviously it was a number that the office felt was palatable enough that [Epstein] would take" it. Sloman told OPR that he had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached. + +The contemporaneous documentary record, however, provides no indication that Epstein's team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested, before the USAO made its offer, that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration. As late as July 25, 2007 only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel—Epstein's counsel submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein at all. Furthermore, after the initial "term sheet" was presented and negotiations for the NPA progressed, Epstein's team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail. + +The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it. The most obvious alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that carried a harsher sentence. If federally charged, Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines, 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. However, it is unlikely that he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence, even one at the lower end of the guidelines. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines sentence, and as previously discussed, there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon a trial in this case. If federally charged, Epstein's sentencing exposure could have been managed by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) for a stipulated sentence, which requires judicial approval. Acosta rejected this idea, however, apparently because of a perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule 11(c) pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAO's options. + +Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy, a federal charge that carried a maximum five-year sentence. Shortly after Villafaria circulated the prosecution memorandum to her supervisors, Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and offering a plea to conspiracy "to make a plea attractive." Similarly, before learning that Menchel had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein's counsel, Villafaila had considered offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge, to be served concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the state's outstanding + +indictment. Given Epstein's continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and defense counsel's efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail, it is questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer, but the USAO did not even extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be. + +Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution that ensured a conviction, including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern about intruding on the state's authority, led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice. Menchel told OPR, "I don't believe anybody at the time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything?" + +During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea, the USAO agreed to accept a plea for an 18-month sentence, a reduction of six months from the original "non-negotiable" twoyear term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafafia attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, but Acosta attributed it to a decision made during the negotiating process by Villafafia and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein. + +OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term. Despite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that term, as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms, was settled on for the initial offer. The term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or, as far as OPR could determine, possible state charges. Furthermore, while the USAO initially informed the defense that the two-year term was "non-negotiable," Acosta failed to enforce that position and rather than a "floor" for negotiations, it became a "ceiling" that was further reduced during the negotiations. OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender, or to other traditional sentencing factors such as deterrence, either of Epstein or other offenders of similar crimes. Instead, as previously noted, it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed. As a result, the USAO had little room to maneuver during the negotiations and because Acosta was unwilling to enforce the "non-negotiable" initial offer, the government ended up with a term of incarceration that was not much more than what the state had initially sought and which was significantly disproportionate to the seriousness of Epstein's conduct. + +In sum, it is evident that Acosta's desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a "backstop" to the state, but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable, reasonable basis. In assessing the case only through the lens of providing a "backstop" to the state, Acosta failed to consider the need for a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epstein's conduct and the federal interest in addressing it. + +#### D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA + +After the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: "I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently." + +Once the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be "unseemly" to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein "[t]oo much process," a result of the USAO's desire to "do the right thing" and to the defense team's ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement. Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach. Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder. + +Acosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example, and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, "Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007" to "Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007." (Emphasis added.) Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department. Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his "best efforts" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed. + +### E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process + +The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which + +the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant term of incarceration, and made numerous other concessions to the defense. As OPR has set forth in substantial detail in this Report, OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more appropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state crime and intruding on state authority. Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had set, even when Villafaña and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta himself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner. + +Many of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions. The contemporaneous records revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants. Acosta was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case. Lourie told OPR that it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail." Menchel told OPR, "I know we would have spoken about this case a lot, okay? And I'm sure with Jeff as well, and there were conversations -- a meeting that I had with [REDACTED] and Andy as well." Lourie similarly told OPR: + +Well, . . . he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me to the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros Memo and . . . the guidance from CEOS, he would have been reading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State Attorney, I don't know, just . . . all these different sources of information he was -- I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you know, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you know, read the Pros Memo, he read all the stuff . . . + +At the same time, Acosta was significantly removed, both in physical distance and in levels in the supervisory chain, from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case—Villafaña and, to a lesser extent, Lourie. Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution memorandum on his own, but as he told OPR, he recognized that the case was going to go through the front office "[b]ecause there was front office involvement from the get go." Yet, although Acosta became involved at certain points in order to make decisions, he did not view himself as overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions. OPR observed that as a consequence, management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions. + +On occasion, Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often, information upon which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña did draft a detailed, analytical prosecution memorandum, but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel's departure. Despite these discussions, though, it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information, such as Oosterbaan's strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafaña's concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA. Acosta interpreted the state indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially, but it is not clear that when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea, he knew the extent to + +which Villafafia and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue a broader state indictment. + +One example illustrates this communication gap. In a September 20, 2007 email to Lourie asking him to read the latest version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement (calling for Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges), Acosta noted, "I don't typically sign plea agreements. We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. I didn't even sign the public corruption or ECM cartel agreements, so this should not be the first." (Emphasis added.) In his email to Villafafia, Lourie attached Acosta's email and instructed Villafaila to "change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay [Leflcowitz]." (Emphasis added.) Villafafia raised no objection to signing the agreement. Acosta told OPR that he wanted to give the "trial team" a chance to "speak up and let him know" if they did not feel comfortable with the agreement. Villafafia, however, told OPR that she did not understand that she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement; rather, she believed Acosta wanted her to sign it because he was taking an "arm's length" approach and signaling this "was not his deal." The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate, but the line AUSA believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself from the decision, reflects a serious communication gap. + +As another example, at one point, Villafafia, frustrated and concerned about the decisions being made concerning a possible resolution, requested a meeting with Acosta; in a sternly worded rebuke, Menchel rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafafia from speaking to Acosta, Villafafia interpreted Menchel's email to mean that she could not seek a meeting with Acosta. As a consequence, Acosta made his decision about a state resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafafia. Acosta told OPR that he was unaware that Villafafia had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with her if she had asked him directly. OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving both Acosta—the final decision maker—and Villafafia—the person most knowledgeable about the facts and the law—before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to offer the two-year term, and Villafafia said she did not have any input into the decision. Although a U.S. Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input, and it may be that Menchel presented what he believed to be Villafafia's views, OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware of Villafafia's strong views about, and objections to, the proposed resolution.' + +Two logistical problems hindered effective communication. First, the senior managers involved in the case—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—had offices located in Miami, while the offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the case—Villafafia and, to a lesser extent, Lourie—were located in West Palm Beach. Consequently, Villafafia's discussions with her senior + +256In her 2017 Declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafana stated that, given the challenges of obtaining victims' cooperation with a federal prosecution, "I believed and still believe that a negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interests of the [USAO] and the victims as a whole. The [USAO] had also reached that same conclusion." Several subjects pointed to this statement as indicating that Villafafia in fact supported the NPA. In her OPR interview, however, Villafazia drew a distinction between resolving the investigation through negotiations that led to what in her view was a reasonable outcome, which she would have supported, and "this negotiated resolution" that is, the NPA—which she did not support. + +managers required more effort than in other offices, where a line AUSA can more easily just stop by a supervisor's office to discuss a case.257 + +Second, key personnel were absent at varying times. Menchel's last day in the office was August 3, 2007, the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer, and presumably in the immediate period before his departure date, Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his outstanding work. Yet, this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter. Similarly, in the critical month of September, the NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly, with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafafla pressed to meet her late-September deadline. Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period, he was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington, D.C., and was traveling between the two locations. Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing, when many significant changes were made to the agreement, and he did not participate in drafting or reviewing the NPA before it was signed. Accordingly, during the key negotiation period for a significant case involving a unique resolution, no one involved had both a thorough understanding of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made. Villafafta certainly felt that during the negotiations, she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta. Acosta, however, told OPR that when reviewing the NPA, "I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did it do the . .. bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that Andy and would have looked at this, and that this was ... appropriate." + +The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can be seen in the NPA itself. As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications, the negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited proposals previously rejected. Meanwhile, Villafaila sought to keep to a deadline that would allow her to charge Epstein when she had planned to, if the parties did not reach agreement. In the end, Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications. + +The USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is a notable example. As previously noted, the only written discussion about the term that OPR found was Villafafla's email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, with copies to her co-counsel and direct supervisor, stating that she did not believe the provision "hurts us," and neither Acosta, Lourie, nor Villafalia recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaila intended the scope of the provision to protect anyone other than Epstein's four assistants, the plain language of the provision precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct, within the limitations set by the overall agreement. This broad prosecution declination would likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular, the USAO did not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others. Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third + +2S7 In his OPR interview, Acosta commented that although Menchel's office was on the same floor as Acosta's, he was in a different suite, which "affects interaction." + +parties.258 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO's refusal to agree to that term would have itself caused the negotiations to fail; the USAO's rejection of the defense proposal concerning immigration consequences did not affect Epstein's willingness to sign the agreement. The possibility that individuals other than Epstein's four female assistants could have criminal culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused more careful consideration of the provision. + +Similarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of the investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO's ability to disclose or release information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province of the USAO to decide as it saw fit. + +There is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given case; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs. And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical decision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time. This case, however, was different from the norm, and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the usual plea agreement. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be handled like any other, but Acosta's decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case unlike any other, and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight. Acosta may well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing + +[I]t's effectively transactional immunity which I didn't think we were supposed to do at the Department of Justice.... I've never heard of anything of the sort... . [W]e go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for example, for crimes of violence, . . . for anything beyond the specific offense which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and nobody else. I mean on rare occasion I've seen cases where say someone was dealing drugs and their wife was involved.... And they've got kids.... [and] it's understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too, but you know the husband's willing to go and take the weight . . . . This is not one of those. + +Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision "pretty weird." Menchel's successor as Criminal Chief told OPR that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of experience as a prosecutor. A senior AUSA with substantial experience prosecuting sex crimes against children commented that it was "horrendous" to provide immunity for participants in such conduct. + +258CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was "very unusual?' Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth commented, "I don't know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who's not identified. I just don't know how that works." Villafafia's co-counsel told OPR: + +from Villafafta and others, but given the highly unusual procedure being considered, his decision should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system, with which neither Villafafta nor the other subjects had experience, along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and possible means of overcoming those issues. OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the state-based resolution, before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration, or before the NPA, with its unusual terms, was signed. As Acosta later recognized and told OPR, "And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did the focus on, let's just get this done and get a jail term, mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate how this train is moving?" + +Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration, including core provisions like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration, with the result that Epstein was able to manipulate the process to his benefit. Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making. There does not seem to be a point, however, at which those differing opinions were considered when forming a strategy; rather, Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three core elements. As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner, but many of the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful approach. As Acosta belatedly recognized, "[Of I was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today, I would say, think it through."'" + +No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor judgment by itself. However, in combination, the evidence shows that the state-based resolution was ill conceived from the start and that the NPA resulted from a flawed decision-making process. From the time the USAO opened its investigation, Acosta recognized the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, yet after that investigation had run for more than a year, he set the investigation on a path not originally contemplated. Having done so, he had responsibility for ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct. Acosta's failure to adequately consider the full ramifications of the NPA contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take. + +2S9 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attomcy acknowledged that "[t]he matter %%mild ha% c benefited from more consistent staffing and attention." + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +### CHAPTER THREE + +# ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND investigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page. II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 A. History Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261 amendment guaranteeing victims' rights, some of which had previously been codified as a victims' 260 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii (Dec. 1982). + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government's interactions and communications with victims in the Epstein race, and should be read in conjunction with the factual background set forth in Chapter Two, Part One. This chapter sets forth the pertinent legal authorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultation, as well as OPR's analysis and conclusions. OPR discusses key events relating to the USAO's and the FBI's interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA, beginning with the FBI's initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an + +In December 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime victims. The Task Force concluded that victims have been "overlooked, their pleas for justice have gone unheeded, and their wounds—personal, emotional and financial—have gone unattended72® Thereafter, the government enacted various laws addressing victims' roles in the criminal justice system: the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the + +The CVRA, enacted on October 30, 2004, as part of the Justice for All Act, was designed to protect crime victims and to make them "Ml participants in the criminal justice system."262 The CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional + +tb1 See Pub. L. No. 97-291 (Victim and Witness Protection Act) (1982); Pub. L. No. 98-473 (Victims of Crime Act) (1984); Pub. L. No. 101-647 (Victims' Rights and Restitution Act) (1990); Pub. L. No. 103-322 (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-132 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) (1996); Pub. L. No. 105-6 (Victim Rights Clarification Act) (1997); and Pub. L. No. 108405 (Justice for All Act) (2004). + +262 Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); and Justice for All Act. + +## Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis + +![](_page_215_Diagram_2.jpeg) + +Bill of Rights in the VRRA.263 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment, the Senators determined that such an amendment was unlikely to be approved and, instead, they presented the CVRA as a compromise + +Illeasure.264 + +#### B. Enumerated Rights + +The CVRA defines the term "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia."265 Initially, and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation, the CVRA afforded crime victims the following eight rights: + +- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. +- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. +- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. + +263See 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-0I at I, 5 (2004). The VRRA identified victims' rights to (I) be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (2) be reasonably protected from the accused offender; (3) be notified of court proceedings; (4) be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial; (5) confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; (6) restitution; and (7) information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. 42 U.S.C. § 10606(6) (1990). The relevant text of the VRRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section I.B of this Report. + +S6' 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 at I, 5 (2004). Although nine congressional hearings were held between 1996 and 2003 concerning amending the Constitution to address victims' rights, neither chamber of Congress voted on legislation proposing an amendment. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-09-54, Report to Congressional Committees: Crime Victims' Rights Act - Increasing Awareness, Modifying the Complaint Process and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring Will Improve Implementation of the Act at 16 (Dec. 2008) (GAO CVRA Awareness Report). + +265The relevant text of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Pan Two, Section I.A of this Report. + +- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part of the VRRA, the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or by administrative complaint to the Department, and obligated the court to ensure that such rights were afforded. The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA (42 U.S.C. § 10606), but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services, such as counseling and medical care referrals (42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)). Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide victim services, which attach upon the detection of a crime, while the CVRA contains courtenforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument. + +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights:266 + +- (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. +- (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice. + +#### III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF "CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION + +### A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" + +In 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding interpretation of the CVRA's definition of "crime victim.s267 On April 1, 2005, OLC provided "preliminary and informal" guidance by email, concluding that "the status of a 'crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm."2" + +266H. Rep. No. 114-7 (Jan. 27, 2015). + +267 OLC is responsible for providing legal advice to the President, Department components, and other executive branch agencies. + +266 The OLC 2005 Informal Guidance is summarized in a Memorandum Opinion to the Acting Deputy Attorney General from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bies (Dec. 17, 2010), published as Office of Legal Counsel, + +OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines "'crime victim' as a 'person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense,' .. . the definition of victim is thus tethered to the identification of a 'Federal offense,' an event that occurs with the filing of a complaint." OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies the "'rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system" and a complaint "commences the 'judicial process' and places an offense within the 'judicial system," the legislature must have intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint. + +OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation. For example, the first right grants a victim protection from "the accused," not a suspect. Additionally, the second, third, and fourth rights refer to "victim notification, and access to, public proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing or parole—none of which commence prior to the filing of a complaint." + +### B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance + +In May 2005, the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (2005 Guidelines) to include the CVRA.2 The 2005 Guidelines specifically cited the CVRA requirement that agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded" their CVRA rights, which in 2005 encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights. + +The 2005 Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department's CVRA duties and divided criminal cases into an "investigation stage," a "prosecution stage," and a "corrections stage." The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights varied depending on the stage of the proceedings. + +During the "investigation stage" of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency, the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims "[a]t the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime" and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes. + +> [D]uring the investigative stage, [the Department] mandates compliance with the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, 42 U.S.0 § 10607, which requires federal officials to, among other things, identify victims, protect victims, arrange for victims to receive reasonable protection from suspected offenders, and provide + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (Dec. 17, 2010) ("OLC Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010)") and available at https://www.justice.govisites/default/files/old opinions/2010/12/31/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf. "That [2005] informal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable." OLC Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010) at I. + +\$69 The 2005 Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section II of this Report. The Department promulgated the guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predecessor statute to the CVRA, which instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines. Victim and Witness Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 6, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982). The 2005 Guidelines were superseded in October 2011, as explained below. + +information about available services for victims. Therefore, even though [the Department] may not afford CVRA rights to victims if charges have not been filed in their cases, the [D]epartment may provide certain services to victims that may serve the same function as some CVRA rights.270 + +The 2005 Guidelines stated that the "prosecution stage" of the case began when "charges are filed and continue[d] through postsentencing legal proceedings." The "U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending" was responsible for making "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified" of their rights under the CVRA. + +During the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attorney, or a designee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an offender, the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or rendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to "provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... that involves the crime against the victim." + +The 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to "be available to consult with victims about [their] major case decisions," such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to "consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the victim's] views" in light of various factors such as "[w]hether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions" and "[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial." Lastly, the 2005 Guidelines stated that "[a] strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime." + +The "corrections stage" involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration following a conviction. Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant, the U.S. Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage. + +#### IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION + +#### A. USAO Training + +As U.S. Attorney, Acosta disseminated the May 2005 updated Guidelines to USAO personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February 27, 2006, stating that he expected each recipient "to read and become familiar with the [2005] Guidelines." Acosta noted in the memorandum that the USAO had recently held an "all office training" addressing the 2005 Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view a videotaped version of the training "immediately." Acosta further noted that the USAO's + +270GAO CVRA Awareness Report at 66. + +victim/witness staff were "ready to assist you with the details of victim notification, and other areas for which United States Attomeyns Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act." The USAO's Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees. + +#### B. The Automated Victim Notification System + +Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim Notification System (VNS), an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The 2005 Guidelines mandated that "victim contact information and notice to victims of events . .. shall, absent exceptional circumstances (such as cases involving juvenile or foreign victims), be conducted and maintained using VNS." The VNS is separate from agency case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO. Both the FBI and the USAO use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the prosecution of a criminal case. Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited individual matter-specific content, the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of the contact that cannot be removed (such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a sentencing hearing).2" + +In the usual course of a criminal case, the FBI collects victim contact information during the investigation stage, which it stores in its case management system. The FBI's Victim Specialist exports the victim information data from the FBI's case management system into the VNS database. Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation's VNS case number. At the time of the Epstein investigation, the FBI's Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate seven different form notification letters: (1) initial notification; (2) case is under investigation; (3) arrest of the defendant; (4) declination of prosecution; (5) other; (6) advice of victim rights; and (7) investigation closed. + +After a charging document has been filed and the "prosecution stage' begins, the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification.272 The USAO imports data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS data. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing notice of case events, such as charges filed; an arraignment; a proposed plea agreement; change of plea hearings; sentencing hearings; and the result of sentencing hearings. + +271U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report 08-04, The Department of Justice's Victim Notification System at 29 (Jan. 2008), available at https://oitjustice.govireports/EOUSA/a0804/ final.pdf. The 2008 audit identified concerns with the VNS templates, including that "VNS users ... cannot alter the format to ensure that it fits with the specific case for which it is being sent," and many users had noted that "information in notifications became confusing and sometimes contradictory when various types of notifications were combined in the same letter." + +272The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who maintains victim contact: the FBI title is "Victim Specialist," and the USAO title is "Victim Witness Specialist." + +#### C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets + +The 2005 Guidelines recommended that "victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and available services . . . and [contact information for] the victimwitness coordinator or specialist ...." At the time of the Epstein investigation, FBI agents nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled, "Help for Victims of Crime" and "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System." The "Help for Victims of Crime" pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights. The pamphlet stated: "Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are afforded those rights." The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview. The pamphlet entitled "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System" provided an overview of the VNS and instructions on how to access the system. + +#### V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS + +#### A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters + +On August 8, 2006, shortly after the FBI opened its investigation into Epstein, the Victim Specialist for the West Palm Beach FBI office, under the case agent's direction, prepared a "Victim Notification Form" naming 30 victims in the Epstein investigation and stating that "additional pertinent information" about them was available in the VNS.273 Thereafter, the Victim Specialist entered individual victim contact information she received from the case agent into the VNS whenever the case agent directed the Victim Specialist to generate an initial letter to a particular victim. The FBI case agent told OPR that formal victim notification was "always handled by the [FBI's Victim Specialist]."2" + +According to the VNS records, beginning on August 28, 2006, the FBI Victim Specialist used the VNS to generate FBI letters to be sent to the victims, over her signature, identifying the eight CVRA rights and inviting victims to provide updated contact information in order to receive current status information about the matter. The FBI letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated that some of the CVRA rights did not take effect until after an arrest or indictment: "We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights." A sample letter follows. + +273These 30 were drawn from the PBPD investigative file and included individuals that the PBPD had not designated as victims and individuals the PBPD had identified but not interviewed. + +174The case agent told OPR, "[O]nce we identify a victim, then we bring [the FBI Victim Specialist] in, and as far as anything pertaining to victim rights ... and any resources, federal resources these victims may need comes from [her]. the Victim Specialist." + +![](_page_222_Picture_1.jpeg) + +U.S. Department of Justice Tatra' Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suke 500 505 South Ftaglcr Drive Weft ?elm Beech, FL 33401 Phone (561) 633-7517 Fat (561) r33.7970 + +August 28, 2006 + +Re: Cate Number + +Dear + +Your name was refered to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible via:m of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation whsle we an investigating this case. We would like to wake you aware of the victim services that may be available :o you and b answer any questiats you tray have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the invatiption. Oar programs part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims aro treated with respect and are provided ilk:creation about their rights under federal law. These rights include notification of the status of the case. Tan enclosed trochwcs provide infommtion about the E3rs Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for acomsing tic Victim Notification System (YNS). Wei is designed to provide you wth information regarding the Man of you case. + +lit cat Is ourently trader investigation This an be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience whik we conduct a thorough InvenignIon. + +Asa crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 Nance States Code § 377I: (I) The right to be reasonably prutected from the ionised; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely mice of ar.y public court proceeding, or eay parole precceding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right rot to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, inlets the court, ester receiving clear and convincing es idence, determines that testimony by to victim would be materially altered if the victim beard other testimony at Mat proceeding; (4) The right tote reasonably heard of any public proceeding in the district coup involving release, (Cork sentencing, or any parole preceallng; (5) Tao reasonable right to confer with the attorhey for the Government in the case; (6) The right to MI and timely restitution as provided Ir. law; (7) The right to proceedings free from irreaconabie delay, (I) Thr right to he treated with fairness and with respect for the vicfmte dignity and privacy. + +We will make our best effort to ensure you are accorded the right descrinot Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the =est a indiemtent of an individual :or the crime. and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorneys Office to ensure you are accorded those right. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights + +The Victim Notifies:km System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the ease as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain torrent ir formation about this matte on\_ the Internet at WWW.Notifv.USDOLGOV nr from the VNS C 'I Cenivat + +In addition, you may use the-Call Center or Internet to update your coauct information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Nunmer (VIN) ed Personal kkatificalion Number (PIN) IMIanytime you contact the Call Center and the first tine you log on :o VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first rime you access the WS Internet the, you .411: be ponmed to enter your last name (or bU31114.11 LaIllt) as curready coutaiacil in V145. yua siwt.ld cum :s- + +r + +If yon have additional qitttions which involve this matt/. pleas: contact the office listed above. When you cal:, please provide the file number located az the top of this Icier. Please remanba, you participation in the totfficaticn part of this proven is Noluntary. In circlet toco:ileac to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep you contact information eurrClIt + +Sincerely, + +![](_page_223_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Victim Spedalli + +VNS data logs, correspondence maintained in the FBI's case management system, and FBI interview reports for the Epstein investigation reflect that, during the Epstein investigation, the FBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had been interviewed by FBI case agents, but its practice was not uniform.275 + +#### B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims + +During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim notification letters, Villafafia was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of meeting with each victim receiving the letter. Villafafia told OPR that she was "generally aware that the FBI sends letters" but believed the FBI's "process didn't ... have anything to do with my process." Villafafia told OPR the "FBI had their own victim notification system and their own guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided." Moreover, Villafafia "didn't know when [FBI] letters went out" or "what they said."276 Nevertheless, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters she drafted to interfere with the FBI's notification responsibilities. + +In August 2006, Villafafia drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified by the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file. Villafafia told OPR that she "made the decision to make contact with victims early," and she composed the introductory letter and determined to whom they would be sent. Although these letters contained CVRA rights information, Villafafia mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to "introduce" herself and let the victims know the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the State Attorney's Office investigation in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated." Villafafia told OPR that in a case in which she "needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate + +273OPR found no uniformity in the time lapse between the FBI's interview of a victim and the issuance of an FBI letter to that particular victim, as the span of time between the two events varied from a few days to months. Furthermore, not every victim interviewed by the FBI received an FBI letter subsequent to her interview, and some FBI letters were sent to victims who had not been interviewed by the case agents. Finally, OPR's review of FBI VNS data revealed some letters that appeared to have been generated in the VNS and not included in the FBI case file. OPR could not confirm whether such letters were mailed or delivered. + +T76 Villafafia, who did not have supervisory authority over the FBI's Victim Specialist, told OPR that she did not review the FBI notification letters and did not see them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation, which was initiated after Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008. + +questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafafia directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters "as they were conducting interviews." Villafafia told OPR that the USAO had "no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to" the filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafafia did not use a template or VNS-generated letter for content, but instead used a letter she "had created and crafted [herself] for another case."277 + +The letters contained contact information for Villafafia, the FBI case agent, and the Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights. The USAO letters described the case as "under investigation" and stated that the victim would be notified "[i]f anyone is charged in connection with the investigation." The letters stated that, in addition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and potential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a list of counseling and medical services.' Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact Villafafia or the FBI case agent. + +Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the postarrest or indictment stage, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the USAO's CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge. Villafaiia told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter "was coming with an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivering them]." Later, in the course of the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the investigative team "adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made."279 + +Villafafia informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters, but the letters were not reviewed by any of Villafaiia's supervisors, who considered such correspondence to be a non-management task. Acosta told OPR, "I've had no other case where I'm even aware of victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level." Similarly, Menchel told OPR, + +227Villafaha told OPR that she thought that "at one point," she showed the letter to the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist who "said it was fine." The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not file a charging document in the Epstein matter, the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not assume responsibility for victim contact. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein's victims, and OPR's examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBI's VNS data concerning the Epstein investigation. OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the USAO's case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July 2008. + +278Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund, the Department's Office for Victims of Crime supports programs and services to help victims of crime. + +19 Villafaha informed OPR that, as the USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator [focusing on prosecutions of individuals who exploit children through the internet], she "treated the [Guidelines] as a floor and tried to provide a higher standard of contact." + +[A]s Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO, I did not consider it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office. I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victimwitness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office. + +#### C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered + +The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications "at the time that we met [with] the girls." The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters to some victims following in-person interviews, and in the instances when she did not provide a victim with a letter, she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to that set forth in the FBI letters.28° The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered "a few" letters to victims. The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery. + +Nevertheless, the case agent told OPR that she "did not sit there and go through every right" with the victims. She stated, however, "[I]n the beginning whether it was through [the FBI Victim Specialist] giving the letter, me giving a letter, the pamphlet, I believed that the girls knew that they were victims and had rights, and they had a resource, [the FBI Victim Specialist], that they could call for that." The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim, the Victim Specialist handled the victims' "rights and resources." + +#### VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED + +Early in the investigation, Villafafia informed her supervisors that, up to that point, "everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story. Getting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder." Between August 2006 and September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, the FBI case agents interviewed 22 victims. On a few occasions, Villafafia met with victims together with the FBI. Villafafia's May 1, 2007 draft indictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims, and Villafafta described the circumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandum. + +There is some evidence indicating that during interviews, some of the victims expressed to the FBI case agents and Villafatia concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein, and those discussions touched upon, in broad terms, the victims' views regarding the desired outcome of the investigation. Before the USAO entered into the NPA, however, no one from the + +2110The case agent told OPR, "1 remember giving letters to the girls when we would talk to them at . . . the conclusion, or ... if I didn't have the file on me[.) I had pamphlets in my car, or I made sure [the victims had contact information for the FBI's Victim Specialist)." + +government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. + +#### A. The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about Resolving the Federal Investigation + +Villafafia told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims, "we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved."281 + +> And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go to jail. But . . . [s]ome of them talked about bad experiences with the State Attorney's Office. And so, I felt like sending them back to the State Attorney's Office was not something that they would have supported. + +Villafafia told OPR that she also recalled that some victims "expressed . . . concern about their safety," and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the investigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that the two CVRA petitioners "never communicated [their] desires to me or the FBI case agents and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all of the victims, and allow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly."282 She also noted that some victims "fear[ed] having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, and others." + +In the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: + +> Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims .... A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, + +281Villafafia created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations, with notations indicating several with whom Villafafia recalled discussing their opinions about resolving the case. The chart, however, dots not indicate what the victims said, and Villafafia told OPR that the information contained in the chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim. OPR was unable to determine the details or extent of any such discussions occurring before September 24. 2007. because Villafafia did not have contemporaneous notes of the interviews, and the FBI reports and corresponding notes of the interviews did not contain information about the victims' desired outcomes. The victims who provided information to OPR did not recall discussing potential resolution of the federal investigation with anyone from the government. + +2s2 In the declaration, Villafalta stated, "Jane Doc 2 specifically told me that she did not want Epstein prosecuted." + +for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. + +The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were "strong" and "believable," she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein. Rather, "they were embarrassed," "didn't want their parents to know," and "wanted to forget."283 + +As of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Villafafia informed Epstein attorney Leflcowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including "34 confirmed minors" and 6 other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI.2M Although the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed, Villafafia acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that "individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement." + +#### B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims Have Not Been Consulted + +Before the NPA was signed, Villafafia articulated to her supervisors concerns about the government's failure to consult with victims. + +#### 1. July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel + +In July 2007, Villafafia learned that Menchel had discussed with defense counsel a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Villafafia was upset by this information, and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns. (A full account of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two, Part One, Section IV.A.2.) In that email, she told him that it was "inappropriate [for you] to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate ... all of the + +283 The case agent also noted that the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doc ti2 had expressed in her April 2007 video-recorded FBI interview her opinion that "nothing should happen to Epstein." + +2141The "victims' list" for purposes of the NPA was intended to include the names of all individuals whom the government was prepared to name in a charging document "as victims of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Although the charges Villafafia proposed on May I, 2007, were based on crimes against 13 victims, thereafter, as explained in Chapter Two of this Report, she continued to revise the proposed charges, adding and removing victims as the federal investigation developed further evidence. At the time the NPA was signed, the proposed charges were based on crimes against 19 victims, but others had been identified for potential inclusion. + +various iterations of the victims' rights legislation."285 Villafatia explained to OPR her reference to the victims: + +> [M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what's happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it.286 + +In his reply to Villafafia's email, and after noting that he found her email "totally inappropriate," Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that "[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with" Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel's rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafafia responded, "[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment" and that her "first and only concern in this case ... is the victims." + +Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with as a plea offer, asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. Menchel told OPR that "you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims ... is not even . . . in the same universe as to how I think about this." Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafaila criticized him for engaging in settlement ',ions without consulting her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafafia had herself sent an email to offering "to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein's case that could run concurrently with any state resolution," without having spoken to the victims about her proposa1.287 + +2.83 Villafaha told OPR that "some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition)." Villafaha stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the "effects on the victims" but did not likely contain information as to "how they would like the case resolved." Villafaha asserted that Menchel "never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be." Menchel told OPR that the allegations in Villafaha's email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were "way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies are." + +ere As discussed, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were filed against a defendant. + +287In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafana's counsel asserted that her email to only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations. was intended + +#### 2. Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions + +Villafatia told OPR that during an "early" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, which took place when "we were probably just entering into plea negotiations," she raised the government's obligation to confer with victims!" Initially, Villafafia told OPR she was instructed, "Don't talk to [the victims]. Don't tell them what's happening," but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaiia recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."2" Villafafia remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta. + +Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafafia was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view "is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time," and he did not "recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed." Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, "I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter." Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, because "we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal," and it would have been "premature" to consider notification.290 + +#### 3. September 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, of OoSterbaan's Opinion That (onsultation with Victims Was Required + +On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government's then-pending offer to the defense, Villafafia raised the victim consultation issue, advising that, "the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law" and that "the [PBPD] + +288Villafafia could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007. + +289Villafatia also recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." + +290In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel reiterated his contention that Villafafta's claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to which Menchel's attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafafia's assertion that she had received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafafta disagreed, but given OPR's conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction. + +Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."291 Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Villafaña recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly after he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, "[Y]ou can't do that now." Villafaña did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction. + +Villafaña told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that . . . pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification." Sloman did not recall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA," and "we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in . . . filed cases." Sloman said that no one other than Villafaña raised the notification issue, and because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA." Lourie told OPR that he had no memory of Villafaña being directed not to speak to the victims about the NPA.292 Similarly, the attorney who assumed Lourie's supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he "assumed that was being handled."293 + +Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that "there is no requirement to notify [the victims], because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any "pre-NPA discussions" regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA.294 Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]." + +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO's stance that the CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO "posture" was not "an abuse of discretion" or "an ethical issue," but rather reflected a "serious and legitimate + +--- + +291 Villafaña told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because "he was the head of CEOS and because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them [to notify the victims]." As previously noted, Villafaña's statement that victim approval had to be obtained was incorrect. Even when applicable, the CVRA only requires consultation with victims, not their approval of a plea agreement. Moreover, Villafaña's comments concerning the pre-charge application of the USAO's CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate the USAO's CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August 2006. + +292 Lourie noted that during this period, he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the office, but was "help[ing] [] out" from offsite because he had "historical knowledge" of the case. + +293 The AUSA who for a time served as Villafaña's co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not "know anything about" discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of the case. The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case "months earlier" and that he "didn't have anything to do with the [NPA] negotiations." + +294 Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order to . . . instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s]." + +disagreement" regarding the CVRA's requirements.295 Oosterbaan's disagreement was based on policy considerations, and he told OPR that "from a policy perspective," CEOS would not "take a position that you wouldn't consult with [the victims]." Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity "to weigh in directly," but he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity: + +> The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . were trying to do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren't acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome . . . but the point is they weren't trying ... to do anything improper .. . it was more of this question of . . . you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going to do but . . . it's hard to say it was a complete, completely clean exercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn't really know what [the victims] would say. + +Sloman told OPR, "I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. . . . I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims." + +#### VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS + +The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafafta and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation. However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA's nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's defense counsel regarding victim notifications.296 As a result, although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision, and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys, who strongly objected to the government's notification plan. In addition, Villafafta and the case agents grew concemed that notifying the victims about the NM monetary damages provision would damage the victims' credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney's discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008. + +Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospect, "maybe I should have been more aggressive with how . .. I dealt with [the USAO]." + +T46 The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made pan of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." + +#### A. September — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment + +In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafafia on September 24, 2007, defense attorney Letkowitz asked Villafafia to "do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming public."297 Villafaila forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach manager noting that, "I don't intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file." Acosta responded that he "thought the [NPA] already binds us not to make [it] public except as required by law or [FOIA]" and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media about the NPA, "this is the State Attorneyns show."2" Acosta added, "In other words, what more does he want?" Villafafia responded, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Lourie agreed, noting that "there really is no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy. The [PBPD] Chief was only concerned that he not get surprised by all this."M9 Acosta responded that he would set up a call on September 26, 2007, to talk "about who we can tell and how much."300 + +Also on September 24, 2007, Villafafia emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to "meet with the girls myself to explain how the system [for obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255] will work." Villafafia also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him "what I can tell [the attorney representative] and the girls about the agreement," and she assured Leflcowitz that her office "is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone." Villafaila also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter. + +On September 26, 2007, Villafafia emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the NPA: "Can you give me a call . . . I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." Villafafia told OPR that because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the victims, she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein. Villafafia told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be + +297Villafafia had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process." + +298Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NM "would see the light of day" because the victims would have to "hear about [their § 2255 rights] from somewhere" and "given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd." + +=°D Lourie told OPR that the § 2255 provisions of the NPA "that benefitted the victims were there for the victims to take advantage of.... and they did. How ... they were going to receive that information and when they were going to receive it is a different question, but there's no ... issue with the fact that they were going to get that information." + +100 OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place. + +involved in such notifications. According to Villafafia, Sloman then directed her to have the case agents make the victim notifications. + +Accordingly, Villafafia directed the case agents to "meet with the victims to provide them with information regarding the terms of the [NPA] and the conclusion of the federal investigation." The case agent told OPR, "[T]here was a discussion that and I had as to . .. how we would tell them, and what we would tell them, and what that was I don't recall, but it was the terms of the agreement." Villafafia believed that if "victims were properly notified of the terms [of the NPA] that applied to them, regarding their right to seek damages from [Epstein], and he paid those damages, that the rest of the [NPA] doesn't need to be disclosed." Villafafia "anticipated that [the case agents] would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court change of plea [hearing], but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first victims were notified [by the FBI]." Villafafia told OPR that it was her belief that because the USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the general public, but victims could be informed "because by its terms they needed to be told what the agreement was about." Villafafia told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a concern that if victims learned of the NPA, they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea. + +Within a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the New York Post reported that Epstein "has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," and noted that Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that "the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge."301 + +The case agent recalled informing some victims that "there was an agreement reached" and "we would not be pursuing this federally." In October 2007, for example, the case agents met with victim I , "to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." According to the case agent, during that meeting, the case agents told "that an agreement had been reached, Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges, and there would not be a federal prosecution."102 However, in a declaration filed in 2015 in the CVRA litigation, described the conversation differently: + +> [T]he agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State court and may plea [sic] to state charges related to some of his other victims. I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me. + +"I Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. See also "Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie," New York Post, Oct. 6, 2007; "Andrew Pal Faces Sex List Shame," Mail on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007; "Epstein Eyes Sex-Rap Relief," New York Post, Oct. 9, 2007; "Sex Case 'Victims' Lining Up," New York Post "Page Six," Oct. 15, 2007; Dareh Gregorian and Mathew Nestel, "1 Was Teen Prey of Pervert Tycoon," New York Post, Oct. 18, 2007. The following month, the Palm Beach Post reported the end of the federal investigation as well. See "Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days," Palm Beach Post, Nov. 9, 2007; "How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator?," Palm Beach Post "Opinion," Nov. 16, 2007. + +302The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case, but could not recall the specifics of the discussions. + +During this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me. + +My understanding of the agents' explanation was that the federal investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein. + +In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to Villafafia in an email: + +> Jane Doe #I4 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic] jail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving up."3 + +The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and expressed "a sense of relief." Counsel for "Jane Doe #I3" told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about Epstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, "Jane Doe #14's" attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea. + +After meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims' knowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The case agent explained to OPR that she became "uncomfortable" talking to the victims about the damages provision, and that as the lead investigator, "if we did end up going to trial . . . [if] Mr. Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand" testifying that "I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." + +Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "[T]hat's why we went back to and said we're not comfortable now putting this out there ... because . . . it's likely that [the case agent] and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial, and this could be a problem." Villafaiia told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of "offering a bribe + +70' The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports, because "it wasn't an interview of them, it was a notification. ... [I]f there was something relevant [that] came up pertaining to the investigation, or something that I thought was noteworthy .. I might have [recorded it in an interview report]." + +304Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness through evidence of bias, which may include the witness having received money, or expecting to receive money, from the government, the defendant, or other sources as a result of the witness's allegations or testimony. + +for [victims] to enhance their stories" and that the defense would try to have Villafafia or the case agents removed from the case. + +Both the lead case agent and Villafafia told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafafia the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for advice. Villafafia recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that "it's not really that big a concern, but if you're concerned about it then you should stop making the notification."305 In her 2017 CVRA declaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO, the case agents stopped notifying victims about the NPA. + +### B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications + +While the case agents and Villafafia considered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special to select the attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision. On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a letter responding to the USAO's proposal to use a special = he cautioned that "neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case" because such communications would "violate the confidentiality of the agreement" and would prevent Epstein from having control over "what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage." Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that "[n]either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case."306 Rather, Lefkowitz wanted to "participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." + +On October 23, 2007, Villafafia raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman, stating: + +We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to 'cold call' the girls. + +As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007, + +705 The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about victim notification, nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted in July 2008 and he was assigned to handle the litigation. Villafaiia told OPR that they consulted the Professional Responsibility Officer over the telephone, the call took no more than "five minutes," and the Professional Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus "wouldn't have [any] context for it." + +70B Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules. + +and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007, not to "contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter."707 Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Leflcowitz's letter, which Acosta revised to clarify the "inaccurate" representations made by Leflcowitz, in particular noting that Acosta did not agree to a "gag order" with regard to victim contact. The draft response, as revised by Acosta, stated: + +> You should understand, however, that there are some communications that are typical in these matters. As an example, our Office has an obli ation to contact the victims to inform them that either [the Special, or his designee, will be contact[ing] them. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we would any similarly situated case."' + +In a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had discussed financial settlement with them. Sloman noted that the private investigators' "actions are troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of the matter, which includes informing them that, as part of the resolution, Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay damages in some circumstances." The same day, Villafaiia emailed Sloman expressing her concern that "if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, right?'"3" + +#### C. October — November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is "Under Investigation" + +Although Villafafla and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the NPA, the FBI continued its investigation of the case, which included locating and interviewing potential victims. In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims, 8 of whom had been identified in a "preliminary" victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the + +307Villafana later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a "general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation." + +303Sloman's draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a "gag order." OPR recovered only a draft version of the communication and was unable to find any evidence that the draft letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel. + +309Subsequent records also referred to the prosecutors' concerns about creating impeachment evidence and that such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of the NPA until after Epstein pled guilty. In August 2008, the AUSA handling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafaila, Acosta, and Sloman expressing his understanding that the "victims were not consulted [concerning the NM] .. . because [the USAO] did not believe the [CVRA] applied." Acosta responded: "As I recall, we also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]." + +NPA.310 The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Villafafta acknowledged that she and the case agents did not tell any of the "new" post-NPA-signing victims about the agreement because "at that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and that we were in fact going to be [charging] Mr. Epstein." + +On October 12, 2007, the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim the case agents had interviewed two days earlier. This letter was identical to the VNS form notice letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the case as "under investigation" and requesting the victim's "patience." The letter listed the eight CVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the § 2255 provision. Villafafta told OPR she was unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew "there were efforts to make sure that we had identified all victims of the crimes under investigation." In response to OPR's questions about the accuracy of the FBI letter's characterization of the case as "under investigation," Villafaiia told OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October 26, 2008, and "at this point we weren't actively looking for additional charges," but "the investigation wasn't technically suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA." + +#### D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan + +In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafafta reported on November 16, 2007, to Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she had learned, from FBI agents who met with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, that the State Attorney's Office wanted the USAO to notify victims of the state plea hearing. + +> [Belohlavek] would still like us to do the victim notifications. The State does not have a procedure (like we do federally) where the Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend judicial proceedings, so I do not know how many victims will actually want to be present.3" + +Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein's state plea hearing. + +On November 19, 2007, Villafafta decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from the defense about the information given to victims, she "would put the victim notification in writing." She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter, in which among other things, + +310Not all the individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list. For example, one would not cooperate with investigators; a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity; and a third claimed she had no contact with Epstein. + +311Villafafia told OPR that she understood the state took the position that because "there was either only one or two victims involved in their case," they "could not do victim notifications to all of the victims." + +she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail, and the victims' ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney's Office. Sloman and Villafafla exchanged edits on the draft victim notification letter, and Villafaiia also informed Sloman that "[t]here are a few girls who didn't receive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for those."312 + +Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its "statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement" and his intent to "notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29." Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that it was "incendiary and inappropriate" and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of 2004. He argued that the defense "should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims." He also insisted that if any notification letters were sent to "victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea" and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than the government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafla provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea was to occur on December 14, 2007.313 + +In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter, arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until after Epstein's plea and sentencing. Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to appear at Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a proceeding. In a November 30, 2007 reply letter to Lefkowitz, Acosta did not address the substance of Leficowitz's arguments, but accused the defense team of "in essence presenting collateral challenges" delaying effectuation of the NPA, and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NPA, "we stand ready to unwind the Agreement" and proceed to trial. Shortly thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors "not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." In the letter, Acosta also refuted defense allegations that Villafatla had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary damages, stating that "the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter." + +On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, "reaffirm[ing]" the NPA, but taking "serious issue" with + +S12 On November 28, 2007, two months after the NPA was signed, the lead case agent informed Villafalia that only 15 of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or the USAO. On December 6, 2007, the lead cast agent reported to Villafafta that she was "still holding many of the original V/W letters addressed to victims from the USAO." + +313Villafafta understood the state prosecutors had set the December 14, 2007 date, and cmailed them for confirmation, stating, "[IV the matter is set for the 14th, please let me know so I can include that in my victim notifications." + +the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and "the use of Section 2255." The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was "wholly inappropriate" for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter "under any circumstances," and "strongly urg[ed]" Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able "to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher." + +The following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafafta, asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings as "other relief' to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a \*tom (Emphasis in original). Sloman added: + +> Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.3t5 + +Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafafta or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns: "Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case." Sloman advised the defense: "The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement." + +Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The letter stated that "the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed," Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing: + +> As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley, + +314See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(0( 0(B) and (On + +313Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a statc plea, but "is simply informing the victims of their rights." Villafafta informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter, but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafafta was the principal author of most correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to the defense. + +in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: + +> the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl[a]. Stat. [§) 921.143(2). + +Sloman told OPR that he was "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify [the victims], even though it wasn't a federal case. Whether we were required or not." Sloman also told OPR that while "we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification letters . I think . . . and . . . the agents . . . were keeping the victims apprised at some level." + +On December 7, 2007, Villafafia prepared letters containing the above information to be sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Slornasuesting permission to send them.316 Sloman, however, had that day received a letter from advising that Epstein's plea hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO "hold off" sending the victim notification letters until "we can further discuss the contents." Also that day, Starr and Leflcowitz submitted to Acosta the two lengthy "independent ethics opinions" supporting the defense arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Sloman responded to Villafaiia's request with an email instructing her to "Hold the letter."3" Sloman told OPR that he "wanted to push the [victim notification] letter out," but his instruction to Villafafia was "the product of me speaking to somebody," although he could not be definitive as to whom. Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter . .. and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation." + +On December 10, 2007, Villafalia contacted the attorney who at the time represented the victim who later became CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe #2" to inform him that she "was preparing victim notification letters." In her 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia noted that she reached out to Jane Doe #2's counsel, despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered + +316The FBI case agent had emailed Villafafia the day before stating. "The letter that is currently being revised needs to take into account that several victims have never been notified by your office or mine." The case agent also stated, "I do not feel that [the defense] should have anything to do with the drafting or issuing of this letter. My primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance with federal law." + +317Villafaiia told OPR that she did not recall asking Sloman for an explanation for not sending the letters; rather, she "just rememberled] putting them all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted." + +her a victim for purposes of the federal charges, and continued to treat her as a victim because she wanted "to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims."' + +#### E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution. "as Required by Law" + +On December II, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to "the background and conduct of the investigation" into Epstein. Regarding issues relevant to victim notification, in his transmittal letter, Starr asserted that the "latest episodes involving [§] 2255 notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and time again, are not being served." By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." + +In his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims of the § 2255 provision: + +> Villafafia's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004, a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact, [she] proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged federal victims. + +Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate mechanism for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and a trust fund would not violate Epstein's due process rights. Lefkowitz took issue with the government's "assertion" that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the alleged victims, or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so. Lefkowitz further argued that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA, because neither applied to a public, state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges. + +In a letter from Villafafia to Lefkowitz, responding to his allegations that she had committed misconduct, she specifically addressed the "false" allegations that the government had + +31\* As noted previously, in April 2007, this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable to Epstein. Villafatia told OPR she was instructed by either Sloman or Acosta "not to consider [this individual] as a victim for purposes of the NPA because she was not someone whom the Office was prepare[d] to include in" a federal charging document. Accordingly, the victim who became "Jane Doc #2" was not included on the victim list ultimately furnished to the defense. The attorney who was representing this victim at the time of her FBI interview was paid by Epstein, and she subsequently obtained different counsel. + +informed victims "of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein": + +> None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. + +On December 14, 2007, Villafafia forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter previously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer; Villafafia's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, "The letters you requested." One of the draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafafia, was to advise that the USAO had sent an enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed "list of the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law."319 The second draft letter to Krischer, for Acosta's signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel's allegations that the State Attorney's Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to ICrischer.32° + +A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Villafafia emailed Sloman, stating, "[Is there] anything that I or the agents should be doing?" Villafafia told Sloman that "[the FBI case agent] is all worked up because another agent and [a named AUSA] are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims [in an unrelated matter]. We seem to be in a Catch 22."321 OPR did not find a response to Villafafia's email. + +In their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta + +319The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on December 6, 2007, except that it contained a new plea date of January 4, 2008. + +320Moreover, the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney's file, which included other correspondence from the USAO. See Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein, available at http://sa 15.org/stateattomey/NewsRoom/indexPR htm. + +321OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR. Villafafia told OPR that "Catch 22" was a reference to instructions from supervisors "What we can't go forward on" filing federal charges and "I was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time." + +review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's "unprecedentedly expansive interpretation" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. + +In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the NPA to resolve "disagreements" with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to "place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings: + +> I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that [the CVRA] applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. + +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office," and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafafta. Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the role of the USAO, "to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome.s322 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office's ability to "fulfill whatever obligation they have," and he added, "Let's not assume ... that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors." Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding "that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Acosta also told OPR that the state would + +322Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense, "Arc there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage]," to which Lefkowitz replied, "The state should have their own mechanism." At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution, upon request, victims were afforded the "right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla. Const. art. 1, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, "Law enforcement personnel shall ensure" that victims are given information about "[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the victim[.]" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1 Xa) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, "in a case in which the victim is a minor child," the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney "in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1Xg) (2007). + +have "notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding." + +Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state court proceedings should be "left to the state."323 Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney, and she noted that the "correspondence [OPR] provided to me from that time period" discussing such a decision "demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr. Acosta and/or his team, and that I did not provide, suggest, or edit the language." Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights under § 2255"; but, his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going to be notified." + +Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim list from the USAO. She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard to contacting the victims. + +In response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should not communicate with the victims, and that the state, not the USAO, should determine who can be heard at the sentencing hearing: + +> [Y]our letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom [CVRA] notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary injury of the [victim]—it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at . Villafafia repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the + +323In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, "Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal Ito defer notification to the State Attorney's Office)." OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker's purported involvement in the decision. + +decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision making.324 + +Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because the Attorney General Guidelines defined "crime victim" as a person harmed as a result of an offense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court. Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, "[W]e do not object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged victims." Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice sent by the USAO, and that "any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO]," and he agreed that the USAO "should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those victims and the state proceedings." + +Months later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Villafafia committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a "highly improper and unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" victims. + +#### F. January — June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein + +As described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely, implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel's advocacy resulted in the USAO's decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then, briefly, by an experienced CEOS trial attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein's entry of his state guilty plea. + +As set forth below, during that time, Villafafia and the FBI continued investigating and working toward potential federal charges. + +#### 1. Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA + +On January 3, 2008, the local newspaper reported that Epstein's plea conference in state court, at that point set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution, and that "in exchange" for the guilty plea, + +124The 2000 Guidelines were superseded by the 2005 Guidelines. + +"federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal laws."32s + +Nevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA, and with his attorneys asserting that "the facts had gotten better for Epstein," Villafafia came to believe that Epstein would likely breach the NPA.326 In January 2008, Villafafia informed her supervisors that the FBI "had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared to [file charges], but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with the vast majority of the victims." Villafafia then proposed that the FBI "re-establish contact with all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial."321 Villafafia told OPR that at this point, "[w]hile the case was being investigat[ed] and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or send any victim notification letters—there simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any victim calls during this time." + +#### 2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims + +On January 10, 2008, the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification letters to 14 victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The case agent informed Villafafia in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a "standard form [FBI] letter to all the remaining identified victims." These 2008 letters were identical to the FBI form letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August 28, 2006, and October 12, 2007. Like those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the 2008 letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated: + +us Michele Dargan, "Jeffrey Epstein Plea Hearing Moved to March," Palm Beach Daily News "The Shiny Sheet," Jan. 3, 2008. + +3\$6 Epstein's attorneys used discovery proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims, and as they learned unflattering details or potential impeachment information concerning likely federal victims, they argued for the exclusion of those victims from the federal case. For example, defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. See Exhibit 9 to Villafafra June 2, 2017 Declaration: Deposition of [REDACTED], State v. Epstein, Case No. 2006-CF-9454, at 44, 50, 51 (Feb. 20, 2008). One victim's attorney told OPR that the defense attorneys tried to "smear" victims by asking highly personal sexual questions about "terminations of pregnancies . . . sexual encounters . . . masturbation." Epstein's attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client. For example, the Miami Herald reported that, "One girl was asked about her abortions, and her rents, who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned." See Julie M, "Perversion of Justice: Cops Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison. Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. + +327Villafaiia also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims. + +128The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May 30, 2008. After Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. + +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. + +The FBI case agent informed Villafafia that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow up with a phone call "to offer assistance and ensure that [the victims] have received their letter." A sample letter is shown on the following pages. + +Villafafia told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time they were sent to the victims, or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villafafia, "The decision to issue the letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Nevertheless, Villafafia asserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation "was absolutely true and, despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation." Villafafia identified various investigative activities in which she engaged from "September 2007 until the end of June 2008," such as collecting and reviewing evidence; interviewing new victims; re-interviewing victims; identifying new charges; developing new charging strategies; drafting supplemental prosecution memoranda; revising the charging package; and preparing to file charges. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was continuing." The co-case agent stated that the "the case was open . . . it's never been shut down." + +Victim received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters; much later, in the course of the CVRA litigation, she stated that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against [her]."3" + +329CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 also received a January 10, 2008 FBI letter that was sent to her counsel. + +![](_page_248_Picture_16.jpeg) + +**U.S. Department of Justice** +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +506 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 + +January 10, 2008 + +[Redacted] +[Redacted] + +Re: Case Number: [Redacted] + +Dear [Redacted] + +This case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. + +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. + +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on the Internet at [WWW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV](http://WWW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV) or from the VNS Call Center at [Redacted] + +In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) [Redacted] and Personal Identification Number (PIN) [Redacted]. Anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is [Redacted] + +If you have additorial questbns which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed atuwn. When you call, please provide the fee number located et the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation In ihe notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notificalons, It is your responsibility to keep your contact Information current. + +Sincerely, + +![](_page_249_Picture_3.jpeg) + +m spede + +#### 3. Villatafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims + +As Villafatia resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent provided Villafafia with a list of "the 19 identified victims we are planning on using in" the federal charges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional victims.33° In Washington, D.C., CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter.33I + +On January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman by telephone, stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients, who were "frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation" of Epstein. The attorney asked Sloman if the USAO "could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter," but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late January, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a \$50 million civil suit against Epstein in Florida and that "Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute."333 + +Between January 31, 2008, and May 28, 2008, the FBI, with the prosecutors, interviewed additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was signed.334 In late January 2008, as Villafafia and the CEOS Trial Attorney prepared to participate + +310 The case agent also informed Villafafta that she expected to ask for legal process soon in order to obtain additional information. + +171 The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she was under the impression that she was brought in to help prepare for the trial because the "plea had fallen through." + +332Because Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to OPR shortly thereafter. OPR reviewed the matter as an inquiry and determined that no further action was warranted. + +333Dareh Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - \$50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. + +334An FBI interview report from May 28, 2008, indicates that one victim "believes Epstein should be prosecuted for his actions." + +in FBI interviews of and other victims, Villafafia informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she anticipated the victims "would be concerned about the status of the case." + +On JanuaryS2008, Villafaila, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three victims, including M. Prior to the interview, had received the FBI's January l02008 letter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent, and two other victims had also been told bySe FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved. In her 2015 CVRA-case declaration, stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed that the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told "about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected." In Villafafia's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia recalled interviewing on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafafia told OPR she "asked [MI whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial." Villafafia recalled responding that she "hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to tesay."335 + +After the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafafia described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims: + +> One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice ... she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview. + +> The second girl.. . was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper.336 She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.337 + +Villafafia closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day, but neither did so.338 Acosta told OPR that it "wasn't typical" + +335The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of intentions. + +336 See Darch Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - S50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. As early as October 2007, the New York Post reported the I8-month sentence and that "[t]he feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge." Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal — Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. + +337Acosta told OPR, "The United States can't unwind an agreement just because ... some victim indicates that they don't like it." The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not "think that any one of these girls was interested in this prosecution going forward." Furthermore, as previously noted, the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that "[the victims] would have testified for us," but the case would have required an extensive amount of "victim management," as the girls were "deeply embarrassed" that they "were going to be called prostitutes." + +338OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February I, 2008 victim interview. Although Villafaha's emails indicated that two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, OPR located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews. OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafafia + +for him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO "was questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims." Sloman told OPR that he himself had "never gone to a line assistant's victim or witness interview." + +Villafaña told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Villafaña did not specifically tell these victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." Villafaña also told OPR she "didn't talk about money" because she "didn't want there to be an allegation at the time of trial . . . that [the victims] were either exaggerating their claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount." Rather, according to Villafaña, she told the three victims that "an agreement had been reached where [Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually perform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged, and may have to go to trial." Villafaña recalled "explaining that the case was under investigation," that they "were preparing the case [for charging] again," and "expressing our hope that charges would be brought." Villafaña recalled one victim "making a comment about the amount of [imprisonment] time and why was it so low" and Villafaña answered, "that was the agreement that the office had reached."339 + +With regard to the victims Villafaña interviewed who had not received an FBI notification in October 2007, Villafaña recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns but not whether they discussed the agreement. She recalled telling another victim that "we thought we had reached an agreement with [Epstein] and then we didn't," but was "pretty sure" that she did not mention the agreement during the interview of the third victim. Villafaña explained that she likely did not discuss the agreement because + +at that point I just felt . . . like it was nonexistent. [The victim] didn't know anything about it beforehand, and as far as I could tell it was going to end up being thrown on the heap, and I didn't want to -- . . . if you tell people, █, look, he's already admitted that he's guilty, like, I didn't want that to color her statement. I just wanted to get the facts of the case. + +The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims about the NPA or the status of the case.340 She did remember explaining the significance of the prosecution to one victim who "did not think anything should happen" to Epstein. The FBI case agent told OPR that she did not recall the January 2008 interviews. OPR located notes to an FBI interview report, stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted. Attorneys for the two victims other than █ who had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case informed OPR that as of 2020, their clients had no memory of meeting with + +--- + +authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no information regarding a discussion of the status of the investigation or the resolution of the case. Through her attorney, this victim told OPR that she did not recall having contact with anyone from the USAO. + +339 Villafaña did not recall any other specific questions from victims. + +340 The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications; rather, such notifications were generally handled by a Victim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO. + +prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the plea was entered on June 30, 2008. + +When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims, Villafafia told OPR: + +> From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. You know, I was interviewing witnesses, I was issuing [legal process], ... I was doing all [these] things to take the case to a federal indictment and a federal trial. So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate. + +#### 4. February — March 2008: Villafafia Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay + +In February 2008, Villafafia revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental memorandum. Villafalia removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly discovered victims, and made changes to the proposed indictment. + +While the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of the Department, Villafafia sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense in civil lawsuits that some victims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case. Villafafia reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a "national crime victims service organization" to provide attorneys for the victims, and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some victims to provide contact information for the attorneys?" During this period, an attorney from the victims service organization was able to help avoid an improper deposition. Villafafia also informed her supervisors, including Sloman, that "one of the victims tried to commit suicide last week," and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case: "I just can't stress enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case. The 'please be patient' answer is really wearing thin, especially when Epstein's group is still on the attack while we are forced to wait on the sidelines." + +#### 5. March — April 2008: Villafaiia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges + +Villafafia continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing others who had filed civil suits against Epstein. Villafafia also prepared search warrants for digital + +xai The FBI Victim Specialist informed Villafafia that she spoke "directly to seven victims" and informed them of the pro bono counsel and explained that her "job as a Victim Specialist is to ensure that victims[] of a Federal crime are afforded their rights, information and resource referral." + +camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain child pornography.342 + +By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department's Criminal Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafaila and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were "more and more likely." Villafafta asked Oosterbaan for help to "move this [Criminal Division review] process along," noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's case by deposing the victims "under the guise of 'trial prep' for the state case" and that the "agents and the victims" were "losing their patience." + +On April 24, 2008, Villafafia emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the = light" to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafalia further cautioned that, although she was planning to file charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, "then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay." Because the Department's Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein's appeal by May 6, however, Villafafia did not file charges that day. + +#### VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION + +During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department's position that CVRA's victims' rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy regarding the issue. + +Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him "an absolute right to meet" with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, "our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed." On April 24, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had "confirmed with DOJ that [her] reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until a case is filed."m3 + +On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, In re , holding that a victim's + +342The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards. + +317 The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department's statutory obligations to the victim. + +CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellate Division Chief noted that, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the "court's opinion makes sense." + +involved a federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery operated by BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) that killed 15 people and injured more than 170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without notifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion, alerting the district court to the potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such notification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea agreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal information, the government and BP signed the plea agreement, and the government mailed notices of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12 victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights under the CVRA. The district court denied their motion, but concluded that the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.3U The district court noted that the legislative history reflected a view that "the right to confer was intended to be broad," as well as being a "mechanism(]" to ensure that victims were treated with fairness. + +In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court "failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA."306 In particular, the Fifth Circuit cited the district court's acknowledgement that "[t]here are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation was not "an infringement" on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion, but "it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In the wake of the opinion, two Department components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution. + +#### IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFARA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA PETITIONERS + +According to an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation by her attorney, retained in June 2008 to represent her "because she was unable to get anyone from the [USA0] to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein."347 Villafafia told 0PR that did not contact her directly and she was not aware of + +S11 In re 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cr. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida, which is within the Eleventh Circuit. + +345 United States v. BP Products North America, Inc.. 2008 WL 501321, at • I I (S.D. Tex. 2008). Victims who wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing. + +316 In 527 F.3d at 394. + +347 Before Epstein's state court plea hearing, also bean re resenting the victim who became Jane Doe #2. Although OPR focuses on Villafafia's communications with in this section, OPR notes that Villafafia + +an instance in which "asked a question that wasn't answered" of anyone in the USAO or of the FBI case agents. + +contacted Villafafia by email and telephone in mid-June statin that he had "information and concerns that [he] would like to share."m8 In his affidavit, alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Villafafia, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in," and Villafafia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter "was an on-going active investigation[.]" attested that Villafafia gave him "the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity.sM9 + +In her written response to OPR, Villafafia said that she "listened more than [she] spoke" during these interactions with which occurred before the state court plea: + +> Given the uncertainty of the situation — Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms, while the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards [filing charges] — I did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury. + +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia explained that during these exchanges, Villafafia did not inform of the existence of the NPA because she "did not know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the NPA."35° Villafafia told OPR that she did not inform + +also had interactions with other victims' attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to Villafana two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under investigation. The attorney noted, "[W]e never got any information out of [Villafarta]. We were never told what was happening or going on to any extent." Villafatia's counsel told OPR that Villafaila did not have any interaction with the attorney or his law partner until after Epstein's state court plea hearing, and that in her written communications responding to the attorney's inquiries, she provided information to the extent possible. OPR found no documentation that Villafafia's communications with the attorney occurred prior to June 30, 2008. Villafafta also had more ministerial interactions with other victims' counsel, as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases. For example, in March 2008, one victim's attorney informed Villafafia of his representation of a victim and requested that the government provide him with photographs of the victim and information concerning the tail registration number for Epstein's airplane. Villafafta responded that she was unable to provide the requested information, but asked that counsel keep her updated about the civil litigation. + +J48 Villafatia later stated in a July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that, although she invited to provide her with information, "[n]othing was provided." + +J49 did not respond to OPR's request to interview him, although he did assist OPR in locating other attorneys who were representing victims. + +350The government later admitted in court filings that Villafafta and "discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned." Doe, Government's Response to Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 14,1101 (June 6, 2017). + +about the NPA because it was "confidential" and because the case was under "investigation and leading towards" the filing of charges. Villafafia recalled mentioning the conversation to her supervisors and the case agents because she "thought he was somebody who could be of assistance to us and . .. could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and should be prosecuted." + +Nevertheless, when OPR asked Villafafia why she did not inform of the same information that the FBI and she had provided to in October 2007 and January 2008, Villafafia explained that she felt "prohibited": + +> At the time that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of this . .. letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him about the existence of the NM. + +#### X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA HEARING + +The Epstein team's appeals through the Department ended on June 23, 2008, when the Deputy Attorney General determined that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate" and Epstein's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such a decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafia notified Lefkowitz that Epstein had until "the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement . . . including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." That same day, Villafafia made plans to file charges on July I, 2008, if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline. + +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafafia received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008. Also on that Friday, Villafafia submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a "final final" proposed federal indictment of Epstein. + +Villafafia and the FBI finalized the government's victim list that they intended to disclose, for § 2255 purposes, to Epstein after the plea and, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafia contacted PBPD Chief Reiter to ask him to notify the victims of the plea hearing. Villafafia told OPR that Sloman said, "Chief Reiter could contact the victims from the state case, and tell them about the plea " 351 On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafafia emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."352 + +351Villafafia further stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator. and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." + +352Sloman replied. "Good." + +Villafafia told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims, including their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafafia recalled that Reiter told her that he would "try to contact as many as he could" and that he would destroy the list afterwards. Villafafia did not recall being "asked [to] provide a list of all our victims to the State Attorney's Office." + +In his 2009 deposition, Reiter stated that Villafafia sent him a letter "around the time of sentencing," listing the victims in the federal investigation, and that she asked him to destroy the letter after he reviewed it. Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the state grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had identified and he "wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our victims."353 + +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the PBPD "attempted to notify the victims about [the June 30] hearing in the short time available to us." 354 In her 2008 declaration, however, Villafafia conceded that "all known victims were not notified." + +Villafafia told OPR that was the only victim attorney she was authorized to contact—she thought probably by Sloman—about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because "had ex re.Hd a specific interest in the outcome." Villafafia recalled, "I was told that I could inform of [the plea date], but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA."355 In her 2008 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she called and informed him of the plea hearing scheduled for Monday; Villafafia stated that told her that he could not attend the ." he but "someone" would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation, however, asserted that Villafafia told him only that "Epstein was guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges invcSi other victims—not Mr. clients nor any of the federally-identified victims."356 further claimed that because Villafafia failed to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement," his clients did not attend thet Villafafia told OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow and his clients the ability to comment on the resolution: + +153Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could - confirm that all of the victims that we had for the state case were included on that.- The Detective "looked at it and he said they're all there and then [Reiter] destroyed it." The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiter's office, but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him. + +354The FBI co-case agent told OPR that "I don't think the [FBI) reached out to anyone." + +355Villafafia told OPR that she thought that it was Sloman who gave her the instructions, but she could not "remember the specifics of the conversation." + +356Villafafia stated that she "never told Attorney that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the state court charginl instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim." Although criticized Villafafia's conduct in his CVRA filings, in his recently published book, described Villafana as a "kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right," noting that she "believ[ed] in the victims and tried] ... to bring down Jeffrey Epstein." J. with Brittany Relentless Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020). + +[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any victims resent who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do S0.357 + +Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafiuia to contact anyone about the plea hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafafia told OPR that she and Acosta "understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that the state only believed they had one victim."' Villafafia told OPR that there was "very little" communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that ... the federal investigation had identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they considered victims in the state case."359 + +Sloman told OPR that the "public perception ... that we tried to hide the fact of the results of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained: + +> [E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the victims were going to be notified and the state was going . .. to fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims] would be notified of . . . the restitution mechanism that we had set up on their behalf. + +Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, + +> it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and ... result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you're going to get \$150,000, that's . . . going to be instant impeachment for the defense. + +357Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional investigation of the victims' allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office. + +In an email a few months earlier, Villafaiia noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution] is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not." + +3S9 As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaiia had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications. + +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up . . . at the change of plea." + +Also, in late June, Villafafia drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea.36° Villafafia told OPR that, because "Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we would not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea."36I As she did with prior draft victim notification letters, Villafafia provided the draft to the defense for comments.362 + +Although Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July I, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty in state court. + +OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney's Office made available online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing date, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea. On March 12, 2008, the State Attorney's Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding the individuals to "remain on call" during the week of July 8, 2008. However, the Palm Beach County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was "away [at] college." + +#### XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT + +On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The information charged that between August 1, 2004, and October 9, 2005, Epstein "did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, [REDACTED], a person under the age of 18 years," and referred to no other victims. The indictment did not identify any victims and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August I, 2004, and October 31, 2005. Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to multiple victims, during the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that "[t]here's several" victims. When the court asked Belohlavek whether "the victims in both these cases [were] in agreement with the terms of this plea," Belohlavek replied, "I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and I believe, + +MO Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version stating, "What do you think?" Villafafia edited it further. + +361The letter began with the statement, "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein . .. entered a plea of guilty." A week after Epstein's state guilty plea, Villafafia notified Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that "[Epstein's local attorney] Jack Goldberger is back in town today, so I am hoping that we will finalize the last piece of our agreement the victim list and Notification. If I face resistance on that front. I will let you know." + +362According to Villafaikt, either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the state plea and to share the draft notification letters with the defense. + +yes." The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the plea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke with the victim's counsel, who agreed with the plea agreement.363 + +Both Villafafia and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing. Later that day, Villafafia met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied. + +In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, stated that, "I did not have any reason to attend that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBI's investigation of Epstein's abuse of me." She stated that she "would have attended and tried to object to the judge and prevent that plea from going forward," had she known that the state plea "had some connection to blocking the prosecution of my case." Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 stated that "no one notified me that [Epstein's] plea had anything to do with my case against him." + +An attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had subpoenaed for the potential July trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of one of his clients. The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing.360 Moreover, the attorney informed OPR that, although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in the PBPD's investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's attorneys in the state case (with the Assistant State Attorney present), he did not recall receiving any notice of the June 30, 2008 plea hearing from the State Attorney's Office.3" Similarly, another of the victims the state had subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the State Attorney's Office, but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing. Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing, and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution, they may not have "technically" been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but, rather, witnesses. On July 24, 2008, the State Attorney's Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June 26, 2008 (although the plea occurred on June 30, 2008) and listed Epstein's sentence. The letters did not mention the NPA or the federal investigation. + +### XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS + +#### A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafana Notifies Some Victims' Attorneys + +Villafafia's contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty pleas, she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in + +363Villafafia, who was present in court and heard Belohlavek's representation, told OPR that she had no information as to whether or how the state had notified the victims about the plea hearing. + +360Villafaila did contact this attorney's law partner later that day. + +365When interviewed by OPR in 2020, this same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite the fact that his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her, she was not the minor victim that the state identified in the information charging Epstein. + +civil suits that were pending against Epstein.3" Villafalia also emailed one of the pro bono attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an "agreement" with the USAO "requir[ing] him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the victims." Villafafia advised Goldberger: "The FBI has received several calls regarding the [NPA]. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the [NPA] was filed under seal, but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked." + +#### B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated + +On July 3, 2008, victims' attorney spoke to Villafafia by telephone about the resolution of the state case against Epstein "and the next stage of the federal prosecution."367 In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, asserted that during this conversation, Villafafia did not inform him of the NPA, but that during the call, he sensed that the USAO "was beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes." However, in an email Villafafia sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call, stated that "his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal." Villafafia told Sloman that after she told I that the government was bound by the agreement, assuming Epstein completed it, asked that "if there is the slightest bit of hesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance, that he and his [three] clients be allowed to consult with [the USAO] before making a decision." 36s + +That same day, wrote a letter to Villafafia, complaining that Epstein's state court sentence was "grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude" and urged Villafatla to "move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed." + +On July 7, 2008, filed his emer enc etition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of who was then identified only as "Jane Doe." She was soon joined b a second petitioner, and they were respectively referred to as "Jane Doe 1" and "Jane Doe 2."3" claimed that the government had violated his clients' rights under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with the victims. The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the CVRA. The USAO opposed the petition, arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were + +366According to Villafafta's handwritten notes from June 30, 2008, Villafafia left a message for two of the attorneys. + +367In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA case, recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on June 30, 2008, but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July 3, 2008. + +368Sloman responded, "Thanks." + +369Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation were denied by the court. + +no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement in mid-2007 to defer prosecution to the state.370 + +#### C. July 2008: Villafaila Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed Victims + +On July 8, 2008, Villafafia provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 purposes, noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June 30, 2008 letter. Villafaiia also informed the defense that, beginning the following day, she would distribute notifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein's attorney would be the contact for any civil litigation, if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any "one of these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255" to be considered a breach of the terms of the NPA. + +After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice letter, Villafafia drafted a letter she sent, on July 9 and 10, to nine victims who had previously retained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that, "[i]n light of Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, and his sentence of a total of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' community control, "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions." The letter included a reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and although the defense had neversto it, used language from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney clarifying the damages provision. The paragraph below was described as "[o]ne such condition to which Epstein has agreed + +> Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name . . . as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. + +On July 10, 2008, Villafafia sent Goldberger a "Final Notification of Identified Victims," highlighting the defendant's obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to + +370As described in Section XII.G of this Part, the matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the district court's February 21, 2019 opinion concluding that the government violated the victims' rights under the CV RA by failing to consult with them before signing the NPA. + +18 U.S.C. § 2255 and again listing the 32 "individuals whom the United States was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense." 371 The same day, Villafafia sent Goldberger a second letter, noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis. + +Villafatia informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to the listed victims who were unrepresented, to inform them that the case was resolved and to confirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls, Villafafia proposed the following language to the case agents: + +> We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein investigation and to thank you for your help. + +> Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement. Mr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of restitution. + +> All of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafafia is going to send out. Do you have a lawyer? Get name or address. If not[,] where do you want [the] letter sent? If you have questions when you receive the letter, please understand that we cannot provide legal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights organizations are able to help you at no cost to you. (Provide names and phone numbers) + +> Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still available even though the investigation is closed. + +On July 21, 2008, Villafafia sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses the FBI had by that time confirmed. Villafafia provided Epstein's defense counsel with a copy of the letter sent to each victim, directly or though counsel (with the mailing addresses redacted). + +#### D. July — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims Residing Outside of the United States + +While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims, the FBI obtained contact information for two victims residing outside of the United States. On July 23 and August 8, 2008, respectively, the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country. This + +371A month later, in an August 18, 2008 letter to the USAO, the defense sought to limit the government's victim list to those victims who were identified before the September 24, 2007 execution of the NPA. Villafafia also raised with Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to include new victims it had identified since creation of the July 2008 list and whether Jane Doe #2, who had previously given a statement in support of Epstein, should be added back to the list. Ultimately, Villafafia sent the defense a letter confirming that the government's July 10, 2008 victim list was "the final list." + +letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to victims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as "a possible victim of a federal crime" and listed her eight CVRA rights. + +The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, or that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state plea. Rather, like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter, the letter requested the victims' "assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case." + +For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States, Villafafia also drafted a notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process, which were to be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether the USAO's letter was delivered to the two victims. + +#### E. August — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter + +On August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the NPA. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA.372 On August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of the NPA subject to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce the NPA to other identified victims upon request: + +> (d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the [NM], then the USAO shall produce the [NPA] to those individuals, so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the [NPA] or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard[.]"3 + +In September 2008, the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims, and attorneys for represented victims, concerning Epstein's state court guilty plea and his agreement to not contest liability in victim civil suits brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.374 The September letter appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the government's earlier notification letter referenced language concerning 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein attorney M, but that the defense had not accepted."' As a result of the defense objection, Villafafta determined that she was + +b72 Pursuant to paragraph I3 of the NPA, Villafana made Epstein's attorneys aware of the petitioners' request for the NPA. + +)73 Doe, Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1-2 (Aug. 21, 2008). + +374 July. The USAO also sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in + +375 This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two. + +obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376 Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter described the appointment of a special [REDACTED], the special [REDACTED] selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him. + +The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA: + +In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim] would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature. + +The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued that there was "no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the [NPA]." In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña revised the paragraph as follows: + +In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected by the special [REDACTED]] can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation]. + +On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case.377 + +--- + +376 In the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 2007 letter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent. + +377 *See* Susan Spencer-Wendel, "Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms," *Palm Beach Post*, Sept. 19, 2009. + +#### F. 2010 — 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding Interpretation of the CVRA + +In connection with the Department's 2010 effort to update its 2005 Guidelines, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OW to revisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of "crime victim" under the CVRA and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement agencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled, The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's language, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from Department components, OLC reaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed (by complaint, information, or indictment) and the rights cease to be available if "all charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the [g]ovemment declines to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint)."378 + +After OLC issued its opinion, the Department revised the 2005 Guidelines in October 2011 but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal charges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation before a defendant is charged: "In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court." 3" The use of the word "should" in the 2011 Guidelines indicates that "personnel are expected to take the action . . . unless there is an appropriate, articulable reason not to do so."38° Nevertheless, the required consultation "may be general in nature" and "does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer."381 The revisions also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings.3" + +On November 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, a co-sponsor of the CVRA, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that the 2011 Guidelines revisions "conflict[ed] quite clearly with the CVRA's plain language" because the 2011 Guidelines did "not extend any rights to victims until charges have been filed." The Department's response emphasized that the + +3ni OLC "express[edI no opinion" as to whether it is a matter of "good practice" to inform victims of their CVRA rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges. + +379 See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V, ¶ G.2, available at https://www.justice.govisites/defaultifiles/olp/does/ ag\_guidelines2012. pdf. In its 2011 online training video regarding the Guidelines, the Department encouraged such consultation when reasonable, but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRA right to confer for preindictment plea negotiations. + +380See 2011 Guidelines, Art. 1, ¶ B.2. + +381See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V, ¶ G.2. + +3112The 2005 Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensure that victims were able to exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings, only at sentencing. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, ¶ C.3.b.(2). However, the 2005 Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use their best efforts to comply with the CVRA, and the CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings. The 2011 revision remedied this omission. + +Department had made its "best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to assert, support, and defend crime victims' rights." The response also referenced OLC's December 2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting that "the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations, even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court."383 + +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA, and added the following two rights: + +- (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. +- (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice. + +#### G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status + +While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous federal civil suits against Epstein, brought in the same district, were transferred to the same judge as "related cases," as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules. As the parties agreed on settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed.384 Several of the victims who had settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to "maintain their anonymity" and not "further disseminate[]" their identities to the CVRA petitioners.385 + +In the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights to confer by (1) negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input; (2) sending letters to the victims claiming that the matter was "under investigation" after the NPA was already signed; and (3) not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal investigation. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the NPA and resolved the federal investigation. + +During the litigation, the USAO argued that (1) the victims had no right to notice or conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge; (2) the government's + +383157 Cong. Rec. S7359-02 (2011) (Kyl letter and Department response). + +384Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well. In addition, numerous other cases were resolved outside of formal litigation. For example, one attorney told OPR that he resolved 16 victim env-Pc but did not file all cases with the court. Court data indicate that the attorney filed only 3 of the 16 cases he said he resolved. + +3" Doe. Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance at I (July 24, 2015). + +letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was “under investigation” because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that Epstein would plead guilty; and (3) Villafaña contacted the petitioners’ attorney prior to Epstein’s state plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Villafaña told OPR that, while there were valid reasons for the government’s position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge, “[T]his is a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously prepared to spend as much time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every [victim].” + +Over the course of the litigation, the district court made various rulings interpreting the provisions of the CVRA, including the court’s key conclusion that victim CVRA rights “attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant.” The court also held that (1) “the CVRA authorizes the rescission or ‘reopening’ of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of a prosecutor’s conferral obligations under the statute”; (2) the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements”; (3) the CVRA’s “reasonable right to confer” “extends to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings”; (4) the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render the *Doe* petitioners “victims” under the CVRA; and (5) “questions pertaining to [the] equitable defense[s] are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record.” + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioners’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that “once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.” The government did not dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NPA, and the court concluded that “[a]t a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein.” The court found that the post-NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing “misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility” and that “[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.”386 + +The court relied on ██████ and *BP Products* to support its holding and noted that the government’s action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because, unlike a plea agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing, “[o]nce an NPA is entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case.” The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO’s failure to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in “lengthy negotiations” with Epstein’s counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be “made public or filed with the Court.” + +Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the 2005 Guidelines for the Department’s position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged, the court was “not persuaded that the [G]uidelines were the basis for the Government’s decision to withhold information about the NPA from the victims.” The court found that the government’s reliance on + +386 The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of Epstein’s state court plea hearing. + +the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with Epstein's attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that "it had obligations to notify the victims." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission of the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta, Villafaila, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials; training for USA'S,employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees.387 + +Following Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death "rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government's violation of Petitioners' rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot."3g8 The court did not order the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it "fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims."389 The court also denied the petitioners' request for attorneys' fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, "[a]lthough unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation." + +On September 30, 2019, appealed the district court's rejection of the requested remedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for and "regret[] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past."391 Nevertheless, the government argued that, "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought."392 The government conceded, however, that with regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted, "[p]etitioner and other Epstein + +387Doe, Jane Doe I and Janc Doe 2's Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019). + +398Doe, Opinion and Order (Sept. 16, 2019). Among other things, the court rejected the petitioners' contention that it did not address whether the government had violated the victims' CVRA right to be treated with fairness and to receive fair notice of the proceedings, noting that "[Wiese rights all flow from the right to confer and were encompassed in the Court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA." + +3" The Department's Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims' Rights in the Federal System to the USAO on January 10, 2020. + +39° See In reM, No. 19-13843, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3) (Sept. 30, 2019). + +791 Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime Victims Rights Act at 14 (Oct. 31, 2019). As previously noted, at this point, the litigation was being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. + +392The government also noted that although the CVRA was amended in 2015 to include a victim's right to be notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements, "the amendment did not extend to non-prosecution agreements" which, unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements, do not require court involvement. + +victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and to be conferred with on the criminal case, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do." Duriigoral argument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of = + +> The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with about what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA, and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way with and for that, we are genuinely sorry.393 + +On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that "the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of criminal proceedings—and thus, on the facts of this case, does not provide the petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights."394 The court conducted a thorough analysis of the language of the statute, the legislative history, and previous court decisions. The court distinguished In re as "dictum" consisting of a "three-sentence discussion ... devoid of any analysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings." The court noted that its interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning victim standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in "implementing regulations." Finally, the court raised separation of powers concerns with (and the dissenting judge's) interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA, noting that such an interpretation would interfere with prosecutorial discretion. + +Nevertheless, the court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying case, stating that the government "[s]eemingly . . . defer[red] to Epstein's lawyers" regarding information it provided victims about the NPA and that its "efforts seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation." The court concluded that although it "seems obvious" that the government "should have consulted with petitioner (and other victims) before negotiating and executing Epstein's NPA," the court could not conclude that the government was obligated to do so. In addition, the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly worded opinion asserting that the majority's statutory interpretation was "contorted" because the "plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include [a] post-indictment temporal restriction." + +On May 5, 2020, filed a petition for rehearing en bane. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +393Audio recording of Oral Argument, M, No. 19-13843 (Jan. 16, 2020). + +394In re 955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (I I th Cir. 2020). + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +#### CHAPTER THREE + +#### PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS + +#### I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS + +Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA, applicable during the relevant time period, are set forth below. + +#### A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 + +(a) Rights of Crime Victims. —A crime victim has the following rights: + +- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. +- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. +- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. +- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +(c) Best Efforts To Accord Rights.— + +- (1) Government.—Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a). + +(e) Definitions. + +(2) Crime victim.— + +- (A) In general. —The term "crime victim" means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. + +#### B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607) + +#### (b) Identification of victims + +At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall— + +- (1) identify the victim or victims of a crime; +- (2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection (c); and +- (3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services described in subsection (c). + +#### (c) Description of services + +#### (1) A responsible official shall— + +- (A) inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and social services; +- (B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained; +- (C) inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment, and other support to the victim; and +- (D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). + +#### (2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender. + +#### (3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of— + +- (A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation; +- (B) the arrest of a suspected offender, +- (C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender; +- (D) the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or, under section 10606(b)(4) of Title 42, is entitled to attend; +- (E) the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender; +- (F) the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial; and +- (G) the sentence imposed on an offender, including the date on which the offender will be eligible for parole. + +(4) During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense witnesses. + +#### (e) Definitions + +(2) the term "victim" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime . . . . + +#### II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES) + +In 2005, the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to incorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 Guidelines was "to establish guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative, prosecutorial, and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime." The relevant portions of the 2005 Guidelines are as follows: + +#### Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses + +#### A. Investigation Stage + +The investigative agency's responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend through the prosecution of the case. In some instances, when explicitly stated, the investigative agency's responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting agency when charges are filed. + +2. Identification of Victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime. + +#### 3. Description of Services. + +#### a. Information, Notice, and Referral + +(1) Initial Information and Notice. Responsible officials must advise a victim pursuant to this section at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation. To comply with this requirement, it is recommended that victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and the available services, identifies the local + +service providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim-witness coordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of— + +- (a) His or her rights as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +- (b) His or her right entitlement, on request, to the services listed in 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). +- (c) The name, title, business address, and telephone number of the responsible official to whom such a request for services should be addressed. +- (d) The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social services. +- (e) The availability of any restitution or other relief (including crime victim compensation programs) to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained. (0 Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment, and other support to the victim. +- (i) The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. +- (j) The option of being included in VNS. +- (k) Available protections from intimidation and harassment. +- (3) Notice during the investigation. During the investigation of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice concerning— + - (a) The status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation. + - (b) The arrest of a suspected offender. + +#### B. Prosecution Stage + +The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing legal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks. + +I. Responsible Officials. For cases in which charges have been instituted, the responsible official is the U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending. + +#### 2. Services to Crime Victims + +#### b. Information, Notice, and Referrals + +- (1) Notice of Rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +- (2) Notice of Right To Seek Counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a). +- (3) Notice of Right To Attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the crime victim about the victim's right to attend the trial regardless of whether the victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of the crime on the victim during sentencing. +- (4) Notice of Case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim, using VNS (where appropriate), with reasonable notice of— + - (a) The filing of charges against a suspected offender. + - (b) The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender. + - (c) The schedule of court proceedings. + - (i) The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole proceeding that involves the crime against the victim. In the event of an emergency or other last-minute hearing or change in the time or date of a hearing, the responsible official should consider providing notice by telephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to postsentencing proceedings as well. + - (ii) The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or witness is required or entitled to attend. + - (d) The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial. + +(e) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised release, if any, that are imposed. + +(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief [previously identified]. + +#### c. Consultation With a Government Attorney + +(1) In General. A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be available to consult with victims about major case decisions, such as dismissals, release of the accused pending judicial proceedings (when such release is for noninvestigative purposes), plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the prosecutor's obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct. + +Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither the Department's advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship between such victims and the lawyers for the Government. + +Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims. + +(2) Prosecutor Availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor. + +(3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. In determining what is reasonable, the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but not limited to, the following factors: + +- (a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety. +- (b) The number of victims. +- (c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea. + +- (d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions. +- (e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality. (0 Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. + +#### III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT + +#### A. FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others + +FRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." + +#### B. FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice + +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. + +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. + +As previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice of law." Frederick, 756 So. 2d at 87; see also Shankman, 41 So. 3d at 172. + +[Page Left Intentionally Blank] + +## CHAPTER THREE PART THREE: ANALYSIS + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +In addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act and "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."395 The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court. + +OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafafia made to victims in January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008. + +#### II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS + +During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019 opinion, the district court concluded that "once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafafia—intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation. + +35 Doe v. United States. 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019). + +As discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. In September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. Pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework, OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorneys' conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake."396 + +**A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges** + +Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue of whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September 2007. At that time, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district court's later interpretation in the CVRA litigation. + +The CVRA defines a "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." On April 1, 2005, soon after the CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that "the status of a 'crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm." Beginning with the 2005 OLC guidance, the Department has consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against a defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied its definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in 2005, but noted that the obligation created by the eighth CVRA right—to "treat[] victims with fairness and respect"—is "always expected of Federal officials, and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 [(VRRA)] indicates that this right applies 'throughout the criminal justice process.'"397 Consistent with the OLC interpretation, in May 2005, the Department issued the 2005 Guidelines to implement the CVRA. + +The 2005 Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of federal charges. Specifically, the 2005 Guidelines stated that during the "prosecution stage," the "responsible official" should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, + +396 2005 Guidelines, Foreword. + +397 Nevertheless, the portion of the VRRA referenced in the OLC 2005 Informal Guidance, 42 U.S.C. § 10606, had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA. + +and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations.398 The "prosecution stage" began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.399 + +At the time the parties signed the NPA in September 2007, few courts had addressed victim standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges.400 Two cases relied upon by the court in its February 2019 opinion—M and its underlying district court opinion, BP Products—were decided after the NPA was signed. + +The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation—both pending as of the date of this Report—show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter of debate.401 In a November 21, 2019 letter to Attorney General William Barr, a Congressional Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to "[c]larify that victims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key pm-charging developments in a case, such as . . . non-prosecution agreements."402 The CVRA litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en bane. + +Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the lower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge, OPR concludes that the subjects' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time, the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of federal criminal charges." + +3982005 Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c.(3). Under the 2005 Guidelines, the term "should" means that "the employee is expected to take the action or provide the service described unless there is an appropriate, articulable reason not to do so." Id., Art. ILI C. + +399 Id., Art. IV, 1B.1. + +100 Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at 415 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed charges); United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the government has filed charges, but courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach); and United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982, at 42 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (order sua sponte) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). + +101 See M, 955 F.3d at 1220; Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019, H.R. 4729, 116th Cong. (2019). + +4°2 165 Cong. Rec. E1495-01 (2019). + +403Violations of an unambiguous obligation concerning victims' rights could result in a violation of the rules of professional responsibility. For example, in Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. 109 A.3d 1184 (Md. 2015.1e Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutor's failure to provide any notice to the minor victim's family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten months the prosecutor was responsible for the matter was a "consistent failure" amounting to "gross negligence in the discharge of the prosecutorial function" that deprived the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution. The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional + +In M, the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language of the VRRA, noting that the VRRA "clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge phase" and opining that the government "may well have violated" the VRRA with regards to its investigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVRA, the VRRA afforded victims various rights and services; however, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court or by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights portion of the VRRA established the victims' right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for the government. However, the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation. + +The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage of the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements—one requiring a responsible official to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and another requiring that a responsible official "shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation"—may have applied to the Epstein investigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys, as the 2005 Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because, at that point, the case remained "under investigation," and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June 2008. Once Epstein did so, and the victims identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the § 2255 remedy, the USAO furnished the victims with appropriate notification. + +#### B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was Intended to Silence Victims + +During her OPR interviews, Villafaria recalled more than one discussion in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, however, had no recollection of discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed, and Menchel disputed Villafaila's assertions. OPR found only one written reference before that date, explicitly raising the issue of consultation. Given the absence of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Villafafia's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations. OPR + +Conduct 1.3, lack of diligence, and 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The holding in was based on Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right, among others, to receive various notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information filed in a circuit court." However, both the under! 'n provisions and, significantly, the facts are substantially different from the Epstein investigation. In the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea. + +did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from having input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation. + +Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about the subjects' views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafafia raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman: "The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law.... [A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."404 Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, "fyi." Villafafia recalled that after she sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, "[Y]ou can't do that now.s405 Villafafia also told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that ... precharge resolutions do not require victim notification." Villafafia also recalled a discussion with Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims' input on the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."406 + +None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAO's CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims during the preliminary "general discussion" phase of settlement negotiations; moreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed. + +Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA" and "we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case." Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of "the cases that we handled, filed cases." Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, he did not "think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with [the victims] prior to entering into ... the NPA." + +Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafafia that she not discuss the NPA with the victims. He stated that everything the USAO did was "to try and get the best result as possible for the victims. . . . [O]nce you step back and look at the whole forest . . ., you will see that. . [I]f you look at each tree and say, well, you didn't do this right for the victim, you didn't tell the victim this and that, you're missing the big picture." + +404As noted, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims because no criminal charges had been tiled. In addition, Villafana's reference to victim "approval" was inaccurate because the CVRA, even when applicable, requires only "consultation" with victims about prosecutorial decisions. + +405Villafaiia did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision. + +406Villafana also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." Villafatia was uncertain of the date of the conversation, but Menchel's presence requires it to have occurred before August 3, 2007. + +Acosta told OPR that them was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was "not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta said, "[W]hether or not victims' views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time." Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA, but he acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]."407 + +As indicated, the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafatia raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively rejected Villafalia's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims, ignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal. OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villafafia recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and Menchel contended that Villafafia's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred, the timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Villafafia about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchel necessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree to the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage, there was little to discuss with victims. + +To the extent that Villafafia's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult victims, Villafafia's recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors' concerns about the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to consult with victims about a pre-charge disposition. That belief accurately reflected the Department's position at the time about application of the CVRA. Importantly, OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims, and Villafafia told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the agreement if they learned of it. Because the subjects did not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NPA, OPR concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct. + +However, OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims, a more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government's goal to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process. Furthermore, in this case, consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into the victims' willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein. The consultation provision does not + +407Villafafia told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in ordcr to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s]." + +require victim approval of the prosecutors' plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity.408 + +#### III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF 'f HE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION + +After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villafana and the FBI separately communicated with numerous victims and victims' attorneys, both in person and through letters. Apart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a resolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more generally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the government's agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008, letters stating that the case was "currently under investigation." In its February 21, 2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "tilt was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.s409 + +In the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government's course of conduct with victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafafta acted with the intent to silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's inconsistent messages concerning the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government. + +In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to victims by the FBI that were the subject of the district court's findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafatla was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that the district court determined to be misleading, as well as the October 12, 2007 letter OPR located during its investigation, were "standard form letter[s]" sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist. As noted previously in this Report, after the NPA was signed, Villafatia and the FBI agents continued to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the NPA; absent such a + +408Villafafia told OPR that she recalled speaking to several victims along with FBI agents before the NPA was signed and "ask[ing] them how they wanted the case to be resolved." FBI interview reports indicate that Villafaiia was present with FBI agents for some of the interviews occurring well in advance of the NPA negotiations. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, I B.2.c (I) (consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information). However, Villafatia did not meet with all of the victims identified in the federal investigation, including the CVRA litigation petitioners, and the government conceded during the CVRA litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners. Doc. 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1218. + +.09 Doe. 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1219, 1221. + +breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end. Thus, the statement that the case was "currently under investigation" was literally true, but the omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation. + +#### A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation" + +The 2005 Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and available services during the "investigative stage" of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by the FBI's Victim Specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the "prosecution stage." + +The FBI's Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the 2005 Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the "investigative stage." The language of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time. The FBI Victim Specialist who sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters.410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist.011 According to Villafafia, "The decision to issue the letters and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Although the FBI case agents informed Villafafta after the fact that the FBI's Victim Specialist sent her "standard form letter," Villafafia had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its contents.412 Villafafta told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008. + +410The cast agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter, but acknowledged that "she would come to us before she would approach a victim." + +411The case agent told OPR that she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be "standard form letters." Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "I can't think that I've ever reviewed any of them . . . they just go from the victim coordinator." + +412Villafafia's lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the information provided to victims concerning their CVRA rights. Beginning in 2006, the FBI provided to victims standard letters advising victims of their CVRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied pre-charge. During this period, Villafaiia also crafted her own introductory letters to the victims to let them know of their CVRA rights and that the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the prior state investigation in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by the State Attorney's Office." Villafaiia told OPR that in a case in which she "needredj to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafafta's letter itemized the CVRA rights, but it did not explain that those rights attached only after a formal charge had been made. The letter was hand + +#### B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation + +As described previously, given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay entering his guilty plea, Villafafia and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein. By April 2008, Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was "more and more likely." As a result, Villafafia and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps. Among other actions, Villafafia, her supervisors, CEOS, and the case agents engaged in the following investigative activities: + +- The FBI interviewed victims in October and November 2007 and between January and May 2008, and discovered at least six new victims. +- In January 2008, CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter. +- In January and February 2008, Villafafia and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in victim interviews. +- Villafafta revised the prosecution memorandum to focus "on victims who are unknown to Epstein's counsel." +- The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division "pursuant to USAM (§) 8-3.120," of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others. +- Villafafia secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case.413 +- Villafafia prepared a revised draft indictment. +- Villafafia sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government witness in exchange for that witness's testimony. +- Even after Epstein's state plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty. + +Villafafia told OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the case was "currently under investigation" was "absolutely true." Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was + +delivered, along with the FBI's own victim's rights pamphlet and notification letter, to victims following their FBI interviews. + +413According to the 2017 affidavit filed by CVRA-case attorney, the pro bono counsel that Villafafia secured assisted in "avoiding the improper deposition." + +continuing." The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019, the "the case was open . . . it's never been shut down." + +OPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation. The "ongoing investigation" language generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from August 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA.414 Nevertheless, the FBI's letters omitted important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he had reached with the USAO. Victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal prosecution. CVRA petitioner stated during the CVRA litigation that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against" her. Furthermore, when the fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September 2007 eventually came to light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims' and the public's conclusions that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark. + +In sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was "currently under investigation" was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the victims, and contributed to victim frustration and confusion, because the letters did not provide important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation. Nonetheless, OPR found no evidence that Villafafia or her supervisors participated in drafting those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI's letters until the Department gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation. The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. Despite the fact that the case was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continued to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances.415 + +414The Department ofJustice Inspector General's Audit Re t of the Department's Victim Notification System indicates that letters the FBI system generated in 2006 contained language for the notification events of "Initial (Investigative Agency)" and "Under Investigation" and letters generated in 2008 contained language for the notification events of "Advice of Victims Rights (Investigative)" and "Under Investigation." + +415After Epstein entered his guilty picas, the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting "assistance and cooperation while we arc investigating the case" to the two victims living outside the United States. + +#### IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING + +As set forth in the factual discussion, within a few weeks of the NPA's signing, it became clear that the defense team disagreed with, and strongly objected to, the government's plan to inform victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from Epstein, under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially took the position that it was obligated to, and intended to, inform victims of both the NPA, including the § 2255 provision, and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that victims who wanted to attend could do so. + +In November and December 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO's position regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim notifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state actions, Acosta elected to defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO would notify victims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under § 2255, a decision that was implemented by letters sent to victims after Epstein entered his state pleas. This decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas, was based, at least in part, on Villafafia's and the case agents' strategic concerns relating to preserving the victims' credibility and is discussed further in Section V, below. + +In this section, OPR analyzes Acosta's decision to defer to the state the responsibility for notifying victims of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither the CVRA nor the VRRA required the government to notify victims of the state proceeding and therefore Acosta did not violate any statutes or Department policy by deferring to the discretion of the State Attorney whether to notify victims of Epstein's state guilty pleas and sentencing. However, OPR also concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment because by failing to ensure that the state intended to and would notify victims of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims forthrightly and with the sensitivity expected by the Department. Through counsel, Acosta "strongly disagree[d]" with OPR's conclusion and argued that OPR unfairly applied a standard "never before expected of any U.S. Attorney." OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the discussion below. + +#### A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard + +In November 2007, Villafafia sought to avoid defense accusations of misconduct concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a written notice to victims informing them of the resolution of the federal case and of their eligibility for monetary damages, and inviting them to appear at the state plea hearing. Villafafia and Sloman exchanged edits of the draft letter and, at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to defense attorney Leficowitz, who, in turn, strongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he described as "highly inappropriate" and an "intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced." + +Thereafter—at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent—Villafafia drafted, and Sloman signed, the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings: + +> [T]hese sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.416 + +The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his comments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been completed, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The draft victim notification letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement to the State Attomey's Office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents, Sloman instructed Villafafia, who was preparing letters for transmittal to 30 victims, to "Hold the letter." During his OPR interview, Sloman recalled that he had "wanted to push the letter out," but he "must have had a conversation with somebody" about whether the CVRA applied, and based on that conversation he directed Villafafia to hold the letter. + +In his response letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both the CVRA and VRRA because neither applied to the "public proceeding in this matter [which] will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges." + +416Sloman told Lefkowitz the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is simply informing the victims of their rights." Sloman also addressed the defense attorneys' objection to advising the victims that they could contact Villafatia or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns by referencing the CVRA, noting, "Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case."' + +Thereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney's discretion the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing: + +> I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court [plea and] sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. + +(Emphasis added.) + +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office." Acosta explained that it was "not for me to direct the State Attorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome." Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's handling of the case, but he told OPR, "that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligation they have. Let's not assume. . . that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors." Sloman initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights under [§] 2255"; but his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going to be notified."017 Sloman told OPR he had been "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims," even though "this was not a federal case," but once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter . . . and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation." + +OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney's Office notified any victims in advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney's Office had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the + +117Sloman stated in his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department's Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue of victim notification, and OPR found no other documentation indicating that Mandelker played a role in the deferral decision. + +particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafafia to contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back to Sloman that Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." °18 Villafafia recalled that she sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Reiter said he would "contact as many as he could." The contemporaneous records do not show how many or which victims, if any, Reiter contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim who provided information to OPR, either in person or through her attorney, recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials. At the time Epstein pled guilty in state court, no one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Reiter or the State Attorney's Office had notified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Villafafia, who was present in the courtroom for the hearing, had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims were "in agreement with the terms of this plea."419 + +OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Office the decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question, requiring notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled to attend, unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings. Furthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed.020 Moreover, the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is "entitled to attend" referred specifically to proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 10606(bX4), which, at the time of the Epstein case, had become part of the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2)).42I + +Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State Attorney the decision to notify victims of the state's plea hearing and the responsibility for doing so did not constitute professional misconduct.422 + +4111Sloman replied, "Good." In her written response to OPR, Villafaiia stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." + +419Plea Hearing Transcript at 42. + +430 OLC 2005 CVRA Informal Guidance; see also United States v. Guevara-Toloso, No. 04-1455, 2005 WL 1210982, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). + +411 In M. the Eleventh Circuit panel noted that the petitioner argued "only in passing" that the government violated her CVRA right "to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime"; however\_i \_the court concluded this provision "clearly applies) only alter the initiation of criminal proceedings." 955 F.3d at 1205 n.7, 1208. + +422The government's letter to victims, following Epstein's guilty pleas, informing them of the resolution of the case by state plea and the availability of § 2255 relief, also appear to satisfy the potentially applicable VRRA requirements to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and to "provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to + +#### B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing + +Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "to the discretion of the State Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal investigation into their own cases.423 + +Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem from passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attorney's Office and made appropriate efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum, provided the victims with Belohlavek's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with the State Attorney, or instructed Villafafia or others to do so, to ensure the state intended to make notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had the information necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notification entirely to the State Attorney's discretion without providing that office with the names of individuals the USAO believed were victims and, apparently, without even informing the state prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications, if they chose to do so. + +Epstein was required by the NPA to plead to only two state charges, and even assuming that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim, and the solicitation charge involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charged state offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover, the federal investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by + +inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation." See 42 U.S.C. §§ I0607(eX I XB) and (e)(3)(A). + +123Through counsel, Acosta argued that OPR's criticism of him for "electing to 'defer' the notification obligation to the state" was inappropriate and "a non sequitur" because "where no federal notification obligation exists, it cannot be deferred." OPR's criticism, as explained further below, is not with the decision itself, but rather with the fact that although Acosta intended for the federal victims to be notified of the state plea hearing, and believed that they should receive such notification, he nonetheless left responsibility for such notification to the state without ensuring that it had the information needed to do so and without determining the state's intended course of action. + +the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO, the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised by Villafafia that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims, presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing. + +Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta also told OPR that he expected the state would have "notified [the victims] that that was an allencompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding." There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman or Villafafia, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafafia to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney or to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's Office that Villafafia prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly released from the State Attorney's Office.424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and Villafafia interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that office, and Villafaila's last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to appear at the hearing. + +Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both federal and state, "would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." + +OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources, and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware—through the prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafafia—that the USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD + +424The text of the letter indicated that Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of "any rights they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney's Office" and that the USAO was providing the State Attorney's Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims "in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law." + +investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not receive notice of the hearing.425 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant issues relating to Epstein. Villafatia and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the notification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning and coordination with the State Attorney's Office.426 + +Even if the State Attorney's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation as well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status of the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff, would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaiia took steps to confirm that, if victims appeared, they could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged crimes.427 + +Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villafafia and Sloman both told OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, "OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points." Acosta's counsel further + +4\$3 Krischer told OPR that the state's notification obligation extended to all victims identified in the state investigation. Nonetheless, which victims were encompassed in the state's investigation was unclear. The PBPD's probable cause affidavit included crimes against only 5 victims, not the 19 identified in the state investigation. According to state records made public, the state subpoenaed to the grand jury only 3 victims. After Epstein's guilty plea, the state sent notification letters to only 2 victims. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the nature of the charges, she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were "victims" she was required to notify of the plea hearing. + +426The State Attorney's Office had its own procedures and employees who handled victim notification, and Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim notification process. + +437 Although Villafafta's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes §§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she drafted unsent letters to victims in November and December 2007 inviting them to participate in the state plea hearing pursuant to those statues, the caselaw was not clear that all federal victims would have been allowed to participate in the state plea hearing. In Lelkowitz's November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued that the statutes afforded a right to speak at a defendant's sentencing or to submit a statement only to the victims of the crime for which the defendant was being sentenced. In April 2008, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled against a defendant who argued that Florida Statute § 921.143(1) did not allow the testimony of the victim's relatives at the sentencing hearing. The court ruled that § 921.143(1) "should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at sentencing hearings." IIII v. State, 982 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). + +argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the victims of the hearing.428 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim notification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafafia provided Acosta with a draft letter to state officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafafia and Sloman with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, 2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the state process. + +Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Villafafia and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases.°29 Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe the CVRA required it, to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity, and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the + +428As noted, in his comments on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel strongly objected to OPR's finding of poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR "unwarrantedly applies a standard never before expected of any US Attorney," and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for "not personally confirming that the State Attorney had the information needed" to notify the victims and for "not personally confirming" that Chief Reiter had actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issue is not whether Acosta "personally" took certain specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen. + +429OPR notes that Villafaula contacted Reiter soon rifler the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulting window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorney at some point in time closer to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and that issues concerning the victims' appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities. Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the months that the matter was under review by the Department. + +resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This contrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the public. + +Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +#### V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS + +From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafafta's direction, directly informed only three victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafafta and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafatia contacted victims' attorney to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. + +As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and co-case agent began notifying victims about the NPA.43° After speaking to three victims, however, the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent told OPR, "I would . . . have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." The case + +470 Although- disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent's email to Villafatia from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that she was unhappy with the resolution. + +agent and Villafafia consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue monetary damages according to its terms. + +Villafafia advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment evidence, telling him, "One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages right?"' Explaining the decision in her later CVRA declaration, Villafafia said that after Epstein's attorneys "complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims," she "concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement." Acosta was aware of these concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, "[W]e also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]." + +The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform them about the NPA.43' On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafafia, and the CEOS Trial Attorney interviewed three victims including and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day.432 and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of 2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation. + +Villafafia told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically tell the victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." She stated that she would not use "terminology" such as "NPA" because "most people don't understand what that means." Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafafia, had been informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that "an agreement had been reached where [Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look [like] he intends to actually perform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged . . . and may have to go to trial." Villafafia recalled telling some victims that Epstein "was supposed to enter a plea in state court" that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the "federal investigation versus a state investigation." Villafafia told OPR she explained "the case was under investigation," she and the agents "were preparing ... again" to file charges, and they hoped "that charges would be brought." An email from Villafafia to Sloman and Acosta during this time period reflects that she had such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this date: "The second girl... was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. . . . [S]he would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail." Villafafia, however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rather, she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRAcase declaration, stated that she "was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of + +411 FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the victims of the NPA. + +472 Two additional victims wcrc scheduled to be interviewed on February I, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as to whether the interviews occurred. + +the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected." further stated in her declaration that, "Based on what the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were still investigating my case." + +Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein.033 + +When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafaiia told OPR that she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued "interviewing witnesses" and "doing all these things" to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. As Villafafia stated, "So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate." + +Villafaiia was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorrSout the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attorney alleged that during telephone calls with Villafafia, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in," and Villafalia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter "was an on-going active investigation." stated that Villafafia gave him "the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and complexity." also stated, "A fair characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafafia listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking." + +In her written response to OPR, Villafafia stated that she "listened more than [she] spoke" during her interactions with and that due to the "uncertainty of the situation" and the possibility of a trial, she "did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case." Villafafia also told OPR that because of "all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification," she felt "prohibited" from providing additional information to + +Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, "[I]t was [of] concern that this was going to break down and ... result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you're going to get \$150,000, that's .. . going to be instant impeachment for the defense."034 Acosta told OPR that, because Epstein did + +133As noted above, the FBI agent's notes for one victim's interview reported that she wanted another victim to be prosecuted. + +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up ... at the change of plea." + +not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a "very open question" whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that "where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when." + +Epstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia all identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.035 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery. + +On June 27, 2008, the Friciaefore Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafafia contacted to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafafia told OPR she "was not given authorization to contact" any victim's attorney other than about the scheduled state plea hearing." In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, stated that Villafafia "gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all." + +said in a 2016 court filing that Villafafia told him only that "Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's clients nor any of the federal/ victims." Villafafia stated in her 2017 declaration that she "never told Attorney that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement charge to a specific victim." Villafafia told OPR she "strongly encouraged and his clients to attend" the plea hearing but "could not be more explicit" because she was not "authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA." In his 2017 affidavit, acknowledged that "Villafafia did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way." claimed that Villafaiia's failure to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federthirposecution pursuant to the plea agreement" resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. himself was out of town and not able to + ++73 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafafia informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena "issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed)." Villafaha further observed that because Epstein is "going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case." + +436Villafafia's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea, Villafaiia was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafafia stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafafia emai led Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." Sloman replied, "Good." + +attend the hearing. In his affidavit, [REDACTED] asserted, "[T]here was no possible way I could have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that federal investigation." + +In [REDACTED], the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government "seemingly" deferred to Epstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts "seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation."437 Although both the appellate court and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña, Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and to [REDACTED], were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether Villafaña's statements that the matter was "under investigation" and her failure to inform all of the victims whom she interviewed or [REDACTED] about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or 4-8.4(d). + +FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of material fact or law to a third person" during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines "knowingly" as "denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question" and states that such knowledge may be "inferred from circumstances."438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements." The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 "[f]or dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement." Like FRPC 4-4.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c) requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC 4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied "merely by showing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing" and the "motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted."439 In *Feinberg*, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the defendant by making the statements.440 In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to [REDACTED] on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. + +One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she interviewed in January and February 2008, Villafaña contended that she discussed the agreement with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as + +--- + +437 [REDACTED], 955 F.3d at 1199-1200. + +438 *See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities*, "Terminology." + +439 *Florida Bar v. [REDACTED]*, 284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing *Florida Bar v. Berthiaume*, 78 So. 3d 503, 510 n.2 (Fla. 2011); *Florida Bar v. Riggs*, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); *Florida Bar v. [REDACTED]*, 866 So. 2d 41, 46 (Fla. 2004)). + +440 *Florida Bar v. Feinberg*, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000). + +previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafafia's mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. + +Nevertheless, Villafafia did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms with other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with or any other victim's attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of the NPA during these interactions. to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4.041 + +OPR evaluated Villafafia's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 44.1: + +A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. + +The victims and their attorneys were certainly not "opposing part[ies]" to the USAO, but the comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. + +Here, the evidence does not show that Villafafia knowingly made an affirmative false statement to the victims or or that her omissions were "the equivalent of affirmative false statements" about material facts. First, Villafafia told OPR that she believed the investigation was ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the evidence shows that Villafa0a and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafafia's email correspondence with her supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafafia knowingly made any affirmative false statement to when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined to provide additional information in response to his questions.042 + +Second, in reaching its conclusion OPR considered the full context in which Villafafia interacted with the victims and Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses, + +" 1 In Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee's conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c) "for making false statements by omission of material facts in his representations [to counsel]." Florida Bar v. Joy, 679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster. 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for reinstatement denied due to "misrepresentation by omission"). + +442 In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant outside his attorney's presence, the prosecutor falsely stated to the defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant. + +and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited in their disclosures: "Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information.""3 + +Villafafia's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, Villafafia agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafafia raised those concerns with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although Villafafia had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was si ed, her supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform of the scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform that the plea was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show that Villafafia acted for the purpose of deceiving or preventing him from attending the hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to inform ME. at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings. Rather, as confirmed, Villafaila told him the hearing was "important." Villafafia sought to strike a difficult balance of securing (and his clients') attendance at the state court plea, while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea. + +Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the evidence does not establish that Villafaila violated her obligations under FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4(c) or (d).4'44 Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafafia's interactions with victims and victims' attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was + +i°r 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV,' B.2.c(I ). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about the government's communications. For example, within a day of Villafafia contacting a victim's attorney about a potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." + +444 The case most directly on point is M. 109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor's failure to notify the victim of the resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in M, the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right to receive notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information in a circuit court." In this case, for the reasons previously discussed, Villafafia did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims or of the NPA. + +intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims.445 + +**VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION** + +Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims' and the public's perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that Department employees work to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime endure in its wake." When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +██████████ criticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other Epstein victims and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. ██████████ experienced a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the case agents. ██████████ received Villafaña's letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims' rights letter indicating that the case was under investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January 31, 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed ██████████, along with a CEOS attorney and the FBI agents, and told ██████████ that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when ██████████ contacted Villafaña on ██████████ behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, + +445 OPR notes that, similar to Villafaña, Sloman interacted with a victim's attorney during the time period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal government could bring charges against Epstein. Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein. Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney. + +Villafafia informed about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it is not surprising that came away from the experience feeling confused and believing she had been misled. + +OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafafia, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafalla sought at various points to consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial. + +Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or considered before the NPA was signed. + +After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. Although the evidence supports Villafafia's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of the openness and fairness of the process. As stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed she had been "mistreated in the process." When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafafia, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did they revisit the decision before Villafafia met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or spoke to or other attorneys representing victims."6 Furthermore, more attention needed + +446It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 ("The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410."). In any ease, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial), + +to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's + +communications with victims.407 + +The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism. Although OPR credits Villafafia's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia also contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified fashion. + +OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever possible."8 For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory messages. + +independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words, while the USAO's view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the case agent's concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low. + +447In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries. Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein's state guilty plea. + +444OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines. + +## CONCLUSION + +In November 2018, the *Miami Herald* published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. The *Miami Herald* reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein that permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges," immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. + +Following the *Miami Herald's* report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and law enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts with the USAO and federal law enforcement. + +OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann ██████ C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report. + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. + +Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not fmd that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism + +principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +#### METHODOLOGY + +#### A. Document Review + +As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney's offices, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their sources, are set forth below. + +#### 1. USAO Records + +The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of material that Villafaiia updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA, prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments. + +The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein case collected by Sloman; Villafana's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center. + +#### 2. EOUSA Records + +EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000 Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents. + +After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox contained no emails from May 26, 2007, through November 2, 2008. This gap, however, was not present with respect to Acosta's sent email. OPR requested that EOUSA investigate. During its investigation, EOUSA discovered a data association error that incorrectly associated Acosta's data with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated, EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his tenure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that the emails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.S. Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's data was migrated between March and June 2008. + +EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error. + +Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email, which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta. + +#### 3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records + +OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation concerning its victim notification system. + +#### 4. Criminal Division Records + +The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries. + +CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation. + +#### 5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records + +OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries. + +#### 6. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence, when the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from "all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females," and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA. + +#### 7. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with records related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO. + +#### 8. Public Records + +OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit, and the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports. + +#### B. Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims + +#### 1. Subjects + +OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. + +#### 2. Witnesses + +OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher. OPR also interviewed former State Attorney Barry Krischer and former Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick. + +#### 3. Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys + +OPR contacted attorneys known to represent 26 victims among the 30 surviving individuals who were identified in the USAO's July 2008 listing of 32 victims the USAO was prepared to include in federal charges against Epstein and who accordingly were entitled to the benefits of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 monetary damages provision of the NPA. OPR contacted the attorneys to invite the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before Epstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea, or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims. + +## EXHIBIT 1 + +## State Indictment + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +**INDICTMENT** + +A TRUE BILL + +06-9454-CF +A-2 + +SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK +FELONY SOLICITATION COUNTY + +05 JUL 19 PM 2:4 + +FILED + +**IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA** + +**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA** + +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State aforesaid, + +**COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION** + +on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, 2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) + +against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. + +I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. + +![](_page_318_Picture_218.jpeg) + +STATE OF FLORIDA +I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy for the record in my office. I hereby certify that the record is in my office. THIS DAY OF 5 2008 + +Assistant State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, prosecuting for the said State + +BY DEPUTY CLERK + +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +July 19, 2006 + +DATE + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## EXHIBIT 2 + +September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +/ + +#### NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") is reported to have committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around October 2005, including: + +- (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his + +signature on this Agreement; and + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below. + +Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the Agreement which he has violated. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses. + +#### Terms of the Agreement: + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") charging violations of the following Florida Statutes: + - (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); + - (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and + - (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. +- 2. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. + +- 3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. +- 4. Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. +- 5. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified victims and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through that counsel. +- 6. Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than October 15, 2007. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +Dated: + +Jeffrey Epstein + +Dated: + +Roy Black, Esq. Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: + +By: A. Villafatia Assistant United States Attorney + +## EXHIBIT 3 + +September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +#### IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +/ + +#### NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Tide 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +#### Terms of the Agreement: + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495A3DCXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +- 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +- 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +- 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. +- 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +- 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +- 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +- 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char cs against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to + +Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated: 7/a9 + +Dated: + +Dated: + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby stales that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> It. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: q . / 27.741 By: + +Dated: + +Dated: 7 / 9-tt 07 + +Dated: + +A. A TILAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +La.LYANIMW ATTORNEY R JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ESQ. OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +A. VILLAFANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: + +Dated:4-41F 0?-- + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ANN , ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN [Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## EXHIBIT 4 + +## Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +IN RE: + +#### INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +#### ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify' certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: + +- 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +- 713. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to IS U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the anorney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: Jeffrey #1. Homan FAUSA +~~TO~~ A. [REDACTED] VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/29/07 + +![]()Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED] ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: *Jeffrey H. Howard* FAUSA +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: 10/29/07 + +*Gerald Lefcourt* +GERALD LEFCOURT ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED] ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +r + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and catifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Detect: AD /3 do + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated, CktPata' + +By: --4Y6f,/et, ARA U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LBFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY A ANCHEZ,ESa. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +# EXHIBIT 5 State Information + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +#### IN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB) + +STATE OF FLORIDA + +vs. + +JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, + +owe" 932/ + +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.: 2006036744 + +#### INFORMATION FOR: + +#### 1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION + +yea •\_— \_ • .-..••• '•-• -n + +n cs + +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: en 1.4, + +BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach QAty,lorida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between the 1 m day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, M. a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) + +FL. + +A BAR gekk NO. 0776726 + +Assistant State Attorney + +STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH + +Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under oath has been received from the material witness or witneMQs for the off + +LB/dp naC + +Assistant State Attorney + +Sworn to and subscribed to before me th' 414/ day of June, 2008. + +Dynode PM MeaNSCSON • DOMINI EMS + +![](_page_346_Picture_29.jpeg) + +NOTARY PUBLIC, e of Florida + +#### FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: + +#### 1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699 + +![](_page_346_Picture_27.jpeg) + +STATE Of FLORIDA • PALM BEACH COUNTY + +I hereby beady that the foregoing is a Hue Copy lit ancompt)eteecoro in my office. + +SHARON R. • 20 + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a5f55929cb8947ac347a4d38fb717a6e8206786 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/EFTA02830776.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,19892 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 348, + "chars": 1064693, + "elapsed_seconds": 82.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_28_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_32_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_37_Diagram_2.jpeg", + "_page_82_Picture_125.jpeg", + "_page_82_Picture_133.jpeg", + "_page_129_Diagram_1.jpeg", + "_page_215_Diagram_2.jpeg", + "_page_222_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_223_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_248_Picture_16.jpeg", + "_page_249_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_318_Picture_218.jpeg", + "_page_346_Picture_29.jpeg", + "_page_346_Picture_27.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 453.2246398925781, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 453.2246398925781, + 137.28924560546875 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 137.28924560546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OFFICE OF \nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY \nREPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 486.7413330078125, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 486.7413330078125, + 428.6592712402344 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 428.6592712402344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7486267089844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7486267089844, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 240.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 240.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 407.99615478515625, + 479.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 479.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.76695251464844, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.76695251464844, + 358.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 358.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 452.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 497.20428466796875, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 344.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 534.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 579.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 579.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 308.7191162109375, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 308.7191162109375, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 385.7106628417969, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 385.7106628417969, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. \nTHE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE \nDEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.7049560546875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.7049560546875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO \nRESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 35", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 542.295654296875, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 542.295654296875, + 494.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 494.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND \nUNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR \nSTANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN \nNEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.6166381835938, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.6166381835938, + 127.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 127.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE \nINFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA \nTERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND \nBENEFITS TO EPSTEIN 140", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 542.563720703125, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 542.563720703125, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER ONE \nSIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.06, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 457.6080322265625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 457.6080322265625, + 116.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 156.06, + 116.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 142.4815673828125 + ], + [ + 467.1540222167969, + 142.4815673828125 + ], + [ + 467.1540222167969, + 156.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 156.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District \nof Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice 2006 - 2008", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 299.376, + 58.59 + ], + [ + 491.832, + 58.59 + ], + [ + 491.832, + 104.58 + ], + [ + 299.376, + 104.58 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 393.9471435546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 393.9471435546875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 519.3194580078125, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 519.3194580078125, + 356.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 356.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation Mid-2006 through Mid-2009", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.152, + 100.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 562.3199999999999, + 100.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 562.3199999999999, + 130.41 + ], + [ + 262.152, + 130.41 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.623779296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.623779296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Jeffrey Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 224.55340576171875, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 224.55340576171875, + 113.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 291.38836669921875, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 291.38836669921875, + 398.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 398.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO \nTHE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT \nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 442.7186584472656, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 442.7186584472656, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 182.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. MARCH 2005 \u2014 MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM \nBEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE \nATTORNEY'S OFFICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 428.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 428.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 406.7904052734375, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 406.7904052734375, + 455.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 455.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation \u2014 May 2006 through October 2008", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 53.85600000000001, + 48.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 713.0841064453125, + 48.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 713.0841064453125, + 70.4097900390625 + ], + [ + 53.85600000000001, + 70.4097900390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 543.5128784179688, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 543.5128784179688, + 222.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 432.798583984375, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 432.798583984375, + 427.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 427.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's \nHandling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 140.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE \nTEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 480.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 480.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. May 2006 \u2014 February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the \nUSAO Opens a Case File", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 522.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 522.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 474.4681396484375, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 474.4681396484375, + 140.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 140.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 506.24334716796875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 506.24334716796875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. July 14, 2006: Villafana Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 532.7026977539062, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 532.7026977539062, + 343.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 343.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves \nForward with a Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. October 2006 \u2014 February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate \nContact with Villafana, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 543.748291015625, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 543.748291015625, + 275.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 275.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafafia and \nPresent the Defense Objections to a Federal Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 248.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 248.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 277.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 277.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. February \u2014 May 2007: Villafaila and the FBI Continue to Investigate; \nVillafafia Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for \nUSAO Managers to Review", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 603.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 603.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. May \u2014 June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum \nand Proposed Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.0756225585938, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.0756225585938, + 248.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 248.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which \nVillafafia Opposes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 396.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 396.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 425.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 425.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. June 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 484.94561767578125, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 484.94561767578125, + 331.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 331.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 397.9441223144531, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 397.9441223144531, + 615.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 615.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO \nRESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 482.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 482.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. June \u2014 July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the \nDefense Rejects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 484.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 484.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based \nResolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 542.5975952148438, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 542.5975952148438, + 358.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 358.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. July 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State \nResolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 263.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 263.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Villafafia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from \nEpstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 70, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 542.990478515625, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 542.990478515625, + 551.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 551.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 153.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of \nIncarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 367.91192626953125, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 367.91192626953125, + 412.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 412.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence \nwith a Two-Year Term of Incarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 74, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 543.419677734375, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 543.419677734375, + 397.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 397.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Villafafia Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential \nAgreement with the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 196.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 196.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 411.162109375, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 411.162109375, + 105.2005615234375 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 105.2005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 151.776, + 118.25999999999999 + ], + [ + 447.6934509277344, + 118.25999999999999 + ], + [ + 447.6934509277344, + 131.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 151.776, + 131.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD \nGUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF \nINCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE \nTO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 543.5107421875, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 543.5107421875, + 576.4740600585938 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 576.4740600585938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which \nMakes a Counteroffer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 542.4445190429688, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 542.4445190429688, + 154.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of \nImprisonment Is the Minimum That will Vindicate the Federal Interest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 80, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 435.7800000000001 + ], + [ + 544.6800000000001, + 435.7800000000001 + ], + [ + 544.6800000000001, + 466.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 466.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet \nwith Acosta", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 84, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 235.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 235.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 84, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 453.3883972167969, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 453.3883972167969, + 262.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 262.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are \nPostponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafana's Efforts to \nObtain the Computer Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 246.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 246.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI \nM\nors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 87, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 340.4490661621094 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 340.4490661621094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE \nPROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 88, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 290.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 290.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 88, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 487.88385009765625, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 487.88385009765625, + 548.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State \nAttorney", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 89, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.4459228515625, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.4459228515625, + 506.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 506.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was \nReduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 91, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 439.5635681152344 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 439.5635681152344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to \nFederal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 93, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6776123046875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6776123046875, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 97, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 506.35052490234375, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 506.35052490234375, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of \nthe Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 98, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 447.12000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 447.12000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 476.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 476.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Villafaiia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges \nThat They \"Try to Work It Out\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 101, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8042602539062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8042602539062, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaila Sends a Final Version \nto the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 102, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 542.48291015625, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 542.48291015625, + 208.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA \n\"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender \nRegistration Requirement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 103, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.22119140625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.22119140625, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge \"Potential Co-Conspirators\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 104, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 527.4740600585938, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 527.4740600585938, + 493.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 493.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender \nRegistration Requirement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 106, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 542.8189697265625, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 542.8189697265625, + 344.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 344.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 108, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 367.2800598144531, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 367.2800598144531, + 503.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 503.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS \nSIGNED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 109, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.7278442382812, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.7278442382812, + 182.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 112, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 268.8005676269531, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 268.8005676269531, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. September \u2014 October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an \nAttorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 112, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 543.1033935546875, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 543.1033935546875, + 275.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 275.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Leflcowitz Meet for Breakfast", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 114, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.1506958007812, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.1506958007812, + 548.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the \nParties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative \nand Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 116, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 248.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 248.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 119, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 346.5917053222656, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 346.5917053222656, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's \u00a7 2255 Provision Relating to \nMonetary Damages for the Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 119, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.7169189453125, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.7169189453125, + 479.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 479.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It \nand Accuse Villafaiia of Improper Conduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 123, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 544.8694458007812, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 544.8694458007812, + 192.43359375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 192.43359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters \nand \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about the Federal Investigation \nand Villafafia", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 123, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.0811767578125, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.0811767578125, + 246.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 246.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 124, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 166.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO\u2019s Actions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 124, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 408.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA \u00a7 2255 Language concerning \nMonetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 125, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.2133178710938, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.2133178710938, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Who Makes \nAdditional Allegations of USAO Misconduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 126, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 543.7667846679688, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 543.7667846679688, + 291.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 291.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 127, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 403.164306640625, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 403.164306640625, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. FEBRUARY \u2014JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 128, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 435.30413818359375, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 435.30413818359375, + 181.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 181.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. February \u2014 May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 129, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 510.2463073730469, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 510.2463073730469, + 555.1125183105469 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 555.1125183105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. May \u2014 June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 133, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 534.1865234375, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 534.1865234375, + 262.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 262.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. JUNE 2008 \u2013 JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 135, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 396.90000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 136, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 464.416748046875, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 464.416748046875, + 222.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 138, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 325.1179504394531, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 325.1179504394531, + 206.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 206.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 142, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 306.64752197265625, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 306.64752197265625, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 144, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2749938964844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2749938964844, + 88.62091064453125 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 88.62091064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 144, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 144, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 317.24615478515625, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 317.24615478515625, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 348.3901672363281, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 348.3901672363281, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The United States Attorneys' Manual", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 339.13360595703125, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 339.13360595703125, + 152.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 152.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a \nFederal Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 542.2840576171875, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 542.2840576171875, + 615.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 615.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. USAM \u00a7 9-2.031: The Petite Policy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 147, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 363.68084716796875, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 363.68084716796875, + 425.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 425.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 148, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 490.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 423.32489013671875, + 490.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 423.32489013671875, + 505.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 505.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 149, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 487.45489501953125, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 487.45489501953125, + 613.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 613.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 150, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 440.73388671875, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 440.73388671875, + 275.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 275.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. USAMJC.F.R. Provisions Relating to financial Conflicts of Interest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 150, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 526.932, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 526.932, + 368.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 368.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Other Depa t merit Policies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 150, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 284.6733703613281, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 284.6733703613281, + 571.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 571.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 150, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 583.2 + ], + [ + 484.6004943847656, + 583.2 + ], + [ + 484.6004943847656, + 599.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 599.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 152, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.25537109375, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.25537109375, + 126.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 126.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Case Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 152, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 197.41639709472656, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 197.41639709472656, + 531.1124877929688 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 531.1124877929688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Prosecutorial Discretion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 152, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 542.7 + ], + [ + 307.02264404296875, + 542.7 + ], + [ + 307.02264404296875, + 558.1125030517578 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 558.1125030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 153, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 655.29 + ], + [ + 493.27200000000005, + 655.29 + ], + [ + 493.27200000000005, + 669.06 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 669.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. State Bar Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 154, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 227.55722045898438, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 227.55722045898438, + 481.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 481.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. FRPC 4-1.1 \u2014 Competence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 155, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 318.4812316894531, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 318.4812316894531, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. FRPC 4-1.3 \u2014 Diligence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 155, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 302.20574951171875, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 302.20574951171875, + 370.863037109375 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 370.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. FRPC 4-4.1 \u2014 Candor in Dealing with Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 155, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 475.4699999999999 + ], + [ + 414.54400634765625, + 475.4699999999999 + ], + [ + 414.54400634765625, + 491.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 491.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. FRPC 4-8.4 \u2014 Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 156, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 524.08203125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 524.08203125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 158, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.2291564941406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.2291564941406, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART THREE: ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 158, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 158, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS \nACCOUNTABLE FOR IT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 158, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 544.3980712890625, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 544.3980712890625, + 535.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 535.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND \nUNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR \nSTANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN \nNEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 159, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.5278930664062, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.5278930664062, + 441.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 441.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as \nThey Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute \nEpstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 160, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.5234985351562, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.5234985351562, + 153.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a \nNon-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 161, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.896728515625, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.896728515625, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and \nUnambiguous Standards", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 162, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.7716674804688, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.7716674804688, + 139.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 139.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required \nEpstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of \nIncarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 162, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 492.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 492.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified \"Potential Co-Conspirators\" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 164, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 329.66999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation \nof Criminal Aliens", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE \nINFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS \nFAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO \nEPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.1412353515625, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.1412353515625, + 534.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 534.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, \nor Illegal Political or Personal Consideration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 166, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 544.7528076171875, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 544.7528076171875, + 563.6835174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 563.6835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did \nNot Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly \nInfluenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 167, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 542.3530883789062, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 542.3530883789062, + 277.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 277.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing \nThat the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 167, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 543.6044311523438, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 543.6044311523438, + 509.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 509.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable \nStrategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 168, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 543.0693359375, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 543.0693359375, + 209.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 209.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records \nIdentified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal \nTheories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 169, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 277.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 277.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the \nSubjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 174, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense \nCounsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors \nEstablished That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided \nImproper Benefits to Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 175, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 543.4356689453125, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 543.4356689453125, + 289.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 289.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any \nImproper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships \nwith His Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 175, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.3334350585938, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.3334350585938, + 424.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 424.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel \nDid Not Influence Their Actions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 519.21 + ], + [ + 543.0341186523438, + 519.21 + ], + [ + 543.0341186523438, + 548.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 548.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense \nCounsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 180, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 384.75 + ], + [ + 542.9526977539062, + 384.75 + ], + [ + 542.9526977539062, + 413.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 413.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with \nEpstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 180, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 542.5451049804688, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 542.5451049804688, + 520.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 520.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal \nFavorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 185, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Villafana's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA \nNegotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafla, or Other Subjects, Intended to \nGive Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or \nOther Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 188, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 543.58056640625, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 543.58056640625, + 384.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 384.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to \nthe NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute \"Potential Co-conspirators\" \nin Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential \nAssociates", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 191, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.8630981445312, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.8630981445312, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. OPR\u2019s Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 193, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 548.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 194, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 438.21000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea \nunder Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application \nof the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the \nSignificant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 195, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 315.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 372.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 372.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was \nUndermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative \nSteps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 200, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.3487548828125, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.3487548828125, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of \nIncarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It \nSatisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 204, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 543.458984375, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 543.458984375, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 207, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 437.16217041015625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 437.16217041015625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 207, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 515.54443359375, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 515.54443359375, + 673.483024597168 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 673.483024597168 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 214, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS \nAND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS \nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND \ninvestigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page. \nII. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3771 \nA. History \nVictim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261\namendment guaranteeing victims' rights, some of which had previously been codified as a victims' \n260 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii (Dec. 1982).", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 214, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.55999755859375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 542.578125, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 542.578125, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 71.55999755859375, + 680.4 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 214, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 214, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 345.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 345.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 214, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 371.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.0, + 73.08000000000001 + ], + [ + 583.70166015625, + 73.08000000000001 + ], + [ + 583.70166015625, + 90.63043212890625 + ], + [ + 198.0, + 90.63043212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Enumerated Rights", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 216, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 164.43 + ], + [ + 247.8379669189453, + 164.43 + ], + [ + 247.8379669189453, + 179.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF \n\"CRIME VICTIM\" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 217, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.5821533203125, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.5821533203125, + 483.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 483.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel \"Preliminary Review\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 217, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 454.8138122558594, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 454.8138122558594, + 510.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 510.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 218, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 500.27789306640625, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 500.27789306640625, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME \nOF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 219, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 543.0752563476562, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 543.0752563476562, + 561.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 561.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. USAO Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 219, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 229.48663330078125, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 229.48663330078125, + 588.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Automated Victim Notification System", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 220, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 368.60418701171875, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 368.60418701171875, + 153.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 221, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 325.5195007324219, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 325.5195007324219, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 221, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 462.7061462402344, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 462.7061462402344, + 290.9830017089844 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 290.9830017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 221, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 405.13287353515625, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 405.13287353515625, + 317.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 317.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 223, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 380.9046630859375, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 380.9046630859375, + 319.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 225, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 371.0744934082031, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 371.0744934082031, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH \nVICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 225, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 422.01000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.099609375, + 422.01000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.099609375, + 453.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 453.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about \nResolving the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 226, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.3265380859375, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.3265380859375, + 140.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims Have \nNot Been Consulted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 227, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.0919799804688, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.0919799804688, + 387.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 387.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 227, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 462.01275634765625, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 462.01275634765625, + 453.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 453.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to \nConsult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do \nNot Currently Recall Such Instructions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 229, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.1922607421875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.1922607421875, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. September 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, \nof OoSterbaan's Opinion That (onsultation with Victims Was \nRequired", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 229, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 543.4263305664062, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 543.4263305664062, + 455.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 455.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE \nUSAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 231, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 385.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 385.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. September \u2014 October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the \nNPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential \nImpeachment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 232, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 235, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 543.281494140625, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 543.281494140625, + 248.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 248.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. October \u2014 November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, \nand the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is \n\"Under Investigation\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 236, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.393798828125, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.393798828125, + 425.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 425.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter \nabout Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal \nInvestigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 237, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 360.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 360.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to \nthe State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea \nHearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution. \"as \nRequired by Law\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 241, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.6826782226562, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.6826782226562, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. January \u2014 June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department \nin an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating \nEpstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 245, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 543.572509765625, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 543.572509765625, + 409.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 409.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein \nWill Breach the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 245, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 542.9334106445312, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 542.9334106445312, + 625.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 625.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 246, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 273.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.274658203125, + 273.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.274658203125, + 289.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 289.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Villatafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 249, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 527.8753051757812, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 527.8753051757812, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. February \u2014 March 2008: Villafafia Takes Additional Steps to Prepare \nfor a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for \nVictims, and Cautions about Continued Delay", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 252, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.846923828125, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.846923828125, + 289.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 289.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. March \u2014 April 2008: Villafaiia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal \nCharges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 252, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 543.78955078125, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 543.78955078125, + 587.6835174560547 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 587.6835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED \nMATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 253, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.1741333007812, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.1741333007812, + 344.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFARA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY \nREPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA \nPETITIONERS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 254, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0225219726562, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0225219726562, + 524.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 524.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA \nHEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 256, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.010498046875, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.010498046875, + 330.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 330.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT \nHEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 259, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.4500732421875, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.4500732421875, + 387.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 387.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 260, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 365.5175476074219, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 365.5175476074219, + 520.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 520.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafana Notifies Some \nVictims' Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 260, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 543.4197998046875, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 543.4197998046875, + 562.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 562.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 261, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 388.51031494140625, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 388.51031494140625, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. July 2008: Villafaila Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 262, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.914794921875, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.914794921875, + 140.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. July \u2014 August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims \nResiding Outside of the United States", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 263, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 515.16 + ], + [ + 543.6547241210938, + 515.16 + ], + [ + 543.6547241210938, + 545.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 545.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. August \u2014 September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose \nthe NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 264, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 543.4359130859375, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 543.4359130859375, + 289.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 289.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. 2010 \u2014 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding \nInterpretation of the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 266, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.750244140625, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.750244140625, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 267, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 426.1308898925781, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 426.1308898925781, + 332.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 332.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 272, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 272, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 272, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 263.87677001953125, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 263.87677001953125, + 154.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 154.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3771", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 272, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 294.6502380371094, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 294.6502380371094, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. \u00a7 20141, \nServices to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA \u00a7 10607)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.2992553710938, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.2992553710938, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(b) Identification of victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 211.55906677246094, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 211.55906677246094, + 127.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 127.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Description of services", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 205.52259826660156, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 205.52259826660156, + 293.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 293.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(1) A responsible official shall\u2014", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 320.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 320.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a \nsuspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 481.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 481.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a \nvictim the earliest possible notice of\u2014", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 523.1835327148438 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 523.1835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Definitions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 148.64300537109375, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 148.64300537109375, + 168.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 168.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR \nVICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.4431762695312, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.4431762695312, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 299.3919677734375, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 299.3919677734375, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Investigation Stage", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 203.15304565429688, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 203.15304565429688, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Description of Services.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 241.5899200439453, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 241.5899200439453, + 592.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 592.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Information, Notice, and Referral", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.952, + 604.26 + ], + [ + 300.9696044921875, + 604.26 + ], + [ + 300.9696044921875, + 620.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 119.952, + 620.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Prosecution Stage", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 196.4454345703125, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 196.4454345703125, + 664.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 664.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Services to Crime Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 276, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 253.37261962890625, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 253.37261962890625, + 127.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 127.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Information, Notice, and Referrals", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 276, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 309.99078369140625, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 309.99078369140625, + 183.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 183.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Consultation With a Government Attorney", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 277, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.6773986816406, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.6773986816406, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 278, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 389.2443542480469, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 389.2443542480469, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. FRPC 4-4.1 \u2014 Candor in Dealing with Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 278, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.12481689453125, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.12481689453125, + 182.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 182.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. FRPC 4-8.4 \u2014 Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 278, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 488.32379150390625, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 488.32379150390625, + 291.8035583496094 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 291.8035583496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE \nPART THREE: ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 280, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 280, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS \nSTANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE \nVICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 280, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 543.530029296875, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 543.530029296875, + 524.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 524.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 281, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 304.56 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 304.56 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was \nIntended to Silence Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 283, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 456.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS \nBUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF 'f HE \nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 286, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.259033203125, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.259033203125, + 170.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 170.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the \nFBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of \nthe Case as \"Under Investigation\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 287, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the \nFBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the \nStatus of the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 288, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.7135009765625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.7135009765625, + 115.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 115.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S \nDISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE \nCOURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS \nSTANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY \nFAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL \nINVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 290, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to \nNotify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any \nClear or Unambiguous Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 290, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 631.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 631.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims \nIdentified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea \nHearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 294, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8318481445312, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8318481445312, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER \nORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN \nWHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS \"UNDER INVESTIGATION\" BUT DID \nNOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 298, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.4107055664062, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.4107055664062, + 441.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 441.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 305, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 165.24 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 165.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 308, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 86.67 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "METHODOLOGY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 312, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.38055419921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.38055419921875, + 88.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 88.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Document Review", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 312, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 240.04856872558594, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 240.04856872558594, + 116.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 116.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. USAO Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 312, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 261.7565612792969, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 261.7565612792969, + 239.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 239.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. EOUSA Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 312, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 269.5967102050781, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 269.5967102050781, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 391.5065612792969, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 391.5065612792969, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Criminal Division Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 320.2266845703125, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 320.2266845703125, + 457.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 457.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 425.2565612792969, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 425.2565612792969, + 620.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 620.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 514.18115234375, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 514.18115234375, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 528.8011474609375, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 528.8011474609375, + 208.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 208.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "8. Public Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 261.0065612792969, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 261.0065612792969, + 275.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 275.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 409.068115234375, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 409.068115234375, + 370.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 370.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Subjects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 226.51669311523438, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 226.51669311523438, + 397.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 397.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 234.31077575683594, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 234.31077575683594, + 520.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 520.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 626.13 + ], + [ + 460.9485168457031, + 626.13 + ], + [ + 460.9485168457031, + 642.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 642.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 316, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.66, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 429.42877197265625, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 429.42877197265625, + 286.39373779296875 + ], + [ + 186.66, + 286.39373779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "State Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 316, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 432.8835144042969, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 432.8835144042969, + 363.9734802246094 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 363.9734802246094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 318, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 38.07 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 38.07 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 53.46 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 318, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 428.4, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 428.4, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 287.54999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 320, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.272, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 430.6683044433594, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 430.6683044433594, + 286.39373779296875 + ], + [ + 187.272, + 286.39373779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 322, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 409.1628112792969, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 409.1628112792969, + 240.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 240.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 323, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 231.98573303222656, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 231.98573303222656, + 422.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 422.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 326, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 430.8329772949219, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 430.8329772949219, + 286.39373779296875 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 286.39373779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN RE: \nINVESTIGATION OF \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 328, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 119.88 + ], + [ + 199.33067321777344, + 119.88 + ], + [ + 199.33067321777344, + 163.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 163.99249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 328, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 401.71136474609375, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 401.71136474609375, + 206.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 206.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 330, + "polygon": [ + [ + 109.548, + 93.96000000000001 + ], + [ + 238.06463623046875, + 93.96000000000001 + ], + [ + 238.06463623046875, + 108.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 109.548, + 108.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.036, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 400.7774353027344, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 400.7774353027344, + 284.4734802246094 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 284.4734802246094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Addendum to the \nNon-Prosecution Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 522.0274658203125, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 522.0274658203125, + 386.9734802246094 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 386.9734802246094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVESTIGATION OF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 203.49673461914062, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 203.49673461914062, + 153.5850830078125 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 153.5850830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 377.8797302246094, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 377.8797302246094, + 219.5850830078125 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 219.5850830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 5 \nState Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 236.481689453125 + ], + [ + 441.3276062011719, + 236.481689453125 + ], + [ + 441.3276062011719, + 363.9734802246094 + ], + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 363.9734802246094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT \nIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA \nCRIMINAL DIVISION \"W\" (LB)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.116, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 481.4226379394531, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 481.4226379394531, + 88.863037109375 + ], + [ + 118.116, + 88.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INFORMATION FOR:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 363.8981628417969, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 363.8981628417969, + 214.10302734375 + ], + [ + 235.00799999999998, + 214.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 24.48, + 226.8 + ], + [ + 353.782470703125, + 226.8 + ], + [ + 353.782470703125, + 241.863037109375 + ], + [ + 24.48, + 241.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 24.48, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 194.49298095703125, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 194.49298095703125, + 683.6030197143555 + ], + [ + 24.48, + 683.6030197143555 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 24.48, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 315.18, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 315.18, + 696.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 24.48, + 696.7330169677734 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 127, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 128, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 129, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 130, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 131, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 132, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 133, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 134, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 135, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 136, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 137, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 138, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 139, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 140, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 141, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 142, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 143, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 144, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 145, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 146, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 147, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 148, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 149, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 150, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 151, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 152, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 153, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 154, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 155, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 156, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 157, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 158, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 159, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 160, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 161, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 162, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 163, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 164, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 165, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 166, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 167, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 168, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 169, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 170, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 171, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 172, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 173, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 174, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 175, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 176, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 177, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 178, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 179, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 180, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 181, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 142 + ], + [ + "Line", + 70 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 182, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 183, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 184, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 185, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 186, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 187, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 188, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 189, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 190, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 191, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 192, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 193, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 194, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 195, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 196, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 197, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 198, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 199, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 200, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 201, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 202, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 203, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 204, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 205, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 206, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 207, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 208, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 209, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 210, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 211, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 212, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 213, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 214, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 215, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 216, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 217, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 218, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 219, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 220, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 221, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 222, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 223, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 224, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 225, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 226, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 227, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 228, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 229, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 230, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 231, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 232, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 233, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 234, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 235, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 236, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 237, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 238, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 239, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 240, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 241, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 242, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 243, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 244, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 245, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 246, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 247, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 248, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 249, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 250, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 251, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 252, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 253, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 254, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 255, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 256, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 257, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 258, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 259, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 260, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 261, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 262, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 263, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 264, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 265, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 266, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 267, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 268, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 269, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 270, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 271, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 272, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 273, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 274, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 275, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 276, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 277, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 278, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 279, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 280, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 281, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 282, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 283, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 284, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 285, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 286, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 287, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 288, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 289, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 290, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 291, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 292, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 293, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 294, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 295, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 296, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 297, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 298, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 299, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 300, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 301, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 302, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 303, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 304, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 305, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 306, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 307, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 308, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 309, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 310, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 311, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 312, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 313, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 314, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 315, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 316, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 317, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 318, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 133 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 319, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 320, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 321, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 322, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 323, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 324, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 325, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 326, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 327, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 328, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 329, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 330, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 331, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 332, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 333, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 334, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 335, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 336, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 337, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 338, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 339, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 340, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 341, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 342, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 343, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 344, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 345, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 346, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 119 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 347, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02830776" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ccb60f693d00e42ea8a7b1581a697bad7b40c21 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3e172f8376e3b9416003e226daa28a2b1a5adbc1832edcba61343ca9a578eb5a +size 22821 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_129_Diagram_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_129_Diagram_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73ea37e0374028e291e93dfb53b7920f4289e4c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_129_Diagram_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dff9a4b32db9ed154bab412f05b89780f37f4688f2c536812e850a95e0aa0a74 +size 60672 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_215_Diagram_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_215_Diagram_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4e7e137ab4ff5e54d93c97827250c5853bbded9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_215_Diagram_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ba77aadd4614149dbd12b46712494ff85e871058d390df9012b3f743dd5a256c +size 152659 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_222_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_222_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e33fcfb984476bea3a24b5086be34584f7876594 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_222_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f9f3c7b295f01f21039dd438fc8fdd315776336d69dbcffba62364a6f332b7c9 +size 3901 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_223_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_223_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea459e0174f7d1a6b8caa15f4230416026607a8a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_223_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0fd2f266208c6ad672375765e9e47f7be2e9eaeff1c2d7fc83347137b192b299 +size 2446 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_248_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_248_Picture_16.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd56970fe286bf7b9a9260877ae904096983e525 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_248_Picture_16.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cb49030c8a75c7054e7dca2a11f417e25896419e60e952f9df1cc13651195429 +size 5139 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_249_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_249_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eae6442350341bf6151110e12945c1aac5b53cba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_249_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b44b8b9e92747f3d6d1c0c4aaa06417085bf92406a8bb21bbd1de6c15310f0ed +size 2600 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_28_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_28_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1eabe72f740eec6a0acc56c2edaef4c54d308f35 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_28_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dfb92eaec94ed5328a43f7c0cde59a3973442d15f8036a48a978b848c5c1763f +size 153018 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_318_Picture_218.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_318_Picture_218.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e026200ccb1b96124d3559884e34a0d933099a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_318_Picture_218.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:036722c64a76417ad0cc8940e84c7c2acddc191e629b6e954bd0a1ccb384b93b +size 7043 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_32_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_32_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..740a7ea256bba28830afd5b8abad301ee6c032ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_32_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:134d25921a6dff0cacbde6aac2dbdafdac2151a8f58fc2560ac4909380432279 +size 93197 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_27.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_27.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69667e78e9cf4680e49f44de92a6610b0de0bc05 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_27.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:92628df4c4148c63848462f9332a172925b0a3352aa890e7a6f7ffbd0f8410a8 +size 2730 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_29.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_29.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebcc1a0b2de9080d6dcb214c3aa6a4858f6bdf25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_346_Picture_29.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3f28b98a4e41555bc4ebc18746ea9e91f50bbb996d84792bc3b09b4be3a5ece2 +size 6717 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_37_Diagram_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_37_Diagram_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35e78cf47691da5d8e7e576d515e9d3f1b0bad3b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_37_Diagram_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1d760b8a7b5d989397cb04d4529aae3e1ca82a00f86dde36b347f425cb163444 +size 136727 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_125.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_125.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94a34b0b012cfa0c4d46aeb3044be290ad9246b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_125.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7f9983c8be2b3a9ba9ef00bb03a3d2d28edf19f8d9c2b2e17f3c935c362880af +size 5165 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_133.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_133.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c03ff26e404e17cbdaca2bfc3658d21ad2c5b273 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02830776/_page_82_Picture_133.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:749a6308ceec6e3a150b05b434f4e558a1cda5f1887dba38f3251ec59f92b910 +size 2376 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..749d47a1bb3cb8bc06794ccdc736d1f3e61da040 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +February 11, 2021 Call with Amanda Kramer + +Present on Conference Call: + +- AUSAs Lam Pomerantz & Maurene Comey +- FBI Special Agent Amanda Young +- Amanda Kramer +- Covington & Burling LLP General Counsel, Steve Anthony + +AK's recollections regarding February 29, 2016 Meeting: + +- AK confirmed the handwritten notes sent to AK by LP were AK's own notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- In advance of the meeting, AK remembers Pete Skinner reaching out to AK and asking if he could come in to present on a potential case with some other attorneys. AK doesn't recall how Skinner contacted AK. Skinner was at Boies Schiller at the time, Skinner and AK are friends and were in the SDNY USAO together. At this time, AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and believes she was also the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- Meeting took lace in a conference room at 1 St. Andrews Plaza USA() SDNY. Pete Skinner, Brad Stan Pottinger, and AK were at the meeting. o AK doesn't recall what each attorney's role was, but her notes say that they represented AK also understood that was involved in representing multiple individuals in a civil litigation involving the CVRA, but AK is not certain of that. o AK understood that Skinner or his colleagues at Boies were representin AK doesn't know if Skinner was involved in representing o Brad did most of the talking during the meeting. o AK recalls that Pete Skinner spoke a little bit, but AK doesn't recall what, if anything, he said on substance. AK doesn't remember what he said. +- AK understood the purpose of the meeting to be the attorneys presenting information that they believed or suggested should be the subject of a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. o AK understood that the attorneys were advocating that the Jeffrey Epstein case should be investigated by SDNY. +- LP directed AK to references to lawsuits on pages 4 and 7 of AK's notes from the meeting, and asked what AK recalls about what civil lawsuits she learned of during the meeting. o AK remembers there was a CVRA lawsuit that was mentioned. o AK remembers that there were other civil lawsuits mentioned. Aside from what is in AK's notes, AK has no memory of what those lawsuits were about or the nature of those lawsuits. o AK does not have an independent memory of the Guiffie v. Maxwell lawsuit being mentioned, and her memory is not refreshed from looking at the notes. + +- LP directed AK to "they will send me affidavits and depositions" on page 8 of AK's notes and asked if AK recalls what that line refers to and whether the attorneys sent AK any such materials. o AK does not recall what that line refers to. o AK does not recall if the attorneys sent her any such materials after the meeting. o AK does not believe the attorneys provided her any materials during the meeting. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys sent her something by email, but does not recall what it was. + - **One of the emails LP sent to AK was an email from Skinner to AK the evening of February 29, 2016 after the meeting sending AK documents. AK does not remember the particular documents she received. AK does not recall receiving any additional documents.** +- **AK remembers the mention of several people, including Ghislaine Maxwell as either in the context of who had benefited from the Florida NPA or who the people were that had worked for or helped Epstein. AK doesn't recall much specifics about Maxwell. Maxwell was not a focus of the meeting.** +- **AK does not recall the attorneys saying anything about what charges the office could bring. Related to that, AK recalls asking questions to understand what kind of charges they were proposing because it was not clear. The attorneys did not present particular statutes that might be pursued.** +- **AK recalls trying to understand what prior statements of existed in the context of assessing how much of a record there already was. AK recalls that the information about civil lawsuits came up when AK asked the attorneys what record there was of statements about Epstein, either in the context of the Florida case or otherwise. o AK's notes don't jog AK's memory of what she learned about prior statements. o AK does remember that there was some civil litigation, including CVRA litigation and some other civil case, and not just involving Virginia, but also civil litigation involving other potential witness or witnesses. AK's takeaway was that there was a large and potentially complicated record of civil litigation that would have to be at some point parsed through in assessing what any potential witness had said. It wasn't only that there was civil litigation involving Virginia, but there was also some person in Europe involved in litigation. AK felt this was a situation where there would be a lot of material to gather and read before talking to witnesses.** +- **AK doesn't remember being told any specific allegations victims had made against Maxwell. AK generally remembers Maxwell being mentioned as someone who had worked for Epstein. o Notes reflect that Maxwell was "head recruiter," but AK does not recall that description being attributed to any particular witness** + +- AK's recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. +- Discussion of Epstein's conduct expanded beyond Attorneys described the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided about I experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein's conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after Virginia was no longer involved. +- AK's understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information. +- AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the office would do about the information that was provided. o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened. + +Events after February 29, 2016 meeting: + +- After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan (Chief of Criminal Division at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with what the lawyers had shared, AK's thoughts, and thoughts. Decided on an action plan. o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case. AK mentioned that to o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn't clear there was any ongoing conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK's assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed. o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents in this area usually, in AK's experience, make collaborative decisions with the USAO. o AK & decided (don't recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach out to Sean (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like justice had not been served. +- After the meeting with , AK called Sean and relayed the summary of this and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked + +Sean to call AK back and let her know if the Florida agents had concerns. Sean never called AK back. AK doesn't recall ever affirmatively following up with Sean, but she took the radio silence to mean that the FBI agents in Florida did not express dissatisfaction. + +- No investigation was opened as a result of the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- No investigation into Epstein was opened while AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood coordinator. +- AK never met with any other Boies Schiller attorneys. AK does not recall ever speaking with David Boies at any point. +- AK never met with the attorneys from the February 29, 2016 meeting again. +- When asked what, if any, communications AK had with the attorneys, AK noted that she sees an email from May 2016 with Stan Pottenger. AK believes it's possible Stan called AK, but she does not remember that. +- AK does not recall any further conversations re Epstein in SDNY until much later when the Miami Herald series was published. + +AK confirmed she has read the Daily News Article LP sent + +- AK indicated that the article did not accurately describe AK's interactions with attorneys for +- AK's recollection is not that attorneys urged SDNY to open an investigation into "the duo." They were focused on Epstein. Maxwell was mentioned in passing, not as a target. +- AK did not participate in a second meeting with anyone. Had there been a meeting on this subject in the summer of 2016 in SDNY, AK would have known about it in her capacity as Human Trafficking Coordinator. o AK had been in that role since approximately 2010, and if someone came in to meet with a unit chief about a potential human trafficking matter, AK would get contacted about the meeting. AK met with chiefs to gather information about any cases they had that touched on human trafficking so that AK could coordinate. So if a second meeting had taken with a supervisor in the office, AK would have known about it. Dan also would have brought AK in if he learned of a second meeting. o AK would have made a record if there had ever been a second meeting. AK would remember if there were a second meeting. She has no record and no memory of any second meeting. +- AK does not recall ever speaking with or meeting David Boies in her life, so to her knowledge, Boies was not making any effort to persuade SDNY to investigate Epstein. AK noted it is possible Boies could have been on the phone if Stan Pottinger called AK in or around May of 2016, but AK has no recollection of such a call. +- AK does not recall the attorney presentation being framed on highlighting Maxwell's assistance with Epstein's sexual abuse. It was not presented as a "duo." AK recalls the mention of a pilot and the mention of someone having an address book, so other people were mentioned as part of telling the story of Epstein. + +- AK did not express any concerns about anything to the attorneys. AK may have asked something like whether the attorneys are asking SDNY to re-do the Florida investigation because AK was trying to understand what the attorneys were proposing: was it looking at the same conduct that was investigated in Florida and mishandled, or was it looking at different conduct and possibly ongoing conduct? AK recalls asking questions to clarify that point. +- AK is sure one of the things she asked would have been venue oriented to understand what the attorneys were describing and what the conduct was. AK would not have responded to a question asking about why AK wouldn't just open an investigation. Purpose of the meeting was for AK to understand what the attorneys were trying to convey, not for AK to make any representation about her thoughts or what she was going to do. +- Brad book suggesting that the AUSA seemed "confident that a case would be brought" does not seem accurate to AK. AK did not intend to give such an impression during the meeting. That decision is not one for AK to make alone, in any event. +- AK does not recall any mention that the number of victims in NY far exceeded the number in Florida. +- Brad description of wanting a case against Epstein is consistent with AK's recollection that the focus was on Epstein. +- If anyone called AK, she does not remember that, and she would not have mentioned the comity shown to other USAOs around the country. +- AK does not recall anyone ever approaching her to ask if SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys called or emailed AK at some point and told her that there had been depositions, presumably by contact from one of these lawyers, but AK cannot recall the specifics. AK does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury. o AK recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have the same challenges. AK recalls thinking in her mind that if the depositions were about the underlying conduct that had all of the issues that gave AK pause after the meeting (length of time that had passed, sense there must have been a reason SDFL resolved the case the way they did) were not alleviated by a perjury-based prosecution. o AK does not recall ever knowing anything about the substance of the depositions and does not remember anyone sending her a deposition transcript. o AK does not remember who had been deposed or who might have been the subject of a possible perjury investigation. o No investigation into perjury was ever opened. +- AK took no further action re Epstein after calling Sean o Though there may be emails or calls AK cannot remember, she knows that she took no action after the call to Sean . Part of the reason AK felt horrible when readini•liami Herald article was because AK took no action after calling Sean + +When the Topic of Epstein Came Back up with the Miami Herald Article + +- Arose when AK was in Securities. AK was no longer the Human Trafficking Coordinator or the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- AK may have told someone that there had been a presentation for SDNY to prosecute Epstein. AK read the article and was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with AK's assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016. +- AK remembers speaking with someone in Public Corruption about the February 29, 2016 meeting and shared her notes and emails with Public Corruption. +- AK remembers that someone from the original case team (thinks Alison Moe) came by her office and they chatted. AK may have also spoken with Alex Rossmiller or Ted Diskant, but is not sure. o When speaking with members of the Public Corruption team: AK remembers telling them that she felt terrible reading the Miami Herald series. AK remembers telling them that she had the impression that the lawyers who came in to meet with AK were disorganized, and AK's impression was that they thought it would help the CVRA case if SDNY opened a criminal case. o AK is sure that she gave Alison whatever she had, including the notes that LP emailed AK. AK handed to Alison whatever was in AK's folder. o AK does not remember having any documents or receiving any documents from the attorneys. o AK remembers understanding that Public Corruption had opened an investigation into Epstein. +- AK did not play any role in opening the SDNY investigation into Epstein. +- To AK's knowledge, AK has not received any discovery materials from any civil case. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1877dbe134e1645b98b25b46eb12056d697d6ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124/EFTA02831124.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831124.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 15654, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831124" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04a679a94130d8a1afb7f8a538f845398c1344e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.md @@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ +① + +P. Skinner +Brad Edwards +Stan Pottinger +A. Kramer (notes) + +2/29/16 + +BE - rep. Virginia Roberts +SP - rep. Virginia + +Re: +Virginia Roberts +Cano now lives in +[REDACTED] + +Long history of litigation + +BE + +- - Int. inv. into Jeffrey Epstein was done by local Palm Beach PD $\approx$ 2005 +- - randed up app. 24 girls molested by JE +- - represented about 10 girls +- - JE's MO - w/ adults they'd tell B.Yr. old girl "Came to rich guy's have to give paid massage. JE naked - stars as massage externate downed of sex acts (if you want & do it). After paid 200/300 - their offered \$00-300 fiders fee. Victims recruited other victims. Mother complained + instructed PD. +- - PD turned case over to FBI + USAD. Most of girls (appr. 40+) in FL. Nuflight (orgs. Issued GJ subpoenas. Epstein + 4 named co-compromisers) +- - Entered into a nin pros w/ guilty plea for state ct. to 2001-2007 procuring monarch prost. + immune from fed. pros for sex crimes comm. in FL O b/w 2001 - 2007 +- - Jerry Lefcart, Jay Lefkowitz, Ken Sturr, Roy Black, Epstein, Martin Winberg, Gry Lewis - never Jerry storged anything +- - SDFL - at of Palm Beach, Maria Vietngma, Alex Arosh, US Aity. +- - Limited to FL in pros. + +(2) + +- - US Attorney has said cald be prosecuted elsewhere +- - Agmt. under 2255 if victim elect to proceed under 2255 + forfeit civil remedies Epstein must pay stat. min. 50k or 150k. At least 12 proceeded under that provision + +- Named + +![](_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg) + +Ghislaine Maxwell - daughter of Robert Maxwell - head recorder + +- - Evidence = 2000 (virgin roberts - her case unknown @ time) +- - NO END? + +![](_page_1_Picture_17.jpeg) + +(3) + +![](_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg) + +Virginia Roberts + +- - Withouted summer 2000 @ rage 16 ([REDACTED]) - about to turn 17 +- - taken to NY for training by Maxwell Epstein - how to sence men +- - in Cin. base, got records con. her as his phone +- - she goes to private island Little St. James - USVI +- - few miles off St. Ann +- - Virginia said that in affidavit - same time hopper - +- - 2000 - 2002 was live in Fox Slave - FOX Epstein + others +- - Promised ledge in major then + +(4) + +- - (2) (8) told by Epstein too old +- - (3) turning 19 went to Thailand to get underage girl + fled to [redacted] where lived for a decade. +- - filed cont lawsuit in 2015 - determination suit against Maxwell +- - she went public by atty. declaration in FL suit. +- - FL suit - pro beno - crime network rights aggr - against USAO b/c they didn't interview girls +- - Virginia Roberts moved to poin those suits +- - in 2011 a British reporter Andrew + interviewed her about Prince Andrew. Also said met [redacted] +- - said was Epstein sex slave +- - 2011 was first atty of her. +- - FBI went + interviewed Virginia - FL FBI - 302 FBI FL wants to pursue inv. Agents Josean Richards + Nesbit Karkendal + +Virginia + +![](_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg) + +(5) + +![](_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg) + +- - 2010 - civil depos. of Epstein former latter Affardo Rodriguez. Bel. Epstein + Morewell were gay to kill him. Dawnloaded their black book. BBD went to FBI, made contact call, they arrested him + he went to prison for destruction. Pled to cap. right + blew dead 67c he was selling AK-47s. +- - tricolts sell Book. Explained have it all used in recorded mtgs. FBI agent vane +- - Rodriguez died in jail. +- - Agent filed affairs in destruction case. +- - Epstein's lawyers said his property + +1997-JNS flight logs + manifests + +CP - Virginia + +- - Have been told Epstein had photos in house in PB + NY + USVI +- - One photo is a photo of Virginia w/ another girl - noted + in sexual pose - on his wall - artistic - mistake agents + +CP? + +(6) + +- Photos of naked girls on Maxwell's comp. + +\* SW executed an PB house. College of photos included nake girls incl. clients. Epstein tipped off. All compters were gone. + +- Varginia says cameras all over NY house. She believes they were used for extortion or bins by Epstein. When leaf out to others more had to repair back. + +- Videos recording batteries - recardy? security? + +- Maxwell + [REDACTED] took sexually explicit photos of her regularly + +- Maxwell gave photo to Epstein for today @ age 16. + +- Photo hing in one of the homes + +- Saved as computers. + +[REDACTED] + +- Subp. issued for computers + +Registered as sex offender in PL + +↳ level 3 + +USMS + +Registered in NY + +Report by purate jet + +[SECRET] Sex acts on planes -- + +Manhattan + +(7) + +![](_page_6_Picture_16.jpeg) + +Virginia wants prosecution. [redacted] feels still to do something about it. + +From 2014/2015, she believed it was summer 1999. As it turns out, it was summer of 2000. + +She has lawsuit against Moxawell for defamation. There is defense. + +She wants settlement (petty - into non-profit to help girls in same situation) + +- of father net. + +- award of save. + +Her father [redacted] negotiated a settlement w/ Epstein + she has a confidentiality provision limited among Epstein's attorneys reached at + neg. settlement. + +Ded EBI search his planes? Ded they find held out among [redacted]? + +Cancer active pedophile. + +Pitch to other prosecutors? no + +Book deal? not now + +- 20/20 interview last soning > ABC killed it - lawyers piled it but they still have it + +- Have pursuing of diary + +(8) + +![](_page_7_Picture_9.jpeg) + +- They will send me attendants & deporting + +- Blond, part. size & shape. + +- Wanted to have baby w/ her. - + +- Same MO w/ one other circum - 17 yr. old - enrolls w/ her + +- As young as 12 but younger the better. + +Virginia enrolled Epstein + +Thaland - own charges & handsomething note w/ name of girl - united by Max well. + +![](_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Cans Action + +Omani InMY + +Wrongful Deals + +Whistablowee Cases + +WWW.PATHT0JUSTICE.00M + +, Jaffe, Weissing, Fibs aLehrman, P.L. + +![](_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg) + +## STAN POTTINGER + +![](_page_8_Picture_17.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52f32737a88a9086ece8ee51ab34d85f9c353295 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/EFTA02831130.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,446 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 5740, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.68, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_17.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_6_Picture_16.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_9.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_17.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Long history of litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.984, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 297.305, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 297.305, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 102.984, + 307.79999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.59400000000001, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 119.535, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 119.535, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 84.59400000000001, + 336.15 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Virginia Roberts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.04899999999998, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 238.45699999999997, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 238.45699999999997, + 570.24 + ], + [ + 106.04899999999998, + 570.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STAN POTTINGER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 394.159, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 509.66632080078125, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 509.66632080078125, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 394.159, + 224.37 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831130" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7ce455af0b15b0b8394287c9329af6c3c2577d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:32d7efebbff0892ae90f75dd5124db348f86f85a582a5e190d63a88dfadf1242 +size 7938 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_17.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23b81c8d70e5c381e272030a572a20fc657f42c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_1_Picture_17.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5ffb7dafaec1417463a640f1ecfff766c73b6646aed6796621d6a7a5e77127f4 +size 25134 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efffd94ca9a598d4486fda480587cee7d15ffa93 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:26d7ada28f0c7154827fbd1b02d056f7b75b51952e654db48dc7daa1d9e30dec +size 32423 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff64b6731903e5d3286a35c775abab4ee9ee2452 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:46d2d4da7499d2ee1fa6ada7e6c0013ab26bf7b4a8d22a256269d75f4da19b75 +size 18935 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..920d10f81ca14bcb7ff3de2a832aa92e2bf49229 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_4_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:92de693044d41898e987c4af0a8f69be7d2e1486a56d755633d8e93f67b23102 +size 15272 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_6_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_6_Picture_16.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61e95116a2929a2e0e59fa76777fa13fe8ba2219 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_6_Picture_16.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:272879b0fa6ce9d46ef9dc7553e257dbaca0cf664bb5fb65181845acdf173ce0 +size 12505 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_7_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_7_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..378f1a41309d71137c0ad3788ecfecaf042a3cba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_7_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e050fa02704ab8ff579475bf31b3461608e7e485ff9726d02cb84ac422aef03e +size 8511 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9438b705a0c508e5f42c20ae417bf75bcc0141a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9fa212396583c516569fe0afef39e3bc40f16102e28eb6d6a176d3e90e2f62cc +size 3756 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_17.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..015e36ba2d65cc3d3cb13cbdd92abc2ef152f305 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_17.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:83907feb4aefdec518c0790e06889924582f474b9112f88a21cc63f84e767827 +size 3982 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1046f08d262190debd1300b534ceb1aecae3f99 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831130/_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3933c56ef2c4870477ddf20bd0ff42d111613e7203bfe4b673fab4158aa7b754 +size 6999 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e02b275ea929078a520073d5ba8fc48cbca4b84e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +From: Kramer. Amanda f I !SAWS) To: jllckant. Edward fUSANYS8 fames. f I ICANYS,1; Kurland Abram! fUSANYS1 Subject: FW: Virginia Guiffre Date: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:01:53 PM + +From: Peter Skinner + +Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:28 PM + +To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) + +Cc: StanPottinger@aol.com; brad@pathtojustice.com; Sigrid McCawley + +Subject: RE: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +If you haven't already seen it, the Post reported today on Jeffrey Epstein's continued relationships with young women. + +htto•//oagesix com/2016/03/08/jeffrev-eosteins-east-side-mansion-houses-russianplaymates/ + +Best, Pete + +From: Peter Skinner + +Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:13 PM + +To: Amanda Kramer + +Cc: StanPottingerr&aol com; firadenathtojustice.corn; Sigrid McCawley + +Subject: Re: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +I am adding Sigrid McCawley to this email chain as well. As we mentioned earlier today, Sigrid is one of the lead attorneys on the case and knows both Virginia and the facts very well. Please include Sigrid in any follow-up that you may. + +Best, Pete + +From: Peter Skinner + +Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:03 PM + +Cc: "StanPottingerPaol coat" "brarlPnathtojustire corn" + + + +Subject: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +Thank you again for meeting with us today. We very much appreciate your time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: + +- 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss today); +- 2. Declarations that Virginia filed in the CVRA case; +- 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case; +- 4. The redacted 302 + +Please let us know what other information we can provide or if you have any further questions. + +Best, + +Pete + +The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that. among other protections. is the subject of attorney-client privilege. attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient. or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution. copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no pnvilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. Nil \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..988f2e5e39c3c080cac0e1d81fe905d469cb2c22 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139/EFTA02831139.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831139.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2661, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.02, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831139" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f2f75e1150f9f01b0e7c6a82b5c37e66504df45 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +From: Kramer Amanda (USANYSI To: Mad. Alison (USANYSI: Fljadmiller Alexander 1U NYS1 Subject: FW: Contact Info (fromM Date: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:40:33 PM Attachments: 20160502 193023 + +FYI + +From: StanPottinger@aol.com + +Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 12:02 PM + +To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) + +Cc: Brad@pathtojustice.com; Smccawley@BSFLLP.com + +Subject: Fwd: Contact Info (from + +Amanda: + +Yesterday I spoke of whom describes as a "scour or recruiter of girls and/or women for J. pstein.Attached tot is incoming email from is the contact information he has for= + +Best regards, + +Stan + +From: To: StanPnttinger anl c n Sent: 5/3/2016 11:13:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: (no subject) + +Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c9338fb7e6087d568e021f6272a5d259dd1b370 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/EFTA02831141.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 825, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Line", + 1 + ], + [ + "Span", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831141" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50f27a0a00c75bb15d87341b0e5204cc35941b72 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1ccbbdcd3297682694ba589a3fff6afe80fcea148362b9ab3d18097e7ff4ba8f +size 72958 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6982cf3d11ee08adb85b4ba4c0dad5a0d210edc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831141/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4628da3126ccbb5ca49fac0e22a25ed4d4d3047b77dc12a2ec9ecb7800b07838 +size 10324 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..786bcbd5630573ae0831e7b21a2b52c3ea2bf38d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Moth) Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +February 28, 2019 + +## TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +# VIA EMAIL + +The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 + +Re: In re Application to Unseal Civil Discovery Materials, USAO No. 2018R01618 + +Dear Judge Sweet: + +The Government writes respectfully in connection with its sealed application and proposed order pursuant to the All Writs Act, Title 28, United States Code, Section 1651, for a limited order to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Application"), in connection with the matter \_ v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et at ("Guiffre"), 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A. + +### Background + +As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b) (unlawfully enticing minors) (the "Investigation"). The production of materials pursuant to the Subpoena is solely for the purposes of the Investigation, and is subject to the protections and restrictions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). + +The Government has been advised that Boies Schiller, which is counsel for plaintiffs in the Litigation, does not intend to contest the Subpoena. However, the Government is advised that although Boies Schiller would not otherwise contest compliance with the Subpoena, it believes that a protective order entered in the Litigation (the "Protective Order") may preclude compliance. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requested that the Court issue an order permitting Boies Schiller to comply with the validly-issued Subpoena. + +CONFIDENTIAL SD NY\_G MSO000847 + +#### Discussion + +Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case. As described below, a court can and should modify a protective order, or permit limited relief from it, to allow the recipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. + +The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. As that court explained: + +> The role of the federal courts in law enforcement, exemplified by the Federal Criminal Code (Title 18, USC) and in enforcing Grand Jury subpoenas argues in favor of making significant information available to enforcement authorities absent a countervailing showing that the need for the information for such purposes is outweighed by the need for protecting expectations of confidentiality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). + +Id. at 94 (citing United States v. M, 702 F.2d 418, 421-22 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding that the "conflict between protection of private material used in a civil proceeding and public need in a criminal prosecution" posed in that case was "easily resolved" and explaining that "[a]bsent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shiled protects the civil evidence" in that case "from compellable production before the grand jury which subpoenaed it"). The court in Chemical Bank chastised the relevant party for responding to the grand jury subpoena without authorization specifically because such disregard was "entirely unnecessary and inappropriate" due to the readily available remedy of a modification of the applicable protective order. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. The court also explicitly noted that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex pane if sufficient reason for doing so was shown. Id. + +Chemical Bank further described the types of interests that otherwise might be implicated in connection with a Rule 26(c) protective order, none of which are implicated here. Id. at 94 ("There is no indication that any difficult balancing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) would have been necessary of interests of law enforcement against protection of technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals, since no such information has been claimed to have been contained in any of the discovery materials in this case.") (citations omitted)} + +Notably, here, and in contrast to other cases further described below, the Government's specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature of the Litigation; however, the Protective Order itself indicates that discovery materials + +Indeed, the *Chemical Bank* opinion specifically rejected judicial protection for the type of information the Protective Order appears to cover in the Litigation: + +Avoiding embarrassment may be a reason for a party to seek confidentiality. It is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information. Courts must honor restrictions laid down by the Fourt or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes. But aside from those restrictions, *hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality.* + +*Chemical Bank*, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (emphasis added). Although parties may rely on confidentiality agreements and protective orders generally, such classification "is not binding on the court" and the "risk of disclosure is well known to the Bar, in part because disclosure may be required where such information is needed for judicial decisions, to the basis for which the public should have access. *Id.* (collecting cases). + +Under some circumstances, courts in this Circuit have applied a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in *Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp.*, 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials from a civil litigation. The Court held that the Government was not entitled to the materials unless it could show either that the protective order was improvidently granted or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need for the material; *see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991* ("Subpoena Duces Tecum"), 945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991) (in connection with bankruptcy proceeding, and citing *Martindell*, vacating denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking production of documents subject to protective order and remanding for determination of showing that the order was improvidently granted or of extraordinary circumstance or compelling need). + +As an initial matter, the Court need not employ the *Martindell* balancing test here. This is so for two reasons. First, *Martindell* and cases employing its balancing test generally relate to motions to quash or other challenges to a grand jury subpoena, or else instances where the Government sought protected information *without* such grand jury process. *See Martindell*, 594 F.2d 291 (in which the government informally, and without use of a grand jury subpoena, sought access to discovery materials); *Subpoena Duces Tecum*, 945 F.2d at 1224 (vacating denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena). Here, there is no such deficiency in the form of request nor a challenge by the recipient of the subpoena. Indeed, in *Chemical Bank*, which cited + +--- + +such as documents and depositions are not likely to include the kind of confidential business information that *Chemical Bank* describes as having the potential to give rise to "difficult balancing." *See id.*; *see also Guiffre*, Protective Order ("Prot. Order") (Dkt. 62) at 2 (defining "confidential" information simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff [redacted] Guiffre and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). + +*Martindell*, the district court opined that had the Government obtained judicial relief to issue an uncontested subpoena for documents—precisely the scenario here—such relief would be appropriate. *Chemical Bank*, 154 F.R.D. at 94. + +Second, any presumption against modification of a protective order is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited. Such protective orders “that are on their face temporary or limited may not justify reliance by the parties [and] in such circumstances reliance may be unreasonable.” *S.E.C. v. TheStreet.com*, 273 F.3d 222, 230-31 (2d Cir. 2001). “Where a litigant or deponent could not reasonably have relied on the continuation of a protective order”—for example, where such an order was limited to the pretrial stages of litigation—“a court may properly permit modification of the order.” *Id.* (citing *In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig.*, 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also [REDACTED] v. *City of New York*, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants but where, as here, the relevant protective order specified that a party could object to the designation of a document as confidential, and was also temporary or limited on its face). In such a case, “[w]hether to lift or modify a protective order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” *TheStreet.com*, 273 F.3d at 231 (modification in original) (citing *In re Agent Orange*, 821 F.3d at 147) (additional citations omitted). Here, the parties in the Litigation explicitly contemplated the public disclosure of such information at trial by the very terms of the Protective Order, thereby establishing precisely the kind of temporal limit described above. See Prot. Order at 5 (“This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.”). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in *Subpoena Duces Tecum*—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. + +In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counsel for the victims of the suspected crimes being investigated have indicated a willingness to voluntarily comply with the Subpoena, the “sound discretion of [this] court,” *TheStreet.com*, 273 F.3d at 231, militates overwhelmingly toward limited, narrow modification of the Protective Order to permit compliance with the Subpoena.2 This is consistent with the grand jury’s “wide ranging authority to inquire into suspected violations of the criminal law; and to effectuate such investigations it may compel the production of documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses, as it deems necessary.” *Id.* at 421-22; see *Branzburg v. Hayes*, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (“Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that ‘the public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those + +--- + +2 The Government notes that any materials produced pursuant to a grand jury subpoena fall under the protections and restrictions set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), and further notes and emphasizes that the proposed order accompanying the Application provides no additional exception or modification to the Protective Order as to the recipient of the subpoena other than the narrow, limited ability to comply with grand jury process. The Protective Order will remain otherwise intact and fully enforceable. + +persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings.”) (citations omitted).3 + +Finally, even were the Court to apply the *Martindell* test here,4 despite the significant distinguishing factors described above, this Investigation is a paradigmatic example of extraordinary circumstances. In the first instance, unlike in *Subpoena Duces Tecum*, the posture of the Application does not involve a motion to quash. Of course, should this Court permit Boies Schiller to respond, Boies Schiller would have the right to move to quash—including, for example, if a grand jury subpoena made any improper requests, such as for materials subject to privilege. But it is not anticipated that Boies Schiller will do so. + +Additionally, as set forth in the Application, the existence and scope of the Investigation in this district is not publicly known. While counsel for certain victims are aware of the Investigation, neither Epstein nor other subjects of the investigation are believed to be similarly aware. Accordingly, the ordinary exercise of grand jury power to “subpoena witnesses to testify, regardless of whether they have already testified or furnished documentary evidence in civil litigation,” *Martindell*, 594 at 296, would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation—that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena and its related Application. *Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum*, 945 F.2d at 1224 (in which the party that moved to quash the relevant subpoena argued that the government could not meet its burden of showing need for deposition testimony until it had at least called the witness before the grand jury). + +The subject matter of the Litigation also demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances of the Government’s Investigation and Application, insofar as the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. *See* + +--- + +3 To read *Martindell* more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict with the well-reasoned decisions of numerous other Circuits. In particular, the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have each adopted a *per se* rule favoring enforcement of a grand jury subpoena even where a protective order exists. *See In re Grand Jury Subpoena*, 836 F.2d 1468, 1477 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240 (1988); *In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Meserve, Mumper & Hughes*, 62 F.3d 1222, 1226-1227 (9th Cir. 1995); *In re Grand Jury Proceedings* ([REDACTED]), 995 F.2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir. 1993) (expressly criticizing the *Martindell* test and stating that it “is administratively unworkable,” “defies construction,” and “places prosecutors in untenable positions”). In the First and Third Circuits, a grand jury subpoena overrides a protective order unless the party seeking to quash the subpoena shows “exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order.” *In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach)*, 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); *In re: Grand Jury*, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware of no case in those circuits where the presumption was rebutted and the grand jury subpoena was not enforced. + +4 An application of the *Martindell* test would not in any event preclude the provision of a list of witnesses deposed, *see* 594 F.2d at 293, and of pre-existing documents collected or produced in the course of discovery, *see id.* at 297 n.8. + +Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (describing such materials a "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals"). Rather, the Government seeks materials that relate to among the gravest criminal offenses it investigates—the sexual exploitation of minors—which materials, if revealed, would tend to inculpate and/or embarrass some parties to the Protective Order. Indeed, by the very terms of the Protective Order, the confidential materials appear to be of the category for which "[a]voiding embarrassment . . . is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information." Id.; see also Prot. Order at 2 (designating as "confidential" only information that is "confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of the plaintiff and defendant"). "Aside from those restrictions [laid down by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes], hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality." Chemical Bank, 15 F.R.D. at 94. + +Finally, this is unlike a case in which the contours of the civil litigation are publicly apparent. Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a "lengthy report" of the bankruptcy examination in that case "was made available to the public"). In Subpoena Duces Tecum, for example, not only was the government apparently unconcerned with the confidentiality of the grand jury investigation, but the government knew from a lengthy public report precisely what it might replicate through a grand jury investigation. Id. Not so with respect to the Litigation, which resulted in no such report, no trial, and limited public filings. + +For all of these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Application, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Application. + +Respectfully submitted, + +GE FFREY S. BERMAN Urc ed States Attorney + +Enclosure + +By: Alex Rossmiller Assistant United States Attorney Tel.: (212) 637-2415 + +CONFIDENTIAL SDNY\_GPA\_00000852 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49aa2616023e519e9645670391efc81a330a3967 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/EFTA02831143.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,342 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 18889, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.11, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0820617675781, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 210.363037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 210.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 341.2159729003906, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 341.2159729003906, + 454.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 454.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.012, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.3999328613281, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.3999328613281, + 91.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 276.012, + 91.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831143" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6155fd526e995288686bc7b585fa1463247af445 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831143/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cfbf1b7b4c72fad2393c1f16d32419493841a4ce7faafe8a9263a3343159fb0d +size 3365 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85a0cdd75188a9332d6e2e2ea12ac343e756a903 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +February 28, 2019 + +#### TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL + +## VIA EMAIL + +The Honorable Sarah Netburn United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 + +Re: In re Application to Unseal Civil Discovery Materials, USAO No. 2018R01618 + +Dear Judge Netburn: + +The Government writes respectfully in connection with its sealed application and proposed order pursuant to the All Writs Act, Title 28, United States Code, Section 1651, for a limited order to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Application"), in connection with the matter Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at ('Jane Doe"), 17 Civ. 616 (JGK) (SN) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. + +## Background + +As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b) (unlawfully enticing minors) (the "Investigation"). The production of materials pursuant to the Subpoena is solely for the purposes of the Investigation, and is subject to the protections and restrictions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). + +The Government has been advised that Boies Schiller, which is counsel for plaintiffs in the Litigation, does not intend to contest the Subpoena. However, the Government is advised that although Boies Schiller would not otherwise contest compliance with the Subpoena, it believes that a protective order entered in the Litigation (the "Protective Order") may preclude compliance. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requested that the Court issue an order permitting Boies Schiller to comply with the validly-issued Subpoena. + +CONFIDENTIAL SDNY\_G MSO000919 + +# Discussion + +Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case. As described below, a court can and should modify a protective order, or permit limited relief from it, to allow the recipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. + +The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. As that court explained: + +> The role of the federal courts in law enforcement, exemplified by the Federal Criminal Code (Title 18, USC) and in enforcing Grand Jury subpoenas argues in favor of making significant information available to enforcement authorities absent a countervailing showing that the need for the information for such purposes is outweighed by the need for protecting expectations of confidentiality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). + +Id. at 94 (citing United States v. M, 702 F.2d 418, 421-22 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding that the "conflict between protection of private material used in a civil proceeding and public need in a criminal prosecution" posed in that case was "easily resolved" and explaining that "[a]bsent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shiled protects the civil evidence" in that case "from compellable production before the grand jury which subpoenaed it"). The court in Chemical Bank chastised the relevant party for responding to the grand jury subpoena without authorization specifically because such disregard was "entirely unnecessary and inappropriate" due to the readily available remedy of a modification of the applicable protective order. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. The court also explicitly noted that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex pane if sufficient reason for doing so was shown. Id. + +Chemical Bank further described the types of interests that otherwise might be implicated in connection with a Rule 26(c) protective order, none of which are implicated here. Id. at 94 ("There is no indication that any difficult balancing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) would have been necessary of interests of law enforcement against protection of technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive infonnation which could benefit rivals, since no such information has been claimed to have been contained in any of the discovery materials in this case.") (citations omitted)} + +Notably, here, and in contrast to other cases further described below, the Government's specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature of the Litigation; however, the Protective Order itself indicates that discovery materials + +Indeed, the *Chemical Bank* opinion specifically rejected judicial protection for the type of information the Protective Order appears to cover in the Litigation: + +Avoiding embarrassment may be a reason for a party to seek confidentiality. It is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information. Courts must honor restrictions laid down by the Fourt or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes. But aside from those restrictions, *hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality.* + +*Chemical Bank*, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (emphasis added). Although parties may rely on confidentiality agreements and protective orders generally, such classification "is not binding on the court" and the "risk of disclosure is well known to the Bar, in part because disclosure may be required where such information is needed for judicial decisions, to the basis for which the public should have access. *Id.* (collecting cases). + +Under some circumstances, courts in this Circuit have applied a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in *Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp.*, 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials from a civil litigation. The Court held that the Government was not entitled to the materials unless it could show either that the protective order was improvidently granted or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need for the material; *see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991* ("Subpoena Duces Tecum"), 945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991) (in connection with bankruptcy proceeding, and citing *Martindell*, vacating denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking production of documents subject to protective order and remanding for determination of showing that the order was improvidently granted or of extraordinary circumstance or compelling need). + +As an initial matter, the Court need not employ the *Martindell* balancing test here. This is so for two reasons. First, *Martindell* and cases employing its balancing test generally relate to motions to quash or other challenges to a grand jury subpoena, or else instances where the Government sought protected information *without* such grand jury process. *See Martindell*, 594 F.2d 291 (in which the government informally, and without use of a grand jury subpoena, sought access to discovery materials); *Subpoena Duces Tecum*, 945 F.2d at 1224 (vacating denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena). Here, there is no such deficiency in the form of request nor a challenge by the recipient of the subpoena. Indeed, in *Chemical Bank*, which cited *Martindell*, the district court opined that had the Government obtained judicial relief to issue an + +--- + +such as documents and depositions are not likely to include the kind of confidential business information that *Chemical Bank* describes as having the potential to give rise to "difficult balancing." *See id.; see also Jane Doe*, Protective Order ("Prot. Order") (Dkt. 177) (defining "confidential" information as, in sum and substance, medical and psychological information, personal identifying information, and information relating to sexual activity or sexual contact). + +uncontested subpoena for documents—precisely the scenario here—such relief would be appropriate. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 94. + +Second, any presumption against modification of a protective order is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited. Such protective orders "that are on their face temporary or limited may not justify reliance by the parties [and] in such circumstances reliance may be unreasonable." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 230-31 (2d Cir. 2001). "Where a litigant or deponent could not reasonably have relied on the continuation of a protective order"—for example, where such an order was limited to the pretrial stages of litigation—"a court may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants but where, as here, the relevant protective order specified that a party could object to the designation of a document as confidential, and was also temporary or limited on its face). In such a case, "'[w]hether to lift or modify a protective order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court!" TheStreet.cotn, 273 F.3d at 231 (modification in original) (citing In re Agent Orange, 821 F.3d at 147) (additional citations omitted). Here, the parties in the Litigation explicitly contemplated the public disclosure of such information at trial by the very terms of the Protective Order, thereby establishing precisely the kind of temporal limit described above. See Prot. Order at 6 ("This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecum—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. + +In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counsel for the victims of the suspected crimes being investigated have indicated a willingness to voluntarily comply with the Subpoena, the "sound discretion of [this] court," TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 231, militates overwhelmingly toward limited, narrow modification of the Protective Order to permit compliance with the Subpoena.2 This is consistent with the grand jury's "wide ranging authority to inquire into suspected violations of the criminal law; and to effectuate such investigations it may compel the production of documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses, as it deems necessary." Id. at 421-22; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' except for those + +2 The Government notes that any materials produced pursuant to a grand jury subpoena fall under the protections and restrictions set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), and further notes and emphasizes that the proposed order accompanying the Application provides no additional exception or modification to the Protective Order as to the recipient of the subpoena other than the narrow, limited ability to comply with grand jury process. The Protective Order will remain otherwise intact and fully enforceable. + +persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings.”) (citations omitted).3 + +Finally, even were the Court to apply the *Martindell* test here,4 despite the significant distinguishing factors described above, this Investigation is a paradigmatic example of extraordinary circumstances. In the first instance, unlike in *Subpoena Duces Tecum*, the posture of the Application does not involve a motion to quash. Of course, should this Court permit Boies Schiller to respond, Boies Schiller would have the right to move to quash—including, for example, if a grand jury subpoena made any improper requests, such as for materials subject to privilege. But it is not anticipated that Boies Schiller will do so. + +Additionally, as set forth in the Application, the existence and scope of the Investigation in this district is not publicly known. While counsel for certain victims are aware of the Investigation, neither Epstein nor other subjects of the investigation are believed to be similarly aware. Accordingly, the ordinary exercise of grand jury power to “subpoena witnesses to testify, regardless of whether they have already testified or furnished documentary evidence in civil litigation,” *Martindell*, 594 at 296, would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation—that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena and its related Application. *Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum*, 945 F.2d at 1224 (in which the party that moved to quash the relevant subpoena argued that the government could not meet its burden of showing need for deposition testimony until it had at least called the witness before the grand jury). + +The subject matter of the Litigation also demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances of the Government’s Investigation and Application, insofar as the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. *See* + +--- + +3 To read *Martindell* more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict with the well-reasoned decisions of numerous other Circuits. In particular, the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have each adopted a *per se* rule favoring enforcement of a grand jury subpoena even where a protective order exists. *See In re Grand Jury Subpoena*, 836 F.2d 1468, 1477 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240 (1988); *In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Meserve, Mumper & Hughes*, 62 F.3d 1222, 1226-1227 (9th Cir. 1995); *In re Grand Jury Proceedings* ([REDACTED]), 995 F.2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir. 1993) (expressly criticizing the *Martindell* test and stating that it “is administratively unworkable,” “defies construction,” and “places prosecutors in untenable positions”). In the First and Third Circuits, a grand jury subpoena overrides a protective order unless the party seeking to quash the subpoena shows “exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order.” *In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach)*, 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); *In re: Grand Jury*, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware of no case in those circuits where the presumption was rebutted and the grand jury subpoena was not enforced. + +4 An application of the *Martindell* test would not in any event preclude the provision of a list of witnesses deposed, *see* 594 F.2d at 293, and of pre-existing documents collected or produced in the course of discovery, *see id.* at 297 n.8. + +Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (describing such materials a "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals"). Rather, the Government seeks materials that relate to among the gravest criminal offenses it investigates—the sexual exploitation of minors—which materials, if revealed, would tend to inculpate and/or embarrass some parties to the Protective Order. Indeed, by the very terms of the Protective Order, the confidential materials appear to be of the category for which "[a]voiding embarrassment . . . is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information." Id.; see also Prot. Order at 2 (designating as "confidential" information "whose public release would violate common law and statutory privacy interests"). "Aside from those restrictions [laid down by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes], hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality." Chemical Bank, 15 F.R.D. at 94. + +Finally, this is unlike a case in which the contours of the civil litigation are publicly apparent. Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a "lengthy report" of the bankruptcy examination in that case "was made available to the public"). In Subpoena Duces Tecum, for example, not only was the government apparently unconcerned with the confidentiality of the grand jury investigation, but the government knew from a lengthy public report precisely what it might replicate through a grand jury investigation. Id. Not so with respect to the Litigation, which resulted in no such report, no trial, and limited public filings. + +For all of these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Application, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Application. + +Respectfully submitted, + +GE FFREY S. BERMAN Urf ed States Attorney + +Enclosure + +By: Alex Rossmiller Assistant United States Attorney Tel.: (212) 637-2415 + +CONFIDENTIAL SONY GM 00000924 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ab18806b4a0b52223da56816bdd4e24f0dd326e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/EFTA02831149.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 18708, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.69, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 230.9356689453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 210.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 210.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.116, + 440.6400000000001 + ], + [ + 341.2159729003906, + 440.6400000000001 + ], + [ + 341.2159729003906, + 454.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 271.116, + 454.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.012, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.3853454589844, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 335.3853454589844, + 91.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 276.012, + 91.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831149" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8be09aca458a83748b9261cd16bea1a82bd944d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831149/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:57151ed8f20839280f3c3899b4952bd5cd2cce9cb5abc92555e4c195f7af1098 +size 3354 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..420b94d718fe2717468dddf4f20ccd415f185e18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.md @@ -0,0 +1,1525 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +Plaintiff, + +-against- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendants. + +Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS + +\*\*CONFIDENTIAL\*\* + +x + +Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. + +MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 + +2 APPEARANCES: + +BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP + +4 Attorneys for Plaintiff + +401 East Las Olas Boulevard + +Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301 + +BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE + +6 MEREDITH , ESQUIRE + +EMMA , PARALEGAL + +JAFFE WEISSING FISTOS & + +9 LEHRMAN, P.L. + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +10 425 N. Andrews Avenue + +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + +11 BY: BRAD , ESQUIRE + +13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +14 383 South University Street + +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 + +HADDON + +17 Attorneys for Defendant + +150 East 10th Avenu + +18 Denver, Colorado 80203 + +BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE + +19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE + +21 Also Present: + +22 James Christe, videographer + +1 + +2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record and recording. This begins disk No. 1 in the deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell in the matter of versus Ghislaine Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. + +9 10 11 12 13 Today is April 22, 2016 the time is 9:04 a.m.. This deposition is being taken at 575 Lexington Avenue in New York at the request of Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller & Flexner. + +14 15 16 17 18 The videographer is James Christe and the court reporter is Leslie Fagin. Will counsel state their appearance and whom they represent and then court reporter swear in Ms. Maxwell. + +19 20 21 22 MS. McCAWLEY: My name is Sigrid McCawley with my colleague Meredith We are with Boies Schiller & Flexner. We represent + +23 24 MR. : Brad . I also represent + +25 MR. CASSELL: Paul Cassell, I also + +2 represent + +3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Jeff Pagliuca and + +4 Laura Menninger on behalf of Ms. + +S Maxwell. + +6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, called + +7 as a witness, having been duly sworn by a + +8 Notary Public, was examined and testified as + +9 follows: + +10 EXAMINATION BY + +11 MS. McCAWLEY: + +12 Q. Good morning. I'm going to explain + +13 some of the rules that will happen with + +14 respect to depositions. + +15 Have you ever been deposed before? + +16 A. I have not. + +17 Q. What is going to happen here, we + +18 have a court reporter and a videographer. + +19 What they do is take down the words that we + +20 say so when I ask you a question they will + +21 record what you say in response to that. So + +22 we have to be mindful that in order for them + +23 to do their job we can't talk over each + +24 other. + +25 Another issue you have to be weary + +2 It's in the process of being sold. It still + +3 requires some final paperwork to be done, so + +4 just for the purposes of clarity. + +S Q. Do you have a new address where you + +6 will be living? + +7 A. I do not. + +8 Q. For the purpose of the record, if + +9 there is something I ask you that you later + +10 remember something else or need to correct + +11 your testimony in some way, you can do that, + +12 just let me know what it is and we will go + +13 back to that question and can you clarify. + +14 A. Of course. I just wanted to be + +15 clear, there is still some paperwork pending + +16 for final release, but it's in the process of + +17 sale. But I don't have another address + +18 currently, so whilst that should still be of + +19 record that the mail could be forwarded + +20 there, so for purposes of clarity I wanted to + +21 be clear. + +22 Q. I appreciate that. + +23 So Ms. Maxwell, when did you first + +24 recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein? + +25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again. I object to + +2 form and foundation of the question. + +3 Q. You can answer the question. + +4 A. First of all, can you please + +5 clarify the question. I don't understand + +6 what you mean by female, I don't understand + +7 what you mean by recruit. Please be more + +8 clear and specific about what you are + +9 suggesting. + +10 Q. Are you a female, is that the sex + +11 that you are? + +12 A. I am a female. + +13 Q. That's what I'm referring to a + +14 female and I'm asking you when you first, the + +15 very first time you recruited a female to + +16 work for Mr. Epstein? + +17 A. Again, I don't understand what + +18 female -- I am a 54 year old women. + +19 Q. I'm not making it age, any age of a + +20 female that you recruited to work for Mr. + +21 Epstein? + +22 A. Again, I was somebody who hired a + +23 number of people to work for Mr. Epstein and + +24 hiring is one of my functions. + +25 Q. And when is the first time you + +2 3 Any female under the age of 18, did you invite them to come to Jeffrey's home? + +4 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. + +6 7 8 A. Again, as I said, I am not aware of inviting anybody other than friends of mine who have children to the house. + +9 10 11 Q. Did you invite to come to Jeffrey Epstein's home when she was under the age of 18? + +12 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. + +14 15 16 A. held herself out as a masseuse and invited herself to come and give a massage. + +17 18 19 Q. My question is, did you invite when she was under the age of 18 to come to Jeffrey Epstein's home? + +20 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. + +22 23 A. Again, was a masseuse -- + +24 25 Q. I'm asking not asking if she was a masseuse. I'm asking if you invited her to + +2 come to Jeffrey Epstein's home? + +3 A. Again, there would be no course to + +4 have a conversation with Virginia unless she + +5 held herself out to be a masseuse. + +6 Q. I'm not asking that question. I'm + +7 asking if you invited her to come to Jeffrey + +8 Epstein's home when she was under the age of + +9 18? + +10 A. Again, I repeat, she was a masseuse + +11 and in the form and as my job, I was to have + +12 people who he wanted for various things + +13 including massage. She came as a masseuse. + +14 Q. So you invited her to his home to + +15 come to give a massage, is that correct? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +17 and foundation. Misstates the witness' + +18 testimony. + +A. Again, I did not invite + +She came as a masseuse. + +21 Q. She who invited her to come as a + +22 masseuse, she just showed up at the front + +23 door? + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +25 and foundation. + +2 A. held herself out + +3 Q. I'm not asking how she held herself + +4 out. I'm asking how she arrived at the home. + +S Did you meet her and invite her to come to + +6 the home or how did she arrive there? + +7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +8 and foundation. + +9 A. held her to be a + +10 masseuse and her mother drove her to the + +11 house. + +12 Q. When did you first meet + +A. I don't have a recollection of the + +15 first meeting. + +16 Q. Do you recall meeting her at + +17 Mar-a-Lago? + +18 A. Like I said, I don't have a + +19 recollection of meeting + +20 Q. So you recall being + +21 brought to the home by her mother, is that + +22 your testimony? + +23 A. That is my testimony. + +24 Q. And that is the first time you met + +25 her? + +2 A. Like I said, I don't recall meeting 3 her the first time. I do remember her mother 4 bringing her to the house. + +S Q. Are you a member at Mar-a-Lago? + +6 A. No. + +7 Q. Have you visited Mar-a-Lago? + +8 A. Yes. + +9 Q. Did you visit Mar-a-Lago in the 10 year 2000? + +11 A. I'm pretty sure I did. + +12 Q. When arrived at the 13 home with her mother, what happened? + +14 A. I spoke to her mother outside of 15 the house and she -- what I don't recall is 16 exactly what happened because I was talking 17 to her mother the entire she was in the 18 house. + +19 Q. Did you introduce to 20 Jeffrey Epstein? + +21 A. I don't recall how she actually met 22 Mr. Epstein. As I said, I spoke to her 23 mother the entire time outside the house. + +24 Q. Did you walk up to the 25 upstairs location at the Palm Beach house to + +2 A. No. + +3 Q. Were you aware that Jeffrey was 4 having sexual contact with when 5 she was 13 years old? + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 7 and foundation. + +8 A. I would be very shocked and 9 surprised if that were true. + +10 Q. Were you in the house when 11 was in the house in a private area 12 with Jeffrey Epstein? + +13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 and foundation. + +15 A. Can you repeat the question. + +16 Q. Were you ever in the Palm Beach 17 house when Jeffrey Epstein was in the house 18 with + +19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. + +21 A. I've already testified that I have 22 met her and that she was there + +23 I don't understand what your 24 question is asking. + +25 Q. So you have never seen + +2 therapists paid? + +3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +4 and foundation. + +5 A. They get paid between 100 and \$200. + +6 Q. Did it vary based on what sexual + +7 acts they performed? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +9 and foundation. + +10 A. No. It varied depending how much 11 time, some massage therapists charge more and 12 some charge less. + +13 Q. Did the massage therapists that 14 were hired to come to the home perform sexual 15 acts for Jeffrey Epstein? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 17 and foundation. + +18 A. What are you asking me? + +19 Q. I'm asking if the massage 20 therapists -- + +21 A. Are you asking me about underage 22 girls? + +23 Q. I'm asking in general, did any of 24 the massage therapists in the home -- + +25 A. Are you asking if they were paid + +2 for sexual acts. + +3 Q. I'm asking if they performed sexual 4 acts? + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 6 and foundation. + +7 Q. Did any of the massage therapists 8 who were at the home perform sexual acts for 9 Jeffrey Epstein? + +10 A. I don't know what you mean by 11 sexual acts. + +12 Q. Did any of the massage therapists 13 who were working at the home perform sexual 14 acts, including touching the breasts, 15 touching the vaginal area, being touched 16 while Jeffrey is masturbating, having 17 intercourse, any of those things? + +18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Form and 19 foundation. + +20 To the extent any of this is asking 21 for to your knowledge any consensual sex 22 act that may or may not have involved 23 you, I'm instructing you not to answer 24 the question. + +25 Q. I'm not asking about consensual sex + +2 acts. I'm asking whether any of the massage + +3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. + +4 Epstein, as I have just described? + +5 A. I have never seen anybody have + +6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. + +7 Q. I'm not asking about sexual + +8 intercourse. I'm asking about any sexual + +9 act, touching of the breast -- did you ever + +10 see can you read back the question? + +11 (Record read.) + +12 A. I'm not addressing any questions + +13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to + +14 talk about what the subject matter, which is + +15 defamation and lying, that + +16 you and are participating in + +17 perpetrating her lies, I'm happy to address + +18 those. I never saw any inappropriate + +19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever. + +20 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I'm + +21 asking about whether any of the masseuses + +22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for + +23 Jeffrey Epstein? + +24 A. I have just answered the question. + +25 Q. No, you haven't. + +2 A. I have. + +3 Q. No, you haven't. + +4 A. Yes, I have. + +5 Q. You are refusing to answer the 6 question. + +7 A. Let's move on. + +8 Q. I'm in charge of the deposition. I 9 say when we move on and when we don't. + +10 You are here to respond to my 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the 12 court will bring you back for another 13 deposition to answer these questions. + +14 Do you understand that? + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't need to 16 threaten the witness. + +17 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm not threatening 18 19 her. I'm making sure the record is clear. + +20 21 22 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you apply to have someone come back and the court may or may not have her come back again. + +24 25 Again, she is not answering questions that relate to adult consent + +2 sex acts. Period. And that's the + +3 instruction and we can take it up with + +4 the court. + +5 Q. Ms. Maxwell, are you aware of any + +6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey + +7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? + +8 A. No. + +9 Q. How do you know that? + +10 A. All the time that I have been in + +11 the house I have never seen, heard, nor + +12 witnessed, nor have reported to me that any + +13 activities took place, that people were in + +14 distress, either reported to me by the staff + +15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on + +16 that. + +17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by + +18 the name of + +19 A. I am. + +20 Q. Has given a statement + +21 to police about you performing sexual acts on + +22 her? + +23 A. I have not heard that. + +24 Q. Has given a statement + +25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing + +2 Q. In your responsibilities in working 3 for Jeffrey, would you book massages for him 4 on any given day so that he would have a S massage scheduled? Would you take a call for 6 example and book a massage for him? + +7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. + +9 Q. You can answer. + +10 A. Typically, that was not my 11 responsibility. He would either book the 12 massage himself or one of his other 13 assistants would do that. + +14 Q. From time to time you had to do 15 that? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. + +18 A. Like I said, typically it was 19 somebody else's responsibility. + +20 Q. If you were unable to book a girl 21 for a massage on a given day, would that mean 22 that you were responsible for giving him a 23 sexual massage? + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation and I instruct you + +2 not to answer any questions about any of 3 your consensual adult sexual activity. + +4 Q. So you are not going to answer that S question? + +6 A. You just heard my counsel. + +7 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 8 recruiting other girls to perform sexual 9 massages for Jeffrey Epstein takes the 10 pressure off you? + +11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 12 and foundation. + +13 A. Repeat the question and break it 14 out. + +15 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 16 you recruit girls -- + +17 A. Stop right there. I never 18 recruited girls, let's stop there. Now 19 breakdown the question. + +20 Q. Have you ever said to anybody + +21 A. By girls, we are talking about 22 underage people -- you said girls, are you 23 talking about underage -- we are not talking 24 about consensual acts -- this is a defamation 25 suit. + +2 Q. I'm asking the questions. I know + +3 what this case is about. I'm trying to -- I + +4 will ask you questions if you don't + +S understand the question I can break it down + +6 for you. I'm happy to do that. + +7 A. Break it down a lot please. + +8 Q. I will do that. + +9 The question is, have you ever said + +10 to anybody that you recruit other girls -- + +11 A. Why don't you stop there. + +12 Q. Let me finish my question. + +13 Have you ever said to anybody that + +14 you recruit girls to take the pressure off + +15 you, so you won't have to have sex with + +16 Jeffrey, have you said that? + +17 That's the question? + +18 A. You don't ask me questions like + +19 that. First of all, you are trying to trap + +20 me, I will not be trapped. You are asking me + +21 if I recruit, I told you no. Girls meaning + +22 underage, I already said I don't do that with + +23 underage people and as to ask me about a + +24 specific conversation I had with language, we + +25 talking about almost 17 years ago when this + +2 took place. I cannot testify to an actual + +3 conversation or language that I used with + +4 anybody at any time. + +5 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that + +6 you recruit other females over the age of 18 + +7 to take the pressure off you to having to + +8 have sex with Jeffrey? + +9 A. I totally resent and find it + +10 disgusting that you use the word recruit. I + +11 already told you I don't know what you are + +12 saying about that and your implication is + +13 repulsive. + +14 Q. Answer my question. + +15 A. I just did. + +16 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that + +17 you recruit females -- + +18 A. I don't recruit anybody. + +19 Q. That's an answer. So you never + +20 said that? + +21 A. I'm testifying that I cannot + +22 testify to an actual language + +23 Q. It's a yes or no. + +24 A. I will not testify to an actual + +25 statement made 17 years ago, so I cannot + +2 the flights? + +3 A. I can't recollect having a meal + +4 with them, but just so we are clear, the + +5 allegations that had a meal on + +6 Jeffrey's island is 100 percent false. + +7 Q. But he may have had a meal on + +8 Jeffrey's plane? + +9 A. I'm sure he had a meal on Jeffrey's + +10 plane. + +11 Q. You do know how many times he flew + +12 on Jeffrey's plane? + +13 A. I don't. + +14 Q. Do you know who is? + +15 A. I do. + +16 Q. How do you know him? + +17 A. He used to work or still works for + +18 + +19 Q. Did you ever have a relationship + +20 with him? + +21 A. We are talking about adult + +22 consensual relationships, it's off the + +23 record. + +24 Q. I'm not asking what you did with + +25 him, I'm asking if you ever had a + +2 relationship with him? + +3 MR. PAGLIUCA: If you understand + +4 the term relationship, certainly you can + +5 answer that. + +6 A. Define relationship. + +7 Q. Somebody that you would have spent + +8 time together, either seeing them in a + +9 romantic relationship or -- + +10 A. You need to be, what do you mean by + +11 romantic. I was friends with but you + +12 are suggesting something more so I want to be + +13 clear what you are actually asking me. + +14 Q. You defined it. You said you were + +15 friends with him. If that's what you were + +16 that's all I need to know. + +17 While you were on the trip with + +18 , do you recall where you + +19 stayed at these locations, in other words, + +20 would you leave the jet and stay overnight at + +21 a hotel, do you have a recollection of this + +22 trip? + +23 A. I recollect the trip but if you're + +24 asking me where we stayed, you can see it's a + +25 very fast paced trip. It was very tiring and + +2 more time because I want you to be able to + +3 understand it. + +4 Knowing that you have the police + +5 report here and knowing about the criminal + +6 investigation, do you believe that Jeffrey + +7 Epstein sexually abused minors? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. + +9 A. I know what you put in front of me + +10 and I know what I read. + +11 Q. I'm asking what you believe, do you + +12 believe Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused + +13 minors? + +14 A. I can only tell you what I read and + +15 what you showed me. + +16 Q. I'm asking what you believe, from + +17 your own belief, do you believe that Jeffrey + +18 Epstein abused minors? + +19 A. I can only go from what I know + +20 personally and what I know personally about + +21 what Virginia's lies talked about. She is + +22 the only person I know that actually claimed + +23 that. And I can say with certitude that + +24 everything Virginia said was a lie. + +25 Q. You are aware Jeffrey Epstein was + +2 sentenced for sexual abuse, are you aware of 3 that? + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. + +6 Q. Are you aware that Jeffrey Epstein. 7 served time for sexual abuse of a minor? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. + +10 A. I don't believe that's what he was 11 sentenced for, actually. + +12 Q. So you don't know that Jeffrey 13 Epstein served time for sexually abusing a 14 minor? + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. + +17 A. I don't believe that's what he was 18 sentenced for. + +19 Q. Do you know that Jeffrey Epstein 20 was convicted for procuring a minor for 21 prostitution? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. + +24 A. I don't know exactly what he was 25 convicted of. I don't know that he was + +2 convicted. I know he spent time in jail. + +3 Q. Do you know that he spent time in + +4 jail related to an issue with a minor child? + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +6 form and foundation. + +7 A. I did not know that. + +8 Q. What did you think he was spending + +9 time in jail for? + +10 A. I only know he went to jail for + +11 it was alleged that he hired -- had an + +12 underage prostitute. + +13 Q. So knowing that, do you believe + +14 that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +16 form and foundation. + +17 A. I can only tell you what he went to + +18 jail for. + +19 Q. I'm asking what you believe. I'm + +20 not asking what he went to jail for. I'm + +21 asking for your belief. + +22 A. I cannot testify to what I believe. + +23 I can only say what I have seen in the + +24 reports and I know he went to jail. + +25 Q. You can testify to what you + +2 sexually abused any minor children? + +3 A. Again, I only know 1000 percent + +4 that Virginia is a liar. I can only talk to + +5 Virginia, her lies and your inappropriate, + +6 unethical, really unattractive, terrible use + +7 of her and the way that you have abused the + +8 system, used the press for purposes that are + +9 unethical, inappropriate and appalling. + +10 Q. Do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein + +11 used massages to lure minors to have sex with + +12 him? + +13 A. Again, that is Virginia's + +14 testimony, which is a lie. + +15 Q. But do you believe that? + +16 A. Again, I refer back to Virginia. + +17 Q. I'm asking whether you believe it + +18 or not? + +19 A. I can only go with what I know and + +20 I know Virginia is a liar and therefore + +21 that's a lie. + +22 Q. So you don't believe that? + +23 A. I said, I only know that Virginia + +24 is lying. + +25 Q. Are you aware that Jeffrey Epstein + +2 is a registered sex offender? + +3 A. I am. + +4 Q. Are you aware that Jeffrey Epstein + +5 paid considerable amounts of money to settle + +6 lawsuits with the minor children that he had + +7 sexual contact with? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +9 form and foundation. + +10 A. I have no knowledge of those + +11 issues. + +12 Q. Why did you continue to maintain + +13 contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he pled + +14 guilty? + +15 A. I'm a very loyal person and Jeffrey + +16 was very good to me when my father passed + +17 away and I believe that you need to be a good + +18 friend in people's hour of need and I felt + +19 that it was a very thoughtful, nice thing for + +20 me to do to help in very limited fashion + +21 which was helping if he had any issue with + +22 his homes, in terms of the staffing issues. + +23 It was very, very minor but I felt it was + +24 thoughtful in somebody's hour of need. + +25 Q. Did he continue to pay you during + +2 that time period? + +3 A. I was paid a little. + +4 Q. You were paid? + +5 A. Yes. + +6 Q. When you say a little, what you did + +7 mean by that? + +8 A. I don't recall exactly the amount. + +9 Q. So in 2009 when you left him, what + +10 were you being paid? + +11 A. I just told you, I don't recall. + +12 Q. Were you being paid \$100,000? + +13 A. I just don't you I don't recall. + +14 Q. Were you paid over a million + +15 dollars? + +16 A. I think I would remember over a + +17 million dollars. + +18 Q. So it was under a million dollars? + +19 A. It was under a million dollars. + +20 Q. Was it over \$500,000? + +21 A. I just told you, it was under 500, + +22 it was an amount of money less than \$500,000, + +23 less than a million dollars and I did it out + +24 of thoughtfulness and consideration for + +25 somebody who was in trouble. + +2 Q. Did you have an attorney to consult 3 with during the criminal investigation of 4 Jeffrey Epstein? + +5 A. I don't believe I did. + +6 Q. When did you learn that a search 7 warrant was executed for the Palm Beach 8 house? + +9 A. I don't recall exactly. + +10 Q. Were you present at the house in 11 advance of the search warrant being executed? + +12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 13 of the question. + +14 A. I don't remember when the search 15 warrant was executed and I don't remember the 16 year that the search warrant was executed and 17 whenever that was, I already testified, I was 18 19 20 21 very, very infrequently at the house. So highly unlikely but I was there a couple of days, I just don't know which days it was in relation to the police situation. + +22 23 24 Q. Did you have a computer at the Palm Beach home that was a computer that you would use? + +25 A. No. + +2 I took of people would only have been + +3 mainstream type magazine type photos and any + +4 photos I took could have been very happily + +5 and expected to be displayed on your parents' + +6 mantel piece or grandparents' mantel piece. + +7 Q. Is it a lie that you approached + +8 females to bring them to Jeffrey Epstein? + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +10 form and foundation. + +11 A. Please ask the question, again. + +12 Q. Sure. Is it a lie that you + +13 approached females to bring them to Jeffrey + +14 Epstein? + +15 A. I don't know what you are asking + +16 me. + +17 Q. I'm asking you, if it's a lie that + +18 you approached females to bring them to + +19 Jeffrey Epstein? + +20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +21 form and foundation. + +22 A. You are not asking me a good + +23 question, sorry. + +24 Q. You don't get to choose the + +25 questions. + +2 A. I would like to answer your + +3 questions but you are not asking me a + +4 question that I can answer. + +5 Q. What about that is causing you + +6 pause where you can't answer the question? + +7 A. You are trying to trap me and + +8 that's not fair, so I already testified that + +9 I hire people across the board, so I would + +10 hire architects, decorators, pool people, + +11 exercise instructors, gardeners, cooks, + +12 chefs, cleaning people. So I, in the course + +13 of a very long time when I would hire people + +14 I hired people to work for Jeffrey. So I'm + +15 happy to testify to hiring people for every + +16 possible conceivable proper job that you + +17 could conceive of within the context of + +18 Jeffrey's life and homes. + +19 Q. Is it a lie that you approached + +20 females to bring them to Jeffrey Epstein for + +21 the purpose of performing massages? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +23 form and foundation. + +24 A. Again, I have already testified + +25 that part of the job that I had was to hire + +2 lots of different types of people. In terms 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 something that was good, I would ask if that 12 man or woman would come back and does home 13 14 15 16 17 of whatever -- very small part of my job, Jeffrey enjoyed getting massages. I think that is something we can all agree in this room and within the context of that, very infrequently I would go to spas and myself happily receive a professional nonsexual massage from a man and/or from a woman and if that massage was something that I thought was visits. If that person said that they did, they would sometimes come, from time to time, not always, come back to the house to perform a nonsexual professional male or female massage. + +18 19 instructors you hired under the age of 18? Q. Were any of the exercise + +20 A. Again, I don't hire, we've already 21 established that I don't hire people. I 22 interview people to see if they are competent 23 in the job that they do and/or whether they 24 are someone who seemed that they can do home 25 visits. + +2 At the point where I think that 3 there is somebody that has, can be either 4 whatever the job may be, pool, gardener, chef 5 and/or exercise instructor and I think they 6 could be good at whatever it is at whatever 7 skill that they had and they did a home visit 8 which would obviously be mandatory and Mr. 9 Epstein would meet with them and decide if he 10 wanted to have whatever skill it was that he 11 would do it and then he would then either 12 have them come back or hire them. + +13 Q. Were there any exercise instructors 14 that worked at the home that were under the 15 age of 18? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. + +18 A. Again, I keep coming back to this, 19 that the people that I employed or -- not the 20 right word, the people I would meet to come 21 and work at the house, under any guise 22 whatsoever, again, from any of the many 23 positions that I filled, were all over 24 were adults. + +25 Q. When you say adults, over the age + +2 of 18? + +3 A. I think we can establish what adult + +4 would be. + +5 Q. You never interviewed or I know you + +6 don't want to use the word hired, whatever + +7 your role was, you brought in an exercise + +8 instructor that was under the age of 18 to + +9 work at the house? + +10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form + +11 and foundation. + +12 A. I have already testified that what + +13 I was responsible for was to find people who + +14 had competencies in whatever area I was + +15 looking for. The competencies I was looking + +16 for were professional and adult. + +17 Q. So there was no exercise instructor + +18 that worked at the Palm Beach house or the + +19 New York house or the New Mexico house or the + +20 USVI under the age of 18? + +21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +22 form and foundation. + +23 A. I can only testify to when I was at + +24 the house. + +25 Q. Yes. + +2 A. I can only testify to the years + +3 when I was present. + +4 Q. Right. + +5 A. And I can also only testify to 6 people I personally either met and/or worked 7 with and/or invited, to find the correct 8 word, I don't know what the correct word is, 9 to come to do exercise or whatever it was at 10 the house. + +11 Of the people that I, male and/or 12 female that I brought were all appropriate 13 and age appropriate adults. + +14 Q. Over the age of 18? + +15 A. We've established them as an adult. + +16 Q. You are saying appropriate adults, 17 so we are clear, you didn't hire or bring in 18 or know of any exercise instructors that were 19 under the age of 18 at any of those homes? + +20 A. I am also testifying that when I 21 was present at the house and with the people 22 that I brought in, were all age appropriate 23 adults. + +24 Q. How do you define age appropriate 25 adults, is that over the age of 18, can we + +2 agree to that? + +3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +4 form and foundation. + +5 Q. Are they under the age of 18? + +6 A. We already established that you can + +7 be a masseuse in Florida at age 17. That + +8 does not make it inappropriate. + +9 A. I'm not saying appropriate or 10 inappropriate. I'm just asking if there were 11 any exercise instructors that were under the 12 age of 18. + +13 A. I am not aware if anybody was but I 14 don't want to full out and say you II she 15 said, we already established you can be a 17 16 year old masseuse and have it not be 17 something that is not appropriate. So when 18 you say that and then you go, well, you come 19 back and say something, now we can establish 20 that Virginia was 17 but you can be a 17 year 21 old legal masseuse, but I am not aware to 22 your point. + +23 Q. Who were the other 17 year old 24 masseuses that you were aware of? + +25 A. I am not aware of any. + +2 Q. Were there any 16 year year old + +3 masseuse that you are aware of? + +4 A. I am not aware. + +5 Q. Any 15? + +6 A. I just want to be clear. The only 7 person that I am aware of who claims to have 8 been a -- we have to -- we established 9 Virginia now is 17, given she has changed her 10 age so many times. The only person that I am 11 aware of that was a masseuse at the time when 12 I was present in the house was Virginia. + +13 Q. Is it an obvious lie that Jeffrey 14 Epstein had a sexual preference for underage 15 miners? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. + +18 A. Can you ask the question again? + +19 Q. It is it an obvious lie that 20 Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference for 21 underage minors? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. + +24 A. Can you ask the question again? + +25 Q. Is it an obvious lie that Jeffrey + +2 Epstein had a sexual preference for underage 3 minors? + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 5 and foundation. + +6 A. I cannot testify to what + +7 Jeffrey's -- + +8 Q. You don't know his preference? + +9 A. You handed me a stack of papers 10 from the police reports and that's what I've 11 read but I have no knowledge, direct 12 knowledge, of what you are referencing. + +13 Q. So you don't know, you don't know 14 in your own mind that Jeffrey Epstein had a 15 sexual preference for underage minors, is 16 that correct? + +17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. + +19 Q. Is that correct? + +20 A. Please ask the question again. + +21 Q. You don't know in your own mind 22 that Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference 23 for underage minors? + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. You have to pause, + +2 let me object, answer the question. + +3 Listen to her question, pause, I object, + +4 you answer. + +5 Q. So you don't know in your own mind + +6 that Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference + +7 for underage minors? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +9 form and foundation. + +10 Q. You can answer. + +11 A. I cannot tell you what Jeffrey's + +12 story is. I'm not able to. + +13 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme + +14 to recruit underage girls to use them for + +15 purposes of sexual massages? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +17 form and foundation. + +18 A. Can you ask me again, please? + +19 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme + +20 to recruit underage girls to recruit them for + +21 sexual massages? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +23 form and foundation. + +24 A. Can you ask it a different way? + +25 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme + +2 to recruit underage girls for sexual + +3 massages? + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +5 form and foundation. + +6 Q. If you know. + +7 A. I don't know what you are talking + +8 about. + +9 Q. Is it an obvious lie that + +a was a minor the first time she was + +11 taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house? + +12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +13 form and foundation. + +14 A. So we've already established that + +15 Virginia was 17 and we have established that + +16 her mother brought her to the house and that + +17 she came as a masseuse, age 17, which is + +18 legal in Florida. + +19 Q. Would Jeffrey Epstein's assistants + +20 arrange times for underage girls to come to + +21 the house for sexual massages? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +23 form and foundation. + +24 A. What are you talking about? + +25 Q. Sure. Would Jeffrey Epstein's + +2 A. I know nothing about that + +3 transaction. + +4 Q. Can you list for me all the girls + +5 that you have met and brought to Jeffrey + +6 Epstein's house that were under the age of + +7 18? + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +9 form and foundation. + +10 A. I could only recall my family + +11 members that were there and I could not make + +12 a list of anyone else because that list -- it + +13 never happened that I can think of. + +14 Q. I'm talking about the time you were + +15 working for Jeffrey Epstein, can you list all + +16 girls that you found for Jeffrey Epstein that + +17 were under the age of 18 to come work for him + +18 in any capacity? + +19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the + +20 form and foundation. + +21 A. I didn't find the girls. + +22 Q. You choose the word. + +23 MR. PAGLIUCA: If you have a + +24 question ask it, you don't choose the + +25 word. + +2 Q. List all of the girls you met and 3 brought to Jeffrey Epstein's home for the 4 purposes of employment that were under the 5 age of 18? + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. + +8 A. I've already characterized my job 9 was to find people, adults, professional 10 people to do the jobs I listed before; pool 11 person, secretary, house person, chef, pilot, 12 architect. + +13 Q. I'm asking about individuals under 14 the age of 18, not adult persons, people 15 under the age of 18. + +16 A. I looked for people or tried to 17 find people to fill professional jobs in 18 professional situations. + +19 Q. So was under the 20 age of 18, correct? + +21 A. I think we've established that 22 Virginia was 17. + +23 Q. Is she the -- sorry, go ahead. + +24 Is she the only individual that you 25 met for purposes of hiring someone for + +2 Jeffrey that was under the age of 18? + +3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +4 and foundation. Mischaracterizes her + +5 testimony. + +6 A. I didn't hire people. + +7 Q. I said met. + +8 A. I interviewed people for jobs for 9 professional things and I am not aware of 10 anyone aside from now Virginia who clearly 11 was a masseuse aged 17 but that's, at least 12 that's how far we know that I can think of 13 that fulfilled any professional capacity for 14 Jeffrey. + +15 Q. List all the people under the age 16 of 18 that you interacted with at any of 17 Jeffrey's properties? + +18 A. I'm not aware of anybody that I 19 interacted with, other than obviously 20 Virginia who was 17 at this point? + +21 (Maxwell Exhibit 21, email, marked 22 for identification.) + +23 Q. I'm showing you what's been marked 24 as Maxwell 21, it's an email dated January 25 21, 2015 from Jeffrey to you. Is that, you + +2 MS. McCAWLEY: I will state for the 3 record there were questions today that 4 remain unanswered because the witness 5 has been instructed not to answer those 6 questions and we will be raising our 7 objections with the court to be able to 8 have those questions answered in the 9 near future. + +10 MR. PAGLIUCA: So we are clear, we 11 are designating this entire deposition 12 as confidential under the protective 13 order. That would cover the paralegal 14 whose been present as well as the court 15 reporter and the videographer and all 16 the lawyers in the room. + +17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes 18 today's proceedings. We are off the 19 record at 6:43 p.m. + +20 (Time noted: 6:43 p.m.) + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca374d9607b08dd0d0e6543161dbda83f795ae80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155/EFTA02831155.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1520 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831155.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 44, + "chars": 36975, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.64, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831155" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15d12dd7dea2de8f7b693e234f6d88329f641040 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.md @@ -0,0 +1,921 @@ +Page 1 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +- - - - - x +[REDACTED], + +Plaintiff, + +Case No.: +15-cv-07433-RWS + +-against- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +- - - - - x + +\*\*CONFIDENTIAL\*\* + +Continued Videotaped Deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the Defendant herein, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing July 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. + +- - - + +MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES +1200 Avenue of the Americas +New York, New York 10026 +(866) 624-6221 + +![](_page_0_Picture_120.jpeg) + +Page 2 + +1 + +2 APPEARANCES: + +3 On Behalf of the Plaintiff: + +4 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP + +333 Main Street 5 Armonk, New York 10504 + +BY: DAVID BOIES, ESQUIRE + +6 + +BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER,LLP + +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + +8 BY: MEREDITH , ESQUIRE + +SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE + +SANDRA PERKINS, PARALEGAL + +10 + +JAFFE WEISSING FISTOS & + +11 LEHRMAN, P.L. + +425 N. Andrews Avenue + +12 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + +BY: BRAD , ESQUIRE + +13 + +14 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE + +383 South University Street 15 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 + +16 + +J. STANLEY POTTINGER, PLLC + +17 49 Twin Lakes Road + +South Salem, New York 10590 + +18 BY: STAN POTTINGER, ESQUIRE + +19 + +On Behalf of Defendant: + +20 + +HADDON + +21 Attorneys for Defendant + +150 East 10th Avenue + +22 Denver, Colorado 80203 + +BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE + +23 LAURA A. MENNIGER, ESQUIRE + +24 + +Also Present: + +25 + +Page 3 + +1 + +2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is DVD No. + +3 1, Volume II, of the continued video 4 recorded deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell 5 in the matter against 6 Ghislaine Maxwell, in the United States 7 District Court, Southern District of New 8 York. + +9 This deposition is being held at 10 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New 11 York, on July 22, 2016 at approximately 12 9:04 a.m. + +13 My name is Rodolfo Duran. I am the 14 legal video specialist. The court 15 reporter is Leslie Fagin, and we are 16 both in association with Magna Legal 17 Services. + +18 Will counsel please introduce 19 themselves. + +20 MR. BOIES: This is David Boies, of 21 Boies, Schiller & Flexner, counsel for 22 plaintiff. + +23 : Meredith 24 from Boies Schiller & Flexner, counsel 25 for plaintiff. + +Page 4 + +MR. Brad , ale, + +representing the plaintiff, + +5 MR. POTTINGER: Stan Pottinger, + +6 also representing the plaintiff. + +7 MR. CASSELL: Paul Cassell, from + +8 Salt Lake City, Utah, also representing + +9 + +10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Jeff Pagliuca and + +11 Laura Menninger, on behalf of Ms. + +12 Maxwell. + +13 And Ms. McCawley has also entered + +14 the room, and we have an assistant from + +15 Boies Schiller from the Fort Lauderdale + +16 office here today as well today. + +17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court + +18 reporter please swear in the witness. + +19 GH I SLAINE MAXWEL L, + +20 called as a witness, having been duly + +21 sworn by a Notary Public, was + +22 examined and testified as follows: + +23 EXAMINATION BY + +24 MR. BOIES: + +25 Q. Good morning, Ms. Maxwell. + +Page 53 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Why don't we both 3 stop making speeches. 4 BY MR. BOIES: + +5 ■ **I I I I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E • • •** + +Page 54 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 [REDACTED] + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ █ + +█ █ █ █ █ + +█ █ █ + +█ █ █ █ + +█ █ █ █ + +Page 55 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 Epstein's home in Palm Beach? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 4 and foundation. + +II • • • • • • + +Page 56 + +1                                  G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2[REDACTED] + +![A solid black rectangular bar on the right side of the page.]() + +- Barriban County City Bldg. Replacement Contract # + +![Small box labeled 'Measurements of the Driving Hazard of Parking']()[REDACTED] + +![A small black rectangle on the right side of the page.]()[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +![A small black square icon in the bottom right corner.]()[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +![A small black rectangular box in the bottom right corner of the page.]()[REDACTED] + +![A small black rectangular box in the bottom right corner of the page.]()[Redacted] + +![A small black rectangular box in the bottom right corner of the page.]()[Redacted] + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] + +![A small black rectangular box in the bottom right corner of the page.]()[Redacted] [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +**[REDACTED]** + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Page 571 + +2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form +3 and foundation. + +4 A . + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form +9 and foundation. + +10 A. [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] + +[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +Page 85 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 only area that the witness was precluded 3 from talking about in the first 4 deposition. So that's where we're at. + +5 MR. BOIES: I think that directly 6 misreads the judge's order, including 7 where it says: Defendant is ordered to 8 answer questions relating to defendant's 9 own sexual activity with or involving 10 Jeffrey Epstein, with or involving 11 plaintiff, with or involving underage 12 females, involving or including massage 13 with individuals defendant knew to be or 14 believed might become known to Epstein. + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: All of it is 16 preceded by the word sexual activity. + +17 MR. BOIES: I think your point of 18 view is an interesting one, but we will 19 see what the judge rules on it. + +20 BY MR. BOIES: + +21 • • • • + +Page 86 + +1 + +2 and foundation. + +3 A. ██████████ + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +9                                  and foundation. + +10 A. I don't know. + +11                      Q.                      Did any of them give you massages? + +12                                  A.                                  No. + +13 Q. [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +18 and foundation. Asked and answered. + +19 A. No. + +20           Q.           Were they ever in the Virgin + +21 Islands? + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +23 and foundation. + +24 A. No. + +25 ██████████ ██████████ + +Page 871 + +2 [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted text block] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +25                                 and foundation. + +Page 88 + +1                      G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +9 + +     Q.      Were you aware of the presence of +10 sex toys or devices used in sexual activities +11 in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ + +14 + +     A.      No, not that I recall. + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +■ + +■      ■ + +■ + +■      ■ + +■ + +■      ■ ■ + +Page 89 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 [Redacted] + +3 [Redacted] + +4 [Redacted] + +5 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +6 [Redacted] + +7 [Redacted] + +8 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein +9 possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual +10 activities? + +11 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +12 [Redacted] + +13 A. No. + +14 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +15 [Redacted] + +16 [Redacted] + +17 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +18 [Redacted] + +19 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +20 [Redacted] + +21 [Redacted] + +22 [Redacted] + +23 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +24 [Redacted] [Redacted] + +25 [Redacted] + +Page 90 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 + +I + +Il + +I + +I + +I + +I + +I + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +• + +Page 91 + +1                                                      G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2                                                      it to something in the case. + +3                                                      MR. BOIES: I think it's tied, but + +4                                                      if you instruct her not to answer, it + +5                                                      goes into the -- + +6                                                      MR. PAGLIUCA: Meat grinder. + +7                                                      BY MR. BOIES: + +8                                                      Q. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +14                                                      A. Can you repeat the question? + +15                                                      Q. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +20                                                      MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. + +21                                                      A. No. + +22                                                      Q. Other than yourself and the blond + +23                                                      and brunette that you have identified as + +24                                                      having been involved in three-way sexual + +25                                                      activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have + +![](_page_15_Picture_172.jpeg) + +Page 92 + +1                      G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 sexual activities? + +- ██       ██ +- ██ + +[REDACTED] + +5 A. I wasn't aware that he was having + +6 sexual activities with anyone when I was with +7 him other than myself. + +8                     Q.         I want to be sure that I'm clear. + +9 Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and + +10 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein + +11 was having sexual activities with anyone + +12 other than yourself and the blond and + +13 brunette on those few occasions when they + +14           were involved with you? + +15                     A.                That is my testimony, that is + +16 correct. + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[Redacted] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +Page 93 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +3 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +4 [REDACTED] + +5 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +6 [REDACTED] + +7 [REDACTED] + +8 [REDACTED] + +9 [REDACTED] + +10 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +11 [REDACTED] + +12 [REDACTED] + +13 [REDACTED] + +14 [REDACTED] + +15 [REDACTED] + +16 [REDACTED] + +17 [REDACTED] + +18 [REDACTED] + +19 [REDACTED] + +20 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +21 [REDACTED] + +22 [REDACTED] + +23 [REDACTED] + +24 [REDACTED] + +25 Q. Do you know [REDACTED] + +Page 112 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 ever see + +3 A. I don't recall ever seeing her. + +4 Q. + +6 A. + +7 Q. Did ever engage in any + +8 sexual activity with Mr. Epstein? + +9 A. I wouldn't know. I would assume + +10 not, but I don't know. + +11 Q. Do you have any reason to believe + +12 that Mr. Epstein engaged in any sexual + +13 activity with + +14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +15 and foundation. + +16 A. I wouldn't know. + +17 Q. Did you ever give a massage to + +18 anyone other than Mr. Epstein at any of Mr. + +19 Epstein's properties? + +20 A. First of all, I never said I gave + +21 Mr. Epstein a massage. + +22 Q. I will ask that question if you + +23 want, but I was focusing on people other than + +24 Mr. Epstein right now. + +25 A. I don't give massages. + +Page 113 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 Q. Let's just tie that down. It + +3 your testimony that you've never given + +4 anybody a massage? + +5 A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +6 Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a + +7 massage, is that your testimony? + +8 A. That is my testimony. + +9 Q. You never gave a + +10 massage is your testimony? + +11 A. I never gave a + +12 massage. + +13 Q. Did you, or to your knowledge, + +14 Mr. Epstein pay for to go to + +15 Thailand? + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +17 and foundation. + +18 A. I am not aware. + +19 Q. Do you know whether + +20 went to Thailand? + +21 A. I have no knowledge of anything + +22 like that. + +23 Q. Did you ever give anyone + +24 instructions as to how to give a massage? + +25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form + +Page 193 + +1 G. Maxwell - Confidential + +2 closed. + +3 If there are questions that I have 4 instructed the witness not to answer and 5 it later turns out the judge disagrees 6 with my characterization, we will be 7 back to revisit it, but we are done as 8 far as I'm concerned. + +9 MR. BOIES: The deposition is not 10 closed. There are a number of 11 instructions not to answer. I think it 12 is a fair point that if the court were 13 to conclude that none of the questions 14 that have been instructed need to be 15 answered, we're not going to be 16 continuing the deposition, barring some 17 additional information coming to light. + +18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we agree 19 then. + +20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:51 21 p.m., and we are going off the record. + +22 (Time noted: 2:51 p.m.) + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89e4b5692b42ff654618cb348f21247757fcd1a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/EFTA02831199.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,826 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 13238, + "elapsed_seconds": 176.02, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_120.jpeg", + "_page_15_Picture_172.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Confidential", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Confidential", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Confidential", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 49.41 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Confidential", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 284.58, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 388.9908447265625, + 34.83 + ], + [ + 388.9908447265625, + 49.34210205078125 + ], + [ + 284.58, + 49.34210205078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 40 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 53 + ], + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 100 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Text", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 54 + ], + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 52 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 71 + ], + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 50 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Text", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 53 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831199" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_0_Picture_120.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_0_Picture_120.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..536258faea19d053e4bb9d1e4df802b1f84d88e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_0_Picture_120.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d6a92975c6ea09448c0145dc5a6a11ca624d389927be8a1798763a9fa1590673 +size 8020 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_15_Picture_172.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_15_Picture_172.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a52ae8d671081700ee953d1d8befe012c34e194 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831199/_page_15_Picture_172.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4587c89bbb5302b93d9918243a0cc18eb0be695896d49af74b1fee522f872aba +size 8075 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..709ae4832ea4efe0d71c3b8ace2e75a2238ae3fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.md @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ +### REPORT in the matter of + +United States of America v. Souleymane Balde + +by + +Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. Director BEDS, LUC + +December 7, 2020 + +### REPORT in the matter of United States of America v. Soule mane Balde + +Bernard IL Siskin, Ph.D. + +### I. INTRODUCTION + +I. I am a Director of BLDS, LLC, a specialty consulting firm. Prior to joining BLDS, I did similar work at the specialty consulting firms, LECG, LLC, the Center for Forensic Economic Studies, Inc., and National Economic Research Associates (NERA). Prior to that, I was a tenured faculty member and Chairman of the Department of Statistics at Temple University in Philadelphia. I received my Ph.D. in Statistics with a minor in Econometrics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1970. I have authored four books on statistical methodology, three book chapters, four research monographs, and numerous papers, including articles on the role of statistics in the analysis of employment discrimination issues. Since receiving my Ph.D., I have specialized in the application of statistics to the analysis of employment practices. In this capacity, I have been retained by numerous governmental private organizations including, but not limited to, the Third Circuit Task Force on Race and Gender, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and various states and municipalities as well as numerous private corporations. My resume is attached as Appendix A. + +### II. ASSIGNMENT + +2. I have been asked by Counsel for the United States to assess the extent to which the jury wheel and qualified jury wheel drawn for use in Plains, in the Southern + +District of New York from the November I, 2016 jury eligible population is representative of the community from which it is supposed to be drawn. The population for which the jury is meant to be representative is normally defined as the population of citizens of the United States who are at least 18 years old who reside in the community. To the extent there is a difference in representation between the qualified jury wheel and the community of African Americans or Blacks (referred to herein as African Americans) and of Hispanics or Latinos (referred to herein as Hispanics), I was asked to assess the cause(s) of the difference. I also was asked to comment on the appropriateness and accuracy of the defendant's expert Jeffery assessment of the difference between the qualified jury wheel and the community. + +### III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +3. The African American percentage of the Plains qualified jury wheel was 3.69 percentage points lower than that in the Plains community (8.76% versus 12.45%, respectively) and the Hispanic percentage was 3.64 percentage points lower than that in the Plains community (10.48% versus 14.12%, respectively). This is consistent with what Defendant's expert Mr. reports in his declaration. + +4. The disparities were almost exclusively due to the pattern of African Americans and Hispanics having been sent a juror questionnaire, and being found to be qualified as a juror and not excused at a significantly lower rate than other races or ethnicities after returning the questionnaire. Of the 3.69 percentage point difference by race (African American), 2.58 (or 69.9% of the absolute disparity) is caused by this factor. Of the 3.64 percentage point difference by ethnicity (Hispanic), 2.59% (or 71.2% of the absolute disparity) is caused by this factor. + +5. Tracking the percent African American and Hispanic individuals in the community through to the percent African American and Hispanic individuals on the Plains qualified jury wheel, I was able to identify and measure the various causes of the absolute disparity between the community and the qualified jury wheel. + +6. The first step in the process of analyzing the qualified jury wheel is to re-create the jury wheel. The jury wheel is supposed to be a simple random selection from the voter registration lists. The jury wheel was chosen from the November 1, 2016 county voter registration lists. Based on geocoding the jury wheel, I was able to estimate that a proper random sample from the complete November 1, 2016 voter registration lists would have been 11.88% African American and 13.79% Hispanic. Hence, if a simple random sample had been selected, the absolute difference between the African American percent in the jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.57 percentage points, and the absolute difference between the Hispanic percent in the jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.33 percentage points. Hence, the voter lists are a good representation of the community benchmarks for representation of African Americans and Hispanics + +7. As pointed out by defendant's expert Mr. = the selection of the individuals on the jury wheel was not a simple random sample from the November 1, 2016 voter registration lists. That is, all registered voters did not have an equal chance of selection. There were two reasons for this. One, registered voters from the counties which provided jurors to both the Manhattan and Plains jury wheels were less likely to be selected than registered voters in counties which fed only the Plains jury wheel. Two, except for Dutchess County, inactive registered voters were not selected for the jury wheel.' These reasons were responsible for the actual jury wheel being only 11.20% African American and + +The voter registration lists for all counties but Dutchess did not include inactive registered voters. + +12.97% Hispanic. Thus, the decision to not draw a proper random sample accounts for 0.68% of the absolute disparity between the actual jury wheel and a random sample jury wheel for African Americans and 0.82% of the absolute disparity for Hispanics. + +8. Based on the geocoding of the jury wheel, it is evident that the percentage of African Americans and Hispanics of the actual Plains jury wheel is similar to the estimate of the percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in the Plains community. The percent African American of the jury wheel is 1.25 percentage points lower than that of the community, (12.45% versus 11.20%) and the percent Hispanics of the jury wheel is 1.15 percentage points lower than that of the community (14.12% versus 12.97%). + +9. Mr. notes that the disparity between the jury wheel and the qualified jury wheel is impacted by a clerical error in transcribing the individual's mailing address. This clerical error affected every county except Westchester. However, the impact of this clerical error on the absolute difference between the jury wheel and the qualified jury wheel for the African American percentage is negligible, and the error actually reduced the absolute difference between the jury wheel and the qualified jury wheel for African Americans and Hispanics. + +10. In sum, as (i) the voter registration lists and the jury wheel created from these lists reasonably mirror the representation of the community (an absolute disparity equal to or less than 1.25%), but (ii) because African Americans and Hispanics were less likely to respond to the questionnaire used to determine if the potential juror was qualified, and/or (iii) because African Americans and Hispanics who responded were less likely to be found qualified, and/or (iv) because African Americans and Hispanics who were found qualified were more likely to be excused, the absolute disparity between the Plains qualified jury wheel and the + +Plains community benchmark for African Americans increased from 1.25% to 3.69% and for Hispanics increased from 1.15% to 3.64%. + +1 1. Mr. also compared the qualified jury wheel for Plains with the Manhattan community and for the overall Southern District community. The Plains jury wheel is designed to be representative of the Plains community, not the Manhattan or Southern District community. The Manhattan and the Southern District communities are significantly more African American and Hispanic than the Plains community. Thus, since the Plains jury wheel is designed to be representative of the Plains community, by design it will not be representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic. + +### IV. DATA RELIED UPON + +12. The data I received and relied upon is listed in Appendix B of this declaration. + +### V. FINDINGS + +### A. Overview of Qualified Jury Wheel Selection Process. + +13. The jury wheel which forms the basis for the qualified jury wheel for the Plains community of the Southern District of New York is supposed to be drawn via a simple2 random sample from the voter lists from the six counties (Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, and Dutchess) making up Plains. The November 1, 2016 voter registration lists were used to construct the jury wheel used in this matter. However, either by design or in error, the selection from the voter lists was not actually a simple + +2 A simple random sample is one where each person in the population has an equal probability of being selected. + +random sample. First, the inactive voters in all counties except Dutchess were excluded from selection. Assuming that they should have been considered,; this exclusion resulted in the sample frame (the voter lists) being improperly defined for all counties except Dutchess. The second issue is that, of the six counties which make up the Plains community, three counties feed both the Manhattan and Plains jury wheel, while three counties feed only Plains. The process for selecting for the Plains jury wheel from the three non-overlapping counties was to select one out of every three voters, while the process for selecting from the three overlapping counties was to select one out of every 4.5 voters.° Thus, the Plains sampling methodology underrepresents the voters in the three overlapping counties.5 + +14. If the sample from the voter registration lists had been a simple random sample, then the jury wheel would be expected to mirror that of the voter registration lists as of November I, 2016. Any difference would be due to chance as a result of random selection and, given the large number of selections, the difference due to chance should be trivial. Of course, the jury wheel could vary from the actual demographics of the community due to + +3 There may be some valid reason for excluding inactive voters, but inactive voters from Dutchess county were included in the selection process, and some inactive voters responded and were on the qualified jury wheel. Thus, I assume that the exclusion of the inactive voters was in error and I explore the impact of this error in explaining any differences between the wheel and community demographics. + +4 The methodology was to first select the Manhattan wheel by selecting one out of every 3 voters from each county in the Manhattan community, and then for the overla ing counties to remove those selected for the Manhattan wheel from consideration for the Plains community and then selecting one out of every 3 of the remaining voters. The result is that, considering all voters in the county, only 1 out of every 4.5 are selected for the Plains community. + +5 The procedure may have been a compromise between having an overly burdensome process for voters in the overlapping counties whose chances of jury selection would be twice that of voters in non-overlappin counties and the underrepresentation of voters in the overlapping counties in the Plains jury wheel. + +systematic differences in the populations of those who register to vote by race or ethnicity. That is, if African Americans or Hispanics are less likely (or more likely) to register to vote, then the selection from the voter lists would be expected to underrepresent (or overrepresent) African Americans and Hispanics to the extent that the likelihood of not registering to vote differs among the demographic groups. + +15. Since jurors are always anticipated to be needed for future trials, at least once a year, persons on the jury wheel are selected for possible jury duty via simple random sampling. Those randomly selected are sent questionnaires to determine their qualifications to sit as a juror. The names of persons who complete and return the questionnaire and are found to be qualified as jurors are placed on the qualified jury wheel from which jurors are selected, unless they are granted an exclusion from jury service. If the demographics of the jury wheel and qualified juror wheel differ, it is because of demographic differences in the population of those who return the questionnaire and/or are found to be qualified and/or excused.6 + +### B. Analyzing If There is a Difference in the Demouraplithe Plains Qualified Jury Wheel and the Demographics of the Plains Community. + +16. The only statistic we actually know that will allow us to assess the difference between the demographics of the Plains qualified jury wheel and the comparable demographics of the Plains community is the racial and ethnic make-up of the qualified jury wheel. + +17. Based on the actual potential jurors' responses concerning their race and ethnicity, the Plains qualified jury wheel is 8.76% African American and 10.48% Hispanic. + +6 Some small increase or decrease in the representation of African Americans and Hispanics would be expected to occur by chance, but this is unlikely to have any meaningful impact of the absolute disparity for African Americans and Hispanics. + +18. The jury wheel, which defined the potential pool of jurors for the qualified jury wheel, was based on the voter registration lists as of November 1, 2016 and was used to select all potential pools of jurors for juries composed after that date. The date on which the comparable demographics of the community should be ascertained is unclear. Should it be the population as of November 1, 2016 or some date thereafter? Of course, data on the population in the community is not available for any specific date. The best one can do is look at the best available data closest the appropriate date. The best data source is the latest available American Community Survey (ACS) data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The latest available data is the 2018 5- year survey combining the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 survey data.7 The 2018 survey includes data both before and after November 1, 2016. The ACS collects survey information continuously nearly every day of the 5 years and then aggregates the results. The data collection is spread evenly across the entire period represented, so as not to overrepresent any particular month or year within the period, but it does not measure the population at a single point in time. The decennial census samples are designed to measure characteristics as of a certain date (or a narrow time period). For example, Census 2010 was designed to measure the characteristics of the population and housing in the United States based upon data collected around April 1, 2010, and thus its data reflects a narrower time frame than ACS data. If areas have consistent population characteristics throughout the ACS time period, their period estimates may not look much different from estimates that would be obtained from a "point-in-time" survey design. However, if areas experience significant changes in the characteristics of the population over the time period, ACS period estimates (especially for a 5- year period) may noticeably differ from "point-in-time" estimates. I mention this only to point out that there will + +7 The 2019 ACS is due to be released to the public on December 10, 2020. + +almost always be a disconnect between the estimate of the demographics of the community and the demographics of the jury wheel, simply because there will be a disconnect between the timing of the two estimates. Regardless of whether one believes the appropriate point in time to define the comparable community population should be as of November 1, 2016 or some date thereafter, the best available data to estimate the demographics of the community is the 5-year 2018 ACS. + +19. Using the ACS data concerning the population of U.S. citizens at least 18 years of age residing in the counties comprising Plains, the racial and ethnic representation is 12.45% African American and 14.12% Hispanic. + +20. Comparing the demographics of the Plains community to the demographics of the qualified jury wheel, we find that the African American representation in the community is 3.69 percentage points higher than their representation on the qualified jury wheel (12.45%- 8.76%) and the Hispanic representation in the community is 3.64 percentage points higher than their representation on the qualified jury wheel (14.12%-10.48%). + +21. Whether this difference is practically significant or legally meaningful is a decision for the Court. To aid the Court in its determination, I have estimated the impact of the various causes for these differences. + +### C. Determining and Measuring the Causes of the Difference Between the Demographics of the (Nullified Jury Wheel and the Estimate of the Demographics of the Community of Which the Oualified Jury Wheel is Supposed to be Representative. + +22. As discussed above, the first step in the process of creating the qualified jury wheel is to re-create the jury wheel. The jury wheel is supposed to be a simple random sample from the registered voter lists of the counties making up Plains. After selecting potential jurors for the jury wheel, simple random samples of the potential jurors arc + +selected and those selected are sent a questionnaire to determine if they are qualified. The names of persons who complete and return the questionnaire and are found to be qualified as a juror, unless granted an exception from jury service, are then placed on the qualified jury wheel from which potential jurors are summoned. + +23. What in this process could cause the difference in the percent African American and percent Hispanic between the benchmark and the qualified jury wheel? Below is a list of all likely possible causes of such a difference. In considering the differences, I view the process as moving sequentially from the voter registration lists to the qualified jury wheel, and I compare the absolute disparity in the percent African American and Hispanic at each step with that of the community. + +24. Reasons 1-3 focus on the causes of the differences between a jury wheel that is drawn from the voter registration list such that every registered voter in Plains as of November I, 2016 had an equal likelihood of being included, and the community. Reasons 4-5 focus on the causes of the differences between the actual jury wheel and such a randomly drawn jury wheel. Reasons 6-8 focus on the causes of the differences between the qualified jury wheel and the jury wheel. + +### Reasons: + +## Community vs Randomly Selected Jury Wheel from Voter Registration Lists + +- 1) The community may differ from the randomly selected jury wheel because U.S. citizens of voting age (Le., the community) and those registered to vote (i.e., the jury wheel) are different. +- 2) The estimate of the demographics of the community may differ from the demographics of those on the voter registration lists because the estimates are from different times and also + +because the voter list demographics are as of a specific point in time, while the community estimate is over a five-year period of time (2014-2018). + +- 3) The community may differ from the randomly selected jury wheel because of chance in selection from the voter registration lists. + +### Randomly Selected Jury Wheel vs Actual Jury Wheel + +- 4) The actual jury wheel may differ from a randomly drawn jury wheel because the sample selection underweights the probability of selection from the counties feeding both the Plains and Manhattan jury wheels. This is referred to as the "prorating" issue. +- 5) The actual jury wheel may differ from a randomly drawn jury wheel because, in five of the six counties, the voter registration lists did not include inactive voters. This is referred to as the "sample frame" issue. + +## Qualified Jury Wheel vs Jury Wheel + +- 6) The qualified jury wheel may differ from the jury wheel because of clerical errors in transferring the mailing (alternative) address to the jury wheel, which potentially results in not being able to properly reach some potential jurors on the jury wheel to determine if they should be placed on the qualified jury wheel. +- 7) The qualified jury wheel may differ from the jury wheel because being sent a questionnaire, returning the questionnaire, and being found to be qualified as a juror and not excused are different by race or ethnicity. +- 8) The qualified jury wheel may differ from the jury wheel by chance resulting from the random selection of those on the jury wheel who will be sent a questionnaire. + +25. Now that I have defined the likely causes, the next step is to estimate the effect of each of these causes. + +### Reasons I. 2. and 3 + +26. The first reason requires analysis of the jury wheel and the voter registration lists, which do not contain reliable race and ethnicity information. Therefore, I had to estimate the race and ethnicity composition of the jury wheel and voter registration Ikis. The common and widely used method for estimating race is geocoding.8 Geocoding is based on estimating the proportion of persons who are of a given race based on the racial mix of where they live. In defining where they live, I used the residence address on the voter registration list. Conceptually, geocoding uses the racial/ethnic mix of the area where one resides to estimate the race of persons on the list from that area. That is, if 100 persons on the jury wheel live in an area in which 85% of the voter age U.S. citizens are African American, then we would estimate that 85 of these 100 are African American, and 15 are not. Assuming that the probability of being randomly selected for the jury wheel if you live in that area is the same for everyone, this estimate will be very reliable, especially if we are selecting large numbers of persons. For example, if there are 343,984 (the size of the jury wheel) selections from the area, the probability is 95% that the actual percent of African Americans will be within .001 percentage points of 85%. The more homogeneous the areas defined for the geocoding, the more accurate the estimate of the race of the wheel will be. To maximize accuracy of the geocoding, I defined the area as the census tract,9 which is the smallest area for which information about the race of voter age U.S. citizens was available. The smaller the area, + +\$ Defendant's expert also geocoded the voter registration lists. + +9 Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. A census tract usually covets a contiguous area. + +and the more homogeneous the area, the more accurate the geocoding estimate. I defined the population in the census tract as U.S. citizens of voting age. To estimate the percent Hispanic, I used the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) method, which enhances the accuracy of the geocoding by also using information about the ethnicity of a person's last name. This method has been shown to significantly improve the estimation for Hispanics.1° + +27. There is one constraint on the accuracy of the geocoding methodology. The basic assumption is that if the potential voting eligible population (U.S. citizens of voting age) in a census tract is 85% African American, then we would expect 85% of those on the jury wheel who reside in that census tract to be African American. However, since the jury wheel is selected from registered voters and not from potentially voting-eligible persons, this assumes that the likelihood of registering to vote for those who live within the same census tract is the same by race and ethnicity. If African Americans and/or Hispanics are less likely to register to vote, the results of the geocoding will overestimate the percent of African Americans and Hispanics on the jury wheel (reason 1). However, there is no valid statistical evidence to conclude there is such a difference." + +28. Based on the geocoding, the race and ethnicity representation of the wheel is 11.20% African American and 12.97% Hispanic. Thus, the jury wheel is 1.25 + +10 For additional information on BISG, see Elliott, M.N., P.A., et al. "Using the Census Bureau's Surname List to Improve Estimates of Race/Ethnicity and Associated Disparities" in Health Sery Outcomes Res Method 9:69-83 (2009). + +" The only data available on citizens registering to vote by race and ethnicity is published by the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey November 2016, and it shows the rates across the state, not within the same census tract. The difference in rates of registering by race and ethnicity statewide would be expected to be greater than within census tracts. The data for November 2016 shows African American citizens more likely to register by 1 percentage point, and Hispanic citizens less likely to register by 7.2 percentage points. Neither of these differences are statistically significantly. + +percentage points less African American than the estimated percent in the community and 1.15 percentage points less Hispanic than the estimated percent in the community. + +29. While the demographics of the jury wheel are similar to those of community, they are not identical. Looking at the list of reasons above, the difference between the voter registration lists and the community could be caused by reason 1 and/or by reason 2 or by reason 3, which explain why differences in the voter registration lists and a randomly drawn jury wheel from the voter lists may occur. Alternatively, the difference may be caused by reason 4 and/or reason 5 and/or reason 6 which explain why differences between the jury wheel and voter lists may occur. + +30. Focusing initially on the difference between a randomly drawn jury wheel and the voter registration file, one possible cause (reason 3) is due to chance in randomly selecting from the voter registration lists. While possible, it is highly unlikely to be a meaningful cause of the disparity. The jury wheel is supposed to be a simple random sample drawn from the voter registration lists. Given the size of the sample drawn, the representation on the jury wheel should almost perfectly mirror the demographics of the voter registration lists. It is highly likely that chance variation would only result in at most a 0.001 difference between the jury wheel and the voter registration lists in their demographic characteristics. Hence, the difference between the community and a randomly drawn sample from the voter registration lists must be almost exclusively because of differences between the voter registration lists and the community (reasons 1 and 2). As shown herein, the voter registration lists are a good source from which to pick a wheel that is representative of the community benchmarks for African Americans and Hispanics. The absolute disparity between a randomly drawn jury wheel from the voter registration lists is only 0.57% for African Americans and 0.33% for Hispanics. + +### Reasons 4 and 5 + +31. The actual selection of the jury wheel was not a simple random sample from the November 1, 2016 voter registration lists.12 Reasons 4 and 5 delineate why the selection from the voter registration list was not a simple random sample. The impacts of this can easily be measured by simply estimating what the demographics of the jury wheel would have been if the sample had been a simple random sample. The difference thus measures the impact of not drawing a simple random sample. For reason 4, the prorating issue, we can exactly measure the impact by simply weighting upward the selections from the overlapping counties so that they represent 1/3 of the registered voters in those counties, as do the actual selections for the non-overlapping counties, and then seeing what effect it has on the percent African American and Hispanic. To address reason 5, the sample frame issue, in order to determine the demographics of a random jury wheel if they had been considered, we need to know two things. One, we need to know the number of inactive voters in each of these counties who were not considered, and two, we need to know what the percent African American and Hispanic is among those inactive voters. While I have the counts of inactive voters in each county, unfortunately, I was not supplied with, nor do I have access to names and addresses necessary to determine the extent to which the demographic characteristics of inactive and active registered voters are different. This information is available only for Dutchess county. Therefore, precisely determining the characteristics of a sample frame including the inactive voters can only be done for Dutchess county, where such data exists. However, if we assume that the relative difference (percent change in percent African American or Hispanic) in the percent African + +12 A simple random sample is one in which the sample frame is unbiased and each element in the frame has an equal probability of selection. + +American or Hispanic between active and inactive votes in other counties is the same as in Dutchess, we can estimate what the jury wheel demographics would have been if inactive voters were considered in selecting potential jurors for all counties, not just Dutchess. + +32. The analysis shows that, with respect to the prorating issue (reason 4), the impact of the proportionality was to lower the African American percentage by 0.34 percentage points and also lower the Hispanic percentage by 0.39 percentage points on the jury wheel. The sample frame issue (reason 5) meant inactive voters were not in the sampling frame for selection to the actual jury wheel and, as a result, the number of selections on the jury wheel was lower than it would have been had they been in the sampling frame for selection.13 However, the real question is what the impact of this restricted sampling frame on the African American and Hispanic percentages was. I estimate that the African American percentage was reduced by 0.34 percentage points and the Hispanic percentage was reduced by 0.43 percentage points due to the failure to consider inactive voters for the jury wheel. + +33. Thus, the failure to take a simple random sample (Le., the combination of reasons 4 and 5) resulted in the actual jury wheel representation of African Americans being 0.68 percentage points lower and Hispanics being 0.82 lower and, as a result, the absolute disparity between the actual jury wheel and the community was 1.25 for African Americans and 1.15 for Hispanics. + +13 The number dpssons on the jury wheel would have increased by 6,270 (or 7.9%). The number ofM ji.wheel selections from Putnam would have increased by 1,799 (or 7.8%). The number of juial eel selections from Rockland would have increased by 3,051 (or 6.7%). The number oa jury wheel selections from would have increased by 2,383 (or 13.55%) and the number of jury wheel selections from Westchester would have increased by 11,841 (or 8.1%). + +### Reasons 6. 7. and 8 + +34. The last step in creating the qualified jury wheel is the selection from the jury wheel of those deemed qualified and not excused. Reasons 6, 7 and/or 8 are the potential causes of any disparity between the qualified jury wheel and the jury wheel. + +35. Focusing on the difference between the jury wheel and the qualified jury wheel, one possible cause (reason 8) is that the qualified jury wheel differs from the jury wheel because of chance in selecting persons from the voter registration lists to be sent a questionnaire to determine if they are qualified and not excused and should therefore be moved to the qualified jury wheel. While possible, it is not expected that the demographics of those mailed a questionnaire will meaningly differ from those not mailed a questionnaire. Any variation should be random and equally likely to overrepresent or underrepresent any race or ethnicity. Those mailed a questionnaire are chosen by a simple random sample drawn from the jury wheel. Given the size of the samples drawn, the representation on the jury wheel should closely mirror the demographics of the voter lists. + +36. However, some difference between the qualified jury wheel and the jury wheel may be caused by the clerical error in transferring alternative mailing addresses to the jury wheel (reason 6), which was noted by defendant's expert Mr. =. If the clerical error disproportionately impacted African Americans and Hispanics either positively or negatively it could explain some of the difference between the qualified jury wheel and the jury wheel. That is, the clerical error failure to pick up the zip code from the alternative addresses on the voter registration list likely prevented the questionnaire from reaching those who provided alternative addresses. All who were affected by this error were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but we do not know if the error affected more African Americans + +or Hispanics or fewer. Thus, the disparity may be because the clerical error led to African Americans and Hispanics being more likely or less likely to not respond to the mailed questionnaire because they did not receive the questionnaire due to this issue. I was able to identify the persons on the jury wheel whose questionnaire was mailed to the incomplete alternative mailing address on the voter registration list. None of these persons responded to the questionnaire, presumably because they never received it due to the clerical error. Assuming that, absent the clerical error, these persons would have received the questionnaire and made it onto the qualified jury wheel at the same rate as those in the county who were not subject to the clerical error, I estimated the number of additional persons who would have made it on to the qualified jury wheel by race and ethnicity. Overall, 1,681 additional persons would have made it onto the qualified jury wheel, of which 111 (or 6.60%) would have been African American and 149 (or 8.87%) would have been Hispanic. That is, correcting this clerical error would increase the number of persons on the qualified jury wheel, but lower the percent of persons on the qualified jury wheel that were African American and Hispanic. Based on this analysis, I estimated that if the clerical error had not been made, the percent African American on the qualified jury wheel would have slightly decreased by 0.14 percentage points (from 8.76% up 8.62%) while the percent Hispanic on the qualified jury wheel would have slightly decreased by 0.10 percentage points (from 10.48% down to 10.38%). Obviously, this clerical error is not a cause of the difference in African American and Hispanic representation between the qualified jury wheel and the community. + +37. The final and dominant cause of the difference between the qualified jury wheel and the jury wheel, and hence the difference between the qualified jury wheel and the community, is the fact that when African Americans and Hispanics on the jury wheel are + +randomly selected and sent questionnaires, they are less likely to return the questionnaire, and/or they are more likely to be found not qualified as a juror when they return the questionnaire, and/or they are more likely to be excused when found qualified, and, hence, African Americans and Hispanics are less likely to be moved from the ██████████ jury wheel onto the qualified jury wheel (reason 7). As a result of this, the percent of African Americans on the qualified jury wheel is 2.58 percentage points lower and the percent of Hispanics is 2.59 percentage points lower. This accounts for all of the absolute difference between the qualified jury wheel and ██████████ jury wheel and 69.9% of the absolute difference between the qualified jury wheel and the community for African Americans and 71.2% for Hispanics. + +38. The summary of the results of the analysis of the impact of the various causes on the difference between the qualified jury wheel and the community are presented in the table below. + +**ANALYSIS OF ABSOLUTE DISPARITY BETWEEN QUALIFIED JURY WHEEL AND COMMUNITY AND THE CAUSES +AND IMPACT OF THE CAUSES ON THE ABSOLUTE DISPARITY** + +| Entity | Percent of Entity | | Absolute Disparity:
Difference in
Percentage Points
From Community | | Difference in
Percentage Points Due
to Cause | | Percent of Difference
Qualified Jury Wheel
to Community Due to
this Cause | | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------| +| | African
American
or Black | Hispanic
or Latino | African
American
or Black | Hispanic
or Latino | African
American
or Black | Hispanic
or Latino | African
American
or Black | Hispanic
or Latino | +| | Qualified jury wheel | 8 76 | 10 48 | 3 69 | 3 64 | | | | +| Due to differences in being found to be qualified as a juror or being excused | | | | | 2 58 | 2 59 | 69 9% | 71 2% | +| Due to clerical error in handling alternative mailing address | | | | | -0 14 | -0 10 | -3 8% | -2 7% | +| ██████████ wheel | 11 20 | 12 97 | 1 25 | 1 15 | | | | | +| Failure to consider inactive voters except in Dutchess | | | | | 0 34 | 0 43 | 9 2% | 11 8% | +| Due to underrepresenting counties in both Manhattan and ██████████ Plains | | | | | 0 34 | 0 39 | 9 2% | 10 7% | +| ██████████ wheel if simple random sample | 11 88 | 13 79 | 0 57 | 0 33 | | | | | +| Differences in U S citizens voting age and those registered to vote and/or disconnect in time between community benchmark and voter lists | | | | | 0 57 | 0 33 | 15 4% | 9 1% | +| Community | 12 45 | 14 12 | | | | | | | + +### VI. REVIEW OF JEFFREY AFFIDAVIT + +39. Mr. computes the percent African American on the Plains qualified jury wheel and the estimated percent African American and Hispanic in Plains, Manhattan, and the overall Southern District using the 5-year ACS. I can reproduce his calculations. He then compares the demographics of the Plains qualified jury wheel to that of the Plains community, the Manhattan community, and the Southern District community. + +40. He computes the absolute difference between the Plains qualified jury wheel and the Plains community based on the 5-year 2018 ACS data, as I do. While I did not compare the Plains qualified jury wheel and the Manhattan and Southern District community estimates, I do not dispute his reported absolute disparities. However, since the percent African American and Hispanic in Manhattan and the Southern District are significantly larger than in Plains, and the jury wheel is designed to represent Plains, by design the Plains jury wheel and hence its qualified jury wheel will be significantly demographically different, since the communities' demographics are different. + +41. Mr. properly notes that the jury wheel was not a valid simple random sample, so it does not properly represent the voter lists from which potential jurors are selected, due to what he labels a proration issue (the voters in different overlapping counties have a different selection rate than those non-overlapping counties) and the fact that inactive voters on the voter list were not selected in five counties. He also points out that, in making the jury wheel, there was a clerical error in that zip codes were not included for individuals who provided an alternative mailing address when they registered to vote. The result of this error was that voters who provided an alternative mailing address never responded to the questionnaire, presumably because they never received it due to the clerical error. + +42. While the issues raised by Mr. are valid, he never actually measures their impact to determine if they meaningfully impact the demographics of the qualified jury wheel. If he had done so, as I actually did and report above, he would have found the issues about which he raises concerns explain relatively little of the absolute disparity in the representation of African American and Hispanic individuals between the qualified jury wheel and the community. + +43. Mr. declaration expends much effort in defining populations of persons in the community who are not or cannot be in the jury wheel (i.e., reason 2 above). This is of little value. The issue is only whether and to what extent they are different, what is causing them to be different, and to what extent it causes them to be different. Thus, the issue is not whether someone is left out. For example, clearly persons in the community in 2020 who were too young to register to vote on November 2016, or persons who moved into the area after November 2016 are not on the November I, 2016 voter registration lists. However, the issue is not who is on the current voter registration list but was not on the November I, 2016 voter registration list. Rather, the question is what is causing the difference between the qualified jury wheel—that is based on the November 1, 2016 voter population—and the benchmark for the community—which is based on the 5-year ACS. Persons who move into Plains are also not in the benchmark computation. If we are to update the voter registration lists to match the current community benchmarks (an impossible task) we would also need to update the community benchmark. Mr. presents the difference in the wheels based on the November 2016 voter registration lists and the benchmark based on the community demographics between 2014 and 2018. The relevant question is what factors cause the difference he presents, and to what extent these factors cause the absolute disparity between the community benchmark and the + +qualified jury wheel. Mr. presentation, unlike my analysis, never does this. Instead, he cherry picks issues which might impact the absolute disparity, but never measures the extent to which it does, or he simply cherry picks persons who are in the community currently but not in November I, 2016, without any attempt to update the community benchmarks. + +Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. + +Dated: December 7, 2020 + +## APPENIDX A + +r rd r r + +1608 Walnut Street Suite 1108 Philadelphia, PA 19103 USA + +Main: 215.717.2320 Fax: 215.717.2324 Email: statgroupQbldsl Ic.com + +### SUMMARY + +Bernard Siskin received his B.S. degree in Mathematics from the University of Pittsburgh and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the University of Pennsylvania. For many years, he taught statistics at Temple University and served as Chairman of the Department of Statistics. + +Dr. Siskin has specialized in the application of statistics in law, particularly in the area of analyzing data for statistical evidence of discrimination. He has testified for both plaintiffs and defendants in more than 200 cases, many of which were large employment class actions. In addition to discrimination studies, he has conducted statistical studies and has testified in commercial and environmental cases involving statistical issues. + +Dr. Siskin has frequently been appointed by federal judges as a neutral expert to aid the court in statistical issues and he was the statistical consultant to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Task Force on Equal Treatment in the Courts. I was also appointed by the Court as an Expert to measure the accuracy of the CCC vehicle valuation methodology and I suggested possible modifications to the methodology. + +Dr. Siskin is the author of many articles and textbooks on statistics and quantitative techniques including Elementary Business Statistics, Encyclopedia of Management and Quantitative Techniques for Business Decisions. He has also written and lectured extensively on the use of statistics in litigation. + +He has served as a statistical consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), OFCCP and Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), as well as numerous other federal, state and city agencies and Fortune Five Hundred corporations. + +### EDUCATION + +University of Pennsylvania Ph.D., Statistics (Minor, Econometrics), 1970 + +University of North Carolina Graduate Study (Major, Economics; Minor, Statistics), 1966 + +University of Pittsburgh B.S., Mathematics (Minor, Economics), 1965 + +## PRESENT POSITION + +BLDS, LLC, Director, 2011 + +### TEACHING EXPERIENCE + +Temple University, Adjunct Professor of Law School, 1992 to 2005 Temple University, Tenured Associate Professor of Statistics, 1973 to 1984 Temple University, Chairman-Department of Statistics, 1973 to 1978 Temple University, Assistant Professor of Statistics, 1970 to 1973 Temple University, Instructor of Statistics, 1968 to 1970 + +### OTHER POSITIONS HELD + +LECG, Director, 2003 to 2011 Center for Forensic Economic Studies, Senior Vice President, 1991 to 2003 National Economic Research Associates, Inc., Senior Vice President, 1989 to 1991 National Economic Research Associates, Inc., Vice President, 1986 to 1989 Center for Forensic Economic Studies, Ltd., President, 1984 to 1986 Center for Forensic Economic Studies, Ltd., Consultant, 1980 to 1984 + +### PUBLICATIONS + +### Books + +- 1. B. Siskin and N. M, "Proper Methods for Statistical Analysis of Promotions," Adverse Impact Analysis: Understanding Data, Statistics, and Risk, Psychology Press, 2017, S. Morris and E. Dunleavy, eds. +- 2. B. Siskin, "Employment Discrimination Litigation: Behavioral, Quantitative, and Legal Perspectives" John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2005, Chapter 5 Statistical Issues in Litigation (with Trippi). +- 3. B. Siskin, "Use of Statistical Models to Provide Statistical Evidence of Discrimination in the Treatment of Mortgage Loan Applicants: A Study of One Lending Institution," Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination and Federal Policy, Urban Institute Press, 1996, J. Georing and R. Wienk, eds. +- 4. B. Siskin and J. Staller, What Are The Chances?, Crown Publishers, 1989. + +## PUBLICATIONS (Continued) + +### Books (Continued) + +1. 5. B. Siskin and R. ██████████, *Elementary Statistics: A First Course*, Duxbury Press, 1982. +2. 6. B. Siskin and R. ██████████, *Elementary Business Statistics*, Duxbury Press, 1979 + 2nd Edition, 1985 +3. 7. B. Siskin, *Encyclopedia of Management*, McGraw ██████████, 1979. (Ed. Les Bechtel). +4. 8. B. Siskin and R. ██████████, *Quantitative Techniques for Business Decisions*, Prentice ██████████, 1976. + +### Articles + +1. 1. B. Siskin and D. ██████████, "Litigating Employment Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Claims," *Litigation Handbook Series*, 2002. +2. 2. B. Siskin, H. Carter, V. Lee, G. Page, M. ██████████, R.G. ██████████, G. Swartzman, S. Kress, S. ██████████ and D.M. Fry, "The 1986 Apex Houston Oil Spill in Central California: Seabird Mortality and Population Impacts, Injury Assessments, Litigation Process, and Initial Restoration Efforts," *Marine Ornithology*, 2002. +3. 3. B. Siskin, Utilizing Statistics in Discrimination Cases, *Litigation Handbook Series*, 2001. +4. 4. B. Siskin, B. ██████████, J. Staller, and E. Hull, Defending and Proving Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases, *Litigation Handbook Series*, 2000. +5. 5. B. Siskin, "Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases," *Litigation Handbook Series*, 1998. +6. 6. B. Siskin and D. Kahn, "Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases," *Litigation Handbook Series*, 1997. +7. 7. B. Siskin, R. DuPont, D. ██████████, S. Shiraki, and E. Katze Random Workplace Drug Testing. Does It Primarily Identify Casual or Regular Drug Users?, *Employment Testing Law & Policy Reporter*, Vol. 4, Number One, 1995. +8. 8. B. Siskin, R. DuPont, D. ██████████, S. Shiraki, and E. Katze "Random Drug Tests at Work: The Probability of Identifying Frequent and Infrequent Users of Illicit Drugs," *Journal of Addictive Diseases*, Vol. 14, Number 3, 1995. +9. 9. B Siskin, J. Staller, B. ██████████ and L. Freifelder, "Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases," *Litigation Course Handbook Series*, 1995. +10. 10. B. Siskin, "Comparing the Role of Statistics In Lending and Employment Cases," *Fair Lending Analysis: A Compendium of Essays on the Use of Statistics*, American Bankers Association, 1995. +11. 11. B. Siskin, "Relationship Between Performance and Banding," *Human Performance*, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1995. +12. 12. B. Siskin, "Statistical Issues in Litigating Employment Discrimination Claims," *Federal Publications*, 1993. +13. 13. B. Siskin, "Use of Statistical Models to Provide Statistical Evidence of Discrimination in the Treatment of Mortgage Loan Applicants: A Study of One Lending Institution," *Discrimination and Mortgage Lending Research and Enforcement Conference* Department of Housing and Urban Development, May 1993. + +### SPEECHES (Partial List) + +- 1. Alabama Bar Association +- 2. American Bar Association +- 3. American Financial Services Association +- 4. American Statistical Association +- 5. Defense Research Institute +- 6. Federal Bar Association +- 6. Harvard University +- 7. Institute of Industrial Research +- 8. International Organization of Human Rights Association +- 9. Law Education Institute +- 10. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration +- 11. Michigan Bar Association +- 12. National Center on Aging +- 13. Ohio Bar Association +- 14. Penn State University +- 15. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission +- 16. Practising Law Institute +- 17. Security Industry Association +- 18. Women's Law Caucus: National Conference + +### STATISTICAL CONSULTANT (Partial List) + +- 1. Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and states of California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Jersey +- 2. Board of Higher Education for Massachusetts and Oregon +- 3. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) +- 4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) +- 5. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) +- 6. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) +- 7. Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) +- 7. Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) +- 8. Homeland Security +- 9. International Organization of Human Rights Associations +- 10. Municipal Court of Philadelphia +- 11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) +- 12. Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor (OFCCP) +- 13. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission +- 14. Security Exchange Commission +- 15. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Task Force on Equal Treatment in the Courts +- 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture +- 17. U.S. Department of Commerce +- 18. U.S. Department of Labor 19.U. S. Justice Department +- 20. Numerous Fortune 500 and other private corporations + +## Testimony Listing for Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. + +| Date Case Name | | | | Location | | Activity | On Behalf Of | | +|----------------|--------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------|----| +| 201 | Rober so | e al. . alle Comm | ca o s Ce er | P ladel | a P | De os o | Pia | ff | +| 201 | S a | a oel mma | ella Sea . C of | ew or ew | or C | De os o | Defe da | | +| 201 | Ilma | d s r al Pro er es e al. . Merca | | le Ba P ladel | a P | De os o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | S | e rel. ose R. aide | ea c. e al. | Was | go DC | De os o | Defe da | | +| 201 | eal | ew c. . merca | er a o al | P ladel | a P | De os o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | le sasser | Progress e | | Sea le W | | r al | Pla | ff | +| 201 | Grea er Brm g am M | | s r es e al. . o orabie o | Was | g o DC | De os o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | de e de | L g Ce er of So | er C e al | C Was | g o DC | De os o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | Marc Da el | g a . Its a e | s ra ce Coma | P ladel | a P | De os o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | Mar | le sasser e al | Progress e D rec | s ra ce P ladel | a P | Declara o | Pla | ff | +| 201 | Bre da | oe ler e al | foss ec olog es e al | Was | g o DC | De os o | Della da | | + +### APPENDIX B + +SDNY\_JA\_000001 BronxCounty SDNY\_JA\_000002 DutchessCounty SDNY\_JA\_000749 ManhattanCounty SDNY\_JA\_000750 OrangeCounty SDNY JA\_00075 I PutnamCounty SDNY\_ JA\_ 000752 ROCKLAND COUNTY VOTERS 11132012 SDNY\_JA\_000753 RocklandCounty SDNY\_JA\_000754 SullivanCounty SDNY\_JA\_000755 WestchesterCounty SDNY\_ JA\_ 000756 JMS Wheel 5 NYC SDNY\_JA\_000757 JMS Wheel 5 WP SDNY\_ JA\_ 000758 Qualified JMS Wheel 5 NYC SDNY\_ JA\_ 000759 Qualified JMS Wheel 5 WP + +SDNY\_JA\_000116-000120 Item 8 Statistical or Demographic analyses Source List Race Gender Report + +Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss The Indictment As It Was Obtained In Violation Of The Fifth And Sixth Amendments To The United States Constitution And In Violation Of The Jury Selection And Service Act + +Declaration of Jeffrey dated November 9, 2020 + +Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey dated November 20, 2020 + +The defense used data as of November 1, 2016: + +https://www.elections.ny.gov/EnrollmentCounty.html + +NYSVoter Enrollment by County, Party Affiliation and Status + +Voters Registered as of November I, + +2016 https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/enrollment/countv/countv nov16.pdf \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27a0798c5c01ed25d9b552b408689e915631d70e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220/EFTA02831220.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2047 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831220.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 30, + "chars": 58857, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.12, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPORT \nin the matter of", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 350.520751953125, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 350.520751953125, + 113.070556640625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 113.070556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPORT \nin the matter of \nUnited States of America v. Soule mane Balde", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.4302062988281, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 427.4302062988281, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 224.1856231689453, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 224.1856231689453, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ASSIGNMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 209.58880615234375, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 209.58880615234375, + 652.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 652.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 267.57672119140625, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 267.57672119140625, + 348.4335632324219 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 348.4335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. DATA RELIED UPON", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 248.46990966796875, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 248.46990966796875, + 376.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 376.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. FINDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 188.0878143310547, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 188.0878143310547, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Overview of Qualified Jury Wheel Selection Process.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 380.4429931640625, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 380.4429931640625, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Analyzing If There is a Difference in the Demouraplithe Plains \nQualified Jury Wheel and the Demographics of the Plains Community.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 508.09649658203125, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 508.09649658203125, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Determining and Measuring the Causes of the Difference Between the \nDemographics of the (Nullified Jury Wheel and the Estimate of the Demographics of \nthe Community of Which the Oualified Jury Wheel is Supposed to be \nRepresentative.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 596.3035125732422 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 596.3035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 120.26891326904297, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 120.26891326904297, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Community vs Randomly Selected Jury Wheel from Voter Registration Lists", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 499.55718994140625, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 499.55718994140625, + 555.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 555.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Randomly Selected \nJury Wheel vs Actual Jury Wheel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 423.21832275390625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 423.21832275390625, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Qualified Jury Wheel vs Jury Wheel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 303.5982971191406, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 303.5982971191406, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons I. 2. and 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.428, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.7677307128906, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.7677307128906, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 256.428, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons 4 and 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 348.05712890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 348.05712890625, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons 6. 7. and 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.428, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.60919189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.60919189453125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 256.428, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ANALYSIS OF ABSOLUTE DISPARITY BETWEEN QUALIFIED JURY WHEEL AND COMMUNITY AND THE CAUSES AND IMPACT OF THE CAUSES ON THE ABSOLUTE DISPARITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 503.676, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 503.676, + 395.28 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 395.28 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. REVIEW OF JEFFREY AFFIDAVIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8879089355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8879089355469, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPENIDX A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 345.116455078125, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 345.116455078125, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 86.67 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BLDS, LLC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 100.45758056640625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 100.45758056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 148.08839416503906, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 148.08839416503906, + 316.863037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 316.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BLDS, LLC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 100.45758056640625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 100.45758056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 102.87 + ], + [ + 157.406005859375, + 102.87 + ], + [ + 157.406005859375, + 117.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 117.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRESENT POSITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 200.97222900390625, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 200.97222900390625, + 269.60302734375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 269.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 231.00047302246094, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 231.00047302246094, + 324.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 324.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OTHER POSITIONS HELD", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 233.1162872314453, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 233.1162872314453, + 434.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 434.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 176.50439453125, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 176.50439453125, + 559.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 559.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 115.25025939941406, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 115.25025939941406, + 573.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 573.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BLDS, LLC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 96.38999999999999 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 96.38999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS (Continued)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 115.83 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books (Continued)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 173.808, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 173.808, + 129.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 129.60000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Articles", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 238.95 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 238.95 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BLDS, LLC", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 75.21282958984375 + ], + [ + 205.4631805419922, + 100.45758056640625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 100.45758056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPEECHES (Partial List)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 216.80630493164062, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 216.80630493164062, + 117.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 117.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATISTICAL CONSULTANT (Partial List)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 322.08880615234375, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 322.08880615234375, + 407.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 407.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Testimony Listing for Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 467.5701599121094, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 467.5701599121094, + 96.67822265625 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 96.67822265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPENDIX B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 361.95147705078125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 361.95147705078125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831220" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc1dbc04eea3f75f916d3dcd94604fbd6a62ad72 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.md @@ -0,0 +1,2431 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S 120 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +-----------------------------------------x + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| I. | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT BACKGROUND ARGUMENT Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York | I 2 1 3 4 | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------| +| 1. | The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts | 5 | +| 2. | The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts | 9 | +| | B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution | 15 | +| 1. | The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 | 15 | +| 2. | The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell | 17 | +| | C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing | 21 | +| | II. The Indictment Is Thnely | 23 | +| | A. Statutory Background | 24 | +| | B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively | 26 | +| 1. | The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf | 28 | +| 2. | The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf | 32 | +| | C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors | 36 | +| III. | The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre | | +| | Trial Delay Should Be Denied | 41 | +| | A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice | 42 | +| 1. | Applicable Law | 42 | +| 2. | Discussion B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the Indictment for | 44 | +| | An Improper Purpose | 52 | +| 1. | Applicable Law | 52 | +| 2. | Discussion | 54 | +| IV. | The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress | 59 | +| | A. Factual Background | 61 | +| 1. | The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell | 61 | +| 2. | February 2016 Meeting | 62 | +| 3. | The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell | 64 | +| 4. | The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018 | 65 | +| 5. | The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials | 66 | +| 6. | Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon | 68 | +| | a. March 26, 2019 Hearing | 68 | +| | b. April 9, 2019 Hearing | 70 | + +| c. | Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order | 71 | +|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 7. | Magistrate Judge Netbum's Order | 74 | +| 8. | Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions | 74 | +| 9. | The New York Daily News Article | 75 | +| | B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied | 76 | +| 1. | Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks | 76 | +| a. | Applicable Law | 76 | +| b. | Discussion | 79 | +| 2. | Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails | 82 | +| a. | Maxwell Has Not Established Standing | 82 | +| | i. Applicable Law | 82 | +| | ii. Discussion | 84 | +| b. | The Government Acted in Good Faith | 86 | +| | i. Applicable Law | 86 | +| | ii. Discussion | 88 | +| c. | | Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under the Inevitable Discovery | +| | Doctrine | 93 | +| | i. Applicable Law | 93 | +| | ii. Discussion | 94 | +| 3. | The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena | | +| | Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit | 96 | +| a. | Applicable Law | 96 | +| | i. The Fifth Amendment — Generally | 96 | +| | ii. The Fifth Amendment — Act of Production Privilege | 97 | +| | iii. The Fifth Amendment — When Private Action Is Deemed Government Action | 98 | +| b. | Discussion | 99 | +| 4. | The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell's Due Process Rights | 103 | +| a. | Applicable Law | 104 | +| b. | Discussion | 107 | +| 5. | The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order Suppression | 109 | +| a. | Applicable Law | 109 | +| b. | Discussion | 110 | +| 6. | The Defendant Is Not Entitled to a Hearing | 111 | +| a. | Applicable Law | 112 | +| b. | Discussion | 115 | +| | V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury | 116 | +| | A. Factual Background | 117 | +| | B. Applicable Law | 119 | +| | C. Discussion | 122 | +| 1. | April 2016 Deposition | 123 | +| 2. | July 2016 Deposition | 129 | +| 3. | Materiality | 135 | + +- **VI. Counts Five and Six Are Properly Joined and Should Not Be Severed..... 138** + - A. Applicable Law ..... 138 + - B. Discussion ..... 141 +- **VII. The Indictment Contains the Elements of Each Offense and Provides the Defendant More Than Adequate Notice of the Charges Against Her ..... 150** + - A. Applicable Law ..... 150 + - B. Discussion ..... 152 +- **VIII. There Is No Basis to Strike Any Portion of the Indictment ..... 157** + - A. Relevant Facts ..... 158 + - B. Applicable Law ..... 159 + - C. Discussion ..... 161 +- **IX. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature ..... 169** + - A. Relevant Facts ..... 169 + - B. Applicable Law ..... 170 + - C. Discussion ..... 172 +- **X. The Defendant’s Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denied ..... 174** + - A. Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted ..... 174 + - 1. Applicable Law ..... 174 + - 2. Discussion ..... 178 + - B. The Defendant’s Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied ..... 182 + - 1. Applicable Law ..... 182 + - 2. Discussion ..... 184 + - C. The Defendant’s Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied ..... 185 +- **XI. The Use of a Grand Jury Sitting in █████ Plains Was Entirely Proper ..... 193** + - A. Background ..... 194 + - 1. The SDNY and Local Rules for the Division of Business ..... 194 + - 2. The SDNY Jury Plan ..... 195 + - B. Applicable Law ..... 197 + - C. Discussion ..... 198 + - 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in █████ Plains ..... 198 + - 2. The Defendant’s Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless ..... 205 + - a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Represented ..... 205 + - b. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic Exclusion ..... 210 +- **CONCLUSION ..... 212** + +## EXHIBIT LIST + +Exhibit 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York + +Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email + +Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility + +Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call + +Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting + +Exhibit 6: November 30, 2018 Email + +Exhibit 7: December 6, 2018 Email + +Exhibit 8: February 28, 2019 Government Letter to Judge Sweet + +Exhibit 9: February 28, 2019 Government Letter to Judge Netbum + +Exhibit 10: Transcript of April 22, 2016 Deposition + +Exhibit 11: Transcript of July 22, 2016 Deposition + +Exhibit 12: Affidavit of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin + +#### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Albright v. 510 U.S. 266 (1993) | 152 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989) Arizona v. Youngblood, | 106, 119, 149 | +| 488 U.S. 51 (1988) Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., | 76 | +| 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) Berghuis v. | 19 | +| 559 U.S. 314 (2010) Blaszczak, | 299, 302 | +| 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) Blissett v. Lefevre, | 275 | +| 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) Blum v. Yaretsky, | 158 | +| 457 U.S. 991 (1982) Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, | 143 | +| 405 F.3d 964 Ilth Cir. 2005) | 24 | +| Botha v. Don Productions, Inc., v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) Bronston v. United States, | | +| 409 U.S. 352 (1973) Bryson v. United States, | 181 | +| 396 U.S. 64 (1969) Burgess v. United States, | 147 | +| 552 U.S. 124 (2008) Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, | 51 | +| 491 U.S. 617 (1989) Carpenter v. United States, | 159 | +| 138 S. Ct. 2206 v. Mississippi, | passim | +| 410 U.S. 284 (1973) Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., | 159 | +| 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) | passim | + +Page(s) + +| [REDACTED] v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. , | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| 567 U.S. 142 (2012) | 51 | +| Colorado v. Connelly , | | +| 479 U.S. 157 (1986) | 139, 141, 142 | +| Colorado v. Spring , | | +| 479 U.S. 564 (1987) | 138 | +| County of Sacramento v. [REDACTED] , | | +| 523 U.S. 833 (1998) | 152 | +| Cruz v. Maypa , | | +| 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) | 43 | +| [REDACTED] v. United States , | | +| 564 U.S. 229 (2011) | 122 | +| Doe 1 v. United States , | | +| 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) | 14 | +| Doe No. 1. v. United States , | | +| 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) | 173, 174, 176 | +| Dowling v. United States , | | +| 493 U.S. 342 (1990) | 76 | +| Duren v. Missouri , | | +| 439 U.S. 357 (1979) | 289, 296 | +| [REDACTED] v. Mazzuca , | | +| No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) | 234 | +| Falter v. United States , | | +| 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928) | 45 | +| Fisher v. United States , | | +| 425 U.S. 391 (1976) | 140, 146 | +| Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n , | | +| 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) | 143 | +| Franks v. Delaware , | | +| 438 U.S. 154 (1978) | 166, 169, 170, 171 | +| Gatto , | | +| 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) | 275 | +| Golino v. City of New Haven , | | +| 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) | 125 | +| Graham v. [REDACTED] , | | +| 490 U.S. 386 (1989) | 151 | +| Grant v. United States , | | +| 282 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1960) | 164 | +| Greer v. [REDACTED] , | | +| 483 U.S. 756 (1987) | 158 | +| Grunewald v. United States , | | +| 353 U.S. 391 (1957) | 248 | +| Hamling v. United States , | | +| 418 U.S. 87 (1974) | 225, 227 | + +| Hemphill v. United States, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| +| 392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) Herring v. United States, | 268 | +| 555 U.S. 135 (2009) Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, | 123 | +| 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) Huddleston v. United States, | 302 | +| 485 U.S. 681 (1988) | 254 | +| ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) | 36, 43, 44 | +| 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) | 108, 113 | +| 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) In re Grand Jury Subpoena, | 140, 145 | +| 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) In re Grand Jury Subpoena, | 136 | +| 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) | 149 | +| 1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, | 139 | +| 1988, 847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) In re U.S., | 136 | +| 834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas, | 284 | +| 924 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 579 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014) | 140 | +| No. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE), 2010 WL 779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) v. United States, | 111 | +| 520 U.S. 461 (1997) Kungys v. United States, | 200 | +| 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Landgraf v. US! Film Products, | 222 | +| 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Leocal v. Ashcroft, | 35,36,41,42 | +| 543 U.S. 1 (2004) Madanes v. Madanes, | 56, 57 | +| 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Martindell v. Intl Tel. and TeL Corp., | 141 | +| 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) v. McAleenan, | passim | +| 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) Michigan v. Tucker, | 150, IS] | +| 417 U.S. 433 (1974) | 137 | + +- =v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1 lakCir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. 465 U.S. 420 (1984) +- v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 144 223 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 1 2009) 56 Nix v. 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141 Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115, 116, 118 Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) 165 Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) + - v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) +- v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) 168, 116 212 172 Rochin, 342 U.S., 72 S. Ct. 205 153 Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257 (1897) 296 IM v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) 229 Rutenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918) 292 Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) 245 Santobello v. United States, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1998 WL 113950 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13. 1998) 21 Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109. I 1 3 + +| Silver, | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) Skelos, | 275 | +| 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) v. Maryland, | 275 | +| 442 U.S. 735 (1979) Stogner v. California, | 117, 118 | +| 539 U.S. 607 (2003) Swain v. Alabama, | 45 | +| 380 U.S. 202 (1965) Taylor v. Louisiana, | 300 | +| 419 U.S. 522 (1975) Taylor v. United States, | 299, 300 | +| 495 U.S. 575 (1990) Thom v. Ashcroft, | 56 | +| 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) Toussie v. United States, | 47 | +| 397 U.S. 112 (1970) United State v. Nader, | 48 | +| 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (ED. Va. 2019) United States v. Ahmad, | passim | +| 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) United States v. Ahmed, | 166 | +| No. 10 Cr. 131 (PKC), 2011 WL 5041456 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2011) United States v. Al Kassar, | 243 | +| 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Alameh, | 154 | +| 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) United States v. Alberti, | 77, 78, 81 | +| 568 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Aleman, | 187 | +| 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002) United States v. Alfonso, | 27 | +| 143 F.3d 772 (2d. Cir. 1998) United States v. Amato, | 226 | +| 15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, | 209 | +| 184 F.3d 131 2c .. 1999) United States v. | 222 | +| 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) United States v. | 212 | +| 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) United States v. Annabi, | 162 | +| 10 Cr. 07 (CM) | 286 | + +| United States v. Annabi, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| +| 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. Annabi, | 5,7,8 | +| 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) United States v. Arici, | 5 | +| 12 Cr. 24 (LAP) United States v. Arzberger, | 286 | +| 592 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) United States v. Ash, | 151 | +| 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) United States v. Ashburn, | 145 | +| 76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) United States v. Awadallah, | 126 | +| 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) United States v. Bahna, | 166, 168 | +| 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. Balde, | passim | +| 20 Cr. 281 (KPF) United States v. Barlow, | 298 | +| 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) United States v. Barlow, | 300 | +| 732 F. Supp. 2d I (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012) United States v. Barnes, | 300, 302 | +| 520 F. Supp. 2c•lik.N.Y. 2007) United States v. | 300 | +| 442 U.S. 114 (1979) United States v. Bejasa, | 265 | +| 904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Bellomo, | 274 | +| 263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) United States v. Ben Zvi, | 268 | +| 242 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Benussi, | 41 | +| 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) United States v. Biaggi, | 248, 250 | +| 675 F. Supp. 790 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) United States v. Biaggi, | 268 | +| 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Bin Laden, | 298, 300 | +| 91 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) United States v. Birney, | 240 | +| 686 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Birrell, | 61, 65 | +| 470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) | 183 | + +| United States v. Blakney, | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------| +| 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) United States v. Blaszczak, | 205, 219 | +| 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) United States v. Block, | 279 | +| No. 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) United States v. Bonacorsa, | 267 | +| 528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir. 1976) United States v. Bonventre, | 180, 190, 197, 199 | +| 646 F App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016) United States v. Bortnovsky, | 271 | +| 820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Botti, | 266, 267, 274 | +| No. 08 Cr. 230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) United States v. Brand, | 218 | +| 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Brand, | 236 | +| 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977) United States v. Brand, | 75 | +| No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) United States v. Broccolo, | 257 | +| 797 F. Supp. 1,r.N.Y. 1992) United States v. | 207, 214, 217 | +| 744 F. Supp. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) United States v. | 170 | +| 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cert denied, No. 20-5064, — S.Ct. | , 2021 WL 78235 (Jan. | +| 11, 2021) United States v. | 34, 39 | +| No. 07-0296, 2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) United States v. | 216 | +| No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) | 6 | +| United States v. , | | +| 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) United States v. Bunn, | 7 | +| 154 F. App'x 227 Cir. 2005) United States v.=, | 237 | +| No. 09 Cr. 135a 2011 WL 2609837 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2011) | 82 | +| United States v. | | +| 351 F. Supp. 121 2004) United States v. M, | 243 | +| No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) United States v. Calandra, | 208, 211 | +| 414 U.S. 338 (1974) United States v. Caming, | 110 | +| 968 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1992) | 165 | + +| United States v. Campo Flores, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| +| No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) United States v. Canfield, | 281, 282 | +| 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Canter, | 167 | +| 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) United States v. Carbonaro, | 283 | +| No. 02 Cr. 743 (RCC), 2004 WL 2222145 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) United States v. Carpenter, | 83 | +| 680 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2012) United States v. Carson, | 50 | +| 464 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1972) United States v. CFW Const. Co., | 217, 219 | +| 583 F. Supp. 197 (D. S.C. 1984) United States v. Chacko, | 23 | +| 169 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Chalmers, | 259 | +| 474 F. Supp. 2,1.N.Y. 2007) United States v. | 225, 226 | +| 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) United States v. Chan Lo, | 69 | +| No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004) United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Chuang, | affd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d | +| 897 F.2d 646 (2c1 Cir. 1990) United States v. Coffey, | 115, 116 | +| 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) United States v. Coke, | 228 | +| No. 07 Cr. 971.PP : 2011 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) United States v. | 153, 160, 163 | +| 409 F. Supp. 3cA..N.Y. 2019) United States v. | 278 | +| 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) United States v. Coppa, | 252 | +| 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Corbett, | 274 | +| 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) United States v. Cornielle, | 137 | +| 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Corr, | 60, 77, 78, 85 | +| 543 F.2d 1042 (2d Cir. 1976) | 181 | + +| United States v. Countentos,
651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) ..... | 57, 58 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| +| United States v. Cromitie,
727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2019) ..... | 154 | +| United States v. Cromitie, et al.,
09 Cr. 558 (CM) ..... | 286 | +| United States v. Crouch,
84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) ..... | 75 | +| United States v. D’Amico,
734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..... | 268 | +| United States v. ██████████,
702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) ..... | passim | +| United States v. DeFilippo,
No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018)..... | 169 | +| United States v. Delacruz,
970 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ..... | 77 | +| United States v. DePalma,
461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ..... | 241, 250 | +| United States v. Dewar,
489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ..... | 165 | +| United States v. ██████████,
176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) ..... | 251, 253 | +| United States v. DiGregorio,
795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ..... | 155 | +| United States v. Dodge,
597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) ..... | 54 | +| United States v. Dornau,
356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ..... | 73 | +| United States v. Dorvee,
616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) ..... | 236 | +| United States v. Drago,
No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) ..... | 86 | +| United States v. Dumitru,
No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) ..... | 261 | +| United States v. Eldred,
933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) ..... | 123 | +| United States v. El-Sadig,
133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) ..... | 23 | +| United States v. Elsbery,
602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) ..... | 62, 72 | +| United States v. ██████████,
320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) ..... | 259 | +| United States v. Ewell,
383 U.S. 116 (1966) ..... | 80 | + +| United States v. Falso,
544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) ..... | 166, 169 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| United States v. ██████████,
137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) ..... | 179, 180 | +| United States v. ██████████,
939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) ..... | 8, 20, 27 | +| United States v. Fennell,
496 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ..... | 284, 286 | +| United States v. ██████████,
618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980) ..... | 255 | +| United States v. Fiumano,
No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) ..... | 70 | +| United States v. Florence,
456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) ..... | 293 | +| United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc.,
853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ..... | 23, 24 | +| United States v. Forde,
740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..... | passim | +| United States v. Gallo,
No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999) ..... | 275, 281 | +| United States v. Gambino,
838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ..... | 70 | +| United States v. Gaudin,
515 U.S. 506 (1995) ..... | 182, 184, 200, 222 | +| United States v. Geaney,
417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) ..... | 284 | +| United States v. Gentile,
235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) ..... | 48 | +| United States v. Ghailani,
751 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..... | 155 | +| United States v. Ghavami,
No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW), 2012 WL 2878126 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012) ..... | 262 | +| United States v. ██████████,
175 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ..... | 268 | +| United States v. Gilbert,
266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) ..... | 62 | +| United States v. Gillette,
383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967) ..... | 165 | +| United States v. ██████████,
No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171 ..... | 85 | +| United States v. Gottfried,
165 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1948) ..... | 292 | +| United States v. Gracesqui,
No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), aff'd , 730 F. App'x 25
(2d Cir. 2018) ..... | 209 | + +| United States v. | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| +| 981 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2020) United States v. Greer, | 124 | +| 956 F. Supp. 525 (D. Vt. 1997) United States v. Griffith, | 72 | +| No. 99 Cr. (HB), 2000 WL 1253265 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) United States v. Guerrier, | 264 | +| 18 Cr. 284 (JSII. United States v. | 286 | +| 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) United States v. Halkbank, | 300 | +| No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) United States v. Hallahan, | 261 | +| 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) United States v. Halper, | 19 | +| 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) United States v. Haqq, | 216 | +| 278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) United States v. | 115 | +| 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) United States v. Hastings, | 72 | +| 461 U.S. 499 (1983) United States v. Heath, | 160 | +| 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. | 132, 133 | +| 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) United States v. Henry, | 61, 62 | +| 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) United States v. Herbert, | 269 | +| 698 F.2d 981 9th Cir. 1983) United States v. | 293 | +| 85 F.3d 1023 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Hester, | 242 | +| No. 19 Cr. 324 (NSR), 2020 WL 3483702 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) United States v. Heyward, | 211 | +| No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010) United States v. Hillegas, | 154 | +| 578 F.2d 453 (2d Cir. 1978) United States v. Hoo, | 79 | +| 825 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Hsia, | 78 | +| 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) United States v. lannelli, | 249 | +| 461 F.2d 483 (2d Cir. 1972) | 64 | + +| United States v. Israel, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| 05 Cr. 1039 (CM) United States v. Jackman, | 286 | +| 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. Jeffries, | 300, 301 | +| 405 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2005) United States v. Jenkins, | 33, 37, 38, 46 | +| 727 F. App'x 732 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Jennings, | 194 | +| 960 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1992) United States v. Jimenez, | 162 | +| 824 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) United States v. Johns, | 240, 268 | +| 15 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 1994) United States v. | 37 | +| 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) United States v. M, | 294 | +| 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Josephberg, | 259 | +| 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Kaplan, | passim | +| 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Kenny, | 182 | +| 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) United States v. Kidd, | 294 | +| 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) | 231, 232 | +| United States v. , | | +| 560 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Kozel, | 64 | +| No. 19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) United States v. Kross, | 236 | +| 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) United States v. LaFlam, | 183, 221, 222 | +| 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) United States v. Lahey, | 254 | +| 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Lambus, | 168 | +| 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Laskow, | passim | +| 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v. Laskow, | 8 | +| 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) United States v. Laurenti, | 5 | +| 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) | 79 | + +| United States v. Lawson, | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief, | 60, 78 | +| 438 F.3d 920 ( 1 Cir. 2006) United States v.=, | 33, 38, 46 | +| 468 U.S. 897 (1984) United States v. Leonelli, | 124, 125 | +| 428 F. Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) United States v. Levy, | 268 | +| No. 11 Cr. 62 (PAC), 2013 WL 664712 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013) United States v. Lighte, | 267 | +| 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) United States v. Loera, | passim | +| 333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) United States v. Long, | 152 | +| 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v.=, | 65 | +| 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) United States v. Lovasco, | 21, 26 | +| 431 U.S. 783 (1977) United States v. Mahabub, | 76, 79, 80, 82 | +| No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) United States v. Mandell, | 266, 268, 269 | +| 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) United States v. Marcus, | 267 | +| 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) United States v. Mariamma Vijua, | 248 | +| No. 15 Cr. 240, 2016 WL 107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) United States v. Marion, | 22 | +| 404 U.S. 307 (1971) United States v. Markiewicz, | 59, 63, 72 | +| 978 F.2d 786 2d Cir. 1992) United States v. M, | 178, 180, 187, 198 | +| 426 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2005) | 167 | +| United States v. | | +| No. 92 Cr. (SWIl),g3 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) United States v. | 216 | +| No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1995 WL 10849 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) United States v. Mason, | 77 | +| 479 F. App'x 397 (2d Cir. 2012) United States v. Mast, | 248 | +| 735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1984) United States v. McCourty, | 144 | +| 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) | 260 | + +| United States v. McDarrah, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| 351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Medina, | 257 | +| No. 13 Cr. 272 ), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) | 261 | +| United States v. =, | | +| 116 F.3d 641 (2a. 1997) United States v.=, | 252, 292 | +| 425 U.S. 435 (MI United States v.=, | 116, 117, 119 | +| 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) United States v. Ming He, | 44 | +| 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 19%) United States v. Milan, | 161 | +| No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) United States v. Mitchell, | 218 | +| 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) United States v. Mitlof, | 144 | +| 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) United States v. Monserrate, | 268 | +| No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, | 267 | +| 892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) United States v. Moore, | 118 | +| 968 F.2d 216 2d Cir. 1992) United States v. | 125 | +| 113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL 268712 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) United States v. Mostafa, | 45 | +| 965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United Stales v. Mulder, | 242, 243, 247, 262 | +| 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) United Stases v. Mullens, | 241, 242 | +| 536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) United States v. Murgio, | 139 | +| 209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) United States v. Murk, | 231, 241, 247 | +| No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) United States v. Myers, | 86 | +| 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Napolitano, | 153, 161 | +| 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) United States v. Nejad, | 241 | +| No. 18 Cr. 224 (AJN), 2019 WL 6702361 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) United States v. Nersesian, | 225 | +| 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) | 233 | + +| United States v. Nitsche, | | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| 843 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2011) United States v. Nixon, | 201, 202 | +| 418 U.S. 683 (1974) United States v. Noble, | 282 | +| No. 07 Cr. 284 (US), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) United States v. Okwumabua, | 164 | +| 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Olivieri, | 138 | +| 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) United States v. Oshatz, | 146 | +| 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v. Page, | 147, 148 | +| 657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Pascarella, | 205, 209, 210, 220 | +| 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Paulin, | 252 | +| 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Payner, | 253 | +| 447 U.S. 727 (1980) United States v. Pena, | 115, 161, 162 | +| 932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. M, | 221 | +| 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y.I996) United States v. Pierre-Louis, | 281 | +| No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) United States v. Pipola, | passim | +| 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Pirro, | 253 | +| 212 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Pizarro, | 229 | +| No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) United States v. Plaza-Andrades, | passim | +| 507 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2013) United States v. Polar, | 291 | +| 723 F. App'x 64 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Post, | 195 | +| 950 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Potamitis, | 226 | +| 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) United States v. Prisco, | passim | +| 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) United States v. Quinones, | 4 | +| 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) | 251 | + +| United States v. Rahimi, | | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) United States v. Rahman, | 225 | +| 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Rajaratnam, | 154 | +| No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) United States v. Ramnath, | 172 | +| 131 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1997) United States v. Raymonda, | 300 | +| 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) United States v. Reeves, et al., | 124 | +| 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) United States v. Remington, | 286 | +| 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, | 146 | +| 549 U.S. 102 (2007) United States v. Ricco, | 227, 235 | +| 549 F.2d 264 2d Cir. 1977) United States v. | 61 | +| 512 F.2d 105 3d Cir. 1975) United States v. | 49 | +| 537 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2008) United States v. Rioux, | 293 | +| 930 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Conn. 1995) United States v. Rioux, | 297, 298 | +| 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Rittweger, | passim | +| 259 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) United States v. | 268 | +| 546 F.3d 245 2d Cir. 2008) United States v. | 204, 220, 224 | +| No. 09 Cr. 619 (SJF), 2011 WL 1429125, at (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011) United States v. | 262 | +| No. 16 Cr. 175 2017 WL 1843302 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2017) United States v. | 274 | +| 660 F.3d 149 lair11) United States v. | 138 | +| 852 F.2d 671 (2d Cir. 1988) United States v. Rolan-Zapata, | 132 | +| 916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Rosa, | 256 | +| 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Rosa, | 253 | +| 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) | 123 | + +| United States v. Rubin, | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| +| 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) United States v. Rubinson, | 61 | +| 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) United States v. Ruiz, | 81 | +| 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) United States v. Ruiz, | 214 | +| 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Russo, | 207,213,214,217 | +| 483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) United States v. Russo, | 274, 282 | +| 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) United States v. Rutkoske, | 5, 11 | +| 506 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2007) United States v. Salameh, | 248 | +| 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) United States v. Salerno, | 5, 6, 245 | +| 481 U.S. 739 (1987) United States v. Salmonese, | 151 | +| 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) United States v. Sampson, | 247, 249 | +| 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) United States v. Sampson, | 208 | +| 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Sampson, | 200, 201 | +| 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Samsonov, | 177, 178, 188 | +| No. 07 Cr. 1191.12009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) United States v. | 269 | +| 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Sarwari, | 75 | +| 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) United States v. Sattar, | 179, 180 | +| 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) United States v. Savage, | 27 | +| 970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) United States v. | 302 | +| 388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) United States v. Scarpa, | 67, 68, 71 | +| 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Scarpa, | 69 | +| 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Schaefer, | passim | +| No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) | 121 | + +| United States v. Schafrick, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) ..... | 182 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) ..... | 153, 154 | +| United States v. Schneider, | | +| 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) ..... | 51, 52, 54, 57 | +| United States v. Seabrook, | | +| No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) ..... | 282 | +| United States v. Sensi, | | +| No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010)..... | 34, 52 | +| United States v. Sergentakis, | | +| No. 05 Cr. 230 (JFK), 2005 WL 1994014 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2005) ..... | 275 | +| United States v. Serrano, | | +| No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014)..... | 126 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ..... | 165, 171 | +| United States v. Sliker, | | +| 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) ..... | 255 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ..... | 241, 243, 247 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd , F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2009) ..... | 206 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) ..... | 63, 78 | +| United States v. Soares, | | +| 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) ..... | 295 | +| United States v. Spears, | | +| 159 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1999) ..... | 62, 66, 67 | +| United States v. Sprouts, | | +| 282 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2002) ..... | 63 | +| United States v. Stavroulakis, | | +| 952 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1992) ..... | 225, 233 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 456 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1972) ..... | 68 | +| United States v. [REDACTED], | | +| 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) ..... | 142, 143 | +| United States v. Stokes, | | +| 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) ..... | 124, 132 | +| United States v. Stringer, | | +| 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) ..... | 228, 229, 231 | +| United States v. Strohm, | | +| 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) ..... | 180, 190 | +| United States v. Swanson, | | +| 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) ..... | 170 | + +| United States v. Sweig, | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) United States v. Tanu, | 207, 211, 217 | +| 589 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1978) United States v. Thai, | 79 | +| 29 F.3d 785 (2d Cir. 1994) United States v. Thompson, | 252 | +| 13 Cr. 378 (AJN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) United States v. Thompson, | 281, 284 | +| 896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Thompson, | 236 | +| No. 13 Cr. 378,, 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) United States v. | 274 | +| 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Towne, | 266, 268, 271 | +| 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) United States v. Tracy, | 251 | +| 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Tramunti, | 283 | +| 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) United States v. Tranquillo, | 225, 233 | +| 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) United States v. Trippe, | 284 | +| 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., | 267 | +| 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) United States v. Turoff, | 184, 187 | +| 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) United States v. Ulbricht, | 204 | +| No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014) United States v. Urena, | 118, 275 | +| 989 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Valentine, | 28, 171 | +| 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Valona, | 156, 157, 158 | +| 834 F.2d 1334 7th Cir. 1987) United States v. | 66 | +| 708 F. App'x 732 Cir. 2017) United States v. | 256 | +| No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) United States v. Vilar, | passim | +| No. 05 Cr. 621 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) United States v. | 169 | +| 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) | 115 | + +| United States v. =, | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| +| 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Walsh, | 70 | +| 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Walters, | 228, 266, 271 | +| 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Washington, | 152 | +| 431 U.S. 181 1977 United States v. | 136, 137, 138 | +| 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) United States v. Wedd, | 78 | +| No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) United States v. Weiner, | 271 | +| 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) United States v. Werner, | 187 | +| 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) United States v. Wey, | 205, 206, 208, 223 | +| No. 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) United States v. | 85, 227, 229 | +| 205 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. M, | 70 | +| No. 10 Cr. 622 (ADS), 2018 WL 4623017 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) United States v. Winter, a | 123 | +| 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965) United States v. Wong, | 146 | +| 431 U.S. 174 United States v. | 146 | +| 343 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003) United States v. Ying Lin, | 62 | +| No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) United States v. Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., | 206 | +| 682 F. Supp. 757 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v. Young, | 291 | +| 08 Cr. 285 (ICIviK), 2008 WL 4178190 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) United States v. Young, | 235 | +| No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) United States v. Zackson, | 234 | +| 12 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Zodhiates, | 253 | +| 901 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2018) Valentine v. Konteh, | 122, 126, 131 | +| 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist., | 235 | +| 49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995) | 42, 43 | + +| Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) Zafiro v. United States, | 151 passim | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| 506 U.S. 534 (1993) Zicarelli v. Dietz, | 209, | +| 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) Zietzke v. United States, | 293 | +| 426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) | 121 | + +| Statutes | | +|-------------------------|------------------| +| 18 U.S.C. §1623(a) | 118 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 1591 | 152 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 1623 | 3, 115 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2 | 2, 3 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2243 | 155 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) | 17 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) | 17 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423 | 3, 151 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) | 17, 37 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) | 17 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2) | 87 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) | 88 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3282 | 24, 35 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3299 | 25 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3500 | 181, 184 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a) | 181 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) | 182 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a) | 37 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8) | 36 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) | 152 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) | 24, 36 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 371 | 2, 151, 155, 168 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 116 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 112 | 192 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 112(b) | 192, 200 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq | 193, 194 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a) | 194 | +| 28 U.S.C. § I863(b)(6) | 195 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b) | 194 | + +| 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e) | 198, 200 | +|-----------------------------|----------| +| 28 U.S.C.§ 81 | 192 | +| New York Penal Law § 130.55 | 155 | +| Pub. L. No. 101-647 | 24 | +| Pub. L. No. 103-322 | 24 | +| Pub. L. No. 108-21 | 25 | +| Pub. L. No. 109-162 | 25 | +| Pub. L. No. 109-248 | 25 | + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) | 99 | +|--------------------------|----------| +| Fed. R. Civ. P 56 | 153 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) | 157 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | 200 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 | 221 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(t) | 206 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) | 88 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 | 168 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) | 168 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) | 177 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) | 192 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) | 156 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) | 156 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 183 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 183, 185 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX2) | 184 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 210 | +| N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b) | 166 | +| Rule 14 | 157 | +| Rule 404(b) | 186 | + +# Other Authorities + +| 149 Cong. Rec. S 5137 | 30 | +|---------------------------------------|-----| +| 149 Cong. Rec. S 5147 | 30 | +| H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66 | 29 | +| 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593 (1958) | 130 | +| 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1 (1986) | 24 | + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +SI 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_x + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's twelve pre-trial motions, dated January 25, 2021 (the "Defense Motions"). In her pretrial motions, the defendant seeks to throw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at the Indictment, raising myriad arguments that find little support in fact or law. For the reasons that follow, the motions should be denied in their entirety. + +First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which provides an extended statute of limitations for crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors. The defendant's statute of limitations arguments run contrary to the text of the statute, the intent of Congress, and the weight of authority. Third, the defendant's claim that the Government delayed in bringing the indictment fails as a matter of law and fact. Fourth, both of the defendant's motions to suppress evidence obtained through a judicially approved subpoena are meritless, and her allegations of Government misconduct are baseless. Fifth, Counts Five and Six—which charge the defendant with committing perjury—are properly pleaded, and the defendant's motion to dismiss those charges improperly asks the Court to adjudicate her guilt. It is for the jury to decide whether the defendant committed perjury, and the motion should be denied. Sixth, the crimes in the indictment should be tried together, as all six counts of the indictment are logically connected and provable through overlapping evidence. The Court should not sever this case, and thereby require victims of child sexual abuse to testify at multiple trials. Seventh, the Indictment indisputably alleges each element of every offense charged and provides the defendant with ample notice of the charges against her. Eighth, the Indictment is properly pled and there is no basis to strike any portion of it as surplusage. Ninth, the defense motion to dismiss one of the conspiracy charges as multiplicitous is premature. Tenth, the defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars or any of the other early disclosures she seeks. Finally, the use of a grand jury sitting in Plains to return the Indictment in this case was entirely proper. + +## BACKGROUND + +On June 29, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned an indictment charging the defendant in six counts. On July 2, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBP") arrested the defendant. On July 8, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned a superseding indictment (the "Indictment") containing the same charges, with ministerial corrections. (Dkt. No. 17). Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charges the defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporting minors to participate in + +illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.I + +## ARGUMENT + +### I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case + +The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO-SDFL"). (Def. Mot. 1). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and her name is not contained anywhere in the document; and (2) her crimes are not identified or named in any way in the NPA. Essentially, the defendant claims she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States, based on the language of a document that does not name her and which she did not sign. Moreover, she seeks to enforce the NPA against a U.S. Attorney's Office that did not negotiate the NPA and is not bound by it. + +The defendant's arguments are meritless, and the Court should reject them. As a threshold matter, under the well-settled law of this Circuit, the NPA is not enforceable in this District, because the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Jeffrey Epstein is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "USAO-SDNY"). Moreover, even if the NPA applied to this District—which it does not—the NPA does not immunize the defendant from prosecution for the crimes charged in the Indictment. Finally, because the defendant has failed to + +As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's coconspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial. The Government does not anticipate that any new charges would require the production of any additional discovery. + +offer any evidence to support her claim that the NPA applies to this District, to the defendant, or to the crimes in the Indictment, the Court should deny the defendant's request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. + +#### A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York + +As an initial matter, the NPA is not enforceable in this District. To the contrary, it is blackletter law in this Circuit that a plea agreement in one district does not apply elsewhere, in the absence of express indications not present here. Indeed, the Second Circuit has considered and rejected the exact arguments the defendant advances in her motion. The defendant's motion is without any basis in the law and should be denied. + +It is well settled in the Second Circuit that "a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another." United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ("A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamek 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the "negotiations between defendant and prosecutor" indicate a promise to bind other districts. United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant has failed to establish that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that the NPA would bind other districts. + +#### I. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts + +Turning first to the text of the NPA, the terms of the agreement do not contain an "affirmative appearance" that the parties who signed the NPA intended to bind any other U.S. Attorney's Office. To begin with, there can be no dispute that only representatives of the USAO-SDFL signed the agreement. There is no signature block for, nor specific mention of, any other district or component of the Department of Justice. + +In her motion, the defendant argues that the words "United States" in the NPA evince an intent to bind the entire United States Government. (Def. Mot. 1 at 18). But the Second Circuit has rejected this very argument: "[Ole mere use of the term 'government' in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement." Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term "United States." See United States v. No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at '2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind 'the Government' or the "United States"); United States v.=, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase 'United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). + +As the Second Circuit first explained in Annabi, plea agreements apply only in the district in which they are executed, absent evidence that the parties agreed to broader restrictions: + +> As an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that 'the Government' will dismiss counts of an indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the + +district in which the dismissed charges are initially brought. However, the law has evolved to the contrary. A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction. + +Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672 (citations omitted). Thus, under Annabi and its progeny, a plea agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's Office that executes the agreement, even if, as here, the agreement references "the Government" or "the United States" and even if the agreement lacks a provision that "expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the district" in which the agreement was entered.2 + +Confronted with this clear and controlling authority, the defendant's motion attempts to limit the rule of Annabi by noting that some decisions applying Annabi concerned plea agreements that also included express provisions limiting the enforceability of the agreements to the districts in which they were entered. (Def. Mot. I at 22). Essentially, the defendant argues that without an express provision limiting the scope of the agreement, every plea agreement should be interpreted to bind the entire federal government. But the law in this Circuit holds the opposite: the presumption is that a plea agreement in one district does not bind another, absent an affirmative appearance that the agreement extends more broadly. See Laskow, 688 F. Supp. at 854 ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices of the United States Attorney that are + +2 The defendant's motion emphasizes that the Second Circuit has held, as a general matter, that plea agreements are construed against the Government. (Def. Mot. I. at 13). That does not carry the day here, as Annabi provides a specific mode of analysis for determining whether a plea agreement applies to other districts, and the defendant's motion fails under Annabi. More broadly, the authorities the defendant cites for this general principle arise from circumstances in which a defendant has sought to enforce his own agreement against the Government. (See, e.g., Def. Mot. I at 13 (citing United States v. , 939 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2019) (analyzing claim by defendant seeking to enforce promises he claimed prosecutors had made to him)). Notably, the defendant has cited no authority for the proposition that plea agreements are to be construed in favor of a third party who was not involved in plea negotiations. + +not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with the law in this Circuit, which presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated.") (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672). To hold otherwise would turn Annabi on its head. + +The defendant next argues that the following provision of the NPA evinces an intent to bind the entire federal government: + +> In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any tential co-cons irators of Epstein, including but not limited to Lesley Groff, or + +NPA at 5; Def. Mot. 1 at 20-21. Aside from the reference to "United States" which, as noted above, is insufficient, the defendant does not point to any language in this provision that purportedly binds other districts. Instead, she argues that the absence of language specifically limiting this provision to the USAO-SDFL demonstrates an intent to bind the entire federal government. This argument fails, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant's argument inverts the holding of Annabi: in this Circuit, the presumption is that plea agreements bind only the district in which they are entered, absent affirmative indications otherwise. Put differently, the absence of express limiting language in this provision is not an affirmative indication of a broader application. Accordingly, under Second Circuit law, the absence of limiting language in this specific provision provides no support for the defendant's motion. + +Second, the defendant's argument acknowledges that the plain terms of the NPA immunized Epstein from prosecution in "this District," that is, the Southern District of Florida. See NPA at 2 ("After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution ... will be instituted in this District"). In other words, the NPA was expressly limited to the USAO-SDFL.3 Given this provision, it would be unnatural to read a broader application to other districts—based on no textual indicia—into the provision relating to co-conspirators. Moreover, the defendant's reading of the NPA would require the Court to adopt the view that, where a plea agreement contains limiting terms, they must be repeated in every paragraph in order to have their natural and common-sense effects. + +Third, and perhaps most importantly, the defendant's interpretation strains common sense. In order to accept the defendant's arguments, the Court would have to reach the counterintuitive conclusion that Epstein expressly bargained for broader immunity for his co-conspirators than he did for himself. That is, under the defendant's reading of the agreement, Epstein bargained to protect co-conspirators nationally for crimes they committed with Epstein, but Epstein only sought protection for himself in the Southern District of Florida. The text of the agreement does not support such a puzzling interpretation. Instead, the more natural reading of the NPA is that its repeated references to the U.S. Attorney's Office and "this District" reflect a universal limitation on the NPA: it applies only to the USAO-SDFL. + +Finally, at several points in her motion, the defendant emphasizes that the NPA contains the word "global," but she does not appear to argue that this creates an affirmative appearance that the NPA binds other districts. (Def. Mot. 1 at 9, 12). Nor could she. The phrase "Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal liability," by its terms, refers to Epstein's liability alone. See NPA at 2. Moreover, this language appears directly after several paragraphs describing investigations conducted by the Florida State Attorney's Office and the USAO-SDFL. See id. at 1-2. Thus, in this context, the terms "global" and "state and federal liability" plainly refer to + +3 In fact, the NPA states that it was executed "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida." NPA at 2. + +prosecutions by those two offices, and only those two offices.4 The defendant therefore cannot argue that the word "global" in this provision means that the NPA binds the entire federal government. + +In sum, the defendant points to nothing in the text of the NPA that could possibly be construed to bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annabi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. + +### 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts + +Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant's motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it fails to point to any evidence that the NPA binds the USAO-SDNY. + +The lone document the defendant offers in support of her motion is a privilege log filed by the USAO-SDFL in connection with a lawsuit filed by Epstein's victims. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). The log reflects that the FBI agents working with the USAO-SDFL interviewed witnesses in other states—including New York—during their investigation. That is entirely unremarkable, since federal investigations frequently involve gathering evidence in other states. This does not in any way establish the substantive involvement of any other districts in the prior investigation, let alone that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that the U.S. Attorney's offices in those states would be bound by the NM. + +4 Interpreting the term "federal liability" in this provision could not be read to encompass all U.S. Attorney's offices without also interpreting its neighboring term, "state . . . liability," to refer to every state prosecutor's office in all fifty states. The USAO-SDFL clearly did not—and could not—make such a broad promise. + +The privilege log also does not establish that the USAO-SDFL involved other U.S. Attorney's Offices in plea negotiations with Epstein. Grasping at straws, the defendant points to a notation in the privilege log, which contains an entry for handwritten notes, reflecting that the prosecutor in the USAO-SDFL spoke with an Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York. (Def. Mot. I at 22). The notes referenced in the privilege log are attached hereto as Exhibit I. As the notes reflect, the prosecutor at the USAO-SDFL reached out to an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the USAO-SDNY to ask about a civil lawsuit relating to Epstein that was handled by the Civil Division of this Office in the 1990s. The Government is producing to defense counsel today emails that confirm that this was the nature of the contact.5 One of those emails is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 for the Court's reference. Put simply, those communications provide no indication that the USAO-SDNY was involved in plea negotiations with Epstein. Rather, the USAO-SDFL asked about an old civil case involving Epstein that an AUSA at the USAO-SDNY happened to handle years earlier. In sum, the privilege log in no way establishes that other districts were involved in negotiating the NPA, much less that Epstein was promised that the NPA would bind other districts. + +The defendant proffers no other documentary evidence beyond the privilege log. Instead, without any citation, she broadly alleges that "senior levels of Main Justice were directly involved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA." (Def. Mot. 1. at 22). This vague and unworn allegation is not evidence. Moreover, any contacts between the USAO-SDFL and Main Justice + +5 In response to the allegations raised by the defense's motion, the Government identified the underlying notes referenced in the privilege log. The Government is producing those underlying notes, as well as the relevant emails, to defense counsel today. The Government has also been informed by a human resources representative that payroll records reflect that the Assistant U.S. Attorney referenced in the privilege log left the USAO-SDNY on or about April 29, 2007, months before the NPA was executed. Although the Government has been informed that Human Resources records do not contain information regarding a division transfer, the Government understands from colleagues that the Assistant U.S. Attorney worked in the Civil Division in the 1990s and worked in the Criminal Division in the 2000s. + +would not, without more, establish that the USAO-SDFL intended to bind other districts, much less that the USAO-SDFL communicated a promise to Epstein that the NPA would extend beyond the USAO-SDFL. The defendant's failure to offer any evidence is fatal to her claim. + +Although it is not the Government's burden to address and rebut every innuendo or conclusory statement in the defendant's motion, it is significant here that the circumstances of the NPA have been extensively litigated in a civil lawsuit, and have also been investigated by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR"), resulting in a report of OPR's findings (the "OPR Report).6 The records of both matters provide no support for the defendant's claims. + +The OPR Report notes that the USAO-SDFL periodically consulted with the Chief of the Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS"), Andrew Oosterbaan, during the investigation and plea discussions, and that the CEOS Chief attended a meeting with defense counsel, during which defense counsel made a pitch that Epstein should not be prosecuted. November 2020 Report, United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafafia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a draft of the NPA, the OPR Report reflects that the CEOS Chief reported to + +6 The defendant's motion cites to the executive summary of the OPR Report. However, the entire report is publicly available, is attached as Exhibit 3 hereto, and has been widely reported on and published by the media. See, e.g., "Read the report: Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation," Wash. Post (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.cotn/context/read-the-report-investigation-into-the-u-sattorney-s-office-for-the-southern-district-of-florida-s-resolution-of-its-2006-2008-federalcriminal-investigation-of-jeffrey-epstein-and-its-interactions-with-victims-during-theinvestigation/db9373e8-22f8-47 I 2-b4a7-be844d162de0/. + +OPR that "he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and 'had no involvement with it.' OPR Report at 64 n. 105.7 + +Beyond this, the OPR Report and the record in the civil case note contacts with Main Justice about the NPA, but only after the NPA was negotiated, drafted, and signed. In the civil case, the district court detailed the history of the plea negotiations—and noted that, after the NPA was signed, Epstein's counsel appealed to officials in Washington, D.C., hoping to avoid enforcement of the NPA's requirement that Epstein plead guilty to state offenses, as the agreement required. Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1212-13 (S.D. Fla. 2019). As the district court noted, that appeal was rejected. Id. at 1213. + +In particular, and following the execution of the NPA, the report reflects that the USAO-SDFL contacted the CEOS Chief in connection with a letter from Epstein's counsel, Kenneth Starr, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: + +> At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafatia sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was "pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims." He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA "other than to say that she agrees with it." During her OPR interview, [Assistant Attorney General] Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her "agree[ing] with it" referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she "played no role in" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed. + +7 The OPR Report further reflects that, at the time, a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL noted the CEOS had "no approval authority." OPR Report at 60. + +OPR Report at 95. The OPR Report further notes that, thereafter, Epstein sought to avoid complying with the NPA entirely, and his attorneys appealed to Main Justice in the hopes of voiding the agreement. OPR Report at 94-108. That appeal was not successful. Id. In any event, the involvement of Main Justice alone would not begin to establish the very different proposition that Main Justice viewed the NPA as binding any district other than USAO-SDFL, let alone specifically considered and approved such an outcome, or communicated such a promise to Epstein. + +Further still, the record in the civil case makes clear that the USAO-SDFL's position was that the NPA did not bind other districts. In a July 5, 2013 brief, the USAO-SDFL stated: + +> [T]he Non-Prosecution agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement in any other district in the nation. Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any district for offenses not identified in the agreement. + +Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.) (emphasis in original); see also OPR Report at 81, n.125 (observing that a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL "pointed out that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted `by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country.'"). + +As the USAO-SDFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not. That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines: + +> Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein's prosecution in any other district in the country: `No district or division shall make any agreement, + +including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.' + +Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 11 n.11 (S.D. Fla.) (quoting United States Attorney's Manual, 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests)). Significantly, this brief was signed by the same prosecutor who negotiated and signed the NPA. Id. Although the defendant makes the sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported allegation that "the government had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators in this District and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude it," the USAO-SDFL's brief says otherwise. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Further still, the record developed in both civil litigation and OPR's investigation does not support this claim. + +\*1\* + +As the foregoing makes clear, the defendant has failed to produce any evidence that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that other districts would be bound by the NPA. There is no "affirmative appearance" that the NPA binds other districts, and the motion should be denied. Under Annabi and its progeny, the defendant has failed to establish that the NPA binds other districts. For this reason alone, the defendant's motion should be dismissed, in keeping with the well-established law in this Circuit.' + +8 In her motion, the defendant asks this Court to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-offederal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no authority for the proposition that federal plea agreements are governed by the choice of law principles that apply to conflicting state laws. Annabi is the binding law of this Circuit, and this Court must apply it. + +#### B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution + +Even if the NPA bound this District—which it does not—the NPA provides no basis for dismissing the Indictment. The NPA does not protect the defendant for at least two reasons. First, the text of the NPA specifically limits the scope of the NPA to certain federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and thus the NPA does not apply to the distinct offenses and time periods charged in the Indictment. Second, the NPA does not protect the defendant at all, because the mere use of the word "co-conspirator" does not establish that the defendant was among the class of persons contemplated by the agreement, much less that the defendant has standing to enforce it. + +# 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 + +Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the NPA did not provide carte blanche immunity to Epstein or his "co-conspirators." In fact, the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement. + +The NPA begins by outlining the scope of the USAO-SDFL investigation, delineating the timeframe of the offense conduct under investigation ("from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007"), and listing each and every statutory offense under investigation. NPA at I. The NPA does this for a reason, because these terms are later used in the agreement to set the boundaries of immunity. In particular, the agreement provides: + +> [N]o prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +NPA at 2. Thus, the NPA barred the USAO-SDFL from prosecuting Epstein for the specific + +offenses enumerated in the NPA.9 While these same limitations are not repeated in the provision that purports to immunize "co-conspirators," these limitations apply with equal force across the agreement, because that is the only common-sense way to read the NPA. Indeed, and as noted above in a related context, it would be exceedingly strange to interpret the "co-conspirator" provision to extend broader immunity than Epstein negotiated for himself. + +The defendant may assert that the "co-conspirator" provision has absolutely no limitations, but such an argument would lead to absurd results. In particular, in arguing that the "coconspirator" provision lacks any temporal or statutory limitations whatsoever, the defendant seems to claim that the NPA immunized her for future crimes including, for example, perjury offenses that she is charged with committing almost a decade after the NPA was executed. (Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment.")). Although the defendant does not highlight this point in her motion—perhaps recognizing how absurd it would be—that is the natural consequence of her illogical interpretation of the NPA. Despite advancing an argument that strains common sense, the defendant cites no case in which a court has interpreted a plea agreement to bar prosecution for crimes that pre- or post-dated the period covered by the agreement. The Government is aware of no such authority. See United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962, 974 (7th Cir. 2014) (rejecting defense argument that plea agreement barred prosecution for subsequent bail jumping, and, in interpreting the + +9 By its plain terms, the NPA did not immunize Epstein for his "background," as the defendant suggests. (Def. Mot. 1 at 27). This provision refers, instead, to a list of "offenses" under federal law. Indeed, it is unclear how any plea agreement could immunize a defendant's "background." Similarly, the fact that the USAO-SDFL interviewed Minor Victim-2 does not mean that this case "arose out of the USAO-SDFL investigation, an assertion the defendant's motion does not explain or support with evidence. As the Indictment makes clear, the events underpinning the Indictment involve multiple victims and specific legal charges that were not within the scope of the USAO-SDFL investigation. As discussed in greater detail below, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3 were never interviewed by the USAO-SDFL, and they did not agree to speak with law enforcement until 2019. + +Government's promises in the plea agreement to only cover past crimes, observing that "not limiting the prohibition to past crimes would make it absurd and probably illegal") (citing Aronson v. K. Arakelian. Inc., 154 F.2d 231, 233 (7th Cir. 1946) ("[A] contract will not be presumed to have imposed an absurd or impossible condition on one of the parties, but will be interpreted as the parties must be supposed to have understood the conditions at the time.')). + +Finally, the defendant claims that the NPA covers all violations of the Act. (Def. Mot. 1 at 26 n.4). Not so. The NPA lists specific statutory provisions within the Act, but none of the provisions contained in the Indictment. In particular, the NPA expressly covers violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), and 2423(e), but it does not include the particular provisions charged in the Indictment against Maxwell, which alleges violations of §§ 2422(a) and 2423(a). These are plainly not the same crimes, and a plea agreement cannot be read to immunize unnamed crimes in the general ballpark of the specific crimes enumerated in the agreement. The defendant cites no authority that supports her overbroad reading of this provision. + +Accordingly, the NPA immunizes only certain, specific offenses, none of which are contained in the Indictment. As a result, the defendant cannot invoke the NPA to seek the dismissal of the Indictment. + +# 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell + +Even if this Court were to construe the NPA beyond its plain terms to preclude prosecutions for the crimes contained in the Indictment, the defendant has established neither that those protections extend to Maxwell specifically, nor that she has standing to pursue those protections. + +The defendant asks this Court to interpret the NPA according to contract principles, and accord the defendant standing to enforce the NPA as a third party beneficiary. As a general matter, plea agreements are interpreted using principles from contract law, but that maxim is not without + +limitations. As the defendant's motion recognizes, the Second Circuit has emphasized that plea agreements differ from commercial contracts in meaningful respects. (Def. Mot. 1 at 30 (citing United States v. , 939 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2019) ("[W]hile the district court's analysis might have been compelling with respect to a contract arising out of commercial negotiations among private parties, we believe the court did not correctly apply the standards that govern the interpretation of plea agreements with the government. We have long recognized that plea agreements are significantly different from commercial contracts."))). Accordingly, although the third party beneficiary doctrine is a tenet of contract law, its application to plea agreements under federal law is a separate question. + +The defendant correctly notes that plea agreements may address leniency for third parties. (Def. Mot. I at 15). However, it does not necessarily follow that a third party may enforce such a promise. Indeed, it is far from clear that, under federal law, a third party may enforce a plea agreement. At least one court in this Circuit has noted the absence of authority that a third party has standing to enforce another individual's plea agreement. See Santobello v. United States, No. 94 Cr. 119 (RPP), 1998 WL 113950, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) ("Even if Santobello could establish the existence of plea agreements between the Government and his co-defendants, there is little known authority that would allow him to enforce the agreements as a third party beneficiary.") (citing United States v. 944 F.2d 33, 36-37 (1st Cir. 1991)). + +Following this logic, at least one court has concluded that third parties lack standing to enforce plea agreements. In United States v. Mariamma Viju, the defendant claimed that the Government had entered into a plea agreement with her husband, under which the Government had promised not to prosecute her. No. 15 Cr. 240, 2016 WL 107841, at •1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016). Observing that the principles governing interpretation of plea agreements diverge in many + +respects from those underlying contract law, the district court concluded that "third-party beneficiaries have no contractual right to enforce plea agreements." Id. at \*34. The court reasoned, "[t]he right to enforce a plea deal does not exist for its own sake; rather, it is a means to achieve fairness in plea bargaining." Id. at \*4. That is because a defendant has the right to enforce his plea agreement, and "enforcement by third parties adds nothing to protecting the defendant's right." Id. The same holds true here. + +In support of her claim that she has standing to enforce the NPA, the defendant relies upon three district court decisions, none of which analyzed the threshold question of whether third party standing concepts from contract law apply to plea agreements. In United States v. Florida West Int 'I Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2012), the district court applied the third party beneficiary doctrine to a former airline employee based on a prior plea agreement with the airline that immunized, among others, current and former employees of the airline and its subsidiaries. In its analysis, however, the court applied the doctrine without analyzing the question of whether third party beneficiary standing principles apply to plea agreements. Id. For similar reasons, the defendant's reliance on United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600, 608-09 (N.D. Ohio 2001) is misplaced. In that case, the court permitted a third party to invoke a plea agreement, but it did not analyze or address whether third party standing rules apply to plea agreements. Id. Likewise, in United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203 (D.S.C. 1984), the court applied the third party beneficiary doctrine, but relied solely on contracts treatises for support, and did not analyze whether that doctrine should be applied to plea agreements. + +In any event, even if third party beneficiaries had standing to enforce federal plea agreements, the defendant has failed to establish that she is a third party beneficiary of the NPA. In order to establish that she has enforceable rights under the NPA, the defendant must show that + +"a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, "the intent of the parties is the key" to evaluating whether an individual is a third party beneficiary. Id. + +Here, the defendant has offered no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular, or that her crimes in the 1990s make her a member of the class of "coconspirators" the parties had in mind when they negotiated the NPA. To the contrary, the OPR's investigation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this provision in the NPA strongly undercuts any such argument, and OPR's findings demonstrate that the parties did not intend to confer a benefit on the defendant. With respect to the "co-conspirator" provision, the OPR Report concluded, in relevant part: + +> Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute "any potential coconspirators of Epstein" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafaiia and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the Provision. + +OPR Report at 166. With respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafaiia, the lead prosecutor on the case, and noted: + +> Villafafia acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a wellknown socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafafia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name. + +OPR Report at 167.10 After reviewing the facts and circumstances of the negotiation, OPR concluded that "the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafafta agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates." OPR Report at 168.11 + +In view of OPR's conclusions—and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary proffered by the defendant—the defendant has failed to establish that that she was an intended third party beneficiary of the NPA. Accordingly, the defendant lacks standing to enforce the NPA. + +## C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing + +The defendant's motion for discovery and a hearing fares no better. Lacking any evidence—much less any legal authority—that the NPA applies to this District or the crimes in the Indictment, the defendant asks the Court to order discovery and conduct a hearing. In short, + +1° The OPR Report further reflects that in OPR's interview of Villafafta, she reported that she did not have anyone in mind aside from the four individuals named in the "co-conspirator" provision: "Villafafta told OPR that she was willing to include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's coconspirators, who at the time she understood to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafafta told OPR, '[W]e considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.' She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern." OPR Report at 70. Further, the OPR Report notes that: "Villafafta told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of 'any other potential co-conspirators." Id. at 81. Similarly, the report reflects that a supervisor at USAO-SDFL told OPR "that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein." OPR Report at 80-81. + +11 Although the defendant correctly notes that the OPR Report reflects that the prosecutor remarked that Epstein "wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened," OPR Report at 167, that desire explains the existence of the "co-conspirator" provision, but it does not inform its meaning or scope. + +the defendant asks this Court to authorize an extensive and burdensome fishing expedition, premised on the defendant's pure conjecture. The Court should deny the motion. + +Although the defendant asserts that the Court is obligated to conduct a hearing, she has failed to establish that any hearing is warranted. The defendant argues that courts conduct evidentiary hearings "where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute." (Def. Mot. 1 at 29). But the defendant has not established any genuine factual dispute in this case that a hearing would be required to resolve. The defendant has offered bare conclusions in support of her motion, which are refuted by governing law, record evidence, and the four corners of the agreement itself. That is not a basis for a hearing. + +As the Second Circuit explained in United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002), "a district court need not conduct a hearing every time a defendant summarily accuses the government of failing to live up to an alleged bargain." Id. at 91. In that case, the court held that a hearing was required because the defendant had submitted affidavits from his attorney, as well as corroborating affidavits from other attorneys, and the Government had not submitted any evidence. Id.; see also United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (applying Aleman, and ordering an evidentiary hearing based upon the defendant's submission of an affidavit from an attorney with knowledge of the alleged oral agreement). Similarly, in United States v. 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held that a hearing was required based on the defendant's uncontested assertions about specific representations made to him by a prosecutor. Id. at 184, 190. Here, by contrast, the defendant has offered no evidence in support of her allegations. + +The defendant cannot seriously argue that she has made the type of showing that requires a hearing. For example, she has not offered any affidavits from Epstein's former defense attorneys claiming that the USAO-SDFL made promises that were not contained in the NPA. Nor has she pointed to anything in the extensive record of either the OPR investigation or the civil litigation surrounding the NPA that would suggest that the NPA applies to this District, or to the crimes in the Indictment, or to Maxwell. In the absence of any such evidence—and in the face of substantial contrary evidence gathered in the civil litigation and OPR investigation—the Court has no obligation to conduct a hearing. + +For similar reasons, the defendant's motion for discovery should be denied. To the extent the defendant seeks discovery under Rule 16, she has failed to meet her burden. A defendant seeking discovery under Rule 16 "must make a prima fade showing of materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material." United States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). Here, the defendant has offered nothing more than her conjecture that some unspecified evidence might exist. The motion should be denied. + +# II. The Indictment Is Timely + +Counts One through Four are timely charged because the applicable limitations period, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), permits prosecution for offenses "involving the sexual or physical abuse... of a child" at any time "during the life of the child," and each of the victims identified in the Indictment remains alive. Maxwell contends that Section 3283 should not be applied to conduct that predated its amendment in 2003 (Def. Mot. 2), but that argument is contrary to the text of the statute, Congress's clear intent when extending the statute of limitations, and the decisions of other circuits and district courts in this Circuit. In effect, the defendant's motion asks this Court to break new ground, and become the first court to hold that Section 3283 applies only prospectively. + +In the alternative, Maxwell argues that Section 3283 is inapplicable because the offenses charged in the Indictment do not "involv[e] the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child." (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). Yet her argument runs contrary to the weight of authority that has adopted the common-sense view that crimes that necessarily entail the sexual or physical abuse of children "involv[e] the sexual or physical abuse of a child." This Court should do the same and deny the motion. + +#### A. Statutory Background + +Between 1990 and 2006, Congress passed a series of laws that expanded the statute of limitations for prosecutions of crimes against minors, ultimately extending the statute of limitations to the lifetime of the minor victim and, for certain offenses, eliminating the statute of limitations entirely. These laws reflect a virtually unbroken congressional policy that the default five-year statute of limitations for federal crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3282, is inadequate for such offenses. An extended statute of limitations is necessary because "child sex abuse offenses . . . may be difficult to detect quickly," in part because children often first report their abuse long after it occurs. Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 54 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing, e.g., David McCord, Expert Psychological Testimony About Child Complainants in Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology I, 60-61 (1986)). + +In 1990, Congress enacted a new statute of limitation for certain crimes against children, which stated: "No statute of limitation that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such a prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years." Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit. II, § 225(a), 104 Stat. 4789, 4798 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990)). In 1994, Congress re-codified this provision, moving it to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 with identical language. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. XXXIII, § 330018(a), 108 Stat. 1796, 2149 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994)) ("No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25."). + +As the Second Circuit has recognized, "after nearly a decade, Congress began to view even the extended statute of limitations period in the 1994 version of § 3283 as `inadequate in many cases' because it released from criminal liability sex abusers whose crimes were not brought to the attention of federal authorities until after their victims turned twenty-five." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 54 (2003)). Accordingly, in April 2003, Congress amended Section 3283 to permit the prosecution of sex offenses against minors at any time during the lifetime of the minor victim. Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act ("PROTECT Act") of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-21, tit. II, § 202, 117 Stat. 650, 660 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003)) ("No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child."). + +In January 2006, Congress further amended Section 3283 to its current form to permit the prosecution of such offenses during the lifetime of the victim or ten years after the offense, whichever is longer. Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-162, tit. XI, § 1182(c), 119 Stat. 2960, 3126 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2006)) ("No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall + +preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."). + +Finally, later that same year, Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for certain crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Id. fit. II, § 211(1), 120 Stat. at 616 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3299). + +## B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively + +Counts One through Four of the Indictment charge crimes that occurred between 1994 and 1997. At the time of the offense conduct, the applicable statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994), ran until "the child reaches the age of 25." However, in 2003, while the statute of limitations had not yet run for the crimes charged in the Indictment,12 Congress amended the statute, extending the limitations period to permit a prosecution at any time "during the life of the child." 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). Because the victims are all alive, the Indictment is timely under the 2003 amendment. + +Put simply, the 2003 amendment applies to any conduct that could have been charged at the time of its enactment. The legislative purpose behind Section 3283 and a plain reading of the statute compel this conclusion, and courts have repeatedly held that the 2003 amendment applies retroactively, provided that the statute of limitations had not run for the offense at the time of the amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Because Congress evinced a clear intent to extend, rather than shorten, the statute of limitations applicable to sexual abuse crimes, and because there is no ex post facto problem here, the prosecution was timely.") (citing United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. + +12 The timeliness of the charges in the Indictment in 2003 is discussed in greater detail below. + +denied, 546 U.S. 1007 (2005)); United States v.=, 800 F. App'x 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2020) ("Because Congress evinced a clear intent to extend the statute of limitations for these types of crimes in its amendments, and because there is no ex post facto problem here, the prosecution was timely:), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235 (Jan. 11, 2021); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (denying motion to dismiss child exploitation charges as time-barred) ("Defendant's argument rests on the erroneous premise that the law requires the defendant to have committed the charged offense after the effective date of the extension of the statute of limitations for the charge to not be time-barred. As long as the original statute of limitations had not lapsed when the extension went into effect, the prosecution is not time-barred."); United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484, at \*2 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) (holding that the 2003 amendment of Section 3283 applies to preenactment conduct, and rejecting the argument "that the lack of a savings clause in the 2003 version of section 3283 is fatal to extending the statute of limitations."); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 624-30 (E.D. Va. 2019) (holding that the 2003 amendment of Section 3283 applies to pm-enactment conduct). + +In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for determining whether a statute applies retroactively. At step one of the analysis, "if Congress 'expressly prescribed' that a statute applies retroactively to antecedent conduct, 'the inquiry ends[] and the court enforces the statute as it is written,' save for constitutional concerns." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54-55 (quoting In re Enter. Mon. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise'), 391 F.3d 401, 405-06 (2d Cir. 2004)). However, "when a statute 'is ambiguous or contains no express command' regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively + +impermissible retroactive effects." Id. For the reasons set forth below, the 2003 amendment of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 satisfies both steps of Landgraf, and should be applied to pre-enactment conduct. + +## 1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf + +At step one of the Landgraf analysis, the question is whether Congress has "expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. When evaluating Congress's intent at step one of the Landgraf inquiry, the Second Circuit has considered both the text of the statute and the legislative history. Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 406-08. In this case, the amended versions of Section 3283 evince Congress's express intent to extend the statute of limitations. The text and history of Section 3283 firmly establish that, with each amendment of the statute of limitations, Congress intended to repeal and replace the prior version of the statute and thereby extend the time to bring live charges of child sexual abuse. + +The 2003 amendment, like the 1994 version of the statute, specifically states that "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution" of a child sexual offense "shall preclude" prosecution of such offense during the life of the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). Claims that were live in 2003 were, at the time, subject to the then-existing statute of limitations, which ran until the victims reached the age of 25. Whenever that statute of limitations ran, it would "otherwise preclude prosecution." Instead, that statute of limitations was replaced by the 2003 amendment. + +The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have both held that Congress intended to extend the statute of limitations for live claims of sexual abuse. In United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2005), the Eighth Circuit reasoned that "both the title and wording of § 3509(k) indicate that Congress intended by it to extend the general statute of limitations. . . . § 3509(k) was later recodified at § 3283 and continued to extend the statute of limitations in child abuse cases." Id. at 684 (citing United States v. Johns, 15 F.3d 740,743 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that an earlier version + +of § 3509(k) applied to conduct predating its enactment in 1990)). The Eighth Circuit's reasoning—which addressed earlier versions of the statute—applies with equal, if not greater, force to the 2003 amendment, which established an even broader statute of limitations. Following Jeties, the Ninth Circuit has similarly held that Section 3283 applies retroactively, because "Congress evinced a clear intent to extend" the statute of limitations. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d at 924 (citing Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685). + +Not only does the wording of the statute clearly express that Congress intended for the 2003 amendment to be the only governing statute of limitations for live claims of child sexual abuse, but the legislative history also supports this conclusion. The Joint Report accompanying the 2003 amendment explains that Congress wanted to expand the statute of limitations out of concern that the 1994 amendment did not go far enough to ensure that perpetrators of child sexual abuse were held to account: + +> While [the statute of limitations allowing for prosecution until the victim reaches age 25] is better than a flat five-year rule [under Section 3282], it remains inadequate in many cases. For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit — even if DNA matching conclusively identified him as the perpetrator one day after the victim turned 25. + +H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 54 (2003). Congress's express intention was to prevent perpetrators of crimes against children from escaping justice based on a timing technicality. Moreover, since the 2003 amendment extended the statute of limitations throughout the lifetime of the victim, it is clear that Congress expressly authorized prosecutions to occur decades after crimes had been committed.13 + +13 Although the defendant claims that prosecuting her crimes now presents unique fairness concerns, there is nothinisual about prosecuting sex crimes long after they have occurred. See, e.g., United States v. 800 F. App'x 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2020) (2014 indictment charging, among other crimes, sex trafficking offenses dating to 2000 and 2001), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, -- S. Ct. - , 2021 WL 78235 (Jan. 11, 2021); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), + +The defendant argues that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to preenactment conduct, and asserts that the legislative history supports this interpretation. Specifically, the defendant points to an earlier version of the bill, which contained an express retroactivity provision that was not included in the final version of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively." (Def. Mot. 2 at 7). This is a selective quotation; the full statement regarding retroactivity is as follows: + +> A final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the "virtual porn" provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. + +149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 3283, it declined to adopt the language in the House-passed bill because it wanted the lengthened statute of limitations to apply only prospectively. Instead, Senator Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for + +2018 WL 4043140, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (2016 indictment covering conduct going back to 1998); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 622 (E.D. Va. 2019) (2019 indictment for conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. + +the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that concern is entirely separate from extending the statute of limitations for live claims, which is what Congress did here. Critically—and as discussed in greater detail below—there is no Ex Post Facto Clause issue in this case, because the statute of limitations for Counts One through Four had not yet expired when the limitations period was extended in 2003.15 + +Accepting the defendant's argument would undermine Congress's plain purpose in extending the limitations period. In 1990, 2003, and 2006, Congress extended—and ultimately abolished—the statute of limitations to ensure that prosecutors could seek justice for child sex abuse victims who come forward or identify their abusers after a delay. Applying the 2003 statute only prospectively subverts that purpose by exempting all past offenders. According to the + +14 Moreover, the fact that Congress considered, but ultimately omitted, retroactivity language does not end the Landgraf inquiry, as the defendant suggests. Indeed, Landgraf itself makes this clear. In that case, the statute at issue had a predecessor, which contained a retroactivity provision. That version was vetoed by the President, and the final version of the statute omitted the retroactivity provision. As the Supreme Court explained, "[t]he omission of the elaborate retroactivity provision of the 1990 bill—which was by no means the only source of political controversy over that legislation—is not dispositive because it does not tell us precisely where the compromise was struck in the 1991 Act." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 256. Indeed, "[i]t [was] entirely possible—indeed, highly probable—that, because it was unable to resolve the retroactivity issue with the clarity of the 1990 legislation, Congress viewed the matter as an open issue to be resolved by the courts." Id. at 261. + +Is Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 were both younger than 25 in 2003, when Congress extended the limitations period. Minor Victim-3 was not, but this does not alter the inquiry, because the Indictment does not contain any counts that relate to Minor Victim-3 alone. Instead, she is one of multiple victims of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three. The inclusion of the overt acts relating to Minor Victim-3 in an otherwise timely conspiracy count does not render that count untimely. To the contrary, for conspiracy counts, the Government is only required to prove that one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred within the limitations period. United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 97 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, the defendant is incorrect to assert that the government is "barred" from prosecuting the defendant for any offense against Minor Victim-3. (Def. Mot. 2 at 10, n.3). Instead, there is no statute of limitations issue here so long as the jury is properly instructed at trial that it must find at least one overt act within the limitations period—i.e., one overt act that does not relate to Minor Victim-3. + +defendant, in 2003, Congress wanted to ensure that every perpetrator who abused a minor in the future was subject to prosecution for the lifetime of the minor, but Congress simultaneously was content to let all previous perpetrators avoid prosecution whenever their victims turned twentyfive. No such intent is manifest in either the text or in Senator Leahy's statement. + +The reach of Section 3283 is clear. Because Congress has expressly extended the statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, the Court should resolve its analysis at Landgraf step one and apply the statute as Congress intended. In the alternative, however, the statute is—at worst ambiguous. If the Court takes that view, it should proceed to Landgraf step two. + +# 2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf + +If the Court were to determine that the legislative intent behind Section 3283 is ambiguous, the inquiry then extends to the second step of the Landgraf analysis, which examines the retroactive effects of the statute. As the Supreme Court explained in Landgraf, "[a] statute does not operate 'retrospectively' merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law." 511 U.S. at 269. Instead, the question is whether the statute "would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist, 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). Applying Section 3283 here would have none of those effects. Maxwell's rights, liabilities, and duties were governed by the substantive criminal statutes governing her conduct. Until the statute of limitations expired, Maxwell had the same legal liability, the same rights, and the same incentives to retain evidence. A statute extending that period attaches no new legal consequences; rather, it preserves the status quo. Therefore, the statute does not operate "retrospectively" within the meaning of Landgraf. See Cruz v. Maypa, + +773 F.3d 138, 145 (4th Cir. 2014) ("[A]pplying [an] extended limitations period to claims that were unexpired at the time of its enactment does not give rise to an impermissible retroactive effect under Landgraf."). + +The Second Circuit has considered in three cases whether retroactive statutes of limitation are permissible under Landgraf In Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist., the Second Circuit held that a new statute shortening the filing period for a civil claim applied retroactively. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that "Landgraf and other cases countenance treating statutes of limitations differently from statutory provisions that affect substantive rights," because statutes of limitations regulate secondary, and not primary conduct. Vernon, 49 F.3d. at 890-91. In In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit held that applying an extended statute of limitations retroactively created impermissible retroactive effects. Yet in that case, it was critical to the Court's analysis that—unlike here—the statute revived claims that were previously time-barred. Id. at 410 ("In our view, the resurrection of previously time-barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect."). + +In Weingarten, the Second Circuit considered, but did not ultimately reach, the issue of whether Section 3283 applies retroactively.16 In discussing the second step of Landgraf, the Court observed: "Courts have routinely recognized a difference between revoking a vested statute of limitations defense and extending a filing period for live claims." Id. at 57 (collecting cases). Moreover, in an opinion by Judge Learned Hand, the Second Circuit explained why extending an active criminal statute of limitations does not offend any concept of fairness: + +> Certainly it is one thing to revive a prosecution already dead, and another to give it a longer lease of life. The question turns upon how + +16 The First Circuit has similarly considered this issue in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and declined to reach the issue of whether Section 3283 applies retroactively. United States v. 911 F.3d 638, 644 (1st Cir. 2018). + +much violence is done to our instinctive feelings of justice and fair play. For the state to assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit, and thereafter to withdraw its assurance, seems to most of us unfair and dishonest. But, while the chase is on, it does not shock us to have it extended beyond the time first set, or, if it does, the stake forgives it. + +Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 425-26 (2d Cir. 1928). The distinction between statutes that revive expired prosecutions and those that extend existing limitations periods has deep roots in established jurisprudence. It is well-settled that the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws that revive time-barred prosecutions, but permits laws that retroactively extend limitations periods. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632 (2003) (holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not "prevent the State from extending time limits for . . . prosecutions not yet time barred."); United States v. M, 113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL 268712, at \*7 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) ("The longstanding rule in this circuit is that Congress has the power to extend the period of limitations without running afoul of the ex post facto clause, provided the original period has not already run.") (citing Falter, 23 F.3d at 425-26). And other circuits have emphasized this distinction in the context of Section 3283. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d, at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d 685. + +Read together, the Second Circuit's decisions in Weingarten, Vernon, Enterprise, and Falter establish that Congress may retroactively extend the limitations period for still-viable prosecutions. That is precisely what has occurred here, because the charges in the Indictment were still timely when the 2003 amendment extended the limitations period. As a result, applying Section 3283 in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore, step two of Landgraf is satisfied, and Section 3283 applies retroactively. + +Resisting this conclusion, the defendant asserts that, in the criminal context, Landgrafs second step provides protections beyond the Ex Post Facto Clause. But that is not the law. See Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 630 (rejecting the argument that "there is `daylight' between the Ex Post Facto Clause and Landgrafs second step."). Maxwell cites no precedent for the proposition that, in the criminal context, much less in the context of criminal statutes of limitations, Landgraf forecloses prosecutions permitted by the Constitution. Maxwell instead cites dictum by a single judge in a non-criminal case that, "[i]f [he] were judging on a clean slate," he would read Landgraf to prohibit some retroactive application of statutes that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self). That footnote is too slender a to support Maxwell's entire motion to dismiss the Indictment as untimely. Moreover, Maxwell has identified no case in the intervening seventeen years in which the Supreme Court has embraced Judge Calabresi's view. See Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 631 (finding arguments relating to Judge Calabresi's footnote unpersuasive, and concluding that Section 3283 applies retroactively under Landgraf). As Weingarten recognized, any court to hold that "retroactively extending a filing period for live charges is a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect under Landgmf' will be the first to do so. 865 F.3d at 58. + +The defendant also argues that "criminal limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose," relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970). Toussie considered whether a person's failure to register for the draft was a continuing offense subjecting him to prosecution eight years later, notwithstanding the five-year limitations period in Section 3282. Id. at 114. In that context, the Court invoked a presumption in favor of repose when determining whether the underlying conduct was time-barred. But that presumption says nothing about whether Congress intended an extension of a statute of limitations to apply purely prospectively, a question governed by Landgraf. Only one case has applied + +Toussie to the Landgraf analysis, see United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017), and that case, which did not concern Section 3283, relied extensively on a pre-Landgraf opinion requiring a clear statement of congressional intent in favor of retroactivity. See id. at 655 (citing United States v. 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)). That clear-statement rule is inconsistent with the analysis required by Landgraf step two. See Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 631 (rejecting an identical argument relying on Toussie and Gentile). + +\*5\* + +The defendant asks this Court to break new ground and become the first court to hold that Section 3283 applies only prospectively. The Court should reject this invitation. For the reasons set forth above, the weight of authority holds that Section 3283 applies retroactively, in keeping with Congress's express intent to expand prosecutions of individuals who sexually exploit children. The Indictment is timely, and the motion should be denied. + +### C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors + +The defendant next argues that Section 3283 does not apply at all, and she asks the Court to conclude that the crimes of sexual abuse alleged in the Indictment did not involve sexual abuse. Her argument runs contrary to both the case law and common sense. Her motion is meritless and should be denied. + +By its terms, Section 3283 applies to any "offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years." 18 U.S.C. § 3283. As discussed above, when the statute was first enacted, it was located at 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). The definition of the term "sexual abuse" is located in a neighboring provision within that same section: + +> For purposes of this section ... the term 'sexual abuse' includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexually + +explicit conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. + +18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8). The term "sexually explicit conduct" is in turn defined to mean, among other things, "sexual intercourse, including sexual contact"; and the term "sexual contact" means "the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire of any person." Id. § 3509(a)(9XA). Courts have looked to the definition of "sexual abuse" set forth in Section 3509(a) to determine whether the statute of limitations of Section 3283 applies to an offense. United States v. Carpenter, 680 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2012) ("We join our sister circuits in looking to subsection 3509(a) for a definition of 'sexual abuse' under federal law, and find it the appropriate definition to use in applying section 3283's extended statute of limitations."); United States v. No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255, at \*10 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) (applying the definition of "sexual abuse" set forth in Section 3509(a)). + +As is evident from its plain text, the definition of "sexual abuse" set forth in Section 3509(a) includes not only actual "sexual contact," but also the "the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in," sexual contact. 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). The breadth of this definition is underscored by Congress's use of the word "includes." The Supreme Court has held that Congress's choice of the word "includes" is "significant because it "makes clear that the examples enumerated in the text are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 162 (2012) (citing Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124, 131 n.3 (2008)). Thus, sexual abuse "as defined here encompasses a wider set of behavior than just rape or other unwanted sexual touching." United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 197 (3d Cir. 2015). In keeping with that + +broad definition, courts have held that Section 3283 "does not require that an offense consist of a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child," =, 2014 WL 1838255, at \*11, but instead reaches offenses involving the transportation of minors to engage in illegal sexual activity. See Sensi, 2010 WL 2351484, at \*2-3 (collecting cases interpreting the term "sexual abuse" to encompass "all crimes that would logically relate to the common understanding of sexual abuse even when found in chapters 110 ('Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children') and 117 ('Transportation of Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes') of title 18"); Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196-97 (holding that Section 3283 applied to defendant convicted of traveling with the purpose of engaging in sex with a minor victim, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)); =, 2014 WL 1838255, at \*11-12 (holding that violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) were crimes involving sexual abuse under Section 3283). + +The defendant's motion does not engage with these authorities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But is inapposite, since it concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" and "indicate[d] a purpose to suspend the general statute of limitations only as to" certain narrowly defined offenses. M, 346 U.S. at 216. There is no corresponding indication that Congress intended the "essential ingredients" test to apply to Section 3283. As the Third Circuit has explained in rejecting an identical argument: + +> While did adopt an "essential ingredient" test, the limitations-extending statute at issue was a narrowly drafted exception specifically intended to target frauds related to war procurement. Unlike the WSLA, § 3283 has no such restrictive language or legislative history suggesting congressional intent to limit its application to a specific subset of circumstances. Congress, + +rather, has evinced a general intention to "cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible." + +Schneider, 801 F.3d at 197 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (en bane)); see Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 59 n.I 0 (distinguishing because the "essential ingredient" test there "effectuated Congress's specific intent to limit the WSLA's extended limitations period to only a few offenses," while "Congress had the opposite intention for Section 3283"); see also M, 2014 WL 1838255, at \*11-12 ("[T]he defendant argues that the charged offense does not "involve" the sexual abuse of a child, as reflected in the elements of the offense. Defendant's argument is illogical and clearly misinterprets the use of the term 'involving' in section 3283."). + +Although the Second Circuit has not yet reached this issue, it examined this question in Weingarten v. United States, in the context of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58-60. Rejecting the claim, the Second Circuit observed that none of the criteria for applying the categorical approach are met in the context of Section 3283. Id. The categorical approach—which focuses on the elements of the offense—is generally only used in settings like sentencing and immigration, where a court is asked to evaluate the conduct from a prior conviction. Id. at 59. In such a context, a court attempting to examine the facts of the prior conviction to determine the present punishment or immigration consequences would encounter logistical and constitutional obstacles. Id. (noting an Apprendi problem and "daunting practical difficulties and potential unfairness"). None of those concerns is present here, where the relevant facts will be proved at trial. + +The Weingarten court also specifically rejected the argument Maxwell now asserts: that the words "offense involving" require a categorical approach. "[T]hat Congress used the word 'involving' in § 3283 does not necessarily mean it intended to trigger the categorical approach. + +`Involving' . is equally consistent with applying a fact-based approach." 865 F.3d at 60 n. I I (citing Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 38 (2009) (applying the circumstances-specific approach to a statute containing the word "involves")). Moreover, as the Weingarten court observed, the Supreme Court has applied the categorical approach to statutes containing the word "involving" where the statutes at issue also referenced "elements" of offenses, or specific prior "convictions," in a manner that referred to specific convictions, as opposed to particular offense conduct. 865 F.3d at 59 (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. I (2004)). By contrast, the phrase "sexual abuse" in Section 3283 refers to specific conduct, and not the statutory offenses charged in the Indictment. + +In Weingarten, the Second Circuit further noted that applying the categorical approach to Section 3283 would run contrary to Congress's intention to "cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible." 865 F.3d at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196). On this point, it bears emphasizing that the interpretation the defendant advances would lead to absurd outcomes, as many federal crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors do not contain, as an element, a requirement that the defendant commit a sex act with a minor. It would run contrary to Congress's intent to interpret Section 3283 in a manner that would exclude many—if not most sexual offenses against children. + +The lone Section 3283 case the defendant cites, United States v. Countentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011), is easily distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the Eighth Circuit considered, among other issues, whether the crime of possessing child pornography involved sexual abuse within the meaning of Section 3283. Id. at 816-18. In analyzing that question, the court discussed, among a variety of factors, the elements of the crime. But it did not consider the categorical approach, or purport to apply an "essential ingredients" test, as the defendant implies. Instead, the + +court resolved the issue by answering a common sense question: "Does someone who merely possesses child pornography sexually abuse the child portrayed in the images?" Id. at 817. This inquiry has no relevance here, as this case does not involve the possession of child pornography. + +The crimes charged in the Indictment plainly involved the sexual abuse of minors. First, the Indictment clearly alleges that the minor victims were subjected to actual, physical sexual contact as part of the defendant's crimes. See Indictment at ¶¶ 4 (alleging that conduct toward minor victims involved sexual abuse), 5 (alleging that "Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals."), 7 (describing patterns of sexual abuse). Moreover, the Indictment alleges that the defendant persuaded, induced, enticed, and transported minors for purposes of engaging in criminal sexual activity, and that she conspired to do the same. As discussed above, the offenses charged in the Indictment accordingly involved the sexual abuse of minors as defined in Section 3509(a) and incorporated into Section 3283. + +Because the defendant's crimes involved sexual abuse, the expanded statute of limitations set forth in Section 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. + +### III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied + +The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed because the Government's delay in bringing the charges violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Def. Mot. 7). The defendant has not and cannot successfully establish such a violation. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged pre-indictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost witnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she can use to carry her heavy burden. Without proof of actual prejudice, the motion fails. Second, even if the Court finds actual prejudice to the defense, the defendant has not established that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. The Government obtained an indictment charging the defendant on June 29, 2020, less than two years after opening its investigation and less than a year after victims with information critical to the pending charges came forward. The defendant thus cannot establish an undue delay, much less a delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose. + +Because the defendant cannot establish either element, let alone both, her due process claim is meritless and should be denied. + +## A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice + +### 1. Applicable Law + +It is well-settled that the statute of limitations is "the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, when a case has been brought within the statute of limitations, it is "only rarely dismissed," and carries a "strong presumption of validity." United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982). + +The Second Circuit standard for pre-indictment delay is clear, and it imposes a heavy burden on the defendant to show that: (i) "he suffered actual prejudice because of the alleged preindictment delay," and (ii) "that such delay was a course intentionally pursued by the government for an improper purpose." Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (citations omitted). The burden for proving both prongs of the standard rests squarely on the defendant. United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.3d 993, 1014 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51, 66 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. + +Ricco, 549 F.2d 264, 272 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is so heavy that it is rarely met by a defendant. See DeMichele v. Greenburgh Centr. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[W]hile the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar."). + +Substantial prejudice is just that—substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant's "proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative"); see also United States v. la 337 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 2003) (prejudice sufficient to warrant dismissal for pre-indictment delay must be "actual and substantial" and "specific, concrete, and supported by evidence"). Prejudice in this context refers to "actual prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial." United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979). The mere loss of witnesses or evidence, without more, is insufficient. Claims of loss of memory resulting from the passage of time have been held to be insufficient to warrant dismissal of an indictment on due process grounds. See United States v. 343 F.3d 849, 860 (6th Cir. 2003); • 337 F.3d at 919-20. Moreover, even when a claim of prejudice is based upon the complete loss of a witness's testimony or other evidence, a defendant nevertheless must show how that testimony or evidence would have affected the outcome or otherwise have assisted the case. See United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant's pre-indictment delay claim rejected due to failure to show "how the testimony from [three absent] witnesses would have benefitted his case"); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible" (citations omitted)). "Courts have held that 'the defendant also has the burden of showing that the lost testimony or information was not available through other means.' Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at •4 (quoting United States v. Sprouts, 282 F.3d 1037, 1041 (8th Cir. 2002)). + +The vast majority of pre-indictment delay cases fail on the first prong. See, e.g., Marion, 404 U.S. at 324-25 (fading witness memories insufficient; "no one suggests that every delaycaused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1972) (unavailability of witnesses insufficient prejudice); United States v.M, 560 F.2d 122, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1977) (death of witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at \*4-5 (death of a defense witness and defendant's own memory issues insufficient prejudice). + +## 2. Discussion + +The defendant points to at least four ways in which she claims the passage of time prejudiced her defense, but none of her hypothetical claims of prejudice withstand scrutiny. In particular, she contends that, as a result of the passage of time, four witnesses have died, unnamed Epstein employees have been "lost," unspecified witnesses now have "failed or corrupted" memories, and records have been lost or destroyed. She further contends that these collectively demonstrate actual prejudice. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8-14). None has merit, individually or collectively. + +With respect to the first three arguments, the fact that certain witnesses cannot testify because of their deaths or failed memories does not compel a finding of actual prejudice. "Faded memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable. To merit dismissal a defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself." United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a showing. Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level. + +The defendant first claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of preindictment delay due to the unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8). That assertion is speculative at best, and the law is clear that "proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative." Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657 (finding that "perceived prejudice is speculative" where there was "no way of knowing what [the unavailable witness's] testimony would have been"). To credit Maxwell's argument is to assume that Epstein, after being indicted with federal sex trafficking charges, would have taken the stand, would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that exculpated Maxwell, which a jury would have credited in the face of contradictory trial evidence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood crossexamination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible." (citations omitted)); see also United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the missing witness "would have withstood cross-examination," whether the jury would have found him a "credible witness," and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence "would affect the trial outcome" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The defendant has not and cannot establish that Epstein would have been available to testify in the first instance, much less that he would have voluntarily agreed to testify at her trial in a way that would help, rather than hurt, the defendant. + +As to Epstein's mother, who died in April 2004, the defendant contends that she "would have testified that she did not observe Ms. Maxwell with any Accusers between 1994 and 1997." (Def. Mot. 7 at 9). "Counsel's unswom assertions as to vague generalities" that witnesses, "if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the defendant's] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced." United States v. , 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Here, "there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witness] would have testified, much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual prejudice." Id. at 400. Further, unless Epstein's mother was with the defendant "every moment" between 1994 and 1997, "it would be impossible for [her] to testify that [the] defendant did not commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [she] might have offered (the details of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination." Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at \*4 (citing Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-1085). Moreover, Epstein's mother died "sufficiently prior to 'any realistic trial date,' to make it improbable that any prejudice it may have caused [the defendant] was the result of government delay." United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1073 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. M, 456 F.2d 844, 848 (2d Cir. 1972)). Indeed, Epstein's mother passed away before the Palm Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). + +The defendant's claims relating to Michael and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May + +2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpatory and would have materially helped the defense. (Def. Mot. 7 at 9-11). The defendant cannot establish that and Detective Recarey would have testified in a way that would help, rather than hurt, the defendant. + +In particular, the defendant contends that Michael =, the purported agent of Minor Victim-1, "would be able to testify" about Minor Victim-l's behavior during the "relevant time period" and the "lack of any `outcry' or `grooming.'" (Id. at 10). The defense suggests that not having related any complaints about Maxwell to "any authority, Ms. Maxwell, or any other known witness" means that he knew of no complaints. (Id. at 9-10). As an initial matter, "there is no evidence before the Court as to what IJ would have testified." M, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. Even assuming that would have testified as the defendant now contends, such testimony (which would be purely speculative and unsubstantiated) would also have no bearing on whether the abuse, in fact, occurred. + +The defendant argues that Detective Recarey would have testified that none of the witnesses with whom he spoke in connection with a prior investigation told him about the defendant participating in sex trafficking activities. (Def. Mot. 7 at 10-11). As a threshold matter, the defendant has not established how such testimony, which would consist entirely of hearsay, could even be admissible at the defendant's trial. Moreover, the fact that Epstein may have abused victims without the defendant's participation is not exculpatory as to charges alleging the defendant assisted in the grooming and abuse of other victims. The well-established law of this Circuit generally precludes a defendant from offering evidence that a defendant did not participate in criminal conduct on a particular occasion—or of her law-abiding conduct during uncharged periods or uncharged events—to rebut the Government's evidence with respect to the charged + +crimes or events. See, e.g., United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish h[er] innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions."); United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) ("A single occurrence of lawful conduct is 'simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of lawful conduct." (quoting United States v. =, 191 F.3d 326, 336 (2d Cir. 1999)); United States v. M, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) ("We reject assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the government did argue that had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips."); United States v. Fiumano, No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356, at •7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) ("The principle is rather elementary. A defendant charged with robbing a bank in Manhattan on April 22 cannot offer as evidence to disprove the charged crime that he did not rob the bank's branches in Brooklyn or the Bronx on April 22 or that he did not rob the Manhattan branch on April 20, 21, 23, and 24, because this evidence is irrelevant to the charge that he robbed the Manhattan bank on April 22."); United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). + +Inadmissibility aside, the Indictment specifically charges conduct between 1994 and 1997. That a different investigative team focused on Epstein's conduct in the early 2000s may not have uncovered evidence about the defendant's conduct in the 1990s has no bearing on the charges in this case, which was brought entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation. Moreover, and as detailed further below, two of the victims referenced in the Indictment, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, were never interviewed by the USAO-SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with this Office in late August and September 2019, after Epstein's + +death." As such, it is neither surprising nor terribly probative of any issue in dispute in this case that Detective Recarey might have testified to a lack of knowledge as to what the victims identified in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. M, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. + +The defendant next contends that had the Government brought the charges earlier, she would have interviewed and subpoenaed as witnesses "the many Epstein employees that were present at the different locations during that three-year period." (Def. Mot. 7 at 11). She does not specify which employees she would have called as witnesses, the grounds for contending they are "lost" or "missing," whether they would have been willing to testify, or what admissible evidence they would have provided. She merely speculates that the evidence could have helped her defense. This is far from the definite proof of prejudice required to state a due process claim. See United States v. Greer, 956 F. Supp. 525, 528 (D. Vt. 1997) ("In the context of unavailable witnesses, the defendant must offer some grounds for his belief that the absent witness would have helped his case in a material way." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). + +The defendant also argues that "[m]any potential witnesses have been contacted in relation to this matter and other related litigations," noting that "[s]ignificant numbers of potential witnesses no longer remember when events may have occurred" or "who was present." (Def. Mot. 7 at 12). Dimming or fading memories over the passage of time are not in themselves sufficient to "demonstrate that [defendants] cannot receive a fair trial" or "justify the dismissal of the indictment." Marion, 404 U.S. at 326; Elsbery, 602 F.2d at 1059. Indeed, the fact that the defense described the witnesses as "potential witnesses" suggests that she might still call them. Further, + +"The third victim, Minor Victim-2, was interviewed previously by the FBI. The Government is not aware of Detective Recarey having participated in an interview of Minor Victim-2. + +to the extent the passage of time affects the memories of witnesses who testify at trial, the defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. See United States v. 764 F. Supp. 29, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that "the passage of time does affect witnesses' memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony" and that the Government also faces potential harms from the passage of time). 's Accordingly, the defendant's bald assertions regarding diminished memories of potential witnesses are speculative and, thus, fall short of the proof of actual prejudice required by the Supreme Court's standard in Marion. + +The defendant also claims that because of the delay in the prosecution, she does not have access to certain exculpatory documentary evidence. (Def. Mot. 7 at 12-14). Once again, this argument is entirely speculative. The defendant hypothesizes that if she had access to certain documentary evidence (some of which, such as travel records, has been produced in discovery), or evidence which she herself should have access to (e.g., her own emails from 1994 to 1997, her own phone records from 1994 to 1997, and her own travel records from 1994 to 1997), this evidence would have helped her. She offers no proof or basis for concluding that the records would be helpful. Even if such records were helpful, dismissal of the Indictment would be too extreme a measure in light of the relative significance of this form of evidence to other proof in the case. Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Donau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate + +IS The Government notes that it faces the same potential harms from the passage of time as does any party, including loss of witnesses through death or disappearance, diminishment of memories over the passage of time, and loss of evidence. The Government, of course, bears the burden of proof at trial, and as such, prosecutors have every incentive to bring cases as promptly as possible, when memories are fresh and when it is possible to identify corroborating witnesses and records. Any suggestion that the Government delayed bringing the instant case for over two decades for its own benefit or a tactical advantage borders on the absurd. + +to the instant prosecution, is insufficient to show actual prejudice.... The fact that evidence may be lost or destroyed during the pm-indictment stage is inherent in any delay, no matter what the duration. Furthermore, there has been no allegation in this case that the destruction of the records was deliberate on the part of either the government or trustee." (internal citations omitted)). + +Lastly, the defendant contends that prejudicial media reporting and inappropriate pre-trial publicity from at least 2011 through the present has resulted in prejudice to the defendant. (Def. Mot. at 14). She claims that had the Government brought charges against her between 1996 and 2011, the Government "would have not prevailed," noting that the defendant's accusers would not have been "able to conform their 'memories' to the often republished 'obvious lies.'" (Id. at 15). This argument, like the others contained in this motion, is steeped in speculation. The defendant cites not one case in support of her argument that pre-trial publicity can ever establish actual prejudice, nor does she point to any evidence that the Government fomented such publicity dating back to 2011. To the extent the defendant is concerned about pretrial publicity, she will have the opportunity to propose an appropriate examination of potential jurors during voir dire to identify a panel of impartial jurors who have not been prejudiced by any publicity this case may have garnered. + +In short, the defendant's complaints are nothing more than the type of self-serving, vague, speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay.19 The motion should therefore be denied. + +19 The defendant also complains about the Government's failure to "provide discovery adequate to fully investigate the extent of the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 7 at 7). Among the items the defense complains about not receiving in discovery are the names and dates of birth of the Minor Victims, the specific location of any overt act, the date of any overt act, any witness statements, or any corroboration of any allegation in the Indictment. (Id.). As described herein, see Section X, infra, the Government has made substantial discovery productions pursuant to Rule + +#### B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the Indictment for An Improper Purpose + +#### 1. Applicable Law + +If, and only if, a defendant has established significant, actual prejudice does the inquiry turn to the reason for the delay.20 See, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at •5 ("Because Defendant failed to show prejudice, the Court need not even address the second prong."). The reason for delay violates due process only if it is so extreme that it departs from fundamental notions of "fair play."' United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977). The Supreme Court has "defined the category of infractions that violate `fundamental fairness' very narrowly," Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990), and the Supreme Court has "stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the Government when the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the Government," Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988). + +16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides ample information about the charged crimes and the victims referenced in the Indictment. Additionally, many of the defendant's requests fall within the scope of the Government's Giglio and Jencks Act obligations, which the Government intends to produce at the appropriate stage in the litigation, well in advance of trial. + +20 The defendant invites the Court to engage in a balancing test that weighs the prejudice to the defendant against the Government's reasons for delay. (Def. Mot. 7 at 5, 6 n.4). This Court should reject the defendant's invitation. The defendant cites United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 n.7 (5th Cir. 1977), for the proposition that a showing of prejudice triggers such balancing. (Def. Mot. 7 at 5). However, the Fifth Circuit subsequently rejected such a balancing test, finding that the "Brand footnote is pure dicta" and instead requiring that defendants demonstrate that the prosecution intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant or "for some other bad faith purpose." United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1996). The defendant also cites that several Circuit courts, namely the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, require such a balancing test. (Def. Mot. 7 at 6 n.4). The Second Circuit, however, "has not adopted any balancing test, as the Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have, and its jurisprudence suggests that it would not do so." United States v. 987 F. Supp. 2d 465, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Several other Circuits have also "refused to adopt a balancing test." Id. (collecting cases). This Court should follow that example. + +The Second Circuit has clearly held that a defendant seeking the dismissal of an indictment filed within the statute of limitations must establish that the Government acted intentionally, deliberately, or with some strategy, and that the Government used that delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant. See, e.g., Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (delay must be "intentional device to gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused"); see also United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) ("To show unjustifiable conduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the government has intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage."); see also United States v. Delacna, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Delacruz's motion to dismiss would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that he has not made any showing that the preindictment delay was an intentional device designed by the Government to gain a tactical advantage."); United States v. . No. 94 Cr. 219 (RPP), 1995 WL 10849, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) ("In order to establish improper delay by the Government in filing an indictment, a defendant must show that the delay was the result of an intentional device of the Government to gain tactical advantage over the accused." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (citing United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 671 (2d Cir. 1987))). Indeed, some version of the phrase "deliberate device" and "tactical advantage" is found in nearly every Second Circuit decision on the issue. See, e.g., Alameh, 341 F.3d at 176 ("intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage"); Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (requiring "intentional device" to gain "tactical advantage"); Lawson, 683 F.2d at 694 (delay not "engineered by the government for an improper purpose, such as gaining a tactical advantage"); =, 668 F.2d at 689; United States v. =, 599 F.2d 1149, 1157 n.5 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Tanu, 589 F.2d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37, 40 n.11 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Hillegas, 578 F.2d 453, 460 (2d Cir. 1978). + +#### 2. Discussion + +Even if the defendant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government's continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative delay did not deprive the defendant of his due process rights and noted that imposing a duty upon prosecutors to file charges as soon as probable cause exists "'would have a deleterious effect both upon the rights of the accused and upon the ability of society to protect itself." Id. at 791 (quoting United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966)). + +The same is true in the present case. The defendant has not shown—and cannot show that the Government caused any pre-indictment delay in this case to gain a tactical advantage. The defendant argues that "[t]actical, reckless, and bad faith motives can reasonably be inferred from the way the government has ignored evidence, delayed any prosecution, enlisted partisan lawyers to do its bidding, circumvented established precedent to illegally obtain evidence, and misleadingly quoting banal testimony so that it could be labeled `perjury.' (Def. Mot. 7 at 15). But rhetoric aside, the defendant offers nothing beyond baseless speculation in support of her claims. + +The defendant claims a twenty-six-year delay on the part of the Government in bringing Counts One through Four and a four-year delay as to Counts Five and Six. (Def. Mot. 7 at 4). That is not so. The USAO-SDNY opened its investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators in late November 2018. See Section IV, infra. Epstein was charged by indictment on July 2, 2019. Thereafter, the Government continued its investigation, which included interviewing two victims + +(Minor Victim-I and Minor Victim-3) for the first time. In particular, Minor Victim-1 first agreed to be interviewed in September 2019, and Minor Victim-3 first agreed to be interviewed in August 2019.21 The Government conducted multiple additional interviews of both victims, as well as other witnesses, and took additional investigative steps over the next several months before it was prepared to seek an indictment charging the defendant. Those two victims were critical to the investigation, as they helped form the basis of the charges in the Indictment, which the Government sought on June 29, 2020, less than a year after the victims came forward. That period of time and, in particular, less than one year between when key victims came forward and the Indictment was obtained—cannot possibly give rise to a colorable due process violation.22 See Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d at 1072 (finding that "the government is not responsible fora period of delay during which an important witness is unavailable to it" and describing the delay as the period between the witness's cooperation and the date of indictment); United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951, 961 (2d Cir. 1976) ("If them was any intentional delay in returning the instant indictment, it was due in significant measure to the refusal of critical witnesses until 1973 to reveal what they knew."). CI Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 796 ("Rather than deviating from elementary standards of fair play and decency, a prosecutor abides by them if he refuses to seek indictments until he is completely + +21 While the Government is proffering these facts for purposes of this Motion, the underlying information, which is contained in the FBI 302 reports of interviews with the victims, will be produced to the defense as 3500 material in advance of trial. + +22 In this respect, the Government notes that significant aspects of the defendant's argument rest on a faulty premise: i.e., that the Government could have indicted the defendant at any time between 1994 and 2020, but simply chose not to do so for tactical reasons. As noted above, two key witnesses who helped give rise to the instant charges did not agree to speak law enforcement until 2019, facts that significantly undercut the notion that the Government was intentionally sitting on a criminal case against the defendant for any meaningful period of time. Cf. Ex. 3 (OPR Report) at 81 ("Villafafta told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of 'any other potential co-conspirators."); id. at 167 (with respect to Maxwell, "according to Villafafta, in 2007, they `didn't have any specific evidence against her."). + +satisfied that he should prosecute and will be able promptly to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). + +Moreover, even if the Court were to determine that a twenty-six-year period of delay were applicable here, the defendant's motion should be dismissed because she failed to show that the Government acted improperly to obtain a tactical advantage. See. e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140 (denying motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay as to conduct charged in 2016 involving sexual abuse of minors from 1998 to 2007 as defendant failed to satisfy both prongs of pre-indictment delay standard); United Stain v. M, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss indictment based on thirty-year preindictment delay because even if unavailability of alibi witnesses were prejudicial, defendant failed to show that government delayed for its own benefit); United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (RCC), 2004 WL 2222145 (S.D.N.Y. Sept 30, 2004) (in a racketeering conspiracy case in which a 14-year-old murder was alleged as a predicate act, finding that, even assuming defendant had shown actual prejudice, defendant's motion to dismiss based on pre-indictment delay failed because defendant supplied no evidence that government's conduct was for an improper purpose). + +The defendant claims that the Government intentionally delayed the indictment in this case with a prescient view towards capitalizing on civil litigation. For instance, Maxwell asserts that it "has been advantageous to the government to have aggressive lawyers collecting information from Ms. Maxwell as part of civil discovery and disseminating that information to the public, as part of an ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boics Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to obtain materials from the civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained such materials through a judicially approved and entirely appropriate process, the inference that the defendant urges this Court to draw—that the Government delayed seeking an indictment to gain a tactical advantage and did so through strategy in the pending civil litigation—is both unsupported by the record and illogical. + +The defendant makes much of the Government having moved to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has not moved to stay v. Maxwell. (Def. Mot. 7 at 16-19). She suggests that there is some "sharp contrast" between the Government's actions in the various civil matters, which "establish a strong inference that as long as the government stood to gain a tactical advantage by delaying the indictment ..., it would not move to intervene." (Id. at 19). Setting the defendant's conspiracy theories aside, the civil matters were in completely different procedural postures, which implicate different concerns regarding a pending criminal case. The v. Maxwell litigation was settled and complete well before the Government even opened its investigation in this case. By contrast, the Doe v. Indyke case was initiated after the Government opened its investigation and remained ongoing after the Indictment in this case was filed.23 The defendant quotes the Government's letter to Judge Freeman requesting permission to intervene and stay Doe v. Indyke (see id.), but omits the portion of that letter in which the Government explained that, as far as it was aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . . In + +n In particular, v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discovery to be conducted in the case and no possible concern to the Government that, for example, its trial witnesses in the criminal case might be deposed in that civil case. In Doe v. Indyke, on the other hand, discovery was just beginning, and if discovery were to have proceeded, multiple witnesses or potential witnesses at the criminal trial would likely have been subject to deposition. That concern, among others, raised a significant risk that proceeding with the civil matter would adversely affect the ongoing criminal prosecution against the defendant. Moreover, the interests of judicial economy and the public interest in enforcement of the criminal law were served by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in v. Maxwell. + +particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious reasons for delaying her prosecution are not sufficient to support a dismissal of the Indictment. The defendant ignores the fact that cases such as this one take time to investigate and indict. + +The defendant also suggests that the Government engaged in reckless disregard of circumstances that would likely impede her ability to mount an effective defense. (Def. Mot. 7 at 5-6, 15). As an initial matter, this argument falls short of "a standard that requires a showing of intentionality." United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at \*13 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017).20 While this Court in Wey did not foreclose the possibility of recklessness sufficing under certain circumstances, much as in Wey, "the instant case does not require this Court to pass on the issue," id., because there is no evidence of recklessness in this case. To the contrary, as detailed above, the Government acted promptly in bringing criminal charges shortly after two key victims whose testimony helped give rise to those charges first agreed to speak with law enforcement. Baseless speculation aside, the defendant offers no argument or evidence as to how or why the Government acted recklessly here. + +In sum, not only does the defendant fail to demonstrate actual, non-speculative prejudice owing to pre-indictment delay, but she also fails to establish that the Government intentionally + +24 This Court has noted "some disagreement among the district courts in this Circuit as to whether reckless-as opposed to intentional—disregard of circumstances . . . may support a due process challenge based on pre-indictment delay," but concluded that "the pertinent decisions [], on balance, more plainly comport with a standard that requires a showing of intentionality." Wey, 2017 WL 237651, at \*13 n.8 (citing Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (defendant bears burden of showing that "delay was a course intentionally pursued government for an improper purpose") (emphasis added)); see also United States v. No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171, at \*1 & n.l (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2000) ("Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit . . . has adopted this alternative [recklessness] standard."). + +manufactured any alleged delay to gain a tactical advantage over her. She has "offered no credible evidence to suggest that the Government tarried in bringing charges against [her] solely to gain some prosecutorial advantage." Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at \*5. As such, because the defendant cannot meet her "heavy burden" of showing both actual prejudice and unjustifiable Government conduct, her motion to dismiss the Indictment for pre-indictment delay should be denied.25 + +#### IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress + +The defendant moves to suppress evidence the Government obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller and to dismiss Counts Five and Six under the Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. Intl TeL and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). (Def. Mots. 3 & 11). In particular, the defendant contends that the Government violated the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell and misled Chief Judge McMahon in obtaining the modification of a protective order. She also contends the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to an unlawful search of materials in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as an infringement of her privilege against self-incrimination. Although the defendant styles her request for relief as two separate + +25 The defendant asks the Court for leave to supplement her motion "after the government provides her with meaningful discovery" and notes that "after the disclosure of meaningful discovery, [she] may request that the Court defer ruling on this motion until after any trial if the indictment has not been dismissed on other grounds." (Def. Mot. 7 at 1). As noted above and discussed further in Section X, infra, the Government has complied with its Rule 16 obligations and will produce Giglio and Jencks Act materials well in advance of trial. The Court should reject the defendant's invitation to defer ruling on this motion. See, e.g., United States v. Murk, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178, at \*I (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) ("The motion to dismiss the Indictment as the result of pre-indictment delay is therefore denied, without prejudice to appropriately supported later motion practice."); United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss on the ground of pre-indictment delay without prejudice to renewal). + +motions, the suppression motions overlap in fact and argument, and accordingly, the Government responds to both motions in this section. + +As set forth herein, the defendant's suppression motions challenging a judicially approved grand jury subpoena should be denied without a hearing for multiple reasons. As an initial matter, the defendant's claim that the Government "circumvented" Martindell fails because the Government issued a valid grand jury subpoena, sought judicial authorization to permit compliance with the subpoena, and obtained materials from Boies Schiller that otherwise would have been covered by the relevant protective order only after receiving such authorization. In any event, even if the Government's motion did not satisfy Martindell, Martindell provides no basis to suppress evidence, and the defendant cites no authority in support of that request. Second, the defendant's claim that the subpoena was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment fails because she has not established standing to challenge a judicially approved grand jury subpoena issued to a third party, and because the subpoena was entirely lawful. Even if she had standing, her claim still fails because suppression would be improper under the good faith exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine. Third, the defendant's claim that the subpoena violated her Fifth Amendment rights fails because, among other things, such a violation requires coercion and state action. Fourth, the defendant's claim that the Government violated the Due Process Clause is meritless, as the Government's conduct was not, by any reasonable definition, outrageous or conscience shocking. And finally, the defendant's request for a hearing should be denied because she has proffered no admissible evidence to support her accusations of Government misconduct; instead, she relies entirely on an anonymously sourced article that, as detailed herein, she cites to describe certain events that simply did not occur. + +Accordingly, the defendant's suppression motions should be denied. + +#### A. Factual Background + +The defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the "precise[] design[]" of having the defendant "charged with perjury." (Def. Mot. 3 at 10). In particular, she claims that Boies Schiller met with the Government in February 2016, urged the Government to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, told the Government what was in its files, and met with the Government again in the summer of 2016 to ask if it would consider charging the defendant with perjury after her two depositions. (Id. at 2, 8). + +That is not so. While a now former Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA-1") met with a lawyer from Boies Schiller and two other attorneys about Epstein in February 2016, that meeting was not focused on the defendant, and AUSA- I did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys. Moreover, that February 2016 meeting pre-dated the depositions that gave rise to the perjury counts in the Indictment, which itself was obtained more than four years thereafter.26 The Indictment was instead the product of an investigation that was not opened until late 2018 and that had nothing to do with a meeting that had taken place nearly three years earlier with an AUSA who played no part in the decision to open the 2018 investigation and similarly played no part in the 2018 investigation itself. + +# 1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell + +In or about September 2015, =, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. + +26 While, as discussed herein, the Government has uncovered evidence of a phone call from one of the attorneys, Stan Pottinger, to AUSA-1 in early May 2016, AUSA-1 has no specific memory of that call, nor did AUSA-1 provide any notes or records of that call to the team working on the instant investigation. + +No. 1). In short, alleged that Maxwell had defamed her when Maxwell stated that was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell. alleged that Maxwell had made those false statements for the "malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and sexual trafficking victim; to destroy reputation and credibility; to cause the world to disbelieve and to destroy efforts to use her experience to help others suffering as sex trafficking victims." (Id. at 8). + +### 2. February 2016 Meeting + +Attorney Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller contacted AUSA-1, who was at that time the Human Trafficking and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator of the USAO-SDNY, to request an opportunity for him and other attorneys to meet with AUSA-1 to present on a potential case. (See Ex. 4 at 1)." AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad and Stan Pottinger regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). and Pottinger were also attorneys for who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 + +At the meeting, provided AUSA- I with details about, among other things, the USAO-SDFL's prior investigation of Epstein, as well as personal history and experience with Epstein. (See Ex. 5). The focus of the meeting was on Epstein, and AUSA-1 understood that the attorneys were advocating that the USAO-SDNY open an investigation into Epstein. (See Ex. + +27On February 11, 2021, to help gather facts relevant to the reporting contained in the New York Daily News article, the USAO-SDNY and the FBI conducted a telephonic interview of AUSA-1. Notes of that interview are attached as Exhibit 4. + +28 Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller is not listed on the docket as an attorney representing + +" AUSA- 1 's notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting are attached as Exhibit 5. + +4 at I, 4). During the meeting, the attorneys referenced multiple individuals who worked for and/or helped Epstein, including Maxwell, but the attorneys primarily focused their presentation on Epstein. (See id. at 1-2, 4). The attorneys did not present particular criminal statutes that might be pursued by the USAO-SDNY or make suggestions about investigative steps, nor did they suggest the use of civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. (Id. at 2-3). AUSA-1 did not tell the attorneys whether or not an investigation would be opened, consistent with her standard practice. (Id. at 3). After the meeting, AUSA-1 received a limited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).30 AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4). + +AUSA-1 recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed or the substance of the depositions. (Id. at 5). AUSA-I does recall thinking through the challenges of a potential perjury investigation, but she does not recall who specifically would have been he target of such an investigation. (Id.). AUSA-1 does not recall being asked if the USAO-SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. (Id.). Moreover, and critically for present purposes, the meeting described above pre-dated the depositions which give rise to the perjury counts in the instant Indictment, making it all but impossible that the attorneys suggested, during that February 2016 meeting, that Maxwell had committed perjury in depositions that, as detailed below, had yet to occur. + +The Government has also conducted a review of AUSA-1's emails in an effort to determine whether any further contacts occurred. One email dated May 3, 2016 from Pottinger to AUSA-1 appears to suggest that AUSA- I spoke with Pottinger on or about May 2, 2016 by telephone (see + +" AUSA-1 left the USAO-SDNY in 2019. Since receiving the Defense Motions, the Government has searched AUSA-1's archived emails for any email communications with attorneys from Boies Schiller or the other attorneys who participated in the February 2016 meeting. The Government is producing all identified emails to defense counsel today. + +Ex. 7), but AUSA-1 does not recall the details of that conversation (see Ex. 4 at 4), nor is the Government aware of any notes or other records documenting the substance of the call. The Government has not identified any records that suggest AUSA-1 ever communicated via email with Pottinger, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. + +The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016. (Id. at 4). + +## 3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell + +On March 2, 2016, Maxwell moved for entry of a protective order for materials produced in discovery and submitted a proposed order for the consideration of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, the United States District Judge who was then overseeing the v. Maxwell civil litigation. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. Nos. 38 & 39-1). On or about March 4, 2016, Boies Schiller represented that did not oppose the entry of a protective order, but opposed the form proposed by Maxwell out of concern that it was overly broad and could lead to overdesignation of material as confidential. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 40 at 2). Boies Schiller submitted a redline of Maxwell's proposed protective order, deleting some provisions and adding language that confidential material could be disclosed to law enforcement. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. B). On March 18, 2016, Judge Sweet entered a protective order governing the discovery and dissemination of confidential information after the parties agreed to the form of the order originally proposed by Maxwell. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 62; see also Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 2-3). The protective order, among other things, restricted the parties from disclosing discovery materials marked confidential to third parties, absent express permission from the Court. + +In connection with the defamation suit, Maxwell was deposed by Boies Schiller, counsel for, on April 22, 2016 and July 22, 2016. + +On or about May 24, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and voluntarily dismissed the civil action. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 916). Boies Schiller has continued to represent in post-settlement litigation. v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.); v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.). + +# 4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018 + +On or about November 29, 2018, the USAO-SDNY initiated its investigation into Epstein and possible co-conspirators, and formally opened the investigation by completing the requisite paperwork to open an investigation on or about November 30, 2018. The investigation was prompted by a series of articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction. See Julie K. , "Even from Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated the System. His Victims Were Kept in the Dark," Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018).3' AUSA-1 was not involved in the decision to open the investigation or in the investigation itself. (See Ex. 4 at 6). Indeed, AUSA-1 stopped serving as the Office's Human Trafficking and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator as of April 2017. + +Shortly after initiating the investigation, the prosecutors involved in the investigation learned of the prior February 2016 meeting and requested copies of AUSA-1's notes and records + +31 Indeed, on July 8, 2019, at the press conference following the arrest of Epstein, Geoffrey S. Berman, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stated that while he was not "going to go into any aspects of how our investigation originated[,] I will say that we were assisted from some excellent investigative journalism." + +from that meeting. On or about December 6, 2018, AUSA- I provided the prosecutors with her notes from the February 2016 meeting (which are attached as Exhibit 5) and documents the attorneys provided.32 + +#### 5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials + +Shortly after opening the investigation in late November 2018, the Government identified possible victims and their counsel through public filings or media reports, which included Boies Schiller. (Def. Mem. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). The USAO-SDNY first contacted Boies Schiller about its investigation on or about December 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to Boies Schiller that it intended to make document requests. Boies Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). + +In or about February 2019, approximately two months after the USAO-SDNY opened its investigation (and almost three years after the February 29, 2016 meeting described above), the USAO-SDNY issued two criminal grand jury subpoenas to Boies Schiller. One of the subpoenas requested non-privileged documents relating to v. Maxwell,15 Civ. 7433 (RWS); the other + +The Government notes that as of March 7, 2016, one week after AUSA-1's February 29, 2016 meeting with the attondsvhen she received these documents, Maxwell had only produced two emails in response to discovery requests. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 43 at 1-2). None of the documents apparently provided to AUSA- I during the Febru 2016 meeting was an email. Accordingly, the Government has no reason to believe that counsel provided AUSA-1 with any discovery materials from the v. Maxwell civil case. AUSA- I also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). + +32 The Government has reviewed the file that AUSA-1 provided to the prosecution team on or about December 6, 2018 and understands, based on a review of that file, that at the February 2016 meeting, AUSA-1 received copies of Epstein's black book, flight records, and Palm Beach Police Department reports. Although AUSA-1 does not now recall the attorneys providing her with any documents at the meeting (Ex. 4 at 2), an email she sent to the prosecution team on December 6, 2018 refers to these documents as materials that the attorneys provided at the meeting. + +requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its standard practice under such circumstances, the Government did not notify the defendant or her counsel that it had issued the subpoenas. + +In response to receiving the subpoenas, Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by the protective orders in the relevant civil cases. However, Boies Schiller also had advised the Government that although it would not otherwise contest compliance with the subpoenas, it believed that the protective orders precluded full compliance.33 (Exs. 8 & 9). Accordingly, the Government applied ex parte and under seal to each relevant court (Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, respectively) to request that each court modify the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). + +Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted ex parse and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February 28, 2019. (Exs. 8 & 9). The Government wrote, "Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case." (Id. at 2). The Government submitted that the court was "best guided" by Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), in which the court rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena by producing + +33 Significantly, and as detailed herein, Boies Schiller did not produce to the Government any materials subject to the protective orders until, as further described below, it received an order granting it the ability to do so in one of the civil cases. + +materials in violation of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. (Id.). The court also stated that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex parte if sufficient reason was provided. (Id.). In its letters, the Government noted that its "specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Martindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because ( I) the Martindell balancing test generally relates to "instances where the Government sought protected information without [ ] grand jury process" and (2) "any presumption against modification of a protective order is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited." (Id. at 3-4). + +### 6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon + +#### a. March 26, 2019 Hearing + +Judge Sweet passed away in March 2019 before ruling on the Government's application. After Judge Sweet's death, but before the civil case was reassigned to a new judge, Chief Judge McMahon took up the Government's application. Chief Judge McMahon subsequently inquired about the Government's application in two transcribed ex parte and sealed hearings. (Def. Mot. 3, Exs. D & E). At the first hearing, on March 26, 2019, Chief Judge McMahon inquired as to why Boies Schiller did not make an application for permission to be relieved from the protective order, to which the Government replied that it could not "speak to why Boies Schiller in particular didn't make their own application." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 3). The Government further noted that Boies Schiller "simply isn't in a position to be able to describe the investigation in the way that we have in our submission." (Id. at 11-12). Chief Judge McMahon noted that she believed that + +Martindell was applicable. (Id. at 3). She stated that were the Government's application disclosed to the parties, "Maxwell would protest" and argue that the Government lacked standing as it was not a party to the protective order. (Id. at 8). In response to questions from Chief Judge McMahon, the Government explained that the protective order, on its face, did not implicate the types of confidential business information or trade secrets ordinarily considered by courts in conducting the Martindell balancing test. (Id. at 13). + +Chief Judge McMahon stated that the protective order did not contain a provision allowing a party to the order to disclose materials requested by law enforcement without permission of the court, noting her understanding that "it may have been negotiated out." (Id. at 14-15). The court inquired whether the Government's position was that "reliance on the nondisclosure of confidential materials to law enforcement in connection with a grand jury subpoena that has been duly authorized would be unreasonable." (Id. at 14). The Government responded in the affirmative, stating that the Government believed a provision precluding compliance with a law enforcement request would be void for public policy. (Id. at 15). The Government further cited Chemical Bank in support of the proposition that it would be unreasonable to rely on a protective order provision that barred the disclosure of information to law enforcement. (Id. at 15-16). + +In response to questions about the breadth of the subpoena, the Government explained that it was "essentially unable to significantly narrow the request for information .. . . We have either little or no additional information than the Court does in terms of what materials there are [and] who was deposed." (Id. at 17). In response to Chief Judge McMahon's question about the privacy interests implicated by the protective order, (id. at 16-17), the Government also noted that it was dissimilar to an ordinary third-party intervenor in that it would be "extremely restricted" in its use of the materials in light of the "extraordinary protections" of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedue 6(e). (Id. at 17-18). + +Finally, Chief Judge McMahon also inquired whether the materials sought by the Government might be used to commence criminal proceedings against either of the parties to the libel case, i.e., including Maxwell. (Id. at 18). The Government acknowledged that possibility as a general matter. (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon noted that the parties to the protective order relied on that order "in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or — then again, I can't fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don't know." (Id. at 18-19). The Government stated, "I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order." (Id.). The Government further explained that it "want[ed] to have a formal application" for the relevant materials and took that approach to "avoid the types of problems" created by other less formal government requests in other cited cases. (Id. at 20). + +## b. April 9, 2019 Hearing + +Chief Judge McMahon held another conference on April 9, 2019. She stated that she wanted "to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between [the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical + +34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judge McMahon's question which, as asked, was focused on "your investigation." (See Def. Mot. 3 at 7). + +Bank, of course, as noted above, the subpoena recipient produced materials to a prosecutor in direct violation of the relevant protective order, without seeking a modification of the protective order and without any court authorization to do so. 154 F.R.D. at 93. Moreover, in that case, the District Attorney seemingly opened its investigation and issued the subpoena in direct response to information provided by the subpoena recipient who was then a party to civil litigation. Id. + +The Government responded to Chief Judge McMahon by explaining its contacts with Boies Schiller in connection with the instant (and only) investigation it had opened on Epstein, that is, the investigation prompted by, and opened following, public reporting on Epstein in November 2018. In particular, the Government explained that the USAO-SDNY opened an investigation first, on either November 30, 2018 or December 3, 2018, and then made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). In this respect, the Government further explained that the USAO-SDNY, after opening the investigation, had endeavored to identify counsel who represented victims or witnesses in public filings or media reports, which included Boies Schiller, noting that "[w]ith respect to Boies Schiller in particular, we quickly came to learn during the investigation that they had at the time either active or recently completed civil litigation" and indicated that the USAO-SDNY intended to make document requests. (Id.). The Government also noted that, unlike in Chemical Bank, here Boies Schiller had informed the Government that it would be unable to comply with the subpoena in light of the protective order. (Id. (noting that Boies Schiller "generally advised us that they believed there was a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court.")). + +## c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order + +On or about April 9, 2019, Chief Judge McMahon granted the Government's application and issued a memorandum and order. (Def. Mot. 3, Exs. F & G). The Court noted that while the Government's application was procedurally "[i]rregular," there was precedent for granting the Government's request and, therefore, the Court would consider the application. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 6, 8-9). The Court found that, contrary to the Government's arguments, it was appropriate for the Court to analyze the Government's application in light of the Martindell factors. (Id. at 9- 12). + +In so doing, Chief Judge McMahon considered, among other things, "the degree to which . . . the party who could be expected to oppose unsealing(] reasonably relied on the protective order." (Id. at 16). She concluded that such reliance was unreasonable. (Id. at 22). She evaluated the factors under Second Circuit case law that are relevant to assessing whether a party's reliance on the protective order was reasonable, namely the scope of the protective order, the language of the order itself, the court's level of inquiry before granting the order, and the nature of reliance on the order. (Id. at 17). She concluded that first three factors favored granting the Government's application for modification. (Id. at 17-20). Chief Judge McMahon noted that, as the order "plainly gives the court the power to enter an order compelling disclosure to anyone—law enforcement included—Maxwell could not reasonably have relied on the absence of automatic permission for such disclosure to shield anything she said or produced from a grand jury's scrutiny." (Id. at 18-19). + +As to the last factor, Chief Judge McMahon found that "the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modification." (Id. at 20). She noted that the record indicated that' likely could not have secured Maxwell's deposition—at least in the absence of substantial court involvement—without" the protective order. (Id.). "However, the only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation." (Id. at 21). Chief Judge McMahon further stated, "Nothing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the [civil lawsuit]." (Id.). Instead, she explained that the Government informed the Court that it had "contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order." (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon concluded that it was "quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation." (Id.). + +Among other conclusions, Chief Judge McMahon found that because Maxwell's reliance on the protective order in that case as a "shield [. . .] from the court-ordered disclosure of Confidential Materials pursuant to a grand jury subpoena was unreasonable, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant the Government's application." (Id. at 22). The Court further concluded that "[t]he Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event." (Id.). She also noted that "while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because [the civil case] was litigated almost entirely under seal." (Id. at 25). + +Chief Judge McMahon permitted that the Government share the order—and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination, and not including any other materials associated with the Government's application—with Boies Schiller. The relevant order was provided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case. + +### 7. Magistrate Judge Netburn's Order + +On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a parte and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netbum denied the Government's application. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. H). Judge Netbum found that she was authorized under the All Writs Act to modify the protective order, but declined to do so as the Government had not established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. (Id. at 3). She concluded that on the record before her, the parties' reliance on the protective order was reasonable and the presumption of confidentiality should apply. (Id. at 5-6). The court rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but that the reason for seeking the documents is so extraordinary or compelling that there is a need to modify the Protective Order. The Government has not met that standard." (Id. at 7) (emphasis in original). + +### 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions + +Three months after Chief Judge McMahon issued her Order, v. Maxwell was reassigned to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska on July 9, 2019. On or about July 23, 2020, Judge Preska ordered unsealed certain litigation materials, including, and related to, Maxwell's April + +2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). Maxwell appealed Judge Preska's order, arguing that the court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access." (Id. at 3). + +On October 22, 2020, Maxwell's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). + +On January 27, 2021, a redacted version of Maxwell's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1201-14). On February 11, 2021, another version of the July 2016 deposition was publicly filed with fewer redactions. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). + +## 9. The New York Daily News Article + +On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").is The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-SDNY to "open an investigation of the duo" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article described the defense attorneys' alleged efforts to "pique" the Government's interest "in a second meeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly + +35 See Stephen Rex =, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://www.nydailynews.corninew-york/ny-jeffity-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013 jmzh17zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html. + +committed perjury." According to two anonymous sources, "a second meeting occurred." However, the Article cites another anonymous source as "insist[ing] [a second meeting] never happened." + +#### B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied + +Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to Boies Schiller under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. + +# 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks + +Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell and "violated Maxwell's rights," which requires suppression of the evidence the Government obtained from the subpoena. (Def. Mot. 11 at 11-12). Even assuming that to be true—which, of course, as detailed above and herein, it is not—there is no basis in law to suppress evidence as a result of a Martindell violation, and Maxwell cites none in support of her claim. Setting that fatal flaw aside, however, her claim is wrong on both the facts and the law. The Government issued a valid grand jury subpoena for the materials, applied for judicial authorization to modify the protective order to permit compliance with the subpoena, and a district court judge, who evaluated the Government's application under Martindell, properly exercised her discretion in modifying the protective order. Only after receiving that court order did the Government obtain any protected materials from Boies Schiller. Maxwell's motion should be denied. + +#### a. Applicable Law + +"[T]here is no question that a Rule 26(c) protective order is subject to modification," and a decision to modify such an order is "committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." In re + +"Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for instance, that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."). + +In Martindell, the Government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena sought access to discovery materials from a civil litigation that were subject to a protective order. 594 F.2d at 294. The Second Circuit found that the "deponents [had] testified in reliance upon [a] Rule 26(c) protective order, absent which they may have refused to testify." Id. at 296. In so ruling, the Second Circuit reasoned that the interest in the enforcement of Rule 26(c) protective orders—which included securing just and speedy determination of civil disputes—was sufficient to outweigh the Government's interest in obtaining information by means of an informal document request. Id. at 295-96. The Second Circuit held that "absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, . . . a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [] does not transform a protective order into a grant of immunity because the test allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial grant of the protective orders or of extraordinary circumstances or compelling need by the State for the + +information protected thereunder, it was error for the district court to modify the magistrate's orders"). + +At the same time, in Martindell, the court noted that "[t]he reliance of a private party upon protection of pre-existing documents from disclosure to the Government would normally be more difficult to justify than that of a witness who would, absent the protective order, have invoked his privilege and given no testimony at all." Id. at 297 n.8; see also United States v. M, 702 F.2d 418, 422-23 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding Martindell inapplicable and affirming enforcement of a grand jury subpoena where "there [was] no indication that [a witness] agreed to testify only in reliance on [an] 'understanding"' of confidentiality and where many records sought "existed prior to the advent of the litigation"). In subsequent cases, the Second Circuit has clarified that the Martindell presumption comes into play only when a party reasonably relies on a protective order in providing deposition testimony. See, e.g., 702 F.2d 418; SEC v. TheStreet.cont, 273 F.3d 222, 230- 31 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that "some protective orders may not merit a strong presumption against modification," as the nature of some orders "may not justify reliance by the parties"). + +In United States v. , the Second Circuit explained that "[r]anged against these considerations [relating to the policy in favor of enforcing Rule 26(c) protective orders] are the reasons for permitting the grand jury broad subpoena power in a criminal investigation." 702 F.2d at 421. The Second Circuit noted the grand jury's "wide ranging authority to inquire into suspected violations of the criminal law; and to effectuate such investigations it may compel the production of documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses, as it deems necessary." Id. at 421-22 (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." (internal citations omitted)). + +### b. Discussion + +The Government did not, in any way, attempt to circumvent Martindell. To the contrary, the Government presented Martindell squarely to the relevant courts, first arguing that its test was not applicable, and then, in the alternative, that the requested relief should be granted even if the courts applied the Martindell standard. It cannot possibly be the case that the Government was attempting to "circumvent" a case that it cited II times in its argument to both relevant courts. (See (Exs. 8 & 9). Instead, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies Schiller in connection with its investigation and made an application to two judges to modify Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Martindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netburn found that Martindell applied and analyzed the Government's application under that framework. + +As Chief Judge McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government establishes "some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant + +36 See, e.g., Intl Equity Inn., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., No. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE), 2010 WL 779314, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (finding that the parties' reliance on a civil protective order "was not unreasonable given the nature of the litigation," but "not so overwhelming as to warrant the indefinite application of Martindell's strong presumption against modification because the order's broad scope and express language, and the minimal level of court inquiry outweigh the Parties' reliance."). + +public interest" which resulted in the Government convening a grand jury to investigate a serious crime. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 22-23). The Court also noted that because the investigation was not publicly known, "the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [Le., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] . . . would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation—that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boies Schiller] and its related Application." (Id. at 23-24). The Court further noted that the "Government's interest is bolstered" as the request was made by a grand jury that had issued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to modify sealing orders. (Def. Mot. 11 at 14). Maxwell's reliance on Palmieri is of no avail. There, the Second Circuit held that the district court erred by not expressly finding that the state had shown improvidence, extraordinary circumstances, or compelling need before modifying the sealing orders in a civil case. Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862, 866. By contrast, here Chief Judge McMahon made this explicit finding. + +Judge Netburn, on the other hand, rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Del Mot. 3, Ex. H at 6). Maxwell argues that Judge Netburn was "exactly right" in her analysis of whether exceptional circumstances existed, but ignores the fact that Chief Judge McMahon made contrary findings on this point. That two neutral judicial officers were presented with the facts, analyzed the law, and reached varying conclusions based on different findings shows that there are guardrails in place to ensure compliance with Martindell. In other words, the Government in no way circumvented Martindell; rather, the Government sought court approval to enforce a subpoena and then followed the directives it received.37 + +Most critically, however, even if the Government's motion did not satisfy Martindell, Maxwell offers no legal authority for the proposition that suppression is the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jerry Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances, or compelling need and "remand[ing] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion"). + +37 Maxwell asks this Court to review and reverse Chief Judge McMahon's exercise of her discretion in modifying the protective order, because she disagrees with Chief Judge McMahon's analysis of the Martindell factors. Although Chief Judge McMahon's order modifying the civil protective order was not entered on the civil docket, that order, along with the Government's application and related materials, were produced to the defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of Chief Judge McMahon's order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of whether this Court even has the authority to do so, it should in any event decline Maxwell's invitation to act as a reviewing court to Chief Judge McMahon's decision, which was made in her "sound discretion." In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d at 147. + +38 To the extent that Maxwell seeks suppression of documents created prior to the entry of the protective order (or created after its entry but not subject to its protections), that aspect of her motion should be denied. A significant amount of the materials provided in response to the subpoena included such pre-existing documents not created in reliance on a protective order, which do not trige Martindell presumption in the Second Circuit, see TheStreeteotn, 273 F.3d at 234-235; 702 F.2d at 422. Maxwell's arguments also do not extend to transcripts of other individuals' depositions, who were not parties to the protective order. + +#### 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails + +Maxwell's Fourth Amendment motion is premised on a wholly unsupported expansion of the law. Because Maxwell lacked a privacy interest in the files of a third party law firm who represented her adversary in civil litigation, and because the subpoena was entirely lawful, she cannot make out a Fourth Amendment violation. Moreover, even if Maxwell had standing to assert this claim, it would nonetheless fail because the Government relied in good faith on a judicial order permitting compliance with its subpoena. + +## a. Maxwell Has Not Established Standing + +## i. Applicable Law + +The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend IV. "The basic purpose of this Amendment . .. is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights ... [that] may not be vicariously asserted."' United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Rayner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is "whether [a] defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched." United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cr. 1990) (citations omitted). This threshold question involves two separate inquiries: (1) whether a defendant has demonstrated a subjective + +expectation of privacy in the places and items that were searched; and (2) whether that expectation was one that society accepts as reasonable. Id. It is axiomatic that "[t]he proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure." Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130, n.1; see also Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980). + +Under the third party doctrine, the Fourth Amendment "does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by [the third party] to Government authorities." United States v. , 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). The Supreme Court has long held that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties," v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979), "even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose," =, 425 U.S. 435, at 443. Exceptions to the applicability of the third party doctrine are narrow. For example, in Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2220, the Supreme Court declined to extend the third party doctrine to cell site location information, holding that "a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party." 138 S. Ct. at 2222. However, the Court stressed that its holding was "a narrow one," with specific consideration given to "the unique nature of cell phone location information," id. at 2220, which "provides an intimate window into a person's life," id. at 2217. + +"The law is clear that the burden on the defendant to establish [Fourth Amendment] standing is met only by sworn evidence, in the form of affidavit or testimony, from the defendant or someone with personal knowledge." United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039, at '6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014); Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130 n. 1 . + +#### ii. Discussion + +Maxwell cannot assert a Fourth Amendment claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the deposition transcripts or other materials she designated as confidential under the protective order. The materials were held by a third party law firm that represented her adversary in the civil suit. See M, 442 U.S. at 743-44 ("a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties"); =, 425 U.S. at 443 (no legitimate expectation of privacy in materials held by a third party "even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose"); Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2220 ("We do not disturb the application of and ."). Maxwell cites no authority for the proposition that she has standing to challenge a judicially approved grand jury subpoena directed at a third party law firm, because there is none. + +Maxwell points to the fact that the materials were designated as confidential under the protective order, but that reliance is misplaced. (Def. Mot. 11 at 6-8). Martindell by its own terms contemplates the modification of a protective order in a civil action. See, e.g., Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1083 ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere . . . that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."). And with respect to the specific protective order at issue, Chief Judge McMahon found that because the order "plainly gives the court the power to enter an order compelling disclosure to anyone—law enforcement included—Maxwell could not reasonably have relied on the absence of automatic permission for such disclosure to shield anything she said or produced from a grand jury's scrutiny." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 18-19); see also Def. Mot. 3, Ex. A at ¶ 5 ("CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION[] shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or fitrther Order of the Court, be disclosed[.]") (internal quotation + +marks omitted) (emphasis added)); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d at 145 ("It is undisputed that a district court retains the power to modify or lift protective orders that it has entered."). It also bears noting that Martindell and its progeny do not discuss law enforcement applications in Fourth Amendment terms. + +In an effort to avoid the application of the third party doctrine, Maxwell contends that she did not in fact voluntarily share anything in the civil suit, and that "every other circumstance" supported her "expectation that her deposition transcripts would be private." (Def. Mot. I I at 9). Neither argument withstands scrutiny. As an initial matter, the facts of this case are far removed from the "narrow" circumstances in which the Supreme Court has found an exception to the third party doctrine. For example, the Carpenter Court, while stressing that its holding was a "narrow one," 138 S. Ct. at 2220, held that "[g]iven the unique nature of cell phone location records," which provide a "intimate window into a person's life," "the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user's claim to Fourth Amendment protection." Id. at 2217; see also Zietzke v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 758, 768 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ("The Court . . . will extend Carpenter to new circumstances only if they directly implicate the privacy concerns that animated the majority. [T]he majority was overwhelmingly concerned with 'Carpenter's anticipation of privacy in his physical location.' In other words, Carpenter was about surveillance." (internal citation omitted)). + +There can be no serious argument that the facts of this case, or the materials obtained pursuant to the subpoena issued here, revealed Maxwell's physical location over a period of time or are otherwise in any way analogous to the narrow category of information contemplated by the majority in Carpenter. To the extent the defendant argues that her deposition transcripts implicate such interests because she "did not 'voluntarily convey' her testimony to =," (Def. Mot. 11 + +at 10), the Court should reject the defendant's efforts to twist Carpenter's exception to the third party rule beyond recognition. The defendant was not compelled to participate in the deposition or to answer questions without invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; she voluntarily chose to do so. Even if she chose to do so in reliance on the protective order, that protective order was subject to modification under well-settled case law and by its own terms. Contrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at \*5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transactions without a warrant as defendant "assumed the risk that [eBay] would reveal to police the purchases he made" and defendant "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of his purchases"). + +Because Maxwell had no legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the materials in Boies Schiller's possession, she has no standing to challenge their seizure, and no warrant was required to obtain those materials. Her motion should be rejected on this ground alone. + +## b. The Government Acted in Good Faith + +Even if the defendant had standing to bring this motion, it still fails because the Government only obtained these materials after obtaining a court order authorizing it to do so. The Government accordingly acted in good faith when it acted pursuant to that judicial order. + +# i. Applicable Law + +Under the so-called "good faith" exception, the exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression do not apply "when the Government 'act[s] with an "objectively reasonable goodfaith belief that their conduct is lawful." United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (internal quotation maths omitted)). "As the rule seeks to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme Court advises district courts to only suppress evidence where it serves such a purpose." United States v. M, No. 10 Cr. 622 (ADS), 2018 WL 4623017, at \*4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "'[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that "No trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system."). As a result, exclusion should be a "last resort" rather than a "first impulse." United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The exclusionary rule should be used only where law enforcement "'exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. , 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020) ("It follows that when officers act with 'an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct is lawful'—i.e., by acting in reasonable reliance on a warrant, statute, or court order—the exclusionary rule does not apply because there is little, if any, deterrence benefit in such circumstances." (citations omitted)). + +In the context of search warrants, suppression will generally not be warranted where the evidence at issue was "obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant." United States v. 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). As a result, although the burden is on the Government to establish good faith, "[s]earches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864, 870 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that the "issuance of a warrant by a neutral magistrate, which depends on a finding of probable cause, creates a presumption that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that there was probable cause"). Indeed, the good faith exception does not apply only in four narrow circumstances: + +- (1) where the issuing magistrate has been knowingly misled; (2) where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where the application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance upon it unreasonable; and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient that reliance upon it is unreasonable. + +United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216, 222 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing M, 468 U.S. at 923). The good faith exception analysis applies in the context of court orders. See, e.g., Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (applying good faith analysis in Fourth Amendment challenge to cell phone location information obtained by subpoena issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2)); United Stales v. Serrano, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) (finding good faith exception would apply to cell site information obtained pursuant to a subpoena authorized by magistrate judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)); United States v. Ashburn, 76 F. Supp. 3d 401, 406, 414-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (applying to § 2703(d) orders for historical cell-site data obtained and finding that the good faith exception applied). + +### ii. Discussion + +The exclusionary rule and its remedy of suppression should not apply here, as the Government issued a grand jury subpoena; sought the materials after applying to the district court for an order to modify the civil protective order; and only obtained the materials after the district court modified the protective order and issued a 26-page decision. The Government acted in reasonable reliance on the district court's decision. + +The defendant argues that the Government misled the Court when it "claimed not to know what was in Boies Schiller's file and that Boies Schiller had no role in instigating the investigation of Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 11 at 1). The defendant's claims are both factually inaccurate and meritless. + +First, the Government did not mislead Chief Judge McMahon about its contacts with Boies Schiller. As an initial matter, Maxwell's argument is premised solely on her use of selective snippets from a lone Daily News Article that is premised, in meaningful part, on anonymous sources and hearsay. As the factual background set forth above—which is corroborated by notes and correspondence produced alongside this brief—makes clear, David Boies and Boies Schiller played no role in initiating, let alone "fomenting" the Government's investigation. That investigation was opened more than two and a half years after the last known contact between any lawyer associated with any civil counsel for and, in any event, was initially focused on Epstein, not this defendant. As detailed above, the USAO-SDNY opened the instant investigation in late November 2018 shortly after the Miami Herald published a series of articles about Epstein. AUSA- I was not involved in that decision, which in any event had nothing to do with a meeting that had taken place nearly three years prior.39 (Ex. 4 at 6). + +" Maxwell repeatedly claims that Boies Schiller urged AUSA- I to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, (Def. Mot. 3 at 8), but that allegation, which is supported by nothing aside from the above-referenced media report, is incorrect. While AUSA-I did meet with the three attorneys in February 2016, she understood the attorneys to be focused on Epstein, and not on Epstein and Maxwell as a "duo." (Ex. 4 at 1, 4). The presentation to AUSA- I focused on urging an investigation into Epstein with only passing references to Maxwell. Simply put, the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell. + +The defendant repeatedly argues that the Government's failure to mention AUSA-1's prior contact with Boies Schiller in 2016 was a misrepresentation that led to the modification of the protective order. The argument, which relies principally on hyperbolic rhetoric, is simply incorrect. As an initial matter, the Government did not insist, contrary to Maxwell's twisted reading of the transcript, that "there had been no contact whatsoever" between Boies Schiller and the Government at any time prior to the Government opening its investigation. (Def. Mot. 3 at 1). Instead, Chief Judge McMahon's question was more specific: referencing Chemical Bank and the desire to avoid "a Chemical Bank kind of situation," Chief Judge McMahon asked about contacts between the two parties "prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject ofyour investigation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added); see also Def. Mot. 3 at 7 (omitting the italicized portion of the question)). In response, the Government described accurately its communications with Boies Schiller that had occurred in the time period surrounding the opening of its investigation and the issuance of the subpoena. Additionally, and in light of the Government's prior arguments to Chief Judge McMahon relating to Chemical Bank,00 the Government attempted to address the misconduct at issue in that case: namely the production of confidential documents without seeking modification of a protective order by confirming that, here, no such production had yet occurred. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2) (noting that Boies Schiller "generally advised us that they believed there + +ao see, e.g., Exs. 8 & 9 at 2-3 (discussing Chemical Bank as rejecting a contempt request where a party "compl[ied] with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order" and focusing arguments on the nature of the production of documents); (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 15) (the Government describing Chemical Bank as "essentially say[ing]: You should have asked, but of course this is fine for you to disclose this information to the government based on the validly issued grand jury subpoena"); cf. (id. at 4 (Chief Judge McMahon describing Chemical Bank as saying "the proper procedure [for the production of documents] is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the terms of the protective order"), 20 (Chief Judge McMahon stating that "in the Chemical Bank case, it all was ex post facto and it all happened")). + +was a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court.")). + +While the Government appreciates, with the benefit of hindsight, that an answer that had also referenced the February 2016 meeting (and the fact that USAO-SDNY took no action as a result of that meeting) would have provided additional context—and would have further reinforced that this was not a "Chemical Bank situation"—as noted above, the Government's response accurately described its contacts with Boies Schiller as relevant to "your investigation" and the issuance of the subpoena at hand. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon's analysis of whether she was facing a "Chemical Bank kind of situation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. Eat 2). + +In Chemical Bank, counsel for a civil party approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office "suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case." 154 F.R.D. at 93. In response, a grand jury subpoena was issued and "confidential documents were produced by the defendant without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders." Id. Here, by contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers nothing to support her assertion that "Boles Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution" (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in original), or that AUSA- I 's February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller (as it actually occurred) undercut the accuracy of the Government's representations to Chief Judge McMahon, or played any role in the Government opening its investigation in November 2018. + +Second, the Government did not misrepresent the extent of its knowledge of the contents of Boies Schiller's files. As the Government correctly represented to the court, the Government had "either little or no additional information than the Court does in terms of what materials there are [and] who was deposed." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking 'if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury'" (Def. Mot. 3 at 8). But the Government has uncovered no evidence that such a meeting ever occurred. AUSA-1 does not recall ever speaking with or meeting David Boies in her life. (Ex. 4 at 4). Moreover, AUSA- I does not recall being asked if the USAO-SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury (id. at 5), and while notes of the February 2016 meeting refer to the existence of depositions generally, there can be no question Chief Judge McMahon appreciated the Government's general understanding that such transcripts would be part of the civil litigation file. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 21). Simply put, there is no evidence that the Government had any significant knowledge of the contents of Boies Schiller's files, or that the Government's representations to Chief Judge McMahon were incorrect. + +In sum, Maxwell has failed to put forth any evidence that the Government misled Chief Judge McMahon, and as such, the good faith exception applies. To the contrary, the record before the Court demonstrates that the Government directly responded to Chief Judge McMahon's question and accurately described the contacts between Boies Schiller and the USAO-SDNY in connection with the investigation, the Government's lack of knowledge of the contents of that file, and the fact that no protected materials had been produced in violation of the protective order. Upon receiving a court order issued by a Chief United States District Judge who had carefully + +considered the Government's application and then issued a lengthy opinion ruling on that application, the Government was entirely reasonable in its understanding that the order was lawful. It was therefore similarly reasonable for the Government to obtain materials from Boies Schiller in response to the subpoena that had been analyzed and blessed by a court order. The Government acted with an 'objectively reasonable good-faith belief' that its conduct was lawful and in reasonable reliance on the district court's order. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d at 143 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). + +#### c. Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine + +To the extent materials the Government obtained from Boies Schiller have now been unsealed and posted on the public docket, there is no basis to suppress such materials because the Government would have inevitably been able to access them upon unsealing. + +### i. Applicable Law + +Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, "evidence that was illegally obtained will not be suppressed 'if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably' even if there had been no statutory or constitutional violation." United States v. M, 852 F.2d 671, 675-76 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Nix v. M, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984)). When a claim of inevitable discovery is raised, the court must "determine, viewing affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search occurred, what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred." Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (The application of the inevitable discovery doctrine "turns on a central question: Would the disputed evidence inevitably have been found through legal means `but for' the constitutional violation? If the answer is `yes,' the evidence seized will not be excluded."). + +"The government bears the burden of proving inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence." Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444). This requires establishing, "'with a high level of confidence, that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor."' Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, "then the deterrence rationale [for the exclusionary rule] has so little basis that the evidence should be received." Nix, 467 U.S. at 444. + +## ii. Discussion + +Even if the Court were to find that there had been some constitutional violation in the Government obtaining a modification of the protective order—which it should not—the question in an inevitable discovery analysis is whether the Government would inevitably have found the disputed evidence. The answer is yes, at least as to some of the evidence, including the April 2016 deposition that forms the basis of Count Five and part of the July 2016 deposition that forms the basis of Count Six.01 + +41 In January 2021, the defendant asked Judge Preska to reconsider her order unsealing certain portions of her testimony on the basis that, among other things, public release of the section would make it more difficult for Maxwell to suppress the testimony as evidence against her at her criminal trial. On February 8, 2021, Judge Preska "decline[d] Ms. Maxwell's invitation to reconsider its order" and noted that the defendant had both filed a suppression motion and available tools under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Procedure. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1211 at 3, 5). The portion of the July 2016 deposition transcript that forms the basis of Count Six that has been unsealed relates to the defendant denying that she has given a massage to anyone, including Epstein or Minor Victim-2. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1 at 113). The fact that the defendant argued against unsealing the transcript by pointing to her suppression argument is irrelevant. Judge Preska determined that the public's First Amendment right of access outweighed the defendant's interests. If the Government had not modified the protective order and charged the defendant with perjury based on the deposition transcript, that argument would have been unavailable and the balance would have tipped still more in favor of public access, leading to the transcript's inevitable discovery. + +The defendant asks the Court for a drastic remedy, namely suppression of all evidence the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. In so doing, the defendant seeks a windfall to which she is not entitled based on unprecedented claims that ignore the facts and the law. Suppression of all materials the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska in the underlying civil litigation, including Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Preska's ruling in October 2020, finding that the Court "correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access." v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140- 1 at 3).42 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). In February 2021, a redacted version of the defendant's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). In other words, had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant's April 2016 deposition transcript and a portion of the July 2016 transcript that form the basis of the charges in Counts Five and Six. + +42 Relatedly, the defendant moved to modify the criminal protective order in order to use confidential criminal discovery materials in filings she intended to submit in civil litigation. The defendant raised this precise point—that if the Court ultimately decided that it was inappropriate for the Government to proceed by subpoena, the Government would claim inevitable discovery. (Dkt. No. 54 at 3). The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case. This Court rejected the defendant's motion to modify the criminal protective order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). + +#### 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit + +The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds fails for multiple, independent reasons. As an initial matter, Boies Schiller is not the Government and was not acting as an agent of the Government when it deposed the defendant or otherwise litigated the civil case against her. That the defendant may regret her choice to respond to Boies Schiller's questions during two depositions instead of invoking her privilege against self-incrimination does not transform that choice into a Fifth Amendment violation. + +#### a. Applicable Law + +## i. The Fifth Amendment — Generally + +The Fifth Amendment provides in pertinent part: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. To establish a Fifth Amendment violation, an individual must "demonstrate the existence of three elements: 1) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication, and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166, 1168 (1987); see also, e.g., In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024, 1028 (2d Cir. 1988). + +It is "axiomatic that the Amendment does not automatically preclude self-incrimination, whether spontaneous or in response to questions put by government officials." United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 186 (1977). "Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable." Id. at 187. "[T]he Fifth Amendment proscribes only self-incrimination obtained by a 'genuine compulsion of testimony." Id. (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 440 (1974)); see also Washington, 431 U.S. at 187 ("Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions."). Nor does the Constitution "prohibit every + +element which influences a criminal suspect to make incriminating admissions." Id. The question is not whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his "free will," when he spoke, "was overborne." Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). + +It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status in the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution does not "require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his selfinterest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement that law enforcement give information that might affect "the wisdom" of speaking). Nor does the Constitution require that someone be questioned only in the manner most likely to ensure that he gives the decision whether to speak careful thought. See, e.g., United States v. M, 660 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) ("the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a difference between "those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those which are merely difficult"). + +In short, the Fifth Amendment is only violated by "government misconduct" that is "coercive." Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163 (1986); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 312 (1985) (Fifth Amendment prohibits "coercion" effected "by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will"). + +# ii. The Fifth Amendment — Act of Production Privilege + +The act of production privilege is a form of the Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to the production of materials. "[A]n individual may claim an act of production privilege to decline + +to produce documents, the contents of which are not privileged, where the act of production is, itself, (1) compelled, (2) testimonial, and (3) incriminating." In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 1999). + +Consistent with these requirements, the privilege only "prohibits the compelled disclosure of documents when the act of production has independent communicative aspects—such as an admission that the documents exist, that the subject possesses or controls the documents, that the documents are authentic, or that the subject believes the documents are responsive to the subpoena." In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas, 924 F. Supp. 2d 549, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 579 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). It follows that the privilege does not apply when "[t]he existence and location of the [sought] papers are a foregone conclusion and the [compelled individual] adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the papers." Id. at 411; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("[E]ven if documents contain incriminating information, requiring a person to produce them does not implicate the Fifth Amendment unless the act of production is itself testimonial in nature and incriminating to the person making the disclosure."). + +#### iii. The Fifth Amendment — When Private Action Is Deemed Government Action + +As discussed above, "[t]he sole concern of the Fifth Amendment . . . is governmental coercion." Connelly, 479 U.S. at 170. "[T]he Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned 'with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.' Id. (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 305). For this reason, even "[t]he most outrageous + +behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible." Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166. + +This does not mean that only action undertaken directly by the Government may violate the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. M, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)). + +However, this standard "is not satisfied when the state merely approves of or acquiesces in the initiatives of the private entity, or when an entity is merely subject to governmental regulation." Id. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted; alterations incorporated)). Nor is it sufficient that a non-government entity chooses to cooperate with a government investigation or has its own parallel investigation. See id. at 150. Non-government action is attributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blunt v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State `has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."' M, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Assin, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005). + +# b. Discussion + +As an initial matter, the defendant's Fifth Amendment claim fails because she has not demonstrated state action. Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at any time during the course of the Government's investigation, including when it initiated the civil lawsuit against the defendant or took her deposition years before the Government initiated its own investigation. The defendant offers no evidence to the contrary, and there is no reason to believe, on this record, that the Government in any way controlled Boies Schiller when it litigated a civil case against the defendant. As such, the Fifth Amendment does not apply. + +The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession at trial"); United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Inculpatory statements are not involuntary when they result from a desire to cooperate, or from a defendant's ignorance of, or inattention to, his right to remain silent."); United States v. Mast, 735 F.2d 745, 750 (2d Cir. 1984) (same). The defendant implicitly argues that she only testified under oath in the civil matter because she thought she would not be held to that oath. In other words, had she known that she would be subject to the penalties of perjury, she would have invoked her Fifth Amendment right. But the defendant's misguided expectation that she would face no consequences cannot be said to coerce speech. The defendant, represented by able counsel, voluntarily chose to waive her Fifth Amendment rights and testify under oath. And she chose to do so in connection with civil depositions that occurred over two years before the Government opened its investigation. The circumstances surrounding that decision come nowhere near the type of coercion that rises to the level of a Fifth Amendment violation. See, e.g., United States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621, 627-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding suppression of defendant's phone unwarranted where defendant complied with former employer's request to return the phone because defendant was not coerced into doing so, and rejecting defendant's argument that the + +employer was required to warn her that it might produce the phone to the government, even assuming arguendo that that employer's actions were attributable to the government). + +The defendant's claim that her act of production privilege was somehow violated similarly fails. Counsel cites v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) for the proposition that "a compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business documents, and also noted that Isieveral aspects of the decision did not endure." 1 F.3d at 90 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)). + +Further, the Fifth Amendment does not protect against being compelled to speak and then speaking falsely. "[E]ven if an individual's perjured testimony is improperly procured because of government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury." United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965)); see also United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977) ("[P]erjury is not a permissible way of objecting to the Government's questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to answer falsely."); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969) (rejecting challenge to false statement prosecution; "[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood."). + +Contrary to the defendant's argument (Def. Mot. 11 at 16), this case is distinguishable from United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). There, the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case, "was reluctant to be deposed because of the pending indictment, and he agreed only after the parties in the civil case stipulated that the deposition would be sealed." Id. at 699-700. The court found that the subpoenas for the deposition transcript were "unenforceable" because the "government has not argued that the protective order was improvidently granted or that there are some extraordinary circumstances or compelling need, in view of the holding in Martindel I."43 Id. at 701. The court found that the protective order served the "'vital function" described in Martindell, as the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case for almost seven months; the defendant "consistently resisted the use of his testimony in the criminal action against him"; and the Government did not seek the deposition "to aid it in a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding." Id. at 700; see also Botha v. Don Productions, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (noting importance of policy concerns of Martindell where Government obtained an indictment against witness "long before his deposition in the civil action" and where federal criminal case remains pending after civil action is resolved). Here, by contrast, Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 22). As she noted in her opinion, the situation was distinct from Oshatz "where the Government was trolling for evidence to use at a trial, rather than seeking information as part of a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding." (Id. at 24-25). As Chief Judge McMahon already concluded, Oshatz does not warrant a different result here. + +43 In Martindell, the Second Circuit explicitly deemed it "unnecessary for us to decide the Fifth Amendment issues raised by the parties." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297. + +The defendant argues that Martindell "authorized her to give deposition testimony under the shield of the Protective Order without worrying whether the government could `insinuate itself into the case and use her own words against her." (Def. Mot. 11 at 15-16). That is not the law, and the defendant cannot use the protective order to cloak her testimony. The Second Circuit has recognized that because "[ijt is well-settled here and elsewhere . . . that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need[,]" "as a practical matter it is clear that the protections afforded by a Rule 26(c) order are not as extensive as those afforded by the fifth amendment, or by a statutory grant of use immunity, and that a protective order therefore cannot be used to abridge a witness' fifth amendment rights." Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1083 (emphasis in original); see id. at 1084 ("`Uncertainty about the ultimate outcome of a protective order will mean that no deponent may always effectively rely on a protective order to secure his right against selfincrimination.") (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468, 1478 (4th Cir. 1988))); M, 702 F.2d at 421-22 ("Absent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shield protects the civil evidence [ ] from compellable production before the grand jury which subpoenaed it"). + +### 4. The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell's Due Process Rights + +The defendant also claims that the Government's conduct "cannot be squared with elemental due process." (Def. Mot. 3 at 14 (citing U.S. Const. amend. V)). This claim is meritless. Because there was no Government misconduct—let alone the type of outrageous Government misconduct that would justify the extraordinary remedy the defendant seeks—the motion must be denied. + +## a. Applicable Law + +The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . ...The Due Process Clause "protects individuals against two types of government action." v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Procedural due process "ensures that government cannot unfairly and without meaningful process deprive a person of life, liberty, or property," while substantive due process "prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience, or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration omitted). + +Procedural due process analysis focuses on whether "government action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. . . [is] implemented in a fair manner," United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987). "Courts examine procedural due process questions in two steps: the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the [Government]; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). + +As to substantive due process, the Supreme Court is "always . . . reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because of this reluctance, the Supreme Court held in Graham v. = 490 U.S. 386 (1989), "that where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims." County of Sacramento v. M, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); Albright v. 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1993) ("[t]he protections of substantive due process have for the most part been accorded to matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity."). + +The defendant bears the "'very heavy' burden of establishing a due process violation." United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). "To succeed on a claim that the government's conduct in pursuit of evidence violates a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process rights, the government's method of acquiring the evidence must be so egregious that it `shocks the conscience." United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172, 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice, or conduct that is `so outrageous' that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. M, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasions of individual rights, or coercion." United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Second Circuit has explained: + +> The paradigm examples of conscience-shocking conduct are egregious invasions of individual rights. See, e.g., Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S. Ct. 205 (breaking into suspect's bedroom, forcibly attempting to pull capsules from his throat, and pumping his stomach without his consent). Especially in view of the courts' well-established deference to the Government's choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous + +investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. M, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). + +United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Generally, to be `outrageous,' the government's involvement in a crime must involve either coercion or a violation of the defendant's person. It does not suffice to show that the government created the opportunity for the offense, even if the government's ploy is elaborate and the engagement with the defendant is extensive." (internal citations omitted)). The Second Circuit has "yet to identify a particular set of circumstances in which government investigative conduct was so egregious that it shocked the conscience and violated fundamental guarantees of due process." United States v. Heyward, No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010); see also United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 218 (2d Cir. 2019). + +There also "must be a causal connection between the violation and the deprivation of the defendant's life or liberty threatened by the prosecution." United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). "That is to say, relief against the government in a criminal case is appropriate if, and only if, a conviction otherwise would be a product of the government misconduct that violated the Due Process Clause." Id. + +Even where Government misconduct meets the outrageousness test, dismissal of an indictment is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is suppression of the evidence obtained as the result of the Government's outrageous misconduct. Id. + +#### b. Discussion + +The defendant argues that the Due Process Clause requires the suppression of the evidence the Government obtained pursuant to subpoena, including the April and July 2016 depositions, and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. The defendant falls far short of carrying the very heavy burden of establishing a due process violation to warrant the extraordinary relief she seeks. The Government's conduct did not, by any reasonable definition, "shock the conscience." + +The defendant has not identified explicitly the component of her due process rights that the Government allegedly violated. As she does not seem to allege that the Government deprived her of life, liberty, or property in an unfair manner (nor could she), it seems that the defendant is claiming that the Government's supposed misrepresentation of facts to the Court violated her substantive due process rights. As set forth above, the Government did not mislead Chief Judge McMahon in connection with its ex pane application. The Government did not violate the law, much less participate in any violation that so "shocks the conscience" as to require suppression as a matter of substantive due process. + +The defendant has neither specified what "fundamental right" the Government allegedly violated nor provided legal authority supporting her claim. She cites United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987), seemingly to argue that her right to a fair trial has been implicated because of the same alleged prosecutorial misconduct in connection with the modification of the protective order described above. However, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that such misconduct (assuming, of course, it occurred, which it did not) would warrant the relief she now seeks, and the primary case she relies upon is readily distinguishable. In Valentine, the defendant was convicted of perjury based upon grand jury testimony in which he denied that he was given a loan to make a political contribution. 820 F.2d at 570. The Second Circuit reversed + +and held that it was a due process violation for the prosecutor to suggest that certain witnesses, who had not testified at trial but who had testified before the grand jury, supported the Government's theory of the case, when in fact their testimony before the grand jury did not. Id. The Second Circuit stated that this action "violated the due process prohibition against a prosecutor's making 'knowing use of false evidence,' including by misrepresenting the nature of nontestimonial evidence." Id. at 570-71 (quoting v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1967)). The Second Circuit further noted that reversal of a criminal conviction is a "drastic remedy that courts are generally reluctant to implement," and that the court would only do so "when a prosecutor's tactics cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and thereby serve to deprive him of his right to a fair trial." Id. + +The instant case is easily distinguishable from Valentine, as it does not involve any of the same facts, including any alleged mischaracterization of grand jury testimony at trial or any prosecutor making "knowing use of false evidence." Id. at 570-71; see also Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192, 1195 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Valentine for the proposition that "[e]ven where defense counsel is aware of the falsity, there may be a deprivation of due process if the prosecutor reinforces the deception by capitalizing on it in closing argument, or by posing misleading questions to the witnesses" (citations omitted)). "Prosecutorial misconduct denies a defendant due process only when it is 'of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial."' Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 440 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Greer v. =, 483 U.S. 756, 765 (1987)). + +The defendant has otherwise failed to identify how she has been deprived of the right to a fair trial. A jury will hear testimony about the defendant's statements during her April and July 2016 depositions, along with other evidence, and determine if her statements were perjurious. "While the Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses . .. it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment." Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 633 (1989) (citations omitted). "The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). And as noted, the defendant cites no legal authority supporting the proposition that the Government's actions during its investigation have somehow deprived her of a fair trial or otherwise violated her due process rights. In short, none of Maxwell's allegations of misconduct rises to the level of a due process violation. + +Dismissal of Counts Five and Six of the Indictment would be all the more unwarranted here, where there was no outrageous Government misconduct and where the defendant cannot show that the Government's behavior prejudiced her defense or legal representation. Similarly, because there was no misconduct by the Government, there is no basis to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena. The defendant's motion—unsupported by the law and the facts—must be denied. + +### 5. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order Suppression + +The defendant urges the Court to exercise its inherent authority to order suppression. This Court should decline the defendant's invitation to exercise this sparingly used power. + +#### a. Applicable Law + +"[T]he Supreme Court has recognized three purposes for the supervisory powers, 'to implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights, to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury, and finally, as a remedy + +designed to deter illegal conduct.' Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at •6 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)). "However, while there are times when a district court may properly find it absolutely necessary[, in order] to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system, to suppress evidence under its inherent or supervisory authority, 'the Supreme Court has explained that a court's inherent power to refuse to receive material evidence is a power that must be sparingly exercised [only in cases of] manifestly improper conduct by federal officials." United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 401 (2d Cir. 2018) (alterations and emphasis in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Second Circuit has "'recognized that courts cannot fashion their own sub-constitutional limitations on the conduct of law enforcement agents." Id. (quoting United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 792 (2d Cir. 1996)); see also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 847 (2d Cir. 1982). "Accordingly, the court should not exercise its inherent or supervisory power 'as a substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures."' Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401 (quoting Ming He, 94 F.3d at 792); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 737 (1980) ("the supervisory power does not extend so far" as to "confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing"). + +### b. Discussion + +By asking the Court to exercise its inherent authority, the defendant apparently means to suggest that the Court should grant the relief she seeks, even if she has failed to establish a violation of the Constitution or other governing law. The defendant fails to provide justification for the extraordinary remedy of suppression or to cite persuasive case law in favor of such an extraordinary use of the Court's inherent authority. + +The law is clear that a district court's supervisory authority does not extend to suppressing evidence absent some violation of the Constitution or other governing law. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 737 (holding that "the supervisory power does not extend" to "disregard[ing] the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing"); United States v. 772 F.3d 969, 976 (2d Cir. 2014) (same); United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Absent a violation of a recognized right under the Constitution, a statute, or a procedural rule, a district court is not entitled to exclude evidence as a sanction against government practices disapproved of by the court."). The requirements established by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit for suppressing evidence would have little effect if district courts were free to disregard them and suppress evidence by invoking their supervisory authority. Consistent with that principle, and given that this power is "sparing)), exercised," Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401, (emphasis in original), this Court should not elect to do so here where the defendant has not established a violation of her Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or due process rights. See, e.g., id. at 401-02 ("We can appreciate the district court's frustration at careless government representations that may impact the integrity of judicial decisions, especially proffers in support of a parte applications that an adversary has no opportunity to dispute[,]" but finding that the district court erred in suppressing evidence by invoking its inherent authority); Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at \*6 (declining to exercise its supervisory powers to suppress wiretap evidence and finding defendant "has no Fourth Amendment right, and the novel substantive due process right he asks this Court to create cannot be described as a recognized right." (internal citations omitted)). + +## 6. The Defendant Is Not Entitled to a Hearing + +The defendant argues that if the Court is "disinclined" to grant the extraordinary relief of suppression she seeks, she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to probe the Government's + +"misstatements" to Chief Judge McMahon and the extent of coordination between the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller prior to the issuance of the subpoena. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). With respect to that alleged "misconduct," the defendant appears to makes two general accusations: first, that in 2016 Boies Schiller encouraged the USAO-SDNY to investigate the defendant for perjury, and second, that the Government's statement to Chief Judge McMahon as to whether she was facing a "Chemical Bank kind of situation" was false. Neither is correct, for the reasons described above. Because the defendant has proffered no reliable evidence to support any of the accusations contained in her motion papers, and because the Government has responded to those accusations with AUSA-1's contemporaneous notes of the February 29, 2016 meeting and notes from an interview of AUSA-1 conducted by the USAO-SDNY and the FBI (see Exs. 4 & 5), as well as relevant AUSA-1 emails (Exs. 6 & 7), such a hearing is not warranted. + +#### a. Applicable Law + +"[E]videntiary hearings should not be set as a matter of course, but only when the petition alleges facts which if proved would require the grant of relief." Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 1960). "In order to make the requisite showing in sufficient detail, the defendant must submit an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge that disputed facts exist." United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008). "In the absence of such an affidavit, or when the allegations contained in such an affidavit are general and conclusory, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary." United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A district court may decide the motion without a hearing if the moving papers do not create a genuine issue as to any material fact. United States v. Canting, 968 F.2d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994. Moreover, it is well settled that a material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary + +hearing requires "an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts." United States v.IM, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the facts;" otherwise "there is no basis for holding an evidentiary hearing or suppressing the evidence"). + +The defendant's allegations are analogous to those raised when evaluating defendants' claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause or necessity finding," and (iii) "the claimed inaccuracies or omissions [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or omission, the defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing unless a reviewing court makes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). + +To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alleged omissions and correcting alleged errors), and determine whether the revised affidavit supports a finding of probable cause. See, e.g., Canfield, 212 F.3d at 719. If the revised affidavit supports a probable cause finding, then "the inaccuracies were not material to the probable cause determination and suppression is inappropriate." Id. at 718. After adding the alleged omissions and correcting the alleged errors, the "ultimate inquiry" is whether "there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause." United States v. 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). + +"[E]ven if the misrepresented or omitted information was material, a motion to suppress is to be denied unless the misrepresentations or omissions were intentional or deliberate, or were made in reckless disregard for the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a "high one." v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. "Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead." Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, "'frill storytelling involves an element of selectivity,' and it is therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit 'omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.' United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (ICMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at \*27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007)); see also United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) ("As courts in this Circuit have recognized, it is not shocking that every affidavit will omit facts which, in retrospect, seem significant." (intemal quotation marks and citations omitted)). + +The "substantial preliminary showing" requirement explained above exists to "avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful." Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. "[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law." United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018); see also Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ("To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine."). Instead, to warrant a Franks hearing: + +> [t]here must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. . . . Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant. + +Id. + +The burden to even obtain a Franks hearing is a heavy one, and such hearings are thus exceedingly rare. See United States v. 744 F. Supp. 558, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ("A defendant seeking to have the Court hold a Franks hearing bears a substantial burden."); United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir. 2000) ("These elements are hard to prove, and thus Franks hearings are rarely held."). + +### b. Discussion + +In an alternative effort to suppress the materials obtained pursuant to the subpoena, the defendant argues that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to inquire into the Government's "misrepresentations" to Chief Judge McMahon. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). However, as discussed extensively above, Maxwell's motion is little more than speculation and innuendo, itself rooted in a lone news article that, as described above, is not fully accurate. She otherwise presents no admissible evidence, affidavits, or other materials supporting the breathless accusations contained in her motion papers. As such, because the defendant does not include "an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts," 260 F. Supp. 2d at 570, and because the + +Government has responded with reliable information directly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing.' + +The defendant cites Franks, to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the standard required to obtain a hearing. "While the Franks analysis discussed above is typically employed to evaluate misstatements and omissions relating to probable cause, the Second Circuit has extended the Franks analysis to other Title III requirements for obtaining a warrant." United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402, at \*18 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010). The defendant fails to identify the standard that would govern such a hearing. In light of the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap, the USAO-SDNY submits that the defendant's depositions in a civil matter, even with a protective order, are no more significant than the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap. As such, the exacting standard of Franks should apply. On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth. The Franks standard is rightly a "high one," =, 928 F.2d at 604, and one the defendant has failed to meet here. + +The defendant's bald assertions alone do not entitle her to a fishing expedition in the form of a hearing. + +## V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury + +Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that, during the course of two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- + +40For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be denied. The defendant has failed to meet her burden under Rule 16 of making "a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material." Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d at 261 (citations omitted). Because the defendant has offered nothing more than her conjecture, based on an inaccurate and hearsay-ridden article, that some unspecified evidence might exist, her request for discovery should be denied. + +trial record—that the questions were fundamentally ambiguous, and the defendant's answers were truthful and immaterial. (Def. Mot. 5). To the contrary, the Government expects to prove at trial that the defendant understood the questions and that her answers were both false and materially so. This case does not present the narrow circumstances in which a court can and should dismiss perjury counts, let alone do so before trial. + +## A. Factual Background + +On July 7, 2008, following the USAO-SDFL entering into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, two minors filed a petition under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the prosecutors violated their rights under that statute. See Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D.F.L). See generally Doe No. I. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (describing the background of the suit). On December 30, 2014, moved to join the petition, alleging that the USAO-SDFL had also violated her CVRA rights. See Doe, No. 08 Civ. 80736, Dkt. No. 279.' In her motion for joinder, described the defendant as "'one of the main women' Epstein used to `procure under-aged girls for sexual activities,"' and as a "'primary co-conspirator' with Epstein in his scheme. See v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir. 2019), Dkt. No. 287 at 10 (containing the unsealed summary judgment opinion from 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)). Among other allegations, alleged that the defendant "'persuaded' [her] to go to Epstein's mansion," and, "when began giving Epstein a massage, [he] and [the defendant] `turned it into a sexual encounter."' Id. at 11. alleged that the defendant also "`participat[ed] in the sexual abuse" of others. Id. A few days later, the press reported a statement by a spokesman for the defendant, Gow. Among other things, + +45filed a corrected motion on January 2, 2015. See Doe, No. 08 Civ. 80736, Dkt. No. 280. The court later struck the original motion, sealed the corrected motion, and ordered filing of a redacted version of the corrected motion. See id., Dkt. No. 325 (Apr. 7, 2015). + +Gow stated that claims were "untrue" and "obvious lies." (15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1 at 6). + +As described in the preceding section, in the fall of 2015, sued the defendant for defamation.06 (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1). alleged that Epstein sexually abused her, "with the assistance and participation of Maxwell" at "numerous locations" between 1999 and 2002, and that Epstein abused more than thirty minors between 2001 and 2007 "with the assistance of numerous co-conspirators." (Id. at 3). + +During the defendant's first deposition on April 22, 2016, the defendant refused to answer questions that she deemed related to consensual adult sexual interactions. (See. e.g., Ex. 10 at 92:20-93:6). moved to compel the defendant to answer, explaining that "[a]t the core of [her] allegations is the allegation that [the] Defendant lured her into a sexual situation with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried to turn massages into sex .. . and that Maxwell recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification to Epstein." (15 Civ. 7443 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-1 at 5- 6). also explained that the defendant's refusal to answer questions about adult consensual sex prevented "from seeking legitimate discovery," such as the identity of people the defendant presently deemed adults. (Id. at 6). + +The Court granted motion. "[N]otwithstanding" the intrusiveness of the questions and the fact that the defendant had not put her private affairs at issue, "the questions are directed to reveal relevant answers regarding Defendant's knowledge of Plaintiff's allegations." + +46 The below discussion is provided as context for the Court's consideration of the motion. As discussed further in the Government's opposition to the defendant's motion for , the Government expects to provide a more streamlined presentation regarding the suit at trial. + +(Def. Mot. 4, Ex. H at 9). "That knowledge," the Court explained, "goes directly to the truth or falsity of the alleged defamation, a key element of Plaintiff's claim." (Id.). The Court therefore ordered the defendant to answer the questions related to her sexual activity with or involving (1) Epstein, (2) =, (3) underage girls known to Epstein or who she thought might become known to Epstein, or (4) involving massage with individuals the defendant "knew to be, or believed might be, known to Epstein." (Id. at 10). The Court further ordered the defendant to answer questions about her knowledge of the sexual activities of others in the same four categories. The Court added that the "scope of Defendant's answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant." (Id.). The defendant sat for a second deposition on July 22, 2016, before the case settled. + +As discussed more fully below, the Indictment charges the defendant with two counts of perjury, one arising from statements made during the April 2016 deposition and one arising from statements made during the July 2016 deposition. Indictment 11121, 23. (Ex. 10 at 253:25-254:8, 384:15-20; Ex. 11 at 88:9-89:13, 91:22-92:16, 113:2-12). The defendant now moves to dismiss both counts, arguing that the Court can effectively decide now, as a matter of law, that the questions were fundamentally ambiguous, her answers were true, and her answers were immaterial to the case. + +# B. Applicable Law + +Section 1623(a) imposes criminal penalties on anyone who "in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court ... knowingly makes any false material declaration." 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). In perjury prosecutions, "whether the witness believes that an answer is true or false generally turns on the declarant's understanding of the question." United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, and as is true of virtually all factual issues, "[a] jury is best equipped + +to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 + +A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude, as a matter of law, that a perjury count cannot stand. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375. A question is "fundamentally ambiguous" when "it is not a phrase with a meaning about which [people] of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony." Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a case, the "answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support the perjury conviction." United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375). For instance, in Lighte, a case involving post-conviction appellate review, the Court found that a question was fundamentally ambiguous because it used the word 'you' without indication that, unlike the prior two questions, the appellant was now being questioned in his role as trustee." 782 F.2d at 376. "[F]undamental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence demonstrates the defendant understood the question in context and gave a knowingly false answer."). "If, in the + +47 The Second Circuit analyzes general principles of perjury similarly under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and another perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, see Lighte, 782 F.3d at 372, and it has assumed without deciding that those standards also apply to offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(aX2), see United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 n.15 (2d Cir. 2018). + +natural meaning in the context in which words were used they were materially untrue, perjury was established." United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218, 1221 (2d Cir. 1976). Critically, and as noted with respect to Lighte above, courts generally evaluate whether a challenge to a perjury count on the basis that a question was fundamentally ambiguous after trial and following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); Sanvari, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has dismissed a perjury count on the basis of "fundamental ambiguity" before trial. + +Because perjury requires a knowing false statement, the law does not permit conviction based on answers that are literally true. See Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374. Nor can a conviction rest on answers that are literally true but unresponsive, and therefore "arguably misleading by negative implication." Id.; see Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 362 (1973). But when "the answer is false, the fact that it is unresponsive is immaterial." United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042, 1049 (2d Cir. 1976). Even statements that "could be literally true in isolation" can support a perjury conviction if they are "materially untrue" in "the context in which the statements were made." United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1989). "[U]nless the questioning is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true under any conceivable interpretation of the questions"). + +Finally, even if a defendant makes a knowing false statement, a perjury conviction requires that the statement be material. A false statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). A statement made in a civil deposition is also material if "a truthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Bitrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel, that "it must be shown that a truthful answer would have been of sufficient probative importance to the inquiry so that, as a minimum, further fruitful investigation would have occurred." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Since materiality is an element of the offense, it is a question for the jury "except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). + +### C. Discussion + +The Government expects to prove at trial that the defendant's deposition statements were knowingly false. The defendant's strained efforts to inject ambiguity into the questioning and to justify her answers as truthful are in significant part, arguments that are properly put to the jury and not a basis to dismiss the counts pretrial and without the benefit of a complete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627-28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the jury."). At this stage, the defendant must identify defects so fundamental that the charged statements cannot, as a matter of law, support a perjury conviction. She has failed to do so, and her motion should be denied. + +### 1. April 2016 Deposition + +At the April 2016 deposition, counsel asked the defendant about how came to Epstein's home (Ex. 10 at 14:9-17:4), whether hired massage therapists engaged in sexual activity with Epstein (id. at 51:13-55:16), and the defendant's knowledge of Epstein's Florida criminal case (id. at 171:25-173:12, 183:25-186:21), among other topics. The transcript makes clear that when the defendant did not understand a question, she said so. (See. e.g., id. at 9:4-9 ("[C]an you please clarify the question. I don't understand what you mean by female, I don't understand what you mean by recruit."), 39:23-24 ("I don't understand what your question is asking."), 94:18-95:4 ("You don't ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be trapped."), 138:6 ("Define relationship."), 244:22-23 ("You are not asking me a good question, sorry."). + +Count Five charges the defendant with perjury arising from two colloquies at this deposition. First, counsel asked the defendant a series of questions about whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant testified that they were all adults except fora, who she acknowledged at least claimed to have been seventeen. (Id. at 246:18-251:12) counsel then asked questions about whether Epstein had a "sexual preference for underage minors," which drew objections from + +defense counsel and which the defendant ultimately answered by saying "I cannot tell you what Jeffrey's story is. I'm not able to." (Id. at 251:13-253:12). This colloquy followed: + +> Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls to use them for purposes of sexual massages? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +A. Can you ask me again, please? + +Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls to recruit them for sexual massages? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +A. Can you ask it a different way? + +Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +Q. If you know. + +A. I don't know what you are talking about.48 + +(Ex. 10 at 253:13-254:8). + +The defendant argues that the question was ambiguous, as shown by her requests for the questioner to rephrase the question. (Def. Mot. 4 at 9-10, 18). A properly instructed jury could readily conclude otherwise in light of the evidence the Government expects to introduce at trial. The defamation case involved allegations that was a victim of that scheme: had alleged that Epstein and the defendant had sexualized a massage that gave Epstein. The preceding questions focused on (I) whether the defendant brought underage masseuses to work for Epstein, and (2) whether Epstein had a sexual preference for underage girls. Moreover, at trial and as discussed further below, the Government expects to elicit testimony from one or more of + +48 Underlined sentences are charged as false statements in the Indictment. + +the victims specified in the Indictment about sexualized massages the victims provided to Epstein, conduct that obviously predated the deposition. See Indictment 17(a), (c). In context, and with an understanding of the Government's other evidence, a rational juror could readily conclude that the question "did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages .. . [i]f you know?" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not "fundamental." CI Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about "this arrangement" was not fundamentally ambiguous). + +Nor is there any basis to dismiss the count now based on the defendant's professed confusion or denial of knowledge of the scheme's existence. A defendant may commit perjury by falsely denying memory or knowledge of an event. See, e.g., United States v. Alberti, 568 F.2d 617, 625 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923, 926, 929 (2d Cir. 1973); Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 410-11. Viewing the question and answer "in the context of the line of questioning as a whole," the defendant "consistently denied" knowledge of Epstein's scheme, Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 810, and a jury could conclude that the "question was not fundamentally ambiguous—and thus that [the defendant], understanding the question, lied." See Sampson, 898 F.3d at 307; cf. Indictment ¶¶ 4(e) 11(c)-(d), 17(c)-(d) (discussing use of massage as part of the sexual abuse scheme). + +Second, later in the deposition, counsel asked the defendant a series of questions in an attempt to identify other underage girls that the defendant met and brought to Epstein. Specifically: + +> Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house that were under the age of 18? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +A. I could only recall my family members that were there and I could not make a list of anyone else because that list -- it never happened that I can think of. + +Q. I'm talking about the time you were working for Jeffrey Epstein, can you list all girls that you found for Jeffrey Epstein that were under the age of 18 to come work for him in any capacity? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +A. I didn't find the girls. + +Q. You choose the word. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: If you have a question ask it, you don't choose the word. + +Q. List all of the girls you met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's home for the purposes of employment that were under the age of 18? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. + +A. I've already characterized my job was to find people, adults, professional people to do the jobs I listed before; pool person, secretary, house person, chef, pilot, architect. + +Q. I'm asking about individuals under the age of 18, not adult persons, people under the age of 18. + +A. I looked for people or tried to find people to fill professional jobs in professional situations. + +Q. So was under the age of 18, correct? + +A. I think we've established that Virginia was 17. + +Q. Is she the — sorry, go ahead. Is she the only individual that you met for purposes of hiring someone for Jeffrey that was under the age of 18? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation. Mischaracterizes her testimony. + +A. I didn't hire people. + +Q. I said met. + +A. I interviewed people for jobs for professional things and I am not aware of anyone aside from now Virginia who clearly was a masseuse aged 17 but that's, at least that's how far we know that I can think of that fulfilled any professional capacity for Jeffrey. + +Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? + +A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously Virginia who was 17 at this point? + +(Ex. 10 at 382:4-384:20). + +The defendant argues that this question was "grossly ambiguous: who was 'Jeffrey'; what were 'Jeffrey's properties;' to what time frame did the question apply; what was the basis for Ms. Maxwell to determine who may or may not have been 'under the age of 18'; and what did 'interact with' mean?" (Def. Mot. 4 at 11). These arguments only underscore the principle that perjury prosecutions are an inquiry into "the natural meaning in the context in which words were used," Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d at 1221, and not an opportunity for defense counsel to "plumb[] a question for post hoc ambiguity," Strohm, 671 F.3d at 1178. A reasonable jury, after hearing the evidence, could readily conclude that the natural meaning of those words in context is abundantly clear. For instance, at the end of trial, a jury could conclude that "Jeffrey" is Jeffrey Epstein; "Jeffrey's properties" are Jeffrey Epstein's properties, including his houses in Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and the United States Virgin Islands (see, e.g., Ex. 10 at 248:17-20 (naming those properties)); and "interact" is an expansive word aimed at capturing any encounter, that was used after the defendant resisted words like "met," "found," and "hired" in the prior questions, see Interact, Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://oed.cotn/view/Entiy/97518 (last visited February 25, 2021) ("To act reciprocally, to act on each other."). Such inferences will be particularly easy for a jury to reach after hearing multiple victims testify about their own + +interactions with the defendant and Epstein at Epstein's various properties. See, e.g., Indictment 17(a) ("MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences."). Accordingly, a rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than and therefore that her answer was false. And even if the defendant identifies some plausible ambiguity—and she has not—the terms in this question are ones "with a meaning about which [people] of ordinary intellect could agree," and therefore are not fundamentally ambiguous. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted). + +The defendant points out that, in response to an earlier question asking her to list the underage girls she "met and brought" to Epstein's house, she said that she could not do so. (Def. Mot. 4 at 12-13). She argues that the charged question was "improper" because it asked her to generate a list "from events that had happened nearly two decades previously." (Id.). Her unpersuasive after-the-fact efforts to justify her answer provide no basis to keep this question from the jury. As noted above, the transcript makes clear (and a jury could find) that when the defendant did not understand or could not answer a question, she said so. To the extent the defendant is arguing that her answer was literally true, a reasonable jury could find otherwise. In this respect, the Government notes, among other things, that in response to the earlier question, the defendant said that she could not make a list not because she could not remember events from that long ago but "because that list -- it never happened that I can think of." (Ex. 10 at 382:4-13) (emphasis added). And in response to the charged question, the defendant said that she "was not aware of anybody" under 18—that is, the list would be empty. See Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 413 ("Olivieri, if truly confused, could also have asked for clarification. Instead he replied with a strong + +denial . . .”). A properly instructed jury could conclude after hearing all of the evidence at trial that the defendant intended the natural meaning of the words she used, not the allegedly truthful answer she suggests now, and therefore that she lied. In sum, the defendant’s post-hoc efforts to inject confusion into clear questioning are unavailing and should be rejected, and the jury should decide whether the defendant’s answers were false. + +**2. July 2016 Deposition** + +Count Six charges the defendant with perjury arising from three colloquies at the second deposition. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Following that line of questioning, the following + +colloquy occurred: + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Q. Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A. No, not that I recall. + +question: + +lawyer asked the following + +Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +A. Ng, + +The defendant now argues that these questions are ambiguous because they contain "numerous undefined terms," such as "sex toy or device" and "sexual activities." (Def. Mot. 4 at 14). She asks, for instance, whether "bath oil" would count as a sex toy or device. (Id.). Yet this argument is simply another attempt to imbue ambiguity after the fact into commonly used words with common sense meanings. The mere fact that a term could apply equally to several different objects does not automatically mean that the question is impermissibly vague and can never form the basis of a perjury charge. See. e.g., H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 607 (1958) ("A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles ... ?"). Instead, it is wellsettled that "[t]he jury should determine whether the question—as the declarant must have understood it, giving it a reasonable reading—was falsely answered." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 372. So + +long as the question involves a phrase “which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer,” it is not fundamentally ambiguous. *Id.* at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); *see United States v. Jenkins*, 727 F. App’x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) (“An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding ‘real estate, stocks, bonds, . . . or other valuable property’ would allow omission of information regarding money market funds . . . .”). + +The use of broad or inclusive terms does not render the question fundamentally ambiguous. As the Second Circuit explained in the context of the term “employment activities,” “[t]he broad language of the question is not fundamentally ambiguous; it is instead designed to capture *all* employment activities in an applicant’s recent history.” *United States v. Polos*, 723 F. App’x 64, 65-66 (2d Cir. 2018). So too here. A “sex toy or device” is an intelligible phrase with an understood meaning. *See Sex Toy, Oxford English Dictionary Online*, (last visited February 12, 2021) (“[A] device or object designed for sexual stimulation (as a dildo, vibrator, etc.) or to enhance sexual pleasure or performance.”). [REDACTED] + +The defendant’s objections to the next colloquy in the indictment are similarly unavailing. Shortly after the above exchange, the following conversation occurred: + +[REDACTED] + +A. Can you repeat the question? + +[REDACTED] + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. + +A. No. + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +[REDACTED] + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +[REDACTED] + +The defendant primarily argues that her answers were literally true. In the defendant's telling, the phrase "[w]hen I was with him," refers not to the duration of the defendant's relationship with Epstein, but instead to only those moments when she was in the act of having sex with Epstein and either the blond or brunette identified above. (Def. Mot. 4 at 16). [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] And in any event, she further argues, because the question asked the defendant about the 1990s and 2000s, it therefore covered any "sexual activities" spanning more than a millennium." (*Id.* at 16-17). + +The defendant, therefore, argues that the questioner asked whether a logically impossible event occurred or will occur at some point over the course of a millennium. But the defendant's professed confusion—which again was not raised during the deposition itself—ignores the plain and obvious context of the question, which did not refer to a time period far exceeding the human life span, and was not limited to only the times in which the defendant was in the act of having sex with Epstein. Plainly, a jury could find that the defendant correctly understood the question when she answered it in July 2016, and that she ascribed a natural meaning to the words used in the questions, and not the tortured illogical meaning she now assigns to those questions: whether, during the course of her relationship with Epstein, she was aware of anyone other than herself having sexual relations with Epstein. The Government expects its evidence to show that she was. See, e.g., Indictment ¶ 1 (stating that the defendant "assisted, facilitated, and contributed to" Epstein's sexual abuse of minors). At a minimum, the defendant's answers were not "literally true under any conceivable interpretation of the questions." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374. And the defendant's professed confusion now and proposed illogical reading of the questions in the instant motion does not render them fundamentally ambiguous. See Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d at 1221 ("A defense to a charge of perjury may not be established by isolating a statement from context, giving it in this manner a meaning entirely different from that which it has when the testimony is considered as a whole."). Accordingly, a jury should be permitted to determine what meaning the defendant ascribed to those questions and whether her answers were in fact false. + +Finally, the defendant answered the following questions: + +Q. Did you ever give a massage to anyone other than Mr. Epstein at any of Mr. Epstein's properties? + +A. First of all, I never said I gave Mr. Epstein a massage. + +Q. I will ask that question if you want, but I was focusing on people other than Mr. Epstein right now. + +A. I don't give massages. + +Q. Let's just tie that down. It is your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Ex. II at 112:17-113:12). + +The defendant argues that these questions were fundamentally ambiguous because the deposition elsewhere discussed both sexual and professional massages. It was unclear, she explains, what kind of massage the questioner meant. (Def. Mot. 4 at 17.) The defendant's argument is, yet again, misguided. This line of questioning used broad language, and at no point during this set of questions did counsel suggest that the questions were limited to sexual or professional massages. Cl Lighte, 782 F.2d at 376 (concluding that the word "you" was ambiguous when the prior two questions asked about the defendant "as an individual" and then switched "without indication" to the defendant "as trustee"). The defendant's answers were unequivocal, with no expressions of confusion or internal contradictions. CI Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 809 (explaining that a question was ambiguous as to whether it asked about the deponent's personal or professional capacities, in light of the deponent's confusion in the next questions). A properly instructed jury could conclude that the defendant meant what she said: she never gave anyone a massage, including Epstein and Minor Victim-2. + +The defendant is, of course, free to testify on her own behalf to her professed confusion or otherwise argue to the jury that the questions were ambiguous or the answers truthful. The issue before the Court is whether the questions were so fundamentally ambiguous that a jury, after hearing the trial evidence, could not conclude that the "response given was false as the defendant understood the question." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant has failed to establish such a fundamental defect.49 + +#### 3. Materiality + +Finally, the defendant argues that none of these answers was material to the defamation action. As a threshold issue, however, materiality is also not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss the indictment. As noted above, materiality is a jury question "except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dictates that materiality be decided by the jury, not the court." Id. at 465. + +The Second Circuit has explained that it is inappropriate for courts to resolve questions relating to the sufficiency of the evidence on a motion to dismiss the indictment. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contain no "analogue for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56" for several reasons. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 280 (2d Cir. 2018). First, Iplermitting civil `summary judgment'-like motions . . . would enable an end-run around the calibrated framework for discovery in criminal cases," and thereby "upset the policy + +49 Even if the Court concludes that any of the individual statements charged in the Indictment cannot sustain a perjury conviction, the count survives so long as some statement can properly be presented to the jury. See Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d at 1221 ("It is customary, and ordinarily not improper, to include more than one allegedly false statement in a single count. . . . Where there are several such specifications of falsity in a single count, proof of any of the specifications is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty." (citations omitted)). + +choices reflected in the criminal discovery rules." Id. Second, doing so "risks invading 'the inviolable function of the jury' in our criminal justice system." Id. at 281 (citation omitted). Accordingly, if the "defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion." Id. + +The exception to this rule is "extraordinarily narrow" because, in the normal course, the "government must make a detailed presentation of the entirety of the evidence before a district court can dismiss an indictment on sufficiency grounds," which the Government is not required to do at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id. at 282 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That point is underscored by United States v. Nitsche, 843 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2011), on which the defendant relies. There, the district court dismissed an indictment in a child enticement case for insufficiency of the evidence. First, however, the court explained that the question was ripe because "(1) Defendant has stipulated to the entire record that is relevant to Count I; (2) the Government has had several opportunities to make a proffer of any additional facts, to conduct any subsequent investigation, and to ask the Court for further delay to seek more evidence; and (3) because the record is limited to the chat." Id. at 9. Accordingly, "[t]he transcripts themselves provide the Court with all of the relevant undisputed facts to decide the motion." Id. Here, of course, that is simply not the case and, in particular, there is no stipulation as to the entire relevant record. + +Under the relevant legal standard, the defendant's statements were material if they could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the factfinder in the defendant's civil case. Evaluating that standard necessarily implicates facts beyond the deposition testimony itself and Judge Preska's unsealing order," such as identification of the allegedly defamatory + +50 The defendant observes that Judge Preska redacted some of the statements that form the basis of Count Six, stating that the "testimony is ... far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse + +statements at the heart of that case and the evidence that might have been uncovered had the defendant answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage." The Court therefore should deny the motion. + +In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions were aimed at developing a record in the civil suit that Epstein and the defendant recruited to Epstein's Palm Beach property in the guise of hiring her as a masseuse, and then sexualized that massage. Honest answers to those questions—for instance that Epstein in fact had a scheme to recruit underaged girls for sexual massages—would have been corroborative of some of claims. Second, had the defendant honestly answered the deposition questions, could have located other victims or witnesses who may have corroborated her testimony. But in any event, the question of materiality should be put to the jury and is inappropriate for the Court to resolve on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. + +allegations that were central to the dispute in v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).) Yet Judge Preska's opinion as to the propriety of certain redactions in a civil case is not controlling as to whether the Government can meet the elements of a criminal perjury charge here. First, before Judge Preska were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity to be heard on this issue before Judge Preska. + +51 While the Government is open to crafting a stipulation on the background of the lawsuit to streamline presentation of these issues to the jury, it notes that the defendant's summary of that suit as set forth in her motion is incorrect. Def. Mot. 4 at 20 (erroneously asserting that the defamation claims at issue turned on ability to prove salacious allegations about public officials)). + +In sum, the defendant asks this Court to dismiss Counts Five and Six by stretching to read ambiguity into clear questions and encouraging the Court to resolve questions committed to the jury. The Court should reject those arguments and permit the jury to resolve these issues of fact. + +## VI. Counts Five and Six Are Properly Joined and Should Not Be Severed + +The Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a scheme to sexually abuse minors, and with committing perjury to conceal her crimes. All six counts of the Indictment are properly joined: they are logically connected, subject to overlapping proof, and connected by a common scheme or plan. To sever the counts and justify holding a second trial at which a second jury will be convened and the same witnesses—including victims of sexual abuse—will testify a second time, the defendant must carry a heavy burden by showing substantial prejudice from the joinder. She has not done so, and the motion should be denied. + +### A. Applicable Law + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) permits the joinder of offenses that "are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute pans of a common scheme or plan." Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). This rule establishes three tests for joinder, each "reflect[ing] a policy determination that gains in trial efficiency outweigh the recognized prejudice that accrues to the accused." United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir. 1988). + +Charges are "similar" if they are "somewhat alike" or "hav[e) a general likeness to each other." United States v. 546 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 926 (2d Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Rule 8(a) does not require 'too precise an identity between the character of the offenses."' United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151, 2018 WL 1737236, at '3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) (Nathan, J.) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 929). Offenses may be joined "where the same evidence may be used to prove each count or if the counts have a sufficient logical connection." United States v. Page, 657 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "For purposes of analysis under Rule 8(a)," however, "no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish 'similarity' of offenses, and each case depends largely on its own facts." United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). For instance, in United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980), the "Second Circuit found sufficient similarity between two cargo thefts that occurred two years apart and only one of which was violent in nature," because "'both offenses arose out of [defendant's] scheme to use his position as an insider . . . to obtain money or property carried by it."' United States v. M, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd, 348 F. App'x 636, 638 (2d Cir. 2009) (first alteration in original) (quoting Werner, 620 F2d at 927). + +Joinder is also proper for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at •2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "[t]he law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts where, as here, the false declarations concern the substantive offenses." United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984); see United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 1971). False statements can "concern" or be connected with substantive offenses even if they were not made as part of an investigation into the specific substantive conduct. See United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501, 505 (2d Cir. 1990) (joining false statements on loan applications with perjury about "attempts to secure Senate Ethics Committee approval" of "consulting fees'); United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185, 1190-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (joining fraud counts with a false statement + +in a bankruptcy proceeding). Similarly, "[c]ourts have repeatedly recognized the appropriateness of hying perjury or obstruction charges together with the underlying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime." United States v. No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (=, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)). + +In the event that properly joined counts "appear[] to prejudice a defendant or the government," Rule 14(a) permits a court to "order separate trials of counts ... or provide any other relief that justice requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "balance" between "considerations of economy and speed" and "possible unfairness" to the defendant. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, "the principles that guide the district court's consideration of a motion for usually counsel denial," Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at \*5 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), and should be granted "only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence," Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).52 But "Rule 14 does not require even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court's sound discretion." Id. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures ... such as limiting instructions, + +52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168, at \*4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), aff'd, 730 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Page for the proposition that Zafiro applies both to motions to sever counts and motions to sever defendants). + +often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice and permit joinder." Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (internal quotation marks omitted). + +## B. Discussion + +The perjury counts should be tried jointly with Counts One through Four. The offenses are of similar character, are logically connected and will be proved through much of the same evidence because the perjury counts concern at least some of the same conduct relevant to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four and, as such, are properly joined. See generally Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791. Severing the counts would waste judicial resources by requiring a second trial at which the Government would offer similar proof, including by calling the same victims of sexual abuse to testify again at a second trial. The defendant has identified no prejudice sufficient to justify imposing that burden on the victims, the Court, and the Government. + +First, the Government expects to prove the offenses charged in Counts One through Four and those charged in Counts Five and Six with much of the same evidence. See United States v. Hester, No. 19 Cr. 324 (NSR), 2020 WL 3483702, at \*21 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) ("Notably, the fact that evidence of the crime charged in one count may be admissible in the Government's direct case in the trial of the other will typically defeat the need to severe the counts."). At trial, some of the most critical evidence that the defendant committed the offenses charged in Counts One through Four will also form the crux of the Government's proof of the falsity of the defendant's deposition testimony. In particular, victim testimony and related evidence offered to prove the existence of Epstein's scheme to abuse underage girls, and Maxwell's participation therein, will also provide much of the evidence demonstrating the falsity of the statements charged in Count Five. Compare, e.g., Indictment ¶ 4(c), (e) (discussing massages resulting in sexual abuse), with id. ¶ 21 (denying interacting with underage girls and a denying a "scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages"). Similarly, aspects of that proof, such as testimony regarding the sexualized + +massages that were part of the scheme, will also prove the falsity of the statements charged in Count Six. Indeed, were to be granted, the facts involving Counts One through Four "would be central to a separate trial" on Counts Five and Six. =, 2004 WL 2274751, at •4; see Sweig, 441 F.2d at 118-19 ("Virtually every overt act alleged in the conspiracy count formed the subject matter of one of the eight perjury counts, and would therefore be admissible in a perjury trial to show the falsity of Sweig's denial before the grand jury."). + +Critically, the Government expects that proof to include testimony from victims of sexual abuse. For instance, the Government anticipates that Minor Victim-2 will testify that the defendant gave her an unsolicited massage during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. Indictment ¶ 7(b). That is an overt act charged in Counts One and Three. WI I 1(c), I 7(c). It is also strong evidence that the defendant's statement "I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage" was false, as charged in Count Six. Id. ¶ 23. If the Court severs the Indictment into two trials, it will require Minor Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing that joint trials of multiple defendants avoid "requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience (and sometimes trauma) of testifying"). + +Similarly, the defendant's efforts to conceal her crimes by lying in a deposition is itself compelling evidence of her consciousness of guilt as to the offenses charged in Counts One through Four and indeed would almost certainly be relevant and admissible at a trial as to those counts even if were granted. In particular, and among other examples, the defendant's false denial of the existence of a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages, and her specific (and equally false) denials as to Minor Victim-2, would be admissible as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt, even at a trial focused exclusively on Counts One through Four. See, e.g., United States v. 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014) ("[A]cts that exhibit a + +consciousness of guilt, such as false exculpatory statements, may also tend to prove knowledge and intent of a conspiracy's purpose ...." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). + +Second, the offenses are logically connected and are part of the same common plan or scheme. It is settled law in this Circuit that joinder of "underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts" is appropriate "where, as here, the false declarations concern the substantive offenses." Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (same). In Ruiz, the defendant was a New York state senator who founded a nonprofit that was developing a mall in the Bronx, and for which he provided consulting services. In 1984 and 1985, he made two loan applications for funds to invest in the project, on which he made false statements. Id. at 503- 04. In 1986, the defendant also lied about his possession of a letter from the Senate Ethics Committee to a grand jury that was investigating his consulting activities for the nonprofit. Id. at 503. He was charged with two counts of false statements on the loan applications and one count of perjury, and he moved to sever the perjury charge. The district court denied the motion, explaining that, although the "alleged perjury did not occur during a specific investigation by the grand jury into the alleged bank fraud," the statements nonetheless "'concerned the defendant's scheme to maximize his personal gain from the [project], as well to cover any improprieties that scheme might involve."' Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066, 1076-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)) (emphasis omitted). And the Second Circuit affirmed, explaining that the counts had "sufficient logical connection" because they all "relate to [the defendant's] extra-senatorial activities through the [nonprofit]," and therefore were "part of a common scheme or plan." Ruiz, 894 F.2d at 505. So too here: the defendant's perjury did not occur in the context of a grand jury investigation into the same sexual offenses charged in the Indictment, but the statements concerned those offenses and sought to conceal the defendant's role + +therein. See Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190-91 (joining counts involving use of businesses to commit fraud with a count of falsely swearing in bankruptcy court that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the motion. + +The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods. To be sure, Counts One through Four charge conduct involving certain victims from 1994 to 1997, while the perjury counts charge statements made in 2016 in a case concerning abuse from 1999 to 2002. However, the specific statements charged in Count Five and Count Six directly relate to the conduct charged in Counts One through Four, including, in one instance, a specific victim identified as relevant to those counts. And those statements were not time-bound or restricted to =. For instance, the defendant denied the existence of any scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages, not the existence of such a scheme between 1999 and 2002, or a scheme specifically focused on The defendant also denied ever giving anyone a massage, specifically including Epstein and Minor Victim-2. She did not limit her denial to or to a particular time period. There is, accordingly, a strong connection between the truth or falsity of the defendant's broad denials and her acts in the period at issue in the substantive counts. The cases on which the defendant relies are factually inapposite and do not support her argument, because they involve wholly unrelated events. See, e.g., United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 431 (2d Cir. 1978) (severing a Medicaid fraud indictment from a tax evasion indictment where the only similarly was the defendant's manipulation of people he had employed—different + +53 While the defendant may argue that the fact that her deposition, unlike Ruiz, did not involve criminal authorities counsels in favor of a different outcome, as discussed further below, the prospect of a criminal prosecution was nonetheless plainly on her mind at the time of the depositions, as evidenced by the myriad arguments she herself makes in support of her motions to suppress the fruits of the grand jury subpoena to Boies Schiller. (See, e.g., Def. Mot. 3 at 3-4, Def. Mot. 11 at 2). + +in each indictment—to his personal profit); United States v. =, No. 07-0296, 2008 WL 161146, at ■5 **(E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) (severing an "isolated" firearms possession charge on a certain day from other narcotics and firearms charges);** United States v. No. 92 Cr. 839 (SWK), 1993 WL 322768, at \*8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) (similar). + +The defendant also contends that her false statements were not connected to the substantive offenses because they were made in a civil deposition, rather than "to the grand jury or the FBI to derail its investigation." (Def. Mot. 5 at 8). As an initial matter, and as evidenced by the defendant's own motions to suppress the fruits of the grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller, the defendant herself professes to have been concerned about the prospect of a criminal investigation at the time of her depositions, which strongly suggests that, on these facts, the distinction is of little moment. (See, e.g., Def. Mot. 3 at 3-4 (explaining that the defendant "flatly rejected" a law enforcement exception to the civil protective order); Def. Mot. 11 at 2 (arguing that the defendant "declined to invoke" her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the deposition after negotiating the protective order)). More important, and whatever moment that distinction may have in other contexts, it has little bearing on the analysis which turns instead on whether the substance of the false statement relates to the substantive offense, and is thereby provable through overlapping evidence and part of the speaker's effort to conceal the offense. See Ruiz, 894 F.2d at 505; Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791 (citing United States v. Carson, 464 F.2d 424, 436 (2d Cir. 1972); Sweig, 441 F.2d at 118-19) (affirming denial of a motion where the false statements "concern the substantive offenses" and citing cases where the perjury count's proof overlapped with the evidence on the substantive counts). With respect to that analysis, the defendant cites no case for the proposition that the setting in which the statement is made is significant, much less determinative. Cf. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (false statement + +in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false statements count was severed only underscore this point. In both cases, the statement itself concerned an entirely different subject matter, provable through largely if not entirely different evidence. See United States v. Botti, No. 08 Cr. 230 (CSI1), 2009 WL 3157582, at \*1, \*5 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing a structuring conspiracy and false statements related to that conspiracy from a "separate" corruption conspiracy); United States v. Mitan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (severing counts charging a fraud scheme from perjury count for an affidavit submitted as part of a bail motion, which "was not as an attempt to cover up the scheme to defraud, but rather an attempt to show that Court had erred" in its bail decision). + +Finally, the defendant argues that the counts are unrelated because the defendant's testimony was given in response to questions "tangential to the defamation action," and her answers "concealed" no crimes because they were "true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff's lawyers." (Def. Mot. 5 at 8-9). The defendant is free to make at least some of these arguments to the jury, but these assertions are not a lawful basis for severing Counts Five and Six. This is merely an attempt to refashion the defendant's claim that she gave truthful, immaterial answers to ambiguous questions. But, as discussed in detail in Section V, those arguments have no merit. + +Third, the defendant has failed to carry her heavy burden under Rule 14(a) to show prejudice. At the outset, "[t]he contention that there is some inherent prejudice in joining perjury and related counts with substantive charges has been widely rejected." Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791. And courts routinely hold that there is no prejudice where the evidence in support of the two counts is "interconnected." Blakney, 941 F.2d at 116; see Carson, 464 F.2d at 436 ("[T]he commonality of proof of the conspiracy and perjury crimes permitted joinder of the offenses . . . and denial of appellant's Rule 14 pretrial motion for."); Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at \*6-■7. + +**The defendant argues that the trial on the perjury counts will require a "full-blown relitigation of the defamation action." (Def. Mot. 5 at 9). That is a significant exaggeration. To litigate the perjury counts, the parties will need to present evidence about the basic substance of the civil suit—in particular, allegations and the defendant's denials—such that the jury will be able to assess materiality and the statements' context. This can be done briefly—as stated in Section V, the Government is amenable to presenting that information through a stipulation and, in any event, through minimal additional evidence. The stipulation or other evidence could be crafted to minimize the risk of spillover prejudice, for instance by referring to by a pseudonym to avoid any connection she might have to testimony on the substantive counts. And any remaining prejudice could be vitiated by a limiting instruction that the jury should not consider allegations as evidence of the substantive counts.** See Page, 657 F.3d at 130-31 (approving of similar precautions when introducing evidence of a defendant's prior felony conviction); Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at \*7; see also Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540 ("[J]uries are presumed to follow their instructions." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). There is every reason to think a jury could and would follow such an instruction. See, e.g., , 546 F.3d at 254 (using a limiting instruction to prevent spillover prejudice for counts involving the sexual exploitation of different children, especially in light of admissibility across counts); United States v. Pena, 932 F. Supp. 2d 464, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (using a limiting instruction to address spillover prejudice from two murder for hire conspiracies). Indeed, even if the counts were severed, as noted above, the Government would still seek to offer evidence of the defendant's false denials of conduct relevant to Counts One through Four as evidence of her consciousness of guilt + +as to those counts, and would consent to a similar limiting instruction, which a jury would be presumed to follow. And, of course, in a severed trial exclusively on the perjury counts, the defendant would surely argue that a limiting instruction is necessary to prevent the jury from concluding that the defendant's statements were false based in part on the substance of unproven allegations. Just as a jury would set aside the substance of allegations for that purpose, so can the jury set aside the substance of allegations for Counts One through Four. + +The defendant contends instead that the perjury counts require a "collateral trial" on the truth of statements and resolution of "more than 50 substantive motions . . . pending before the District Court." (Del. Mot. 5 at 9-10). As described in Section V, a false statement in a civil deposition is material (1) if a "truthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit," United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753 (2d Cir. 1994), or (2) if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed," United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither of these standards requires the jury to determine whether the defendant's statements would have tipped the scales in the defamation suit or would likely have led to the discovery of evidence. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 771 (1988) ("It has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely than not have produced an erroneous decision, or even that it would more likely than not have triggered an investigation."); United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeiture because + +"such evidence might lead to evidence . . . which would justify forfeiture"). The jury need not decide the outcome of the defamation case in order to evaluate whether truthful answers were capable of influencing the decisionmaker or could reasonably have led to the discovery of admissible evidence.SO + +Finally, the defendant argues that is appropriate because including the perjury counts "will necessarily introduce into the trial the issue of Ms. Maxwell's credibility." (Def. Mot. 5 at 13). That is true anytime perjury or false statements counts are joined with other offenses, yet joining perjury or false statements counts to the substantive crimes they concern is the rule, not the exception. And more generally, the "adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than one" is not prejudice. Werner, 620 F.2d at 929. + +Trying the perjury counts with the Act counts they concern makes eminent sense. Doing so greatly advances judicial efficiency by avoiding the need for two trials at which the same evidence would be presented, including testimony from the same victims. Just as the counts are similar in character, the trial would not be unwieldy. Against these efficiencies, endorsed by the liberal joinder principles behind Rule 8, the defendant identifies at most only "generalized claim[s] of prejudice," 546 F.3d at 254, that can be cured by an appropriate limiting instruction. She thus falls far short of meeting her heavy burden, and her motion should be denied. + +54 The defendant relatedly suggests that her counsel from the defamation suit may have to testify regarding the perjury counts, denying her counsel of her choice. She has not identified what factual issue they might testify to and why it must come from one of the lawyers who represented her on both that case and this one. The Government notes, in this respect, that three of the defendant's attorneys in this case had no involvement in the civil suit. Even if such testimony were necessary by one of the defendant's lawyers, it would only disqualify the firm if that lawyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). + +#### VII. The Indictment Contains the Elements of Each Offense and Provides the Defendant More Than Adequate Notice of the Charges Against Her + +The defendant also moves to dismiss Counts One through Four on the grounds that the Indictment lacks specificity because it does not name minor victims, does not include specific dates, and uses language that the defendant claims not to understand. (Def. Mot. 12). The motion is meritless and should be denied. The plain language of the Indictment clearly and sufficiently sets forth every element of each crime charged, and the extensive details contained in the Indictment as further amplified through the voluminous discovery and the Government's various pre-trial filing describing the case and its anticipated proof at trial provide the defendant with more than sufficient notice of the charges against her. + +## A. Applicable Law + +It is well-established that "[a]n indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense(s) charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge(s) against which he must defend." United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) (citing United States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). As a result, "'an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime" in order to be sufficient. United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975)). As such, "[a] defendant faces a high standard in seeking to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (AJN), 2019 WL 6702361, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Additionally, "when deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all factual allegations in the indictment as true." Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d at 559. "A court should not look beyond the face + +of the indictment and draw inferences as to proof to be adduced at trial, for 'the sufficiency of the evidence is not appropriately addressed on a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment.' Id. (quoting United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d. Cir. 1998)). + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 states in part that an indictment "must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged ...." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). There are two constitutional requirements an indictment must satisfy in order to be sufficient: first, it must "contain() the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[] a defendant of the charge against which [sjhe must defend," and second, it must "enabler" a defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Handing, 418 U.S. at 117). "[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federal criminal statute is often sufficient . ..." Id. at 109. Asa general matter, "[a]n indictment does not . . . 'have to specify evidence or details of how the offence was committed.' United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal protection against double jeopardy," the Second Circuit "has repeatedly refused, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, to dismiss ... charges for lack of specificity." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). + +Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tracking the language of the statute, such cases are "very rare." Stringer, 730 F.3d at 125. For example, the Second Circuit has clarified that within this "less-common category" + +is the "specification of what statements are alleged to be false, and in what respect they are false, in charges of criminal falsity," as well as "the subject matter of the congressional inquiry" for charges of "refusal to answer questions in a congressional inquiry." Id. at 125-26 (citing, inter v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962)). Similarly, "where an indictment charges a crime that depends in turn on violation of another statute, the indictment must identify the underlying offense." United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2000). When delineating the contours of this narrow category of crimes requiring additional specificity in an indictment, the Second Circuit has previously found that the failure to name a specific victim of fraud does not render an indictment inadequate under this standard See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 127. In other words, absent some affirmative indication that additional specificity is required when charging a particular statute, there is no basis to conclude that an indictment need contain more than the elements of the offense and the approximate time and place of the alleged violation. See Wey, 2017 WL 237651 at •5 (declining to "depart from the usual sufficiency framework" where defendant "cites no authority" suggesting that the statutes at issue fall into the narrow exception to the general rule when considering motion to dismiss for lack of specificity). + +### B. Discussion + +Because each of the four counts at issue—Counts One, Two, Three, and Four—clearly lays out each element of the charged offense and adequately informs the defendant of the accusations against her, the Indictment easily satisfies the standard for sufficiency. Tellingly, the defendant does not claim that any of these counts fails to allege an essential element or to track the language of the relevant statute. Nor could she, as the face of the Indictment not only contains each and every essential element of the crimes charged, but also goes beyond the basic requirements for pleading each charge by providing additional factual background. Instead, the defendant baldly + +asserts that the crimes charged in Counts One through Four require additional specificity without citing any authority in support of such a broad claim. (See Def. Mot. 12 at 2). In particular, the defendant suggests that the failure to identify each minor victim by name, the presence of a date range rather than specific dates, and the use of certain language that the defendant claims not to understand render Counts One through Four so deficient that they must be dismissed. Because the defendant cites no authority indicating that violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2422, or 2423 fall into the rare exception to "the rule that `an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged,"' her motion should be denied. United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Nathan, J.) (quoting Stringer, 730 F.3d at 124). + +First, the use of pseudonyms to refer to minor victims of the charged conduct does not warrant dismissal of the Indictment. See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 124 (affirming sufficiency of fraud indictment "[n]otwithstanding its failure to specify the names of persons whose identifying documents were used" in scheme where prosecution provided victims' names in advance of trial). The identity of a victim is not required to be included on the face of a charging instrument, and the "lack of any identity or date of birth information of the alleged victims does not warrant dismissal" of charges alleging sexual abuse. United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). The defendant cites no law to the contrary and has not identified a single indictment in this District that includes the full names of minor victims of sexual abuse. Indeed, it makes good sense that a charging instrument alleging sexual abuse of minors would not include the full names of minor victims, whose privacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). + +Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to victims by pseudonyms, + +is particularly instructive here. See 386 F. Supp.3d at 366. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Marrero found Stringer's holding "that the identity of a victim was not required to be contained in an indictment, despite the centrality of the victim's identity to the charge" to be equally applicable in a case involving sex trafficking charges. Id. at 369. The same logic follows here. The use of pseudonyms to refer to the minor victims of sexual abuse in Counts One through Four is no more prejudicial to the defendant here than the absence of victim identities was to the defendants in Kidd or Stringer. This is especially so when the Government has already provided the defendant with the birth month and year of each victim, provided discovery regarding each victim, and has repeatedly indicated that it will provide the defendant with the names of its witnesses, including the minor victims referenced in the Indictment, four weeks in advance of trial. Such disclosure will ensure that the defendant is readily able to bar future prosecutions for the same offense, and together with the elements of each crime and additional details contained in in the Indictment, is more than sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. + +Second, the Indictment "state[s] the time and place (in approximate terms)" of the conduct alleged in Counts One through Four. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d at 693 (quoting Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113). In particular, Counts One through Four each allege that the defendant engaged in a continuing course of conduct involving the enticement and transportation of minors with intent to commit illegal sex acts, as well as conspiracies to do so, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997. See Indictment ¶¶ I, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19. Courts in the Second Circuit have consistently upheld indictments containing a range of time rather than a specific date. See, e.g., Kidd, 386. F. Supp. 3d at 369 ("[Th]e Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." (citing United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)); United States v. =, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL + +1838255, at \*1, 4-6 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss indictment charging enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a), "between in or about 2000 to in or about 2004," because "the Indictment states all the elements of the crime charged by tracking the statutory language," as well as "the nature of the criminal activity" and "the underlying facts"). + +"This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of offenses," including "[i]n cases of continuing sexual abuse," for which "it is sufficient for the indictment to specify a period of time rather than a specific date—in which defendant committed the acts at issue . ." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of remembering the exact dates when the alleged acts occurred, `fairly large time windows in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements.' Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at \*2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates when particular instances of abuse took place during their adolescence. This is especially so for Minor Victim-I, who experienced numerous instances of abuse over multiple years of her youth. Providing the approximate ranges of dates during which the offenses took place fully satisfies the requirements of an adequately pled charging instrument. The defendant cites no authority to the contrary, and her motion to dismiss should accordingly be denied. + +Third, the Indictment lists in clear detail the allegations relevant to each element of every criminal statute for which she is charged. Beyond simply "parroting the language of a federal criminal statute," Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. at 108, the Indictment provides extensive detail regarding how the defendant is alleged to have committed the crimes charged in Counts One through Four. See Indictment ¶¶ 1-11. Indeed, "by providing Defendant with a narrative of the manner in which Defendant is alleged to have committed the charged offenses, the Indictment provides Defendant with more detail than is strictly necessary" under the governing law. United States v. Kozel, No. 19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). + +Although the defendant complains that some of the terms used in the speaking portions of the Indictment are somehow vague, she cites no authority to suggest that her difficulty comprehending basic language in portions of a charging instrument that do not speak to the elements of the offense requires dismissal.S3 Counts One and Three, charging the defendant with violations of 18 U.S.0 § 371, "clearly contain[] the elements of the offense charged, fairly inform[' [her] of the charge[s] against [her], and enable[] [her] to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecution for the same offense." United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227, 229 (2d Cir. 2005). Counts Two and Four, charging violations of 18 U.S.0 §2422 and § 2243, respectively, similarly contain the elements of those offenses and adequately inform the defendant of the charges + +55 Alternatively, the defendant claims that the acts listed throughout the Indictment do not constitute illegal behavior. In this vein, the defendant makes specific reference to "grooming" as conduct that is not illegal. (Def. Mot. 12 at 4). The defendant cites no authority for this argument, which is contrary to Second Circuit law. In particular, the Second Circuit has for many years found grooming behavior to be a means to "persuade, induce, or entice" minors to engage in illegal sexual activity. See. e.g., United States v. Thompson, 896 F.3d 155, 173 (2d Cir. 2018) ("Our precedent, however, supports applying a broad definition of enticement in this context: that definition would reasonably include Thompson's grooming of the minor victims to act as he desired with regard to many matters over the months before he made the video."); United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 180 (2d Cir. 2010) ("We do not believe that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding, as a matter of fact, that these images were sent as part of a grooming process to persuade the agent to engage in the type of sexual conduct depicted in the images." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Brand's sexual advances and grooming behavior provide additional evidence in support of the jury's finding that Brand attempted to entice a minor."). In any event, whether grooming alone constitutes a crime is immaterial to the instant motion, and it will be for the jury to decide whether the evidence at trial, as a whole, establishes the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +against her. The Indictment also cites the relevant state criminal statute under which the defendant is charged constituting "sexual activity" within the language of both § 2422 and § 2243, specifically, violations of New York Penal Law § 130.55. Indictment ¶¶ 11(b), 13, 17(b), 19. The defendant cites no authority for her suggestion that by providing additional detail regarding how the defendant committed the charged crimes, the Government is somehow required to provide even more specificity beyond the basic elements of the crimes charged. Absent any such authority, and where there is no suggestion that the Indictment fails to allege the essential elements of each crime charged, there is no basis to dismiss any of the counts in the Indictment. + +For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's sufficiency challenges to the Indictment fail as a matter of law, and her motion to dismiss Counts One through Four should be denied. + +# VIII. There Is No Basis to Strike Any Portion of the Indictment + +The defendant moves to strike any reference to Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment, claiming that—contrary to the plain terms of the Indictment—the events involving Minor Victim-3 are unrelated to the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three and that some of that the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 are unduly prejudicial. (Def. Mot. 6). The motion is baseless. First, as the Indictment itself makes clear, the defendant's and Epstein's interactions with Minor Victim-3 were part of a broader scheme and agreement to entice and transport minor victims with intent to commit illegal sex acts. Even if Minor Victim-3 was not ultimately transported as a minor, the core of a conspiracy is an agreement to engage in criminal conduct; there is no legal requirement that the agreed upon crime be completed. Although Minor Victim-3's experiences cannot alone form the basis of a timely substantive charge, both charged conspiracies include timely overt acts, and it is well established that a charged conspiracy can encompass otherwise time-barred acts so long as at least one overt act in furtherance of the + +conspiracy is timely. Second, the description of Minor Victim-3's experiences in the Indictment is no more inflammatory or prejudicial than those regarding Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. Finally, even if evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 were not admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies—which it is—that evidence will be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. Accordingly, the motion to strike references to Minor Victim-3 as surplusage should be denied. + +### A. Relevant Facts + +As alleged in the Indictment, Minor Victim-3 was one of the minor girls whom the defendant groomed to engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. Minor Victim-3 was born in . At trial, the Government expects that Minor Victim-3 will testify,sb in substance and in part, that when she was , she met the defendant. After meeting Minor Victim-3, the defendant befriended Minor Victim-3 by, among other things, discussing Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. As a result, the defendant came to know Minor Victim-Vs age. + +56 While the Government is proffering these facts for purposes of this Motion, the underlying information, which is contained in the FBI 302 reports of interviews with Minor Victim-3, will be produced to the defense as 3500 material in advance of trial. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**B. Applicable Law** + +“Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, *see* Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), ‘[i]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments.’” *United States v. Bin Laden*, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting *United States v. Jimenez*, 824 F. Supp. 351, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)). “Motions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be granted only where the challenged allegations are ‘not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory or prejudicial.’” *United States v. Scarpa*, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting *United States v. Napolitano*, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). “‘[I]f evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken.’” *Id.* (brackets in original) (quoting *United States v. DePalma*, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); *see also United States v. Mulder*, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). “This standard is an exacting one, and only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment.” + +Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 724 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. M, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). + +In setting forth allegations in an indictment, the Government is not limited to description of only the bare elements of a crime; rather, an indictment may be used to provide background to the charged criminal conduct, to describe the circumstances, means, and methods of an offense, and to describe evidence that is otherwise admissible at trial. Simply put, "[s]tatements providing background are relevant and need not be struck." United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Mulder, 273 F.3d at 100). Allegations also will not be stricken where they elucidate the circumstances, means, and methods of a charged scheme or would be admissible, in the alternative, under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States v. 85 F.3d 1023, 1030 (2d Cir. 1996) (affirming denial of motion to strike surplusage where "[d]efendants' cocaine-related activity was clearly relevant evidence of the organizational structure and method of operation of their heroin conspiracy, and it also tended to establish the nature of the relationship between Defendants and their supplier of heroin, defendant Jose Antonio a' and citing Rule 404(6)). + +In terms of timing, "[c]ouds in this district routinely await presentation of the Government's evidence at trial before ruling on a motion to strike." Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 467 (citing, inter alia, Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 1012); see also United States v. Ahmed, No. 10 Cr. 131 (PKC), 2011 WL 5041456, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2011). As multiple courts have concluded, ""[t]here is little or no purpose in attempting to predict in advance of trial what evidence will prove admissible or how specific allegations relate to the overall charges.'" M, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 612 (brackets in original)(quoting United States v.=, 351 F. Supp. 121, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). + +#### C. Discussion + +The defendant's motion to strike should be denied—or at a minimum deferred until after the conclusion of the Government's direct case—because all of the challenged allegations pertain to evidence that will be relevant and admissible at trial, and are not unduly prejudicial. + +First, the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 are properly included in the Indictment's description of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three because evidence of those incidents is relevant and admissible at trial as direct evidence of the crimes charged. Counts One and Three allege that the defendant participated in conspiracies with Epstein both to transport minor victims and to entice minor victims to travel with the intent to commit illegal sex acts. Indictment ¶¶ 9-11, 15-17. In the course and as part of those conspiracies, the defendant groomed multiple minor victims for sexual abuse by Epstein through multiple methods, including befriending victims and encouraging minor victims to provide massages to Epstein knowing he would engage in sex acts with them. Id. I, 4, 7, 14. As detailed in the Indictment, that grooming was a fundamental part of both conspiracies because it encouraged minor victims to be alone with and to engage in sex acts with Epstein. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4, 14. It follows that the defendant's role grooming Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts with Epstein was a part of and therefore constitutes evidence of these conspiracies. Id. ¶¶ 7(c), 11(d), 17(d). + +The defense claims that because the Indictment does not allege that each element of substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423(a) was met as to Minor Victim-3, her experiences cannot be direct evidence of the conspiracies to violate those statutes charged in Counts One and Three. But that argument ignores a fundamental tenet of conspiracy law. It is axiomatic that a conspiracy does not require a completed substantive crime. See Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997) ("It is elementary that a conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensures, for the conspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the + +public, and so punishable in itself."). Indeed, "[i]t is well settled that the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy are: (I) that the defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit an offense; (2) the defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the specific intent to commit the offenses that were the objects of the conspiracy; and (3) that during the existence of the conspiracy, at least one of the overt acts set forth in the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998). + +Because a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor Victim-3 was ever in fact transported as a minor, or whether the elements of the substantive crimes of transportation an enticement are satisfied as to her. See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. What matters is whether the Indictment properly alleges that the defendant agreed to participate in schemes to transport and entice minors to travel with the intent that an illegal sex act would be committed, and whether the allegations at issue are relevant and admissible evidence of that conspiracy. Here, that is plainly the case. As alleged, the defendant's participation in recruiting and grooming Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts as a minor with Epstein during the period charged in the Indictment, is itself evidence of the defendant's agreements with Epstein to identify minor girls to entice and transport for purposes of illegal sex acts.37 Moreover, the + +\$7 The defendant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim-3 will testify to her subjective experience of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive at trial. While the Government will be careful to avoid suggesting to the jury that any consensual act committed after Minor Victim-3 was at or above the age of consent was itself criminal (as opposed to evidence of the charged conspiracies), to the extent defense counsel wishes to request a particular limiting instruction or to seek authorization for a particular line of cross-examination regarding the legality of any sex acts that took place in London, the appropriate forum to do so is in a motion in limine. + +Government further expects Minor Victim-3 will testify that , which is probative of the defendant's intent, in her initial interactions with Minor Victim-3, to entice Minor Victim-3 to travel and be transported for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts.' Thus, even if Minor Victim-3 did not travel as a minor, the events involving Minor Victim-3 outlined in the Indictment constitute direct and admissible evidence of the agreements between and the relationship of the defendant and Epstein. Because evidence regarding Minor Vitim-3 is therefore relevant and admissible at trial, there is no basis to strike these allegations from the Indictment. See Scaspa, 913 F.2d at 1013. Given the relevance of these allegations, the defendant has not satisfied the "exacting" standard required to justify striking portions of an Indictment. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 724 (quoting M, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 610). Accordingly, the motion should be denied, or, at the very least, deferred until "presentation of the Government's evidence at trial" after which the Court will have a full understanding of how Minor Victim-3's experiences fit into the charged conspiracies. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 467. + +The fact that the Government would be precluded, by virtue of the statute of limitations, from bringing a charge based exclusively on the experience of Minor Victim-3 is immaterial. It is well-established that a prosecution for a conspiracy is timely so long as the conspiracy exists and at least one timely overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy within the applicable statute of limitations. See United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Gnmewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957)); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397, 398 (2d Cir. 2012). + +sa egar ess, e su sequent mvitation emonstrates t e grooming an sex acts in Lon on were part of conspiracies to entice and transport minors. + +Accordingly, overt acts that may, on their own, be untimely can nevertheless serve as direct evidence of the existence of a charged conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 301-07, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (admitting evidence of otherwise untimely acts during conspiracy trial); cf. United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (declining to vacate a conviction on a statute with only prospective application when "the Government presented postenactment evidence sufficient to satisfy the elements" in addition to evidence of relevant preenactment conduct). Evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 is thus admissible to prove the existence of the conspiracy, even if a conviction could not be supported based on her experiences alone.59 + +The Government agrees with the defendant that Minor Victim-3 turned 25 before 2003 and, as a result, a substantive count based exclusively on conduct involving Minor Victim-3 is time-barred. As discussed above, however, the conduct involving Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 alleged in the Indictment is timely. Thus, if the jury concludes that the conspiracies existed, involved either Minor Victim-1 or Minor Victim-2, and included at least one overt act as to either Minor Victim-1 or Minor Victim-2, then Counts One and Three are not time-barred. See Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 614. Moreover, and so as to ensure that any count of conviction is based on timely conduct, the Government would have no objection to an appropriate instruction from + +" As a fallback argument, the defense cites United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998), in which a District Judge concluded that alleged overt acts involving concealment or "cover-ups" were not obviously within the scope of the charged conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Id. at 20, 24-26. Although the Court denied the motion to strike the alleged surplusage, it ordered the prosecution to provide a bill of particulars regarding the alleged acts of concealment. Id. at 26, 33. The case is readily distinguishable because the alleged surplusage in Hsia involved a completely different type of conduct—obstruction—than that charged in the indictment—fraud. Here, by contrast, the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 involve conduct that falls within the heartland of the conspiracy: grooming a minor girl to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein. Moreover, in both the Indictment and in this memorandum, the Government has provided extensive detail regarding Minor Victim-3's anticipated testimony, which avoids any concern that the defendant will be surprised at trial, which was the animating concern in Hsia. See id. at 33. As such, this motion does not offer a basis for a bill of particulars. + +the Court informing the jury that, to convict on any conspiracy count, it must find at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy that occurred within the statute of limitations. See Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d at 309 (describing a similar jury instruction provided for a conspiracy containing some allegations that were time-barred and others that were timely). Second, the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment are no more inflammatory or prejudicial than those describing the experiences of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. The references to "sexual abuse" accurately describe Minor Victim-3's experience of sex acts with Epstein as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive, and she will testify to that effect at trial. Moreover, because these acts were committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracies charged in the Indictment, it is neither misleading nor prejudicial to imply that this activity involved illegal conduct. More to the point, because evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 "is admissible and relevant to the charge[s]" contained in Counts One and Three of the Indictment, the language describing Minor Victim-3's experiences in the Indictment "may not be stricken" "regardless of how prejudicial the language is ...." Scalpa, 913 F.2d at 1013 (quoting DePalma, 461 F. Supp. at 797). Finally, even if Minor Victim-3's experiences did not constitute direct evidence of the crimes charged—which they do—this same evidence will also be admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) to prove the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides, in pertinent part: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. + +"[E]vidence of uncharged criminal conduct is not evidence of `other crimes, wrongs, or acts' under Rule 404(b) if that conduct is `inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense." United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1989)). Where "the indictment contains a conspiracy charge, uncharged acts may be admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy itself." United States v. M, 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. 116 F.3d 641, 682 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). "An act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy ... is not an `other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(6); rather, it is part of the very act charged." United States v.M=, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992). + +The Second Circuit "follows the inclusionary' approach to `other crimes, wrongs, or acts' evidence, under which such evidence is admissible unless it is introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant's bad character, or unless it is overly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403 or not relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402." United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulin, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible in a conspiracy case where they are used to (i) explain the development of the illegal relationship between coconspirators; (ii) explain the mutual criminal trust that existed between coconspirators; and/or (iii) complete the story of the crime charged. See M, 176 F.3d at 80; United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 1993). In addition, evidence of "other acts" is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it (i) is advanced for a proper purpose, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident," Fed. R. Evid. + +404(b)(2); (ii) is relevant to the crime for which the defendant is on trial; (iii) has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). + +Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi, all of which are permissible purposes under Rule 404(b). Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to recruit and encourage Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts with Epstein in the context of massages establishes that the defendant knew of Epstein's attraction to minor girls and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact with minor girls. Similarly, testimony regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3, including how the defendant befriended Minor Victim-3 and then encouraged her to engage in sex acts with Epstein, establishes that the defendant intended for minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein when she befriended them, invited them to travel, and arranged for their travel.60 Finally, the details of how the defendant interacted with Minor Victim-3 demonstrates that the defendant had a specific modus operandi when grooming minor girls to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. As with Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2, the defendant asked minor girls details about their lives, normalized sexual topics and activity, and used her presence as an adult woman to convince minor girls that the sexual activity Epstein initiated was normal and acceptable. "The similarity sufficient to admit evidence of past acts to establish a recurring modus operandi need not be complete; it is enough that the characteristics relied upon are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United + +60 Such evidence is particularly probative when it seems apparent from defense filings that the defendant plans to argue that even if she were somehow involved in transporting or traveling with minors, she had no knowledge or intent that they engage in sexual conduct with Epstein. + +States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein demonstrate the existence of such an idiosyncratic pattern warranting admission. + +Other acts evidence is, like all other evidence, inadmissible under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial, however, "only when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence." United States v. 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980). Other acts evidence is typically not unfairly prejudicial where it is not "any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes" with which the defendant has been charged. United States v. Rolan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). Here, as already discussed, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experiences with the defendant and Epstein are no more inflammatory or upsetting than those of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. Those experiences include a wide range of abuse at the hands of Epstein, including abuse that the defendant witnessed and participated in herself. Evidence regarding similar events involving Minor Victim-3, who was of a similar age and experienced similar types of sexual contact, is no more "sensational or disturbing" than the other acts detailed in the Indictment. Id. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g., United States v. =, 708 F. App'x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) ("As to the testimony concerning `grooming' of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under Rule 404(b), because it was probative of MI knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys' trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under Rule + +403."); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant's "e-mail responses to the Craigslist advertisements" for erotic services because the e-mails "were relevant to his knowledge and intent, because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual conduct"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting "evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the intemet in the period leading up to the charged conduct" under Rule 404(b) because evidence was "pertinent to whether he used the internet in an attempt to engage in sexual conduct with" victim). Accordingly, Rule 403 does not bar the admission of evidence regarding Minor Victim-3, especially given its probative value in demonstrating the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. + +In sum, because evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experience is admissible both as direct evidence of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. + +### IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature + +The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Del. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circuit has made clear that a multiplicity challenge does not become timely until after trial, this motion should be denied as premature. + +## A. Relevant Facts + +Count One charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to transport minors with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See Indictment 1119-11. Count Three charges the defendant with participating in + +a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to entice minors to travel with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). See Indictment 49 15-17. In other words, Count One and Count Three charge the defendant with agreeing to commit two separate and distinct federal crimes. + +#### B. Applicable Law + +The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution "protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Accordingly, a defendant cannot be sentenced for multiplicitous charges covering the same crime. "An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. M, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, `unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'" (quoting United States v. 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a defendant does have a right not to be punished twice for the same crime. United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, "[i]f the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant's right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts." Id. Similarly, where the judgment of conviction has already been entered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. + +The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's dismissal of count as multiplicitous prior to trial, as such a determination before trial is "at best premature"). Among other reasons, courts look to "the record as a whole in determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous," and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed."). + +Following the Second Circuit's directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "'[c]ourts in this Circuit have routinely denied pretrial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature." (quoting United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014))); United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count in light of "the Circuit's controlling view that the question of multiplicitousness is properly considered only at a later point in the proceedings"); United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("[M]ultiplicity is properly addressed by the trial court at the sentencing stage."); United States v. Ghavami, No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW), 2012 WL 2878126, at \*I I (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012) ("To the extent that the Indictment alleges more than one conspiracy . . . , Defendants' multiplicity challenge is premature. Should the jury convict Defendants on what the Court ultimately determines to be multiplicitous counts, + +the Court will enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous convictions." (citations omitted)); United States v. , No. 09 Cr. 619 (SW), 2011 WL 1429125, at \*4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011) ("Since it is possible that the jury will convict defendants on only one (1) of the respective counts that they allege are multiplicitous, and acquit defendants on all of the counts with which they allege that count is multiplicitous, the issue of whether the counts are multiplicitous in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is premature at the pretrial stage."). + +## C. Discussion + +The defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One or Three of the Indictment as multiplicitous is, at best, premature. Consistent with the directive of the Second Circuit, this Court should defer ruling on this motion until after the completion of trial. The additional time will ensure that the full factual record is developed before the Court conducts the multiplicity analysis, and the motion may become moot depending on the jury's verdict. + +First, the Court cannot conduct the multiplicity analysis before hearing all of the evidence regarding the charges contained in the Indictment. Prior to trial, the record will not be fully developed, and the Court cannot conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether the counts are in fact multiplicitous. Consistent with the directive of the Second Circuit and the consistent practice in this District, the Court should defer conducting any multiplicity analysis until after hearing all of the evidence at trial. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355. + +Second, the motion may become moot because it is possible that the jury could conclude that the defendant is guilty of one of the charged conspiracies but not guilty of the other. That is because each charged conspiracy alleges that the defendant agreed to violate a different criminal statute. Count One alleges that the defendant agreed to transport minors with the intent that they engage in illegal sex acts. Count Three alleges that the defendant agreed to entice minors to travel + +with the intent that they engage in illegal sex acts. In other words, Count One requires proof of an agreement to transport, while Count Three requires proof of an agreement to entice. Transportation does not necessarily require enticement, and likewise enticement to travel does not necessarily require transportation. See United States v. Griffith, No. 99 Cr. 786 (HB), 2000 WL 1253265, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) (denying post-trial motion to dismiss as multiplicitous 18 U.S.C. § 2422 transportation charge and 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) enticement charge involving same alleged conduct and noting "[t]hat persuasion and transportation involve proof of different facts is hardly contentious"). + +Here, it is possible that the jury could conclude, after hearing all the evidence, that the defendant agreed to transport one or more minors interstate, but that she did not agree to entice minors to travel. For example, the jury could theoretically conclude that although the defendant agreed to arrange transportation for a minor victim, the defendant herself did not agree to persuade or entice a minor victim to travel. Likewise, the jury could theoretically conclude that the defendant agreed to entice, or encourage, one or more minors to travel interstate, but she did not agree to actually transport or assist in the transportation itself. Although the Government expects to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in fact agreed both to entice and to transport one or more minor victims, it is possible that the jury may reach a different conclusion. Depending on the inferences the jury draws from the evidence presented at trial, it could convict on one conspiracy count while acquitting on the other, or it could conclude that the defendant agreed both to transport and to entice, in which case it could convict on both counts. That possibility means that a motion to dismiss counts as multiplicitous is premature. Because the Government has the discretion to present to the jury both the theory that the defendant agreed to transport and the theory that the defendant agreed to entice, the defense motion is premature. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at + +355 ("It is well established that l[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion,' and 'a defendant has no constitutional right to elect which of two applicable federal statutes shall be the basis of his indictment and prosecution . .'" (brackets and ellipses in original) (quoting United States v. 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979)). + +Only after the Court has heard all of the evidence at trial and received the jury's verdict will the defense motion be ripe. Accordingly, the motion should be denied as premature. + +# X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denied + +Maxwell's motions also include an assortment of requests for orders requiring the Government to make various disclosures, all of which are meritless or, at best, premature. + +# A. Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted + +First, the defendant moves for a bill of particulars, demanding the Government set out an array of details regarding the Government's theory of its case and anticipated witness testimony. The defendant, like all defendants, is entitled to sufficient information to understand the charges against her, to prepare a defense, and to protect against double jeopardy. However, the Government has provided such information, and much more, in the Indictment, extensive discovery, and various pretrial filings, including this memorandum. The defendant will also receive trial exhibits, a witness list, and Jencks Act material reasonably in advance of trial. As such, she has not established an entitlement to a bill of particulars under well-established governing law. + +# 1. Applicable Law + +The proper purpose of a bill of particulars under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(t) is "to provide defendant with information about the details of the charge against him if this is necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required 'only where the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.' United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 901 F.2d at 234); see United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014). + +In exercising its broad discretion to determine whether the charges are so general that they require supplementation through a bill of particulars, the Court should consider not just the text of the Indictment, but also discovery and other information supplied to the defendant to date. See United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987); see also, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at \*7 (denying request for bill of particulars where indictment charged sex trafficking conspiracy spanning two decades because indictment and discovery "would suggest that defendant has enough information to apprise him of the charges with enough precision to enable him to prepare a defense, avoid unfair surprise at trial, and preclude a second prosecution for the same offense"); United States v. Block, No. 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905, at •6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) (denying request for bill of particulars as to alleged fraud and unindicted co-conspirators where indictment sufficiently advised defendant of nature of charges against him and described with specificity acts he allegedly committed, nature of conspiracy, and explained in language closely tracking statute crimes alleged); United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) (denying request for bill of particulars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying bill of particulars request in fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and substantial discovery had been provided). + +Although the Government cannot provide "mountains of documents to defense counsel" as a substitute for a bill of particulars where one would otherwise be required, see Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575, the provision of voluminous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four pages long and Government had provided voluminous, organized discovery). In no event should volume of discovery alone warrant a bill of particulars; "[w]hile [a] [c]ourt may sympathize with counsel's task of reviewing a large quantity of materials that continue to be produced," that concern is addressed by granting the defense sufficient time in which to conduct the review in advance of trial. See United States v. Levy, No. 11 Cr. 62 (PAC), 2013 WL 664712, at \*13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013). + +A bill of particulars would undoubtedly be helpful to the defense in any case. But "the law does not impose upon the Government an obligation to preview its case or expose its legal theories," United States v. Leonelli, 428 F. Supp. 880, 882 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), and therefore "[t]he ultimate test must be whether the information sought is necessary, not whether it is helpful." United States v. Milk!, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (emphasis added); Mahabub, 2014 WL 4243657, at \*2 ("The purpose of a bill of particulars is to ensure that a defendant has the information necessary to prepare a defense, not to turn over all information that would aid the defendant."); United States v. Rithveger, 259 F. Supp. 2d 275, 292-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying bill of particulars request as "'an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the + +evidentiary details of its case" (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). + +A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose "the manner in which it will attempt to prove the charges, the precise manner in which the defendant committed the crime charged, or a preview of the Government's evidence or legal theories." Mal, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569; see also 901 F.2d at 234 ("Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars."' (quoting Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45, 49 (8th Cir. 1968))). The "wheres, whens and with whoms"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Milk'', 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing =, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particulars is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the government to disclose evidence or witnesses to be offered prior to trial.'" (quoting United States v. MI 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561, 580 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ("A bill of particulars is not designed to: obtain the government's evidence; restrict the government's evidence prior to trial; assist the defendant's investigation; obtain the precise way in which the government intends to prove its case; interpret its evidence for the defendant, or disclose its legal theory."); United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190, 1197 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ("This instrument should not function to disclose evidence, witnesses, and legal theories to be offered by the Government at trial or as a general investigative tool for the defense."). + +There are good reasons why bills of particulars are warranted only where the allegations in the indictment, as supplemented by discovery and other disclosures, are so general as to render it impossible to prepare a defense. Because "a bill of particulars confines the Government's proof + +to particulars furnished," it can "restrict unduly the Government's ability to present its case." Henry, 861 F. Supp. at 1197; see also Mit!of 2014 WL 4243657, at \*2 (recognizing that "care must be taken" because "[t]he government's presentation of evidence at trial is limited to the particulars contained in the bill"); United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) ("The vehicle of a bill of particulars serves to inform a defendant of the nature of the charge, when he is otherwise insufficiently informed, and must not be misused to compel disclosure of how much the Government can prove, nor to foreclose the Government from using proof it may develop as the trial approaches."). Moreover, where the Government's provision of particulars is tantamount to an itemized preview of its proof, it creates the very real danger that a defendant will "tailor her testimony to explain away the Government's case." Henry, 861 F. Supp. at 1197. These concerns animate the rule that "if the defendant has been given adequate notice of the charges against her and can prepare fully for trial with reasonably diligent efforts, the Government cannot be required to disclose additional details about its case." Id. + +## 2. Discussion + +There is no basis for a bill of particulars in this case. The charges against the defendant are clear from the face of the Indictment, which provides significant detail regarding the charged crimes. As is apparent from the 18-page Indictment, the charges concern the defendant's participation in conspiracies to transport and entice minor girls to travel with the intent that they engage in illegal sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein from 1994 through 1997, and the defendant's attempt to cover up that conduct during her civil deposition testimony in 2016. Specifically, the Indictment makes plain that the defendant is charged with engaging in a conspiracy to transport minor girls with intent that they engage in sexual activity with Epstein, engaging in a conspiracy to entice minor girls to travel with the intent that they engage in sexual activity with Epstein, aiding and abetting the transportation and enticement of a particular minor girl interstate for the purpose of engaging in sex acts with Epstein, and lying about those same crimes during her 2016 civil deposition testimony. The charged time periods are made plain in each count, as is the statute she is accused of violating. + +The speaking Indictment in this case goes above and beyond a mere recitation of the elements of each offense by detailing the defendant's specific role in the crimes charged. Among other things, it specifies three minor victims in particular and describes the steps the defendant took with respect to each as part of the charged crimes. See. e.g., Indictment ¶ 7. Additionally, the Indictment details the types of sex acts that Epstein committed with the minor victims as part of the charged crimes and the locations where those acts occurred. See, e.g., id.1 5-6. In this way, the Indictment makes clear the Government's theory that the defendant groomed three minor girls to engage in sex acts in Florida, New Mexico, New York, and London with Epstein between 1994 and 1997. The Indictment further specifies during which portion of that period each of those three victims interacted with the defendant and Epstein as minors. See id. ¶ 7. Additionally, the Indictment identifies the precise answers that the Government alleges constituted perjury, and alleges facts, in the earlier portions of the Indictment, that indicate how and why the Government will seek to prove the answers were false. Compare id. 11 21, 23 with id. ¶9 1-11. Simply put, this is not a case in which the allegations in the Indictment "are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused." Walsh, 194 F.3d at 47 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting =, 901 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ('"[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' + +Particulars are necessary only where indictment charges are ‘so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.’” (internal citation omitted) (quoting [REDACTED], 901 F.2d at 234; *United States v. Chen*, 378 F.3d 151, 163 (2d Cir. 2004)); *United States v. Wedd*, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) (denying motion for bill of particulars where “the Indictment is a ‘speaking’ Indictment that provides a significant amount of detail as to the Government’s theory of the case and the nature of the proof that will underlie the charges at trial”). + +Additional particularity relating to the details of the counts in the Indictment might be helpful for the defendant, but that is both true in every case and not the appropriate standard. Instead, the inquiry is properly focused on whether the information already available to her is so general that a bill of particulars is *necessary* to the preparation of her defense. Plainly it is not. In addition to the speaking Indictment, the defendant has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery in this case. Although that is a high volume of discovery, it is clear from the defense’s own motion that the defense has apparently already reviewed that material (at least in significant part), identified relevant materials therein, and is aware of their relevance to the allegations in the Indictment. (*See, e.g.*, Def. Mot. 10 at 6). Indeed, much of the discovery is text searchable, and the time period that each document relates to is readily ascertainable. + +In this vein, the defendant has received [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED].61 [REDACTED] + +--- + +61 Records of commercial flights were unavailable by the time the Government opened its investigation in this case. Accordingly, the Government has no records of commercial flights that the defendant, Epstein, or any victims may have taken during the relevant period. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] and the Government has provided the defense with the birth month and year of each minor victim.62 + +In other words, as the Government has previously indicated, the discovery provides the defendant with more than sufficient information about the three minor victims to permit her to prepare for trial. The discovery also provides the defense the ability to identify specific private plane flights that are relevant to the Indictment. Any remaining detail regarding the specifics of abuse, particular interactions, and additional trips will come from witness testimony. As is to be expected when describing events more than two decades in the past, that testimony will provide approximate time periods when events occurred, rather than specific dates. Given the information the defendant already has from the discovery, the Indictment, and the Government’s court filings (including this memorandum), any additional detail would essentially serve as early Jencks Act production, allowing the defendant to tailor any testimony to the Government’s case. The discovery gives the defense ample information to assist in its investigation, and given the defense’s + +--- + +62 In this memorandum, the Government has also clarified that Minor Victim-3 was 17 years old at the time of the events described in the Indictment involving her. *See* Section VIII, *supra*. + +apparent ability to understand who the three victims are from the productions, there is no real concern that the defense will waste efforts conducting any such investigation before receiving Jencks Act material.61 + +Moreover, with respect to the perjury counts, to the extent there could plausibly be any remaining ambiguity about the nature of the charges, the Government has addressed and resolved such ambiguity in responding to the instant motions. In this memorandum, the Government has summarized how the defendant's false statements during her deposition were material to the pending civil litigation. See Section V, supra. Perhaps more importantly, the defendant personally participated in that civil litigation, and she is undoubtedly quite familiar with it. + +Together, the discovery productions, briefing in which the Government has described aspects of its evidence and theory (see, e.g., Government Memorandum in Opposition to Renewed Bail Motion, Dec. 18, 2020, Dkt. No. 100, at 8-12), the contents of this memorandum, and the details contained in the Indictment more than adequately inform the defendant of the charges against her. This is simply not a case where the "relevance of key events [are] shrouded in mystery." See Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574. Accordingly, the Court should deny the motion for a bill of particulars. + +#### B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied + +#### 1. Applicable Law + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 "does not require the Government to furnish the names and addresses of its witnesses in general." United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139 (2d + +63 Although the victims' identities are clear from the discovery, and the defendant's motion makes clear that she strongly suspects their identities, there is no basis to require the Government to turn over the names of its witnesses, including its victim-witnesses in advance of its Jencks Act production, which is customary in this District. See Section X.B., infra. + +Cir. 1990). Thus, "Ii]n the absence of a specific showing that disclosure [of a witness list] [is] both material to the preparation of [the] defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding [the] case,' the request for a witness list should be denied." United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Bejasa, 904 F.2d at 139-40). "Courts in the Second Circuit typically deny motions for the early disclosure of witness lists where, as here, Defendants have not made a specific showing of need." United States v. , No. 16 Cr. 175 (LGS), 2017 WL 1843302, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2017). The claim that "given the complexity of the case, disclosure of the government witness list will level the playing field" amounts to an "abstract statement of need" that does not justify provision of a witness list. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 309. + +The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, covers disclosure of statements or reports made by Government witnesses, and the rule mandates that such materials not be the subject of discovery or inspection "until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a); see also United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he Jencks Act prohibits a District Court from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements."); United States v. Thompson, No. 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying request for early production of Jencks Act material in light of Coppa). + +Typically in this District, and as is the case here, the Government confirms that it will produce 3500 material and Giglio (or impeachment) material reasonably in advance of trial, and will engage in good faith discussions with the defense regarding a schedule for pretrial disclosures. See United States v. Sergentakis, No. 05 Cr. 230 (JFK), 2005 WL 1994014, at \*1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2005) ("18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) calls for production of Government witness statements after the witness 'has testified on direct examination.' The Government response ... that Ic]onsistent + +with the regular practice in this District, the Government intends to make Section 3500 material available to the defense at the same time as impeachment material, [and that] in order to avoid any delay in the trial, the Government will produce such material sufficiently in advance of each Government witness's testimony' ... is more than adequate."); United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. 338 (JGK), 1999 WL 9848, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999) ("[T]he Government has indicated that it is aware of its obligations under Giglio ... and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for crossexamination. These representations are suff►cient."). + +### **2. Discussion** + +**Trial is still more than four months away. The degree of complexity to this case, and the volume of discovery, is on par with other recent high-profile trials in this District, and in those cases witnesses have typically been disclosed approximately three to four weeks before trial. E.g., Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK); Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK); Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC); Ulbricht, 14 Cr. 68 (KBF). As the Government has noted for some time now, the Government intends to match or even go above and beyond that practice in this case. Specifically, the Government has offered repeatedly to provide non-testifying witness statements to the defense as much as eight weeks before trial, thereby allowing extra time for the defense to determine whether it wishes to call any of the witnesses the Government does not intend to present at trial, and to provide testifying witness statements and Giglio material as much as four weeks in advance of trial. Given that the defense has already been able to initiate its investigation of the charges, and given that the discovery makes clear who the three minor victims are, eight weeks should be ample time to review non-testifying witness statements, and four weeks is more than enough time** to review the statements of testifying witnesses. The Government remains open to engaging in good faith discussions with the defense to mutually agree on a schedule for reciprocal pretrial disclosures." Accordingly, the motion for a witness list and early production of Jencks Act material should be denied. + +### C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied + +The defendant also makes a variety of motions seeking disclosures to which she is not entitled, all of which should be denied. + +First, the defendant requests , which the defense attached to their motion as Exhibit B. (Def. Mot. l0 at 7-8). The defense assumes that because thereby, according to the defense, rendering any record of those interviews exculpatory. But that defense theory rests on a faulty premise. The Government has reviewed the document memorializing and confirmed that it inculpates the defendant and contains nothing exculpatory. The Government has also reviewed and confinned that it also inculpates the defendant. The Government has, however, identified a single line in that could arguably be considered helpful to the defense.' With the possible exception of that one line, there is nothing exculpatory contained + +64 The Government has requested reciprocal discovery from the defendant and, to date, she has produced nothing. + +In articular + +in Accordingly, the records of these interviews constitute witness statements covered by the Jencks Act and are not subject to disclosure by statute until after each witness has completed direct examination at trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500. As noted above, however, the Government fully intends to provide all Jencks Act material of both testifying and non-testifying witnesses, which will of course include the records relating to these interviews, to the defense multiple weeks in advance of trial. The Government respectfully submits that is sufficient to meet its obligations with respect to these documents, and the defendant's motion for their immediate disclosure should be denied. + +Second, the defendant's request for an unredacted copy of the FBI report attached to the Defense Motion as Exhibit C should be denied as moot because the Government has already produced an unredacted copy of that report to the defense. (Def. Mot. 10 at 8-9). Specifically, the document was produced without redactions under numbers SDNY\_GM\_00380550 through SDNY GM 00380554 as part of the Government's discovery production dated November 9, 2020." This motion should accordingly be denied as moot. + +Third, the defendant's request for unredacted copies of the FBI report regardingis based purely on her speculation that the redacted portions of those materials contain exculpatory information. (Def. Mot. 10 at 8-9). Once again, the + +Out of an abundance of caution, today the Government has informed defense counsel o t is single line + +66 Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a search warrant for one of Epstein's devices and was produced to defense counsel in the form in which it was recovered from the device. In other words, defense counsel has received two copies of this same document: the redacted version that Epstein had on one of his devices, and the unredacted version from the FBI's files. + +Government has reviewed the full report and confirmed that there is nothing exculpatory contained therein. To the contrary, the report inculpates the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to its immediate disclosure. The Government will produce an unredacted version of this document together with all other witness statements in advance of trial.67 + +Fourth, the defense requests production of pages from a personal diary that is in the custody of a civilian third party and is not in the custody or control of the Government. (Def. Mot. 10 at 10). Leaving aside the fact that the defense cites no authority for the proposition that the Government has an obligation to obtain the personal papers of a third party, see United States v. 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Government's 'Brady obligations extend only to materials within prosecutors' possession, custody or control or, in appropriate cases, that of the Department of Justice, perhaps another part of the Executive Branch, or a comparable state authority involved in the federal prosecution.'" (quoting United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742 (S.D.N.Y. 2018))), the Government has already represented that it has asked the third party at issue about the materials the defendant purports to seek and that no such materials exist. In particular, to the extent the defense is concerned with whether there are diary entries from the spring of 1996, the Government has already indicated in response to the defendant's second bail motion that it is aware of none. (See Dkt. No. 100 at 11 n. 2 ("Because this victim stopped writing in her journal about a month after that first meeting with Epstein, there are no entries regarding the subsequent trip she took months later to visit Epstein, during which she met the defendant. This victim provided the Government with copies of her journal entries relating to Epstein and informed the Government that the remaining entries are personal in nature and have nothing to do with + +67 As is the case with the other redacted document referenced in this motion, the redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit D was recovered during the execution of a search warrant for one of Epstein's devices and was produced to defense counsel in the form in which it was recovered from the device. + +Epstein or the defendant.")). In other words, the defendant again seeks supposedly exculpatory evidence that does not exist. The defendant offers no basis on which to conclude that this representation is false or that any such evidence does in fact exist. As such, this motion should be denied. + +Fifth, the defendant asks this Court, again without citing any legal authority, to order the Government to produce copies of all subpoenas it has issued for the defendant's records as part of its investigation in this case. (Def. Mot. 10 at 11). This incredibly broad request is nothing more than a fishing expedition inappropriately seeking the details of investigative requests made through the grand jury process. The defense has cited no legal basis for the Court to direct the Government to provide the defense with copies of the subpoenas themselves (as opposed to records or other materials received in response to such subpoenas), let alone every subpoena issued for the defendant's records during a multi-year and ongoing grand jury investigation. The types of requests issued by the grand jury have no conceivable bearing on the defense or on any motion the defense may seek to bring. The Government has already produced to the defense all discoverable material that it has received in response to subpoenas issued to date during this investigation. In the absence of any legal authority justifying this request, it should be denied. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above in Sections land IV, the defendant is not entitled to discovery or a hearing relating to her motion to dismiss the Indictment based on the NPA or her motion to suppress subpoena returns. + +Sixth, the defendant asks the Court to direct the Government to immediately disclose any Brady and Giglio material. (Def. Mot. 10 at 11-13). The motion for disclosure of Brady material should be denied as moot because the Government has conducted a search for any such material and has already disclosed any potentially exculpatory information in its possession of which it is aware, consistent with the Rule 5(t) Brady order previously issued by the Court in this case. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f); Dkt. No. 68. The Government recognizes its continuing obligation to disclose any Brady material, and to make a diligent search for any relevant material that may be in the possession of the prosecution team, including investigating agents and officers. As the Government has already emphasized in this case, the Government takes its disclosure obligations very seriously and has committed to being transparent with the Court and the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material and Rule 16 material and has produced more than 2.7 million pages of discovery as a result of that review. These productions have included specific disclosures of certain witness statements that may arguably be exculpatory. The Government also intends to produce all statements and potential impeachment material in its possession regarding any potential witness identified during its investigation, including those individuals whom the Government does not intend to call at trial. As discussed below, the Government is in the process of reviewing all files in its possession for potential impeachment material. The Government remains cognizant of its Brady obligations and will promptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. + +The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. Courts in this Circuit routinely deny specific requests for Brady material where, as here, the Government has made a good-faith representation to the court and defense counsel that it recognizes and has complied with its disclosure obligations under Brady. See, e.g., Thompson, 2013 WL 6246489 at •9 ("In light of the Government's `good-faith representation to the court and defense counsel that it recognizes and has complied with its disclosure obligations under Brady,' defendants' request for immediate or otherwise early production of Brady materials is denied." (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. , 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y.1996))); Gallo, 1999 WL 9848, at \*8 (denying defendant's motion to compel production of purported Brady material based on Government's representations that "it is aware of its obligations under Brady . . . and will produce any Brady material to the defense well before trial"); United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) ("The Government represents that it is aware of its obligation under Brady; that it has complied; and will continue to comply. That is sufficient to deny Defendants' motion for Brady relief." (internal citations omitted)). Given the Government's extensive efforts to review its files for any material warranting disclosure, and its commitment to continue meeting its disclosure obligations, the motion should be denied. + +For similar reasons, the motion for disclosure of Giglio material should be denied as premature. The Government is fully aware of its obligation to disclose impeachment material, is in the process of reviewing all files in its possession for any such material, and will produce any such material several weeks in advance of trial. As noted above, that is consistent with governing law in this Circuit, and the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that she is entitled to such material as much as four months in advance of trial. Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly refused to compel disclosure of impeachment or Giglio material well in advance of trial, and the defense has provided no particularized basis for even earlier disclosure here. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 701 (1974) ("Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial."); Campo Flores, 2016 WL 5946472, at \*11 ("The Government has represented that it will make impeachment material relating to its + +anticipated witnesses available . . . ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) ("The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and 404(b) obligations and will comply with them in a timely fashion, as appropriate. Based on the Government's representations, and on the current posture of this case, the Court expects that the Government will comply timely with all of its obligations under Brady, Giglio, the Jencks Act, and Rule 404(b), and does not find a need to order compliance at this time." (internal citation omitted)); Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 308 ("Here the government has represented that it intends to produce Giglio material no later than the Friday of the week before a witness is scheduled to testify at trial, in accordance with its usual practice. To the extent that the government's disclosure in this case proves unusually voluminous or complex, the government has in good-faith represented that it intends to produce Giglio material sufficiently in advance of their witnesses' testimony so as to avoid any delay in trial. At the time of those disclosures, to the extent that Defendants feel that additional time is necessary given the volume or complexity of the materials provided, the Court will consider applications to continue or recall witnesses. It is unnecessary, however, to order early disclosure at this time."); United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying analogous motion and noting that "(i]t has been the practice of this Court and of other courts in this district to require that the Government produce these materials a few days before the start of trial"). Because the Government has committed to providing the defense with Giglio material multiple weeks in advance of trial, which is ample time for the defense to prepare its cross-examination of the Government's witnesses, this motion should be denied. + +Seventh, the defendant seeks a proffer of all co-conspirator statements that the Government intends to offer at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(dX2)(E). (Def. Mot. 10 at 13- 14). In making this motion, the defense cites authority confirming that co-conspirator statements may be admitted at trial on a conditional basis without the need for any pretrial consideration of their admissibility. See United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993) ("The decision as to whether the four prerequisites have been met, like all other preliminary questions of admissibility, is to be made by the court. If the government succeeds in persuading the court that the conditionally admitted coconspirator statements were made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy of which both the declarant and the defendant were members, the statements are allowed to go to the jury. If the court is not so persuaded, it either should instruct the jury to disregard the statements, or, if those statements were 'so large a proportion of the proof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act. See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court's order directing the Government "to produce all oral statement made by the defendants and coconspirators that the Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a defendant" under Fed. R. Evid. 801). Consistent with the Government's intention to produce Jencks Act material several weeks in advance of trial, the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements with sufficient time to raise any objections with the Court. Accordingly, this motion should be denied + +Finally, the defendant requests early disclosure of Rule 404(b) material that the Government may seek to introduce at trial. (Def. Mot. 10 at 17). As is customary in this district, the Government will provide notice to the defense of its intent to use any such evidence at least 45 days in advance of trial, which will leave sufficient time for the defense may file any motions in limine to be considered at the final pretrial conference. See Thompson, 2013 WL 6246489 at •9 ("The Government has represented that it will disclose the substance of [the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce at trial] ... in a timely fashion in order to permit the defendants the opportunity to challenge admission and to permit the Court to make an appropriate finding. This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." (alterations in original) (internal citation omitted)); United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("The Government has indicated that it will make the required disclosure two weeks prior to trial, a practice that typically comports with Rule 404(b)); United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp. 2d 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("The government has in good faith noted its obligations under Rule 404(6), and indicated that it intends to provide notice of the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce two weeks before the beginning of trial. There is therefore no need to issue the order Defendant seeks."). Accordingly, this motion should be denied. + +# XL The Use of a Grand Jury Siting in Plains Was Entirely Proper + +On June 29, 2020, amidst a global pandemic that suspended grand juries across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sitting in Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a "faircross section of the community," and moves to dismiss the Indictment under the Sixth Amendment. (Def. Mot. 9 at I). As set forth below, the defendant's arguments rely on faulty + +premises, and at any rate fail to meet the elements of a claim under the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, the defendant's motion must be denied. + +### A. Background + +### 1. The SDNY and Local Rules for the Division of Business + +The defendant's brief repeatedly uses the term "Division" to describe a Plains Division" and a "Manhattan Division." (See, e.g., Def. Mot. 9 at 2 ("On June 29, 2020, the government filed a sealed indictment of Ms. Maxwell in the Manhattan Division of this Court. The government has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some background. + +District courts in each state in the United States are prescribed by statute. United States district courts in New York State are divided between four districts: Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western. 28 U.S.C. § 112. While certain districts in other states are further divided into "divisions" by statute, see, e.g., id. § 81 (dividing Alabama into three "districts" and multiple "divisions" within each district), the federal districts in New York State are not so divided. That is, in the Southern District, no "divisions" have been created by statute. Id. § 112(b). The statute provides only that "Court for the Southern District shall be held at New York, Plains, and in the Middletown-Wallkill area of Orange County or such nearby location as may be deemed appropriate." Id. + +In the Southern District, the only authority determining whether particular cases are heard in the Manhattan or Plains courthouse is the SDNY Business Division Rules. These rules begin with an important preface: they "shall not be deemed to vest any rights in litigants . . . ." SDNY Business Division Rules, available at httpsilwww.nysd.uscourts.govisitesidefault/files/ local \_rules/ rules-20184 0-29.pdf. Moreover, the Rules do not describe—much less limit—what matters may be heard by what grand jury. Cf. SDNY Business Division Rule 6 (describing proceedings after an indictment has been returned). Rather, the Rules provide only that once an indictment is returned, "[t]he U.S. attorney designates on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse. See, e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. + +#### 2. The SDNY Jury Plan + +The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. (the "JSSA"), provides the structure for the selection of juries in federal district courts. The JSSA requires each district to "devise and place into operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit jurors ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). Each district in New York selects grand and petit juries pursuant to a plan adopted by the judges of the district and approved by the Judicial Conference of the Second Circuit. Id.; see also United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19, 23 (2d Cir. 1995). The plan for the Southern District has been in place since February 2009. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors in the Southern District of New York, available at hlipsilwww.nysd.uscourts.govisitesidefault/files/pdfouryplanyeb\_2009.pdf (the "SDNY Jury Plan," or the "Plan"). + +Under the terms of the SDNY Jury Plan, the initial selection of persons to be considered for service as grand and petit jurors are made at random from voter registration lists. SDNY Jury Plan at Art. III.A. Two Jury Wheels are constructed from these lists: one for the Manhattan courthouse and one for the Plains courthouse. Id. at Art. III.B. The Manhattan Jury Wheel draws from voter lists from the following counties: New York, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland. See id. at Art. III.C. The Plains Jury Wheel draws from voter lists from the following counties: Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, , and Dutchess. See id. Both Jury Wheels are emptied and refilled no later than September 1 following the date of each Presidential Election. Id. at Art. III.B. + +To meet anticipated demand for jurors, names are drawn randomly from the Jury Wheels. Id. at Art. III.D. These individuals are sent a questionnaire to examine their qualifications and availability for jury service. Id. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b), all persons are qualified for jury service unless he or she: + +- (1) Is not a citizen of the United States at least eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district; +- (2) Is unable to read, write, and understand English with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out the juror qualification questionnaire; +- (3) Is unable to speak English; +- (4) Is incapable, by mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service; or +- (5) Has a charge pending for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court, of a felony and his or her civil rights have not been restored. + +Id. at Art. VII. Additionally, certain persons are declared exempt from jury service, including active service members in the Armed Forces of the United States, members of fire or police + +departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(bX6). Finally, because jury service for certain groups of individuals would "entail undue hardship or extreme inconvenience," those individuals are excused or deferred upon individual request. SDNY Jury Plan at Art. VI. These groups include: + +- (1) Persons over 70 years of age; +- (2) Persons having legal custody and active daily care of a child under the age of 12, or who are essential to the daily care of aged or infirm persons; +- (3) Persons who have satisfactorily served as grand or petit jurors in a State or Federal court within the last four years; +- (4) Volunteer safety personnel; and +- (5) Persons as to whom a judge finds, for any other reason, that jury service would constitute an undue hardship and extreme inconvenience. + +Id. + +The names of individuals who are determined to be qualified to serve as jurors, and are not "exempt, excused, or deferred," comprise the Qualified Jury Wheels—one for service at the Manhattan courthouse and one for service at the Plains courthouse. Id., Art. IV.A-B. When jurors are needed, names are drawn randomly from the Qualified Jury Wheels, and summonses are sent to those whose names are drawn. Id., Art. IV.C. After being summoned, these individuals are randomly assigned to jury panels as needed, for individual trials and grand juries at the courthouse corresponding to the Qualified Wheel from which they were drawn. Id. + +### B. Applicable Law + +"The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to + +establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: (I) the excluded group is "distinctive"; (2) "representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community;" and (3) the "underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). + +## C. Discussion + +The Government's decision to seek an indictment of the defendant from a grand jury sitting in Plains was entirely appropriate and consistent with the Constitution, the JSSA, and the SDNY local rules. The defendant's claims to the contrary rest on a faulty premise: That a defendant who is likely to be tried in the Manhattan courthouse must be indicted by a grand jury sitting in that same courthouse. That is not the law. See Section XI.C.1, infra. + +That foundational error is fatal to the defendant's fair cross-section claim. When the proper comparators are considered—the Plains (or Qualified) Wheels to the voting age population of the counties from which juries in Plains are drawn, rather than the defendant's apples-to-oranges comparison of the Plains Qualified Jury Wheel to the population of the Manhattan "Division"—the defendant fails to establish unfair underrepresentation under the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, the defendant has not established that any disparity resulted from systemic exclusion of a particular group. Accordingly, the motion should be denied. + +### 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in Plains + +At the heart of the defendant's fair cross-section claim is her contention that the Government seeking an indictment from a grand jury sitting in Plains—which was the only available grand jury that day, due to the global pandemic"—"was a deviation from the established practice of indicting defendants in the division where the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occurred in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross-section claim, "is therefore between the Manhattan Division and the qualified wheel for Plains." (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). This premise is faulty. + +"It is well-settled that neither the jury selection statute nor the Constitution requires that jurors be drawn from an entire district." Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22, 26 (2d Cir. 2013) ("[O]ur precedent makes clear that the Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more + +The defendant speculates that the Government sought an indictment on June 29, 2020 because of some arbitrary desire to arrest the defendant on July 2, 2020, one year to the day after a grand jury returned a sealed indictment charging Jeffrey Epstein with federal crimes on July 2, 2019. (See, e.g., Def. Mot. 9 at 1, 8). Setting aside the silliness of marking the anniversary of an indictment's return, as opposed to the anniversary of the arrest itself, which took place on July 6, 2019, there is no reality in the defense's conspiracy theories. As the defense knows full well, the Government attempted to locate and arrest the defendant on July 1, 2020 but was unable to confirm her location until obtaining cellphone location data identifying her location and enabling her arrest on July 2, 2020. The defense knows this because they have the warrant application that the Government submitted on July 1, 2020 for the defendant's cellphone location information, in which the Government stated that it had been unable to confirm the defendant's location. In other words, the Government indicted the defendant as soon as it was prepared to present the evidence it had gathered to a grand jury, and the Government arrested the defendant as soon as it was able to locate her after obtaining that indictment. + +68 This case was indicted on June 29, 2020, on which date the grand jury sitting in Plains was the only available grand jury in the District. Beginning on or about June 25, 2020, grand jury quorums returned in Manhattan, but with substantially less availability than before the pandemic. As a result, the Government has sought indictments from grand juries sitting in Plains and Manhattan, as availability permits. In this instance, the Government was prepared to indict on June 29, 2020, and the only grand jury available in this District on that day sat in Plains. The global pandemic's effect on grand jury availability continues to evolve, but at no point have grand juries in Plains or Manhattan resumed normal activity. + +specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed."). Rather, "[c]ourts have broad latitude in defining the geographic area from which juries will be selected." United States v. Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 757, 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Consistent with the foregoing, the SDNY Jury Plan creates two separate Wheels—one for the Plains courthouse and one for the Manhattan courthouse, each of which draws from certain counties, with some overlapping counties. SDNY Jury Plan Art. III.B, III.C. This is perfectly consistent with the JSSA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e), and with longstanding precedent, as Judge Hand has explained: + +> [T]he district and circuit courts have had power since the first Judiciary Act of 1789 to divide a district territorially in the interest of an impartial trial, of economy, and of lessening the burden of attendance. There cannot be the faintest question of the constitutionality of this statute; the courts have again and again recognized its validity. Furthermore, it would be impossible in practice to administer it, if it were a condition that that the divisions made must be so homogeneous that they showed an equal percentage of all possible groups. There are probably no districts in the Union, which can be divided without disclosing in the sections different racial, religious, political, social or economic percentages. To demand that they shall not, would be a fantastic pedantry which would serve no purpose and would put an end to the statute. + +United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360, 364 (2d Cir. 1948); accord Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24-25. + +There is accordingly no constitutional or statutory basis for the defendant's claimed entitlement to a grand jury drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn courthouse; after that conviction was vacated, he was again convicted, this time at a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selecting the jury from the "Long Island Division" wheel because there was under-representation of Blacks and Hispanics in that "division" as compared to the Eastern District as a whole. Id. at 23-24. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, finding that it "[wa]s based upon an improper premise." Id. at 24. Contrary to the defendant's claims, "[w]here a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Id. (emphasis added). + +Consistent with Bahna, courts have repeatedly found that defendants in criminal cases have no constitutional or statutory right to a jury drawn from the entire district or from a particular geographic area within a district, such as the county or "division" where the offense was committed. See, e.g., Rutenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 482 (1918) (rejecting claim that defendant had Sixth Amendment right to jury drawn from entire district); United States v. 116 F.3d 641, 659 (2d Cir. 1997) ("Th[e] [Sixth] Amendment's guarantees of an impartial jury `of the State and district' in which the crime was committed does not require a narrower geographical focus than the district itself."); United States v. . 537 F.3d 951, 959 (8th Cir. 2008) (a criminal defendant "does not have a right to have his trial in or jurors summoned from a particular division of the state and district where the crime was committed"); United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T]there is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed or from the entire district which includes that division."); United States v. Florence, 456 F.2d 46, 49-50 (4th Cir. 1972) (holding that a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to a jury selected from the entire district or from a particular division). + +Because the defendant has no right to insist that either the grand or petit jury be drawn from any particular geographic area within the Southern District, she is wrong to assert that her fair cross-section claim must be analyzed against the geographic location in which the offense was committed or the trial is expected to occur. Rather, "[w]here a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added). Here, consistent with the SDNY Grand Jury Plan, the venire for the grand jury that indicted the defendant was drawn from the voter lists of the following counties: Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, M , and Dutchess. That is undoubtedly a "properly designated division" pursuant to the JSSA. As noted, the Southern District is not divided into "divisions" by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(6). For purposes of the JSSA, district courts in such undivided districts have the authority to determine "divisions" comprised of "counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held." 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e). Accordingly, while the SDNY Jury Plan neither creates nor ever uses the term Plains Division" or "Manhattan Division," it contemplates Jury Wheels drawn from two geographic areas that satisfy the definition of "division" under the JSSA. Thus, in evaluating the defendant's fair cross-section claim, this Court must "look to that division"—the counties from which the Plains Wheel is drawn— "to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added). + +In the face of this authority, the defendant cites only two district court cases for the proposition that "community" for purposes of a fair cross-section claim is "widely understood to mean the district or division where the trial will be held." (Def. Mot. 9 at 5 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Not only is the authority cited non-binding, but + +it is inapposite as well: both cases appear to concern instances in which the grand jury and trial jury sat in the same courthouse, and thus there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. M, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of the grand jury, the relevant "community" is the population of the location in which her trial will be held. Such a comparison is unjustified, as Bahna makes clear: That case appears to involve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. + +The defendant's proposed rule—comparing the composition of the grand jury venire to the population of the expected trial location—makes little legal or practical sense. Where, as here, the defendant's challenge is to the indictment, the proceeding for which the defendant is entitled to expect a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community is not the trial, but the grand jury proceeding itself. Indeed, that must be the case, as it is not yet determined where the trial in this matter will in fact occur. The defendant assumes that her trial will ultimately be held at the Manhattan courthouse. While that is likely to be the case, it is not necessarily so. Bahna again illustrates the point, as a case originally tried in Brooklyn was reassigned to Uniondale for the retrial "to accommodate trial congestion in the court's calendar during a period of judicial emergency . . . ." United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). In the + +Southern District, cases are commonly transferred from one courthouse to another, including cases that are indicted in Plains but tried in Manhattan. See Section XI.A.1, supra (collecting examples). That is entirely consistent not just with the foregoing authority, but also with the Southern District's Local Rules for the Division of Business. See SDNY Business Division Rules 18, 19. Criminal cases are also sometimes transferred to other Districts for trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 21. Under the defendant's approach, it would be impossible for prosecutors to determine ex ante that that they were seeking an indictment from a grand jury drawn from a representative crosssection of the relevant community, because they would not yet know with certainty in which community the case will be tried. + +The defendant's argument therefore boils down to an unfounded complaint that it is "a deviation from the established practice" to seek an indictment in a courthouse other than the one in which the case will likely be tried. (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). This argument is inconsistent with the foregoing law that the defendant has no right to jurors drawn from any particular geographic area within the district. See also Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257, 260-63 (1897) (finding no error in grand jury returning indictment in a division different from the division in which the trial proceeded). It also finds no succor in the SDNY Business Division Rules, which vest no rights in any parties and, in any event, contemplate that judges may reassign cases from one courthouse to another. And it falls exceedingly flat on the facts of this case. The Government did not forum shop to achieve some perceived advantage. Rather, it sought a timely indictment from a grand jury in Plains because it was the only grand jury with a quorum sitting in the Southern District on that date (a relatively rare situation created by an unprecedented public health crisis). + +In sum, the decision to indict the defendant in Plains was entirely proper, and the lack of any constitutional or statutory basis for the defendant's contrary argument is fatal to her fair cross-section claims, as described below. + +### 2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless + +The defendant's fair cross-section claim is based on the assertion that Black or African-American and Hispanic or Latino individuals are unfairly underrepresented in the relevant jury pool. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5). While these are "distinctive" groups, satisfying Duren's first prong, the defendant's claim fails on each of the other two prongs. + +### a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Represented + +The second prong of the Duren test requires the Court to determine whether representation of either or both of the "distinctive" groups in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community. Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. This requires determining the relevant comparators—i.e., what is the "relevant jury pool" and what is the community "population" against which it is compared—as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656. + +Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the Plains Wheel, but, as set forth below, the defendant's claim fails even using the Plains Qualified Wheel. + +"Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the 'relevant jury pool' with any specificity." United States v. Rioux 930 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (D. Conn. 1995). In a detailed survey of the case law, the district court in Rioux found that cases have examined different relevant pools, including the wheel, the qualified wheel over a period of time, the venires appearing around the time of the defendant's trial, or some combination thereof. Id. Ultimately, the district court in Rioux found that the teaching of Duren and the Second Circuit's subsequent cases is that "the court must assess representativeness in the context of the systematic defect identified by the defendant." Id. at 1568. In that case, the claimed defects were in the construction of the qualified wheel and, therefore, the "relevant jury pool" was the "qualified wheel over the life of the wheel." Id. at 1575. + +Affirming that decision, the Second Circuit did not hold that the qualified wheel is necessarily the "relevant jury pool." Rather, after stating that the relevant jury pool "may be defined by: (1) the list; (2) the qualified wheel; (3) the venires; or (4) a combination of the three," the Circuit noted that the parties had agreed that the district court properly used the qualified wheel over the life of the wheel as the "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657. The court's acceptance of the qualified jury wheel as the "relevant jury pool" for that case—an issue which was not in dispute—does not mean it necessarily must be applied in all cases. Id. Indeed, in other cases where the claim of error was not focused on the construction of the qualified wheel, different "relevant jury pools" have been used by the Second Circuit. Most notably, in Biaggi, the main thrust of the defendant's fair cross-section claim was that reliance on voter registration lists systemically excluded African-Americans and Hispanics from jury service—a claim which is directed at the composition of the wheel—and the Second Circuit identified the district's wheel as the relevant jury pool. United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677 (2d Cir. 1990). + +Here, the defendant claims that "the primary reason" for the alleged underrepresentation is the Government's "choice to pursue an indictment from a grand jury drawn from the Plains Division, as opposed to the Manhattan Division . . ." (Def. Mot. 9 at 7). Even if this argument described a function of the jury selection process — though it does not — it would be directed at the how the particular Wheel is selected. It says nothing about the process by which a Wheel is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Jury Wheel, the Plains Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. + +Although the Jury Wheel does not include reliable information regarding the race and ethnicity of the individuals selected from voter registration lists, the racial and ethnic makeup of the Plains Jury Wheel can be estimated using geocoding and Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding ("B1SG").69 Taking into account those estimates, the Plains Wheel is 11.20% Black or African-American and 12.97% Hispanic or Latino. (Siskin Aff. at ¶ 28). By contrast, the Plains Qualified Wheel is 8.76% Black or African-American and 10.48% Hispanic or Latino. (Id. at ¶ 17). + +The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate measure in this case is the eighteen and older subset of the population ...."). But how should the relevant "community" be defined? The defendant contends that it is the jury eligible population of the "Manhattan Division," because that is where the offense occurred and where she assumes she will be tried. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant + +" The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal (a Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pending before Judge Failla. The Government is likewise attaching the expert report of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin, which was prepared for the Government in Balde. As detailed Dr. Skiskin's report, geocoding is based on estimating the proportion of persons who are of a given race or ethnicity based on the racial and ethnic area in which they live. (See Affidavit of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin ("Siskin Aff."), attached hereto as Exhibit 12, at ¶ 26). BISG enhances the accuracy of geocoding for Hispanic or Latino persons by using information about persons' last names. (Id.). + +comparator is the jury eligible population of the five counties from which the Plains Wheel is drawn. + +The American Community Survey ("ACS") 2018 data indicate that the jury eligible population for the Plains counties in 2018 was 12.45% Black or African-American and 14.12% Hispanic or Latino.70 (See Siskin Aff. at ¶ 19; see also Aff. at 1 21). + +Once the relevant comparators are defined, an additional threshold question is the statistical method by which to compare them. Courts have applied different approaches over time, such as the statistical decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. M, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the absolute disparity theory is generally appropriate, see Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655-56; see also United States v. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d 510, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("[T]he absolute disparity approach is the primary approach used in this Circuit."). + +The "absolute disparity" approach measures the absolute numerical difference between the distinctive group's representation in the community population and the group's representation in the relevant jury pool. See Biota, 97 F.3d at 655; United States v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1, 30- 31 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd 479 F. App'x 372, 373 (2d Cir. 2012). For example, if Blacks represented 10% of the community population but only 2% of the relevant jury pool, the "absolute disparity" would be 8%. + +There is no specific numerical threshold that constitutes unacceptable disparity under the "absolute disparity" method. "[P]erfectly proportional representation is not required, since no + +70 The American Community Survey gathers demographic information in between the decennial census, and is published by the United States Census Bureau. (See Siskin Aff. at ¶ 18). The latest available data is the 2018 five-year survey combining the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 survey data. (Id.). + +source list will be an exact statistical mirror of the community." United States v. , 337 F. Supp. 140, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); see also Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538. The mere fact that a jury selection system is imperfect does not make it invalid. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 209 (1965) (overruled on other grounds). Accordingly, the Second Circuit has found that absolute disparities as high as nearly 5% fail to establish a prima facie case of underrepresentation. See, e.g., Biaggi, 909 F.2d at 677-78 (3.6% for Blacks and 4.7% for Hispanics); United States v. Ramnath, 131 F.3d 132, 132 (2d Cir. 1997) (3.45% for African-Americans and 4.87% for Hispanics); see also Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 34-35 (collecting out-of-circuit cases rejecting claims presenting similar and even higher disparities).7' + +Properly calculated, the "absolute disparity" in this case falls comfortably within the range deemed acceptable by the Second Circuit and other courts. As noted, the "relevant jury pool" is the Plains Wheel, which is comprised of 11.20% Black or African-American persons and 12.97% Latino or Hispanic persons. (Siskin Aft at ¶ 28). The "community population" is the jury eligible population for the five counties from which the Plains Wheel is drawn, which was comprised of 12.45% Black or African-American persons and 14.12% Hispanic or Latino persons in 2018. (Id. at ¶ 19). This yields an "absolute disparity" of 1.25% for Black or African-American persons and 1.15% for Latino or Hispanic persons. (Id. at ¶ 28). That disparity does not rise to the level of satisfying the second prong of the Duren test. + +71 1n United States v. Jackman, the Second Circuit held that an absolute disparity of 2.5% for Black or African-American persons and 3.4% for Hispanic or Latino persons was sufficient to satisfy the second prong of the Duren test. 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995). The unique facts of Jackman make it readily distinguishable. The jury clerk in Jackman relied on a qualified jury wheel that was mostly drawn from a jury wheel that completely excluded potential jurors from two cities in the Division—cities that accounted for 62.93% of the voting-age Black population and 68.09% of the voting-age Hispanic population in the division. See id. at 1242-44. This resulted in a venire comprised of no Black or African-American persons and one Hispanic or Latino person. Id. at 1244. See also id. at 1252 (, J., dissenting) (stating that the majority's decision was "at odds with every decision in every circuit applying the Duren test"). + +The result is the same even if the defendant's preferred relevant jury pool is used. The Plains Qualified Wheel is comprised of 8.76% Black or African-American persons and 10.48% Latino or Hispanic persons. (Id. at ¶ 17; see also Alf. at ¶ 55). This results in absolute disparities of 3.69% and 3.64%, respectively. These figures are also comfortably within the range that the Second Circuit has determined does not satisfy the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, as discussed below, the factors that cause the disparity between the Plains Qualified Wheel and the Plains Jury Wheel, as well as the voting age population, are not the result of systematic exclusion. + +It is only by employing an apples-and-oranges method of comparing the Plains Qualified Wheel to the jury eligible populations of the "Manhattan Division" or the entire Southern District that the defendant is able to identify disparities that might arguably satisfy the second prong of Duren. Because that method has no basis in the law, the defendant's claim fails at the second prong. + +### b. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic Exclusion + +Even assuming the defendant had satisfied the second prong of the Duren test—which she has not—she most certainly has not demonstrated that any underrepresentation is "due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." Rimer, 97 F.3d at 654 (emphasis added). That is, she cannot establish that the exclusion is the product of "the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces." Id. at 658 (emphasis added). She therefore cannot satisfy the third prong of Duren. + +As then-District Judge Bianco explained, "systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group." Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40; see also United States v. Barlow, 479 F. App'x 372, 373 (2d Cir. + +2012) (affirming Judge Bianco's "thorough and well-reasoned" opinion). Indeed, "la] selection process that is facially neutral is unlikely to demonstrate systematic exclusion." United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217, 259 (3d Cir. 2020) (brackets in original) (quoting Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260, 269 (2d Cir. 2019)). Moreover, a defendant cannot "make out a prima facie case merely by pointing to a host of factors that, individually or in combination, might contribute to a group's underrepresentation." Berghuis, 559 U.S. at 332 (emphasis in original). + +Insofar as the underrepresentation here is measured by a comparison of the Plains Qualified Wheel to the jury eligible population of the "Manhattan Division" or entire Southern District, the defendant's argument rests entirely on the prosecution's decision to pursue an indictment in Plains rather than Manhattan. (Def. Mot. 9 at 7). That decision was entirely proper, as set forth above. See Section XI.C.1, supra. And even if it were the case that this decision resulted in substantial underrepresentation, it nevertheless does not amount to "systematic exclusion . . . in the jury-selection process." The prosecution's decision as to where to seek an indictment was based entirely on the availability of grand juries during a pandemic, which has nothing to do with the process by which the grand jury is selected. The defendant points to no other source of any supposed systemic exclusion of any identified group. Accordingly, the defendant's claim also fails at the third prong of Duren. + +#### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny all twelve of the defendant's pre-trial motions. + +Dated: New York, New York February 26, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b67b568dee143cfc7b9d7ef7da23f186e6861528 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250/EFTA02831250.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,11439 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831250.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 239, + "chars": 527765, + "elapsed_seconds": 42.82, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION \nTO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 112.608, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 498.761962890625, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 498.761962890625, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 112.608, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.55426025390625, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT LIST", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.9582824707031, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.9582824707031, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.952392578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.952392578125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 103.32032775878906, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 103.32032775878906, + 126.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 126.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 102.48542022705078, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 102.48542022705078, + 209.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 209.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 159.51040649414062, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 159.51040649414062, + 522.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 522.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.2027282714844, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.2027282714844, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 451.2905578613281, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 451.2905578613281, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other \nDistricts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other \nDistricts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 293.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 293.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 437.9400939941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 437.9400939941406, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 518.5816650390625, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 518.5816650390625, + 305.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 305.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 482.95538330078125, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 482.95538330078125, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 320.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 320.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Indictment Is Timely", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 241.92864990234375, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 241.92864990234375, + 445.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 445.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Statutory Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 262.46600341796875, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 262.46600341796875, + 251.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 454.3637390136719, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 454.3637390136719, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 456.04290771484375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 456.04290771484375, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 457.17291259765625, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 457.17291259765625, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 464.65911865234375, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 464.65911865234375, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-\nTrial Delay Should Be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 67, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 536.726318359375, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 536.726318359375, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 263.8344421386719, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 263.8344421386719, + 361.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 361.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 70, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 237.37095642089844, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 237.37095642089844, + 417.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 417.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the \nIndictment for An Improper Purpose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 522.5423583984375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 522.5423583984375, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 263.6739807128906, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 263.6739807128906, + 127.863037109375 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 127.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 80, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 237.37095642089844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 237.37095642089844, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 425.2873840332031, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 425.2873840332031, + 251.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Factual Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 87, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 251.96511840820312, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 251.96511840820312, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 87, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 361.42510986328125, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 361.42510986328125, + 581.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 581.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. February 2016 Meeting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 88, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 304.2939453125, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 304.2939453125, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 90, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 429.67510986328125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 429.67510986328125, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 91, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 510.0513916015625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 510.0513916015625, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for \nMaterials", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 92, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 94, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 365.57293701171875, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 365.57293701171875, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. March 26, 2019 Hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 94, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 404.2315673828125 + ], + [ + 344.14453125, + 404.2315673828125 + ], + [ + 344.14453125, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. April 9, 2019 Hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 96, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 331.20635986328125, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 331.20635986328125, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 97, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 480.4371032714844, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 480.4371032714844, + 665.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 665.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7. Magistrate Judge Netburn's Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 100, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 363.1008605957031, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 363.1008605957031, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 100, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 364.7357482910156, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 364.7357482910156, + 610.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 610.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "9. The New York Daily News Article", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 101, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 357.517822265625, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 357.517822265625, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 102, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 431.7874450683594, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 431.7874450683594, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 102, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 537.3074340820312, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 537.3074340820312, + 307.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 307.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 102, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 300.1706237792969, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 300.1706237792969, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 105, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 108, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 403.6179504394531, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 403.6179504394531, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Maxwell Has Not Established Standing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 108, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 383.62701416015625, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 383.62701416015625, + 279.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 279.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 108, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 336.27984619140625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 336.27984619140625, + 307.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 307.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 110, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.4300537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 308.4300537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. The Government Acted in Good Faith", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 112, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 414.02679443359375, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 414.02679443359375, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 112, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 336.17059326171875, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 336.17059326171875, + 583.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 583.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 114, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 309.3709411621094, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 309.3709411621094, + 582.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 582.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under \nthe Inevitable Discovery Doctrine", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 119, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 293.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 293.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 119, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 336.17059326171875, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 336.17059326171875, + 401.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 401.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 120, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 309.3709411621094, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 309.3709411621094, + 279.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 279.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to \nthe Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 122, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 122, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 300.3352966308594, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 300.3352966308594, + 292.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 292.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. The Fifth Amendment \u2014 Generally", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 122, + "polygon": [ + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 432.5973205566406, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 432.5973205566406, + 320.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 320.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. The Fifth Amendment \u2014 Act of Production Privilege", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 123, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 521.2797241210938, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 521.2797241210938, + 665.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 665.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "iii. The Fifth Amendment \u2014 When Private Action Is Deemed \nGovernment Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 124, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 569.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 569.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 125, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 273.3709411621094, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 273.3709411621094, + 610.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 610.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell's Due Process Rights", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 129, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 511.1933288574219, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 511.1933288574219, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 130, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 300.1706237792969, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 300.1706237792969, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 133, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order \nSuppression", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 135, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6861572265625, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6861572265625, + 541.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 541.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 135, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 299.8344421386719, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 299.8344421386719, + 624.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 624.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 136, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 272.3999328613281, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 272.3999328613281, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. The Defendant Is Not Entitled to a Hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 137, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 404.86285400390625, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 404.86285400390625, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 138, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 375.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 300.3352966308594, + 375.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 300.3352966308594, + 389.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 389.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 141, + "polygon": [ + [ + 177.48, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 273.3629455566406, + 458.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 177.48, + 458.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 142, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 462.8349914550781, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 462.8349914550781, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Factual Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 143, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 252.71600341796875, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 252.71600341796875, + 224.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 224.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 148, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 201.37095642089844, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 201.37095642089844, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. April 2016 Deposition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 149, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 294.5701904296875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 294.5701904296875, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. July 2016 Deposition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 155, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 288.25199999999995, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 288.25199999999995, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 224.37 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Materiality", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 161, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 241.61256408691406, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 241.61256408691406, + 251.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 251.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Counts Five and Six Are Properly Joined and Should Not Be Severed", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 164, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 464.5261535644531, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 464.5261535644531, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 164, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 167, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. The Indictment Contains the Elements of Each Offense and Provides the Defendant \nMore Than Adequate Notice of the Charges Against Her", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 346.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 178, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. There Is No Basis to Strike Any Portion of the Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 183, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 405.9389953613281, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 405.9389953613281, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Relevant Facts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 184, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 223.13473510742188, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 223.13473510742188, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 185, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 389.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 187, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is \nPremature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 195, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 514.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 514.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Relevant Facts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 195, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 223.13473510742188, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 223.13473510742188, + 622.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 622.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 196, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 228.17062377929688, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 198, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 200, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 433.6909484863281, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 433.6909484863281, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 200, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 332.7653503417969, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 332.7653503417969, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 200, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 263.7310791015625, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 263.7310791015625, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 204, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 237.7489471435547, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 237.7489471435547, + 472.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 472.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks \nAct Material Should Be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 208, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 540.4171142578125, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 540.4171142578125, + 541.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 541.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 208, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 263.7690124511719, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 263.7690124511719, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 210, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 237.2403564453125, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 237.2403564453125, + 334.5994567871094 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 334.5994567871094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 211, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 507.6007080078125, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 507.6007080078125, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XL The Use of a Grand Jury Siting in Plains Was Entirely Proper", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 219, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 463.4477844238281, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 463.4477844238281, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 220, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 210.69244384765625, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 210.69244384765625, + 141.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The SDNY and Local Rules for the Division of Business", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 220, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 467.286865234375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 467.286865234375, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The SDNY Jury Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 221, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 293.0580749511719, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 293.0580749511719, + 472.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 472.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 223, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 228.3352813720703, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 228.3352813720703, + 610.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 610.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 224, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in \nPlains", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 224, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 542.5189208984375, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 542.5189208984375, + 596.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 596.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 231, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 464.22412109375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 464.22412109375, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics \nAre Unfairly Represented", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 231, + "polygon": [ + [ + 177.48, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 543.3347778320312, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 543.3347778320312, + 320.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 177.48, + 320.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic \nExclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 236, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.19970703125, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.19970703125, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 238, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 127, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 128, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 129, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 130, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 131, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 132, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 133, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 134, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 135, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 136, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 137, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 138, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 139, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 140, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 141, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 142, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 143, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 144, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 145, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 146, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 147, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 148, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 149, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 150, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 151, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 152, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 153, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 154, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 155, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 156, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 157, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 158, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 159, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 160, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 161, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 162, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 163, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 164, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 165, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 166, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 167, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 168, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 169, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 170, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 171, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 172, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 173, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 174, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 175, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 176, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 177, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 178, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 179, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 180, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 181, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 182, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 183, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 184, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 185, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 186, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 187, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 188, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 189, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 190, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 191, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 192, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 193, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 194, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 195, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 196, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 197, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 198, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 199, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 200, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 201, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 202, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 203, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 204, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 205, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 206, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 207, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 208, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 209, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 210, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 211, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 212, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 213, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 214, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 215, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 216, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 217, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 218, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 219, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 220, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 221, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 222, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 223, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 224, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 225, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 226, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 227, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 228, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 229, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 230, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 231, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 232, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 233, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 234, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 235, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 236, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 237, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 238, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831250" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01a17ae21fab3b5fbd7464b854d7452c214c7421 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC N: DATE FILED: 4/16/21 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pm-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, I I, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs I, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal. + +As set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials. + +The Defendant is ORDERED to docket Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on ECF today, as she did not propose any redactions to these and the Government has not voiced any opposition to these being filed without redactions. + +If either side is seeking these or any other redactions to the remaining reply briefs, they must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications for the sealing requests or redactions, in line with the principles set forth in *Lugosch*. By April 20, 2021, the parties shall confer and submit a letter informing the Court whether any redactions are being sought. If no redactions are being sought, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the remaining reply briefs on ECF by April 20, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 16, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71cb790e229eec05ee6cb7d540236a5899c5118c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489/EFTA02831489.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831489.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2336, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.94, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831489" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6358ef3b199531d6aa1d3c4b15f93ef0ed5306b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.md @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menni HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| I. A. Rejected a Proposal to Do So I. inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. 2. distinguishable. | Page 2 3 3 5 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 3. The government cannot prevail at step one. | 7 | +| B. | Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Alleged | +| Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects | 8 | +| II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All. | 10 | +| A. | Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual | +| Abuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child. | 11 | +| B. | The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily | +| Entail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child | 14 | +| CONCLUSION | 16 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| ██████████ v. United States,
346 U.S. 209 (1953)..... | 11, 13, 14 | +| Burrage v. United States,
571 U.S. 204 (2014)..... | 14 | +| Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group,
508 U.S. 10 (1993)..... | 7 | +| Falter v. United States,
23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928)..... | 10 | +| Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Schumer,
520 U.S. 939 (1997)..... | 8, 9 | +| In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co.,
391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004)..... | 6, 9 | +| Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,
494 U.S. 827 (1990)..... | 3 | +| Kawashima v. Holder,
565 U.S. 478 (2012)..... | 11 | +| Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994)..... | passim | +| Leocal v. Ashcroft,
543 U.S. 1 (2004)..... | 11 | +| ██████████ v. Hadix,
527 U.S. 343 (1999)..... | 6 | +| Nijhawan v. Holder,
557 U.S. 29 (2009)..... | 12, 13 | +| Shular v. United States,
140 S. Ct. 779 (2020)..... | 11, 14 | +| Toussie v. United States,
397 U.S. 112 (1970)..... | 8, 9, 10, 14 | + +| United States v. Ayo, | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| +| 801 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (S.D. Ala. 2011) United States v. | 12 | +| 800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, | S.Ct. , 2021 | +| WL 78235 (Jan. 11, 2021) United States v. Coutentos, | 5 | +| 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) | 13 | +| United States v. , | | +| 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) United States v. Gentile, | 11, 14 | +| 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) United States v. Jeffries, | 8, 9, 10 | +| 405 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1007 (2005) United States v. Leo Sure Chief, | 5 | +| 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. | 5 | +| 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) United States v. M, | passim | +| 393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004) United States v. Nader, | 12 | +| 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) United States v. Pierre-Louis, | 6, 7, 9 | +| No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) United States v. Scharton, | 5 | +| 285 U.S. 518 (1932) United States v. Schneider, | 8 | +| 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) United States v. Sensi, | 14 | +| No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) United States v. =, | 5 | +| No. 13 Cr. 128 QUA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Din., | 15 | +| 49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995) | 9 | + +Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) 5 6, 7, 13 + +# Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) | 2, 13, 14, 15 | +|-------------------------------------|---------------| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 2, 13, 14, 15 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3282 | 8, 12 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 ("2003 Amendment") | passim | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8) | 14 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990) | 8 | +| 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) | 12 | +| Pub. L. No. 101-647 | 8 | + +# Other Authorities + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred ("Motion"). + +As the government agrees in its opposition ("Opp."), the four Act counts against Ms. Maxwell are timely only if the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 ("2003 Amendment") applies to the conduct charged therein. The 2003 Amendment expands the statute of limitations for an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. Because the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and because § 3283 does not apply to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, the Act counts should be dismissed. + +First, the 2003 Amendment cannot be applied retroactively because Congress did not intend it to apply retroactively. While the government cites several cases in which courts have applied the 2003 Amendment to pre-enactment conduct, the only court to do so after analyzing congressional intent under the two-step framework required by Landgraf v. US/ Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994)—and to even mention Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment—improperly excluded legislative history from its analysis. No court has applied the Landgraf framework, considered the legislative history, and still concluded that Congress intended the 2003 Amendment to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, as the government asks this Court to do. + +Because Congress' clear rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment constitutes an express prescription of the amendment's temporal reach, the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and the Landgraf analysis ends at step one. Even if the analysis proceeds to step two, however, Landgraf does not permit the Court, without clear congressional direction to the contrary, to override the longstanding principle that criminal statutes of limitations are to be interpreted in favor of repose. + +Second, Ms. Maxwell's Motion should be granted for the separate and independent reason that § 3283 does not apply to 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), the two Act provisions with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, because neither offense necessarily entails, as an element of the offense, the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. While the government attempts to distinguish a long line of Supreme Court cases holding that an "offense" or "crime" that "involves" certain conduct means an offense that necessarily requires or entails that conduct, it fails to cite a single case outside the § 3283 context in which "offense involving" language has been interpreted otherwise—and the cases that have interpreted § 3283 as permitting a fact-based inquiry have failed to consider the voluminous Supreme Court authority to the contrary. Consideration of such authority compels application of § 3283 by reference to the elements of the offense at issue, and even under the definition of "sexual abuse" the government proposes, none of the elements of either § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) constitutes sexual abuse. + +# I. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively. + +The government does not dispute that Landgraf is the appropriate framework for determining whether a statute applies retroactively. Opp. 27. Under Landgraf the first step is "to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach"; if it has, there is no need to proceed further. 551 U.S. at 280. If it has not, the court must determine "whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. + +As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum ("Mem.") has demonstrated, proper application of Landgraf prohibits retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment. Congressional intent could not be clearer, Congress considered and expressly rejected a provision that would have made the 2003 Amendment retroactive. That ends the Landgraf inquiry at step one. Even if the inquiry proceeds to step two, however, the government has failed to adequately rebut Ms. Maxwell's showing that application of the 2003 Amendment here would have impermissible retroactive effects. + +# A. Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and Rejected a Proposal to Do So. + +### 1. Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. + +"[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs." Landgraf 511 U.S. at 264 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum demonstrated, congressional intent with respect to the retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment is clear: the House version of the bill included an express retroactivity provision, the Senate version contained no retroactivity provision, and, in the words of one of the bill's co-sponsors, the House-Senate conference "agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively." Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003). The Court need look no further. Such an unambiguous expression of congressional intent establishes conclusively that the 2003 Amendment is not retroactive. + +The government argues that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision is not probative, because according to Senator Leahy's floor statement, the decision was grounded in concerns about the revival of time-barred charges rather than the extension of live charges, and at least some of the charges here were live at the time of the 2003 Amendment. But to the extent + +that Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was motivated by such concerns,' Congress nonetheless chose to address those concerns by eliminating the retroactivity provision altogether, rather than simply modifying it to prohibit the revival of time-barred charges. If Congress had intended to distinguish between live charges and time-barred charges, it could easily have done so. Its decision to drop the provision completely demonstrates a clear intent that the 2003 Amendment not be applied retroactively. The Court may not override that clear intent merely because doing so may have been a broader measure than necessary to address the concerns Senator Leahy articulated.2 + +The government also contends that heeding Congress' specific intent not to make the 2003 Amendment retroactive would "undermine Congress's plain purpose" in enacting it—i.e., to extend the limitations period "to ensure that prosecutors could seek justice for child sex abuse victims who come forward or identify their abusers after a delay." See Opp. 31. But statutory amendments, by nature, are designed to remedy perceived deficiencies in existing law, and thus a decision not to apply any amendment retroactively will typically limit, or "undermine," the effectuation of that purpose. For that reason, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Landgraf, an amendment's purpose is immaterial to a retroactivity analysis: + +I While Senator Leahy's floor statement confirms that Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was intentional, his statement as to why the provision was rejected cannot be ascribed to other members of Congress. + +2 The government implicitly asks the Court to disregard the voluminous authority emphasizing the significant weight to be given congressional consideration and explicit rejection of a proposed statutory provision (see Mem. 7-8), relying solely on the Supreme Court's treatment in Landgraf of an omission from the comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1991 of an "elaborate retroactivity provision" that had been included in a vetoed civil rights bill passed by a prior Congress. See Opp. 31 n.14 (quoting Landgraf 511 U.S. at 256). That omission is not analogous. There was no indication in Landgraf that Congress had even considered, let alone rejected, such a provision in the legislation it ultimately enacted. Moreover, the provision from the prior Congress' bill was indeed "elaborate": it did not simply prescribe retroactivity, as the provision stricken from the 2003 Amendment would have done, but assigned a series of different effective dates to different subsections. Landgraf 511 U.S. at 255 n.8. The absence of such a detailed scheme from subsequent legislation, passed by a subsequent Congress, could not be reasonably interpreted as a clear reflection of congressional intent regarding retroactivity, and there is no indication in the opinion that any party argued otherwise. + +It will frequently be true, as petitioner and amid forcefully argue here, that retroactive application of a new statute would vindicate its purpose more fully. That consideration, however, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption against retroactivity. Statutes are seldom crafted to pursue a single goal, and compromises necessary to their enactment may require adopting means other than those that would most effectively pursue the main goal. + +Landgraf 511 U.S. at 285-86 (emphasis added). Thus, it is not anomalous at all that Congress would "exempt[] all past offenders" from the new limitations period, as the government asserts (Opp. 31); to the contrary, the law presumes that past conduct is exempt from legislation. Here, Congress' clear intent that the 2003 Amendment not be retroactive resolves the Landgraf inquiry in Ms. Maxwell's favor at step one. + +## 2. Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily distinguishable. + +While the government cites several cases that have applied the 2003 Amendment retroactively (Opp. 26-27), most of those cases analyzed the issue under the Ex Post Facto Clause and gave little, if any, consideration to congressional intent regarding retroactivity (as opposed to the intent of the amendment itself). In all but one of those cases, no Landgraf analysis was performed, and it does not appear that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision was considered or even raised.; But the government does not dispute that Landgraf is the appropriate framework—nor can it, given the Second Circuit's acknowledgment that the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment must be analyzed under Landgraf Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 54-58 (2d Cir. 2017). + +3No Landgraf anal was performed, nor was Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision discussed, in United States v.=, 800 F. App'x 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing issue in a single sentence and referring only to the intent of the amendment generally), cert. denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235 (Jan. II, 2021); United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing only the intent of the amendment generally); United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005) (no Landgraf analysis or consideration of legislative history), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1007 (2005); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at \*5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (addressing only Ex Post Facto clause); or United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484, at \*3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) (same). + +The only exception is United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (ED. Va. 2019). In Nader, the court performed a Landgraf analysis in analyzing the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment, and it appears to be the only previous case in which Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment has even been mentioned. In Nader, however, the court noted the legislative history of the 2003 Amendment but held that only the text of the amendment was relevant to step one of Landgraf. 425 F. Supp. 3d at 627 (finding legislative history arguments "misplaced within the first step of the Landgraf analysis, which asks only whether the statute at issue contains ... language unequivocally delineating the time period to which it applies"). + +Nader's exclusion of legislative history from the Landgraf analysis4 cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court's applications of Landgraf-or, for that matter, with Landgraf itself. See, e.g., Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (considering legislative history); v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999) (examining "structure and legislative history" as part of first Landgraf step). And as the government acknowledges, "the Second Circuit has considered both the text of the statute and the legislative history" at the first Landgraf step. Opp. 28 (citing In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401, 406-08 (2d Cir. 2004)). Thus, Nader is not persuasive authority. + +In short, no court has considered Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in performing a Landgraf analysis of the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment. In fact, the government cites only three cases that have analyzed the 2003 Amendment under Landgraf at all: the Second Circuit and First Circuit opinions in Weingarten and United States v. 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018), respectively, which were ineffective assistance of counsel cases and + +4 Although the court in Nader explicitly characterized legislative history arguments as "misplaced" within step one of Landgraf, it also omitted them from step two of its Landgraf analysis. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 627-32. + +thus did not decide the issue (and in which Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision was not discussed), and Nader, in which the court incorrectly excluded legislative history from its Landgraf analysis. If Landgraf is correctly applied, and legislative history is given its proper weight in the analysis, it is clear from Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision that it did not intend the 2003 Amendment to be retroactive. Counts One through Four are therefore timebarred. + +## 3. The government cannot prevail at step one. + +Meanwhile, the government's claim that it should prevail at step one can be easily dispensed with. The government relies on the language in the 2003 Amendment that "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution" of a child sexual offense "shall preclude" prosecution during the life of the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). While the government argues that this language refers to the pre-amendment version of § 3283, the Second Circuit recognized in Weingarten that "there is a more natural interpretation of that phrase that does not address retroactivity—that Congress intended the language in the 2003 version of § 3283 to clarify that the statute prescribes a statute of limitations for applicable offenses that is different from the default five-year limitations period under federal law." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55. See also = 911 F.3d at 644 (suggesting that "otherwise preclude" language "may refer only to preclusion by the five-year federal default statute of limitations"); Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 626 (interpreting same language to "merely 'signal the drafter's intention that the provisions ... override conflicting provisions of any other section," rather than the preamendment version of § 3283) (quoting Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18 (1993)). + +This interpretation is bolstered further by the presence of the same "[n]o statute of limitation[s] that would otherwise preclude" language in the 1990 statute that originally created the expanded statute of limitations for child sex abuse crimes. See Opp. Mem. 24 (quoting Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit. II, § 225(a), 104 Stat. 4789, 4798 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990)). In 1990, "the only existing limitations period to which the language could have referred was the [five-year] default limit set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3282]." 911 F.3d at 644. That is the logical reading of the same provision here. + +The government cannot prevail on step one. If step one is not resolved in Ms. Maxwell's favor, the inquiry must proceed to step two. + +# B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Aliened Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects. + +Even if the Landgraf inquiry were to proceed to the second step—whether retroactive application would have impermissible effects—Ms. Maxwell should prevail. In arguing otherwise, the government effectively claims that in the retroactivity context, Landgraf permits the Court to ignore the bedrock principle that "criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.'" Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970) (quoting United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522 (1932)). But nothing in Landgraf, a civil case, purports to limit that principle, let alone abrogate it. + +The government asserts that no court has held that retroactively extending a filing period for live charges is a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect under Landgraf (Opp. 35), but that is not so. In United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017), the court held that it would be impermissible to retroactively extend a statute of limitations for live charges "absent clear legislative intent" to apply the expanded limitations retroactively. Id. at 655. In doing so, the court read Landgraf in conjunction not only with Toussie but also with Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex reL Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (1997), a post-Landgraf opinion in which the Supreme Court reiterated the law's presumption against retroactivity and reiterated that "we + +apply this time-honored presumption unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary." Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 654 (quoting Hughes, 520 U.S. at 946 (emphasis added by court)).5 The First Circuit, addressing the issue on an ineffective assistance of counsel of claim (and thus not reaching a merits decision), issued a similar caution in the specific context of the 2003 Amendment: + +[W]hen Congress has sounded an uncertain trumpet, a court ought to refrain from applying an enlarged criminal statute of limitations retrospectively.... Seen in this light, Toussie potentially alters the second step in the Landgraf approach. + +911 F.3d at 645.6 + +By contrast, the government cites only one case—Nader—in which a court has held that the application of a criminal statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct is permissible under the second step of Landgraf. Like the government here, however, the court in Nader offered no path to reconciling Landgraf with Toussie. Instead, it applied Landgraf, a civil case, in a manner that interprets Toussie out of existence in the retroactivity context, without any suggestion from the Supreme Court that it intended such an effect. The opinions in and Gentile, in acknowledging the need to read Landgraf and Toussie in harmony, provide the correct legal framework for the application of the second step of Landgraf. This is particularly so in light of Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment, a factor not considered in and absent from Gentile. + +In arguing that "Congress may retroactively extend the limitations period for still-viable prosecutions" (Opp. 34) (emphasis added), the government completely misses the point. There is + +5 The government's attempt to discredit Gentile on the ground that it relied in part on a pre-Landgraf opinion (Opp. 36) rings hollow. The court made clear that it was applying Landgraf (in conjunction with Toussie and Hughes). Gentile. 235 F. Supp. at 654-55. + +6 For this reason, the Second Circuit's applications of Landgraf in Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist, 49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995), and in re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004)—both of which involved civil statutes of limitations—do not resolve the issue. + +no dispute that Congress could have amended § 3283 in 2003 to extend the limitations period for live charges; had it done so explicitly, the government would prevail on the first Landgraf step! Rather, the second Landgraf step asks whether the effects of retroactive application of a statute are such that the Court, in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, should presume that Congress intended to apply the statute retroactively. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283 (framing issue as whether a law is "the kind of provision that [applies] to events antedating its enactment in the absence of clear congressional intent").8 As both and Gentile recognize, Toussie suggests that, in the context of a criminal statute of limitations, Congress should not be presumed to have intended retroactive application absent a clear expression of such intent, and the Court should not reach such a conclusion here. + +# II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All. + +Ms. Maxwell's Motion should be granted for the separate and independent reason that regardless of whether the 2003 Amendment can be applied retroactively, § 3283 does not apply to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. Neither enticement of an individual to travel nor transportation of a minor is an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. The government fails to rebut the long line of cases interpreting "offense involving" language to refer to offenses that necessarily entail particular conduct, and the + +7 For this reason, the government's invocation of Faller v. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928)—a case decided decades before both Landgraf and Toussie-adds nothing to the analysis. While the government cites Falter for the uncontroversial proposition the law treats the revival of time-barred criminal charges more harshly than the extension of live charges—indeed, as the government points out, the former raises issues under the Ex Post Facto Clause—it sheds no light on the issue of statutory interpretation here, particularly in light of Landgraf and Toussie. + +8 The fact that the inquiry into a statute's retroactive effects is the second step of Landgraf, rather than the first, demonstrates that Landgraf is not an inquiry into a statute's constitutionality. If the Landgraf analysis were simply an inquiry into whether the Ex Post Facto clause permits Congress to apply a criminal statute of limitations retroactively, as the government contends (Opp. 34-35), the first step would have to be read out of Landgraf entirely. Otherwise, Congress could expressly prescribe an unconstitutional retroactive application of a statute, thereby ending the analysis at step one before the court ever addressed the statute's constitutionality. + +offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged do not require the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. + +### A. Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual Abuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child. + +As demonstrated in Ms. Maxwell's opening brief, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly and consistently that an "offense" or "crime" that "involves" certain conduct means an offense that necessarily entails or requires that conduct. See, e.g.. Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 782 (2020) ("a court should look to the state offense's elements" rather than case-specific facts); United States v. , 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2328 (2019) (rejecting argument that "offense that ... involves" provision permitted court to look to case-specific facts, even if necessary to save provision from unconstitutional vagueness); Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 484 (2012) (interpreting "offenses that involve fraud or deceit" to mean "offenses with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct") (internal punctuation omitted); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004) (stating that "offense that ... involves" language "requires us to look to the elements and the nature of the offense . ..rather than to the particular facts" at issue); v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 217 n.I5, 221 (1953) (limiting extended statute of limitations for "any offense [] involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States" to "offenses in which defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States is an essential ingredient of the offense charged"). The government's attempt to limit this clear line of cases is unpersuasive. + +The government claims that a "necessarily entails" approach (or, as the government describes it, a "categorical" approach) is "only used in settings like sentencing and immigration, where a court is asked to evaluate the conduct from a prior conviction." Opp. 39. While one would expect the government to support such a statement with citations to Supreme Court cases + +outside the sentencing and immigration context in which the "necessarily entails" approach has been rejected, it fails to offer any.9 Nor does the government respond to the case law cited by Ms. Maxwell in which courts have interpreted "offense involving" language in a venue statute, which has nothing to do with sentencing, immigration, or prior convictions, to refer to the elements of the offense. See, e.g., United States v. 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("The most natural reading of § 3237(2)1 2 is to construe 'any offense involving' by reference to the elements of the offense at issue.") (emphasis in original); United States v. Ayo, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2011) ("The Eleventh Circuit has employed the second paragraph of Section 3237(a) when such transportation, or use of the mails, is an element of the offense charged."). The arbitrary limitations the government seeks to impose on the "necessarily entails" approach simply do not exist. + +The Supreme Court's opinion in Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009)—the only Supreme Court case the government cites in which the Court applied a fact-based approach to an "offense involving" statute—does not break this line of cases at all. In Nijhawan, the statutory provision at issue referred to "an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds \$10,000." 557 U.S. at 32 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(aX43XM)(i)) (emphasis added by Court). The issue before the Court was not whether the statute required "fraud or deceit" to be an element of the underlying offense, but whether the referenced monetary threshold was required to be an element. The Court held that it was not, reasoning that "[t]he words tin which' (which modify 'offense') can refer to the conduct involved 'in' the + +9According to the government, the ostensible rationale for the "necessarily entails" approach—avoiding the need for courts to examine the facts of prior convictions—is not present in the § 3283 context. But a fact-based approach poses a different practical obstacle in the statute of limitations context. Under a fact-based approach here, for example, in order to obtain the benefit of the expanded limitations period, the government would be required to prove conduct (i.e., sexual abuse) that is not an element of an offense; a jury would be required to find not only that Ms. Maxwell committed the offenses with which she is charged but also that her offenses "involve(] ... the sexual or physical abuse ... of a child"; and only after the jury has returned its verdict would it be known which statute of limitations—§ 3283 or the default provision under § 3282—applies to this prosecution. + +commission of the offense of conviction, rather than to the elements of the offense." Id. at 39 (emphasis added by Court). Because § 3283 contains no such modification to the words "offense involving," Nijhawan is entirely consistent not only with the Supreme Court cases that interpret "offense involving" language as referring to elements of the offense, but also with a similar interpretation of the language as it appears in § 3283.10 + +The Eighth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011), squares perfectly with this approach. In Coutentos, the court held that § 3283 did not apply to a charge of possession of child pornography, even though the facts of the case involved conduct that went beyond the elements of child pornography and, according to the court, constituted sexual abuse. 651 F.3d at 817. The government's attempt to distinguish Coutentos on the ground that "this case does not involve the possession of child pornography" (Opp. 41) misses the point: In determining whether § 3283 applied, the court did not consider evidence of actual sexual abuse and instead confined its focus to the elements of the offense of possession of child pornography. In other words, it used the "necessarily entails" approach. Similarly, § 3283 requires the Court here to look only to the elements of § 2422(a) and § 2423(a), and to disregard allegations of conduct beyond those elements. + +Finally, the government attempts to distinguish =, in which the Supreme Court used the equivalent of a "necessarily entails" approach specifically with respect to a statute of limitations, and argues that is an outlier based on its legislative history. But the government fails to identify a single statute of limitations other than § 3283 in which a fact- + +1° The government cites the Second Circuit's statement in a footnote in Weingarten that the "offense involving" language is "equally consistent with applying a fact-based approach." Opp. 39-40 (quoting Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 60 n.11). However, Weingarten relied exclusively on Nijhawan for that proposition; like the government, it cited no case in which a fact-based approach had been used to apply an "offense involving" statute other than § 3283. In any event, the Second Circuit did not hold that a fact-based approach applies to § 3283; it held only, in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, that it was "not obvious" which approach applies. Weingarten. 865 F.3d at 60. + +based approach has been applied, let alone one that uses "offense involving" language. I I Given the Supreme Court's consistent interpretation of such language to require a "necessarily entails," elements-based approach, § 3283 should be similarly interpreted—particularly given the obligation under the rule of lenity to construe any ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the defendant, Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 216 (2014), and the principle that "criminal limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose." Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (internal quotations and citation omitted). + +# B. The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily Entail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child. + +The government appears to argue that even under the "necessarily entails" approach, § 3283 applies to the Act offenses at issue here, because § 2422(a) and § 2423(a) somehow necessarily entail the sexual abuse of a child. The government bases this argument on its contention that the applicable definition of "sexual abuse" is the definition found at 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8), because that definition "includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(aX8). But even under such an expansive definition, neither § 2422(a) nor § 2423(a) necessarily entails the sexual abuse of a child. + +Section 2422(a) does not necessarily entail any act concerning a child, let alone the "employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child" to engage in any sex-related conduct. Rather, § 2422(a) requires only the enticement of an individual—of any + +II The government also cites United States v. Schneider 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015), in which the court rejected the defendant's comparison of § 3283 to the statute in To the extent that the Third Circuit rejected a "necessarily entails" approach to § 3283, it appears to have done so without considering the line of Supreme Court cases interpreting the "offense involving" language as requiring such an approach—a line that has since expanded to include and Shular. + +age—to travel with the requisite intent. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). Section 2423(a) requires only the transportation of a child with the requisite intent, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); it does not necessarily entail "the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child" to do anything other than travel. If a defendant entices an adult to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity, a § 2422(a) offense has been committed, but no sexual abuse of a child has occurred. If a defendant transports a minor with the intent (unbeknownst to the minor) that the minor will engage in sexual activity, no sexual activity occurs, and there is no "employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion" to engage in sexual activity, a § 2423(a) offense has been committed, but no sexual abuse of a child has occurred. + +While the government cites several cases in which courts have found § 3283 applicable to particular statutes, it cites only one case in which either a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) offense has been held to involve "sexual abuse" within the meaning of § 3283. In United States v. =. No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014), the court held that a § 2423(a) offense involved sexual abuse, but it did not hold that § 2423(a) necessarily entails sexual abuse; instead, the court used a fact-based approach. Id. at \*11 ("defendant is charged with transportation of a minor in violation of [§ 2423(a)] and it is alleged that the defendant did have sexual contact with Victim I") (emphasis added). No court has held that either the enticement of an individual to travel or the transportation of a minor necessarily entails "sexual abuse" within the meaning of § 3283. It does not. The government therefore cannot and should not prevail. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that Counts One through Four be dismissed. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Anomey's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5eabdbf3cf04acadc3aa3a215b2b3776eda5294f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491/EFTA02831491.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1256 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831491.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 42821, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.84, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR \nOF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 525.3202514648438, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 525.3202514648438, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 357.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 357.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 383.14178466796875, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 383.14178466796875, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and Rejected \na Proposal to Do So.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 293.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 293.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the \ninquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 508.662353515625, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 508.662353515625, + 332.60302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 332.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily \ndistinguishable.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 499.2664489746094, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 499.2664489746094, + 332.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 332.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The government cannot prevail at step one.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 405.3479919433594, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 405.3479919433594, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Aliened \nOffenses Would Have Impermissible Effects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 522.1033325195312, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 522.1033325195312, + 292.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 293.7411193847656, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 293.7411193847656, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual \nAbuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 515.9578857421875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 515.9578857421875, + 154.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 154.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily \nEntail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 515.671875, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 515.671875, + 292.9925231933594 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 292.9925231933594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831491" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76d79eb461337e279c5cee3e6b5ebb4284be6b8f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.md @@ -0,0 +1,302 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 4/16/21 + +20-cr-330 (MN) + +OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims from around 1994 to 1997. The Government filed a first (Si) superseding indictment shortly thereafter, which contained only small, ministerial corrections. The SI superseding indictment included two counts of enticement or transportation of minors to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of the Act and two counts of conspiracy to commit those offenses. It also included two counts of perjury in connection with Maxwell's testimony in a civil deposition. Trial is set to begin on July 12, 2021. + +Maxwell filed twelve pretrial motions seeking to dismiss portions of the Si superseding indictment, suppress evidence, and compel discovery. After the parties fully briefed those motions, a grand jury returned a second (S2) superseding indictment adding a sex trafficking count and another related conspiracy count. + +This Opinion resolves all of Maxwell's currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the SI superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues + +related to the newly added sex trafficking charges. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the Si superseding indictment in whole or in part. It grants her motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. It denies her motion to further expedite discovery. + +The Court provides a brief summary of its conclusions here and its reasoning on the pages that follow: + +- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts based on a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. The Court concludes that the agreement does not apply in this District or to the charged offenses. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts as untimely. The Court concludes that the Government brought the charges within the statute of limitations and did not unfairly delay in bringing them. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss the Act counts because they are too vague, or in the alternative to require the Government to describe the charges in greater detail. The Court concludes that the charges are specific enough. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss the perjury counts because, in her view, her testimony responded to ambiguous questioning and was not material. The Court concludes that these issues are best left for the jury. +- Maxwell moves to sever the perjury counts from the Act counts so that they can proceed in a separate trial. The Court concludes that is appropriate and will try the perjury counts separately. +- Maxwell moves to strike language from the indictment that she believes is superfluous and to dismiss conspiracy counts she believes are redundant. The Court concludes that these motions are premature before trial. +- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to immediately disclose certain categories of evidence. The Court concludes that she is not entitled to do so, but the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the SI superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion appears moot. + +## I. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar this prosecution + +In September 2007, under investigation by both federal and state authorities, Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Dkt. No. 142 at 1-2. Epstein agreed in the NPA to plead guilty in Florida state court to soliciting minors for prostitution and to serve eighteen months in a county jail. Id. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge him with federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida stemming from its investigation of his conduct between 2001 and 2007. Id. It also agreed not to bring criminal charges against any of his "potential co-conspirators." Id. + +As a recent report from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility observed, the NPA was unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy. OPR Report, Gov. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 204-3, at x, 80, 175, 179, 260-61. The U.S. Attorney's promise not to prosecute unidentified co-conspirators marks a stark departure from normal practice for federal plea agreements. This provision appears to have been added "with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors." Id. at 169, 185. The report concluded that the U.S. Attorney's negotiation and approval of the NPA did not amount to professional misconduct, but nonetheless reflected "poor judgment." Id. at 169. + +Only the NPA's effect, and not its wisdom, is presently before the Court. Maxwell contends that the NPA bars this prosecution, because she is charged as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any geographical or temporal limitations. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the Si superseding indictment. + +### A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and due process require the federal government to fulfill it. See SantobeIlo v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996). The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The question is whether the terms of the NPA did so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and principles of contract interpretation, the Court concludes that they did not. + +In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held: "A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam). This is something akin to a clear statement rule. Single-district plea agreements are the norm. Nationwide, unlimited agreements are the rare exception. Applying Annabi, panels of the Second Circuit have stated that courts cannot infer intent to depart from this ordinary practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the government" or "the United States." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.34 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the United States Attorney for Suchand-Such District" in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed. + +Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The provision of the NPA dealing with co-conspirators does not expressly state that it binds U.S. Attorneys in other districts. It does not expressly state that it applies in other districts. The relevant language, in + +its entirety, reads as follows: "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Artnabi, Salameh, and , a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. + +Two provisions of the NPA refer specifically to prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. The first states that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida will defer "prosecution in this District" if Epstein complies with the agreement. Dkt. No. 142-1 at 2. The second states that no prosecution "will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed" after he fulfills the agreement's conditions. Maxwell contends that the lack of similar language in the co-conspirator provision must mean that it lacks any geographical limitation. If anything, that language reflects that the NPA's scope was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida. It is not plausible—let alone "affirmatively apparent", Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672,—that the parties intended to drastically expand the agreement's geographic scope in the single sentence on the prosecution of co-conspirators without clearly so saying. + +Without an affirmative statement in the NPA's text, Maxwell turns to its negotiation history. Under Second Circuit precedent she may offer evidence that negotiations of the NPA between the defendant and the prosecutors included a promise to bind other districts. See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). She alleges that officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida sought and obtained approval for the NPA from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and communicated with attorneys in other districts. Any involvement of attorneys outside the Southern District of Florida appears to have been minimal. Maxwell has already received access to an unusually large amount of information about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report and yet identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA. The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it. OPR Report at 103. Other documents show that attorneys in the Southern District of Florida reached out to other districts for investigatory assistance but not for help negotiating the NPA. Dkt. No. 204-2. Nor would direct approval of the NPA by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General change the meaning of its terms. No evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his coconspirators in other districts. Absent such a promise, it does not matter who did or did not approve it. + +Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney's office for the district where it was signed. Maxwell identifies nothing in the NPA's text or negotiation history to disturb this presumption. The Court thus concludes that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. + +# B. The non-prosecution agreement does not cover the charged offenses + +The NPA would provide Maxwell no defense to the charges in the S I superseding indictment even against an office bound to follow it. The NPA bars prosecution, following Epstein's fulfillment of its conditions, only for three specific categories of offenses: + +- (1) "the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2" of the NPA; namely, "any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; +- (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and +- (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." + +Dkt. No. 142-1 at 2. The NPA makes clear that the covered charges are those relating to and deriving from a specific investigation of conduct that occurred between 2001 and 2007. + +Maxwell contends that the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any limitation on the offenses covered. The Court disagrees with this improbable interpretation. The phrase "potential co-conspirator" means nothing without answering the question "co-conspirator in what?" The most natural reading of the co-conspirator provision is that it covers those who conspired with Epstein in the offenses covered by the NPA for their involvement in those offenses. Thus, it would cover any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation. + +The Court has no trouble concluding that the perjury counts are not covered by the NPA. Those charges do not relate to conduct in which Maxwell conspired with Epstein and stem from depositions in 2016, more than eight years after Epstein signed the NPA. Maxwell now concedes as much, though her motion sought to dismiss the Si superseding indictment in its entirety, perjury counts and all. + +The Act counts, too, fall comfortably outside the NPA's scope. The SI superseding indictment charges conduct occurring exclusively between 1994 and 1997, some four years before the period covered by the Southern District of Florida investigation and the NPA. The NPA does not purport to immunize Epstein from liability for crimes committed before the period that was the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation. Maxwell's protection is no broader. The Court thus concludes that the NPA does not cover the offenses charged in the SI superseding indictment. + +#### C. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing + +In the alternative to dismissing the indictment, Maxwell requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the parties' intent in the NPA. The Court finds no basis to do so. + +The cases Maxwell cites where courts held hearings on the scope of a plea agreement mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties. All of them involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of negotiations who claimed prosecutors breached an oral promise. "An oral agreement greatly increases the potential for disputes such as ... a failure to agree on the existence, let alone the terms, of the deal." United States v. Alentan,286 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 2002). Thus, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine the terms of an agreement never committed to writing. This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear. Beyond the NPA itself, an extensive OPR report details its negotiation history. No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing. The Court agrees with the Government that Maxwell's request for a hearing rests on mere conjecture. + +For the same reason, the Court will not order the discovery on the NPA. In any case, it appears that the Government has already produced two of the documents Maxwell seeks in her motion—the OPR report and notes mentioned in a privilege log. Of course, the Government's disclosure obligations would require it to disclose to Maxwell any exculpatory evidence or evidence material to preparing the defense, including any evidence supporting a defense under the NPA. The Government shall confirm in writing within one week whether it views any evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA as material it is required to disclose, and, if so, whether it has disclosed any and all such evidence in its possession. + +#### II. The indictment is timely + +#### A. The indictment complies with the statute of limitations + +Federal law imposes a five-year limitations period for most non-capital offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Recognizing the difficulty of promptly prosecuting crimes against children, Congress has provided a longer limitations period for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping" of a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Until 2003, the operative version of § 3283 allowed prosecution of these offenses until the victim reached the age of twenty-five. Congress further extended the limitations period in the PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108- 21, 117 Stat. 650, to allow prosecution any time during the life of the victim. + +The parties agree that the Act charges are timely if subject to the PROTECT Act, but untimely under the general statute of limitations for non-capital offenses or the pre-2003 version of § 3283. Maxwell contends that the charged offenses do not qualify as offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and are thus governed by the general statute of limitations. Alternatively, she contends that the pre-2003 version of § 3283 applies because the charged conduct occurred prior to 2003. The Court concludes that statute of limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely. + +## 1. The Act charges are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors + +Maxwell does not dispute that the facts alleged in the S I superseding indictment involve the sexual abuse of minors. The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or transported them for that purpose. Instead, Maxwell contends that charged offenses do not qualify as offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors because sexual abuse is not an essential ingredient of each statutory offense. See v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 221 (1953). In Maxwell's view, + +for example, it is possible to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and not follow through with the planned sexual abuse, and so sexual abuse is not an essential ingredient of the offense. Maxwell makes the same argument for the enticement and related conspiracy charges. + +This approach is analogous to the "categorical approach" employed by courts to evaluate prior convictions for immigration and sentencing purposes. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990). Generally speaking, the "categorical approach" requires that courts "look only to the statutory definitions—i.e., the elements" of the relevant offense to determine if the provision applies "and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions." Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 261 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a statute requires a categorical or case-specific approach is a question of statutory interpretation. To determine whether Congress used the word "offense" in a statute to refer to an offense in the abstract or to the facts of each individual case, the Court must examine the statute's "text, context, and history." United States v. 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2327 (2019). + +Though it has not authoritatively settled the question, the Second Circuit has strongly suggested that Maxwell's approach is the wrong one. In Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017), the Second Circuit discussed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). + +The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning in Weingarten. First, "[titre Supreme Court's modern categorical approach jurisprudence is confined to the post-conviction contexts of criminal sentencing and immigration deportation cases." Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58. To the extent that the categorical approach is ever appropriate in other contexts, it is inappropriate here. + +The Court begins with the statute's text. Statutes that call for application of the categorical approach typically deal with the elements of an offense in a prior criminal conviction. Id. at 59. "The language of § 3283, by contrast, reaches beyond the offense and its legal elements to the conduct `involv[ed]' in the offense. That linguistic expansion indicates Congress intended courts to look beyond the bare legal charges in deciding whether § 3283 applied." Id. at 59-60 (alteration in original) (quoting § 3283). Maxwell cites one case holding otherwise, but that case involved a venue statute presenting significantly different concerns. See United States v.M, 393 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has likewise held that a statute which uses the language "an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds \$10,000" is "consistent with a circumstance-specific approach." Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 32, 38 (2009) (emphasis added). Thus, the word "involves" generally means that courts should look to the circumstances of an offense as committed in each case. This reading accords with a robust legislative history indicating that Congress intended to apply § 3283 to a wide range of crimes against children. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 60; Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196. + +The purposes underlying the categorical approach do not apply here either. For statutes dealing with prior convictions, "Nile categorical approach serves `practical' purposes: It promotes judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the relitigation of past convictions in minitrials conducted long after the fact." Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 200-01 (2013). In the context of § 3283, there is no prior conviction to assess, and the jury will determine in the first instance whether "the defendant engaged in the applicable abusive conduct." Weingarten, + +865 F.3d at 60. Maxwell nonetheless contends that using a case-specific approach for § 3283 would be impractical because the Government would need to prove conduct beyond the elements of the offense. It may be true that this approach requires the Government to prove some additional facts, but any statute-of-limitations defense presents factual issues (including, at least, when the alleged conduct took place). This is not a serious practical problem and does not justify setting aside the statute's language and apparent purpose. + +Maxwell relies primarily on v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), to urge this Court to cast Weingarten aside. The Supreme Court in addressed a statute that extended the limitations period for defrauding the United States during the Second World War. In that case, the Supreme Court first concluded that making false statements at an immigration hearing was not subject to the extended limitations period because it lacked any pecuniary element as required by the statute. Id. at 221. Then, as an alternative basis for its holding, it explained that the offense did not require fraud as an "essential ingredient." Id. at 222. It reached that conclusion in large part because the statute's legislative history made clear that Congress intended it to apply only to a narrow class of war frauds causing pecuniary loss. Id. at 216. + +As the Second Circuit explained in Weingarten, Congress had the opposite intent in the enacting in the PROTECT Act. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 59 & n. 10. "In passing recent statutes related to child sex abuse, including extensions of the § 3283 limitations period, Congress 'evinced a general intention to "'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible. Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for M' holding legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—does not exist here. Instead, both the statute's plan meaning and its legislative history suggest it should apply more broadly. + +Based on the statute's text, context, and history, the Court follows Weingarten and concludes that the appropriate inquiry is whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse of a minor on the facts alleged in this case. There is no question that they did. The Court thus concludes that § 3283 governs the limitations period for the charges here. + +## 2. The 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations applies to these offenses + +Maxwell next contends that because the charged conduct took place before the PROTECT Act's enactment, that statute did not lengthen the statute of limitations applicable to her alleged offenses. Here too, the Second Circuit has provided guidance in its decision in Weingarten. Although the court did not provide a definitive answer there, it explained that the view Maxwell now takes conflicts with established principles of retroactivity and the decisions of at least two other circuit courts. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58 & n.8; see Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138, 145 (4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). + +The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. US! Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so apply it. Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54. Otherwise, the statute applies to past conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. !d. + +The Court begins with Landgrafs first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts must consider the text of the statute along with other indicia of congressional intent, including the statute's history and structure. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig. v. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2004). + +Section 3283, as amended by the PROTECT Act, broadly states that "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child." The statute lacks an express retroactivity clause, but courts have held that no such clause is necessary, including for this particular statute. See Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d at 923. The statute's plain language unambiguously requires that it apply to prosecutions for offenses committed before the date of enactment. Instead of simply providing a new limitations period for future conduct, Congress stated that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply. That is, it prevents the application of any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to past conduct. + +Courts have reached the same conclusion for other statutes employing similar language. The Eighth Circuit has held that the 1994 amendments to § 3283, which allowed prosecution of sex crimes against children until the victim reached age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Lug., 391 F.3d at 407. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations for claims on defaulted student loans by stating that "no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed." Id. The PROTECT Act's language is quite similar. + +The history of § 3283 confirms Congress's intent to apply the extended limitations period as broadly as the Constitution allows. With each successive amendment to the statute, Congress further extended the limitations period, recognizing that sex crimes against children "may be difficult to detect quickly" because children often delay or decline to report sexual abuse. + +Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA matching conclusively identified him as the perpetrator one day after the victim turned 25." Id. + +Maxwell makes no argument based on the statute's text. Instead, she contends that because the House version of the bill included an express retroactivity provision absent from its final form, the Court should infer that Congress did not intend the statute to apply to past conduct. However, the legislative history makes clear that Congress abandoned the retroactivity provision in the House bill only because it would have produced unconstitutional results. The Supreme Court has explained that a law that revives a time-barred prosecution violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who cosponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitutionality" because it "would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred." 149 Cong. Rec. S5137, 55147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy). Congress removed the provision shortly thereafter for this reason. The removal of the express retroactivity provision shows only that Congress intended to limit the PROTECT Act to its constitutional applications, including past conduct—like Maxwell's—on which the statute of limitations had not yet expired. + +Both the text and history of the PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 reflect that it applies Maxwell's conduct charged in the SI superseding indictment. The Court could stop here. However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. + +At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has presumptively impermissible retroactive effects when it 'takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.' Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously timebarred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. Applying it to conduct for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired does not. Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995). + +Maxwell concedes that these offenses were within the statute of limitations when Congress enacted the PROTECT Act. Thus, the Act did not deprive her of any vested rights. Maxwell contends that it is unfair to allow the Government to prosecute her now for conduct that occurred more than twenty years ago, but there is no dispute that Congress has the power to set a lengthy limitations period or no limitations period at all. It has done so here, judging that the difficulty of prosecuting these offenses and the harm they work on children outweighs a defendant's interest in repose. Maxwell's fairness argument is a gripe with Congress's policy judgment, not an impermissibly retroactive application of the statute. The Court concludes that § 3283 allows her prosecution now. + +# B. The Government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process + +"As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Marion, the statute of limitations is 'the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.' United States v. Cornielle, + +171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971)). There is a strong presumption that an indictment filed within the statute of limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the charges. See id. This is a stringent standard. "Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar." DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Din. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999). + +The Court sees no evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government's delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case. + +Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. , 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell + +provides no indication of what many of these potential witnesses might have testified to. The testimony she suggests the detective might have offered—that witnesses in the Palm Beach investigation did not identify Maxwell by name—is propensity evidence that does nothing to establish her innocence of the charged offenses. There are also serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf. See United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999). + +Maxwell's arguments that the indictment should be dismissed because of the possibility of missing witnesses, failing memories, or lost records fail for similar reasons. These are difficulties that arise in any case where there is extended delay in bringing a prosecution, and they do not justify dismissing an indictment. United States v. Marion, 4O4 U.S. 307, 325-26 (1971); see United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979). + +Finally, the Court finds no substantial prejudice from the pretrial publicity this case has garnered. Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this case has transformed her reputation from that of Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator. And she also alleges—without evidence—that her accusers fabricated their stories based on media allegations. The Court will not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a perjurious conspiracy against her. And the Court will take all appropriate steps to ensure that the pretrial publicity in this case does not compromise Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury. + +The Court thus concludes that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges here. + +#### III. The indictment describes the charged offenses with specificity + +Maxwell seeks to dismiss the Act counts for lack of specificity or in the alternative to compel the Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges. The Court concludes that the charges in the SI superseding indictment are clear enough. + +Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, an indictment must contain "a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." The indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975). In addition to dismissal, "Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). + +The S I superseding indictment sets out the elements of each charged crime and the facts supporting each element. Nonetheless, Maxwell contends that the indictment is too vague because it refers to open-ended time periods, describes conduct like "grooming" and "befriending" that is not inherently criminal, and does not identify the alleged victims by name. + +Maxwell's first argument fails because the Government need only describe the time and place of charged conduct "in approximate terms." Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The details are subject to proof at trial. "[T]he Second Circuit routinely upholds the `on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)). "This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of the offenses." United States v. Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (collecting cases). As here, these cases frequently involve alleged abuse spanning a lengthy period of time, and witnesses who were victimized as children may struggle to recall the precise dates when abuse occurred. The indictment adequately describes the time and place of the charged conduct. + +Maxwell next contends that allegations of noncriminal conduct render the charges impermissibly vague. The Court disagrees. Rule 7 requires only that the language of the indictment track the language of the statute and provide a rough account of the time and place of the crime. Tranzunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The language of the S 1 superseding indictment does so. The Government's decision to provide more details than those strictly required does not hamper Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. Maxwell's argument that some of the conduct alleged is not inherently criminal goes to the merits of the Government's case, not the specificity of the charges. + +Finally, Maxwell argues that the indictment is vague because the government does not provide the names of the alleged victims. The Court sees no basis to require that the alleged victims' names be included the indictment. The names of victims, even if important, generally need not appear there unless their omission would seriously prejudice the defendant. See United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Maxwell likely knows the identity of the alleged victims described in the indictment at this point because the Government has provided extensive discovery on them. + +Moreover, the Government has agreed to disclose their names in advance of trial. There is thus no unfairness here. See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 126. As discussed below, the Court will require the parties to negotiate and propose a full schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. + +## IV. The perjury charges are legally tenable + +The Court turns next to Maxwell's motion to dismiss the perjury counts stemming from her answers to questions in a deposition in a civil case. She contends that these charges are legally deficient because the questions posed were fundamentally ambiguous and the questions were not material to the subject of the deposition. The Court concludes that the charges are legally tenable and Maxwell's defenses are appropriately left to the jury. + +The applicable perjury statute imposes criminal penalties on anyone who "in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court ... knowingly makes any false material declaration." 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Testimony is perjurious only if it is knowingly false and is material to the proceeding in which the defendant offered it. + +# A. The questions posed were not too ambiguous to support a perjury charge + +The requirement of knowing falsity requires that a witness believe that their testimony is false. United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1986). As a general matter, "[a] jury is best equipped to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id. Courts have acknowledged a narrow exception for questions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375. The existence of some arguable ambiguity does not foreclose a perjury charge against a witness who understood the question. + +At a minimum, Maxwell's motion is premature. Courts typically evaluate whether a question was fundamentally ambiguous only after the development of a full factual record at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992). The evidence at trial may shed further light on whether the questions posed were objectively ambiguous in context or whether Maxwell subjectively understood them. In any event, the Court has closely considered each of the categories of questions that Maxwell argues are ambiguous. None of the alleged ambiguities Maxwell identifies rise to the level supporting dismissal of the charges. The context of the questions and answers, in conjunction with the Government's evidence, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the statements were perjurious. Truth and falsity are questions for the jury in all but the most extreme cases. The Court declines to usurp the jury's role on the limited pretrial record. + +# B. A reasonable juror could conclude that Maxwell's statements were material + +Maxwell also argues that the perjury counts should be dismissed because none of the allegedly false statements were material to the defamation action. In a civil deposition, a statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). + +The charged statements do not fall within this narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions did not relate to the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations at the center of the + +civil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that Maxwell's answers could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509; Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that truthful answers to the questions may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff's testimony. The factual disputes relating to materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard against "invading the 'inviolable function of the jury' in our criminal justice system," and if the "defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion." United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018). + +The Court concludes that the perjury charges are legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury. + +# V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately + +Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the Court concludes that the interests of justice require severing those counts and trying them separately. Trying the perjury counts together with the Act counts would require admitting evidence of other acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel based on their involvement in the earlier civil case. + +Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to order separate trials if joining all offenses in a single trial would prejudice the defendant. A defendant seeking must show significant unfairness to outweigh the burden on the court of conducting multiple trials. United States v. 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). The harm to the defendant must be more than "solely the adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than + +one." United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 929 (2d Cir. 1980). Though this standard is demanding, the Court concludes that, due to unique features of the perjury counts, Maxwell meets it here. Trying all counts together would compromise Maxwell's right to the counsel of her choice and risk an unfair trial. + +Trying the perjury counts together with the Act counts would risk an unfair trial on each set of counts. First, it would introduce unrelated allegations of sexual abuse, which would potentially expose the jury to evidence that might otherwise not be admissible. In particular, a joint trial would potentially expose the jury to a wider swath of information regarding civil litigation against Epstein that is remote from Maxwell's charged conduct. This presents a significant risk that the jury will cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if considered separately, it would not do so. See United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978). Second, the evidence presented on the Act counts may prejudice the jury's ability to fairly evaluate Maxwell's truthfulness in her deposition, a critical element of the perjury counts. The Court has concerns that a limiting instruction may be inadequate to mitigate these risks given the nature of the allegations involved. + +Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf. The perjury counts likely implicate the performance and credibility of her lawyers in the civil action—two of whom represent her in this case. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct generally forbid a lawyer from representing a client in a proceeding in which the lawyer is likely also to be a witness. N.Y. R. Prof] Conduct § 3.7(a). Maxwell's counsel in the civil action and the deposition may be important fact witnesses on the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not required to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell to choose between having her counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the Act charges. + +The Second Circuit has recognized that witness testimony offered by a party's attorney presents serious risks to the fairness of a trial. See v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2009). The lawyer might appear to vouch for their own credibility, jurors might perceive the lawyer as distorting the truth to benefit their client, and blurred lines between argument and evidence might confuse the jury. Id. Disqualification of counsel also implicates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. See, e.g., United States v. Kincade, No. 15-cr-00071 (JAD) (GWF), 2016 WL 6154901, at \*6 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2016). The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064. 1070-71 (2d Cir. 1982). + +The Court is of course cognizant of the burden separate trials may impose on all trial participants. But much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts and the Act counts does not overlap. In particular, materiality for statements made in a civil deposition is broad, and evidence on that question is unlikely to bear on the other charges here. See Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54; Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509. Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to both sets of charges, many are not. At a minimum, this will expand the scope of the trial far beyond the narrower issues presented. And while the Court agrees with the Government that at least some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated, there is little question that the jury's consideration of the nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time and resources to provide the requisite context. + +The balance of these considerations favors . "Motions to sever are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1149 (2d Cir. 1989). In its discretion, the Court concludes that trying the perjury counts separately will best ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of all charges in this case. + +### VI. Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage is premature + +Maxwell moves to strike allegations related to one of the alleged victims from the S I superseding indictment as surplusage. The Court declines to do so at this juncture. + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) allows a court to strike surplusage from an indictment on a defendant's motion. "Motions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be granted only where the challenged allegations are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial." United States v. . 85 F.3d 1023, 1030 (2d Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). Courts in this District generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how specific allegations relate to the overall charges. See, e.g., United States v. Nejad, No. 18-cr-224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361, at \*18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019); United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). + +Maxwell contends that the allegations related to "Minor Victim-3" are surplusage because the indictment does not charge that Minor Victim-3 traveled in interstate commerce or was below the age of consent in England where the alleged activities took place. Thus, she argues, these allegations do not relate to the charged conspiracy and instead reflect an attempt to introduce Minor Victim-3's testimony for impermissible purposes. + +The Court will not strike any language from the Si superseding indictment at this juncture. The standard under Rule 7(d) is "exacting" and requires the defendant to demonstrate clearly that the allegations are irrelevant to the crimes charged. United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). The indictment does not allege that the alleged victim traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. But the Court cannot rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind. See United States v. . 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992). The Court will follow the well-worn path of others in this District and reserve the issue for trial. Maxwell may renew her motion then. + +# VII. Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous charges is premature + +Maxwell's motion to dismiss either the first or third count of the S I superseding indictment as multiplicitous is also premature. Maxwell contends that the Government has alleged the same conspiracy twice in the indictment. "An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999). "The multiplicity doctrine is based upon the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which assures that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense." United States v. Nakashian, 820 F.2d 549, 552 (2d Cir. 1987) (cleaned up). + +"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed." United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006). "Since Josephberg, courts in this Circuit have routinely denied pre-trial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature." United States v. Medina, No. I3-cr-272 + +(PGG), 2014 WL 3057917, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) (collecting cases). The Court therefore denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts without prejudice. + +## VIII. The parties shall negotiate all remaining disclosures + +Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce certain documents she believes it has in its possession and has failed to produce. She also seeks accelerated disclosure of the Government's witness list, Jencks Act material, Brady and Giglio material, co-conspirator statements, and Rule 404(b) material. Based on the Government's response in briefing and letters the parties have since submitted to the Court, it appears that most of these requests have been overtaken by events. Accordingly, although the Court concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to expedite this discovery based on the arguments in her motion papers, the Court will require the parties to confer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. + +## A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material + +The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require the Government to disclose to defendants certain evidence that will aid their defense. Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Under Giglio, the Government has a duty to produce "not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key government witness." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). As a general rule, "Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all exculpatory and impeachment material upon request by a defendant." Id. at 146. "[A]s long as a defendant possesses Brady evidence in time for its effective use, the government has not deprived the defendant of due process of law simply because it did not produce the evidence sooner." M. at 144. + +Maxwell requests an order directing immediate disclosure of all Brady and Giglio material and also requests a few specific documents she contends the Government has failed to disclose. The Court begins with the specific requests. The requested materials include (1) records of witness interviews in connection with an ex parte declaration in support of a response to a motion to quash subpoenas; (2) an unredacted copy of two FBI reports; (3) pages from a personal diary that is in the custody of a civilian third party; and (4) copies of all subpoenas the Government has issued for Maxwell's records as part of its investigation in this case. + +The Government represents that it is cognizant of its Brady obligations, that is has reviewed the witness interviews and one of the FBI reports, and that neither set of documents includes exculpatory information not previously disclosed. The Court has no reason to doubt the Government's representation in this case that it is aware of its Brady obligations and that it has complied and will continue to comply with them. And because the witness statements are covered by the Jencks Act, the Court cannot compel production of such statements under the terms of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. Next, the Government represents that it has already produced an unredacted copy of the other requested FBI report, and so that request is moot. The diary pages she requests are within the control of a civilian third party, not the Government, and so the Government need not (and perhaps cannot) produce them. See United States v. 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Finally, Maxwell's request for copies of all subpoenas the Government has issued is overly broad and lacks a legal basis. Maxwell is not entitled to compel production of these documents. + +The Court also will not issue an order requiring the immediate disclosure of Brady and Giglio material. The Government has represented that it recognizes its obligations under Brady and that it has complied, and will continue to comply, with such obligations. The Court has no + +reason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144. + +### B. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements + +Maxwell also seeks to expedite discovery of Jencks Act material and non-exculpatory statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, "provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination." Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. "A coconspirator who testifies on behalf of the government is a witness under the Act." In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance of trial. + +The Court also rejects Maxwell's alternative request for a hearing to determine the admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a mistrial. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government + +has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to allow Maxwell to raise any objections. Maxwell will have adequate time to object to any proffered co-conspirator testimony following the Government's Jencks Act disclosures. + +### C. Witness list + +As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has made a specific showing that disclosure is "both material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case." United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139-140 (2d Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). + +Maxwell has made a particularized showing that the Government must produce a witness list reasonably in advance of trial. The nature of the allegations in this case—decades-old allegations spanning multiple locations—present considerable challenges for the preparation of the defense. However, the Government's proposed disclosure schedule—which will afford Maxwell at least six weeks to investigate testifying witness statements—allows Maxwell significantly more time to review disclosures than schedules adopted in most cages in this District. See, e.g., United States v. Rueb, No. 00-CR-91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (thirty days before trial); United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 565, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (fourteen days before trial). In addition, on April 13, 2021, the Government produced over 20,000 pages of interview notes, reports and other materials related to non-testifying witnesses. After considering the circumstances, including the complexity of the issues in this case and what the defense has already received and likely learned in the course of discovery, the Court concludes that the Government's proposal is generally reasonable. + +#### D. Rule 404(b) material + +Maxwell's final discovery request is for early disclosure of evidence the Government seeks to offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Under Rule 404(b), if the prosecutor in a criminal case intends to use "evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act" against a defendant, the prosecutor must "provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial" arid must "do so in writing before trial—or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice." The Government represents that it will notify the defense of its intent to use 404(6) evidence at least 45 days in advance of trial to allow Maxwell to file any motions in limine to be considered at the final pretrial conference. The Government's proposal will give Maxwell an opportunity to challenge admission of that evidence and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional time to enable briefing and resolution in advance of trial is strongly encouraged. + +The Court's denial of Maxwell's requests to compel pretrial disclosures does not preclude the parties from negotiating in good faith for an expedited discovery timeline that will account for Maxwell's specific concerns. "[I]n most criminal cases, pretrial disclosure will redound to the benefit of all parties, counsel, and the court." United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 1974). In general, the Court will require the parties to negotiate a final, omnibus schedule to propose to the Court. The Court concludes that the disclosure of all of the above materials approximately six to eight weeks in advance of trial is appropriate and sufficient. + +Given the complexities of the case and the addition of two counts via the S2 indictment, the Court encourages the parties to agree to approximately eight weeks. + +## IX. The S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge + +The Court has not received supplemental briefing on the motions in light of the return of the S2 superseding indictment and so does resolve any such issues here.' However, Maxwell's motion seeking to dismiss the Si superseding indictment because it was returned by a grand jury sitting at the Plains courthouse appears moot. Maxwell argued that the use of a grand jury drawn from the Plains Division in this District did not represent a fair cross-section of the community, because her trial would proceed in the Manhattan Division. A grand jury sitting in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment. By April 21, 2021, Maxwell shall show cause why her grand jury motion should not be dismissed on that basis. + +### Conclusion + +The Court DENIES Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment as barred by Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (Dkt. No. 141), to dismiss the Act counts as barred by the statute of limitations (Dkt. No. 143), to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay (Dkt. No. 137), to dismiss the Act counts for lack of specificity (Dkt. No. 123), to dismiss the perjury counts as legally untenable (Dkt. No. 135), to strike surplusage (Dkt. No. 145), to dismiss count one or count three as multiplicitous (Dkt. No. 121), and to expedite pretrial disclosures (Dkt. No. 147). The Court GRANTS Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts for a separate trial (Dkt. No. 119). + +I The parties shall negotiate and propose a schedule for any available additional or supplement rulings in light of the filing of the S2 indictment. + +The Court ORDERS the Government to confirm within one week whether it considers any evidence related to negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement to constitute *Brady* or *Rule* 16 material and, if so, to confirm that it has or will disclose such evidence. + +The Court further ORDERS the parties to negotiate a final schedule for all pretrial disclosures that remain outstanding, including: *Brady*, *Giglio*, and *Jenks Act* materials, including co-conspirator statements; non-testifying witness statements; testifying witness statements; the identity of victims alleged in the indictment; 404(b) material; and the Government's witness list. The Court also requires the parties to negotiate a schedule for any additional or supplemental motions briefing in light of the S2 indictment. The Court ORDERS a joint proposal to be submitted by April 21, 2021. If agreement is not reached, the parties shall submit their respective proposals. + +The Court further ORDERS Maxwell to show cause by April 21, 2021 why her motion to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment under the Sixth Amendment (Dkt. No. 125) should not be denied as moot. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 16, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef68fa9a4657f28fd2f011fc8cffadb8ae8d47ed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513/EFTA02831513.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1837 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831513.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 34, + "chars": 66890, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.65, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar this prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 491.5809020996094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 491.5809020996094, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the \nSouthern District of New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 494.1279296875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 494.1279296875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The non-prosecution agreement does not cover the charged offenses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 475.73724365234375, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 475.73724365234375, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.98016357421875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.98016357421875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The indictment is timely", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 235.1314239501953, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 235.1314239501953, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The indictment complies with the statute of limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 408.37640380859375, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 408.37640380859375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Act charges are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 124.23600000000002, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 516.431884765625, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 516.431884765625, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 124.23600000000002, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations applies to these offenses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 181.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 523.1550903320312, + 181.79888916015625 + ], + [ + 523.1550903320312, + 196.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 196.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 497.12432861328125, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 497.12432861328125, + 638.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 638.6030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The indictment describes the charged offenses with specificity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 426.21832275390625, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 426.21832275390625, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The perjury charges are legally tenable", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 312.1788024902344, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 312.1788024902344, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The questions posed were not too ambiguous to support a perjury charge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 503.09783935546875, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 503.09783935546875, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. A reasonable juror could conclude that Maxwell's statements were material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 516.5205078125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 516.5205078125, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 406.3429870605469, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 406.3429870605469, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage is premature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 375.657470703125, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 375.657470703125, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous charges is premature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 440.9396667480469, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 440.9396667480469, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. The parties shall negotiate all remaining disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 376.438232421875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 376.438232421875, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all \nBrady and Giglio Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 519.5272216796875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 519.5272216796875, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 388.9312744140625, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 388.9312744140625, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Witness list", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 188.0512237548828, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 188.0512237548828, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Rule 404(b) material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 235.73825073242188, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 235.73825073242188, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. The S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 468.4310302734375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 468.4310302734375, + 141.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 141.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.6424865722656, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.6424865722656, + 389.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 389.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831513" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e84b5f87ce36a6fe145e4a34acf628f09ccad64a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +# EXHIBIT L + +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA + +CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM + +JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, + +Petitioners, + +vs. + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Respondent. + +/ + +### ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 + +This cause is before the Court on Jane Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe I and Jane Doc 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE 311). Both motions arc ripe for review. For the following masons, the Court concludes that they should be denied. + +# I. Background + +This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doc I and Jane Doc 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. (DE 1). Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (a). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (a.). + +On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doc 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (Id. at II). Janc Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 argue that they "have suffered the same violations of their rights under the [CVRA] as the" Petitioners, and they "desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well." (Id. at l). Thc Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule 21. (DE 290). Thc Government argues that Rule I S is the proper procedural device for adding panics to an action, not Rule 21. (Id. at I). + +"[G]ut of an abundance of caution," Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition under Rule 15, conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 as petitioners. (DE 31 I at 2). Thc Government opposes the Rule 15 Motion as well. (DE 314). Among other things, the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 should be denied because of their undue delay in socking to join the proceedings, and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. (a). + +After considering the panics' submissions and the proposed amended petition, the Court finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny the amendment. + +#### II. Discussion + +"The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court." Laurie v. Ala. Ct. Crim. Apps., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fcd. R. Civ. P. 15(aX2). Justice does not require amendment in several instances, "includ[ing] undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive + +on the pan of the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment."' Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v. 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the panics, the court must consider "the importance of the amcndmcnt on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute." 6 Miller, Fed. Prac. & Fcd. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d cd. 2010). Justice does not require amcndmcnt where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially advance the resolution of the litigation on the merits. Sec Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 894 F.2d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 1989). + +## A. Rule 21 Motion + +Jane Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4's first attempt to join in this proceeding was brought under Rule 21. (DE 280). "If parties seek to add a party under Rule 21, courts generally use the standard of Rule 15, governing amendments to pleadings, to determine whether to allow the addition." 12 & Fed. Prac. & Fcd. P., p. 432 (3d cd. 2013); sec also Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 729-30 (4th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases and noting that Rule 15(a) applies to amendments seeking to add parties); v. U.S. West Inc. 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993) ("A motion to add a party is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) . ."). + +Rule 21, "Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties," provides the court with a tool for correcting the "misjoindcr" of panics that would otherwise result in dismissal. Fcd. R. Civ. P. 21. Insofar as Rule 21 "relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to permit the bringing in of a person, who through inadvertence, mistake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States v. Corn. Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). + +In their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 do not claim that they were omitted from this proceeding due to any "inadvertence" or "mistake" by Petitioners; rather, they seek to join this proceeding as panics that could have been permissively joined in the original petition under Rule 20 ("Permissive Joinder of Parties"). As courts generally use the standards of Rule 15 to evaluate such circumstances, the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the Rule 15 Motion.' The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule 21 Motion as if they arc set forth in the Rule 15 Motion as well. Because the arguments arc presented in the Rule 15 Motion (and because the Court is denying the Rule 15 Motion on its merits, as discussed below), the Rule 21 Motion will be denied. + +The Court also concludes that portions of the Rule 21 Motion and related filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dcrshowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at 1). The Court has considered Mr. Dershowitz's arguments, but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) empowers the Court "on its own" to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(0. + +Petitioners' Rule 21 Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit them to join in this action: they argue that ( I ) they were sexually abused by + +The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule IS. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at \*5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp. Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). + +Jeffrey Epstein, and (2) the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the nonprosecution agreement with them. (DE 280 at 3; sec id. at 7-8). However, the bulk of the Rule 21 Motion consists of copious factual details that Janc Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 "would prove" allowed to join this action." (Id. at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders." (A at 3-6). Shc names several individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place. (acs id. at 5)3 + +At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details arc unnecessary to the determination of whether Janc Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 should be permitted to join Petitioners' claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. Thc factual details regarding with whom and where the Janc Does engaged in sexual activities arc immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.c., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-panics who arc not related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details shall be stricken. + +Thc original Rule 21 Motion (DE 279) shall be stricken in its entirety, as it is wholly superseded by the "corrected" version of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 280). From the corrected Rule 21 Motion, the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Janc Doc 3 between the following sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doc #3 the existence of its NPA from + += Janc Doc 4's proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr. Epstein and herself. (Sec DE 280 at 7-8). + +Jane Doc #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (LL at 3); and "The Government was well aware of Janc Doc #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA" (id. at 6). As none of Janc Doc 4's factual details relate to non-parties, the Court finds it unncccssary to strike the portion of the Rule 21 Motion related to her circumstances. Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners' response to Mr. Dcrshowitz's motion to intervene (DE 291-1), the Court shall strike paragraphs 4, 5, 7, II, 13, IS, 19 through 53, and 59, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties. Regarding the Declaration of Janc Doc 3 in support of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 310-1), the Court shall strike paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49, as they contain impertinent details regarding nonpanics. Janc Doc 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details arc pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's consideration. + +As mentioned, Mr. Dcrshowitz moves to intervene "for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them" (DE 282 at 1). As the Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Dcrschowitz's intervention in this case is unncccssary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.' Regarding whether a show cause order should + +' This also moots Mr. Dcrshowitz's Motion for Lcavc to File Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 317). Denying Mr. Dcrshowitz's motion to intervene also renders moot Petitioners' motion (DE 292) to file a scaled document supporting its response to Mr. Dcrshowitz's motion. It will accordingly be denied as moot, and DE 293 (the sealed response) will be stricken from the record. + +issue, the Court finds that its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners' submissions is sanction enough. However, the Court cautions that all counsel arc subject to Rule 11's mandate that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have evidentiary support, Fed. R. Civ. P. I 1(b)(I) and (3), and that the Court may, on its own, strike from any pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous mattcr," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). + +## B. Rule IS Motion + +Between their two motions (the Rule 21 Motion and Rule IS Motion), Janc Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 assert that "they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights [under the CVRA1 as well." (DE 280 at I ). Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all "other similarly-situated victims" (DE 189 at 1; DE 311 at 2, 12, IS, 18-19), Jane Doe 3 and Janc Doc 4 argue that they should be fellow travelers in this pursuit, lest they "be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims" resulting in "duplicative litigation" (DE 280 at 11). The Court finds that justice does not require adding new panics this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that arc admittedly "duplicative" of the claims already presented by Petitioners. + +The Does' submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 to proceed as panics in this action, rather than as fact witnesses available to offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony. (Sec, e.g., DE 280 at 2 (Janc Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 "arc in many respects similarly situated to the current victims"), 9 ("The new victims will establish at trial that the Government violated their CV RA rights in the same way as it violated the rights of the other victims."), 10 (Jane Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 "will simply join in motions that the current victims were going to file in any event."), II (litigating Janc Doc 3 and + +Jane Doc 4's claims would be "duplicative"); DE 298 at I n.l ("As promised Jane Doc No. 3 and Janc Doc No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed to join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Janc Doc No. I and Janc Doc No. 2."); DE 311 at 5 tt.3 ("[A]ll four victims (represented by the same legal counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings."), 15 (Janc Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 "challenge the same secret agreement i.e., the NPA that the Government executed with Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This is made clear by the proposed amendment itself, in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts.")). As the Does argue at length in their Rule 15 Motion, Jane Doc l's original petition "specifically allegc[s] that the Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims." (DE 311 at 2). The Court fails to see why the addition of "other similarly-situated victims" is now necessary to "vindicate their rights as well." (DE 280 at I ). + +Of course, Janc Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate the rights of similarly situated victims there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof submitted in this case come only from the named parties. Petitioners point out as much, noting that, regardless of whether this Court grants the Rule 15 Motion, "they will call Jane Doc No. 3 as a witness at any trial." (DE 311 at 17 n.7). The necessary "participation" of Janc Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial (see DE 280 at 9) or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery request? (sec + +The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits. (See DEs 291-I, 310-1). + +id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4's "participation in this case" can only be achieved by listing them as panics. + +As it stands under the original petition, the merits of this cast will be decided based on a determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doc 1, Janc Doc 2, and all "other similarly situated victims" under the CVRA. Janc Doc 3 and Janc Doc 4 may offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their participation as listed panics is not necessary in that regard. Sec Herring, 894 F.2d at 1024 (District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where "addition of more plaintiffs . . . would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment."); cf. Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at \*7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, "courts have held that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if the same parties arc involved, the same substantive claim is raised, and the same relief is sought.").` And, as to Jane Doc 4 at least, adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions about whether she is a proper party to this action .° + +Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the cvidcncc by including references to the non-prosecution agreement itself is "unnecessary" as the "existing petition is broad enough to cover the developing cvidcncc in this case." (DE 311). The Court + +The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by Janc Doc 3 and Jane Doc 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and noncumulative. + +The Government contends that Janc Doc 4 is not a true "victim" in this case because she was not known at the time the Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement, and accordingly she was not entitled to notification rights under the CVRA. (S2c DE 290 at 10). Any "duplicative" litigation filed by Janc Doc 4 would necessarily raise the issue of whether she has standing under the CVRA under these circumstances. + +agrees, and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the proceedings. + +### III. Conclusion + +Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: the Rule 21 Motion (DE 280) is DENIED; the Rule 15 Motion (DE 311) is DENIED; Intervenor Dcrshowitz's Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282) and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 317) are DENIED AS MOOT; Petitioners' Motion to Seal (DE 292) is DENIED AS MOOT; the following materials are hereby STRICKEN from the record: + +- DE 279, in its entirety. +- DE 280, all sentences between the following sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doc #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (DE 280 at 3). and "The Government was well aware of lane Doc #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA" (DE 280 at 6). +- DE 291-1, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19 through 53, and 59. +- DE 310-I, paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49. +- DE 293, in its entirety. + +DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6th day of April, 2015. + +KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2674efafaf5922b1fbc9f2da5f66ed8ea8e8cc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547/EFTA02831547.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,631 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831547.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 18304, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.36, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT L", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 385.73968505859375, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 385.73968505859375, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 218.484, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 407.3004455566406, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 407.3004455566406, + 96.603515625 + ], + [ + 218.484, + 96.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND \nMOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 516.9918212890625, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 516.9918212890625, + 323.4735412597656 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 323.4735412597656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 351.10638427734375, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 351.10638427734375, + 509.4735412597656 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 509.4735412597656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 275.4, + 521.64 + ], + [ + 350.04998779296875, + 521.64 + ], + [ + 350.04998779296875, + 535.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 535.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Rule 21 Motion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 90.576, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 205.4820556640625, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 205.4820556640625, + 296.070556640625 + ], + [ + 90.576, + 296.070556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Rule IS Motion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 90.576, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 205.47848510742188, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 205.47848510742188, + 216.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 90.576, + 216.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.4745788574219, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.4745788574219, + 136.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 136.7335205078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831547" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13dfdf4df3ca7fc512f7cabe66a1a70c4fd89a4a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.md @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +# EXHIBIT M + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA + +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra + +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 + +v. + +UNITED STATES + +## JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4's CORRECTED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION + +COME NOW Jane Doc #3 arid Jane Doc #4 (also referred to as "the new victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doc #2 (also referred to as "the current victims"). The new victims have suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) as the current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well. Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims (and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may "at any time" add new panics to the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the motion.' + +## FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +As minor victims of sexual offenses, Jane Doc #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane 1)oc #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government. + +As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DE1 . She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doc #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe 41 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein. + +The Court has firmly rejected the United States' position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had "standing" to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id. + +Two other victims, who arc in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court's assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly. + +Jane Doe #3's Circumstances + +As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doc #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 would prove the following: + +In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doc #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein's mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doc #3 began giving Epstein a "massage," Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on his Epstein's private planes, and elsewhere. + +Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doc, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for + +business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. + +One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doc #3 to have sexual relations with was former Ilarvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dcrshowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dcrshowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. + +Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein's inner circle and a co-conspirator in Epstein's sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures + +of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doc #3. She shared these photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein. The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these photographs. + +Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was a member of the British Family, Prince Andrew (a/Ida of York). Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell's apartment), in New York, and on Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doc #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doc #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell facilitated Prince Andrew's acts of sexual abuse by acting as a "madame" for Epstein, thereby assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doc #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual purposes. + +Another person in Epstein's inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost no investigative effort) is Jcan Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein's closest friends and a regular traveling companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S. passports for young girls to "work" as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as + +young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money. Epstein forced Jane Doc #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein's mansion in West Palm Beach, Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California. + +Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them. + +The Government was well aware of Jane Doc #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 — all in violation of her rights under the CVRA — to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein + +and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being concluded in the secretive manner in which it was. + +## Jane Doe #4's Circumstances + +If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Janc Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the following: + +As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-yearold child, was told by another one of Epstein's underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make \$300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe #4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doc #4 to go to Epstein's house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach. + +Jane Doc #4 then went to Epstein's mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein's large bathroom by one of Epstein's assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doc #3 her age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions. + +Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4. + +The acts Epstein committed against Jane Doe #4, constituted numerous federal sex offenses, some of which do not carry a statute of limitations and thus arc not time-barred. See 18 U.S.C. § 3283. And these offenses were the kinds of offenses that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida were pursuing in 2007. So far as Jane Doc #4 is aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office made no serious effort to locate her. Instead, after identifying approximately forty separate underage sexually abused victims, and apparently preparing a 53-page federal indictment and with full awareness of the existence of many victims like Jane Doe #4 — unidentified and not interviewed — it entered into a non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of Epstein's federal crimes against these victims. This is contrary to the Government's normal approach in prosecuting federal sex offenses. It also violated Jane Doe #4's rights under the CVRA, including the fact that she had a "reasonable" right to confer with the U.S. Attorney's Office before they entered into an agreement with a sex offender barring prosecution of him for the crimes he committed against her. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). + +## MOTION FOR JOINDER + +Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 now both move to join this action filed by Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 21 provides that "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add . . . a party." Rule 21 "grants the court broad discretion to permit a change in the parties at any stage of a litigation." v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intl, 268 F. Supp. 2d 271, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). The new victims should be allowed to join the current victims in this action under Rule 21. + +The new victims will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it violated the rights of the other victims. The new victims' participation in this case is important because it appears that the Government intends to raise a factual defense that somehow it did keep Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2 properly informed of what was happening in the criminal prosecution. Of course, if four victims all testify consistently that they were not properly informed by the Government (as we believe they will), that provides a stronger case for a CVRA violation. + +In addition, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's participation is relevant to a defense the Court has allowed the Government to raise. The Court has previously ruled that the victims' request for rescission of the NPA "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). Jane Doe #3's and Jane Doc #4's participation in this case will help to show what the "entire interface" was between the Government and the victims and thus to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments as well as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually-based and other arguments against the victim's position). + +Jane Doe #3's and Jane Doe #4's participation is also directly relevant to the discovery disputes currently pending in this case. The Government has raised various relevancy objections to the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc #2 are attempting to obtain. The current victims have responded by explaining how these documents arc relevant, including explaining how these documents might bear on the way in which Epstein used his powerful political and social connections to secure a favorable plea deal, as well as provide proof of the Government's motive to deliberately fail to investigate certain aspects of the victims' claims in an effort to maintain the secrecy of the facts and resolve the case without the victims' knowledge. See, e.g., DE 266 at 6-10. Jane Doc #3 and Jane Doe #4's participation will help prove the relevancy of these requests, as well as the need for those requests. + +One clear example is Request for Production No. 8, which seeks documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew and former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2 have alleged these materials are needed to prove their allegations that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 225 at 7-8 (discussing DE 48 at 16-18). Jane Doc #3 has directly person knowledge of Epstein's connection with some of these powerful people and thus how Epstein might have used them to secure favorable treatment. + +Adding two new victims to this case will not delay any of the proceedings. They will simply join in motions that the current victims were going to file in any event. For example, the + +new victims will simply join in a single summary judgment motion that the current victims anticipate filing after discovery has been completed. + +Nor will adding the new victims prejudice the United States. As the court is aware, this Court is still in its initial discovery stage. The Court is currently considering whether to reject the Government's assertion of privilege over documents regarding the case. See DE 265 (victims' reassertion of objections to the Government privilege claims). The new victims do not seek any additional discovery beyond that previously sought by the current victims.2 Accordingly, the United States will not be prejudiced or burdened by adding them to this case. + +The CVRA does not contain any statute of limitations for filing an action to enforce rights under the statute. Accordingly, were the Court to deny this motion, the result might be that the new victims would then be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims, which would then possibly proceed on a separate litigation track. Rather than require duplicative litigation, the Court should simply grant their motion to join. + +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 support the joinder motion. Counsel for the victims have discussed this motion with the Government at length in an effort to avoid any need to file a substantive pleading on the issue. Counsel for the victims asked the Government during the summer for its position on joinder. The Government, however, took the matter under advisement for months. Ultimately, after several inquiries from victims counsel, the Government indicated without explanation that it opposes this motion. Counsel for the victims has requested a meeting with the Government on this issue, which will hopefully occur in + +2 Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have asked the Government to provide them with the record of their statements that they provided to the FBI. These FBI 302's should be only a few pages long. + +January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doc #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule on the motion. + +## CONCLUSION + +Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading. + +DATED: January 2, 2015 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +/s/ JAFFE, WEISSING, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustiee.com + +And + +Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quincy College of Law at the University of Utah. 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: casselln@law.utah.edo + +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 + +This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that the foregoing document was served on January 2, 2015, on the following using the Court's CMIECF system: + +Dexter Lee A. Villafaila 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexterteea,usdoi.gov E-mail: + +Attorneys for the Government \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33698daf782ab939e74d89e110d0a5c373b1a79a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558/EFTA02831558.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,751 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831558.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 15, + "chars": 21946, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT M", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 389.76275634765625, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 389.76275634765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 398.81060791015625, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 398.81060791015625, + 153.10406494140625 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 153.10406494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4's CORRECTED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 \nFOR JOINDER IN ACTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 520.0184936523438, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 520.0184936523438, + 308.7240905761719 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 308.7240905761719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 368.96466064453125, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 368.96466064453125, + 620.3440551757812 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 620.3440551757812 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Jane Doe #4's Circumstances", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.66400000000002, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 367.59149169921875, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 367.59149169921875, + 177.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 227.66400000000002, + 177.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MOTION FOR JOINDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 476.28 + ], + [ + 363.5721130371094, + 476.28 + ], + [ + 363.5721130371094, + 490.22406005859375 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 490.22406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 340.13812255859375, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 340.13812255859375, + 124.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 124.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 376.3551025390625, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 376.3551025390625, + 125.853515625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 125.853515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831558" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97d57ecdf047a80f891b47d7be326e2db1816515 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## EXHIBIT N + +From: Date: 2 January 2015 at 20:38 Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell To: Rossacuit Gow bcc: P.Peachey@independent.co.uk nick.sommerladpmirror.co.uk nick.alwav@bbc.co.uk, jo-anne.ough@bbc.co.uk + +To Whom It May Concern, Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms Maxwell. + +No further communication will be provided by her on this matter. Thanks for your understanding. + +Best • + +-Gow ACUITY Reputation + +Jane Doe 3 is-- so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. + +Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by that Alan Derschowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. + +claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicised as news, as they are defamatory. + +Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old defamatory claims. + +Sent from my BlackBerry° wireless device + +![](_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfe545d2de1bd9c1eaf4198778f3ad0a80691664 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/EFTA02831573.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1323, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT N", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.0977478027344, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.0977478027344, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831573" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac4c464dc9ff91a9ce2f516477e2cb047c22d7f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831573/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a467de35687ffa19d4f88563ed857e8312e080fba1e1c4a897539b5661e4cf25 +size 8456 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50294ff7c8ea8b22a9066fbb9393a3057c62b644 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.md @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT PERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | i | +|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| TABLE OF EXHIBITS | iii | +| I. The Defamation Action | 1 | +| I I The Questions Were Fundamentally, and Fatally, Ambiguous | 6 | +| III. The Questions and Answers Were Immaterial | 10 | +| CONCLUSION | 10 | +| Certificate of Service | 12 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Bronston v. United States, | 409 U.S. 352 (1973) | 6, 7, 10 | +|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------| +| v. Maxwell, | 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | | +| United States v. Bonacorsa, | 528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir. 1976) | 6 | +| United States v. Bonds, | 580 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2008) | 9 | +| United States v. Chujoy, | 207 F. Supp. 3d 626 (W.D. Va. 2016) | 8 | +| United States v. Cicalese, | 863 F. Supp. 2d 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) | 7, 9 | +| United States v. Earp, | 812 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1987) | 8 | +| United States v. Edlind, | 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018) | 8 | +| United States v. Landau, | 737 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) | 7 | +| United States v. Lighte, | 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir.I986) | 6 | +| United States v. Litvak, | 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015) | 10 | +| United States v. Manapat, | 928 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.1991) | 7 | +| United States v. Naegele, | 341 B.R. 349 (D.D.C. 2006) | 8 | +| United States v. Reveron | 836 F.2d 684 (1st Cir. 1988) | 8 | +| United States v. Ruedlinger, | 990 F. Supp. 1295 (D. Kan. 1997) | 9 | + +### Rules + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT L: Order Denying Motion to Join Under Rule 21 Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736- Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2016) + +EXHIBIT M: Motion for Joinder Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. FIa. Jan. 2, 2015) + +EXHIBIT N: Gow Email re. statement on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell dated Jan. 2, 2015 + +The government misunderstands both the law and the facts related to the v. Maxwell defamation litigation. Although the government aspires to present "a more streamlined presentation" at trial (Resp. 118 fn. 46), it is unlikely to meet this goal. What follows is a very truncated discussion of some of the facts to place the questions and answers in Ms. Maxwell's depositions from that civil action in context: + +## I. The Defamation Action + +In 2008, two alleged Epstein victims brought an action under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) against the United States government purporting to challenge Epstein's plea agreement. They alleged the government violated their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement. + +Seven years later, on December 30, 2014, moved to join the CVRA action, claiming she too had her CVRA rights violated by the government. On January 1, 2015, ■ **filed a "corrected" joinder motion. The issue presented in her joinder motion was narrow: whether she should be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically, whether she was a "known victim[] of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties," Ex. L at 5. Yet, the court noted, "the bulk of the [motion] consists of copious factual details that and [her co-movant] `would prove . .. if allowed to join."' Id. (brackets omitted). gratuitously included provocative and "lurid details" of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Id.** + +**At the time they filed the motion, and her lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing name, claiming the need for privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly. As the district court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, "name[d] several** + +individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place." Ex. L at 5. The court ruled the lurid details arc unnecessary": "The factual details regarding whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent . . ., especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." Id. Accordingly, "[t]hese unnecessary details shall be stricken." Id. The court then struck all factual allegations relating to her alleged sexual activities and her allegations of misconduct by non-parties. Id. at 5-6. The court said the striking of the "lurid details" was a sanction for improper inclusion of them in her motion. See id. at 6-7. The district court found not only that the "lurid details" were unnecessary but also that the entire joinder motion was "entirely unnecessary." Id. at 7. + +and her lawyers knew the motion with all its "lurid details" was unnecessary because, as the court pointed out, the motion itself recognized that she would be able to participate as a fact witness to achieve the same result she sought as a party. See id. at 7-8; see also id. at 8 (noting that in the motion, lawyers said that "regardless of whether this Court grants the ... Motion, `they will call [her] as a witness at any trial"). The court denied joinder motion. Id. at 10. One of the non-parties "named" repeatedly in the joinder motion was Ms. Maxwell. Ex. M, at 3-6. According to the "lurid details" included in the motion, Ms. Maxwell personally was involved in a "sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme" created by Epstein: + +- in 1999 when was "fifteen years old" to recruit her into the scheme. Id. at 3. +- Ms. Maxwell was "one of the main women" Epstein used to "procure under-aged girls for sexual activities." Id. +- Ms. Maxwell was a "primary co-conspirator" with Epstein in his scheme. Id. + +- She "persuaded" to go to Epstein's mansion "in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children." Id. +- Ms. Maxwell "appreciated the immunity" she acquired under Epstein's plea agreement, because the immunity protected her from prosecution "for the crimes she committed in Florida." Id. +- Ms. Maxwell "assist[ed] in internationally trafficking" and "numerous other young girls for sexual purposes." Id. +- was "forced" to watch Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and others "engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls." Id. + +In the joinder motion, also alleged she was "forced" to have sex with Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, "model scout" Jean Luc Brunel, and "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders." Id. at 4-6. + +said after serving for four years as a "sex slave," she "managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years." Id. at 3. + +suggested the government was part of Epstein's "conspiracy" when it "secretly" negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding federal prosecution of Epstein and his "co-conspirators." Id. at 6. The government's secrecy, alleged, was motivated by its fear that would raise "powerful objections" to the agreement that would have "shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals." Id. at 6-7. + +As and her lawyers expected, before District Judge Marra in the CVRA action could strike the "lurid details" of allegations in the joinder motion, members of the media obtained copies of the motion, printed the "lurid" details in tabloid news publications, and sought comment from Ms. Maxwell, Professor Dershowitz and others. + +On January 2, 2015, UK lawyers for Ms. Maxwell sent representatives of British media organizations an email containing "a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell." The email was sent to more than 6 and probably less than 30 media representatives. The email to the media members read: + +To Whom It May Concern, + +Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. No further communication will be provided by her on this matter. + +Thanks for your understanding. + +Best + +Gow + +ACUITY Reputation + +Jane Doe 3 is o not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. + +Each time the story is re told [sic] it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by [sic] that Alan Derschowitz [sic] is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. + +claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicised as news, as they are defamatory. + +Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old defamatory claims. + +Ex. N. + +Eight years after Epstein's guilty plea, brought the defamation action, repeating many of the allegations she made in her CVRA joinder motion. The complaint alleged that the January 2015 statement "contained the following deliberate falsehoods": + +- (a) That sworn allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue." +- (b) That the allegations have been "shown to be untrue." +- (c) That "claims are obvious lies." + +The defamation litigation was legally very complicated and New York law afforded many statutory, common law, and constitutional defenses to become relevant at another time). In addition to strong legal defenses Ms. Maxwell's defense of truth was exceptional. It was clear that given the wording of Mr. Gow's statement, proof of falsity of one or more of claims would be enough to defeat the civil action. Very quickly there were many provable "obvious lies." A few examples: + +- Contrary to her claim of "slavery," lived independently from her parents with her fiancé long before meeting Epstein or Ms. Maxwell and held a number of jobs in 2001 and 2002. +- employment at the IsiatSo spa began in fall 2000 when she was 17, not 15. (This falsity was important to story for many reasons.) +- Palm Beach Police investigation revealed no evidence that Ms. Maxwell was involved in sexual abuse of minors, sexual trafficking or production or possession of child pornography. +- No nude photograph of was displayed in Epstein's home. +- tales about foreign presidents and prime ministers were untrue. +- All of the famous people claimed to have been sexually trafficked to denied these claims, which were completely implausible. + +Importantly, post-dates the allegations contained in the superseding indictment ("Indictment") by three years. By her claims, and admissions, she did not meet Epstein until 2000, long after the accusers named in the Indictment. Her strong connection with these accusers developed through her lawyers who likely represent at least two of the accusers and some of the witnesses. + +Virtually every issue in the defamation action was contested. A review of the docket, unfortunately, reflects over one-thousand entries. The parties disagreed about the scope and meaning of virtually all of Judge Sweet's discovery orders, including those related to Ms. Maxwell's depositions. Significantly, Judge Sweet's Order prefaced all the listed categories with the words "sexual activity" an "sexual activities." + +As expected, both depositions were hostile. The questions posed to Ms. Maxwell were poorly phrased without regard to the rules of evidence. Accordingly, counsel for Ms. Maxwell was required to object many times. As this court knows, civil litigants are limited to three types of objections: form, foundation, and privilege. When those objections are posed, the examiner has the opportunity to ask for the basis of the objection. It is not incumbent, indeed it is not permitted, for the objecting lawyer to expound on the basis for the objection unless asked. + +Virtually all of the questions that form the basis of Counts Five and Six were the subject of valid objections. A prerequisite to use of deposition testimony at trial is that the testimony must be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as if the deponent were present and testifying. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(1)(b). The form and foundation of the questions asked were improper and largely not relevant in the context of the defamation action. It is unlikely that any of the answers would have been admitted at any trial. + +# II. The Questions Were Fundamentally, and Fatally, Ambiguous + +In addition to being poorly phrased, the questions were unquestionably ambiguous. "[W]hen a line of questioning is so vague as to be `fundamentally ambiguous,' the answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support [a] perjury conviction." United Stales v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218, 1221 (2d Cir. 1976). "Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury." Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 362 (1973). "A question is fundamentally ambiguous when it is not a phrase with a meaning about which men of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375 (cleaned up). Here, the questions were "fundamentally ambiguous," containing particular undefined terms, "scheme" and "recruit" for example. + +The government complains that Ms. Maxwell has not cited any cases where a perjury count was dismissed pretrial for "fundamental ambiguity." Resp. 120. Of course, the government must know that myriad examples exist. United States v. Cicalese, 863 F. Supp. 2d 231,236-37 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), is instructive: + +Succinctly, the prosecutor did not fulfill her obligation to "pin the witness down to the specific object of [her] inquiry." Bronston, 409 U.S. at 360. Any number of straightforward follow-up questions could have clarified the object of inquiry. For example, in addition to the "attempt" question mentioned earlier, the government could have cured the ambiguity by supplying the date, time or location of the target meeting, focusing Cicalese's attention on the specific events at issue. See Razzaia, 370 F.Supp. at 578-79. Left naked, the government's imprecise question did not meet the standard set in Bronston. It cannot provide a jury with a sufficient basis to reasonably conclude that Cicalese willfully lied by answering as he did. Id. at 579. Asking simple follow-up questions could have resolved the imprecision and fulfilled the government's obligation under Bronston. Whether by strategy or inadvertence, the government did not do so. + +The Court granted Cicalese's motion to dismiss the charges against him. Id. at 232. + +Similarly, in United States v. Landau, 737 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), the court dismissed a perjury indictment, holding "the context of all the preceding questions and Landau's grand jury testimony as a whole, the prosecutor's questions here are fundamentally ambiguous and cannot as a matter of law to support a perjury conviction. Landau's motion is therefore granted and the indictment is dismissed." Id. at 784—85 (emphasis added). The same is true here. In the context of the questions preceding the selectively quoted testimony in Counts Five and Six and the transcripts as a whole, the selected questions were fundamentally ambiguous. + +In United States v. Manapat, 928 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.1991), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an acquittal on the grounds of fundamental ambiguity as a result of the content of the form that was the basis of the prosecution. There, the defendant applied for an Airman Medical Certificate to the Federal Aviation Administration. The application included a section entitled "Medical History" that contained twenty-four questions regarding "conditions." The first twentyone "conditions" questions were all medical in nature. The twenty-second and twenty-third questions, however, inquired about convictions (one about "traffic convictions," the other about "other convictions"). Manapat answered in the negative to both question twenty-two and question twenty-three, and these answers became the basis for his prosecution for "knowingly and willfully" making false statements to any department or agency of the United States. In affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the indictment, the Eleventh Circuit stated: + +Although the single statements "Record of traffic convictions," or "Record of other convictions" may not be ambiguous standing alone, they become quite confusing when buried in a list headed "Medical History" and purportedly concerned with medical conditions.... In order to successfully prosecute an indictment for making a false statement, the government must not remove questions from the context in which their answers were given in an attempt to prove their clarity. + +Id. at 1101. + +Also helpful is United States v. Chujoy, 207 F. Supp. 3d 626, 654-55 (W.D. Va. 2016), ard sub nom United States v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018), and affd, 770 F. App'x 33 (4th Cir. 2019), where the court dismissed multiple perjury and false statement claims, holding: + +Moreover, it is not perjurious for [the defendant] to give an evasive answer to a broadly-worded ion, so long as her response was not false. See United States v. Reveron 836 F.2d 684, 689 (1st Cir. 1988) ("In order to sustain a perjury charge, evasions are not enough. The government must show more than that the interdicted statement was unresponsive or guarded. At a bare minimum, the remark must have been literally false."); United States v. Earp, 812 F.2d 917, 919 (4th Cir. 1987) ("The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner's inquiry."); United States v. Naegele, 341 B.R. 349, 359 (D.D.C. 2006) ("[I]n the context of perjury charges based on adversarial questioning, it is not the declarant's burden to provide candid answers."). Accordingly, the government failed to offer sufficient evidence that Edlind's first two answers—that she had dinner with Kwiatkowski in April—were false. No reasonable juror could conclude otherwise. + +In United States v. Ruedlinger, 990 F. Supp. 1295, 1303-04 (D. Kan. 1997), the court after "carefully review[ing] the allegations" found that the perjury charge must be dismissed. The court held that the ambiguity of both questions rendered the answers insufficient as a matter of law to support a perjury conviction. The courts holding is equally applicable here: + +Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury. A perjury conviction cannot be based upon evasive answers or even upon misleading answers so long as they are literally true. In the face of evasion or misleading answers, it is the lawyer's duty to bring the witness back to the mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination. When a line of questioning is so vague as to be fundamentally ambiguous, the answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support a perjury conviction (cleaned up). + +And, finally, although there are more, in United Stales v. Bonds, 580 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931 (N.D. Cal. 2008), the court ruled that using the terms "anything like" in connection with a perjury prosecution in a professional baseball steroid investigation created a serious problem. The government argued, similar to the claims here that, in context, this phrase refers to "anything like steroids that could have led to a positive steroid test." According to the court, the use of the qualifier made the question fundamentally ambiguous requiring dismissal of the count. + +The government, at page 133 of its Response, incorrectly suggests that the burden was on Ms. Maxwell or her counsel to clarify the confused questions, particularly regarding the infinite time span. First, that is simply wrong. The questioner has the responsibility to ask clear questions and to "pin down" the witness. Cicalese, 863 F. Supp. 2d 231, 236-37. It is the government, not Ms. Maxwell who is engaging in post-hoc defmitions about undefined terms "scheme" and "interact with" (Count Five); and about the "presence" of certain items, or Epstein's possession of "items" used in "activities," her "awareness" of what Epstein was doing when she wasn't with him in a "millennium" and giving a "massage." (Count Six). Because the questions were so bad, the government spends significant energy trying to rationalize what the questioner meant. + +The answers to the bad, ambiguous, objectionable questions were also "literally true." Bronslon v. United Stales, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), makes clear that an individual cannot be convicted of perjury for an answer given under oath that is literally true, even if it is unresponsive and intended to mislead. The Court noted that "[t]he burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner's inquiry." Id. at 360. The answers to the questions in Counts Five and Six are "literally true" as discussed in detail in Ms. Maxwell's moving brief. + +# III. The Questions and Answers Were Immaterial + +The government is confusing arguable "relevance" and "materiality" which "are not synonymous." United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160, 174 (2d Cir. 2015). It is not enough that any alleged "misrepresentation" concern "a variable that mattered to the" recipient of the information. The government must prove that alleged misstatements were "capable of influencing a decision" of the intended recipient. Id. It remains unclear how the government will argue this issue. However, the questions were improper and could not have produced admissible evidence for a jury to consider. There was nothing "influenced" on the part of the questioners who would not have accepted any answer from Ms. Maxwell as true. Moreover, the questions were not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. + +# CONCLUSION + +The Court has the necessary transcripts to decide this issue in Ms. Maxwell's favor, pretrial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court dismiss Counts Five and Six. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are not Perjurious as a Matter of Law upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@,usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bac1a4373d3f1d5cbfff60cd3a73641a969b018 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575/EFTA02831575.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,886 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831575.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 24527, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S \nMOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING \nINDICTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS ARE NOT \nPERJURIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 507.384765625, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 507.384765625, + 328.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 328.99249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.1291809082031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.1291809082031, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 526.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 526.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62713623046875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Defamation Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 240.83877563476562, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 240.83877563476562, + 225.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 225.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Questions Were Fundamentally, and Fatally, Ambiguous", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 452.4980163574219, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 452.4980163574219, + 419.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 419.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Questions and Answers Were Immaterial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 75.888, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 365.65228271484375, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 365.65228271484375, + 225.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 75.888, + 225.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 501.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 501.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.0437316894531, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.0437316894531, + 86.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 86.73248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831575" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06456799255a3fb448d4b84c0783678bf31bc9e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +The significant delay in prosecuting these charges has substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell, and the government has offered no legitimate reason for the tactical delay. Indeed, many of the arguments made by the government in response to Ms. Maxwell's motions reveal new information that undercut its claims about the origins of, and motives behind, this prosecution. + +Ms. Maxwell raised this issue pretrial, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P 12(bX3XA)(ii). In her opening memorandum Ms. Maxwell noted that significant discovery related to the allegations had not yet been provided by the government, that her investigation is ongoing, and requested that the Court defer ruling on this motion. + +The government's responses to Ms. Maxwell's motions, including its response to this motion, underscore the legitimacy of Ms. Maxwell's continued request that the Court hold this issue open. As reflected in the various pleadings, the government did have communications with lawyers for civil litigants and did have information about the allegations made in the indictment well before it claims the investigation was opened. Ms. Maxwell learned about these things only because the government felt the need to make partial disclosures in an attempt to defend its actions. + +In its response to the instant motion, the government, without actually disclosing the witness's statements, selectively "proffers" "facts" to justify its position but tells Ms. Maxwell and the Court that we should, apparently, just trust the government because "the underlying information, which is contained in the FBI 302 reports of interviews with the victims, will be produced to the defense as 3500 material in advance of trial." Resp. at 55 fn. 21. + +As discussed in her Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Specificity, for a Bill of Particulars, and for Pretrial Disclosures, the government's failure to provide adequate information about the allegations in the indictment continues to prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to investigate and defend this matter. It is fundamentally unfair for the government to withhold basic information while at the same time making representations about that information to the Court when convenient. This type of selective disclosure by one party in litigation is disfavored. See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, (1975); United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991); In re Grand Jut), Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 182-84 (2d Cir.2000); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 49, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Worthington v. Endee, 177 F.R.D. 113, 116-17 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Peck v. United States, 514 F. Supp. 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y.), on reargument, 522 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); State of N. D. a rel. Olson v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177, 182 (8th Cir. 1978) (selective disclosure exhibited by the government in this action is "intolerable as a matter of policy"). + +It would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources to continue to litigate this issue piecemeal. Moreover, until Ms. Maxwell has complete relevant information, she cannot precisely identify the many witnesses and documents that are unavailable to her as a result of the pretrial delay. + +## CONCLUSION + +Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court defer consideration of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay until after the government has produced all of the discovery in this matter, including, but not limited to any alleged F.R.E. 404(b) information, all witness statements, and all Brady and Giglio material. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## Certificate of Service + +I hereby cenify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..423461a81d3117694c250bec6c25d97a761e143b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591/EFTA02831591.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,299 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831591.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 5264, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.5245056152344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.5245056152344, + 100.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO \nDISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR \nPRE-INDICTMENT DELAY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6915283203125, + 272.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6915283203125, + 315.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 315.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 501.363037109375 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 501.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 368.1273498535156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 368.1273498535156, + 87.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 87.54998779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831591" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67595c02295d1afecb3d9d14a7bf0ef00c15471c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS EITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS MULTIPLICITOUS + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennen er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +The government does not dispute that Counts I and 3 charge Ms. Maxwell with the same crime, conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, nor that the charges are based on identical facts. Effectively conceding that the counts are multiplicitious, the government argues that the motion is "premature," focusing only on the jeopardy problem that would occur if Ms. Maxwell were convicted on both counts at trial and ignoring the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell attendant to the overcharging. The government argues that the Court should defer ruling on this motion until "after the completion of trial" which will "ensure" a full factual record. Resp. at 172. The government is wrong. + +The Court can, and should, grant this Motion, direct the government to elect which of the conspiracy charges it will prosecute, and dismiss the other. The identical facts are plainly alleged in the superseding indictment ("Indictment"), and the government has presented no factual distinction in its response. Accordingly, no additional record is necessary and very clear authority exists supporting the relief requested by Ms. Maxwell, dismissal of one of the multiplicitous counts. "District courts presented with what are recognized before or during trial to be multiplicitous indictments will avoid any problem by requiring the prosecution to elect between counts charged rather than by merging the counts at sentencing." United States v. Polizzi, 257 F.R.D. 33,36-37 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court should order such an election and dismissal here. + +## I. The Motion is Not Premature, and the Court has Discretion to Direct Election and Dismissal Pretrial + +The government's "prematurity" argument is misplaced. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3XBXii), a defendant is required to raise arguments based on defects in the indictment, including "charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity)," by pretrial motion "if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits." See United Slates v. Dervishaj, 787 F. App'x 12, 15 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2548 (2020) (multiplicity argument waived because the defendant failed to raise the issue by pretrial motion). + +The government also ignores ample Second Circuit authority that authorizes the relief requested by Ms. Maxwell: + +The defendant may move to have the prosecution elect among the multiplicitous counts, with all but the one elected dismissed. This is a matter for trial court discretion, and is most appropriate when the mere making of the charges would prejudice the defendant with the jury. + +United States v. 639 F.2d 896, 905 (2d Cir. 1981).' + +The reason for this discretion is clear. + +The law protects an individual against multiplicitous indictments to avoid multiple sentences for a single offense and to eliminate the prejudice which such indictments may generate in the eyes of a jury. For when an indictment charges numerous offenses arising from the same conduct it may falsely suggest to a jury that a defendant has committed not one but several crimes. + +Once such a message is conveyed to the jury, the risk increases that the jury will be diverted from a careful analysis of the conduct at issue. Compromise verdicts or assumptions that, with so many charges pending the defendant must be guilty on at least some of them, pose significant threats to the proper functioning of the jury system. + +United States v. Clarridge, 811 F. Supp. 697, 702 (D.D.C. 1992) (cleaned up).2 + +Ms. Maxwell has been charged with the identical conduct in Counts 1-4. These multiple counts falsely suggest to the jury that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed more than one crime. The defect in the Indictment is patent and prejudicial, and the Court should remove the + +I See also United States v. Ketchum, 320 F.2d 3, 7 (2d Cir.I963); United States v. Carter, 576 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3d Cir.1978); and United States v. Langford, 946 F.2d 798, 802 (I I th Cir.I991). + +2 See also United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir.I999) (A multiplicitous indictment creates an exaggerated impression of a defendant's criminal activity by charging "an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed."). + +defect by requiring the government to elect which of the conspiracy charges it will move forward with and dismiss the remaining conspiracy charge. + +### II. The Government Failed to Meet its Burden of Establishing the Two Alleged Conspiracies Are Distinct. + +To guard against the "well recognized danger" that prosecutors can easily "draft indictments that allege what appear to be separate conspiracies but may actually be parts of an overall conspiracy," where a defendant "makes a non-frivolous showing that two indictments in fact charge only one conspiracy, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies." United States v. + +356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing United Slates v. Del Vecchio, 800 F.2d 21, 22 (2d Cir. 1986)). As demonstrated in Ms. Maxwell's moving papers, application of the Kaden( multifactor test results in an identical overlap of alleged: participants, time, similarity of operation, overt acts, geography, objectives, and interdependence. Mot. at 2. The government has failed to proffer any evidence to the contrary, and Ms. Maxwell's Motion should be deemed confessed. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons stated in Ms. Maxwell's original Motion and this Reply, she requests that the Court enter an order requiring the government to elect the conspiracy charge it intends to prosecute and dismiss the remaining count. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys jor Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2eb71d167c51fc243a6709d0b79b865e5a68ea0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596/EFTA02831596.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831596.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 7425, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.17, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT \nOF HER MOTION TO DISMISS EITHER COUNT ONE OR COUNT THREE OF THE \nSUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS MULTIPLICITOUS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 538.2210693359375, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 538.2210693359375, + 328.863037109375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 328.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Motion is Not Premature, and the Court has Discretion to Direct Election \nand Dismissal Pretrial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 599.4199981689453 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 599.4199981689453 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government Failed to Meet its Burden of Establishing the Two Alleged \nConspiracies Are Distinct.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 529.867919921875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 529.867919921875, + 157.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 157.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 488.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 488.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.8600769042969, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.8600769042969, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831596" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6708ca3b30aa835dd52638d2612ab26df5245966 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennii er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. | The Relevant "Community" for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties | +| or, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York | 2 | +| II. The Underrepresentation Resulted from Systematic Exclusion. | 4 | +| CONCLUSION | 6 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Duren v. Missouri, | Page(s) | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 439 U.S. 357 (1979) Taylor v. Louisiana, | 1,2,4,6 | +| 419 U.S. 522 (1975) United States v. Bahna, | 4 | +| 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. Barlow, | 3 | +| 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012) United States v. Jackman, | 5, 6 | +| 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. | 1, 5, 6 | +| 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) United States v. Kenny, | 2 | +| 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) United States v. Rioux, | 2 | +| 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) Statutes | 5 | +| 28 U.S.C. § 1861 | 2, 3 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment ("Motion"). + +In its opposition ("Opp.") to the Motion, the government does not dispute that if the Plains jury pool is compared to the eligible juror population of either the Southern District of New York or the more racially-diverse counties from which jurors are drawn for the Manhattan courthouse (the "Manhattan Counties" I)—the jurors who will also be weighing the evidence at her trial—Black and Hispanic jurors are significantly underrepresented. According to the government's own expert: "The Manhattan and the Southern District communities are significantly more African American and Hispanic than the Plains community. Thus, [] the Plains jury wheel... will not be representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic." Opp. Ex. 12 (Report of Bernard R. Siskin) ¶ II. + +Moreover, the government concedes that Black and Hispanic jurors constitute "distinctive" groups for purposes of the three-part analysis prescribed in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), and that Ms. Maxwell has thus satisfied the first of the three Duren prongs necessary to establish a prima facie violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Opp. 205. And the government does not assert that attainment of a fair cross-section would have been incompatible with a significant state interest, as is necessary to overcome a prima facie showing of a violation. Duren, 439 U.S. at 368. + +The government takes issue with Ms. Maxwell's use of the terms "Manhattan Division" and' Plains Division" in her opening brief, on the ground that the Southern District is not divided into "divisions" by statute. Although the Second Circuit has used the term "division" in a similar context, see, e.g., United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, I2S(2d Cir. 1995) (referring to "Hanford Division"), Ms. Maxwell will use the terms "Manhattan Counties" and'= Plains Counties" here. + +The government thus raises only two points of dispute. First, it claims that even though the offenses in the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") are alleged to have occurred in Manhattan (to the extent they occurred in the Southern District at all), and even though the case has been assigned to and will be tried in this Court, the appropriate comparison population for purposes of the second Duren prong is the eligible juror population of the Plains Counties, rather than that of either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District as a whole. Second, the government argues that Ms. Maxwell has not satisfied the third Duren prong because any underrepresentation was not the result of systematic exclusion, even though the underrepresentation is attributable solely to the government's decision to indict Ms. Maxwell using a Plains grand jury. Both arguments fail. + +## I. The Relevant "Community" for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties or, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York. + +The second prong of Duren asks whether a group's representation in the source from which juries are selected is "fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community." Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. "Although the Duren court did not clearly define the term 'community,' it is generally accepted that the term refers to the district or division where the trial is to be held." United States v.M, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) ("the term refers to the district or division, when a district has been so divided—where the trial is to be held") + +While the government argues that those cases are inapposite because the grand jury and petit jury sat in the same courthouse, it cites no case that holds otherwise where the grand jury and petit jury sit in different courthouses—or any other case that holds that the relevant "community" for a grand jury is a community that excludes jurors from the county in which the trial is to be held (and in which the offense allegedly occurred). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1861, + +which effectuates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section, notes that the relevant "community" is "the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes." 28 U.S.C. § 1861. Here, that is either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District, as this Court is not "convening" in Plains. + +Even United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995), on which the government heavily relies, recognizes this: "Each [court] selects grand and petit juries pursuant to a plan . . . and, as a general rule, selections are made from the area surrounding the courthouse where the case is to be tried." Id. at 23 (emphases added). The government points to the Second Circuit's statement that "[w]here a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Opp. 201 (quoting Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24) (emphasis added by government). But the defendant in Bahna was tried on Long Island before a jury "from the `Long Island Division' jury wheel." 68 F.3d at 23. He initially sought to have a jury "culled only from Kings, Queens and Richmond Counties"—i.e., from somewhere other than the place of trial. Id. at 26. Ms. Maxwell seeks precisely the opposite. + +The government thus quotes the Second Circuit's statement in Bahna out of context, because Bahna was based on the very premise lacking here: a jury "drawn from a properly designated division." Id. at 24. Unlike the Long Island Division in Bahna, Plains was not "properly designated" to indict Ms. Maxwell. + +While the government claims that "it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse"—an assertion that has no bearing on the lawfulness of such a practice, particularly if not objected to—it cites just six such cases in the last 17 years. Opp. 195. The far more typical practice of using a grand jury + +sitting in the same community where the case will be tried avoids a situation where one community charges the defendant but a different community tries her—a situation that is particularly fraught with fair cross-section concerns in an area such as New York City, where the demographic composition of communities can vary dramatically. See also Declaration of Jeffrey in Support of Motion to Dismiss, U.S. v. Balde, No. 1:20-cr-00281-KPF, Dkt. No. 61-1 (filed Nov. 9, 2020), Exhibit A (a Decl."), at ¶ 7 ("In my experience of over 50 federal jury challenges [] since 1997," and "[u]ntil this case, I have not been involved in any jury challenge where the Grand Jury came from one division and the trial jury came from a different division."). + +As noted above, courts have held consistently that the appropriate comparison "community" in a fair cross-section claim is the community where the case will be tried. Here, that is either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District. Since the government does not dispute that when a comparison to either community is used, Black and Hispanic jurors are significantly underrepresented in the Plains jury pool, the second Duren prong is met.2 + +# II. The Underrepresentation Resulted from Systematic Exclusion. + +Contrary to the government's contention, its decision to seek an indictment from a Plains grand jury constitutes the "systematic exclusion ... in the jury-selection process" required to satisfy the third Duren prong. See Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. "There is systematic exclusion + +.12 1novernment's contention that the relevant pool to be measured against the comparison community is the Plains wheel rather than the Plains uali red wheel even if accepted, does not change the outcome. The government's expert concedes that "the Plains Mjury wheel and hence its qualified jury wheel will be significantly demographically different" from the j t • pulations of the Manhattan Counties and the Southern District. Opp. Ex. 12 ¶ 40 (emphasis addello Sie also MI Decl. ¶¶ 19-21 (showing substantial underrepresentations in eligible juror populations of Plains vis-i-vis Manhattan Counties and Southern District, including 13.94% underrepresentation of Hispanics when compared to Manhattan Counties and 9.29% underrepresentation for Hispanics when compared to Southern District). In any event, the Plains qualified wheel is the appropriate jury pool, as fair-cross-section motions concern the actual "venires from which juries are selected." Duren, 439 U.S. at 364; see also Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 538 (1975) ("[T]he jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries arc drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community."). + +when the underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces." United States v. Biota, 97 F.3d 648, 658 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, Ms. Maxwell was not denied a fair cross-section by "external forces," but by the government's deliberate and gratuitous conduct. As the government's expert admits, the Plains jury pool is "not [] representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic," Opp. Ex. 12 ¶ 11, yet the government needlessly used a Plains grand jury anyway. That the government acknowledges having done so repeatedly during the COVID-19 pandemic only underscores the systematic nature of its conduct. Opp. 199 n.68; see also Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1241 (finding violation even in a discarded "process that had inadvertently, but systematically, excluded from petit jury venires all residents of Hartford and New Britain, communities with large minority populations"). + +The government's reliance on United States v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), gird, 479 F.App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012), is misplaced. In Barlow, the defendant argued that the court's facially neutral practices with respect to the disqualification of jurors charged with or convicted of felonies led to the erroneous exclusion of jurors, and that the erroneous exclusions disproportionately affected Black males. The court found that no significant underrepresentation occurred but also concluded that any such underrepresentation would not have amounted to systematic exclusion, noting that "systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group." Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40. Notably, the court distinguished Jackman on factors directly relevant here, observing that the case before it was not "a case like Jackman where the underrepresentation occurred because the jury clerk relied on a jury wheel knowing that the wheel omitted large segments of the division's minority population." Id. at 42. This case, however, is "like + +Jac/anon" (and unlike Barlow): The underrepresentation occurred because the government used a Plains grand jury knowing that doing so would significantly reduce the diversity of the pool of jurors. + +Thus, the government's assertion that its decision to use a Plains grand jury "has nothing to do with the process by which the grand jury is selected" (Opp. 211) is simply incorrect. By choosing to seek an indictment in Plains, the government chose a grand jury selection process guaranteed to draw from a pool that would underrepresent Black and Hispanic jurors via-a-vis the Manhattan Counties and the Southern District. That choice constitutes "systematic exclusion," and the third Duren prong is met. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Indictment be dismissed. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed9ec9d7bc34d54ef23bf53eb9aa8503982994c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602/EFTA02831602.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,619 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831602.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 15697, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nAS IT WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 532.5332641601562, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 532.5332641601562, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 401.9523620605469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 401.9523620605469, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Relevant \"Community\" for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties \nor, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 530.2588500976562, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 530.2588500976562, + 375.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 375.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Underrepresentation Resulted from Systematic Exclusion.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 431.83892822265625, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 431.83892822265625, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831602" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07a1cdbc594eff1e3766629ef45a6da167b637be --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +# EXHIBIT A + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-----X +[REDACTED], +Plaintiff, +V. +Ghislaine Maxwell, +Defendant. +-----X + +15-cv-07433-RWS + +**Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged +"On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, +In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings** + +Laura A. Menninger +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca +HADDON, [REDACTED], AND [REDACTED], P.C. +East 10th Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +303.831.7364 + +#### INTRODUCTION + +Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, requests, pursuant to Rules 37( a) and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the Court enter an order requiring Plaintiff to either disclose any purported ongoing criminal investigations and any alleged supporting documents or enter an order staying these proceedings pending the resolution of the purported "on-going criminal investigations [sic]". In support of this motion, Ms. Maxwell states: + +Throughout the pendency of this case Plaintiff repeatedly has represented to the Court and Ms. Maxwell that she is privy to, and part of, some ongoing criminal investigation in which, per Plaintiff's innuendo, Ms. Maxwell is a person of interest. For example, Plaintiff purports to be withholding documents "relating to on-going [sic] criminal investigations by law enforcement relating to [Ms. Maxwell's] conduct." See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. #78) at 3. Plaintiff claims to be withholding "documents that concern or relate to any currently ongoing investigation by any law enforcement agency under the public interest privilege and other applicable privileges." Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, she "can immediately provide clear evidence to this Court of how [the purportedly ongoing] investigation would be impaired..." Id. at 11. Further, Plaintiff refers to "the law enforcement inquiry that is currently underway," id., representing to the Court that, in fact, there is an active investigation regarding Ms. Maxwell. + +Ms. Maxwell is not aware of any such investigation. Indeed, a review of the now more than a decade old police reports involving Mr. Epstein reflects that Ms. Maxwell was not a suspect in any of the activity which resulted in any prosecution of Mr. Epstein. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell have attempted to learn about any investigation by contacting Assistant United States Attorney A. Villafana, the Government lawyer handling the VRA litigation that Plaintiff + +has attempted to join. Ms. Villafana's response was that she was unaware of any such investigation. + +Plaintiff also seems to be claiming that she is part of this alleged investigation and, as a consequence, has inappropriately attempted to claim a non-existent "investigative privilege" which has been replaced by her equally inappropriate "public interest privilege." Issues related to Plaintiff's ongoing failures to produce discovery, including her specious claims of privilege have been raised and fully briefed. Ms. Maxwell incorporates her Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests (Doc. # 75) and Reply in support thereof (Doc. # 92), by reference. + +According to Plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell "cannot show any significant reason for needing" the information. This is, again, a meritless argument which ignores the fact that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the information under the rules of discovery. And, the "need" for the information is both obvious and necessary for at least three reasons: first, any communications between Plaintiff, her lawyers and law enforcement are likely inconsistent with statements Plaintiff has made to the media; second, the statements will reflect Plaintiff's motive and bias in bringing this litigation; and third, knowing the information will allow Ms. Maxwell to access the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege. Plaintiff, at this point, should be either required to provide the infonnation or accept a stay in the proceedings as a consequence of her failure to comply with her discovery obligations. She should not be allowed to brandish this, likely nonexistent, sword but deny Ms. Maxwell the opportunity to adequately prepare for her deposition and other discovery matters. Accordingly, in the event that the Plaintiff continues to fail to reveal the information that she claims to have regarding some "ongoing criminal investigation," Ms. Maxwell moves to stay these proceedings. + +#### ARGUMENT + +"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Clinton v. M, 520 U.S. 681, 706-08 (1997); see also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (noting that courts may "defer [ 1 civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action'); Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986) ("'[A] court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.")(quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (en banc)) (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Although civil and criminal proceedings covering the same ground may sometimes justify deferring civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings arc completed, a court may instead enter an appropriate protective order."). "How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55; see also Ofosu v. McElroy, 98 F.3d 694, 699 (2d Cir.1996) ("A request for a stay is an appeal to equity."). + +Courts have the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions "when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action." United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (citations omitted); Steiner v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 85 P.3d 135, 143 (Colo. 2004) (suggesting trial court erred in failing to consider the stay of a civil proceeding while parallel criminal matter was pending). The determination of whether to grant a stay pending resolution of a related criminal proceeding depends on the particular circumstances of a case. + +In deciding to stay the civil case, courts generally weigh six factors: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (5) the interest of the Court; and (6) the public interest. See Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (stay was appropriate so as to not interfere with defendant's Fifth Amendment rights). + +Here, consideration of the six factors weighs in favor of staying this action against Ms. Maxwell, largely because Plaintiff controls access to the alleged information and has refused to provide the information to Ms. Maxwell. First, presumably the issues in any purported criminal investigation are identical with the underlying issue in this case: did Ms. Maxwell assist in "trafficking" the Plaintiff as she claims from 1999 to 2001. As to the second factor Plaintiff claims to have information about this issue, although no indictment has been issued. Third, given the age of the underlying allegations, almost 20 years, there does not appear to be any prejudice that could be caused by any delay. Fourth, in the event there actually is an investigation and Plaintiff is involved in fomenting the investigation, Ms. Maxwell has a significant interest in knowing about the investigation so that she can appropriately respond and assess any claim of privilege. Concerning factor five, the Court has an interest in controlling the proceedings before it and also has an interest in protecting the rights of the litigants. Appropriate disclosure would allow an informed decision to be made regarding these issues. Finally, there is no compelling public interest that would outweigh disclosure and an informed decision. + +Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order compelling Plaintiff to disclose her purported knowledge of any criminal investigation along with any documents relating to such investigation. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order staying these proceedings, including Ms. Maxwell's deposition, until further order by the Court. + +Dated: April 18, 2016 + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S.iikca HADDON, AND P.C. 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com ivagliucaalunflaw.com + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I certify that on April 18, 2016, I electronically served this MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO DISCLOSE ALLEGED "ON-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BYLAW ENFORCEMENT (sic)" OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS via ECF on the following: + +Sigrid S. McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com + +/s/ Nicole + +Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fb9b7d4c8cbd1e619e6edd76495495150ba81aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613/EFTA02831613.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,524 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831613.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 9569, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.65, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 424.72799999999995, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 424.72799999999995, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 101.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 360.97332763671875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 360.97332763671875, + 87.49249267578125 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 87.49249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.1996154785156, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.1996154785156, + 48.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 48.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0135", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.46087646484375, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.46087646484375, + 48.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 48.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 285.804, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.0052185058594, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 363.0052185058594, + 86.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 285.804, + 86.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0136", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.46087646484375, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.46087646484375, + 48.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 48.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0137", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.3439636230469, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.3439636230469, + 48.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 48.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.88812255859375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.88812255859375, + 86.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 86.36248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831613" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f190cdffc9e3d0e5946bd18a210ef6ad3ed48fd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.md @@ -0,0 +1,617 @@ +# EXHIBIT B + +1 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 x + +3 + +4 Plaintiff, + +5 v. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) + +6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +7 Defendant. + +8 x + +9 + +10 Before: + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 15 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff + +16 BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY -and- + +17 BY: BRAD -and- + +18 PAUL G. CASSELL + +19 HADDON, Attorneys for Defendant + +20 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER JEFF PAGLUICA + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +New York, N.Y. April 21, 2016 11:05 a.m. + +HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, + +APPEARANCES + +JAFFE, WEISSING, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. + +District Judge + +2 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 (Case called) + +2 THE COURT: Welcome back. I have read the papers. + +3 Who knows. I might have missed something, but I think I've got 4 it fairly well under control. I would be pleased to hear 5 anything anybody wants to tell me in addition to what you've 6 already given me. + +7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley. I 8 would like to start, if it's convenient with the Court, with 9 the pro hac vice motions that are pending because we would like 10 counsel to be able to anticipate in these proceedings. Would 11 that be all right if I started with that? + +12 THE COURT: I don't care. + +13 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. Your Honor, you have before 14 you two pro hac vice motions. My client, 15 would like to have counsel of record in the case be added as 16 Professor Paul Cassell and Brad . We have presented 17 those pro hacs to your Honor. This is the first time in my 18 years of practice that I've had a contested one, so I've looked 19 at the case law surrounding that and I think it is very clear 20 that a client is entitled to counsel of choice in a case. + +21 In this matter she has selected these lawyers. They 22 have been working with her. They had been working on this 23 matter for many months now. We need them as counsel of record 24 in the case now because we are going to have depositions 25 throughout the country where, for example, Professor Cassell is + +3 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 in Utah. He will be able to handle the Colorado depositions 2 and things of that nature. We are here because those pro hac 3 vice motions are being contested. The core piece of that is 4 the argument that they should not be allowed to seek 5 confidential information in this case. + +6 Your Honor will remember that I was before you a 7 couple of weeks ago again trying to get the deposition of the 8 defendant, which is set for tomorrow, but still hasn't occurred 9 yet. And in order to expedite that process I agreed to the 10 protective order that was put in front of the Court and I 11 waived all of my objections to that in order to be able to 12 facilitate and move that deposition forward. That protective 13 order provides that attorneys who are actively working on the 14 case can receive confidential material. + +15 My opposing counsel has interpreted that to mean that 16 that must be a counsel of record in the case. We disagree with 17 that interpretation. I wouldn't have agreed to a protective 18 order knowing that they were already working on the case. If 19 that were the situation, as your Honor can understand in this 20 case, the majority of the material has been marked 21 confidential, so it would prohibit my cocounsel from working on 22 behalf of their client. + +23 Your Honor, I'm here to request on behalf of my 24 client, that she be entitled to have her 25 counsel of record of choice in this matter. If your Honor will + +4 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 indulge me, I would like Mr. Cassell to address his pro hac 2 motion, please. + +3 MR. CASSELL: Good morning, your Honor, Paul Cassell. + +4 I'm a law professor. + +5 THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. Sorry. No. + +6 Thanks very much. + +7 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. + +8 THE COURT: Anything from the defense. + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Jeff Pagliuca on + +10 behalf of Ms. Maxwell. + +11 Your Honor, I have never opposed a pro hac motion in 12 my 34 years of practice, so this is a first for me. But it is 13 clear, your Honor, that these lawyers will be witnesses in this 14 case. + +15 THE COURT: This we don't know. I can't make that 16 determination now. Anything else? + +17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. + +18 THE COURT: You may be totally right, but I don't 19 know. + +20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, here is the problem. This 21 case is about the plaintiff's false allegations. + +22 THE COURT: Yes. I think I picked up on that. + +23 MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that wrote the 24 false allegations. + +25 THE COURT: I think I picked up on that, too. + +5 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that admitted 2 that these were false allegations. + +3 THE COURT: I know. I don't have to tell you, you 4 know, there is going to be all kinds of privilege issues, all 5 kinds of issues about whether or not they have to testify. We 6 are not at that stage. I cannot and I will not decide that 7 now. + +8 What else? + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: There is a problem with the sharing of 10 confidential information with these lawyers. These lawyers 11 have both personal and professional interests. + +12 THE COURT: I understand that. I get that point. 13 Anything else? + +14 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. + +15 THE COURT: This is what we will do on the pro hac. 16 Everybody agrees, nobody, maybe in the world, but nobody in 17 this courtroom, including me, has dealt with this kind of 18 problem before. That's perhaps only one of a number of issues 19 that are unique about this case. That's neither here nor 20 there. Clearly, the plaintiff has the right to consult with 21 any lawyer she chooses. However, the materials here are 22 sensitive. I don't know the extent to which they have been 23 designated confidential, but I'm quite sure that a substantial 24 number of them have been, by the very nature of the case, I 25 guess. Let me put it this way. I want to be sure that we + +6 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 enforce the confidentiality appropriately. + +2 Now, with those preliminary thoughts in mind I am 3 going to deny the motion at this time because I know that there 4 is a statement, some kind of a statement from the mediator in 5 the Florida action. When I get a piece of paper that says the 6 Florida action is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then 7 this motion can be renewed. + +8 Also, I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that 9 there is no matter in which they are personally involved, that 10 they are making no claim, there is no claims, there is no 11 litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that 12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status 13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those 14 affidavits and the statement about the closure of the Florida 15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be 16 renewed and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless 17 something else comes up or unless the defense tells me 18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application 19 that brings us to the order itself and the meaning of the 20 order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase. 21 The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be 22 appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other 23 person, and that's fine. That is the definition. + +24 However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree 25 upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement + +7 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 to this extent, to require the plaintiff to indicate to me and 2 to the defense if there is anyone else who is going to be 3 active in the litigation. I'll tell you why I feel this way. 4 I want to be sure that we can enforce the confidential aspect 5 of that agreement, and I think that could be critical down the 6 line. That's the reason for those requests. + +7 Now, we also have a motion to compel. + +8 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, can I just get 9 clarification very quickly because I don't want to have to come 10 back to the court so I want to make sure I'm following 11 correctly. Your ruling, because we have a deposition tomorrow 12 that counsel was going to be assisting me with, particularly on 13 the Fifth Amendment -- + +14 THE COURT: Can't have access unless I get these 15 materials by then. If I do, that's something else. If I do, 16 fine. Otherwise, they can't have access to the confidential 17 data. They can assist. + +18 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just point something out to the 19 Court as well. + +20 THE COURT: The plaintiff can have any lawyer she 21 wants. The question is the confidential materials. + +22 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just point the Court to one more 23 issue, because this is their protective order. They now said 24 to the Court that these two individuals are witnesses or 25 potential witnesses. The protective order allows in Section G + +8 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 confidential material to go to deponents, witnesses or 2 potential witnesses. + +3 THE COURT: That's a different issue. I have not 4 dealt with that. Obviously anybody who is a witness may have 5 access to the confidential material, because they have to buy 6 into the confidentiality order in order to do that. But they 7 are outside of it at the moment. + +8 MS. McCAWLEY: Your ruling is, they cannot attend the 9 deposition tomorrow? + +10 THE COURT: They can. Anybody can attend the 11 deposition that anybody wants to have, but they can't 12 participate in it. They can't have access to the confidential 13 material until we get this matter straightened out. Ok. + +14 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we will be designating the 16 testimony as confidential. + +17 THE COURT: You see. There you go. That's life. I 18 can't believe that this entire testimony is going to be 19 confidential. Honestly, you all are too much. Ok. If that's 20 what you do, you know that's not going to work because not all 21 of this stuff at issue is going be to confidential. No, no 22 way. What is your name? Ok. We will deal with tomorrow's 23 problem tomorrow. + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Ok, your Honor. + +25 THE COURT: The compel. Anybody want to add anything + +9 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 on that? + +2 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. Laura Menninger on 3 behalf of Ms. Maxwell. I have taken the liberty, your Honor, 4 of just making a very short little cheat sheet of the 5 outstanding issues, if I may approach. + +6 THE COURT: Yes. It will be interesting to see if 7 yours is the same as the one we have prepared. Yours is much 8 longer than ours. + +9 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I'm happy to address all 10 of the ones on mine. I certainly am also happy to take 11 direction from the Court regarding issues that you believe to 12 still be of more interest. + +13 THE COURT: As I say, I've read your papers. I would 14 be pleased to hear anything you want to add that you think is 15 not covered or you want to respond or anything like that. + +16 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, one of the largest and 17 most significant pieces to us are the assertions by plaintiff 18 that her own communications with law enforcement are somehow 19 protected by + +20 THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with that. + +21 MS. MENNINGER: The second one, your Honor, and it 22 relates somewhat to the issues already presented on the pro hac 23 motions, are our requests for the fee agreements with all of 24 plaintiff's various 15 or so lawyers who purport to be 25 representing her. Your Honor, I can find no case law that + +10 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 suggests that the agreements are privileged, as plaintiff 2 argues. She has refused to identify when these individuals 3 began their representations, the nature of the representations. + +4 THE COURT: There is a little confusion here, at least 5 in my mind, as to what we are talking about. I certainly 6 understand the two gentlemen whose applications I have just 7 dealt with and the third person, who I take it is affiliated 8 with the Boies firm. + +9 Obviously, over time the plaintiff has probably 10 conferred with other lawyers. But who cares? Let's assume she 11 has talked to 20 more lawyers. You want all those retainers? 12 That doesn't make any sense. What is the universe we are 13 talking about? + +14 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I certainly understand all 15 of the members of the Safes firm that currently represent her. 16 The third individual, if I understand correctly, is a gentleman 17 by the name of Stan Pottinger. He is a lawyer of some renown. 18 He is also an author of best-selling books. He is listed quite 19 frequently on plaintiff's privilege log as being part and 20 parcel of advice being given to her on, quote/unquote, media 21 issues. + +22 THE COURT: That is one. + +23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are other persons 24 listed on their privilege log. Many are listed as counsel for 25 plaintiff, but others are listed. Attorney giving advice to + +11 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 victim's + +2 THE COURT: Is what you want the retainer agreements, 3 if there are any, whatever the arrangements are, with anybody 4 on the privilege log that is listed as rendering advice? + +5 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. That, I think, would 6 be appropriate because some of our biggest issues concern the 7 privilege log. + +8 THE COURT: I understand. + +9 What else? + +10 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have asked for, but 11 been denied by plaintiff, her own deposition testimony in the 12 Florida action. In that case the Court entered a confidential 13 order -- + +14 THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with it. + +15 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the next topic are 16 plaintiff's medical records. + +17 THE COURT: I think I understand that. There is one 18 thing, though. Are there any pre-'99 medical records? + +19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the case law is quite 20 clear that injuries that were preexisting -- + +21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Go ahead. + +22 MS. MENNINGER: Plaintiff has alleged that the 23 defamation of this action triggered or caused her to reflect 24 back upon her alleged sexual abuse. She has also alleged, for 25 example, that many, several, three, I think, at last count, or + +12 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 four individuals had sexually abused her prior to ever meeting 2 Mr. Epstein. + +3 If she has evidence that she already was suffering 4 from depression or some type of mental health disorder before 5 meeting our client, Ms. Maxwell, or Mr. Epstein, then her 6 flashbacks, if you will, could be related to other incidents 7 that she has put out in the press. And she, I believe, has 8 also told the press that she was in a drug rehabilitation 9 facility at the time that she met Mr. Epstein. + +10 Obviously, to the extent she was under the influence 11 of drugs, which is what she has told the press, at the time she 12 met him, she persisted in being addicted to drugs during the 13 time that she knew Mr. Epstein, and it certainly relates to all 14 of her requests for, I believe she has requested 830 million in 15 damages, your Honor, not just from the defamation, but also 16 harkening back to what she claims were her years as a sex abuse 17 victim. + +18 THE COURT: What's the basis of your statement that we 19 will call it the flashback? + +20 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe + +21 THE COURT: Because, quite frankly, I was unaware of 22 that. Is that my error? Are you telling me something that's 23 not quite right? + +24 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe that is what 25 plaintiff has alleged in her complaint. If you can give me a + +13 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 moment. To the extent she is now alleging she suffers from 2 emotional distress from any preexisting -- + +3 THE COURT: That's from the defamation. + +4 MS. MENNINGER: She claims it's from the defamation. 5 However, your Honor, if she has preexisting conditions that 6 were truly the cause of whatever emotional injury she claims 7 that she now possesses -- + +8 THE COURT: Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps 9 plaintiff will make it clear, my understanding is that the 10 injuries alleged result from the claim of the alleged 11 defamation, period. + +12 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she has claimed emotional 13 distress from the defamation, yes. We are requesting evidence 14 that would show that she has preexisting emotional conditions. + +15 THE COURT: Not from the defamation. + +16 MS. MENNINGER: Not from the defamation. From the 17 many, many other things that have occurred in her life 18 predating even her meeting Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as she 19 has told the press, not because we told the press that. + +20 Your Honor, it is difficult, if not impossible, to 21 address her claimed S30 million emotional distress from a 22 defamation statement that was a denial of her allegations 23 versus any emotional distress or emotional conditions she 24 already had before any such statement was made. + +25 Similarly, your Honor, we have asked for discovery of + +14 + +GAILMGIUC + +1 her claimed prior sexual abuse. She has, again, put in the 2 press a number of statements regarding that, and I can't 3 imagine that it is to the extent she claims privacy now, those 4 might be relevant in our case both on credibility and also 5 damage issues. + +6 Your Honor, we have asked for a lot of other 7 interrogatories and documents that go to her damage claims, her 8 education records, her work history. She has refused to answer 9 any questions before where she has worked. She has refused to 10 answer any questions about where she went to school. All of 11 these are appropriate under the local rule for interrogatories. + +12 Finally, your Honor, we have asked for her contracts 13 with media. She has refused to disclose those. She has 14 refused to disclose her tax returns that show all of the 15 payments that she has received from various media sources. + +16 THE COURT: I take it your view of any funds from the 17 media would operate to reduce her damages. + +18 MS. HENNINGER: Your Honor, it also shows her motive 19 and bias in bringing this case. To the extent she has been 20 paid for her stories to the media, which she has, she has 21 admitted that she has been paid hundreds of thousands of 22 dollars for giving these stories to the media. + +23 But to the extent that she is now bringing this 24 defamation claim, if she is still either planning to receive 25 more money from the media, she has a motive and bias to make + +15 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 her story consistent with her previous stories. She has 2 claimed \$5 million in lost wages, your Honor. This is a person 3 who has worked primarily as a waitress in the last 15 years, 4 until her media sensational story was purchased from her by 5 some British press. + +6 THE COURT: Anything else? + +7 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the other issues are 8 addressed in our papers. We have highlighted her incomplete 9 production on several fronts and her refusal to answer any 10 interrogatories. So I would rest on my papers with respect to 11 the other arguments. Thank you. + +12 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to be 13 very clear here, your Honor. Discovery production, I've tried 14 to do that in our papers. But listening to opposing counsel 15 I'm concerned maybe she hasn't reviewed the documents we have 16 produced. We have clearly produced all of the media 17 communications she has, including records -- + +18 THE COURT: All the media. + +19 MS. McCAWLEY: All of the media communications. She 20 has issued wildly broad requests in this case which we have 21 complied with. We ran over 200 search terms. Her request No. 22 5 alone seeks communications with over 100 individuals. And we 23 have complied, your Honor. This is coming from the defendant 24 who until Monday night, when you directed her to produce 25 privileged information, has only produced two e-mails in this + +16 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 case. + +2 Your Honor, we have complied with our production. We 3 have produced the materials that she is saying we have not 4 produced. It's incorrect. We have produced her school records 5 that we have. We have produced her tax records that we have. 6 We have produced all of those items that we have. + +7 With respect to her medical records I am going to 8 direct you to the case that is cited in our brief as the Evanko 9 case and it was a similar circumstance to here. It was a Title 10 VII case where there were emotional distress damages being 11 alleged and the Court found that the other side could not have 12 carte blanche ruling over all of her medical records from the 13 time she was born to the present. We met and conferred on two 14 hours on their discovery requests, your Honor. We agreed to 15 produce all of her medical records that we had from 1999 to 16 2002 and anything else we had that was related to the sexual 17 abuse she endured at the hands of the defendant and 18 Mr. Epstein. We have agreed to produce those. + +19 We have already started producing those records from 20 the various doctors, from the treating physicians. Those are 21 in their production. Should they be entitled to things that 22 happened prior to that? Absolutely not, your Honor. They are 23 not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that's 24 happened in this young lady's life. She was abused by these 25 individuals. She shouldn't be reabused by having to disclose + +17 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 things that happened prior to her time with them. Your Honor, 2 we do object to the production of that material. + +3 THE COURT: The flashback allegation. + +4 MS. McCAWLEY: I think what she may be referring to, I 5 have not heard that term used, I think what she may be 6 referring to was the fact that this is a defamation claim and 7 the person who defamed my client was also an abuser, we allege. 8 So when she is defamed by the person who abused her and that 9 abuser is calling her a liar, that caused her significant 10 emotional distress. It's different than if some other 11 individual that she had not had contact with called her a liar. 12 When she is talking about a flashback, maybe that's what she is 13 referring to, but we don't have the word flashback anywhere in 14 our complaint. + +15 THE COURT: No. I made that up. + +16 There will be no claim by the plaintiff that the 17 defamation caused her distress by making her aware or as a 18 result of the prior sexual abuse. + +19 MS. McCAWLEY: The sexual abuse by the defendants? + +20 THE COURT: No. + +21 MS. McCAWLEY: Sexual abuse by others. + +22 THE COURT: Yes. + +23 MS. McCAWLEY: No. Sexual abuse that relates to the 24 Epstein period, yes. + +25 THE COURT: That I understand. + +18 + +64LMGIUC + +1 MS. McCAWLEY: I think we are on the same page. + +2 THE COURT: I think talking about the earlier period. + +3 MS. McCAWLEY: Prior to Epstein, no, no, she doesn't 4 have a claim with respect to that. + +5 THE COURT: Anything else? + +6 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I just want to point out 7 again that our production -- you asked us to complete that. We 8 have gone through and run over 200 search terms. We have 9 produced all of those communications she has had with all of 10 those individuals. The things that we have not produced are 11 the criminal investigation records. I know your Honor is going 12 to address that. I would like to be very clear there. + +13 The point there is that she has said in the motion to 14 stay papers that she filed Tuesday that she needs to have that 15 information so she can decide whether she is going to be 16 asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege. Truthful testimony 17 shouldn't have to be crafted, your Honor. She shouldn't need 18 to know what agency is investigating her in order to decide 19 whether or not she is going to be asserting her Fifth Amendment 20 privilege. + +21 We do have with us, your Honor, for an in camera 22 submission, if you would like it. That is the way that courts 23 have dealt with this issue in the past. When there is a claim 24 from an agency that the disclosure of that investigation could 25 harm the investigation, we can submit that to you for in camera + +19 + +GAILMGIUC + +1 review so you are aware of the ongoing investigation. But it 2 is my view that that needs to be protected. + +3 As you probably know, the history of these cases with 4 Mr. Epstein, there were a variety of things that went on in 5 that investigation, so there is reason to keep an investigation 6 in this situation protected so that they can properly 7 investigate and move forward with that without being inhibited 8 by other individuals. Your Honor, I would ask that that remain 9 protected. It's covered by her very, very broad requests, 10 which is why we had to lodge those objections. I would 11 appreciate your Honor considering our arguments with respect to 12 that issue. + +13 The other things, your Honor, that she has raised is, 14 for example, she had asked for the Epstein settlement agreement 15 and that was one of the things that she asked for. We agreed 16 to produce that if we got the waiver from Mr. Epstein because 17 we can't produce it without that waiver. + +18 I believe that covers it, your Honor. If you have any 19 questions, I would be happy to answer them. + +20 THE COURT: Thanks very much. + +21 Thank you all for all the clarification that you've 22 given me. I much appreciate it. + +23 With respect to the retainers and the dates of 24 representation, that information will be provided for any 25 attorney that's listed on the privilege log. + +20 + +GAILMGIUC + +1 The plaintiff has told me that they have now supplied 2 all the education and employment records that they have. I 3 think if there is any question about that, if the defense is 4 skeptical, I would ask the counsel for the plaintiffs to make 5 that statement on the record, not necessarily here, but by way 6 of a statement to the Court and principally to the defendant. + +7 On the question of residences, that's, in my view, not 8 a contention interrogatory because of the nature of this case. 9 I think it's more like listing witnesses. So I would say that 10 the plaintiff should supply all residences. + +11 The Dershowitz deposition will be produced under the 12 confidentiality provision. As I read what I've been given, 13 it's to be held in confidence and it will remain in confidence, 14 but it will be produced. + +15 Yes, the tax returns should be produced. 15 years 16 seems like -- I see. Ok. 15 years. + +17 The medical records of the period '99 to 2002 will be 18 produced and the plaintiff will indicate whether that 19 production is complete or, if it isn't complete, when it will 20 be complete. + +21 As for the pre-'99 medical records, based on where we 22 are at the moment, I do not believe that those are relevant. 23 Because the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the 24 defamation. If that changes in any way, I will revisit that 25 issue. + +21 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 The criminal investigation. Any materials that the 2 plaintiff has with respect to any criminal investigations will 3 be turned over except for any statements made by the plaintiff 4 to law enforcement authority and those statements, if there are 5 such, will be submitted in camera, and I will review them. + +6 I hope that clears up our problems. Tell me if I have 7 failed in my effort to do so. Yes, + +■. **HENNINGER: Your Honor, two quick things, I think. 9 With respect to medical records, we also certainly believe that 10 the period from the time the statement was made in January 2015 11 until the present, because she has claimed emotional distress 12 from that defamation --** + +**13 THE COURT: Sure, yes.** + +**14 MS. MENNINGER: The problem is, we have asked through 15 interrogatory what were the names of the medical providers 16 because they have not disclosed who her medical providers were. 17 So there is no way for us to tell whether the records in fact 18 have been sought from and produced with respect to each of 19 those medical providers. I will say that other records in the 20 possession of plaintiff lists other doctors who they have not 21 asked for records from or releases.** + +**22 THE COURT: Let's see if we can clear that up.** + +**23 MS. McCAWLEY: We have disclosed the names. She has 24 those names. We have also disclosed records, the more recent 25 records. We have not contested that.** + +22 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 With respect to the interrogatories, your Honor ruled 2 on this previously, but there is a local Rule 33.3, which is 3 why we didn't serve interrogatories in this case at this point. 4 She is deposing the plaintiff in two weeks, next week, whenever 5 it is, and can certainly ask those questions as well. But we 6 have disclosed the names of the providers. + +7 MS. MENNINGER: They have not, your Honor. + +8 THE COURT: Look. Wait just a moment. You two are 9 lawyers. Now, that is not an issue about which you should 10 differ. Go over in the corner right now, both of you, and 11 let's make it clear who is telling me the right story. Now. + +12 I take it that I misunderstood the colloquy and that 13 this matter has been resolved. + +14 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I think there was a 15 misunderstanding with respect -- + +16 THE COURT: I was sure. + +17 MS. McCAWLEY: Dr. Olsen has been noticed for 18 deposition in Colorado already. In my view, we have disclosed 19 the doctors. Ms. Menninger says that there is other doctors 20 that have been disclosed in documents that we have not yet 21 listed to her. I think in discovery we are finding 22 additional -- + +23 THE COURT: You think you may not have discovered that 24 your client has had some doctors -- + +25 MS. McCAWLEY: In the past. We are talking about + +23 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 years and years ago. The recent doctors we have disclosed they 2 have noticed for deposition. + +3 THE COURT: What else? + +4 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, with respect to the 5 employment and education records, as you heard plaintiff say, 6 she has disclosed, quote/unquote, what she has. Under local 7 rule 33.3, we are allowed to ask for the names of witnesses 8 with knowledge at the outset of the case, and they might be 9 custodians of records. We asked her who have been your 10 employers. She won't tell us who her employers have been. She 11 has just gone through her computer and say if I have an 12 employment record I'll give it to you, but I am not going to 13 tell you who her employers were. + +14 THE COURT: She will. + +15 MS. MENNINGER: Same thing with the education records. 16 We asked her to list where she had gone to school and tell us 17 where it is. She won't do it. Those are the things where my 18 skepticism arises from. + +19 Largely, to the extent your Honor has ordered the 20 production of whatever materials, criminal investigation 21 materials that were not to be submitted in camera, those were 22 the ones that involved plaintiff's statements, we would like 23 the other materials that they have brought with them today to 24 give to your Honor that do not encompass their client's 25 statements to law enforcement. + +24 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 THE COURT: I don't know whether there are such. Is 2 it possible that nothing in this lawsuit is clear? Well, I 3 tried to make it clear what should be produced and what 4 shouldn't. Anything that has been submitted to any law 5 enforcement officer by the plaintiff I will take in camera. 6 Anything other than that with respect to any law enforcement 7 should be produced. + +8 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. + +9 THE COURT: Thank you, all. I think we have the 10 pleasure of your company -- do we need you next week? We are 11 up to date, aren't we? + +12 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, we have a motion with 13 respect to our discovery that's set for next Thursday. + +14 THE COURT: That's fine. + +15 MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we adjourn, because 16 Mr. Cassell had a question, and I just want to make sure that I 17 understand, with respect to tomorrow's deposition, they are 18 entitled to attend but have to leave the room if confidential 19 information is disclosed? + +20 THE COURT: That's where we are at the moment, unless 21 it changes. + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, with regard to next 23 Thursday, both Ms. Menninger and I have other matters that are 24 previously scheduled and it would be impossible for us to take 25 care of those matters and be here at the same time. I'm + +25 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 wondering what the Court would like to do about that. + +2 THE COURT: First of all, you know how we play this + +3 game. You don't ask me first. You ask your opponent first. + +4 Have you done that? + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have not, your Honor. + +6 THE COURT: Will you? + +7 MR. PAGLIUCA: I certainly will, your Honor. + +8 THE COURT: Now. + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Absolutely. + +10 THE COURT: You can go over to the corner, too. + +11 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we need a corner bar on this, 12 your Honor. + +13 Ms. McCawley, I'm wondering if we can get a mutually 14 convenient date to hear that matter as opposed to next 15 Thursday. + +16 MS. McCAWLEY: Of course. + +17 MR. PAGLIUCA: That was simple enough, your Honor. + +18 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, one more thing. I didn't 19 realize that my counsel can submit that stipulation to you 20 because that case has been settled -- + +21 THE COURT: If I get something that closes that case 22 and I get the affidavit that there are no other matters in 23 which they have any claims or defenses relating to any of these 24 statements, that will do it. + +25 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, so I know, if we can submit + +26 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 that by fax this afternoon, will they be able to attend the 2 deposition tomorrow? + +3 THE COURT: I would think so, if I think those are 4 adequate representations and so on. The statement from a 5 mediator doesn't mean anything to me. Something that has a 6 court sign to it. That I understand. But the mediator saying 7 that it's settled doesn't work for me. + +8 MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, maybe Mr. could 9 briefly explain Florida procedure. The case has been 10 dismissed, but it does not require a Court's signature. + +11 Mr. can elaborate more fully on that. + +12 MR. : Sure. If I may. There are two ways in 13 which a case can be dismissed in Florida. One is by way of a 14 court order. The other is by way of a stipulation. That is 15 what was done. There was a stipulation of dismissal signed by 16 both parties, that being the plaintiff and the defendants and 17 counsel, that has been done and that was dismissed. + +18 THE COURT: That's filed in the case. + +19 MR. That's filed in the case and filed in 20 the court. + +21 THE COURT: Do you have a copy of that? + +22 MR. : I can get a copy of it immediately. + +23 THE COURT: Give it to the defense. If they have any 24 problems, they will let me know. That sounds all right to me. 25 What do I know about Florida except that it's flat and hot. + +27 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 Your representation sounds right. + +2 MR. Additionally, just with respect to the 3 affidavit, there needs to be an affirmation that we have no 4 other claims that relate to the statements in this case. Is 5 that what we are saying? + +6 THE COURT: I think it should be broader than that. I 7 think it should be -- look. I don't think it would be 8 appropriate if there is any possibility for either of you to 9 being a party. That's what I'm after. And having any 10 proceedings against you arising out of the situation with the 11 plaintiff. I think it would be inappropriate for you to be 12 counsel if you have the potentiality of being a party, either 13 plaintiff or defendant, in any proceedings. If I get an 14 affidavit saying that you're unaware of any claims against you 15 or any intention to make a claim arising out of the 16 circumstances surrounding this lawsuit, that should be broad. 17 I think that would satisfy me. + +18 MR. : Ok. + +19 MR. CASSELL: I'll be filing those materials this 20 afternoon, your Honor. My plan is to attend -- + +21 THE COURT: The defense has a thought on this. + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I am looking at documents 23 from Florida. One is a docket sheet captioned: Epstein v. 24 Brad and Paul G. Cassell, Lower Tribune Cases 15 000072 25 which shows that that matter is still pending. There is + +28 + +G4LMGIUC + +1 another case, as I understand it, v. Epstein and 2 Rothstein, which is also pending. I can confer about this, 3 your Honor. + +4 THE COURT: Let's do this. When do you plan to return 5 to the snow + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: There is still snow on the ground, your 7 Honor. Well, Friday night or Saturday morning is my current 8 plan. + +9 THE COURT: That's great. Whatever the applicants 10 have on this subject, please turn it over. You all can work 11 out how you are going to do that. Turn it over to the defense. 12 And if there is anything you want me to do, I would be prepared 13 to do it tomorrow. But that way I hope we can get it cleared 14 up. + +15 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, we do have the deposition 16 of the defendant scheduled for tomorrow. + +17 THE COURT: Then everybody will be having a nice time 18 together. Maybe you can all go out and have lunch, have a 19 drink, and exchange these documents and go away happy. Not 20 likely, but perhaps, depending on where you have lunch. + +21 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: Anything else? + +23 MS. MENNINGER: Nothing. + +24 THE COURT: Thank you, all. + +25 One thing. I would appreciate it if counsel would get + +G4LMGIUC + +1 together on my request for additional coverage in the 2 confidentiality agreement. + +3 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. + +4 THE COURT: Thanks a lot. + +5 o0o \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c96075cc7ba39149572a0463dfd7d17adb6e166 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621/EFTA02831621.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1203 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831621.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 30, + "chars": 36979, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.87, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0805", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 49.01593017578125 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 49.01593017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0808", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 49.01593017578125 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 49.01593017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0815", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 31.971923828125 + ], + [ + 342.5440368652344, + 49.01593017578125 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 49.01593017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0818", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 342.451904296875, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 342.451904296875, + 48.8994140625 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 48.8994140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "App.-0833", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.638427734375, + 31.589999999999996 + ], + [ + 342.638427734375, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 49.41 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 118 + ], + [ + "Line", + 60 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831621" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c73105990bd890993dbfe61cbf691931b7ab847d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.md @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \_ + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOLES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | | ii | +|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | | iii | +| Factual Background | | 1 | +| Argument | | 1 | +| I. | The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression | 1 | +| A. | Maxwell has standing. | 1 | +| B. | There is no good faith. | 5 | +| C. | The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. | 5 | +| II. | The Government's violation of Martindell requires suppression. | 7 | +| III. | The Government's violation of the Filth Amendment requires suppression | 10 | +| IV. | The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing | 13 | +| CONCLUSION | | 13 | +| Certificate of Service | | 15 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| Appeal of Hughes, | 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) | 2 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------| +| Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. | Ct. 2206 (2018). | 2, 3 | +| Doe v. Indyke, | Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) | 6 | +| = v. Maxwell, | 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 6 | +| Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, | | 685 F. Supp. 49 | +| (S.D.N.Y. 1988) | | 1 | +| Raheem v. Kelly, | 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) | 9 | +| Refco GT. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., | No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 | | +| (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) | | 2 | +| United States v. Cortina, 630 | F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) | 5 | +| United States v. Heath, | 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) | 7 | +| United Slates v. Lavender, | 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) | 2, 4 | +| | 468 U.S. 897 (1984) | 5 | +| United Slates v. Oshatz, 700 | F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) | 12 | +| | 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) | 10 | +| United States v. Stokes, 733 | F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) | 5, 6, 7 | +| United Slates v. Taylor, | 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) | 12 | +| US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., | No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2012 WL 5395249 | | +| (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) | | 2 | + +#### Other Authorities + +Stephen Rex =, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 + +#### Rules + +Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 + +Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) 4 + +#### Constitutional Provisions + +U.S. CONST. amend. IV 1 + +U.S. CONST. amend. V 1, 9 + +## TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +ExHiarr A: Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-gairlSriminal Investigations by Law Enforcement" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. M v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Apr. 18, 2016 + +ExHitirr B: v. Marwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 + +Ghislainc Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Marlindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. + +### Factual Background + +The facts relevant to this Motion are described in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof. + +## Argument + +# I. The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression. + +The government does not defend the overbreadth of its subpoena, or even respond to Maxwell's argument. Rcsp. at 82-95. The government also does not deny that the subpoena effected both a search and a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id. + +Instead, the government argues that (1) Maxwell has no standing to challenge the subpoena; (2) the govenunent acted in good faith; and (3) the government inevitably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. + +The facts and law belie the government's claims. + +# A. Maxwell has standing. + +The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession of a third party and Maxwell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Resp. at 84-86. This argument fails. + +Abundant authority holds that when confidential material is in the possession of a thirdparty, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tenon Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private + +investigation firm). "The governing rule in these circumstances is that the possessor of the claimed privilege or right may intervene to assert it." Id. (quoting Appeal ofHughes, 633 F.2d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 1980)). See also US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2012 WL 5395249, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) ("A party [has] standing to challenge ... a subpoena served on a non-party . . . [when] the moving party assert[s] some right or privilege personal to it, such as an interest in proprietary, confidential information that would be disclosed or an interest in maintaining a privilege that would be breached by disclosure." (citing cases)). In turn, in determining whether there is standing, "[c]ourts should consider whether the information itself is private, confidential, privileged, or highly sensitive, and not the form the records take." Reim Grp. Lid., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014). + +In United States v. Lavender, the Second Circuit held that while a defendant could not file an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to quash a third-party subpoena, he was "free to raise his Fourth Amendment claims via motions to suppress...." 583 F.2d 630, 632 (2d Cir. 1978). Since Maxwell never had notice of the subpoena to Boies Schiller, she is doing here exactly what Lavender allows: filing a motion to suppress. + +To be sure, if the government were right—that the mere fact of a third-party's possession of property eliminates a defendant's standing—then Carpenter v. United States would have come out differently, since the defendant's historical cell-site location information was in the possession of MetroPCS and Sprint. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (2018). But the United States Supreme Court rejected application of the third-party doctrine for two reasons, as this Court should here. + +First, the Court recognized that + +[t]here is a w at• l of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed in and and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers today. The Government thus is not asking for a straightforward application of the third-party doctrine, but instead a significant extension of it to a distinct category of information. + +Id. at 2219. Second, the Court concluded that in "in no meaningful sense" did Carpenter voluntarily "assume the risk" of "turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements." Id. at 2220. + +The same logic applies here. There is "world of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed in and and the exhaustive" and personal details about Maxwell that are contained in Boles Schiller's 90,000 pages of confidential material. These details include, for example, information about Maxwell's sexual partners, sexual habits, finances, and much, much more. + +Moreover, "in no meaningful sense" did Maxwell voluntarily share this information with Boies Schiller. sued Maxwell, not the other way around. And the defamation claim (the only claim ever asserted against Maxwell, who did not file a counterclaim) had nothing to do with much of the confidential information Maxwell was forced, over objection, to provide. Maxwell's motion to dismiss the perjury counts for lack of materiality and her motion for 1=1, and the replies in support thereof, explain this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 & 5. + +But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing =, which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicial personal questions. None of it was voluntary. + +In addition to the inapplicability of the third-party doctrine, the government's response fails to account for two other, dispositive facts proving that Maxwell has a reasonable expectation of privacy. First, the Protective Order by its terms affords Maxwell a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mot. 3, Ex. A,1 3 (defining "CONFIDENTIAL" information as that which "implicates common law and statutoryprivacy interests of .. . Ghislaine Maxwell" (emphasis added)). What would it say to civil litigants if they could not rely on a court's promise of confidentiality, at least absent notice and an opportunity to object to any breach of that promise (which, of course, Maxwell was denied here). See Mot. 3, Ex. A, ¶ 14 (precluding modification of the Protective Order absent "good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard"). + +Second, Mai-Lindell affords Maxwell a reasonable expectation of privacy. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. In Martindell, the Second Circuit held that "the proper procedure" to obtain confidential material under a Protective Order, "as the Government should know, was either to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in a pending proceeding such as a grand jury investigation or trial, in which the issue could be raised by motion to quash or modify the subpoena, [Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)] or to seek permissive intervention in the private action pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)], for the purpose of obtaining vacation or modification of the protective order." Id. (emphasis added)). By affording Maxwell a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, Martindell makes clear that, having been denied those rights when the subpoena was first issued, Maxwell has standing to challenge the government's conduct um\ Id.; see Lavender, 583 F.2d at 632. + +#### B. There is no good faith. + +The rebuttal to government's good faith claim is simple: There can be no good faith when the government willfully and intentionally misleads the court into authorizing its search. As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. M, + +Suppression ... remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth. + +468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984). + +Here, as explained in Maxwell's due process motion to suppress and the reply in support thereof, the government misled Chief Judge McMahon to modify the Protective Order and authorize the subpoena to Boies Schiller. The good faith doctrine does not apply when the government acts in objective bad faith. + +# C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. + +There are several reasons the government's inevitable discovery argument fails. + +First, the inevitable discovery doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. United Slates v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 442-43 (2d Cir. 2013) (reversing district court's denial of motion to suppress, which was based on "the inevitable discovery doctrine, an exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule"). The doctrine has no applicability when a court exercises its inherent or supervisory authority to suppress evidence obtained through deliberate government misconduct. The exercise of /hat authority is meant to vindicate the dignity of the Court and to deter improper governmental conduct. See United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir. 1980) ("The need for deterrence of illegal conduct is, in one sense, greater here than [elsewhere], for [the government's] offense was committed within the sanctity of the court itself."). + +Second, the government's inevitable discovery doctrine is far too speculative. The "typical application" of the inevitable discovery doctrine is when "the government seeks to invoke the doctrine on the basis of standardized, established procedures such as those requiring inventory searches." Stokes, 733 F.3d at 447. The government's "inevitability analysis in this case," however, "is predicated on an assessment of the actions that might have been taken by third parties," such as Judge Preska and the Miami Herald, who are "not acting at the behest of the police." Id. "Such an analysis is inherently speculative." Id. + +In fact, unlike every other civil case in the Southern District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in v. Maxwell. In the only other active SDNY case against Epstein, Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-484-JLK, the government intervened and moved to stay discovery, saying that continued discovery could threaten its case against Maxwell. + +By contrast, the govenunent opted not to intervene and stay the unsealing in v. Maxwell. The reason is obvious. Legitimately concerned about the propriety of its conduct in misleading Chief Judge McMahon and issuing an unconstitutionally overbroad subpoena to Boies Schiller, the government hoped to hedge its bets by allowing the unsealing process to unfold so it could make the inevitable discovery argument it now makes. This Court should not condone such gamesmanship.' + +Third, the government's inevitable discovery argument is far too broad. Even the government admits that the vast majority of material it obtained from Boies Schiller is not on the v. Maxwell docket and has not been unsealed by Judge Preska. Resp. at 94. In fact, the government's response appears to concede that its inevitable discovery argument is limited to + +I As the government recognizes, Judge Preska recognized this possibility, but deferred to this Court on the question since it is presiding over the criminal case. Resp. at 94 n.41. + +Maxwell's two deposition transcripts, Resp. at 94 & n.41. And as to Count 6 in particular (alleging perjury in the July 2016 deposition), the government concedes, as it must, that Judge Preska has refused to unseal all of the testimony charged in the indictment, except one question and one answer. Resp. at 94 n.41. The government offers no explanation for how it inevitably would have obtained all 90,000 pages of material from Boies Schiller when the two deposition transcripts don't even total 1,000 pages. + +Fourth, the government misunderstands the burden of proof. The government tries to fault Maxwell for seeking "suppression of all evidence [it] obtained pursuant to the subpoena," calling this a "windfall." Resp. at 95. But it's the government's burden to prove the applicability of the inevitable discovery exception. Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (inevitable discovery doctrine applies only "if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably without the constitutional violation") (rejecting government's inevitable discovery claim). The government must explain why Maxwell isn't entitled to this remedy, not the other way around. The government has fallen far, far short of meeting its burden, if only because it offers no argument—on the facts or the law—for how it might have inevitably discovered more than 89,000 pages of material that hasn't been and won't be unsealed by Judge Preska. This Court should have no confidence, much less a "high level of confidence, that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulating inevitable discovery standard). + +The inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply. + +# II. The Government's violation of Martindell requires suppression. + +The government ignores the primary argument Maxwell made in her Motion: The government circumvented Martindell, and deprived Maxwell of due process, by securing a modification of the Protective Order in an ex parse hearing (chock full of misrepresentations) without first providing Maxwell notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mot. No. 11, at 11-15. The government offers no response to this fundamental point—Martindell demands notice and an opportunity to be heard; Maxwell received neither. Resp. at 76—81. + +Now, in an audacious request, the government argues this Court cannot evaluate the propriety of Chief Judge McMahon's analysis of Martindell, because Judge McMahon is a coequal judge who exercised her sound discretion. Resp. at 81 & n.37. Were the government's unsupported argument correct, though, it would mean that Maxwell will never have an opportunity to challenge the subpoena under Martindell, as that case and due process require. The government is not right. + +This Court does not owe deference to Judge McMahon's decision, for at least three reasons. First, Maxwell never was given the chance to oppose the government's request, so due process demands that she be given that chance now. Second, Chief Judge McMahon did not possess all the relevant facts because the government improperly concealed them from her. To the contrary, the government misled Judge McMahon about its contacts with Boies Schiller and the origins of its investigation, facts that were central to Judge McMahon's decision to modify the Protective Order and authorize the subpoena. Mot. No. 3 & Reply in Support Thereof. Third, this Court is not tasked with deciding whether the Protective Order should be modified or even questioning the correctness of Judge McMahon's modification. This Court is deciding a different question entirely—whether the government's violation of Marrindell requires suppression. + +As to remedy, the government says that no case addresses whether suppression is proper for a Martindell violation. Fair enough. Resp. at 81. + +But that's doubtless because that law has been clear for forty-two years that the government can modify a civil Protective Order and then subpoena confidential material only after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to respond. Marlindell, 594 F.2d at 294 (Marlindell decided in 1979). The proper procedure for modifying a civil Protective Order at the government's request, in other words, is the one that affords due process. U.S. CONST. amend. V. + +That no case has addressed the remedy for a Marlindell violation is evidence only of (1) the government's prior compliance with Marlindell (which should, of course, be expected), or (2) a criminal defendant having not raised the issue before. In this case, however, (1) the government violated Marlindell, and (2) Maxwell seeks suppression as a sanction. + +Suppression is the proper remedy for at least two reasons. First, at its heart, Marlindell is grounded in due process principles, and the government's conduct here violated Maxwell's right to due process. See U.S. CONST. amend. V. The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Martindell guaranteed Maxwell notice and an opportunity to be heard, 594 F.2d at 294, as did the Protective Order, Mot. 3, Ex. A, 1 14. But Maxwell had no idea that the Protective Order had been modified behind her back until she was indicted and the government disclosed the 90,000 pages of material it obtained from Boles Schiller.2 The government's due process violation warrants suppression. E.g., Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (suppression for due process violation). + +Second, because the government violated Marlindell not only by denying Maxwell notice and an opportunity to be heard, but also by affirmatively misleading Chief Judge McMahon, + +2 To this day, Judge Preska—who is presiding over the action since Judge Sweet's passing and is addressing the Protective Order on a daily basis as the parties brief what material should be unsealed—apparently does not know the Protective Order was modified. + +suppression is proper under this Court's inherent and supervisory authority. Mot. No. 3 & Reply in Support Thereof. + +## III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression. + +The government offers three responses to Maxwell's Fifth Amendment argument. None is persuasive. + +The government's first response is to deny any state action. Rcsp. at 99-100. But as even the government admits, a private party, like Boics Schiller, is deemed to be an agent of the state when the government "has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State." Resp. at 99 (quoting United Stales v. M, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008)). Here, based on the record of the government's contacts with Boies Schiller in the months before and after Maxwell's depositions, there is at least a genuine question of fact as to the government's role in encouraging Boies Schiller. + +We know that the government contemplated a perjury prosecution of Maxwell, as seen in the government's newly-disclosed notes from the meeting. Reply ISO Mot. to Suppress, Ex. K, p 5. And if the government is to be believed, there was only one meeting with Boies Schiller, two months before Maxwell's first deposition. If the government was contemplating a perjury prosecution before Maxwell even testified, it stands to reason that Boies Schiller and the government discussed at the February 29 meeting a plan to set a perjury trap for Maxwell. + +Indeed, the contemporaneous notes of the February 29 meeting show that Boies Schiller promised to send the government "depositions," Reply ISO Mot. to Suppress, Ex. J, p 8, and David Boies later complained about his frustration that the government had not yet charged + +Maxwell with perjury.; There arc compelling reasons, therefore, to think the government and Boics Schiller collaborated and that Boles Schiller's conduct was in part at the government's behest. + +The record in the case preceding the first deposition supports this conclusion as well. Based on claim of an ongoing investigation, Maxwell requested, prior to her deposition, that disclose any alleged "on-going criminal investigation by law enforcement" or alternatively to stay the action pending completion of any such investigation. Ex. A. In part, Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." Ex. A, p 3. The district court declined to afford Ms. Maxwell the requested relief. Ex. B. + +The day before Maxwell's April 2016 deposition, however, Judge Sweet ordered that "[a]ly materials that I has with respect to any criminal investigations will be turned over (by except for any statements made by al to law enforcement authority." Ex. B, p 21. Maxwell had in fact served a discovery request on Boies Schiller for any such documents, yet produced no such materials, and the deposition proceeded as scheduled the next day. + +In reliance on the Protective Order, which included no exception for any law enforcement need or subpoena and based on failure to disclose any "ongoing criminal investigation," Maxwell did not assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during that deposition and testified truthfully. + +As explained in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, the government has now disclosed several documents "with respect to any criminal investigations" + +Stephen Rex =, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.corninew-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013 imTh17zdridarbbs7vc6binszu-storv.html. + +that possessed in February and March 2016. Under Judge Sweet's pre-deposition order, should have turned these documents over to Maxwell before the April 2016 deposition. failure to turn the documents over, despite Judge Sweet's order, is compelling evidence that Boies Schiller was acting as an agent of the state for Fifth Amendment purposes when deposing Maxwell. At the very least, the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand, and an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. + +The government's second argument is that Maxwell waived her Fifth Amendment right. Resp. at 100. Not so. A waiver is valid only if it is knowingly made. United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15, 23 (2d Cir. 2014). And "'knowing' means with full awareness of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of abandoning it." Id. + +Here, Maxwell did not knowingly waive her Fifth Amendment right. She declined to invoke it based on the protections afforded to her by the Protective Order, and on the understanding that the government was not actively investigating her. That understanding, as it turned out, was incorrect, but it was a misunderstanding deliberately encouraged by Boies Schiller with cooperation from the government. If Boies Schiller had disclosed that material Judge Sweet ordered them to disclose, Maxwell would have invoked her Fifth Amendment right and avoided the perjury trap the government and Boies Schiller set for her. + +It is for this reason that the government fails in its attempt to distinguish United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Resp. at 102. The government says that the logic of Oshatz does not apply because the defendant there had already been indicted whereas here, Maxwell was deposed "over two years before the Government opened its investigation." Resp. at 100; id. at 102 (noting that the defendant in Oshatz "had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case for almost seven months"). Of course, this argument depends on the + +government's claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell's first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perjury. This Court should adhere to Oshatz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress + +The government's final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell's argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show "improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon's finding of "extraordinary circumstances" was fatally tainted by the government's misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. + +# IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. + +Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. + +## CONCLUSION + +For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: + +212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena to Boles Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey®usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..576628fba1bfee7b3ed22e0077cdc5b9f1558366 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651/EFTA02831651.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1198 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831651.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 20, + "chars": 31597, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, \nMARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE \nOBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOLES SCHILLER AND \nTO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 75.276, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 330.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 75.276, + 330.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.724609375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.724609375, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.9047546386719, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.9047546386719, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 80.19 + ], + [ + 166.91055297851562, + 80.19 + ], + [ + 166.91055297851562, + 94.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 94.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 183.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 285.12 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 299.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 299.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62548828125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 375.62548828125, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Factual Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 246.02400000000003, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 365.8772277832031, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 365.8772277832031, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 246.02400000000003, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Argument", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.176, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 337.16949462890625, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 337.16949462890625, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 289.98 + ], + [ + 538.4827880859375, + 289.98 + ], + [ + 538.4827880859375, + 307.10302734375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 307.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Maxwell has standing.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 257.6875915527344, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 257.6875915527344, + 527.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 527.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. There is no good faith.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 258.0194091796875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 258.0194091796875, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 426.0965270996094, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 426.0965270996094, + 388.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 388.99249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 463.8066101074219, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 463.8066101074219, + 667.2325134277344 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 667.2325134277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.831298828125, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.831298828125, + 142.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 142.99249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 370.1202087402344, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 370.1202087402344, + 474.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 474.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 583.6125030517578 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 583.6125030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.904, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 373.03680419921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 373.03680419921875, + 89.13043212890625 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 89.13043212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 14 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831651" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..802a786f997c5bd61d3847cf25462b57d84fea7b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +The government continues to stonewall Ms. Maxwell's requests for clarity about what it claims she did to justify her continued incarceration and prosecution. Although the government has dumped thousands of pages of irrelevant discovery from inapplicable time periods on Ms. Maxwell and her counsel, it refuses to provide the most basic information about the allegations in Counts One through Four: who, what, when, and how. Because Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment ("Indictment") lack the basic factual information necessary for Ms. Maxwell to prepare her defense, and the government refuses to provide any meaningful discovery, the Court should either dismiss these counts or direct the government to answer Ms. Maxwell's requests for particularity. + +# I. The Indictment Lacks the Necessary Specificity + +The government attempts to justify some of the Indictment's deficiencies, e.g., lack of names and dates, through citation to obviously inapplicable cases. + +"First," the government offers United Slates v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013), for the proposition that "the use of pseudonyms to refer to minor victims of the charged conduct does not warrant dismissal of the indictment." Resp. at 153. The government fails to point out, however, that Stringer was a fraud case in which the conduct was alleged to have occurred over a 7-month period. The indictment was brought within a few years, not decades, of the alleged crime, and the identity of the two people whose names were used in connection with the fraud "had been revealed in the documents disclosed by the government a year" before trial. Id. at 123. + +United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), is equally unpersuasive. Kidd was indicted in 2018 for crimes alleged to have occurred as late as 2018. The case involved two alleged victims and the government produced sufficient discovery to obviate the need for a bill of particulars. Id. at 368, 370. + +The Indictment against Ms. Maxwell registers a 98 on the opacity chart. Instead of two alleged "victims," the indictment here has different categories with three people being identified as "Minor Victims," even though they are not minors. Additionally, an unknown number of unexplained categories of unidentified human beings appear in the Indictment: "multiple minor girls," "victims," "minor victims," "minor victims described herein," "some of Epstein's minor victims," and "multiple minor victims." It is a mystery if the government claims that these alleged people arc the same, part of the alleged crime, or surplusage. Multiple "among other thing" and "means and methods" alleged acts are bandied about in the indictment such as: assisted, facilitated, contributed, recruit, groom, befriend, spending time, being present, help, etc. This Indictment is subject to considerable interpretation and manipulation. Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare a defense without knowing who her accusers are and whether they are limited to the alleged "Minor Victims" or the rest of the universe. + +"Second," the government relies on the general proposition that "Courts in the Second Circuit have consistently upheld indictments containing a range of time rather than a specific date." Resp. at 154. Again, the cited cases are easily distinguishable. Kidd involved a date range ending in the year of indictment. Moreover, the quoted general language from Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 369, is incomplete. The court in Kidd explains the range it is referring to by the following reference: "See United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that `on or about June 1984' put a defendant on notice for potential crimes in July or early August of 1984 'because the [G)overnment is not required to prove the exact date, if a date reasonably near is established')." Id. The government fails to include this language because it is inapposite to the suggestion that there is anything "routine" about a date range beginning 27 + +years ago that may be applicable to dozens of people in multiple places including a foreign country. + +United States v. =I No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at \*1 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014), also does not help the government. This case concerned a one count indictment in 2013. It is patently clear from the opinion by the district court that the statements from the alleged victim detailing the allegation had been provided to the defendant and the court which noted that the lengthy recitation of facts in the opinion "are taken from the allegations set forth in the Affidavit of Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jennifer Jayne Amo submitted in support of the May 16, 2013 Criminal Complaint (Dkt.# 1), the Indictment (Dkt.# 8), and the government's response to the instant motions (Dkt.# 20)." 2014 WL 1838255, at •3 n. 1. The dates and times of the alleged conduct would have been fairly easy to identify given the detail provided in discovery. Here, Ms. Maxwell has not been provided with any relevant statements by the government or its witnesses. + +The government's attempt to hide behind the general proposition that children cannot be expected to remember dates also fails. Resp. at 155. The alleged victims here are not children, they am adults. Moreover, a review of the case relied on by the government United States v. Young, No. 08-CR-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008), demonstrates the proper way to charge these types of allegations (which is not as the government did here): + +Count One alleges that Defendant sexually abused Victim One, aged fourteen at the time, during the daytime on a Saturday in or about the Fall of 2006; Count Two alleges that Defendant sexually abused Victim One, aged fifteen at the time, during the daytime on a Saturday in or about September 2007; and Count Three alleges that Defendant sexually abused Victim Two, aged sixteen at the time, on an evening in or about the Summer of 2006. Stated differently, the three counts each specify a particular time of day (daytime or evening), and feature variances in date ranges stretching from roughly four days in Count Two to thirteen days in Count One to four months in Count Three. + +Thus, the court found: the indictment "contains dates ranges for each count, stretching from approximately four days to four months. These date ranges are well within the boundaries permitted by the Second Circuit and other federal courts, and have been supplemented with additional details provided by the Government. Id., at \*4 (emphasis added). + +To date, the only time the government has "supplemented" any information about the accusations is when it is attempting to excuse some failure. + +Here, the accusers have given statements to the government. Accuser-1 gave a statement to the government in 2006. All three accusers have made claims against the Epstein Estate. Presumably, the Accusers had to tell the Estate when and where any alleged abuse by Epstein occurred. Accordingly, this is not a situation where children do not remember things. This is a situation where the government has refused to provide basic necessary information in an attempt to prejudice Ms. Maxwell's defense. + +"Third," the indictment is not "clear" (Resp. at 155); it was purposely drafted to maximize charges and minimize clarity. For example, the photograph of Ms. Maxwell in the indictment is not from the time-period alleged. The pictures of the various properties were not included for specificity, they were included to maximize pretrial prejudice. The indictment is full of "weasel words" which are words the meaning of which are "malleable to a point where they mean what the user wants them to mean in any given situation; they have no meaning of their own."Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 2:14-CV-158-JRG, 2014 WL 5677834, at \*2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2014). For example: "up to and including at least in or about:' "contributed," "among other things," "for example in some instances," "certain victims," and "groomed and/or abused at multiple locations including the following." Ms. Maxwell is at a loss to understand what she is charged with and when it is alleged to have happened. She can guess at names, but given the government's recent harbinger of a superseding indictment, likely to attempt to fix some of these problems, Ms. Maxwell is wasting time and money playing whacka-mole with this Indictment. + +### II. This Indictment Does Not Satisfy Minimal Notice Requirements + +In Handing v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-18 (1974), the United States Supreme Court explained the circumstances in which an indictment simply setting forth the offense in the words of the statute may not suffice: + +Our prior cases indicate that an indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which [s]he must defend, and, second, enables [her] to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished. Undoubtedly the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offence, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which [she] is charged. (cleaned up). + +The government has failed to provide an indictment that "directly," "expressly," and "without uncertainty or ambiguity" sets forth the allegations against her. The alleged facts are vague and illusory and no meaningful discovery has been provided. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately defend herself, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. + +## CONCLUSION + +Because Counts One through Four of the Indictment lack the basic factual information necessary for Ms. Maxwell to prepare her defense, and the government refuses to provide any meaningful discovery, the Court should either dismiss these counts or direct the government to answer Ms. Maxwell's requests for particularity. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Spectliciry, upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..377c3782bac1ca66994b9ed60a8a8c9aa0b3535c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671/EFTA02831671.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,451 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831671.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 12065, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.66, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF \nTHE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 535.6290283203125, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 535.6290283203125, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Indictment Lacks the Necessary Specificity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 374.5584411621094, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 374.5584411621094, + 336.1125183105469 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 336.1125183105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. This Indictment Does Not Satisfy Minimal Notice Requirements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 465.71221923828125, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 465.71221923828125, + 170.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 170.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 353.0849609375, + 595.6125030517578 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 595.6125030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.4115905761719, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.4115905761719, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831671" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca2d9e11239a5984feeee87ddc9051eb93a37a25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/19/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +An arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment is scheduled to take place on April 23, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 24B of the Daniel Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. + +Given significant public interest, a video feed of the proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room and Courtroom 9C at the Daniel \loynihan Courthouse. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in either the Courtroom or the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited. + +Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be limited to approximately 100 members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COV1D-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the attached instructions. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. + +Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear either (i) a properly fitted disposable mask under a cloth mask, with the outer edges of the inner mask pushed against the face, or (ii) a properly fitted FDA-authorized N95 or KN95 mask. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID- 19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, see hups://www.nysd.uscourts.govicovid-19-coronavirus. + +In order to ensure additional public access, the Court will also open a public teleconference line so that members of the public may listen to the audio of the proceeding. Members of the public may call into the public teleconference line by dialing 844-291-6362 and entering access code 2921822. This phone line can accommodate approximately 4,000 callers on a first come, first serve basis. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including being held in contempt of court, removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings. or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. + +Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights" provided to them in that section. This includes "Mlle right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime or of any release ... of the accused." Id. § 3771(aX2). So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court's by email by April 21, 2021 whether any alleged victims wish to attend the proceeding and whether they will attend in person or by phone. The Court will ensure access. + +In addition, defense counsel shall inform the Court's [REDACTED] by email by April 21, 2021, whether any of the Defendant's family members wish to attend the proceeding and whether they will attend in person or by phone. The Court will ensure access. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 19, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e05c1015c0f9224241da9172392576eef221bb77 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679/EFTA02831679.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831679.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3877, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831679" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5141fcdad76bd91dec3c887918d2f5773cc07c07 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/19/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 2, 2021, the Defendant filed her response to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's objections to the Defendant's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena by email, in order to allow the parties to confer on appropriate redactions. Boies Schiller Flexner LLP filed its reply on April 5, 2021, also by email. On April 5, 2021, the Government filed on the public docket a letter motion requesting that the Court order the Defendant to provide the Government with a copy of the proposed subpoena and that any productions made pursuant to any Rule 17(c) subpoenas be produced to the opposing party. Dkt. No. 193. On April 15, 2021, the Defendant submitted her response by email in order to allow the parties to confer on any appropriate redactions. + +IT IS ORDERED that any redaction requests for documents not already filed on the public docket must be made by April 21, 2021. Alternatively, the parties may file the unredacted versions by that date. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 19, 2021 New York, New York CA 46 Alt i - + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fbecc071c6e2a5e54db3a2242e6070a85524645 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682/EFTA02831682.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831682.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1442, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.14, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831682" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a905300a83fac221e1a5cf23f1ebf72f3e070fb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +In its April 16, 2021 Opinion, the Court denied the Defendant's motions to dismiss the SI superseding indictment in whole or in part and granted the Defendant's motion to sever the perjury counts for a separate trial. Dkt. No. 207. The Court will try the non-perjury counts first. + +As the Court noted in its Opinion, it has not yet resolved the Defendant's two motions to suppress evidence. See Dkt. Nos. 133, 139. The Defendant contends in those motions that the Government obtained by subpoena documents covered by a protective order in violation of her rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, against self-incrimination, and to due process of law. The motions seek, at minimum, an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Government knowingly misrepresented facts to procure an order modifying the protective order. + +The Court requires information from the Government for scheduling purposes. + +The Government is ORDERED to inform the Court by letter docketed on ECF no later than April 20, 2021, whether it intends to use any of the documents subject to the pending motions to suppress in the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case. + +If the Government does not intend to use any of the documents subject to the pending motions to suppress in the trial of the non-perjury counts, the Court will defer consideration of those motions until it has scheduled the trial of the perjury counts. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 19, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d425049ee42a97c0801aa97e5a9c354b3a40921 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/EFTA02831683.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1743, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831683" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5787b5e5e75eb5fa213c9ca9db09dc7e53986bf6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831683/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0b7aab1e6136a8da1c939a6d28f54e632e4745a3c842898a451d9b5fe35cc74e +size 11820 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b431f1e006b27dbb73ae6dc88874b9c9539781c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 1, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and P C Laura A. Menninger + +ISO East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 pH 303.831.7364 PP 303.832.2628 www.hmllow.com L.Menninger@ihmilaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Joint Letter Concerning Redactions to Omnibus Response & Exhibit 11 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to this Court's Order of March 29, 2021 (Dkt. No. 189), the parties respectfully submit this joint letter concerning redactions to the Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions ("Response"). + +## Joint Position + +The parties no longer seek the proposed redactions to pages 118 and 119 of the government's Response. + +## Ms. Maxwell's Position + +Ms. Maxwell seeks to redact from pages 129-134 of the Response and from Exhibit 11 only those portions of her July 22, 2016 deposition as to which Judge Preska ruled: + +public access to [these] parts of the transcript is outweighed by Ms. Maxwell's countervailing interests in resisting disclosure of the details of her private, intimate relationships with consenting adults. This testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in v. Maxwell. Although the prurient interest of some may be left unsatiated as a result, Ms. Maxwell's interest in keeping private the details of her sexual relationships with consenting adults warrants the sealing of those portions of her testimony (and any materials that reference them). + +April I, 2021 + +Page 2 + +v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7466-LAP, Tr. of Jan. 19, 2021 at 6-7. Ms. Maxwell moved to suppress use of her deposition testimony, including these quotes, based on the government's violations of due process and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. See Dkt. Nos. 134 & 140. The quotes at issue only constitute "part of the public record in this case" -- in the Indictment — because the government circumvented Second Circuit precedent and made material misrepresentations to Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet. + +Ms. Maxwell objects to their public re-release for several reasons. As the Second Circuit explained, "the privacy interests of innocent third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure ... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation in determining what portions of motion papers in question should remain sealed or should be redacted." Matter of New York Times, 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (emphasis supplied).' In the context of considering whether to unseal wiretap evidence during a motion to suppress, the Second Circuit explained that "[p]roceedings may be closed and, by analogy, documents may be sealed if 'specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."' Id. at 116 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 478 U.S. I, 12 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise II"). + +Ms. Maxwell assumes for purposes of this argument that the Omnibus Response and Exhibit 11 are "judicial documents." Matter of New York Times, 828 at 115-116 (recognizing qualified right of public access to papers filed in connection with a motion to suppress). + +April I, 2021 + +Page 3 + +The testimony at issue is undeniably private: it relates exclusively to Ms. Maxwell's consensual adult sexual activities involving "sex toys or devices used in sexual activities" and a "three-way sexual" encounter involving an adult "blond and brunette." See V. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (U.S. 2003) ("It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon [a] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds oven expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring."); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (U.S. 1965). And Ms. Maxwell proposes only those redactions "narrowly tailored" to preserve her privacy interest in her intimate, consensual adult sexual activities. Press-Enterprise 11, 106 S.Ct. at 2743. Rather than seek to redact either the argument or the surrounding testimony, Ms. Maxwell marked for redaction those limited portions of the deposition transcript that Judge Preska ordered sealed. The remaining unredacted portions generally describe the redacted testimony such that the public and media will have no issue ascertaining the nature of the legal issues nor fulfill their role in monitoring the Courts. Inclusion of the exact lines referencing "three-way sexual activity" or "sex toys" does not add to the argument but redacting those lines does preserve Ms. Maxwell's privacy in testimony that was both compelled and obtained under highly improper methods. + +In addition to her privacy interests, Ms. Maxwell seeks to preserve her right to a fair trial free from unfair pretrial publicity concerning what may ultimately be deemed "inadmissible" evidence at the criminal trial. United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) ("compelling interests" that counterbalance any presumption of access include the "privacy interests of the defendant" and the fair trial rights of the defendant). + +April I, 2021 + +Page 4 + +Publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings such as the one involved in the present case poses special risks of unfairness. The whole purpose of such hearings is to screen out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence and insure that this evidence does not become known to the jury. Cf. v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368. Publicity concerning the proceedings at a pretrial hearing, however, could influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information wholly inadmissible at the actual trial. + +The danger of publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings is particularly acute, because it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial. After the commencement of the trial itself, inadmissible prejudicial information about a defendant can be kept from a jury by a variety of means.5 When such information is publicized during a pretrial proceeding, however, it may never be altogether kept from potential jurors. + +Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378-79 (U.S. 1979). Every sentence that is publicly released in this case has been widely publicized, in print, broadcast and online media, both within and without this jurisdiction. Quotations from testimony concerning "three-way sexual" activity and "sex toys" "cater to a `craving for that which is sensational and impure' rather than serve a legitimate issue of public interest. Dkt. No. 168 (citing Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051).2 + +Finally, the fact that the government has already publicized — in the Indictment — some of the testimony that it unconstitutionally obtained should not be rewarded. "That some information relating to the documents in question already has been discussed on the public + +2 Among the "subject matters [which] presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trail or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of this rule" pursuant to Local Cr. Rule 23.1 are the "contents of any confession, admission or statement given by the accused." + +April I, 2021 + +Page 5 + +record or reported in the media does not mean that the 11 parties themselves have lost any remaining privacy interest in their contents." United States v. Gatto, No. 17-cr-686 (LAK), 2019 WL 4194569, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (quoting Matter of New York Times, 828 at 116 ("much of the Title III material contained in the papers has already been publicized. Nonetheless, limited redaction of the Title III material in the papers may still be appropriate.")). Indeed, this Court rejected Ms. Maxwell's argument that certain portions of the Response and its exhibits should be unredacted because the material had already been made public. See Dkt. No. 168 at 2-3; Letter Motion of Laura A. Menninger dated March 9, 2021 (Objection to Proposed Redactions of Government's Omnibus Response & Exhibit 5) at 2-3 t memoir detailing her private family matters released by Second Circuit in The Billionaire Playboys Club manuscript). The government also persists in using pseudonyms in this case such as "Minor Victim 2" in place of an accuser who has told her story most publicly on Netflix, ABC News, and the New York Times. Ms. Maxwell's privacy rights to her zealously guarded intimate sexual affairs deserve at least as much protection as third-parties who have chosen at every turn to publicize their salacious allegations. + +Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the redactions to pages 129-134 that she previously proposed in her March 9, 2021 Letter at Exhibit 3 be adopted, in addition to the government's redactions to those same pages. As regards Exhibit 11, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the redactions ordered by Judge Preska to those deposition pages be adopted as well. To the extent additional testimony is reflected in Exhibit I I, it is immaterial to the issues presented in Ms. Maxwell's Motions to Suppress or the government's Response. + +## The Government's Position + +The Government respectfully submits that there is no basis under the applicable + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April I, 2021 Page 6 standard to redact the portions of pages 129 to 134 of the Government's omnibus + +memorandum of law and Exhibit 11 that refer to language that is contained in the publiclyfiled Indictment in this case. The information in the Indictment is part of the public record and, therefore, has a deeply diminished privacy interest. The Government does not understand any legal basis for sealing the information again. The Government does not object to the remaining proposed redactions to pages 129 to 134 of the Government's brief, which were the redactions originally proposed by the Government. The Government does not object to the redactions proposed by the defense to Exhibit 11 (with the exception of the language quoted in the Indictment). + +Respectfully submitted, + +CC: Counsel of Record + +j-iTheLaura A. Menninger \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bd7bd63f0c6bcfd76b41e0ef15f83f2f8ef0b07 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/EFTA02831685.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,320 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 10471, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Joint Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 437.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 189.85888671875, + 437.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 189.85888671875, + 452.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 452.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ms. Maxwell's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 239.36598205566406, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 239.36598205566406, + 535.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 535.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Government's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 669.06 + ], + [ + 256.9859924316406, + 669.06 + ], + [ + 256.9859924316406, + 685.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 685.4830169677734 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Span", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831685" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cb8de1c46be7c3737bd567c19d8bb4e98c4bf86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831685/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3d968b7fc4ea858f4bec4b4e544f207d5f35bfbf605f75fcb8cc7ee617ade21e +size 6266 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cafbef0bf2edaa20ccde07d789986a146b10373c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.md @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 15, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and P.0 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 fx 303.832.2628 www.hrnflaw.com jpagliucafthrnftaw.com + +Re: Response to Government's April 5, 2021 Letter re. Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 Subpoena United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The government's superficial analysis of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 subpoena is neither accurate nor informative. The collection of various cliché phrases about Rule 17 subpoenas, selectively gathered from cases inapplicable here, is unpersuasive, and the Court should deny the requested relief because: (1) the government lacks standing to interfere with subpoenas issued to the third party respondents; and (2) this intrusion is yet another attempt to infringe on Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, a fair trial, and due process. all in violation of the 5'h and Ch Amendments to the United States Constitution. + +## 1. Background + +In February 2016 (and likely at least one other time in the weeks and months that followed), lawyers representing numerous civil litigants, including then-Plaintiff met with the government to foment an indictment of Ms. Maxwell. These lawyers and their clients sought a tactical advantage in their civil litigations, worth millions of dollars. This first meeting was followed up by additional communications from these lawyers to the government. Subsequently, and unknown to Ms. Maxwell, the government brokered a deal + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 2 + +with lawyers to obtain information subject to strict protective orders in the civil cases. To carry out this plan, the government sought ex parte subpoenas from two judicial officers—Chief Judge McMahon and Magistrate Judge Netbum—for Boies Schiller Flexner's files in the civil cases. + +Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected the scheme. + +Judge McMahon proceeded with caution, concerned about possible collusion between the government and the civil attorneys. She haled an Assisted United States Attorney into court and asked him a simple and direct question: What contacts had there been between the government and the plaintiffs' lawyers? The honest answer to the question would have disclosed at least one lengthy meeting and numerous follow up communications between the government and the lawyers, a disclosure that would have led Judge McMahon to deny the ex pane subpoena request. But the government did not give an honest answer. The government instead denied any contacts or communication between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the plaintiffs' lawyers. Reassured by the misrepresentation that there was no coordination between the government and counsel, Judge McMahon authorized the ex pane subpoena, which resulted in the illegal circumvention of a valid protective order. Ms. Maxwell's due process motion to suppress and the reply in support thereof set forth the relevant factual background. An evidentiary hearing on the motion will shed even further light, given the incredible nature of the government's denials. + +Indeed, in response to Ms. Maxwell's motions to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the protective order, the government made minimal inquiries about the scope of its misrepresentations to Judge McMahon. The government endeavored to minimize the damage, not find out the truth. Professed lack of memory was not probed, global email + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 3 + +searches did not occur, witnesses were not interviewed. The government's modus operandi can be summed up in two words: "willful blindness." + +Consistent with its "willful blindness" policy, the government has intentionally and methodically avoided obtaining substantial exculpatory evidence in the possession of third parties. By way of example, Alleged Victim 2 kept what she claimed was a contemporary journal of the events surrounding her meetings with Epstein. The "journal" does not mention Ms. Maxwell and contains no reference to any alleged sexual misconduct. The absence of any contemporaneous recording about Ms. Maxwell is powerful evidence of innocence. Importantly, it is the whole journal that is significant—that there are references to other contemporaneous events supplies context and detail about the paucity (or more accurately, absence) of Ms. Maxwell's involvement. When asked to produce the journal, the government's response was "we don't have it." The same is true about other physical evidence, including boots, photographs, and documents. + +Although all the alleged victims in this matter have monetized their claims against Epstein and others, including Ms. Maxwell, the government has failed to investigate those financial gains or the lawyers fomenting them and their own self-interest in monetary outcomes. Again, this is powerful evidence of innocence. + +The government, singularly focused on obtaining a conviction at any cost, has abandoned fair play and the pursuit of justice. Accordingly, it is Ms. Maxwell who must use the subpoena process to secure specific, necessary, relevant, and exculpatory evidence for a fair hearing on her motions and in presentation of her defense at trial. Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena is necessary to vindicate her constitutional right to present a defense. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) ("Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 4 + +the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."). + +## II. The Government Lacks Standing + +A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of privilege or a proprietary interest in the subpoenaed matter. Langford v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975). Accord United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) ("[C]ourts in this District have generally come to the conclusion that the Government can move to quash subpoenas issued for the records of non-parties only on the basis of the Government's own legitimate interests."). See also United States v. , No. 19 CR. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (noting "the majority rule in this District" that the government has standing to quash a subpoena of a non-party only if the alleged victim has asked it to, or if the government can assert legitimate interests of its own in quashing the subpoenas). + +The government has failed to articulate any of its own "legitimate interest" here. First, the government speculates, without knowing, that the defense subpoenas implicate the government's "interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment of the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility." Letter, p. 4. In support of this speculation, the government cites United States v. Ray, supra. The government does not acknowledge, however, that in Ray the court denied it standing to move to quash the subpoena. + +In turn, other than quoting the cliché, the government has failed to articulate how the defense subpoenas would implicate this interest. Moreover, the defendant has no reason to + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 5 + +believe that the information sought is in the possession of the government. Accordingly, it is not, as theorized by the government, "Giglio or 3500" material. Letter, p. 5. Thus, there is no "cognizable interest" in "controlling the timing of disclosures," id., because under the government's "willful blindness" policy there would be nothing to disclose. + +The final "interest" advanced by the government is in "its own communications." For support, the government cites United States v. Carton, No. 17 CR 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018). Letter, p. 5. However, the communications at issue in Carton were "Carton's own communications with the Sports and Entertainment Company," not government communications. Id. The government does not explain how third-party subpoenas would implicate "its own communications," which it fails to define. None of Ms. Maxwell's subpoenas seek government work product or internal communications between government employees, and the government has no legitimate interest in suppressing thirdparty communications.' + +But even if the government's own communications were at issue, the government has waived any privilege it may have otherwise asserted. In response to Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress, the government voluntarily disclosed and attached several internal emails between its attorneys. This disclosure (partial though it may be)2 is a waiver of any privilege. See United States v. Gangi, I F. Supp. 2d 256, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that "privileged + +' The government notes, in footnote 1 that it might have standing if asked by a witness or third party. That has not happened. Indeed, the witnesses at issue, unlike most, have the full force of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP standing behind them. + +2 It is not at all clear (and the government has not asserted) that the emails it attached to its response are all the relevant emails on the issues raised by Ms. Maxwell's motions. Because the government's communications are at issue, and because the government voluntarily produced some of those communications, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to all the relevant communications. + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 6 + +documents ... are not protected if a party voluntarily discloses them" and determining that government waived the work-product privilege even though its disclosure was inadvertent). + +## HI. The Government Has No "Need" to Know. + +The government claims, without support, that "[t]he only way for the [g]overnment to vindicate" its ill-defined interests "is with notice" so that it can move to quash the subpoenas. The government ignores the role of this Court in this process. All the subpoenas requested by Ms. Maxwell are under the strict procedures authorized by the Rule. The Court is keenly aware of the standards necessary for the issuance of a Rule 17 subpoena and needs no assistance from the government in performing this gatekeeping function. Ms. Maxwell's counsel understand the scope and limitations of Rule 17 and have not requested anything that would run afoul of the Rule. The subpoena recipients are third parties who are well qualified to assert any objection to the subpoena requests. + +A similar request was made, and rejected in Ray, supra, at \*7: + +the Government is not entitled to be informed of the complete universe of subpoenas requested by the defense that may relate to other victims, now or going forward. In its letters and at argument, the Government urged that it had an independent obligation to protect the rights of victims and that it was best situated to inform the Court of the relevance or lack of relevance of any subpoena related to victim records. That obligation to protect the rights of victims, however, also is shared by the Court, and the Court is fully capable of directing the Government be informed of a subpoena and requesting the appropriate information in an appropriate case and regardless whether the victim objects. + +## IV. The Government is Not Entitled to Advance Notice of Material Produced + +The government offers no authority for its request that it receive contemporaneous copies of any material produced pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena. This request is remarkable given that the government has steadfastly refused to identify the names of the alleged accusers, the details about the alleged offense, or the statements made by the accusers. The + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 7 + +material being sought is easily obtained by the government, though the government, of course, has chosen not to obtain it. Ms. Maxwell should not be required to expend considerable time and resources obtaining relevant exculpatory evidence that could have been seized or subpoenaed by the government. Premature disclosure of the evidence would impinge on Ms. Maxwell's rights to effective assistance of counsel and reveal defense strategy and work product. + +Rule 16, not Rule 17, governs the timing of any reciprocal discovery request, and it provides that if a defendant requests disclosure from the government under Rule 16(a)(I)(E), then upon compliance with a similar request by the government, the defendant is required to permit the government to inspect and copy or photograph documents and tangible objects which are within the possession, custody or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(l)(A); United States v. 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). + +# V. Any Protecdve Order Regarding the Rule 17 Material Should Be Separate from the Protective Order Entered at the Insistence of the GM eminent and (her Us. Maxwell's Objection + +The government has repeatedly objected to any modification of the Protective Order entered in this case.3 When Ms. Maxwell asked to be allowed to disclose judicial documents to judicial officers in this judicial district, the government objected. Much of the information + +3 Counsel for Ms. Maxwell attempted to negotiate reciprocal protective order protections in July 2020, but the government steadfastly then insisted that a separate negotiation would occur at an undefined later time to any materials to be produced by defense counsel. Defense counsel is prepared to confer with the government at the appropriate time regarding necessary protections for any documents that she will disclose pursuant to her reciprocity obligations under Rule 16. + +April 15, 2021 + +Page 8 + +sought by the subpoenas is not confidential. The government argues, based on the Boles Schiller response, that the "diary" would be considered confidential. The government's hyperbole about the alleged confidential nature of the diary is inaccurate, and in any event, Boles Schiller is capable or raising confidentiality and requesting a protective order where applicable. Of course, to the extent any of the information is legitimately confidential, Ms. Maxwell will not object to an appropriate protective order negotiated between the third party and Ms. Maxwell and approved by the Court. + +#### VI. Conclusion + +The government could easily address the issues raised in its April 5, 2021 letter by simply obtaining the relevant exculpatory evidence. But it refuses to fairly investigate this case, and it should not be permitted to interfere with the defense function. Accordingly, the various requests made in its letter motion should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7bb26a0b9d3eb4cb8849dcc8ac7bb56ba2a0397 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/EFTA02831691.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,473 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 14886, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "1. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 547.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 205.40097045898438, + 547.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 205.40097045898438, + 562.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 562.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government Lacks Standing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 313.908447265625, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 313.908447265625, + 188.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 188.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. The Government Has No \"Need\" to Know.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.1353454589844, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.1353454589844, + 161.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 161.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Government is Not Entitled to Advance Notice of Material Produced", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 601.02 + ], + [ + 516.7881469726562, + 601.02 + ], + [ + 516.7881469726562, + 616.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 616.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. Any Protecdve Order Regarding the Rule 17 Material Should Be Separate \nfrom the Protective Order Entered at the Insistence of the GM eminent and (her Us. \nMaxwell's Objection", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 519.8035278320312 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 519.8035278320312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 284.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 200.63735961914062, + 284.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 200.63735961914062, + 298.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 298.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831691" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1488ac0982a0b2970e84ca89e89dfa37c152e04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831691/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8337601dfa644a9c9691d392204b0192df3516c007a1c5f42fcd6183df3abe19 +size 6353 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3f291cf69de1f1513b964159034168db536d274 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 19, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government writes with respect to the Court's Order dated April 19, 2021, which directed the Government to notify the Court by tomorrow whether it intends to "use any of the documents subject to the pending motions to suppress in the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." (Dkt. No. 216). The Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government until Thursday, April 22, 2021, to submit its response. + +The Government is carefully considering the Court's Order, and has begun reviewing its file, considering legal issues, and having internal conversations with supervisors in order to thoughtfully and accurately respond to the Court. In particular, although the materials at issue are not likely to be central to the Government's case in chief in the trial of the non-perjury counts, the Government nonetheless recognizes the importance of anticipating how these materials may be relevant to (and used at) the trial. For example, and among other considerations, the materials include transcripts of depositions of witnesses who may testify at trial, and the Government is mindful of potential uses of such material that might arise during the cross-examination of both Government and defense witnesses whose prior statements are encompassed within the materials at issue. + +The Government appreciates the need to resolve this scheduling matter quickly. However, with the goal of being able to most accurately address the Court's question, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government until Thursday, April 22, 2021 to submit its response. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac5c383bc1f3e780abe8db039217ce4de89f7175 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/EFTA02831699.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2270, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831699" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aac98dfee27e9dabd374832f26ac2c5d22d15ffe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831699/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5f465bbb583a4f2a5a96c10c42572d7adf9a20140fcbbd3da176250183b43c1b +size 3484 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9881346bfd07b475817a01bfe030e63ab7cf78a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mato Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +April 19, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 4/20/21 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government writes with respect to the Court's Order dated April 19, 2021, which directed the Government to notify the Court by tomorrow whether it intends to "use any of the documents subject to the pending motions to suppress in the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." (Dkt. No. 216). The Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government until Thursday, April 22, 2021, to submit its response. + +The Government is carefully considering the Court's Order, and has begun reviewing its file, considering legal issues, and having internal conversations with supervisors in order to thoughtfully and accurately respond to the Court. In particular, although the materials at issue are not likely to be central to the Government's case in chief in the trial of the non-perjury counts, the Government nonetheless recognizes the importance of anticipating how these materials may be relevant to (and used at) the trial. For example, and among other considerations, the materials include transcripts of depositions of witnesses who may testify at trial, and the Government is mindful of potential uses of such material that might arise during the cross-examination of both Government and defense witnesses whose prior statements are encompassed within the materials at issue. + +The Government appreciates the need to resolve this scheduling matter quickly. However, with the goal of being able to most accurately address the Court's question, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government until Thursday, April 22, 2021 to submit its response. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s + +Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +The Government's request is granted in part and denied in part. It shall respond to Dkt. No. 216 by no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +4/20/21 + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fae1552d7a321bbb5cb8c5324d4876907c9e47f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/EFTA02831701.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2575, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.98, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831701" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f350cce264fb8ee793fb919f2ee5778a9cc2f1d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831701/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a66edcc0910fcda60af9f5c574b060c139819eb6c0cc83a237cbe40141d5b7f3 +size 3483 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c817a7df1b1389390720d4e24bbf274cc07e0003 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Last summer, the Court scheduled trial in this matter to commence on July 12, 2021. The Government filed an S2 Superseding Indictment on March 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 187. The new indictment alleges that the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 3 extended to 2004 (the S 1 charged through 1997) and identifies a fourth alleged victim, Minor Victim-4. It also adds two new charges: Count 5 of the S2 Indictment charges Maxwell with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy between 2001 and 2004, and Count 6 charges Maxwell with participating in the sex trafficking of a minor or aiding and abetting the same. Id. + +Since the filing of the S2 indictment, the parties have argued in letters whether its additional charges and extended timeframe necessitates an adjournment of the trial date. Dkt. Nos. 192, 199, and 202. Maxwell has also indicated that she either is requesting or will request a renewed bail hearing in light of the filing of the S2. In Maxwell's most recent letter, she expressly requests an adjournment of the scheduled July 12 trial date, though the scope of the request is unclear. Dkt. No. 202. The letter first argues that a 90-day adjournment is necessary. But it also states that some of her defense counsel are not available between September and December 2021, implying that the request is in fact to adjourn until January 2022. The Government opposes the request for adjournment and any request for a renewed bail hearing. + +After the parties submitted these letters, the Court issued its Opinion & Order denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss the SI indictment on multiple grounds. Dkt. No. 207. The Court also granted as to the perjury counts. Both the denial of the motions to dismiss and the of the perjury counts are relevant to the requests for a bail hearing and for an adjournment of the trial date. The Court addresses both in this Order. + +First, the request for a renewed bail hearing is denied. The Court held an original bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive argument and presentation of information, the Court found that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance as required, determining as a result that Maxwell was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Dkt. No. 23. The Court based its conclusion on the presumption in favor of detention, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3), and its weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence, and Maxwell's history and characteristics. Since that time, Maxwell has twice sought reconsideration of the Court's original bail determination and offered different bail packages and proposed conditions of release. The Court carefully considered those requests and denied them in written Orders, concluding that none of the new information had any material bearing on the Court's original conclusion and that the Government again met its burden of establishing that Maxwell poses a substantial risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance as required. Dkt. Nos. 106, 169. + +Maxwell now seeks a new bail hearing at which "witnesses [would] testify regarding the purported strength of the government's case." Dkt. No. 192 at 3. The request is denied. The S2 Indictment raises no issues that warrant reconsideration of the Court's prior bail determinations. On the contrary, the new charges contained in the S2 indictment as well as the Court's resolution + +of the pm-trial motions strengthen, rather than weaken, the Court's prior conclusions regarding flight risk. Maxwell is entitled to appeal that detention determination, and she is exercising that right. But it does not follow that the new charges call for the Court to revisit its three prior bail determinations. Further, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing in which the strength of the Government's case is tested. "It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts." United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Before making its prior bail determinations, the Court scrutinized, among the other relevant factors, the Government's proffer and concluded that the proffered case was strong. The ultimate merits of the Government's case will be tested at trial in front of a jury. In the meantime, it is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. The Court is obligated to consider what is in the best interest of the public and the defendant in considering whether delay is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(hX7)(A). Moreover, the Crime Victims' Rights Act provides a right "to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7). + +This leads directly to the question of the specific start date of trial and Maxwell's request for an adjournment. As a preliminary matter, the Court provides the following important information. Although last summer the Court set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, currently the precise start date of any trial in the Southern District of New York is not within the control of the presiding judge. SDNY is still operating under special protocols for jury selection during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Because of a limited number of reconfigured courtrooms and spaces large enough to hold jury selection and trial safely, the protocols centralize the scheduling of access to juries and reconfigured courtrooms pursuant to an established protocol for trial priority. The + +deadline to submit requests for jury selection dates in the third quarter of 2021 is May 15. Following the submission of requests, the Clerk's Office will assign jury selection dates according to a protocol that has rules of priority. For example, criminal jury trials requesting a particular jury selection date are given priority over civil jury trials requesting that same date. Criminal trials involving detained defendants are given priority over criminal trials in which defendants are not detained pre-trial. Among detained defendants, cases that set trial dates prior to March 16, 2020 get priority. For any detained defendants whose trial date was set after March 16, 2020, priority is based upon who has been detained the longest. Absent a grant of an adjournment, by May 15, the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July 12, 2021 as possible. Once a jury selection date is assigned by the Clerk's Office, that date is firm. As of now, the parties should presume that trial will commence on a date close to July 12 (depending on trial demand and the order of priority) and plan accordingly. + +With this information in mind, the Court seeks confirmation and express clarification from defense counsel for three reasons. First, Maxwell's request for an adjournment came before the Court ruled on the pending motions, including the Court's granting of Maxwell's request to sever the perjury counts. Trial on the non-perjury counts will proceed first, which will shorten preparations for and the length of trial on the non-perjury counts. Second, Maxwell's request was ambiguous as to the length of adjournment being requested. As noted, the letter argued a 90-day adjournment was necessary but also suggested that some number of her defense counsel would not be available until January 2022. And third, by this Order the Court denies Maxwell's request for a renewed bail hearing. All of these factors may influence Maxwell's adjournment request. + +Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS counsel for the Defendant to file written answers to the following specific questions by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2021: + +1. 1. Does defense counsel continue to seek an adjournment of the July 12th start date for trial on the non-perjury counts? +2. 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the specific request being made as to length of adjournment? In particular, is the request for a 90-day adjournment? An adjournment until January 2022? Or something else? The Court requires a specific request be made and justified or it will not be considered. + +If Maxwell continues to seek an adjournment, the Government may submit any response by 5:00 pm on April 22, 2021. The Court will consider the submissions and resolve expeditiously. As noted, however, unless and until an adjournment is specifically requested and granted, the parties shall assume that the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July 12th as possible and shall plan accordingly. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 20, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de3f5db8fce64d1575ec5d613f577122530d50ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/EFTA02831703.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 9057, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.21, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831703" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04272382e92f562e1ca10c5fa21f50ac183e4a79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831703/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4aea0d8589634b38628abbcf331d22cae06596bc510d0c92ee6e550527f195b7 +size 11437 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0901c72965808632a99a9d308fbd1f7d0030004 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +April 20, 2021 + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's April 16, 2021 Order (Dkt. 205) regarding whether the parties seek redactions to Reply Briefs I, 3, 5, 6, and 10 and whether the parties seek redactions to certain exhibits or seek to file certain exhibits under seal. + +The parties have conferred in accordance with the Court's April 16, 2021 Order. The parties do not seek any redactions as to Reply Briefs 1 and 5 and, accordingly, the defense will file those reply briefs on the public docket. + +As to Exhibit A to Reply Brief 1, the Government respectfully submits that the exhibit should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to filing Exhibit A on the public record. + +As to Reply Brief 3, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions the defense had originally proposed on page 3 on March 15, 2021, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of victims and third parties. The Government respectfully submits that the proposed redactions are consistent with the redactions ordered by the Court on March 18, 2021 as "the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweigh the presumption of access that attaches" to the document. (Dkt. 168 at 3); see also United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the privacy interests of third parties "should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation"). The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions it had originally proposed on page 3. As to the remaining proposed redactions, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the remaining proposed redactions, which are narrowly tailored to cover the privacy interests of third parties. The defense takes no position on the remaining proposed redactions. + +As to the exhibits to Reply Brief 3, the defense submitted Exhibits M and N under seal. The Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibits M and N, but respectfully submits that the names, email addresses, and other contact information of third parties should be redacted from Exhibits M and N to protect the privacy interests of third parties. The defense has indicated that it agrees that email addresses and other contact information for third parties should be redacted pursuant to the Court's local rules. The Government respectfully submits under seal proposed redactions to Exhibits M and N for the Court's consideration. + +The defense also submitted Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 under seal. The Government filed Exhibits 5 and 7 to its Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant's Pretrial Motions, which are, respectively, redacted versions of Exhibits I and O. See Dkt. 204. The Government had set forth proposed redactions to Exhibits 5 and 7 in order to protect the privacy interests of third parties (Dkt. 162), which the Court adopted on March 18, 2021 (see Dkt. 168 at 2-3). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defense should redact + +Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 to reflect the redactions approved by the Court and reflected in the publicly filed versions of Exhibits 5 and 7 to the Government's opposition. The defense has indicated that it is prepared to follow those redactions. + +As to Reply Brief 6, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the defense's proposed redactions, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties. The proposed redactions are consistent with the proposed redactions requested by the Government on pages 158 to 159 and 163 of its opposition to the defendant's pre-trial motions, which the Court granted on March 18, 2021. (Dkt. 168 at I). The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions and filing Reply Brief 6 on the public record. + +As to Reply Brief 10, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions originally proposed by the defense, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties and are consistent with prior redactions in earlier briefing. The Government respectfully submits that Exhibit A to Reply Brief 10 should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the personal privacy interests of the third party implicated in the document. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions and filing the brief and Exhibit A on the public record. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions originally proposed by the defense to Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 and the redactions described above as to Exhibits .1, M, N, and O to Reply Brief 3. The Government further requests that the Court + +accept Exhibit A to Reply Brief I and Exhibit A to Reply Brief 10 under seal. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e349c15c1e26b9e682084afea16e1e1ecb55b234 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/EFTA02831708.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5689, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 250.8186798095703, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831708" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc67c033d93b722b37185242c3c0aec45f128040 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831708/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8b6ab8c534a5bd54956dde9ef44a6ec3f3549972d9af569d8b95d6ba702039bb +size 3397 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecbb4f8b852f7013a855ae039fb74522f6b3bc6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89b0a57e6d9f38d6216c961dcd6bf25855004dca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712/EFTA02831712.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831712.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831712" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe0498906fe5923a98449b7a6896b54b9f697aac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.md @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR BREACH OF THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennii er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It. | 2 | +| II. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL. | 7 | +| III. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time | | +| Period or to Violations of Specific Statutes | 13 | +| IV. | In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing | +| Regarding the Parties' Intent. | 16 | +| CONCLUSION | 18 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases | Page(s) | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| +| Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. | Stanley Mortg. Capital, Inc., | +| 821 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2016) v. Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac, | 8, 9 | +| 929 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2019) Penncro Assocs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., | 8, 9 | +| 499 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) United States v. Aleman, | 8, 9 | +| 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002) United States v. Annaba, | 17 | +| 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. CFW Const. Co., | passim | +| 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984), afd, United States v. El-Sadig, | 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984) 6 | +| 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) United States | 3, 6 | +| 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., | 5, 6, 10, 17 | +| 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) United States v. Gebbie, | 3, 4, 6 | +| 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) United States | 12 | +| 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) United States v. Harvey, | 8 | +| 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) United States v. Mariamma Viju (01), | 12 | +| No. 3:15-CR-0240-B, 2016 WL 107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. II, 2016) United States v. Padilla, | 6 | +| 186 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) | 10 | + +United States v. Satter, + +272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 17 + +United States v. Van Thornout, + +100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 + +# Other Authorities + +Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New York. July 3, 2020 15 + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Motion"). + +As though it were wielding an invisible ink pen, the government adds language to its Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Jeffrey Epstein that does not exist in the text, and then pretends no one can see the clear, unambiguous language that does appear there. The plain language of the NPA states, without limitation, that "the United States ... will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Because the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") contends that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator of Epstein, the NPA, on its face, applies here. Thus, the government's only argument, which it makes throughout its opposition, is that the NPA means something other than what it says. + +In suggesting that the parties to the NPA intended to immunize only the four individuals specifically named in the co-conspirator immunity provision, the government flagrantly ignores the express statement that immunity is "not limited to" those individuals. In arguing that the provision binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), the government asks the Court to add the words "in this District" to that provision, on the thin suggestion that the parties must have meant to include the same limitation on location of prosecution that they included in Epstein's immunity provision, even though they failed to do so. And for good measure, the government asks the Court to find that the panics must have intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific statutory offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, even though—again—no such limitation appears in the text of the coconspirator immunity provision. + +Notwithstanding the bedrock principle that plea agreements are construed strictly against the government, the government asks the Court to simply assume that the parties intended the + +NPA to be read more narrowly than the language provides, arguing that following the NPA's plain language would contradict "common sense." (Opp.' 8, 16.) But a non-prosecution agreement is not an ordinary contract. Federal prosecutors know how to draft clear limitations on promises made to criminal defendants, and they have a unique obligation to do so. What strains "common sense" is the notion that any reasonable prosecutor who intended the NPA to be read as the government contends would have omitted the limitations and modifications the government now seeks—particularly when dealing with a defendant who sought to "resolve globally" his criminal liability. NPA at 2. The Court should therefore decline the government's invitation to rewrite the NPA to its liking, should enforce the NPA as written, and should grant Ms. Maxwell's Motion. + +In the alternative, the Court should permit discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intent with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision. While Ms. Maxwell contends that the NPA unambiguously bars her prosecution here, and that neither discovery nor a hearing is necessary for the Court to grant this motion, the government's arguments regarding the NPA parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the consideration of evidence. Because Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty, has no personal knowledge regarding the parties' intent and no access to relevant documents, she should be permitted to take discovery in advance of any hearing. + +# I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It. + +The NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision forecloses "any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to" four named individuals. NPA at 5 (emphasis added). The phrase "potential co-conspirators of Epstein" obviously includes Ms. Maxwell. As the opening statement of the Indictment makes clear: "The charges + +"Opp." refers herein to the Government's Omnibus Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions. + +set forth herein stem from the role of [Ms. Maxwell] in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein." Indictment ¶ I. The Indictment also contains two conspiracy counts that charge Ms. Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein. Id. ¶¶ 9, 15. + +According to the government, however, Ms. Maxwell's status as an alleged coconspirator of Epstein is somehow insufficient for an NPA that immunizes "potential coconspirators of Epstein" to apply to her. The government claims that there is "no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular." Opp. 20. In essence, the government implausibly argues that even though the parties expressly agreed to immunize "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," only those individuals whom the parties were thinking about "in particular" qualify for immunity. The government cites no support for the rule it has concocted, and case law is to the contrary. + +For example, in United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012), where a corporation had entered into a plea agreement that immunized its employees, the court held that one of those employees had standing to enforce the agreement as a third-party beneficiary by virtue of his employment; the court did not require a showing that the parties thought about protecting that employee "in particular" when they agreed to immunize the class. Id. at 1228. Similarly, in United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001), where a Saudi prince had entered into an agreement with the government that none of the individuals involved in purchasing guns for two members of the Saudi family would be prosecuted, the court did not require the defendant to show that the government and the prince intended to immunize him "in particular"; to the contrary, as the court noted, the parties to the agreement did not even discuss the defendant. Id. at 604. + +Ms. Maxwell thus need not show that the parties to the NPA were thinking of her "in particular"; rather, it is sufficient that she falls within the class of individuals the parties to the NPA intended to benefit. See, e.g., Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 ("the signatory parties unmistakably intended to confer immunity on a discrete class of corporations and individuals . . . that could include the Defendants"). And that class is clear from the face of the NPA: "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," i.e., anyone else who might be prosecuted in connection with Epstein's conduct. NPA at 5. + +Although the NPA expressly provides that that class is "including but not limited to" the four individuals named in the co-conspirator immunity provision (NPA at 5), the government asks the Court to disregard this plain language and instead credit a passage from the report of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR Reporr2) stating that the line prosecutor who negotiated the NPA "believed" that only the four individuals expressly named in the co-conspirator immunity provision "would benefit." Opp. 20-21 (quoting OPR Report at 167). Regardless of the truth of this decade-after-the-fact and self-serving "belief," it is immaterial. By agreeing to immunize "potential" co-conspirators "including but not limited to" the four named individuals, the government explicitly agreed that the NPA would apply to any others who might be charged as co-conspirators in the future—a class that includes Ms. Maxwell. + +The OPR Report itself re-affirms the intent to extend immunity beyond those already identified as potential co-conspirators. In reviewing the negotiating history of the parties over this provision, the OPR Report notes that the government had not specifically contemplated other potential co-conspirators, yet it also demonstrates that the Epstein defense lawyers consistently + +2 The OPR Report, of which only the executive summary had been released previously, has been submitted as Exhibit 3 to the government's opposition. + +and successfully pushed back against the government's attempts to limit the scope of the provision. Epstein's lawyers, in fact, insisted on a proposal that would have immunized the four individuals, "any employee" of one of Epstein's companies, and "any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." OPR Report at 166 n.237. Defense counsel's efforts were in line with their representations to the government that Epstein "wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). When the government "finally revised" the language to the provision that appears in the signed NPA, it obviously acceded to defense's counsel's desire to leave open the possibility that other "potential co-conspirators" might someday have occasion to invoke the immunity provision. Id. at 166. + +In addition to being irrelevant, the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell had largely escaped its attention at the time of the NPA is demonstrably incorrect. The government's own file demonstrates that the FBI had interviewed Accuser-23 in 2006 (Opp. 16 n.9; Dkt. 148, Ex. B (sealed)), and thus had obviously learned of Accuser-2's claims regarding Ms. Maxwell now included in the Indictment. Indeed, an internal FBI document expressly names Ms. Maxwell as one of the individuals that the FBI's Miami office "began investigating" in 2006 as part of the investigation that led to the NPA. (See Ex. A). Thus, the government was clearly aware of Ms. Maxwell at the time it executed the NPA and agreed to extend the immunity provision to "any potential co-conspirators." She is covered by the NPA. + +As a third party immunized by the NPA, Ms. Maxwell has third-party beneficiary status to enforce it. While the government cites United States v. . 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019), for the proposition that "plea agreements differ from commercial contracts" (Opp. 18), the "differ[ence]" to which the Second Circuit was referring was that in construing a plea agreement, + +3 Accuser-2 is identified in the Indictment as Minor Victim-2. + +courts hold the government to an even higher standard than parties to a commercial contract. + +939 F.3d at 189 (describing "meticulous standards of performance" to which prosecutors are held in negotiating plea agreements). As the government acknowledges, at least three courts have applied the third-party beneficiary doctrine to confer standing on third parties to enforce immunity provisions in plea agreements. Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228; El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 608-09; United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203 (D.S.C. 1984), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984). The government's attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground that they did not "analyze" the applicability of the third-party beneficiary doctrine to plea agreements (Opp. 19) is utterly nonsensical. As demonstrated in Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum ("Mem."), all three courts expressly held that the doctrine applies. Mem. 16-17. + +The lone case cited by the government to the contrary does not suggest a different result here. In United States v. Mariamma V(ju (01), the court held that a third party may not enforce rights under a plea agreement "[w]here the defendant himself can obtain relief' from a broken plea deal." No. 3:15-CR-0240-B, 2016 WL 107841, •4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. II, 2016). Here, Epstein cannot obtain relief for the government's breach of the NPA; not only is he deceased, but he served the sentence stemming from his guilty plea long before his death, paid millions of dollars to accusers under the NPA's claims provision, and thus would have had no occasion to enforce the NPA by withdrawing his guilty plea. Nor is it clear that Epstein could have withdrawn his plea had the NPA been breached while he was serving his sentence, given that the NPA—unlike a plea agreement—was not submitted to the state court in which Epstein entered his plea. + +In sum, the Indictment itself establishes Ms. Maxwell as a "potential co-conspirator of Epstein," and the clear weight of authority vests her with standing to enforce the co-conspirator immunity provision as a third-party beneficiary. + +# H. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL. + +Ms. Maxwell demonstrated in her opening brief that the NPA, read as a whole, creates an affirmative appearance that the parties intended the co-conspirator immunity provision—unlike Epstein's immunity provision—to apply outside the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). In arguing that the NPA's selective use of language limiting the scope of Epstein's immunity applies to the entire NPA, the government inverts fundamental principles of contract law and asks the Court to read nonexistent limitations into the NPA. The government then, incredibly, proceeds to fault Ms. Maxwell—a nonparty to the NPA—for failing to possess and produce evidence regarding the parties' intent in negotiating the agreement. While the text of the NPA, read using basic principles of contractual interpretation, unambiguously prohibits the government from prosecuting Epstein's potential co-conspirators in any district, to the extent that the Court finds it necessary to consider extrinsic evidence, that evidence is in the hands of the government and Epstein's attorneys—and thus Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to obtain it through discovery. + +The government argues that application of the co-conspirator immunity provision beyond the SDFL is barred by United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), in which the Second Circuit stated that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." Id. at 672° Ms. Maxwell's opening brief + +Contrary to the government's suggestion, no court has held that an "affirmative(' appear[ance]" requires an explicit "promise to bind other districts." See Opp. 4. Rather, in interpreting a plea agreement, "Wile court looks to the + +demonstrated that the NPA, as a whole, gives rise to such an appearance—and the government offers no reasonable alternative interpretation. + +Unlike Annabi and its progeny, the NPA here contains significant evidence of the parties' intent to apply the co-conspirator immunity provision outside the SDFL. While the provision granting immunity to Epstein himself expressly limits his immunity to prosecutions "in this District," NPA at 2, the co-conspirator immunity provision contains no such limitation. "[W)here contract provisions use different language, courts must assume the parties intended different meanings." Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Stanley Mortg. Capital, Inc., 821 F.3d 297, 309 (2d Cir. 2016); see also v. Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac, 929 F.3d 830, 841 (7th Cir. 2019) (noting "common, if not automatic presumption" that "when parties to the same contract use such different language to address parallel issues, it is reasonable to infer that they intend this language to mean different things") (internal punctuation and citation omitted); Penncro Assocs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 499 F.3d 1151, 1156-57 (10th Cir. 2007) (same). Thus, the appropriate inference here is that the parties intended to limit Epstein's immunity, but not immunity for potential co-conspirators, to prosecutions in the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). + +The government offers no reasonable alternative explanation for the contrasting language in the two provisions. Instead, it argues that because the parties limited Epstein's immunity to the SDFL, they must have meant to limit co-conspirators' immunity to the SDFL as well, but must have forgotten to include the appropriate language. This argument—that the use of different language in parallel provisions compels an inference that identical, rather than different meanings, are intended—turns fundamental contract interpretation on its head. See, e.g., Bank of + +reasonable understanding of the parties as to the terms of the agreement." United States v. , 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citations and emphasis omitted). + +New York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309; 929 F.3d at 841; Penncro Assocs., 499 F.3d at 1156-57. Here, the NPA contains only two immunity provisions: one for Epstein, which is expressly limited to the SDFL, and one for co-conspirators, which is not. The government's claim that this distinction reflects an intent to apply the limitation universally strains credulity.5 It is simply inconceivable that any reasonable prosecutor who intended to limit the coconspirator immunity provision to the SDFL—and who had thought to include precisely such limiting language in Epstein's immunity provision—would have found it unnecessary to include identical language in the co-conspirator immunity provision. Indeed, the omission reveals an intent not to so limit that provision. + +Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum pointed out a second indication in the text of the NPA that the parties intended to apply the co-conspirator immunity provision outside the SDFL: where a provision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without more, is insufficient under Annabi and its progeny to demonstrate an intent to bind other districts, the NPA's references to both the USAO-SDFL and "the United States" require an inference that a distinction between the two is intended—and that where "the United States" is used, the intent is to refer to the government as a whole. Again, "where contract provisions use different language, courts must assume the parties intended different meanings." Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309. The government does not even attempt to offer an + +\$ The government incorrectly cites to a brief filed by the USAO-SDFL in 2013 as taking the position that "the NPA did not bind other districts." Opp. 13 (quoting Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.)). But the cited passage in that brief argued only that the NPA did not bar the prosecution of Epstein in other districts, which is not in dispute; it made no such argument with icspe't to the prosecution of potential coconspirators. In any event, any self-serving attempts by the USAO-SDFL to limit the NPA's applicability years after it was executed—after the NPA had been widely criticized and scrutinized—are no more probative of the parties' intent in 2007 than the arguments made by the government hcrc. + +alternative explanation for this difference in terminology, reasonable or otherwise—presumably because it cannot. + +Thus, a drafting prosecutor who intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL clearly knew how to do so, using either of two methods employed elsewhere in the document. The government could have used the same language in the co-conspirator immunity provision that it used in the Epstein immunity provision, providing that "the United States ... will not institute any criminal charges in this District against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." It did not. Alternatively, it could have referred expressly to the USAO-SDFL, as it did elsewhere in the NPA, and provided that "the United States Attorney's Office ... will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Again, it did not. It would be absurd to conclude that a reasonable prosecutor who had used both drafting tools to limit other provisions of the NPA, yet failed to use either of them in the co-conspirator immunity provision, intended to impose the same limitations on the co-conspirator immunity provision—let alone that Epstein would reasonably have understood this intent. + +The government's inability to provide a reasonable alternative explanation for its use of different language in the different provisions of the NPA removes any potential ambiguity from the co-conspirator immunity provision. But to the extent there remains any doubt, plea agreements must be construed "strictly against the government," 939 F.3d at 189 (internal citations omitted), and the government is held "responsible for imprecisions or ambiguities in the agreement." United States v. Padilla, 186 F.3d 136, 142 (2d Cir. 1999). While the government argues that Annabi relieves it of this responsibility where the "imprecisions or ambiguities" relate to the geographic applicability of a plea agreement (Opp. 6 n.2), it cites no authority for this proposition. While Annabi requires an affirmative appearance + +that the NPA is binding outside the SDFL, any ambiguity as to whether such an appearance exists must still be resolved against the government.6 + +Nor does the idea that the government agreed to broader immunity for Epstein's potential co-conspirators than for Epstein himself "strain[] common sense," as the government argues. See Opp. 8. According to the OPR Report, the line prosecutor stated that her office "considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else." OPR Report at 70. She also reportedly said that Epstein "wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). And Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware that the investigation had extended beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses. Under such circumstances, any competent defense lawyer would have sought the broadest immunity possible for Epstein's potential co-conspirators, in order to limit the potential that he would become embroiled in the prosecution of a third party—and in fact, Epstein did not agree to the NPA until the coconspirator immunity provision was included. And it is entirely logical that the government agreed to a broader immunity for potential co-conspirators, whom it had no interest in prosecuting, than for Epstein himself, who was the sole focus of the government's prosecution efforts. This outcome is consistent with the language of the NPA. + +The text of the NPA, read as a whole, thus creates an affirmative appearance that the coconspirator immunity provision is not limited to the SDFL, and it is unnecessary for the Court to + +6 Notwithstanding the mountain of authority, in this Circuit and elsewhere, articulating the exacting standards to which the government is to be held in negotiating a plea agreement, the government implies that such standards somehow do not apply when the plea agreement is enforced by a third party. Opp. 6 n.2. This suggestion is unsupported by any authority, and the government offers no explanation why its promises of third-party immunity should be held to a lower standard than other provisions of a plea agreement. + +consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent! To the extent that the Court finds that extrinsic evidence is relevant, however, the government's argument demonstrates precisely why the Court should permit discovery in this action. While the government ludicrously faults Ms. Maxwell for failing to produce "documentary evidence" of the parties' intent and the scope of the SDFL investigation (Opp. 10), Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty to the NPA, has no access to such evidence without discovery. Any evidence of the parties' intent would be in the possession of the government and Epstein's counsel, and at this stage, Ms. Maxwell can only scour the few clues available to the public—such as a privilege log filed in a related civil lawsuit—for crumbs of information about the negotiation and investigation. + +The government's response to those crumbs illustrates why any consideration of extrinsic evidence—which, as noted above, is unnecessary given the unambiguous text of the NPA should be preceded by discovery. In her opening memorandum, Ms. Maxwell cited to three pages from the above-referenced privilege log in a civil lawsuit filed by one of Epstein's victims, all of which contain entries reflecting the USAO-SDFL's consultation with the United States Attorney's Office for this District, travel by USAO-SDFL attorneys to New York, or interviews and/or subpoenas of New York-based witnesses. Mem. at 11 (citing Privilege Log, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 212-1 (filed July 19, 2013) ("SDFL Privilege Log"), at 4, 5, 7). In response, the government has focused on only one of those three entries and produced the documents referenced in the privilege log. See Opp. 10. + +7 The government's argument that a United States Attorney lacks the "authority" to bind other districts (Opp. 13- 14)—and that the government can simply walk away from a plea agreement in which a United States Attorney has not received the approvals prescribed by internal Justice Department guidelines—is unavailing. The government cites no case in which a court has invalidated a plea agreement on this basis, and its argument is contradicted not only by the Third, Fourth, and Eighth circuits—in which the default rule is that plea agreements bind other districts—but also by the Second Circuit's statement that a United States Attorney may bind other districts in a plea agreement if there is an affirmative appearance to that effect. United States v. Gebbie. 294 F.3d 540, 547-49 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Harvey. 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. + +The other two documents remain unavailable to Ms. Maxwell—as, presumably, do other documents whose existence cannot be discovered in the public record. Nor has Ms. Maxwell had the opportunity to question those involved in the investigation and negotiation. It is patently unreasonable for the government to blame Ms. Maxwell for failing to produce evidence relating to the investigation and negotiation leading up to the NPA, while simultaneously opposing her request for discovery and cherry-picking its responses to the limited publicly available information she has been able to identify. That limited information has already yielded supportive documents and more will no doubt follow with further discovery. + +## HI. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time Period or to Violations of Specific Statutes. + +The government's argument that the co-conspirator immunity provision does not apply to the time period or the offenses charged in the Indictment consists of (i) asserting that the NPA says things it does not, in fact, say and (ii) attacking a strawman position, never asserted by Ms. Maxwell, that the NPA gives Ms. Maxwell carte blanche immunity from federal prosecution for all past and future criminal conduct of any kind, wherever and whenever committed. The coconspirator immunity provision simply does not contain the limitations the government now seeks to attribute to it, and Ms. Maxwell's position that it prohibits the Act charges against her is entirely reasonable.8 + +First, the government's assertion that "the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement" is simply not true. See Opp. 15. The NPA contains only vague limitations as to the scope of Epstein's immunity, and no limitations whatsoever as to the scope of immunity for potential co-conspirators. + +8 To be clear, Ms. Maxwell does not assert that the NPA forecloses the perjury counts of the Indictment, which arise out of alleged post-NPA conduct. + +As to Epstein, the NPA prescribes immunity for three categories of offenses: (i) "the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement"; (ii) "any other offenses" that were the subject of the "joint investigation" by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL; and (iii) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." NPA at 2. The government's assertion that the NPA bars prosecution only for "the specific offenses enumerated in the NPA" (Opp. 15-16) deliberately ignores the second and third categories listed above. The second category is significant because, contrary to the government's argument, the NPA does not purport to "list[] each and every statutory offense under investigation" (see Opp. 15); rather, it states only that the investigation involved offenses "including" those enumerated. NPA at 1. Moreover, the NPA expressly states that the joint investigation included not only offenses committed from approximately 2001 to 2007, but also "Epstein's background."9 Id. The scope of the third category—offenses that arose "from the Federal Grand Jury investigation"—is completely unknown, as the NPA neither defines the term "Federal Grand Jury investigation" nor describes its scope. But the text of the NPA provides no basis for the government's assertion that Epstein was immunized only as to the specific offenses enumerated on the first two pages. + +As an example, the USAO-SDFL acknowledges that it interviewed Accuser-2 as part of its investigation. Opp. 16 n.9. Thus, the USAO-SDFL obviously was aware of the allegations by Accuser-2 against Epstein as set forth in the Indictment, allegations that entail the 1994-97 time period at issue in this case and the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. If the NPA were strictly limited to the 2001-07 time period and to the specific offenses enumerated, as + +9Contrary to the government's argument, Ms. Maxwell does not contend that the NPA "immunize[d] Epstein for his 'background.'" See Opp. 16 n.9. On its face, however, it immunized Epstein for offenses that were the subject of the joint investigation—an investigation that, according to the NPA, included Epstein's background. NM at I. To the extent that the joint investigation of Epstein's background uncovered offenses prior to 2001 (such as the conduct underlying the charges against Ms. Maxwell here), the plain language of the NPA immunized Epstein from prosecution for those offenses. + +the government claims, it would not have precluded even the SDFL from bringing charges arising out of Accuser-2's allegations of conduct in the 1990s. The government cannot seriously make such an argument. + +Even the vague contours of the limitations on Epstein's immunity, however, are absent from the co-conspirator immunity provision. And while the government claims it would be "exceedingly strange" to interpret the co-conspirator immunity provision more broadly than Epstein's immunity provision (Opp. 16), as explained in Part II above, such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the government's focus on Epstein vis-a-vis potential co-conspirators. It would be "exceedingly strange," however, for a federal prosecutor who intended to limit coconspirator immunity to specific conduct or specific offenses to omit such limitations from the text of an immunity provision in a non-prosecution agreement. + +Unable to explain the absence of such limiting language, the government resorts to the reductio ad absurdum argument that unless the Court writes into the NPA the language the government now wishes had been included in 2007, Ms. Maxwell can claim that "she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States." Opp. 3 (emphasis in original). Ms. Maxwell makes no such argument, and a faithful interpretation of the NPA leads to no Maxwell contends only that a provision that immunizes "potential co-conspirators of Epstein" precludes their prosecution for conduct allegedly done in conspiracy with Epstein—conduct that even the United States Attorney for this District has characterized as a "prequel" to offenses by Epstein that the NPA undisputedly immunizes. See, e.g., Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New York. July 3, 2020 (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislainemaxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/). Such an interpretation, rather than an insertion into the co-conspirator immunity provision of arbitrary limitations designed to satisfy the government's interests here, is the "common-sense way to read the NPA" that the Court should adopt. See Opp. 16. + +## IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent. + +For the reasons explained above, Counts One through Four have been brought in breach of the NPA and should be dismissed. The text of the NPA, read as a whole, unambiguously bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution here, and the government is reduced to arguing that the parties must have meant to write various provisions of the NPA differently than they actually did. These arguments are manifestly inadequate, and they should be rejected. + +Should the Court have any doubt about the parties' intent, however, discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent are warranted. The government's arguments regarding the parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the presentation of evidence. For example, to the extent that the scope of offenses for which the NPA immunized Epstein is deemed relevant to the co-conspirator immunity provision, that scope cannot be delineated without determining precisely which offenses might have arisen out of the investigation by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL (including the investigation into "Epstein's background"), as well as which offenses arose out of the undefined "Federal Grand Jury investigation." Similarly, the government's claims that the parties did not intend to confer the benefit of immunity on Ms. Maxwell, and that the parties intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL, raise issues regarding the scope of the SDFL investigation, the USAO-SDFL's awareness of Ms. Maxwell, and the extent to which the investigation involved this District. These issues + +cannot be resolved in the government's favor on this record, and the plain language of the NPA cannot be disregarded without discovery and an evidentiary hearing. + +The government argues that Ms. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because she has not submitted affidavits, and that she is not entitled to discovery because she has offered only "conjecture." Opp. 22. But unlike the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell has submitted evidence far more powerful than an affidavit claiming an oral agreement: she has submitted the NPA itself, which, on its face, bars her prosecution. See , 939 F.3d at 184, 190 (hearing based on oral representations made to defendant); United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2002) (granting hearing where defendant submitted attorney affidavits alleging oral agreement); United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (same). Ms. Maxwell's contention that the plain language of the NPA reflects the parties' intent is not "conjecture," and the Court cannot find to the contrary without hearing evidence evidence that we anticipate would confirm that the parties intended the NPA to mean exactly what it says and that it bars the prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, but is unavailable to Ms. Maxwell without discovery.10 + +10 In addition, unlike the defendants in the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell was a nonparty to the NM, and her attorneys thus have neither firsthand knowledge of the panics' intent nor access to evidence regarding the parties' intent. While the government points out that Ms. Maxwell has not submitted an affidavit from Epstein's counsel, defense counsel notes that it has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from Jay Lefkowitz, the attorney who was principally involved in negotiating the language of the NPA on Epstein's behalf. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that her motion to dismiss be granted. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests discovery and evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent in negotiating the NPA. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GFtESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be090eacd6b4f963a2a7f622a8225cee043bda5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713/EFTA02831713.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1144 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831713.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 41939, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT \nFOR BREACH OF THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 532.5332641601562, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 532.5332641601562, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 401.9523620605469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 401.9523620605469, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 165.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 165.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 473.5697937011719, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 473.5697937011719, + 583.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 583.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 466.83831787109375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 466.83831787109375, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time Period \nor to Violations of Specific Statutes.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 541.0556640625, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 541.0556640625, + 320.3035583496094 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 320.3035583496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary \nHearing Regarding the Parties' Intent.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 499.4727783203125, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 499.4727783203125, + 209.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 209.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831713" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1601f653135c8df8bd0e4af21f732fc1503479d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +- x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +: 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +-x + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | ii | +| ARGUMENT | 1 | +| I. The Counts Are Improperly Joined | 1 | +| A. The Counts are Dissimilar and Illogically and Artificially Connected. | 2 | +| B. The Perjury Charges Do Not "Concern" the Act Offenses | 3 | +| C. Some Overlapping Proof, By Itself, Does Not Make Joinder Proper | 5 | +| II. The Perjury Counts Must Be Severed to Prevent the Introduction of Improper, Highly | | +| Prejudicial, and Inadmissible Evidence | 6 | +| CONCLUSION | 11 | +| Certificate of Service | 13 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 7 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| United States v. Mobley, 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir.I991) | 1 | +| United Slates v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) | 3 | +| United States v. 789 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) | 5 | +| United States v. Cohn, 230 F. Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) | 4 | +| United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064 (2d Cir. 1982) | 10 | +| United States v. Gotti, 771 F. Supp. 552 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) | 10 | +| United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) | 6 | +| United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) | 4 | +| United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1988) | 6 | +| United Slates v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) | 3 | +| United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996) | 2 | +| United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir.I 990) | 1, 3 | +| United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) | 3 | +| United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) | 3 | +| v. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cry., 700 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1985) | 10 | + +## Other Authorities + +#### Rules + +| ABA Annotated Model Rules of Prof I Conduct, R. 3.7 cmt. I | 10 | +|------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| NYRPC 3.7 | 9 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. I4(a) | 6 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). | 1 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 8(a) | 3 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 404(b) | 7 | + +Counts 5 and 6, "the Perjury Counts," are improperly joined with Counts 1-4, the' Act Counts." For the reasons stated in Ms. Maxwell's original Motion and this Reply, the Court should sever the Perjury Counts and grant a separate trial on these charges. + +### ARGUMENT + +### I. The Counts Are Improperly Joined. + +Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits joinder of offenses only when they "arc of the same or similar character, or arc based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). "Joinder is proper where the same evidence may be used to prove each count," United States v. Blaney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir.1991), or if the counts have a "sufficient logical connection," United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501, 505 (2d Cir.1990). + +The government's justifications for this ill-conceived superseding indictment (Indictment) demonstrate either fundamental misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations about the law and facts related to these allegations. The Perjury Counts allegedly occurred 22 years after the Act Counts, during a defamation action concerning not whether Accuser-1 had sex with Jeffrey Epstein or Accusers-2 or 3 got a "massage," but whether the fantastical statements made by in 2015 were "obvious lies." Those M, now known to be false, claims included her assertion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and politicians, and her age at the time of the claimed trafficking. The counts, collectively, are thus illogically and artificially connected and do not depend on the "same evidence" but rather would allow the introduction of improper, irrelevant, and prejudicial evidence not otherwise admissible. + +### A. The Counts are Dissimilar and Illogically and Artificially Connected. + +The government claims that the Perjury Counts are properly joined because they are "logically connected" to the Act Counts and part of the same "common plan or scheme." Resp. at 138, 141, 143. No logic can be gleaned from the government's response. Offenses are or "connected" or part of a "common scheme or plan" if the counts "grow out of related transactions." United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623, 627 (1st Cir. 1996). + +Here, the Perjury Counts did not "grow out of the conduct underlying the . Maxwell's depositions occurred in 2016, twenty years after the conduct alleged in the Act Counts purportedly occurred from 1994-1997. Furthermore, the allegations underlying the two sets of counts are unrelated. The "scheme" alleged in the Indictment is the alleged enticement of three females to travel for the purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts between 1994 and 1997. The depositions at the heart of the Perjury Counts concerned the truth or falsity of "obvious lies" about being sexually trafficked to famous people and her purported four years as a sex slave. None of the Accusers in the Indictment claim to have been sexually trafficked by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell to anyone, let alone any famous people. And the defamation case had nothing to do with any allegations by of being enticed to travel to engage in illegal sex acts. How Ms. Maxwell's answers to questions in 2016 about the falsity of sex trafficking claims (years after the allegations in the Indictment) are related to the conspiracies alleged in the Indictment is therefore a mystery.' + +l There is also no evidence that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein conspired or agreed to lie in the defamation case. After Ms. Maxwell compelled Epstein to sit for a deposition in the defamation action, he asserted his right against self-incrimination and declined to answer any questions. Ms. Maxwell, having committed no crime and not being a part of any conspiracy with Epstein, chose to answer questions truthfully. No charges were pending against either Epstein or Ms. Maxwell at the time of the depositions and there was no relationship between the two individuals. + +The government also asserts, without explanation, that the Perjury Counts are of "similar character" to the Act Counts. Resp. 141. "Similar character," for purposes of F.R.E. 8(a) "means nearly corresponding, resembling in many respects or having a general likeness." United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980). The alleged perjury in an unrelated defamation case more than 20 years after the fact bears no likeness to allegedly enticing someone to travel for an illegal sexual purpose. + +# B. The Perjury Charges Do Not "Concern" the Act Offenses. + +Nor do the Perjury Counts "concern" the Act Counts as claimed by the government. Resp. 143. The government cites the supposedly "settled law in this Circuit that joinder of 'underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts' is appropriate `where ... the false declarations concern the substantive offenses."' Id. (citing United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984)). But it is wrong on both the facts and the law. + +The cases cited by the government involve a distinct fact pattern: the defendant allegedly made a materially false statement that relates directly to the underlying crime and the crime is temporally related to the false statement. The Potamitis case that the government relies upon primarily for this proposition is a good example. In that case, the defendant was charged with making false statements to FBI agents, committing perjury before the grand jury, and obstruction of justice because he lied to the FBI agents and the Grand Jury about the underlying crimes for which he was being investigated and questioned. Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 786-87; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (common plan or scheme between lying on a nonprofit's loan application and perjury during grand jury investigation the subsequent year into that same non-profit); United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 at 1190-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (fraud in businesses joined with false swearing to bankruptcy court about operating that same business); United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) (perjury in grand jury + +investigating the underlying charged conspiracy); United States v. Cohn, 230 F. Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (perjury during grand jury proceedings into the same transaction as substantive count); United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (severing false statement regarding a personal loan from substantive counts of inducing a consortium of banks to provide credit to companies controlled by defendant). + +The facts of this case do not fit the supposed well-settled Second Circuit rule, because the Perjury Counts do not involve any allegedly materially false testimonial statements to law enforcement authorities, a grand jury, a petit jury, or a court considering the purportedly criminal acts in question. Nor did the allegedly false statements concern the Act Counts, which are based on allegations of enticing women to travel in interstate commerce for an illegal sexual purpose between 1994 and 1997. Ms. Maxwell's responses to questions about, for example, whether she could give a list of people under the age of 18 who came to Epstein's house or whether she could identify sex toys—which she made in the context of a 2016 defamation claim brought by an unrelated person—do not "concern" the Act Counts. + +The government contends that the fact that Ms. Maxwell made these statements in the context of a civil deposition, as opposed to a criminal investigation, "is of little moment" because she was supposedly "concerned about the prospect of a criminal investigation at the time of her depositions." Resp. at 145. That is simply wrong. What Ms. Maxwell, and her lawyers were "concerned about" was the abuse of her deposition testimony by unscrupulous lawyers. As it turns out, her concern was entirely justified.2 + +2 See, e.g., hups://www.nprorg/2020/03/12/804949055/the-new-york-times-the-unreliablesource-and-the-expos-that-missed-the-mark; httpsfAvww.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/weinstein-boies/545273/. + +## C. Some Overlapping Proof, By Itself, Does Not Make Joinder Proper + +The government contends that joinder is appropriate because it will seek to prove the Perjury Counts with some of the same witness testimony that it will use to prove the Act Counts. Resp. 141-42. That argument is unavailing. First, the government admits that only "in one instance" does a charged deposition question relate to a "specific victim" in the Indictment. Resp. at 144. Second, as Ms. Maxwell set forth in her opening memorandum, even if the government uses some minimal amount of overlapping evidence, including witness testimony, to prove both the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts, that is not sufficient reason, by itself, to try the two groups of counts together. See United Stales v. 789 F. Supp. 2d 395, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (severing witness tampering charges from RICO conspiracy charges in the interests of judicial economy, despite fact that government would have to present "some overlapping proof' and "five limited overlapping witnesses" to prove both charges). + +Incredibly, the government also contends that answering poorly phrased questions instead of asserting the privilege against self-incrimination is somehow admissible in the trial of the Act Counts as consciousness of guilt. Resp. at 141-42. For example, the government repeatedly claims that Ms. Maxwell "den[ied] a "scheme to recruit underage girls." Id. The actual question posed to Ms. Maxwell at her deposition was "Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know .. ." and her answer was "I don't know what you're talking about." Apparently, the government intends to prove this answer not by demonstrating that Ms. Maxwell did know what the examiner was talking about, but instead that a third party — Epstein — "had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages." And the answer of not understanding the questioner shows "consciousness of guilt." This is a circular argument: anyone who denies being a witch must be a witch. For an allegedly false exculpatory statement to be of any value "it either must involve a matter collateral to the facts establishing + +guilt or should be so incredible that its very implausibility suggests that it was created to conceal guilt." United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143, 149 (1st Cir. 1988) (internal citations and quotations omitted). That is not the case here. Moreover, the government cites no case where a purportedly false response in an unrelated civil deposition was admissible as a false exculpatory statement in a criminal case. Accordingly, the Perjury Counts should be severed and tried separately.3 + +## II. The Perjury Counts Must Be Severed to Prevent the Introduction of Improper, Highly Prejudicial, and Inadmissible Evidence. + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a), captioned "Relief from Prejudicial Joinder," confers upon a trial court the discretion to sever even properly joined counts if "justice requires." The rule provides, in pertinent part: "If the joinder of offenses . .. in an indictment ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). + +There can be little doubt that if the Perjury Counts arc not severed, Ms. Maxwell will suffer substantial prejudice. The government's proof of the Act Counts will come almost exclusively from the testimony of the three accusers, with little or no independent documentary corroboration. Adding the Perjury Counts, which involve allegations of sexual abuse by another alleged victim that are unrelated to the charged crimes, will create a significant risk that the jury will impermissibly use the evidence introduced in connection with the Perjury Counts "to infer a criminal disposition" on the part of Ms. Maxwell to commit the Act violations, or might + +' It is highly unlikely that two trials would occur in this matter. Should the case proceed to trial on Counts 1-4, only, a conviction would expose Ms. Maxwell to a significant term of imprisonment. Under the sentencing guidelines, the Court would be permitted to consider any severed perjury counts under a number of theories including [grouping] or 21 U.S.C. § 3553(a). No second trial would be necessary. If Ms. Maxwell were acquitted, issue-preclusion would bar any second trial. See Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110,121-122 (2009). + +"cumulate evidence" of all of the crimes charged to fmd her guilty on particular counts, without considering them separately. United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 440 (2d Cir. 1978). + +Furthermore, the government ignores the proverbial elephant in the room, materiality, which inevitably involves complicated discussions, and evidence, about civil litigation, defamation law, and the v. Maxwell defamation litigation, all of which are inadmissible as to the Act Counts, under F.R.E. 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). Any prosecution of the Perjury Counts exposes the jury to evidence about: + +- The genesis of the defamation action including: + - What said in a pleading in 2015 filed in ongoing litigation under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) initiated by her lawyers in Florida. + - The nature of the CVRA litigation, including claims by alleged Epstein victims that the government had violated their rights in negotiating a secret sweetheart deal with Epstein in which Ms. Maxwell and others were given immunity from prosecution. + - That these statements, ultimately stricken by United States District Court Marra, were widely publicized. + - Ms. Maxwell, through her lawyer in London, issued a response that claims in the CVRA pleading were "obvious lies." + - The reasons why false statements were "obvious lies," which would include testimony from prominent academics. political figures, business leaders, and celebrities who all, like lied. +- Civil litigation discovery practices, generally, including: + - How discovery is obtained. + - Permissible questions and objections in depositions. +- Defamation litigation generally, including: + - The elements of a defamation claim; + - Defenses to defamation claims, including truth (and a plethora of other defenses). + +- The v. Maxwell litigation specifically, including: + - The circumstances surrounding the deposition. + - The nature and character of the lawyers including their unethical behavior. + - The discovery abuses by lawyers. + - Why, in the context of this defamation case, the questions being posed, now the subject of the Perjury Counts, were not material including: + - Approximately 50 unresolved motions relating to the admissibility of evidence. + - The testimony of ten to fifteen other witnesses including fact and expert witnesses. + - The testimony of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers. + +In sum, if the Perjury Counts are not severed, this criminal trial will be subsumed by evidence not relevant to the main charges, the Mann Act Counts, completely unrelated to the defamation case.° + +The government suggests that these evidentiary problems can be cured by "stipulations" but does not propose any. It is hard to imagine the legal gymnastics necessary to accomplish any stipulations that would fix these problems. Alternatively, or perhaps with the unknown stipulations, the government suggests prejudice could be avoided by jury instructions. It is + +I The Second Circuit has adopted an inclusionary approach to other act evidence under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any proper purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.2004). The rule, however, is not "a carte blanche to admit prejudicial extrinsic act evidence...." United States v. Scott, 677 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2012). In evaluating F.R.E. 404(b) evidence, the Court must consider whether (I) it is offered for a proper purpose; (2) it is relevant to a material issue in dispute; and (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect...." LaFiam, 369 F.3d at 156. There is no proper purpose for the admission of any of the alleged perjury which occurred decades after the charges in Counts 1-4. Certainly, the government has articulated none. Ms. Maxwell's answers to the vague and objectionable questions selective) from hundreds of pages of transcripts have no relevance to any material issue related to the Act Counts. And, significantly, any arguable probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. + +improbable that instructions would eliminate the obvious and substantial prejudice to Ms. + +Maxwell. Any reasonable, intelligent, jury cannot be instructed to ignore the following: + +- Ms. Maxwell was sued for defamation by an alleged victim because she called the alleged victim a liar. +- The government necessarily believes that Ms. Maxwell, not the alleged victims in this case, is a liar, which is why the government charged her with perjury. +- By implication, Ms. Maxwell's lawyers here, arguing that she is innocent, should not be believed because they were complicit in the perjury. +- In considering whether the jury should convict Ms. Maxwell of enticing girls to travel to perform illegal sex acts the jury should ignore all of the underlying facts related to the defamation action including, for example, the 30 alleged victims, Epstein's settlement, the CVRA litigation, Epstein's, and Ms. Maxwell's nonprosecution agreement. + +In addition, the government glosses over, via a footnote, enormous prejudice attendant to the perjury charges: Ms. Maxwell's counsel of choice for five years also represented her in the defamation action. The deposition transcript and the perjury charges place the credibility of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers at issue. The government obfuscates how it intends to establish materiality of the statements, but it is probable that the government will attempt to do so through the testimony of the civil lawyers who prosecuted the defamation action. Any rational jury would want, as a counter, testimony from the defending lawyers on the same topic. The government suggests that this is no problem, at least for the prosecutors, under NY RPC 3.7. We beg to differ. + +The question of disqualification arising from counsel's status as attorney and witness in the same proceeding is premised on the so-called advocate-witness rule.5 The rule, generally, is that counsel cannot maintain dual roles as advocate and witness in the same matter before the + +5 For a discussion of the advocate-witness rule's origin and history, see Jeffrey A. Van Delta, Lawyers as Investigators: Flow Ellerth and Faragher Reveal a Crisis of Ethics and Professionalism Through Trial Counsel Disqualification and Waivers of Privilege in Workplace Harassment Cases, 24 J. Legal Prof 261 (2000). + +same tribunal. See Erick G. Luna, Avoiding A "Carnival Atmosphere": Trial Court Discretion and the Advocate—Witness Rule, 18 Whittier L.Rev. 447, 451 (1997). Among the multitude of rationales for the rule, rarely, if ever, will a lawyer be able to effectively serve as an advocate and give testimony: + +A lawyer who intermingles the functions of advocate and witness diminishes his effectiveness in both roles. The client's case is subject to the criticism that it is being presented through the testimony of an obviously interested witness who on that account is subject to impeachment, and, of equal importance, the lawyer is placed in the unseemly position of arguing his own credibility to the jury. + +v. Dist. Ct., El Paso CV., 700 P.2d 549, 553 (Colo. 1985).6 + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell ("Colorado Counsel") have direct, relevant, testimony applicable to the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations in Counts Five and Six, the questions, the objections, and the lack of materiality of these questions. Testimony from Colorado Counsel would likely include their knowledge about the many false statements made by and the actions of her lawyers including discovery abuses. But operating in a dual capacity, lawyer and witness, would create confusion, subject Ms. Maxwell's lawyers to crossexamination, and potentially constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, courts in this Circuit do not allow attorneys to function in this dual role, even if the defendant is willing. See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1074 (2d Cir. 1982) (disqualification of trial counsel "required" as a result of "their participation in the events underlying" one of the charges); United States v. Gotti, 771 F. Supp. 552, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (disqualifying trial counsel and noting that "[i]t is difficult to comprehend how [the lawyers] could present a defense against this charge without becoming unswom witnesses"). Here, the government suggests that + +6 Drafters of the ABA Model Rules recommend similar rationales for the rule; but the drafters also mention the opposing party's interest, noting that combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing party as well as involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. See Annotated Model Rules of Profl Conduct, R. 3.7 cmt. I. + +one or more of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers should become actual witnesses, a circumstance that would create a circus, not a fair trial. + +The truth of the matter is simple: the government included the Perjury Counts because it wants to call Ms. Maxwell a liar in front of the jury and because it wanted a way to introduce unrelated, but extremely prejudicial evidence of alleged sexual abuse through the back door. The simple, non-prejudicial, solution is to sever the Perjury Counts.' + +## CONCLUSION + +The Perjury Counts are improperly joined with the Act Counts. A joint trial of these charges would deny Ms. Maxwell her right to a fair trial and her counsel. Accordingly, the Court should grant the request for a separate trial on the Perjury Counts. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Ms. Maxwell's Colorado Counsel would not participate as advocates in any trial of those charges but would testify as witnesses. + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion for a of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment upon the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lan Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e19798148d567fc771c491135719b69d0bc55876 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736/EFTA02831736.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1021 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831736.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 17, + "chars": 26758, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.3, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL \nON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 533.6680908203125, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 533.6680908203125, + 289.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 289.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 379.724609375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 379.724609375, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.9047546386719, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.9047546386719, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 551.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 551.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 103.7792739868164, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 103.7792739868164, + 85.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 85.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 347.8864440917969, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 347.8864440917969, + 170.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 170.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Counts Are Improperly Joined.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 311.6473388671875, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 311.6473388671875, + 197.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 197.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Counts are Dissimilar and Illogically and Artificially Connected.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 516.0634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 516.0634765625, + 87.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 87.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Perjury Charges Do Not \"Concern\" the Act Offenses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 491.42755126953125, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 491.42755126953125, + 253.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 253.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Some Overlapping Proof, By Itself, Does Not Make Joinder Proper", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.8896484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 503.8896484375, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Perjury Counts Must Be Severed to Prevent the Introduction of \nImproper, Highly Prejudicial, and Inadmissible Evidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 489.47857666015625, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 489.47857666015625, + 268.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 268.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 354.2218017578125, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 354.2218017578125, + 253.29998779296875 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 253.29998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.6199035644531, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.6199035644531, + 89.13043212890625 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 89.13043212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831736" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1321ed98a7704b96a956dbcee9b11ab91370372 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell 41 (212) 95"...600 ceverdell@cohengressercorn + +April 21, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +800 Thad A`enw New York, NY 10022 .1 212 957 760) phone wnvecohengessw Coen + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order, dated April 16, 2021 (Dkt. 207), we write to inform the Court that the defense agrees that Ms. Maxwell's motion to dismiss the SI superseding indictment on the grounds that it was returned by a grand jury sitting at the Plains courthouse (Dkt. 125) is now moot in light of the fact that a grand jury sitting in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +ce: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16434ec5c3f787aa8970a41cedcf842a11c5d2fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/EFTA02831753.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1011, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.87, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831753" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f30866667a4491805b6261c671f87d58024a98c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831753/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:affc10019835096ea6bf7bddd73d21219da066cfe7f0cf483fa63d96bb8f29bc +size 1512 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb3692b6fad2ff131a708dc4cfac0241c6928144 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/21/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's April 19, 2021 joint letter responding to the Court's April 19, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 215. The letter proposes limited redactions on the basis that some of the information is covered by the terms of the protective order in this case. + +In light of this, by April 22, 2021, the Defendant and BSF are hereby ORDERED to confer with the Government regarding whether the Government requests redaction of any information contained in the Defendant's response to BSF's objections to the Defendant's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena, BSF's reply, and the April 19, 2021 joint letter addressing the redactions to these documents. + +The Government may submit any redaction requests by April 23, 2021; in doing so, the Government shall justify any proposed redactions by reference to the test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +The Defendant, BSF, and the Government are further ORDERED to notify the Court whether any party seeks redactions to the April 19, 2021 joint letter. If not, the Defendant shall file the letter on the public docket by April 23, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 21, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12b9c66a5b44aa648177f6d0dcd86686e4b81b24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754/EFTA02831754.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831754.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1677, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831754" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a91158bf5f5690eb92c47981454801160357e61f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +Apri121, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 19, 2021, which directed the Government to notify the Court whether it intends to "use any of the documents subject to the pending motions to suppress in the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." (Dkt. No. 216). As an initial matter, the Government strongly opposes the defendant's suppression motions, and the Government respectfully submits that the Court should deny the motions on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. However, in the interest of efficiency, and with the goal of streamlining matters in advance of trial, the Government respectfully submits that the Court need not resolve the pending suppression motions in advance of the trial on the non-perjury counts. + +Resolution of the suppression motions is not necessary at this juncture, because, after considering the matter, the Government does not intend to use these materials in its case-in-chief at the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case. However, the Government notes that the materials + +in question include, among other things, depositions of potential witnesses. t If the defense were to put these documents at issue at trial, during either the defense case or the cross-examination of witnesses, the Government reserves its right to use relevant materials from this set for any purpose permissible under the Rules of Evidence. Likewise, the Government has no objection to the defense using these materials at trial for any permissible purpose under the Rules of Evidence, including to cross-examine trial witnesses. + +Moreover, the Government notes that, even if these materials were suppressed — which the Government submits is inappropriate here — the Government would nonetheless have the right to offer these materials under certain circumstances. For example, it is well established that a criminal defendant who testifies in her own defense may be impeached with materials that would otherwise be subject to suppression. United States v. Trzaska, Ill F.3d 1019, 1026 (2d Cir. 1997) ("The Supreme Court has held that illegally acquired evidence may be used to impeach defendants who testify in their own defense.") (citing Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 64-66 (1954)). As the Supreme Court has explained, the exclusionary rule must be balanced with the truth-seeking functions of a trial: + +> It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government's possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment. + +The Government further notes that many of the materials in the file in question are duplicates of materials the Government has obtained through other sources. For example, the file contains materials that appear to have been obtained from third parties and law enforcement agencies. At trial, the Government is likely to offer documents it has obtained during its investigation through other sources, even though those materials happen to be contained in duplicate in the file in question. + +Welder, 347 U.S. at 65. + +Accordingly, the Court need not resolve the pending suppression motions, because the Government does not intend to use these materials in its case-in-chief. However, to the extent the defendant puts these materials at issue at trial either through the defense case or cross-examination, the Government reserves its right to use these materials, for example, to cross-examine the defendant, or to offer prior consistent statements of witnesses, should it be appropriate to do so. In addition, the Government further reserves its right to use these materials at trial for any purpose that would be permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, even assuming these materials were suppressed. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: Is Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccbc5f3e14be7785dcfebfec745dbbe98526a0ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/EFTA02831756.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4681, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831756" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..425d3538f02ff27c9ef5714baa0c16e9c1e69c05 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831756/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e0136ee1971efecd6e26085b19a32b338736628acb14eebcec66ddc6f3aeee35 +size 3484 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3e3ae2e49e32239406fcb879df13d5bc7b43f44 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell I (212) 9r - 600 cestrilell(njcoliengressracuin + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 4/21/2021 + +April 21, 2021 + +Re: United States st Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order, dated April 16, 2021 (Dkt. 207), we write to inform the Court that the defense agrees that Ms. Maxwell's motion to dismiss the SI superseding indictment on the grounds that it was returned by a grand jury sitting at the Plains courthouse (Dkt. 125) is now moot in light of the fact that a grand jury sitting in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment. + +The motion to dismiss the Si superseding indictment on the ands that it was returned by a grand jury sitting at the MI Plains courthouse (Dkt. No. 125) is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian It Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor Ncw York, Ncw York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +![](_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf755d90f2fc86e7214376765b84d7b5dcec8b4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/EFTA02831759.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1206, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.46, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831759" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c493da24dcdc66e5f99a37676c2cb67515d51b2e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9455588db32e64e4c7fb837e7c07054718a8c5ab33d22ff2392bc7eb8300b53c +size 3992 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bc7795de6061950a27f7f3fa5e7f824598fedc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831759/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9f7b669a611a494e638c4d8a7e088e754fac567028d0b41f66fe59e6b911dd14 +size 15368 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f5b08e288ac9d25b69bdcd5502aa064dacbaa03 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +Apri121, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 16, 2021, which directed the parties to negotiate a final schedule for all remaining pretrial matters in the above-referenced case. (Dkt. No. 207). Although the parties have agreed upon a schedule for several pretrial matters, the parties have not reached complete agreement on a full schedule. Accordingly, the Government is submitting this letter containing its proposal, and understands that defense counsel will write separately to convey the defense's competing proposal. + +Based on conversations with defense counsel, the Government understands that the parties agree on the following proposed dates, assuming trial begins as scheduled on July 12, 2021: + +- The Government will provide expert notice to the defense by April 23, 2021. +- The defense shall file any additional or supplemental motion briefing in light of the S2 Indictment by May 7, 2021. The Government shall file its responsive briefing by May 21, 2021. The defense shall file any reply briefing by May 28, 2021. +- The Government will provide the defense with the identities of the victims referenced in the S2 Indictment by May 17, 2021. + +- The parties shall simultaneously file any motions in limine by June 14, 2021. The parties shall simultaneously file any responses to motions in limine by June 28, 2021. +- The parties shall simultaneously file proposed jury questionnaires by June 18, 2021. Should the Court's schedule permit, the parties would propose that the venire receive and complete the questionnaire during the week of June 28, 2021. +- The parties shall simultaneously file requests to charge, proposed voir dire, and proposed verdict sheets by June 25, 2021. +- The parties are available for a final pretrial conference on July 1, 2021. +- The parties are available to appear for a conference on July 9, 2021 at which the parties would propose to present any for-cause challenges to prospective jurors based on the written questionnaires. + +The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding the remaining pretrial dates. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set the remaining schedule consistent with the Government's proposals. The Government notes that these proposed dates assume that trial will proceed as scheduled on July 12, 2021. Should trial be adjourned, the Government would propose that these dates be correspondingly adjourned. In particular, the Government makes the following proposals: + +- The Government is prepared to produce a proposed witness list, Giglio material, and Jencks Act material by May 28, 2021, or 45 days in advance of trial. These materials will include testifying witness statements, which themselves will also include any co-conspirator statements about which witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline, which is far in advance of when such disclosures are ordinarily made + +in this District, will provide the defense with ample time to review these materials, prepare for trial, and consider and brief any in Maine motions. This deadline will also allow the Government adequate time in the coming weeks to finalize its witness list for trial, review its files for all Giglio and Jencks Act materials, and prepare those materials for production. + +- The Government is prepared to provide the defense with notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by May 28, 2021, or 45 days in advance of trial. Consistent with the motion in limine schedule set forth above, this proposed deadline will provide the defense with adequate time to review the disclosure and file any appropriate motions. This deadline will also allow the Government adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). +- The Government is prepared to provide the defense with its proposed exhibit list and marked exhibits by June 11, 2021, or one month in advance of trial. This deadline will allow the defense adequate time to review and raise objections to any Government exhibits. This deadline will also allow the Government adequate time to finalize its determination of what exhibits it will seek to introduce at trial. +- The Government would propose that the defense be required to provide expert witness disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by May 14, 2021. This deadline, which is three weeks after the Government has agreed to provide expert notice, will give the defendant ample time to determine what, if any, expert testimony she may seek to offer. This deadline will also allow the Government sufficient time to brief the admissibility of any such proposed + +testimony in advance of the motion in limine deadline. The Government understands that the defense seeks to provide expert notice by June 14, 2021, but such a belated disclosure would not allow adequate time in advance of trial to brief any motions regarding the admissibility of such testimony. Additionally, the defense's proposed disclosure date would not provide sufficient time for the Government to locate a rebuttal expert if appropriate and provide notice of that rebuttal expert to the defense. + +- The Government would propose that the defense provide a proposed witness list and witness statements, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, by June 11, 2021. This deadline will provide the defense with ample time to determine what, if any, defense witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline will also permit the Government adequate time to review these materials and raise any appropriate objections or motions in advance of trial. +- The Government would propose that the defense be required to provide disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1XA) and 16(bX1)(B) by June 11, 2021, which is the same date by which the Government seeks to produce its proposed exhibit list and marked exhibits. Such reciprocal disclosure will ensure that the Government has adequate time to review the defense's proposed trial exhibits and to raise any appropriate objections in advance of trial. + +In addition, the Government notes that it has already begun producing non-testifying witness statements, the bulk of which were produced on April 13, 2021. The Government will continue to produce any additional non-testifying witness statements on a rolling basis as it continues to review its files for such materials. + +Finally, the Government notes that it has already produced material that it has identified as potentially exculpatory under Brady and its progeny. The Government is not currently aware of any additional Brady material in its possession, but the Government remains cognizant of its disclosure obligations and will promptly produce any such material should it come to light. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: ------ - — Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York 212-637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2f427db1cd3608e93678b11adf55f9070526964 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/EFTA02831760.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7528, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831760" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cefa1b8646d0d43b7d219139f734fd9397c49bd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831760/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e202fd182a1f83945c167d97de3424028cc0f391816b1f13546067aeaf973b3f +size 3486 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba7a94abee7127cdca559602a8d4042964065f2c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.70ip ccvcrdclICicohengrcsscr.com + +April 21, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +8.00 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 ♦1 **212 957 7W0 phone www.cchengrossor cam** + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order, dated April 16, 2021 (Dkt. 207), the parties have met and conferred about a schedule for the remaining pretrial disclosures and other pretrial motions practice. Although Ms. Maxwell maintains that a continuance of the trial date is necessary to ensure a fair trial for the reasons we will set forth in our letter to the Court tomorrow, we have discussed with the government disclosure dates assuming the trial begins on July 12, 2021. + +The following schedule indicates the areas of agreement and disagreement between the parties. Areas of agreement include dates proposed by both parties (in bold). Areas of disagreement include dates proposed by the defense (in bold) and dates proposed by the government (underlined). + +# Parties Aeree + +Government Expert Witness Disclosure April 23 — Government expert disclosure + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 21, 2021 Page 2 + +#### Supplemental Pretrial Motions + +- May 7 Defense supplemental motions due +- May 21 Government's response due +- May 28 Defense replies due + +### Identities of the Accusers + +- May 17 Government will disclose the identities of the accusers to the defense + +## Motions in limine + +- June 14 Simultaneous filing of motions in limine by government and defense +- June 28 Simultaneous responses due + +### Requests to Charge. Verdict Sheet. Proposed Voir Dire + +- June 25 Parties submit these materials to the Court + +### Jury Questionnaire and Pretrial Conferences + +- June 18 Parties submit proposed jury questionnaires to the Court +- Week of June 28 Prospective jurors complete jury questionnaire +- July 1— Pretrial conference; parties receive completed jury questionnaires +- July 9 Final pretrial conference; parties exercise challenges based on jury questionnaires + +### Parties Disagree + +## Government Pretrial Disclosures + +- May 17 (eight weeks before trial) the following government pretrial disclosures due: o Jencks Act/3500 material o 404(b) notice o Giglio material (any Brady material should be produced immediately) o Co-conspirator statements o Government witness list o Government exhibit list +- The government proposes May 28 to produce Jencks Act/3500 material, 404(b) notice, Giglio material, and its witness list +- The government proposes June 11 to produce its exhibit list and marked exhibits + +# Defense Expert Witness Disclosure + +- June 14 Defense expert disclosure +- The government proposes May 14 for the defense to provide its expert witness disclosure + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 21, 2021 Page 3 + +### Defense Pretrial Disclosures + +- July 1— Preliminary disclosure of information subject to Rule 16(bX1)(A) and 16(bX I )(B) +- The government proposes June II for the defense to disclose this information, as well as its witness list and witness statements pursuant to Rule 26.2. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03324fcfc89d18acdcc0396db47aa6f8aeb17b84 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/EFTA02831765.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,414 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3432, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.06, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Parties Aeree", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 144.48944091796875, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 144.48944091796875, + 654.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 654.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Supplemental Pretrial Motions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 258.81195068359375, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 258.81195068359375, + 163.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 163.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identities of the Accusers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 233.264892578125, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 233.264892578125, + 235.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 235.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Motions in limine", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 197.7716827392578, + 262.44 + ], + [ + 197.7716827392578, + 277.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 277.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Requests to Charge. Verdict Sheet. Proposed Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 376.26580810546875, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 376.26580810546875, + 334.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 334.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Jury Questionnaire and Pretrial Conferences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 324.0206298828125, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 324.0206298828125, + 376.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 376.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Parties Disagree", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 462.51 + ], + [ + 159.07110595703125, + 462.51 + ], + [ + 159.07110595703125, + 477.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 477.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government Pretrial Disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 268.90667724609375, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 268.90667724609375, + 504.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 504.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Expert Witness Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 281.68798828125, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 281.68798828125, + 672.8035202026367 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 672.8035202026367 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Pretrial Disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 247.62704467773438, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 247.62704467773438, + 164.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 164.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831765" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79c0e85ba990b7fa735a846818a40e068b54437b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831765/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:59b6c4a8e67db24c008104138dfbc568d4943a9eab2a1f81979cc10b82c565ae +size 1592 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e371ce4cc700ca2d50042f180f9f13374dc0c7d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_98.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court will schedule a trial date for the severed perjury counts after trial of the non-perjury counts is completed. Given that and in light of the representations in the Government's April 21, 2021 letter, *see* Dkt. No. 227, the Court intends to defer resolution of the pending motions to suppress (including resolution of the request for an evidentiary hearing) until after the trial on the non-perjury counts. If either side objects, counsel shall state the basis for any objection by letter on or before by 5pm on Thursday, April 22, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 21, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..503428a3992e115decd95a257001657e791d784f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/EFTA02831768.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 873, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.15, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_98.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831768" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/_page_0_Picture_98.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/_page_0_Picture_98.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59d477f566949cb7c5dbca9612396aee3306fdc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831768/_page_0_Picture_98.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:44f5f1b27d02e9abfb04d40e684823e6b84df1be24a961f820785d98128c5abd +size 11036 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e212adccfdb4ca33f83198bef39d1bc696082cc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of Ne v York + +The Silvio Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York I0007 + +April 20, 2021 + +## BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg) + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's April 16, 2021 Order (Dkt. 205) regarding whether the parties seek redactions to Reply Briefs I, 3, 5, 6, and 10 and whether the parties seek redactions to certain exhibits or seek to file certain exhibits under seal. + +The parties have conferred in accordance with the Court's April 16, 2021 Order. The parties do not seek any redactions as to Reply Briefs 1 and 5 and, accordingly, the defense will file those reply briefs on the public docket. + +As to Exhibit A to Reply Brief 1, the Government respectfully submits that the exhibit should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to filing Exhibit A on the public record. + +As to Reply Brief 3, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions the defense had originally proposed on page 3 on March 15, 2021, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of victims and third parties. The Government respectfully submits that the proposed redactions are consistent with the redactions ordered by the Court on March 18, 2021 as "the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweigh the presumption of access that attaches" to the document. (Dkt. 168 at 3); see also United States v. Atnodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the privacy interests of third parties "should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation"). The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions it had originally proposed on page 3. As to the remaining proposed redactions, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the remaining proposed redactions, which are narrowly tailored to cover the privacy interests of third parties. The defense takes no position on the remaining proposed redactions. + +As to the exhibits to Reply Brief 3, the defense submitted Exhibits M and N under seal. The Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibits M and N, but respectfully submits that the names, email addresses, and other contact information of third parties should be redacted from Exhibits M and N to protect the privacy interests of third parties. The defense has indicated that it agrees that email addresses and other contact information for third parties should be redacted pursuant to the Court's local rules. The Government respectfully submits under seal proposed redactions to Exhibits M and N for the Court's consideration. + +The defense also submitted Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 under seal. The Government filed Exhibits 5 and 7 to its Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant's Pretrial Motions, which are, respectively. redacted versions of Exhibits J and O. See Dkt. 204. The Government had set forth proposed redactions to Exhibits 5 and 7 in order to protect the privacy interests of third parties (Dkt. 162), which the Court adopted on March 18, 2021 (see Dkt. 168 at 2-3). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defense should redact Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 to reflect the redactions approved by the Court and reflected in the publicly filed versions of Exhibits 5 and 7 to the Government's opposition. The defense has indicated that it is prepared to follow those redactions. + +As to Reply Brief 6, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the defense's proposed redactions, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties. The proposed redactions are consistent with the proposed redactions requested by the Government on pages 158 to 159 and 163 of its opposition to the defendant's pre-trial motions, which the Court granted on March 18, 2021. (Dkt. 168 at 1). The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions and filing Reply Brief 6 on the public record. + +As to Reply Brief 10, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions originally proposed by the defense, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties and are consistent with prior redactions in earlier briefing. The Government respectfully submits that Exhibit A to Reply Brief 10 should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the personal privacy interests of the third party implicated in the document. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to removing the redactions and filing the brief and Exhibit A on the public record. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the redactions originally proposed by the defense to Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 and the redactions described above as to Exhibits .1, M, N, and O to Reply Brief 3. The Government further requests that the Court + +accept Exhibit A to Reply Brief I and Exhibit A to Reply Brief 10 under seal. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By email) + +The Court grants the Government's proposed redaction and scaling requests. This conclusion is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. + +The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, however, the Court finds that the specific arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and alleged victims, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). + +The Government's letter does not discuss Exhibit L of Reply Brief 6. By April 23, 2021, the parties shall either propose redactions to Exhibit I.. of Reply Brief 6, which was originally filed under seal, or they shall indicate to the Court that they seek no redactions and file it on ECF. + +SO ORDERED. + +![](_page_3_Picture_11.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..629fe65e27987ab53a9b9a683b7943f1aca81296 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/EFTA02831769.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7053, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.06, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_11.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.86537170410156, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 250.86537170410156, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831769" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61f431610c3b2b9907fb4ef6e802bb9c6b6fb203 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4eef01e1ffe1d74008fdfd41d719ec6f7d37d3fe38e526fb76c5ef792a93917f +size 3368 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e69a97f23abc4d45351a2bd48b550e06c49a8d81 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_0_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:633087dd91778d9cec4b8a6d24c308cdf405ca4dc3489ba2d53149f10750aae3 +size 12016 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_3_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_3_Picture_11.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e0ffda017e7db5b482a19a8f56c024f5caa7d49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831769/_page_3_Picture_11.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8a855cdd6a0c6faaba5783b218aac8e65f448ed25a4f9a6f097846548b83a041 +size 14089 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63a1c2453c0b59a413e91735273e0577cff5e8ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +■ + +**IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION** + +**TO BRING PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE(S) OR GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICE(S) INTO THE COURTHOUSES OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR USE IN A PROCEEDING OR TRIAL** + +**The following Order is subject to the definitions, obligations and restrictions imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468. as Revised. Upon submission of written application to this Court, it is hereby** + +**ORDERED that the following attorney(s) are authorized to bring the Personal Electronic Device(s) and/ or the General Purpose Computing Device(s) (collectively, "Devices") listed below into the Courthouse for use in a proceeding or trial in the action captioned:** + +## **United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +**ORDERED that for the device(s) checked below SDNY Courtroom WI-Ft access shall be provided.** + +**All Scheduled Hearings and Jury Trial The date (s) for which such authorization is provided is (are)** + +| Attorney | E-Mail | Deviceis) | Courtroom | WIFI | +|----------|--------|---------------------------------------|-------------|------| +| | | and GeneraDePvic l urPe° se Computing | 24B and 906 | | +| | | Conteputing aDevice PurCee | 24B and 906 | | + +**(Attach Extra Sheet Needed)** + +**The attorney(s) identified in this Order must present a copy of this Order when entering the Courthouse. Bringing any authorized Device(s) into the Courthouse or its Environs constitutes a certification by the attorney that he or she will comply in all respects with the restrictions and obligations set forth in Standing Order M10-468, as Revised.** + +**SO ORDERED:** + +**Dated:** + +**United States Judge** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..801029328918eca092ae47bf38f376810d9ca1f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773/EFTA02831773.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831773.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1818, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 402.004638671875, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 402.004638671875, + 387.742919921875 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 387.742919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 330.7235412597656 + ], + [ + 486.47991943359375, + 330.7235412597656 + ], + [ + 486.47991943359375, + 349.2957763671875 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 349.2957763671875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831773" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d98c033a39cbff497a44d1323518f0b92ecb2b01 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +April 22, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +Honorable Judge Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 906 New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Minor Victim-2 respectfully request that this Court will allow attorneys, Sigrid McCawley and David Boies to bring to the Courthouse, a Personal Electronic Device and a General-Purpose Computing Device for all scheduled hearings and the jury trial in the above-styled case. + +Minor Victim-2 has attached the Electronic Device General Purpose form as Exhibit A hereto. Counsel will comply with the obligations and restrictions imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as Revised. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Sigrid McCawlev + +Sigrid McCawley, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1701fa52a479d766935fbab860ec76c9380a453 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775/EFTA02831775.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831775.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 790, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 123.37138366699219, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 123.37138366699219, + 212.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 212.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831775" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b5eb303582ae3807e2265e2d41146b376b29a23 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 22, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and a P.0 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com jpagliucoghmftaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Response to Dkt. No. 227. Government's April 21.2021 Letter re Ms. Maxwell's Motions to Suppress + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write in response to the government's letter about Ms. Maxwell's pending motions to suppress and request for evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 227), and this Court's order stating an intent to defer resolution of those motions and that request until after the trial on the nonperjury counts (Dkt. No. 231). Although we appreciate the need to streamline the pretrial process and the desire to efficiently resolve the pending disputes, we do not agree that the government's letter provides an adequate basis to defer resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motions. We understand the Court's desire to maintain the status quo relating to the defense motions, but the government's response gives Ms. Maxwell no confidence that the government shares this understanding. Indeed, the government's vague assurances are insufficient to safeguard Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights, to guarantee the government will not benefit from its unconstitutional conduct, and to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's is not deprived of due process through the introduction and use of evidence that itself was obtained in violation of due process. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 2 + +The government says that this Court need not resolve Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress or hold an evidentiary hearing before the trial on the non-perjury counts because it "does not intend to use these materials"—i.e., any of the materials subject to the suppression motions—"in its case-in-chief at the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." (Dkt. No. 227, p 1). At the same time, the government purports to "reserve() its right to use relevant materials from this set for any purpose permissible under the Rules of Evidence." id. at 2. The government's representation is not good enough, and its reservation of rights is misplaced. + +It is not enough for the government to represent that it "does not intend to use [the suppression] materials in its case-in-chief at the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." Id. at I. That's because Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress allege violations of the due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martin&11 v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). If this Court agrees with Ms. Maxwell's arguments, not only will it suppress all 90,000-some pages of material the government improperly obtained through its ex pane subpoena, it will also suppress all evidence derived therefrom. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963); United States v. , 743 F.3d 322, 341-42 (24 Cir. 2014). + +The government thus cannot avoid inquiry into its conduct simply by pledging not to use the material itself in its case-in-chief. If Ms. Maxwell is right—and an evidentiary hearing will show that she is—the government also cannot use any evidence it obtained "by exploitation of the illegality." See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488. + +What's more, "the burden of proof on [an] attenuation claim is on the government." United States v. Chailani, 743 F. Supp. 2d 242, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (ordering an evidentiary hearing to put the government to its burden of proving attenuation) (citing United States v. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 3 + +Oguns, 921 F.24 442, 447 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The government bears the burden of proving that the taint [of an illegal search] has been alleviated.")). Like a Kastigar hearing, "the government bears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources." See United States v. M, 864 F.3d 63, 91 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 461-62 (1972) (holding that use and derivative use immunity provides protection "from the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom," and reversing conviction for Fifth Amendment violation)). "[C]onclusory denials [of taint] are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the prosecution's burden of proof." Id. at 94. + +The government's April 21 letter, with its vague and conclusory assurances, thus offers no reason to postpone consideration of Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress. + +The government's purported reservation of rights is also without merit. Initially, it is not at all clear what the government means when it says it might "use relevant materials from this set for any purpose permissible under the Rules of Evidence." (Dkt. No. 227, p 2). But if the government means that it intends to use the suppression material for impeachment purposes, that is all the more reason to hold an evidentiary hearing now and to resolve Ms. Maxwell's motions before trial on the non-perjury counts. + +There are at least two reasons why. First, while the constitution in certain circumstances allows the government to use unconstitutionally-obtained evidence for impeachment purposes, e.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 223-24 (1971) (statements secured in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment purposes if voluntary), the constitution forbids admission of evidence for all purposes if the government's conduct violated due process, e.g., New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 459 (1979) (due process + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 4 + +forbids the state from compelling incriminating statements from a defendant and "any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law" (emphasis in original) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978)). Here, the government violated due process when it misrepresented and misled Chief Judge McMahon in an ex pane proceeding to circumvent the civil protective order, and it independently would violate due process for the government to be allowed to use that evidence at all, for any purpose. U.S. CONST. amend. V; United States v. Landms, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2c1Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings...."). + +Second, unless Ms. Maxwell knows what evidence the government can use against her, under what circumstances, and for what purpose, she cannot make a knowing and voluntary decision about whether to testify and or to assert her right to remain silent. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI; Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51 (constitution guarantees a defendant the right to testify in her defense); v. Anuz, 124 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir. 1997) (wavier of the right to testify must be knowing and voluntary). Ms. Maxwell's decision whether to testify is personal and fundamental. M. ("[T]he decision whether to testify belongs to the defendant and may not be made for [her) by defense counsel."). And for their pan, counsel cannot effectively represent Ms. Maxwell and advise her regarding the exercise of her right to testify unless they too know the legal ramification of testifying or remaining silent. Id. at 79 (defense counsel must "advise the defendant about the benefits and hazards of testifying and of not testifying"). These considerations necessitate resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress before the trial on the non-perjury counts. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 5 + +For these masons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that this Court hold an evidentiary hearing on her motions to suppress and that it rule on the merits of her arguments before the trial on the non-perjury counts. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b655b39070f185a46f16b651e81bb5242d2e36e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/EFTA02831776.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7928, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831776" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..749ce5b6b3376b0131ac2e53c8aa644c7628b918 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831776/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3a7052627edd6146debef7f426e0dc73114ff24a99bc77aa50f2e40b73f13978 +size 6337 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2e9a3fe448d565aec2be5f0286de44d728ae82d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The &Mai Mello Building One Sarni Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 22, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 20, 2021, which permitted the Government an opportunity to submit a response to the defense request for an adjournment of trial in the above-referenced case. (Dkt. No. 221). As previewed in its April 9, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 199), the Government strenuously opposes any adjournment of the July 12, 2021 trial date in this case. Given both the recently granted and the Government's intention to present a streamlined case focused primarily on the experiences of four victims, trial on the non-perjury counts in indictment S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the "S2 Indictment") will not be materially lengthened by the addition of new charges. As previously noted, the Government has made and will continue to make significant efforts to ensure that the defense is able to prepare for trial as scheduled. Moreover, delay of the trial would prejudice the victims in this case, multiple of whom oppose any adjournment. Should the Court nevertheless grant the defense's request for an adjournment, however, the Government respectfully requests that trial be scheduled for March 2022 to ensure continuity of Government counsel at trial. + +First, the Court's recent decision to sever the perjury counts will both shorten the upcoming trial and free up time for the defense to prepare for a trial that includes the new allegations and charges in the S2 Indictment. Although the defense has expressed concerns that trial on the S2 Indictment would be excessively long, and that the defense would need additional time to prepare for trial, balanced against the two counts added by the S2 Indictment are the two perjury counts severed by the Court's April 16, 2021 opinion and order. (Dkt. No. 207). In other words, the defense has long maintained that the perjury counts would substantially expand the scope of the trial, but those counts will no longer be at issue during trial in July. + +As the Court may recall, in the defense's view, the Act and perjury counts involved at most "some minimal amount of overlapping evidence," which was "far outweighed b[y] the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial." (Dkt. No. 120 at 12). According to the defense, a trial including the perjury counts would have "necessarily involve[d] litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial," and possibly require resolution of "[a]pproximately 50 substantive motions" and "evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes." (Id. at 9-10, 12). The defense also identified more than a dozen areas of evidence that it claimed would be part of the perjury trial, including "how discovery is obtained" in civil litigation, "[t]he testimony of ten to fifteen other witnesses including fact and expert witnesses" on materiality, and "[t]he testimony of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers." (Dkt No. 224 at 7-8). As a result, in the defense's view, if the perjury counts were tried together with the Act counts, "this criminal trial will be subsumed by evidence not relevant to the main charges, the Act Counts." (Id. at 8). + +The Government has never understood the perjury counts to require the resolution of dozens of motions from the civil case or the trial testimony of dozens of witnesses above and + +beyond the Act counts. But the defense did. And notwithstanding that understanding, the defense at no point suggested that it would seek to adjourn the trial date if the Court denied its motion. Given the defense's expansive view of the amount of evidence and time that would be required to complete a trial of the perjury counts, their removal from the equation should largely make up for the additional trial time required to address the new charges and allegations regarding Minor Victim-4 in the S2 Indictment. Similarly, now that the defense no longer has to prepare immediately for what it predicted would be a "collateral trial on whether statements about an alleged conspiracy from 1999-2002 were in fact lies" (Dkt. No. 120 at 9-10), defense counsel can prepare for a trial that includes the allegations regarding Minor Victim-4. + +Moreover, as noted in its April 9, 2021 letter, the Government fully intends to focus its presentation of evidence at trial primarily on the experiences of the four victims referenced in the S2 Indictment. As the Government has previewed in its conferrals with defense counsel, the Government anticipates introducing evidence regarding a small number of additional victims either as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies or pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Government does not expect that this additional evidence will significantly lengthen the trial, particularly because much of this evidence will come from witnesses and exhibits that will already be introduced in connection with the four victims referenced in the S2 Indictment. This streamlined approach will ensure both that the length of trial is not significantly expanded and that the defense will be able to focus its trial preparation on addressing the allegations regarding the four victims in the S2 Indictment. As a result, the Government expects that trial on the non-perjury counts can be completed within approximately three to four weeks.' + +Because the S2 Indictment was returned more than three months in advance of the July 12, 2021 trial date, the defense's reliance on United States v. M, 754 F.2d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1985) to support its request for an adjournment is entirely misplaced. In the district court ordered the defendant to stand trial one day after the return of a superseding indictment that expanded the scope of the charged conspiracy by an additional two years. That is plainly not the case here, because the S2 Indictment was returned on March 29, 2021, more than three months before trial. Indeed, it is telling that the defense cites no case in which the Second Circuit has held that a district court lacks the discretion to conduct a trial three months after a superseding indictment has been filed. Any such decision would be surprising, given that the Speedy Trial Act expressly contemplates trial commencing "within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs." 18 U.S.C. §3161(cXI). In other words, the defense has more than sufficient time to prepare for trial between the return of the S2 Indictment and July 12, 2021. + +' The defense misleadingly suggested in its April 15, 2021 letter and again in its most recent letter that the Government has doubled its trial estimate from two to four weeks. (See Dkt. No. 202 at 7). As noted in its April 9, 2021 letter, however, the Government initially estimated that its casein-chief would last approximately two weeks and suggested that the Court reserve three weeks in total for the trial, to include jury selection and the defense case. (See Dkt. No. 199 at 4). The Government has now added only one week to that prediction, estimating that its case-in-chief may last up to three weeks and proposing that the Court reserve four weeks in total for trial. Although this prediction includes an estimate of any anticipated cross-examination and defense case, the Government, of course, cannot be certain how long such defense presentations will take during trial. Moreover, given that the parties have consented to the use of jury questionnaires, the Government's hope is that their use will expedite jury selection in order to preserve as many days as possible for the trial beginning on July 12, 2021. + +Second, the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that the defense is able to prepare for trial as scheduled. As noted in its April 9, 2021 letter, the Government has already included Rule 16 discovery relating to the S2 Indictment in its prior productions to the defense, and the Government has provided the defense with a list of pages within those discovery productions that are particularly pertinent to the new allegations contained in the S2 Indictment.2 Contrary to the defense's suggestion in its most recent letter, the largest discovery production in this case came from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein. That production, dated November 18, 2020, included approximately 1.2 million documents (totaling approximately 2.2 million pages), all of which are text searchable and were produced in a format conducive to loading that production into a document review platform.3 Moreover, the defense's suggestion that it will need to re-review every single page of discovery produced to date is, at best, hyperbolic. The defense has already reviewed the discovery and presumably knows which portions relate in + +Similarly, the defense only raised concerns about metadata on certain photographs this month, even though those photographs were produced to the defense in November 2020. The Government is working with its staff and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into and, where possible, address the defense's concerns as quickly as possible. + +2 To the extent the defense complains of recent difficulties reviewing certain Highly Confidential images or other items that must be reviewed in the presence of federal agents, it bears noting that the Government repeatedly informed defense counsel beginning in the fall of 2020 that those materials would be made available for review upon request. The defense did not request to review those materials until March 2021, after which the Government coordinated with defense counsel, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Marshals to arrange for multiple days in April 2021 during which all of the materials were made available for review. The Government is of course willing to make similar arrangements should defense counsel believe additional review of those materials is necessary. + +3 Only yesterday did defense counsel provide the Government with a list of documents that the defendant has been unable to review from the prior discovery productions. As it has done in the past when such issues have been raised, the Government will work with its staff and staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") to address these issues as expeditiously as possible. The Government notes, however, that had defense counsel raised these specific issues earlier, the Government could have addressed them much sooner. + +particular to the time period covered by the S2 Indictment, especially with the guidance provided by the Government regarding key documents relevant to Minor Victim-4. Given that the largest portion of the discovery in this case is text searchable, the defense will also be able to tailor any re-review of those materials through relevant search terms. The combination of having already possessed the relevant discovery for months and receiving a list of key documents should meaningfully assist the defense in preparing for trial as scheduled. + +The Government has also committed to providing further disclosures well in advance of trial and far earlier than such productions would ordinarily be made in this District. The Government has already begun producing materials relating to witnesses whom it does not intend to call at trial to the defense, more than three months in advance of trial. The bulk of those materials were produced on April 13, 2021, and the Government intends to make additional productions on a rolling basis as it continues to review its files for such materials. In this vein, the Government has produced materials, including prior witness statements, for approximately 225 individuals relevant to the Government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the defendant, and others. While the Government made this production with an expansive eye toward its pretrial disclosures, as it has adopted throughout the pendency of this matter, it bears noting that a significant majority of those individuals never mentioned or knew the defendant. Indeed, the number of non-testifying witnesses who mentioned the defendant makes up a small portion of the overall production. That is unsurprising, given that the Government conducted a broad investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, including crimes that did not involve this defendant. Accordingly, to the extent the defense claims it now needs to investigate or interview all, or even the majority of these witnesses, it is unclear how that testimony would be relevant or admissible at trial. Simply put, the defense does not need to investigate crimes with which the defendant is not charged. + +Moreover, the defense's most recent letter refers to these materials as somehow constituting Brady material without any explanation of what information within the most recent production is supposedly exculpatory. But given that, as noted above, a significant majority of the non-testifying witness materials do not reference the defendant, to the extent the defense is suggesting that the existence of victims who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein without assistance from the defendant constitutes Brady material, the Government has repeatedly noted that such evidence is not exculpatory. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 65 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 204 at 47-48 (citing, inter alit:, United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish liter] innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions."))). Regardless, the defense has ample time to review these materials in advance of trial, and the Government intended to produce all of these materials to the defense with or without a superseding indictment." Thus, the defense would have needed to review and investigate these materials even if the Government never obtained the S2 Indictment. Although the defense claims + +As the Court is aware, the Government has gone to significant lengths to address the technical issues defense counsel have raised with respect to the discovery, and to ensure that the defendant expeditiously receives copies of each production. Indeed, in November 2020, the undersigned hand delivered a laptop and discovery production to the MDC for the defendant, and the Government understands the defendant received those items that same day. Although it is not feasible for the Government to hand deliver every production to the MDC, the Government has informed defense counsel that the undersigned will hand deliver the Government's first production of Giglio and Jencks Act material to the MDC to minimize any delay in the defendant's ability to access that material when it is produced. + +The Government understands from defense counsel that the CD containing a copy of this production, which the Government sent to the MDC via FedEx overnight shipping last week, has not been provided to the defendant. The Government has repeatedly asked MDC legal counsel to locate this CD and provide it to the defendant, and today MDC legal counsel confirmed that the CD would be delivered to the defendant this afternoon. + +that its investigation of the witnesses referenced in these materials will take months, it fails to explain in any detail what specific steps it needs to take, why those steps are material to preparing a defense, or how those steps would be particularly expected to lead to admissible evidence at trial. + +Additionally, the Government has agreed to provide the defense with expert notice by April 23, 2021 and the names of the victims referenced in the S2 Indictment by May 17, 2021. The Government has also agreed to provide notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), a proposed witness list, Jencks Act material, and Giglio material 45 days in advance of trial. As a result, the defense will receive many of these disclosures weeks in advance of when is typical for criminal defendants in this District, thereby further ensuring ample time to prepare for trial. To the extent the defense claims that it will need to retain additional experts to review electronic evidence, it appears that would be true regardless of the S2 Indictment because the electronic discovery materials referenced in the defense's most recent letter were already part of the discovery in this case before the S2 Indictment was returned. In any event, the defense will receive the Government's expert disclosure tomorrow, thereby providing more than two months for the defense to consider whether it wishes to offer any responsive expert(s). Further, the defense's suggestion that it has insufficient time to file additional motions is undercut by the proposed schedule agreed upon by the parties, which allows the defense to file its supplemental pretrial motions more than five weeks after the return of the S2 Indictment and its motions in limine more than eight weeks from today and eleven weeks from the return of the S2 Indictment. + +Although the defense claims that its trial preparation will be hampered by the COVID-I 9 pandemic, the availability of vaccines to all adults in the United States should enable the defense team to conduct any necessary investigation far more expeditiously than was possible a few months ago. Further, the defense's concerns that jury selection will be lengthy or cumbersome in + +this case would have been present whether or not the Government sought a superseding indictment, yet the defense never previously raised this issue as necessitating an adjournment. But more importantly, them is no reason to think that the S2 Indictment will increase the length of time required for jury selection in this case, and as noted above, the parties have agreed to the use of a jury questionnaire to expedite the selection process. Similarly, the defense's complaint that it is difficult to estimate the length of a defense case before disclosure of Jencks Act material and Government exhibits would be true regardless of new charges. + +The defendant has five retained lawyers appearing on her behalf on the docket in this case, all of whom are experienced and skilled trial attorneys. Throughout the pendency of this case, the defense team has demonstrated its ability to litigate multiple complex issues on overlapping schedules while also carefully reviewing discovery and preparing for trial. In addition, the defendant has the benefit of even more attorneys who have appeared on her behalf to brief and argue appeals in this case before the Second Circuit, as well as staff such as paralegals and investigators assisting her attorneys. Given their skills and the resources at their disposal, there is every reason to believe that defense counsel will provide the defendant with exceptional representation at trial as scheduled. + +Third, the victims in this case would suffer additional harm were trial to be delayed. The longer this case remains pending, the longer the victims suffer the anxiety of anticipating their trial testimony and the uncertainty of awaiting a resolution. As a result, multiple victims oppose any adjournment of the trial date. In particular, Minor Victim-3 expressed feeling significant stress during the pendency of this case and a strong desire to have the case brought to a close through trial as soon as possible. Similarly, Minor Victim-2 also indicated that she has experienced an enormous amount of stress while this case has been pending, wishes to see the case brought to trial as scheduled, and has already planned to be available to testify at trial as scheduled this summer, despite her personal and professional obligations. These views further weigh against an adjournment of the July 12, 2021 trial date. + +Finally, although the Government maintains that an adjournment is not warranted here, if the Court nevertheless adjourns trial, the Government respectfully requests that the new trial date be scheduled for March 2022. Were the trial to be scheduled for any date between September 2021 and February 2022, one or more of the undersigned prosecutors, including prosecutors who have been on this case for multiple years, would be unable to participate in the trial given preexisting trial commitments,' among other reasons. Given the complexities in this case, including a large volume of discovery, litigation history involving numerous legal and factual issues, years of investigation, and relationships with the victims, continuity of Government counsel at trial is a particularly compelling interest here. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that, should an adjournment be granted, any new trial date be set for March 2022. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York 212-637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +5 In particular, AUSA Pomerantz has a trial scheduled to begin on October 4, 2021, which is expected to last approximately eight weeks, and a trial scheduled to begin on January 5, 2022, which is expected to last approximately six weeks. Additionally, AUSA Moe has a trial scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of 2021, pursuant to this District's COVID-19 scheduling protocols, which is expected to last at least two weeks. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a66a1818c84b3248f46c893169be821beaff1505 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/EFTA02831781.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 21808, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.51, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831781" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..288058943c055bb759924f769088d40a9987c6fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831781/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d964ca30ca09a34e171cbdac630da78ed2d9acee0f5890b4de59a374d26a9d1a +size 3494 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a43fa6ff49b5413f8a6011752aeda5bd3c700a9e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio .1 Mono Building One Saint Andmv's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 22, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's April 22, 2021 Order (Dkt. 232) regarding whether the parties seek redactions to Exhibit L of Reply Brief 3. The Government does not seek redactions to Exhibit L and accordingly does not object to the public filing of Exhibit L. The Government has conferred with defense counsel. Defense counsel has indicated that it has no objection to the public filing of Exhibit L and, accordingly, will file Exhibit L on the public docket. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fce720c8b90131a7cfce1608bd2d2c1074037811 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/EFTA02831791.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1159, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 168.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 168.80352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831791" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..918aa561eee6b17a43a6488df0af64bbbb231b24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d45a0ba8c667b0f3cb666d64fd7c912b4de58607999fe9db25b1a2cabea1b9b3 +size 3370 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85f6c128c94ff41ef966b7d03f3eedb6bd89f520 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## VIA ECF + +Honorable Judge Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 906 New York, NY 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg) + +| USDC SDNY | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: _____ | | +| DATE FILED: 4/22/21 | | + +April 22, 2021 + +Re: United States v. GhislaMe Maxwell Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +SIGRID MCCAWLEY Email:smccawley@bsfilp.com Telephone: (954) 356-0011 + +Because remote access is available for tomorrow and because no electronic devices may be used in the courtroom or overflow rooms, Dkt. No. 214, to the extent the request is for tomorrow's arraignment, that request is denied. Counsel may renew their application in advance of future proceedings. SO ORDERED. + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Minor Victim-2 respectfully request that this Court will allow attorneys, Sigrid McCawley and David Boies to bring to the Courthouse, a Personal Electronic Device and a General-Purpose Computing Device for all scheduled hearings and the jury trial in the above-styled case. + +Minor Victim-2 has attached the Electronic Device General Purpose form as Exhibit A hereto. Counsel will comply with the obligations and restrictions imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as Revised. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Sigrid McCawlev + +Sigrid McCawley, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e68f2326affee29c57ca23221ff1bab9195cbb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/EFTA02831792.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1721, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.37, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 123.37138366699219, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 123.37138366699219, + 212.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 212.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831792" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd346d36c6d84daab685498d3b38f6816228b27b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e667ca1797bcfd318170cdea461b786ed9e07a8d50b7ae895a96a28fe5773182 +size 9123 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b29e67de73fb40945642823e538d43159675bce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831792/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cdc96aecdbeb819b556f5cb7dca3733999aaa942a1c190e9eba078805e7fb207 +size 9540 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb934574ef57ace7594dd5fbb9728338408f7dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Siltio Mob Building One Sarni Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 23, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 16, 2021, which directed the Government to confirm that it has complied with its discovery obligations with respect to the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). (Dkt. No. 207). + +## A. Overview + +The Government takes its discovery and disclosure obligations seriously, and it has endeavored to take an expansive approach with respect to those obligations throughout the pendency of this case. In particular, the Government carefully formulated its discovery and disclosure plan in this case to ensure that it not only satisfies its Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act obligations with respect to the materials already in the possession of the prosecution team, but that it also makes reasonable efforts to identify other potentially disclosablc material within the files of other investigative agencies who are not part of this prosecution team. This approach was formulated in close consultation with multiple layers of supervisors within the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The Government set forth its intentions with respect + +to those other agency files in an October 7, 2020 letter, (Dkt. 63), and restates certain information here in order to provide context for what, and how the Government has reviewed files for material related to the NPA. + +In sum, the Government has not identified any materials within its possession that would constitute potential Brady material with respect to the NPA, that is, "exculpatory evidence" as to which "there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006). With this definition in mind, the Government would view any evidence that the NPA was intended to (i) bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts; or (ii) cover Maxwell specifically, as "evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA" that it would be required to disclose. (See April 16, 2021 Opinion, Dkt. No. 207, at 8, 3-7 (discussing the bases for Maxwell's motion under the NPA)). As set forth in more detail below, the Government has not identified any such evidence in its possession. + +The Government does not, however, view any other materials that are simply related to the NPA as materials it is required to disclose in this case, either under Rule 16 or Brady. Nevertheless, and as the Court recognized, the defendant already has access to a large swath of information that the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") compiled as a result of their thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the NPA, and the Government has not sought to, nor would it be obligated to, redo OPR's work. (Dkt. No. 207, at 8 (noting the "extensive OPR report" and that "No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing."). In the interest of clarity, the Government sets forth below a description of the materials it has compiled and reviewed, and will continue to review, for potential Brady material in this case, while + +also noting what the Government has not done and does not believe it is obligated to do with respect to materials that are potentially related to the NPA. + +#### B. The Prosecution Team's Files + +As the Court is aware, the charges in this case arose from an investigation opened in 2018 and conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") New York Office, and the New York Police Department ("NYPD"; collectively, the "Prosecution Team"). (Dkt. No. 63 at 1). The Government has obtained the full investigative file from the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office"), which conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein between 2005 and 2010 (the "FBI Florida File"), and whose file also contained the investigative file for the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") related to that same investigation (the "Florida Investigation"). The Government has reviewed and produced all Rule 16 materials, including potential Brady material, contained within the Prosecution Team's Files, including the FBI Florida File and the PBPD file. The Government has not identified anything within the files of the Prosecution Team, the FBI Florida File. or the PBPD file that constitutes Brady material with respect to the NPA. + +# C. The Government's Collection and Review of Other Agencies' Files + +On October 7, 2020, the Government submitted a letter to the Court setting forth its plan for collecting and reviewing certain files from other agencies with potential relevance to this case. (Dkt. No. 63). Although Second Circuit law did not require the Government to do so because those other agencies were not part of the Prosecution Team, the Government endeavored to collect and review certain of those materials as part of its commitment to go above and beyond its disclosure obligations. (Id. at 4). In particular, the Government noted its intention to collect: (i) the FBI Florida File and the PBPD file, from which the Government has made Rule 16 productions, and which the Government is continuing to review for Giglio and Jencks Act material, (ii) the Palm Beach State Attorney's office file, from which the Government has made Rule 16 productions, and which the Government is continuing to review for Giglio and Jencks Act material; (iii) the file from the SDFL, discussed further below; (iv) the inbox for the primary line Assistant U.S. Attorney at SDFL responsible for that office's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein between 2005 and 2010 ("Attorney-1") that was previously gathered by OPR, discussed further below; and (v) certain potentially relevant materials, to the extent they existed, from a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia, which consist of a small amount of witness statements. + +With respect to the SDFL file, based on an initial review,' the Government has not identified any materials that would be subject to disclosure under Rule 16. This is unsurprising because discoverable materials such as subpoena returns and search warrant materials appear to have been maintained in the FBI Florida Office's file. Although the Government did identify materials that are broadly related to the NPA, the Government has not identified any items that would constitute Brady material. The Government is continuing to review the SDFL file for Giglio and Jencks Act material. And of course, to the extent the Government identifies potential Brady material or material discoverable under Rule 16 that is not duplicative of prior productions, it will promptly produce it. + +In the fall of 2020, SDFL agreed to provide SDNY with a copy of all of its files relating to Jeffrey Epstein so that SDNY could review those files for disclosures. Those files consist of 28 boxes, which contain material relating both to the investigation of Epstein and a civil lawsuit filed by victims challenging the NPA under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Government hired a vendor to scan the files in these boxes, but technical difficulties with that vendor prevented those scans from being loaded into a document review platform until several weeks ago. Before those scans were loaded into the document review platform, the Government conducted an initial review of the scans in their native form. + +With respect to Attorney-1's inbox, the Government previewed in its October 7, 2020 letter that it planned to review the inbox—which is voluminous2-using search terms to identify witness statements and Giglio material. Those search terms did not include search terms relevant to the NPA, and the Government has not searched Attorney-l's inbox for communications relating to the NPA. Instead, because the Government obtained these materials with an eye towards identifying any additional witness statements or Giglio material that might not otherwise be contained in the FBI Florida File, the Government ran search terms specific to this case, focusing on the names of victims, Government witnesses, and Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government's review of the emails responsive to its search terms remains ongoing, and the Government will produce any nonduplicative documents that warrant disclosure. The Government expects this to be a limited set of documents that will be produced along with other Jencks Act and Giglio material. Of course, should the Government identify any exculpatory material during this review, including with respect to the NPA, it will promptly produce such material. + +As the foregoing illustrates, the Government has taken an expansive approach to discovery and is close to completing its review of files from other agencies for Jencks Act and Giglio material. Thus far, the Government has not identified potential Brady material with respect to the NPA during its review. To the extent the Government identifies potential Brady material with respect to the NPA, that is, material that supports Maxwell's reading of the NPA as discussed above, or any other exculpatory material, the Government will promptly produce it. However, + +2 More specifically, it appears that OPR obtained an entire snapshot of Attorney- I's inbox, spanning several years, and encompassing all of Attorney-I's emails during that time period. In other words, the inbox is not specific to the Epstein investigation, and it contains a high volume of communications relating to other cases and other internal SDFL matters. The snapshot provided by OPR contains emails and their attachments, both inbound and outbound, totaling more than 300,000 documents. + +based on the Government's review to date and the OPR report, the Government has no reason to believe that a document supporting the above-described defenses under the NPA in this case exists. Indeed, as the Court noted in its April 16, 2021 Opinion, OPR thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the negotiation of the NPA and issued extensive findings from its investigation. Nothing in the OPR report supports the defendant's assertion that the NPA bars this prosecution. (April 16, 2021 Opinion, Dkt. No. 207 at 5-6 ("Maxwell has already received access to an unusually large amount of information about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report and yet identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA."); at 8 ("No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised anything beyond what was spelled out in writing.")). The Government does not intend to seek any additional materials from other offices or agencies relating to the NPA, and the Court has already denied the defense's request for discovery relating to the NPA. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe / Maurene Comey Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51e239d6ded2e50f312788b30bfcefd37d3b6870 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/EFTA02831793.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 11645, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Overview", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 160.24835205078125, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 160.24835205078125, + 467.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 467.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Prosecution Team's Files", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 145.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 262.9299011230469, + 145.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 262.9299011230469, + 159.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 159.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Government's Collection and Review of Other Agencies' Files", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 451.5594787597656, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 451.5594787597656, + 546.0635375976562 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 546.0635375976562 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831793" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fc2eb7daca040f1e62e6e3a1538f27e6cbf5e44 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831793/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2a183b7bb25434a76a346df0c08534004700665062a5752e96c69ec1f1173412 +size 3488 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3c2e6b3df2e300ac89459ddb1ef078abc6fb8ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 23, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 21, 2021, which directed the Government to submit any requests for redaction of information contained in filings regarding the defense's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena. (Dkt. No. 226). After reviewing the relevant filings, the Government seeks a limited number of redactions, which are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties. In particular, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the redaction of the names and identifying information of particular third parties referenced in the defense's response to the objections of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF') to the defense's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena, BSF's reply, and the April 19, 2021 joint letter addressing the redactions to those same documents. Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to those documents, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these documents are judicial documents that are subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents. These redactions are thus consistent with similar, tailored redactions permitted by the Court in this case to protect the privacy interests of third parties. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the proposed redactions. + +The Government has conferred with defense counsel and counsel from BSF, both of whom indicated that they take no position on the Government's redaction requests. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +212-637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..491f3f67f913143abb02444e4a05b5078d096a25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/EFTA02831799.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2477, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831799" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf35fb4352c846d038aabc580674d66b25c7f303 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831799/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9826d4e3230ff52ed04de97caa8044033369f0dc383ebf208dcca50cc17d322b +size 3485 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2c9342938552dd3fcd4f0e72d00b6a433659566 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio/ Moll° Building One Salm Andrew'A Plow New York. Neu York 10007 + +April 23, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 4/23/21 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 21, 2021, which directed the Government to submit any requests for redaction of information contained in filings regarding the defense's proposed Rule I 7(c) subpoena. (Dkt. No. 226). After reviewing the relevant filings, the Government seeks a limited number of redactions, which are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties. In particular, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the redaction of the names and identifying information of particular third parties referenced in the defense's response to the objections of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") to the defense's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena, BSF's reply, and the April 19, 2021 joint letter addressing the redactions to those same documents. Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to those documents, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these documents are judicial documents that are subject to the common law presumption of access, the + +proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents. These redactions are thus consistent with similar, tailored redactions permitted by the Court in this case to protect the privacy interests of third parties. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the proposed redactions. + +The Government has conferred with defense counsel and counsel from BSF, both of whom indicated that they take no position on the Government's redaction requests. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By:. M + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York 212-637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +![](_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg) + +The Court grants the Government's redaction requests. Its conclusion is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are 'judicial documents;" (ii) assoss the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. + +The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the specific arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). + +The Defendant and Boies Schiller are hereby ORDERED to docket the respective documents with the Government's proposed redactions by April 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67d365b3d144b8a9eab4049687d79a32f8a8d5d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/EFTA02831801.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3758, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.08, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831801" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e33d888a6b105fc2125d7cc2fbd7695ef45fe242 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:425222cbae05769e2012e3091d6d744a638c5c98dee8045e6c2684935da1251f +size 3484 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bff93732e0263a30da721f9cc4b6ba125239275a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831801/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:63c772f20d9b97e0cb30561f83e6064e03279e185cdc4ba87ce25778ec6e829e +size 10783 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03088a23ee0a86d1c498fa80d613a86bdeebffeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 22, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her response to the Court's April 21, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 221, under temporary seal with proposed redactions. The proposed redactions are GRANTED. The Court's conclusion is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 1W (24 Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. + +In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, however, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of defense lawyers' clients in other matters and to allow defense counsel to comply with their professional obligations under the rules of professional conduct. + +The Defendant is ORDERED to docket the redacted version of her letter by April 23, 2021. The Defendant is further ORDERED to docket the basis for the redaction request, originally sent by email, on ECF by April 23, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 23, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96c54aad97414fbcb48df3e15a0b2c4a165c4ee0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/EFTA02831803.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1665, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.04, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831803" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df6e7cb35dc152f3e99233af39c028213b5bb0c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831803/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:80e1f107a8bf715d5b3230994c5625531c7822c8b65f12f729a6774927853469 +size 11499 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..534a35374123f8b7e7903308fc0357e285724199 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 22, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +ind P C &hey S PogInico + +East I Oth Avenue + +Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmtlasv.com jpagliocarethrntkm.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Response to Dkt. No. 227. Government's April 21, 2021 Letter re Ms. Maxwell's Motions to Suppress + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write in response to the government's letter about Ms. Maxwell's pending motions to suppress and request for evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 227), and this Court's order stating an intent to defer resolution of those motions and that request until after the trial on the nonperjury counts (Dkt. No. 231). Although we appreciate the need to streamline the pretrial process and the desire to efficiently resolve the pending disputes, we do not agree that the government's letter provides an adequate basis to defer resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motions. We understand the Court's desire to maintain the status quo relating to the defense motions, but the government's response gives Ms. Maxwell no confidence that the government shares this understanding. Indeed, the government's vague assurances are insufficient to safeguard Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights, to guarantee the government will not benefit from its unconstitutional conduct, and to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's is not deprived of due process through the introduction and use of evidence that itself was obtained in violation of due process. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 2 + +The government says that this Court need not resolve Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress or hold an evidentiary hearing before the trial on the non-perjury counts because it "does not intend to use these materials"—Le., any of the materials subject to the suppression motions—"in its case-in-chief at the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." (Dkt. No. 227, p I). At the same time, the government purports to "reserve[] its right to use relevant materials from this set for any purpose permissible under the Rules of Evidence." Id. at 2. The government's representation is not good enough, and its reservation of rights is misplaced. + +It is not enough for the government to represent that it "does not intend to use [the suppression] materials in its case-in-chief at the trial of the non-perjury counts in this case." Id. at I. That's because Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress allege violations of the due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). If this Court agrees with Ms. Maxwell's arguments, not only will it suppress all 90,000-some pages of material the government improperly obtained through its ex parte subpoena, it will also suppress all evidence derived therefrom. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963); United States v. , 743 F.3d 322, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2014). + +The government thus cannot avoid inquiry into its conduct simply by pledging not to use the material itself in its case-in-chief. If Ms. Maxwell is right—and an evidentiary hearing will show that she is—the government also cannot use any evidence it obtained "by exploitation of the illegality." See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488. + +What's more, "the burden of proof on [an] attenuation claim is on the government." United States v. Ghailani, 743 F. Supp. 2d 242, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (ordering an evidentiary hearing to put the government to its burden of proving attenuation) (citing United States v. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 3 + +Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 447 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The government bears the burden of proving that the taint [of an illegal search] has been alleviated.")). Like a Kastigar hearing, "the government bears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources." See United States v. 864 F.3d 63, 91 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 461-62 (1972) (holding that use and derivative use immunity provides protection "from the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom," and reversing conviction for Fifth Amendment violation)). "[C]onclusory denials [of taint] are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the prosecution's burden of proof." Id. at 94. + +The government's April 21 letter, with its vague and conclusory assurances, thus offers no reason to postpone consideration of Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress. + +The government's purported reservation of rights is also without merit. Initially, it is not at all clear what the government means when it says it might "use relevant materials from this set for any purpose permissible under the Rules of Evidence." (Dkt. No. 227, p 2). But if the government means that it intends to use the suppression material for impeachment purposes, that is all the more reason to hold an evidentiary hearing now and to resolve Ms. Maxwell's motions before trial on the non-perjury counts. + +There are at least two reasons why. First, while the constitution in certain circumstances allows the government to use unconstitutionally-obtained evidence for impeachment purposes, e.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 223-24 (1971) (statements secured in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment purposes if voluntary), the constitution forbids admission of evidence for all purposes if the government's conduct violated due process, e.g., New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 459 (1979) (due process + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 4 + +forbids the state from compelling incriminating statements from a defendant and "any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law" (emphasis in original) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978)). Here, the government violated due process when it misrepresented and misled Chief Judge McMahon in an ex parte proceeding to circumvent the civil protective order, and it independently would violate due process for the government to be allowed to use that evidence at all, for any purpose. U.S. CONST. amend. V; United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings...."). + +Second, unless Ms. Maxwell knows what evidence the government can use against her, under what circumstances, and for what purpose, she cannot make a knowing and voluntary decision about whether to testify and or to assert her right to remain silent. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI; Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51 (constitution guarantees a defendant the right to testify in her defense); v. Artuz, 124 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir. 1997) (wavier of the right to testify must be knowing and voluntary). Ms. Maxwell's decision whether to testify is personal and fundamental. Id. ("[T]he decision whether to testify belongs to the defendant and may not be made for [her] by defense counsel."). And for their part, counsel cannot effectively represent Ms. Maxwell and advise her regarding the exercise of her right to testify unless they too know the legal ramification of testifying or remaining silent. Id. at 79 (defense counsel must "advise the defendant about the benefits and hazards of testifying and of not testifying"). These considerations necessitate resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress before the trial on the non-perjury counts. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 5 + +For these reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that this Court hold an evidentiary hearing on her motions to suppress and that it rule on the merits of her arguments before the trial on the non-perjury counts. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record + +The Court agrees with the position set forth in this letter that, unless the Government agrees to forgo any use of the documents subject to the motions to suppress at trial on the non-perjury counts, the Court must resolve those motions prior to that trial. The Court will resolve the motions in due course. SO ORDERED. + +• CA L ir1/4 4 ffir + +4/23/2021 + +SO ORDERED. + +ALISON J. NATHAN, U.S.D.J. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9abe7c2fdbb3b88dc4f1e2e62bfea14800a1b85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/EFTA02831805.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,205 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8340, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831805" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..041ae88058fea77aba4f7620e38bb13fb8e25df5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:02f2db9c8189e41086a7922e70a0c36b21c2477997b0f7706c6ae14572c390d1 +size 6320 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de1239ce2c79ba4980a169dcc8527790128fee7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831805/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7dc221349cdccaf2773e3b281b345f05e03e3daef72cba4aa7a24b45cc1b61c7 +size 8477 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00110c333c26321c620ee551b5a1c97280ea60b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.md @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +A I) Uo N N N + +April 2, 2021 + +#### VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and MI P.c Jeffrey PaoUtica + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmftaw.corn jpagEuca4hmflaw.com + +Re: Response to Letter Motion to Quash Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena directed to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF') seeks discrete sets of material relevant to legal issues before the Court now and relevant to the jury at trial. Each item sought by the subpoena is identified with specificity and is admissible as relevant evidence in this case. The Court should therefore deny BSF's Motion to Quash ("Motion") (Dkt. No. 191) and direct BSF to comply with the subpoena with one narrowing modification to Request 12, the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program ("EVCP") Material. Ms. Maxwell agrees, based on BSF's representations, that the subpoena should be narrowed at this time in one respect. BSF proffered that they "submitted claims and supporting evidence to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program on behalf of several Epstein survivors who have not made separate claims against Maxwell." Motion at 5. BSF acknowledged that that it represents alleged victim 2 and potential trial witnesses and Id. at I, 5. Ms. Maxwell does not seek production of EVCP materials from any person who is not testifying as a + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 2 + +government witness in this case. Presumably, BSF is in communication with the government and knows which of their clients will testify. This narrowing language was offered to BSF but rejected during the Court ordered conferral. As to the rest of the items, BSF's boiler-plate arguments fail for the reasons discussed below. + +### Requests 1-5 + +BSF argues that Requests 1-5, communications between BSF and the government about Ms. Maxwell, are "overbroad and non-specific." To advance this argument BSF carefully ignores the actual language of Requests 1-5 which are specific as to date and limited by the identified individuals and subject matter. Request 1 is for communications between BSF and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") starting in 2015 about Ms. Maxwell including the meeting that former SDNY-AUSA-turned-BSF lawyer Peter Skinner (and others) had with then AUSA . Request 2 similarly narrowly requests communications regarding , an alleged witness against Maxwell being promoted by BSF to the government. Requests 3, 4, and 5 are for communications between BSF and lawyers Brad Stanley Pottinger, and Paul Cassell about any meeting with the USAO-SDNY concerning Ghislaine Maxwell or + +This is no fishing expedition. The government admits that there were, in fact, meetings and communications between these individuals and the USAO-SDNY about Ms. Maxwell and . We know that had at least one in-person meeting (and possibly another) and that she communicated by email and telephone with Mr. Pottinger about who was being proffered to the government as a witness against Ms. Maxwell. + +As these requests are narrowly limited by time, subject matter, and participants, it is disingenuous to argue that they fall into the disfavored "any and all" document subpoenas. In + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 3 + +fact, none of the requests contains the words "any" or "all" because they are specifically limited to communications between BSF and the USAO-SDNY about Ms. Maxwell andand communications between BSF and their co-counsel in the v. Maxwell matter about those known meetings. BSF tries to cobble an "any or all" argument together by picking the word "any" from the definition section of the subpoena identifying the two entities, BSF and the USAO-SDNY, and attaching it to the word "all" from a separate paragraph defining "communication." Of course, absent these definitions, BSF would be complaining that the subpoena was vague because it failed to define either the entities involved or what was meant by "communication." + +Significantly, BSF already identified some of the communications between itself and the government. According to its so called "Plaintiff Revised Supplemental Privilege Log Dated April 29, 2016," BSF refused to produce as privileged "approx. 57" documents that it identified as "correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of the Defendant [Ms. Maxwell] and others."' Entry 153 in the log identified "email and letter + +- a. the date of any such Communication; +- b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format of any such Communication; +- c. the identifies of all persons involved in the Communication, including the identity of the law enforcement agency with whom the agent is or was affiliated; +- d. the case number associated with any such Communication; +- e. the subject matter of any such Communication; +- f. the disposition of any case associated with any such Communication, irrespective of whether the matter was sealed, expunged or later dismissed." + +The privilege log was produced in response to an interrogatory, served by Ms. Maxwell's counsel on BSF, as counsel for , which asked in relevant part that they "[i]dentify each Communication, including the transmission of any Document, that You or Your Attorneys have had with any local, state or federal law enforcement agent or agency, whether in the United States or any other country, whether in Your capacity as a purported victim, witness, or perpetrator of any criminal activity, and whether as a juvenile or as an adult, including without limitation: + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 4 + +communications" between "the law enforcement entity, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, [and] Brad n" Curiously, although the government purportedly subpoenaed all of the BSF files relating to v. Maxwell? the production from the government to Ms. Maxwell does not contain these 57 documents reflecting communications between these lawyers and a "law enforcement entity." Only after Ms. Maxwell filed her pre-trial motions did the government produce a few of its communications with BSF and their co-counsel from 2016. The peculiar failure of the government to produce these items in connection with the "entire" BSF file has yet to be explained. Clearly, BSF knew what the terms meant when it used them to block the production of this information in the civil litigation and it should not be allowed to profess confusion or ignorance here. + +The cases cited by BSF are not helpful to its cause. For example, the court in United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020), quashed the subpoena because it did "not satisfy the initial requirement of relevance." In United States v. Mendinueta-lbarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the defendant requested "any and all writings and records" related to the NYPD's contact with a particular confidential witness who, according to the defendant, provided relevant information. The subpoena was unlimited in time or scope and, to the extent a time or scope were determined, production of the information was limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Id. at 513. + +United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04 CR 186 SCR, 2008 WL 9359654, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008), involved a subpoena served by the Defendant on the Metropolitan Detention + +2 Judge McMahon described the subpoena as a "general subpoena...I mean, everything that's in Boies Schiller's files, other than privileged documents, which of course you don't exclude from your subpoena." + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 5 + +Center that demanded production of telephone recordings and various types of prison records for another inmate. Notably, the subpoena was issued after the government produced all Brady and § 3500 material and was for "[41 disciplinary records, booking records, inmate records, transfer movement records, and telephone call recordings and log for ... [the]inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn from about April 2006 to the Present." Of course, the court found the subpoena did not call for relevant evidence and was also deficient under all three Nixon prongs. Id. at 5. + +Nor does this Court's decision in United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (MN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016), help BSF. There, Mr. Pena requested that this Court issue five subpoenas to the MDC, MCC, and the DOC seeking records relating to two cooperating witnesses expected to testify at trial. Those subpoenas lacked any specificity and were for: + +Any and all records relating to inmate [cooperator name], including but not limited to: (a) name and address of all [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] locations in which [cooperator name] was housed, the dates when [cooperator name] was housed in such facilities, and all records relating to the transfer of [cooperator name] between and among [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] facilities; (b) all records of phone calls made to and from [cooperator name] from [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] custody, including but not limited to: call logs and audio recordings; and (c) all Corrlinks emails sent to and from [cooperator name's] account. + +As this Court correctly pointed out, the subpoenas were unlimited in time or scope and called for the production of either inadmissible hearsay or privileged information. Id. at \*2. Additionally, this Court observed in Pena, at \*3, as applicable here, that: + +[T]he Court trusts that the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and that it will be prepared to make all necessary disclosures at the appropriate time to minimize any delay at trial. Moreover, although the government is not obligated to obtain information not presently in its possession, it may be improper for the government to remain willfully ignorant to key + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 6 + +impeachment material. Accordingly, the Court "encourages the government to obtain evidence that may be relevant to the credibility and impeachment of its witnesses and disclose this information" to the defendants as soon as practicable. + +By contrast, in this case, the government has scrupulously avoided looking for or acquiring any information favorable to Ms. Maxwell. To the contrary, the government met with lawyers for civil litigants, took possession of selective items of their information and only disclosed what information it views necessary to justify its current dilemma. The investigation it conducted to determine the scope of its communication with BSF was incomplete and entirely self-serving. + +Subpoena Requests 1-5 are substantially like those approved by this Court in United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), which called for "all correspondence and records sent or received" between identified individuals and entities over specific periods of time.3 + +Although BSF admits it cannot make any cogent argument that the communications sought in Requests 1-5 are not relevant (Motion at 4), the relevance is clear: pending before the Court are two motions to suppress based on misrepresentations made by the government to Chief Judge McMahon and a motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial delay. These communications are the evidence necessary for resolution of those motions. They are + +All correspondence and records sent or received by Keely Walter, William Slattery, or Andrew relating to, interpreting or applying NASDAQ's 300 round-lot shareholder requirement, with respect to the listing applications of: + +- I. [SmartHeat], during the period of June 20, 2008 through January 27, 2009; +- 2. [Deer], during the period of May 4, 2009 through July 16, 2010; and +- 3. [CleanTech), during the period July 13, 2010 through December 10, 2010. + +3The language authorized by the Court was for. + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 7 + +admissible, either as a written supplement to the motions, or at any motion hearing under Fed. R. Evid. 104 and 803(6). Ms. Maxwell has requested, and is entitled to, an evidentiary hearing on her motions to suppress. The requested information would establish the substance and frequency of the communications between BSF and the government prior to the government's end run around Martindelt + +Relegated to footnote 2 is BSF's half-hearted attempt to claim that communications between civil plaintiffs' lawyers who are conspiring to obtain an indictment against a civil defendant (to further their own economic interests) are "work product." This footnote is, in fact, an astonishing admission. First, BSF admits that these communications occurred. Second, the communications about trying to get Ms. Maxwell indicted were "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial," admitting both relevance and admissibility. BSF does not and cannot plausibly explain how a joint effort to procure a civil opponent's indictment is protected by the work product doctrine. BSF's ipse dixit fails because the + +"burden of justifying the application of the work product doctrine is on the asserting party, and the burden is a heavy one because privileges are neither lightly created nor expansively construed. In particular, the burden of showing a document is entitled to work-product protection may not be discharged by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions." + +In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 293 F.R.D. 568, 574 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (cleaned up); see also Wey, 252 F.Supp.3d at 251 (party asserting privilege may not discharge its burden with mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions but rather must present those facts that are the essential elements of the privileged relationship). It is also noteworthy that when it claimed investigative privilege in its 2016 privilege log, BSF did not invoke the work product exception. + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 8 + +Regardless, the government has failed to produce, or even look for these communications and Ms. Maxwell has no other means to obtain them. + +### Requests 6 and 7 + +Requests 6 and 7 request the engagement agreements between BSF and alleged victim 2 and her sister. BSF has previously claimed that it represented these individuals. v. Indyke, No. 19-cv- 10475 (LGS-DCF); v. Indyke, 19-cv-I0474-NRP. The scope and dates of these engagements are relevant to Ms. Maxwell's pending motions and are relevant and admissible for many of the reasons articulated with respect to Requests 1-5. Moreover, these agreements are exculpatory evidence that, as discussed below in connection with Request 12, are procurable in advance of trial. + +# Request 8 + +Request 8 seeks the grand jury subpoena the government served on BSF. This is hardly a controversial, sensitive or speculative item. It is however relevant to Ms. Maxwell's pending motions to suppress because it is the document reviewed by Judge McMahon commanding production of the entire BSF file including confidential materials subject to a strict protective order in The subpoena is admissible either as part of the written motion practice or in a hearing on the motions to suppress. Indeed, the Court could take judicial notice of the document which is in the SDNY court files. Ms. Maxwell would then be the only party to the motion practice that was in the dark about the content of the subpoena. What the subpoena commands, when it was served, and who accepted service are all relevant to the issues before the Court. BSF's only retort is that Ms. Maxwell should get the subpoena from the government. Ms. Maxwell asked the government for the subpoena and the government refused this request. She has no other recourse but to ask this Court for assistance. + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 9 + +## Requests 9-11 + +Requests 9, 10, and I I seek evidence for inspection in advance of trial. A subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 17(c)(1) "may order the witness to produce designated 'books, papers, documents, data, or other objects' so long as they are "evidentiary." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 219 (1951). Rule 17(c)(1) further provides that "[t]he court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence." When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. Id. + +The Rule operates to "expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials," rather than "provide a means of discovery for criminal cases." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at 220)) (emphasis added). Here, Ms. Maxwell's subpoena strictly adheres to that which Rule 17 allows: production of admittedly relevant and admissible items of evidence in advance of trial. Item 9, the journal, purports to be an account of alleged victim 2's interactions with Epstein that form the basis of multiple counts in the indictment. It is exculpatory because the journal contains no reference to Ms. Maxwell. Partial pages of the journal were produced in civil litigation against Epstein, not to help Ms. Maxwell. Inspection of the entire journal is necessary to establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoliation has occurred. This examination requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner and cannot be performed in the middle of trial without a significant disruption in the proceedings. Given that alleged victim 2 placed the document in issue when she was trying to collect money from Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, BSF's argument that the journal is irrelevant or inadmissible is + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 10 + +not credible. And, once again, the government has turned a blind eye to the existence of the journal, refusing to collect clearly relevant and exculpatory evidence. + +This type of evidence, "journals," or "diaries" is, without question, exculpatory material that the government would have to provide to the defense in advance of trial if it were in their possession. The government's failure to obtain the journal contravenes Second Circuit law: + +If the diary had contained exculpatory information or other material that would have been useful to the defense for the purpose of impeaching [the witness's] credibility, the government would have been required under Brady v. Maryland, supra, to turn over such material to the defense. See, e.g., United States v. Seijo, 514 F.2d 1357 (2d Cir. 1975). By allowing a potential source of such material to remain in the possession of the very witness whose credibility it might be used to impeach, the government created a serious risk that significant material would be destroyed or tampered with.[4]Under the circumstances, the diary should have been impounded with the court, subject to use and inspection by both sides under conditions that would protect the defendants from destruction or alteration, and the witness from unwarranted invasions of privacy or disclosure of information that might jeopardize his safety. Under no circumstances should the diary have been returned to the unsupervised possession of the witness. + +United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1079 (2d Cir. 1977); see also v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 810, 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (where diary contained no entries related to the defendant's alleged sexual abuse the failure to preserve the diary deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial); United States v. Rios, No. 88-CR-186, 1989 WL 9289, at \*2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1989) ("[T]o the extent that this diary contains evidence favorable to one of the + +4 Ms. Maxwell's concerns about spoliation and authenticity of an accuser's diary are far from speculative. BSF's client testified at her depositions that she had (a) burned her "diary" containing her allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in a 2013 bonfire with her husband to rid herself of the "bad memories," while she was represented by counsel, and (b) created another "fake" diary, 15 years after the fact, concerning her supposed sexual interactions with Prince Andrew that journalist Sharon Churcher printed in Radar Online as though they were a contemporaneous "diary." See Exhibit A. + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 11 + +defendants and material either to his guilt or eventual punishment such evidence must be made available to that defendant as Brady material."). + +Request 10 is another piece of physical evidence, boots purportedly purchased by Epstein for alleged victim 2. Once again, the government has scrupulously avoided actually obtaining the evidence, and Ms. Maxwell seeks to use Rule 17 as it is intended, to examine the boots in advance of trial. The examination will identify the make and provenance of the boots, something which would be difficult to do during any trial without significant delay. + +Similarly, the photographs listed in Request 11 are physical evidence that exists -- copies were produced by BSF in civil litigation, the photographs are admittedly relevant, and admissible as evidence. Again, the government has not obtained the originals. Accordingly, no one knows the dates of creation or any other specifics related to these items of evidence. Because the government is failing at its job to seek justice, not a conviction, Ms. Maxwell needs the Court's help in establishing her innocence. + +#### Request 12 + +Request 12 asks for EVCP Material, the submissions by BSF on behalf of witnesses who will testify for the government in this matter, and the settlement materials obtained as a result. We know that alleged victim 2 and her sister, along with are all represented by BSF and made claims against Epstein which in some fashion involved Ms. Maxwell. BSF argues that the request for this information is premature because according to BSF it is merely "impeachment" evidence and that the information should be classified as "witness statements" not reachable by a Rule 17 (c) subpoena. + +BSF is wrong on both counts. First, the documents do not meet the definition of "witness statements." These are submissions to a fund requesting large sums of money and the + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 12 + +justification for payment of the funds. BSF does not explain why it claims the submissions are "witness statements" and cites no authority for this proposition. Second, because the material is not in the possession of the government it is not a "statement" falling within Rule 17(h). + +"Witness Statements" covered by Rule 17 am defined by Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(f): + +- (1) a written statement that the witness makes and signs, or otherwise adopts or approves; +- (2) a substantially verbatim, contemporaneously recorded recital of the witness's oral statement that is contained in any recording or any transcription of a recording; or +- (3) the witness's statement to a grand jury, however taken or recorded, or a transcription of such a statement. + +The "statements" are those of a testifying witness in the possession of the party who did not "call the witness," produced upon request after the witness testifies at a qualifying event, such as a pretrial hearing or trial. + +Materials held by entities other than the United States generally fall outside the Jencks Act and are therefore not "witness statements." United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89, 100 n.9 (2d Cir. 1975) (no violation of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b), which requires the United States to turn over to defendants the statements of a witness which are "in the possession of the United States"); see also United States v. 478 F. Supp. 2d 220, 240 (D. Conn. 2007) (1979 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 26.2: "The rule ... is designed to place the disclosure of prior relevant statements of a defense witness in possession of the defense on the same legal footing as is the disclosure of prior statements of prosecution witnesses in the hands of the government under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500...7). + +Once again, the government has purposely not obtained any of the EVCP Material. Accordingly, the EVCP Material is not a "statement" covered by Rule 17(h). Ms. Maxwell's + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 13 + +only recourse is to seek production from BSF which admittedly has the material in its possession. Otherwise, once the witness testifies and a request is made for the material the government will simply profess blessed ignorance. + +Contrary to BSF's assertion, the EVCP is not "mere" impeachment material; it is Brady material that the government would be required to turn over if in their possession. The government knows that it "is under no obligation to turn over that which it does not have," United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727, 746 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), which is why it refuses to obtain the material. Once again, Ms. Maxwell needs the Court's assistance. + +Information is "exculpatory and thus 'favorable' to the defense for Brady purposes when it directly contradicts the motive theory testified to by prosecution witnesses. Mendez v. Artuz, 303 F.3d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 2002). For the reasons articulated in Ms. Maxwell's ex parte submission, the EVCP Materials directly contradict the "motive theory" that will be advanced by the prosecution at trial — that Ms. Maxwell was the procurer of underaged women for Epstein. + +In addition, even if the materials were deemed "impeachment only" they would remain discoverable by a subpoena as exculpatory evidence. Where, as here, the government's proof depends almost entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the accusers, "impeachment" evidence is material and discoverable in advance of trial. As discussed in Poventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015), + +['Impeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed. The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where "the [g]overnment's case depended almost entirely on [the victim's] testimony," Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972), goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio. See Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) ("The jury's estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence."). + +April 2, 2021 + +Page 14 + +See also United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir.1987) (explaining impeachment evidence of uncorroborated testimony is material where the witness "whose credibility was at issue supplied the only evidence linking the defendant[ ] to the crime"); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 382 (2d Cir.1974) (finding a Brady violation occurred where the prosecution did not disclose that a witness identified someone other than the accused); United States v. Wilkins, 326 F .2d 135, 140 (2d Cir.1964) (where the state's case depended on the positive identification by two witnesses, the existence of two other witnesses who would testify the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime was material). + +Because the EVCP Material constitutes exculpatory evidence, it is procurable by subpoena in advance of trial. + +# Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny BSF's Motion to Quash and enforce the proposed subpoena on BSF. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey /S. Pagliuca + +CC: Sigrid McCawley, David Boies \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35a77d5f26db87192525cd4cf200b7ed562a6f29 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/EFTA02831810.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,732 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 27399, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.85, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Requests 1-5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 173.21920776367188, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 173.21920776367188, + 215.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 215.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Requests 6 and 7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 192.94410705566406, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 192.94410705566406, + 160.863037109375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 160.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Request 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 159.0325164794922, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 159.0325164794922, + 381.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 381.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Requests 9-11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 179.07618713378906, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 179.07618713378906, + 105.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 105.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Request 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 165.04763793945312, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 165.04763793945312, + 463.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 463.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 165.50405883789062, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 165.50405883789062, + 381.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 381.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831810" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7704acae4698a2313c08a20e6a9c0ab963485b34 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831810/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0a3d3013399b035bdfb07787bf0c367512816c6462c2fe163d6f51a82b8fae78 +size 2925 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f11e9337a90bcfe99529d0aae3d67f49c4e3006 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 19, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and P c Laura A. Menninger + +I50 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com IMenninger@hmtlaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Redactions to Pleadings Re: Rule 17 Subpoenas + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has conferred with Boies Schiller & Flexner (BSF) concerning any proposed redactions to the pleadings addressing the Rule 17(c) subpoena sub judice, specifically Defendant's Response of April 2 and BSF's Reply of April 5, both of which were submitted to the Court via email in order to allow an opportunity to address any necessary redactions. + +Ms. Maxwell is mindful of the Court's previous directive that any proposed redactions must be specifically justified and tailored yet is obligated by the Protective Order at 1 6 to seek to redact two references to an individual's name and description of that witness that were contained in the Response and Reply. Those two references are highlighted on the attached exhibits. + +Those two references were derived from a document that the government marked "Confidential." The Court previously upheld the government's requested redaction of that individual's name from its Omnibus Response to Ms. Maxwell's Pretrial Motions and its accompanying Exhibit 7 (Dkt. No. 204-7), an email between the government and. inter (ilia, + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 19, 2021 Page 2 Ms. McCawley of BSF. It is the privacy rights of this third-party witness release. that would be implicated by any public + +Because BSF does not know what materials have been exchanged in this criminal action or what has been designated confidential, BSF takes no position on whether the Defendant's proposed redactions are necessary. + +Respectfully submitted, + +11----eSLaura A. Menninger \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f390df5dcf7ca3f5901d7319b504c869f97c858 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/EFTA02831824.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1972, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.69, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831824" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97f648c9f7d02df52076b47d4e489dd544c7cbac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831824/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0be02394b4b3a07f8b2f7b62ea386d43e491d20b16dd5bd0797561d9f98155b5 +size 6274 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fe48478dbf74c1444d8e3e55566c8819e7bda2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.md @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +April 22, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and Laura A. MennInger + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com LMenninger@hmflaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Request for Adjournment of 120 or 180 Days for Trial on the Non-Perim Counts + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Order of April 20, 2012, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell move for a continuance of the trial of the non-perjury counts for the reasons set forth below. The S2 indictment tripled the scope of the time frame at issue and expanded both the scope and type of conduct on trial, necessitating a re-review of millions of pages of discovery (most of which is not OCR or search capable), multiplying the type of experts needed for trial, and altering the COVID-challenging worldwide investigation to a new set of hundreds of witnesses. Layered onto this complexity, Ms. Maxwell still has not been provided an opportunity to review the entire set of discovery provided last November because the government-provided laptop and harddrives are missing critical data and software; even her counsel is unable to access significant portions of the "old" discovery. Nor has Ms. Maxwell been afforded any opportunity to review the "new" 20,000-plus pages of, essentially, Brady material produced last week by the government related to 225 non-testifying witnesses. A continuance under these circumstances is a necessity for a fair trial on charges amounting to a potential life sentence. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 2 + +Due to trial commitments that follow the July 12th trial date, counsel for Ms. Maxwell propose January 10, 2022 as the earliest firm trial date. However, we would be prepared, and would prefer, to begin trial on November 8, 2021, if the trial of scheduled to begin on October 4, 2021 before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, were postponed.' We respectfully request that Your Honor confer with Judge Furman to determine whether such an accommodation is possible. + +#### 1. Particularized facts supporting a continuance. + +#### A. Conflicting Trial Schedules + +The government originally estimated that a trial of the S I indictment would last two weeks. Ms. Maxwell reluctantly agreed to set the trial out for a full year — despite the Court's order of detention -- to ensure that she and her counsel would have sufficient time to analyze the government's case and prepare for a defense. The case was scheduled to begin July 12, 2021 and continue for two weeks. + +Following the return of the S2 indictment, the government now estimates that "its casein-chief will take up to three weeks," and thus "propose[s] reserving four weeks for trial in this matter." Dkt. 199 at 4. The government did not, apparently, take into account (a) the amount of time that will be required to empanel a jury in this high-publicity case, nor (b) account for the defense to have ample time to put on its own case. Simply put, defense counsel believe that a three-week government case means a total trial length of 5-6 weeks, allowing Ms. Maxwell + +Both Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. and AUSA Lara Pomerantz are counsel in a threedefendant case. The government estimates the trial will last 8 weeks. The defense believes it may take longer because all defendants and many witnesses do not speak English. Like the present case, the case is subject to COVID protocols which could affect the trial date. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 3 + +ample opportunity to put on a defense case and any rebuttal. The July 12 date (even assuming that is actually the date that the COVID-protocol allows for a start) no longer works. + +Defense counsel Jeffrey Pagliuca has a jury trial scheduled to begin on August 17, 2021. It was scheduled to accommodate the 2-week July 12 trial of Ms. Maxwell. is an alleged felony theft from the elderly scheduled to begin on August 17, 2021. This is a matter that has been continued a number of times for various reasons related to prior defense counsel of record. Mr. Pagliuca is only trial counsel. It is likely that should Ms. Maxwell's July 12 trial be delayed for a week or last longer than the original two weeks predicted by the government, counsel would be unavailable for trial. + +Further, Mr. Pagliuca together with defense counsel Laura Menninger, who have served as counsel for Ms. Maxwell since 2015, have two scheduled trials that preclude a request for less than a 120-day adjournment here. These trials also were scheduled specifically to accommodate the July 12 Maxwell trial schedule. + +- is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a Denver Police Department sergeant and the City and County of Denver. The events in question occurred in 2013, counsel has represented , the case has been twice appealed to the 10th Circuit by defendants, and the trial has been re-scheduled twice due to COVID protocols in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. See Dkt. Nos. 218, + - 231. The trial is scheduled to commence on September 13, 2021 and last until September 29, 2021. The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 25, 2021. +- is a homicide trial that was filed in 2018. The defendant is charged with first degree murder after deliberation which, under Colorado law, carries one penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole. This case also has been the subject of a Colorado Supreme Court interlocutory appeal and has twice been re-scheduled due to COVID protocols and the unavailability of a material witness due to COVID. trial was + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 4 + +last continued February 4, 2021 because of COVID trial issues. The Court offered July 12, 2021 as a potential trial date. Counsel resisted this date because of Ms. Maxwell's scheduled trial. trial is scheduled to begin October I, 2021 and continue until October 22, 2021. + +Based on comments made by the Courts in the cases, and given the protracted nature of the litigations, it is highly unlikely that either case will resolve, nor that they will be continued to a later date. has been pending trial for over three years. case has been pending for more than six years. + +Defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim and AUSA Lara Pomerantz are scheduled to begin the trial of on October 4, 2021. The trial involves three defendants, two of whom are currently serving federal sentence, six charged and two dozen uncharged murders. The government has estimated 6-8 weeks of trial, but because the trial is subject to special protocols for jury selection during COVID, and the defendants and most of the witnesses are Spanish speakers and require the assistance of interpreters, counsel believes that the trial may extend beyond eight (8) weeks and, if not moved, could extend until January 2022. All defense counsel but one in are amenable to a postponement; the remaining cocounsel cannot commit due to a late January trial date also before Judge Furman, which may resolve pre-trial. If Judge Furman is amenable to pushing the October 4 trial to follow this trial, Ms. Maxwell's trial could begin November 8, 2021. + +## B. Comparison of the Si and S2 Indictments + +With the S2 indictment, the government significantly expanded the scope of this prosecution. The original indictment, and the first superseding indictment, charged a four-year conspiracy with two alleged co-conspirators. The second superseding indictment adds seven years to the scope of the alleged conspiracy. This is a material change that, standing alone, + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 5 + +would mandate a continuance. Ms. Maxwell must now: search various records (to the extent they are available) and track down numerous witnesses to determine her locations and activities during this expanded period. She must also identify employees who worked for Mr. Epstein during this time period to determine the scope of their knowledge about the allegations. These are time consuming and difficult tasks and Ms. Maxwell respectfully submits that denial of a continuance under these circumstances would constitute an abuse of discretion. + +In United States v.M, 754 F.2d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1985), the Second Circuit reversed the defendant's conspiracy conviction, noting that: + +W e cannot agree with the government's contentions that the changes in superseding indictment were insubstantial and that was therefore not prejudiced because forced to proceed immediately to trial on the conspiracy count. Even though the same evidence may have been presented to prove the existence of a two-year conspiracy as would have been used on the indictment charging a conspiracy of only two days, it cannot be disputed that in the proper preparation of a defense to the charge of a two-year conspiracy, counsel was required to review a far longer period of activity with his client. + +By focusing on the prosecution's case and the fact that the evidence introduced at trial on the superseding indictment was the same as that which the government had expected to use at the first trial, the district court neglected to take into account the impact that the second indictment might have had on defense theories of the case, and the resultant need for a more extended preparation. counsel had specifically indicated to Judge that he needed more time to obtain proof that was not in the country until after the enlarged conspiracy period began. Regardless of the government's representation that it would offer no new evidence at the second trial, was entitled to the opportunity to pursue this new line of defense, which would not have been available to him under the original indictment. The district court abused its discretion in not granting defendant a reasonable continuance to re are his defense to the charge of participation in a two-year conspiracy. conviction on the conspiracy count is, accordingly, reversed. + +Id. In the case, the conspiracy was expanded from two days to two years, and the Second Circuit found that the refusal to grant a continuance was an abuse of discretion. By contrast, the denial of a continuance may be upheld in cases where the changes to the indictment + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 6 + +are minimal. See United States v. Contreras, 474 U.S. 231, 234 (1985) (no prejudice to superseding indictment which changed the date of offense by ten days); United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2013) (not an abuse of discretion to deny continuance for a superseding indictment that extended the conspiracy range by one month). + +In this case, the changes to the indictment were anything but minimal. The conspiracy was expanded from four years (without any specific actual dates within that range) to eleven years (again, without any specificity), an additional seven years, and two new counts were added. These were significant and substantial changes that require a continuance. The need to research Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts during a full eleven year period, not to mention comb the millions of pages of discovery including travel records, phone records, bank records, photographs, diaries, message pads, credit card records, and countless other records for the eleven-year versus four year period, will take hundreds, if not thousands, of attorney and staff hours. + +## C. The new, and old, discovery require review (and re-review) and analysis. + +The government, on April 13, 2021, produced more than 20,000 pages of "new" discovery. Although the government represented that this production is related to "non-testifying witnesses," it is more accurately described as exculpatory Brady material. Notably, the government has possessed most of this information for years (in some cases, more than a decade) and has resisted disclosure until after the filing of the second superseding indictment and on the eve of trial s Many of the reports recently produced stem from the years 2006-2008. + +2 Consistent with the updated Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), this Court on November 5, 2020, ordered that "The Government shall disclose [Brady] information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case. See Dkt. 68 (emphasis supplied). The Government has not explained why key witnesses statements, made to the government in 2019 and 2020, that Ms. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 7 + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell, immediately upon receipt, began reviewing the material which consists of various statements, transcripts, interviews, and background information related to 225 individuals who live in different parts of the United States and the world. Generally, the witnesses fall into several categories: alleged Epstein victims, former Epstein employees, potential targets of the Epstein investigation, or percipient witnesses. There are two good reasons that these witnesses will not be government trial witnesses: they say things that help Ms. + +# Maxwell or are patently unbelievable. + +This review is just begun, ongoing, and not nearly finished. Although the government "produced" the materials to defense counsel on April 13, 2021, as of today's date, Ms. Maxwell still has not yet received this discovery and has not been able to review it personally and with her counsel. The government has represented that it sent a CD with the materials to the MDC the same it was produced to defense counsel. Defense counsel also delivered a hard drive to the government on April 13, 2021 to load the materials so that Ms. Maxwell could review the materials on the laptop, which does not have a CD drive. Ms. Maxwell has received neither. The government claimed that the hard-drive took several days to load, and that it currently is somewhere in the mailroom at MDC. With less than 90 days before trial, the inability for Ms. Maxwell to review more than 20,000 pages of largely exculpatory material presents a significant impediment to her trial preparation. + +Defense counsel anticipate that simply reading the material and discussing it with Ms. Maxwell (who still does not have the information) will take will take weeks. Ms. Maxwell's lack of access to the information (actual and logistical) combined with the age of the allegations and + +Maxwell lacked knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, were only produced to her counsel (and not her) on April 13, 2021. As the Brady order specifies, continuance is a remedy. + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 8 + +the dispersed locations of the witnesses are formidable challenges, even without the difficulties imposed on travel by COVID. + +Defense counsel are reviewing the 20,000 pages of information relating to 225 potential witnesses and, simultaneously, attempting to locate the various potential witnesses to conduct defense interviews. Defense interviews are necessary because of the government's continued refusal to affirmatively investigate exculpatory evidence. Of the 302s reviewed by defense counsel a pervasive tactic has emerged: as soon as the witness begins to provide information helpful to the defense the interview is terminated by the government. Had the government asked logical follow-up questions defense interviews might not be necessary. + +The government has had years to investigate these allegations (dating decades ago, from 1994-2004) using the enormous resources at its disposal, including multiple grand juries, scores of agents, and teams of prosecutors. It is unreasonable to expect that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can conduct a COVID-burdened review of 20,000 pages of interviews with 225 potential witnesses while preparing for a trial less than 90 days away. + +# D. The new charges require additional defense investigation and preparation. + +Dozens of the statements produced support Ms. Maxwell's defense and will require further defense investigation. Defense investigation is a key component to providing effective assistance of counsel and the duty of counsel to diligently carry out this task is well established. "Defense counsel [have] a duty to investigate in all cases, and to determine whether there is a sufficient factual basis for criminal charges." ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS FOR THE DEFENSE FUNCTION STANDARD 4-4.1, Duty to Investigate and Engage Investigators (4th Ed. 2017). In carrying out this important defense function: + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 9 + +Defense counsel's investigative efforts should commence promptly and should explore appropriate avenues that reasonably might lead to information relevant to the merits of the matter, consequences of the criminal proceedings, and potential dispositions and penalties. Although investigation will vary depending on the circumstances, it should always be shaped by what is in the client's best interests, after consultation with the client. Defense counsel's investigation of the merits of the criminal charges should include efforts to secure relevant information in the possession of the prosecution, law enforcement authorities, and others, as well as independent investigation. Counsel's investigation should also include evaluation of the prosecution's evidence (including possible re-testing or re-evaluation of physical, forensic, and expert evidence) and consideration of inconsistencies, potential avenues of impeachment of prosecution witnesses, and other possible suspects and alternative theories that the evidence may raise. + +Id. at (c). + +Most significantly, because the government expressly represented in their prior communications to the Court and to counsel that they would not be seeking to introduce evidence from the 2000s (apart from the perjury counts), counsel for Ms. Maxwell has already undertaken a review of the discovery focused on the 1990s and the allegations in the SI indictment. Now that the government has completely abandoned that position and extended the conspiracy to include a time frame up to 2004, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel must re-review the discovery she has already painstakingly reviewed to comb for evidence related to the new time period. + +#### E. Continuing problems with the government's evidence production require additional time + +In addition to the "new" 20,000 pages of exculpatory evidence not yet provided to Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel and Ms. Maxwell have encountered significant obstacles in the review of the discovery produced prior to April 13th. The production made to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC contains hundreds or thousands of missing =numbers. Moreover, because the time period of the 2000s is now relevant to the trial, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel must now carefully review + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 10 + +voluminous photographs from this time period that are in the discovery. The metadata associated with thousands of these photographs that were produced to counsel (but missing from Ms. Maxwell's production) were stripped and included in Excel spreadsheets. One of the Excel spreadsheets is not functioning, and the government has been asked to provide a replacement. The two functioning Excel spreadsheets contain the file names, not the IM -stamps, of the associated photographs, so there is no way to match the photographs with its metadata. The Excel spreadsheets contains both photographs that were produced to counsel and also photographs that were not produced, without identifying which is which. Moreover, the government did not indicate on the file names or the spreadsheets which photographs it considered "Highly Confidential" under the case's protective order. + +Beginning on April 13, 2021, Ms. Maxwell and one or more of her lawyers undertook an evidence review in the courthouse in conjunction with the prosecution and FBI. Under the terms of the protective order, defense counsel are not allowed to possess "highly confidential material." The 4 days set aside to review this material was insufficient. The government placed approximately 5,000 images it contends are Highly Confidential on two hard drives. When defense counsel first attempted to view the images, the one laptop designated for the task by the government was insufficient either because of the laptop or the software on the laptop. On Thursday, April 15, a functioning computer was provided to defense counsel. A review of the images revealed no good reason why the hard drives, which do not appear to contain prohibited visual depictions restricted by18 U.S. § 2256, cannot be copied and provided to defense counsel. The sheer number of images make it impossible for any effective review to take place in a government office with various proctors. Should defense counsel need to analyze the metadata, + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 11 + +to evaluate the photographs for admissibility purposes, or even to decide which photographs she will want to introduce in her own defense, she will otherwise need to make an appointment to view these materials at a government office. + +Further, after the government discloses its testifying witness list, counsel will have to comb through the thousands of photos once again to determine which photographs she needs to use for impeachment purposes or for affirmative defense evidence. And, again, the images contain metadata that defense counsel must forensically analyze. Because defense counsel do not even have all of the images, this investigation cannot be accomplished in advance of the July 12, 2021 trial. + +### F. The new charges and discovery require the assistance of defense experts + +In addition to locating, investigating, and perhaps interviewing a significant number of potential witnesses, counsel also anticipate that the defense may require the specialized knowledge of expert witnesses to analyze evidence that is now potentially relevant due to the expanded time frame of the allegations. Ms. Maxwell anticipates that the "highly confidential hard drives" will need to be forensically examined by a computer specialist to determine actual file creation dates, any alterations, and the original location of the data. Although the government has not identified any trial exhibits, it seems probable that the services of various forensic examiners may be necessary to analyze the exhibits. + +Ms. Maxwell will also need to receive and review the 20,000 pages of "new" material to provide that information to potential defense experts for consideration. None of this can happen in time to make appropriate disclosures in advance of trial. See United States v. No. S 91 CR. 724 (CSH), 1991 WL 248784 at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 1991) (granting a continuance for + +April 22, 2021 + +Page 12 + +the defendant to consult with a contrary expert regarding the newly added count regarding a gun silencer which added a new "draconian punishment"). + +### G. Motions + +Ms. Maxwell anticipates that the Court will need to resolve various discovery disputes relating to the problems identified supra. In addition, Ms. Maxwell needs additional time to supplement her previously filed motions and file additional F. R. Crim. P 12 motions relating to the second superseding indictment. After reviewing the "new" discovery, Ms. Maxwell anticipates that she will file motions in limine related to the government's alleged FRE 404(6) evidence and the government's proposed exhibits, FRE 702 challenges to purported expert testimony, and motions concerning jury selection and change of venue. In addition, expert disclosure may necessitate a Dauber[ hearing. + +Because Ms. Maxwell has not yet had sufficient time to review and investigate the "new" discovery and has had insufficient access to existing discovery she is unable to predict precisely what additional evidentiary motions will be required. The late-filed superseding indictment along with the late disclosure of Brady material and failure to provide the discovery to Ms. Maxwell have delayed defense trial preparation and will continue to interfere with various tasks that would normally be in process at this stage of the proceedings. Simply stated, Ms. Maxwell's counsel cannot perform all of the necessary tasks in the time remaining before July 12, 2021. + +## H. Requested Relief + +In Uni►ed **States r. M -Contreras, 474** U.S. 231 (1985), Justice Blackmun, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice recognized the need for a continuance when a superseding indictment adds significant changes. + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 22, 2021 Page 13 Like the Court, I fully recognize that a superseding indictment may add to a defendant's burden in preparing for trial. In the event of additional charges, or of material changes, a defendant well may need additional preparation time. Under the Act, a defendant then may seek an "ends of justice" continuance, to be granted in the discretion of the trial court. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(A). This continuance is available whether the need for additional time is occasioned by a superseding indictment or otherwise. Indeed, the 1979 amendments to the Speedy Trial Act not only mandated the 30-day defense-preparation period, but also provided that one basis for granting a continuance is if "the failure to grant such a continuance ... would deny counsel for the defendant ... the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation." 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The constitutional right to assistance of counsel is rendered meaningless if a defendant is forced to trial in the absence of adequate time to prepare. To avoid prejudicing a defendant, a continuance should be granted where there is a meaningful possibility that a superseding indictment will require an alteration or adjustment in the planned defense. Trial courts should bear in mind that counsel may require time fully to analyze the impact of the superseding indictment, and to explore any options it presents or precludes. + +Id. at 240-41. + +Based on the foregoing and consistent with the holding in United States v. + +Maxwell hereby specifically requests a 120-day continuance of her trial to November 8, 2021, + +contingent upon the re-scheduling of the trial before Judge Furman. In the alternative, she + +requests a 180-day continuance to January 10, 2022. + +Respectfully submitted, + +CC: Counsel of Record + +Laura A. Menninger \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1191437871baf0da3b596fe8616eadcb1547d117 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/EFTA02831826.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,755 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 13, + "chars": 26193, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "1. Particularized facts supporting a continuance.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 347.9736328125, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 347.9736328125, + 280.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 280.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Conflicting Trial Schedules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 272.95947265625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 272.95947265625, + 306.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 306.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Comparison of the Si and S2 Indictments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 346.6494140625, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 346.6494140625, + 596.3035125732422 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 596.3035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The new, and old, discovery require review (and re-review) and analysis.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 505.3516845703125, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 505.3516845703125, + 446.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 446.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Maxwell or are patently unbelievable.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 269.15716552734375, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 269.15716552734375, + 280.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 280.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The new charges require additional defense investigation and preparation.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 514.648681640625, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 514.648681640625, + 501.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 501.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Continuing problems with the government's evidence production require \nadditional time", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 507.2753601074219, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 507.2753601074219, + 568.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 568.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The new charges and discovery require the assistance of defense experts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 500.6801452636719, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 500.6801452636719, + 363.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 363.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Motions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 175.07830810546875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 175.07830810546875, + 170.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 170.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Requested Relief", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 197.04458618164062, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 197.04458618164062, + 610.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 610.1030120849609 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831826" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0ada58e933dc52e3435b81670ea444fc32b6a63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831826/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6fa7790a7672d0b81f4f158c5ac358486c35be29bc202262d273c05eb94b34e8 +size 6338 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..448a0e26076a3d2c218e9eabeb3a5d3c492aa4a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smccawley@bsfilp.com + +April 5, 2021 + +## VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL1 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") in further support of its objections to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for an order authorizing a subpoena to BSF pursuant to Rule I7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (the "Subpoena"),I As the Defendant's response makes clear, she seeks to serve a Rule 17 subpoena on BSF because she is dissatisfied with the Government's discovery efforts thus far. Thus, she is using Rule 17 to attempt to obtain discovery that she has been unable to obtain from the Government under Rule 16 and Brady, including discovery that is subject to a pending motion before the Court. This is an improper use of a Rule 17 subpoena. If the Defendant believes that the Government has not fulfilled its discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, she must address that issue with the Government and the Court rather than serving overbroad and burdensome subpoenas on third parties. And if the Defendant is not entitled to the discovery she seeks from the Government, then + +The Defendant refers to BSF's objections as a "motion to quash," but the Court has not yet granted Defendant's motion to authorize the Subpoena to BSF. BSF thus requests that the Defendant's motion to authorize the Subpoena be denied. + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 2 of 17 + +she may not use Rule 17 to circumvent Rule 16. For this reason and the additional reasons explained below, the Court should deny the Defendant's motion to authorize the Subpoena to BSF. + +#### 1. Requests 1-5: Communications About the Defendant and + +#### A. The Requests Are Not Specific. + +The Defendant has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that Requests I through 5 for a broad range of communications between BSF and others about the Defendant and —clear Nixon's hurdles of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974). As to specificity, Maxwell first argues that Requests 1 through 5 are sufficiently specific because they "are specific as to date and limited by the identified individuals and subject matter." Resp. Ltr. at 2. But the specificity hurdle requires more. "In order to avoid speculation that the moving party is using Rule 17(c) to circumvent normal discovery requirements, the party's Rule 17(c) subpoena must be able to reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought rather than merely hope that something useful will turn up." United States v. Mendinueta-Iloarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "[r]equests for any and all communications, even if tied to specific documents and topics, are potentially 'fishing expeditions' for unspecified materials and insufficiently specific under United States v. Nixon." United States v. Bergstein, No. I 6-CR-746 (PKC), 2018 WL 9539775, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2018). + +The Defendant's broad requests for all of BSF's communications with certain individuals and entities about general topics over a years-long time period do not meet the specificity requirement, just like numerous of the defendant's requests in Avenatti failed the specificity requirement. For example, Judge Gardephe held that Mr. Avenatti's "request for all audio recordings (and transcripts thereof) (1) involving [eight designated individuals]; (2) that contain a + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 3 of 17 + +discussion of corruption in amateur basketball; and (3) that took place within a thirty-nine month period" failed the specificity requirement, even though the request was limited by time, subject matter, and identified individuals. United Slates v. Avenatti, No. (S I) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) (holding that request "reads like a request under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" and that "[b]lanket requests of this sort violate the specificity requirement set forth in Nixon"). Judge Gardephe similarly held that Mr. Avenatti's request for "email and text message communications between Franklin and Auerbach that (1) mention Avenatti, and (2) were transmitted after Avenatti's March 25, 2019 arrest" failed Nixon's specificity requirement, even though that request was also limited by time, subject matter, and identified individuals. United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). Thus, there mere fact that the Defendant's requests here are tethered to a broad time period of five years and broad subject matters (the Defendant and , for example) cannot save her Requests? + +The Defendant attempts to distinguish these Requests from those that courts have characterized as improper "any and all" requests by pointing to the fact that the Requests do not literally contain the words "any" or "all." Resp. Ltr. at 3. But this does not change the fact that + +2 See also, e.g., Bergstein, 2018 WL 9539775, at \*I (finding that requests seeking "all communications between Pannar and Bergstein, Albert Hallac, Jeffrey Hallac, or Keith Wellner related to the negotiations of, documentation of, and performance or non-performance under three agreements governing the acquisition of the medical billing business described in the indictment" and "all communications between Pannar and any of the same four individuals related to payments, reimbursement, advances, or loans for Parmar's direct or indirect benefit in connection with the same agreements" failed Nixon's specificity requirement); United States v. Seabrook, No. I 6-CR-467, 2017 WL 4838311, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017) ("Cooley Request 2 is quashed on specificity and admissibility grounds. Cooley Request 2 seeks documents concerning or comprising communications between Cooley and the Government relating to any of the allegations in the Indictment."). + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 4 of 17 + +the Requests themselves ask for "communications" between BSF and a designated party about a general topic over a five-year period, and then define communications as "all forms of correspondence." Request 2, for example, is for "Communications between You and the United States Attorney between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about " defming "communications" as "all forms of correspondence"; defining "BSF" as "any owner, shareholder, partner or employee of BSF; and defining "the United States Attorney" as "any employee of the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York." This Request cannot be read as anything but "all communications in any form between anyone who has ever worked at BSF in any capacity and anyone who has ever worked at the S.D.N.Y. United States Attorney's office in any capacity between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about-." Thus, due to their expansive definitions, the Defendant's requests are even broader than those that Judge Gardephe rejected in Avenatti, which were limited to identified individuals; Requests I through 5 of the subpoena thus fail Nixon's specificity requirement. + +3The Defendant contends that Requests 1 through 5 are similar to those approved by the court in United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Resp. Ltr. at 6. But in Wey, the court originally denied the defendant's motion for the issuance of a Rule 17 subpoena because it requested: "All emails and records related to the listing applications and approvals for [SmartHeat], [Deer], and [CleanTech), including in particular, any communications regarding, or interpretation or application of, the 300 round-lot shareholder requirement." Id. at 243. The court found that the defendant "had not identified the documents sought with the requisite specificity and had failed to make the necessary showing that all requested documents would be admissible at trial," but granted the defendant leave to renew is motion and show that Rule 17's requirements were met. Id. The defendant then submitted a new set of requests that, unlike the Requests at issue here, limited the request to communications between a certain, specified set of individuals and narrow time periods of approximately a year or less. Id. The defendant's renewed motion also, unlike the Defendant's response here, "set forth anticipated bases for admission of the documents at trial through several specific exceptions to the hearsay rule." Id. Thus, the court granted the renewed motion. Id. + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 5 of 17 + +The Defendant argues that Requests 1 through 5 are not a fishing expedition merely because the government has admitted "that there were, in fact meetings and communications between these individuals and the USAO-SDNY about Ms. Maxwell and " and because logged a number of communications on a privilege log in 2016. Resp. Ltr. at 2, 3. This does not get the Requests over Nixon's hurdles—the Defendant is still attempting to fish through BSF's communications in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up, without setting forth the relevance and admissibility as to each document she seeks. Further the privilege log does not, as the Defendant insinuates, reference communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney as defined in the Subpoena, as the log references only an unspecified "law enforcement agency." Id. at 4. + +# B. The Defendant Has Not Demonstrated Relevance and Admissibility. + +The Court's analysis does not stop at specificity—Requests I through 5 independently fail because the Defendant has not demonstrated that all of the communications she seeks are relevant and admissible. The Defendant's sole basis for contending that the wide array of communications she seeks are all relevant to her defense is that the communications are relevant to "two motions to suppress based on misrepresentations made by the government to Chief Judge McMahon and a motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial delay" because they "would establish the substance and frequency of the communications between BSF and the government prior to the government's end run around Martindell." Resp. Ltr. at 6-7. But the Defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating relevance and admissibility. + +First, because Rule 17's "purpose is trial-focused," a Rule 17(c) subpoena "may be used only to obtain materials admissible as evidence at trial." United States v. Louis, No. 04 Cr. 203 (LTS), 2005 WL 180885, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2005) (emphasis added); see also United States + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 6 of 17 + +v. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Rule 17(c) "was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases"; rather, "its chief innovation was to expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials" (emphasis added)). The Defendant has failed to explain how the communications sought in Requests 1 through 5 will be relevant and admissible at trial, and only points to three pending pre-trial motions. + +Second, although BSF cannot fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments as to the Defendant's two motions to suppress because it has not been provided unredacted versions of those motions and because it has not been provided a copy of the Defendant's ex pane motion,' one thing is clear—it is not conceivable that every communication the Defendant requests in Requests I through 5 would be relevant and admissible at an evidentiary hearing on her motions. A defendant must demonstrate that all of the evidence it seeks pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena would be relevant and admissible, not just that the defendant is likely to find something relevant and admissible in the nonparty's production. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) ("Pena has failed to make the requisite showing regarding the admissibility of `any and all' other records regarding the cooperators that might exist at the MDC, MCC, or DOC."). + +For example, it is entirely unclear how communications regarding would be relevant to any of the Defendant's pretrial motions; her two motions to suppress relate to evidence obtained by the Government by means of a grand jury subpoena to what appears to be + +If the Court is inclined to grant the Defendants' motion as to Requests I through 5, BSF requests that it first be provided with an opportunity to fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments after being provided with unredacted versions of the two pretrial motions that the Defendant cites in her response and a copy of her ex pane motion, in which she presumably attempts to explain the relevance of her Requests in a more fulsome way than her barebones response letter. + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 7 of 17 + +BSF, and her motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay is based on the time that has passed between the time at which the Government first learned of the allegations against the Defendant and the Defendant's indictment. ECF No. 134, 138, 140. The public versions of those filings do not mention at all. Even the relevance of all communications between BSF and the Government relating to the Defendant herself is dubious as it relates to these three motions. At base, it is not BSF's burden to "to cull the good from the bad" among its communications about the Defendant and to determine what would relevant at trial or at an evidentiary hearing. See Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951). + +Third, the Defendant has not even attempted to demonstrate that all of the evidence she seeks would be admissible. Although the lack of specificity in Requests 1 through 5 makes it impossible to meaningfully debate the admissibility of each piece of evidence she seeks, certainly many of the communications requested will constitute inadmissible hearsay. This is precisely the purpose of Nixon's specificity requirement—to ensure that Rule 17 subpoenas are narrowly tailored to obtain only relevant and admissible evidence, not to obtain discovery in the hopes that something relevant and admissible might turn up, and to allow the recipient to lodge relevance and admissibility objections as to the precise documents being requested. See Avenatti, 2020 WL 508682, at •4 ("While the specificity requirement is intended to provide the subpoenaed party or other party having standing with enough knowledge about what documents are being requested so as to lodge any objections on relevancy or admissibility, this requirement also ensures that a Rule 17(c) subpoena will not be used as a fishing expedition to see what may turn up." (internal quotation marks omitted)). + +The Defendant's criticism of BSF for not meeting its "burden of justifying the application of the work product doctrine" is also due only to the Defendant's overbroad and nonspecific + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 8 of 17 + +Requests themselves. Resp. Ltr. at 7. In Requests 3 through 5, the Defendant seeks all communications between BSF and its co-counsel in a civil litigation against Maxwell ( v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-LAP) "between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about any meeting with the United States Attorney concerning Ghislaine Maxwell or-." Certainly, some of these communications, if they exist, may fall under the work product umbrella if they were internal discussions with co-counsel. Moreover, BSF and its co-counsel have a common interest protection in their communications. The Defendant's overbroad Requests make it impossible for BSF to determine how many responsive communications would be protected and why. Again, it is the Defendant's burden to demonstrate that all of the communications she seeks would be relevant and admissible, and it is not BSF's burden to review broad swaths of material to determine what the Defendant is entitled to under Rule 17. + +### C. Communications Between BSF and the Government Are Procurable from the Government. + +Even if Requests 1 through 5 could overcome Nixon's three hurdles, however, Requests 1 and 2 would still fail to the extent that they ask for communications with the Government, which the Defendant can procure from the Government. The Defendant admits that the Government has the communications she is seeking, but complains that the Government "has failed to produce, or even look for these communications and Ms. Maxwell has no other means to obtain them." Resp. Ltr. at 8. In fact, this dispute is currently pending before the Court—the Defendant filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures in which she seeks an order compelling the Government to disclose the very communications with BSF she seeks in the Subpoena and to immediately disclose all Brady and Giglio materials. ECF Nos. 148, 148-5 (motion requesting documents relating to the Defendant's two motions to suppress evidence obtained from what + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 9 of 17 + +appears to be BSF, including all communications between the Government and BSF attorneys David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, and Peter Skinner, and requesting immediate disclosure of Brady and Giglio materials). + +The Defendant cannot use Rule 17 to circumvent resolution of an outstanding discovery dispute with the Government, especially when that dispute is currently pending before the Court. If the Defendant is entitled to the communications with the Government she requests in Requests I and 2 pursuant to Rule 16, then presumably the Court will order the Government to produce them and she may not use Rule 17 to obtain them from a nonparty instead. See, e.g., Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699 (documents requested pursuant to Rule 17(c) must not be "otherwise procurable" from another source); United States v. M, No. 19 CR. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (explaining that "Rule 17(c) is not the proper method for obtaining" materials that the Government has an obligation to disclose under the Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio). If the Defendant is not entitled to obtain the communications she seeks from the Government under Rule 16, then they are not discoverable under Rule 17 from a nonparty. See United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) ("Defendants may not seek material under Rule 17 that they are prohibited from obtaining under Rule 16."); United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04 CR 186 SCR, 2008 WL 9359654, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) ("[I]f the item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17."); United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("Courts must be careful that Rule 17(c) is not turned into a broad discovery device, thereby undercutting the strict limitation of discovery in criminal cases found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16."). Either way, if the Government has the communications that the Defendant seeks and if she is legally entitled to them, she must get them from the Government. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 5, 2021 Page 10 of 17 + +#### H. Requests 6 and 7: Engagement Letters + +The Defendant provides no explanation at all as to how engagement agreements between BSF and would be relevant and admissible at trial, and thus cannot clear the Nixon hurdles. She states in a conclusory manner that "[t]he scope and dates of these engagements are relevant to Ms. Maxwell's pending motions" and that "these agreements are exculpatory evidence." Resp. Ltr. at 8. But it is entirely unclear how the fact that the Farmers are represented by BSF and the dates of the engagement letter could possibly be exculpatory, and the Defendant does not attempt to explain that proposition. + +Nor are the engagement letters relevant to any of the Defendant's pretrial motions. The Defendant's motions to suppress appear to be based on a theory that the Government improperly obtained evidence from BSF while it was representing (not the Farmers) in v. Maxwell. ECF Nos. 134, 140. The only relevance of Annie Farmer to the Defendant's motion for dismissal based on pre-indictment delay appears to be based on Maxwell's statement that was interviewed by the FBI in 2006. ECF No. 138 at 2. But the Defendant has not explained how an engagement letter between and BSF is of any consequence to her theory. The Defendant also points out in her motion for dismissal based on pre-indictment delay that may have cooperated with the Government in the criminal investigation of her abuser—an unremarkable proposition. Id. at 18. Not only is it unclear how this theory supports the Defendant's arguments about pre-indictment delay, but the Defendant again has not explained how an engagement letter with BSF is relevant to this theory. + +As to she is only relevant to the motion for dismissal based on pre-indictment delay insofar as the Defendant argues that the Government knew about the allegations against the Defendant when reported them to the NYPD years ago. ECF + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 11 of 17 + +No. 138 at 2 n.2. Again, however, the Defendant does not explain why engagement letter with BSF is relevant to support this proposition or is otherwise relevant to the motion. The Defendant's conclusory arguments that the engagement letters between BSF and the Farmers are relevant to something other impeachment are unpersuasive and demonstrate that she cannot clear Nixon's relevance hurdle as to Requests 6 and 7. + +# III. Request 8: Grand Jury Subpoena to BSF + +Request 8 fails for the same reason that Requests 1 and 2 fail. If the Defendant is entitled to this information, then she must obtain it from the Government. And if she is not entitled to this information, she cannot use Rule 17 to circumvent Rule 16's limitations. See supra Part I.C. + +# IV. Request 9: Journals + +As to the Defendant's request for an original copy of entire journal from when she was a teenager, the Defendant contends that the journal is exculpatory because the relevant passages do not mention the Defendant—but this is information that she already has, and she does not explain why she needs the entire journal prior to trial if she already has the allegedly exculpatory information in the journal. The Defendant already has copies of all of the relevant pages of the journal. She does not explain why she needs to inspect the entire journal "to establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoliation has occurred." Resp. Ltr. at 9. This purported need to inspect the journal for authenticity would carry more weight if the journal was inculpatory, and thus she sought to examine the authenticity of the pages containing allegations against her, but she contends it is instead exculpatory. If the Defendant seriously contends that the journal is relevant because it is exculpatory, and that it is exculpatory because + +BSF also points the Court to the objections that has herself posed in response to the Defendant's ro sed Rule 17 subpoena to her, in which the Defendant requests the same journal from + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 12 of 17 + +the relevant pages do not mention her, she needs no more than the relevant pages that she already has. + +It is thus clear that the Defendant's purported need for the entire, original journal is not based on the allegedly exculpatory information that it contains (because she already has that information). Rather, the Defendant seeks the entire journal so that she can fish for other passages that she can use to attempt to impeach credibility. Such a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material goes beyond the permissible bounds of a Rule 17 subpoena. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 ("Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial."). And if the Defendant does not seek the remainder of the journal passages for impeachment, she does not explain how they would otherwise be relevant and admissible at trial. The Court should not require production of the entire journal—which contains personal, private information about when she was a minor—if Defendant is unable to demonstrate that the overbroad Request meets the relevance and admissibility requirements and if it will yield no material evidence.\* + +6 Even in civil cases, where much broader discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than under Rule I 7(c), courts have refused to order disclosure of an entire diary or journal when the journal contains personal or sensitive entries and the party seeking disclosure cannot demonstrate that anything relevant has been withheld. See, e.g., Dubay v. No. 3:17- CV-3484-20MCR, 2018 WL 3619636, at \*I (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2018) ("Plaintiff failed to show how the production of Mr. private journal entries—containing information about Mr. private life and daily musings—relate to the subject matter of the claims in this lawsuit."); Combe v. Cinemark USA, Inc., No. I :08-CV-00142-TS-DN, 2009 WL 2578853, at \*2 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2009) ("Without any limit on relevancy, the entire journal is not discoverable. A plaintiff does not expose her entire private life to adverse scrutiny by filing suit."); Quiroz v. Harigrove Hosp., No. 97 C 6515, 1998 WL 341812, at \*1-2 (N.D. III. June 12, 1998) (plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit was only required to turn over portions of her diary that pertained to her claim); Ayala v. Tapia, CIV. A. 90-1345(RCL), 1991 WL 241873, at \*2 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 1991) (denying motion to compel all personal diary entries because "most of the material demanded will be irrelevant to this case, but of intimate importance to the plaintiff'); Carolan v. New York Telephone Co., No. 83 + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 13 of 17 + +### V. Requests 10 and 11: Boots and Photographs + +As to Requests 10 and II, for boots that Epstein and the Defendant purchased for and various photographs, the Defendant complains that "the government has scrupulously avoided actually obtaining" this evidence. Resp. Ltr. at 11. But, as explained above, Rule 17 is not a tool that can be used to circumvent discovery disputes with the Government. BSF is a private entity with no Brady or other constitutional obligations to the Defendant, and a subpoena to BSF cannot be used to replace discovery appropriately aimed at the Government under Rule 16 or to avoid resolving discovery disputes with the Government. + +In any event, the photographs are not "admittedly relevant" and the Defendant has not explained how they would be relevant and admissible as trial. Resp. Ltr. at 11. The photographs do not portray any event described in the indictment. Instead, the photographs depicted in Exhibit C to the Subpoena that the Defendant seeks are as follows: + +| Photographs of | prior to a high school dance, | +|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| +| produced in | v. Indyke et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF). | +| AFARMER00011339 Photograph of | , and their younger | +| sister, produced in | v. Indyke et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS | +| Photographs of | in Thailand, produced in v. | +| Photographs of | and a friend in high school, produced | +| in v. Indyke et at, 19-cv-I0475 (LGS-DCF). | | +| Photographs of | on Leslie Wexner's property in Ohio, | +| produced in | v. Ind ke et at, 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF). | +| Photographs that | provided to the FBI of Jeffery | +| v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-LAP and | v. Indyke et at, | + +Civ. 8308, 1984 WL 368, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 1984) (requiring the plaintiff to turn over the portions of her diary that pertained to her claims, but to withhold portions she deemed irrelevant). + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 14 of 17 + +The Defendant has not explained how any of the photographs are relevant to her defense and would "help in establishing her innocence" or why "the dates of creation" or "other specifics" about these photographs are relevant to her defense. Resp. Ltr. at I I. + +### VI. Request 12: EVCP Material + +## A. The Request is Not Specific. + +The Defendant does not even address the lack of specificity of her Request for "any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients." This Request on its face includes all claims that BSF has submitted on behalf of all of its clients, including all of the supporting documents (including sensitive medical and therapy records) that each client submitted with those claims. As BSF explained in its objections, the Defendant cannot merely request every piece of highly confidential information that BSF's clients submitted to the Program in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up. The Defendant offered to narrow this Request to EVCP Material submitted on behalf of victims who ultimately testify in this action. This "narrowing" does not change the improper nature of Request 12-e ven the narrower request would call for broad swaths of material that are both irrelevant to the charges against the Defendant and that are highly sensitive in nature. + +#### B. The Defendant Has Not Demonstrated Relevance. Other Than Potential Impeachment. + +Request 12 independently fails because the Defendant seeks the EVCP Material only for impeach purposes. The Defendant argues that the EVCP Material is not "mere impeachment material" because it is also "Brady material." Resp. Ltr. at 13. This argument does not make this Request proper under Rule 17. First, the Defendant does not explain how the EVCP Material is + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 15 of 17 + +exculpatory. Although BSF does not have the benefit of the er parte submission that the Defendant cites, she appears to contend that the EVCP Material will contradict the Government's theory as to the Defendant's motive for committing the crimes of which she has been indicted: procuring underage girls for Epstein. Resp. Ltr. at 13. But the Defendant does not explain how the EVCP Material—consisting of claims submitted by victims to an independent claims administration program, materials supporting those claims (such as medical and therapy records), and compensation determinations for those claims—could possibly contradict the Government's theory that she committed crimes with the motive of procuring young girls for Epstein.' + +Second, deeming the EVCP Material "Brady materials" does not render the Request appropriate under Rule 17, even if such a characterization were correct. Although the Government has a constitutional duty to produce Brady materials, BSF has no such obligation. Thus, even if the Requests in the Subpoena, including the Request for EVCP Material, might encompass some Brady materials, the Subpoena must still satisfy the Nixon requirements. See, e.g., Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d at 513 (rejecting the defendant's argument that under Rule 17 "the stringent requirements of Nixon do not apply when a defendant needs the requested information for a fair trial, especially if that material is required to be turned over under Brady or Giglio"); United States v. , No. 02 CR. 756 (LMM), 2006 WL 1993251, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2006) (explaining "that the materials may contain Giglio material does not mean that they can be subpoenaed under Rule 17" and quashing subpoena for failing Nixon's admissibility requirement); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94 CR. 311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995) + +7Again, if the Court is inclined to grant the Defendant's motion as to Request 12, BSF requests access to the Defendant's ex parte submission so it can more fully and fairly respond to the Defendant's theory of relevance. + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 16 of 17 + +("A general assertion that certain material 'might contain exculpatory information' is insufficient to prevail against a motion to quash under Rule I 7(c)."). BSF has no duty to cull through broad sets of documents to determine whether any Brady materials might exist and whether those materials would be relevant and admissible when the Defendant has failed to meet her burden of satisfying Nixon's requirements. + +Similarly, the Defendant, likely realizing that she has no viable argument as to the relevance of all of the EVC Material, argues that even if the EVCP Material was relevant only to impeachment, impeachment evidence is discoverable in advance of trial. Resp. Ltr. at 13. This is a mischaracterization of the law. Each of the cases the Defendant cites relates to the Government's obligations under Brady and Giglio. See Poventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (civil § 1983 case in which criminal defendant contended that government violated Brady obligations); United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of a motion for a new trial based on government's failure to produce Brady and Jencks Act materials); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 383 (2d Cir. 1974) (vacating judgment of conviction based on Brady violation by government); U.S. ex rel. Meers v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135, 136 (2d Cir. 1964) (affirming grant of habeas corpus petition based on Brady violation by government). Not one of the cases that the Defendant cites concerns a Rule 17 subpoena to a nonparty because it is well-settled law that a criminal defendant may not use a Rule 17 subpoena to obtain potential impeachment evidence from a nonparty. Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (Nathan, J.) ("Rule 17(c) subpoenas may not issue prior to trial to obtain materials usable only to impeach."). + +For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied. + +April 5, 2021 + +Page 17 of 17 + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e212692b08082adeec719eea6347e3bf606d8733 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/EFTA02831839.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,949 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 17, + "chars": 34466, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.14, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 351.6975402832031, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 351.6975402832031, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Requests 1-5: Communications About the Defendant and", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 142.56 + ], + [ + 507.96, + 142.56 + ], + [ + 507.96, + 157.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 157.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Requests Are Not Specific.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 299.2923889160156, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 299.2923889160156, + 180.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 180.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant Has Not Demonstrated Relevance and Admissibility.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 476.3034362792969, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 476.3034362792969, + 377.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 377.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Communications Between BSF and the Government Are Procurable from the \nGovernment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 388.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 388.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 418.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 418.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Requests 6 and 7: Engagement Letters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 326.3458557128906, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 326.3458557128906, + 101.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 101.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Request 8: Grand Jury Subpoena to BSF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.8351745605469, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.8351745605469, + 239.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 239.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Request 9: Journals", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 315.9591064453125, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 315.9591064453125, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. Requests 10 and 11: Boots and Photographs", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 354.0460205078125, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 354.0460205078125, + 101.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 101.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Request 12: EVCP Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 272.80487060546875, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 272.80487060546875, + 184.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 184.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Request is Not Specific.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 266.70330810546875, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 266.70330810546875, + 208.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Defendant Has Not Demonstrated Relevance. Other Than Potential \nImpeachment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 606.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 606.3630218505859 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831839" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78d073f952a85b7838efdf877f424e133cdd9d1b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1d7e1a0ee24b8c2768e9bd417026810f7734d3e9fdd4845b13f3e8b4f6b29a51 +size 7090 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b4effeb284b8e5c610f96c680c260993295ab06 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 In@sternhelmlaw.com + +April 26, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +I write to report an incident stemming from an attorney-client conference with Ghislaine Maxwell: Guards on Ms. Maxwell's security detail wrongfully seized and reviewed her confidential legal documents and then intimidated Ms. Maxwell by standing over her as she used the bathroom after threatening her with a disciplinary infraction. This incident has further compromised Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial, to confer with counsel, and to retain confidential legal documents. In addition, intimidation and humiliation by guards has further exacerbated Ms. Maxwell's feelings of insecurity due to officious power exerted upon her by guards. + +On Saturday, April 24, 2021, Leah Saffian, Esq. and I attended a pre-scheduled in-person legal conference with Ms. Maxwell in the MDC. The entire 2.5-hour conference was conducted under the constant watch of four to five guards, including a lieutenant, with a camera on a tripod focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel while recording audio and video, and captured on surveillance cameras affixed within the visiting room. After counsel left the facility, Ms. Maxwell called me to report that her legal papers were confiscated. + +stated: Later that day, I received an email from Sophia Papapetru, MDC legal counsel, which + +It has been brought to my attention by the staff of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware, the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures, the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to the institution. Please note, that you may put these documents in the legal mailbox in the lobby of the east building. + +See Exhibit A. + +I emailed the following response to Ms. Papapetru: + +Your accusation is inaccurate as is the information reported to you by your staff Nothing in Ms. Maxwell 's legal papers was given to her by me or by Leah Saffian, Esq. Both Ms. San and I dispute these allegations in the strongest terms. Today. Ms. Wan and I met with Ghislaine Maxwell for a scheduled legal visit- under the gaze of 5 guards and a portable camera recording audio and video. + +After the legal visit concluded and Ms. Saffian and I left the visiting area, guards accused Ms. Maxwell of possessing documents obtained from counsel. The guards seized confidential documents from her, including documents she had previously received in legal mail delivered to the MDC and given to her by MDC staff After seizing "highly confidential" documents (subject to a protective order that your staff is not authorized to review) and work product, the guards began reading the documents and have not returned them to Ms. Maxwell. + +At no time did the guards, who were assiduously watching and filming the legal conference, bring any concern to my attention, so it is quite telling that you have been contacted when counsel are told that legal staff are unavailable during the weekend. + +No documents were given to Ms. Maxwell for her retention. Demand is hereby made for an immediate identification of the documents you claim were not in Ms. Maxwell's possession upon entering the legal visiting area in advance of the arrival of counsel, a list of all guards present during the visit, and a copy of the video recording. + +Please immediately return the confiscated legal documents to Ms. Maxwell. They are her documents, not mine. The confiscation of these documents has deprived Ms. Maxwell of her time and seriously impaired her ability to review legal documents and prepare for an upcoming trial, adding to an already d cult situation. + +This matter is being reported to the Court and legal action will be initiated. + +See Exhibit B. + +A notice and demand to preserve items of evidence has been send to Ms. Papapetru. See Exhibit C. + +## Confiscation and Review of Confidential Legal Documents + +In advance of previous in-person legal visits, guards have gone through Ms. Maxwell's legal papers. In a break from such protocol, the guards did not do so prior to commencement of the legal visit on Saturday. + +After the legal conference and departure of counsel, the guards seized all of Ms. Maxwell's legal papers, consisting of multiple letter-sized manilla folders containing documents and a composition notebook within a Redweld folder. The guards told Ms. Maxwell they believed she improperly retained documents given to her by her attorneys and that this was a + +very serious offense. Ms. Maxwell observed three guards going through the Redweld, reading papers and pages of the notebook, dividing papers into two stacks, and leaving the room with the papers. The lieutenant took the papers out of Ms. Maxwell's sight. Ms. Maxwell asked the guards what documents were being taken; the guards refused to respond. While Ms. Maxwell could not see with specificity which documents were seized and removed to another room, she does know that documents contained in the folders and reviewed by the guards were subject to the protective order, attorney-client privileged communication, and defense work-product. + +Guards confronted Ms. Maxwell and stated in sum and substance: + +We want you to know that what you did was a very serious infraction. It was so serious that it is worthy of an incident report and a disciplinary. It has been decided this time you will receive a caution. + +## Intimidation and Humiliation Off-Camera + +After the confiscation of her papers, Ms. Maxwell requested and was given permission to use the bathroom. But unlike any other occasion, the guard team leader stood knee to knee with Ms. Maxwell while Ms. Maxwell sat on the commode in the small area containing one toilet and a sink. In addition to denying Ms. Maxwell any privacy, the guard confronted her in a confined space off-camera. + +Although Ms. Maxwell was ultimately informed that she would not receive a disciplinary infraction for the incident, being falsely accused of "a very serious offense" and having a guard standing over her while she used the commode caused Ms. Maxwell to feel intimidated and humiliated. + +### A Further Chill on Attorney-Client Communication, Confidentiality, And Capacity to Prepare for Trial + +Being falsely accused of an infraction, being threatened with discipline, and having her legal papers confiscated has caused Ms. Maxwell to feel heightened insecurity under the control of her officious handlers. Further, this incident has put a chill on attorney-client communication because Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that she can bring legal materials to legal conferences. At the in-person legal conference on Sunday, Ms. Maxwell specifically chose not to bring documents that if confiscated and reviewed by MDC staff would compromise her defense. Documents seized on Saturday were given to Ms. Saffian, but it is unknown whether any seized documents were retained or copied by the MDC. The documents returned to Ms. Saffian had been sent as "legal mail" to Ms. Maxwell by other counsel sometime prior to the Saturday visit and had never been possessed by me or Ms. Saffian. + +Ms. Maxwell's reaction and concerns are well-founded. The guards took undue advantage of her. If they believed that counsel had given documents to Ms. Maxwell for her retention, they should have addressed the issue in the presence of counsel. The conduct of which both Ms. Maxwell and counsel have been accused did not happen; and the conduct on the part of the guards was reprehensible. + +Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that her legal papers are safe and believes that the confidentiality required to prepare her defense for trial has been irreparably breached. She is justifiably concerned that her defense documents and their contents have been improperly reviewed and disseminated. The fact that the guards did not confront counsel but chose to confiscate legal documents after Ms. Maxwell's lawyers left the visiting area further validates her suspicion and that of her counsel. In addition, Ms. Maxwell is fearful that she will be subject to retaliation, baseless allegations, and unwarranted and unprovoked discipline. + +Ms. Maxwell is an indicted pre-trial detainee who has asserted her right to counsel. Once the right to counsel has attached and is asserted, as is the case here, the government must honor it. This means more than that the government "cannot prevent the accused from obtaining the assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment also imposes on the government an affirmative obli ation to respect and preserve the accused's choice to seek this assistance." Maine v. 474 U.S. 159, 170-71 (1985). + +The actions by the MDC guards violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Without any justifiable cause they seized and inspected legal materials, failed to identify the materials seized, and withheld the materials for improper purposes. Ms. Maxwell does not know if the materials were duplicated in some fashion, i.e.. photocopied, scanned, or photographed. She does not know whether the MDC plans to give any of these privileged and confidential materials or the information contained therein to the prosecution or leak them to the press. And, given the prior treatment of Ms. Maxwell's HIPPAprotected medical information, these concerns are warranted. + +Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order directing that the MDC, through its legal counsel and/or warden, to provide to Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, only, the following information: + +- **the identity of the person or persons who seized the legal material;** +- an inventory of the items seized; +- a statement, subject to penalty of perjury, regarding whether the materials were duplicated in any fashion; and +- **whether any disciplinary or corrective action was taken against any of the offending guards.** + +**Very truly yours,** + +**BOBBI C. STERNHEIM** + +**Encs.** + +**cc: All counsel of record** + +From: Sophia Papapetru spapapetru@bop.gov Subject: Legal Visit 04.24.21 Date: April 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM To: bcsternheirn0?mac.com Cc: Nicole McFarland nmcfarland@bop.gov + +Good afternoon Bobbi: + +It had been brought to my attention by the stall of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware. the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures, the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to the institution. Please note, that you may put these documents in the legal mail box in the lobby of the east building. + +Thank you for understanding. + +Best, Sophia + +From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM bcstemheim@mac.com Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 Legal Visit 04.24.21 + +Date: April 24, 2021 at 5:37 PM + +To: Sophia Papapetru spapapetru@bop.gov + +Cc: Leah Saffian leahsaffian@hostednetnet, Christian Everdell CEverdell@cohengresser.com, Laura Menninger Imenninger@hmtlaw.com. Jeff Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmtlaw.com + +Sophia- + +Your accusation is inaccurate as is the information reported to you by your staff. Nothing in Ms. Maxwell 's legal papers was given to her by me or by Leah Saffian, Esq. Both Ms. Saffian and I dispute these allegations in the strongest terms. + +Today. Ms. Saffian and I met with Ghislaine Maxwell for a scheduled legal visit. under the gaze of 5 guards and a portable camera recording audio and video. + +After the legal visit concluded and Ms. Saffian and I left the visiting area, guards accused Ms. Maxwell of possessing documents obtained from counsel. The guards seized confidential documents from her. including documents she had previously received in legal mail delivered to the MDC and given to her by MDC staff. After seizing "highly confidential' documents (subject to a protective order that your staff is not authorized to review) and work product, the guards began reading the documents and have not returned them to Ms. Maxwell. + +At no time did the guards, who were assiduously watching and filming the legal conference. bring any concern to my attention. so it is quite telling that you have been contacted when counsel are told that legal staff are unavailable during the weekend. + +No documents were given to Ms. + +Maxwell for her retention. Demand is hereby made for an immediate identification of the documents you claim were not in Ms. + +Maxwell's possession upon entering the legal visiting area in advance of the arrival of counsel, a list of all guards present during the visit, and a copy of the video recording. + +Please immediately return the confiscated legal documents to Ms. Maxwell. They are her documents, not mine. The confiscation of these documents has deprived Ms. Maxwell of her time and seriously impaired her ability to review legal documents and prepare for an upcoming trial. adding to an already difficult situation. + +This matter is being reported to the Court and legal action will be initiated. + +Regarding tomorrow- I have recieved 15 different confirmations and cancellations regarding the scheduled visit for tomorrow. which will be attended by Ms. Saffian alone. + +I am soiling through these emails to determine what time period is permitted for tomorrow's visit. + +Bobbi + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESO. + +Law Offices of Bobbl C. Sternhelm + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Main: 212-243-1100 + +Cell: 917-912-9698 + +Fax: 888-587-4737 + +besternheim@mac.com + +This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim that may be confidential and/or privileged. + +If you are not the intended recipient. you may not read. copy distribute. or use this information. + +If you have received this transmission in erroror, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. + +Thank you. + +On Apr 24, 2021. at 4:07 PM, Sophia Papapetru cspapapetruebop.gov> wrote: + +Good afternoon Bobbi: + +It had been brought to my attention by the staff of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware, the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures. the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to + +...\_ • .• ' I" - ' . + +Thank you for understanding. + +Best, +Sophia + +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL + +Sophia Papapetru, Esq. Legal Counsel Metropolitan Detention Center 80 29th Street Brooklyn, NY 11232 spapapetru©,bop.gov + +Dear Ms. Papapetru: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, Now York 10011 bc@stiernhelmlaw.com + +April 26, 2021 + +#### NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRESERVE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE + +Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, 02879-054, I am notifying you, as legal counsel for the Metropolitan Detention Center, of the MDC's obligation to preserve documents and evidence related to (i) allegations made against Ms. Maxwell and her counsel regarding legal paperwork allegedly passed to Ms. Maxwell during an attorney-client conference on April 24, 2021 and (ii) the confiscation and review of Ms. Maxwell's documents by MDC staff. + +As stated in my April 24th email, material relevant to this dispute includes, but is not limited to: + +- Any images, data files, or video recordings of the legal conference as captured on the hand-held camera focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during the entirety of the legal conference. +- Any images, data files, or video recordings of the legal conference as captured on surveillance cameras focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during the entirety of the legal conference. +- The full names of all guards, including the lieutenant, present in the visiting room during the legal conference. +- Any written or recorded communications, whether stored in electronic, digital or paper format, obtained in connection with the incident identified above. +- A list of all documents claimed to be in Ms. Maxwell's possession upon entering the visiting room. This request includes copies of any such documents or notes regarding same. + +- A list of all documents claimed have been given to Ms. Maxwell by counsel for her retention during the legal conference. +- Any written correspondence, or recorded communications, whether stored in electronic, digital or paper format, created by the guards, staff and other employees of the MDC and BOP. + +Please take adequate steps to preserve all documents and data compilations, including electronically stored information ("ESP"), copies and backups, along with any paper files maintained by the MDC relevant to this dispute. ESI should be stored and maintained in its native format. + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell will be seeking electronic data in the custody and control of the individuals and entities identified in demand letter that is relevant to this incident, including without limitation, emails and other information contained on computer systems and any electronic storage systems. + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell consider the electronic data and paper files and video recordings to be valuable and irreplaceable sources of discoverable information in this matter. + +Please take all necessary steps to prevent the deletion or destruction of any electronic communications, such as emails, voice mails, or electronic files relating to the above items. + +Very truly yours, + +gew C. Sze444:41. + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9832225999124f8066c91302746bcc7abc0f675e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856/EFTA02831856.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,497 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831856.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 18197, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Confiscation and Review of Confidential Legal Documents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 374.9129943847656, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 374.9129943847656, + 610.9925079345703 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 610.9925079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Intimidation and Humiliation Off-Camera", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 292.83966064453125, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 292.83966064453125, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A Further Chill on Attorney-Client Communication, Confidentiality, \nAnd Capacity to Prepare for Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 428.3251647949219, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 428.3251647949219, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRESERVE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 495.3064880371094, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 495.3064880371094, + 327.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 327.7330627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831856" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2247d3e8f3b6710b3a793bb55c604732aadc9eab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main +917-306-6666 • Cell +888-587-4737 • Fax + +33 West 19th Street +New York, New York +bc@ste + +| USDC SDNY | +|-----------------------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC | +| DATE FILED: 4/27/21 | + +April 26, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Judge +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg) + +MDC legal counsel is hereby ORDERED to show cause by April 28, 2021 why an order directing the MDC to provide the information requested in this letter to the Defendant's counsel ought not issue. MDC legal counsel shall either docket it on ECF or email the letter to the Court so that the Court can docket it on ECF. ██████████ will email a copy of this Order directly to legal counsel for the MDC. SO ORDERED. + +Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write to report an incident stemming from an attorney-client conference with Ghislaine Maxwell: Guards on Ms. Maxwell's security detail wrongfully seized and reviewed her confidential legal documents and then intimidated Ms. Maxwell by standing over her as she used the bathroom after threatening her with a disciplinary infraction. This incident has further compromised Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial, to confer with counsel, and to retain confidential legal documents. In addition, intimidation and humiliation by guards has further exacerbated Ms. Maxwell's feelings of insecurity due to officious power exerted upon her by guards. + +On Saturday, April 24, 2021, Leah Saffian, Esq. and I attended a pre-scheduled in-person legal conference with Ms. Maxwell in the MDC. The entire 2.5-hour conference was conducted under the constant watch of four to five guards, including a lieutenant, with a camera on a tripod focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel while recording audio and video, and captured on surveillance cameras affixed within the visiting room. After counsel left the facility, Ms. Maxwell called me to report that her legal papers were confiscated. + +Later that day, I received an email from Sophia Papapetru, MDC legal counsel, which stated: + +*It has been brought to my attention by the staff of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware, the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures, the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to the institution. Please note, that you may put these documents in the legal mailbox in the lobby of the east building.* + +*See Exhibit A.* + +I emailed the following response to Ms. Papapetru: + +Your accusation is inaccurate as is the information reported to you by your staff Nothing in Ms. Maxwell 's legal papers was given to her by me or by Leah Saffian, Esq. Both Ms. San and I dispute these allegations in the strongest terms. Today, Ms. Sean and I met with Ghislaine Maxwell for a scheduled legal visit- under the gaze of 5 guards and a portable camera recording audio and video. + +After the legal visit concluded and Ms. Saf'≤an **and I left the visiting area, guards accused Ms. Maxwell of possessing documents obtained from counsel. The guards seized confidential documents from her, including documents she had previously received in legal mail delivered to the MDC and given to her by MDC staff After seizing "highly confidential" documents (subject to a protective order that your staff is not authorized to review) and work product, the guards began reading the documents and have not returned them to Ms. Maxwell.** + +**At no time did the guards, who were assiduously watching and filming the legal conference, bring any concern to my attention, so it is quite telling that you have been contacted when counsel are told that legal staff are unavailable during the weekend.** + +**No documents were given to Ms. Maxwell for her retention. Demand is hereby made for an immediate identification of the documents you claim were not in Ms. Maxwell's possession upon entering the legal visiting area in advance of the arrival of counsel, a list of all guards present during the visit, and a copy of the video recording.** + +**Please immediately return the confiscated legal documents to Ms. Maxwell. They are her documents, not mine. The confiscation of these documents has deprived Ms. Maxwell of her time and seriously impaired her ability to review legal documents and prepare for an upcoming trial, adding to an already d cult situation.** + +**This matter is being reported to the Court and legal action will be initiated.** + +**See Exhibit B.** + +A notice and demand to preserve items of evidence has been send to Ms. Papapetru. See Exhibit C. + +### Confiscation and Review of Confidential Legal Documents + +In advance of previous in-person legal visits, guards have gone through Ms. Maxwell's legal papers. In a break from such protocol, the guards did not do so prior to commencement of the legal visit on Saturday. + +After the legal conference and departure of counsel, the guards seized all of Ms. Maxwell's legal papers, consisting of multiple letter-sized manilla folders containing documents and a composition notebook within a Redweld folder. The guards told Ms. Maxwell they believed she improperly retained documents given to her by her attorneys and that this was a + +very serious offense. Ms. Maxwell observed three guards going through the Redweld, reading papers and pages of the notebook, dividing papers into two stacks, and leaving the room with the papers. The lieutenant took the papers out of Ms. Maxwell's sight. Ms. Maxwell asked the guards what documents were being taken; the guards refused to respond. While Ms. Maxwell could not see with specificity which documents were seized and removed to another room, she does know that documents contained in the folders and reviewed by the guards were subject to the protective order, attorney-client privileged communication, and defense work-product. + +Guards confronted Ms. Maxwell and stated in sum and substance: + +We want you to know that what you did was a very serious infraction. It was so serious that it is worthy of an incident report and a disciplinary. It has been decided this time you will receive a caution. + +## Intimidation and Humiliation Off-Camera + +After the confiscation of her papers, Ms. Maxwell requested and was given permission to use the bathroom. But unlike any other occasion, the guard team leader stood knee to knee with Ms. Maxwell while Ms. Maxwell sat on the commode in the small area containing one toilet and a sink. In addition to denying Ms. Maxwell any privacy, the guard confronted her in a confined space off-camera. + +Although Ms. Maxwell was ultimately informed that she would not receive a disciplinary infraction for the incident, being falsely accused of "a very serious offense" and having a guard standing over her while she used the commode caused Ms. Maxwell to feel intimidated and humiliated. + +#### A Further Chill on Attorney-Client Communication, Confidentiality, And Capacity to Prepare for Trial + +Being falsely accused of an infraction, being threatened with discipline, and having her legal papers confiscated has caused Ms. Maxwell to feel heightened insecurity under the control of her officious handlers. Further, this incident has put a chill on attorney-client communication because Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that she can bring legal materials to legal conferences. At the in-person legal conference on Sunday, Ms. Maxwell specifically chose not to bring documents that if confiscated and reviewed by MDC staff would compromise her defense. Documents seized on Saturday were given to Ms. Saffian, but it is unknown whether any seized documents were retained or copied by the MDC. The documents returned to Ms. Saffian had been sent as "legal mail" to Ms. Maxwell by other counsel sometime prior to the Saturday visit and had never been possessed by me or Ms. Saffian. + +Ms. Maxwell's reaction and concerns are well-founded. The guards took undue advantage of her. If they believed that counsel had given documents to Ms. Maxwell for her retention, they should have addressed the issue in the presence of counsel. The conduct of which both Ms. Maxwell and counsel have been accused did not happen; and the conduct on the part of the guards was reprehensible. + +Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that her legal papers are safe and believes that the confidentiality required to prepare her defense for trial has been irreparably breached. She is justifiably concerned that her defense documents and their contents have been improperly reviewed and disseminated. The fact that the guards did not confront counsel but chose to confiscate legal documents after Ms. Maxwell's lawyers left the visiting area further validates her suspicion and that of her counsel. In addition, Ms. Maxwell is fearful that she will be subject to retaliation, baseless allegations, and unwarranted and unprovoked discipline. + +Ms. Maxwell is an indicted pre-trial detainee who has asserted her right to counsel. Once the right to counsel has attached and is asserted, as is the case here, the government must honor it. This means more than that the government "cannot prevent the accused from obtaining the assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment also imposes on the government an affirmative obli ation to respect and preserve the accused's choice to seek this assistance." Maine v. 474 U.S. 159, 170-71 (1985). + +The actions by the MDC guards violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Without any justifiable cause they seized and inspected legal materials, failed to identify the materials seized, and withheld the materials for improper purposes. Ms. Maxwell does not know if the materials were duplicated in some fashion, i.e.. photocopied, scanned, or photographed. She does not know whether the MDC plans to give any of these privileged and confidential materials or the information contained therein to the prosecution or leak them to the press. And, given the prior treatment of Ms. Maxwell's HIPPAprotected medical information, these concerns are warranted. + +Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order directing that the MDC, through its legal counsel and/or warden, to provide to Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, only, the following information: + +- the identity of the person or persons who seized the legal material; +- an inventory of the items seized; +- a statement, subject to penalty of perjury, regarding whether the materials were duplicated in any fashion; and +- whether any disciplinary or corrective action was taken against any of the offending guards. + +Very truly yours, + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Encs. + +cc: All counsel of record + +From: Sophia Papapetru spapapetru@bop.gov Subject: Legal Visit 04.24 21 Date: April 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM To: bcsternheimcitmac.com Cc: Nicole McFarland nmcfarland@bop.gov + +Good afternoon Bobbi: + +It had been brought to my attention by the stall of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware. the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures, the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to the institution. Please note, that you may put these documents in the legal mail box in the lobby of the east building. + +Thank you for understanding. + +Best, Sophia + +From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM bcstemheim@mac.com Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 Legal Visit 04.24.21 + +Date: April 24, 2021 at 5:37 PM + +To: Sophia Papapetru spapapetru@bop.gov + +Cc: Leah Saffian leahsaffian@hostednet.net, Christian Everdell CEverdell@cohengresser.com, Laura Menninger Imenninger@hmflaw.com. Jeff Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +Sophia- + +Your accusation is inaccurate as is the information reported to you by your staff. Nothing in Ms. Maxwell 's legal papers was given to her by me or by Leah Saffian, Esq. Both Ms. Saffian and I dispute these allegations in the strongest terms. + +Today. Ms. Saffian and I met with Ghislaine Maxwell for a scheduled legal visit. under the gaze of 5 guards and a portable camera recording audio and video. + +After the legal visit concluded and Ms. Saffian and I left the visiting area. guards accused Ms. Maxwell of possessing documents obtained from counsel. The guards seized confidential documents from her. including documents she had previously received in legal mail delivered to the MDC and given to her by MDC staff. After seizing "highly confidential' documents (subject to a protective order that your staff is not authorized to review) and work product, the guards began reading the documents and have not returned them to Ms. Maxwell. + +At no time did the guards, who were assiduously watching and filming the legal conference, bring any concern to my attention. so it is quite telling that you have been contacted when counsel are told that legal staff are unavailable during the weekend. + +No documents were given to Ms. + +Maxwell for her retention. Demand is hereby made for an immediate identification of the documents you claim were not in Ms. + +Maxwell's possession upon entering the legal visiting area in advance of the arrival of counsel, a list of all guards present during the visit, and a copy of the video recording. + +Please immediately return the confiscated legal documents to Ms. Maxwell. They are her documents, not mine. The confiscation of these documents has deprived Ms. Maxwell of her time and seriously impaired her ability to review legal documents and prepare for an upcoming trial. adding to an already difficult situation. + +This matter is being reported to the Court and legal action will be initiated. + +Regarding tomorrow- I have recieved 15 different confirmations and cancellations regarding the scheduled visit for tomorrow. which will be attended by Ms. Saffian alone. + +I am sorting through these emails to determine what time period is permitted for tomorrow's visit. + +Bobbi + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESO. + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternhelm + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Main: 212-243-1100 + +Cell: 917-912-9698 + +Fax: 888-587-4737 + +buternheimemac corn + +This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim that may be confidential and/or privileged. + +If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read. copy distribute, or use this information. + +If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. + +Thank you. + +On Apr 24. 2021. at 4:07 PM. Sophia Papapetru cspapapetru@bop.gov> wrote: + +Good afternoon Bobbi: + +It had been brought to my attention by the staff of MDC Brooklyn that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware, the policies set forth for MDC Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for passing of any material during a legal visit. Due to our policy and procedures, the additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were confiscated. Those materials were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival to + +.,\_ • .• ' \_\_\_.,..,,,,\_\_ + +Thank you for understanding. + +Best, +Sophia + +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL + +Sophia Papapetru, Esq. Legal Counsel Metropolitan Detention Center 80 29th Street Brooklyn, NY 11232 spapapetru@,bop.gov + +Dear Ms. Papapetru: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +April 26, 2021 + +#### NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRESERVE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE + +Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 + +As counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, 02879-054, I am notifying you, as legal counsel for the Metropolitan Detention Center, of the MDC's obligation to preserve documents and evidence related to (i) allegations made against Ms. Maxwell and her counsel regarding legal paperwork allegedly passed to Ms. Maxwell during an attorney-client conference on April 24, 2021 and (ii) the confiscation and review of Ms. Maxwell's documents by MDC staff. + +As stated in my April 24th email, material relevant to this dispute includes, but is not limited to: + +- Any images, data files, or video recordings of the legal conference as captured on the hand-held camera focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during the entirety of the legal conference. +- Any images, data files, or video recordings of the legal conference as captured on surveillance cameras focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during the entirety of the legal conference. +- The full names of all guards, including the lieutenant, present in the visiting room during the legal conference. +- Any written or recorded communications, whether stored in electronic, digital or paper format, obtained in connection with the incident identified above. +- A list of all documents claimed to be in Ms. Maxwell's possession upon entering the visiting room. This request includes copies of any such documents or notes regarding same. + +- A list of all documents claimed have been given to Ms. Maxwell by counsel for her retention during the legal conference. +- Any written correspondence, or recorded communications, whether stored in electronic, digital or paper format, created by the guards, staff and other employees of the MDC and BOP. + +Please take adequate steps to preserve all documents and data compilations, including electronically stored information ("ESI"), copies and backups, along with any paper files maintained by the MDC relevant to this dispute. ESI should be stored and maintained in its native format. + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell will be seeking electronic data in the custody and control of the individuals and entities identified in demand letter that is relevant to this incident, including without limitation, emails and other information contained on computer systems and any electronic storage systems. + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell consider the electronic data and paper files and video recordings to be valuable and irreplaceable sources of discoverable information in this matter. + +Please take all necessary steps to prevent the deletion or destruction of any electronic communications, such as emails, voice mails, or electronic files relating to the above items. + +Very truly yours, + +got& a. Sitivattn. + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aadebf6aabaa698cb037f1b940050fab329a386b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/EFTA02831865.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,499 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 18911, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.65, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.756, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 471.852, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 471.852, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 99.756, + 53.46 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Confiscation and Review of Confidential Legal Documents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 374.9129943847656, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 374.9129943847656, + 610.9925079345703 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 610.9925079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Intimidation and Humiliation Off-Camera", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 292.83966064453125, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 292.83966064453125, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A Further Chill on Attorney-Client Communication, Confidentiality, \nAnd Capacity to Prepare for Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 428.3251647949219, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 428.3251647949219, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 31.82342529296875 + ], + [ + 514.6243286132812, + 31.82342529296875 + ], + [ + 514.6243286132812, + 57.401123046875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.401123046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRESERVE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 313.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 496.15606689453125, + 313.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 496.15606689453125, + 327.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 327.43353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831865" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76c0852d245e9fa01cb160fa8dcfb02cca91e9a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831865/_page_0_Picture_24.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0ac1af1a913e82bef5687a2f507ab6e6b473c61a4557763d4a4b2a018d26b2b8 +size 6338 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7f9d7d99f385a2afff90ee3697bd292184f0ba2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed schedules for pretrial disclosures and pretrial motions practice. Dkt. Nos. 229, 230. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court hereby sets the schedule below, which it deems reasonable and fair. For purposes of this scheduling order, the trial commencement date shall mean the date that the Court will request from the Clerk's Office as the trial commencement date. It does not include any period involving the issuance of a jury questionnaire that may predate that trial commencement date. As explained at the April 23, 2021 conference, the Court is considering the Defendant's request for a continuance, but until such a request is resolved the parties shall presume that the Court will request July 12, 2021 as the trial commencement date. See also Dkt. + +No. 221. With that in mind, the Court hereby sets the following schedule: + +- Government expert witness disclosure are due April 23, 2021 (agreement of the parties) +- Supplemental Pretrial Motions that pertain only to the new charges raised in the S2 indictment (agreement of the parties): o Defense supplemental motions are due May 7, 2021 o Government's response is due May 21, 2021 + +- o Defense replies are due May 28, 2021 +- Disclosure of the alleged victims referenced in the S2 Indictment: May 17, 2021 (agreement of the parties) +- Jencks Act/3500 materials, Rule 404(b) notice, Giglio materials, the Government's witness list, and co-conspirator statements are due seven weeks before the trial commencement date +- The Government's exhibit lists and marked exhibits are due five weeks before the trial commencement date +- Defense Expert Witness disclosure is due four weeks before the trial commencement date +- The Defendant's Rule 16(bX1XA) and 16(b)(1XB) disclosures and witness list are due three weeks before the trial commencement date +- Motions in limine are due four weeks before the trial commencement date (agreement of the parties) o Responses to motions in limine are due two weeks before the trial commencement date (agreement of the parties) +- Requests to Charge, Verdict Sheet, and Proposed Voir Dire are due three weeks before the trial commencement date (agreement of the parties) + +The Court will address a process and schedule for the parties' proposals regarding a jury questionnaire by separate order. + +Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on the Government's proposal that the Defendant submit witness statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 at + +least four weeks in advance of trial. The parties are further ORDERED to submit a joint letter laying out their respective positions and proposals within one week of this Order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 26, 2021 + +New York, New York cA - Q. Air + +ALISON I NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0e1b2730853088b12714299de757bf6089124d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/EFTA02831874.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3043, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831874" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..538656e594df33369cab2e00a1f65a827d25a6cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831874/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:73f75f5e3412a93053184667ea7f78560edc5a324d77c0d1cc110c8a540c17d0 +size 11029 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6329c423710f5103ec038e17abedd7d2a6172d30 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/27/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(cX3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As detailed in the subpoena and Maxwell's moving papers, she seeks authorization to serve a subpoena to the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP. BSF has filed a letter in opposition to the subpoena request. Additionally, the Government submitted a letter requesting that it be given notice of all pending and future subpoenas applications, an opportunity to challenge them, and copies of any documents produced. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maxwell's motion as to Requests 1 through 8 and Request 12 and reserves judgment on Requests 9 through 11. The Court also denies the Government's requests, though it will direct the Government to notify the Court of its views as to Requests 9 through 11. + +## I. Legal Standard + +Rule 17(c) permits subpoenas ordering the production of "books, papers, documents, data, or other objects." Fed. R. Crim. P. I7(c)(1). When the subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential information about a victim, it may be served on a third party only by court order. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). + +The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214,220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional means of discovery or to serve as a general "fishing expedition." Id. at 698-700. As a result, courts must be mindful not to allow the Rule 17(c) process to become a "broad discovery device" that would undermine the discovery procedures set forth in Rule 16. United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547,552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, if an item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04-CR-186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008). + +To determine whether issuance of the subpoena is appropriate, the Court considers the factors articulated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. In Nixon, the Supreme Court explained that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (I) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general 'fishing expedition."' Id. at 698-700. To clear that hurdle, the Court considers (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity. Id. at 700. + +## II. Discussion + +# A. The BSF Subpoena + +The proposed subpoena makes twelve requests. Some of the requests relate to documents that Maxwell believes will be relevant at trial. For others, the proffered relevance relates to + +Maxwell's pending motions to suppress evidence. While ordinarily Rule 17(c) is "trial-focused" and "may be used only to obtain materials admissible as evidence at trial," at least some courts have held that Rule 17(c) can be used to compel the production of documents in connection with a suppression hearing. United States v. Louis, No. 04-CR-203 (LTS), 2005 WL 180885, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2005). Even then, the requests fail for the reasons stated below. + +Requests I through 5 all fail on the basis that they do not comply with Nixon's specificity requirement. Requests I through 5 all target communications between "any" owner, shareholder, partner or employee of BSF and government officials or co-counsel in civil litigation, from 2015 to the date of the subpoena. While the requests focus on a certain subject, the requests are so overbroad that issuance of the Rule 17(c) subpoena would be improper. As set forth in the subpoena, the term "communications" encompasses "all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind." The use of the terms "all" and "any" "do not evince specificity." United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). Here, the requests do not identify specific lawyers or employees of BSF whose communications are relevant. See United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (discussing that while an originally requested subpoena was insufficiently specific, a new requested subpoena satisfied the specificity requirement because it identified a specified set of individuals whose records were sought). The requests also encompass "all" forms of correspondence without limitation. And while the requested subpoenas are limited to the period between 2015 and 2021, the timeframe is still overly broad. These requests are precisely the kind of "fishing expedition" that the specificity requirement is designed to prevent. See Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 221. Indeed, the requests are akin to discovery requests in civil litigation. + +See United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698; Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253. On the specificity prong alone, Requests I through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard. + +Requests 1 and 2 fail for the separate reason that, if Maxwell is entitled to the materials sought at all, they should come from the Government. Requests 1, 2, and 8 all seek documents that are procurable from the Government. As noted above, Requests 1 and 2 seek communications between BSF and government officials regarding a certain subject, from 2015 to the date of the subpoena. Request 8, meanwhile, refers to a specific grand jury subpoena that the Government issued to BSF. As to all of these requests, Maxwell asserts that the Rule 17(c) subpoena is necessary to fix what she deems to be the Government's failure to comply with its discovery obligations. Among the principles set forth in Nixon is that the materials must not be otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699. These three requests target information that reasonably can be expected to be in the hands of the Government. To the extent that Maxwell has a basis to argue that the Government has not met its discovery obligations, the Rule 17(c) subpoena process is not the proper mechanism for pursuing that. Rather, with notice to the Government so that the issue is properly joined, Maxwell must make some showing of that failure and seek specific and appropriate relief from this Court. + +Requests 6 and 7 seek contingency fee agreements or engagement letters between BSF and two of its clients who are alleged victims. Maxwell has failed to make the required showing under Nixon that these records would be relevant or admissible for purposes of her Rule 17(c) application. The only plausible theory of relevance set forth in Maxwell's papers is that these + +documents are necessary for purposes of impeachment. But as a general matter, the need to impeach witnesses generally "is insufficient to require [materials'] production in advance of trial." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. Many courts have held that impeachment material does not become relevant until after the witness testifies. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), ), gird, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94-CR-311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995) ("Potentially impeaching statements `ripen into evidentiary material. . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial...." (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at \*6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order "to demonstrate witnesses' bias or self-interest."). The arguments as to relevance are otherwise specious, and the Court cannot discern what relevance the materials responsive to Requests 6 and 7 may have. In any event, there is little risk that review of these materials, if they become relevant and admissible, will lead to a delay at trial, given their limited volume. United States v. Seabrook, No. I 6-CR-467, 2017 WL 4838311, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017). For documents that may ripen into relevance if and when the BSF clients testify, Maxwell presumably could request that the Court issue a subpoena to require production of the engagement letters to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at \*3-\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at \*3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007). + +Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rule 17(c) is justified because the materials appear not to have been produced by BSF in response to the grand jury subpoena at issue in Request 8; she thus contends that the absence of the documents in that production suggests coordination between the Government and BSF. Other than through conclusory speculation, she fails to explain how the contents of those letters may be relevant to her theory of preexisting coordination between the Government and BSF. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet happened, and so any claim that the Government has failed to produce these documents consistent with its Giglio obligations is premature. Furthermore, as set forth in the Opinion & Order resolving some of Maxwell's pre-trial motions, the Government has represented in good faith that it is cognizant of its Brady obligations and that it has complied and will continue to comply with them. This Court knows well that the Government has not always lived up to those obligations in every case. But nothing has transpired that provides any reason to doubt the good faith representations that have been made to the Court by the AUSAs appearing here. In sum, none of Maxwell's theories justify production of these documents under the Rule 17(c) process. + +Request 12, which seeks "any" submission to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program made by BSF, fails under the relevance prong of the Nixon standard. The request seeks "any" submission made by BSF to the EVCP. In its reply brief, BSF represents that Maxwell offered to narrow this request to just those materials submitted on behalf of victims who ultimately testify in this action. + +The request's failure to satisfy the Nixon standard is in part due to its relative lack of specificity, for even if Maxwell had established the relevance of some evidence captured by this request, she plainly has not demonstrated the relevance of all materials submitted to the EVCP. + +See United States it. Aguilar, No. CR 07-00030 (SBA), 2008 WL 3182029, at \*6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008). Maxwell argues that the materials are relevant because they may reveal monetary incentives to testify in a particular way. That argument demonstrates that the documents are being sought for impeachment. As stated above, the mere fact that certain documents might be impeachment evidence does not render them "relevant" for purposes of Rule 17(c); if at all, those documents would become relevant only after a witness testifies. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2. Maxwell's argument that the documents are relevant because their impeachment value is exculpatory does not get around this general bar. These materials only become relevant if or when those witnesses testify. She presents no other nonconclusory basis as to why they are exculpatory. Indeed, Maxwell concedes that the primary purpose of these documents will be for purposes of cross-examination, leaving little doubt as to the purported claim of relevance. And to the extent Maxwell posits that statements made as part of the EVCP process may be exculpatory in themselves, the argument is speculative because she provides no basis for why that expectation might be reasonable. The "mere hope" that the documents may contain some exculpatory evidence is insufficient to justify enforcement of a Rule I7(c) subpoena (or, as here, issuance of such a subpoena in the face of objections). See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR-579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell's reliance on cases involving the Government's obligations under Brady and Giglio to produce impeachment evidence prior to trial are thus inapposite to the current context. Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2- 3. Maxwell thus fails to establish Request 12's compliance with the Nixon standards. Maxwell may renew her request for these documents once she identifies specific individuals whose submissions she seeks and spells out with specificity the relevance of all requested materials. At that time, the Court will determine whether it is proper to require production of these materials to + +the Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at \*3; 2007 WL 4577303, at \*3. + +The Court will reserve on Requests 9 through 11 in order to allow the Government to weigh in on the propriety of the requests. The Court assumes that the Government has enough information, based on the public filings, to provide its views. If the Government seeks the specific subpoena requests, it shall confer with defense counsel and raise any dispute with the Court. The Government shall file its response within one week of this Order. + +In sum, for Request I through 8 and 12, the Court will not authorize service of the proposed subpoena on the basis that Maxwell has failed to establish that the requests are sufficiently specific and that the materials sought are relevant or admissible. Maxwell may renew more tailored requests in compliance with this Order. The Court sees no basis for doing so on an ex pane basis. For Requests 9 through 11, the Court will reserve its decision until it hears from the Government. + +# B. The Government's Subpoena-Related Request + +The Government seeks a preemptive, blanket ruling that it be entitled notice of all future subpoenas, an opportunity to challenge them, and production of any information obtained therefrom. This request is denied. Assuming Maxwell seeks the issuance of a future subpoena for which there is no basis to proceed ex pane, the Government will be provided notice and the Court would likely consider the Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. 16-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 68875%, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parse Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if justified. See Atlas, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*8 + +(collecting cases). As a result, the blanket ruling sought by the Government is improper and denied. + +#### III. Conclusion + +The Defendant's motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) is DENIED. The Government is ORDERED to respond to Requests 9 through 11 of the proposed subpoena within one week of this Order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 27, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97b5aef57d11f8b18f3ad63d6eb00d58c95bbce5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877/EFTA02831877.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,470 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831877.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 16261, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.64, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "I. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 208.64947509765625, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 208.64947509765625, + 580.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 580.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 183.74896240234375, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 183.74896240234375, + 610.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 610.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The BSF Subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 227.44580078125, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 227.44580078125, + 638.3035125732422 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 638.3035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Government's Subpoena-Related Request", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 365.79840087890625, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 365.79840087890625, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 186.28225708007812, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 186.28225708007812, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831877" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec6f77593f3a38a22e3880f915ea9d22a3303c78 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@stiernhelmlaw.com + +April 28, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +The MDC letter, dated April 28, 2021, submitted in response to the Court's memoendorsed order to show cause (Dkt. 249), fails to address the concerns raised in my April 26th letter. The Court should summarily deny the MDC's request and require it to respond to the specifics in the Court's order. + +The claim that "[d]uring Ms. Maxwell's legal visit, staff noted she was in receipt of documents that were handed to her by the attorneys" does not justify the confiscation and review of Ms. Maxwell's confidential legal documents. Any documents which "Ms. Maxwell was in receipt" were documents that Ms. Maxwell brought to the visiting room. Counsel did not hand to Ms. Maxwell any documents that did not originate from Ms. Maxwell. Further, it was after Ms. Maxwell called counsel to report that her documents were seized and counsel, in turn, informed Ms. Maxwell that a complaint would be made that MDC staff contacted legal counsel. + +Once again, the Court is provided second-hand information from the MDC. Ms. Papapetru was not present during the legal visit, does not claim to have reviewed the video recording of the legal visit, and failed to provide any helpful or reliable information (either by way of an affidavit or declaration or a copy of the recording) to rebut the claims before the Court. A recycled reporting of the guards' inaccurate observation is an inadequate response to a significant problem. The MDC has failed to offer any legitimate, fact-based explanation for violation of Ms. Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights. The Court should disregard the MDC's response and order the relief requested on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. + +Considering the MDC's attempt to cast the conduct of its staff in a positive light while casting aspersions on Ms. Maxwell and counsel, we request that the Court direct that the guards responsible for the inappropriate seizure be summoned to Court and a copy of the video recording be provided to defense counsel. + +The MDC should be held accountable for its violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights, her privilege of attorney-client confidentiality, and her right to protection of her confidential legal defense materials. + +Very truly yours. + +gag C. citniiiass + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record MDC Legal Staff Sophia Papapetru, Esq. Nicole McFarland, Esq. John E. Wallace, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d121a6073be64c772635ba3e8344e2ca5406c37f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886/EFTA02831886.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831886.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2688, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.69, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C.STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.614990234375, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.614990234375, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831886" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6772b733140266bfafc05b18380627461e8cffda --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center + +80 294 Strew Bmohly, New York 11232 + +April 28, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 4/29/21 + +I am writing in response to your April 26, 2021, Order seeking information regarding an alleged incident involving Ghislainc Maxwell, Register No. 02879-509, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York (MDC Brooklyn) as relayed by her counsel in an April 26, 2021, letter. + +Pursuant to MDC Brooklyn policy, Institutional Supplement BRO-5267.09A, Inmate Visiting Correctional Snvices, inmates may carry legal materials to the visiting area which pertain to their current case. Visiting Room Officers inspect the legal materials for contraband. Inmates are not permitted to carry out any items other than those they were allowed to be take into the Visiting Room. Visiting Room Officers monitor inmate visits and if they become aware of any articles passed between the inmate and the visitors, or "if there is any reasonable basis to suspect materials are being passed between inmates and visitors, the Visiting Room Officer may examine the item(s)." + +Legal staff is responsible for assigning inmates and their attorneys to particular room. However, this is subject to change by the Visiting Room Officer, who is ultimately responsible for room and seating assignments. MDC Brooklyn sets forth these rules in Admissions and Orientation Handbook, which is given to each inmate upon admission to the institution. + +On Saturday, April 24, 2021, Ms. Maxwell had a scheduled legal visit with her legal counsel. During legal visits, attorneys may refer to and hand legal documents to their clients, so long as the documents arc returned to the attorneys' possession at the conclusion of the visit. During Ms. Maxwell's legal visit, staff noted that she was in receipt of documents that were handed to her by the attorneys. Upon completion of the legal visit, the Visiting Room Officer notified the supervisor that Ms. Maxwell was in receipt of documents that were handed to her by her attorneys. Pursuant to Institutional Supplement BRO-5267.09A, Inmate VisifingComaional Services, the supervisory staff were notified and identified the documents that staff referred to. Ms. Maxwell was returned to her housing unit and Legal staff were notified. + +I informed the supervisor to place the documents in an envelope, date and secure the envelope. I advised the supervisor to return the envelope to Ms. Maxwell's attorneys on Sunday, April 25, 2021, when they returned for another legal visit with Ms. Maxwell, and to tell the attorneys to place in the envelope and any future documents for Ms. Maxwell in one of the legal depository boxes in the lobby of the East and West buildings of MDC Brooklyn. + +In addition, staff acted appropriate when Ms. Maxwell was escorted to the restroom. Pursuant to MDC Brooklyn policy, Institutional Supplement BRO-5267.09A, Inmate Visiting Correctional Services, inmates who use the Visiting Room restroom are escorted by staff and remain under staff's constant supervision. + +We respectfully request Your Honor deny defense counsel's proposed order. Please let us know if the Court requires any additional information, which we will be happy to provide. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Sophia Papapetru + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55701b2fe42b7b9568afb2c70a9a7252aa779196 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/EFTA02831888.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3685, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE \nFederal Bureau of Prisons \nMetropolitan Detention Center", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 337.824, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 528.8074340820312, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 528.8074340820312, + 123.603515625 + ], + [ + 337.824, + 123.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 132.04470825195312, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 132.04470825195312, + 257.103515625 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 257.103515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831888" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..495adf10ef4ecd439c4ac955b540d144e74f2a06 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831888/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:aac595f5f7d99ef473793c559e97000bdfae5e3693ce53ec4bf7b6f5370bf655 +size 12772 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f844ada97c58e4f7fc7f9d057cb5e88e0b3c88c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 26, 2021, defense counsel advised the Court of an incident that took place on April 24, 2021 in which Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's legal materials were seized by staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Dkt. No. 248. In the letter, defense counsel requested that the Court order MDC staff to provide them with more information regarding the incident. The Court ordered legal counsel for the MDC to show cause why the requested order should not issue. Dkt. No. 249. The MDC filed its response with the Court. Dkt No. 254. In reply, Maxwell made additional requests. Dkt. No. 253. Defense counsel's requests are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. + +IT IS ORDERED that by April 30, 2021, legal counsel to the MDC must provide the following information: + +- I. If known, an inventory of the items seized from Ms. Maxwell in the incident that occurred on April 24, 2021 shall he provided by email to defense counsel only; and +- 2. A representation to this Court, to be filed on ECF, indicating: + - a. Whether any of the materials seized from Ms. Maxwell were duplicated in any fashion and what investigation was undertaken in order to determine this information; + +[REDACTED]. Maxwell is permitted to bring confidential legal materials to in- +person meetings with defense counsel without those materials being seized; + +c. What steps have been or will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of Ms. + +Maxwell's lawyer-client communications. + +Defense counsel's requests are denied in all other respects. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 29, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a53b6c7fe15d85a2fdbff2a279803077de84f4d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/EFTA02831890.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1840, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.95, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831890" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7aeddececc7a796c3da7b9f07f50e6f2af4efc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831890/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:522fe284301d8af89549d951b8071829672715f90bc0f015c135a411d2c6e909 +size 11175 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87284c871cb6db3a429f37f7bbeca58d3108b06f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main +917-306-6666 • Cell +888-587-4737 • Fax + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor +New York, New York 10011 +bc@sternheimlaw.com + +April 29, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Judge +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +During oral argument of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail appeal before the Circuit, Ms. Maxwell's appellate counsel expressed concern that she was improperly deprived of sleep while detained in the MDC, an issue that has been raised in filings before this Court. In its brief denial of her appeal, the Circuit stated: "To the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court." *See* Exhibit A. We press our concerns regarding disruption of Ms. Maxwell's sleep and the deleterious effect sleep deprivation is having on her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for and withstand trial. + +Ms. Maxwell continues to be disrupted throughout the night by guards shining a flash/strobe light into her cell, claiming that her breathing must be checked. The myth that Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are related to her being a suicide risk was laid to rest during the oral argument: There is nothing to support that contrived claim. In fact, Ms. Maxwell is classified with the standard CC1-Mh designation: inmate with no significant mental health care. (*See* Dkt. 159 at 3.) + +Contrary to the report that Ms. Maxwell "wears an eye mask when she sleeps" (Dkt. 196 at 4), an item neither available for purchase through MDC commissary nor provided to her, she resorts to using a sock or towel to cover her eyes in an awkward attempt to shield them from disrupting illumination every 15 minutes. Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The "black eye" is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday's bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper. At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it. While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night. + +The MDC routinely places inmates in the SHU if they have engaged in physical altercation with other inmates or to protect inmates who are the subject of abuse. It would be ironic if the MDC follows through with its threat to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU: It would signal that Ms. Maxwell needs protection from the very staff so intent on protecting her, since she has no contact with anyone but staff. + +As suggested by the Circuit, we ask the Court to address Ms. Maxwell's sleeping conditions by directing the MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance of Ms. Maxwell or justify the need for the disruptive flashlight surveillance. + +Very truly yours, + +gag. C. Ste4444s. + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Encs. + +cc: All counsel of record + +21-58-cr (L), 21-770-cr +United States v. Maxwell + +## United States Court of Appeals + +FOR THE +SECOND CIRCUIT + +At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. + +PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, +RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., +RICHARD J. [REDACTED], +*Circuit Judges.* + +United States of America, + +*Appellee,* + +v. + +21-58-cr (L) +21-770-cr + +Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, + +*Defendant-Appellant.* + +Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals from orders of the District Court entered December 28, 2020 and March 22, 2021, which denied her renewed requests for bail pending trial. See Dkts. 1, 20. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the District Court's orders are AFFIRMED and that Appellant's motion for bail, or in the alternative, temporary pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), Dkt. 39, is DENIED. During oral argument, counsel for Appellant expressed concern that Appellant was improperly being deprived of sleep while incarcerated. To the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court. + +FOR THE COURT: + +Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court + +![]()![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg) + +EXHIBIT B \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8231ea5d34af64a672ef55dfa726e332901b76c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/EFTA02831892.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4921, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.17, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 509.18399999999997, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 509.18399999999997, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 53.46 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States Court of Appeals", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 119.07 + ], + [ + 425.95199999999994, + 119.07 + ], + [ + 425.95199999999994, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 138.51 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831892" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f62002da64ee4476a07b880081baa6dbc589a6a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831892/_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:15c0a282055d833e873f784e34c0ddc75caf76ff5ce47f258248ce7d2db4da2f +size 26621 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a37cc0a96f49fb921cf37addc9dbe5e976c4324 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlaw.com + +April 29, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +During oral argument of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail appeal before the Circuit, Ms. Maxwell's appellate counsel expressed concern that she was improperly deprived of sleep while detained in the MDC, an issue that has been raised in filings before this Court. In its brief denial of her appeal, the Circuit stated: "To the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court." See Exhibit A. We press our concerns regarding disruption of Ms. Maxwell's sleep and the deleterious effect sleep deprivation is having on her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for and withstand trial. + +Ms. Maxwell continues to be disrupted throughout the night by guards shining a flash/strobe light into her cell, claiming that her breathing must be checked. The myth that Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are related to her being a suicide risk was laid to rest during the oral argument: There is nothing to support that contrived claim. In fact, Ms. Maxwell is classified with the standard CC I-Mh designation: inmate with no significant mental health care. (See Dkt. 159 at 3.) + +Contrary to the report that Ms. Maxwell "wears an eye mask when she sleeps" (Dkt. 196 at 4), an item neither available for purchase through MDC commissary nor provided to her, she resorts to using a sock or towel to cover her eyes in an awkward attempt to shield them from disrupting illumination every 15 minutes. Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The "black eye" is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday's bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper. At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it. While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night. + +The MDC routinely places inmates in the SHU if they have engaged in physical altercation with other inmates or to protect inmates who are the subject of abuse. It would be ironic if the MDC follows through with its threat to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU: It would signal that Ms. Maxwell needs protection from the very staff so intent on protecting her, since she has no contact with anyone but staff. + +As suggested by the Circuit, we ask the Court to address Ms. Maxwell's sleeping conditions by directing the MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance of Ms. Maxwell or justify the need for the disruptive flashlight surveillance. + +Very truly yours, + +gold4 C. tom+►. + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Encs. + +cc: All counsel of record + +![](_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg) + +By May 5, 2021, the Government is ORDERED to confer with MDC legal counsel and provide the Court responses to the following questions: + +- I Is Ms. Maxwell being subjected to flashlight surveillance every 15 minutes at night? Or any other atypical flashlight surveillance? +- 2. If so, what is the basis for doing so? +- 3. And if so, can she be provided with appropriate eye covering? + +The Government is further ORDERED to share its response with defense counsel before filing it on ECF so that defense counsel can indicate whether they believe any private medical information needs to be redacted before public filing. SO ORDERED. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..551e73b2d25958b574ceef0e97a65c804661ee1e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/EFTA02831896.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4194, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831896" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b966e6223997bfa55d410f3da93960d22425649b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:aa43fa2ae6a3e26662625f315c082504c4a4ab0c88e497b1ab26d4c7f564f2fa +size 11224 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76eeefe64bdce4abb7a85c32c6e42760119ef8d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831896/_page_1_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b97f02447a4426d1432c239ab4ba9c4d367884a5654f771df8ed12f8cb2443f0 +size 16031 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb268b429ee414469b12a5f06c9e35aef1b17c84 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 be@st•rnh•Imlow.com + +April 29, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +MDC Legal persists in falsely accusing Ms. Maxwell's counsel of violating MDC Brooklyn's legal visit procedures. This allegation is reckless, false, and defamatory. At no time did counsel provide documents to Ms. Maxwell for her retention that did not originate from Ms. Maxwell. The April 291" letter from MDC Legal states that "supervisory staff...reviewed video surveillance footage" but notably does not state the contents of that video surveillance. The fact that MDC Legal does not claim to have reviewed the video or report the contents of the video footage speaks volumes. + +Further and contrary to MDC's letter, MDC staff did in fact "seize and retain" Ms. Maxwell's confidential legal documents after the legal visit on April 24t°. While most of those documents were returned to Ms. Maxwell, other documents, which the MDC concedes were "confiscated," were not returned to her but rather given to her counsel the next day. As previously stated, documents returned to Ms. Maxwell's counsel was "legal mail" which had been sent to Ms. Maxwell some time prior to April 2411'. Counsel did not bring those documents into the facility. + +The MDC admits, and flouts the fact, that guards read Ms. Maxwell's confidential materials. This is no small matter. Ms. Maxwell is working tirelessly to review and discuss with her attorneys literally millions of pages of documents. Deterioration of her confidential communications with her attorneys does not produce a fair and just trial. + +We press our request that the Court direct the MDC to provide Ms. Maxwell's counsel with a copy of the video recording. + +Very truly yours, + +gold4 C. 540444 . BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780212aa0963552366413e26ade8b7f54a8f70db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898/EFTA02831898.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831898.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 2048, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 31.82342529296875 + ], + [ + 514.6243286132812, + 31.82342529296875 + ], + [ + 514.6243286132812, + 57.40118408203125 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.40118408203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831898" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8497332e916a47255460a58a593843ae7495ec08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center + +80 294 Strew Brookjm, New York 11232 + +April 29, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison). Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +DearJudge Nathan: + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 4/30/21 | + +This letter is written in response to your April 28, 2021, Order seeking the following information regarding an alleged incident involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Register No. 02879-509, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, Ncw York (MDC Brooklyn) on April 24, 2021: + +- 1. An inventory of the items seized from Ms. Maxwell in the incident that occurred on April 24, 2021 shall be provided by email to defense counsel only; +- 2. A representation indicating whether any of the seized materials were duplicated in any fashion and what investigation was undertaken in order to determine this information; + - a. A representation indicating whether Ms. Maxwell is permitted to bring confidential legal materials to in-person meetings with defense counsel without those materials being seized; and + - b. What steps have been or will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of Ms. Maxwell's lawyer-client communications. + +At no point during or after Ms. Maxwell's April 24, 2021, legal visit were any materials seized and retained by MDC Brooklyn staff. Those materials that defense counsel gave to Ms. Maxwell contrary to MDC Brooklyn's legal visit procedures were confiscated by staff and return + +to defense counsel on April 25, 2021. In addition, none of Ms. Maxwell's legal materials, including those items given to her during the April 24, 2021, legal visit, were photocopied. Supervisory staff discussed the incident with the staff involved and reviewed video surveillance footage. + +bring any legal materials she wishes to carry from her housing area to her in-person legal meetings with defense counsel. Pursuant to Institutional Supplement BRO-5267.09A, Inmate VisiiingCorredional Services, an inmate's legal material are visually inspected for contraband by the Visiting Room Officer. To ensure inmates do not bring unauthorized materials into the institution, inmates are only allowed to remove those legal materials they brought to the legal visit. + +All legal visits are subject to visual monitoring only. In addition to in-person legal visits, request unmonitored legal calls through Unit Team and she meets with defense counsel via video-teleconferences Monday through Friday for five (5) hours per day in a private room subject to visual supervision. MDC Brooklyn will continue to abide by said procedures to ensure attorney-client communications remain confidential. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is! Sophia Papapetru + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney MDC Brooklyn Federal Bureau of Prisons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0813b31b4193282b84e3da609f98f5d2171205fe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/EFTA02831899.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3095, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.15, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE \nFederal Bureau of Prisons \nMetropolitan Detention Center", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 337.824, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 528.8074340820312, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 528.8074340820312, + 123.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 337.824, + 123.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 132.04470825195312, + 243.0 + ], + [ + 132.04470825195312, + 257.103515625 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 257.103515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831899" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3f57d11e711eb950d267a4f26504b16be5f3ab4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831899/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1a2ce474afb3db62a5d5cffe249f553d839629bffaadfe138e0391ca3b7b350a +size 12847 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0167f3192ee0772a006e1a89a4f11c02d6a094ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg) + +800 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 ++1 212 957 7600 phone +www.cohengresser.com + +Christian R. Everdell ++1 (212) 957-7600 +ceverdell@cohengresser.com + +April 30, 2021 + +**BY ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write to respectfully request the Court to issue an order to the MDC directing it to accept two hard drives from defense counsel that contain the non-Highly Confidential discovery in this case for Ms. Maxwell's use at the MDC. + +In an effort to facilitate Ms. Maxwell's review of the discovery, defense counsel have created a [REDACTED] set of two hard drives that contain a complete set of the discovery produced by the government so far, excluding the materials marked Highly Confidential, which Ms. Maxwell is not permitted to possess in the MDC pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. The [REDACTED] drives are easier to use than her existing hard drives because they collect all of the material in one place and organize the documents in a more user-friendly format. For example, the November 18, 2020 production containing roughly 2.2 million pages was produced in load file format, which contains images of individual pages of documents in native file format, image file format, and other formats. The hard drives organize these files by document, as opposed to by page, and eliminate duplicative file formats so that Ms. Maxwell will not have to add countless hours to her review. + +Defense counsel would like to send these hard drives to Ms. Maxwell for her to use in the MDC. We were informed by the MDC Legal Department that they are only permitted to accept hard drives that are loaded and certified by the U.S. Attorney's Office. We have conferred with the government, which has advised that it does not object to the defense making an application to the Court to issue an order directing the MDC to accept the hard drives. The government requested, however, that the Court allow MDC legal counsel the opportunity to note their objections to the Court. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 30, 2021 Page 2 + +Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court issue an order directing the MDC to accept the M hard drives either from defense counsel or from the government. We will send a copy of this letter to the MDC Legal Department so that they can note any objections they may have. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 2Ist Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) MDC Legal Department \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..808b74654f5e314034794fa925fb629fe5420447 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/EFTA02831901.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2813, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 200.88 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831901" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b25ef9f284d171d94a82b2dc0443346b1c45065 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831901/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:44ccf22049937b1d497c165ba3060615b3e73818453b97ca7d57ffabce5a1024 +size 1552 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d15f7b82c5ffddcedf36316e7a02bd4ee282042 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.md @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLANE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Before: + +x + +20 CR 330 (AJN) + +New York, N.Y. April 23, 2021 2:30 p.m. + +HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, + +## APPEARANCES + +District Judge + +AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York MAURENE R. COMEY ALISON G. MOE LARA E. POMERANTZ ANDREW ROHRBACH Assistant United States Attorneys + +LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorneys for Defendant + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM -and- + +& GRESSER LLP Attorneys for Defendant + +CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL -and- + +HADDON, AND P.C. Attorneys for Defendant + +JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA LAURA A. MENNINGER + +ALSO PRESENT: Special Agent Amanda Young, FBI + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Comey, and good afternoon. + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 Second, as my courtroom deputy indicated, but I will + +(In open court) + +THE DEPUTY CLERK: In the case of United States v. Ghislane Maxwell, 20 CR 330, counsel, please state your name for the record, beginning with the government. + +MS. COMEY: Good afternoon, your Honor. Maurene Comey for the government. Joining me at counsel table is AUSAs Alison Moe and Lara Pomerantz. I would also note that AUSA Andrew Rohrbach is in the courtroom, and so is Special Agent Amanda Young of the FBI. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Good afternoon, Judge Nathan. Bobbi C. Sternheim, Jeff Pagliuca, Christian Everdell, and Laura Menninger for Ghislane Maxwell, who is seated next to me in the courtroom. + +We are here today for an arraignment on the S2 superseding indictment in this case. + +I do have a few preliminary matters. First, the Southern District court has provided for broad public access to this proceeding, both here in the courtroom, overflow courtrooms, and access to the live audio over the phone line. We have ensured access for alleged victims and their counsel as well as members of Ms. Maxwell's family, and I thank everyone for being here. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +reiterate, federal law prohibits the recording or rebroadcasting of this proceeding. Failure to comply could result in being held in contempt of court. + +The third preliminary matter, this is our first conference since Congress amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f). Pursuant to that amendment, I am required at this conference to remind the prosecution of its obligation under Brady v. Maryland and related cases to disclose to the defense all information, whether admissible or not, that is favorable to the defendant, material either to guilt or to punishment, and known to the prosecution. The prosecution must make good-faith efforts to disclose such information to the defense as soon as reasonably possible. Failure to do so may result in any number of consequences including a continuance, sanctions, dismissal, or vacatur of a conviction. + +I have entered a written order describing more fully these obligations and the possible consequences of failing to meet them, and I direct the prosecution to review and comply with that order. + +Ms. Comey, does the prosecution confirm that it understands its obligations and either has fulfilled or will fulfill them? + +MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: With that I'll turn to the arraignment. + +Ms. Maxwell, have you received a copy of the S2, the + +superseding indictment in this case? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Have you had time to review it with your 4 attorney? + +5 THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor. + +6 7 8 THE COURT: You have a right to have the indictment read to you here in open court or you can waive the public reading. Do you waive the public reading? + +9 THE DEFENDANT: I waive the public reading. + +10 11 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, how does your client wish to plead? + +12 MS. STERNHEIM: She enters a plea of not guilty. + +13 THE COURT: Thank you. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 With that I note that we do have a number of scheduling issues pending. I have received the parties' briefing on the defense's request for a continuance of the trial date until either the fall or winter. I'm considering that request and gathering information. I will provide resolution as soon as I can, and I believe it is important to do so quickly. + +21 22 23 24 As I've stated, however, unless and until you hear further from me, you must assume that I will request a jury selection date as close to the planned July 12 date as possible. + +25 I have also received the parties' proposed schedules + +for various pretrial disclosures and other pretrial matters. I am working on that, and I'll address those issues in an order soon. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +In the meantime, I see the government agreed to make expert disclosures today, and the parties have agreed to dates for supplemental briefing of pretrial motions based only on what pertains to the S2 indictment, and I am fine with those proposals, and I think that's what you need in the immediate. + +With that, Ms. Comey, is there anything else the Court can address at this time? + +MS. COMEY: Nothing from the government, your Honor. Thank you. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +I have a moment? + +THE COURT: You + +II. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, if I might ask that Mr. Pagliuca speak on one issue concerning the schedule. + +THE COURT: Okay. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon. + +THE COURT: Good afternoon. Just pull a little closer to the mic so I can hear you. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. This only has to do with what's been submitted to the Court as an agreed-upon motion in limine schedule. I want the Court to understand that + +that agreed-upon motion in limine schedule, frankly, is dependent on the various disclosure dates that the defense has requested. And I wasn't sure that that was specific enough in the submission that we made. But, we don't think it's tenable to stick to the motion in limine schedule based on the government's proposed disclosures. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: You're essentially seeking four weeks from disclosure to briefing on in limine. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Exactly. + +THE COURT: And the government's proposing to give you two weeks. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct. And it's less for the exhibits, because we only have, under the government's proposal, three days to respond with any motions in limine to exhibits. So, that's the difference that I wanted the Court to be aware of. + +THE COURT: I do see that. Thank you. + +Ms. Comey, there will undoubtedly be briefing. Counsel needs time to review whatever the volume of that material will be, the Court needs time to resolve the motions. Is the government amenable to eight weeks for that disclosure? + +MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the reason we've proposed 45 days is because, assuming the trial goes forward on July 12 as scheduled, the government wants to make sure that we have time to be careful and thorough in reviewing our files and making + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +sure that our disclosures are complete and are prepared. Given the number of other items that need to be taken care of between now and 45 days before trial, we proposed 45 days before trial because we are confident that we can complete a thorough review of voluminous files to make sure we have satisfied our disclosure obligations by that date. + +THE COURT: If we split the difference, they're saying eight weeks, you are saying six weeks. How about seven? + +MS. COMEY: Your Honor, whatever your Honor directs, we would certainly make our absolute best efforts. Our estimate is based on the volume of files that your Honor is aware we need to review. It is that we are confident and comfortable that we can make the disclosure 45 days before trial. + +THE COURT: I'm thinking of splitting that difference. The government has a lot to review to make sure it's making those disclosures fully. Whatever the volume of that material is, the defense has to have time to review it. This schedule, assuming trial stays in July, this is the schedule. If trial were to move, this is the same schedule. So, they don't get any more time to review the material, whatever happens with the trial date. And as I say, everyone should assume July. But I think, sounds like the government would be agreeable to a seven-week disclosure date. + +I have a moment, your Honor? + +THE COURT: You + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +II. COMEY: Your Honor, I would just note, given the volume, we would certainly make a first production seven weeks out from trial. But as is typical in preparing for trials, especially trials that involve so much material, there may be rolling productions after those seven weeks. And as is typical with trials in this district, it is possible there may be supplemental motions in limine after the date that the parties have proposed for motions in limine in this case. + +We would absolutely make our best efforts to meet the seven-week deadline as opposed to the six-week deadline, but I did want to be candid with the Court about our estimations of how quickly we'll be able to complete those disclosures thoroughly and carefully. + +THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I'm likely to adopt the seven weeks, given that, and urge the government to do what it needs to do to be ready for that. And to the extent that there is some additional supplementation that has to be done after that date, we can consider that. But the government's proposing six weeks. I think we're coming to agreement on seven weeks. So, there is a lot to do for everyone, and we'll get it done. + +MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Counsel, is there anything else I can + + THE COURT: We are adjourned. + + (Adjourned) + +address at this time? + +MS. STERNHEIM: No, thank you. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. Thank you. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bf52c495c6be8d39ecda7f968d0e744807ae491 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903/EFTA02831903.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,358 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831903.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 10021, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.18, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 281.52, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 388.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 388.08416748046875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 124 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831903" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..642f2de2ff5158b4874f76559b3b05f348108e86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +USA / Plaintiff(s) + +case No.: 20 CR 330 + +GHISLANE MAXWELL, + +Defendant(s) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT + +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference held on 4/23/21 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter. + +forman + +( 'OuI t Reporter/Transcriber Date \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1208f03ba73bc45805157259e10a89fda077db7a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912/EFTA02831912.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831912.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1441, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.87, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 96.363037109375 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 96.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.912, + 308.6015625 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 308.6015625 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 168.912, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831912" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..baf59b30674f4ec89a8766d7116b5558ab167a7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7600 ccvcrdcllticohcngrcsscr.com + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +April 30, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Aveenr\* New York, NY 1O022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wwwicchengrossor corn + +Counsel for the MDC may submit any objection to the Defendant's request by May 4, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +We write to respectfully request the Court to issue an order to the MDC directing it to accept two hard drives from defense counsel that contain the non-Highly Confidential discovery in this case for Ms. Maxwell's use at the MDC. + +In an effort to facilitate Ms. Maxwell's review of the discovery, defense counsel have created a set of two hard drives that contain a complete set of the discovery produced by the government so far, excluding the materials marked Highly Confidential, which Ms. Maxwell is not permitted to possess in the MDC pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. The drives are easier to use than her existing hard drives because they collect all of the material in one place and organize the documents in a more user-friendly format. For example, the November 18, 2020 production containing roughly 2.2 million pages was produced in load file format, which contains images of individual pages of documents in native file format, image file format, and other formats. The hard drives organize these files by document, as opposed to by page, and eliminate duplicative file formats so that Ms. Maxwell will not have to add countless hours to her review. + +Defense counsel would like to send these hard drives to Ms. Maxwell for her to use in the MDC. We were informed by the MDC Legal Department that they are only permitted to accept hard drives that are loaded and certified by the U.S. Attorney's Office. We have conferred with the government, which has advised that it does not object to the defense making an application to the Court to issue an order directing the MDC to accept the hard drives. The government requested, however, that the Court allow MDC legal counsel the opportunity to note their objections to the Court. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 30, 2021 Page 2 + +Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court issue an order directing the MDC to accept the M hard drives either from defense counsel or from the government. We will send a copy of this letter to the MDC Legal Department so that they can note any objections they may have. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 2Ist Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) MDC Legal Department \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a67fda05f620c104784b550e9821092c8fb453ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/EFTA02831913.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2926, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.5 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 202.5 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831913" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7b827328c46f12330394ce90b35b6cf99e16fc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0c08f5041be3709a62814bfc224ed1b8b5d50ceca6f739a3df10d319fecd7f03 +size 1588 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27574e0894d69ffbe3bf989c490f5916d5e9a2fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a664175bbfb0478dce8647d773535735baa2c92f93c95b1189d6c76871992d19 +size 11499 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b873fa469039b19929b0f64b305cb2e919532a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831913/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:745627eee9ce910e7dc078daa7591d0bc1a4f0eedf7973a7aa0b57d04ec97f70 +size 9297 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6eedf0f64cbfe2ff64cceb0a2279bdb251d712ec --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 5/3/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 21, 2021, the Court's [REDACTED] received a letter from counsel for a non-party requesting assurances as to privacy protections for his client in any filings or proceedings in this case. The letter requests anonymity on behalf of the client as an alleged victim of a sexual crime. After receiving the letter, the Court forwarded it to the parties and required the Government to respond to counsel, which it has done. The Court will take no further action based on the April 21, 2021 letter but will file it under seal to protect the privacy interests of the non-party asserting that interest. + +The Government is requested to forward this order to counsel for the non-party. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: May 3, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5796e270d4606e50effb4d2ed17245ac2b507ba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915/EFTA02831915.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831915.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1126, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.01, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831915" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb4401a8a2c2b8262cc8350be646ef39715d20a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|--------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 5/3/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON I. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court has received an exchange of letters that pertain to an incident that took place on April 24, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 248, 253, 254, 258, 259. Legal counsel for MDC, where Ms. Maxwell is detained pretrial, alleges that her lawyers violated Bureau of Prisons rules by providing Ms. Maxwell materials at an in-person attorney-client visit. Dkt. Nos. 254, 259. Ms. Maxwell's lawyers categorically deny the allegations and threaten separate legal action against MDC staff based on the incident and the accusation. Dkt. Nos. 253, 258. The Court intimates no views as to whether some other action or process is appropriate or proper in light of either side's allegations. This Court's obligation in this case, and any other, is to ensure that the defendant is given an opportunity to meet with her lawyers, engage in confidential attorneyclient communications, and prepare for trial. + +Mindful of that obligation, the Court declines to take further action at this time. After receiving the defense's first letter motion, the Court ordered MDC legal counsel to show cause why the Court should not grant the requested relief. Dkt. No. 249. The Court then granted in part defense counsel's original request and ordered MDC legal counsel to respond to certain questions about the April 24, 2021 incident and the procedures in place to ensure the confidentiality of Ms. Maxwell's lawyer-client communications. Dkt. No. 255. Defense + +counsel's current application is that this Court order MDC to turn over copies of video tapes of the in-person attorney-client visit. Dkt. No. 258. Those video tapes must be preserved in light of defense counsel's preservation letter. Dkt. No. 248, Ex. C. If Ms. Maxwell or defense counsel are entitled to view or receive copies of those materials as a matter of law, they should be provided. To the extent defense counsel is seeking entitlement to those materials from this Court, that application is denied. + +The Court has ensured and will continue to ensure that Ms. Maxwell has the opportunity to meet meaningfully and confidentially with her lawyers in light of all relevant circumstances and consistent with the treatment of all other detained inmates in BOP custody. The isolated incident that took place on April 24, 2021, and the serious allegations leveled by MDC legal counsel and defense counsel in no way undermine the Court's conclusion that Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers are fully able to prepare for trial. The Court is confident that all parties recognize the importance of this going forward and in advance of the upcoming trial. + +In furtherance of this, counsel for the Government are ORDERED to confer with legal counsel for MDC to ensure that Ms. Maxwell continues to have access to confidential attorneyclient communications as she prepares for trial. If any additional incidents arise, defense counsel shall promptly confer with counsel for the Government regarding those incidents and seek to resolve any such issues swiftly, responsibly, reasonably, and amicably. If that fails, the parties may write to the Court jointly indicating their views, identifying and justifying any specific application being made. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: May 3, 2021 + +New York. New York k + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1417fe3279dd2dcb15da26c5f4f62001b4f05290 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916/EFTA02831916.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831916.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3646, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 12 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831916" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a89431fa3a2ee8571885dc44b1053b43b1ec0dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 5/3/21 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Last summer, the Court scheduled trial in this matter to commence on July 12, 2021. On March 29, 2021, three and a half months before trial, the Government filed an S2 Superseding Indictment. As a result of the late filing of the S2, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell request a continuance of the trial date until either fall 2021 or January 2022. t The Government opposes any continuance, but requests that if one is granted it be until March of 2022. Having carefully considered the parties' respective positions, the Court GRANTS Maxwell's request for a short continuance until the fall of 2021 to allow the defense to prepare for the additional charges brought in the S2 indictment. The Court rejects Maxwell's alternative request to continue the trial date until January of 2022 and the Government's alternative proposal that the Court adjourn trial until March of 2022. + +The Court bases its decision on a number of factors. First, the filing of the S2 indictment has added a significant burden to the defense's preparation for trial. The new indictment alleges + +I The alternative request by Maxwell resulted from a conflict among lawyers involved in both this case and a criminal matter before Judge Furman. which is discussed in defense counsel's letter. Dkt. No. 246 at 4. The Court has been informed that Judge Furman has adjourned the trial date with respect to two defendants. The Court presumes that this eliminates the September through December conflict for one of Maxwell's defense counsel. It presumably does not eliminate the conflict for one of the AUSAs involved in both cases. Dkt. No. 235 at 10 n.5. + +that the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 3 extended to 2004 (the S I charged through 1997), identifying a fourth alleged victim, Minor Victim-4. It also adds two new charges: Count 5 of the S2 Indictment charges Maxwell with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy between 2001 and 2004, and Count 6 charges Maxwell with participating in the sex trafficking of a minor or aiding and abetting the same. Dkt. No. 187. These additions will require the defense to (1) review a substantial amount of discovery that is now potentially relevant as a result of the S2 Indictment; (2) re-review discovery that it had previously considered in light of the changes to the case against her; (3) conduct new investigations based on the new charges, including potential interviews of new witnesses; and (4) re-evaluate her trial preparation and strategy. Second, although jury trials have resumed in the district and conditions in MDC and around the country are improving, the defendant's and defense counsel's preparation efforts to date have been and to some extent continue to be hampered by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the Government indicated in explaining the delay in filing the new charges, travel constraints and other safety concerns resulting from the pandemic have slowed trial preparation and complicated the logistics of conducting investigations. See Dkt. No. 199 at 2. Third, defense counsel must balance preparing for trial with considering and preparing any supplemental pre-trial motions in response to the new charges contained in the S2 Indictment. Although the perjury counts were recently severed, the Court cannot conclude that this sufficiently offsets the additional burdens placed on the defense as a result of the new charges and expanded timeframe resulting from the S2 indictment. + +The Court is very mindful of the countervailing considerations that require that any adjournment be no longer than necessary. For one, the Defendant, whose counsel strenuously request the adjournment, is detained pm-trial. Moreover, with many lawyers on both sides of + +this case, any adjournment runs the risk of precluding some attorneys from being able to participate and/or requiring them to seek adjustments to schedules in other matters. And, importantly, any victims and the public more broadly have a strong interest in trial proceeding without undue delay. It is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. *See* 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7). + +Having balanced all of the factors outlined above, the Court concludes that the interests of justice justify granting a short continuance. The Court deems an adjournment until fall 2021 to be reasonable. Such an adjournment would plainly give the defense team sufficient time to prepare for trial in light of the additional charges contained in the S2 indictment while also ensuring that the trial proceeds without undue delay. No additional delay is necessary or in the interests of justice. + +The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and by May 10, 2021, they shall jointly propose a trial start date for the Court to request of the Clerk's Office (as is required by COVID protocols). The Court urges counsel to agree to the earliest possible date this fall and to seek adjustments to other schedules in order to facilitate an early fall trial start date. The parties shall also discuss and propose any adjustments necessary to the pre-trial schedule in place. Dkt. No. 250. The Government may move in the letter for any requested exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: May 3, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71636ef73d811efa20121ad7fd386ee3ed09560e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919/EFTA02831919.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831919.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5733, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.78, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831919" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eda7d464277f3ab16764f600e279ad6bddb93bb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +May 3, 2021 + +The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and P.0 Jeffrey S. Paglleca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 vH 303.831.7364 Pot 303.832.2628 www.hmflow.com jpogliucaithmflaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Joint Letter re. defense witness disclosures Dkt. No. 250 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to your order of April 26, 2021, Dkt. No. 250, the respective positions of the parties regarding the timing of any defense Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 disclosures are set forth below. + +# Ms. Maxwell's Position + +Ms. Maxwell does not agree with the government's proposal that she submit witness statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 at least four weeks in advance of trial. No statute or rule requires disclosure of either non-expert witness lists or Rule 26.2 material in advance of trial. Furthermore, the defense has not been given any specific dates related to any alleged illegal activity nor has the government disclosed the actual identity of any alleged victim or witness. Accordingly, it is impossible to identify any affirmative witness who might, for example, place Ms. Maxwell in a different location at a specific date and time. Until the government completes the presentation of its evidence at trial, the defendant will not be able to identify definitively witnesses that may be relevant or necessary. A court order for pretrial + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 2 + +disclosure of merely prospective witnesses would infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because it would force Ms. Maxwell to reveal potential defense strategies. + +However, in the spirit of cooperation and to avoid any unnecessary trial delay, the defense proposes that to the extent there are any non-public Rule 26.2 witness statements in the defense possession (not already in the possession of the government) such statements be produced to the government after (I) the government closes its evidence and (2) the conclusion of the argument on the first defense Rule 29(a) motion.' + +### I. Rule 26.2 Does Not Mandate Advance Disclosure of Statements of Prospective Defense Witnesses. + +Rule 26.2(a) provides: + +After a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination, the court, on motion of a party who did not call the witness, must order an attorney for the government or the defendant and the defendant's attorney to produce, for the examination and use of the moving party, any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony. + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(a). The requirements of Rule 26.2 "essentially track those of the Jencks Act." United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237, 1249 (2d Cir. 1995). The Rule provides that the defense, like the prosecution, must produce witness statements. See Fed. R. Crim. P. + +Ms. Maxwell understands that the Court has ordered that "The Defendant's Rule 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) disclosures and witness list are due three weeks before the trial commencement date." See Dkt. No. 250. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A) applies to documents and objects that the defendant intends to use in the defendant's case-in-chief at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(B) applies to reports of examinations or tests and witnesses who prepared any report or examination if the defense intends to call the witness at trial during the defendant's case-in-chief. At this stage of the proceeding Ms. Maxwell continues to review the evidence and witness materials recently provided by the government and has not identified any documents, tests, or witnesses that would fall into these categories. + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 3 + +26.2(f) Advisory Committee's Note, 1979 Addition. However, like the Jencks Act, the Rule requires disclosure of witness statements only after a witness has testified on direct examination. Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(a); see also Scotti, 47 F.3d at 1250 ("The plain language of both Rule 26.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a) shows that the discovery procedure therein outlined applies only to statements that must be produced after a witness testifies[.]") (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Felt, 502 F. Supp. 71, 74 (D.D.C. 1980) ("access is to be permitted after the defense witness has testified on direct examination"). A district court therefore lacks authority to order early disclosure statements of prospective defense witnesses. + +Due to their similarities, federal courts look to decisions interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3500 in order to interpret Rule 26.2. The Second Circuit has long maintained that "the Jencks Act prohibits a District Court from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001). See also In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 1974) ("the trial judge is prevented by the Jencks Act from ordering pretrial disclosure of statements made by a prospective government witness over the government's objection"). Cf. United States v. Benson, 20 F.R.D. 602, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) (holding that Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1953) does not apply until "a witness is called to the witness stand"). + +Because the court cannot compel the government to provide early Jencks Act or Rule 26.2 disclosures to the defense — and the defense is not entitled to it by virtue of statute — it necessarily follows that the court cannot compel the same material from the defense. See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1973). A district court can only "encourage" the practice of early disclosure. See Percevault, 490 F.2d at 132. + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 4 + +#### IL The Defense Does Not — and Need Not - Yet Intend to Call Any ParticWar Witness. + +Unlike Rule 16(6)(1), the Jencks Act and Rule 26.2 do not obligate the defense to reciprocate the government's early disclosures with early disclosures of its own. If the government discloses Jencks Act material early, the defense is not obligated to act in kind. See United States v. No. CR 07-1205 (A) CBM, 2009 WL 453195, at \*2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2009) (denying government's motion to compel reciprocal Jencks Act discovery from defense). There is good reason for not mandating such reciprocity: the government and the defendant are not similarly situated. + +Ms. Maxwell has the right to a presumption of innocence. Estelle v. 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976). The burden to prove guilt is high, and it is entirely the government's to bear. "[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). In result, the defense is not obligated in any way to put on evidence at trial, including witnesses. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell has rights to a present a defense and to compulsory process of witnesses. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18 (1967). + +Because all defense witnesses are prospective, defense considerations regarding trial strategy with respect to these decisions are protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. "Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). See also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) ("Government violates the right to effective + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 5 + +assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense."). + +If the court were to act outside its statutory authority and compel defense counsel to disclose defense material prematurely, then Ms. Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights would be endangered. While the aims of judicial economy and efficiency may be served by ordering the defense to disclose prospective witnesses, such policy goals, however laudable, cannot trump fundamental liberties. "In the administration of criminal justice, courts must carefully guard against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt." Estelle, 425 U.S. at 503. + +## III. Procedural Rules Aside, the GM ernment Must Timely Disclose Any Brady and Giglio Material. + +Brady and its progeny impose upon the government broad duties of disclosure. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) ("the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985) (defining materiality); Strickler v. 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999) (same); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (government has duty to disclose material affecting reliability of government witnesses). + +The court's authority, or lack thereof, to order disclosures under Rules 16 and 26.2 does not affect the defendant's right to Brady material. "It is, of course, a fundamental axiom of American law, rooted in our history as a people and requiring no citations to authority, that the requirements of the Constitution prevail over a statute in the event of a conflict." Coppa, 267 + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 6 + +F.3d at 145-46. Nor do the procedural and statutory rules affect the defense's right to Brady information prior to trial. See Docket No. 68 ("The Government shall disclose [Brady] information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case."); accord Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f); United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007) ("the Government must make disclosures in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously"). + +In sum, Ms. Maxwell will be able to identify any relevant defense witnesses and exhibits that she may need to introduce in a defense case only after the government concludes the presentation of its evidence at trial. Evidence may, or may not, be necessary after the government concludes its case-in-chief. Ms. Maxwell's proposal is reasonable and will avoid any unnecessary trial delays because it is unlikely that any Rule 26.2 statements not already in the possession of the government, if they exist, will be voluminous or complicated. + +# Government's Position + +Consistent with the position set forth in its April 21, 2021 letter to the Court, the Government proposes that defense counsel provide a proposed witness list and witness statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1 four weeks in advance of trial. Such a production schedule would be consistent with the Government's agreement to provide Jencks Act material seven weeks in advance of trial, which is significantly before the Government is obligated to produce such material under the relevant statute. Production in advance of trial will also ensure adequate time for the Government to file any relevant motions and to prepare any rebuttal case as appropriate. The defense proposal to delay production of + +May 3, 2021 + +Page 7 + +these materials until after the Government has rested allows no time for the Government to prepare any rebuttal case or to raise any relevant motions. The defense proposal also runs contrary to the Court's setting of a schedule that allows the parties to resolve any disputes in advance of trial. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c94fca5ef9368f1622af09f227c429dd1d9ca3c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/EFTA02831922.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,412 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 11794, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.31, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Ms. Maxwell's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 239.75404357910156, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 239.75404357910156, + 439.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 439.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Rule 26.2 Does Not Mandate Advance Disclosure of Statements of Prospective \nDefense Witnesses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 509.3257141113281, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 509.3257141113281, + 326.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 326.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IL The Defense Does Not \u2014 and Need Not - Yet Intend to Call Any ParticWar Witness.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 535.0249633789062, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 535.0249633789062, + 119.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 119.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Procedural Rules Aside, the GM ernment Must Timely Disclose Any Brady and \nGiglio Material.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 513.851318359375, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 513.851318359375, + 393.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 393.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 238.2181854248047, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 238.2181854248047, + 483.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 483.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831922" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5108c7afdb3eb8f5e95e5b801509cff0a7f0cc3d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831922/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2ecea4ddab35d1b31c27b74fcdebbea11a107862e7f0cd7bbe3a61140aa45343 +size 6364 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37a3e9597dfd61abc1a558bcc5b16aa8d1f19535 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU: [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 5/4/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 30, 2021, defense counsel requested that the Court issue an order directing the MDC to accept two hard drives from defense counsel that contain the non-Highly Confidential discovery in this case for Ms. Maxwell's use. Dkt. No. 260. On May 4, 2021, the Court received the attached email from MDC legal counsel indicating that MDC does not oppose the defense's request and that MDC staff will coordinate with defense counsel so that Ms. Maxwell can receive the hard drives. + +In light of this, defense counsel's April 30, 2021 request appears moot. Defense counsel shall raise any further issues regarding their request within two weeks of this order. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: May 4, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +Sophia Papapetru + +Tue 5/4/2021 11 54 AM + +To: Nathan NYSD + +Cc: John Wallace + +CAUTION - EXTERNAL: + +Rohrbac + +Good afternoon Your Honor, + +Alison Moe + +Lara Pomerantz Maurene Comey + +I write in regards to the letter filed by Christian Everdell on April 30, 2021. Based on prior discussions with defense counsel and the U.S. Attorneys, the MDC Brooklyn is only permitted to accept external hard drives which were loaded and certified by the U.S. Attorney's Office. However, after internal discussions, we are not opposed to accepting the external hard drive from defense counsel. It is our position that there is there is no need for an Order, as MDC will be working with Defense on acceptance of the hard drive. We will be in contact with defense counsel in coordinating acceptance of the delivery. Please let us know if the Court requires any additional information, which we will be happy to provide. + +Sincerely, + +Sophia Papapetru Staff Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn 80 29th Street Brooklyn, New York 11232 + +Menninaer + +; Andrew + +SENSITIVE/PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION + +The information contained in this electronic message and any and all accompanying documents constitutes sensitive information. This information is the property of the U.S. Department of Justice. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosures, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this + +information is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately to make arrangements for its return to us. + +>>> Nathan NYSD + +5/3/2021 10:44 AM >>> + +Counsel, + +Please find attached a memorandum endorsement signed by Judge Nathan, which has been filed on the public docket. + +Respectful) + +The of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan + +CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcb949f1e56d9c5ab873bbf7f8bedd2895ef5372 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929/EFTA02831929.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831929.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3070, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.33, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Re: Memorandum endorsement in 20-cr-330, US v Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 45.36 + ], + [ + 399.1412048339844, + 45.36 + ], + [ + 399.1412048339844, + 59.947021484375 + ], + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 59.947021484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831929" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec3707820f9c3a04d41197b6ec65130555ebc79b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +May 4, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order of April 27, 2021, regarding the defendant's request for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for records from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF"). In the Order, the Court directed the Government to notify the Court of its views as to Requests 9 through I I. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully submits that Requests 9 and 11 should be denied, and the Court should reserve decision with respect to Request 10, which the Government expects may be rendered moot. + +#### I. Applicable Law + +As the Court explained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena "should not issue unless it meets three criteria: '(1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, (3) specificity." United States v. Binday, 908 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700). + +The Nixon test is enforced strictly. "The party requesting the subpoena must also show that the information sought is `not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence,' that 'the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production,' and that 'the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition. United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. 751 F. App'x 44, 46 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). It is not sufficient for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or admissible." United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as the Court has explained, impeachment material is not "relevant" within the meaning of Nixon "until after the witness testifies." (Order at 5). See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 ("[g]enerally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial" (citations omitted)). Finally, Rule 17 by its terms prohibits subpoenas aimed at statements "of a witness or a prospective witness." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h). + +## H. Discussion + +Although the Government has not seen the proposed subpoena, the Government understands that Request 9 seeks the complete diary of Minor Victim-2, Request I0 seeks a pair of boots given to Minor Victim-2, and Request I I seeks a series of photographs. Requests 9 and 11 should be denied. The Government is working to moot Request 10, so the Court should reserve decision on that request until it can be denied as moot. + +## A. Request 9 + +The Government understands that Request 9 calls for Minor Victim-2's entire diary from her teenage years. This request is improper under Rule 17 in three respects. + +First, the defendant has not adequately identified why the diary is relevant beyond the portions of the diary the defense has already received. See Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109 (explaining that Rule 17(c) is not appropriate for evidence that is "otherwise procurable" (internal quotation marks omitted)). BSF represents that "all potentially relevant pages were produced from this journal to the Defendant in civil discovery in another matter." (3/22/21 Letter from BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5). The Government also obtained and produced seven pages of the diary to the defendant in discovery. (Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10). + +The defendant argues that the entire diary is exculpatory because it contains no reference to her. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). But the Government and Minor Victim-2 have acknowledged the absence of references to the defendant from the start, and Minor Victim-2 is expected to testify to that fact at trial. (See Gov't Omnibus Response, Dkt. No. 204 at 187 (citing Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Renewed Motion for Release, Dkt. No. 100 at 11 n.2.); 3/22/21 Letter from BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5). The defendant earlier moved to compel the Government to obtain and produce the diary to her, a motion the Court has denied. (Opinion & Order, Dkt. No. 207 at 29). As the Government explained in its opposition to that motion, the Government understands that Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in her diary shortly after meeting Jeffrey Epstein, so there are no entries regarding her later trip with Epstein, during which she met the defendant. (See Gov't Omnibus Response, Dkt. No. 204 at 187). The victim provided the Government with her entries relating to Epstein, which the Government in turn produced to the defense. (Id.). The remainder of the diary consists of Minor Victim-2's unrelated personal diary entries, and the defendant has not explained and cannot explain why she needs to review those entries to establish a fact that the + +Government has acknowledged. In other words, there will be no dispute at trial that Minor Victim-2 did not write about the defendant in her diary.' + +The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. For instance, in United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977), the parties learned that a cooperating witness kept a diary, which was largely written in Chinese, while the witness was still on cross-examination. Id. at 1078. The witness turned over his diary, but after observing that the "defense was examining his diary, .. . he requested that this not be done." Id. While the parties were discussing how to review the diary, including for Brady material, the diary was returned to the witness. It was only given to the defense for examination after "roughly five days" in the witness's possession. Id. at 1079. Accordingly, in that case, a diary that had never been evaluated for Brady material—or any other material—was taken from a witness in the middle of the witness's cross-examination, then returned to him for five days. The Second Circuit found that those events "created a serious risk that significant material would be destroyed or tampered with." Id. Here, in contrast, the diary contains no relevant material—in fact, that is the defendant's very thesis. See also v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining, in a § 1983 case, that the plaintiff had alleged bad faith by stating that a law enforcement officer in a child molestation case "deliberately steer[ed] the investigation to benefit his love interest," in part by "fail[ing] to preserve the alleged victim's diary which did not corroborate the molestation allegations," which in turn "deprived [the defendant] of his right to a fair trial, in part, because he could not testify about the diary without waiving his right not to testify"); United States v. Rios, No. 88 Cr. 186, 1989 WL 9289, at •2 + +For similar reasons, the entire diary, full of Minor Vicitm-2's personal and unrelated information, would not be admissible at trial. See Nixon, 418 U.S. 700 (requiring that a Rule 17(c) subpoena target "admissib[le]" evidence). + +(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1989) (reaching the unremarkable result that an "undercover agent's diary" is "not discoverable in and of itself' except "to the extent that this diary contains" Brady material). + +Alternatively, the defendant states that she needs to inspect the "entire journal" to "establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoilation has occurred." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). "This examination," she continues, "requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner." (Id.) This argument lacks merit. The defendant's bare assertion that authenticity might somehow be in doubt is hardly a sufficiently detailed explanation of relevance and admissibility to justify a subpoena for a minor victim's personal journal. The defendant does not identify any basis for doubting the authenticity of the documents, which the Government expects that Minor Victim-2 will be able to properly authenticate at trial. Nor does the defendant identify what kind of examiner she intends to use, what kind of examination will occur, or how that examination might bear on the journal's authenticity. See Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253 (explaining that the "items sought cannot merely be potentially relevant or admissible. Rather, they must be shown to be relevant and admissible at the time the subpoena is sought." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (ICMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) ("[A] criminal subpoena should not be used as 'a discovery device,' but instead should be used only as 'a mechanism for obtaining specific admissible evidence.' (quoting United States v. Barnes, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008)). "Conclusory statements," like the defendant's here, are "insufficient to satisfy the Nixon requirements." Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at \*3.2 + +2 In addition to the explicit bases identified in her letter on the subpoena and described above, elsewhere the defendant has made clear that she seeks the diary for impeachment purposes. (See Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10; 3/22/21 Letter from + +Second, the request in insufficiently specific. To satisfy the specificity prong, a Rule 17(c) subpoena must be able to "reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought rather than merely hop[e] that something useful will turn up." Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at •4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. ilvenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). The defendant's request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a significant period of Minor Victim-2's life before Minor Victim-2 met Epstein or the defendant—all of which is irrelevant. + +To justify this overbreadth, the defendant identifies two reasons she needs to review the diary in full: to demonstrate the absence of references to the defendant, and to establish the diary's authenticity. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). As to the former, there is no probative value in showing that diary entries before the defendant had ever met Epstein or the defendant contain no references to Epstein or the defendant, and in any event, the Government has conceded the point. As to the latter, the defendant offers only the conclusory statement that review of the entire diary is necessary. That is insufficient, as explained above. + +Third, the request is barred by Rule 17(h). That section prohibits the use of Rule 17 to "subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness," Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h), explaining that such issues are governed by Rule 26.2. The diary is a set of recorded statements by Minor Victim-2. To the extent it should be produced, that production is governed by Rule 16, Rule 26.2, Brady, and Giglio, but not Rule 17. See, e.g., United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (rejecting a request for a personnel file because the + +BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5 ("The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for im chment purposes, as highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action filed against the Defendant.")). But as the Court has recently explained, Rule 17 is not a tool to obtain impeachment material in advance of trial. (Order at 5). + +individual "is a prospective witness in this case; the Government will provide Carton with his 3500, Jencks and Giglio material by the deadline set by the Court"); United States v. Yudong ■ **No. 13 Cr. 761 (VM), 2014 WL 5366107, at \*3 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (rejecting a subpoena request under Rule 17(h) even though the records were not in the Government's possession). Here, the Government has discharged its obligations already by providing the defendant with the relevant pages from the diary, and Rule 17(h) bars a search for additional statements.** + +**The defendant's theories miss the mark because Request 9, at its core, is precisely the sort of "fishing expedition" that Nixon prohibits. 418 U.S. at 700. Accordingly, Request 9 should be denied.** + +# **B. Request 10** + +**The Government understands Request 10 to seek a pair of boots purchased by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for Minor Victim-2. The defendant states that she would like to examine the boots in order to "identify the make and provenance of the boots." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 1I). This appears to be an attempt to use the boots to impeach Minor Victim-2's testimony, shrouded again in a conclusory claim about the need for authentication. For substantially the reasons set forth above with respect to the diary, the Government respectfully submits such a claim is meritless under Nixon.** + +**However, and although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government has requested that BSF provide the boots to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). BSF has indicated that Minor Victim-2 will likely agree to do so. When the boots are in the FBI's custody, the Government intends to make them available promptly to the defense for examination and use at trial, and will so notify the Court, which should moot Request 10. The Government submits,** + +thus, that the Court need not resolve Request 10 at this time, as the Court will likely be able to deny it as moot in the near term. + +### C. Request 11 + +Request 11 appears to seek a series of photographs. The Government's understanding is that the defendant already has copies of those photographs. (See 4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 1 I ("[C]opies were produced by BSF in civil litigation.")). It also appears that the Government also produced copies of some of these photographs in Rule 16 discovery. In any event, and again although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government requested that BSF provide it with copies of the complete set of requested photographs, which it has obtained and produced to the defendant. + +Remaining at issue, then, are only the original versions of the photographs. The Government understands from BSF that the photographs were all taken on film and are not digital photographs. Accordingly, the originals are physical photographs, not digital files. The defense subpoena for these original photographs should be denied, at least unless and until the defendant provides further justification for the need for and entitlement to the originals. Because the defendant already has copies of the photographs, the defendant must explain how her request for the originals can satisfy the Nixon test without being "otherwise procurable." 418 U.S. at 699. + +The defendant suggests that she needs the originals to identify the "dates of creation or any other specifics." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11). It is entirely unclear what "other specifics" refers to, but as noted above, the Government understands that these photographs were taken on film, such that the originals would generally not contain metadata regarding the date or other information regarding when they were taken. And in any event, the defendant has not explained the relevance or admissibility of this information—and specifically, whether it would + +be used for impeachment, authentication, or another purpose. Accordingly, Request II should be denied. + +#### III. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Requests 9 and 11. The Court should reserve decision with respect to Request 10 until the Government obtains the boots and makes them available for inspection by the defendant, at which time Request 10 will be moot. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b4b9a5000d0991883a7c7110d30ec6dd6b3d39f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/EFTA02831932.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,553 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 16467, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.5, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.3100000000001 + ], + [ + 228.59771728515625, + 527.3100000000001 + ], + [ + 228.59771728515625, + 541.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 541.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 462.51 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 462.51 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 478.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 478.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Request 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 215.9257354736328, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 215.9257354736328, + 643.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 643.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Request 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 221.5830535888672, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 221.5830535888672, + 367.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 367.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Request 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 221.1850128173828, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 221.1850128173828, + 146.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 146.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.1425018310547, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.1425018310547, + 146.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 146.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831932" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5630dd27cfd0e126532612e1ff2904e382040e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831932/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:303b7936ba5a4d6674b75c15d6cd4621f7d22410b69b971d04ee0e435cd6727d +size 3601 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d00f4888f8a94b866d013252725f92ce07e37b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saha Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +May 5, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated April 29, 2021, which directed the Government to confer with legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") regarding the use of flashlights in security checks at MDC. (Dkt. No. 257). The Government has conferred with legal counsel at MDC in accordance with the Court's Order, and legal counsel provided the information set forth herein. + +MDC staff conduct flashlight checks at night as a matter of course throughout the facility for the safety and security of the inmates at the institution. During these flashlight checks, MDC staff point a flashlight at the ceiling of each cell to illuminate the cell sufficiently to confirm that the inmate is present in the cell, breathing, and not in distress. MDC staff conduct flashlight checks every 30 minutes for inmates housed in the Special Housing Unit (the "SHU") and conduct flashlight checks of inmates in the general population multiple times each night at irregular intervals, but at an average of at least once per hour. + +With respect to the defendant, MDC staff conduct flashlight checks every fifteen minutes because the defendant, while not on suicide watch, is on an enhanced security schedule. That is because MDC has identified a number of factors that raise heightened safety and security concerns with respect to this defendant, including: (1) the nature of the charges, (2) the potential stress for inmates that can arise in high-profile cases, and (3) the need to ensure the defendant's safety while she is incarcerated in a cell by herself—a housing determination made by MDC staff based on various factors, including the defendant's expressed concern for her safety if she were to be housed in the general population.' + +As to the Court's question whether the defendant can be provided with "appropriate eye covering," MDC legal counsel has informed the Government that the defendant cannot be provided with an eye mask. Eye masks are not available for purchase in commissary and are not issued to inmates and, therefore, are considered contraband. The defendant is permitted, however, to use non-contraband items to cover her eyes at night. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will promptly confer with legal counsel at MDC and provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) + +&#x27; The MDC has determined the defendant's current housing assignment based, in part, on her concerns about being housed in the general population and as an alternative to her being housed in the SHU. By contrast, in the SHU, most inmates have a cellmate which provides an additional check should something go wrong or should an inmate need medical attention in the middle of the night. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa9165db581b3fe9e55c76ee0d5b40ce6b25e6cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/EFTA02831941.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3428, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831941" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..462de7ed6efeffaa07108d66e42f31ea98163320 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831941/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d03569a4e72948b7f7fd9f0d3ce87d296227971248d4b8469334a8d91321f176 +size 3486 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f17641a10c4e97c730a677be2e55a3c39a9a14b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +May 6, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to supplement its letter of May 4, 2021 (Did. No. 269) regarding Requests 9 through 11 of the defendant's requested subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. + +As noted in the Government's letter, the Government has produced to the defense copies of the photographs sought in Request II. (Dkt. No. 269 at 8). The Government has now determined that, for a subset of the photographs requested by the defendant, the Government previously provided the defense with scanned images of this subset of photographs from the FBI Florida file. The original photographs are currently in the FBI's possession. Accordingly, because some of the original photographs are currently in the Prosecution Team's possession, the Government will make them available to the defendant for inspection upon request. Request 11 is thercibre moot as to those photographs. + +As to the remaining photographs that are outside the Government's possession, because the defendant has copies of those photographs, the originals are not a proper subject of a Rule 17 subpoena. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Government's letter, Request II should otherwise be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00590528735514ca8c9e5803edbe5da2ffcbac5c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/EFTA02831943.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1832, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.95379638671875, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.95379638671875, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 168.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831943" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..add79ba9925ebb16556a6367ab59b2a56bed5ca3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831943/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:09fdf7bb6c755520d6ebb3a6c0299769f144c42fabf01937412974a54fc86e34 +size 3519 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..467738d458ecdf608cab7cc2849904b953924dba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +May 7, 2020 + +Re: United States v. Ghidaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Once again, the government reports second- and third-hand information from the MDC, the reliability of which becomes increasingly questionable. In its May 5th letter regarding the MDC's flashlight security checks of Ms. Maxwell (Dkt. 270), the government contradicts a previous report that Ms. Maxwell "has an eye mask." This allegation, immediately refuted by her counsel, was a focus of the Second Circuit's questioning during oral argument of Ms. Maxwell's bail appeal. Now, the government reports that the MDC cannot provide an eye mask to Ms. Maxwell and that an eye mask is considered contraband. This alone is a basis for the Court to question the veracity of representations made by the MDC. + +To justify the 15-minute flashlight surveillance that is causing Ms. Maxwell's disruptive sleep and sleep deprivation, the MDC claims that Ms. Maxwell is on "an enhanced security schedule." The reasons given to support the need for "heightened safety and security concerns" with respect to Ms. Maxwell are spurious. They single out Ms. Maxwell to the detriment of other pretrial detainees who face even more serious charges and potential stress (i.e., defendants charged with murder and terrorism offenses subjected to life sentences without possibility of release and the death penalty) and who are incarcerated in cells by themselves. The MDC attempts to shift the focus of its conduct by claiming that it is responsive to Ms. Maxwell's "expressed concern for her safety if she were housed in general population." + +The MDC should fact check its records before making bold assertions. The Intake Screening Form completed by Ms. Maxwell upon entry to the MDC on July 6, 2020 posed the following question: "Do you know of any reason why you should not be placed in general population?" Ms. Maxwell responded "No." It is the MDC, not the inmate, who makes the determination regarding general population or degree of segregation. The Intake Screening + +Form listed "psych alerts," which are baseless, and "broad publicity," which is accurate and concerns risk of harm to Ms. Maxwell via violence, extortion, and feed information to the press by other inmates. Ironically, it is the MDC staff who leaked to the press that Ms. Maxwell had been vaccinated. + +Further, in her desire to interact and be helpful with other inmates, Ms. Maxwell completed two programs to assist other inmates- (1) to qualify as a teacher aide and offered to help update MDC learning curriculum and (2) to qualify as companion for suicide watch. Her de facto solitary confinement prevents her from utilizing that training to assist others. + +Ms. Maxwell's segregation and surveillance go way beyond the concerns posited by the MDC. It is not only other inmates who . Maxwell, but also the very guards tasked to her security detail who have already done harm to her: failing to provide adequate food or feed her at all in a 20-hour period, damaging her discovery hard drive, seizing her confidential legal documents, erasing her CorrLinks emails, physically abusing her. The list goes on and on. In an effort to advocate in compliance with BOP procedure, she has filed hundreds of BP-8s, BP-9s and BP-I Os only to receive a response that is less than helpful, or in the absence of any response was told the form was either lost or never filed, Each and every day of her detention, she is guarded by at least three officers who watch and record, by writing and via a handheld camera, her every move: when she eats, showers, cleans her clothes, brushes her teeth, etc. As the guards feverishly write while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with counsel, it appears that they go beyond their routine continual 15-minute reporting. + +Further, her non-legal phone calls are monitored in real time. It was the staff who confronted Ms. Maxwell about the death of someone whom she was close to within hours on her learning about it, information derived from her phone calls. Ms. Maxwell does not discuss personal matters with MDC guards and did not provide information concerning the passing of someone quite dear to her. It was psychological services who confronted her regarding that information, which could only have been obtained through telephone surveillance. We invite the Court and government to review the calls which contradict the unsupported allegation that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk and support her family strong ties. Her monitored communication with family and friends evidences her strong ties in the United States, her strong desire to return to her family in the United States, and her intention to establish her innocence at her trial in the United States. + +In the face of the Epstein's death on the BOP's watch, the MDC would not risk a repeat of the debacle that occurred in the MCC. There can be no doubt that the MDC was following directives from Attorney General William Barr and the Director of the BOP in determining that Ms. Maxwell should not be placed in general population, not Ms. Maxwell. Regardless, the MDC would never risk security to Ms. Maxwell or the institution by placing her in general population, knowing the difficulties it would face in protecting Ms. Maxwell from assault and extortion by other inmates given that they do not protect her from physical abuse by guards. But that decision does not justify the degree to which the MDC overmanages Ms. Maxwell's detention and its detrimental effect on her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for trial. + +We have repeatedly expressed our concern for Ms. Maxwell's health and the impact her conditions of confinement are having on her health and well-being, her ability to prepare for trial, and the overall impact the severe conditions will have on her stamina to withstand trial, which we moved to the fall. With each passing day, it becomes increasingly more obvious that Ms. Maxwell's extreme conditions of detention will not be improved and health deteriorate commensurate with the unprecedented conditions of confinement unparalleled in the MDC. + +Very truly yours, + +gaga C. sue. BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Counsel for all parties \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b2fdd0fad827a43a818f219f33de0b58991b022 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945/EFTA02831945.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831945.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 6452, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831945" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b66e2f295f325d8c8c0ac7022515af96f2225f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +Cluistian R. Everdell + (212)95".'G00 revenziell@cohengresser.com + +May 7, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +800 Thad Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 9ST 7600 phone +nen cohengresser Corn + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing our Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Supplemental Pretrial Motions Relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment with accompanying exhibits. + +The memorandum and exhibits contain Confidential Information produced in discovery that is governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). Accordingly, pursuant to our prior practice, we will not file the supplemental motions on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court. Instead, we will submit the supplemental motions by email to the Court and the government under seal—pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice—to give the government the opportunity to propose and justify any redactions it deems necessary. + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian It Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..331f955c1513052797084fb522a256b84933e6d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/EFTA02831948.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1485, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.99, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831948" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c74abebb3cf62d2c2fb5c9b67bbe03b1f6dc9e31 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831948/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b6078e5ba18684486ddd41f373da8981dbface25e0dc1c0f8fa198981f4029b2 +size 1545 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b4877af79dcd2cc204c252b8d83e4e4d453ef7e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian It Everdell +I (212) 95".- 600 reverdelleirobtogresser.com + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +![](_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg) + +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +May 7, 2021 + +Re: United States it Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +800 Thad Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 photo vnwo COMMTOSSOI COrn + +The Government is hereby ORDERED to propose and justify any redactions by May 12, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing our Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Supplemental Pretrial Motions Relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment with accompanying exhibits. + +The memorandum and exhibits contain Confidential Information produced in discovery that is governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). Accordingly, pursuant to our prior practice, we will not file the supplemental motions on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court. Instead, we will submit the supplemental motions by email to the Court and the government under seal—pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice—to give the government the opportunity to propose and justify any redactions it deems necessary. + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81178416117459013d277af7f8716021234762bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/EFTA02831949.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1645, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831949" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17585c8fdc0506e4afbc37ab362a832eb1700b70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c6b18851a11bab788298987a59d0e1fd5c1a9779e37d583c2ba55fd3c659b35b +size 1539 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8ab60773bb48210ebc3d0b59ea84a1d94ce8f68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:775dae58612ea26b233570166860fb391908364218f1a4b5b44a8a12dd7bb9ee +size 10887 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2cde37bf4601e41b0e07848a37c4ad5c06a18692 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831949/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:41cf8a2d805a37e6e7dac3f88ed84d915954e0ee174e58f6345538501506813d +size 9365 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33d8fafa575a69ce21591665aec43d68616a896b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +May 10, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, which directed the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose a trial start date. (Dkt. No. 266). The parties have met and conferred in accordance with the Order. Although both parties seek a trial date in November, the parties have not reached agreement on the particular start date in that month. + +The Government respectfully requests that the trial start on November 29, 2021. The Government understands that the earliest defense counsel can begin the trial is November 8, 2021 and that is defense counsel's preferred trial start date. Defense counsel has indicated that it would consider starting on November 15, 2021 as an accommodation to the Government, but no later. Defense counsel has informed the Government that they are available through the end of 2021.1 + +I Defense counsel has informed the Government that one of the defendant's attorneys has a civil trial scheduled for December 13, 2021, but indicated that the attorney will request that the trial date be moved. + +The Government respectfully requests that the new trial date be scheduled for November 29, 2021, which is only three weeks after the date requested by defense counsel and more than a month earlier than the January 2022 date previously requested by defense counsel. AUSA Pomerantz intends to make arrangements so that she will be available to begin trial on that date. AUSA Comey also intends to make arrangements such that she will be able to participate in the trial if it begins on November 29, 2021 or later; however, she is unable to participate in a trial that begins before November 29, 2021. The Government has also contacted several of the witnesses it intends to call at trial and understands that they are available to begin on the Government's proposed date of November 29, 2021. The Government notes that one of the minor victims identified in the S2 Indictment is also available to testify at trial if it is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021 or later, but would likely be unavailable to testify between October I, 2021 and Thanksgiving.2 + +The Government respectfully submits that a trial date of November 29, 2021 is in the interests of justice because it would permit all of the undersigned prosecutors to participate in the trial, thereby ensuring continuity of counsel. In particular, AUSA Comey has been assigned to this investigation for multiple years and has taken the lead on discovery and the review of investigative files created and maintained by other offices and agencies (see Dkt. No. 63, 190). In light of the Court's opinion in United States v. Nejad, 487 F. Supp. 3d 206, 213-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), noting concerns regarding the continuity of Government counsel particularly with respect to discovery and disclosure issues, the Government respectfully submits that is in the interests of + +2 Based on the nature of the witness's conflict, to the extent the Court schedules trial for the beginning of November, the Government expects that the witness would still be able to testify, but would need to do so at the end of the case, out of order. + +justice for trial to commence on November 29, 2021. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7XB)(iv) (listing continuity of Government counsel as one factor to consider when evaluating a request for a continuance); see also United States v. MI, 1842-cr, 2021 WL 727837, at ■2 **(2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2021) (finding that the district court "considered the unavailability of the prosecutor when granting the continuance, as it was entitled to do under the Speedy Trial Act" and "reasonably conclud[ed] that a small delay was justified" in "balanc[ing] the need for a speedy trial with the efficiencies of continuity of counsel"). Given the complexities in this case, including a large volume of discovery, complex litigation history, years of investigation, and significant time invested with victimwitnesses, continuity of Government counsel at trial is a particularly compelling interest here. The Government respectfully submits that a trial before November 29, 2021 would be prejudicial to the Government and the interests of justice.; The Government respectfully submits that the Government's proposed trial date—which is only three weeks after the date requested by the defense—is reasonable in light of the interests described above and where defense counsel originally requested a continuance of trial to November 8, 2021 contingent upon the re-scheduling of a conflicting trial and alternatively requested a trial date of January 10, 2022.4 (Dkt. No. 246).** + +**Additionally, the Government respectfully proposes the following adjustment to the pretrial schedule in place. The parties previously agreed, and the Court ordered, that the Government** + +**3 The Government understands that the Court will request a trial commencement date from the Southern District of New York's Assignment Committee. If the Committee were to assign a trial date prior to November 29, 2021, the Government respectfully proposes that jury selection through jury questionnaires be commenced on that date, but opening statements and the presentation of evidence not begin until November 29, 2021.** + +**&#x27;The Government notes that the difference between the two proposed dates is further minimized because the week of November 22, 2021 includes the Thanksgiving holiday and thus is a shortened week.** + +would provide the defense with the identities of the victims eight weeks before trial, on May 17, 2021, assuming trial were to begin as scheduled on July 12, 2021. (Dkt. No. 229, 250). If the Court were to schedule trial to begin on November 29, 2021, in order to address the three-week adjournment that the Government is seeking, the Government would intend to provide the defense with the identities of the victims referenced in the S2 Indictment eleven weeks before trial. The Government understands that the defense objects to the Government's proposal and requests that the information be provided on May 17, 2021, which would be approximately six months in advance of trial. + +Finally, the Government respectfully requests that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act through the date on which trial will proceed on Counts One through Six of Indictment S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). The exclusion of time is warranted for multiple reasons, including: to permit the defense to continue to review discovery and other materials in light of the superseding indictment, including materials related to non-testifying witnesses and the Government's expert witness; to permit the parties to prepare and file motions in limine; to permit the parties to make and review additional pretrial disclosures, including proposed exhibits, proposed witness lists, and witness statements; and to allow adequate time for the parties to prepare for trial. Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the exclusion of time is in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who consents to the exclusion of time, but only through November 8, 2021. In view of the defendant's previous proposal of a January 2022 trial date, however, the Government respectfully submits that exclusion of time through November 29, 2021 is warranted here and consistent with the factors set forth in the Speedy Trial Act. For the reasons noted above, the Government respectfully submits tint the + +exclusion of time beyond November 8, 2021 is warranted to ensure continuity of Government counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7XB)(iv). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lan Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..971ae707ae75b67508442429d7ed16a9fe036de7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/EFTA02831950.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8297, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.0, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.1015625 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 169.1015625 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831950" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81b9ea4287be2e528c4a59c2059b430365b1c00a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831950/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0a2d220d3cfcffcb5dfba62b957e6f91b82e170eb565c86da3e42cbd9a5c5a78 +size 3485 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b88535b4372c3f5c3084e133b10f734a49ff2def --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +May 10, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We write in response to the government's May 10, 2021 letter to the Court regarding the trial start date. This Court ordered that the parties meet and confer regarding a trial start date and to "agree to the earliest possible trial date this fall and to seek adjustments to other schedules in order to facilitate an early fall trial start date." (Dkt. 266 at 3). Defense counsel attempted to confer with the government in good faith to find a mutually acceptable date. We sent several emails to counsel stating our reliance on our April 22d submission (Dkt. 246) where we specified our conflicts and the justification for our request. By contrast, and despite our requests for clarification, the government failed to provide any details to justify its request to delay the trial start to November 29, 2021. Instead, the government filed a lengthy submission to the Court, complete with case law citations, at 8:12 p.m., a few hours before the deadline for the "joint letter." Moreover, the government also audaciously seeks by way of their joint letter regarding the trial date to re-litigate the schedule this Court has already crafted after hearing from the parties both on submissions and in person, without even the courtesy of a motion for reconsideration on that schedule. + +For the reasons previously detailed in our April 22d letter to the Court, defense counsel's earliest possible — and preferred — trial start date is November 8th. As the Court is aware, Judge Furman moved my October 4th trial to March, clearing the way for this trial to start on November + +8th. Ms. Maxwell's other trial counsel are committed to un-moveable trials in September and October. We have provided all the details concerning those conflicts and sought, as the Court directed, to move other conflicting dates. Considering Ms. Maxwell's extended period of detention, and its deleterious effect on her health and well-being, we cannot agree to a date far beyond November 8th. + +In response to our efforts to meet and confer, the only date the government offered was November 29112. When asked to explain with details similar to those conveyed by defense counsel, the government replied at 6:00 p.m. this evening simply that November 29111was necessary to provide "continuity of counsel and the potential unavailability of a trial witness." The government failed to disclose which counsel needed to continue on the case, nor the "potential unavailability" of which trial witness. There was no meaningful conferral. Previously, of course, the government took the position that its accusers wanted the soonest possible trial date. + +The government's requests to defer the trial from November 8d' to a November 29t1' start date rest on faulty premises. First, they contend, "continuity of counsel" is needed so that one of the four assigned Assistant U.S. Attorneys can be available to try this case. In the initial stages of our review of the 20,000 plus pages of non-testifying witness statements, is clear that two of the other assigned AUSAs have been involved from the very beginning of this investigation and have actively participated in all of the interviews together. They were joined as often as not by yet a fourth AUSA who previously was assigned to this case and who still works in their office. Notably the government does not claim that the three remaining assistants are unfamiliar with the facts or law of the case, nor that they are not competent trial counsel. + +Second, the government points to a "potential" conflict of one witness who reportedly is unavailable (for unknown reasons) for nearly two months — all of October through to + +Thanksgiving. The government does not explain why this witness is unavailable, and then they note, in a footnote, that the witness actually would be available to testify towards the end of the government's case. In essence, that is less a "conflict" than a requirement that the government put on its case in a different order. It is also bitterly ironic that the government had been pushing for the earliest possible trial date to protect the victims' interests, but now seeks to postpone it to keep the trial team together and to put its witnesses on in a preferred order. + +By contrast, pushing the trial to the end of November will have a severe and irreparable impact on Ms. Maxwell's defense. First, she will be detained longer. Second, the estimated four weeks for the government's case will result in Ms. Maxwell's defense being pressed to conclude before the holidays or worse, extending the case into the new year, which the Court already concluded was unwarranted delay. While the government may complete its case-in-chief before Christmas, the defense will not. This will cast defense counsel and the defense case in a negative light as jurors impatiently wait for the trial to conclude before Christmas, which it won't. Third, starting on the Monday after Thanksgiving will pose impediments to the potential jury pool many of whom will hopefully be able to travel to see family for the first time since before COVID — and will disrupt travel plans for counsel and our families. Fourth, Ms. Maxwell's witnesses who will be traveling from various locations will be forced to book uncertain travel plans in the days leading up to — or after — the holiday season. + +To accommodate the government's vaguely articulated scheduling issues, we informed government counsel that we would consider starting on November 15, but no later. + +We firmly request that the Court set the trial to start on November 8th to ensure that the trial will conclude before Christmas. + +Because the government has not requested leave to re-litigate the pretrial schedule this Court previously ordered, we ask that the portion of the government's letter be stricken. Alternatively, we seek 48 hours to file a response. + +Very truly yours, + +F-41.4 C. 51€44,4:4i, BOBBI C. STERNHE1M + +cc: Counsel for all parties \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25ae78ba20b27547aea519e606f7478bbf533666 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955/EFTA02831955.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831955.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6271, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831955" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3603590a0392b3a924a291a75b7c4457ee4981a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court has considered the parties' proposals regarding the commencement of trial. Dkt. Nos. 275, 276. For the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the Court will request November 29, 2021 from the Clerk's Office as the trial start date—that is the date (pending approval from the Clerk's Office consistent with the SDNY COVID protocols) that opening statements will be made to the jury. However, the Court will also request from the Clerk's Office that jury selection occur during the week of November 15. Counsel shall plan accordingly. + +The Court grants the Government's motion to exclude time until November 29, 2021. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting an exclusion from speedy trial computations for the period from today's date through November 29, 2021, outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial, because this time is necessary to permit the defense to continue to review discovery and other materials in light of the superseding indictment; to permit the parties to prepare and file motions in limine; to permit the parties to make and review additional pretrial disclosures; and to allow adequate time for the parties to prepare for trial. Time is therefore excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), until November 29, 2021. + +adjust the current pre-trial schedule. So that the Court can resolve motions in *limine* in advance of the November 29th trial commencement date, any such motions shall be fully briefed no later + +than four weeks in advance of the anticipated trial commencement date of November 29. The parties shall meet and confer to propose adjustments to other pre-trial disclosures accordingly. + +Court will accept only a joint letter with a joint proposal or with each side's views briefly stated. The letter must attest to the meet and confer. Any separately filed letters will be strick. + +SO ORDERED. +Dated: May 11, 2021 +New York, New York +United States District Judge +ALISON J. NATHAN + +![]()![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a0c64999158befbd1fa454debe61deb5d7b7ee8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/EFTA02831959.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2241, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.97, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831959" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b980e6a5e20ed8620d827c0c2140f508d033feff --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831959/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6e3c9366dce2dfb492253f68a16a7ffc37507e3757fecffbb10aa0cdb5e1c99a +size 11315 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d57583e061478973f458e6741a7b109b2c58c0a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza Neu• York New• York 10007 + +May 12, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the defendant's memorandum in support of her supplemental pm-trial motions and exhibits. (Dkt. No. 274). + +After reviewing the defense's memorandum, the Government seeks a limited number of redactions. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the defense's memorandum in support of her supplemental pm-trial motions is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties referenced in the document. These redactions are thus consistent with similar, tailored redactions permitted by the Court in this case to protect the privacy interests of third parties. (See. e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to the defense's memorandum, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +The Government respectfully submits that Exhibits C, E, F, G, 14, and I should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties implicated in the documents. The Court has accepted similar exhibits under seal in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..080d52309f0f1d9d87b01ba30178423d3f71ad86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/EFTA02831961.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2192, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831961" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f04f301ae1b597c186e9f24c11d9ba75a544f5c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831961/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:77bc6a87dfbd66a220237e71081922a6a24f8aa0c7daec866391cd20ddd05a3a +size 3374 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79b1ed8be01dca045d1cb7c0e5eb6ee903ae745b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 5/13/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On May 12, 2021, the Defendant submitted a response to the Government's May 4 and May 6 letters. *See* Dkt. Nos. 269, 271. She submitted it under temporary seal, though she noted that she is willing to file the response and its corresponding exhibits on the public docket. The Government is hereby ORDERED to notify the Court by May 14, 2021 whether it requests that any part of the Defendant's submission be redacted or filed under seal; any such request must be justified by reference to the test articulated in *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: May 13, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d905fa014618db71d8c76d6c3fbc5df9880ed5f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963/EFTA02831963.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831963.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1025, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831963" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c4875093223b219290f4d1c7a698fdf2efef207 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +May 14, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties respectfully and jointly write to request an extension of time to file a letter in response to the Court's Order of May 11, 2021, requiring the parties to submit a joint letter regarding the overall pretrial schedule. (Dkt. No. 277). The joint letter is currently due on May 14, 2021, and the parties respectfully request an extension to May 21, 2021. No previous requests for an extension of this deadline have been made. + +The parties seek this extension in order to permit continuation of productive discussions that the parties have already initiated regarding the pretrial schedule. The parties conferred yesterday for approximately 45 minutes by telephone on that topic. Although the conversation was productive, there remain multiple points of disagreement. The requested extension will permit the parties to consider each other's proposals as to certain deadlines, and to further confer with the aim of minimizing the points of disagreement that will need to be resolved by the Court. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8478b55a36b562d41ab798a1c98658e85ba2a9b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/EFTA02831964.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1643, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831964" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be34f44f958d4fb6d29d604ad3965fe6569aba4b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831964/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:70f6a4d79d3e5b050c21c055f5c328258500270b0db09f29ea63132b85438caf +size 3518 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83abd1ae0e22dad902eb8250cbc9d7ec20cf5df6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_116.jpeg) + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of New York* + +*The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007* + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 5/14/21 | + +May 14, 2021 + +**BY ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties respectfully and jointly write to request an extension of time to file a letter in response to the Court's Order of May 11, 2021, requiring the parties to submit a joint letter regarding the overall pretrial schedule. (Dkt. No. 277). The joint letter is currently due on May 14, 2021, and the parties respectfully request an extension to May 21, 2021. No previous requests for an extension of this deadline have been made. + +The request for an extension of time until May 21, 2021 to respond to the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is GRANTED. +SO ORDERED. + +![]()The parties seek this extension in order to permit continuation of productive discussions that the parties have already initiated regarding the pretrial schedule. The parties conferred yesterday for approximately 45 minutes by telephone on that topic. Although the conversation was productive, there remain multiple points of disagreement. The requested extension will permit the parties to consider each other's proposals as to certain deadlines, and to further confer with the aim of minimizing the points of disagreement that will need to be resolved by the Court. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f31d2281be1ef6308545b764f92a9e6f3c36a3f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/EFTA02831966.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1961, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.03, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_116.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 40.5 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831966" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/_page_0_Picture_116.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/_page_0_Picture_116.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6d2a2c29d9d03c1a88f4d95ce01a4939ba03068 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831966/_page_0_Picture_116.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:01f0c58cf4160debfd8babaeb3fc545ea1f96f5773ae68ffa6e7967f62a4d0ed +size 3457 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e69a88ff203d61c0f707dcf6874c80702ace5a49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 5/14/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 29, 2021, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell wrote to the Court requesting that the Court address her sleeping conditions, with particular emphasis on counsel's representation, unsupported by affidavit or other factual showing, that guards are shining a flashlight in Maxwell's eyes every 15 minutes at night. Dkt. No. 256. Defense counsel claims that the flashlight surveillance in Maxwell's eyes is disrupting her sleep, which in turn is impacting her ability to prepare for and withstand trial. The Court sought more information by ordering the Government to confer with legal counsel for the Bureau of Prisons and to respond to certain questions. Dkt. No. 257. In response, the Government states that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course. Dkt. No. 270. As reported by the Government, inmates housed with cell mates in the Special Housing Unit are checked with flashlights every 30 minutes. Inmates housed with others in the general population are checked multiple times per night at regular intervals. The Government further reports that to conduct the checks, flashlights are pointed at the ceiling of the cell to confirm that the inmate is present, breathing, and not in distress. As the Government explains, there are a number of neutral reasons why BOP's flashlight checks of Maxwell are relatively more frequent than those of other inmates, including that Maxwell is housed alone, the nature of the charges, and the potential stress for inmates that + +can arise in high-profile cases. The MDC has determined that these factors necessitate more frequent safety and security checks. The Government also indicates that the prohibition on eye masks is a generally applicable policy, but that Maxwell, like other inmates, may use other noncontraband items to cover her eyes. + +To the extent that Maxwell's April 29, 2021 letter asks the Court to override BOP's determination as to the frequency of appropriate safety and security check procedures. that request is denied as factually unsubstantiated and legally unsupported. Certainly nothing in the record plausibly establishes that current protocols interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for her trial and communicate with her lawyers. Defense counsel's May 7, 2021 letter, Dkt. No. 272, describes generalized grievances but makes no additional specific and supported application for relief. Nevertheless, the Court urges the MDC to consider whether sleep disruption for pretrial detainees can be reduced. The Court also admonishes the MDC and the Government to continue to ensure that Maxwell is subjected to only those security protocols that BOP determines are necessary for her safety and security, based upon neutral and applicable factors, and consistent with the treatment of similarly situated pre-trial detainees. + +The Government shall provide a copy of this Order to the Warden and General Counsel for the MDC. + +A 4). + +SO ORDERED. L + +Dated: May 14, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5615396d8535cc87b276b1e77df53613ab4aeb91 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968/EFTA02831968.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831968.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3425, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.1, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831968" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..727889e11c64ba0c9231c880294d524c47de111c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silviol Mono Building One Saint Andmr's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +May 14, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 13, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the defendant's response to the Government's letters of May 4 and May 6, 2021 and the attached exhibits. (Dkt. No. 279). + +After reviewing the defense's letter and exhibits, the Government respectfully submits that Exhibits A and B should be filed under seal. This proposal is consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the defense's letter and exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, sealing the exhibits—each of which is only one page—is narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of a victim and third party implicated in the documents. The Court has accepted other exhibits under seal or in redacted form in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c355f4434a5c3693a752be862e16c8b7e5475fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/EFTA02831970.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1664, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831970" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c74073f69b8cc9784ca77cc412a6c70295856dbc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831970/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d977906818f4edd07541c0f262aa687b47d1d90db04f7b7f4a80c33a28ba5e39 +size 3420 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acfacd4def5f6aaaf46c3c44c0b1902efe4dce70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of Net + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza Neu• York Neu• York 10007 + +May 12, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 5/17/21 | + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the defendant's memorandum in support of her supplemental pre-trial motions and exhibits. (Dkt. No. 274). + +After reviewing the defense's memorandum, the Government seeks a limited number of redactions. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the defense's memorandum in support of her supplemental pm-trial motions is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties referenced in the document. These redactions are thus consistent with similar, tailored redactions permitted by the Court in this case to protect the privacy interests of third parties. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to the defense's memorandum, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +The Government respectfully submits that Exhibits C, E, F, G, H, and I should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties implicated in the documents. The Court has accepted similar exhibits under seal in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232). + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) The Court grants in part the Government's redaction and scaling requests. Its conclusion is guided by the three-part lest articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +> The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. Id. at 119-20. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and alleged victims, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). Similarly, the Court concludes that the Government has shown that Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I should be filed under seal. + +> With respect to Exhibit C, however, the Court concludes that narrowly tailored redactions are sufficient to advance the privacy interests the Government has identified. Accordingly, the Government is ORDERED to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed redactions to Exhibit C by May 20, 2021. + +![](_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..560019f00d23feb4ef46201bb9166f3b314572eb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/EFTA02831972.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3571, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.15, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of .Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.4348449707031, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.4348449707031, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831972" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d014b14409b11c4d2b3dab64995c000eed37df38 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:aeba9556b5c914f1657b3e2b940f2fed42114f784d2fd8adafe55db68257628b +size 3366 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2468931583fa422d8f676bdd68c682123496a7f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831972/_page_1_Picture_11.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d3e176a4515098d7ef312699eb5aa2d4b401adadb9df182ffd499cd6c4268ebc +size 11694 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d210e4042a1f0944ba711a2c984312302a50fab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +## EXHIBIT J + +① + +P. Skinner +Brad Edwards +Stan Pottinger +A. Kramer (notes) + +2/29/16 + +BE - rep. Virginia Roberts +SP - rep. Virginia + +Re: +Virginia Roberts +Cano now lives in +[REDACTED] + +Long history of litigation + +BE + +- - Inst. inv. into Joefrey Epstein was done by local Palm Beach PD $\approx$ 2005 +- - randed up app. 24 girls molested by JE +- - represented about 10 girls +- - JE's MO - w/ adults they'd tell B yr. old girl "Came to rich guy's house to give paid massage. JE naked - stars as massage & internate downed of sw ack (i.f. you want & do &). After paid 200/300 - their offered 800-300 finders flee. Victims recruited other victims. Mother complained + involved PD. +- - PD turned case over to FBI + USAD. Most of girls (appr. 40+) in FL. Nu flight (ogs. Essred GJ subpoenas - Epstein + 4 named cb-conspirators) +- - Entered into a non pns w/ guilty plea to state cf. to 2001-2007 procury man to prost. + immune from fed. pros. for sex crimes comm. in FL. J low 2001 + 2007 +- - Jemy Lefcart, Jay Leftcowitz, Ken Stan, Roy Black, Epstein, Martin Winberg, Gry Lewis - never Jemy shored court +- - SDFL - at of Palm Beach, Maria Vierfigna. Alex Aostn US Aity. +- - Limited to FL in pns. + +(2) + +- - US Attorney has said cald be prosecuted elsewhere. +- - Agent under 2255 if victim elect to proceed under 2255 + freet civ) remedies Epstein must pay stat. min. 50k or 150k. At least 12 proceeded under that provision +- - Named + +![](_page_2_Picture_13.jpeg) + +Brislaine Mapwell - daughter of Robert Mapwell - head recorder + +- - Evidence = 2000 (virginia roberts - her case unknown @ time) +- - NO END? + +![](_page_2_Picture_16.jpeg) + +(3) + +![](_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg) + +Virginia Roberts + +- - Withhead summer 2000 @ age, 16 ([REDACTED]) - about to turn 17 +- - taken to NY for training by Maxwell (Epstein - how to sence men) +- - in Cindal Base, got records corr. her as his phone +- - she goes to private island Little St. James - USVI +- - few miles off st. Am +- - Virginia said that in affidavit - sametime happening +- - 2000-2002 was live in sex slave - svc. Epstein + others +- - Promised ladie, in mass. then + +(4) + +- - @ (8) told by Epstein for old +- - @ firing (9) went to Thailand to get underage girl + fled to [redacted] where lived for a decade. +- - filed cont lawsuit in 2015 - detamation suit against Maxwell +- - she went public by atty. declaration in FL suit. +- - FL suit - probano - crime notions rights ongot - against USAO b/c they didn't intentionally girls +- - Virginia Roberts moved to join those suits +- - in 2011 a British reputer find her + intentional her about Prince Andrew. Also said met [redacted] +- - said was Epstein sex slave +- - 2011 was first atty of her. +- - FBI went + intentionally Virginia - FL FBI - 302 FBI FL wants to pursue inv. +- - Agents - Jason Richards + Nesbit Kirkendal + +Virginia + +![](_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg) + +(5) + +![](_page_5_Picture_13.jpeg) + +- - 2010 - civil depos. A Epstein farmer wither Affardo Rodriguez. Bel. Epstein + Morewell were gay to kill him. Damnloaded their black book. Boat went to FBI, made contact calls, they arrested him + he went to prison for distruction. Pled to care again + blew dead b/c he was selling AK-472s. +- - tried to sell back. Explained how it all worked in recorded mtgs. FBI agent ranked +- - Rodriguez died in jail. +- - Agent fled afraidant in distruction car. +- - Epstein's lawyers said his property + +1997-2005 flight logs + manifests + +CP - Virginia + +CP? + +- - Have been told Epstein had photos in house in PB + NY + USVI +- - One photo is a photo of Virginia w/ another girl - rooked + in sexual pose - on his weall - artistic - mistake agents + +(6) + +- Photos of national girls on Maxwell's comp. + +\* SW executed an PB house. College of photos included nude girls incl. clients. Epstein topped off. All compters were gone. + +- Vorginia says camerad all over NY house. She believes they were used for extortion or birn by Epstein. When leaf out to other men had to repair back. + +- Videos record in bathroom. - recardy? security? + +- Maxwell + [REDACTED] took sexually explicit photos of her regularly + +- Maxwell gave photo to Epstein for body @ age 16. + +- Photo hing in one of the homes + +- Saved as compters. + +[REDACTED] + +- Subp. issued for compters + +Registered as sex offender in PL +Several 3 + +USMS + +Registered in NY + +Report by mate jet + +[SEX ACTS ON PLANES] + +Manhattan + +(7) + +![](_page_7_Picture_21.jpeg) + +Virginia wants prosecution. +Something about it. + +![](_page_7_Picture_23.jpeg) + +Party states to do + +From 2014/2015, she believed it was summer 1999. +As it turns out, it was summer of 2000. + +She has lawsuit against Mojeavell for defamation. That is defense. + +She wants settlement (neg. into nonprofit to help girls in same situation + +- of itself. + +- among away. + +Her father (negustated a settlement w/ Epstein + she has a confidentiality provision limited among Epstein's attorneys reached at + neg. settlement. + +Did EBI search his planes? Did they find hidden cameras? + +Cancer active pediatric. + +Pitch to other prosecutors? no + +Book deal? not now + +- 20 bo interview last session > Abc killed it + +- lawyers pilled it but they still have it + +![](_page_7_Picture_37.jpeg) + +Have parties of diary + +(8) + +![](_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg) + +- They will send me attendants & eleporting + +- Blond, part. size & shape. + +- Wanted to have baby w/ her - + +- Same MD w/ one other crisis - 17 yr. old - enrolls w/ her + +- As young as 12 but younger the better. + +Virginia emailed Epstein + +Thailand - own charges & handling note w/ name of girl - until by Maxwell. + +M; BradT + +Jaffe, WeIsiah& os a Lehrman, P.L + +![](_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Month/ 0KUI YRKKIK0 Cnn + +WWW.PATaTOJUsTICE.COM + +STAN POTTINGER + +J. STANLEY POTTINGER PLLC + +![](_page_9_Picture_11.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cd6dfbdc3dc204172e9988a2893723d38557db4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/EFTA02831974.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 5730, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_2_Picture_13.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_16.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg", + "_page_5_Picture_13.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_21.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_23.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_37.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg", + "_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_9_Picture_11.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT J", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.33599999999998, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 385.44647216796875, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 385.44647216796875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 231.33599999999998, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Span", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831974" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_13.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39f385940c1d2866200ebb6668cfb71d80411486 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_13.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:beacabb38dc72cd8ebb79511926202e0181e284ccabfd07845a8cfb83c92986e +size 7176 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_16.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f77b2fc5435f18f33eb4dd1bc87383f7c51c4ea6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_2_Picture_16.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eb90087fbbaf176bfa53432ce607f7c581e9a5d69c8263cb43a5dcd927e80611 +size 22191 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef6764b2eae078c662506ea89af5666164ef8021 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_3_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fdcec548c591c83d2e912073170e3f9a93f7258479029c20f8236fa63b66316e +size 26151 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..003eb7425e36b9c20aabbc99eca113b0e8ba1c63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_4_Picture_21.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e7e130d96e02186b53ed569c1121cdd4a7dbbdaf7742ceeed90141265786cb46 +size 16400 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_5_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_5_Picture_13.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecf3cb7f4a47bb7b8abd379b2b3eb65d411bce70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_5_Picture_13.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:530b7e32da84753840631acccc0fb20388236da2d592f65d52b8d1f4d544f1e9 +size 12383 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_21.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95babb7dc2dd8fb45117ec3a6ff7377cb02dfd19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_21.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f7cdee64ed88802f3987af0a8148985496a1ca79ec458bb31d041b28da616282 +size 11547 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_23.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_23.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db4a3db6719dbc005b913958ac4b7172537cd098 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_23.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:03962a1461ed53aed4ca12de12f64f1e7e0d0dd2fcbdae39552d66f3ef467dfa +size 2676 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_37.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_37.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdd34176b85c9466ec320cdbe56100c46fd6b7bd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_7_Picture_37.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:da9da8e28e78d5792d2517954bf731fe6715d269dc31c5d93a0ad63262a35ea3 +size 4247 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa4d4031cd06d5b61d50db2c4eddda12bf03f00d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d947677b29c1319758bf3bc2fad214a51887bddce19ee42f068310fb98b032fe +size 7659 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_11.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..323ff73772c7c019f0255873b45574c05b0c0844 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_11.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:df222370f9f0e7cad27777f5baf5384179f00ef88e31fc4ba7d4ac4c7ffe0c48 +size 4701 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10d447caade7d843204abc6fbd20c6531c0790ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831974/_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:96e2a0753b4563f8a81e338289880028913b255537885c509e9e192a4b0fd7aa +size 7842 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8189a289032329cf171f5fdf646557c102402964 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +## EXHIBIT K + +February I I, 2021 Call with Amanda Kramer + +Present on Conference Call: + +- AUSAs Lara Pomerantz & Maurene Comey +- FBI Special Agent Amanda Young +- Amanda Kramer +- Covington & Burling LLP General Counsel, Steve Anthony + +AK's recollections regarding February 29, 2016 Meeting: + +- AK confirmed the handwritten notes sent to AK by LP were AK's own notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- In advance of the meeting, AK remembers Pete Skinner reaching out to AK and asking if he could come in to present on a potential case with some other attorneys. AK doesn't recall how Skinner contacted AK Skinner was at Boies Schiller at the time, Skinner and AK are friends and were in the SDNY USAO together. At this time, AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and believes she was also the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- Meeting took lace in a conference room at 1 St. Andrews Plaza USAO SDNY. Pete Skinner, Brad , Stan Pottinger, and AK were at the meeting. o AK doesn't recall what each attorney's role was, but her notes say that they represented . AK also understood that was involved in representing multiple individuals in a civil litigation involving the CVRA, but AK is not certain of that. o AK understood that Skinner or his colleagues at Boies were representin AK doesn't know if Skinner was involved in representing o Brad did most of the talking during the meeting. o AK recalls that Pete Skinner spoke a little bit, but AK doesn't recall what, if anything, he said on substance. AK doesn't remember what he said. +- AK understood the purpose of the meeting to be the attorneys presenting information that they believed or suggested should be the subject of a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. o AK understood that the attorneys were advocating that the Jeffrey Epstein case should be investigated by SDNY. +- LP directed AK to references to lawsuits on pages 4 and 7 of AK's notes from the meeting, and asked what AK recalls about what civil lawsuits she learned of during the meeting. o AK remembers there was a CVRA lawsuit that was mentioned. o AK remembers that there were other civil lawsuits mentioned. Aside from what is in AK's notes, AK has no memory of what those lawsuits were about or the nature of those lawsuits. o AK does not have an independent memory of the Guiffie v. Maxwell lawsuit being mentioned, and her memory is not refreshed from looking at the notes. + +- LP directed AK to "they will send me affidavits and depositions" on page 8 of AK's notes and asked if AK recalls what that line refers to and whether the attorneys sent AK any such materials. o AK does not recall what that line refers to. o AK does not recall if the attorneys sent her any such materials after the meeting. o AK does not believe the attorneys provided her any materials during the meeting. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys sent her something by email, but does not recall what it was. + - **One of the emails LP sent to AK was an email from Skinner to AK the evening of February 29, 2016 after the meeting sending AK documents. AK does not remember the particular documents she received. AK does not recall receiving any additional documents.** +- **AK remembers the mention of several people, including Ghislaine Maxwell as either in the context of who had benefited from the Florida NPA or who the people were that had worked for or helped Epstein. AK doesn't recall much specifics about Maxwell. Maxwell was not a focus of the meeting.** +- **AK does not recall the attorneys saying anything about what charges the office could bring. Related to that, AK recalls asking questions to understand what kind of charges they were proposing because it was not clear. The attorneys did not present particular statutes that might be pursued.** +- **AK recalls trying to understand what prior statements of existed in the context of assessing how much of a record there already was. AK recalls that the information about civil lawsuits came up when AK asked the attorneys what record there was of statements about Epstein, either in the context of the Florida case or otherwise. o AK's notes don't jog AK's memory of what she learned about prior statements. o AK does remember that there was some civil litigation, including CVRA litigation and some other civil case, and not just involving Virginia, but also civil litigation involving other potential witness or witnesses. AK's takeaway was that there was a large and potentially complicated record of civil litigation that would have to be at some point parsed through in assessing what any potential witness had said. It wasn't only that there was civil litigation involving Virginia, but there was also some person in Europe involved in litigation. AK felt this was a situation where there would be a lot of material to gather and read before talking to witnesses.** +- **AK doesn't remember being told any specific allegations victims had made against Maxwell. AK generally remembers Maxwell being mentioned as someone who had worked for Epstein. o Notes reflect that Maxwell was "head recruiter," but AK does not recall that description being attributed to any particular witness** + +- AK's recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. +- Discussion of Epstein's conduct expanded beyond I . Attorneys described the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided about experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein's conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after Virginia was no longer involved. +- AK's understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information. +- AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the office would do about the information that was provided. o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened. + +Events after February 29, 2016 meeting: + +- After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Chief of Criminal Division at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with what the lawyers had shared, AK's thoughts, and thoughts. Decided on an action plan. o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USA() because they think it will help them in their civil case. AK mentioned that to o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn't clear there was any ongoing conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK's assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed. o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents in this area usually, in AK's experience, make collaborative decisions with the USAO. o AK & decided (don't recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach out to Sean (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like justice had not been served. +- After the meeting with M, AK called Sean and relayed the summary of this and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked + +Sean to call AK back and let her know if the Florida agents had concerns. Sean never called AK back. AK doesn't recall ever affirmatively following up with Sean, but she took the radio silence to mean that the FBI agents in Florida did not express dissatisfaction. + +- No investigation was opened as a result of the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- No investigation into Epstein was opened while AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood coordinator. +- AK never met with any other Boies Schiller attorneys. AK does not recall ever speaking with David Boies at any point. +- AK never met with the attorneys from the February 29, 2016 meeting again. +- When asked what, if any, communications AK had with the attorneys, AK noted that she sees an email from May 2016 with Stan Pottenger. AK believes it's possible Stan called AK, but she does not remember that. +- AK does not recall any further conversations re Epstein in SDNY until much later when the Miami Herald series was published. + +AK confirmed she has read the Daily News Article LP sent + +- AK indicated that the article did not accurately describe AK's interactions with attorneys for +- AK's recollection is not that attorneys urged SDNY to open an investigation into "the duo." They were focused on Epstein. Maxwell was mentioned in passing, not as a target. +- AK did not participate in a second meeting with anyone. Had there been a meeting on this subject in the summer of 2016 in SDNY, AK would have known about it in her capacity as Human Trafficking Coordinator. o AK had been in that role since approximately 2010, and if someone came in to meet with a unit chief about a potential human trafficking matter, AK would get contacted about the meeting. AK met with chiefs to gather information about any cases they had that touched on human trafficking so that AK could coordinate. So if a second meeting had taken with a supervisor in the office, AK would have known about it. Dan also would have brought AK in if he learned of a second meeting. o AK would have made a record if there had ever been a second meeting. AK would remember if there were a second meeting. She has no record and no memory of any second meeting. +- AK does not recall ever speaking with or meeting David Boies in her life, so to her knowledge, Boies was not making any effort to persuade SDNY to investigate Epstein. AK noted it is possible Boies could have been on the phone if Stan Pottinger called AK in or around May of 2016, but AK has no recollection of such a call. +- AK does not recall the attorney presentation being framed on highlighting Maxwell's assistance with Epstein's sexual abuse. It was not presented as a "duo." AK recalls the mention of a pilot and the mention of someone having an address book, so other people were mentioned as part of telling the story of Epstein. + +- AK did not express any concerns about anything to the attorneys. AK may have asked something like whether the attorneys are asking SDNY to re-do the Florida investigation because AK was trying to understand what the attorneys were proposing: was it looking at the same conduct that was investigated in Florida and mishandled, or was it looking at different conduct and possibly ongoing conduct? AK recalls asking questions to clarify that point. +- AK is sure one of the things she asked would have been venue oriented to understand what the attorneys were describing and what the conduct was. AK would not have responded to a question asking about why AK wouldn't just open an investigation. Purpose of the meeting was for AK to understand what the attorneys were trying to convey, not for AK to make any representation about her thoughts or what she was going to do. +- Brad book suggesting that the AUSA seemed "confident that a case would be brought" does not seem accurate to AK. AK did not intend to give such an impression during the meeting. That decision is not one for AK to make alone, in any event. +- AK does not recall any mention that the number of victims in NY far exceeded the number in Florida. +- Brad description of wanting a case against Epstein is consistent with AK's recollection that the focus was on Epstein. +- If anyone called AK, she does not remember that, and she would not have mentioned the comity shown to other USAOs around the country. +- AK does not recall anyone ever approaching her to ask if SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys called or emailed AK at some point and told her that there had been depositions, presumably by contact from one of these lawyers, but AK cannot recall the specifics. AK does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury. o AK recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have the same challenges. AK recalls thinking in her mind that if the depositions were about the underlying conduct that had all of the issues that gave AK pause after the meeting (length of time that had passed, sense there must have been a reason SDFL resolved the case the way they did) were not alleviated by a perjury-based prosecution. o AK does not recall ever knowing anything about the substance of the depositions and does not remember anyone sending her a deposition transcript. o AK does not remember who had been deposed or who might have been the subject of a possible perjury investigation. o No investigation into perjury was ever opened. +- AK took no further action re Epstein after calling Sean o Though there may be emails or calls AK cannot remember, she knows that she took no action after the call to Sean . Part of the reason AK felt horrible when readini,iami Herald article was because AK took no action after calling Sean + +When the Topic of Epstein Came Back up with the Miami Herald Article + +- Arose when AK was in Securities. AK was no longer the Human Trafficking Coordinator or the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- AK may have told someone that there had been a presentation for SDNY to prosecute Epstein. AK read the article and was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with AK's assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016. +- AK remembers speaking with someone in Public Corruption about the February 29, 2016 meeting and shared her notes and emails with Public Corruption. +- AK remembers that someone from the original case team (thinks Alison Moe) came by her office and they chatted. AK may have also spoken with Alex Rossmiller or Ted Diskant, but is not sure. o When speaking with members of the Public Corruption team: AK remembers telling them that she felt terrible reading the Miami Herald series. AK remembers telling them that she had the impression that the lawyers who came in to meet with AK were disorganized, and AK's impression was that they thought it would help the CVRA case if SDNY opened a criminal case. o AK is sure that she gave Alison whatever she had, including the notes that LP emailed AK. AK handed to Alison whatever was in AK's folder. o AK does not remember having any documents or receiving any documents from the attorneys. o AK remembers understanding that Public Corruption had opened an investigation into Epstein. +- AK did not play any role in opening the SDNY investigation into Epstein. +- To AK's knowledge, AK has not received any discovery materials from any civil case. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bad4e014021209c4b3aed1582cfedb9cc4eebd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984/EFTA02831984.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831984.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 15674, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT K", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 388.2598876953125, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 388.2598876953125, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831984" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb5b42e6414903b4a46376a8e5d857a0638ac3d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +## EXHIBIT L + +From: !Craftier. Amanda (USANYS) To: Diskant Fr!ward (I ISANy9; raptwo SANYcl• Kurland. Abend n KANN Subject FW: Virginia Guiffre Date: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:01:53 PM + +From: Peter Skinner Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:28 PM To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) Cc: StanPottinger@aol.com; brad@pathtojustice.com; Sigrid McCawley Subject: RE: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +If you haven't already seen it, the Post reported today on Jeffrey Epstein's continued relationships with young women. + +httol/Dagesix com/2016/03/08/jeffrev-eosteins-east-side-mansion-houses-russianplaymates/ + +Best, Pete + +From: Peter Skinner Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:13 PM To: Amanda Kramer Cc: StanPottingenaaol.com; bracKaoathtojustice.com; Sigrid McCawley Subject: Re: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +I am adding Sigrid McCawley to this email chain as well. As we mentioned earlier today, Sigrid is one of the lead attorneys on the case and knows both Virginia and the facts very well. Please include Sigrid in any follow-up that you may. + +Best, Pete + +From: Peter Skinner Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:03 PM To: Amanda Kramer Cc: "StanPratingerPaol.corn" "bradPoathtojustice.corn" + + + +Subject: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +Thank you again for meeting with us today. We very much appreciate your time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: + +- 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss today); +- 2. Declarations that Virginia filed in the CVRA case; +- 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case; +- 4. The redacted 302 + +Please let us know what other information we can provide or if you have any further questions. + +Best, Pete + +The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among other protections. is the subject of attorney-client privilege. attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient. or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution. copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in erre.., please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. Iv.1] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3ffa61723acbb6a77e325c8c79f6b8a425387f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991/EFTA02831991.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831991.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 2704, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT L", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.07257080078125, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.07257080078125, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831991" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41463f826d233d48facc241009a09d7f975fd9da --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +## EXHIBIT M + +From: To: Subject: Date: Fwd: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein Sunday, February 24. 2019 8:18:01 PM + +Sent from my iPhone + +Begin forwarded message: + +From: Date: March372DI6 at 5:09:55 PM EST To: Subject: RE: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Cool. Talk to you then. + +From: Sent: nursaay. marcn us. ZVI b b:05 PM To: Sub meet re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Tuesday at 4 is good. Thanks. + +From: Sent: nursaay, maren US, ZUlb 10:24 AM To: Sub..: ex wee Mnee re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Sure. Sounds both intriguing and complicated. Tuesday is better for me than Wednesday. How's Tuesday at 4 pm? + +From: Sent: nursaay, marcn b 0:08 AM To: Sub ec ex wee - mee re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Earlier this week Pete Skinner and two other lawyers came in to pitch a sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein, a financier with homes abroad, in FL, and in Manhattan. They represent who claims to have been prostituted by and for + +Epstein when she was 16 years old. Epstein apparently had dozens of victims, and it's not clear if/when his criminal conduct stopped. The facts are complicated, there are several related civil cases, and Epstein entered into a non-pros with the SDFL USAO in 2007 that is limited but obviously something to take into account. + +All that said, there are aspects of the facts here that are intriguing and I'd like to talk it over with you. I'm free next week Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday. Do you have time to meet then? + +Thanks, + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +United States Attorney's Office + +Southern District of New York + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a278283e52fdddc4304ac26af79d0d914746290 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994/EFTA02831994.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831994.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 1588, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT M", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 389.76275634765625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 389.76275634765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831994" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4275dbc517c2b1fc8f190f099fa0d76e499426c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +## EXHIBIT N + +From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: RE: Virginia Guilfre Thursday. December 6. 2018 1:38:24 PM + +Thanks! I'll stop by now. + +From: Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:36 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Virginia Guiffre + +Just went through my files and found a folder w/ the notes I took and the documents they brought me. Want to come by? + +From: Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 12:36 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Virginia Guiffre + +Just quickly following up on this — we're trying to get a complete handle on the landscape — thanks! + +From: Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 21:11 To: Cc: Subject: Fwd: Virginia Guiffre + +Do you have any notes and/or records from your meeting with Skinner? If so can you please send them our way? Also did you meet again with him or anyone else relating to Epstein? + +Thanks, + +Sent from my iPhone + +Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:02 PM + +To: + +Subject: FW: Virginia Guiffre + +From: Peter Skinner + +Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:28 PM + +To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) + +Cc: StanPnttingerPanl corn. bradOoathtojustice corn; Sigrid McCawley + + + +Subject: RE: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +If you haven't already seen it, the Bost reported today on Jeffrey Epstein's continued relationships with young women. + +htto://oagesix.com/2016/03/08/jeffrev-eosteins-east-side-mansionhouses-russian-olavmates/ + +Best, + +Pete + +From: Peter Skinner + +Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:13 PM + +To: Amanda Kramer + +Cc: StanPnttingereaol corn; hrarkanathtojustice.corm Sigrid McCawley + +Subject: Re: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +I am adding Sigrid McCawley to this email chain as well. As we mentioned earlier today, Sigrid is one of the lead attorneys on the case and knows both Virginia and the facts very well. Please include Sigrid in any follow-up that you may. + +Best, + +Pete + +From: Peter Skinner cpskinnerPbcflIn corn> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:03 PM To: Amanda Kramer Cc: "StanPottingerPaol.com" <5tanPottingerOaol.corn> "bradPoathtoiustice corn" Subject: Virginia Guiffre + +Amanda, + +Thank you again for meeting with us today. We very much appreciate your time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: + +- 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell Oust today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss today); +- 2. Declarations that Virginia filed in the CVRA case; +- 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case; +- A. The redacted 302 + +Please let us know what other information we can provide or if you have any further questions. + +Best, Pete + +The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that. among other protections. is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable taw. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distnbution. copying or other use of this communication is stnctly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error. please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9076f2e9c26b82ca97288bda6eff687be5e105f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997/EFTA02831997.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02831997.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 3414, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.26, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT N", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 385.8688049316406, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 385.8688049316406, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02831997" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d607c9ba5a4b157899d8f9b4daaed6f1128c975 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## EXHIBIT 0 + +From: lijamgr Amanda flIPASIT8,1 To: M Alicon (USANYSt• Bcfssmfter Alexander lUSANYS1 Subject: FW: Contact Info (fromM Date: Thursday. December 6.2018 1:40:33 PM Attachments: 20160502 193023 + +FYI + +From: StanPottinger@aol.com + +Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 12:02 PM + +To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) + +Cc: Brad@pathtojustice.com; Smccawley@BSFLLP.com + +Subject: Fwd: Contact Info (from + +Amanda: + +Yesterday I spoke of , whom describes as a "scour or recruiter of girls and/or women for J. pstein.Attached to t Is incoming email from is the contact information he has for= + +Best regards, + +Stan + +From: To: Stan aol.com Sent: 5/3/2016 11:13:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: (no subject) + +Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smanphone. + +![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg) + +CONFIDENTIAL SDNY\_GM\_02742754 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd9978429f1cfa4f2ea77972fed39255f83ba422 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/EFTA02832001.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 836, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 0", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 6 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832001" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8786a9afd12aabe0b58667c78b2507a60eed707e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832001/_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:750a112c6067018a5e6b8e484497ac983d304766c07624358c6cb85edd5594f4 +size 226807 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b42ee6fa6091ecc47907f09078e3d16bfaa2216d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.md @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +## EXHIBIT P + +| Log | | | | | | | Privilege | Doc | +|-----|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------|-----------------| +| ID | Email Sent Date | Email From | Email 10 | CC Address | &Mixt Metter | Type of Privilege | | | +| | | The law enforcement entity, | | The law enforcement entity, | Plaintiff has objected that Defendant's requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party's claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). | | Action | Page Count Type | +| | Email and letter communications re law enforcement | David Boles, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawtey. Paul Cassell, | S Stan Pottinger, Sigrid | David Boles, McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad | This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of Defendant and | | | approx. 57 | +| | investigation | Brad | | | others. | Public Interest | Withheld | documents | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e315ad4f788200302c584f3b2e782ee8444ddbc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004/EFTA02832004.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832004.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5251, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.41, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT P", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.5687561035156, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.5687561035156, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832004" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f294ada8d0aad41dc13cc9ed7fc0aac3bc536d23 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +# EXHIBIT Q + +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X + +15-cv-07433-RWS + +### DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTWE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT + +Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. P liuca HADDON, AND P.C. East lOth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows: + +# INTRODUCTION + +Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(aX2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limitation for each deposition of seven hours with a right to take a total of 70 hours of depositions. This is an absurd reading of the Federal Rules. The presumptive ten deposition limitation is an independent limitation, and speaks to the number of separate deponents, not deposition time. Indeed, the two independent limitations do not even appear in the same section of the rules. + +The heart of Plaintiff's argument is that Ms. Maxwell inconveniently testified and denied Plaintiff's claims, rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment. This dashed Plaintiff's apparent hope to obtain an adverse inference, rather than actually having to prove her case against Ms. Maxwell. Instead, Ms. Maxwell fully testified for the entire 7 hours, responded to all questions posed to her,' and testified based on her actual knowledge. Ms. Maxwell's testimony simply bears no relevance to Plaintiffs request to take more than 10 depositions of non-party witnesses. + +Conspicuously absent from Plaintiffs motion are (a) any actual information she believes these witnesses may provide which is neither cumulative nor duplicative of other information already disclosed in this case, (b) the fact the information can be obtained from other sources, + +Plaintiff flatly mis-represents to the Court that Ms. Maxwell "refused" to answer the questions posed to her, as the actual transcript amply demonstrates. Ms. Maxwell did not avoid any questions and answered all questions to the best of her recollection relating to alleged events 15 years ago. The majority of the bullet point "summary" of the matters about which Ms. Maxwell could not testify were based either on a lack of any personal knowledge or the fact that the events claimed by Plaintiff did not actually happen. + +and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual issues in this matter. Plaintiff's inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion. + +# 1. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS PREMATURE + +First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. "[C]ourts generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number stipulated to by the opposing party." Gen. Elec. Co. v. lndem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). + +This guideline makes sense because a "moving party must not only justify those depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken." Id. (citing Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because "a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ] leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate." Id. at 483. + +Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17 depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies (a/k/a br I ), and Jeffrey Epstein as alleged "co-conspirators" with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment - in other words, she will not obtain any discoverable information from them. + +Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell 2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult, consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of and Epstein would serve Plaintiff's goal to make a convoluted legal argument. not to actually seek discoverable information. In light of this, the "burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner, she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions. + +# II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE + +Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. in Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten depositions: + +2Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WI. 159959, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) ("the general rule [is) that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others."); Brenner v. World Boxi Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) ("Furthermore, since". was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal to testify."). + +The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) (A) ("A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken ...."); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104 F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No. Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at \*2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to "enable courts to maintain a `tighter rein' on the extent of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of 'ivfide-ranging discovery' . . ." Whittingham v. Amherst Colt, 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation omitted). Accordingly, "[title mere fact that many individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such individual." v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996). + +"The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)3 and include whether (I) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). + +3 Rule 26(b)( I ) has since been modified to read "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(bX I )." The scope of discovery permitted by 26(bX I) is "non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Thus, the factors to be considered have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference. + +Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed (a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers° (former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former Epstein household employees), as well as (identified as assistants to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may have is identical to that of each other what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi's deposition is expected to "corroborate" the observations of her husband's. + +Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is "obtaining witnesses, like who can corroborate that [Plaintiff' is telling the truth." Yet, ■ did not "corroborate that [Plaintiff' is telling the truth." Instead, she testified that + +Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character, precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent. + +Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other. + +4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour deposition to accomplish the same end. + +Putting aside the admissibility of this testimony, it appears that both men were involved in the investigation of Mr. Epstein and are expected to testify about their investigation. Plaintiff's allegations were not a part of their investigation, which took place years after Plaintiff left the country. Moreover, their investigation did not involve duplicative and irrelevant deposition testimony speaks to the intended purpose of the ten-deposition limit, not a reason to exceed that limit. + +The same holds true for Kensignton or and Jeffrey Epstein, each of whom Plaintiff anticipates will not respond to questions and invoke their Fifth Amendment right. As discussed above, such invocation has no bearing on the issues in this matter. Moreover, it is obviously cumulative and duplicative. + +Plaintiff also identifies Rinaldo Rizzo and Jean Luc Brunel but fails to provide any information from which Ms. Maxwell or the Court could identify the subject matter of their expected testimony. Thus, it is unclear how these individuals have information that differs from or would add to the other proposed deponents. It is the Plaintiff's burden to explain to the Court why these depositions should be permitted if they exceed the presumptive limit, why the information would not be cumulative, and its relevance to the important issues in the action, or the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. She simply fails to provide any information by which the Court can assess these factors, and thus should not be permitted to exceed the deposition limit based on her proffer. + +### HI. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS SINGLE COUNT DEFAMATION CASE + +This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading making certain claims regarding "Jane Doe No. #3" the Plaintiff - and her alleged + +"circumstances." See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were "untrue" and "obvious lies." Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has been called a "liar." + +"A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that 'the statements ... complainfedl of were (I ) of and concerning [the plaintiff, (2) likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual malice.— Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), affd, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015), and affd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015). + +If Ms. Maxwell's statements are essentially true - Plaintiff lied - Plaintiff cannot establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense.5 Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual malice, "that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not") (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue. + +None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth of Plaintiffs claims about what happened to her, that the acts she claims she participated in + +5 There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case on behalf of Plaintiff by her attorneys, and Paul Cassell. Menninger Deel., Ex. A, p. 4. The very first line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, . It read: "In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell," and continuing that "Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe # 3 (who was only fifteen ears old) to come to Epstein's mansion .. ." , Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 26-29. No amount of "circumstantial evidence" can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell's statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder Motion were untrue. + +occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding "other" allegedly underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff's credibility. None of this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged "modus operandi of the Epstein organization." This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell's denial of the allegations made by Plaintiff about Plaintiff's own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff's attempt to amplify this proceeding into something broader should not be condoned. + +Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible "circumstantial evidence"' irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at \*I. As such, the request for the additional depositions should be denied. + +WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the presumptive ten deposition limit be denied• alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney's fees + +6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to experience similar to her stories and this will + +Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by FRE 404(b), which states "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiffs claim stands in isolation because it is fictional. + +&#x27; This "circumstantial evidence" has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she reviewed or other stories she had read. + +associated with attending any deposition occurring outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the Southern District of New York pursuant to S.D.N.Y L.Civ.R. 30.1. + +Dated: June 6, 2016. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Laura A. Menninger + +Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) + +Jeffrey S. iF r o im (pro haeS i + +HADDON, AND P.C. + +150 East 10 Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303.831.7364 + +Fax: 303.832.2628 + +lmenninger®hmflaw.com + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** + +I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this *Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit* via ECF on the following: + +Sigrid S. McCawley +Meridith [REDACTED] +BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 +smccawley@bsfllp.com +mschultz@bsfllp.com + +Paul G. Cassell +383 S. University Street +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +cassellp@law.utah.edu + +[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED], JAFFE, WEISSING, [REDACTED], +FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 +brad@pathtojustice.com + +J. Stanley Pottinger +49 Twin Lakes Rd. +South Salem, NY 10590 +StanPottinger@aol.com + +/s/ Nicole [REDACTED] + +Nicole [REDACTED] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5701739763638c0d2818bcef2f782f5855ff6e30 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006/EFTA02832006.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,657 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832006.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 19736, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.67, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT Q", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 226.44, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.7093200683594, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.7093200683594, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 226.44, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 418.5098571777344, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 418.5098571777344, + 99.9735107421875 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 99.9735107421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO \nMOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTWE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 489.50042724609375, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 489.50042724609375, + 371.4735412597656 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 371.4735412597656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 254.59199999999998, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 357.73223876953125, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 357.73223876953125, + 155.18701171875 + ], + [ + 254.59199999999998, + 155.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS PREMATURE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 341.2118225097656, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 341.2118225097656, + 182.853515625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND \nNOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 526.3199999999999, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 526.3199999999999, + 472.3535461425781 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 472.3535461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS SINGLE COUNT \nDEFAMATION CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 511.38031005859375, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 511.38031005859375, + 637.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 637.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 386.784, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 386.784, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 84.24 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832006" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0841a027a910445f38f3fb900c53917e443c1d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.md @@ -0,0 +1,170 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Table of Contents + +| Table of Contents | i | +|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Table of Authorities | ii | +| Table of Exhibits | iv | +| Introduction and Summary of the Argument | 1 | +| I. The Facts | 2 | +| II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion. | 6 | +| A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible. | 7 | +| B. | Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government | +| Still Misled the Court. | 17 | +| III. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements. | 18 | +| IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct | 20 | +| A. | Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained | +| Evidence. | 20 | +| B. | At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire | +| Judge McMahon | 26 | +| Conclusion | 27 | +| Certificate of Service | 29 | + +# Table of Authorities + +# Cases + +| (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) | 8 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) | 24 | +| Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) | 11 | +| v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) | 19, 20 | +| Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) | 14, 18, 19 | +| Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) | 20 | +| (S.D.N.Y. 2001) | 25 | +| Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) | 20, 22 | +| v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 8, 15 | +| Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) | 20 | +| In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) | 24 | +| Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) | 18, 21 | +| McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) | 20 | +| Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) | 24 | +| El v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) | 20 | +| United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) | 23 | +| United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) | 20, 22, 25, 26 | +| United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) | 22 | +| United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) | 23, 25 | +| United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) | 20 | +| (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) | 25 | + +| United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) | 20 | +|----------------------------------------------------|----| +| United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992) | 25 | +| United States v. , 411 U.S. 423 (1973) | 21 | +| United States v. M, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) | 23 | +| Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1996) | 2 | +| Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) | 24 | + +# Other Authorities + +# Rules + +# Constitutional Provisions + +#### Table of Exhibits + +EXHIBIT J: Notes of Feb. II, 2021 Call with AUSA (Sealed) + +EXHIBIT K: Handwritten Notes by AUSA of Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, and Brad + +EXHIBIT L: Email String Between Peter Skinner and AUSA , cc'ing Stan Pottinger, Brad and Sigrid McCawley (Feb. 29, 2016—Mar. 5, 2016) (Sealed) + +EXHIBIT M: Emails between AUSA and Chief of the Criminal Division (Mar. 3, 2016) (Sealed) + +EXHIBIT N: Emails between AUSA and AUSA and other AUSAs (Nov. 30, 2018—Dec. 6, 2018) (Sealed) + +EXHIBIT O: Email from Stan Pottinger to AUSA cc'ing Brad and Sigrid McCawley, re Daniel Siad (Mar. 3, 2016) (Sealed) + +EXHIBIT P: Supplemental Privilege Log, Apr. 4, 2016 + +EXHIBIT Q: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.) (June 16, 2016) + +Ghislaine Maxwell submits this reply in support of her Motion to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. + +### Introduction and Summary of the Argument + +If the government meant to reassure this Court that nothing improper happened, its Response was anything but reassuring. + +The government now confesses that it had significant and substantial contact with attorneys in 2016—while the defamation suit against Maxwell was on-going—as part of an effort to instigate a criminal prosecution of Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and others and then lying under oath. Doubling down on an increasingly farfetched story, however, the government insists that nothing improper occurred when it misrepresented these contacts to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York. + +Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an ex parte proceeding, affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of her colleagues. The prosecutor then exploited the material he obtained to indict Maxwell. + +Had the prosecutor not affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, the government would never have obtained the 90,000 pages of material it now possesses, material that is central indeed, essential—to its case against Maxwell. It would be the height of irony, not to mention injustice, to allow the government to convict Maxwell of testifying falsely when the government could not have indicted Maxwell but for the false statements it made to a federal judge. + +"In a situation like this, the judiciary ... may exercise its supervisory power to make it clear that the misconduct was serious, that the government's unwillingness to own up to it was more serious still, and that steps must be taken to avoid a recurrence of this chain of events." + +Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. 1996). For the reasons given below, the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority is called for here. + +# I. The Facts + +Pressed into some minimal measure of candor, the government now admits the following facts are true: + +- On February 29, 2016, AUSA the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, Ex. J, p 1, met with Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Stan Pottinger, and Brad who represented , Ex. K, p I. +- The meeting concerned allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J, pp 1-3. +- At the meeting, attorneys told AUSA the following: o That Maxwell was Epstein's "head recruiter" of underage victims. Id. at 2. o That was underage when she was brought to New York "for training by Maxwell and Epstein [in] how to service men." Id. at 3. o That had a pending civil lawsuit against Maxwell for defamation alleging that Maxwell had recruited to be trafficked and abused by Epstein. Id. at 4, 7. o That Maxwell was asserting truth as a defense to defamation claim. Id. at 4, 7. o That Maxwell had photos of naked underage girls on her computer. Id. at 6.I + +&#x27; No such photos were found on or produced from any computers associated with Maxwell. + +o That Maxwell and Epstein-friend "took sexually explicit photos of M I regularly."2 Id. o That, as a birthday present, Maxwell gave Epstein a sexually explicit photo of taken when was sixteen.3 Id. o That Epstein hung the photo on one of his walls .° Id. o That has a note in Maxwell's handwriting with the name of another victim. Id. at 8.3 o That was "live in" sex slave from 2000-2002.6 Id. at 3. o That there were other victims of Epstein and Maxwell, including id. at 7, who is apparently Accuser-I in this case, and another woman whose description matches id. at 9, who is apparently Accuser-3. o That Accuser-I was "highly credible." Id. at 7. o That Epstein and Maxwell used "the same MO with" Accuser-3 that they used with . Id. at 7, 9. o And that "wants [a] prosecution." Id. at 7. + +2 Maxwell denies ever taking any photos of and we have seen no sexually explicit photo of in any of the civil or criminal document productions. + +3 Not only did Maxwell not meet until was seventeen years old, Maxwell never provided any such photo to Epstein, nor, to our knowledge, has any such photo ever been produced, in the civil or criminal cases. + +Again, we have not seen any such photo produced in any discovery, either in the civil or criminal cases. + +5 We are aware of no note in Maxwell's handwriting being produced in the criminal discovery. action, or the + +was in fact living with her fiancé at the time and held multiple other jobs, as later confirmed through depositions and documents in the action. + +- The attorneys promised to send AUSA support their request for a prosecution. Id. at 8. +- Calling the meeting "intriguing," AUSA "affidavits and depositions" to emailed the Chief of the Criminal Division three days later and proposed to "talk over" the facts with him. Ex. M, pp 1- + - 2. He agreed. Id. at 1. +- In the days and weeks after the February 29 meeting, there were several emails between attorneys and AUSA Exs. L & N. +- There was also at least one phone call. Ex. K, at 4. +- attorneys provided AUSA with documents as promised. Id. at 2; see also Ex. L, p 2. + +Most importantly, the government now admits that AUSA , the prosecutor in charge of the case who appeared before Chief Judge McMahon on April 9, 2019, knew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. + +None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. + +As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. + +Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over defamation against Maxwell—that there was an + +"ongoing criminal investigation" into Maxwell, and they withheld from discovery 57 separate documents, invoking the "law enforcement privilege." Ex. P.7 + +In late November 2018 and early December 2018-just two months before AUSA filed the ex parte request before Judge McMahon seeking modification of the civil Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet—AUSA shared with AUSA as well as one other member of the trial team and the heads of the Public Corruption Unit, everything she learned from her contacts with attorneys. Ex. N. + +AUSA gave AUSA and his colleagues: (1) nine pages of detailed, hand-written notes from the February 29 meeting; (2) the emails she received from attorneys; and (3) all the documents provided to her by attorneys. Id. Some of what she gave AUSA included material Boies Schiller attorneys designated a short time later as "confidential" under Judge Sweet's Protective Order, including flight records and Palm Beach Police Department Records. + +AUSA took an active role in gathering these materials from AUSA— Copying AUSA , AUSA had emai led AUSA on December 5, 2018, to obtain all the records of the February 29 meeting with attorneys. Id. at 1. In that email, AUSA also asked AUSA whether, after February 29, she met "again with [Peter Skinner] or anyone else." Id. + +&#x27; Two other aspects to the privilege log are notable: (a) In the litigation, Boies Schiller did not produce its emails with the U.S. Attorney's Office to Maxwell, despite the fact that they were directly responsive to a Request for Production of Documents Maxwell served just a couple of weeks after those emails were sent; and (b) Peter Skinner, the Boies Schiller attorney at the AUSA meeting who also sent emails to AUSA after the meeting, Ex. L, is not even listed on the privilege log, though the log purports to reflect all email communications about the "ongoing criminal investigation" that Boies Schiller had tried to initiate just a couple of weeks earlier.

Barely twelve hours later, when AUSA hadn't responded, AUSAtook it upon himself to follow up, emailing AUSA : "Just quickly following up on this we're trying to get a complete handle on the landscape — thanks!" Id.

AUSA responded one hour later: "Just went through my files and found a folder w/ the notes 1 took and the documents they brought mc." Id. She turned everything over to AUSA and other prosecutors in the office, including one other prosecutor on this trial team. Id. AUSA did not answer AUSA original question: "[D]id [sheJ meet again with [Peter Skinner] or anyone else" after the February 29, 2016 meeting with attorneys. Id. But AUSA call occurred. Id. certainly did not deny a second meeting or a subsequent phone

By the end of the day on December 6, 2018, AUSA had in his possession everything and her attorneys provided to AUSA as well as AUSA extensive hand-written notes. He also had access to AUSA herself for any follow up questions. By the end of the day, AUSA had a "complete handle on the landscape," just as he asked for a couple hours earlier.

When AUSA appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his off►ce before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complete handle on the landscape," he painted an entirely different, false picture for Judge McMahon.

II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion.

Confronted with evidence of AUSA misrepresentations to Judge McMahon, the government has filed a Response reluctantly admitting that the U.S. Attorney's Office had sustained contact with Boies Schiller in 2016. Even so, the government tries its best to minimize

the significance of those interactions and of AUSA misrepresentations to an Article III federal judge. This Court should not permit the government to whitewash its conduct.

The discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Motion rebuts every defense the government now offers of its conduct. And if that weren't enough, the government's defense fails on its own terms, because if this Court were to assume its truth (an assumption the government has not earned), AUSA statements to Judge McMahon would still have been demonstratively and materially false.

A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible.

Discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Motion rebuts every defense the government now offers of its conduct.

• Defense 1: The February 29, 2016 meeting was only about Epstein.

AUSA contemporaneous hand-written notes entirely undermine the government's claim that the February 29, 2016 meeting was about Epstein only and had nothing to do with Maxwell. Resp. at 89 & n.39. See Ex. J. AUSA notes refer to Maxwell as Epstein's "head recruiter" of underage girls; they document allegations that Maxwell "regularly" took sexually explicit photos of and other underage girls, which she kept on her computer; they allege that Maxwell gave one such photo to Epstein as a birthday present, which he hung on his wall; they claim that Maxwell, along with Epstein, brought to New York to personally "train[] [her] ... [in] how to service men;" and they assert that Maxwell used the "same MO" to recruit other girls to the sex trafficking scheme. The contents of AUSA notes belie any notion that attorneys—who at that very moment were suing Maxwell

for defamation for denying she had trafficked and abused were focused only on Epstein and not on Maxwell.

Despite AUSA contemporaneous notes showing that the meeting very much concerned Maxwell, the government now claims that "the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell," and that the discussion included only "passing references to Maxwell." Resp. at 89 n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted with AUSA on February 11, 2021, five years after the February 29 meeting actually took place. Ex. K. This Court should reject the government's revisionist history.

The best evidence of what happened on February 29, 2016—at least the best evidence the government has produced so far—is AUSA contemporaneous notes.8 Ex. J.; Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena because "contemporaneous statements of witnesses constitute best evidence"). Although the government attached these notes to its Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing instead to rely on AUSA 2021 recollection of what happened, Resp. at 62-66, 89 & n.39, 92 (citing Ex. 4).

8 It appears the government does not actually want to know anything beyond what AUSA remembers (or doesn't remember) of 2016. All the government did in response to Maxwell's Motion was from, to, or about David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Stan Pottinger, Brad The government apparently: (1) did not search ti em for any and all emails or Peter Skinner, and telephone AUSA (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA , such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys.

Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to interview AUSA or secure an affidavit from him. If this Court does not grant Maxwell's Motion on the papers, only an evidentiary hearing can address these issues.

But in her 2021 interview, AUSA mostly disclaimed a memory of what happened in 2016. Ex. K. The phrases "does not recall," "does not remember," or some similar expression of lack of memory appear at least thirty-Iwo times in the notes of the government's 2021 call with AUSA . Id.

Many of AUSA disclaimers, however, are simply not credible. For example, AUSA claimed not to "have an independent memory of the v. Maxwell [defamation] lawsuit being mentioned" during the meeting, id. at I, even though her notes are replete with references to the lawsuit, Ex. J. After reviewing her notes, AUSA denied that they refreshed her memory. Ex. K, p I.

AUSA similarly denied remembering whether attorneys ever provided her with documents, id. at 6, despite the email from Peter Skinner just hours after the February 29 meeting providing AUSA with numerous documents, Ex. L, p 1-2, and despite the fact that AUSA in 2018 personally delivered those documents to AUSA AUSA , and one member of the prosecution team in this case, Ex. N, p 1 (12/6/2018 Email to AUSA : "Just went through my files and found a folder w/ the notes I took and the documents they brought me. Want to come by?").

When AUSA did claim to remember what transpired, her memory was often inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence. Take just one example. "To [her] knowledge," AUSA said, she did "not receive[] any discovery materials from any civil case." Ex. K, p 6. That is not correct. The government admits that AUSA received from attorneys, and turned over to AUSA and others in the office, including flight records and Palm Beach Police Department Records. Resp. at 66 & n.2. Both of these documents were produced in discovery in the civil case.

From any perspective, therefore, AUSA 2021 version of events is not worthy of credence, nor is the government's Response to Maxwell's Motion, which adopts AUSA version of events (to the extent she claims to remember them) while ignoring the contemporaneous evidence of what actually happened. The record is surpassingly clear: In February 2016 and the weeks and months after, attorneys "pitched" a prosecution of Maxwell and Epstein.9

• Defense 2: The government was not asked to consider a perjury charge against Maxwell.

Noting that the February 29, 2016 meeting occurred before Maxwell's two depositions (April and July 2016), the government insists that attorneys did not ask (indeed could not have asked) the government to consider charging Maxwell with perjury. Resp. at 63. Again, the documentary evidence belies this claim.

First, AUSA contemporaneous notes say that a wants prosecution." Ex. J, p 7. AUSA knew what attorneys were after, which is why she emailed the Chief of the Criminal Division just days after the meeting to discuss the "intriguing" case, Ex. M.

Second, in the 2021 interview with prosecutors, AUSA did not deny that attorneys asked her to consider a perjury prosecution. Ex. K, p 5. Instead, AUSA said that she "does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury." Id.

9 There are other indications as well that attorneys pressed AUSA to investigate Maxwell. For example, while AUSA notes say "is wanting to cooperate," Ex. J, p 2, they say nothing of the sort about Maxwell, instead describing her as Epstein's "head recruiter," id. See also Ex. O.

Third, in the same interview, AUSA admitted that she contemplated a perjury prosecution, and she "recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have ... challenges." Ex. K, p 5. Left unexplained by the government in its Response to Maxwell's Motion is why AUSA would have contemplated a perjury prosecution if attorneys had not proposed one.

Them are two possible explanations. Either (1) attorneys knew in February 2016 that they were going to set a perjury trap for Maxwell, and they discussed that plan with AUSA at the time, or (2) there were additional communications between AUSA and attorneys (phone calls or even a second meeting) after Maxwell was deposed. Either way, the government contemplated a perjury charge against Maxwell in 2016, and the Response's insistence otherwise is not credible.

• Defense 3: Maxwell's argument relies on nothing but the Daily News article.

The government says that Maxwell's argument "is premised solely on her use of selective snippets from a lone Daily News Article that is premised, in meaningful part, on anonymous sources and hearsay." Resp. at 89. This claim is stunningly disingenuous, and it fails on its own terms.

When Maxwell filed her Motion, she did not have access to the government's emails and AUSA contemporaneous notes, despite their obvious exculpatory value. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,87-88 (1963). The government did not disclose these materials until Maxwell challenged the government's candor and conduct before Judge McMahon. One wonders whether the government would have provided them to Maxwell had she not filed this Motion.

The government's claim also fails on its own terms. The article is not meaningfully anonymous.10 Among others, the article quotes David Boies, who said:

We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who were abused. Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There's a whole record that's been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive sex trafficking ring going on.

The article also quotes Brad who describes in his self-published memoir the various contacts attorneys had with the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2016.

Finally, as detailed above, AUSA contemporaneous notes confirm most of the article's substance." Ex. J.

• Defense 4: There was only one meeting.

The government denies there was a second meeting between the U.S. Attorney's Office and attorneys. Resp. at 92. This denial, though, is based solely on AUSAfoggy memory and in the absence of any credible investigation. Contrary to the government's claim, the evidence strongly suggests there was a second meeting or some further contact between them. At the very least, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to find the truth.

To the extent the article relies on unnamed sources, there is no indication those sources are anonymous in the sense that the author is unaware of their identity. In the 2021 call, the government apparently did not ask AUSA whether she was one of the unnamed sources. See Ex. K.

1° Stephen Rex , Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.cominew-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013 inuhl7zdrzkrbbs7vc6bInszu-story.html.

11 The government also says the article is hearsay. Resp. at 89. This is an odd claim for the government to make while asking this Court to credit double hearsay: someone's notes of statements made by AUSA during a phone call. The government's hearsay argument does nothing but support Maxwell's request for an evidentiary hearing.

Two of the sources in the Daily News article insisted there was a second meeting in the summer of 2016.12

In addition, as described above, AUSA in 2021 said she recalls contemplating a perjury prosecution of Maxwell. Ex. K, p 5. But if there were only the one meeting, it makes little sense for AUSA to have been thinking about a potential perjury prosecution in February of 2016, before Maxwell had even been deposed (unless the plan was to set a perjury trap for Maxwell). It is more likely that AUSA contemplated a perjury prosecution after a second meeting with attorneys, which took place after at least one of Maxwell's depositions. As reported in the Daily News, "David [Boles] was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge."13 "We have her dead to rights," he said.10

This Court cannot accept without further inquiry the government's assertion that there wasn't a second meeting or any further contact between the U.S. Attorney's Office and attorneys. At a minimum, an evidentiary hearing is required.

• Defense 5: AUSA had no idea o hat was in Boies Schiller's files.

The government stands by the claim that AUSA had "either little or no additional information than [Judge McMahon did] in terms of what materials there are [and] who was deposed" and, for all the government knew, the deposition transcripts would show "page after page of people taking the Fifth." See Resp. at 70. The government's Response is not credible.

12 Supra Note 10.

13Supra Note 10.

&quot; Supra Note 10.

For one thing, the government admits that attorneys turned over several documents in 2016, which were in the government's possession when AUSA claimed to Judge McMahon that he did not know what was in Boies Schiller's file. Moreover, by the time AUSA told Judge McMahon that, for all he knew, the deposition transcripts would show "page after page of people taking the Fifth," it was already a matter of public record that Maxwell had been deposed and that she had not invoked the Fifth Amendment. Ex. Q, p I.

The government's argument also defies logic. The government was asking Judge McMahon to authorize a subpoena of Boies Schiller's entire file. At a minimum, the government had to have asked Boies Schiller about the size of the file and issues related to privilege to determine if Boies Schiller would contest the subpoena or notify either the civil court or Maxwell when the subpoena was issued and responsive documents produced. In fact, the government issued two subpoenas to Boies Schiller: the first for material covered by the Protective Order, and the second for material outside the Protective Order's reach. Clearly. the government knew more about Boies Schiller's file than AUSA let on.

• Defense 6: The "subject of your investigation" to whom Judge McMahon referred was Jeffrey Epstein.

According to the government, when Judge McMahon asked AUSA "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation," Mot. Ex. E, p 2, Judge McMahon was referring only to Epstein. Resp. at 71. This is not a plausible reading of the transcript.

After his first appearance before her, Judge McMahon haled AUSA back to court for one reason. "I'll be very up-front with you," she said. Mot. Ex. E, p 2.

I want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bane] kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.

Id. (emphasis added).

"Tellingly,"16 Judge McMahon did not ask AUSA about the "target" of his investigation; she asked about its "subject." The "subject of (the] investigation" is much broader than its "target."

"A `target' is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant."" "A 'subject' of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."" The scope of an investigation, in turn, includes not only potential defendants and potential victims, but also the conduct at issue and the locations involved.

Were there any doubt about Judge McMahon's meaning, she put that doubt to rest in her written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G, p 21. The "subject of the investigation," she explained, was "the matters that were the subject of the [defamation] Action." Id. And having asked AUSA about his office's contacts with Boies Schiller about "the

15 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

16 "Tellingly," claims the government in the Response, "Maxwell omits [the phrase 'subject of your investigation'] of this question from her motion." Resp. at 70 n.34. Not five. On page 13 of Maxwell's Motion, in arguing that AUSA mislead Judge McMahon, Maxwell fully and completely quotes Judge McMahon's question, just as she does above. Mot. at 13 (quoting Ex. E, p 2).

&quot; United States Department of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151, Grand Jury, Advice of "Rights" of Grand Jury Witnesses (updated Jan. 2020), available at: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9- 11000-grand-jury#9-11.15 I (last accessed Mar. II, 2021).

18 /d.

matters that were the subject of the [defamation] Action," and having been misled by AUSA response, Judge McMahon erroneously (though blamelessly) concluded that

[n]othing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Action. . . There is no evidence of "collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation.

Id. (emphasis added).

For her part, AUSA shared the very concern Judge McMahon later expressed to AUSA that Boies Schiller was trying to instigate an investigation of Maxwell to leverage its position in the '= Action." Mot. Ex. K, p 3. In the 2021 call, AUSA recalled that the

pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation . . . gave [her] some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USA° because they think it will help them in their civil case.

AUSA even mentioned this concern to the Chief of the Criminal Division. Id. If AUSA and the Chief of the Criminal Division recognized what was going on, AUSAcan hardly feign ignorance.19

If the government means to suggest that when Judge McMahon asked about any prior contacts concerning "the subject of your investigation," she was somehow confining her inquiry to the time period surrounding November 2018, see Resp. at 90-91, that too is an implausible reading of the transcript. If Judge McMahon meant "subject" to be a term of art ("subject" of the investigation as opposed to a "target" of the investigation), then the government should have

&#x27;9 Of course, if AUSA honestly did not understand Chief Judge McMahon's question, once she issued her opinion there could no longer be any doubt. And at that point, AUSA would have been duty-bound to correct the misimpression he had created. N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule. 3.8, cmt. [6A] ("Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rule 3.3, which requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures to correct material evidence that the lawyer has offered when the lawyer comes to know of its falsity.").

disclosed the Boies Schiller contacts for the reasons given above. And if Judge McMahon meant "subject" to have its everyday meaning, then she was asking about something even broader: Whether the U.S. Attorney's Office had contacts with Boies Schiller about the "subject"—i.e., the "conduct"—being investigated.

Nothing about the transcript supports the government's overly narrow, hindsight-based interpretation of Judge McMahon's question.

\*

For these reasons, this Court should reject the government's attempt to rewrite the history of its investigation and its affirmative misrepresentations to Judge McMahon.

B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government Still Misled the Court.

Even if the government's account were worthy of belief (which it is not), that doesn't get the government off the hook.

The government would like this Court to believe that: (1) the February 29 meeting concerned a prosecution of Epstein only and not Maxwell; and (2) when Judge McMahon asked AUSA about his office's prior contacts with Boies Schiller concerning "the subject of its investigation," Judge McMahon was referring to Epstein only and not Maxwell.

Even if those two assertions were true, however, then AUSA still misled Judge McMahon and misrepresented the origins of the investigation. Under the government's version of events, "the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell." Resp. at 89 n.39. If that's true, AUSA unquestionably should have told Judge McMahon about the February 2016 meeting when she asked him "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation"-i.e., Epstein. AUSA did not tell Chief Judge McMahon about the

contacts with Boies Schiller on the topic of Epstein any more than he shared the contacts on the topic of Maxwell—he simply denied any contacts had occurred, something that is demonstrably false.

Whether Boies Schiller "pitched" a prosecution of Epstein only or of Epstein and Maxwell as a duo, AUSA whatsoever. misled Judge McMahon by denying there was any "pitch"

Ill. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements.

The government halfheartedly suggests that "there is no reason to believe that a description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon's analysis of whether she was facing a 'Chemical Bank kind of situation.' Resp. at 91. Hardly. In fact, there is every reason to believe Judge McMahon would have refused to authorize the subpoena if AUSA had not so misled her.

How do we know? Because Judge McMahon said so—at least twice.

Judge McMahon first made this clear by haling AUSA back in for one and only one reason: To ask him about the contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. So crucial was this question to Judge McMahon's decision that the transcript of the AUSA second appearance before her is just three pages long. Mot. Ex. E.

Judge McMahon made her thinking even clearer in her written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G. On page 12 of her opinion, when attempting to reconcile Chemical Bank with Martindell,20 Judge McMahon found that "nothing in the record suggests that the Government's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion." Mot. Ex. G, p 12.

Martindell v. Int7 TeL & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979).

Judge McMahon "returned" to that point when discussing whether Maxwell could have reasonably relied on the Protective Order:

[T]heShing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Action. On the contrary—the Government has advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of "collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.

Id. at 21.

Contrary to Judge McMahon's understanding, Boies Schiller contacted the government (not the other way around); there was ample evidence of "collusion"; it was "quite clear that Boies Schiller did ... foment the Government's investigation"; and AUSA knew much more about what was in Boies Schiller's files than he let on.

The Chemical Bank situation Judge McMahon was worried about— when civil litigant attempts to foment a criminal investigation of her opponent—is exactly what occurred.

Judge McMahon cannot be faulted for not knowing all the facts. AUSA , on the other hand, had a "complete handle on the landscape," and he withheld the truth from Judge McMahon. Had AUSA not misled her, it is clear Judge McMahon would not have authorized the subpoena.2'

21 It's notable that even without the benefit of truth from AUSA Judge McMahon wrongly concluded that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the Protective Order. In fact, the

IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.

A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that Evidence.

This Court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 340 (1943). "Judges have an obligation to exercise supervision over the administration of criminal justice in federal courts, a responsibility that 'implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence."' United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 340). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Payner, "Federal courts may use their supervisory power in some circumstances to exclude evidence taken from the defendant by 'willful disobedience of law."' 447 U.S. 727, 735 (1980) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 345) (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960); v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 216-17 (1956); Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 495 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment)). A court should invoke its supervisory power of suppression when "there has been a fraud upon the court in addition to a violation of the defendant's rights." United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir. 1980).

In United States v. Cortina, a magistrate issued a search warrant based upon an affidavit subscribed by FBI Agent Linda Stewart, which itself was based on the reports and investigation of FBI Agent William Id. at 1208. Unbeknownst to Agent Stewart, Agent

Second Circuit in v. Maxwell held a few months after Judge McMahon's ruling that Maxwell had reasonably relied on the Protective Order's guarantee of confidentiality in substantial part, and it therefore redacted sua sponse from the summary judgment material those "deposition responses concerning intimate matters where the questions were likely only permitted—and the responses only compelled because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. 929 F.3d 4, 48, n.22 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied on the Protective Order.

reports were replete with misrepresentations and outright lies about the conversations he had with, and information provided by, a confidential informant. Id. at 1212-13. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order suppressing the evidence obtained from the search conducted under the warrant. Id. at 1213. "This search," said the Court, "never should have taken place." Id.

The Court offered two bases for its decision. It first invoked the Franks analysis to affirm the district court's conclusion that Agent intentionally or recklessly misrepresented material information in Agent Stewart's affidavit. Id. But the Court went further, concluding that suppression was independently required as a matter of inherent authority. Id. at 1214-17. Because Agent lied in the affidavit (in addition to lying at the Franks hearing), "[t]he call for the court's supervisory power under the[] circumstances is at its strongest and most defensible." Id. at 1214.

The Court recognized that the inherent authority doctrine is not a free pass for courts to suppress evidence or "merely [to] disagree with the method[s] of law enforcement." Id. "[T]he federal supervisory power does not give 'the federal judiciary a 'chancellor's foot' veto over law enforcement practices of which it (does) not approve."' Id. (quoting United States v. 411 U.S. 423,435 (1973)). Even so, inherent authority is properly invoked to "prevent[] the court from condoning a fraud perpetrated upon it." Id. Suppression serves both to deter unlawful governmental conduct and to protect judicial integrity. Id. (weighing "the deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated ... and the need to protect the integrity of the federal courts against the cost to society of excluding 'probative but tainted evidence").

Maxwell had a due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the government's request to modify the Protective Order and issue a subpoena to Boies Schiller. Mot. Ex. A, 9 14 (permitting modification of the Protective Order only "for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard"); Mot. Ex. H (Judge Netburn denying the government's ex parte request to modify the Jane Doe 43 Protective Order in part because the government was attempting to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be heard); Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294; see U.S. CONST. amend. V. Maxwell also had a privacy interest in the materials subject to the subpoena, including most especially her deposition transcripts. Mot. Ex. A (defining "confidential" material as that which "implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of ... Ghislaine Maxwell"); see U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The government violated these rights when it secured an ex parte modification of the Protective Order based on materially false statements to Judge McMahon. In resisting any sanction for its misconduct, and in denying that Maxwell should even be afforded a hearing, the government asks this Court to "condon[e] a fraud perpetrated upon it." See Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1214.

To be sure, AUSA misled Judge McMahon in answering the singular question she posed, and he did so with full knowledge of the facts. AUSA misrepresentations were material to Judge McMahon's decision, because she would not have modified the Protective Order if AUSA had been candid about Boies Schiller's role in initiating the investigation. As Judge McMahon put it, "the only thing on which Maxwell... might reasonably have relied is that or her lawyers" would not approach prosecutors and "foment the Government's investigation." Mot. Ex. G, p 21. I. That is, in fact, exactly what happened. As in Cortina, the modification of the Protective Order "never should have taken place." Id. When, as here, a prosecutor—from the public corruption unit no less—misrepresents

material information to a federal judge in an ex parte proceeding, "[t]he call for the court's supervisory power ... is at its strongest and most defensible." Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1214.

Maxwell need not satisfy the standard of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) in order to obtain relief. But even if Franks applies, Maxwell has easily met her burden. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause or necessity finding," and (iii) "the claimed inaccuracies or omissions [were] the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth." United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 397 (2d Cir. 2018). Here, there is no dispute that (i) AUSA representations to Judge McMahon were false and misleading, (ii) Judge McMahon would not have modified the Protective Order to authorize the subpoena if AUSA had been honest with her, and (3) AUSA statements were deliberately false, since he had a "complete handle on the landscape" months before he appeared in front of and misled Judge McMahon.

Nor need Maxwell prove "outrageous government conduct" to obtain relief. Were that her burden, however, Maxwell would have easily satisfied it. "The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense ofjustice." United States v. M, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). To prevail on an outrageous government conduct claim, "a defendant must show that the government's conduct is 'so outrageous that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a

conviction.' United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233, 238 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. M, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997)).

Here, it would "shock the conscience" to permit a prosecutor to make false statements to a federal judge to circumvent another judge's duly-entered order, all in violation of the defendant's due process, privacy, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The only way to prevent Maxwell from suffering unconstitutional prejudice because of the government's misconduct is to suppress the evidence the government unlawfully obtained and to dismiss Counts 5 and 6.

\* \* \*

AUSA breached two separate but equally consequential duties: The duty of a public prosecutor and the duty of candor.

"[T]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). Prosecutors are held to a higher standard, and for good reason. "[The prosecutor] is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

Moreover, "[i]n light of the prosecutor's public responsibilities, broad authority and discretion, the prosecutor has a heightened duty of candor to the courts and in fulfilling other professional obligations." ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3- 1.4 (4th ed. 2017). "While all lawyers owe a duty of honesty and candor to the Court, 'this obligation lies most heavily upon [public prosecutors] who are not merely partisan advocates, but public officials charged with administering justice honestly, fairly and impartially." Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

In turn, this already high standard ratchets up even higher when a prosecutor appears before the court ex parte. "The duty of candor is, if anything, more critical when ex parte applications are made to a court." In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918, at •9 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017); see N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d) ("In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the ►awyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."); see also id. cmt. [14]. And it "is not a defense to claim that, while factual statements to the Court were materially misleading, they were not literally false. Attorneys are officers of the Court, and our system of justice cannot operate efficiently if the Court cannot rely on the candor of counsel presenting an application for ex pane relief." Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

AUSA failed to live up to these standards. In an a pane proceeding, AUSA affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, with full knowledge of what issue concerned Judge McMahon and what information would be material to her decision. When, as here, "there has been a fraud upon the court," Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216, "[t]he court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar .... [by] excluding] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law," id. at 1214. United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings....").

B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell May Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's Misrepresentation to Judge McMahon.

"An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute." United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009); United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[A]n evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question." (quotation omitted))). Here, the government has confessed enough facts to demonstrate that Maxwell at least is entitled to a hearing.

There is no merit to the government's assertion that Maxwell is not entitled to a hearing because she has not submitted an affidavit in support of her Motion. An affidavit is not a prerequisite to a hearing when the government has confessed the existence of facts sufficient to entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing.

Nor is an affidavit required when information at issue is peculiarly within the possession of the government (e.g., AUSA and AUSA ) or others who are adverse to Maxwell (e.g., Boies, Skinner, Pottinger). See Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216 ("The violation here is particularly insidious because it is difficult to uncover misrepresentations in an [ex parse submission]. The information needed to prove such assertions false is peculiarly within the hands of the government."). Since Maxwell was not at the February 29 meeting or copied on any of the emails or communications that followed, the Response does not explain how Maxwell could possibly submit an affidavit attesting to the government's misrepresentations based on personal knowledge.

The government of course does not suggest that any of its agents, such as AUSA would be willing to provide an affidavit to Maxwell or otherwise speak with defense counsel absent compulsion from this Court. Indeed, the government conspicuously did not attach to its Response any affidavits about its interactions with Boies Schiller.

It's plain, therefore. that this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and effectuate Maxwell's constitutional right to compulsory process because that is the only way to get to the truth."

Conclusion

For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion.

Dated: March 15, 2021

32 If this Court concludes an affidavit is required before it holds a hearing, Maxwell requests leave, as she did in her Motion, to attempt to obtain such an affi vit. But if, as is likely, none of the participants—e.g., AUSA , AUSA-, Boies, Skinner, Pottinger—voluntarily provides an affidavit, Maxwell invokes her constitutional right to compulsory process and this Court's authority to compel testimony in support of her defense. U.S. CONST. amend. VI.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

Laura A. Mennin er

HADDON, & P.C.

150 East 10th Avenue

Denver, CO 80203

Phone: 303-831-7364

Christian R. Everdell

& GRESSER LLP

800 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Phone: 212-957-7600

Bobbi C. Stemheim

Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim

33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor

New York, NY 10011

Phone: 212-243-1100

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the following:

Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz®usdoj.gov

s/ Christian R. Everdell

+ + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d41e161a1d5bbc97054012d166da2643a3af958 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018/EFTA02832018.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1908 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832018.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 34, + "chars": 62111, + "elapsed_seconds": 28.21, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO \nSUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA \nTO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 538.80224609375, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 538.80224609375, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Contents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 253.98, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 359.25823974609375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 359.25823974609375, + 87.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 253.98, + 87.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 365.57904052734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 365.57904052734375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 241.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 241.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 314.28000000000003 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 314.28000000000003 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 329.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 329.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 432.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 432.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 357.58270263671875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 357.58270263671875, + 87.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 87.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction and Summary of the Argument", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.704, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 433.26312255859375, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 433.26312255859375, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 178.704, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Facts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 166.02720642089844, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 166.02720642089844, + 142.863037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 142.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government's Response to Maxwell's Motion.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 392.8609924316406, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 392.8609924316406, + 639.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 639.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Government's Defenses Are Not Credible.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8765869140625, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8765869140625, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 1: The February 29, 2016 meeting was only about Epstein.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 499.08514404296875, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 499.08514404296875, + 363.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 363.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 2: The government was not asked to consider a perjury charge \nagainst Maxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 238.14 + ], + [ + 522.874267578125, + 238.14 + ], + [ + 522.874267578125, + 268.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 268.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 3: Maxwell's argument relies on nothing but the Daily News \narticle.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 376.65000000000003 + ], + [ + 507.53912353515625, + 376.65000000000003 + ], + [ + 507.53912353515625, + 406.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 406.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 4: There was only one meeting.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 347.78021240234375, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 347.78021240234375, + 321.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 321.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 5: AUSA had no idea o hat was in Boies Schiller's files.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 541.5797729492188, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 541.5797729492188, + 447.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 447.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Defense 6: The \"subject of your investigation\" to whom Judge McMahon \nreferred was Jeffrey Epstein.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 534.5369262695312, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 534.5369262695312, + 489.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 489.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Assuming the Government's Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the \nGovernment Still Misled the Court.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.9701232910156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.9701232910156, + 350.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 350.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ill. The Materiality of the Government's False Statements.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.40313720703125, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.40313720703125, + 252.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 252.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.1336975097656, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 377.1336975097656, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence \nObtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are \nthe Fruits of that Evidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 540.7713623046875, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 540.7713623046875, + 144.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 144.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell \nMay Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding the Government's \nMisrepresentation to Judge McMahon.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.6196899414062, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.6196899414062, + 117.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 117.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 339.9225769042969, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 339.9225769042969, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.41156005859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.41156005859375, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832018" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef067f71851404921f97b209ac9a15f872144296 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin r HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. | The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged Conspiracies. 2 | +| II. The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. | 6 | +| III. | At Minimum, the Government Must Demonstrate the Admissibility of Evidence | +| Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). | 9 | +| CONCLUSION | 10 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, | Page(s) | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 137 S.Ct. 1562 (2017) United States v. DeFabritus, | 6 | +| 605 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) United States v. Greebel, | 8 | +| No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) United States v. Hitt, | 8 | +| 249 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2001) United States v. Hsia, | 4 | +| 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) United States v. Scarpa, | 5 | +| 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) United States v. Sharpe, | 8 | +| 438 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) Statutes | 4 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) | 1, 2 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) Rules | 1, 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) Other Authorities | 2, 9 | +| https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/sexual%20abuse, accessed 11 Mar. 2021. | 6 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment ("Motion"). + +In its opposition ("Opp.") to Ms. Maxwell's Motion, the government concedes it cannot charge Ms. Maxwell with a substantive offense against Accuser-3i under either 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). It concedes that any such charge as to Accuser-3 would be time-barred. (Opp. 164). It concedes that it cannot show that either Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein ever engaged, or sought to engage, in unlawful sexual activity with Accuser-3, who at all relevant times was above the legal age of consent in England, where all alleged activity as to Accuser-3 occurred. (Opp. 162 n.57.) And it concedes that it cannot establish that either Ms. Maxwell or Epstein ever caused, or sought to cause, Accuser-3 to travel while she was a minor. (Opp. 163 n.58.) + +Yet the government argues that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's alleged lawful interactions with Accuser-3 were somehow "part of and "in furtherance of a conspiracy to entice or cause underage girls to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity with Epstein. Opp. 161, 163. The government's argument defies logic. The government does not and cannot explain how purported lawful, consensual sexual activity in England was part of an alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel in the United States. Its eleventh-hour effort to salvage its allegations regarding Accuser-3 by proffering evidence that she evidence that the grand jury did not include in the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") —does not establish the relevance of those allegations, given the government's inability to show that Accuser-3 + +Accuser-3 is identified in the Superseding Indictment as "Minor Victim-3." Similarly, the individuals identified in the Superseding Indictment as "Minor Victim-I" and "Minor Victim-2" are referred to herein as Accuser-I and Accuser-2, respectively. + +Even more incomprehensible is the government's argument that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are not prejudicial. The government concedes that it has characterized Accuser-3's lawful, consensual sexual encounters with Epstein as "sexual() abuse[]," based solely on Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of those encounters. By characterizing those encounters as "sexual[] abuse[]," the government has falsely accused Ms. Maxwell of a crime that it now admits she did not commit, improperly broadening the charges against her by implying that she participated in the sexual abuse of three minors rather than two. The allegations as to Accuser-3 are thus irrelevant and prejudicial and should be stricken. At minimum, the allegation that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in the purported sexual abuse of Accuser-3 should be stricken. + +Finally, the government effectively concedes that the admissibility of evidence regarding Accuser-3 must be litigated under Fed. R. Evid. 404(6). While the government's effort to establish the admissibility of such evidence in its opposition suffers from the same infirmities as its inclusion of the allegations regarding Accuser-3 in the Indictment, Ms. Maxwell will respond to the government's admissibility arguments more fully at the appropriate time. + +# klle2ations Reg.arclintz:Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleeed Conspiracies. + +The Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to (i) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), with the objective of enticing one or more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity (Indictment 119 9-10); and (ii) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), with the objective of transporting an individual under age 18 with the intent that the individual engage in unlawful sexual activity (Id.1115-16). As an overt act in furtherance of these conspiracies, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell "encouraged [Accuser-3] to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages." Id.11 I Id, I 7d (emphasis added). The Indictment further alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3. Id. 1 7c. + +The government does not and cannot dispute that Accuser-3 was above the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, and that it cannot establish that Accuser-3's alleged sexual encounters with Epstein were anything other than consensual and lawful. Nor can the government dispute that the Indictment does not contain a single allegation that Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, or anyone else ever transported Accuser-3 or enticed her to travel—let alone with the intent that she engage in unlawful sexual activity. The Indictment offers no conceivable scenario in which Ms. Maxwell's alleged encouragement of Accuser-3 to engage in lawful sexual activity with Epstein in England "furthered" an alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. + +The government's argument that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's alleged interactions with Accuser-3 were "part of such a conspiracy uses bizarre logic. See Opp. 161. The government does not claim that any alleged interactions between Ms. Maxwell or Epstein and Accuser-3 in any way caused, or attempted to cause, any minor to travel, let alone for the purpose of the minor's involvement in unlawful sexual activity. Instead, the government argues that because it has alleged that Ms. Maxwell "groomed" two other minor individuals who traveled and engaged in illegal sex acts with Epstein, it somehow "follows" that encouraging an individual of legal age to engage in entirely lawful sexual activity with Epstein—unaccompanied by any alleged travel or intended travel—was "part of conspiracies to cause underage individuals to travel. Opp. 161. + +Apparently recognizing the tenuous connection between its allegations regarding Accuser-3 and the alleged conspiracies, the government attempts to bolster its allegations after the fact by proffering Accuser-3's testimony that she + +To the extent that it is appropriate for the Court to + +consider such a proffer in the context of a motion to strike,2 the proffered testimony, even if credited, adds nothing to the analysis. By the government's own admission, Accuser-3 will not testify, and the government cannot prove, that Accuser-3 Thus, even if Accuser-3 testifies in accordance with the proffer, the \_government will be unable to establish that she was transported or enticed to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity.4 + +The government argues that it "does not matter whether Accuser-3 was an adult when invited to travel (Opp. 162), because even evidence that she was invited to travel as an adult would be "probative" of Ms. Maxwell's "intent, in her initial interactions with [Accuser-3], to entice [Accuser-3] to travel and be transported for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts." Opp. 163. But there is nothing unlawful about "entic[ing]" an adult to "travel and be transported for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts" if those acts themselves are entirely lawful. Nor does Ms. Maxwell's alleged role in Accuser-3's purported lawful sexual activity with Epstein in England, while Accuser-3 was allegedly under age 18, evince an intent to entice Accuser-3 to travel before she turned 18. + +2 In addressing the sufficiency of allegations in the similar context of a motion to dismiss, courts have recognized that they are limited to consideration of the language of the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006) ("a district court is limited to reviewing the face of the indictment") (emphasis in original); United States v. Big 249 F.3d 1010, 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("Adherence to the language of the indictment is essential because the Fifth Amendment requires that criminal prosecutions be limited to the unique allegations of the indictments returned by the grand jury."). + +3 The overnment concedes that it cannot establish that Accuser-3 Opp. 163 n.58 (admitting that Accuser-3 is ). + +4 It bears mention that Accuser-3'sproffered testimon a ars to be uncorroborated b documents evidence. + +The government also improperly stretches the scope of the alleged conspiracies in a failing attempt to make its allegations regarding Accuser-3 fit within those charges. For example, the government asserts that Ms. Maxwell's alleged role in purported lawful sexual activity involving Epstein and Accuser-3 in England is "evidence of the defendant's agreements with Epstein to identify minor girls to entice and transport for purposes of illegal sex acts." (Opp. 162.) But the Indictment does not allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to "entice" minor girls to commit illegal sex acts, let alone to "identify minor girls" for such an enticement. Nor could it, since mere "enticement" to commit illegal sex acts is insufficient to establish a Act violation. The alleged conspiracies were conspiracies to entice or cause minors to travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sex acts, and the Indictment does not allege that Accuser-3 ever traveled or engaged in illegal sex acts. + +The government commits a similar Freudian slip in its attempt to distinguish United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998), when it states that "the allegations regarding [Accuser-3] involve conduct that falls within the heartland of the conspiracy: grooming a minor girl to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein." Opp. 164 n.59. The "heartland of the conspiracy" is actual or contemplated interstate travel of minor girls to engage in unlawful sexual acts with Epstein, which the government cannot establish with respect to Accuser-3. The government's opposition repeatedly treats interstate travel, the linchpin of federal court jurisdiction over the alleged conduct and the necessary object of the conspiracies alleged, as a throwaway element of its case. + +In short, neither the allegations regarding Accuser-3 nor the government's proffer establish an intent that Accuser-3 (i) engage in "illegal sex acts" or (ii) travel while a minor. The government's allegations regarding Accuser-3 are thus not in furtherance of, and are irrelevant to, any alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel to engage in unlawful sex acts. + +# IL The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. + +The government now concedes that when it alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3 with Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and assistance, the purported "sexual abuse" to which the government refers was entirely lawful conduct—and that the sole basis for the government's characterization of that lawful conduct as "sexual abuse" was Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of consensual sex acts. Opp. 162 n.57. Such a characterization is, to say the least, grossly misleading. As the government argued in a 2017 Supreme Court case, the term "sexual abuse" implies a crime. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017) ("Sexual abuse of a minor,' the Government accordingly contends, `most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old.") (quoting government's brief) (emphases added). Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary defines "sexual abuse" as (i) "the infliction of sexual contact upon a person by forcible compulsion," (ii) "engaging in sexual contact with a person who is below a specified age or who is incapable of giving consent because of age or mental or physical incapacity," or (iii) "the crime of engaging in or inflicting sexual abuse." "Sexual abuse," Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webstencomilegaUsexual%20abuse, accessed II Mar. 2021. + +Although the government concedes its inability to establish that Accuser-3's alleged interactions with Ms. Maxwell and Epstein were anything other than consensual and lawful, it insists that it has "accurately" characterized those allegations and that "it is neither misleading nor prejudicial to imply that this activity involved illegal conduct." Opp. 165. The government's rationale is baseless and untenable: Since the government has alleged that lawful conduct involving Accuser-3 was an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy, it argues that it is entitled to imply that the conduct itself was unlawful. The obvious flaws in this logic are at least threefold. First, the Indictment does not merely imply that the alleged conduct involving Accuser-3 was unlawful; it specifically and falsely characterizes the conduct as "sexual[] abuse[]." Second, as the government points out repeatedly, an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy need not itself be unlawful. See, e.g., Opp. 161 ("It is axiomatic that a conspiracy does not require a completed substantive crime."). And third, the government's reasoning is circular: It argues simultaneously that Accuser-3's lawful sexual encounters with Epstein demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy, and that the existence of a conspiracy makes those sexual encounters unlawful. + +Since the government concedes that Epstein's alleged sexual contact with Accuser-3 was consensual and lawful, and that Accuser-3 was above the legal age of consent, the government's allegation that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in the "sexual[] abuse[]" of Accuser-3 amounts to a knowingly false accusation that she committed a crime. It is hard to conceive of a more inflammatory or prejudicial allegation. + +Also troubling is the government's statement that Accuser-3 will testify to her "subjective experience" of her admittedly lawful sexual encounters with Epstein "as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive." See Opp. 162 n.57 (emphasis added). To the extent that evidence regarding Accuser-3's involvement in lawful sexual activity in England while she was above the age of legal consent has any relevance whatsoever to an alleged conspiracy to cause underage girls to travel in the United States to engage in illegal sex acts, that relevance certainly does not encompass Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of her lawful, consensual encounters. The government's intention to present such testimony further demonstrates that Accuser-3's function + +in this case is not to provide evidence probative of any alleged conspiracy to cause underage girls to travel, but rather to prejudice the jury by creating a cumulative impression of Ms. Maxwell as a serial "abuser." + +Finally, the government's argument that its allegations regarding Accuser-3 are "no more inflammatory or prejudicial than those describing the experiences of [Accuser- lj and [Accuser-2]" has no legal basis. Because this Motion does not challenge the relevance of the government's allegations regarding Accuser-I and Accuser-2, the inflammatory and prejudicial nature of those allegations alone would not provide a basis to strike them. See United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that if evidence of allegation is relevant, allegation may not be stricken regardless of how prejudicial it is). However, the government's suggestion that Ms. Maxwell is not prejudiced by the inclusion of false, irrelevant allegations that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in a crime against Accuser-3 is contrary to case law striking allegations that broaden the charges against a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) ("An unsupported ... allegation that Mr. Greebel was involved in orchestrating all four schemes [instead of the two with which he was charged] broadens the actual charges against him, and creates a significant risk of jury confusion and prejudice."); United States v. DeFabritus, 605 F. Supp. 1538, 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (striking "among other things" language as prejudicial where it "would lead the jury to draw improper inferences regarding other crimes not charged in the indictment"). + +The government's allegation that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in the "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 is both untrue and highly prejudicial. The government is simply trying to bolster a weak case by including irrelevant, prejudicial allegations from a third accuser that have no bearing on the charged crimes. The allegations regarding Accuser-3 should be stricken. + +### III. At Minimum, the Government Must Demonstrate the Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). + +The government apparently does not dispute its obligation to demonstrate the admissibility of Accuser-3's testimony as "other act" evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Litigation of the admissibility of this evidence is premature, and Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to challenge it at the appropriate juncture. Ms. Maxwell notes, however, that the government's argument that such evidence is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(6) suffers from the same flaws as its argument that Ms. Maxwell's interactions regarding Accuser-3 constitute an overt act. + +The government claims Accuser-3's testimony is admissible to show Ms. Maxwell's "knowledge, intent, and modus operandi." Opp. 158 (emphasis in original). The government's very use of those terms, however, betrays an implication that Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 were somehow unlawful. Any knowledge or intent on Ms. Maxwell's pan that Epstein would engage in consensual sexual activity with Accuser-3, or any method by which she purportedly persuaded Accuser-3 to engage in such lawful conduct, has no bearing on whether Ms. Maxwell knew or intended Accuser-1 or Accuser-2 to engage in unlawful sexual activity. And Accuser-3's proffered testimony about her "subjective experience" of her lawful, consensual activity with Epstein certainly would not inform the jury as to Ms. Maxwell's state of mind or conduct with respect to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2. Ms. Maxwell is prepared to brief these issues more fully in connection with her evidentiary motions. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court strike all references to Accuser-3 from Paragraph 7 of the indictment, and that the Court strike Paragraphs 7c, I Id, and 17d in their entirety. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d77291e640cf5ea17f43199a9469a6830dc2ec5a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052/EFTA02832052.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,748 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832052.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 22293, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE \nFROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.224, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.19610595703125, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.19610595703125, + 320.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 154.224, + 320.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "klle2ations Reg.arclintz:Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleeed Conspiracies.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 526.3359375, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 526.3359375, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IL The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 510.9056701660156, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 510.9056701660156, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. At Minimum, the Government Must Demonstrate the Admissibility of Evidence \nRegarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.0443725585938, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.0443725585938, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832052" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecbb4f8b852f7013a855ae039fb74522f6b3bc6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe01ccac83d0605ae0b0839bbedc2a02a6aaa1bd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066/EFTA02832066.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832066.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832066" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ac93078997858e286abdfd637bd3160d1aa0483 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.md @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menni HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. The Court Should Grant a Bill of Particulars | 3 | +| II. | The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Accelerated Disclosure of the | +| 404(b) Material, and Co-Conspirator Statements. | 6 | +| III. | The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Production and Inspection of | +| Documents. | 9 | +| CONCLUSION | 12 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| United States v. Bortnovsky,
820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987)..... | 3, 5, 6 | +| United States v. Cannone,
528 F.2d 296 (2d Cir. 1975)..... | 4, 7, 8 | +| United States v. Hsia,
24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998)..... | 6 | +| United States v. Luna,
No. 3:05-CR-58 (SRU), 2006 WL 1668006 (D. Conn. May 17, 2006) ..... | 5 | +| United States v. Rueb,
No. 00-CR-91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001)..... | 7, 8 | +| United States v. Savin,
No. 00-CR-45 (RWS), 2001 WL 243533 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2001)..... | 7 | +| Rules | | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 ..... | 2, 7 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 ..... | 9 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)..... | 1, 2, 6, 8 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures ("Motion"). + +Ms. Maxwell's opening brief sets forth compelling reasons justifying the need for a bill of particulars, and for accelerated disclosure of the identities of the government's witnesses, Jencks Act material, Brady/Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence, and any co-conspirator statements that the government will seek to introduce at trial. The government's opposition ("Opp.") does not address these justifications, or attempts to deflect them, and does nothing to undercut Ms. Maxwell's arguments in support of the requested relief. + +Indeed, the new revelations in the government's opposition highlight the need for the relief she seeks. In response to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment, the government's opposition discloses for the first time that Accuser-31 will testify that she allegedly + +These allegations, which meaningfully expand the scope of the charges against Ms. Maxwell, are not mentioned anywhere in the Superseding Indictment ("Indictment"), nor are they alluded to in the over 2.7 million pages of discovery. Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly investigate the allegations to prepare her defense if she does not know fundamental information about when and where the alleged incidents of sexual abuse took place. Nor can she make appropriate motions to preclude the government's use of this evidence, as it falls outside of the scope of the charged conspiracies. Moreover, the government continues to refuse to provide Ms. Maxwell the most basic piece of information she needs to prepare for trial — the names of the three individuals who have accused + +Accuser-3 is identified in the Superseding Indictment as "Minor Victim-3." Similarly, the individuals identified in the Superseding Indictment as "Minor Victim-I" and "Minor Victim-2" are referred to herein as Accuser-I and Accuser-2, respectively. + +her of the crimes charged in the Indictment. A bill of particulars is therefore necessary to prevent unfair surprise at trial and to allow Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare her defense. + +It is also critical that Ms. Maxwell receive accelerated disclosure of the government's witness list, Jencks Act material, Brady/Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence, and any coconspirator statements. The government predictably argues that there is nothing unusual about the circumstances of Ms. Maxwell's case that would justify a deviation from customary production deadlines for the materials she requests. But Ms. Maxwell's case is not a typical case and presents unique circumstances that warrant the relief she seeks. The Indictment alleges vague conduct that is over 25 years old and involves conduct that allegedly took place over a four-year period in multiple locations across the country and in at least one foreign jurisdiction. Any relevant documents that may still exist will take time to retrieve. The investigation of witness statements and any Rule 404(b) evidence will similarly take significant time and potentially also involve foreign travel and depositions under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For these reasons, and the others set forth below, the Court should order the production of these materials by March 22, 2021.2 + +Ms. Maxwell has also provided specific reasons supporting her requests for the production and inspection of certain FBI reports and other documents, such as a complete copy of the handwritten diary, which are not included in the discovery. There is ample evidence to conclude that these documents contain material inconsistencies in the prior statements of key government witnesses, as well as other exculpatory information for Ms. Maxwell. The Court should therefore order the government to produce them. + +2 Ms. Maxwell originally requested that the government produce the requested witness materials by March 12, 2021 (Dkt. 148 at 15, 17), the same deadline as the Court imposed on the government to produce documents related to certain non-testifying witnesses. (Dkt. 73). Because the Court granted Ms. Maxwell's request to extend the filing deadline for the reply motions by 10 days from March 5, 2021 to March 15, 2021, we have moved forward our requested deadline for the production of witness materials by 10 days to March 22, 2021. + +### I. The Court Should Grant a Bill of Particulars. + +A bill of particulars is appropriate if the indictment does not disclose to the defendant with sufficient particularity "the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Here, the revelation of new allegations from Accuser-3 disclosed for the first time in the government's opposition, as well as the government's continuing refusal to identify the names of the three accusers, justify the need for a bill of particulars to prevent unfair surprise at trial and to allow Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare her defense. + +First, as it has done since the beginning of this case, the government continues to deny Ms. Maxwell the most basic piece of information she needs to investigate the allegations against her and prepare for trial — the names of the three individuals who have accused her of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Rather than attempt to justify withholding this information out of concern for the accusers' safety or privacy—an untenable argument, given that two of the three accusers, if we are correct about their identities, have already publicly identified themselves—the government instead argues that because it has provided enough information for Ms. Maxwell to guess who they are, there is no need to disclose their names at this point. (Opp. 181-82). Ms. Maxwell should not have to rely on guesswork to prepare for trial, especially when the testimony of these three accusers will comprise the core of the government's proof. With trial only four months away, Ms. Maxwell's need to have sufficient time to investigate the allegations against her vastly outweighs any countervailing interest the accusers may have in remaining anonymous. If the government is unwilling to provide the names of the accusers, the Court should order the government to do so either as part of a bill of particulars or pursuant to its inherent authority to + +compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). + +Second, as discussed in Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum, the allegations in the Indictment and the extremely limited information contained in the discovery are insufficient to advise Ms. Maxwell of the nature and scope of the charges against her. The government's opposition provides a perfect illustration of Ms. Maxwell's point: it discloses entirely new allegations of involving Accuser-3, which it will seek to introduce at trial, but which are not contained in the Indictment and are not alluded to, or corroborated, anywhere in the over 2.7 million pages of discovery. + +As a result of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Strike Surplusage ("Surplusage Motion"), the government has apparently recognized that the allegations in the Indictment concerning Accuser-3 do not constitute direct evidence of the charged conspiracies because: (i) Accuser-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom when the alleged episodes of sexual activity with Epstein took place, and were therefore not illegal, and (ii) there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled. In an attempt to cure these deficiencies, the government now discloses for the first time in its opposition that Accuser-3 will testify that (Opp. 159). Accuser-3 will also testify that (Ici.).3 + +3 As discussed more fully in Ms. Maxwell's Reply Memorandum in Support of Her Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment ("Surplusage Reply"), these new allegations are also not direct evidence of the charged conspiracies and should not be offered as such at trial. + +These new allegations—which expand the nature and scope of the charged conspiracies—are exactly the type of "surprise" revelations that a bill of particulars is designed to protect against. The Indictment makes no mention of these allegations, nor is there any information in the discovery indicating that they would be part of the government's case. The government therefore cannot argue, as it does in its opposition, that the information provided in the Indictment and the discovery produced to date are sufficient for Ms. Maxwell to understand the nature of the charges against her, especially when only a small fraction of the discovery pertains to the time period charged in the Indictment. (Opp. 179-81). "The Government [does] not fulfill its obligation merely by providing mountains of documents to defense counsel" if the discovery does not identify the alleged criminal conduct." Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575; see also United States v. Luna, No. 3:05-CR-58 (SRU), 2006 WL 1668006, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 17, 2006) ("[W]hen faced with 'mountains' of discovery or `massive disclosures,' a defendant may still be unable to prepare for trial and prevent surprise."). + +Nor can the government take shelter in the fact that it has now disclosed these allegations. The government only made this disclosure because of Ms. Maxwell's Surplusage Motion. Had she not made that motion, Ms. Maxwell would not have known about these allegations until she received Jencks Act disclosures a few weeks before trial, which would not have given her sufficient time to investigate 25-year-old allegations of It also raises the question of whether Accuser-1 and Accuser-2 have alleged that are not included in the Indictment, but which the government plans to introduce at trial. Without a bill of particulars specifying the approximate dates, locations, and people involved in the alleged incidents of sexual abuse that the government plans to prove at trial, Ms. + +Maxwell cannot effectively prepare her defense and will be at risk of further "surprise" allegations on the eve of trial. See Bomiovsky, 820 F.2d at 575 (bill of particulars necessary to prevent the government from proceeding "furtively"). + +Moreover, as discussed more fully in the Surplusage Reply, these new allegations represent an impermissible attempt by the government to broaden the scope of the alleged conspiracies and bolster its thin case with testimony that is irrelevant to the charged crimes. Accordingly, a bill of particulars is not only necessary so that Ms. Maxwell can adequately prepare her defense, but also so that the government cannot use evidence that is outside the scope of the charged conspiracies to prove its case. See United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14, 33 (D.D.C. 1998) (ordering a bill of particulars "as to the scope of the alleged conspiratorial agreement" and whether and how certain allegations "were within the scope of the conspiracy charged").4 + +### II. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Accelerated Disclosure of the Government's Witness List, Jencks Act Material, BradvIGiglio Material, Rule 404(6) Material, and Co-Conspirator Statements. + +As set forth in Ms. Maxwell's opening brief, her case presents special circumstances and unique investigative challenges that justify accelerated disclosure of the identities of the government's witnesses, their prior statements and impeachment material, any expected Rule 404(b) evidence, and any potential co-conspirator statements. (Dkt. 148 at 14-15). In response, the government does not attempt to rebut Ms. Maxwell's justifications for accelerated disclosure of these materials. Instead, it offers a formulaic argument that Ms. Maxwell's case is no different than other recent high-profile trials in this District, that she has not made a sufficient + +4 It is telling that these new allegations are surfacing for the first time in the government's opposition. Either the government just learned this information from Accuser-3 or it was already aware of this information, but decided not to present it to the grand jury — perhaps because there is nothing whatsoever in the discovery that corroborates these statements. + +showing of need, and that comparable and customary disclosure deadlines for these materials are appropriate. (Opp. 184-85, 188-93). But Ms. Maxwell's case is different—emphatically so and the deadlines the government proposes are not sufficient to allow Ms. Maxwell, who is incarcerated, to adequately prepare her defense. + +Ms. Maxwell has made a specific showing that early disclosure of the identities of the government's witnesses is "both material to the preparation of [her] defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding [her] case." Cannon, 528 F.2d at 300-01. First, the allegations are over 25 years old and any documentary records that witnesses may direct us to, if they still exist, will be hard to retrieve and take time to collect. Second, the conduct relevant to the charged crimes allegedly took place in three different locations across the country (New York, Florida, and New Mexico) and in at least one foreign jurisdiction (London, England) over a four-year period. Hence, it will take time to investigate any witness statements pertaining to the alleged conduct, as well as to identify and interview other witnesses who may contradict the government's witnesses. See United States v. Rueb, No. 00-CR-91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at \*8-\*9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (disclosure ordered where evidence located in multiple locations and offenses spanned three-year "extended period of time"). In particular, international travel may be necessary to investigate statements by witnesses located in England or other foreign jurisdictions, as will depositions pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. Savin, No. 00-CR-45 (RWS), 2001 WL 243533, \*7-419 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2001) (disclosure ordered where offenses spanned "extended" six-year period and involved potential depositions of foreign witnesses). Third, for each witness identified, the defense will need to search through the over 2.7 million pages of discovery to identify any relevant documents for cross-examination. The task is extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming, as + +the vast majority of the discovery was produced as a "dump" of data from Epstein's various electronic devices, which includes hundreds of thousands of photographs, videos, and other files that are not text searchable. See Rueb, 2001 WL 96177, at \*8 (disclosure ordered where defendant needed to review voluminous documentary evidence to prepare cross-examination). Fourth, investigation of witness statements will face challenges and delays in light of the continuing travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the reluctance of witnesses to meet in person. + +By contrast, the "possible dangers accompanying disclosure (i.e. subornation of perjury, witness intimidation, and injury to witnesses)" are non-existent in this case. Cannone, 528 F.2d at 302. Indeed, the government does not even attempt to argue that Ms. Maxwell, who is currently incarcerated, will attempt to threaten or intimidate witnesses if she is given their names. Accordingly, early disclosure of the identities of the government's witnesses is warranted. + +For these same reasons, the Court should order the government to provide early disclosure of any and all evidence of "other acts" that it intends to introduce under Rule 404(b). The allegations in the Indictment already include conduct that purportedly took place in locations all over the United States and in England. Moreover, the government just disclosed in its opposition that it intends to have Accuser-3 testify about + +that are not alleged in the Indictment and that + +(Opp. 159). The government may seek to introduce evidence of "other acts" that took place in new locations and possibly other foreign countries. Ms. Maxwell will not have sufficient time to investigate these allegations if she is not given adequate notice and therefore must be given accelerated disclosure of all Rule 404(b) evidence. + +Finally, the government's offer to provide Jencks Act and Giglio information for its testifying witnesses "as much as four weeks" before trial is insufficient. (Opp. 184). Certain of the Accusers and (we suspect) many of the government's anticipated witnesses have made numerous statements about the events in question, either in the context of civil litigation, or to the media, or in other public fora. The defense will have to carefully analyze and compare any prior statements or impeachment material that the government discloses against the witness's numerous public statements. This process will be time-consuming, but essential to Ms. Maxwell's preparation for trials + +The Court has already acknowledged that the defense will need substantial time to evaluate and investigate materials related to potential witnesses in this case, and has ordered the government, over its objection, to produce certain Rule 16 materials related to non-testifying witnesses by March 12, 2021-four months in advance of trial—"to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial." (Dkt. 73). For the reasons set forth above, the Court should order the production of all of the requested materials by March 22, 2021. + +## III. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Production and Inspection of Documents. + +Ms. Maxwell's opening brief identified several redacted or incomplete documents that were produced in discovery, and documents that were omitted from discovery, that are subject to disclosure pursuant to the government's Brady obligations. (Dkt. 148 at 7-10). The government represents that it has reviewed the documents and they do not contain any Brady material apart from one statement that the government now discloses in its opposition, or that it is under no + +5 The government has offered to provide any co-conspirator statements it intends to introduce at trial at the same time that it provides its Jencks Act disclosures. (Opp. 192). The defense requests that these statements be provided on the same accelerated timeline set forth above to provide sufficient time in the event that a pretrial hearing is necessary to determine their admissibility. + +obligation to obtain the documents because they are in the custody of a third party. (Opp. 185- 88). The government's arguments are unavailing. These documents contain exculpatory or materially inconsistent statements and therefore should be disclosed to Ms. Maxwell. + +First, Ms. Maxwell has requested copies of any reports or notes memorializing which was summarized in (Dkt. 148, Ex. B). (Indictment 1 7b). The government does not reckon and simply states that inculpates Ms. Maxwell, but does not confirm that (Opp. 185-86). (Dkt. 148, Ex. B ). The underlying reports and notes should therefore be disclosed immediately. + +Second, the government should produce the unredacted report of the FBI's (Dkt. 148, Ex. D). The interview appears to contain Again, the government states that the report inculpates Ms. Maxwell. (Opp. 186-87). But even the unredacted portions of the report reveal material inconsistencies + +cite just one example, To (Dkt. 148, Ex. D). + +(See Exhibit A at 85). We believe the unredacted version of the report will reveal numerous additional inconsistencies and demonstrably false statements that directly undermine credibility and the veracity of her allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, the unredacted report should be disclosed.' + +Third, Ms. Maxwell must have access to and be able to inspect the original, complete copy of the diary, rather than that were produced in discovery. The government has repeatedly referenced the diary, as one of the most significant pieces of corroborating evidence in its case. Yet the government has blindly accepted the author's assurances that + +And as expected, the government disavows any responsibility for producing it to the + +6 Although the name of the person who spoke to father is redacted in the report, alleged in her 2009 civil complaint against Epstein that Ms. Maxwell spoke to her father. See Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, 09-cv-80656-1CAM (SDFL 2009), Dkt. 1 1 17. + +7 Ms. Maxwell confirms that the government produced an unredacted version of the other FBI report she requested at IM range SDNY\_GM\_00380550 through SDNY\_GM\_000380554. (Opp. 186). + +defense because it is in the possession of a third party. (Opp. 187-88). Ms. Maxwell anticipates that the rest of the diary will contain exculpatory information and inconsistent statements. It is therefore critical that Ms. Maxwell be able to review the original diary and to test it to ensure it is authentic and written contemporaneously with the events it describes. If the government will not obtain the diary, the Court should order the government to disclose the author's identity so that Ms. Maxwell can seek an appropriate subpoena.8 + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court grant the motions presented in their entirety. + +Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mcnninucr HADDON, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +8 The other documents that Ms. Maxwell has requested are relevant for her motions related to the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement and her suppression motions. (Dkt. 148 at 11). The Court should order the production of those documents for the reasons set forth in those motions. + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24ae5232ada30273233625225c44a3b283409ede --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067/EFTA02832067.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,836 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832067.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25940, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.02, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS \nAND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 487.7577209472656, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 487.7577209472656, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 401.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 247.24800000000005, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Grant a Bill of Particulars.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.10089111328125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.10089111328125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Accelerated Disclosure of the \nGovernment's Witness List, Jencks Act Material, BradvIGiglio Material, Rule \n404(6) Material, and Co-Conspirator Statements.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 531.216, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 531.216, + 444.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 444.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Request for Production and Inspection of \nDocuments.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 530.9273071289062, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 530.9273071289062, + 486.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 486.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 251.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 251.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832067" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..817feaf105dcc612508be5daae348109b7ecc527 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +May 20, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 17, 2021, which directed the Government to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed redactions to Exhibit C to the defendant's memorandum in support of her supplemental pre-trial motions. (Dkt. No. 284). + +The Government seeks redactions that are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties referenced in the document. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (24 Cir. 2006). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to Exhibit C, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +The Government has conferred with defense counsel in accordance with the Order. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to the Government's proposed redactions to Exhibit C. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: si Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f753c4179f93c2a5960d07e9c6e7504e7b381c19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/EFTA02832083.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1604, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832083" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44b67b669d8aeb04d896baad624b07ef28f79368 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832083/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9915cec506d43a3454110f75632f18098f6e3c2837d29009b9804bf89add620a +size 3325 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb73a3dbf832fc37057bde3559fbe016263d7bfa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON AN + +May 21, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and MI P.c Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com jpagiuco4hmflaw.com + +Re: Reply to Government Letter dated May 14 Regarding Proposed Redactions to 12, 2021 Letter (DE 283), United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +On May 14, 2021, the government requested that Exhibits A and 12, 2021 Letter Response to the Government's Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 regarding F.R. Crim. P. 17(c) subpoena remain sealed. Ms. Maxwell respectfully disagrees, for the following reasons: + +Exhibit A, a journal entry, was produced to Ms. Maxwell by Accuser-2 in civil discovery. The document production was not subject to any protective order and this exhibit was not produced to Ms. Maxwell by the government. As detailed in Ms. Maxwell's Response to the Government's Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 regarding F.R. Crim. P. 17(c) subpoena, Accuser-2 has publicly discussed her journal, generally, and this entry specifically. Exhibit B appears to be a different copy of Exhibit A. + +The government has offered no reason why either Exhibit should remain sealed. The Exhibits are "judicial documents" presumptively subject to the public access rights under both + +May 21, 2021 + +Page 2 + +the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, + +119 (2d Cir. 2006); v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also + +specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press- + +Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. I, 7 (1986). + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58ffc7da403e584110a3d78f6ad28ab467e5a314 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/EFTA02832085.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1906, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.76, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832085" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..978e20f92b020bac6e23f407f39854042f4de68a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832085/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1861c816cd1c6f8d7aee494e111d8403e058474375ed974c6cb24cdfeed37adc +size 2954 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7368773e28080709b5ed69950ec42477903d09c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of Neu + +The Silvio A Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Ito New York New York 10007 + +May 20, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 5/21/21 | + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 17, 2021, which directed the Government to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed redactions to Exhibit C to the defendant's memorandum in support of her supplemental pre-trial motions. (Dkt. No. 284). + +The Government seeks redactions that are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties referenced in the document. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to Exhibit C, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal. + +The Government has conferred with defense counsel in accordance with the Order. The defense has indicated that it has no objection to the Government's proposed redactions to Exhibit C. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS +United States Attorney + +By: s/ +Maurene Comey +Alison Moe +Lara Pomerantz +Andrew Rohrbach +Assistant United States Attorneys +Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) + +The Government's proposed redactions are permitted for the reasons provided. By May 25, 2021, the Defendant is ORDERED to file her supplemental pretrial motions and supporting papers on the docket in accordance with Dkt. No. 284 and this order. +SO ORDERED. + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63d184ccf7c69b8174bd201632a89d75dea2f616 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/EFTA02832087.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2091, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832087" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10fb350b6df3e7ce7f67ac44a0489a9b0a922b1c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832087/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0885f1c1529babc99416ab66cfb9056f888a18991a31d14d95a0998b8647b9d3 +size 3323 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba62a955e37bd36f66f0091bc9e0ddd9f6088dac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +May 21, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties respectfully submit this joint letter in response to the Court's Order dated May 11, 2021, which directed the parties to meet and confer for at least 30 minutes by phone regarding the overall pretrial disclosure schedule. (Dkt. No. 277). The parties met and conferred for approximately 80 minutes by telephone on this topic. Although the parties have agreed upon a schedule for some pretrial matters, the parties have not reached complete agreement on a full schedule. Accordingly, the parties set forth below the proposed dates on which the parties agree, the Government's proposal, and the defendant's proposal. + +The parties agree on the following proposed dates: + +- The parties shall simultaneously file any motions in limine by October 18, 2021, or 6 weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall simultaneously file any responses to motions in limine by November I, 2021, or 4 weeks in advance of trial. The parties will endeavor to have all motions fully briefed 4 weeks before trial in accordance with the Court's Order. The parties respectfully note that, as is the case in preparing for any trial, to the extent additional issues arise that require briefing, the parties will promptly bring such issues to the Court's attention. + +- The parties shall simultaneously file proposed jury questionnaires and proposed voir dire 3 weeks in advance of jury selection, or by October 25, 2021. +- The parties shall simultaneously file requests to charge and proposed verdict sheets by November 8, 2021, or 3 weeks in advance of trial. + +The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding the remaining pretrial dates. + +### Government's Position + +For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set the remaining schedule consistent with the Government's proposals. In particular, the Government makes the following proposals: + +# Identities of the Victims + +The Government will provide the defense with the identities of the victims referenced in the S2 Indictment by September 13, 2021, or 11 weeks in advance of trial. The Government understands that the defense requests that the Government disclose the identities of the victims immediately. The Government notes that the parties previously agreed, and the Court ordered, that the Government would provide the defense with the identities of the victims 8 weeks before trial, on May 17, 2021, assuming trial were to begin as scheduled on July 12, 2021. (Dkt. No. 229, 250). The Government's proposal would provide the defense with the victims' identities substantially in advance of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Kee, No. 98 Cr. 778 (DLC), 2000 WL 760096, at •1!2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2000) (requiring Government to disclose identities of victims approximately 45 days in advance of trial). + +### The Government's Proposed Witness List. Giglio Material. Jencks Act Material, and Rule 404(b) Notice + +The Government is prepared—consistent with the Court's April 26, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 250)—to produce a proposed witness list, Giglio material, Jencks Act material, and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks in advance of trial. These materials will include testifying witness statements, which themselves will also include any coconspirator statements about which witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline, which is far in advance of when such disclosures are ordinarily made in this District, will provide the defense with ample time to review these materials and prepare for trial. The proposed deadline for notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) will provide the defense with ample time to review the disclosure and file any appropriate motions. + +The defense has requested that the Government disclose Giglio and Jencks Act material 9 weeks in advance of trial, arguing that these materials are necessary for the preparation of motions in limine. The Government respectfully notes that this proffered reason does not justify even earlier disclosure of the material, particularly in light of the routine practice in this District to brief motions in limine well in advance of disclosure of Giglio and Jencks Act material.' Instead, the Government is prepared to provide the defense with such material 7 weeks in advance of trial, which is significantly earlier than in most cases and consistent with the common practice in this District—even for trials held during the pandemic—as well as the Court's April 26, 2021 Order.' + +See, e.g., United States v. Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (month-long bribery trial; 3500 material and Government exhibits produced approximately three weeks before trial (one week after motions in limine)); United States v. Levin, 15 Cr. 101 (two defendant, three-plus week fraud trial; 3500 material produced two weeks before trial (three weeks after motions in limine; reciprocal exhibit lists exchanged six weeks before trial); United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (two defendant, monthlong bribery trial; 3500 material and Government exhibits produced approximately one month before trial (one week prior to motions in limine)); United States v. Ulbricht, 14 Cr. 68 (three week cybercrime and narcotics trial; 3500 material produced one week before trial (more than three weeks after motions in limine)). + +2 The Government respectfully notes that the law is clear in this Circuit that the Government is under no obligation under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 a seq., to produce prior statements of its witnesses until after each witness has testified on direct examination. Courts in this Circuit have consistently held that the district courts lack the power to mandate early production of Jencks material. See, e.g., United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (the "Jencks Act + +See, e.g., United States v. 19 Cr. 504 (LAK), Dkt. No. 175 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021) (ordering Government disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material 2 weeks before trial); United States v. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), Dkt. No. 23 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (ordering disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material 4 weeks before trial); see also United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (Government turned over Jencks Act material to the defense approximately one week before the original trial date in sex trafficking case); United States v. 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) (Government turned over Jencks Act material approximately one week before trial); United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (MN) (Government turned over Jencks Act material approximately 2 weeks before scheduled trial date); United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (RPP) (AJN) (Dkt. Entry, Oct. 10, 2013) (Government turned over Jencks Act material less than one week before trial of defendant charged with sex trafficking of a minor and possession of child pornography). + +The Government is unaware of any case of comparable complexity and scope in which such an early deadline has been set for witness-related disclosures, and the defense has cited none. Indeed, even in complex =collar cases in this District that involve far more complicated fact patterns than this case, the Government often provides 3500 material two weeks prior to trial, and, if the defendants agree to reasonable stipulations, four weeks before trial. See, e.g.. United States + +prohibits a District Court from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements."); In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 287 (2d Cir. 1987). The Government recognizes that Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), requires disclosure of any materials that might be used to impeach key witnesses "in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously." United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). In this District, the time which is considered to allow for effective use of the material is typically measured in days or, at most, weeks, before trial. See, e.g., United States v. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) iGarnment ordered to produce Giglio material two business days before trial); United States v. , No. 04 CR. 424 (RWS), 2004 WL 2985361, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2004) (noting "the widely accepted practice in this district of producing impeachment material when [the Government] provides prior statements of a witness pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500," and ordering production of Giglio material by Friday before trial unless materials are voluminous). + +v. M. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), Dkt. No. 23 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (contemplating 3500 material four weeks before trial in complex accounting fraud case); United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), Dkt. No. 66 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018) (3500 material one month before securities fraud trial). The defense's request for yet earlier disclosure is unfounded and reflects a significant—and unwarranted—departure from the practices in this District. + +Consistent with the Government's previously stated position (Dkt. No. 204 at 192), it is entirely appropriate for defense counsel to receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits. This is because the Government only intends to introduce co-conspirator statements either through the testimony of witnesses, which will be previewed in the Jencks Act material, or in the exhibits, which will be marked before trial. As the Government has previously noted, the Second Circuit has rejected the notion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable by Rule 16 or by any other means other than the Jencks Act. See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court's order directing the Government "to produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a defendant" under Fed. R. Evid. 801). The cases cited by the defense all involved orders granting bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators. They did not involve orders directing separate notice of coconspirator statements that the Government may introduce at trial. Indeed, the Government is unaware of any case in which such particularized notice distinct from the production of Jencks Act and marked exhibits has been ordered, and the defense cites none. This Court has already denied the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars for Counts One through Four (see Dkt. No. 207 at 19), and the Government has separately submitted its opposition to the defendant's supplemental motion for a bill of particulars. + +### Government's Proposed Exhibit List and Marked Exhibits + +The Government is prepared to provide the defense with its proposed exhibit list and marked exhibits by October 25, 2021, or 5 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will allow the defense adequate time to review and raise objections to any Government exhibits. + +### Defense Disclosures + +The Government proposes that the defense be required to provide expert witness disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by October 4, 2021, or 8 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will give the defendant ample time to determine what, if any, expert testimony she may seek to offer. The defense—who has had the Government's expert notice since April 23, 2021—seeks to provide expert notice 4 weeks in advance of trial, or by November 1, 2021, but such a belated disclosure would not allow adequate time in advance of trial to brief any motions regarding the admissibility of such testimony, much less by the Court's deadline. See, e.g., United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at \*3, \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) (reasoning that "the purpose of reciprocal expert disclosures is to minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination."; "Specifically, under Rule 16, a defendant's obligation to make expert disclosures does not turn on whether the government will call a certain witness or prove certain overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy—disclosures mentioned nowhere in the Rule—but on whether the government has made its own expert disclosures.") (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Jasper, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003 WL 223212, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (disagreeing with the defense's claim that the Government's request for reciprocal discovery and summaries of expert testimony was + +"premature" because the defense had not yet decided whether to call the expert and explaining that "[a]llowing [the] defendant to defer the provision of such discovery until a final determination regarding whether or not [to] put an expert witness on the stand would seem to frustrate" the goal of allowing the Government a fair opportunity to prepare). The Government further notes that the defense's proposed disclosure date would not provide sufficient time for the Government to locate a rebuttal expert if appropriate or to provide notice of that rebuttal expert to the defense. Because experts are typically not available on a matter of weeks' notice, it cannot be the case that the defense will wait to review Jencks Act materials before contacting and retaining experts; there is no basis for delaying disclosure of this information to the Government, particularly given the delay this will cause to resolving any potential Daubers issues before trial. + +In addition, the Government proposes that the defense provide a proposed witness list and witness statements, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, and disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) by November 1, 2021, or 4 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will provide the defense with ample time to determine what, if any, defense witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline will also permit the Government adequate time to review these materials and raise any appropriate objections or motions in advance of trial. + +### Defendant's Position + +Ms. Maxwell respectfully proposes the following pretrial disclosure schedule: + +- May 24 government discloses identities of alleged victims. +- Sept. 27 (9 weeks before trial) government discloses Jencks Act/3500 material, Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, the government's witness list, any co-conspirator statements it intends to introduce at trial, and + +the identity of any unindicted co-conspirator. + +- Oct. 11 (7 weeks before trial) government discloses exhibit list. +- Oct. 18 (6 weeks before trial) simultaneous filing of motions in limine.3 +- Oct. 25 (5 weeks before trial; 3 weeks before jury selection) simultaneous filing of proposed jury questionnaire and voir dire. +- Nov. 1 (4 weeks before trial) —responses to motions in limine. +- Nov. 1 (4 weeks before trial) defense expert witness disclosure. +- Nov. 8 (3 weeks before trial) simultaneous filing of requests to charge and verdict sheet. +- At the close of the government's case-in-chief defense discloses Rule 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(I)(B) materials, defense witness list and Rule 26.2 statements. + +Ms. Maxwell hereby states, in accordance with the Court's directive (Dkt. 277), her points of disagreement with the government's proposed schedule. + +# Identities of Accusers + +The government offers no justification for continuing to withhold defense counsel, subject to the protective order, the identities of the alleged victims in this case, so that the defense can adequately prepare for trial. The government has never argued that Ms. Maxwell presents a safety risk to these witnesses. Any privacy concerns are already diminished in light + +The defense reserves the right to file additional motions in limine at a later time after a thorough review of the Jencks Act material and the government's exhibits. The government previously has indicated to counsel that the Jencks Act materials total in the "low thousands" of pages. In addition, the defense anticipates that many evidentiary issues cannot be decided prior to the presentation of evidence and will necessarily be raised in the context of a particular witness's testimony. + +of the fact that some accusers have spoken publicly about this case. The government's principal justification for withholding their identities until September 13 is that earlier disclosure would be inconsistent with the "practice" of the office. This is not a sufficient reason to withhold this information where any investigation of these accusers has to take place under the onerous conditions of COVID. + +### Defendant's Proposal for Disclosure of Jencks Act/3500 and Giulio Material, Rule 404(13) Evidence and Notice, and Government Witness and Exhibit Lists + +The defense believes that shifting the deadlines up two weeks for motions in limine to be fully briefed four weeks prior to trial (Dkt. 277) necessitates a concomitant two week advancement of the dates for the government to produce Jencks Act/3500 and Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, and the government's witness and exhibit lists. + +The government's proposal allows only one week for the defense to review thousands of pages of 3500 material before filing motions in limine, and the government proposes disclosing its exhibit and witness lists one week after the in limine deadline. As discussed at the April 23d arraignment, the defense needs sufficient time in advance of the in limine deadline to review the materials and draft the appropriate motions.4 The government's proposed process will frustrate the Court's aim of having in limine issues briefed four weeks in advance of trial to the extent possible. + +The cases cited by the government in which disclosures were made closer to trial are wholly inapposite. In each of the cited cases, charges were filed nearly contemporaneously with the alleged crimes. (indictment of 2 year conspiracy charged 4 years later); Dupigny + +It bears repeating that two of Ms. Maxwell's counsel will be in other trials from September 13 through October 22, i.e., the entire time between disclosure of the Jencks Act material and the in limine filing deadlines, further hampering efforts to efficiently review and develop any legal briefing on issues presented by the materials. + +(2 year conspiracy charged the following year); (1 year conspiracy charged the same year); Lebedev (2 year conspiracy charged in the second year); Corley (2 year conspiracy charged in January of the following year). None involved, as this one does, allegations of a 10-year conspiracy charged 25 years later. None involved accusers who were located in at least one foreign country, possibly more, for whom investigation will have to occur during the midst of pandemic. The cases do not involve the same "length" or complexity of this one. + +# Co-Conspirator Identities and Statements + +Regarding co-conspirator identities and statements, the government backtracked on its previous representations to counsel and the Court. Ms. Maxwell sought early disclosure of both in her pretrial motions (Dkt. 148 at 13-14), and the government promised it would give "notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" sufficiently in advance of trial to permit objections by the defense. (Dkt. 204 at 192) The Court agreed. (Dkt. 207 at 30-31). During recent conferrals on the schedule, however, the government made clear its intent to imbed any co-conspirator statements in the bulk of its Jencks/3500 material rather than separately disclose either the identity of any purported unindicted co-conspirator or their anticipated testimony. The government also stated for the first time its intent to identify any unindicted co-conspirator documentary statements (e.g., emails between Epstein and any number of thousands of persons) only when it produces its exhibit list, one week after the in limine filing deadline. Neither government proposal will allow Ms. Maxwell to raise appropriate objections to the materials sufficiently in advance of trial, nor promote briefing during the in limine motions. Indeed, the government fails to explain how Ms. Maxwell can object in limine to exhibits containing purported coconspirator statements when they arc not produced until alter the in Innwe deadline has passed. + +District judges in this Circuit routinely order the government to disclose the identities of alleged co-conspirators in advance of trial to offset the "risk of surprise to the defendant," especially if "there are a large number of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy." See, e.g., United States v. Akhavan, S3 20-cr-188 (JSR), 2020 WL 2555333 at •2 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2020). 5 In Akhavan, involving only a three-year conspiracy, Judge Rakoff determined the "complex series of events over a number of years" warranted a bill of particulars disclosing the names of the alleged co-conspirators. See also United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 666 (2d Cir. 1998). Unlike Akhavan, here the government has made no showing that disclosure of the names of unindicted co-conspirators would jeopardize its ongoing investigation into events that happened a quarter of a century ago. + +The defense anticipates interposing significant objections to introduction of any purported co-conspirator statements (whether through witness testimony or documentary evidence) at trial and needs to litigate their admissibility before trial. Given that motions in !/mine need to be fully briefed at least four weeks before trial, we request that the government identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or + +5 See also United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F.Supp.3d 287, 301-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (government made no showing of risk to continued investigation, ordering disclosure of identity of any unindicted co-conspirator); United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) ("conspiracies alleged here were quite long-running (nearly ten years, and allegedly ongoing) and involved a large number of co-conspirators (at least 20 individuals)....We are sympathetic, therefore, with the magnitude of defense counsel's burden in trying to decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators. A bill of particulars revealing the names of all persons whom the Government will claim at trial were unindicted co-conspirators might, therefore, be necessary to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial."). + +documentary evidence) at the same time as it discloses /3500 material. + +### Defense Expert Disclosures + +The government's proposal that Ms. Maxwell disclose any expert testimony eight weeks in advance of trial, prior even to the prosecution's disclosure of the 3500/Jencks Act materials or government exhibits, puts the proverbial cart before the horse. All proposed opinion testimony must be "relevant to the task at hand." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). To be reliable, the proposed expert must have, inter alia, "applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." United States v. 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis supplied, citations omitted). Any defense expert that relates to the testimony of the accusers or 404(b) witnesses cannot possibly be disclosed before Ms. Maxwell has even been provided access to that testimony. + +To illustrate the point, one need look only at the government's expert disclosure. The proposed testimony for the government's expert, although purportedly not based on a review of the facts of this case, nevertheless appears to have been crafted by the government with full knowledge of the accusers' specific allegations. For example, the government proffers that their expert will testify that "minor victims ... may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood." Clearly, the accusers must have represented facts to support these contentions or else there would be no grounds to admit this "blind" expert opinion testimony. Ms. Maxwell cannot be expected to hire experts and divine what would be relevant to this case before she is provided the statements by these accusers, whose credibility will be the central question for the jury in this case. + +The Court originally ordered the defense expert disclosures four weeks before trial and + +three weeks after receipt of the witness statements. Ms. Maxwell requests the same deadline. + +#### Defense Disclosures Pursuant to Rules 16 and 26.2 and Defense Witness List + +Regarding the defense Rule 16 disclosures and witness lists, Ms. Maxwell proposes to produce those at the close of the government's case. As she explained in connection with Rule 26.2 disclosures (Jt. Letter of May 3, 2021), gaining access to Ms. Maxwell's witness list and exhibits prior to trial gives an advantage to the government to the detriment of the defense. A recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court is instructive. Finding that the state equivalent of Rule 16, like its federal counterpart, does not authorize pretrial disclosure of defendant's exhibits, the court also concluded that such disclosure "arguably infringes on [the defendant's] constitutional rights," by "helping the prosecution meet its burden of proof," "tip[s] his hand vis-a-vis his investigation and theory of defense," and "in effect, forces [him] to share with the prosecution his trial strategy — i.e., how he plans to defend against the charges against him." People v. Kilgore, 455 P.3d 746, 751 (Colo. 2020). "Put differently, the [pretrial] disclosure requirement rests on shaky constitutional ground because it improperly risks lessening the prosecution's burden of proof." Id. Ms. Maxwell asserts that any order compelling pretrial disclosure of her witnesses or exhibits violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. When the defense determines that it will put forth a case-in-chief, it will provide the name of witnesses and exhibits it intends to introduce. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29c17e1dd61fb803a21d5a1be7c7d566b4e99973 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/EFTA02832089.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,856 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 13, + "chars": 26934, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.53, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 140.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 140.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 119.39768981933594, + 154.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 154.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 192.80545043945312, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 192.80545043945312, + 244.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 244.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identities of the Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 192.08255004882812, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 192.08255004882812, + 354.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 354.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Government's Proposed Witness List. Giglio Material. Jencks Act Material, and Rule 404(b) \nNotice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 543.8385009765625, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 543.8385009765625, + 671.6835174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 671.6835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government's Proposed Exhibit List and Marked Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 89.1 + ], + [ + 355.556396484375, + 89.1 + ], + [ + 355.556396484375, + 104.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 104.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 173.65667724609375, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 173.65667724609375, + 214.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 214.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 557.28 + ], + [ + 181.29888916015625, + 557.28 + ], + [ + 181.29888916015625, + 573.5500030517578 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 573.5500030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identities of Accusers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 190.56651306152344, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 190.56651306152344, + 496.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 496.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant's Proposal for Disclosure of Jencks Act/3500 and Giulio Material, Rule 404(13) \nEvidence and Notice, and Government Witness and Exhibit Lists", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 256.10302734375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 256.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Co-Conspirator Identities and Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 300.0569763183594, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 300.0569763183594, + 270.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 270.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Expert Disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 221.66278076171875, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 221.66278076171875, + 132.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 132.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Disclosures Pursuant to Rules 16 and 26.2 and Defense Witness List", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 483.6418151855469, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 483.6418151855469, + 131.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 131.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832089" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..201d5d13f60232c356ae8c2153649d70fe4f6a16 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832089/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eede42913179d413156a9c5f61f683f156d54030484b969b9366a3480f826681 +size 3483 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaf99a88ba40fc02f46d74bfaf0aedca61bb8606 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO OBTAIN THE RELIEF SPECIFIED IN HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS RELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying omnibus memorandum of law and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves for the relief requested in her supplemental pretrial motions relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment. + +Dated: May 7, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +do GRESSER LLP + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue, 21° Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212) 957-4514 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue P.C. + +Denver, Colorado 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternhcim + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor + +New York, NY 10011 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5324b4cab366cb39dd32358c6000338964167c7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102/EFTA02832102.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832102.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1129, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION \nTO OBTAIN THE RELIEF SPECIFIED IN HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL \nMOTIONS RELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 520.1131591796875, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 520.1131591796875, + 320.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 320.2330627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832102" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b2a8cbea48259b99cbce78797077b49c1117514 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.md @@ -0,0 +1,5105 @@ +# Exhibit A + +## DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +## OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT + +Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation + +November 2020 + +NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED, AND PRIVACY ACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. + +### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + +The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing. + +#### I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage. Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal investigation. + +The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges. + +For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The + +As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word -girls" refers to females who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age of 18. + +NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or the NPA prior to its signing. + +The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration, however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA, to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court. + +On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights? In responding to the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil cases against Epstein. + +2 Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United Stares, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as "Jane Doe 2." + +Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge in September 2009 ordered it to be made public. + +By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. + +In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. + +In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018, however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.3 The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the Miami Herald, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime" that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his + +3 Julie K. =, "Perversion of Justice,- Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. hnos://www.miamiherald.cornt newsilocal/article220097825 html. + +abuse of minors. The *Miami Herald* report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the government's actions.4 + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5 The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [*sic*] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal prosecution of Epstein. + +On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from 2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. + +Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 *Miami Herald* report, the media and Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as + +4 *See, e.g.*, Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for billionaire sex abuser," *The Business Insider*, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," *NBC Nightly News*, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," *McClatchy Washington Bureau*, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser," *Huffington Post*, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. [REDACTED], et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," *Miami Herald*, Dec. 6, 2018. + +5 *Doe v. United States*, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV-Marra). + +Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor Department. + +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide. + +As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on August 29, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings, the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims. + +On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe I" filed in her true name a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en bane and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +## II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION + +After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened + +an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6 + +After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal investigation. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. + +In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts with the USAO and the FBI. + +OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR + +6The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the status of the OPR investigation. + +carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions. + +Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. + +As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent information. + +OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program. OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews. + +investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department attorney's alleged professional misconduct. + +In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that (I) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. 19 + +### IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED + +In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report. + +### A. The Negotiation, Execution, and I ruplententation of the NPA + +In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR considered whether any of the NM's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants + +928 C.F.R. § 0.39a(aX1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department. OPR's determination that a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases. + +to In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the then-pending CVRA litigation. + +of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation. + +#### B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA + +To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. + +#### V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions. + +#### A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA + +With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to + +initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +#### B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with Victims + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government + +interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +#### VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT + +The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question. OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with the subjects. + +In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008 guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July 2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects' conduct. + +Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects' conduct in light of the pertinent standards. + +OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions. + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND | | | +| II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION | | | +| III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK | | vii | +| IV. | ISSUES CONSIDERED | viii | +| A. | The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA | viii | +| B. | The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA | ix | +| V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS | | ix | +| A. | Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA | ix | +| B. | Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with Victims | | +| VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT | CHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS | xii | +| I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES | | 1 | +| A. | The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the | | +| | Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation | 1 | +| B. | The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies | 4 | +| II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE | | 4 | +| III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS | | 8 | +| A. | Jeffrey Epstein | 8 | +| B. | Epstein's Defense Attorneys | 8 | +| CHAPTER TWO: THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT | | 11 | +| PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND | | I I | +| I. OVERVIEW | | 11 | +| II. MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM | BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY | | +| STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE | | 11 | +| A. | The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation | I I | +| B. | The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State | | +| | Grand Jury | 14 | +| C. | Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges | 15 | +| D. | PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's | | +| | Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation | 16 | + +#### III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO 16 + +- A. May 2006 February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the USAO Opens a Case File 16 + - I. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO 17 + - 2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File 18 + - 3. July 14, 2006: Villafafia Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case 18 + - 4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation 20 + - 5. October 2006 February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting 22 + - 6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafafia and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case 24 +- B. February May 2007: Villafafia and the FBI Continue to Investigate; Villafafia Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for USAO Managers to Review 24 +- C. May June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges 27 +- D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which Villafafia Opposes 30 +- E. June 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum 33 +- F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel 33 + +#### IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 35 + +- A. June July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the Defense Rejects 36 + - I. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based Resolution 37 + - 2. July 2007: Villafafia and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State Resolution 40 +- B. Villafafia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts 45 +- C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation 47 +- D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Tcrm of Incarceration 48 + - I. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami 48 + +- 2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration 49 +- E. Villafalia Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense 51 +- V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES 53 + - A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer 54 + - B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest 55 + - C. August September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta 59 + - I. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys 59 + - 2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafafla's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence 60 + - 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Su ilsors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and 62 +- VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED 63 + - A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months 63 + - B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney 64 + - C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months 66 + - D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges 68 + - E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges 72 + - F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects 73 + - G. Villafafla and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" 76 + - H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafana Sends a Final Version to the Defense 77 + +| 1. J. K. L. VII. A. B. C. D. E. F. | The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Leflcowitz Meet for Breakfast Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafatla of Improper Conduct I. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Leflcowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafafia 2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel 3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions 4. Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct | 78 79 81 83 84 87 87 89 91 94 94 98 98 99 99 Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Accept It 100 Who 101 | +|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence | 102 | +| IX. | FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW | 103 | +| A. | February — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division | 104 | + +| B. X. A. B. XI. I. Il. A. I. | May — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court Epstein Is Placed on Work Release POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT The United States Attorneys' Manual USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution | 108 110 111 113 117 119 119 120 120 120 | +|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| +| 2. | USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy | 122 | +| 3. | USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements | 123 | +| 4. | USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements | 124 | +| 5. | USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity | 125 | +| 6. | USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest | 125 | +| B. | Other Department Policies | 125 | +| I. | Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges | 125 | +| 2. | Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens | 127 | +| C. | Case Law | 127 | +| I. | Prosecutorial Discretion | 127 | +| 2. | Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party | 128 | +| D. | State Bar Rules | 129 | +| I. | FRPC 4-1.1 —Competence | 130 | +| 2. | FRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence | 130 | +| 3. | FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others | 130 | +| 4. | FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice | 131 | +| PART THREE: ANALYSIS | | 133 | +| I. OVERVIEW | | 133 | +| II. | ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS | | +| | ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT | 133 | + +#### III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134 + +- A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct 135 +- B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein 136 +- C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards 137 + - I. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration 137 + - 2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy 139 + - 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens 140 + +#### IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN 140 + +- A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration 141 +- B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations 142 + - I. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors 142 + - 2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences 143 + - 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims 144 +- C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences 149 + +- D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein 150 + - 1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys 150 + - 2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions 151 +- E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein 155 + - 1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations 155 + - 2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel 160 +- F. Villafafia's Emails with Defense Attorney Leflcowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafia, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences 163 +- G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential Associates 166 +- H. OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis 168 +- V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA 169 + - A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution 170 + - B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case 175 + - C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution 179 + - D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA 182 + - E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process 182 + +| AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS | 189 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND | 189 | +| I. OVERVIEW | 189 | +| II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 189 | +| A. History | 189 | +| B. Enumerated Rights | 191 | +| III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF | | +| "CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION | 192 | +| A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" | 192 | +| B. | 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance 193 | +| IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE | | +| TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION | 194 | +| A. USAO Training | 194 | +| B. The Automated Victim Notification System | 195 | +| C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets | 196 | +| V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS | 196 | +| A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters | 196 | +| B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims | 198 | +| C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered | 200 | +| VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH | | +| VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED | 200 | +| A. | The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about | +| Resolving the Federal Investigation | 201 | +| B. | Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims | +| Have Not Been Consulted | 202 | +| I. | July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel 202 | +| 2. | Villafafia Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not | +| Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions | 204 | +| 3. | September 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs | +| Was Required | 204 | +| VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE | | +| USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS | 206 | + +- A. September October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment 207 +- B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications 210 +- C. October November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is "Under Investigation" 211 +- D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan 212 +- E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution, "as Required by Law" 216 +- F. January June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein 220 + - I. Villafafia Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA 220 + - 2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims 221 + - 3. Villafafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims 224 + - 4. February March 2008: Villafaa Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay 227 + - 5. March April 2008: Villafafia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges 227 +- VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION 228 +- IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFARA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA PETITIONERS 229 +- X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA HEARING 231 +- XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT 234 +- XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS 235 + - A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafafia Notifies Some Victims' Attorneys 235 + +| B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated | 236 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| C. July 2008: Villa£afia Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter | | +| to Listed Victims | 237 | +| D. July — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to | | +| Victims Residing Outside of the United States | 238 | +| E. August — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to | | +| Notification Letter | 239 | +| F. 2010 — 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding | | +| Interpretation of the CVRA | 241 | +| G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status | 242 | +| PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS | 247 | +| I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS | 247 | +| A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 247 | +| B. | The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, | +| Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607) | 248 | +| II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES | | +| FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES) | 249 | +| III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT | 253 | +| A. FRPC 44.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others | 253 | +| B. FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice | 253 | +| PART THREE: ANALYSIS | 255 | +| I. OVERVIEW | 255 | +| II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS | | +| THE VICTIMS | 255 | +| A. | At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO | +| of Criminal Charges | 256 | +| B. | OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation | +| Was Intended to Silence Victims | 258 | +| III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE | | +| STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION | 261 | +| A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent | | +| the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation" | 262 | + +- B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation 263 +- IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING 265 + - A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard 265 + - B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing 269 +- V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS 273 +- VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 280 CONCLUSION 283 METHODOLOGY 287 + +Exhibit 1: State Indictment + +Exhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Exhibit 5: State Information + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## CHAPTER ONE SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS + +#### I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES + +#### A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation + +The Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive branch department headed by the United States Attorney General. The stated mission of the Department is to enforce federal law and defend the interests of the United States; ensure public safety; provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. The Department enforces federal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal statutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the period relevant to this Report, the Department had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 components. The Department's headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts most of its work through field locations around the nation and overseas. + +The prosecution of federal criminal laws is handled primarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices, each headed by a presidentially appointed (with advice and consent of the U.S. Senate) U.S. Attorney who has independent authority over his or her office but is overseen by the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General.' The Department's Criminal Division, headed by an Assistant Attorney General, includes components with specialized areas of expertise that also prosecute cases, assist in the prosecutions handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). + +CEOS, based in Washington, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation crimes, especially those involving technology, and they assist U.S. Attorney's Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to these offenses. CEOS provides advice and training to federal prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and government officials. CEOS also works to develop and refine proposals for prosecution policies, legislation, government practices, and agency regulations. + +The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) (revised in 2018 and renamed the Justice Manual) is a compilation of Department rules, policies, and guidance governing the conduct of Department employees. It includes requirements for approval by, or consultation with, the Criminal Division + +Two U.S. Attorney's Offices, in the judicial districts of Guam and of the Northern Mariana Islands, are headed by a single U.S. Attorney. The Attorney General and the U.S. District Court have authority to appoint acting and interim U.S. Attorneys. + +or other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights Division. In this Report, OPR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time. + +During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan. + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal matters in the Southern District of Florida judicial, district, which covers the counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and Highlands, an area of over 15,000 square miles. During the period relevant to this Report, the USAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 200 support personnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are located in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an unstaffed branch office is located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is approximately 70 miles from the Miami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the second-in-command is the First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal advisor to the U.S. Attorney and supervises all components of the USAO, including the Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions, each of which is headed by a Chief. During the period relevant to this Report, the West Palm Beach office consisted of two criminal sections and was headed by a Managing AUSA. + +The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the principal federal law enforcement agency and is part of the Department. It maintains field offices that work with U.S. Attorney's Offices. The FBI field office in Miami, headed by a Special Agent in Charge, has satellite offices, known as Resident Agencies, one of which is located in West Palm Beach and covers Palm Beach County. The Epstein investigation was handled by Special Agents assigned to a particular West Palm Beach Resident Agency squad, headed by a Supervisory Special Agent. FBI responsibility for advising crime victims of their rights and of victim services available to them is handled by non-agent Victim Specialists. + +The following chart shows the Department's organizational structure during the period relevant to this Report: + +## U.S. Department of Justice 2006 - 2008 + +![](_page_29_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +#### B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies + +Florida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney in each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year term. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected State Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this Report, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach, had more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed by Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. + +The incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island off the city of West Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD). Michael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2001 to February 2009. + +The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the City of West Palm Beach, is the largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the PBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed minimum-security detainees, including those on work release, at its Stockade facility. The current Sheriff has served continuously since January 2005. + +### II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE + +R. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2006, President W. Bush formally nominated Acosta, and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006. + +After graduating from law school, Acosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an 18-month term as an associate at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years as a policy fellow and law school lecturer; and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, where he served from August 2003 until his appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney, and where he oversaw, among other things, the prosecution of human trafficking and child sex-trafficking cases. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta's office was in the USAO's Miami headquarters, although he traveled to the USAO's branch offices. + +During Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney, the USAO initiated the federal investigation of Epstein, engaged in plea discussions with Epstein's counsel, and negotiated the federal nonprosecution agreement (NPA) that is the subject of this Report. Acosta made the decision to resolve the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct by allowing Epstein to enter a state plea. Acosta was personally involved in the negotiations that led to the NPA, reviewed various iterations of the agreement, and approved the final agreement signed by the USAO. Acosta continued to provide supervisory oversight and to have meetings and other communications with Epstein's attorneys during the nine-month period between the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007, and Epstein's entry of guilty pleas in state court pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on June 30, 2008. On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of + +Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the firm about possible employment. + +After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the of the Florida International University College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but he resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein case. + +Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy Chief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section, and in 2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and Sloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive suite. + +As FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Divisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation. Although Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the NPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally negotiated an addendum to the NPA, which he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. After subordinates Matthew Menchel and Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly engaged with the line AUSA, Villafafia, on Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. After Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter in December 2008, Sloman became the senior USAO official supervising the matter. When Acosta left the USAO, Sloman became the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and in January 2010, the Attorney General appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO to enter private practice in June 2010. + +Matthew I. Menchel joined the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County (Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel became Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. Menchel participated in the decision to extend a two-year state-based plea proposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense. Shortly after that plea offer was extended to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the NPA were negotiated with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice. + +Andrew C. Lourie joined the USAO as a line AUSA in 1994, after having served for three years as an AUSA in New Jersey. During his 13-year tenure at the USAO, Lourie served two terms on detail as the Acting Chief of the Department's Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, first from September 2001 until September 2002, and then from February 2006 until July 2006. Between those two details, and again after his return to the USAO in July 2006, Lourie was a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, serving as the Managing AUSA for the West Palm Beach branch office. Lourie was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation and negotiated the NPA, participating in meetings and other communications with defense counsel. During September 2007, while the NPA was being negotiated, Lourie transitioned out of the USAO to serve on detail as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General + +for the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. Laurie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private practice. + +Ann C. Villafana joined the USAO in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served in the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm Beach branch office. Villafafia handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters. hi 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual exploitation and abuse.2 + +In 2006, Villafafia assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the line AUSA, Villafafia handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafaiia determined the lines of inquiry to pursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal research to support possible charges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Department. Villafafia, along with the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct contact with Epstein's victims. She handled court proceedings related to the investigation. She drafted a prosecution memorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revised those documents in response to comments from those in her supervisory chain of command. Villafafia participated in meetings between members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein, and prepared briefing materials for management in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those meetings. Although Acosta made the decision to utilize a non-prosecution agreement to resolve the federal investigation and approved the terms of the NPA, Villafaila was the primary USAO representative negotiating with defense counsel and drafting the language of the NPA, under her supervisors' direction and guidance, and she signed the NPA on behalf of the USAO. Thereafter, Villafafia monitored Epstein's compliance with the NPA and addressed issues relating to his conduct. After two victims pursued a federal civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("the CVRA litigation" or "the CVRA case"), in July 2008, Villafafia served as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the USAO until February 2019, when the USAO was recused from handling the litigation.3 Villafana left the USAO in August 2019 to join another federal government agency. + +The following chart shows the USAO positions filled by the subjects, or other USAO personnel, during the period of the Epstein investigation. + +2 Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the Department in May 2006 to combat the growing epidemic of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the intemet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. + +3After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government, the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. + +## USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation Mid-2006 through Mid-2009 + +![](_page_33_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +#### III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS + +#### A. Jeffrey Epstein + +Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate from college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan from 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street firm of Bear Stearns, where he ■ **from junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited partner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was never clear, Epstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business entrepreneur through whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resided. In the early 1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also owned a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris, France. He traveled among his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet.** + +**Epstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in myriad businesses and other entities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to as a billionaire, the sources and extent of his wealth were never publicly established during his lifetime.' He associated with prominent and wealthy individuals from business, political, academic, and social circles, and engaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintained a large corps of employees, including housekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous female personal assistants, several of whom traveled with him.** + +#### **B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys** + +**Jeffrey Epstein employed numerous criminal defense attorneys in responding to the allegations that he had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. As different law enforcement entities became involved in investigating the allegations, he added attorneys having particular relevant knowledge of, or connections with, those entities. At the outset of the state investigation, Epstein retained nationally prominent Miami criminal trial attorney Roy Black. He was also represented by a local criminal defense attorney who was a former Palm Beach County Assistant State Attorney, and by nationally prominent Harvard Law School professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was a selfdescribed close friend of Epstein. After initial plea negotiations with the State Attorney's Office, Epstein replaced the local attorney with Jack Goldberger, a prominent West Palm Beach criminal defense attorney whose law partner was married to the Assistant State Attorney handling the Epstein case; once Epstein hired Goldberger, the Assistant State Attorney was removed from the Epstein case on the basis of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt,** + +**4**Epstein's background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See e.g., Landon Jr., "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery," New York, Oct. 28, 2002; Vicky= "The Talented Mr. Epstein," Vanity Fair, Mar. 2003; James Barron, "Who Is Jeffrey Epstein? An Opulent Life, Celebrity Friends and Lurid Accusations," New York Times, July 9, 2019; Lisette Voytko, "Jeffrey Epstein's Dark Facade Finally Cracks," Forbes, July 12, 2019. + +After Epstein's death, his net worth was estimated to be approximately \$577 million, based on his will and trust documents. https://iime.com/5656776/jeffrey-epstein-will-estate/. + +whose law firm website cites his "national reputation for the aggressive defense" of "high-profile defendants in criminal matters." + +In late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation Epstein hired Miami criminal defense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy =, had also served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director of the Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the component charged withsircpsricling close liaison between the Department and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann had served in the USAO and as a Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section before leaving in 2005. In August 2007, immediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two attorneys from the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contacted the USAO on Epain's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, who was serving as = of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; and Jay Lefkowitz, a litigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the administrations of Presidents H.W. Bush and la W. Bush. They were joined by nationally prominent Boston criminal defense attorney Weinberg. After the NPA was signed, former U.S. Attorney Joe D. Whitley joined the defense team, as did the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS and another former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal judge. + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## CHAPTER TWO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +In the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) details the significant events leading to, and during, the federal investigation of Epstein; the negotiation and signing of the NPA; and the defense's subsequent nine-month effort to stop the NPA from taking effect. OPR also describes more briefly the events occurring after Epstein pled guilty in state court, as the USAO sought to hold him to the terms of the agreement. In describing events, OPR relies heavily on contemporaneous documents, particularly emails. In many instances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the participants, but also set forth the issues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the basis for certain decisions. When helpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also includes the subjects' explanations as provided in their written responses to, or interviews with, OPR, or explanations provided by witnesses. + +A timeline of key events is set forth on the following page. + +#### II. MARCH 2005 — MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE + +## A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation + +In March 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid their daughter \$300 to give him a massage in his Palm Beach home.6 The PBPD began investigating Epstein, identified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants, who were also implicated by the complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial claim, to encompass allegations that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants + +6As previously noted, "girls" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young women previously had come to the attention of the PBPD. In March 2004, a PBPD officer documented a telephone complaint that a I7-year-old girl had been giving Epstein topless massages at his residence for several months for \$200 per massage. The girl claimed that there were nude photos of other girls throughout Epstein's home and offered to cooperate with a police investigation. The PBPD report relating to this complaint described the information as "unverified," and it was not pursued. + +On November 28, 2004, the police received and recorded information that young women had been observed coming and going from Epstein's residence. The police suspected Epstein was procuring prostitutes, but because the PBPD did not have evidence that the women seen entering Epstein's home were minors, and typically did not investigate prostitution occurring in private residences, it did not open an investigation into the matter. + +# Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation – May 2006 through October 2008 + +Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 39 of 349 + +![](_page_38_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +and some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him massages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity. + +Through their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct. Some girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The nature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they massaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated that during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched them during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas directly or through their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturbate them, and some stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they saw him more often alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. According to one victim, an Epstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity with the victim at Epstein's direction.' + +Although the allegations varied in the specific details, for the most part they were consistent in describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several of his assistants. According to the information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PBPD, Epstein's assistants scheduled up to three massage appointments each day, often contacting the girls to make an appointment while Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of his other residences. T ay, when a girl arrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was taken upstairs to the bedroom and bathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who set up a massage table and massage oils. When the assistant left the room, Epstein entered, wearing only a robe or a towel. After removing his clothing, Epstein lay face down and nude on the massage table, instructed the girl to remove her clothing, and then explained to her how he wished her to perform the massage. During the massage, Epstein masturbated himself, often while fondling the girl performing the massage. When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. Usually, Epstein paid the girl \$200 for the massage, and if she had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact her in the future. Epstein encouraged the girls who performed these massages to find other girls interested in performing massages for him, and promised that if a girl brought a friend along to perform a massage, each girl would receive \$200. Several of the victims acknowledged to the PBPD that they had recruited other girls on Epstein's behalf. + +The evidence regarding Epstein's knowledge of the girls' ages was mixed. Some girls who recruited other girls reportedly instructed the new recruits to tell Epstein, if asked, that they were over 18 years old. However, some girls informed the PBPD that they told Epstein their real ages. Police were able to corroborate one girl's report that Epstein sent flowers to her at her high school after she performed in a school play. In addition, an employee of Epstein told the PBPD that some of the females who came to Epstein's residence appeared to be underage. + +Epstein was aware of the PBPD investigation almost from the beginning. He retained local criminal defense counsel, who in turn hired private investigators. In October 2005, the PBPD, with the assistance of the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein's residence. When police arrived at Epstein's home on October 20, 2005, to execute the warrant, + +According to the PBPD records, investigators obtained no allegations or evidence that any person other than this female assistant participated in the sexual activity with the girls. + +they found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance cameras, but the computer equipment itself—including video recordings and other electronic storage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home, including notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a two-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous photographs of naked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken of the interior of tein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and bedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's high school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys. + +### B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury + +State Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein case was unusual in that police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krischer was unfamiliar with Epstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. PBPD Chief Michael Reiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State Attorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the investigation and told Reiter, "Let's go for it," because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was "somebody we have to stop." Krischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that "there were witness problems." + +Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Children Unit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told OPR that she and an experienced Assistant State Attorney who initially worked with her on the case "were at a disagreement" with the PBPD "over what the state . . . could ethically charge." According to Belohlavek, she did not believe the evidence the police presented would satisfy the elements of proof required to charge Epstein with the two felony crimes the police wanted filed, unlawful sexual activity with a minor (Florida Statute § 794.05(1)) and lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor (Florida Statute § 800.04(5)), and the police "were not happy with that."8 In addition, victims had given contradictory statements to police, and the original complainant, who could have supported a charge requiring sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation of sexual contact. Belohlavek offered Epstein a resolution that would result in a five-year term of probation, which he rejected.' + +Records publicly released by the State Attorney's Office show that, beginning in early 2006, attorneys for Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead "no contest" rather than guilty. To that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and presented the State Attorney's Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of the victims' credibility, including criminal records, victims' social media postings (such as MySpace pages) about their own sexual activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared to undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims' ages. Krischer + +• Belohlavek stated that she did not consider charging procurement of a minor for prostitution—the charge Epstein ultimately pled to pursuant to the NPA—because the police had not presented it. + +• In April 2006, the State Attorney's Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to the third degree felony of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a felony, with adjudication withheld and five years of probation with no unsupervised contact with minors. + +told OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the Assistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was "overly aggressive" and threatened, "We're going to destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls." According to Krischer, Dershowitz so "tainted the waters" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack Goldberger, with whom Krischer had "a working relationship." Because the husband of the Assistant State Attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavek recused the Assistant State Attorney to remove "even the appearance of any kind of conflict" of interest, and Belohlavek took over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Belohlavek and Krischer to dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim witnesses. + +Meanwhile, the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of preparing to present the case to a grand jury. Krischer told OPR that under state law as it existed until changed in 2016, his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution.10 The possibility that Epstein's victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused "great consternation within the office," and according to Krischer, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury." Belohlavek told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein "seriously, because . . . it was an organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we ... thought they were prostitutes ... [but] I think there was solicitation." However, she said, although Epstein's "behavior was reprehensible, . I'm limited by . . . the state statutes as to what I can charge." Krischer told OPR, "There were so many issues involving the victim-witnesses that to my mind, in consultation with my [prosecutors], the only way to achieve, to my mind, real justice was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct-file" criminal charges against Epstein. + +#### C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges + +Federal criminal procedure requires that a felony charge—that is, any charge punishable by imprisonment for one year or more—be brought by a grand jury unless waived by a defendant. t2 Under Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring criminal charges only in a death penalty case. 13 For all other cases, a State Attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal charges by means of a document called an "information" or to seek a grand jury indictment. Although Florida criminal cases are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often utilized in sensitive or high-profile cases, such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by public officials.10 Florida grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy rules that, among + +10Belohlavek told OPR that prostitution was a misdemeanor charge, and she did not handle misdemeanors. + +11 Because the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case was pending at the time OPR interviewed Krischer, he declined to further explain to OPR his office's prosecutive decisions. + +12U.S. Const. amend. V; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a), (b). The sole exception under the rule is felony criminal contempt, which need not be charged by indictment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(aK 0. + +13Fla. Const. An. I, § 15(a). + +14The Florida Bar, The Grand Jury, Reporters Handbook — The Grand Jury, available at haps:Hwy/IN floridabar. orginews/resources/rpt-hbk/rpt-hbk-13/. + +other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and proscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury.15 + +#### D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation + +In 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims were credible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questioning Krischer's objectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter explained in his deposition: + +> This was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in state court. It's not generally something that's prosecuted in a federal court. And I knew that it didn't really matter what the facts were in this case, it was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute this case. + +On May 1, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing package relating to Epstein, one of his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein first victimized and then used to recruit other girls. In his transmittal letter, which was later made public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney's Office's "treatment of these cases [to be] highly unusual."I6 Reiter urged Krischer "to examine the unusual course that your office's handling of this matter has taken" and to consider disqualifying himself from prosecuting Epstein." + +#### III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO + +#### A. May 2006 — February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the USAO Opens a Case File + +In eaiii006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with AUSA Ann Villafafia on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as "the case agent"—mentioned to Villafafia in "casual conversations" having learned that the PBPD was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case agent told Villafafia that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney's Office was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor + +15Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (2007). + +16See Larry =, "Palm Beach chief focus of fire in Epstein case," Palm Beach Pao, Aug. 14, 2006. + +17As noted, Krischer generally declined in his OPR interview to explain his office's prosecutive decisions; however, regarding allegations of favoritism to Epstein's defense counsel, Krischer told OPR, "1 just don't play that way." + +charge. Villafafia suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office decided to charge Epstein. + +#### 1. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO + +In May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafafa and the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's investigation. is At the time, neither Villafafia nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any knowledge of his background. + +According to Villafaiia, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that "pressure had been brought to bear on . . . Krischer by Epstein's attorneys," and he and Chief Reiter were concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all.19 The Detective explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been "tipped off" in advance about the search warrant. + +During the meeting, Villafaiia reviewed the U.S. Code to see what federal charges could be brought against Epstein. She focused on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce to persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423 (travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct). As they discussed these charges, the Detective told Villafafia that Epstein and his assistants had traveled out of the Palm Beach International Airport on Epstein's private airplane, and flight logs sometimes referred to passengers as "female" without a name or age, which the Detective suspected might be references to underage girls. However, the Detective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that suspicion and did not have firm evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate or internationally. Nevertheless, Villafafia believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part because of his own interstate and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse girls. Villafafia discussed with the Detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed to prove violations of the federal statutes she had identified. She told them that if the evidence supported it, the case could be prosecuted federally, but she assured them that opening a federal investigation would not preclude the State Attorney's Office from charging Epstein should it choose to do so. + +111The Detective died in May 2018. + +19In his 2009 deposition, Reiter testified that after he referred the Epstein matter to the FBI, a Town of Palm Beach official approached Reiter and criticized his referral of the investigation to the FBI, telling Reiter that the victims were not believable and "Palm Beach solves its own problems." + +#### 2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File + +On May 23, 2006, Villafafia prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafafia told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a federal prosecution: (I) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the computer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure had affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation was named "Operation Leap Year" because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as victims of Epstein's conduct.2° + +Villafalia told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation, she understood that the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafafia was willing to put in the effort and believed that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafafia discussed the case with her immediate supervisor, who also "thought it would be a good case" and approved it to be opened within the USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it was formally initiated. + +#### 3. July 14, 2006: Villafana Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case + +Because Villafaila was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and learned that he "took a scorched earth approach" to litigation. Villafafia was aware that Epstein had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney's Office in an effort to derail the state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal investigation. + +Therefore, Villafafia arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Sloman, who at the time was the Criminal Division Chief.2' Villafafia told OPR that she had never before asked to meet with "executive management" about initiating a case, but the allegations that Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's Office greatly troubled her. Villafafia explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were "on board" with the Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular confidence. At this point, although Villafafia's immediate supervisor was aware of the case, Villafafia did not inform Andrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office and her second-line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman. + +Villafafia met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at the meeting, she informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to + +30 Villafaila opened "Operation Leap Year" during the same month in which the Department launched its "Project Safe Childhood" initiative, and Acosta designated Villafafia to serve as the USAO's Project Safe Childhood coordinator. + +21Although Acosta had been formally nominated to the U.S. Attorney position on June 9, he was not confirmed by the Senate until August 3, 2006, and was not sworn in until October 2006. In September 2006, Acosta announced the appointments of Sloman as FAUSA and Matthew Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, and they assumed their respective new offices in October 2006. + +Epstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used "various types of pressure" to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the State Attorney. Villafafia said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely employ. Villafafia explained, "When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting calls about . . . you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get ... a call from out of the blue." According to Villafafia, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to put the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she "didn't want to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur" with a federal prosecution as had occurred with the state. She told OPR, "1 remember specifically saying to them that I expected the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end." According to Villafafia, Acosta and Sloman promised that "if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case." In a later email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaila recounted that she spoke with Acosta and Sloman because she "knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn't on board," but Acosta and Sloman had given her "the light" to go forward with the Epstein investigation. + +Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with Villafafia. Each told OPR that at the time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not previously heard of Epstein.22 + +Acosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man who was "doing sordid things" with girls, and that it "seemed a reasonable matter to pursue" federally. Epstein's wealth and status did not raise any concern for him, because, as Acosta told OPR, the USAO had prosecuted "lots of influential folks." When asked by OPR to articulate the federal interest he perceived at the time to be implicated by the case, Acosta responded, "the exploitation of girls or minor females." Regarding Villafafia's view that she had been given a light" to proceed with the investigation, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have explicitly told Villafafia to "go spend your time" on the case; rather, his practice would have been simply to acknowledge the information she shared about the case and confirm that a federal investigation "sound[ed] reasonable." + +Sloman told OPR that he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein investigation, other than that he had a basic understanding that the State Attorney's Office had "abdicated their responsibility" to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall with specificity Villafafia's concern about Epstein's team pressuring the State Attorney's Office, but he said he was never concerned that political pressure would affect the USAO, noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff. + +Lourie told OPR that when he first heard about the Leap Year investigation, he likewise was unaware of Epstein. On July 24, 2006, Villafafia emailed to Sloman a link to a Palm Beach Post article that described Epstein as a "Manhattan money manager" and "part-time Palm Beacher who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey." Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta. + +#### **4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation** + +Several days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.23 Krischer told OPR that "the whole thing" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room.24 The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.25 The indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors.26 On July 23, 2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the charges were made public. + +Villafaña told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy might preclude a federal prosecution.27 Villafaña told OPR that at the time, she "definitely believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that . . . we had sufficient evidence." + +--- + +23 Villafaña and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed them. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance in this Report. + +24 Larry [REDACTED], "Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls," *Palm Beach Post*, July 29, 2006, citing statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson. + +25 Indictment in *State v. Epstein*, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit 1 to this Report. + +26 In pertinent part, the state indictment read, "[B]etween the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, [Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, . . . on three or more occasions." The 15-month time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time. + +27 The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. *See, e.g., Gamble v. United States*, 587 U.S. \_\_\_, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein); *Abbate v. United States*, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and *United States v. Lanza*, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. *See* Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.A.2, for a more detailed discussion of the Petite policy. + +On July 24, 2006, Villafafia alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's Office had charged and arrested Epstein.28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafafia told Sloman that the FBI agents "are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday," and she noted that her target date for filing federal charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was "appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?" Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein."29 + +Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more active role in supervising the investigation, Villafafia continued to update Acosta and Sloman directly on the progress of the case.30 Villafalia's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafafia directed her emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the immediate supervisor's view, however, "Miami" purposefully assumed all the "authority" for the case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as "highly unusual."31 + +By late August 2006, Villafafia and the FBI had identified several additional victims and obtained "some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the communication and travel in interstate commerce" by Epstein and his associates. Villafafia reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's Office would not provide transcripts from the state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter "to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI." Villafafia also told her supervisors that she expected "a number of fights" over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply "after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys." + +Villafafia's reference to anticipated "fights" and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask whether she was referring to the victims. Villafafia responded that the problems did not involve victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to document demands as overly burdensome. Villafafia explained to Sloman and Lourie that some victims were "scared and/or embarrassed," and some had been intimidated by the defense, but "everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story." Villafafia + +28On the same day, Sloman emailed Lourie, whom Villafana had not yet briefed about the case, noting that Operation Leap Year was "a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy." + +39 During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was likely that "we didn't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office," and that he believed there may have been "some type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office] and the defense team." + +After Villafafta sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: "Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?" Sloman responded, "At this point, I don't really care. If Alex says something then I'll tell her to just run it through you guys." + +31OPR understood "Miami" to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office, that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafafia told OPR, that she believed Epstein's attorneys "made a conscious decision to skip" her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta. + +also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories "have not changed," and that "[a]ny discrepancies will be noted and considered." She conceded that "[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder," but expressed confidence that the two key victims "will stay the course." She acknowledged that the case "needs to be rock solid." + +The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI "partnered up very well" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight either from the FBI or the USAO, and "we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our job done." This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial transactions. The case agent viewed the case as "strong." + +#### 5. October 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting + +Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafafia in August 2006. As the investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution.12 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy =, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34 telephoned Villafafia, a call that Sloman joined at Villafafia's request. offered to provide Villafafia + +Villafafta told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation "prematurely." + +33Chapter One, Section 111.8 of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as "ham-fisted" and "clumsy." Menchel told OPR, "[O]ur perspective was this is not going to ... change anything." + +34served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the U.S. Attorneys. + +Early in the investi Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that Lourie was friends with and also had a close friendship with law partner, who also was a former AUSA and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with and law partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not "covered" relationships under the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel "to make the call." Thereafter, Sloman authorized Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to did not influence his handling of the case. + +“‘anything’ she wanted” without the necessity of legal process. [REDACTED] asked to meet with Villafaña and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafaña declined. + +Shortly thereafter, Lilly Ann [REDACTED], a former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him that she also represented Epstein. [REDACTED] was employed by the USAO from 2000 to September 2005 and had been a Deputy Chief of the USAO’s Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was the Chief. According to Sloman’s contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when [REDACTED] indicated to him that his participation in [REDACTED] call with Villafaña led the defense team to believe that the matter had been “elevated” within the USAO, Sloman tried to “disabuse” her of that notion. [REDACTED] said that Epstein “wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible” in working with the USAO. Despite the fact that [REDACTED] had already made contact with the USAO on Epstein’s behalf, [REDACTED] sent a letter to Villafaña on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafaña requested that the defense provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents and information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney’s Office, and “computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media” removed from Epstein’s home before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005. In January 2007, [REDACTED] contacted Villafaña to schedule a meeting, but Villafaña responded that she wanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with [REDACTED]. + +Immediately after receiving Villafaña’s response, [REDACTED] bypassed Villafaña and phoned Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed to meet with [REDACTED] and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafaña that [REDACTED] was concerned that federal charges were “imminent,” wanted to meet with the USAO and “make a pitch,” and promised that once given the opportunity to do so, if the USAO “wanted to interview Epstein, that would be a possibility.” Villafaña told Lourie that [REDACTED] had not yet provided the documents she had promised, and Villafaña wanted “the documents not the pitch.” Lourie explained to OPR, however, that it was his practice to grant meetings to defense counsel; he considered it “good for us” to learn the defense theories of a case and believed that “information is power.” Lourie further explained that learning what information the defense viewed as important could help the USAO form its strategy and determine which counts relating to which victims should be charged. Lourie also believed that as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a presentation, because “[p]art of [the] process is for them to believe they are heard.” In addition to agreeing to a meeting, Lourie sent [REDACTED] a narrowed document request, which responded to [REDACTED] complaint that the USAO’s earlier request was overbroad but which retained the demand for the computer-related items removed from Epstein’s home. The meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, and Lourie asked [REDACTED] to provide the documents and materials to the USAO by January 25, 2007. + +Villafaña did not agree with Lourie’s decision to meet with [REDACTED] and Lefcourt. Indeed, two days after Lourie agreed to the meeting, Villafaña alerted him that she had spoken again with [REDACTED] and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Villafaña told Lourie, “I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about how the girls are liars and drug users.” She told OPR that in her view, “it was way too early to have a meeting,” she already knew what the defense would say, and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation. She explained to Lourie the basis for her objections to the meeting, but Lourie “vehemently” + +disagreed with her position. Villafafia and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel. They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views.35 According to Villafafia, Lourie believed that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafafia told OPR, however, that while this strategy might make sense in a -collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to the conduct. Villafafia also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended to charge, which Villafarla did not want to reveal. + +#### 6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lonnie and Villafafia and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case + +At the February I, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafafta, and Lefcourt set out arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along with documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims. + +In the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (I) the allegations did not provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that Epstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evidence existed proving that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the Petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the state; and (5) there were "forensic barriers" to prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues. The letter suggested that "misleading and inaccurate reports" from the PBPD "may well have affected" the USAO's view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's Office had taken into account the "damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime" of the state's two principal victims (identified by name in the letter), and argued that "with witnesses of their ilk," the state might have been unable "to make any case against Epstein at all." Lourie told OPR that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafafia told OPR that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded by the defense presentation at this "listening session." + +#### B. February — May 2007: Villafafia and the FBI Continue to Investigate; Villafafta Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for USAO Managers to Review + +Correspondence between Villafafia and defense counsel show that Villafaila carefully considered the defense arguments concerning the victims' credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes + +35Villafana told OPR that in a "heated conversation" on the subject, Lourie told them they were not being "strategic thinkers." Her fellow AUSA remembered Lourie's "strategic thinker" comment as well, but recalled it as having occurred later in connection with another proposed action in the Epstein case. Lourie did not recall making the statement but acknowledged that he could have. + +of the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel.36 Villafaña also pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's activity. On several occasions, Villafaña sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable national expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age. + +USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was expected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant procedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witness-related issues; expected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level supervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S. Attorney. + +Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's Criminal Division Chief the previous October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1, 2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other statutes were rejected as proposed charges; described the evidence supporting each count and potential evidentiary issues; and addressed the viability and credibility of each of the victims who were expected to testify at trial. + +Villafaña's immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum, had only a few small edits to the indictment, and advised Lourie that she approved of it. The immediate supervisor told OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized that the case was complex and that Villafaña would need co-counsel. + +In his OPR interview, Lourie recalled thinking that the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment "were very thorough and contained a lot of hard work," but that he wanted to employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that presented "the toughest cases" for Epstein—meaning those about whom Epstein had not already raised credibility issues to use in cross-examination. Lourie told OPR that although he had some concerns about the case—particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face—he did not see those concerns as insurmountable and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution. + +Although indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually did not require approval in Miami, in this case, Lourie understood that "[b]ecause there was front office involvement from the get-go," he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go + +--- + +36 Lefcourt and [REDACTED] provided the recordings during a follow-up meeting with Lourie and Villafaña on February 20, 2007, and thereafter furnished the transcripts. + +forward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to Menchel. Laurie's transmittal message read: + +> did a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going to start reading it tonight.... It's a major case because the target is one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He has a stable of attorneys, incliilliershowitz, [Roy] Black, Lefcourt, and Lily [sic] . Jeff Sloman is familiar with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the grand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The FBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not critical, but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the indictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims), so I am not sending that yet. + +Lourie explained to OPR that by "clean" victims, he meant those for whom the defense did not have impeachment evidence to use against them. + +A few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asking if Menchel had read the prosecution memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to particular pages of the prosecution memorandum, noting that the "keys" were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some minor victims told Epstein they were 18.37 Lourie asked for Menchel's "very general opinion as to whether this is a case you think the office should do," and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's Office "went out of their way to get a no-bill on this ... and thus only charged adult solicitation, which they would bargain away to nothing." + +During his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution memorandum was his "official introduction" to the case and at that point in time, he had never heard of Epstein and had no information about his background. He recalled that the USAO had been asked to review the case because the state had not handled it appropriately. Menchel told OPR, however, that he had little memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous opinions he formed about it. + +Acosta told OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Villafaiia's prosecution memorandum, explaining that he "would typically rely on senior staff," who had more prosecutorial experience, and that instead of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the case with Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, who he assumed would have read the document. Acosta + +)7 In various submissions to the USAO, the defense contended that the federal statute required proof that engaging in a sexual act was the -paramount or dominant purpose" of Epstein's travel, but that Epstein's travel was motivated by his desire to live outside of New York for over half of each year for tax purposes. The defense also asserted that the federal statutes at issue required proof that the defendant knew the victims were under 18, but that Epstein "took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age." In her prosecution memorandum, however, Villafaha set forth her conclusion that the statute only required proof that engaging in a sexual act was one of the motivating factors for the travel. She also concluded that the statutes did not require proof that the defendant knew the victims were minors. + +recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the discussions. + +Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to Menchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a "granular review" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel "were a team" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel was taking the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel. + +#### C. May — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Charges + +When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafafia intended to file charges by May 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villafafia, however, had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and after learning that the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafafia that "[t]his Office has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time."39 + +On May 10, 2007, with Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafafia's prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy and another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and describing it as a "highly sensitive" case involving "a high profile, very rich defendant."39 After CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the memorandum was "exhaustive" and "well done" and noting that Villafafia "has correctly focused on the issues as we see them." He summarized CEOS's analysis of the application of key facts to the statutes she proposed charging, concurring in Villafafia's assessments but noting that further research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's knowledge of victims' ages. Oosterbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafafia on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's email to Menchel and Villafafia. + +Meanwhile, contemporaneous emails show that Lourie, at least, was already considering an early resolution of the case through a pre-indictment plea agreement.00 After Lourie spoke with + +38Lourie later reported to Menchel that the FBI had "wanted to arrest [Epstein] in [the] Virgin Islands during a beauty pageant . . . where he is a judge." The case agent recalled that she and her co-case agent were disappointed with the decision, and that the Supervisory Special Agent was "extremely upset" about it. After the federal investigation began, and except for his self-surrender to face the state indictment in July 2006, Epstein largely stayed away from West Palm Beach, only returning occasionally. + +19 Before becoming Chief of CEOS, Oosterbaan was an AUSA at the USAO for about ten years and was good friends with Lourie. + +40In her prosecution memorandum, Villafana argued against pre-charge plea negotiations, arguing that it "may undermine our arguments for pretrial detention." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not consider strengthening a bail argument to be a valid ground to decline to meet with defense counsel about a case. + +the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was "not happy" about the delay, adding, "I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That would have sent them thru the roof." Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.41 + +Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, "[t]his was . . . a bit of uncharted territory," involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited. Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he "probably" did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie "was not in favor of walking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do." But while Lourie "thought we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal," he "didn't think the odds were nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and . . . the things that we had to gain [through a plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case," in which the only cost of a loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government might have to "give up some jail time," there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the victims. Lourie recalled "thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can settle it" by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited charges in a criminal information. Villafafia told OPR that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal complaint charging an "omnibus conspiracy" containing "all of the information related to what the case was about" would be a good way to "get things moving" toward a pre-indictment plea. + +Although Lourie and Villafafia believed a pre-indictment plea agreement was a desired resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafafta: + +> [M]arie I believe that Epstein's aft[orneys] are scared of the victims they don't know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many. Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding indictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their nightmare[]s come true. Thoughts?02 + +41Lourie explained to OPR that the government's dismissal of counts in an indictment required the court's approval, and that, while "it's rare," it was possible that a judge, seeing the nature and extent of Epstein's conduct as set forth in an extensive indictment, might not allow substantive counts to be dismissed. + +42Lourie's references to MySpacc pages and "prior testimony" referred to the impeachment information brought forward by defense counsel. + +Lourie followed up his email to Villafafia with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafaria believed "the best thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The [sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict."43 Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and "[w]e can discuss after that." + +Later that afternoon, Villafalia sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel, explaining that a "conservative calculation" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted an upward departure from that range. Villafafia told OPR that although Lourie proposed some changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case. + +In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea: + +> My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely and which victims should be charged. + +> I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then try to see if he wants a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts. + +Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafaila was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafafia informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchel responded that "[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow," and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at an out-of-town conference, adding, "This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure + +43 Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under I8 U.S.C. § 371, the general "omnibus" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years. + +he is comfortable before proceeding." Menchel told Villafafta he had "trouble understanding" why she was in a "rush" "given how long this case has been pending."44 + +OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafafta's timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafafta was "very hard charging," but her timeline for filing charges in the case was "really, really fast." Menchel described Villafalia as "out over her skis a little bit" and "ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45 Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta "was going to be the one making the call" about whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel told OPR, "This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision on." Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a "granular review" of the proposed charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and "obviously" had concluded that "the facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict." Lourie told OPR that he believed "the case was moving ahead." + +Villafafia continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed Sloman, noting that "[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good. Am I right about that?" Sloman responded, "Yes." On May 21, 2007, three weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafafta emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for "a sense of the direction where we are headed-i.e., approval of an indictment something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the current draft?" Sloman responded only, "Taken care of."46 + +#### D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which Villafafta Opposes + +Meanwhile, Epstein's defense counsel continued to seek additional information about the federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10, 2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein's attorneys "want me to tell them the statutes + +Villafana explained to OPR that the "rush" related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls: "In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don't stop until they're behind bars. That was our time concern." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafafta offering this explanation to him. OPR notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR's draft report, Menchel and Villafafta expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available. + +45Sloman similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafafta was "ahead of where the office was internally" and that caused "discontent" between Villafaila and Menchel. Villafaila was not the only one, however, who was surprised that the indictment was not approved immediately. The case agent told OPR that it seemed "everything changed" after Villafafta submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafafta's immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared "Miami didn't want the case prosecuted." However, Menchel rebuked Villafaikt in his July 5, 2007 email to her for having "led the agents to believe that [filing charges in) this matter was a foregone conclusion." + +46Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that he had spoken to Menchcl. and Menchel was going to take care of it. + +we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply."47 Lourie told Menchel, "I don't see the downside," but added, "[REDACTED] is against it." Menchel responded that it was "premature" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically recall why he believed it was "premature" to provide the defense with the requested information, but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution. + +On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to "confirm" that Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but noted that Epstein's defense team was "really ready for the next level," rather than another meeting with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding, "Whether Alex would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call." Lourie also emailed Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges, and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to Menchel. + +Although Lourie's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers meeting with defense counsel, Villafaña opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaña on the afternoon of May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafaña drafted an email, which she planned to send to Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although the email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafaña sent it as a draft only to her immediate supervisor, seeking her "guidance and counsel" as to how to proceed. + +Hi Jeff and Matt – I just want to again voice my disagreement with promising to have a meeting or having a meeting with Lefcourt or any other of Epstein's attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case where we will be sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case differently. Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed at the last meeting, and I am concerned that more will be disclosed at a future meeting. + +My co-chair . . . who has prosecuted more of these cases than the rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of some of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. We have been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of our + +--- + +47 Dershowitz had joined Lefcourt and [REDACTED] in representing Epstein for the federal case. + +48 During her OPR interview, Villafaña could not recall the meeting with specificity, but believed the purpose was to discuss whether the USAO should agree to additional meetings with Epstein's counsel. Menchel, similarly, told OPR that he could not remember anything specific about the meeting. + +opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as a collar or public corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence.49 + +With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and (3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion this would seriously undermine the prosecution. + +The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation, and to use political pressure to stop the investigation. + +I have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in agreement with the handling of the case. + +After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafafia, "Let's talk before this is sent, please."50 Villafafia told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafafia not to send the email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaiia could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told Villafafia that if Villafafia did not stay with the case, "the case would go away" and Epstein "would never serve a day in jail." + +Villafafia told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was "going down the same path that the State Attorney's Office had gone down." Villafafia believed the purpose of the defense request + +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of a defendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel to discuss the merits of a case. + +so The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaila that she and Villafaiia were "not driving the ship," and once "the bosses" made the decision, "there's nothing else you can do." + +for meetings was to cause delay, but "the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't want to see that," perhaps because of "their lack of experience with these types of cases" or a misguided belief "that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior." Villafafia told OPR that she "could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was a need to move with necessary speed." Nonetheless, Villafafia followed the guidance of her immediate supervisor and did not send the email. + +Like Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good practice. Menchel told OPR that he saw "no downside" to hearing the defense point of view. Defense counsel might make a persuasive point "that's actually going to change our mind," or alternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and Menchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance. Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia ever articulating a concern that Epstein was continuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was "already under a microscope, at least in Florida," and it would have been "the height of stupidity" for Epstein to continue to offend in those circumstances. + +#### E. June 2007: Villafalm Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum + +While Villafaila's supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed charges, Villafafia took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing "credibility concerns" relating to one of the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor, Villafafia reported, "another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed," and the "different strategies" about how to structure the charges left Villafafia unsure whether "to make . . . changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy." The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as the minor who "saw Epstein most frequently" and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein assistant. In the addendum, Villafafia identified documents she had found corroborating four separate statements made by this victim. + +Villafafia told OPR that the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated specific credibility issues was the victim discussed in the addendum. Lourie told OPR that he had no specific recollection of the addendum, but it was "reasonable" to assume that the addendum addressed one particular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any other victim. Villafaila's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection, the discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims. + +#### F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel + +Menchel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly with about the arrangements. At Menchel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Villafafia sent a letter to defense counsel identifying what she described as "the statutes under consideration."5' + +51 Villafana sent copies of this letter to both Menchel and M. Villafana told OPR that she objected to sending this information to the defense. Although Menchel did not recall directing Villafana to send the letter to + +On that same day, Villafaila emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed indictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that Villafaila's request for feedback reflected her desire to "charge this case sooner than ... everybody else," but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not know whether Villafafia received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in time, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed. + +The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a 19-page letter intended to provide "an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the conduct at issue here." Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues, Lefcourt's letter argued: + +- Voluntary sexual activity involving "young adults-16 or 17 years of age"—was "strictly a state concern." +- Federal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in which the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was 18 years of age. +- One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), was intended to address use of the internet to prey upon child victims through "intemet trolling," but Epstein did not use the intemet to lure victims. +- The "travel" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), prohibits travel "for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family, oversee his Florida-based flight operations, and "engage in the routine activities of daily living." + +Lefcourt also argued again that "irregularities" had tainted the state's case and would "have a significant impact on any federal prosecution."52 + +Lourie sent to Menchel, with a copy to Villafafia, an email dividing the defense arguments into "weaker" and "stronger" points. Lourie disagreed with the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) was limited to "intemet trolling," and described this as "our best charge and the most defensible for federal interest." On the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida "with the purpose"' of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive. + +Lefcourt, he told OM that he "wouldn't take issue" with Villafaxia's claim that he had done so. Menebel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia objecting at that point to providing the information to the defense. + +Lefcourt claimed there were deficiencies in the PBPD search warrant and "material misstatements and omissions" in the PBPD probable cause affidavit. As an example, he contended that the police had lacked probable cause to search for videotapes, "since all the women who were asked whether they had been videotaped denied knowledge of any videotaping." (Emphasis in original). + +Lourie opined that the government could argue "that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else," which supported the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about "getting to the jury" on this issue and noted that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafafia told OPR that she disagreed with Lourie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him.53 Villafaiia also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered "particularly weak." + +On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaikt, the case agent, and the West Palm Beach squad tor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black, Lefcourt, and Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO perspective, the meeting was merely a "listening session.s54 Echoing the arguments made in Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case because these were "traditionally state offenses." The case agent recalled being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been involved. + +Villafaiia told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be "under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed." But Menchel told OPR, "[T]hey obviously did not persuade" the USAO because "we .. . didn't drop the investigation." According to Villafafia, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general credibility of the victims, the prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense presentation had not been persuasive. Villafafia told OPR that she "left [the meeting] with the impression that we were continuing towards" filing charges. + +#### IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION + +USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would accomplish three goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein's incarceration; his registration as a sexual offender; and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary + +53 Villafana also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution's ability to prove Epstein's knowledge of the victims' ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided massages. + +54 In his written response to OPR, Menchcl indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26, 2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of his recollection the USAO simply listened to the defense presentation, and in a contemporaneous email, Menchel opined that he viewed the upcoming June 26 meeting as "more as [the USAO) listening and them presenting their position." + +damages." During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both the larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of conceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their deliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all of the facts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA. + +In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal investigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth many of the numerous communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the final NPA. OPR questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue a state resolution, and OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. The subjects' memories of particular conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, the overall strength of the case that had been developed at that time, and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority to prosecute a case involving an offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated the initial plan to resolve the matter through a state plea. In any event, Acosta acknowledged to OPR that, at a minimum, he approved of the concept of a state-based resolution after being made aware of the allegations and the evidence against Epstein as set forth in Villafafia's prosecution memorandum. Furthermore, Acosta approved of the final terms of the NPA. + +#### A. June — July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the Defense Rejects + +A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting, emailed Villafafia, advising her that Epstein's defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped "to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter."56 In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafaila told Sloman, Menchel, Lourie and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea discussions by inviting "to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could + +55State laws require that a person convicted of specified sexual offenses register in a database intended to allow law enforcement and the public to know the whereabouts of sexual offenders after release from punitive custody, and, in some cases, to restrict such individuals' movements and activities. The Florida Sexual Offender/Predator Registry is administered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 established a comprehensive, national sex offender registration system called the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior laws and to strengthen the nationwide network of sex offender registrations. + +In this email, also requested a two-week extension of time for compliance with the USAO's demands for records, which included a demand for the computer equipment that had been taken from Epstein's residence before the October 2005 state search warrant and that Villafana had been requesting from the defense since late 2006. + +include concurrent time." The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafafia did not explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail? Villafafia requested to be advised, "[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this." Villafafia, who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the case, explained to OPR that she made this request because "people were communicating with the defense attorneys," and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about a possible plea. + +In response to Villafafia's email, Menchel notified Villafafia that he had told state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney]," but had responded that it "was a non-starter for them."' During his OPR interview, Menchel had no independent recollection of his conversation with and did not remember why the defense deemed the pro sal a `non-starter." However, Menchel explained that he would not have made the proposal to without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not have discussed a potential resolution with "without having discussed it with me." + +#### 1. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based Resolution + +Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta said that although he, Sloman, and Menchel "believed the victims" and "believed [Epstein] did what he did," they were concerned "about some of the legal issues . . . and some of the issues in terms of testimony."39 Acosta also recalled discussions with his "senior team" about how the victims would "do on the stand." + +Acosta told OPR that "from the earliest point" in the investigation, he considered whether, because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it. + +57Villafafia explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a substantive charge, "consistent with the Ashcroft Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense," with "a recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein] would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date." See n.65 for an explanation of the Ashcroft Memo. + +58Villafafia was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Menchel's email, Villafafia responded to defense counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, "If you would like to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution ... that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail." + +54 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Sloman stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or deciding how to resolve it, and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NPA. However, Sloman also told OPR that he had little recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and Menchel. + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. . state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances. + +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."66 Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a "manifest injustice."61 Acosta explained that "no jail time" would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable offense, "it would never have come to the office in the first place," and therefore would not be viewed as a manifest injustice. + +Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between "solicitation" or "prostitution," which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and "trafficking," which was an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, "it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR, "I'm not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case." Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking. + +Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted "victim shaming," which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the state grand jury found little merit to the case.62 Acosta told OPR: + +60Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. + +61Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be "overcome ... if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence ... is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." USAM § 9-2.031.D. + +62Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney's Office had deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchcl told OPR that he understood that the State + +I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when . . . more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and . . . [a] judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have . . . caused more hesitation on the part of victims ... .63 + +Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning a sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range." + +In summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR, + +The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal issues .... There were witness issues. And ... we could go to trial ... and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at a pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a state pre-indictment resolution. + +Acosta told OPR that, in the end, "there was a preference for deferring to the state" because, in part, the facts of the Epstein case at the time appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution rather than trafficking, and a federal prosecution would be "uncharted territory." Acosta explained that he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the Epstein case played out, the federal role became "more intrusive" than he had anticipated, because the defense tried to get the state to "circumvent and undermine" the outcome. + +Attorney's Office could have proceeded against Epstein by way of an information, but decided to go into the grand jury because the State Attorney's Office "didn't like the case" and wanted "political cover" for declining the case or proceeding on a lesser charge. + +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1 I (eX1XC) allows the parties to agree on a specific sentence as part of a plea agreement. The court is required to impose that sentence if the court accepts the plea agreement; if the court does not accept the agreed upon plea and sentence, the agreement is void. Villafaiia told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida, as the "judges do not like to be told . . . what sentence to impose." Menchel similarly told OPR that the USAO viewed federal judges in the Southern District of Florida as averse to Rule 11(c) pleas, although Menchel had negotiated such pleas. Villafafia told OPR that she had never offered a Rule 11(c) plea in any of her cases and had no experience with such pleas. + +63Menchel told OPR, however, that the federal judges in West Palm Beach were highly regarded and were generally viewed as "pro-prosecution." + +61Acosta said that "dismissing a number of counts and then doing a [R]ule I 1 is not something that (South Florida federal district] judges tend to do." Other subjects also told OPR that the federal judges in the Southern District of Florida were generally considered averse to pleas that bound them on sentencing, commonly referred to as "Rule 11(c) pleas." + +Menchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his own "emails ... make clear that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta." He referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafafia informing her that Acosta was deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished two things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and that any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He told OPR, "I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. That was not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case." Rather, Menchel said, "The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial." + +#### 2. July 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State Resolution + +Villafafia told OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's July email explaining that he had proposed to resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In Villafafia's view, the proposed state resolution "didn't make any sense" and "did not correspond" to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect "the most serious readily provable offense."65 In her view, a plea to a state charge "obviously" would not satisfy this policy. Villafafia also told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative agency about plea negotiations, and Villafafia did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state plea. Villafaila also believed the CVRA required attorneys for the government to confer with victims before making a plea offer, but the victims had not been consulted about this proposal. Villafaiia told OPR she had met with some of the victims during the course of the investigation who had negative impressions of the State Attorney's Office, and she believed that "sending them back to the State Attorney's Office was not something" those victims would support. + +[I]n all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case, except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney in the limited circumstances described below. The most serious offense or offenses are those that generate the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, unless a mandatory minimum sentence or count requiring a consecutive sentence would generate a longer sentence. A charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor has a good faith doubt, for legal or evidentiary reasons, as to the Government's ability readily to prove a charge at trial. Thus, charges should not be filed simply to exert leverage to induce a plea. Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges may not be dismissed except to the extent permitted [elsewhere in this Memorandum]. + +See also Chapter Two, Part Two, Section 11.8.1. + +65This policy was set forth in a September 22, 2003 memorandum from then Attorney General John Ashcroft regarding "Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing" (known as the \*\*Ashcroft Memo"), which provided, in pertinent part: + +In light of these concerns, Villafafia emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement with the process: + +> [I]t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s] Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically, you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered, and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal. + +> Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for "show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein's attorneys directly.... + +I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff [Sloman], Andy [Lourie], and you with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength of the case. + +In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's counsel to me. + +Menchel told OPR he realized Villafafia was "very anxious" to file charges in the case. Villafalia had put a "tremendous" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel "was not unsympathetic at all to her desires" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR, Villafafia's supervisors, including Acosta, were "trying to be a little bit more dispassionate," and her urgency was "not respectful" of Acosta's position. Menchel viewed the tone of Villafalia's email as "highly unacceptable," and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In particular, Menchel pointed out that although the Ashcroft Memo requires prosecutors to charge the "most readily provable offense," there is nevertheless room for "flexibility," and that the U.S. Attorney has discretion—directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menchel—to waive the policy. + +Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke: + +Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question. + +As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations. + +Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys' concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case." + +In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with and respond to Villafafta's complaints: + +Lilly called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lilly Mi mwas made with the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one + +B6 Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie. + +on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. + +Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you. + +As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney.67 Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him. + +Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command — something you disregard with great regularity. + +Villafafia acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that meeting." Villafafia told OPR that no one had communicated to her the "concerns" Menchel mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns." + +A week later, Villafafta replied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward: + +> Hi Matt — My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your + +67Neither Menchel nor Villafana could recall for OPR to what concerns thcy were referring. In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney noted that Acosta's concerns were "the possibility that bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims." + +68Menchcl confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation. + +69Villafana characterized Menchel's email as "meant to intimidate" and told OPR that she felt "put in [her] place" by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not "jump the chain of command." Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafalia had a "history of resisting supervisory authority" that warranted his strong response. + +e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address where we are in the case. + +First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of command. After that concern was brought to my attention several months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of command. . . . If there is a particular instance of violating the chain of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it with you. + +..... + +The statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with . . . victims, and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered lawyers. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like there is a ██████ ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while evidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in this criminal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two more victims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to give hope to more girls. + +As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone conclusion, I don't know of any case in the Office where an investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a declination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked with the agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictment package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is + +proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not hying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . . [M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights. + +In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70 + +Villafafia did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise her concerns.' Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not "order" Villafafia to refrain from raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafafia foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, "the context of this exchange is, she is running roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not in charge of it. I'm not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it." Acosta, who was apparently not aware of Villafafia's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective, Villafalia was not "frozen out" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him directly for a meeting. + +#### B. Villafaiia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts + +As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although Villafafia took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts. + +ie Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman. + +41 Villafaiia told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect to Villafafia, but that Menchel responded it was not Villafana's "place" to tell him to whom he should direct communications. + +Early in the federal investigation, Villafafta recognized the potential significance of obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafafia told OPR that she and the FBI agents went through every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafafia told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafaiia's experience, individuals involved in child exploitation often possessed child pornography." Villafafta's co-counsel, who had substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, "Epstein was a billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his capabilities not to be video recording" his encounters. + +As the investigation continued, Villafafia took various steps to acquire the computer equipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide "[t]he computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs, floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from" the residence. Although Lourie subsequently narrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained. The defense, however, failed to comply with the request. + +Villafafia learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual. After consulting the Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer equipment, Villafafia described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia's efforts to obtain the computer equipment. + +In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafafta initiated action requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafafta on June 29, 2007, requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a "state-based resolution" to the case would soon be reached.73 Villafafia advised her supervisors of the request, and responded to that she "would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible." Nonetheless, Villafafia eventually agreed to an extension. + +Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafafia, demanding to know whether Villafaila had complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer + +~2 In addition, Villafafia became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein's assistant, who told the victim that Epstein took pictures of the girls. + +P1 This email led Villafafia to ask her supervisors if any of them had discussed with the defense a possible resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafafia's exchange of emails with Menchel about their respective views of the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part. + +equipment.74 After further communications on this issue involving Black, , Villafafta, and Lourie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the USAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened because the parties entered into the NPA. + +### C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation + +In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy "case analysis chart" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she "supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear."' + +While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS expressed its endorsement of Villafafta's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read Villafafta's prosecution memorandum "closely," and noting that "[s]he did a terrific job. As we opined to Andy [Lourie] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound." Oosterbaan observed: + +> I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive, but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the law applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of available precedent favors us. From the prosecution memorandum it is clear that has anticipated the strongest legal arguments, scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly. And, while with this prosecution the government clearly faces a strong and determined defense team, it is a challenge well worth facing. 1 also happen to know that there is absolutely no concern ... about facing the challenges this case presents. + +In closing, Oosterbaan renewed his offer to have CEOS "help you with this prosecution," and to send "whatever and whoever you need" to assist. + +71Villafaiia forwarded Black's letter to Menchel, explaining the circumstances relating to the removal of the computer equipment from Epstein's home, the steps she had taken to make the required consultations in the Department, and that she and Louric had worked together on her response to Black. + +~5 The news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team led to an email exchange between Sloman and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, who commented, "By the way, let me know if you want me to put something in writing to you with our position and detailing all of the child prostitution cases she supervised with similar facts." + +#### D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of Incarceration + +The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a twoyear term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the "minimum" the USAO would accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years as the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation, but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.76 + +While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to Villafafia, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafafia continued moving toward filing charges. On July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supporting a potential prosecution, Villafafia emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps regarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafafia to "hold off... until we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next week." Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafafia to wait, but he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case. + +On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007." + +## 1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami + +Early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafafia informed Menchel that she was preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all but three of the "travel counts" and "a large number of [the] overt acts," and the addition of overt acts and counts relating to two additional victims; she would not, however, have the revised indictment ready in time "for our discussion today" at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafafia to delay the investigative steps involving the assistants indicated that he was "trying to do something" with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the "underlying issue" of whether to proceed with federal charges. + +Acosta made that decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafafia met in Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafafia told OPR that she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the investigation. However, Villafafia told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered the room and stated that Acosta "has decided to offer a two-year state deal." According to + +T6 See Section IV.D.2 in this Part. + +T9 As early as May 4, 2007, Mcnchcl had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter private practice. + +Villafafia, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafatia "shocked and stunned." + +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he strongly disputed Villafafia's description of events, asserting that it would have been "directly at odds with his management style" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had "decided and endorsed this resolution at some point," but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel's relaying of that decision, he said it "would have been consistent with" his decision for Menchel to do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafafia, Laurie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment. + +Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two-year term was communicated to Villafafia and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged." + +#### 2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration + +Villafafia asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the decision was made." Villaftula told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view, explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafafia also told OPR that Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafaiia did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision. Villafafia described the proposal as "random," and told OPR, "[W]e're all [sentencing] guidelines people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses."S0 + +78OPR notes that Villafana did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and Villafaila, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a decision to resolve the case with a two-year state plea not long before the meeting. + +OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafana had knowledge of Acosta's decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it. + +RO From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005. the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710, + +Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from Menchel, Lourie, and Villafacia. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case." Sloman added that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by Acosta following "extended consideration, research, and discussion," among Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia.82 + +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR, however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges, Epstein would have felt he had "nothing to lose" and "undoubtedly" would have chosen to take the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial, and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years "as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything," and "if we . . . felt we could have gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial." + +Acosta told OPR that "I had decided and endorsed" the two-year resolution "at some point," and that it resulted from "back and forth" discussion "over the course of some days or a week or two." As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO's role in this case merely as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he explained to OPR was "a polite way of saying[, ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']"S3 Acosta said that he understood two years' imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation." Acosta also told OPR that he + +> the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government should ... endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which the sentencing decisions will be based. + +81In Sloman's view, Menchel and Lourie were "two of the finest trial lawyers" in the USAO. + +82Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were "two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta's] front office who had tried ... gobs and gobs of cases." + +83In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney asserted that OPR's use of Acosta's quote, "a little bit more," "unfairly minimized" Acosta's and the USAO's efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta's attorney also asserted that the phrase was "clearly soft-spoken understatement," that the terms obtained were "substantially more onerous than the state's alternative resolution," and that Acosta was "clearly declining the invitation to take the State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction." + +84OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in + +understood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "[T]his was, rightly or wrongly, an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to that." Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his concerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific conversation with them. + +#### E. Villafalia Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense + +A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had "some sort of discussion" with her supervisors that resulted in her creation of a "term sheet" identifying the proposed terms for resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villafafia left a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villafafia nor Menchel could recall what Villafafia said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed Villafafia: + +> I received your voicemail this morning. I don't see any reason to change our approach. I think telling them that unless the state resolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and the interests of the victims, we will seek federal charges] conveys that we are serious. While Lilly I I has represented in the past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the US Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture. + +The following day, July 31, 2007, Villafaiia emailed a one-page "Terms of Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement" to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafafia told OPR she had never before seen or heard of a non-prosecution agreement and that it was a concept "completely foreign" to her.85 Villafafia told OPR that the idea of styling the two-year state plea agreement with Epstein + +the state indictment. OPR considered various potential state charges involving various numbers of victims and found no obvious reasonable state sentencing guidelines calculation that would have resulted in a two-year sentence. + +The terms "deferred prosecution agreement" and "non-prosecution agreement" have often been used loosely by prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and commentators. As the terms are used in these Principles [of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations), a deferred prosecution agreement is typically predicated upon the filing of a formal charging document by the government, and the agreement is filed with the appropriate court. In the non-prosecution agreement context, formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained by the parties rather than being filed with a cowl. Clear and consistent use of these terms will enable the Department to more effectively identify and share best practices and to track the use of such agreements. These Principles do not apply + +85 Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements were standard, though infrequently used, vehicles for resolving certain federal criminal cases against corporate entities. A 2008 Departmental memorandum explained: + +as a "non-prosecution agreement" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated that terminology to her. According to Villafana, she asked that it include a mechanism for the victims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges." Acosta told OPR that he "developed and approved" the term sheet." + +Before the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from Villafafta's draft—one providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified victims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the month. The final term sheet was as follows: + +> to plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a court proceeding. + +Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and United States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at htms://www.justice.goviarchives/jmicriminal-resourcemanual- I 63-selectiomand-use-monitors. Villafafia did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities. + +S6 A civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by victims of certain crimes is provided for in the federal criminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Subsection (a) of the statute, as in effect from July 27, 2006, to March 6, 2013, provided as follows: + +> Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251 A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$150,000 in value. + +Villafafia also told OPR that she asked that the terms include the requirement that Epstein plead to an offense that required him to register as a sexual offender; however, sex offender status was also mentioned in Menchel's July 3, 2007 email to Villafafia recounting his preliminary discussions with + +#### CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS + +#### TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +- **Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to au Information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with:** + - (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child. in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4): + - (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. in violation of Fl. SM. 796.03: and + - (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age. in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. +- Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison. without any opporttutity for withholding adjudication or sentencing: and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. +- **Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State and the right to appeal.** +- **Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18. United States Code. Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423.** +- **After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations.** + +#### V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES + +Although the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on July 31, 2007, it took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NM. The contemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered multiple counter-proposals to the USAO's stated terms, and alternated between working out the state plea disposition and seeking an alternative federal plea arrangement. The emails make clear that as the negotiations intensified in September 2007, the prosecutors became increasingly frustrated, particularly with what they perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and provisions but then backtracking or altering the agreed-upon terms in subsequent communications. It is apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of "at least two years in prison." The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. + +#### A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer + +Menchel Sloman, Lourie, Villafafia, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys Lefcourt, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel "leading the meeting" for the USAO.87 The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafafia distributed a federal sentencing guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months' incarceration. + +Villafafia recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein serve a sentence of home confinement or "community control"88 in lieu of incarceration, and emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility? Villafafia told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in a state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting, Villafafia emai led Menchel, stating that she had "figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2 year cap." + +Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence show that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal + +The Community Control supervision program was created as a diversion to incarceration or imprisonment; therefore it is an intensive supervision program where you are confined to your home unless you are working, attending school, performing public service hours, participating in treatment or another special activity that has been approved in advance by your officer. The program was designed to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a punishment alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control supervision (also known as "house arrest") you will not be allowed to leave your home to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation, or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do .. ., but it does allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones. + +Florida Dept. of Corrections, Succeeding on Community Control at I, http:/Avww.dc.state.fl.us/cc/ccfonns/ Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdt + +87Villafafia was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting. + +88According to the Florida Department of Corrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control, + +89Villafafia told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team "had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Villafafia anticipated there would be ways to "manipulate" a state sentence and the USAO would be "giving up all control," and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred. + +charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team, July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel: followed up on the + +> We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated.90 + +added, "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life." + +The "significantly punitiveLmmal described in the defense letter involved no period of mandatory incarceration. Instead, suggested two years of home confinement, with regular reporting to and visits from a community control officer, payment of restitution, damages, court and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service; psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was "prepared to fully fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007." Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody. also advised that the defense team was seeking a meeting with Acosta. + +#### B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest + +Villafafia told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable, and she conferred with Lourie or Menchel about the government's response. Villafafia drafted for Menchel's signature a letter asserting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment to be the minimum sentence that would "vindicate" the federal interest in the Epstein investigation. Villafafia's draft stated that the USAO "has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein," but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Villafafia specified that Epstein would also be required to concede liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal investigation, "not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument." + +90The USAO countered, however, that it "never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate" and that "a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer." Records show that throughout the Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys' conduct, OPR did not rely on uncorroborated defense assertions. + +Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafafta's draft letter. He specified that "a two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafta. + +The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).9' + +91Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafana told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafana told OPR that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea. + +![](_page_83_Picture_121.jpeg) + +**U.S. Department of Justice** + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida* + +--- + +*R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY* + +*99 N.E. 4 Street +Miami, FL 33132 +(305) 961-9100 - Telephone +(305) 530-6444 - Facsimile* + +August 3, 2007 + +VIA FACSIMILE + +Lilly Ann [REDACTED], Esq. + +![](_page_83_Picture_129.jpeg) + +Re: Jeffrey Epstein + +Dear Lilly: + +Thank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the Epstein matter. + +As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we simply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penetentiary, we would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state resolution. Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer. + +We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial planned charging instrument. + +As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically changed upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. + +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, Esg. + +August 3,2007 + +PAGE 2 + +Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. + +Sincerely, + +R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney + +B)\ \-& ) + +Matthew Menchel Chief, Criminal Division + +cc: Roy Black Gerald B. Lefcourt R. Alexander Acosta Jeffrey Sloman An uric A. Villafana + +Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence established a "floor" for negotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more jail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR that the USAO was "leaving our options open" by retaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was "trying . . . to get him into a federal penitentiary." The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007, for acceptance of the government's offer was intended to accommodate Villafafia's request that the deadline provide her with enough time to go to New York, pursue investigative steps involving two of Epstein's assistants, do witness interviews, and take additional legal steps to obtain Epstein's computers if Epstein rejected the deal. Menchel told OPR he considered August 17 to be a firm deadline: "[I]f you tell someone they have two weeks, it should be two weeks." Menchel signed and sent the letter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day at the USAO before joining a private law firm.92 + +The following Monday, August 6, 2007, Villafafia contacted Menchel by email at his new firm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out on Friday. Villafafia explained + +92Mcnchcl told OPR that the timing of the letter to with his impending departure from the USAO. was a "total coincidence," and had nothing to do + +to OPR that she "wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because . . . if the letter didn't go out we can make this all go away and restart." Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter out by email. + +Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged. Villafaila told OPR that the squad supervisor "yelled at" Sloman about the USAO's decision not to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor "like [Villafafia] [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case."93 + +#### C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta + +#### 1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys + +Villafafia told OPR that Epstein's team was "incensed" that Acosta would not meet with them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time, Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate at the firm." On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: "Just saw Menchel. I didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable." During their OPR interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could provide no additional information about the contact.95 A reply email from Acosta to Sloman indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, "They are likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should be made clear." + +The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman: + +[Epstein's] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds of a process foul, i.e., that I have not met with them. I'm concerned that this will delay matters. + +I am thinking of heading this off, by (i) agreeing to meet to discuss general legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable + +41 In an email to Louric reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that "it's a tad more complicated" and commented, "The guy is killing me." The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not remember this exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being "upset" with the proposed resolution of the case and he likely would have told Sloman, "When do we indict? Why don't we just move forward?" + +94Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, he had worked on at least one matter each with Starr and Letkowitz, and since that time, he had professional acquaintanceships with both. + +95Menchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which he entered Acosta's office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, "[T]hat was Ken Starr," and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case. + +jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. + +Thoughts? + +Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and that "[i]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop this case."" + +#### 2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafafia's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence + +On August 8, 2007, Villafafia informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th deadline." Villafaha also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that "there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea," Villafaha asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Lourie pointed out that CEOS "has no approval authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies." Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit ... it's worth it." + +As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafafta emailed Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafalut was reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant. On August 13, 2007, Villafafia advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of the litigation. However, reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, which was scheduled for September 7, 2007. + +Villafafia told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."" Vitiate& suspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed." + +96 In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter. + +97Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of masons why" defense counsel would resist "wit[ing] over an entire computer." + +She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating position, but that her supervisors "did not seem to recognize that." Villafaha said she did not understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained. Instead, they instructed Villafafia to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation proceedings. + +Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafaha was "ordered to stand down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafafia's effort to obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possibly "could have changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR interview, Menchel was uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR, "You always want more as a prosecutor." + +On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Villafafia and the case agents and to examine the case file. He explained to OPR that he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best "represent[] the interests of the prosecution team," and that he was in favor of going forward with the case. According to Villafafia, during his review of the file, Oosterbaan told her that the case was "really good" and offered to assist Villafafia at trial. + +On September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent Villafafia an email asking, "Please refresh my recollection. What is the 'deal' on the table?" Sloman told OPR that his question reflected the fact that in his capacity as FAUSA, he was involved in "a hundred other things" at that time." Villafafia sent Sloman the term sheet and explained to him, "You and Matt [Menchel] and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an Information charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule II plea with a two-year cap, but I think Matt must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafafia continued: + +> There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means . . . September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as Drew [Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained." + +98Sloman noted that with the attention given to the Epstein investigation, "it seems like . .. this was the only case [in the office], but there were other cases." + +99As Villafafia explained in her OPR interview, when a violent crime defendant self-surrenders, the government may have difficulty winning an argument for pretrial detention or bond. Contrary to Vil la lanes assertion in the email. the CVRA, even when applicable, required only victim consultation, not victim approval, and as is explained in + +Villafafia added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would report that Epstein was "going to plead to a state charge" and the PBPD Chief "wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal." Sloman forwarded Villafafia's email to Acosta with a note that read simply, "fyi." + +Later that evening, Villafafia circulated to Sloman, Laurie, and Oosterbaan two alternative documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA. t00 The draft federal plea agreement, following the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment. The draft NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that because she had never seen a non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the Department's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the use of non-prosecution agreements. 101 + +## 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI M ors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Leikowitz, and + +On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, Villafafia's co-counsel, Oosterbaan, and one or st irervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm Beach office with defense attorneys and, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz.102 This was Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's defense team. Villafafia understood the purpose of this meeting was to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to "make a pitch" as to why the case should not be prosecuted federally. Villafafia recalled that at a "pre-meet" before defense counsel arrived, Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case. + +Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not "a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafaiia similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case should remain a state matter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafafia and her co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held Senate-confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were "the only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta did not recall the comment, but he told OPR, "[B]ack in July, we had decided that we were going + +Chapter Three, the Department's position at the time was that victim consultation was not required in matters in which the government did not pursue a federal charge. The USAO's actions with respect to victim consultation and the Department's interpretation of the CVRA are discussed in detail in Chapter Three of this Report. + +100 The initial draft NPA is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report. + +101 OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied. + +102Lourie was not present. During September 2007. he was traveling between Florida and Washington. D.C.. as he transitional to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head of the Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. lie served in that detail until he left the Department in February 2008. + +forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our position."103 + +Villafaiia told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported that the meeting was "non-eventful," noting that defense counsel argued "federalism" and might approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument directly to her. + +### VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED + +Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and although Villafafta continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was established, and the negotiations continued through most of September. + +The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means through which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that a two-year term of imprisonment was "the minimum" that the USAO would accept. To reach an agreement with the defense on Epstein's sentence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either federal or state court, or both, and Villafafta spent considerable time and effort working with defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with the understanding that under the state's sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15 months. + +## A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months + +Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had not been present at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer, proposing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafafia emailed Sloman, identifying issues she wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender registration. Villafafia stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was "a reasonable counteroffer in light of our starting position of 24 months," but added that it was "a really low sentence." Villafaila + +103Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Stan's presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path. + +noted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence amounted to less than one month per victim. Villafafia requested that "whatever the U.S. Attorney decides to do," the agreement with Epstein should "follow . . . a version of my written nonprosecution agreement" in order to "avoid any state shenanigans and . . . keep the defense on a strict timeline." + +Later that day, Villafaiia circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a 20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA contained a provision that specified, "With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least 17 months in a state correctional institution."104 Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation "to undertake discussions with the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures." Villafafia sent her version of the revised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the following day, after she learned of it. + +On September II, 2007, the court contacted Villafaita to inquire whether the USAO would be prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the computers the following day. At Sloman's direction, Villafafia asked the court to delay the hearing, and the court rescheduled it for the following week. At the same time, anticipating that plea negotiations would fail, Villafafia circulated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and Oosterbaan, seeking their feedback before sending it "through the chain of command." Villafafia also sent Oosterbaan the revised NPA and told him she was "still shooting for 9/25" to bring charges, assuming the defense declined the USAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, "The counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable."1°5 + +That afternoon, Lourie asked Villafafia, "What is our latest offer?" Villafafia responded, "Plead to the three specified [state] charges, a 30-month sentence, split 20 in jail and 10 in `community control,' and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in deadlines for a plea and sentencing date." + +#### B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney + +Although the USAO and defense counsel had been discussing resolving the federal investigation with a plea to state charges, there is no evidence that the USAO involved the State Attorney's Office in those discussions until September 12, 2007. On that day, Lourie, and another USAO supervisor who would be replacing Lourie as manager of the USAO's West Palm Beach office, and Epstein attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt, and Goldberger met with State Attorney Barry ICrischer and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. Other than Villafafia, few of the participants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidence indicates that the USAO made additional concessions during the meeting. + +104Through "gain time." Florida inmates can earn a reduction in their sentence for good behavior. + +10\$ Oostcrbaan told OPR that he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and "had no involvement with it." + +Villafafta told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed concern about proceeding as the USA() was proposing. According to Villafafta, Belohlavek explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaila recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges, Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. 106 Lourie, however, disputed Villafafia's recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was "illogical" to conclude that he had the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally. 107 + +During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state prison. Villafaiia also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the entirety of his sentence, and they did not "particularly care" whether it was in a state or local facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months—totaling 18 months—could be served in the county jail. Villafafia told OPR: + +> Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, I remember [the defense] talking about ... a one year count followed by a six-month count . . . that [Epstein] could serve them back to back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said, "But if you do that, it's still going to have to be round the clock incarceration." And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he would be kept in solitary confinement. + +Villafaria did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a "concession" because he would be incarcerated regardless. + +Neither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was "not offended at all" when he learned of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein "was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was + +106Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not involve sexual offender registration. + +107As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaila spokc with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement. + +going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he hadn't done up to this point." Krischer asked, "Why would I turn that down?" Krischer also noted that at that time, sexual offender registration "was not the norm" in Florida, and he recognized that "it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office."108 + +Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12 meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafafia and Lourie needed "some degree of discretion to negotiate"; that "in the give and take" of negotiations, they might propose a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled "captured the conduct" in an "appropriate" way. + +Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible state resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. Later that day, Villafafia sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with Acosta and Sloman, and they were "all satisfied in principle with the agreement."109 The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafafia sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors, identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafafia also emailed defense counsel, stating that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18"—referring to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a "factual basis" for any federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering. + +#### C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months + +OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafafia, and Lourie to explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was reduced. Villafafia and Acosta offered significantly different explanations. + +Villafafia told OPR: + +We had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was + +108Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration "was a common occurrence" for enumerated state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them. + +109The email does not indicate what the parties meant by "the agreement." + +having directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18 months. + +Villafaña further explained to OPR: + +Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion that 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gain time, so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state. Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time like that in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course, as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Lefkowitz) got Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in the [s]tate, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months. + +Regarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, . . . this came from a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy or Alex where the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18 was agreed to. I also recall that, after Epstein's counsel decided that they wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked Alex why we didn't return to 20 months because the reason why we went to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with a federal statutory maximum.110 + +However, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys, drafted by Villafaña for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the State Attorney's Office, stated that "a significant compromise" reached at the meeting "was a reduction in the amount of jail time – from [the originally proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility." Acosta also noted to OPR that Villafaña was engaged in a "tough negotiation," and he was willing to allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him "second-guessing" her. Acosta acknowledged that he "clearly approved it at some point." + +Based on this record, OPR could not definitively determine when, how, or by whom the decision was made to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 months to 18 months. It is possible that the reduction was connected to Epstein's effort to achieve a result that would allow him to serve his time in a county facility, but it may also have resulted from the parties' attempts to reach agreement on federal charges that would not result in a sentence of incarceration greater than what had been discussed with respect to state charges. In the end, the evidence shows that Acosta approved of a reduced term of incarceration from 24 months to 18 months, and the USAO understood at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount of time Epstein would spend incarcerated. + +--- + +110 By "federal statutory maximum," Villafaña referred to 12-month and 6-month misdemeanors. + +#### D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges + +During the remainder of September, Villafafta conducted plea negotiations and drafted the final NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Leficowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, Villafafta reported that the plea negotiations were "getting fast and furious." She said that the defense wanted to establish a "victim's fund" through which Epstein could make payments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for damages, which she speculated was "to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files." + +According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had moved toward a "hybrid" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to state charges, which would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison. Villafafta informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that negotiations with Lefkowitz had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges: harassment to prevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)(2), which was then a one-year misdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a six-month misdemeanor). Villafafta reported that Leflcowitz "put in a pitch for only 12 months, I put in a pitch that [Epstein] plead to 24 with a 20-month recommendation, and we decided that we would be stuck with the 18 months." + +Later that day, Villafafta sent to Lefkowitz a draft "hybrid" plea agreement and information mirroring the agreement in principle she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had "not yet been blessed" by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the two federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he be sentenced to the statutory maximum penalty of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release, and that he would also plead guilty to the state registrable offense of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, for which Epstein and the State Attorney's Office would make a joint, binding recommendation that he be sentenced to serve at least 20 months in prison followed by 10 months of community control (home confinement). Although not specified in the draft agreement, the negotiations evidently expected the federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition to payment of restitution, Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction or victim status for any of the victims identified in the federal investigation—at that point specified as numbering 40—who elected to file suit for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A guardian ad litem would be appointed to communicate with the defense on the victims' behalf. + +Lourie, however, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of the proposal. In response to Villafafia's email about the potential federal charges, but after Villafafta sent the proposal to Lefkowitz, Lourie told her, "The assault [charge] sounds like a stretch and factually [is] sort of silly." m Lourie also told Sloman, Acosta, and another supervisor that he did not "like the assault charge" and believed that it would not "go smooth with every judge." Acosta responded, "If we need[,] let's find a different charge." On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Villafafta emailed Leflcowitz, using her personal email address, reporting that she had "gotten some negative reaction + +The charge was to be based on "an incident in which Epstein `put great pressure' ... on [one of his female assistants] to call the girls to set up appointments." + +to the assault charge” and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge.112 At this point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafaña that in his absence Lourie had agreed “to help finalize this.” Lourie spent the following work week at his new post at the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone and email. + +In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafaña informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted a factual proffer to accompany a revised “hybrid” federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafaña also noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Miami, “which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly.” This email received considerable attention 12 years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evidence of the USAO’s efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafaña, however, explained to OPR that she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victims’ privacy. She told OPR, “[I]f [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper,” and that such publicity was less likely to happen in Miami, where the press “in general does not care about what happens in Palm Beach.” + +Lefkowitz responded to Villafaña with a revised version of her latest proposed “hybrid” plea agreement, in a document entitled “Agreement.” Significantly, this defense proposal introduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to prosecute them, as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and a promise to forego immigration proceedings against two of the female assistants: + +Epstein’s fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation . . . . Further, no immigration proceeding will be instituted against [two named female assistants] as a result of the ongoing investigation. + +The second new provision related to the USAO’s efforts to obtain Epstein’s computers: + +Epstein’s fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement resolves any and all outstanding [legal process] that have requested witness testimony and/or the production of documents and/or computers in relation to the investigation that is the subject of the Agreement. Each [legal process] will be withdrawn upon the execution of the Agreement and will not be re-issued absent reliable + +112 Villafaña told OPR that she sometimes used her home email account because “[n]egotiations were occurring at nights, on weekend[s], and while I was [away from the office for personal reasons], . . . and this occurred during a time when out of office access to email was very limited.” Records show her supervisors were aware that at times she used her personal email account in communicating with defense counsel in this case. + +evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are fulfilled. + +Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had suggested: "the original proposal" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence, or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafaña also told Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafaña explained: + +As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. + +With regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafaña suggested standard federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, "and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's co-conspirators, who at the time she understood to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, "[W]e considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else." She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern. Villafaña also told OPR that her reference to "all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge" related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct, the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the agreement was breached.113 + +With regard to immigration, Villafaña told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with their immigration paperwork, "and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn't any reason + +--- + +113 OPR understood Villafaña's concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a court's inquiry into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term. + +for them to be deported."I 14 As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of having committed crimes, Villafafia told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal apart from actual prosecution. + +Villafafia concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were not "closer to resolving this than it appears that we are," and offering to meet the next day to work on the agreement: + +> Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing . . ., if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as wel1.115 + +Villafafia told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting negotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafafia wanted "to have a meeting where we sat down and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is, sometimes people feel better if you go to a neutral location" for a face-to-face meeting. + +On the morning of Monday, September 17, 2007, the USAO supervisor who was taking over Lourie's duties as manager of the West Palm Beach office asked Villafafia for an update on the plea negotiations, and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous aftemoon. Villafaila told the manager, "As you can see ... there are a number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open." + +Shortly thereafter, Villafafia alerted the new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just spoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to state charges under a non-prosecution agreement, and she would be forwarding to Lefkowitz "our last version of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." Acosta asked that Villafafia "make sure they know it[']s only a draft" and reminded her that "[t]he form and language may need polishing." Villafafia responded, "Absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to re-open all the loopholes that I had sewn shut." Villafaiia sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided to Lefcourt on September 11, 2007, noting that it was the "last version" and would "avoid [him] having to reinvent the wheel." She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of negotiations, noting that she had told her "chain of command . . . that we are still on for the [September] 25th [to bring charges] . .., no matter what." + +After receiving the draft NPA, Lefkowitz asked Villafafia to provide for his review a factual proffer for a federal obstruction of justice charge, and, with respect to the NPA option, asked, "[I]f + +According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of any foreign national, but neither cast agcnt recalled any immigration issue rcgarding any of the Epstein employees. + +113Letkowitz was based in New York City but traveled to Miami in connection with the case. + +we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?" Villafafia replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly accessible, the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process."116 Villafafia told OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he "did not want people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes." As she explained to OPR, Villafafia believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages. + +## E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges + +Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Responding to Villafaiia's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge with a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release with a requirement for home detention and two years of state probation, with the first six months of the state sentence to be served under community control. Villafafia replied, "I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion)." Shortly thereafter, Villafafia emailed Acosta, Louie, and the incoming West Palm Beach manager: + +> Hi all — I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with Mr. Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution. As I mentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend drafting Informations, changing plea agreements, and writing factual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from them yesterday, which never arrived. At that time, they were leaning towards pleading only to state charges and doing all of the time in state custody. + +> Late last night I talked to Jay Lefkowitz who asked about Epstein pleading to two twelve-month federal charges with half of his jail time being spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I told him that I had no objection to that approach but, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein would be eligible because he will not be in Zone A or B."7 This morning Jay Lefkowitz called and said that I was correct but, if we could get Mr. Epstein down to 14 months, then he thought he would be eligible. + +> My response: have him plead to two separate Informations. On the first one he gets 12 months' imprisonment and on the second he gets + +116FOIA requires disclosure of government records upon request unless an exemption applies permitting the government to withhold the requested records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. + +117Sentences falling within Zones A or B of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines permit probation or confinement alternatives to imprisonment. + +twelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run consecutively. + +I just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12 months imprisonment instead. + +As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing jail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5:00, negotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5:00 because it gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are serious about it, and if not, it gives me one day before the Jewish holiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday . . . [September 25] , when I plan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time to review the indictment package. + +Do you concur? + +A few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach manager emailed Lourie, suggesting that Lourie "talk to Epstein and close the deal." 118 + +Within moments, Lourie replied to the manager, with a copy to Villafaa, reporting that he had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed "to two fed[eral] obstruction[] charges (24 month cap) with nonbinding recommendation for 18 months. When [Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state offenses, including against minor, registrable, and then take one year house arrest/community confinement." By reply email, Villafafia asked Lourie to call her, but there is no record of whether they spoke. + +#### F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects + +Approximately an hour after Lourie's email reporting the deal he had reached with Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Villafaiia a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie believed he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted in a 16-month federal sentence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of home detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two of Epstein's female assistants. + +Villafaa circulated the defense's proposed plea agreement to Lourie and two other supervisors, and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that were "completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to." Villafaa also pointed out that the defense "wants us to recommend an improper calculation" of the sentencing guidelines + +The manager told OPR that he probably meant this as a joke because in his view the continued back-andforth communications with defense counsel "was ridiculous," and the only way to "get this deal done" might be to have a direct conversation with Epstein. + +and had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) “so he can keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language . . . was unacceptable to our office.” Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafaña noted that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and the entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. + +In the afternoon, Villafaña circulated her own proposed “hybrid” plea agreement, first internally to the management team with a note stating that it “contains the 18/12 split that Jay and Andy agreed to,” and then to Lefkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other individuals, she included the following provision: “This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement,” including but not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution. + +In her email to Lefkowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Villafaña wrote: + +Could you share the attached draft with your colleagues. It is in keeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operative “deal.” The U.S. Attorney hasn’t had a chance to review all of the language, but he agrees with it in principle. + +. . . . + +[The West Palm Beach manager] and I will both be available at 2:00. . . . One of my suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down together in the same room, including Barry [Krischer] and/or Lanna [Belohlavek], so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a signed document. + +Villafaña also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein’s attorneys to work on the plea agreement, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final approval. Acosta replied, “I don’t think I should be part of negotiations. I’d rather leave it to you if that’s ok.” Acosta told OPR that “absent truly exceptional circumstances,” he believed it was important for him “to not get involved” in negotiations, and added, “You can meet, like I did in September, [to] reaffirm the position of the office, [and] back your AUSA, but ultimately, I think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job.” Villafaña told OPR, however, that she did not understand Acosta to be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit; rather, she believed Acosta did not want to engage in face-to-face negotiations because “he wanted to have an appearance of having sort of an arm’s length from the deal.”119 Villafaña replied to Acosta’s + +--- + +119 As noted throughout the Report, Villafaña’s interpretation of her supervisors’ motivations for their actions often differed from the supervisors’ explanations for their actions. Because it involved subjective interpretations of individuals’ motivations, OPR does not reach conclusions regarding the subjects’ differing views but includes them as an indication of the communication issues that hindered the prosecution team. *See* Chapter Two, Part Three, Section V.E. + +message, "That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just want to get a final blessing." + +Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with Villafafia and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafafia made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end: + +> I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday. + +Early that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating in the week's negotiations from his new post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked Villafafta to furnish him with the last draft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense counsel, and she provided him with the "18/12 split" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing that draft, Lourie told Villafafia it was a "[g]ood job" but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be in the plea agreement. Villafafia told Lourie that she had added that paragraph at the "insistence" of the defense, and opined, "I don't think it hurts us." Villafafia explained to OPR that she held this view because "Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was resolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment." + +At 3:44 p.m. that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a "redline" version of the federal plea agreement showing his new revisions, and noted that he was "also working on a deferred [sic] prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here." The defense redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor counts of attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state indictment charging solicitation of prostitution, and a state information charging one count of coercing a person to become a prostitute, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.04 (without regard to age). Neither of the proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein would serve an 18-month sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges. The redline version again deleted the provisions relating to damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and replaced it with the provision requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It retained language proposed by Villafatla, providing that the plea agreement "resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement," but also re-inserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forgo a presentence investigation and a promise by the government to suspend the investigation and withdraw all pending legal process. + +#### G. Villafafia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" + +In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafafia expressed her increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea agreement to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, identifying all of the provisions she had "specifically discussed with [the defense team] and rejected, that they have re-inserted into the agreement." (Emphasis in original). Villafafia opined, "This is NOT good faith negotiations." Lourie responded that he would "reach out to Alex to discuss." + +Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following: + +I looked at the latest draft from Jay [Leflcowitz] and I must agree with . Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is out of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms and then sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell him that his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to move forward with our case. + +Acosta replied: + +Why don't we just call him. Tell him + +- I. You agree, and then change things. +- 2. That's not acceptable, and is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll indict. +- 3. Try to work it out. + +It seems that we are close, and it[']s worth trying to overcome what has to be painfully ... annoying negotiating tactics. + +Acosta explained to OPR that he recognized, + +[t]his negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make it less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you try to work it out, and if not, then you indict. + +In response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, "Ok will do." He also forwarded to Acosta the latest version of the USAO draft "hybrid" plea agreement that Villafafia had sent to Leflcowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafaila earlier that afternoon. + +Meanwhile, Villafafia sent to Lourie and his successor West Palm Beach manager a draft message she proposed to send to Lefkowitz with her objections to the defense revisions, explaining, "I know that you keep saying he is going to plead, and he will plead if we cave on + +everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court." She suggested charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense, superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of negotiations, "we are just spinning our wheels." Her proposed email to Lefkowitz detailed all of the objectionable provisions in his draft, and concluded, "If you or your client insists on these, there can be no plea agreement." + +#### H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafafia Sends a Final Version to the Defense + +The next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafafia emailed Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek and informed her: + +> Our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and arraignment in the federal system. At this time, things don't look promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft, they changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from solicitation of minors for prostitution (a registrable offense) to forcing adults into prostitution (a non-registrable offense). We will not budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a mutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know. + +Acosta sent Lourie "[s]ome thoughts" about the USAO version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement he had received from Lourie the evening before, commenting that "it seems very straightforward" and "we are not changing our standard charging language" for the defense. 120 Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not typically sign plea agreements and "this should not be the first," adding that the USAO "should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement."121 Lourie forwarded the email to Villafafta with a transmittal message simply reading, "I think Alex's changes are all good ones. Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay." Lourie also noted to Acosta and Villafafia that he believed the defense would want to go back to the initial offer of a state plea with a non-prosecution agreement. When Villafafta sent the revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the defense wanted to return to the original offer of a state plea only, the draft NPA she had sent to him on September 17, 2007, would control. + +120The USAO had standard federal plea agreement language, from which this "hybrid" plea agreement had substantially diverged. + +121The standard procedure was for documents such as plea agreements to be signed by an AUSA under the name of the U.S. Attorney. In his OPR interview, Acosta further explained that wanted to give "the trial team" an opportunity to voice any objections because "if it's something they don't feel comfortable with we ... shouldn't go forward with it." + +#### 1. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement + +After having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement, by the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties resumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges. Through multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a state charge requiring sexual offender registration. + +After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafafla. She reported to Acosta and Lourie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was "back to doing the state-chargesonly agreement" and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but that she had told defense counsel that "we need a signed agreement by tomorrow [Friday] or we are [filing charges] on Tuesday." + +Lefkowitz emailed Villafafia about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out that it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control, rather than 18 months in jail and 12 under community control, and to ask if the USAO had "any flexibility" on the § 2255 procedure. Villafaiia responded: + +> The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is not a problem. On the issue about 18 [U.S.C. §] 2255, we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their [§] 2255 rights. + +> I reviewed the e-mail that I sent you on Sunday with the comments on some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday, the Office cannot and will not bind Immigration. + +> Also, your timetable will need to move up significantly. As [State Attorney] Barry [Krischer] said in our meeting last week, his office can put together a plea agreement, [and an] information, and get you all before the [state] judge on a change of plea within a day. + +Villafafla alerted Krischer that evening that negotiations were "not going very well" and that defense counsel "changed their minds again, and they only want to plead to state charges, not concurrent state and federal." She added, "If we cannot reach . . . an agreement, then I need to [charge] the case on Tuesday [September 25] and I will not budge from that date." + +In response to Villafafia's report of her conversation with Letkowitz about the defense preference for a "state-charges-only agreement," Lourie alerted her that, "He wants to get out of [sexual offender] registration which we should not agree to." Lourie emailed Acosta: + +I think Jay [Lefkowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable offense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us down in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an offense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to come down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of incarceration. + +Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafaña to return the call, and told Lourie that he did not want to open "a backchannel" with defense counsel. Lourie instructed Villafaña, "U can tell [J]ay that [A]lex will not agree to a nonregistration offense." + +On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafaña emailed Acosta informing him that "it looks like we will be [filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on Tuesday," reporting that the charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manager, and asking if anyone in the Miami office needed to review it. Villafaña also alerted Lourie that she had spoken that morning to Lefkowitz, who "was waffling" about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek "to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run." + +That same morning, Epstein attorney [REDACTED], who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, "[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense submissions that would assist in his determination on this point . . . [U]pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign as soon as today." From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who replied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Working with [M]arie on this." Sloman also forwarded [REDACTED] email to Lourie and asked, "Do you know what she's talking about?" Lourie responded that [REDACTED] "has not been in any negotiations. Don't even engage with yet another [REDACTED]." + +#### **J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators"** + +Lefkowitz, in the meantime, sent Villafaña a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18-month sentence in the county jail, followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the provision for a trust fund for disbursement to an agreed-upon list of individuals "who seek reimbursement by filing suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255." This defense draft retained the provision promising not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed employees of the specific Epstein-owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to "any potential co-conspirators" for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation. This language had evolved from similar language that Villafaña had included in the USAO's earlier proposed draft federal plea agreement.122 Lefkowitz also again included the sentence + +--- + +122 The language in the USAO's draft federal plea agreement stated, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] . . . ." + +precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings against the two assistants who were foreign nationals. + +At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: "I am happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my staff by allowing 'interlocutor[]y' appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have her set something up." + +Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her "attempt at combining our thoughts," but it had not "been approved by the office yet." She inserted solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision.123 Villafaña's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it to apply to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including" the four named assistants, and deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafaña deleted mention of immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that "we have not and don't plan to ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated.124 + +Later that day, Villafaña alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C. early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested "regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and commented, "I don't think it hurts us." There is no documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement with Villafaña's assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafaña re-sent her email, adding that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which Lourie responded, "No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement." Villafaña replied to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, "Any other thoughts?" When Lourie gave no further response, Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie had rejected the proposed immigration language. + +OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators." Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some way. In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were co-conspirators in Epstein's scheme. Lourie also told OPR, "I bet the answer was that we weren't going to charge" Epstein's accomplices, because Acosta "didn't really want to charge Epstein" in + +123 Villafaña noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a "former corporate counsel from a hospital" about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language "addresses the concern about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent." + +124 Villafaña gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafaña believed the agent knew two of Epstein's female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafaña also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues. + +federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, "in a sense," of Epstein's conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals, Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein.125 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafafia and Lourie had "thought this through" and "addressed it for a reason." The West Palm Beach manager, who had only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was "highly unusual," and he had "no clue" why the USAO agreed to it. + +Villafafia told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of "any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . . we wouldn't be prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . . . I just didn't think that there was anybody that it would cover." She conceded, however, that she "did not catch the fact that it could be read as broadly as people have since read it." + +#### K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement + +On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed Villafafia that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree "to all the terms" of the NPA—except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so. Krischer noted that he had "reached out" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back from him. Villafafia responded, "I think Alex is calling you now." Villafafta told OPR that, to her knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term. t26 + +Later that afternoon, Villafafta emailed Krischer for information about the amount of "gain time" Epstein would earn in state prison. Villafafia explained in her email that she wanted to include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein "will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early." Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood, Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafafta that a plea to a registrable offense would not prevent Epstein from serving his time "at the stockade"—the local minimum security detention faciiity.127 + +125Sloman also pointed out that the NM was not a "global resolution" and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted "by any other [U.S. Attorney's) office in the country." + +126Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein case or any other matter. + +127The State Attorney concluded his email: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." Villafana responded, "Sounds great." When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafafia said: "Everybody + +At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for Epstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafafia's Monday deadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On Saturday, September 22, 2007, sent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she "spoke to [M]att [Menchel]" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy email, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining "all arguments against registration [as a sexual offender] in this case." In this email, claimed that there had been a "miscommunication" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that "we only agreed to the solicitation with minors because we believed and [Krischer] and [Belohlavek] confirmed it was NOT registrable." complained that lifetime sexual offender registration was a "life sentence" that was "uncalled for," "does not make sense," and was "inappropriate" to impose "simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts." She listed numerous reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record or history of sexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with which he could be "tracked" without registering; and that it would be "virtualillossible to comply" with four separate state registration requirements. A few minutes later, sent Lefcourt's phone number to Lourie "in case you want to speak to him directly." + +In another email sent less than two hours later, told Lourie she was writing again because "you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. Mt is a result of a misunderstanding at a meeting." She stated that Epstein's attorneys had "consistently emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp" and "[e]veryone knew that a registerable offense precluded" a camp designation. added, "Therefore it would have been wholly inconsistent with that primary goal of [Epstein's] safety to lightly concede to registration at that meeting." concluded, "[I]mposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result." + +Lourie responded to none of the emails, but he did reach out to Acosta for a phone conversation. By email late that night, at 10:26 p.m., Letkowitz asked Lourie to phone him. + +The next day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta—with copies to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafia to "follow up on our conversation Friday," asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a "misunderstanding" at the September 12, 2007 meeting: + +> Before the meeting, Mr. [(Tischer and Ms. Belohlavek, a sex prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor ... is not a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, [it] is a registerable offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas—one to the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge. + +has offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I have had coffee with no one." Krischcr told OPR that the "masons" to which he referred related to the pressure he had been getting from Chief Reiter about the Epstein case. + +Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those had presented to Lourie, as to why registration "based on the facts alleged in this case ... simply does not make sense." In the event that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative "to stipulate that the state offense" would "constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist sentencing" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz further argued, "By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist sentencing for the humiliation of registration." Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta, Lourie, and Villafafia discussed the matter in a conference call. + +Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafafia that omitted identification of the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta: + +> I got a call from [M]arie who said you had rejected our proposal. Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit now to plead to the registerable offense near the end of his 18 month sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed [Fjriday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some kind of federal charge). + +> But that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total, and 18 in jail. + +> How can that not satisfy you—while still ensuring that [E]pstein is not unduly endangered in jail? + +Acosta responded, "I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the AUSAs assigned to the case." Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafafia, and they had "discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate." Acosta copied Villafafia, and she emailed Acosta to thank him "for the support" + +#### L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause + +Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with Villafafia, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.) and Villafafia. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a new version of the NPA that, for the first time, included a confidentiality term: + +> It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In the event the Government must disclose this Agreement in response to a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure of this Agreement. + +After making additional revisions, Villafafia sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the "final" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she changed the confidentiality provision to the following: + +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.128 + +## **VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED** + +The contemporaneous emails show that Villafaña continued to update Acosta as the parties negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafaña "[s]mall edits" to the "final" NPA she had sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email, "I'm not comfortable with requiring the State Attorney to enter into a [joint sentencing] recommendation" or "requiring a State court to stick with our timeline" for entry of the guilty plea and sentencing. Accordingly, Acosta substituted language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing recommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Villafaña to restore a reference to Epstein's wish "to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities." Lourie, who had returned to the Department in Washington, D.C., had a phone conversation with Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña sent a new revision, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz later that morning. + +On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafaña circulated the new "final" version of the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, and asked Lefkowitz to send her the signed agreement. After Lefkowitz electronically transmitted to Villafaña a copy of the NPA signed by Epstein, she emailed her immediate supervisor and her co-counsel: "They have scanned and emailed the signed agreement. It is done." + +In his transmittal email, Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to "[p]lease do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public." Villafaña responded: + +I have forwarded your message only to Alex, Andy, and [the West Palm Beach manager]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. + +When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the + +--- + +128 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Lourie observed that because the NPA contained names of uncharged co-conspirators and other protected information, the USAO would have a duty to redact the information before disclosing the NPA. + +agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved.. . . [The West Palm Beach manager] is calling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone. + +OPR questioned Villafafia about this email. She explained that she generally kept confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that "the way that the [Epstein] case was resolved" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed about what happened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement was about. + +Villafafia emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tell PBPD Chief Reiter "the good news" but "leave out the part about damages," and explained that she wanted to meet with the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would work. Villafafia also told him that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the NPA only with the PBPD Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein. l" Villafafia forwarded to Acosta, Lourie, and the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement "already binds us not to make public except as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act]," and asked, "[W]hat more does he want?" Villafafia replied, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafafia, and the West Palm Beach manager to set up a call to discuss "who we tell and how much," adding, "Nice job with a difficult negotiation." + +The final NPA, as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and M, and Villafafia, contained the following pertinent provisions: + +Charges: Epstein would plead guilty to the pending Palm Beach County indictment, plus one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense. + +Sentence: The parties would make a joint, binding recommendation for a 30-month sentence divided as follows: consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months in the county jail, without opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing and without community control or probation, followed by 12 months of community control, consecutive.13° + +Damages: As long as the identified victims proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein would not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victims' status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals + +129The West Palm Beach manager told OPR that he called Chief Reiter, who was -fine" with the outcome. + +130Withholding adjudication or sentencing referred to a special sentence in which the judge orders probation but does not formally convict the defendant of a criminal offense. See Fla. Stat. § 948.01 (2007). + +it had identified as victims.13' The USAO, with the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims, whom Epstein would pay. + +Timing: Epstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008. + +Immunity: The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein," including four named personal assistants. + +Other: Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with this agreement. + +Epstein waived his right to appeal. + +Epstein agreed that he would not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time or other rights, opportunities, and benefits not available to any other inmate. + +The federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal process held in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the agreement. Evidence "requested by or directly related to" the pending legal process, "including certain computer equipment," would be kept inviolate until all the NPA terms had been satisfied. + +Breach: The USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the agreement within 90 days of the expiration of the term of home confinement, and would be required to initiate prosecution within 60 days thereafter. + +Disclosure: The parties "anticipate[d]" that the agreement would not be made part of any public record, and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information Act request or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, it would provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure. i32 + +That evening, Leflcowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he understood would be given to Chief Reiter, stating, "I am very concerned about leaks unduly prejudicing Jeffrey [Epstein] in the media."133 He added, "I have enjoyed working with you on + +131The USAO had not informed the defense of the victims' identities at this point. The parties anticipated that the USAO would send Epstein's attorneys a list of victims when Epstein fulfilled his obligation under the NPA to enter his state guilty pleas. + +132The final NM is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Report. + +133On October 3, 2007, the Miami FBI media officer notified the USA() that the New York Post had reported that federal authorities were not going to pursue federal charges against Epstein. According to the Post, Epstein would plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes, "in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," followed by "a shorter period of house confinement," and, according to "sources," federal authorities had "agreed to drop their + +this matter." Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only "so he does not find out about it in the paper," and he concluded: "I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was fortunate to have such excellent representation." + +### VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS + +Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court. + +#### A. September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum + +The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims. Initially, Villafana reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to her for that role. Villafafia notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as the victims' representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafafia told Lefkowitz that she had never met the attorney, but he had been recommended by "a good friend in our appellate section" and by one of the district judges in Miami.134 Over the next few days, Villafafia exchanged messages with the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney. + +By this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division. Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special make the selection. Although evidently frustratecaSloman's belated proposal, Villafafia conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special be appointed to select the attorney representative, rather than having the USAO make the selection. 135 She provided Lefkowitz with + +probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the understanding that he will do prison time." Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moncyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. ABC News later reported that federal charges "could carry more substantial prison time. Now, Epstein's high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, ... may try to get him out of registering as a sex offender .. .." Scott Michels, "Money Manager Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitution Charges: Jeffrey Epstein may serve about 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitutes," ABC News, Oct. 11, 2007. + +134The "good friend" was an AUSA whom Villafana was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as a misconduct issue, alleging that Villafaiia was "closely associated" with the individual nominated for the victims' representative position. + +133In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafana commented, "[O]f course they tell me this now." + +a proposal re the special responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the special explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative. + +Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafafta, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special . More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the special as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed: + +> [T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney. + +Lefkowitz also objected to Villafafta's draft letter to the special =, asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a "mutually acceptable communication" to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims "to inform them of the resolution of the case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process." + +Villafafia forwarded Lefkowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, "Can I please just indict him [Epstein]?" Days later, emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up letter, asking that Sloman "help resolve" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims' civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafafia explained to Sloman her views on ar ments, Sloman responded, "I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to . The more `voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive between us." Villafaria agreed, noting that "[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we are getting triple-teamed."'' + +Villafalia sent a letter regarding the roles of the special and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a "follow up to our conversation yesterday," expressing "serious disagreements" with Villafafta's view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement + +136Villafana also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafafia commented. "It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding." + +that Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would "trigger profound ethical problems," in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Villafaila's view that Epstein had waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their claims, and contended that any such victims "will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes." Finally, Leflcowitz again argued that the USAO should not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for settlement under § 2255: + +> Ms. Villafafia proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victims] to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the [victims] at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the [victims]. We further believe that communications between your Office or your case agents and the [victims] might well violate Rule 6(e)(2XB) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit.137 + +Lefkowitz concluded, "I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today."I38 + +Villafafia was at that time on sick leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about crafting an addendum to the NPA to address the method of appointing an attorney representative and to articulate the representative's duties. The next day, October 11, 2007, Sloman exchanged emails with Lefkowitz about the text of a proposed addendum. + +### B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast + +On the morning after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Lefkowitz, Acosta exchanged emails with Leflcowitz, arranging to meet for breakfast the following day, on October 12, 2007, at a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously scheduled to be in West Palm Beach for a press event on October II and to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at the Marriott. + +137Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(eX2)(B) relates to secrecy of federal grand jury matters. + +133OPR did not locate any emails indicating what happened on the call. + +However, as with Villafafla's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret agreements with the defense. + +Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter to M, Acosta stated that he had "ma sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach . . . . in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process."139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta + +> assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither [the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the sentence does not violate state law. He + +However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by Sloman, adding the term "inaccurate" to describe Letkowitz's claims that Acosta had promised not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or intervene regarding Epstein's sentence.101 The draft response stated, "[S]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this."I42 + +Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafafia had recommended "her boyfriend's partner" to serve as attorney representative." Acosta said that "the way this was reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast," which was inaccurate because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting.144 When asked about + +139In fact, Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. It is possible that Acosta was not aware of Sloman's efforts or had forgotten about them when writing the December 7, 2007 letter. + +140This letter is discussed further in the following section of this Report. + +141OPR did not find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent. + +142Sloman's initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had "clarified" Lefkowitz's claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting. + +13 As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafafta recommended was a friend of another AUSA whom Villafafia was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafafta or the other AUSA. + +144For example, the Miami Herald's November 2018 investigative report stated that "on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein's crimes and the number of people involvedm rhe deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe ...." Julie K. "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,"Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed + +Lefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were "several instances" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading. + +Emails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who also later reported to Villafaiia that Lefkowitz's "suggested revision has been rejected." Other emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting. + +#### C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum + +A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—citing a scheduling conflict sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in state court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email, Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he "didn't want to dictate a schedule to the state."145 Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed to the postponement. + +With Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he quickly came up against the problem Villafafia and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October 12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative's activities Epstein would be required to reimburse. Although it appeared that progress was being made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman identifying "areas of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what we accomplished this week," and raised "unnecessary" issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein, and Villafafia was concerned that "this may be the real reason for the delay in the . . . plea. She thinks that [Epstein] want[s] to knock that lawsuit out before the guilty plea to deter others." Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims. + +almost three weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis at Chapter Two. Pan Three, Section IV.E.2. + +13 Assuming Acosta made the remark Lefkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed Villafafia to omit language requiring the State Attorney's Office to take action by a certain date, because he was "not comfortable with requiring the State" to comply with a specific deadline. During his interview, Acosta told OPR that "we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney." + +On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some defense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to "satisfy your concern."146 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special were attached, Sloman ended by stating, "[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB tomorrow ...." + +Nonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that Epstein had "every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith," and that the defense letter was not intended to be "a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NPA]." Lefkowitz added: + +> I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine finality with regard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the Agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release. + +Sloman forwarded the letter to Villafafia, commenting, "Wait [until] you see this one." Villafafia replied: + +> Welcome to my world. I love the way that they want to interpret this agreement. + +It also looks like they are planning to ask for and receive a sentence far lower than the one we agreed to. Has anyone talked to Barry [Krischer] about this? Maybe this is the real reason for the delay in entering the guilty plea? We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them than an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to "cold call" the girls. + +146The defense raised issues conccming the attorney representative, the statutory limit on damages, and inclusion of certain victims. + +Why don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him? + +Acosta also weighed in, sending both Villafaiia and Sloman an email with a subject line that read "This has to stop," in which he stated: + +Just read the letter. + +- 1. We specifically refused to include the provision saying that we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told him we could not agree to a gag order using those words. +- 2. The purpose of the agreement was not an out of court settlement. Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk re how to mr ed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [to the special about how to select an attorney representative] at this point. + +Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent to Lefkowitz a new dratl addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's tenns.' + +On October 25 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to serve as special outlining the special duties. A few days later, on October 29, 2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and signed the NPA addendum.108 Villafafia's name was printed as the USAO representative, but at Villafafia's request, Sloman signed the addendum for her on behalf of the USAO. + +Villafafia later emailed Sloman thanking him for "the advice and the pep talk," which apparently related to the defense attorneys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial selection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Villafafia explained to Sloman: + +> The funny thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or spoken to [the private attorney] before I asked him if he would be willing to take on this case. . . . But as soon as you mentioned the appearance problem, I saw where the problem would arise and agreed that the Special would be a safer route. I just worry that the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims. + +Sloman responded that defense counsel had "put an . . . insidious spin" on Villafafia's role in proposing the private attorney, but Sloman added, "I hope that you understand that these ad hominem attacks against you do not diminish in our eyes what you and the agents have accomplished." + +147Acosta and Villafana were copied on this email. + +18 The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report. + +#### D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea + +The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months. + +On October 29, 2007, Villafaria emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Villafafta pointed out that the NPA required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz's attempts to limit the USAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Villafafia noted that the USAO needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's Office and the victims' attorney "to [e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement." + +That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek assured Sloman that the "plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that was agreed on by all for the sentencing."'" Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month show that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008 date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was "unacceptable," while the defense contended that Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.1% + +#### E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims + +With Epstein's plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of the NPA, this time within the Department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein. 151 At Fisher's request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher's Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could + +I" The NPA had required Epstein's plea and sentencing to occur by October 26, 2007, but provided that Epstein could report to begin serving his sentence on January 4, 2008. + +150State v. Epstein, No. 2006-CF-9454, Notice of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007). + +151In a meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Leficowitz informed them that Starr had placed a call to Fisher. + +not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about Epstein's wish to have the Department review the case. t52 + +On November 28, 2007, Starr requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision and alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General "to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component" of the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Start letter, Sloman forwarded it to Villafafia, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision evolved. Villafafia responded that she was "going through all of the ways in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict." + +In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his thoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lourie's request, Villafaiia sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was "pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims." He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA "other than to say that she agrees with it." During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her "agree[ing] with it" referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she "played no role in" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed. + +As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report, Villafafia planned to notify the victims about the NPA and its § 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr, but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no evidence that it did. + +Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise his concerns about victim notification with Villafafia or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein's evident efforts to stop the NPA from being enforced: + +132In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: "He was very nice. &:p• rne on the phone for [a] half hour talking about [P]epperdine," referring to the law school where Starr served as I= + +[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with that result. + +[You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor General] Starr, former United States Attorney and Messrs. Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The defense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt the Agreement. Since then counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement. + +It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the Agreement. + +In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafafia's and Sloman's input, Acosta responded to the substance of Starr's November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter, but she conjectured that "probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the Criminal Division wasn't] going to respond."'" + +In his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote: + +The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided .. . Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. + +Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO's intent was "to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta documented the USAO's understanding of the operation of the NPA's § 2255 + +133The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr's letter raised issucs that had not been previously raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance. + +provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded: + +Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. + +I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. + +..... + +I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. . . . We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. + +Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher) that + +the defense "[f]irst and foremost" reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein "has no intention of unwinding the agreement." + +On December 7, 2007—the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starr the defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence "Affirmation" of the NPA and its addendum, signed by Epstein.1S4 + +#### F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaiia of Improper Conduct + +#### 1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafatia + +On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's "Affirmation" to the USAO, Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two "independent ethics opinions"—one authored by prominent criminal defense attorney and former U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and the other, by a prominent retired federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, arguing against the NPA's use of the civil damages recovery provision under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 "as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution." + +Days later, on December II, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the "background and conduct of the investigation." These submissions repeated arguments previously raised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz addressed the "improper involvement" of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized Villafafia for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in "unprecedented federal overreaching" by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, "insist[ing]" that the State Attorney's Office "charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate," and requiring that Epstein plead guilty to a registrable offense, a "harsh" condition that was "unwarranted."I55 + +Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that was "tainted" by the lead PBPD Detective's misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and interview summaries, leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed information that "compromised the federal investigation." Finally, Lefkowitz criticized federal involvement in the state plea process as a violation of "the tenets of the Petite Policy." In a second, 13-page submission, Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein's complaints about the § 2255 component of the NPA, arguing, among other things, that federal prosecutors "should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements." + +154The Affirmation read: "I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007." + +155Villafana sent Letkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally. + +Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein "unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind" the NPA. + +#### 2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel + +After reviewing Starr's and Lefkowitz's letters, Sloman notified Villafafia that "in light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence" he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, to review de novo the evidence underlying the proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafafia to provide Senior with all the state and FBI investigative materials. + +In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz's December I I, 2007 submissions.156 The meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr, Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during this meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised a new argument—that the state charge to which Epstein had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case. + +#### 3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions + +Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may "have no alternative but to seek review in Washington." Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and "to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date." Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previously submitted defense submissions, reviewing issues discussed at the meeting, and advising that Epstein sought a "prompt, independent, expedited review" of the evidence by "you or someone you trust." The letter reiterated Epstein's position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under state law or a violation of federal law, and with respect to the NPA's § 2255 provision, that it was "improper" to require Epstein to pay damages "to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim" under the statute. + +156As Assistant Attorney General Fisher's Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr would speak to Acosta to "resolve then fairly narrow issues" raised in Starr's correspondence with Acosta. Acosta had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December I I forwarded to Fisher. + +#### 4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It + +Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have "any insight" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Leflcowitz, Acosta sent to a letter proposing to resolve "our disagreements over interpretation[]" by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read: + +> Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. + +Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays.'" + +Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised "several troubling questions" and that "the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement."'" In a follow-up letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that "any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties," and that defense counsel had "at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible." + +Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was "increasingly frustrated" by Epstein's desire to take an "Ilth hour appeal" to the Department so soon before the + +137 As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea. + +158After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was "inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable." In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007 NPA modification letter. + +scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by January 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafafta, Sloman said that Epstein's local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts "did not fit the proposed state charge," and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that assessment. 159 The next day, Villafafta sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article reporting that Epstein's state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafafia an email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: "'I [Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not registrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is."'16° + +#### 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct + +On January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney at her request. According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things, alleged that the USAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national news reporter, and "suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein." After Acosta excused himself to attend another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with "without a witness a " she left. Later that day, Acostaand Sloman spoke by phone with Stan-, Lefkowitz, and til, who expressed concern about the "leak" to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA, and pressed for the "watered-down resolution," which they specified would mean allowing Epstein to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement, avoid serving time in jail, and not register as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman's handwritten notes of the conversation reads: "We're back to where we started in September." + +That evening, Villafafta expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was affecting the USAO's ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact with "potential sources of information" in the Virgin Islands, and re-initiating proceedings to obtain Epstein's computers. + +In the meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a "soup to nuts" review of the Epstein investigation, reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence Villafafia had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined + +139 Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident, but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor. + +160Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie, Villafafia, Krischer, and Belohlavck to discuss the state resolution was only four months prior, not six, Lefkowitz's reference was likely to the September 12, 2007 meeting. + +that it was to establish whether, if the plea fell apart, he, as Chief, would agree "that we can go forward with" the charges. He did recall being concerned, after completing the review, that "we did not have .. . a lot of victims ... lined up and ready to testify" and that some victims might "not be favorable for us." Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound, and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case. + +#### 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence + +Notwithstanding Senior's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz that they "appreciate[d]" that the defense wanted a "fresh face" to conduct a review, and noted that the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the "in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the defense." They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to "come on board" and that CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having "a national perspective" to conduct a fresh review in light of the defense submissions. Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney who Villafaila understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not "consummate" the NPA. The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case materials, and to meet with Villafafia to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After one such meeting, Villafafta wrote to Acosta and Sloman: + +> We just finished interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could have been there to see how much this has affected them. + +> One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice within a 20 minute span. She regained her composure enough to continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again, so we stopped the interview. + +> The second girl . . . told us that she was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. + +These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far, and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them. t61 + +The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases. She told OPR that in her view, the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges for a prosecution: some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein; some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages, and thus could have been charged as accomplices; some had "drug histories and ... things like that"; some could appear to have been "complicit"; and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims. She did not regard + +161Villafana added, "We have four more girls coming in tomorrow. Can I persuade you to attend?" + +these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a "crap shoot." In addition, she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims, however, "things just stopped" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team. + +#### IX. FEBRUARY —JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW + +Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions.' Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through June 2008. + +Villafaha became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised: + +> The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code. Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "child prostitution" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest" as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual. + +In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS "has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter," he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and lijf we determine that the case should be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you." OPR did not locate a response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification. + +162On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others "that may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591." USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division, in writing, "[alt the outset of a criminal investigation . .. that may implicate federal criminal civil rights statutes, ... and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury." The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors. The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the case was of "national interest," and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter. + +![](_page_130_Diagram_1.jpeg) + +## A. February — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division + +On February 21, 2008, soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims, Oosterbaan spoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS's role. In a subsequent email to Villafafia, Sloman, and Senior, Oosterbaan explained: + +> I told [Lefkowitz] that all I want to do is help the process move forward, and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh and objective look at the case and their arguments [then] that is what I want to do. I told him that if that's what they want — if that is what will help the process to move forward — then I don't think it's advisable for CEOS to partner with the USAO on the case. He wants to think about that (and probably talk to his co-counsel about + +whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today. + +Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to "make sure the defense is okay with that," to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review. Oosterbaan explained to OPR that "the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new problems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with it, tell us now." + +By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS role should be "review only." Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice, and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was "ready to proceed immediately" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that "in the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation," but that, "should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA]." Sloman forwarded this email to Villafafta, who responded, "Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls . . . ." + +The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008.163 Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and "made it clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the prosecution." On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express "concern" about Oosterbaan's participation in the case, and indicated that "they may ask for more senior involvement." Acosta "informed them that they certainly had the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked." + +The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email: + +We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan, and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case. . . . However, due to our misgivings (engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself[)] we may well find it necessary to + +163The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January, but never got scheduled for that time. On February 25, Sloman informed Leficowilz that the USAO was "very concerned about additional delays" in the Departmental review process, but would agree to a short extension of the March 3 deadline "to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review." + +appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr] and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to our seeking appellate review within DOJ. + +Starr, Lefkowitz, and Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team. Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a "listening session" with Starr doing most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled "some back and forth" because the defense team was saying "some outrageous things." Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a "weak pitch" that was not effective. + +After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that "have caused us serious concern," including the following: + +> "Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities"; I64 + +> the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that "had no connection to the conduct at issue"; + +> the nomination "of an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case" to serve as the victims' attorney representative; + +> the "insistence" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing; and + +> the purported existence of a "relationship" between Sloman and a law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein. 165 + +164This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaha's understanding that the defense objected to USAO communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, "Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney's Office . . . raises concern." In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafana noted that she did not know whether a state "misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact with the State Attorney's Office, so I haven't spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months." Villafatia later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating with him, she explained to Krischer that "it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication." + +165In approximately 2001, Sloman briefly Ief the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney + +In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafaña of “encouraging civil litigation” against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. + +Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS’s review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein. + +Oosterbaan’s letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations “would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.” The letter specified that CEOS’s review addressed the “narrow question” of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a *de novo* review of the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate” and that Acosta “could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case.” + +On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta “not shunt me off to one of your staff.” Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS’s letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a “novel application” of relevant federal statutes;166 (2) CEOS’s conclusion that federal prosecution would not be “an abuse of discretion” was “hardly an endorsement” of the case;167 (3) CEOS did not address Epstein’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) “critical new evidence,” in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed “that + +--- + +represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman’s past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims’ potential civil lawsuits against Epstein. + +166 Oosterbaan’s letter stated, “Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute.” This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to “adult prostitution where no force, fraud or coercion was used.” Oosterbaan stated that “the Department’s efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children”—even if wholly local—and “the exploitation of adults through force, fraud, or coercion.” He then observed that the fact “that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive.” + +167 Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered “the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.” + +federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case."168 Leflcowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should the defense be unable to "resolve this matter directly with" Acosta. + +Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with the "trial team." That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villafafia or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO had "bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider" Epstein's objections, but "these objections have finally been exhausted." Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June 2, 2008. + +#### B. May — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General + +Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for review "of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter."169 In the letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed "a very limited review" of the Epstein case, but contended that "full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department." They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was "unwarranted," and that "the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities." They followed up with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted "the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws" and "the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws ... to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton" required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein "entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton," and that there was "little doubt" that the USAO "never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another 'John.'" This was the first defense submission mentioning Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics. + +In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case "all the more exigent." John Roth, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General's office. I" Meanwhile, the Criminal + +168Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, defendants are permitted to depose victims, and Epstein's counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims, including victims who were not part of the state prosecution, to learn information about the federal investigation. + +1Q9 In addition to having served as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, Whitley had served as Acting Associate Attorney General, the Department's third-highest position. + +170On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed. + +Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as "an enormous amount of material" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of the proposed char in documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to + +As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafafia wrote to her immediate supervisor: "Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him." Villafaiia and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or "we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly."17I + +Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions. + +Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and because he believed the NPA was a "dead letter," he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the "mission" of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA reached the "right balance" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, "[W]e heard an appeal.... [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting and we didn't give him [any] relief." Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein's arguments "felt that it was a sympathetic appeal." In particular, he told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was "ludicrous," and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated "just seemed unserious." + +171Villafana urged Sloman, "Someone really needs to talk to Barry." + +On Monday, June 23, 2008, Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them that the office had "completed a thorough review" of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the "considerable discretion" vested by the Department in U.S. Attorneys. He added, "Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." + +Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Villafaña notified defense counsel that Epstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the NPA by entering his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On June 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to take defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case. + +Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached "the end of a long and arduous road" and adding, "While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize that we have filed and argued our 'appellate motions' and lost. . . . I would like to have . . . some closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come, neither of us will harbor any ill will over the matter." + +## **X. JUNE 2008 – JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE** + +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafaña renewed her requests to Epstein's local attorneys Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's Office, noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA. After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form, which was not yet signed, Villafaña sent another letter to Goldberger and Black, informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with the requirements of the NPA. Specifically, as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of 12 months in "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility," followed consecutively by "18 months Community Control" with a special condition that the defendant serve "the first 6 months [of community control] in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility." Villafaña objected to the community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to "make a binding recommendation of eighteen months *imprisonment*, which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail." In a subsequent email to Sloman, Villafaña recounted that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger, who "swore" that Epstein would be in custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence." Villafaña added that Goldberger "let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail, he would be at the stockade . . . . Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with [the State Attorney] months ago that Epstein would be at [the jail], this certainly violates the spirit of the [NPA] agreement."172 Villafaña told Sloman, "[S]omething smells very bad." + +--- + +172 The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum, medium, and minimum custody adult males, as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates. *See* + +The next day, Villafafta asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the word "imprisoned" after "6 months," and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafatla, however, did not ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility" meant the jail, rather than the Stockade. The final signed plea agreement form further clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, Epstein would be "sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility . . . to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence," followed by "12 months Community Control." The word "imprisoned" was hand written after "6 months" but then crossed out and replaced by "jail sentence."'" + +#### A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court + +Epstein, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, appeared in Palm Beach County court on June 30, 2008, and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution.'74 At the plea hearing, which Villafatla and the FBI case agent attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts of the case; instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal information: + +> [Bjetween August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit [prostitution] on three or more occasions. And . . . between August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a minor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach County also.175 + +The court found this to be "a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas," and engaged in a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epstein's victims: + +The Court: Are there more than one victim? + +Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. + +http://www.pbso.org/inside-pbso/corrections/generalt The "Stockade" was a "lower security 'camp-style' facility" co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Both were administered by the Sheriff's Office. + +173Plea in the Circuit Court, signed June 30, 2008, and filed in court. Villafaria complained to Goldberger when she learned later about the change from "imprisoned" to "jail sentence." + +174The Information is attached as Exhibit 5. + +173State v. Epstein, case nos. 06-CF-9454 and 08-CF-9381, Transcript of Plea Conference at 41.42 (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, June 30, 2008) (Plea Hearing Transcript). Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language of the charge as the factual basis for the plea was the typical practice for a state court plea. + +The Court: Are all the victims in both these cases in agreement with the terms of the plea? + +Ms. Bclohlavek: I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and I believe, yes. + +The Court: And with regard to the victims under age eighteen, is that victim's parents or guardian in agreement with the plea? + +Ms. Belohlavek: That victim is not under age 18 any more and that's why we spoke with her counsel. + +The Court: And she is in agreement with the plea? + +Ms. Belohlavek: Yes.176 + +When the court asked if the plea was "in any way tied to any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions," Goldberger and Belohlavek, with Epstein present, spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the "confidential" non-prosecution agreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court. + +After the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas, and imposed sentence on him pursuant to the plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately. + +In the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome, and Villafafia received several congratulatory messages. Oosterbaan wrote, "Congratulations, M —at long last! Your work on this matter was truly exceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well." One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted, "This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination." Another wrote, "If it had not been for you, he would have gotten away with it." The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked briefly with Villafafia told her, "But for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere mining another child's life." One victim's attorney stated, "[great job of not letting this guy off." But Villafafia was not satisfied with the outcome, responding to one colleague, "After all the hell they put me through, I don't feel like celebrating 18 months. He should be spending 18 years in jail." + +Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him "to offer congratulations" and "to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, + +176Plea Hearing Transcript at 20, 42. OPR was unable to determine to which victims Belohlavek was referring, and Belohlovek did not recall during her OPR interview, but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either the state or federal investigations. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the nature of the charges (that is, involving prostitution), she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were - victims" whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing. + +Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr."177 In that same later public statement, Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who "all sought to make peace" with him; Acosta referred to it as "a proud moment." + +On July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department, in federal court in Miami, alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA; a second victim joined the petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter Three of this Report. + +#### B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release + +A few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villafafia reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low-security Stockade, rather than the Main Detention Center where county prisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriff's Office, Epstein was eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of work release had not been addressed explicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether any state, county, or Sheriff's Office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day. + +The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed, when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, "so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the [NPA] he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release." + +In November 2007, Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAO's understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in "continuous confinement," pointing out that the NPA "clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated." Sloman noted that Florida's Department of Corrections's rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release, and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release program. Sloman concluded that the USAO "is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is `treated no better and no worse than anyone else' convicted of the same offense," and that if Epstein were to be granted work release, the USAO would "investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case."'" + +However, also in November, State Attorney Krischer told Sloman that Epstein was, in fact, eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place + +In Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call, but acknowledged that it could have occurred. + +178Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz. + +until after Epstein completed his sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition "if it is in the agreement."179 On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if the State Attorney's Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release. Belohlavek was noncommittal, and when the agents asked that she include language in the state's plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney. Is° Krischer later told OPR that work release was "within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office." The state's plea agreement with Epstein did not address the issue of work release. + +The day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Villafafia and her immediate supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official to discuss work release. According to Villafafia, the official told them, "Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release," a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a jail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack Goldberger to Villafafia just days before the plea was entered, when he "specifically told [Villafafia] that [Epstein] would not get work release." Villafafia alerted the Sheriff's Office official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked "every day" for a "couple of years" at the "Florida Science Foundation," that entity did not even exist until November 2007.181 Moreover, the address Epstein provided to the court for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the office of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafafia and her supervisor asked that the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release. + +Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafaila was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get work release, and he would not have contradicted her efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein would be "treated just like everyone else," but that, as shown by "our subsequent communications with the [S]tate [A]tomey's [O]ffice," having Epstein on work release "was not what our office envisioned." + +In August 2008, Villafafia spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's compliance with the NPA, and raised the issue of work release. Villafafia later reported to Acosta and Sloman that Black assured her he had "reminded the team that . . . 18 months IN JAIL is a material term of the agreement." + +The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application. On October 10, 2008, less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed him into the work release program, permitting him to leave the Stockade + +119 According to Sloman, Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be "treated" as a "sex offender" and that' just like any other sex offender, he can petition the court for work release." + +IRO In the November 16, 2007 email, on which she copied Acosta, Villafana also indicated that she was "reviewing all of the statutes" to determine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work release. In a subsequent email, the FBI case agents informed Villafafia that they had also spoken with a "jail supervisor," who advised them that although Epstein, as a sexual offender, would not qualify for work release, the judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration. + +181During the plea hearing, Epstein told the court he was "President" of the Florida Science Foundation, it had been in existence for 15 years. and he worked there "every day." Plea Hearing Transcript at 27-29. + +for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the "Florida Science Foundation" office in West Palm Beach.182 In mid-November 2008, Villafafia learned that Epstein was on work release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an email, and asked, "Can I indict him now?" + +On November 24, 2008, Villafafia sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that the USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafafia reminded Black that she had "more than a dozen e-mails" expressing the USAO's "insistence" that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months, and that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant "confinement for twentyfour hours a day." Villafafia noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word "imprisoned" into the plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term "jail sentence." Villafafia told counsel: + +> The [USAO's] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e., confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment. The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this agreement. + +According to Villafafia, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work release coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release. + +On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was still heavily involved in the Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment.' 83 As a result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein. + +Also on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Villafafia's letter, acknowledging that Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program, but denying that Epstein was in breach of the NPA. 184 Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release; the NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate; + +Ile Michele Dargan and David Rogers, "Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein 'treated differently,' Palm Beach Daily News, Dec. 13, 2008. + +183The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December 8, 2008. + +184Black fonvarded the email to Sloman, noting that Villafana "is very concerned about anything Epstein does" and that the defense team would "abide by" Sloman's decision on the issue. + +Florida law treated work release as part of confinement; and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta "recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release Program" and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's right to be notified "if [Epstein] is allowed to participate in a work release program." + +On December 3, 2008, in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafafia sent Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein's participation in the work release program: + +> It appears that, since Day I, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] . have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged correctly. (Remember that Krisher [sic] also went along with letting us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when Epstein's folks and Krisher [sic) believed that . . . the offense was not registrable.) Krisher [sic] and Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed at the Palm [Beach County] Jail, not the Stockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release if at the jail.... + +> As part of his work release, Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriff's deputies to provide him with "protection." It appears that he is paying between \$3000 and \$4100 per week for this service, despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and the Sheriff's Office itself) from having "any business transactions with inmates . .. while they are in the custody or supervision of the Sheriff . . . ." + +Villafafia added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO "should not budge on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration" requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation, Villafafia also pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USA() "for failing to keep them informed about the investigation," and the office had "an obligation to inform all of the victims upon Epstein's release." + +On December 11, 2008, Villafafia wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to alert the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's work release application contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Villafafia pointed out that Epstein's application identified his place of employment as the "Florida Science Foundation," and the telephone number listed in the application for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the telephone number to the law firm of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafafia also noted that the individual identified in the work release file as Epstein's "supervisor" at the "Florida Science Foundation" had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per week and earned no compensation, but that same individual had represented to + +the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per day. Finally, Villafafia pointed out that Epstein's purported "supervisor"—who as the Foundation's vice president was subordinate to Epstein, the Foundation's president—had promised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the "supervisor" lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor Epstein's activities on a day-to-day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor responded to Villafafia's letter. + +In March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it in a subsequent email, "a relaxed drink and conversation," which included a discussion of the Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman, expressing appreciation for Sloman's "assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers" Epstein's sentence "as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate." Sloman responded: + +> Regarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the terms and conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean that, if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in-home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted we will object. Naturally, I also expect that no one on behalf of Mr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or home detention. + +A week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for Sloman's "willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epstein's sentence," as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment, but adding, "[L]et's put any call off for a while." + +Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to his home for a 12-month period following his release from prison. On July 22, 2009, almost 13 months after he began serving his sentence, Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement.' At this time, he registered as a sexual offender. + +#### XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS + +In the summer of 2009, allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of investment bank Bear Stearns, and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that + +INS In Florida, what is commonly referred to as house arrest is actually the Community Control supervision program. Florida Statute § 948.001(3) defines the program as "a form of intensive, supervised custody in the community." + +cooperation.' When Villafafia spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York, however, an AUSA there told Villafafia that It]hey had never heard of Epstein, and he had not cooperated with the Bear Steams case.'" During her OPR interview, Villafafia told OPR that to her knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was "completely false." + +Villafafia and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA. In August 2009, Villafatia alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of his home detention—he had been spotted walking on the beach, and when stopped by the police, he claimed that he was walking "to work" at an office nearly eight miles from his home. Villafafia passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office.188 By letter dated September I, 2009, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's agreement to transfer supervision of the community control phase of Epstein's sentence to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein maintained his "primary residence." In response, Villafatia notified Black that the USAO opposed such a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA. Three months later, Sloman met with Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of Epstein's community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein's supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +After serving his year on home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on July 21, 2010. + +186See "Out of Prison," New York Post, July 23, 2009. + +187The New York AUSA had emailed Villafaiia, "We're the prosecutors in [the Bear Steams case] . . . We saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never heard of until this morning. We've since teamed that he is pretty unsavory." Villafana reported to Sloman and other supervisors that she "just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Steams case in [the Eastern District of] New York. They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was cooperating with the feds on the Bear Steams prosecution. They had never heard of him." In a second email, she confirmed, "There has been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York, from what they told me." + +1P8 Black later wrote a letter to Villafaha claiming that Epstein had "specific authorization to walk to work," the distance between his home and office was "less than three miles," and when the matter was "fully investigated," Epstein was found to be in "total compliance" with the requirements of his sentence. + +## CHAPTER TWO + +#### PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS + +#### I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK + +OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known, unambiguous obligation imposed by law, rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or policy. In determining whether an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual findings. + +An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney (1) engages in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits; or (2) engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence, and that consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when (1) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard, of an obligation or standard; (2) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard, that the attorney's conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he or she will violate, or cause a violation of, the obligation or standard; and (3) the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation. + +If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct, made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor judgment when, faced with alternative courses of action, he or she chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take. Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard. In addition, an attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding. A mistake, on the other hand, results from an excusable human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances. + +An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and standards, consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct, or took + +affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or standard. + +#### II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT + +#### A. The United States Attorneys' Manual + +Among its many provisions, the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) includes general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed, and desirable practices to be followed, by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities.'" The goal of the USAM is to promote "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws," and to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made "rationally and objectively on the merits of each case." USAM § 9-27.001. + +Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of government attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms, with a view to providing guidance rather than mandating results. Id.; see also USAM § 9-27.120, comment ("It is expected that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law enforcement responsibilities .... However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case."); USAM § 9-27.110, comment ("Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law."). However, USAM § 9-27.130 provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM § 9-27.130 states that each U.S. Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth in the USAM, and that serious, unjustified departures from the principles set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate. + +U.S. Attorneys have "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and may modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9.27-140. The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource Manual, which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecutions. + +#### 1. USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution + +Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them. USAM § 9-2.020 explicitly authorizes a U.S. Attorney "to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to + +IR9 In 2018, the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual. In assessing the subjects' conduct, OPR relies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue. Accordingly, unless otherwise noted. citations in this Report are to the 1997 edition of the USAM, as revised through January 2007. + +him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise." Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM § 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense, unless (I) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor "should" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate. + +USAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person: + +- 1. Federal law enforcement priorities;19° +- 2. The nature and seriousness of the offense;191 +- 3. The deterrent effect of prosecution; +- 4. The person's culpability in connection with the offense; +- 5. The person's history with respect to criminal activity; +- 6. The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and +- 7. The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted. + +The USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should weigh "all relevant considerations," including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains: + +190 A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities. + +191A comment to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim. The comment further cautions that when restitution is at issue, "care should be taken . . . to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime." + +Some offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local jurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason, when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal prosecution. + +Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, “the Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships or other circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a thorough and successful prosecution.” + +USAM § 9-27.260 identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on consideration of the person’s race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities, or beliefs; the prosecutor’s “own personal feelings” about the person or the victim; or the possible effect of the decision on the prosecutor’s own professional or personal circumstances. When opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM § 9-27.270. + +## **2. USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy** + +Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and federal authorities, even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the Department has a long-standing policy, known as the Petite policy, governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conduct.192 The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set forth in USAM § 9-2.031, “Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy (‘Petite Policy’),” which contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on the substantially same act or transaction involved in a prior state or federal proceeding. The policy applies “whenever there has been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached.” + +In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist. The prerequisites are as follows: + +1. (1) The matter must involve a substantial federal interest. The determination whether a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis. Matters + +--- + +192 *See Rinaldi v. United States*, 434 U.S. 22, 27-29 (1977); *Petite v. United States*, 361 U.S. 529 (1960). + +that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters. + +- (2) The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated." In general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction, if the prior sentence was "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines-is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." The government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. +- (3) + +However, the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed prosecution. + +The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts "to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved." If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy. + +#### 3. USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements + +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a plea agreement. USAM §§ 9-27.330; 9-27.400. Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure I I (c)(1).193 Regardless of whether the plea agreement is offered pre-charge or post-charge, the prosecutor's plea bargaining "must honestly reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendant's conduct." USAM § 9-27.400, comment.194 The importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM § 9-27.430, which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the + +193As previously noted, Rule I I (c)( I XC) permits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a specific sentence, subject to the court's acceptance of the agreement. + +See also USAM § 9-27.300 ("Once the decision to prosecute has been made, the attorney for the government should charge ... the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct, and that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction."). + +defendant's criminal conduct, has an adequate factual basis, makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and order of restitution, and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others. USAM § 9-27.420 specifies: + +> In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea agreement, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including: + +- 1. The defendant's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; +- 2. The defendant's history with respect to criminal activity; +- 3. The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses charged; +- 4. The defendant's remorse or contrition and his/her willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct; +- 5. The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of the case; +- 6. The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial; +- 7. The probable effect on witnesses; +- 8. The probable sentence or other consequences if the defendant is convicted; +- 9. The public interest in having the case tried rather than disposed of by a guilty plea; +- 10. The expense of trial and appeal; +- II. The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other pending cases; and +- 12. The effect upon the victim's right to restitution. + +### 4. USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements + +USAM § 9-27.600 authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation. The provision explains that a non-prosecution agreement is appropriate for this purpose when, in the prosecutor's judgment, the person's timely cooperation "appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation are unavailable or would not be effective." A comment to this provision explains that such "other means" include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for + +cooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a “use immunity” order. The comment observes that these alternative means “are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct” and “should be given serious consideration in the first instance.” USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However, USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person’s cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who “is likely to become of major public interest.” + +These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation. + +### **5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity** + +Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. *See* USAM §§ 9-23.100 *et seq.* + +### **6. USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest** + +Department employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related laws, rules, regulations, and policies. *See, generally*, USAM § 1-4.000 *et seq.* Specifically, a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401-402. In addition, a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee’s component, with the concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employee’s participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Department’s programs and operations. The determination must be made in writing. *See* 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-502. + +### **B. Other Department Policies** + +#### **1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges** + +The Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on September 22, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding “Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing” (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies “designed to ensure that all federal + +prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives” of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act “in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing practices.”195 + +The Ashcroft Memo directed that, “in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case,” except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not “readily provable” if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government’s ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft Memo explains that the “basic policy” “requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable” and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. + +The policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges “in other exceptional circumstances” with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or “designated supervisory attorney.” As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney’s Office is “particularly over-burdened,” the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve. The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that “[c]harges may be declined . . . pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent” with the policies established by the Memo. + +On January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum entitled “Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing.” That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors “must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses,” and defined that term as the offenses that would “generate the most substantial sentence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any statutorily required consecutive sentence. + +Importantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line prosecutor’s ability to decline “readily provable” charges in their entirety, no such restriction is placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In addition, the policy applies to “readily provable” charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor + +--- + +195 The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided *United States v. Booker*, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Those Guidelines were the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images. + +flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a "good faith doubt" that the law or evidence supports the charge. + +#### 2. Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens + +On April 28, 1995, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled "Deportation of Criminal Aliens:' directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States. In pertinent part, this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with alien defendants. These tools include (1) stipulated administrative deportation orders in connection with plea agreements; (2) deportation as a condition of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3853(d); and (3) judicial deportation orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). The memorandum further directs: + +> All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, absent such circumstances, Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most appropriate in a particular case. Exceptions to this policy must have the written approval of the United States Attorney. + +See also USAM § 9-73.520. A "criminal alien" is a foreign national who has been convicted of a crime. t% + +Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based "on the conviction for an offense to which the alien will plead guilty," provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1251 as an offense that causes an alien to be deported. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2XA)(i), any alien who is convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" within five years after the date of entry (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status), and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer, is deportable. + +#### C. Case Law + +#### 1. Prosecutorial Discretion + +On many occasions, the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978), the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutor's threat during plea negotiations to seek more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense originally charged. The defendant, Hayes, opted not to plead guilty to the original offense, and + +196 According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "The term `criminal alien' refers to aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol." See U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Enforcement Statistics, Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year 2020, available at https://www.cbp.govinewsroom/stats/cbp-enforcementstatistics/criminal-alien-statistics. + +the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges. Hayes was thereafter convicted and sentenced under the new indictment. The state court of appeals rejected Hayes's challenge to his conviction, concluding that the prosecutor's decision to indict on more serious charges was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. Hayes filed for review of his conviction and sentence in federal court, and although Hayes lost at the district court level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor's conduct constituted impermissible vindictive prosecution. + +The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Court opined that "acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process." *Id.* at 363. A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, "the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, *rests entirely in his discretion*." *Id.* at 364 (emphasis added). The Court explained that selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. *Id.* + +These principles were reiterated in *Wayte v. United States*, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government's policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in *Wayte* claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were "vocal" opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the government has "broad discretion" in deciding whom to prosecute, and that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutor's decision is based on an unjustifiable standard. *Id.* at 607-08. Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to have a discriminatory effect, the claim of selective prosecution failed. + +In *Imbler v. Pachtman*, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the Supreme Court considered whether a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the defendant's constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him. The Court held that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case," conduct that is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages. *Id.* at 430-31. In *Harrington v. Almy*, 977 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1992), the court applied *Imbler* to a challenge to a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. The court noted that "given the availability of immunity for the decision *to* charge, it becomes even more important that symmetrical protection be available for the decision *not to* charge." *Id.* at 41 (emphasis in original). + +Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in *Heckler v. Chaney*, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that an agency's decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-706. + +## **2. Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party** + +Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party arises in two contexts. First, defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea + +when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations. Numerous courts have made clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a promise of leniency towards a third party or in response toii or cutor's threat to prosecute a third party if a plea is not entered. See, e.g., United States v. 909 F.2d 738, 74142 (2d Cir. 1990) (rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by the government's insistence that a defendant's wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he pled guilty); v. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (in order to satisfy "heavy burden" of establishing that the government had not acted "in good faith," a defendant challenging voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against the defendant's pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe the defendant's wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her); Stinson v. State, 839 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla. App. 2003) ("In cases involving . . . a promise not to prosecute a third party, the government must act in good faith . . . [and] must have probable cause to charge the third party."). + +The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors' promises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. 1997), as consideration for the defendant's guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant's niece and nephew, who had all been charged as a result of the same incident. When the state reneged and attempted to prosecute the niece and nephew, the trial court dismissed the charges against them, and the state appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that under contract law principles, the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were therefore entitled to enforce it. + +Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. + +#### D. State Bar Rules + +During the period relevant to this Report, the five subject attorneys were members of the bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in which they held membership.197 In determining which rules apply, OPR applied the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Local Rules) and the choice-of-law provisions of each applicable bar. Local Rule 11.1(f) incorporates rules governing the admission, practice, peer review, and discipline of attorneys (Attorney Admission Rules).198 Attorney Admission Rule 4(d) provides that any U.S. Attorney or AUSA employed full-time by the government may appear and participate in particular actions or proceedings on behalf of the United States in the attorney's official capacity without petition for admission. Any attorney so appearing + +197 The subjects' membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPR's conclusions in this case. + +1911 These rules have been in effect since December 1994. + +is subject to all rules of the court.'" Attorney Admission Rule 6(bX2XA) makes clear that attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC). Moreover, the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state's rules of professional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct. + +#### 1. FRPC 4-1.1 — Competence + +FRPC 4-1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.200 Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors relevant to determining a lawyer's competence to handle a particular matter include "the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's training and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field." The comment further notes that "(i]n many instances the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner." With respect to particular matters, competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem. The comment to Rule 4-1.1 explains that "[t]he required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence." + +### 2. FRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence + +FRPC 4-1.3 specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A comment to this rule explains, "A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor." A lawyer must exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but is not required "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." + +#### 3. FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others + +FRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule explains that "[mlisrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." + +199See also 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state and local federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties. + +200The federal prosecutor does not have an individual "client," but rather represents the people of the United States. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 547 (duties of U.S. Attorney); 28 C.F.R. § 0.5(b) (the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters). + +#### 4. FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice + +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. + +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. + +In Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice of law." In Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So. 3d 166, 172 (Fla. 2010), for example, an attorney's continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client's matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC 4-8.4(d) due to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client.20' + +S01 OPR also examined FRPC 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Nothing in the text of that rule, however, was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report. A comment to FRPC Rule 4-3.8 notes that Florida has adopted the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function. These "standards," however, are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors. Indeed, the ABA has expressly stated that these standards "are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional discipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for civil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge." OPR does not consider the ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors. + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +### CHAPTER TWO + +#### PART THREE: ANALYSIS + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +Following the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public attention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart of the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13 month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal conduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from Epstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making process leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's motivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors and defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a "sweetheart deal" because they were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships with his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein. + +Through its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its specific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules or regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by improper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness interviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process. After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive interviews of subjects and witnesses, OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions concerning the NPA's origins and development. Although some questions remain, OPR sets forth its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part. + +#### II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT + +Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he approved it, with knowledge of its terms. He revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate. Acosta told OPR that he either was informed of, or had access to information concerning, the underlying facts of the case against Epstein. OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision, and Acosta did not make such a claim to OPR. As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview, the "three pronged resolution, two years . . . , registration and restitution, . . . ultimately that was approved on my authority. . . . [U]ltimately, I approved it, and so, 1 . . . accept that. I'm not . . . pushing away responsibility for it." + +In making its misconduct assessments, OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually. Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafia were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at + +different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he returned. Villafafia and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's, Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafafia's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta. + +Under OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard, OPR's framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars, which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and VillafaIla did not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval. + +#### OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA + +A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (I) standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and + +tot The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate attorney has not acted in "good faith." OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision. + +unambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, including its addendum. + +**A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct** + +The U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation's criminal laws.203 As a general matter, federal prosecutors "are designated by statute as the President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'" *United States v. Armstrong*, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, a prosecutor's charging decisions—including declinations—are not dictated by law or statute and are not subject to judicial review. *See United States v. LaBonte*, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997) ("Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors."). + +Department policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case helped ensure "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority," but did not require "a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case." USAM §§ 9-27.001, 9-27.120 (comment). Rather than mandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a prosecutor's charging decisions, including that the defendant was "subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction." USAM § 9-27.220. Importantly, U.S. Attorneys had "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and could modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, "[t]he United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authority," which includes the authority to decline prosecution. USAM § 9-2.001. + +In addition, the USAM contemplated that federal prosecutors would sometimes decline federal prosecution in deference to a state prosecution of the same conduct and provided guidance in the form of factors to be considered in making the decision, including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other jurisdiction. USAM § 9-27.240.204 A comment to this provision stated that the factors are "illustrative only, and the attorney for the government should also consider any others that appear relevant to hi[m]/her in a particular case." + +203 *See, e.g., Wayte*, 470 U.S. at 607; *United States v. Goodwin*, 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.11 (1982); *Bordenkircher*, 434 U.S. at 364; *Imbler*, 424 U.S. 409. + +204 The discretionary authority under USAM § 9-27.240 to defer prosecution in favor of another jurisdiction is distinct from the Petite policy, which establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal proceeding. *See* USAM § 9-2.031. + +As the U.S. Attorney, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was motivated by improper factors, Acosta had the “plenary authority” under federal law and under the USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below, OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated or influenced by improper considerations. Because no clear and unambiguous standard required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state, OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta’s decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein. + +**B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta’s Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein** + +OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement. + +The prosecutor’s broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism, a deferred prosecution agreement. *United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V.*, 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). These agreements “afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when, for example, it believes that a criminal conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a defendant or third parties, but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability altogether.” *Id.* at 738. As with all prosecutorial charging decisions, the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement “resides fundamentally with the Executive” branch. *Id.* at 741. + +OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non-prosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in Epstein’s case. The USAM specifically authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution agreements made in exchange for a person’s timely cooperation when such cooperation would put the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity (such as testimonial immunity) were “impossible or impracticable.” USAM § 9-27.600 (comment).205 The “cooperation” contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another person. In certain circumstances, government attorneys were required to obtain approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation. + +Epstein, however, was not providing “cooperation” as contemplated by the USAM, and the USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of another. Notably, although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases involving cooperation, the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in other situations. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguous obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution + +205 USAM § 9-27.650 required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange for cooperation be fully memorialized in writing. Although this requirement was not applicable for the reasons given above, the NPA complied by fully memorializing the terms of the agreement. + +agreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing SO. + +#### C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards + +Although Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA. Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and solicitation to prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to nonprosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified "potential co-conspirators," to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity. Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals. + +After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution."6 + +#### 1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration + +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence. USAM §§ 9-27.330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). + +206OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Louric, or Villafana failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See. e.g., FRPC 4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but does not require the attorney "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." See FRPC 4-1.3 (comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the requirements of the standard. + +Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal conduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM §§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400 (comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important exception: a U.S. Attorney or a "designated supervisory attorney" may authorize a plea that does not comport with this policy.207 Moreover, the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors "a good faith doubt," based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. + +By its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the "most serious readily provable charge" requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafafta proposed charging Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors, and Epstein's sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. The original "term sheet" presented to the defense proposed a "nonnegotiable" requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original state indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Instead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state indictment and only one additional state offense, and an 18-month sentence. + +As discussed more fully later in this Report, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafafia outlined in the prosecution memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which a federal prosecution would be premised. On the other hand, Villafafia felt strongly that federal charges should be brought, and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice opined that the charges were appropriate. OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable, however, because Acosta had + +Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney. This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the federal criminal justice system. For example, a case-specific approval to dismiss charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney's Office is particularly over-burdened, the duration of the trial would be exceptionally long, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office. However, such case-by-case exceptions should be rare; otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be jeopardized. + +207In addition to specified "Limited Exceptions," this authorization is available in "Other Exceptional Circumstances," as follows: + +Ashcroft Memo at § I.B.6. See also USAM §§ 9-2.001 and 27.140 (U.S. Attorneys' authority to depart from the USAM). + +authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo's "most serious readily provable offense" requirement. + +Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet, or how or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to 18 months, Acosta was aware of these changes. He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it was signed. Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement, notwithstanding any arguable failure to comply with the "most serious readily provable offense" requirement. Furthermore, the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S. Attorney from deferring to a state prosecution, so it is not clear that the Memo's terms apply to a situation involving state charges. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional misconduct. + +## **2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy** + +Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute unidentified "potential co-conspirators" amounted to "transactional immunity," which the witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy. Although "use immunity" protects a witness only against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness, and is frequently used by prosecutors, transactional immunity protects a witness from prosecution altogether and is relatively rare. + +OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity. One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied only to the exchange of "use immunity" for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege. *See* USAM § 9-23.100 *et seq.* Statutory provisions relating to immunity also address the same context. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 6002; 21 U.S.C. § 884. Moreover, apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. *See, e.g.,* [REDACTED], 909 F.2d at 741-43; *Kemp*, 760 F.2d at 1248; *Stinson*, 839 So. 2d at 909; *Frazier*, 697 So. 2d 945. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that was violated by the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "potential co-conspirators," and therefore cannot conclude that negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted professional misconduct. + +Notwithstanding this finding, in Section IV of this Part, OPR includes in its criticism of Acosta's decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its potential consequences, including to whom it would apply. + +#### 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens + +During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USAO from "request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings" against two female assistants. However, OPR considered whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein's two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafafia urged in her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard. + +The Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding "Deportation of Criminal Aliens" directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that "[s]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist." However, Epstein's two assistants were not "deportable" unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions. + +The policy guidance also requires "prompt and close coordination" with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants, who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not "defendants," no further notification was required. + +#### IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN + +OPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaha—was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO's July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and Acosta's approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences, including the subjects' preexisting relationships with defense counsel; the subjects' numerous meetings with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys; emails between the subjects—particularly Villafafia—and defense counsel that appeared friendly, casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report. + +As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first-of main concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority. The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie—that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208 The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state. + +Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USA° personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and prominent attorne is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors. + +#### A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration + +Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation, + +208Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed, and his attorney argued in his comments on OPR's draft report that OPR should not attribute to Sloman any input in Acosta's decisions about how to resolve the case. However, Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation. + +OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or other illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication.209 Witnesses, including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein matter's outcome—stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had perceived any, she "would have gone screaming" to the FBI's public corruption unit. The co-case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI. + +#### B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations + +Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein. However, news reports about Epstein's July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other "prominent businessmen, academics and scientists."21° Villafafia, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation, and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.2" The FBI case agent also told OPR that "we knew who had been on his plane, we knew . . . some of his connections." + +#### 1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors + +OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors, such as Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Epstein's legal team overtly raised Epstein's financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison, but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration. Defense counsel mentioned former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter, but that reference was made in the context of a + +209OPR's jurisdiction does not extend to the investigation of allegations of criminal activity. If OPR had found indication of criminal activity, it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies. + +210Larry "Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times, indictment says," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006; Nicole Janok. "Consultant to the rich indicted, jailed," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006. + +211Lourie later made Menchcl aware of Epstein's prominence in the course of forwarding to Menthel the initial prosecution memorandum. + +narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President.m + +#### 2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences + +In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in negotiating the NPA. Villafaha, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, "[W]e tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at ... how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy." Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not believe "it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other." Lourie told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more "front office" involvement in the case, but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman "emphatically disagree[d]" with the suggestion that the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents, who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence. + +OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also + +212In the pre-NPA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable works, including a trip Epstcin took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as "a committed philanthropist" + +213In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been "politically motivated" due to Epstein's "close personal association with former President Bill Clinton." + +S14 OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with + +considered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions—to resolve the case through an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to victims—had been made by July 31, 2007, when the USAO presented its "term sheet" to the defense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated any plans to do so. It also was well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with defense counsel Leflcowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final NPA, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw fit, and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender, despite a strong push by the defense that it do so. + +#### 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims + +Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Laurie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA, but they and Villafafia identified for OPR several case-specific factors, unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations, that either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely influenced Acosta's decision-making. These considerations included assessment of the evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however, these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge disposition, but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation through a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta's concerns about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities. + +In a declaration submitted to the district court in 2017 in connection with the CVRA litigation, Villafruia explained the USAO's rationale for terminating the federal investigation through the NPA: + +> Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with members of the Office's management, and informed them that most of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their identities disclosed.... It is my understanding from these and other discussions that these factors, that is, the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and the various competing interests of the many different victims (including the privacy concerns expressed by many), together with the Office's desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein, the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims, + +Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if thcy suspected that Acosta, or any of their colleagues, was motivated by improper influences. + +and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein . . . were among the factors [that led to the NPA].215 + +During her OPR interview, Villafaiia similarly described the victims' general reluctance to go forward with a trial: + +> [W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights.216 + +In his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villafaria set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the USAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial: + +> [M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal + +Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims .. . . A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. + +In addition, during the CVRA litigation, an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for interviews or responses to written questions regarding contacts with the USAO, OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about remaining anonymous. One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when, during the USAO's investigation, the FBI left a business card at her parents' home and, as a result, her parents learned that she was a victim of Epstein. At the time, the victim was a teenager; was "nervous, scared, and ashamed"; and did not want her parents to know about the case. + +313 Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A. Villafaila in Support of Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 8-9 (June 2, 2017). + +216These concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation, in which she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: + +record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of the names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their families. + +Although his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein, Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that "everybody at the USAO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the cooperation and desires of the victims." + +Similarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes—recalled understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein. Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein, Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh the risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained through a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual offender, and made restitution to his victims. + +Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the government's legal theories. He told OPR: + +> [lit seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who thought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I was 18 years old. + +> You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light being shown on them because their parents didn't even know -- had very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns. + +Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims' general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not "granular" and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim's expected testimony, but he trusted that his "team" had already "done the diligence necessary" to make recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding of the facts as Villafafia. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta's statement that he reasonably believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges. + +Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony regarding witness challenges, including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims had expressed concern for their safety and "a lot of them clUdin't want to take the stand, and + +duclin't want to have to relive what happened to them." 217 The co-case agent told OPR that one of the "strategies" for dealing with the victims' fear was "to keep them off the stand," and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the victims' identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafafia on the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that "[the victims] would have testified," but would have required an extensive amount of "victim management" because they were "deeply embarrassed" about potentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that "there were obvious weaknesses in the case," from an evidentiary perspective?"' + +The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel, Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafafla's proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some minor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that "there is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafafta's prosecution memorandum] as this is uncharted territory to some degree." In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafafia, Menchel cited Acosta's and Sloman's "concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues" and Acosta's concerns about "hurting Project Safe Childhood." Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims' credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages. + +Acosta also recalled that although his "team" had expressed concern about the "trial issues," his own focus had been on "the legal side of things." Notably, during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the "background issues" that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership, and which influenced his view of the Epstein case, was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in 2007.219 + +217In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, the co-case agent noted that in early 2007, when he located a victim living outside of the United States, shc claimed only to "know Jeffrey Epstein," and stated that shc "moved away to distance herself from this situation," and "asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again." + +2111In April 2007, a victim who was represented by an attorney paid by Epstcin participated in a video-recorded interview with the FBI, with her attorney and his investigator present. This victim denied being involved in, or being a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as "Jane Doe #2." + +219In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed "To whom it may concern," and published online in The Daily Beast, Acosta described "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" by "an army of legal superstars." Most of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved + +The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafafia, in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she continued to have confidence in the case.22° Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pre-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances. + +Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. + +According to Acosta, "In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR that he developed "a preference for deferring to the state" to "make it clear that [the USAO was] not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue." Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the "manifest injustice" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he described as "a polite way of saying[, ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in "uncharted territory," there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be "weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender." + +Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had + +the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet. + +220Sloman told OPR that Villafafla "always believed in the case." + +been concerned about policy and federalism issues.22I Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been "sensitive to" Petite policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was "overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level." During his OPR interview, Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from "a broader policy perspective" and was worried about "the impact that taking the case in federally may have on . . . other programs," although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were. + +#### C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences + +OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences. + +First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages—outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere "slap on the wrist," with "no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no restitution for the victims." Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state's original charge, standing alone, would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.222 Similarly, despite defense counsel's repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to + +we were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to, we were prosecuting him because he was wealthy. . .. That one didn't work so well. + +221Sloman stated that although Acosta "was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, ... I was not." Menchel commented, "I don't think it would have been a concern of mine." + +222Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and "had nothing to gain" by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as "this big Democratic donor." Villafaiia recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that— + +reconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys. + +Second, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's benefit. + +#### D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein + +In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other improper motivation. + +#### 1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys + +Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy M, a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Villafafia and Lourie had worked for and Lourie was close friends with one of law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Leflcowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm. + +Villafafia told OPR that she believed Acosta "was influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys." Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection, neither Villafafia nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or for any other improper reason). Villafafia explained how, in her view, the "legal prowess" of Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case: + +[O]ne of the issues in the case was the . . . defense's ability to describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex. It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be. But because they were able to convince members of our office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And because of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ] [became] something to consider. + +. . . . + +I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together. + +Although Villafaña was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she conceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly, throughout the case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes, and the evidence relevant to those statutes, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel. + +There is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein—although the USAO never wavered from its three core requirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein certain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled, experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying undesired outcomes for as long as possible.223 Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subjects' relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him. + +## **2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions** + +Acosta, Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie each asserted that Epstein's choice of counsel did not affect his handling of the case. Menchel told OPR that once in private practice, former colleagues often became adversaries. In Menchel's view, such preexisting relationships were useful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the defense attorney to "tailor" arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO. Menchel told OPR, however, that these advantages did not "move the needle in any major way," and he "reject[ed] the notion" that anyone in the USAO had been "swayed" because of preexisting + +--- + +223 As Chief Reiter later observed in his deposition testimony, "[T]he Epstein case was an instance of a many million dollars defense and what it can accomplish." + +friendships or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as "ham-fisted" and "clumsy." + +Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy and law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases involving former colleagues "was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches with them." In Sloman's view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not "change the equation" because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be best for the case. + +Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein's attorneys "didn't influence anything." Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about theiiiiriety of his role as a supervisor in the investigation, because of his acquaintance with and long-time friendship with law partner. OPR considered Lourie's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility Officer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. + +Acosta said during his OPR interview that he "developed" the three criteria reflected on the term sheet—a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages for the victims—before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after Kirkland & Ellis became involved in the case. + +Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and Lefkowitz. On several occasions, when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr, he directed them to address their communications to Villafafia, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis, he recognized the conflict of interest and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta's behalf, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department approval of Acosta's recusal from the case based on the fact that he had "begun to discuss possible employment" with Kirkland & Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counse1.224 + +224In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was considering seeking a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School in 2009, and Dershowitz—a Harvard Law School professor—was representing Epstein "as a private, paying client, and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic or law school teaching program" and "should have no role in deciding whether Mr. Acosta is offered any position as a visiting professor." The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal. + +In its review of the documentary record, OPR examined an email written by Villafafia in 2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two-year sentence requirement in the initial "term sheet" provided to the defense was developed by Menchel as a favor to defense attorney M. OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case, Villafafia recounted in an email to a supervisory AUSA, a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case.225 In the email, Villafafia stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's decision to offer a two-year plea deal, but she added the following: "Months (or possibly years) later, I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from. He said that Lily [sic] Ann (attorney for Epstein) asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid' and convince Mr. Acosta to offer two years." + +OPR questioned both Villafafia and Sloman about the lay "do her a solid" remark. Villafafia told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and were friends. During her OPR interview, Villafafia explained: + +> [A] lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, "Jeff, where did this two years come from?" And he said, "Well, I always figured that . . . Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid," which I thought was such a strange term, .. . "and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epstein's good graces" and that that's where the two years came from. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff Sloman asked me where the two years came from, and I had to remind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the two years came from. + +Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Villafafia whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to defense counsel, or whether he had stated that he merely "figured" that was the case, but Villafafia could not recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow-up interview, Villafafia again said that she was unable to recall whether Sloman's specific statement was "Lilly asked man to do her a solid, and he did it," or "I always figured Matt just wanted ... to do her a solid." Villafafia stated that she was unaware of any information that "expressly [indicated] that there was any sort of exchange of . . . a favor in either direction." + +During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall making such a remark, although he could not rule out the possibility that Villafafia, for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect, "heard that in some fashion." He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafafia about Menchel having done "a solid" for Epstein's counsel, he could not have meant it seriously, and he explained, "[I]t's not something that I would have believed. Him doing her a solid. I mean that's the furthest thing from my recollection or impression even after years later." + +225Villafaha's email stemmed from a congressional inquiry received by the Department concerning the Epstein investigation and the NPA, to which the USAO had been asked to assist in responding. In her email. Villafaha addressed several issues that she perceived to be the "three main questions" raised by the press coverage. + +Menchel told OPR that when he and were in the USAO, they had a social relationship, which included, in 2003, "a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We decided that .. . this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed to not do that."226 Apart from that, he stated they were "close" and "hung out," and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with "changed dramatically" when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with would "most likely" have been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added, "[T]hat was three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's thought." + +When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that his relationship with did "[n]ot at all" affect his handling of the Epstein case Moreover, Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term. + +OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements to OPR from Menchel, Villafafia, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel. The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel which took place sometime before June 26, 2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email, "[i]t was a non-starter" for the defense. In the len ysnail exchange with Villafafia in early July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with about a state-based resolution was made with Acosta's "full knowledge." Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel "without having discussed it with me."228 Moreover, the defense did not immediately + +2\$6 Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchcl had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on "how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be," but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but Igliven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over." Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with had turned into something more than a handful of dates he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality. + +227Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with on at least one occasion, in early 2006, after she left the USAO. + +22S In addition, Villafafta recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that "Alex has decided to offer a two year state deal." + +accept the two-year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of home confinement, suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and did not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of probation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early stages of the negotiations. + +As discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the twoyear offer, and a thorough review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration, as opposed to any other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of and approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the two-year term of incarceration. The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of Menchel's was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the purported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement, but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his understanding of that reason. Villafafia herself could remember little about the critical conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said. Given the lack of any corroborating evidence, and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous resistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in Villafafia's 2018 email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of Epstein's attorneys. + +#### E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein + +OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie to meet with defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team. + +#### 1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations + +Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in M -collar criminal cases involving financial crimes, witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor, Villafafia vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein's attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them. In Villafafia's view, the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that, but for those meetings, the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and, moreover, "that term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else." + +OPR's investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the subjects through emails, correspondence, and phone calls, relatively few in-person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter. As shown in the chart on the following page, while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed, the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case- + +including one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution—and a sixth meeting together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta attended only one pre-NPA meeting. After the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas, the subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting, one unscheduled meeting on a procedural matter, and a meeting with one defense attorney in preparation for a conference call: in addition, Acosta had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz.229 + +| Date | USAO Participants | Defense | | +|----------------|-----------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------| +| Feb. 1, 2007 | Louie / Villafaila | I .e fcourt / | Defense presents investigation | +| Feb. 20, 2007 | Lourie / Villafaila | I .e fcourt / | Defense presents witness issues | +| June 26, 2007 | Sloman / Menchel / | | | +| July 31, 2007 | Sloman / Menchel / | | | +| | | Black / Lefcourt / | USAO presents NPA term sheet | +| Sept. 7, 2007 | Acosta / Oosterbaan / | | | +| | | Stan/ Lefkowitz / | Defense presents counteroffer | +| Sept. 12, 2007 | Lourie / Lourie | | | +| Oct. 12, 2007 | Acosta | Lefkowitz | Defense discussion of NPA | +| Dec. 14, 2007 | Acosta / Sloman / | | | +| | | | and uest for de now review | +| Jan. 7, 2008 | (1) Acosta / Sloman | | | +| | | (1) | Defense presents USAO | + +IS In addition all of the subjects took phone calls from various defense attorneys, and although numerous documentary records refer to such calls, there may have been others for which OPR located no record. + +OPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense. + +Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie recognized that some prosecutors—like Villafaña—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of "weakness," but in Lourie's view, "information is power," and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were "all power to us." Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, "[Y]ou're getting the information that they think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars . . . And so you can form all of that into your strategy." Lourie also told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important "part of the process" that helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to "believe that they are getting heard." When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lourie responded, "I don't recall ever getting . . . so many requests for meetings . . . and so many appeals and so many audiences that [Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened." + +Menchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that "ethically it's appropriate" to give a defense attorney "an audience," and there was no real "downside" to doing so. Menchel added, "[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense, and it's good to know" what the defense will be. + +During his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm. He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team, before the NPA was signed, was "not the first and only time that I granted a meeting . . . to defense attorneys" who requested one. Acosta did not believe it was "atypical" for a U.S. Attorney to meet with opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys, and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel "in the normal course." Furthermore, Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other "process" granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department, "we successfully held firm in our positions" on the key elements of the resolution—that is, the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims. + +OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral, strategic purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lourie and one of Epstein's attorneys, in which the attorney asked for a chance to "make a pitch" about the victims' lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that pitch. Villafaña objected to meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lourie told her she was not being a "strategic thinker," and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow-up meeting on February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the defense arguments. After Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lourie suggested + +preparing a "short" charging document "with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up already."230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factored into the government's charging strategy. + +The two February 2007 Villafafia/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested another meeting—this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman—to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that "[l]t would probably be helpful to us .. . to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something." The requested meeting took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafafia provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before the June 26 meeting, as "an overview" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia viewed the meeting itself as primarily a "listening session."231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's "federalism" arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter. + +Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the "term sheet" describing the proposed terms of a non-prosecution agreement. + +By early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys—Starr and Lefkowitz—joined the defense team, Acosta believed they would likely "go to DC on the case, on the grounds .. . that I have not met with them." A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz, and . In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, with Oosterbaan participating, "to discuss general legal policy only." In another email to Sloman and Lourie, Acosta explained, "This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it." Acosta told OPR that the meeting "was not a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and "[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our position." + +U0 Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document "should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all." + +271 During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about the government's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a break in the meeting, she engaged in a "discussion" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did not recall specifics of the discussion, however. + +The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process. + +Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233 Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear as if he "fear[ed]" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties. + +In sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm—for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys—that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO—on factual, legal, and policy grounds—to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaha met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein. + +232Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section. + +273 Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted. + +#### 2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel + +OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the subject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott hotel. According to the Miami Herald article, "a deal was struck" at the meeting to allow Epstein to serve lust 13 months" in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal investigation, and Acosta also agreed to "conceal" the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the victims and the public.234 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to West Palm Beach on October II for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel, near the USAO's West Palm Beach office, because at midday on October 12 he was to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA, or make any significant concessions relating to it, during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting. + +Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 24, 2007—more than two weeks before the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement, those key provisions remained in place thereafter. Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense, he sought three goals: (I) Epstein's guilty plea in state court to an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender; (2) a sentence of imprisonment; and 3) a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously, the USAO's original plea offer in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter expressed a "non-negotiable" demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment, and the final NPA required only an 18-month sentence, but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18 months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting with counsel. The NPA signed on September 24, 2007, required 18 months' incarceration, sexual offender registration, and a mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein, and OPR found that these terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting. + +At the time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, two issues involving the NPA were in dispute. Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed the key provisions of the NPA. First, at Sloman's instigation, the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims. This USAO-initiated request had prompted discussions about an "addendum" to the NPA. Sloman sent the text of a proposed NPA addendum to Le&owitz on October 11, 2007.235 Although OPR found no decisive + +2S4 Julie K. =, "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. + +235 In his December 19, 2007, letter to defense attorney Acosta represented that he had proposed the addendum at the breakfast meeting, but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then. + +proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafafia), noting that he "just got off the phone with Alex" and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later clarified for Villafafia that "Jay's suggested revision has been rejected." + +A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative's fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO's interpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned attorney's fees and did not materially impede the victims' ability to seek damages from Epstein under § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue. + +OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting. Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (1) not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their counsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events, and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations he had with Acosta. + +Of more significance for OPR's evaluation was a contemporaneous document—an October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Sloman drafted, and Acosta reviewed and edited for signature by Sloman—that disputed Lefkowitz's claims. The draft letter stated: + +> I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in that October 23rd letter. Your letter claimed that this Office + +> > would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. + +As we discussed and, hopefully, clarified, and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such a + +promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this. + +It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case. + +Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman. + +Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villafafia to "soften" certain language that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject, rather than any new concession. + +Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia. + +Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was "entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release." Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence, although the parties understood that he would receive the same "gain time" benefits available to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafafia, on behalf of the USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that "Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail." Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafafia wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NM required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month + +sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would "proceed accordingly." + +The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates of the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration. Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade. Moreover, Villafafia received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement "in custody." Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole authority for administering the work release program. + +After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OPR found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served pursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials' decision to permit him to participate in work release. + +#### F. Villafafla's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafaiia, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences + +During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney, and filed under seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafafta (and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized, and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz's side of the communications, and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafana's communications to Letkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epstein's objections.236 Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafafta's emails as proof that Villafafia and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's attorneys to keep the "sweetheart" deal a secret from the victims and the public. Statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAO's improper favoritism towards Epstein. In one example, Villafafta told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing not to prosecute others, but would "prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." She also offered to meet with him 'off campus' to finalize negotiations. She also proposed, "[o]n an 'avoid the press' note," that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press coverage. + +236The USAO did not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal protected information. United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the [CVRA] and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (Apr. 7, 2011). The court declined to order the additional redactions. + +OPR asked Villafafla about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Villafana acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative, and explained that generally, the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned to her: + +> [I]f you were to pull all my e-mails on every case, you would find that that is how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl, and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be. And I can be when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that given that task, the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement and, keeping in mind the terms that . . . our office had agreed to, and do that in a way that is civil. So . . . although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly, when you look at the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes, my response was always, "No, I will not make that change." + +Villafafia denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email in which Villafafla expressed reluctance to "highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge" was written in response to a defense proposal to include in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state, "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." Villafana told OPR that the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein's assistants and was not aware of anyone else who could be charged, and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However, Villafafla was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Villafafla was not the only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts, and whether such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an earlier email, Lourie had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that required dismissal of numerous substantive counts. + +As to Villafafla's offer to meet with Lefkowitz "off campus" to resolve outstanding issues in the NPA negotiation, she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a "neutral" location—with "all the necessary decision makers present or 'on call'"— might facilitate completion of the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time. + +With regard to her comment about “avoid[ing] the press,” Villafaña told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami, and “if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper.” + +In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafaña, as well as Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted from the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did not locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of Villafaña’s overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record, as well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafaña consistently advocated in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the case. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafaña objected to the decision to resolve the case through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with Menchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect that resolution, Villafaña fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO’s position despite defense counsel’s aggressive tactics. + +OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafaña “was soft on Epstein . . . couldn’t have been further from the truth.” Sloman added that Villafaña “did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable.” Lourie similarly told OPR that when he read the district court’s February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails from Villafaña cited in that opinion, he was “surprised to see how nice she was to them. And she winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them. When I know the whole time she was the one who wanted to go after him the most.” The AUSA who assisted Villafaña on the investigation told OPR “everything that [Villafaña] did . . . was, as far as I could tell, [ ] completely pro prosecution.” + +Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information showing Villafaña’s consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims, a public narrative developed that Villafaña colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO’s and Villafaña’s interactions with the victims can be criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this Report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps Villafaña may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villafaña, in particular, cared deeply about Epstein’s victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of consulting with victims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafaña and Sloman committed professional misconduct by “threaten[ing] to send a highly improper and unusual ‘victim notification letter’ to all” of the listed victims. Given the full context of Villafaña’s conduct throughout her tenure on the case, OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are + +entitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in question do not themselves establish that Villafafia (or any other subject) acted to improperly benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences, or sought to silence victims. + +#### G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaiia Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential Associates + +OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA—Villafaiia, Lourie, and Acosta—to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," in addition to four named individuals, to determine whether that provision resulted from the subjects' improper favoritism towards Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Villafaiia and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision.237 + +As the NPA drafting process concluded, Villafafia circulated to Lourie and another supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision, telling Lourie it was "some of [defense counsel's] requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and commenting only, "I don't think it hurts us." In a reply email, Lourie responded to another issue + +237As set forth in OPR's factual discussion, early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement, the defense sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed employees of one of his companies. Villafafta initially countered with "standard language" referring to unnamed "co-conspirators" so as to avoid "highlightlingj for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge." Nonetheless, drafts of the NPA sent by Letkowitz after Villafafta's email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees. Villafana, however, internally circulated drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement." The federal plea agreement draft revised by Lourie and Acosta on September 20, 2007, included that language. When the defense team reverted to negotiation of state charges. Villafafta advised them, "In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the [USAO] may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." The next day, Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA referring to the four named assistants, "any employee" of the named company, and "any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." The language was finally revised by Villafaila to prohibit prosecution of "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [the four named assistants]." + +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafafta's counsel and Lourie both noted that the non-prosecution provision could bind only the USAO, and Lourie further opined that it was limited to certain specified federal charges and a time-limited scope of conduct. Although the non-prosecution provision in the NM did not explicitly contain such limitations, those limitations were included in other parts of the agreement. + +Villafafia had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute coconspirators or ask Villafafia to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafatia asked Lourie for "[a]ny other thoughts," but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no document that suggested Villafalia and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other individuals who were copied on Villafafia's email referencing the provision—her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office, and Villafaila's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafafia told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the nonprosecution provision "doesn't hurt us," Villafafia assumed that they agreed with her assessment. + +Villafafia told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators," but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted "to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." Villafafia told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct was his own "dirty little secret." Villafafia said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006 arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later.238 Villafafia acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her.s239 Accordingly, Villafafia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.24 Villafafia also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's investigation was Epstein, and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he entered a plea.24I Because Villafafia was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged, she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other, unspecified "co-conspirators." Villafafta told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time, it did not occur to her that the reference to other "potential co-conspirators" might be used to protect any of Epstein's influential associates. + +Lourie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division at the time Villafafia forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it. + +231Villafafia told OPR that "none of... the victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein." + +239The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein's conduct, but the conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida. + +240The FBI had learned that one of Epstein's female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one girl in Epstein's presence; this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought the government's agreement not to prosecute from the outset. Villafana explained to OPR that this individual was herself believed to also have been at one time a victim. + +241Villafafia told OPR that the USAO had decided that girls who recruited other girls would not be prosecuted. + +Lourie described the promise not to prosecute “potential co-conspirators” as “unusual,” and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be “unlike me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful.” Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein “theoretically” could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed “co-conspirators” as “a message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.” + +Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told OPR that Epstein was always “the focus” of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face “meaningful consequences” for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, “[t]o the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein[ ] . . . going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this.” Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein’s four assistants, and it “never dawned” on him that it was intended to shield anyone else. + +This broad provision promising not to prosecute “any potential co-conspirators” is troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein’s political, celebrity, or other influential associates.242 + +#### **H. OPR’s Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis** + +One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal + +242 As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements and did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absence. Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007, before the parties drafted the NPA. + +investigation.243 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration “early” because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epstein’s former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they “had never heard of” Epstein and he was providing “absolutely no cooperation” to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior colleagues that “this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true.” Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was “completely false.” Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an “intelligence asset.”244 + +In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or “intelligence asset,” or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR’s investigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein’s purported cooperation, or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed. + +Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR’s investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter. + +#### **V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA** + +Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA. Acosta’s flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA, such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all “potential co-conspirators,” were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a + +--- + +243 *See, e.g.*, Julie K. [REDACTED], “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,” *Miami Herald*, Nov. 28, 2018. + +244 When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an “intelligence asset,” Acosta stated to OPR that “the answer is no.” Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information. + +successful federal prosecution, Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened, such as by obtaining Epstein's missing computer equipment. Finally, a lack of coordination within the USAO compounded Acosta's flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of drafting the NPA, a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it received. These problems were, moreover, entirely avoidable because federal prosecution, and potentially a federal plea agreement, existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution. + +In evaluating Acosta's conduct, OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that some of Epstein's conduct known today was not known in 2007 and that other circumstances have changed in the interim, including some victims' willingness to testify. OPR has also evaluated Acosta's decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good faith, even if the decision in question may not have led to the "best" result that potentially could have been obtained. Nonetheless, after considering all of the available evidence and the totality of the then-existing circumstances, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment. + +#### A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution + +The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to prosecute for the same act. Responding to the Court's concerns about the "potential for abuse in a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions," the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining to bring a federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct, except when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. at 28. On its face, the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state prosecutions. USAM § 9-2.031 ("This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state ... prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached."). When a state investigation or prosecution is still pending, the policy does not apply. Indeed, even when a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits, the policy permits a subsequent federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: a "substantial federal interest" exists, "the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved," and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction on federal charges. The policy also does not apply when "the prior prosecution involved only a minor part of the contemplated federal charges." + +No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial interest in prosecuting Epstein. In her prosecution memorandum, Villafafta identified five federal statutes that Epstein had potentially violated. The CEOS Chief described Villafana's assessment of these statutes as "exhaustive," and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the facts of the case. Epstein's crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children, interstate travel, and the use of a facility of interstate commerce, all of which were areas of federal concern. + +Notably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was "an important federal interest," which in Epstein's case was compounded by the "sordidness" of the acts involved and the number of victims. + +It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy "on its face" did not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors. The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.245 + +Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism.246 In essence, Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR: + +245In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors existed, such as use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply. + +246In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his subordinates' concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR "misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws," and counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that "bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims." Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's antitrafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which, for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the state system to his benefit. + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. . state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances. + +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage ofjustice."247 Acosta told OPR that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that the USAO could avert a "manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender. + +Acosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a "miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state charges are substantially less and different, and . . . the federal government . . . stands aside and lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators, typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence." + +Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.' Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system," and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to + +=A7 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. + +za Villafana estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. + +depart from the Ashcroft Memo. He told OPR, however, that he did not recall discussing the Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Instead, it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case, on the one hand, and his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about "federalism," on the other hand. OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein too narrowly and through the wrong prism. + +Furthermore, Acosta's federalism concerns about intruding on the state's autonomy resulted in an outcome—the NPA—that intruded far more on the state's autonomy than a decision to pursue a federal prosecution would have.209 By means of the NPA, the federal government dictated to the state the charges, the sentence, the timing, and certain conditions that the state had to obtain during the state's own prosecution. Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that his "attempt to backstop the state here[] rebounded, because in the process, it .. . ended up being arguably more intrusive." + +Acosta's concern about invading the state's authority led to additional negative consequences. Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to "soften" its tone, by substituting provisions requiring Epstein to make his "best efforts" for language that appeared to dictate certain actions to the state. In so doing, however, Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement, making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply. + +OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a mechanism that relied completely on state action, Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system, a system in which none of the subjects had practiced and with which they were unfamiliar. Villafaria recognized that there were "a lot of ways to manipulate state sentences," and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of negotiations about entering into the NPA, because by sending the case back to the state the USAO was "giving up all control over what was going on." Villafafia also told OPR that defense counsel "had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Epstein's ability to obtain work release, a provision directly contrary to the USAO's intent with respect to Epstein's sentence, is a clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control. Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA, none of the subject attorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be eligible for work release. Acosta, in particular, told OPR that "if it was typical to provide that kind of work release in these cases, that would have been news to me." Because work release was not anticipated, the NPA did not specifically address it, and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein from applying for admission to the program. + +249The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions. It does not prevent state authorities from pursuing state charges after a federal prosecution. See. e.g.. United States v. Nichols and State v. Nichols (dual prosecution for acts committed in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building). However, in practice and to use their resources most efficiently, state authorities often choose not to pursue state charges if the federal prosecution results in a conviction. + +The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta's decision to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein. Acosta told OPR that one of the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge requiring registration as a sexual offender. He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the beginning and from which he never wavered. However, the USAO failed to anticipate certain factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had a residence. In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender registration, the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least 16 at the time of her interactions with Epstein, even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim. The victim's age made a difference, as the age of consent in New Mexico, where Epstein had a residence, was 16; therefore, Epstein was not required to register in that state. As a 2006 letter from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney's Office made clear, the defense team had thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida's sexual offender registration requirement; OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the USAO. + +Finally, Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI's attention because of a concern that the State Attorney's Office had succumbed to "pressure" from defense counsel. Villafaña told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with Villafaña, he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was dissatisfied with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case. Shortly before the NPA was signed, moreover, additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorney's Office was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epstein's favor. Specifically, during the September 12, 2007 meeting, at the state prosecutor's suggestion, the USAO team agreed, with Acosta's subsequent approval, to permit Epstein to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, rather than the three charges the USAO had originally specified. The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to register as a sexual offender. Shortly thereafter, the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite the assurances made to Lourie, the state prosecutor had advised Epstein—incorrectly, it turned out—that a plea to that particular offense would *not* require him to register as a sexual offender. Yet, despite this evidence, which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA, Acosta did not alter his decision about proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful execution. + +OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by this case. He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman and Menchel, and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for their assessment of trial issues. Acosta was copied on many substantive emails, reviewed and revised drafts of the NPA, and approved the final agreement. Yet, rather than focusing on whether the state's prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, Acosta focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the *state's* interest, as defined in part by the state's indictment, by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of + +Epstein's state guilty plea.2" As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.25' + +#### B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case + +The leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafafia planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution of a search warrant. + +The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state + +250Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state, he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a twoyear sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter. + +231In commenting on OPR's draft report. Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta "accept[ed] OPR's conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment." Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter "would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room." Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, "did not challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully." + +252Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafatia identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August 27.2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands, but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane. + +search warrant was executed on that property, the computer equipment associated with those cameras had been removed. Villafafia knew who had possession of the computer equipment. Surveillance images might have shown the victims' visits, and photographic evidence of their appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors. The surveillance video might have shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified. Such images could have been powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their visits to his home, potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple "solicitation" case. + +Epstein's personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence. Villafafia told OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and one victim told agents that Epstein's assistant photographed her in the nude. Based on this evidence, and experience in other sex cases involving minors, Villafafia and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained child pornography. Moreover, Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle; it was reasonable to assume that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the intemet to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling. The interstate transmission of child pornography was a separate, and serious, federal crime that could have changed the entire complexion of the case against Epstein.253 Villafafia told OPR, "[I]f the evidence had been what we suspected it was . . . [lit would have put this case completely to bed. It also would have completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus." + +Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence, Villafafia attempted to obtain the missing computers. After Villafafia learned that an individual associated with one of Epstein's attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home, she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the evidence. Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors, Villafafia took legal steps to obtain the computer equipment. + +Epstein's team sought to postpone corn liance with the USAO's demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafafia stressed that "we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible." She agreed to extend the date for producing the computer equipment by one week until July 17, 2007. On that day, Epstein initiated litigation regarding the computer equipment. That litigation was still pending at the end of July, when Acosta decided to resolve + +Any person who ... induces .. . any minor to engage in .. . any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished . . . if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be . . . transmitted using any means or facility of interstate . . . commerce or in or affecting interstate ... commerce . . . tor] if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or . . . commerce by any means, including by computer. + +25318 U.S.C. § 2251(a) provides, in pertinent part: + +the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was "pushed under the rug" without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending. + +Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafafia continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of the computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose Epstein's efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the defense, informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein at age 14 and had been photographed in the nude. A few days later, Villafafta told defense counsel that she had "conferred with the appropriate people, and we are not willing to agree to a stay." Defense counsel then contacted Lourie, who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the upcoming meeting with Acosta. After the meeting, and when the court sought to reschedule the hearing, Villafafia emailed Sloman to ask if she should "put it off'; he replied, "Yes," and the hearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed, however, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached the agreement. + +Villafafia told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epstein's computers. She told OPR that, in her view, "the fact that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing . . . was further evidence of the importance of the evidence." + +OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate, and continue with, the NPA negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending, and to agree to postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer evidence. Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafafia's efforts to obtain the missing computers, but he believed that "there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly" regarding the plea. + +Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafalia's efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only "vaguely." Menchel expressed surprise to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain "an entire computer" through the method utilized by Villafafia, telling OPR, "I had not heard of that." However, the contemporaneous records show that Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie had each been aware in 2007 of Villafafta's efforts to obtain Epstein's missing computer equipment. + +Villafafia kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007, all discussed her proposed steps. Villafafia told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions about her proposal to obtain the evidence. Lourie also received Villafatia's July 16, 2007 email discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it, and on one occasion he spoke directly + +with one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he "vaguely" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafatia whether to put off a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously, the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations. + +Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed, he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA itself provides that "the federal.. . investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process] will be held in abeyance," that Epstein will withdraw his "motion to intervene and to quash certain [legal process]," and, further, that the parties would "maintain . . . evidence subject to [legal process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate" until the NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be "deemed withdrawn." (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of evidence specified was "certain computer equipment." In addition, Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer equipment. + +Villafafia knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant—and potentially critical—information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USA() ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost. + +234 If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafana or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafana had consulted with the Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment. + +To be clear, OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues. Every case is different and must be judged on its own facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff, the nature and scope of Epstein's criminal conduct, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from Epstein's residence, and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal conduct, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing from the express terms of the NPA. In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge, Acosta lost sight of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be pursued. The decision to forgo the government's efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of all the costs and benefits of the proposed action. OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely.255 + +#### C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration. "1" hat It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution + +The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency afforded him concerning his sentence. After offering a deal that required a "non-negotiable" 24-month term of incarceration, Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration, knowing that gain time would reduce it further, and indeed, Epstein served only 13 months. Epstein ultimately did not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his sentence. As Lourie told OPR, "[E]verything else that happened to [Epstein] is exactly what should have happened to him. . . . He had to pay a lot of money. He had to register as a sex offender," but "in the perfect world, [Epstein] would have served more time in jail." + +Due to the passage of time and the subjects' inability to recall many details of the relevant events, OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence requirement was developed or by whom. Two possibilities were articulated during OPR's subject interviews: (1) the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pled guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state; or (2) the two years represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept, thus avoiding the need for a trial. As to the former possibility, Acosta told OPR that his "best understanding" of the two-year proposal was that it correlated to "one of the original state charges." He elaborated, + +25\$ In commenting on OPR's draft report. Acosta's attorney objected to OPR's conclusion that Acosta knew or should have known about the litigation regarding the computers and that he should have given greater consideration to pursuing the computers before the NPA was signed. Acosta's attorney asserted that Acosta was not involved in that level of "granularity"; that his "'small thoughts' edits" on the NPA were limited and focused on policy; and that it was appropriate for him to rely on his staff to raise any issues of concern to him. For the reasons stated above, OPR nonetheless concludes that having developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation, Acosta had a greater obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so. + +"I'm reconstructing memories of . . . 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or someone else said ... what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone said this amount." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this method, but he believed that it likely did not result from a single specific discussion but rather from conversations over a course of time. Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had these discussions, other than that it would have been Lourie, Menchel, or Sloman. Villafafia was not asked for her views on a two-year sentence, and she had no input into the decision before it was made. Villafafia told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence. OPR also examined applicable state statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines, but could not confirm that Epstein was, in fact, facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD. + +On the other hand, during his OPR interview, Lourie "guess[ed]" that "somehow the defense conveyed . . . we're going to trial if it's more than two years." Menchel similarly told OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived, but "obviously it was a number that the office felt was palatable enough that [Epstein] would take" it. Sloman told OPR that he had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached. + +The contemporaneous documentary record, however, provides no indication that Epstein's team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested, before the USAO made its offer, that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration. As late as July 25, 2007 only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel—Epstein's counsel submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein at all. Furthermore, after the initial "term sheet" was presented and negotiations for the NPA progressed, Epstein's team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail. + +The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it. The most obvious alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that carried a harsher sentence. If federally charged, Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines, 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. However, it is unlikely that he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence, even one at the lower end of the guidelines. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines sentence, and as previously discussed, there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon a trial in this case. If federally charged, Epstein's sentencing exposure could have been managed by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) for a stipulated sentence, which requires judicial approval. Acosta rejected this idea, however, apparently because of a perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule 11(c) pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAO's options. + +Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy, a federal charge that carried a maximum five-year sentence. Shortly after Villafafia circulated the prosecution memorandum to her supervisors, Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and offering a plea to conspiracy "to make a plea attractive." Similarly, before learning that Menchel had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein's counsel, Villafafia had considered offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge, to be served concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the state's outstanding + +indictment. Given Epstein's continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and defense counsel's efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail, it is questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer, but the USAO did not even extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be. + +Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution that ensured a conviction, including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern about intruding on the state's authority, led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice. Menchel told OPR, "I don't believe anybody at the time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything?" + +During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea, the USAO agreed to accept a plea for an 18-month sentence, a reduction of six months from the original "non-negotiable" twoyear term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafafta attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, but Acosta attributed it to a decision made during the negotiating process by Villafafia and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein. + +OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term. Despite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that term, as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms, was settled on for the initial offer. The term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or, as far as OPR could determine, possible state charges. Furthermore, while the USAO initially informed the defense that the two-year term was "non-negotiable," Acosta failed to enforce that position and rather than a "floor" for negotiations, it became a "ceiling" that was further reduced during the negotiations. OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender, or to other traditional sentencing factors such as deterrence, either of Epstein or other offenders of similar crimes. Instead, as previously noted, it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed. As a result, the USAO had little room to maneuver during the negotiations and because Acosta was unwilling to enforce the "non-negotiable" initial offer, the government ended up with a term of incarceration that was not much more than what the state had initially sought and which was significantly disproportionate to the seriousness of Epstein's conduct. + +In sum, it is evident that Acosta's desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a "backstop" to the state, but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable, reasonable basis. In assessing the case only through the lens of providing a "backstop" to the state, Acosta failed to consider the need for a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epstein's conduct and the federal interest in addressing it. + +#### D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA + +After the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: "I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently." + +Once the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be "unseemly" to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein "[t]oo much process," a result of the USAO's desire to "do the right thing" and to the defense team's ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement. Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach. Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder. + +Acosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example, and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, "Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007" to "Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007." (Emphasis added.) Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department. Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his "best efforts" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed. + +## E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process + +The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which + +the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant term of incarceration, and made numerous other concessions to the defense. As OPR has set forth in substantial detail in this Report, OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more appropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state crime and intruding on state authority. Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had set, even when Villafafia and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta himself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner. + +Many of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions. The contemporaneous records revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants. Acosta was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case. Lourie told OPR that it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail." Menchel told OPR, "I know we would have spoken about this case a lota i 9. And I'm sure with Jeff as well, and there were conversations — a meeting that I had with and Andy as well." Lourie similarly told OPR: + +> Well, ... he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me to the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros Memo and . . . the guidance from CEOS, he would have been reading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State Attorney, I don't know, just . . . all these different sources of information he was -- I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you know, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you know, read the Pros Memo, he read all the stuff. .. + +At the same time, Acosta was significantly removed, both in physical distance and in levels in the supervisory chain, from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case— Villafafia and, to a lesser extent, Lourie. Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution memorandum on his own, but as he told OPR, he recognized that the case was going to go through the front office "[b]ecause there was front office involvement from the get go." Yet, although Acosta became involved at certain points in order to make decisions, he did not view himself as overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions. OPR observed that as a consequence, management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions. + +On occasion, Villafafia included Acosta directly in emails, but often, information upon which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafafia. Villafafia did draft a detailed, analytical prosecution memorandum, but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel's departure. Despite these discussions, though, it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information, such as Oosterbaan's strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafafia's concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA. Acosta interpreted the state indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially, but it is not clear that when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea, he knew the extent to which Villafafia and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue a broader state indictment. + +One example illustrates this communication gap. In a September 20, 2007 email to Lourie asking him to read the latest version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement (calling for Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges), Acosta noted, "I don't typically sign plea agreements. We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. I didn't even sign the public corruption or [C]. cartel agreements, so this should not be the first." (Emphasis added.) In his email to Villafafia, Lourie attached Acosta's email and instructed Villafafia to "change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay [Leflcowitz]." (Emphasis added.) Villafafia raised no objection to signing the agreement. Acosta told OPR that he wanted to give the "trial team" a chance to "speak up and let him know" if they did not feel comfortable with the agreement. Villafafia, however, told OPR that she did not understand that she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement; rather, she believed Acosta wanted her to sign it because he was taking an "arm's length" approach and signaling this "was not his deal." The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate, but the line AUSA believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself from the decision, reflects a serious communication gap. + +As another example, at one point, Villafafia, frustrated and concerned about the decisions being made concerning a possible resolution, requested a meeting with Acosta; in a sternly worded rebuke, Menchel rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafafia from speaking to Acosta, Villafafia interpreted Menchel's email to mean that she could not seek a meeting with Acosta. As a consequence, Acosta made his decision about a state resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafafia. Acosta told OPR that he was unaware that Villafafia had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with her if she had asked him directly. OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving both Acosta—the final decision maker—and Villafafia—the person most knowledgeable about the facts and the law—before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to offer the two-year term, and Villafafia said she did not have any input into the decision. Although a U.S. Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input, and it may be that Menchel presented what he believed to be Villafafia's views, OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware of Villafafia's strong views about, and objections to, the proposed resolution.' + +Two logistical problems hindered effective communication. First, the senior managers involved in the case—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—had offices located in Miami, while the offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the case—Villafafia and, to a lesser extent, Lourie—were located in West Palm Beach. Consequently, Villafafia's discussions with her senior + +256In her 2017 Declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafana stated that, given the challenges of obtaining victims' cooperation with a federal prosecution, "I believed and still believe that a negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interests of the [USAO] and the victims as a whole. The [USAO] had also reached that same conclusion." Several subjects pointed to this statement as indicating that Villafana in fact supported the NPA. In her OPR interview, however, Villafazia drew a distinction between resolving the investigation through negotiations that led to what in her view was a reasonable outcome, which she would have supported, and "this negotiated resolution" that is, the NPA—which she did not support. + +managers required more effort than in other offices, where a line AUSA can more easily just stop by a supervisor's office to discuss a case.257 + +Second, key personnel were absent at varying times. Menchel's last day in the office was August 3, 2007, the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer, and presumably in the immediate period before his departure date, Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his outstanding work. Yet, this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter. Similarly, in the critical month of September, the NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly, with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafaña pressed to meet her late-September deadline. Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period, he was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington, D.C., and was traveling between the two locations. Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing, when many significant changes were made to the agreement, and he did not participate in drafting or reviewing the NPA before it was signed. Accordingly, during the key negotiation period for a significant case involving a unique resolution, no one involved had both a thorough understanding of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made. Villafaña certainly felt that during the negotiations, she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta. Acosta, however, told OPR that when reviewing the NPA, "I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did it do the . . . bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that Andy and ██████████ would have looked at this, and that this was . . . appropriate." + +The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can be seen in the NPA itself. As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications, the negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited proposals previously rejected. Meanwhile, Villafaña sought to keep to a deadline that would allow her to charge Epstein when she had planned to, if the parties did not reach agreement. In the end, Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications. + +The USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is a notable example. As previously noted, the only written discussion about the term that OPR found was Villafaña's email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, with copies to her co-counsel and direct supervisor, stating that she did not believe the provision "hurts us," and neither Acosta, Lourie, nor Villafaña recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña intended the scope of the provision to protect anyone other than Epstein's four assistants, the plain language of the provision precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct, within the limitations set by the overall agreement. This broad prosecution declination would likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular, the USAO did not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others. Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third + +257 In his OPR interview, Acosta commented that although Menchel's office was on the same floor as Acosta's, he was in a different suite, which "affects interaction." + +parties.258 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO's refusal to agree to that term would have itself caused the negotiations to fail; the USAO's rejection of the defense proposal concerning immigration consequences did not affect Epstein's willingness to sign the agreement. The possibility that individuals other than Epstein's four female assistants could have criminal culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused more careful consideration of the provision. + +Similarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of the investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO's ability to disclose or release information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province of the USAO to decide as it saw fit. + +There is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given case; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs. And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical decision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time. This case, however, was different from the norm, and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the usual plea agreement. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be handled like any other, but Acosta's decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case unlike any other, and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight. Acosta may well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing + +[I]t's effectively transactional immunity which I didn't think we were supposed to do at the Department of Justice.... I've never heard of anything of the sort.... [W]e go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for example, for crimes of violence, . . . for anything beyond the specific offense which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and nobody else. I mean on rare occasion I've seen cases where say someone was dealing drugs and their wife was involved.... And they've got kids.... [and] it's understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too, but you know the husband's willing to go and take the weight . . . This is not one of those. + +Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision "pretty weird." Menchel's successor as Criminal Chief told OPR that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of experience as a prosecutor. A senior AUSA with substantial experience prosecuting sex crimes against children commented that it was "horrendous" to provide immunity for participants in such conduct. + +25\$ CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was "very unusual." Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth commented, "I don't know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who's not identified. I just don't know how that works." Villafafia's co-counsel told OPR: + +from Villafafia and others, but given the highly unusual procedure being considered, his decision should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system, with which neither Villafafia nor the other subjects had experience, along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and possible means of overcoming those issues. OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the state-based resolution, before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration, or before the NPA, with its unusual terms, was signed. As Acosta later recognized and told OPR, "And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did the focus on, let's just get this done and get a jail term, mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate how this train is moving?" + +Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration, including core provisions like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration, with the result that Epstein was able to manipulate the process to his benefit. Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making. There does not seem to be a point, however, at which those differing opinions were considered when forming a strategy; rather, Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three core elements. As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner, but many of the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful approach. As Acosta belatedly recognized, "[I]f I was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today, I would say, think it through."'" + +No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor judgment by itself. However, in combination, the evidence shows that the state-based resolution was ill conceived from the start and that the NPA resulted from a flawed decision-making process. From the time the USAO opened its investigation, Acosta recognized the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, yet after that investigation had run for more than a year, he set the investigation on a path not originally contemplated. Having done so, he had responsibility for ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct. Acosta's failure to adequately consider the full ramifications of the NPA contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take. + +239In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attomcy acknowledged that "Mlle matter would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention." + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## CHAPTER THREE + +## ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS + +#### PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government's interactions and communications with victims in the Epstein case, and should be read in conjunction with the factual background set forth in Chapter Two, Part One. This chapter sets forth the pertinent legal authorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultation, as well as OPR's analysis and conclusions. OPR discusses key events relating to the USAO's and the FBI's interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA, beginning with the FBI's initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an investigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page. + +## II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 + +## A. History + +In December 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime victims. The Task Force concluded that victims have been "overlooked, their pleas for justice have gone unheeded, and their wounds—personal, emotional and financial—have gone unattended. 2® Thereafter, the government enacted various laws addressing victims' roles in the criminal justice system: the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261 + +The CVRA, enacted on October 30, 2004, as part of the Justice for All Act, was designed to protect crime victims and to make them "Ml participants in the criminal justice system."262 The CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing victims' rights, some of which had previously been codified as a victims' + +260President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii (Dec. 1982). + +261 See Pub. L. No. 97-291 (Victim and Witness Protection Act) (1982); Pub. L. No. 98-473 (Victims of Crime Act) (1984); Pub. L. No. 101-647 (Victims' Rights and Restitution Act) (1990); Pub. L. No. 103-322 (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-132 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) (1996); Pub. L. No. 105-6 (Victim Rights Clarification Act) (1997); and Pub. L. No. 108405 (Justice for All Act) (2004). + +362 Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); and Justice for All Act. + +## Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis + +Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 217 of 349 + +![](_page_216_Diagram_7.jpeg) + +Bill of Rights in the VRRA.263 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment, the Senators determined that such an amendment was unlikely to be approved and, instead, they presented the CVRA as a compromise measure.264 + +#### B. Enumerated Rights + +The CVRA defines the term "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia."265 Initially, and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation, the CVRA afforded crime victims the following eight rights: + +- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. +- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. +- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. + +263See IS0 Cong. Rec. S4260-0I al 1, 5 (2004). The VRRA identified victims' rights to (I) be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (2) be reasonably protected from the accused offender; (3) be notified of court proceedings; (4) be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial; (5) confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; (6) restitution; and (7) information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. 42 U.S.C. § 10606(6) (1990). The relevant text of the VRRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section I.B of this Report. + +S64 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 at I, 5 (2004). Although nine congressional hearings were held between 1996 and 2003 concerning amending the Constitution to address victims' rights, neither chamber of Congress voted on legislation proposing an amendment. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-09-54, Report to Congressional Committees: Crime Victims' Rights Act — Increasing Awareness, Modifying the Complaint Process and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring Will Improve Implementation of the Act at 16 (Dec. 2008) (GAO CVRA Awareness Report). + +265The relevant text of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Pan Two, Section I.A of this Report. + +- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part of the VRRA, the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or by administrative complaint to the Department, and obligated the court to ensure that such rights were afforded. The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA (42 U.S.C. § 10606), but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services, such as counseling and medical care referrals (42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)). Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide victim services, which attach upon the detection of a crime, while the CVRA contains courtenforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument. + +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights:266 + +- (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. +- (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice. + +#### III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF "CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION + +## A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" + +In 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding interpretation of the CVRA's definition of "crime victim.s267 On April 1, 2005, OLC provided "preliminary and informal" guidance by email, concluding that "the status of a `crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's hann."2" + +266H. Rep. No. 114-7 (Jan. 27, 2015). + +267OLC is responsible for providing legal advice to the President, Department components, and other executive branch agencies. + +2&quot; The OLC 2005 Informal Guidance is summarized in a Memorandum Opinion to the Acting Deputy Attorney General from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bits (Dec. 17, 2010), published as Office of Legal Counsel, + +OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines "'crime victim' as a 'person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense,' .. . the definition of victim is thus tethered to the identification of a 'Federal offense,' an event that occurs with the filing of a complaint." OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies the "'rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system" and a complaint "commences the 'judicial process' and places an offense within the 'judicial system," the legislature must have intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint. + +OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation. For example, the first right grants a victim protection from "the accused," not a suspect. Additionally, the second, third, and fourth rights refer to "victim notification, and access to, public proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing or parole—none of which commence prior to the filing of a complaint." + +## B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance + +In May 2005, the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (2005 Guidelines) to include the CVRA.2 The 2005 Guidelines specifically cited the CVRA requirement that agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded" their CVRA rights, which in 2005 encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights. + +The 2005 Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department's CVRA duties and divided criminal cases into an "investigation stage," a "prosecution stage," and a "corrections stage." The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights varied depending on the stage of the proceedings. + +During the "investigation stage" of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency, the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims "[a]t the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime" and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes. + +> [D]uring the investigative stage, [the Department] mandates compliance with the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, 42 U.S.0 § 10607, which requires federal officials to, among other things, identify victims, protect victims, arrange for victims to receive reasonable protection from suspected offenders, and provide + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (Dec. 17, 2010) ("OLC Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010)") and available at https://www.justice.govisites/default/files/olc/ opinions/2010/12/31/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf. "That [2005] informal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable." OLC Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010) at I. + +\$69 The 2005 Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section II of this Report. The Department promulgated the guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predecessor statute to the CVRA, which instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines. Victim and Witness Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 6, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982). The 2005 Guidelines were superseded in October 2011, as explained below. + +information about available services for victims. Therefore, even though [the Department] may not afford CVRA rights to victims if charges have not been filed in their cases, the [D]epartment may provide certain services to victims that may serve the same function as some CVRA rights.270 + +The 2005 Guidelines stated that the "prosecution stage" of the case began when "charges are filed and continue[d] through postsentencing legal proceedings." The "U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending" was responsible for making "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified" of their rights under the CVRA. + +During the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attorney, or a designee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an offender, the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or rendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to "provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... that involves the crime against the victim." + +The 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to "be available to consult with victims about [their] major case decisions," such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to "consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the victim's] views" in light of various factors such as "[w]hether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions" and "[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial." Lastly, the 2005 Guidelines stated that "[a] strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime." + +The "corrections stage" involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration following a conviction. Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant, the U.S. Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage. + +#### IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION + +## A. USAO Training + +As U.S. Attorney, Acosta disseminated the May 2005 updated Guidelines to USAO personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February 27, 2006, stating that he expected each recipient "to read and become familiar with the [2005] Guidelines." Acosta noted in the memorandum that the USAO had recently held an "all office training" addressing the 2005 Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view a videotaped version of the training "immediately." Acosta further noted that the USAO's + +270GAO CVRA Awareness Report at 66. + +victim/witness staff were "ready to assist you with the details of victim notification, and other areas for which United States Attomey[']s Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act." The USAO's Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees. + +#### B. The Automated Victim Notification System + +Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim Notification System (VNS), an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The 2005 Guidelines mandated that "victim contact information and notice to victims of events . .. shall, absent exceptional circumstances (such as cases involving juvenile or foreign victims), be conducted and maintained using VNS." The VNS is separate from agency case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO. Both the FBI and the USAO use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the prosecution of a criminal case. Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited individual matter-specific content, the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of the contact that cannot be removed (such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a sentencing hearing).2" + +In the usual course of a criminal case, the FBI collects victim contact information during the investigation stage, which it stores in its case management system. The FBI's Victim Specialist exports the victim information data from the FBI's case management system into the VNS database. Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation's VNS case number. At the time of the Epstein investigation, the FBI's Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate seven different form notification letters: (1) initial notification; (2) case is under investigation; (3) arrest of the defendant; (4) declination of prosecution; (5) other; (6) advice of victim rights; and (7) investigation closed. + +After a charging document has been filed and the "prosecution stage" begins, the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification.272 The USAO imports data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS data. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing notice of case events, such as charges filed; an arraignment; a proposed plea agreement; change of plea hearings; sentencing hearings; and the result of sentencing hearings. + +271U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report 08-04, The Department of Justice's Victim Notification System at 29 (Jan. 2008), available at https://oitjustice.govireports/EOUSA/a0804/ final.pdf. The 2008 audit identified concerns with the VNS templates, including that "VNS users ... cannot alter the format to ensure that it fits with the specific case for which it is being sent," and many users had noted that "information in notifications became confusing and sometimes contradictory when various types of notifications were combined in the same letter." + +272The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who maintains victim contact: the FBI title is "Victim Specialist," and the USAO title is "Victim Witness Specialist." + +#### C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets + +The 2005 Guidelines recommended that "victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and available services . . . and [contact information for] the victimwitness coordinator or specialist ...." At the time of the Epstein investigation, FBI agents nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled, "Help for Victims of Crime" and "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System." The "Help for Victims of Crime" pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights. The pamphlet stated: "Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are afforded those rights." The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview. The pamphlet entitled "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System" provided an overview of the VNS and instructions on how to access the system. + +#### V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS + +#### A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters + +On August 8, 2006, shortly after the FBI opened its investigation into Epstein, the Victim Specialist for the West Palm Beach FBI office, under the case agent's direction, prepared a "Victim Notification Form" naming 30 victims in the Epstein investigation and stating that "additional pertinent information" about them was available in the VNS.273 Thereafter, the Victim Specialist entered individual victim contact information she received from the case agent into the VNS whenever the case agent directed the Victim Specialist to generate an initial letter to a particular victim. The FBI case agent told OPR that formal victim notification was "always handled by the [FBI's Victim Specialist]."274 + +According to the VNS records, beginning on August 28, 2006, the FBI Victim Specialist used the VNS to generate FBI letters to be sent to the victims, over her signature, identifying the eight CVRA rights and inviting victims to provide updated contact information in order to receive current status information about the matter. The FBI letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated that some of the CVRA rights did not take effect until after an arrest or indictment: "We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights." A sample letter follows. + +7J These 30 were drawn from the PBPD investigative file and included individuals that the PBPD had not designated as victims and individuals the PBPD had identified but not interviewed. + +74 The case agent told OPR, "[O]nce we identify a victim, then we bring [the FBI Victim Specialist] in. and as far as anything pertaining to victim rights ... and any resources, federal resources these victims may need comes from [her], the Victim Specialist." + +![](_page_223_Picture_1.jpeg) + +US. Depa flaunt of Lidice Fcdcml Bureau of I nocatigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite \$00 \$05 South Flagler Drive Wet ?alrn Beech. FL 33 401 Phone (561) 833-7517 Fax: (i61) 833.7970 + +August 28, 2006 + +Re: Case Number: + +Dear + +Your name was refaired to the FBI's Victim Assistance ?FORUM as king a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation whit we are invedigatipg this case. We would like to make you mare of the victim services that essay be available to you and to answer any questions you tray have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Oar program s part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights ander federal law. These rights include notificaion of the status of the case. The enclosed trochures provide information about the PSIS Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for acxssirg the Victim Notification System (vNS). VNS is designed to provide you wan information regarding the dans of you cue. + +This case is curently trida investigation. This can tea lengthy process and we request your continued patience whlk we conduct a thorough Investigation. + +As a crime victim, you have the following rights trader 18 Unite< Stab Code § 3771. (I) The right to be icastinably putts:cid (rum de amused; (n) The Tight to rematable, accurate, and dimly nutica or tm.y public court pocccding. err any parole procmdhg, involving the crine or of an) release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from an> such public court proceeding, trileas the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by toe victim would be materially alsercd if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. (4) The right to he =amiably heard at ;ay public proceeding in tbc district court involving release, pica, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasomaSe right to confer with the attorney for the Goverment in the case (6) The rigla to Ml and timely restitution as provided ir. law: (7) The right to proceedings free from unneonnable delay: (X) The right to he owned with Mimes; and with rerreer for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +We will make our best afford to ensure you are accorded the rights dean-Sod. Most of these rights pertn to events occurring after the amest cc indictar.ent of an individual :or the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Armco's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. Yon may also seek the advice of a pink attorney with respect to these rights + +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide ycu with divot information regarding the use as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain :urrent irformation about this matter on the Internet at WWW Nod V VS I Cesterat + +In addition, yoa may use the Call Center or Memel to update your contact informatian and'or change you decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your Information to include a current erne! address, VNS suit send information to that address You wit need the following Victim Identifeation NUMher(VIN) et Personal Identification Number (PIN) anytIme you contact the Call Center and the it st tine you log on to VNS on the Internet. In additltn., the (Int eine you access the VNS Internet she. you wilt be jumped to aver your last name (or besiress name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you shock! COW is + +If you have additional questions which involve this sienna. please contact the office listed above. When you mil, time provide the file number r.ocatorl c thy top of this Iesa. iltax meat:, your participation in the COtifiCItiCC part of this pregram is soluntey. In order to confirmto receive 'softiies:ions, it is your responsibi:ity to keep you contact information current + +Salciatly, + +![](_page_224_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Victim Specialist + +VNS data logs, correspondence maintained in the FBI's case management system, and FBI interview reports for the Epstein investigation reflect that, during the Epstein investigation, the FBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had been interviewed by FBI case agents, but its practice was not uniform.275 + +#### B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims + +During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim notification letters, Villafana was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of meeting with each victim receiving the letter. Villafafia told OPR that she was "generally aware that the FBI sends letters" but believed the FBI's "process didn't ... have anything to do with my process." Villafaila told OPR the "FBI had their own victim notification system and their own guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided." Moreover, Villafafia "didn't know when [FBI] letters went out" or "what they said."276 Nevertheless, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters she drafted to interfere with the FBI's notification responsibilities. + +In August 2006, Villafafia drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified by the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file. Villatafia told OPR that she "made the decision to make contact with victims early," and she composed the introductory letter and determined to whom they would be sent. Although these letters contained CVRA rights information, Villafana mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to "introduce" herself and let the victims know the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the State Attorney's Office investigation in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated." Villafafta told OPR that in a case in which she "needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate + +27\$ OPR found no uniformity in the time lapse between the FBI's interview of a victim and the issuance of an FBI letter to that particular victim, as the span of time between the two events varied from a few days to months. Furthermore, not every victim interviewed by the FBI received an FBI letter subsequent to her interview, and some FBI letters were sent to victims who had not been interviewed by the case agents. Finally, OPR's review of FBI VNS data revealed some letters that appeared to have been generated in the VNS and not included in the FBI case file. OPR could not confirm whether such letters were mailed or delivered. + +T76 Villafafia, who did not have supervisory authority over the FBI's Victim Specialist, told OPR that she did not review the FBI notification letters and did not see them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation, which was initiated after Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008. + +questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafatia directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters "as they were conducting interviews." Villafaha told OPR that the USAO had "no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to" the filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafaila did not use a template or VNS-generated letter for content, but instead used a letter she "had created and crafted [herself] for another case."2" + +The letters contained contact information for Villafaila, the FBI case agent, and the Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights. The USAO letters described the case as "under investigation" and stated that the victim would be notified "[i]f anyone is charged in connection with the investigation." The letters stated that, in addition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and potential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a list of counseling and medical services.278 Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact Villafatia or the FBI case agent. + +Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the postarrest or indictment stage, Villafana told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the USAO's CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge. Villafaiia told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter "was coming with an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivering them]." Later, in the course of the CVRA litigation, Villafatia stated that she and the investigative team "adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made."279 + +Villafana informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters, but the letters were not reviewed by any of Villafaiia's supervisors, who considered such correspondence to be a non-management task. Acosta told OPR, "I've had no other case where I'm even aware of victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level." Similarly, Menchel told OPR, + +277Villafafia told OPR that she thought that "at one point," she showed the letter to the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist who "said it was fine." The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not file a charging document in the Epstein matter, the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not assume responsibility for victim contact. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein's victims, and OPR's examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBI's VNS data concerning the Epstein investigation. OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the USAO's case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July 2008. + +272Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund, the Department's Office for Victims of Crime supports programs and services to help victims of crime. + +279Villafafia informed OPR that, as the USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator [focusing on prosecutions of individuals who exploit children through the intemet], she "treated the [Guidelines] as a floor and tried to provide a higher standard of contact." + +[A]s Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO, I did not consider it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office. I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victimwitness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office. + +#### C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered + +The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications "at the time that we met [with] the girls." The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters to some victims following in-person interviews, and in the instances when she did not provide a victim with a letter, she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to that set forth in the FBI letters.28° The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered "a few" letters to victims. The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery. + +Nevertheless, the case agent told OPR that she "did not sit there and go through every right" with the victims. She stated, however, "[I]n the beginning whether it was through [the FBI Victim Specialist] giving the letter, me giving a letter, the pamphlet, I believed that the girls knew that they were victims and had rights, and they had a resource, [the FBI Victim Specialist], that they could call for that." The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim, the Victim Specialist handled the victims' "rights and resources." + +#### VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED + +Early in the investigation, Villafalia informed her supervisors that, up to that point, "everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story. Getting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder." Between August 2006 and September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, the FBI case agents interviewed 22 victims. On a few occasions, Villafafia met with victims together with the FBI. Villafafta's May 1, 2007 draft indictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims, and Villafafia described the circumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandum. + +There is some evidence indicating that during interviews, some of the victims expressed to the FBI case agents and Villafafta concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein, and those discussions touched upon, in broad terms, the victims' views regarding the desired outcome of the investigation. Before the USAO entered into the NPA, however, no one from the + +2110The case agent told OPR, "I remember giving letters to the girls when we would talk to them at . . . the conclusion, or ... if I didn't have the file on me[,] I had pamphlets in my car, or I made sure [the victims had contact information for the FBI's Victim Specialist)." + +government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. + +#### A. The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about Resolving the Federal Investigation + +Villafafia told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims, "we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved."281 + +> And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go to jail. But . . . [s]ome of them talked about bad experiences with the State Attorney's Office. And so, I felt like sending them back to the State Attorney's Office was not something that they would have supported. + +Villafafia told OPR that she also recalled that some victims "expressed . . . concern about their safety," and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the investigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that the two CVRA petitioners "never communicated [their] desires to me or the FBI case agents and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all of the victims, and allow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly."282 She also noted that some victims "fear[ed] having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, and others." + +In the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: + +> Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims .... A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, + +281Villafafia created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations, with notations indicating several with whom Villafafia recalled discussing their opinions about resolving the case. The chart, however, dots not indicate what the victims said, and Villafafia told OPR that the information contained in the chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim. OPR was unable to determine the details or extent of any such discussions occurring before September 24. 2007, because Villafafia did not have contemporaneous notes of the interviews, and the FBI reports and corresponding notes of the interviews did not contain information about the victims' desired outcomes. The victims who provided information to OPR did not recall discussing potential resolution of the federal investigation with anyone from the government. + +282In the declaration, Villafaila stated, "Jane Doc 2 specifically told me that she did not want Epstein prosecuted." + +for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. + +The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were "strong" and "believable," she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein. Rather, "they were embarrassed," "didn't want their parents to know," and "wanted to forget."283 + +As of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Villafafia informed Epstein attorney Leflcowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including "34 confirmed minors" and 6 other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI.2M Although the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed, Villafafia acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that "individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement." + +#### B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims Have Not Been Consulted + +Before the NPA was signed, Villafafia articulated to her supervisors concerns about the government's failure to consult with victims. + +#### 1. July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel + +In July 2007, Villafafia learned that Menchel had discussed with defense counsel a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Villafafia was upset by this information, and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns. (A full account of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two, Part One, Section IV.A.2.) In that email, she told him that it was "inappropriate [for you] to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate ... all of the + +283The case agent also noted that the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 had expressed in her April 2007 video-recorded FBI interview her opinion that "nothing should happen to Epstein." + +284The "victims' list" for purposes of the NPA was intended to include the names of all individuals whom the government was prepared to name in a charging document "as victims of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Although the charges Villafafia proposed on May I, 2007, were based on crimes against 13 victims, thereafter, as explained in Chapter Two of this Report, she continued to revise the proposed charges, adding and removing victims as the federal investigation developed further evidence. At the time the NPA was signed, the proposed charges were based on crimes against 19 victims, but others had been identified for potential inclusion. + +various iterations of the victims' rights legislation."285 Villafaria explained to OPR her reference to the victims: + +> [M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what's happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it.2" + +In his reply to Villafafia's email, and after noting that he found her email "totally inappropriate," Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that "[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with" Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel's rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafafia responded, "[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment" and that her "first and only concern in this case ... is the victims." + +Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with as a plea offer, asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. Menchel told OPR that "you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims ... is not even . . . in the same universe as to how I think about this." Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafafia criticized him for engaging in settlement ',ions without consulting her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafafta had herself sent an email to offering "to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein's case that could run concurrently with any state resolution," without having spoken to the victims about her proposa1.287 + +283Villafaha told OPR that "some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition)." Villafafia stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the "effects on the victims" but did not likely contain information as to "how they would like the case resolved." Villafaha asserted that Menchel "never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be." Menchel told OPR that the allegations in Villafafia's email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were "way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies arc." + +286As discussed, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were filed against a defendant. + +287In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafafia's counsel asserted that her email to only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations. was intended + +#### 2. Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions + +Villafatia told OPR that during an "early" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, which took place when "we were probably just entering into plea negotiations," she raised the government's obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially, Villafaila told OPR she was instructed, "Don't talk to [the victims]. Don't tell them what's happening," but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaiia recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."289 Villafafia remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta. + +Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafafta was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view "is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time," and he did not "recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed." Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, "I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter." Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, because "we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal," and it would have been "premature" to consider notification.290 + +#### 3. September 6, 2007: Villalafta Informs Slum:tn. ho Informs .costa, of OoSterbaan's Opinion I hat (onsultation 'Ill 'let1111% Was Required + +On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government's then-pending offer to the defense, Villafalla raised the victim consultation issue, advising that, "the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law" and that "the [PBPD] + +298Villafafia could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchcl left the USAO on August 3, 2007. + +299Villafalia also recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." + +290In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel reiterated his contention that Villafafta's claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to which Menchel's anomey pointed necessarily refined Villafana's assertion that she had received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafafta disagreed, but given OPR's conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought. OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction. + +Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."29I Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Villafafia recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly after he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, "[Y]ou can't do that now." Villafafia did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction. + +Villafafia told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that . . . pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification." Sloman did not recall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA," and "we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in .. . filed cases." Sloman said that no one other than Villafafia raised the notification issue, and because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA." Lourie told OPR that he had no memory of Villafafia being directed not to speak to the victims about the NPA.292 Similarly, the attorney who assumed Lourie's supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he "assumed that was being handled."293 + +Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that "there is no requirement to notify [the victims], because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any "pre-NPA discussions" regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA.294 Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]." + +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO's stance that the CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO "posture" was not "an abuse of discretion" or "an ethical issue," but rather reflected a "serious and legitimate + +291Villafafia told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because "he was the head of CEOS and because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them [to notify the victims]." As previously noted, Villafafia's statement that victim approval had to be obtained was incorrect. Even when applicable, the CVRA only requires consultation with victims, not their approval of a plea agreement. Moreover, Villafaiia's comments concerning the pre-charge application of the USAO's CV RA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate the USAO's CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August 2006. + +292Lourie noted that during this period, he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the office, but was "help[ing] [] out" from offsite because he had "historical knowledge" of the case. + +293The AUSA who for a time served as Villafafia's co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not "know anything about" discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of the case. The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case "months earlier" and that he "didn't have anything to do with the [NPA] negotiations." + +294Villafaiia told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim's]." + +disagreement" regarding the CVRA's requirements.295 Oosterbaan's disagreement was based on policy considerations, and he told OPR that "from a policy perspective," CEOS would not "take a position that you wouldn't consult with [the victims]." Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity "to weigh in directly," but he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity: + +> The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . were trying to do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren't acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome . . . but the point is they weren't trying ... to do anything improper . . . it was more of this question of . . . you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going to do but . . . it's hard to say it was a complete, completely clean exercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn't really know what [the victims] would say. + +Sloman told OPR, "I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. . .. I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims." + +#### VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS + +The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafafta and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation. However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA's nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's defense counsel regarding victim notifications.2" As a result, although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision, and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys, who strongly objected to the government's notification plan. In addition, Villafafta and the case agents grew concemed that notifying the victims about the NM monetary damages provision would damage the victims' credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney's discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008. + +Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospect, "maybe I should have been more aggressive with how . .. I dealt with [the USAO]." + +296The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: 'The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." + +#### A. September — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment + +In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafafia on September 24, 2007, defense attorney Lefkowitz asked Villafafia to "do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming public."297 Villafaila forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach manager noting that, "I don't intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file." Acosta responded that he "thought the [NPA] already binds us not to make [it] public except as required by law or [FOIA]" and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media about the NPA, "this is the State Attorneyns show."2" Acosta added, "In other words, what more does he want?" Villafafia responded, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Lourie agreed, noting that "there really is no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy. The [PBPD] Chief was only concerned that he not get surprised by all this."M9 Acosta responded that he would set up a call on September 26, 2007, to talk "about who we can tell and how much."300 + +Also on September 24, 2007, Villafafia emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to "meet with the girls myself to explain how the system [for obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255] will work." Villafafia also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him "what I can tell [the attorney representative] and the girls about the agreement," and she assured Lefkowitz that her office "is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone." Villafaila also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter. + +On September 26, 2007, Villafafia emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the NPA: "Can you give me a call . I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." Villafafia told OPR that because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the victims, she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein. Villafafia told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be + +297Villafafia had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process." + +298Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NM "would see the light of day" because the victims would have to "hear about [their § 2255 rights] from somewhere" and "given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd." + +299Lourie told OPR that the § 2255 provisions of the NPA "that benefitted the victims were there for the victims to take advantage of.... and they did. How ... they were going to receive that information and when they were going to receive it is a different question, but there's no ... issue with the fact that they were going to get that information." + +700OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place. + +involved in such notifications. According to Villafaria, Sloman then directed her to have the case agents make the victim notifications. + +Accordingly, Villafafia directed the case agents to "meet with the victims to provide them with information regarding the terms of the [NPA] and the conclusion of the federal investigation." The case agent told OPR, "[T]here was a discussion that and I had as to . .. how we would tell them, and what we would tell them, and what that was I don't recall, but it was the terms of the agreement." Villafafia believed that if "victims were properly notified of the terms [of the NPA] that applied to them, regarding their right to seek damages from [Epstein], and he paid those damages, that the rest of the [NPA] doesn't need to be disclosed." Villafafia "anticipated that [the case agents] would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court change of plea [hearing], but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first victims were notified [by the FBI]." Villafafia told OPR that it was her belief that because the USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the general public, but victims could be informed "because by its terms they needed to be told what the agreement was about." Villafafia told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a concern that if victims learned of the NPA, they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea. + +Within a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the New York Post reported that Epstein "has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," and noted that Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that "the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge.""1 + +The case agent recalled informing some victims that "there was an agreement reached" and "we would not be pursuing this federally." In October 2007, for example, the case agents met with victim I , "to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." According to the case agent, during that meeting, the case agents told "that an agreement had been reached, Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges, and there would not be a federal prosecution."342 However, in a declaration filed in 2015 in the CVRA litigation, described the conversation differently: + +> [T]he agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State court and may plea [sic] to state charges related to some of his other victims. I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me. + +&quot;I Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. See also "Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie," New York Post, Oct. 6, 2007; "Andrew Pal Faces Scx List Shame," Mail on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007; "Epstein Eyes Sex-Rap Relief," New York Post, Oct. 9, 2007; "Sex Case 'Victims' Lining Up," New York Post "Page Six," Oct. 15, 2007; Dareh Gregorian and Mathew Nestel, "I Was Teen Prey of Pervert Tycoon," New York Post, Oct. 18, 2007. The following month, the Palm Beach Post reported the end of the federal investigation as well. See "Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days," Palm Beach Post, Nov. 9, 2007; "How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator?," Palm Beach Post "Opinion," Nov. 16, 2007. + +302The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case, but could not recall the specifics of the discussions. + +During this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me. + +My understanding of the agents' explanation was that the federal investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein. + +In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to Villafafia in an email: + +> Jane Doe #I4 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic] jail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving up.303 + +The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and expressed "a sense of relief." Counsel for "Jane Doe #I3" told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about Epstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, "Jane Doe #14's" attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea. + +After meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims' knowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The case agent explained to OPR that she became "uncomfortable" talking to the victims about the damages provision, and that as the lead investigator, "if we did end up going to trial . . . [if] Mr. Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand" testifying that "I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." + +Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "[T]hat's why we went back to [Villafafia] and said we're not comfortable now putting this out there ... because . . . it's likely that [the case agent] and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial, and this could be a problem." Villafaiia told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of "offering a bribe + +303The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports, because "it wasn't an interview of them, it was a notification. ... [I]f there was something ... relevant [that] came up pertaining to the investigation, or something that I thought was noteworthy .. I might have [recorded it in an interview report]." + +304Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness through evidence of bias, which may include the witness having received money, or expecting to receive money, from the government, the defendant, or other sources as a result of the witness's allegations or testimony. + +for [victims] to enhance their stories" and that the defense would try to have Villafafia or the case agents removed from the case. + +Both the lead case agent and Villafafia told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafafia the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for advice. Villafafia recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that "it's not really that big a concern, but if you're concerned about it then you should stop making the notification."305 In her 2017 CVRA declaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO, the case agents stopped notifying victims about the NPA. + +#### B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications + +While the case agents and Villafafia considered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special to select the attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision. On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a letter responding to the USAO's proposal to use a special =, he cautioned that "neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case" because such communications would "violate the confidentiality of the agreement" and would prevent Epstein from having control over "what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage." Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that "[n]either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case."306 Rather, Lefkowitz wanted to "participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." + +On October 23, 2007, Villafafia raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman, stating: + +We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to 'cold call' the girls. + +As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007, + +705 The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about victim notification, nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted in July 2008 and he was assigned to handle the litigation. Villafaiia told OPR that they consulted the Professional Responsibility Officer over the telephone, the call took no more than "five minutes," and the Professional Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus "wouldn't have [any] context for it." + +70B Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules. + +and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007, not to "contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter."707 Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Leflcowitz's letter, which Acosta revised to clarify the "inaccurate" representations made by Leflcowitz, in particular noting that Acosta did not agree to a "gag order" with regard to victim contact. The draft response, as revised by Acosta, stated: + +> You should understand, however, that there are some communications that are typical in these matters. As an example, our Office has an obli ation to contact the victims to inform them that either [the Special, or his designee, will be contact[ing] them. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we would any similarly situated case.J0' + +In a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had discussed financial settlement with them. Sloman noted that the private investigators' "actions are troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of the matter, which includes informing them that, as part of the resolution, Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay damages in some circumstances." The same day, Villafafia emailed Sloman expressing her concern that "if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, right?'"3" + +#### C. October — November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is "Under Investigation" + +Although Villafafta and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the NPA, the FBI continued its investigation of the case, which included locating and interviewing potential victims. In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims, 8 of whom had been identified in a "preliminary" victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the + +307Villafafta later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a "general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation." + +308Sloman's draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a "gag order." OPR recovered only a draft version of the communication and was unable to find any evidence that the draft letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel. + +309Subsequent records also referred to the prosecutors' concerns about creating impeachment evidence and that such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of the NPA until after Epstcin pled guilty. In August 2008, the AUSA handling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafafta, Acosta, and Sloman expressing his understanding that the "victims were not consulted [concerning the NM] .. . because [the USAOI did not believe the [CVRAJ applied." Acosta responded: "As I recall, we also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]." + +NPA.310 The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Villafafia acknowledged that she and the case agents did not tell any of the "new" post-NPA-signing victims about the agreement because "at that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and that we were in fact going to be [charging] Mr. Epstein." + +On October 12, 2007, the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim the case agents had interviewed two days earlier. This letter was identical to the VNS form notice letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the case as "under investigation" and requesting the victim's "patience." The letter listed the eight CVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the § 2255 provision. Villafafia told OPR she was unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew "there were efforts to make sure that we had identified all victims of the crimes under investigation." In response to OPR's questions about the accuracy of the FBI letter's characterization of the case as "under investigation," Villafaiia told OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October 26, 2008, and "at this point we weren't actively looking for additional charges," but "the investigation wasn't technically suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA." + +#### D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan + +In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafafia reported on November 16, 2007, to Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she had learned, from FBI agents who met with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, that the State Attorney's Office wanted the USAO to notify victims of the state plea hearing. + +> [Belohlavek] would still like us to do the victim notifications. The State does not have a procedure (like we do federally) where the Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend judicial proceedings, so I do not know how many victims will actually want to be present.31I + +Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein's state plea hearing. + +On November 19, 2007, Villafafia decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from the defense about the information given to victims, she "would put the victim notification in writing." She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter, in which among other things, + +310Not all the individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list. For example, one would not cooperate with investigators; a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity; and a third claimed she had no contact with Epstein. + +311Villafafia told OPR that she understood the state took the position that because "there was either only one or two victims involved in their case," they "could not do victim notifications to all of the victims." + +she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail, and the victims' ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney's Office. Sloman and Villafana exchanged edits on the draft victim notification letter, and Villafatia also informed Sloman that "[t]here are a few girls who didn't receive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for those."312 + +Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its "statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement" and his intent to "notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29." Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that it was "incendiary and inappropriate" and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of 2004. He argued that the defense "should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims." He also insisted that if any notification letters were sent to "victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea" and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than the government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaria provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea was to occur on December 14, 2007.313 + +In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter, arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until after Epstein's plea and sentencing. Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to appear at Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a proceeding. In a November 30, 2007 reply letter to Lefkowitz, Acosta did not address the substance of Leflcowitz's arguments, but accused the defense team of "in essence presenting collateral challenges" delaying effectuation of the NPA, and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NPA, "we stand ready to unwind the Agreement" and proceed to trial. Shortly thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors "not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." In the letter, Acosta also refuted defense allegations that Villafafta had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary damages, stating that "the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter." + +On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, "reaffirm[ing]" the NPA, but taking "serious issue" with + +312On November 28, 2007, two months after the NPA was signed, the lead case agent informed Villafafta that only 15 of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or the USAO. On December 6, 2007, the lead cast agent reported to Villafafta that she was "still holding many of the original V/W letters addressed to victims from the USAO." + +313Villafafta understood the state prosecutors had set the December 14, 2007 date, and entailed them for confirmation, stating, "[Of the matter is set for the 14th. please let me know so I can include that in my victim notifications." + +the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and "the use of Section 2255." The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was "wholly inappropriate" for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter "under any circumstances," and "strongly urg[ed]" Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able "to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher." + +The following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafafta, asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings as "other relief' to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea.3t4 (Emphasis in original). Sloman added: + +> Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.3t5 + +Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafafta or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns: "Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case." Sloman advised the defense: "The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement." + +Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The letter stated that "the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed," Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing: + +> As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley, + +314See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX1)(B) and (c)(3). + +315Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is simply informing the victims of their rights." Villafafta informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter, but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafafta was the principal author of most correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to the defense. + +in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: + +> the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. FI[a]. Stat. [§] 921.143(2). + +Sloman told OPR that he was "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify [the victims], even though it wasn't a federal case. Whether we were required or not." Sloman also told OPR that while "we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification letters . I think . . . and . . . the agents . . . were keeping the victims apprised at some level." + +On December 7, 2007, Villafafia prepared letters containing the above information to be sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Slornasuesting permission to send them.316 Sloman, however, had that day received a letter from advising that Epstein's plea hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO "hold off" sending the victim notification letters until "we can further discuss the contents." Also that day, Starr and Leflcowitz submitted to Acosta the two lengthy "independent ethics opinions" supporting the defense arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Sloman responded to Villafafia's request with an email instructing her to "Hold the letter."3" Sloman told OPR that he "wanted to push the [victim notification] letter out," but his instruction to Villafafia was "the product of me speaking to somebody," although he could not be definitive as to whom. Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter . .. and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation." + +On December 10, 2007, Villafafia contacted the attorney who at the time represented the victim who later became CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe #2" to inform him that she "was preparing victim notification letters." In her 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia noted that she reached out to Jane Doe #2's counsel, despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered + +316The FBI case agent had emailed Villafafia the day before stating. 'The letter that is currently being revised needs to take into account that several victims have never been notified by your office or mine." The case agent also stated, "I do not feel that [the defense] should have anything to do with the drafting or issuing of this letter. My primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance with federal law." + +317Villafaiia told OPR that she did not recall asking Sloman for an explanation for not sending the letters; rather, she -just remember[cd] putting them all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted." + +her a victim for purposes of the federal charges, and continued to treat her as a victim because she wanted "to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims."' + +#### E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution. "as Required by Law" + +On December 11, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to "the background and conduct of the investigation" into Epstein. Regarding issues relevant to victim notification, in his transmittal letter, Starr asserted that the "latest episodes involving [§] 2255 notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and time again, are not being served." By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." + +In his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims of the § 2255 provision: + +> Villafafia's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004, a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact, [she] proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged federal victims. + +Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate mechanism for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and a trust fund would not violate Epstein's due process rights. Lefkowitz took issue with the government's "assertion" that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the alleged victims, or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so. Lefkowitz further argued that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA, because neither applied to a public, state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges. + +In a letter from Villafafia to Lefkowitz, responding to his allegations that she had committed misconduct, she specifically addressed the "false" allegations that the government had + +31\* As noted previously, in April 2007, this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable to Epstein. Villafatia told OPR she was instructed by either Sloman or Acosta "not to consider [this individual] as a victim for purposes of the NPA because she was not someone whom the Office was prepare[d] to include in" a federal charging document. Accordingly, the victim who became "Jane Doe 02" was not included on the victim list ultimately furnished to the defense. The attorney who was representing this victim at the time of her FBI interview was paid by Epstein, and she subsequently obtained different counsel. + +informed victims "of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein": + +> None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. + +On December 14, 2007, Villafafta forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter previously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer; Villafafia's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, "The letters you requested." One of the draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafafta, was to advise that the USAO had sent an enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed "list of the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law."319 The second draft letter to Krischer, for Acosta's signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel's allegations that the State Attorney's Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to ICrischer.32° + +A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Villafafia emailed Sloman, stating, "[Is there] anything that I or the agents should be doing?" Villafafia told Sloman that "[the FBI case agent] is all worked up because another agent and [a named AUSA] are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims [in an unrelated matter]. We seem to be in a Catch 22. 321 OPR did not find a response to Villafafia's email. + +In their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta + +319The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on December 6, 2007, except that it contained a new plea date of January 4, 2008. + +320Moreover, the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney's file, which included other correspondence from the USAO. See Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein, available at http://salS.org/stateattomey/NewsRoom/indexPR htm. + +321OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR. Villafafta told OPR that "Catch 22" was a reference to instructions from supervisors "What we can't go forward on" filing federal charges and "I was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time." + +review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's "unprecedentedly expansive interpretation" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. + +In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the NPA to resolve "disagreements" with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to "place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings: + +> I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that [the CVRA] applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. + +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office," and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafafta. Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the role of the USAO, "to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome.s322 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office's ability to "fulfill whatever obligation they have," and he added, "Let's not assume ... that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors." Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding "that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Acosta also told OPR that the state would + +322Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense, "Arc there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage]," to which Lefkowitz replied, "The state should have their own mechanism." At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution. upon request, victims were afforded the "right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla. Const. art. 1, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, "Law enforcement personnel shall ensure" that victims are given information about "[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the victim[.]" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1 Xa) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, "in a case in which the victim is a minor child," the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney "in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1Xg) (2007). + +have "notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding." + +Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state court proceedings should be "left to the state."323 Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney, and she noted that the "correspondence [OPR] provided to me from that time period" discussing such a decision "demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr. Acosta and/or his team, and that I did not provide, suggest, or edit the language." Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights under § 2255"; but, his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going to be notified." + +Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim list from the USAO. She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard to contacting the victims. + +In response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should not communicate with the victims, and that the state, not the USAO, should determine who can be heard at the sentencing hearing: + +> [Y]our letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom [CVRA] notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary injury of the [victim]—it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at I . Villafafia repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the + +323In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, "Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney's Office]." OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker's purported involvement in the decision. + +decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision making.324 + +Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because the Attorney General Guidelines defined "crime victim" as a person harmed as a result of an offense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court. Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, "[W]e do not object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some for► **of notice be given to the alleged victims." Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice sent by the USAO, and that "any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO]," and he agreed that the USAO "should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those victims and the state proceedings."** + +**Months later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Villafafia committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a "highly improper and unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" victims.** + +#### **F. January —June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein** + +**As described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely, implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel's advocacy resulted in the USAO's decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then, briefly, by an experienced CEOS trial attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein's entry of his state guilty plea.** + +**As set forth below, during that time, Villafafia and the FBI continued investigating and working toward potential federal charges.** + +#### **1. Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA** + +**On January 3, 2008, the local newspaper reported that Epstein's plea conference in state court, at that point set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution, and that "in exchange" for the guilty plea,** + +**324**The 2000 Guidelines were superseded by the 2005 Guidelines. + +"federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal laws."325 + +Nevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA, and with his attorneys asserting that "the facts had gotten better for Epstein," Villafafia came to believe that Epstein would likely breach the NPA.326 In January 2008, Villafafia informed her supervisors that the FBI "had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared to [file charges], but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with the vast majority of the victims." Villafafia then proposed that the FBI "re-establish contact with all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial."321 Villafafia told OPR that at this point, "[w]hile the case was being investigat[ed] and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or send any victim notification letters—there simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any victim calls during this time." + +#### 2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims + +On January 10, 2008, the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification letters to 14 victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The case agent informed Villafafia in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a "standard form [FBI] letter to all the remaining identified victims." These 2008 letters were identical to the FBI form letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August 28, 2006, and October 12, 2007. Like those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the 2008 letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated: + +325Michele Dargan, "Jeffrey Epstein Plea Hearing Moved to March," Palm Beach Daily News "The Shiny Sheet," Jan. 3, 2008. + +326 Epstein's attorneys used discovery proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims, and as they learned unflattering details or potential impeachment information concerning likely federal victims, they argued for the exclusion of those victims from the federal case. For example, defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. See Exhibit 9 to Villafafta June 2, 2017 Declaration: Deposition of [REDACTED], State v. Epstein, Case No. 2006-CF-9454, at 44, 50, 51 (Feb. 20, 2008). One victim's attorney told OPR that the defense attorneys tried to "smear" victims by asking highly personal sexual questions about "terminations of pregnancies . . . sexual encounters . . . masturbation." Epstein's attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client. For example, the Miami Herald reported that, "One girl was asked about her abortions, and her rents, who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned." See Julie M, "Perversion of Justice: Cops Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison. Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. + +327Villafaiia also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims. + +128The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May 30, 2008. After Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. + +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. + +The FBI case agent informed Villafafia that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow up with a phone call "to offer assistance and ensure that [the victims] have received their letter." A sample letter is shown on the following pages. + +Villafafia told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time they were sent to the victims, or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villafafia, "The decision to issue the letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Nevertheless, Villafafia asserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation "was absolutely true and, despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation." Villafafia identified various investigative activities in which she engaged from "September 2007 until the end of June 2008," such as collecting and reviewing evidence; interviewing new victims; re-interviewing victims; identifying new charges; developing new charging strategies; drafting supplemental prosecution memoranda; revising the charging package; and preparing to file charges. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was continuing." The co-case agent stated that the "the case was open . . . it's never been shut down." + +Victim received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters; much later, in the course of the CVRA litigation, she stated that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against [her]."3" + +329CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 also received a January 10, 2008 FBI letter that was sent to her counsel. + +![](_page_249_Picture_22.jpeg) + +**U.S. Department of Justice** +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +506 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 + +January 10, 2008 + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Re: Case Number: [REDACTED] + +Dear [REDACTED] + +This case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. + +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. + +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on the Internet at [WWW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV](http://WWW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV) or from the VNS Call Center at [REDACTED] + +In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) [REDACTED] and Personal Identification Number (PIN) [REDACTED] anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is [REDACTED] + +If you have additonal questions which Involve this matter, please contact the effice listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this prcomm Is voluntary. In order tc continue to receive notifcatiorts, It is your responsibility to keep your contact Iriormation current. + +Sincerely, + +![](_page_250_Picture_3.jpeg) + +m spedel + +#### 3. Villafana, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims + +As Villafatia resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent provided Villafafia with a list of "the 19 identified victims we are planning on using in" the federal charges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional victims.33° In Washington, D.C., CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter.33I + +On January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman by telephone, stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients, who were "frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation" of Epstein. The attorney asked Sloman if the USAO "could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter," but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late January, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a \$50 million civil suit against Epstein in Florida and that "Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute."333 + +Between January 31, 2008, and May 28, 2008, the FBI, with the prosecutors, interviewed additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was signed.334 In late January 2008, as Villafafia and the CEOS Trial Attorney prepared to participate + +370 The case agent also informed Villafafta that she expected to ask for legal process soon in order to obtain additional information. + +171 The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she was under the impression that she was brought in to help prepare for the trial because the "plea had fallen through." + +332Because Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to OPR shortly thereafter. OPR reviewed the matter as an inquiry and determined that no further action was warranted. + +333 Dareh Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - S50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. + +3M An FBI interview report from May 28, 2008, indicates that one victim "believes Epstein should be prosecuted for his actions." + +in FBI interviews of and other victims, Villafafia informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she anticipated the victims "would be concerned about the status of the case." + +On January/L 2008, Villafatia, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three victims, including M. Prior to the interview, had received the FBI's January l02008 letter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent, and two other victims had also been told bySe FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved. In her 2015 CVRA-case declaration, stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed that the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told "about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have ol2cted." In Villafafia's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia recalled interviewing on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafalia told OPR she "asked [MI whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial." Villafafta recalled responding that she "hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify."335 + +After the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafafia described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims: + +> One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice ... she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview. + +> The second girl... was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper.336 She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.337 + +Villafafia closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day, but neither did so.338 Acosta told OPR that it "wasn't typical" + +335The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of intentions. + +376 See Dareh Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - \$50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. As early as October 2007, the New York Post reported the I8-month sentence and that "[t]he feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge." Dan Mangan, "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal — Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. I, 2007. + +337Acosta told OPR, "The United States can't unwind an agreement just because ... some victim indicates that they don't like it." The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not "think that any one of these girls was interested in this prosecution going forward." Furthermore, as previously noted, the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that "[the victims] would have testified for us," but the case would have required an extensive amount of "victim management," as the girls were "deeply embarrassed" that they "were going to be called prostitutes." + +338 OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February I, 2008 victim interview. Although Villafafia's emails indicated that two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, OPR located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews. OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafafia + +for him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO "was questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims." Sloman told OPR that he himself had "never gone to a line assistant's victim or witness interview." + +Villafaha told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Villafalia did not specifically tell these victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." Villafaha also told OPR she "didn't talk about money" because she "didn't want there to be an allegation at the time of trial . . . that [the victims] were either exaggerating their claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount." Rather, according to Villafaha, she told the three victims that "an agreement had been reached where [Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually perform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged, and may have to go to trial." Villafaiia recalled "explaining that the case was under investigation," that they "were preparing the case [for charging] again," and "expressing our hope that charges would be brought." Villafaila recalled one victim "making a comment about the amount of [imprisonment] time and why was it so low" and Villafafia answered, "that was the agreement that the office had reached."339 + +With regard to the victims Villafaha interviewed who had not received an FBI notification in October 2007, Villafaila recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns but not whether they discussed the agreement. She recalled telling another victim that "we thought we had reached an agreement with [Epstein] and then we didn't," but was "pretty sure" that she did not mention the agreement during the interview of the third victim. Villafaila explained that she likely did not discuss the agreement because + +> at that point I just felt .. . like it was nonexistent. [The victim] didn't know anything about it beforehand, and as far as I could tell it was going to end up being thrown on the heap, and I didn't want to if you tell people, look, he's already admitted that he's guilty, like, I didn't want that to color her statement. I just wanted to get the facts of the case. + +The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims about the NPA or the status of the case.' She did remember explaining the significance of the prosecution to one victim who "did not think anything should happen" to Epstein. The FBI case agent told OPR that she did not recall the January 2008 interviews. OPR located notes to an FBI interview report, stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted. Attorneys for the two victims other than who had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case informed OPR that as of 2020, their clients had no memory of meeting with + +authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no information regarding a discussion of the status of the investigation or the resolution of the case. Through her attorney, this victim told OPR that she did not recall having contact with anyone from the USAO. + +339Villafana did not recall any other specific questions from victims. + +S°0 The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications; rather, such notifications were generally handled by a Victim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO. + +prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the plea was entered on June 30, 2008. + +When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims, Villafafia told OPR: + +> From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. You know, I was interviewing witnesses, I was issuing [legal process], ... I was doing all [these] things to take the case to a federal indictment and a federal trial. So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate. + +#### 4. February — March 2008: Villafatia Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay + +In February 2008, Villafafia revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental memorandum. Villafafia removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly discovered victims, and made changes to the proposed indictment. + +While the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of the Department, Villafafia sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense in civil lawsuits that some victims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case. Villafafia reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a "national crime victims service organization" to provide attorneys for the victims, and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some victims to provide contact information for the attorneys?" During this period, an attorney from the victims service organization was able to help avoid an improper deposition. Villafafia also informed her supervisors, including Sloman, that "one of the victims tried to commit suicide last week," and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case: "I just can't stress enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case. The 'please be patient' answer is really wearing thin, especially when Epstein's group is still on the attack while we are forced to wait on the sidelines." + +#### 5. March — April 2008: Villafaiia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges + +Villafafia continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing others who had filed civil suits against Epstein. Villafatia also prepared search warrants for digital + +xai The FBI Victim Specialist informed Villafafia that she spoke "directly to seven victims" and informed them of the pro bono counsel and explained that her "job as a Victim Specialist is to ensure that victims[] of a Federal crime are afforded their rights, information and resource referral." + +camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain child pornography.342 + +By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department's Criminal Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafafta and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were "more and more likely." Villafana asked Oosterbaan for help to "move this [Criminal Division review] process along," noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's case by deposing the victims "under the guise of 'trial prep' for the state case" and that the "agents and the victims" were "losing their patience." + +On April 24, 2008, Villafalia emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the = light" to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafatia further cautioned that, although she was planning to file charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, "then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay." Because the Department's Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein's appeal by May 6, however, Villafafta did not file charges that day. + +#### VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION + +During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department's position that CVRA's victims' rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy regarding the issue. + +Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him "an absolute right to meet" with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, "our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed." On April 24, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had "confirmed with DOJ that [her] reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until a case is filed."m3 + +On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, In re-, holding that a victim's + +342The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards. + +317 The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department's statutory obligations to the victim. + +CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellate Division Chief noted that, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the "court's opinion makes sense." + +involved a federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery operated by BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) that killed 15 people and injured more than 170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without notifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion, alerting the district court to the potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such notification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea agreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal information, the government and BP signed the plea agreement, and the government mailed notices of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12 victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights under the CVRA. The district court denied their motion, but concluded that the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.3U The district court noted that the legislative history reflected a view that "the right to confer was intended to be broad," as well as being a "mechanism(]" to ensure that victims were treated with fairness. + +In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court "failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA."346 In particular, the Fifth Circuit cited the district court's acknowledgement that "[t]here are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation was not "an infringement" on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion, but "it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In the wake of the opinion, two Department components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution. + +#### IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFAF4A'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA PETITIONERS + +Accortan affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation by her attorney, retained in June 2008 to represent her "because she was unable to get anyone from the [USAO] to tell her what was actutilioing on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein."TM7 Villafafia told OPR that did not contact her directly and she was not aware of + +311 In re 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida, which is within the Eleventh Circuit. + +Ns United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at • I I (S.D. Tex. 2008). Victims who wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing. + +316 In 527 F.3d at 394. + +347 Before Epstein's state court plea hearing, also beibie resenting the victim who became Jane Doe #2. Although OPR focuses on Villafafta's communications with in this section, OPR notes that Villafana + +an instance in which "asked a question that wasn't answered" of anyone in the USAO or of the FBI case agents. + +contacted Villafafia by email and telephone in mid-June statin that he had "information and concerns that [he] would like to share.s306 In his affidavit, alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Villafafia, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in," and Villafafia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter "was an on-going active investigation[.]" attested that Villafafia gave him "the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity."149 + +In her written response to OPR, Villafafia said that she "listened more than [she] spoke" during these interactions with which occurred before the state court plea: + +> Given the uncertainty of the situation — Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms, while the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards [filing charges] — I did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury. + +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia explained that during these exchanges, Villafafia did not inform of the existence of the NPA because she "did not know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the NPA."35° Villafafia told OPR that she did not inform + +also had interactions with other victims' attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to Villafana two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under investigation. The attorney noted, "fliVie never got any information out of [Villafafta]. We were never told what was happening or going on to any extent." Villafafta's counsel told OPR that Villafaiia did not have any interaction with the attorney or his law partner until after Epstein's state court plea hearing, and that in her written communications responding to the attorney's inquiries, she provided information to the extent possible. OPR found no documentation that Villafatia's communications with the attorney occurred prior to June 30, 2008. Villafafta also had more ministerial interactions with other victims' counsel, as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases. For example, in March 2008, one victim's attorney informed Villafaila of his representation of a victim and requested that the government provide him with photographs of the victim and information concerning the tail registration number for Epstein's airplane. Villafafta responded that she was unable to provide the requested information, but asked that counsel keep her updated about the civil litigation. + +343Villafafta later stated in a July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that, although she invited to provide her with information, Injothing was provided." + +J49 did not respond to OPR's request to interview him, although he did assist OPR in locating other attorneys who were representing victims. + +350The government later admitted in court filings that Villafafta and "discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned." Doe, Government's Response to Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 14, 1101 (June 6, 2017). + +about the NPA because it was "confidential" and because the case was under "investigation and leading towards" the filing of charges. Villafafia recalled mentioning the conversation to her supervisors and the case agents because she "thought he was somebody who could be of assistance to us and . .. could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and should be prosecuted." + +Nevertheless, when OPR asked Villafafia while did not inform of the same information that the FBI and she had provided to in October 2007 and January 2008, Villafafia explained that she felt "prohibited": + +> At the time that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of this .. . letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him about the existence of the NPA. + +#### X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA HEARING + +The Epstein team's appeals through the Department ended on June 23, 2008, when the Deputy Attorney General determined that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate" and Epstein's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such a decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafia notified Lefkowitz that Epstein had until "the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement . . . including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." That same day, Villafafia made plans to file charges on July I, 2008, if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline. + +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafafia received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008. Also on that Friday, Villafafia submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a "final final" proposed federal indictment of Epstein. + +Villafafia and the FBI finalized the government's victim list that they intended to disclose, for § 2255 purposes, to Epstein after the plea and, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafia contacted PBPD Chief Reiter to ask him to notify the victims of the plea hearing. Villafafia told OPR that Sloman said, "Chief Reiter could contact the victims from the state case, and tell them about the plea " 351 On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafafia emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."352 + +3st Villafaila further stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator. and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." + +352Sloman replied. "Good." + +Villafafia told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims, including their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafafia recalled that Reiter told her that he would "try to contact as many as he could" and that he would destroy the list afterwards. Villafafia did not recall being "asked [to] provide a list of all our victims to the State Attorney's Office." + +In his 2009 deposition, Reiter stated that Villafafia sent him a letter "around the time of sentencing," listing the victims in the federal investigation, and that she asked him to destroy the letter after he reviewed it. Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the state grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had identified and he "wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our victims."353 + +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the PBPD "attempted to notify the victims about [the June 30] hearing in the short time available to us." 354 In her 2008 declaration, however, Villafafia conceded that "all known victims were not notified." + +Villafafia told OPR that was the only victim attorney she was authorized to contact—she thought probably by Sloman—about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because "had expressed specific interest in the outcome." Villafafia recalled, "I was told that I could inform of [the plea date], but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA."355 In her 2008 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she called and informed him of the plea hearing scheduled for Monday; Villafafia stated that told her that he could not attend the," but "someone" would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation, however, asserted that Villafafia told him only that "Epstein was guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges invabother victims—not Mr. clients nor any of the federally-identified victims." 35 further claimed that because Villafafia failed to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement," his clients did not attend the t. Villafafta told OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow and his clients the ability to comment on the resolution: + +353Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could "confirm that all of the victims that we had for the state case were included on that." The Detective "looked at it and he said they're all there and then [Reiter] destroyed it." The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiter's office, but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him. + +354The FBI co-case agent told OPR that "I don't think the [FBI) reached out to anyone." + +355Villafana told OPR that she thought that it was Sloman who gave her the instructions, but she could not "remember the specifics of the conversation." + +356Villafafia stated that she "never told Attorney that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim." Although criticized Villafana's conduct in his CVRA filings, in his recently published book, described Villafana as a "kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right," noting that she "believ[ed] in the victims and tried] ... to bring down Jeffrey Epstein." J. with Brittany Relentless Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020). + +[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any victims resent who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do S0.357 + +Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafafia to contact anyone about the plea hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafalia told OPR that she and Acosta "understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that the state only believed they had one victim."' Villafafia told OPR that there was "very little" communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that ... the federal investigation had identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they considered victims in the state case."359 + +Sloman told OPR that the "public perception ... that we tried to hide the fact of the results of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained: + +> [E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the victims were going to be notified and the state was going . .. to fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims] would be notified of . . . the restitution mechanism that we had set up on their behalf. + +Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, + +> it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and ... result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you're going to get \$150,000, that's . . . going to be instant impeachment for the defense. + +357Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional investigation of the victims' allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office. + +358In an email a few months earlier, Villafaiia noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution] is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not." + +359As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaiia had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications. + +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up . . . at the change of plea." + +Also, in late June, Villafafia drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea.36° Villafafia told OPR that, because "Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we would not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea."36I As she did with prior draft victim notification letters, Villafafia provided the draft to the defense for comments.362 + +Although Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty in state court. + +OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney's Office made available online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing date, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea. On March 12, 2008, the State Attorney's Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding the individuals to "remain on call" during the week of July 8, 2008. However, the Palm Beach County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was "away [at] college." + +#### XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT + +On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The information charged that between August 1, 2004, and October 9, 2005, Epstein "did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, [REDACTED], a person under the age of 18 years," and referred to no other victims. The indictment did not identify any victims and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August I, 2004, and October 31, 2005. Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to multiple victims, during the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that "[t]here's several" victims. When the court asked Belohlavek whether "the victims in both these cases [were] in agreement with the terms of this plea," Belohlavek replied, "I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and I believe, + +360Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version stating, "What do you think?" Villafafia edited it further. + +761 The letter began with the statement, "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein ... entered a plea of guilty." A week after Epstein's state guilty plea, Villafafia notified Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that "[Epstein's local attorney] Jack Goldberger is back in town today, so I am hoping that we will finalize the last piece of our agreement the victim list and Notification. If I face resistance on that front. I will let you know." + +362According to Villafaila, either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the state plea and to share the draft notification letters with the defense. + +yes." The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the plea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke with the victim's counsel, who agreed with the plea agreement.363 + +Both Villafafta and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing. Later that day, Villafana met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied. + +In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, stated that, "I did not have any reason to attend that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBI's investigation of Epstein's abuse of me." She stated that she "would have attended and tried to object to the judge and prevent that plea from going forward," had she known that the state plea "had some connection to blocking the prosecution of my case." Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 stated that "no one notified me that [Epstein's] plea had anything to do with my case against him." + +An attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had subpoenaed for the potential July trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of one of his clients. The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing.360 Moreover, the attorney informed OPR that, although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in the PBPD's investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's attorneys in the state case (with the Assistant State Attorney present), he did not recall receiving any notice of the June 30, 2008 plea hearing from the State Attorney's Office.3" Similarly, another of the victims the state had subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the State Attorney's Office, but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing. Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing, and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution, they may not have "technically" been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but, rather, witnesses. On July 24, 2008, the State Attorney's Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June 26, 2008 (although the plea occurred on June 30, 2008) and listed Epstein's sentence. The letters did not mention the NPA or the federal investigation. + +#### XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS + +#### A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafana Notifies Some Victims' Attorneys + +Villafafta's contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty pleas, she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in + +363Villafafia, who was present in court and heard Belohlavek's representation, told OPR that she had no information as to whether or how the state had notified the victims about the plea hearing. + +164Villafaila did contact this attorney's law partner later that day. + +365When interviewed by OPR in 2020, this same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite the fact that his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her, she was not the minor victim that the state identified in the information charging Epstein. + +civil suits that were pending against Epstein.3" Villafaiia also emailed one of the pro bono attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an "agreement" with the USA'S, "requir[ing] him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the victims." Villafafia advised Goldberger: "The FBI has received several calls regarding the [NPA]. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the [NPA] was filed under seal, but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked." + +#### B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated + +On July 3, 2008, victims' attorney spoke to Villafafia by telephone about the resolution of the state case against Epstein "and the next stage of the federal prosecution."367 In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, asserted that during this conversation, Villafafia did not inform him of the NPA, but that during the call, he sensed that the USAO "was beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes." However, in an email Villafafia sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call, stated that "his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal." Villafafia told Sloman that after she told I that the government was bound by the agreement, assuming Epstein completed it, asked that "if there is the slightest bit of hesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance, that he and his [three] clients be allowed to consult with [the USAO] before making a decision."368 + +That same day, wrote a letter to Villafafia, complaining that Epstein's state court sentence was "grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude" and urged Villafafia to "move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed." + +On July 7, 2008, filed his eme enc etition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of , who was then identified only as "Jane Doe." She was soon joined b a second petitioner, and they were respectively referred to as "Jane Doe 1" and "Jane Doe 2."3" claimed that the government had violated his clients' rights under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with the victims. The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the CVRA. The USAO opposed the petition, arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were + +366According to Villafafta's handwritten notes from June 30, 2008, Villafafta left a message for two of the anomeys. + +367In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA case, recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on June 30, 2008, but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July 3, 2008. + +368Sloman responded, "Thanks." + +369Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation were denied by the court. + +no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement in mid-2007 to defer prosecution to the state.370 + +#### C. July 2008: Villafaila Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed Victims + +On July 8, 2008, Villafafta provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 purposes, noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June 30, 2008 letter. Villafaiia also informed the defense that, beginning the following day, she would distribute notifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein's attorney would be the contact for any civil litigation, if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any "one of these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255" to be considered a breach of the terms of the NPA. + +After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice letter, Villafafta drafted a letter she sent, on July 9 and 10, to nine victims who had previously retained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that, "[i]n light of Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, and his sentence of a total of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' community control, "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions." The letter included a reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and although the defense had neverised to it, used language from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney clarifying the damages provision. The paragraph below was described as "[o]ne such condition to which Epstein has agreed": + +> Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. + +On July 10, 2008, Villafafta sent Goldberger a "Final Notification of Identified Victims," highlighting the defendant's obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to + +370As described in Section XII.G of this Part, the matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the district court's February 21, 2019 opinion concluding that the government violated the victims' rights under the CV RA by failing to consult with them before signing the NPA. + +18 U.S.C. § 2255 and again listing the 32 "individuals whom the United States was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense." 371 The same day, Villafafia sent Goldberger a second letter, noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis. + +Villafafia informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to the listed victims who were unrepresented, to inform them that the case was resolved and to confirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls, Villafafia proposed the following language to the case agents: + +> We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein investigation and to thank you for your help. + +> Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement. Mr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of restitution. + +> All of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafafia is going to send out. Do you have a lawyer? Get name or address. If not[,] where do you want [the] letter sent? If you have questions when you receive the letter, please understand that we cannot provide legal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights organizations are able to help you at no cost to you. (Provide names and phone numbers) + +> Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still available even though the investigation is closed. + +On July 21, 2008, Villafafia sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses the FBI had by that time confirmed. Villafafia provided Epstein's defense counsel with a copy of the letter sent to each victim, directly or though counsel (with the mailing addresses redacted). + +#### D. July — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims Residing Outside of the United States + +While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims, the FBI obtained contact information for two victims residing outside of the United States. On July 23 and August 8, 2008, respectively, the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country. This + +371A month later, in an August 18, 2008 letter to the USAO, the defense sought to limit the government's victim list to those victims who were identified before the September 24, 2007 execution of the NPA. Villafafia also raised with Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to include new victims it had identified since creation of the July 2008 list and whether Jane Doe #2, who had previously given a statement in support of Epstein, should be added back to the list. Ultimately, Villafafia sent the defense a letter confirming that the government's July 10, 2008 victim list was "the final list." + +letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to victims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as "a possible victim of a federal crime" and listed her eight CVRA rights. + +The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, or that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state plea. Rather, like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter, the letter requested the victims' "assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case." + +For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States, Villafafia also drafted a notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process, which were to be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether the USAO's letter was delivered to the two victims. + +#### E. August — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter + +On August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the NPA. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA.372 On August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of the NPA subject to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce the NPA to other identified victims upon request: + +> (d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the [NM], then the USAO shall produce the [NPA] to those individuals, so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the [NPA] or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard[.]"3 + +In September 2008, the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims, and attorneys for represented victims, concerning Epstein's state court guilty plea and his agreement to not contest liability in victim civil suits brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.374 The September letter appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the government's earlier notification letter referenced language concerning 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein attorney M, but that the defense had not accepted.37S As a result of the defense objection, Villafafia determined that she was + +372Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the NPA, Villafafia made Epstcin's attorneys aware of the petitioners' request for the NPA. + +373Doe, Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1-2 (Aug. 21, 2008). + +374The USAO also sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in July. + +375This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two. + +obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376 Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter described the appointment of a special , the special selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him. + +The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA: + +> In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim] would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature. + +The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued that there was "no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the [NPA]." In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafafia revised the paragraph as follows: + +> In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected by the special I can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation]. + +On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case.377 + +376In the letter, Villafana expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 2007 letter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent. + +3&quot; See Susan Spencer-Wendel, "Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Tcrms," Palm Beach Post, Sept. 19, 2009. + +#### F. 2010 — 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding Interpretation of the CVRA + +In connection with the Department's 2010 effort to update its 2005 Guidelines, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OLC to revisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of "crime victim" under the CVRA and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement agencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled, The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's language, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from Department components, OLC reaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed (by complaint, information, or indictment) and the rights cease to be available if "all charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the [g]overnment declines to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint)."378 + +After OLC issued its opinion, the Department revised the 2005 Guidelines in October 2011 but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal charges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation before a defendant is charged: "In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court."3" The use of the word "should" in the 2011 Guidelines indicates that "personnel are expected to take the action . . . unless there is an appropriate, articulable reason not to do so."380 Nevertheless, the required consultation "may be general in nature" and "does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer."381 The revisions also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings.382 + +On November 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, a co-sponsor of the CVRA, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that the 2011 Guidelines revisions "conflict[ed] quite clearly with the CVRA's plain language" because the 2011 Guidelines did "not extend any rights to victims until charges have been filed." The Department's response emphasized that the + +378 OLC "express[ed1 no opinion" as to whether it is a matter of "good practice" to inform victims of their CVRA rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges. + +379See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V, ¶ G.2, available at https://www.justice.govisitesidefault/files/olp/docs/ agguidelines2012. pdf. In its 2011 online training video regarding the Guidelines, the Department encouraged such consultation when reasonable, but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRA right to confer for preindictment plea negotiations. + +380See 2011 Guidelines, Art. 1, ¶ B.2. + +381See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V,1 G.2. + +392The 2005 Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensure that victims were able to exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings, only at sentencing. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, ¶ C.3.b.(2). However, the 2005 Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use their best efforts to comply with the CVRA, and the CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings. The 2011 revision remedied this omission. + +Department had made its "best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to assert, support, and defend crime victims' rights." The response also referenced OLC's December 2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting that "the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations, even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court."383 + +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA, and added the following two rights: + +- (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. +- (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice. + +#### G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status + +While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous federal civil suits against Epstein, brought in the same district, were transferred to the same judge as "related cases," as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules. As the parties agreed on settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed?" Several of the victims who had settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to "maintain their anonymity" and not "further disseminate[]" their identities to the CVRA petitioners.3" + +In the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights to confer by (1) negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input; (2) sending letters to the victims claiming that the matter was "under investigation" after the NPA was already signed; and (3) not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal investigation. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the NPA and resolved the federal investigation. + +During the litigation, the USAO argued that (1) the victims had no right to notice or conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge; (2) the government's + +333157 Cong. Rec. S7359-02 (2011) (Kyl letter and Department response). + +384Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well. In addition, numerous other cases were resolved outside of formal litigation. For example, one attorney told OPR that he resolved 16 victim cases, but did not file all cases with the court. Court data indicate that the attorney filed only 3 of the 16 cases he said he resolved. + +335 Doe, Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance at 1 (July 24, 2015). + +letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was “under investigation” because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that Epstein would plead guilty; and (3) Villafaña contacted the petitioners’ attorney prior to Epstein’s state plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Villafaña told OPR that, while there were valid reasons for the government’s position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge, “[T]his is a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously prepared to spend as much time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every [victim].” + +Over the course of the litigation, the district court made various rulings interpreting the provisions of the CVRA, including the court’s key conclusion that victim CVRA rights “attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant.” The court also held that (1) “the CVRA authorizes the rescission or ‘reopening’ of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of a prosecutor’s conferral obligations under the statute”; (2) the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements”; (3) the CVRA’s “reasonable right to confer” “extends to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings”; (4) the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render the *Doe* petitioners “victims” under the CVRA; and (5) “questions pertaining to [the] equitable defense[s] are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record.” + +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioners’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that “once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.” The government did not dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NPA, and the court concluded that “[a]t a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein.” The court found that the post-NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing “misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility” and that “[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.”386 + +The court relied on █████ and *BP Products* to support its holding and noted that the government’s action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because, unlike a plea agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing, “[o]nce an NPA is entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case.” The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO’s failure to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in “lengthy negotiations” with Epstein’s counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be “made public or filed with the Court.” + +Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the 2005 Guidelines for the Department’s position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged, the court was “not persuaded that the [G]uidelines were the basis for the Government’s decision to withhold information about the NPA from the victims.” The court found that the government’s reliance on + +--- + +386 The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of Epstein’s state court plea hearing. + +the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with Epstein's attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that "it had obligations to notify the victims." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission of the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta, Villafaiia, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials; training for USAO employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees.387 + +Following Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death "rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government's violation of Petitioners' rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot."3g8 The court did not order the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it "fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims."389 The court also denied the petitioners' request for attorneys' fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, "[a]lthough unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation." + +On September 30, 2019, appealed the district court's rejection of the requested remedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for and "regret[] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past."391 Nevertheless, the government argued that, "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought."392 The government conceded, however, that with regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted, "[p]etitioner and other Epstein + +387Doe, Jane Doe I and Janc Doe 2's Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019). + +388Doe, Opinion and Order (Sept. 16, 2019). Among other things, the court rejected the petitioners' contention that it did not address whether the government had violated the victims' CVRA right to be treated with fairness and to receive fair notice of the proceedings, noting that "[Wiese rights all flow from the right to confer and were encompassed in the Court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA." + +389 The Department's Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims' Rights in the Federal System to the USAO on January 10, 2020. + +y"p See In re., No. 19-13843, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3) (Sept. 30, 2019). + +791 Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime Victims Rights Act at 14 (Oct. 31, 2019). As previously noted, at this point, the litigation was being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. + +392The government also noted that although the CVRA was amended in 2015 to include a victim's right to be notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements, "the amendment did not extend to non-prosecution agreements" which, unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements, do not require court involvement. + +victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and to be conferred with on the criminal case, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do." During oral argument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of = + +> The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with about what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA, and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way with and for that, we are genuinely sorry.393 + +On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that "the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of criminal proceedings—and thus, on the facts of this case, does not provide the petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights."394 The court conducted a thorough analysis of the language of the statute, the legislative history, and previous court decisions. The court distinguished In re as "dictum" consisting of a "three-sentence discussion ... devoid of any analysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings." The court noted that its interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning victim standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in "implementing regulations." Finally, the court raised separation of powers concerns with (and the dissenting judge's) interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA, noting that such an interpretation would interfere with prosecutorial discretion. + +Nevertheless, the court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying case, stating that the government "[s]eemingly . . . defer[red] to Epstein's lawyers" regarding information it provided victims about the NPA and that its "efforts seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation." The court concluded that although it "seems obvious" that the government "should have consulted with petitioner (and other victims) before negotiating and executing Epstein's NPA," the court could not conclude that the government was obligated to do so. In addition, the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly worded opinion asserting that the majority's statutory interpretation was "contorted" because the "plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include [a] post-indictment temporal restriction." + +On May 5, 2020, filed a petition for rehearing en bane. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en bane and vacated the panel's opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. + +191 Audio recording of Oral Argument, M, No. 19-13843 (Jan. 16, 2020). + +394In re M, 955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (11111 Cir. 2020). + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +#### CHAPTER THREE + +#### PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS + +#### I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS + +Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA, applicable during the relevant time period, are set forth below. + +#### A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 + +(a) Rights of Crime Victims. —A crime victim has the following rights: + +- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. +- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. +- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. +- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. + +(c) Best Efforts To Accord Rights.— + +- (1) Government.—Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a). + +(e) Definitions. + +(2) Crime victim.— + +- (A) In general. —The term "crime victim" means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. + +#### B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607) + +#### (b) Identification of victims + +At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall— + +- (1) identify the victim or victims of a crime; +- (2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection (c); and +- (3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services described in subsection (c). + +#### (c) Description of services + +#### (1) A responsible official shall— + +- (A) inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and social services; +- (B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained; +- (C) inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment, and other support to the victim; and +- (D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). + +#### (2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender. + +#### (3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of— + +- (A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation; +- (B) the arrest of a suspected offender, +- (C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender; +- (D) the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or, under section 10606(b)(4) of Title 42, is entitled to attend; +- (E) the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender; +- (F) the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nob contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial; and +- (G) the sentence imposed on an offender, including the date on which the offender will be eligible for parole. + +(4) During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense witnesses. + +#### (e) Definitions + +(2) the term "victim" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime . . . . + +#### II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES) + +In 2005, the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to incorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 Guidelines was "to establish guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative, prosecutorial, and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime." The relevant portions of the 2005 Guidelines are as follows: + +#### Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses + +#### A. Investigation Stage + +The investigative agency's responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend through the prosecution of the case. In some instances, when explicitly stated, the investigative agency's responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting agency when charges are filed. + +2. Identification of Victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime. + +#### 3. Description of Services. + +#### a. Information, Notice, and Referral + +(1) Initial Information and Notice. Responsible officials must advise a victim pursuant to this section at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation. To comply with this requirement, it is recommended that victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and the available services, identifies the local + +service providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim-witness coordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of— + +- (a) His or her rights as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +- (b) His or her right entitlement, on request, to the services listed in 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). +- (c) The name, title, business address, and telephone number of the responsible official to whom such a request for services should be addressed. +- (d) The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social services. +- (e) The availability of any restitution or other relief (including crime victim compensation programs) to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained. (0 Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment, and other support to the victim. +- (i) The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. +- (j) The option of being included in VNS. +- (k) Available protections from intimidation and harassment. +- (3) Notice during the investigation. During the investigation of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice concerning— + - (a) The status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation. + - (b) The arrest of a suspected offender. + +#### B. Prosecution Stage + +The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing legal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks. + +I. Responsible Officials. For cases in which charges have been instituted, the responsible official is the U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending. + +#### 2. Services to Crime Victims + +#### b. Information, Notice, and Referrals + +- (1) Notice of Rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +- (2) Notice of Right To Seek Counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a). +- (3) Notice of Right To Attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the crime victim about the victim's right to attend the trial regardless of whether the victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of the crime on the victim during sentencing. +- (4) Notice of Case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim, using VNS (where appropriate), with reasonable notice of— + - (a) The filing of charges against a suspected offender. + - (b) The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender. + - (c) The schedule of court proceedings. + - (i) The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole proceeding that involves the crime against the victim. In the event of an emergency or other last-minute hearing or change in the time or date of a hearing, the responsible official should consider providing notice by telephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to postsentencing proceedings as well. + - (ii) The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or witness is required or entitled to attend. + - (d) The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial. + +(e) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised release, if any, that are imposed. + +(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief [previously identified]. + +#### c. Consultation With a Government Attorney + +(1) In General. A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be available to consult with victims about major case decisions, such as dismissals, release of the accused pending judicial proceedings (when such release is for noninvestigative purposes), plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the prosecutor's obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct. + +Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither the Department's advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship between such victims and the lawyers for the Government. + +Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims. + +(2) Prosecutor Availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor. + +(3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. In determining what is reasonable, the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but not limited to, the following factors: + +- (a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety. +- (b) The number of victims. +- (c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea. + +- (d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions. +- (e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality. (0 Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. + +#### III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT + +#### A. FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others + +FRPC 44.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." + +#### B. FRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice + +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. + +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. + +As previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC 48.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice of law." Frederick, 756 So. 2d at 87; see also Shankman, 41 So. 3d at 172. + +[Page Left Intentionally Blank] + +## CHAPTER THREE PART THREE: ANALYSIS + +#### I. OVERVIEW + +In addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act and "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."395 The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court. + +OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaiia made to victims in January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008. + +#### II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS + +During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019 opinion, the district court concluded that "once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafafta—intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation. + +35 Doe v. United States. 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019). + +As discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. In September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. Pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework, OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorneys' conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake."396 + +**A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges** + +Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue of whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September 2007. At that time, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district court's later interpretation in the CVRA litigation. + +The CVRA defines a "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." On April 1, 2005, soon after the CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that "the status of a 'crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm." Beginning with the 2005 OLC guidance, the Department has consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against a defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied its definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in 2005, but noted that the obligation created by the eighth CVRA right—to "treat[] victims with fairness and respect"—is "always expected of Federal officials, and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 [(VRRA)] indicates that this right applies 'throughout the criminal justice process.'"397 Consistent with the OLC interpretation, in May 2005, the Department issued the 2005 Guidelines to implement the CVRA. + +The 2005 Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of federal charges. Specifically, the 2005 Guidelines stated that during the "prosecution stage," the "responsible official" should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, + +396 2005 Guidelines, Foreword. + +397 Nevertheless, the portion of the VRRA referenced in the OLC 2005 Informal Guidance, 42 U.S.C. § 10606, had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA. + +and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations.398 The "prosecution stage" began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.399 + +At the time the parties signed the NPA in September 2007, few courts had addressed victim standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges.400 Two cases relied upon by the court in its February 2019 opinion—NM and its underlying district court opinion, BP Products—were decided after the NPA was signed. + +The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation—both pending as of the date of this Report—show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter of debate.401 In a November 21, 2019 letter to Attorney General William Barr, a Congressional Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to "[c]larify that victims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key pre-charging developments in a case, such as . . . non-prosecution agreements."402 The CVRA litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en bane. + +Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the lower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge, OPR concludes that the subjects' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time, the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of federal criminal charges.403 + +3982005 Guidelines, Art. IV, I B.2.c.(3). Under the 2005 Guidelines, the term "should" means that "the employee is expected to take the action or provide the service described unless there is an appropriate. articulable reason not to do so." Id., Art. II, I C. + +399 Id., Art. IV, ¶ B.1. + +100 Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at \*5 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed criminal charges); United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the government has filed charges, but courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach); and United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (order sua sponte) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). + +101 See M, 955 F.3d at 1220; Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019, H.R. 4729, 116th Cong. (2019). + +402 165 Cong. Rec. E1495-01 (2019). + +403Violations of an unambiguous obligation concerning victims' fights could result in a violation of the rules of professional responsibility. For example, in Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. 109 A.3d 1184 (Md. 2015 te Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutor's failure to provide any notice to the minor victim's family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten months the prosecutor was responsible for the matter was a "consistent failure" amounting to "gross negligence in the discharge of the prosecutorial function" that deprived the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution. The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional + +In it the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language of the VRRA, noting that the VRRA "clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge phase" and opining that the government "may well have violated" the VRRA with regards to its investigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVRA, the VRRA afforded victims various rights and services; however, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court or by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights portion of the VRRA established the victims' right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for the government. However, the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation. + +The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage of the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements—one requiring a responsible official to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and another requiring that a responsible official "shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation"—may have applied to the Epstein investigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys, as the 2005 Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because, at that point, the case remained "under investigation," and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June 2008. Once Epstein did so, and the victims identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the § 2255 remedy, the USAO furnished the victims with appropriate notification. + +### B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was Intended to Silence Victims + +During her OPR interviews, Villafafia recalled more than one discussion in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, however, had no recollection of discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed, and Menchel disputed Villafaila's assertions. OPR found only one written reference before that date, explicitly raising the issue of consultation. Given the absence of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Villafafia's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations. OPR + +Conduct 1.3, lack of diligence, and 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The holding in was based on Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right, among others, to receive various notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information filed in a circuit court." However, both the under! gjuir . statutory provisions and, significantly, the facts are substantially different from the Epstein investigation. In =, the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea. + +did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from having input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation. + +Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about the subjects' views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafafta raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman: "The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law.... [A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."404 Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, "fyi." Villafafta recalled that after she sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, "[Y]ou can't do that now.s405 Villafafta also told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that . . . precharge resolutions do not require victim notification." Villafafta also recalled a discussion with Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims' input on the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."'" + +None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAO's CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims during the preliminary "general discussion" phase of settlement negotiations; moreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed. + +Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA" and "we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case." Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of "the cases that we handled, filed cases." Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, he did not "think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with [the victims] prior to entering into ... the NPA." + +Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafafia that she not discuss the NPA with the victims. He stated that everything the USAO did was "to try and get the best result as possible for the victims. . . . [O]nce you step back and look at the whole forest . . ., you will see that. . [I]f you look at each tree and say, well, you didn't do this right for the victim, you didn't tell the victim this and that, you're missing the big picture." + +404As noted, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims because no criminal charges had been tiled. In addition, Villafana's reference to victim "approval" was inaccurate because the CVRA, even when applicable, requires only "consultation" with victims about prosecutorial decisions. + +403Villafaiia did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision. + +406Villafana also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." Villafana was uncertain of the date of the conversation, but Menchel's presence requires it to have occurred before August 3, 2007. + +Acosta told OPR that them was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was "not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta said, "[W]hether or not victims' views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time." Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA, but he acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]."407 + +As indicated, the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafafia raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively rejected Villafalia's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims, ignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal. OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villafafia recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and Menchel contended that Villafafia's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred, the timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Villafafia about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchel necessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree to the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage, there was little to discuss with victims. + +To the extent that Villafafia's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult victims, Villafafia's recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors' concerns about the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to consult with victims about a pm-charge disposition. That belief accurately reflected the Department's position at the time about application of the CVRA. Importantly, OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims, and Villafafia told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the agreement if they learned of it. Because the subjects did not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NPA, OPR concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct. + +However, OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims, a more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government's goal to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process. Furthermore, in this case, consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into the victims' willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein. The consultation provision does not + +407Villafatia told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s]." + +require victim approval of the prosecutors' plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity.408 + +#### III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION + +After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villafafta and the FBI separately communicated with numerous victims and victims' attorneys, both in person and through letters. Apart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a resolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more generally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the government's agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008, letters stating that the case was "currently under investigation." In its February 21, 2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that lilt was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.i409 + +In the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government's course of conduct with victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafafta acted with the intent to silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's inconsistent messages concerning the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government. + +In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to victims by the FBI that were the subject of the district court's findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafarla was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that the district court determined to be misleading, as well as the October 12, 2007 letter OPR located during its investigation, were "standard form letter[s]" sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist. As noted previously in this Report, after the NPA was signed, Villafalia and the FBI agents continued to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the NPA; absent such a + +408Villafafia told OPR that she recalled speaking to several victims along with FBI agents before the NPA was signed and "askring] them how they wanted the case to be resolved." FBI interview reports indicate that Villafaiia was present with FBI agents for some of the interviews occurring well in advance of the NPA negotiations. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, I B.2.c (I) (consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information). However, Villafaiia did not meet with all of the victims identified in the federal investigation, including the CVRA litigation petitioners, and the government conceded during the CVRA litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners. Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1218. + +109 Doe. 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1219, 1221. + +breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end. Thus, the statement that the case was "currently under investigation" was literally true, but the omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation. + +#### A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation" + +The 2005 Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and available services during the "investigative stage" of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by the FBI's Victim Specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the "prosecution stage." + +The FBI's Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the 2005 Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the "investigative stage." The language of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time. The FBI Victim Specialist who sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters.410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist.011 According to Villafana, "The decision to issue the letters and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Although the FBI case agents informed Villafafta after the fact that the FBI's Victim Specialist sent her "standard form letter," Villafaiia had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its contents.412 Villafafta told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008. + +410The cast agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter, but acknowledged that "she would come to us before she would approach a victim." + +411The case agent told OPR that she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be "standard form letters." Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "I can't think that I've ever reviewed any of them . . they just go from the victim coordinator." + +412Villafafta's lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the information provided to victims concerning their CVRA rights. Beginning in 2006, the FBI provided to victims standard letters advising victims of their CVRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied pre-charge. During this period, Villafaiia also crafted her own introductory letters to the victims to let them know of their CVRA rights and that the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the prior state investigation in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by the State Attorney's Office." Villafaiia told OPR that in a case in which she "needredj to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafafta's letter itemized the CVRA rights, but it did not explain that those rights attached only after a formal charge had been made. The letter was hand + +#### B. Because the Federal investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation + +As described previously, given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay entering his guilty plea, Villafafia and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein. By April 2008, Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was "more and more likely." As a result, Villafana and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps. Among other actions, Villafafta, her supervisors, CEOS, and the case agents engaged in the following investigative activities: + +- The FBI interviewed victims in October and November 2007 and between January and May 2008, and discovered at least six new victims. +- In January 2008, CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter. +- In January and February 2008, Villafafia and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in victim interviews. +- Villafafia revised the prosecution memorandum to focus "on victims who are unknown to Epstein's counsel." +- The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division "pursuant to USAM (§) 8-3.120," of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others. +- Villafafia secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case.413 +- Villafafia prepared a revised draft indictment. +- Villafafta sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government witness in exchange for that witness's testimony. +- Even after Epstein's state plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty. + +Villafafia told OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the case was "currently under investigation" was "absolutely true." Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was + +delivered, along with the FBI's own victim's rights pamphlet and notification letter, to victims following their FBI interviews. + +413 According to the 2017 affidavit filed by CVRA-case attorney, the pro bone counsel that Villafafia secured assisted in "avoiding the improper deposition." + +continuing." The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019, the "the case was open . . . it's never been shut down." + +OPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation. The "ongoing investigation" language generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from August 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA.414 Nevertheless, the FBI's letters omitted important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he had reached with the USAO. Victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal prosecution. CVRA petitioner stated during the CVRA litigation that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against" her. Furthermore, when the fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September 2007 eventually came to light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims' and the public's conclusions that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark. + +In sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was "currently under investigation" was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the victims, and contributed to victim frustration and confusion, because the letters did not provide important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation. Nonetheless, OPR found no evidence that Villafafia or her supervisors participated in drafting those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI's letters until the Department gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation. The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. Despite the fact that the case was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continued to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances.4I5 + +414The Department ofJustice Inspector General's Audit Report of the Department's Victim Notification System indicates that letters the FBI system generated in 2006 contained language for the notification events of "Initial (Investigative Agency)" and "Under Investigation" and letters generated in 2008 contained language for the notification events of "Advice of Victims Rights (Investigative)" and "Under Investigation." + +415After Epstein entered his guilty pleas, the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting "assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case" to the two victims living outside the United States. + +#### IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING + +As set forth in the factual discussion, within a few weeks of the NPA's signing, it became clear that the defense team disagreed with, and strongly objected to, the government's plan to inform victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from Epstein, under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially took the position that it was obligated to, and intended to, inform victims of both the NPA, including the § 2255 provision, and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that victims who wanted to attend could do so. + +In November and December 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO's position regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim notifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state actions, Acosta elected to defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO would notify victims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under § 2255, a decision that was implemented by letters sent to victims after Epstein entered his state pleas. This decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas, was based, at least in part, on Villafafta's and the case agents' strategic concerns relating to preserving the victims' credibility and is discussed further in Section V, below. + +In this section, OPR analyzes Acosta's decision to defer to the state the responsibility for notifying victims of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither the CVRA nor the VRRA required the government to notify victims of the state proceeding and therefore Acosta did not violate any statutes or Department policy by deferring to the discretion of the State Attorney whether to notify victims of Epstein's state guilty pleas and sentencing. However, OPR also concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment because by failing to ensure that the state intended to and would notify victims of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims forthrightly and with the sensitivity expected by the Department. Through counsel, Acosta "strongly disagree[d]" with OPR's conclusion and argued that OPR unfairly applied a standard "never before expected of any U.S. Attorney." OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the discussion below. + +#### A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard + +In November 2007, Villafaiia sought to avoid defense accusations of misconduct concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a written notice to victims informing them of the resolution of the federal case and of their eligibility for monetary damages, and inviting them to appear at the state plea hearing. Villafafta and Sloman exchanged edits of the draft letter and, at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to defense attorney Leficowitz, who, in turn, strongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he described as "highly inappropriate" and an "intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced." + +Thereafter—at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent—Villafafia drafted, and Sloman signed, the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings: + +> [T]hese sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.416 + +The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his comments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been completed, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The draft victim notification letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement to the State Attomey's Office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents, Sloman instructed Villafafia, who was preparing letters for transmittal to 30 victims, to "Hold the letter." During his OPR interview, Sloman recalled that he had "wanted to push the letter out," but he "must have had a conversation with somebody" about whether the CVRA applied, and based on that conversation he directed Villafafia to hold the letter. + +In his response letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both the CVRA and VRRA because neither applied to the "public proceeding in this matter [which] will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges." + +416Sloman told Lefkowitz the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is simply informing the victims of their rights." Sloman also addressed the defense attorneys' objection to advising the victims that they could contact Villafatia or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns by referencing the CVRA, noting, "Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case."' + +Thereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney's discretion the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing: + +> I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court [plea and] sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. + +(Emphasis added.) + +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office." Acosta explained that it was "not for me to direct the State Attorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome." Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's handling of the case, but he told OPR, "that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligation they have. Let's not assume. . . that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors." Sloman initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights under [§] 2255"; but his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going to be notified."417 Sloman told OPR he had been "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims," even though "this was not a federal case," but once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter ... and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation." + +OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney's Office notified any victims in advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney's Office had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the + +117Sloman stated in his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department's Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue of victim notification, and OPR found no other documentation indicating that Mandelker played a role in the deferral decision. + +particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafafia to contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back to Sloman that Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." °18 Villafafia recalled that she sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Reiter said he would "contact as many as he could." The contemporaneous records do not show how many or which victims, if any, Reiter contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim who provided information to OPR, either in person or through her attorney, recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials. At the time Epstein pled guilty in state court, no one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Reiter or the State Attorney's Office had notified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Villafafia, who was present in the courtroom for the hearing, had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims were "in agreement with the terms of this plea."' 9 + +OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Office the decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question, requiring notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled to attend, unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings. Furthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed.020 Moreover, the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is "entitled to attend" referred specifically to proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 10606(bX4), which, at the time of the Epstein case, had become part of the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2)).42I + +Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State Attorney the decision to notify victims of the state's plea hearing and the responsibility for doing so did not constitute professional misconduct.422 + +4IS Sloman replied, "Good." In her written response to OPR, Villafafta stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." + +419Plea Hearing Transcript at 42. + +430 OLC 2005 CVRA Informal Guidance; see also United States v. Guevara-Toloso, No. 04-1455, 2005 WL 1210982, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). + +411 In M. the Eleventh Circuit panel noted that the petitioner argued "only in passing" that the government violated her CVRA right "to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime"; however\_i \_the court concluded this provision "clearly applies) only after the initiation of criminal proceedings." M, 955 F.3d at 1205 n.7, 1208. + +422The government's letter to victims, following Epstein's guilty pleas, informing them of the resolution of the case by state plea and the availability of § 2255 relief, also appear to satisfy the potentially applicable VRRA requirements to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and to "provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to + +**B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing** + +Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the state's plea hearing, he also was not *prohibited* by law or policy from notifying the victims that the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "to the discretion of the State Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal investigation into their own cases.423 + +Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem from passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attorney's Office and made appropriate efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum, provided the victims with Belohlavek's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with the State Attorney, or instructed Villafaña or others to do so, to ensure the state intended to make notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had the information necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notification entirely to the State Attorney's discretion without providing that office with the names of individuals the USAO believed were victims and, apparently, without even informing the state prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications, if they chose to do so. + +Epstein was required by the NPA to plead to only two state charges, and even assuming that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim, and the solicitation charge involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charged state offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover, the federal investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by + +--- + +inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation." *See* 42 U.S.C. §§ 10607(c)(1)(B) and (c)(3)(A). + +423 Through counsel, Acosta argued that OPR's criticism of him for "electing to 'defer' the notification obligation to the state" was inappropriate and "a *non sequitur*" because "where no federal notification obligation exists, it cannot be deferred." OPR's criticism, as explained further below, is not with the decision itself, but rather with the fact that although Acosta intended for the federal victims to be notified of the state plea hearing, and believed that they should receive such notification, he nonetheless left responsibility for such notification to the state without ensuring that it had the information needed to do so and without determining the state's intended course of action. + +the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO, the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised by Villafafia that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims, presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing. + +Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta also told OPR that he expected the state would have "notified [the victims] that that was an allencompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding." There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman or Villafafia, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafafia to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney or to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's Office that Villafafia prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly released from the State Attorney's Office.424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and Villafafia interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that office, and Villafalia's last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to appear at the hearing. + +Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both federal and state, "would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." + +OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources, and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware—through the prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafaria—that the USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD + +424The text of the letter indicated that Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of "any rights they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney's Office" and that the USAO was providing the State Attorney's Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims "in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law." + +investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not receive notice of the hearing.425 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant issues relating to Epstein. Villafaiia and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the notification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning and coordination with the State Attorney's Office.426 + +Even if the State Attorney's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation as well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status of the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff, would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaila took steps to confirm that, if victims appeared, they could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged crimes.427 + +Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villafaila and Sloman both told OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, "OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points." Acosta's counsel further + +423Krischer told OPR that the state's notification obligation extended to all victims identified in the state investigation. Nonetheless, which victims were encompassed in the state's investigation was unclear. The PBPD's probable cause affidavit included crimes against only 5 victims, not the 19 identified in the state investigation. According to state records made public, the state subpoenaed to the grand jury only 3 victims. After Epstein's guilty plea, the state sent notification letters to only 2 victims. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the nature of the charges, she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were "victims" she was required to notify of the plea hearing. + +426The State Attorney's Office had its own procedures and employees who handled victim notification, and Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim notification process. + +427Although Villafafia's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes §§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she drafted unsent letters to victims in November and December 2007 inviting them to participate in the state plea hearing pursuant to those statues, the caselaw was not clear that all federal victims would have been allowed to participate in the state plea hearing. In Lefkowitz's November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued that the statutes afforded a right to speak at a defendant's sentencing or to submit a statement only to the victims of the crime for which the defendant was being sentenced. In April 2008, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled against a defendant who argued that Florida Statute § 921.143(1) did not allow the testimony of the victim's relatives at the sentencing hearing. The court ruled that § 921.143(1) "should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at sentencing hearings." IIII v. Slate, 982 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). + +argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the victims of the hearing.428 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim notification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafaña provided Acosta with a draft letter to state officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafaña and Sloman with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, 2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the state process. + +Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Villafaña and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases.429 Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe the CVRA required it, to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity, and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the + +428 As noted, in his comments on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel strongly objected to OPR's finding of poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR "unwarrantedly applies a standard never before expected of any US Attorney," and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for "not personally confirming that the State Attorney had the information needed" to notify the victims and for "not personally confirming" that Chief Reiter had actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issue is not whether Acosta "personally" took certain specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen. + +429 OPR notes that Villafaña contacted Reiter soon after the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulting window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorney at some point in time closer to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and that issues concerning the victims' appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities. Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the months that the matter was under review by the Department. + +resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This contrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the public. + +Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +#### V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS + +From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafafia's direction, directly informed only three victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafafia and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafafia contacted victims' attorney to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. + +As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and co-case agent began notifying victims about the NPA.43° After speaking to three victims, however, the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent told OPR, "I would . . . have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." The case + +470 Although- disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent's email to Villafatia from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that she was unhappy with the resolution. + +agent and Villafafia consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue monetary damages according to its terms. + +Villafafia advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment evidence, telling him, "One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages right?"' Explaining the decision in her later CVRA declaration, Villafafia said that after Epstein's attorneys "complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims," she "concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement." Acosta was aware of these concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, "[W]e also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]." + +The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform them about the NPA.43I On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafafia, and the CEOS Trial Attorney interviewed three victims including and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day.°32 and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of 2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation. + +Villafafia told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically tell the victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." She stated that she would not use "terminology" such as "NPA" because "most people don't understand what that means." Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafafia, had been informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that "an agreement had been reached where [Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look [like] he intends to actually perform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged . . . and may have to go to trial." Villafaiia recalled telling some victims that Epstein "was supposed to enter a plea in state court" that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the "federal investigation versus a state investigation." Villafafia told OPR she explained "the case was under investigation," she and the agents "were preparing ... again" to file charges, and they hoped "that charges would be brought." An email from Villafafia to Sloman and Acosta during this time period reflects that she had such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this date: "The second girl... was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. . . . [S]he would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail." Villafafia, however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rather, she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRAcase declaration, stated that she "was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of + +411 FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the victims of the NPA. + +432Two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February I, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as to whether the interviews occurred. + +the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected." further stated in her declaration that, "Based on what the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were still investigating my case." + +Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein.433 + +When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafafia told OPR that she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued "interviewing witnesses" and "doing all these things" to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. As Villafafia stated, "So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate." + +Villafafia was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorrSout the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attorney alleged that during telephone calls with Villafafia, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in," and Villafatia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter "was an on-going active investigation." stated that Villafafia gave him "the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and complexity." also stated, "A fair characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafafia listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking." + +In her written response to OPR, Villafafia stated that she "listened more than [she] spoke" during her interactions with and that due to the "uncertainty of the situation" and the possibility of a trial, she "did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case." Villafafia also told OPR that because of "all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification," she felt "prohibited" from providing additional information to + +Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, "[I]t was [of] concern that this was going to break down and .. . result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you're going to get \$150,000, that's .. . going to be instant impeachment for the defense."034 Acosta told OPR that, because Epstein did + +433As noted above, the FBI agent's notes for one victim's interview reported that she wanted another victim to be prosecuted. + +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up . .. at the change of plea." + +not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a "very open question" whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that "where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when." + +Epstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia all identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.035 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery. + +On June 27, 2008, the Fritefore Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafafia contacted to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafafia told OPR she "was not given authorization to contact" any victim's attorney other than about the scheduled state plea hearing.436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, stated that Villafafia "gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all." + +said in a 2016 court filing that Villafafia told him only that "Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's clients nor any of the feder...lentified victims." Villafafia stated in her 2017 declaration that she "never told Attorney that the state charges involved `other victims,' and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procureme,riostitution charge to a specific victim." Villafafia told OPR she "strongly encouraged and his clients to attend" the plea hearing but "could not be more explicit" because she was not "authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA." In his 2017 affidavit, acknowledged that "Villafafia did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way." claimed that Villafafia's failure to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal psecution pursuant to the plea agreement" resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. himself was out of town and not able to + ++76 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaila informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena "issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed)." Villafafia further observed that because Epstein is "going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case." + +436Villafafia's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea, Villafaila was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafafia stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked POPE) Chief Reiter to assist." On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafafia emai led Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." Sloman replied, "Good." + +attend the hearing. In his affidavit, [REDACTED] asserted, "[T]here was no possible way I could have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that federal investigation." + +In [REDACTED], the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government "seemingly" deferred to Epstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts "seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation."437 Although both the appellate court and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña, Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and to [REDACTED], were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether Villafaña's statements that the matter was "under investigation" and her failure to inform all of the victims whom she interviewed or [REDACTED] about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or 4-8.4(d). + +FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of material fact or law to a third person" during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines "knowingly" as "denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question" and states that such knowledge may be "inferred from circumstances."438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements." The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 "[f]or dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement." Like FRPC 4-4.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c) requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC 4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied "merely by showing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing" and the "motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted."439 In *Feinberg*, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the defendant by making the statements.440 In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to [REDACTED] on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. + +One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she interviewed in January and February 2008, Villafaña contended that she discussed the agreement with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as + +437 [REDACTED], 955 F.3d at 1199-1200. + +438 *See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities*, "Terminology." + +439 *Florida Bar v. [REDACTED]*, 284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing *Florida Bar v. Berthiaume*, 78 So. 3d 503, 510 n.2 (Fla. 2011); *Florida Bar v. Riggs*, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); *Florida Bar v. [REDACTED]*, 866 So. 2d 41, 46 (Fla. 2004)). + +440 *Florida Bar v. Feinberg*, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000). + +previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafafia's mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. + +Nevertheless, Villafafia did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms with other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with or any other victim's attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of the NPA during these interactions. to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4.041 + +OPR evaluated Villafaiia's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 44.1: + +A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. + +The victims and their attorneys were certainly not "opposing part[ies]" to the USAO, but the comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. + +Here, the evidence does not show that Villafafia knowingly made an affirmative false statement to the victims or or that her omissions were "the equivalent of affirmative false statements" about material facts. First, Villafafia told OPR that she believed the investigation was ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the evidence shows that Villafafia and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafafia's email correspondence with her supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafafia knowingly made any affirmative false statement to when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined to provide additional information in response to his questions.042 + +Second, in reaching its conclusion OPR considered the full context in which Villafafia interacted with the victims and Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses, + +&quot; 1 In Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee's conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c) "for making false statements by omission of material facts in his representations [to counsel]." Florida Bar v. Joy, 679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster. 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for reinstatement denied due to "misrepresentation by omission"). + +442 In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant outside his attorney's presence, the prosecutor falsely stated to the defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant. + +and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited in their disclosures: "Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information.""3 + +Villafafia's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, Villafafia agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafafia raised those concerns with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although Villafafia had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was si ed, her supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform of the scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform that the plea was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show that Villafafia acted for the purpose of deceiving or preventing him from attending the hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to inform ME. at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings. Rather, as confirmed, Villafaila told him the hearing was "important." Villafafia sought to strike a difficult balance of securing (and his clients') attendance at the state court plea, while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea. + +Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the evidence does not establish that Villafaila violated her obligations under FRPC 44.1 or 4-8.4(c) or (d).44° Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafafia's interactions with victims and victims' attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was or of the NPA. + +4432005 Guidelines, Art. IV, B.2.c(I). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about the government's communications. For example, within a day of Villafafia contacting a victim's attorney about a potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." + +444The case most directly on point is 109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor's failure to notify the victim of the resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in M, the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right to receive notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information in a circuit court." In this case, for the reasons previously discussed, Villafafia did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims + +intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims.445 + +**VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION** + +Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims' and the public's perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that Department employees work to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime endure in its wake." When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +██████████ criticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other Epstein victims and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. ██████████ experienced a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the case agents. ██████████ received Villafaña's letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims' rights letter indicating that the case was under investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January 31, 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed ██████████, along with a CEOS attorney and the FBI agents, and told ██████████ that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when ██████████ contacted Villafaña on ██████████ behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, + +445 OPR notes that, similar to Villafaña, Sloman interacted with a victim's attorney during the time period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal government could bring charges against Epstein. Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein. Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney. + +Villafafia informed about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it is not surprising that came away from the experience feeling confused and believing she had been misled. + +OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafafia, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafalla sought at various points to consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial. + +Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or considered before the NPA was signed. + +After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. Although the evidence supports Villafafia's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of the openness and fairness of the process. As stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed she had been "mistreated in the process." When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafafia, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did they revisit the decision before Villafafia met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or spoke to or other attorneys representing victims."6 Furthermore, more attention needed + +416It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 ("The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410."). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial), + +to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's communications with victims.'147 + +The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism. Although OPR credits Villafafia's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia also contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified fashion. + +OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever possible."8 For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory messages. + +independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words, while the USAO's view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the case agent's concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low. + +447 In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries. Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein's state guilty plea. + +&#x27;16 OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines. + +## CONCLUSION + +In November 2018, the *Miami Herald* published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. The *Miami Herald* reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein that permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges," immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. + +Following the *Miami Herald's* report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and law enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. + +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts with the USAO and federal law enforcement. + +OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann ██████ C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report. + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. + +Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. + +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. + +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism + +principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. + +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was pan of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. + +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. + +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. + +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. + +## METHODOLOGY + +#### A. Document Review + +As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney's offices, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their sources, are set forth below. + +#### 1. USAO Records + +The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of material that Villafafia updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA, prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments. + +The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein case collected by Sloman; Villafafia's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center. + +#### 2. EOUSA Records + +EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000 Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents. + +After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox contained no emails from May 26, 2007, through November 2, 2008. This gap, however, was not present with respect to Acosta's sent email. OPR requested that EOUSA investigate. During its investigation, EOUSA discovered a data association error that incorrectly associated Acosta's data with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated, EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his tenure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that the emails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.S. Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's data was migrated between March and June 2008. + +EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error. + +Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email, which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta. + +#### 3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records + +OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation concerning its victim notification system. + +#### 4. Criminal Division Records + +The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries. + +CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation. + +#### 5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records + +OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries. + +#### 6. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence, when the Department recused the USA'S, in August 2011 from "all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females," and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA. + +#### 7. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records + +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with records related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO. + +#### 8. Public Records + +OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit, and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports. + +#### B. Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims + +#### 1. Subjects + +OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. + +#### 2. Witnesses + +OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher. OPR also interviewed former State Attorney Barry Krischer and former Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick. + +#### 3. Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys + +OPR contacted attorneys known to represent 26 victims among the 30 surviving individuals who were identified in the USAO's July 2008 listing of 32 victims the USAO was prepared to include in federal charges against Epstein and who accordingly were entitled to the benefits of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 monetary damages provision of the NPA. OPR contacted the attorneys to invite + +the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before Epstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea, or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims. + +# EXHIBIT 1 + +## State Indictment + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +**INDICTMENT** + +A TRUE BILL + +06-9454-CF +A-2 + +SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK & COMPTRO +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON + +05 JUL 19 PM 2:4 + +FILED + +**IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA** + +**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA** + +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State aforesaid, + +**COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION** + +on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, 2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) + +against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. + +I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. + +![](_page_319_Picture_162.jpeg) + +STATE OF FLORIDA +I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy for the record in my office. I hereby certify that the record is in my office. THIS DAY OF 5 2008 20 + +*[Handwritten Signature]* + +Assistant State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, prosecuting for the said State + +BY DEPUTY CLERK + +*[Handwritten Signature]* +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +DATE July 19, 2006 + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +# EXHIBIT 2 + +September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +#### NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") is reported to have committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around October 2005, including: + +- (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(6); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(cX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his + +signature on this Agreement; and + +rir APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below. + +Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the United States Attorney will famish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the Agreement which he has violated. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses. + +#### Terms of the Agreement: + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") charging violations of the following Florida Statutes: + - (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); + - (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and + - (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. +- 2. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. + +- 3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. +- 4. Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. +- 5. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified victims and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through that counsel. +- 6. Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than October 15, 2007. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +Dated: + +Jeffrey Epstein + +Dated: + +Roy Black, Esq. Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: + +By: A. Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney + +# EXHIBIT 3 + +September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +#### IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +#### NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- (I) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstcin seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +#### Terms of the Agreement: + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exeams what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +- 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +- 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +- 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name dots not appear on the list provided by the United States. +- 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +- 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +- 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +- 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any cri inal char ,es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +By: \_\_\_\_\_ + +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 9/24/07 + +![]()Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dag/Z-747 By: + +Dated: + +Dated: 11-9'10 7 + +Dated. + +A A II-LAI:Ai A ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +RAL EFC0t R ESQ. OIJNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +nated:q-Atf9— + +By: + +rinVILLAFANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN [Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +## EXHIBIT 4 + +## Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +IN RE: + +#### INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +#### ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: + +- 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +- 713. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third•party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the ar.orney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: Jeffrey #1. Homan FAUSA +~~TO~~ A. [REDACTED] VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/29/07 + +![]()Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED] ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: he/07 By: + +bated: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +FAusA A. la - rif LLAFARA AS U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +BALD LEFCO RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN FSQ. ATTORNEY Y EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and cart ties that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby stales that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: /D /3 0 7 + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +By A. VILLAFAF4A ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 111-"Vi a., I 4 - WA + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY A ANCHEZ, ES ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +# EXHIBIT 5 State Information + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] + +STATE OF FLORIDA + +vs. + +JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, + +co 7.) C -• - La + +## .11 1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION • I + +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: + +BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach tiAtyrflorida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between the I ° day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted,I. a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) + +#### IN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB) + +0Y Cf 9 32 / + +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.: + +2006036744 + +/ + +#### INFORMATION FOR: + +A A Eekk + +FL. BAR NO. 0776726 + +Assistant State Attorney + +-n + +STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH + +Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under oath has been received from the material witness or witnesdds for the off + +LB/dp + +![](_page_347_Picture_24.jpeg) + +Assistant State Attorney + +Sworn to and subscribed to before me th. of June, 2008. + +Canons ;Ws MCONtS1OMS COMM DAMS Au~r,27010 W~QDMI 7. 7010Me3K + +#### FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: + +#### 1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699 + +![](_page_347_Picture_28.jpeg) + +flitt yo NOTARY PUBLIC, e of Florida + +STATE OF FLORIDA • RNA BEACH COWRY + +I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy e record in my office. + +Ju cAb SHAR + +ON Ft. + +• 20 + +[Page Intentionally Left Blank] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2425a53f16a1c8698d7b7a157f1232cc26928600 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/EFTA02832104.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,19908 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 349, + "chars": 1065318, + "elapsed_seconds": 90.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_29_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_33_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_38_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_83_Picture_121.jpeg", + "_page_83_Picture_129.jpeg", + "_page_130_Diagram_1.jpeg", + "_page_216_Diagram_7.jpeg", + "_page_223_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_224_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_249_Picture_22.jpeg", + "_page_250_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_319_Picture_162.jpeg", + "_page_347_Picture_24.jpeg", + "_page_347_Picture_28.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.8433837890625, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.8433837890625, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 453.2246398925781, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 453.2246398925781, + 136.91925048828125 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 136.91925048828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OFFICE OF \nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY \nREPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 487.1323547363281, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 487.1323547363281, + 429.0392761230469 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 429.0392761230469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7645263671875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 389.7645263671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 225.18 + ], + [ + 351.1683044433594, + 240.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 240.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 440.9661865234375, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 405.75600000000003, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 405.75600000000003, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 477.09000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.76695251464844, + 342.63 + ], + [ + 235.76695251464844, + 358.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 358.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Negotiation, Execution, and I ruplententation of the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.942626953125, + 452.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 497.2414855957031, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 497.2414855957031, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 329.1392517089844, + 344.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 385.0422058105469, + 534.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 542.48779296875, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 542.48779296875, + 579.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 579.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 308.6979064941406, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 385.7106628417969, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 385.7106628417969, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. \nTHE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE \nDEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.7049560546875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.7049560546875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO \nRESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 35", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 542.295654296875, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 542.295654296875, + 494.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 494.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND \nUNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR \nSTANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN \nNEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6166381835938, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6166381835938, + 127.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 127.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE \nINFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA \nTERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND \nBENEFITS TO EPSTEIN 140", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 542.5252075195312, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 542.5252075195312, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER ONE \nSIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.06, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 457.6080322265625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 457.6080322265625, + 116.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 156.06, + 116.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 467.1540222167969, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 467.1540222167969, + 156.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 156.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District \nof Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice 2006 - 2008", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 297.0, + 58.59 + ], + [ + 491.04, + 58.59 + ], + [ + 491.04, + 103.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 297.0, + 103.94999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 393.54278564453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 393.54278564453125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 519.3194580078125, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 519.3194580078125, + 356.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 356.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation Mid-2006 through Mid-2009", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.32000000000005, + 100.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 562.3199999999999, + 100.80000000000001 + ], + [ + 562.3199999999999, + 129.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 265.32000000000005, + 129.14999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.623779296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.623779296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Jeffrey Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 224.55340576171875, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 224.55340576171875, + 113.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 290.9993591308594, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 290.9993591308594, + 398.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 398.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO \nTHE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT \nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 443.1026611328125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 443.1026611328125, + 142.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 142.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 179.18310546875, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 179.18310546875, + 182.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. MARCH 2005 \u2014 MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM \nBEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE \nATTORNEY'S OFFICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 428.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 428.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 406.7818603515625, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 406.7818603515625, + 455.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 455.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation \u2013 May 2006 through October 2008", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 53.85600000000001, + 49.14 + ], + [ + 711.216, + 49.14 + ], + [ + 711.216, + 70.56 + ], + [ + 53.85600000000001, + 70.56 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.5128784179688, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.5128784179688, + 222.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 432.798583984375, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 432.798583984375, + 427.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 427.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's \nHandling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.4166259765625, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.4166259765625, + 140.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE \nTEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 542.9204711914062, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 542.9204711914062, + 480.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 480.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. May 2006 \u2014 February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the \nUSAO Opens a Case File", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 491.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 491.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 522.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 522.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 474.4681396484375, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 474.4681396484375, + 140.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 140.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 506.24334716796875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 506.24334716796875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. July 14, 2006: Villafana Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 532.7026977539062, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 532.7026977539062, + 343.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 343.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 98.01 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. October 2006 \u2014 February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate \nContact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 543.82958984375, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 543.82958984375, + 275.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 275.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lonnie and Villafafia and \nPresent the Defense Objections to a Federal Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 543.1658935546875, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 543.1658935546875, + 277.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 277.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. February \u2014 May 2007: Villafafia and the FBI Continue to Investigate; \nVillafafta Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for \nUSAO Managers to Review", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 543.4448852539062, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 543.4448852539062, + 603.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 603.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. May \u2014 June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum \nand Proposed Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.877197265625, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.877197265625, + 247.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 247.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which \nVillafafta Opposes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 395.28 + ], + [ + 543.4640502929688, + 395.28 + ], + [ + 543.4640502929688, + 425.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 425.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. June 2007: Villafalm Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 484.94561767578125, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 484.94561767578125, + 331.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 331.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 600.21 + ], + [ + 397.5341491699219, + 600.21 + ], + [ + 397.5341491699219, + 615.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 615.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO \nRESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.9105224609375, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.9105224609375, + 482.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 482.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. June \u2014 July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the \nDefense Rejects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 484.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 484.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based \nResolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 542.5975952148438, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 542.5975952148438, + 358.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 358.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. July 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State \nResolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 263.60302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 263.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Villafaiia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from \nEpstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 542.990478515625, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 542.990478515625, + 551.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 551.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 542.5404052734375, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 542.5404052734375, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of \nIncarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 74, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 544.913818359375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 544.913818359375, + 100.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 74, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 396.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 367.91192626953125, + 396.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 367.91192626953125, + 412.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 412.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence \nwith a Two-Year Term of Incarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 75, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 543.0888671875, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 543.0888671875, + 398.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 398.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Villafalia Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential \nAgreement with the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 77, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 165.24 + ], + [ + 543.8588256835938, + 165.24 + ], + [ + 543.8588256835938, + 195.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 195.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 411.4998474121094, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 411.4998474121094, + 105.84405517578125 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 105.84405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 151.776, + 118.25999999999999 + ], + [ + 447.6934509277344, + 118.25999999999999 + ], + [ + 447.6934509277344, + 132.2005615234375 + ], + [ + 151.776, + 132.2005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD \nGUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF \nINCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE \nTO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 543.5107421875, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 543.5107421875, + 576.4740600585938 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 576.4740600585938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which \nMakes a Counteroffer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 80, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 542.4445190429688, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 542.4445190429688, + 154.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 154.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of \nImprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 81, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 436.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 466.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 466.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet \nwith Acosta", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 542.6461181640625, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 542.6461181640625, + 235.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 235.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 453.7903137207031, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 453.7903137207031, + 262.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 262.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are \nPostponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafafia's Efforts to \nObtain the Computer Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 86, + "polygon": [ + [ + 139.536, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.6437377929688, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.6437377929688, + 246.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 139.536, + 246.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI \nM\nors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Leikowitz, and", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 88, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.65673828125, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.65673828125, + 340.4490661621094 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 340.4490661621094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE \nPROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 89, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 542.7210693359375, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 542.7210693359375, + 290.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 290.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 89, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 487.88385009765625, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 487.88385009765625, + 548.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State \nAttorney", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 90, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.6471557617188, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.6471557617188, + 506.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 506.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was \nReduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 92, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 543.8020629882812, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 543.8020629882812, + 439.5635681152344 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 439.5635681152344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to \nFederal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 94, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.6776123046875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 542.6776123046875, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 98, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 506.35052490234375, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 506.35052490234375, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of \nthe Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 99, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 447.12000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.2973022460938, + 447.12000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.2973022460938, + 476.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 476.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Villafafia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges \nThat They \"Try to Work It Out\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 102, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8042602539062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.8042602539062, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafafia Sends a Final Version \nto the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 103, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 542.48291015625, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 542.48291015625, + 208.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA \n\"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender \nRegistration Requirement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 104, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.22119140625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.22119140625, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge \"Potential Co-Conspirators\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 105, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 525.096, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 525.096, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 490.86 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender \nRegistration Requirement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 107, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 542.8189697265625, + 315.9 + ], + [ + 542.8189697265625, + 344.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 344.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 109, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 367.3202209472656, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 367.3202209472656, + 503.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 503.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 110, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 179.01 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 113, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 268.8005676269531, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 268.8005676269531, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. September \u2014 October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an \nAttorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 113, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 542.6242065429688, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 542.6242065429688, + 275.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 275.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 115, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.2354736328125, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.2354736328125, + 548.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the \nParties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative \nand Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 117, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 543.2479248046875, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 543.2479248046875, + 248.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 248.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 120, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 346.5917053222656, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 346.5917053222656, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's \u00a7 2255 Provision Relating to \nMonetary Damages for the Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 120, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.7169189453125, + 451.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 543.7169189453125, + 479.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 479.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It \nand Accuse Villafaiia of Improper Conduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 124, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 544.8694458007812, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 544.8694458007812, + 192.43359375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 192.43359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters \nand \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about the Federal Investigation \nand Villafatia", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 124, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.0811767578125, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 543.0811767578125, + 246.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 246.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO \nCriminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta \nAgrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 125, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 543.4681396484375, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 543.4681396484375, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review \nof the USAO's Actions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 125, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.4285888671875, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.4285888671875, + 409.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 409.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA \u00a7 2255 Language concerning \nMonetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 126, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.7393188476562, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.7393188476562, + 99.8035888671875 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 99.8035888671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Who Makes \nAdditional Allegations of USAO Misconduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 127, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 543.7667846679688, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 543.7667846679688, + 291.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 291.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 128, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 403.164306640625, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 403.164306640625, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. FEBRUARY \u2014JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 129, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 435.30413818359375, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 435.30413818359375, + 181.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 181.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. February \u2014 May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 130, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 510.1435241699219, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 510.1435241699219, + 554.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 554.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. May \u2014 June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 134, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 534.1865234375, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 534.1865234375, + 262.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 262.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. JUNE 2008 \u2013 JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 136, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 396.90000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 137, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 463.9132080078125, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 463.9132080078125, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 139, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 325.1179504394531, + 191.16 + ], + [ + 325.1179504394531, + 206.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 206.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 143, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 306.64752197265625, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 306.64752197265625, + 574.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 574.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.308, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2185974121094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2185974121094, + 88.62091064453125 + ], + [ + 250.308, + 88.62091064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 189.108, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 189.108, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 145, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 317.24615478515625, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 317.24615478515625, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 146, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.3901672363281, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.3901672363281, + 126.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 126.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The United States Attorneys' Manual", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 146, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 339.13360595703125, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 339.13360595703125, + 152.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 152.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a \nFederal Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 146, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 542.2840576171875, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 542.2840576171875, + 615.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 615.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. USAM \u00a7 9-2.031: The Petite Policy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 148, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 424.44000000000005 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 424.44000000000005 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 149, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 423.32489013671875, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 423.32489013671875, + 505.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 505.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 150, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 487.45489501953125, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 487.45489501953125, + 613.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 613.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 151, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 438.192, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 438.192, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 274.59000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 151, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 526.3199999999999, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 526.3199999999999, + 366.93 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 366.93 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Other Department Policies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 151, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 570.24 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 570.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 151, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 584.01 + ], + [ + 482.25600000000003, + 584.01 + ], + [ + 482.25600000000003, + 597.78 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 597.78 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 153, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.25537109375, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.25537109375, + 126.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 126.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Case Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 153, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 197.41639709472656, + 515.97 + ], + [ + 197.41639709472656, + 531.1124877929688 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 531.1124877929688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Prosecutorial Discretion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 153, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 542.7 + ], + [ + 307.02264404296875, + 542.7 + ], + [ + 307.02264404296875, + 558.1125030517578 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 558.1125030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 154, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 654.48 + ], + [ + 493.27200000000005, + 654.48 + ], + [ + 493.27200000000005, + 669.06 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 669.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. State Bar Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 155, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 227.55722045898438, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 227.55722045898438, + 481.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 481.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. FRPC 4-1.1 \u2014 Competence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 156, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 318.4812316894531, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 318.4812316894531, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. FRPC 4-1.3 \u2014 Diligence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 156, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.20574951171875, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.20574951171875, + 370.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 370.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. FRPC 4-4.1 \u2014 Candor in Dealing with Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 156, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 476.28 + ], + [ + 414.12481689453125, + 476.28 + ], + [ + 414.12481689453125, + 491.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 491.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. FRPC 4-8.4 \u2014 Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 157, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 524.3237915039062, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 524.3237915039062, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER TWO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 159, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2291564941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.2291564941406, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART THREE: ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 159, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 159, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS \nACCOUNTABLE FOR IT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 159, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 544.3980712890625, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 544.3980712890625, + 535.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 535.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND \nUNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR \nSTANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN \nNEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 160, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.5278930664062, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.5278930664062, + 441.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 441.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 161, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 151.47 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta\u2019s Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 162, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 221.13000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and \nUnambiguous Standards", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 163, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.1658935546875, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.1658935546875, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required \nEpstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of \nIncarceration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 163, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 492.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 492.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified \"Potential Co-Conspirators\" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 329.66999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation \nof Criminal Aliens", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 166, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.6216430664062, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE \nINFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS \nFAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO \nEPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 166, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.7346801757812, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.7346801757812, + 534.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 534.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, \nor Illegal Political or Personal Consideration", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 167, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 544.0504150390625, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 544.0504150390625, + 563.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 563.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did \nNot Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly \nInfluenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 168, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 277.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 277.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing \nThat the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 168, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 543.1777954101562, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 543.1777954101562, + 509.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 509.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable \nStrategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 169, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 543.4652709960938, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 543.4652709960938, + 209.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 209.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records \nIdentified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal \nTheories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 170, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 543.833984375, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 543.833984375, + 277.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 277.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the \nSubjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 175, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.1624145507812, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense \nCounsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors \nEstablished That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided \nImproper Benefits to Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.4356689453125, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.4356689453125, + 289.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 289.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any \nImproper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships \nwith His Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.3334350585938, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 543.3334350585938, + 424.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 424.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 177, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 545.13 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense \nCounsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 181, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 384.75 + ], + [ + 543.4237060546875, + 384.75 + ], + [ + 543.4237060546875, + 413.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 413.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with \nEpstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 181, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 543.7769775390625, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 543.7769775390625, + 520.1835327148438 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 520.1835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal \nFavorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 186, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Villafafla's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA \nNegotiations Do Not Establish That Villafaiia, or Other Subjects, Intended to \nGive Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or \nOther Improper Influences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 189, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 544.0123291015625, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 544.0123291015625, + 384.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 384.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaiia Agreed to \nthe NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute \"Potential Co-conspirators\" \nin Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential \nAssociates", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 192, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.8630981445312, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.8630981445312, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. OPR\u2019s Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 194, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 548.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 548.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 195, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 541.62, + 409.86 + ], + [ + 541.62, + 437.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 437.40000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea \nunder Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application \nof the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the \nSignificant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 196, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 315.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.7068481445312, + 315.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.7068481445312, + 372.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 372.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was \nUndermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative \nSteps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 201, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of \nIncarceration. \"1\" hat It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It \nSatisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 205, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 208, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 437.16217041015625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 437.16217041015625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 208, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 515.54443359375, + 656.9100000000001 + ], + [ + 515.54443359375, + 673.483024597168 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 673.483024597168 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS \nAND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 517.7354125976562, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 517.7354125976562, + 132.363037109375 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 132.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 417.90447998046875, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 417.90447998046875, + 158.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 158.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 179.1869354248047, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 179.1869354248047, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3771", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 264.3485107421875, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 264.3485107421875, + 347.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 347.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 215, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 185.76487731933594, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 185.76487731933594, + 374.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 216, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.0, + 72.45 + ], + [ + 580.5360000000001, + 72.45 + ], + [ + 580.5360000000001, + 90.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 198.0, + 90.08999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Enumerated Rights", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 217, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 164.43 + ], + [ + 247.52955627441406, + 164.43 + ], + [ + 247.52955627441406, + 179.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF \n\"CRIME VICTIM\" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 218, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.5806884765625, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 543.5806884765625, + 484.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 484.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel \"Preliminary Review\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 218, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 494.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 454.84326171875, + 494.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 454.84326171875, + 511.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 511.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 219, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 500.2565612792969, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 500.2565612792969, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME \nOF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 220, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 543.0703125, + 530.55 + ], + [ + 543.0703125, + 561.4925079345703 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 561.4925079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. USAO Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 220, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 229.52279663085938, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 229.52279663085938, + 588.8625030517578 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.8625030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Automated Victim Notification System", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 221, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 368.164794921875, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 368.164794921875, + 153.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 153.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 222, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 325.5195007324219, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 325.5195007324219, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 222, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 462.7061462402344, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 462.7061462402344, + 290.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 290.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 222, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 405.13287353515625, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 405.13287353515625, + 317.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 317.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 224, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 381.20208740234375, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 381.20208740234375, + 318.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 318.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 226, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 371.0744934082031, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 371.0744934082031, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH \nVICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 226, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 543.099609375, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 543.099609375, + 453.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 453.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about \nResolving the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 227, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.3265380859375, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.3265380859375, + 140.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims Have \nNot Been Consulted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 228, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.0919799804688, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.0919799804688, + 387.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 387.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 228, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 462.01275634765625, + 438.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 462.01275634765625, + 453.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 453.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to \nConsult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do \nNot Currently Recall Such Instructions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 230, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1922607421875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1922607421875, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. September 6, 2007: Villalafta Informs Slum:tn. ho Informs .costa, \nof OoSterbaan's Opinion I hat (onsultation 'Ill 'let1111% Was \nRequired", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 230, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 544.0368041992188, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 544.0368041992188, + 455.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 455.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE \nUSAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 232, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6700439453125, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 542.6700439453125, + 385.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 385.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. September \u2014 October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the \nNPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential \nImpeachment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 233, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.8292236328125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.8292236328125, + 113.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 236, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.281494140625, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 543.281494140625, + 248.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 248.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. October \u2014 November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, \nand the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is \n\"Under Investigation\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 237, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.4119873046875, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 543.4119873046875, + 425.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 425.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter \nabout Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal \nInvestigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 238, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 360.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 360.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to \nthe State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea \nHearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution. \"as \nRequired by Law\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 242, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.6826782226562, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 543.6826782226562, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. January \u2014June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department \nin an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating \nEpstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 246, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 543.3092651367188, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 543.3092651367188, + 409.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 409.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein \nWill Breach the NPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 246, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0177001953125, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0177001953125, + 625.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 625.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 247, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 273.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.274658203125, + 273.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.274658203125, + 289.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 289.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Villafana, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 250, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 527.8753051757812, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 527.8753051757812, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. February \u2014 March 2008: Villafatia Takes Additional Steps to Prepare \nfor a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for \nVictims, and Cautions about Continued Delay", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 253, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.2880249023438, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.2880249023438, + 289.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 289.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. March \u2014 April 2008: Villafaiia Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal \nCharges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 253, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0933837890625, + 587.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 587.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED \nMATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 254, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 543.1741333007812, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 543.1741333007812, + 344.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFAF4A'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY \nREPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA \nPETITIONERS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 255, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0225219726562, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 543.0225219726562, + 524.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 524.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA \nHEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 257, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.010498046875, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.010498046875, + 330.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 330.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT \nHEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 260, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.4500732421875, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 543.4500732421875, + 387.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 387.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 261, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 504.63 + ], + [ + 365.5301818847656, + 504.63 + ], + [ + 365.5301818847656, + 520.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 520.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafana Notifies Some \nVictims' Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 261, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 543.4197998046875, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 543.4197998046875, + 562.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 562.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 262, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 388.51031494140625, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 388.51031494140625, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. July 2008: Villafaila Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed \nVictims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 263, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.9598999023438, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.9598999023438, + 140.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. July \u2014 August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims \nResiding Outside of the United States", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 264, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 515.16 + ], + [ + 543.6547241210938, + 515.16 + ], + [ + 543.6547241210938, + 545.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 545.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. August \u2014 September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose \nthe NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 265, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 543.28369140625, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 543.28369140625, + 289.1030578613281 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 289.1030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. 2010 \u2014 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding \nInterpretation of the CVRA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 267, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.217529296875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.217529296875, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 268, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 426.545654296875, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 426.545654296875, + 333.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 333.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 370.00457763671875, + 88.10302734375 + ], + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 88.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 423.9055480957031, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 263.87677001953125, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 263.87677001953125, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3771", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 273, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 294.6502380371094, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 294.6502380371094, + 222.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. \u00a7 20141, \nServices to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA \u00a7 10607)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.6806030273438, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.6806030273438, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(b) Identification of victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 211.29531860351562, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 211.29531860351562, + 127.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 127.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Description of services", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 205.34669494628906, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 205.34669494628906, + 293.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 293.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(1) A responsible official shall\u2014", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a \nsuspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 543.1430053710938, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 543.1430053710938, + 482.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 482.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a \nvictim the earliest possible notice of\u2014", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 274, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 542.896728515625, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 542.896728515625, + 523.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 523.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Definitions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 148.64300537109375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 148.64300537109375, + 168.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 168.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR \nVICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.4431762695312, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 543.4431762695312, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 299.3919677734375, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 299.3919677734375, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Investigation Stage", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 203.15304565429688, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 203.15304565429688, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Description of Services.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 241.5899200439453, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 241.5899200439453, + 592.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 592.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Information, Notice, and Referral", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 275, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.952, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 300.9696044921875, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 300.9696044921875, + 620.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 119.952, + 620.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Prosecution Stage", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 276, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 196.90713500976562, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 196.90713500976562, + 663.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 663.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Services to Crime Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 277, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 253.37261962890625, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 253.37261962890625, + 127.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 127.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Information, Notice, and Referrals", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 277, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 309.99078369140625, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 309.99078369140625, + 183.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 183.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Consultation With a Government Attorney", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 278, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.6773986816406, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 348.6773986816406, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 279, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 389.2443542480469, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 389.2443542480469, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. FRPC 4-4.1 \u2014 Candor in Dealing with Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 279, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.16400146484375, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.16400146484375, + 182.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 182.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. FRPC 4-8.4 \u2014 Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 279, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 488.0820617675781, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 488.0820617675781, + 292.1030578613281 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.1030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CHAPTER THREE \nPART THREE: ANALYSIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 281, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.7803955078125, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 281, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 178.79237365722656, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS \nSTANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE \nVICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 281, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 543.530029296875, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 543.530029296875, + 524.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 524.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 282, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 303.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was \nIntended to Silence Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 284, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 424.44000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 424.44000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.7882690429688, + 456.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS \nBUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE \nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 287, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6552734375, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6552734375, + 170.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 170.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the \nFBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of \nthe Case as \"Under Investigation\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 288, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Because the Federal investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the \nFBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the \nStatus of the Federal Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 289, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 543.6279296875, + 116.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 116.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S \nDISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE \nCOURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS \nSTANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY \nFAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL \nINVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 291, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 544.0997314453125, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 544.0997314453125, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to \nNotify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any \nClear or Unambiguous Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 291, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 543.0576171875, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 543.0576171875, + 631.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 631.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 295, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 112.59 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER \nORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN \nWHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS \"UNDER INVESTIGATION\" BUT DID \nNOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 299, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.4107055664062, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 543.4107055664062, + 441.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 441.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 306, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 165.24 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 165.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 309, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "METHODOLOGY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.38055419921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.38055419921875, + 88.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 88.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Document Review", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 240.04856872558594, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 240.04856872558594, + 116.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 116.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. USAO Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 261.7267150878906, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 261.7267150878906, + 239.60302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 239.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. EOUSA Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 313, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 269.5967102050781, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 269.5967102050781, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 391.5065612792969, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 391.5065612792969, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Criminal Division Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 320.2266845703125, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 320.2266845703125, + 457.10302734375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 457.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 314, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 605.88 + ], + [ + 425.2565612792969, + 605.88 + ], + [ + 425.2565612792969, + 620.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 620.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.0967407226562, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.0967407226562, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 528.7266845703125, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 528.7266845703125, + 208.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 208.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "8. Public Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 261.0065612792969, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 261.0065612792969, + 275.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 275.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 408.6546630859375, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 408.6546630859375, + 370.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 370.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Subjects", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 226.51669311523438, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 226.51669311523438, + 397.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 397.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 504.63 + ], + [ + 234.31077575683594, + 504.63 + ], + [ + 234.31077575683594, + 520.10302734375 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 520.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 315, + "polygon": [ + [ + 141.372, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 460.88836669921875, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 460.88836669921875, + 642.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 141.372, + 642.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 317, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.66, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 431.1078796386719, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 431.1078796386719, + 289.3155517578125 + ], + [ + 186.66, + 289.3155517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "State Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 317, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 434.4237976074219, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 434.4237976074219, + 366.7234802246094 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 366.7234802246094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 319, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 38.07 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 38.07 + ], + [ + 361.08, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 53.46 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 319, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 428.4, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 428.4, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 287.54999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 321, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 236.981689453125 + ], + [ + 430.9664611816406, + 236.981689453125 + ], + [ + 430.9664611816406, + 287.0655517578125 + ], + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 287.0655517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 323, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 409.5453796386719, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 409.5453796386719, + 240.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 240.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 324, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 232.10647583007812, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 232.10647583007812, + 422.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 422.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 327, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.272, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 429.9217224121094, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 429.9217224121094, + 286.39373779296875 + ], + [ + 187.272, + 286.39373779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN RE: \nINVESTIGATION OF \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 329, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 119.88 + ], + [ + 199.25900268554688, + 119.88 + ], + [ + 199.25900268554688, + 163.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 163.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 329, + "polygon": [ + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 401.71881103515625, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 401.71881103515625, + 206.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 191.55599999999998, + 206.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 331, + "polygon": [ + [ + 109.548, + 93.96000000000001 + ], + [ + 238.4696044921875, + 93.96000000000001 + ], + [ + 238.4696044921875, + 108.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 109.548, + 108.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.036, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 399.3707275390625, + 245.43 + ], + [ + 399.3707275390625, + 283.6273498535156 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 283.6273498535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Addendum to the \nNon-Prosecution Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 522.04248046875, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 522.04248046875, + 387.819580078125 + ], + [ + 95.47200000000001, + 387.819580078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVESTIGATION OF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 341, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 204.33114624023438, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 204.33114624023438, + 153.215087890625 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 153.215087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 341, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 379.0097351074219, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 379.0097351074219, + 219.5850830078125 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 219.5850830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 5 \nState Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 345, + "polygon": [ + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 441.25567626953125, + 237.0875244140625 + ], + [ + 441.25567626953125, + 363.7991638183594 + ], + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 363.7991638183594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": ".11 1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION \u2022 I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 223.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 529.3408813476562, + 223.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 529.3408813476562, + 241.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 241.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT \nIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA \nCRIMINAL DIVISION \"W\" (LB)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.116, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 481.74273681640625, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 481.74273681640625, + 88.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 118.116, + 88.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INFORMATION FOR:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.62, + 199.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.8163757324219, + 199.42889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.8163757324219, + 213.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 235.62, + 213.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 194.5831756591797, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 194.5831756591797, + 683.6835174560547 + ], + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 683.6835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 681.2988967895508 + ], + [ + 314.7354736328125, + 681.2988967895508 + ], + [ + 314.7354736328125, + 696.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 25.092000000000002, + 696.5999999999999 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Footnote", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 127, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 128, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 129, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 130, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 131, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 132, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 133, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 134, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 135, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 136, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 137, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 138, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 139, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 140, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 141, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 142, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 143, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 144, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 145, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 146, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 147, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 148, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 149, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 150, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 151, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 152, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 153, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 154, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 155, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 156, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 157, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 158, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 159, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 160, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 161, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 162, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 163, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 164, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 165, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 166, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 167, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 168, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 169, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 170, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 171, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 172, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 173, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 174, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 175, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 176, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 177, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 178, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 179, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 180, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 181, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 182, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 140 + ], + [ + "Line", + 70 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 183, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 184, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 185, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 186, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 187, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 188, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 189, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 190, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 191, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 192, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 193, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 194, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 195, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 196, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 197, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 198, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 199, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 200, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 201, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 202, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 203, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 204, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 205, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 206, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 207, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 208, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 209, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 210, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 211, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 212, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 213, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 214, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 215, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 216, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Diagram", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 217, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 218, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 219, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 220, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 221, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 222, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 223, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 224, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 225, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 226, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 227, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 228, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 229, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 230, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 231, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 232, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 233, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 234, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 235, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 236, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 237, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 238, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 239, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 240, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 241, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 242, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 243, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 244, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 245, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 246, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 247, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 248, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 249, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 250, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 251, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 252, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 253, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 254, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 255, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 256, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 257, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 258, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 259, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 260, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 261, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 262, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 263, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 264, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 265, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 266, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 267, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 268, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 269, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 270, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 271, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 272, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 273, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 274, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 275, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 276, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 277, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 278, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 279, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 280, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 281, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 282, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 283, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 284, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 285, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 286, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 287, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 288, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 289, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 290, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 291, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 292, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 293, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 294, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 295, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 296, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 297, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 298, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 299, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 300, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 301, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 302, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 303, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 304, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 305, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 306, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 307, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 308, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 309, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 310, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 311, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 312, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 313, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 314, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 315, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 316, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 317, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 318, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 319, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 320, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 321, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 322, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 323, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 324, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 325, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 326, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 327, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 328, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 329, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 330, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 331, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 332, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 333, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 334, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 335, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 336, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 337, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 338, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 339, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 340, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 341, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 342, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 343, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 344, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 345, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 346, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 347, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 128 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 348, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832104" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_130_Diagram_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_130_Diagram_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bec9c1f98106bb01313881729f1204025df2970d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_130_Diagram_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:65f86d6cc7a8433db77f0bd6833ead71c434b5f33f3633c7e37efed5d49125e1 +size 61258 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edf4a2d9b2341ed4d3890c135e48b284ddd0f695 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:33077f2ed3329c845ad7e79564d1ab1b14e524cb86c598c3e0dda6250c579479 +size 20913 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_216_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_216_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d24fc21dfeecea9a88c58818c0aafb3ea8f798e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_216_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c8645ef23275d7e0559bd1d8775d094886664a8674ecf472015c79f3c8c26547 +size 161896 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_223_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_223_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1f8f2a557fa6c8608fca07474e2d9efe01aee68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_223_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a11c03e7b694472f60a1bc118833dd0c27d7991d9fe35862f83d34c9bff33657 +size 3821 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_224_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_224_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13fcbb2327706ef47ea2247a5577f619703a702a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_224_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:835f722936b30bdae03bc1fbda81c9facc8fbf1e1aabd6647742373909222354 +size 2435 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_249_Picture_22.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_249_Picture_22.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5db8c96aca0ead4bcb903868fb84ad452a8c802 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_249_Picture_22.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:70bce8521e672c6ec8562aed7c7539ceed4706f0bfcb9e0f9ee624ccbbeb1950 +size 5490 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_250_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_250_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a338e58558013831e7c93ed1cf84645e176ab58c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_250_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d549c0a48ca4e769ae505b8edfacb7d1d33fec293bd6240888de76934904db01 +size 2631 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_29_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_29_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b8c821941d3664bcf1dc703cd39d568d698452e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_29_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:29bcd3b15739f7161d8737fbcf819a180e45801df6038f1e396d4c14b3d058ab +size 155493 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_319_Picture_162.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_319_Picture_162.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ff83c38b7903889869dc1ea60fb7f0d3aaba258 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_319_Picture_162.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d4c0dbcc1c019d11fb69976a6c9d394cd7c91357056721cb6ceb9c59635c4552 +size 6895 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_33_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_33_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df671f594193cc0dd86baee8c4658e111e365ec0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_33_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7739702d3d26d8e96782393314cc4be3d127295228ccbe1f8da49a109c6e1348 +size 95669 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_24.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_24.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f30bf467fdc70e643366783c3c9ccabf1b820c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_24.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1b2fe44cffa8f8204c0d2b9293819223fe9009a81e3b56edd8e44e367197f8f5 +size 2637 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_28.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_28.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fe8d86543c59a262905816a0ac7ef9cd718c38a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_347_Picture_28.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:50018496d43b08ca4fa1b871760c2ff833ef1f0110fb13de75cd405d3d5e7fd2 +size 6589 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_38_Diagram_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_38_Diagram_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43826e7e195da666fe47915a0210928e178e87d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_38_Diagram_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a18cd9c8c77f9f24effd27d39d44c8cc569e860a9e20c18eb7eef01cbda7789d +size 127810 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_121.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_121.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c38f43a56913b1dcf733117afda015354ecc63d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_121.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:47cccde845a709151522fba0becd79e0c40e0be91556a448ac4809cddb24dc7e +size 5180 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_129.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_129.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5345f29b8f24330fc4dbaf65b061ba9fdaaa3ea1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832104/_page_83_Picture_129.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5ccca76a19da8c6fd95783edd3646b05684d25751e86e25c9e3c60ec92d86094 +size 1875 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2fcb5ee49a142d9842c080c1af24a713b3eb8d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.md @@ -0,0 +1,229 @@ +# Exhibit B + +**COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A** + +**NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND +ADDENDUM** + +IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +# NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- 0) +- (2) +- (3) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violWonofTitk 18, United States Code, Section 371; knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +# Terms of the Agreement: + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495A,VaNCB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Star § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl orida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (I2) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The tents contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +1. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +2. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), *supra*, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +3. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. +4. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), *supra*, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +5. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +1. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +2. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Lesley Groff, or [REDACTED]. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, involate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated: ge/C(9 — + +Dated: + +Dated: + +A. N/ILLAFARA ASSET-ATI U.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY EPSTEIN + +FX + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with then. + +> IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated: + +Dated: 7/9-407 + +Dated: + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LELLYArN . ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +CO ESQ. OUNSEL TO Y EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution t and agrees to comply with thorn. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UN/TED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated: 2 — + +Br A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EISTUNI + +A. ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +IN RE: + +INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +\_\_\_\_\_/ + +**ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT** + +IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: + +1. 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +2. 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. +3. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein, herebx states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: /0/3 0 /07 + +Dated: /4 fl t r + +Dated: + +Dated: + +By: + +AINI VILLAPAICIA T AS C.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ppa tEESQ. ATTORNEY Y EPSTEIN + +FARM- + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: ie he /07 Br + +Dated: + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +trAvSti LAFARA U.S. ATTORNEY + +BALD LEFCO ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: + +*[Handwritten Signature]* +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: 10-29-07 + +*[Handwritten Signature]* +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dec-07-07 04:55pm From [REDACTED] Burnett + +3057800201 + +T-966 P.003/004 F-976 + +Affirmation + +I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to name dated October 30, 2007, + +![]()![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..654eed38eec847846e5be04360a9a856f9372de9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453/EFTA02832453.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,710 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832453.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 19141, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.53, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.877197265625, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.877197265625, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 316.71000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 371.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.82421875, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.82421875, + 228.2235107421875 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 228.2235107421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 242.13702392578125, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 242.13702392578125, + 145.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 145.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "_____/ ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 365.976, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 365.976, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 209.79000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Affirmation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 151.47 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832453" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0672835ac7da39d6a35e43f26a3daee232c4d2c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.md @@ -0,0 +1,782 @@ +## Exhibit C + +1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA + +3 +4 **COPY** + +5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +6 Plaintiff. + +7 vs. + +8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, [REDACTED], a/k/a [REDACTED] +9 and NADIA MARCINKOVA. + +10 Defendants. + +11 +12 - - - +13 TESTIMONY +14 OF + +15 SPECIAL AGENT [REDACTED] + +16 +17 +18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103 +19 Federal Building +20 U.S. Courthouse +21 West Palm Beach, Florida +22 Tuesday, March 18, 2008 + +23 APPEARANCES: + +24 A. [REDACTED] VILLAFANA, +25 Assistant United States Attorney + +[REDACTED] +Foreperson + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC +(954) 467-8204 + +The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT 3 4 6 5 was taken before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division, Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach County, State of Florida, on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. + +a 9 10 1 1 12 Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida, Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 3330!, was authorized to and did report the sworn testimony. + +13 + +i4 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +Id + +19 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +l5 + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.) + +2 3 4 5 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swearthat the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +6 THE WITNESS: I do. + +8 7 THE FOREFERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. + +10 BY MS. VILLAFANA: + +i i Q Good afternoon, Special Agent + +12 13 . Would you just remind the grand jury ,of your name and for whom you work? + +14 A I am . Nvofficial namR is + +15 16 and I work for the FBI here in West Palm Beach. + +17 18 Q All right. And you aro still ono of the case agents on Operation Leap Year? + +19 A Yes, I am. + +20 21 Q Have additional subpoenas been issued on behalf of this grand jury regarding Leap Year? + +22 A Yes, they have. + +23 24 Q And have documents been received in response to those subpoenas? + +25 A Yes, they have. + +## EXAMINATION + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 Q what subpoenas were issued and what items were received? + +3 4 5 6 A The items that are received are in this box for your review at a later tine, but starting with the first subpoena that we had received documents back for would be from American Express. + +7 B The subpoena was issued and we received credit card account information. + + 0 A Do you want me just to + + 1 Q You can just go through them. + +12 13 14 15 16 if B t 9 A A subpoena was issued to J. Epstein Virgin Island Foundation, Inc., J. Epstein and Company, Epstein Interests, Financial Trust Company, Ine., and we received documents on all three of those except for -- all four of those except for Jeffrey Epstein and company -- J. Epstein and Compaay, which we received a letter of no response. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 The next subpoena was issued to the Palm peach County School'Board and we received transcript request forms. The next grand jury subpoena was issued to , Airport Executive, Town Car Services. we received a verbal that there were no records from Mr. + +Q Okay. + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +2 We issued a grand jury subpoena lo the custodian of records for which 4 we received ticketing records for. + +We issued a grand jury subpoena or you 6 issued a grand jury subpoena for thy custodian of records at the and we received ticketing records. + +We issued a subpoena for the custodian of records for the 1 1 and received a letter of no records response. + +13 We iss.:ed a subpoena for the custodian 14 of records for 18 Again, received a response letter 16 no records. + +17 We issued another subpoena for the 18 custodian of records from 19 and that we did receive 20 some ticketing records. + +21 We issued a subpoena to Rear Sterns and 22 Company, Inc., and we received personnel files and 23 account information. We issued a grand jury 24. subpoena for No:f Camera and we received 25 transaction records. + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +2 3 4 5 we have issued a grand jury subpoena to Amaion.com and received order records. We issued a grand jury subpoena to Federal Express and reCeLved shipping records, and all that is contained in this box. + +6 Q All right. + +7 8 9 10 MS. VILLAFANA: And at the end of our preservation, you be welcome to look through any of those records and we also will bring them to the next session. + +1 1 A GRAND JUROR: I have a question. + +1? MS. VILLAFANA: Yes. + +13 A GRAND JUROR: We subpoenaed 14 information, from theaters. I heard you say 15 ticketing information or records from a few 16 of then. + +17 Did we subpoena that information to 18 establish location of the defendant or I 19 guest he's not a defendant yet? + +20 THE WITNESS: Just as corroborating 21 evidence of testimony provided by the girls. 22 Their statements provided to us. + +23 A GRAND JUROR: Okay. + +24 BY HS. VILLAFANA: + +25 Q Okay. Special Agent S each + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVTCE, LLC (954) 467-2204 + +1 2 3 4 member of the grand jury has before them a copy of a chart. Do you also have a copy of this chart entitled Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by victim)? + +5 A Yes. + +6 7 Q And then you also orovided to everyone a list of Jane Does with photographs? + +8 A Yes. I did. + +9 10 11 Q Okay. Can you just explain to the grand jury how -- which Jane Does we are going to be talking about today? + +12 A We are going to talk about + +13 . and what you have + +14 here is a We + +15 will be going through the + +16 + +17 18 19 20 21 As you can see, if you look at these two columns you'll see in the indictment we have before you is going to have the new Jane Doe numbers and the column to the right of that shows you what their Jane Doe number used to be. + +22 23 24 So when we spoke about those two before, and we go through that a little hit later, we referred to those as + +25 From here on out, we + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +2 3 4 5 A GRAND JUROR: I have a question about and Amy pointed this out. The date of birth is range of activity dates is 1988 to 2002-, The + +6 7 THE WITNESS: That's a typo. That should be 1998. + +a 9 MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you for catching that. + +10 It 12 A GRANT) JUROR: I was about roady tc have a problem here. I was having a real problem. Yeah. + +13 MS. VILLAFANA: Okay. Thank you. + +14 15 A GRAND JUROR: I was about to take the law intu my own hands. + +16 17 18 19 THE WITNESS: Let there be noted on the summary chart, there as a typo correction for The range of activity for her is 1996 to 2003. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 This chart is a chart that we put together because I have testified in the past as well as you may have heard other testimony regarding some of the Jane Does, and we are going to be talking about them today and in a later session. + +refer to them as + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, T.T.0 (954) 467-8204 + +We wart --- we provided this to you sort 2 of as at.. aid so that you can oo back and 3 access the grand jury transcripts and go to 4 the date that the testimony was provided. + +5 if you look at the last column where it 6 says, Grand Jury Transcript rages, on this form it will tell you the date of the grand 8 jury, who provided that testimony, and the 9 page number where you can find testimony 10 related to :hose specific Overt Acts and substantive counts. + +• 2 So the two columns next to that -- let's just take and run Lhrough • 4 the: reel quick. we 5 have not testified about before. So that, is 16 her number and will always remain her number. + +17 Her date of birth is 18 The range of activity and :hat reflects the 19 range of activity that we have her connected 20 to Mr. Epstein and his assistants. + +21 The next two columns are the overt Acts 22 and the associated substantive counts. The 23 Overt Acts support those substantive counts 24 and again the last column you would at that 25 point go to my testicony on May 8th, 2007, + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954; 467-8204 + +MM20-GJ TESTIMONY-000311 3501.125-020 Page 9 of 65 + +1 2 3 and look on the transcript on Pages Six and seven, and that would be mv.testimony for the Overt Acts, the supporting evidence and 4 testimony for Overt Acts One 5 through 18. + +6 EY MS. VILLAFANA: + +7 Q But, Special Agent JUZit. Z\$L, 8 that it is clear, when you testified back in May, 9 you weren't testifying specifically about 10 , but her name came up in -- with 11 respect to one of the other Jane Does? + +12 A Exactly. + +13 Q Okay. So any information related to 14 :hose Jane Does would be in the transcript pages? + +es A Yes. + +;6 MS. VILLAFANA: Does that make sense to 17 everyone how we have organized that? + +18 SY MS. VILLAFANA: + +19 Q Now Special Agent if you 20 could look at the proposed indictment, and I'm 21 looking at the Background section of the 22 indictment specifically Paragraphs One through 23 Nine, which deal with Mr. Epstein's background and 24 who he employed. + +25 Have you testified about that material + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 in the past? + +2 A Yes, I have. + +3 4 5 6 Q And lot mo just direct you to Overt Two, which is at the top of Page Two. There is a reference to IIIII and I don't believe we have talked about before. + +7 Can you tell the grand jury who that is? + +B 9 10 + +11 12 13 0 All right. And just for the court reporter, and is is that correct? + +14 A Yes, it is. + +15 16 17 18 19 + +20 Q And if you \_look al Lhc summary chart on 21 the second page, there are columns for + +22 Do you sec those at the bottom of Page Two? + +23 A Yes, I see them. + +24 0 And those refer to + +25 where you have testified about + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERV:CR, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +• + +1 2 them before or where who testified about them? + +4 5 6 7 Q I know that you have testified about Mr- Epstein's residence here in Palm Beach, but if you could look at Paragraph Five of that introductory section, which is on Page Two. + +8 a 10 Are you -- can you provide the grand. jury with the location of Mr. Rpstein's New York residence? + +11 12 A Mr. Epstein currently has a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York. + +13 14 15 Q If I could direct you to Page Five of the proposed indictment in Paragraphs 18 through 25 of the introductory section.' + +16 17 18 Can you tell the grand jury about where the various victims in this case attended high school? + +19 20 A I can\_ Starting with Paragraph 18\_ • Would you like me to just run through them? + +21 Q Sure. + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A Yes. + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 + +2 3 I should state that III of these high schools are located in Fain Beach Cotnty. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +1 1 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 17 Does attended these high schools durincl 30MC point of the contact with Mr. Epstein. + +1e Q Now Special Agent : Know 19 that not each and everyone of the Jane Does is 20 21 22 listed in this. Did some of the Jane Does leave school before they began their relationship with Mr. Epstein? + +, and the Jane + +23 4'1 Yes, they did. + +24 25 0 Now everyone was handed a copy of a document entitled, Merged Flight Manifests. If : + +> OFF:CIAL RED0RTT.VG SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 could ask you to take a look at that, and ift the proposed indictment if you could turn to Page 32. + +3 4 5 6 Special Agent :Ix going to ask you about Overt Acts 191 through 225. Can you tell the grand jury what the bas.is Js tor the allegations set forth in 191 through 225? + +7 B 9 10 11 A We received through the issuance of a grand jury subpoena the flight manifest from Mr. Epstein's pilot and that is our evidence to show the travel that Mr. Epstein did, which is displayed in Overt Acts 191 through 225. + +12 13 0 And the chart that is entitled Merged Plight Manitests, what does that include? + +14 15 16 17 1 11 A This chart will show the grand jury that in January 2004 through -- basically, Mr. Epstein's travel in '04 and '05 on his two personal aircrafts, which would be the Boeing 727 and tha Culfstream. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 :± you look at this chart, the first column Is the date of departure, the date that he lett, and you'll see airport codes, in the next column that tells you the airport that ha left and what time he left would be the next time, the departure time. + +25 It will tell you what airport he was + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE,• LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 arriving In and what time he arrived at that airport, and the last would be the actual aircraft itself, which aircraft he was traveling 4 on, and just to remind the grand jury, Hyperion 5 is the Gulfstream and JETE is the Boeing 727. + +6 Q And who created this chart, the Merged 7 Flight Manifests Chart? + +A The FBI. + +9 Q And where did they gather this 10 information from? + +11 A We subpoenaed or the grand jury issued a 12 subpoena to the pilot and pilots of Mr. Epstein 13 and through counsel the pilots gave us a copy of 14 the flight manifest for those two years and I have 15 here a set of the flight manifests that were 16 provided to us by the grand jury subpoena and have 17 marked each of the Overt Acts from 191 to 225. + +18 So that if any time the grand jury would 19 like to come and look at the actual manifest the 20 pilots gave us, you'll be able to see the data 21 that this form was taken from. + +22 Okay. Thank you. + +23 FS. VILLAFANA: Before 1 go on, does 24 anyone have any questions about those Overt 25 Acts and where this information came from? + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC 1954) 467-8204 + +1 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +IS + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Yes, sir. + +A CRANO JUROR: Is there something that ties in these travel itineraries to the actual fact that there was a meeting or something planned? I mean, where does that tie together? Traveling is not against the law. + +VILLAFAHA: Right. The way that we had the indictment organized before was an attempt to do this in chronological order, which seems to he more confusing rather than less confusing. + +So when you look at the -- when you hear the testimony from Special Agent and when you look at the Overt Acts related to the victims and when he went to see them, you'll see that the dates of travel relate to the dates of his meeting with the victims. + +Does that make sense? + +A GRAND JUROR: Yes. + +BY MS. VILLAFANA: + +Is there anything else, Special Agent that I should add to that? + +A No. It wall become clear once we testify about the travel count. + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 A GRAND JUROR: Can I just ask which airport is ISM? + +3 4 r a THE WITNESS: You know, I can in the next session, I would be happy to bring the airport codes. + +6 A GRAND JUROR: Okay. + +7 8 9 10 THE WITNESS: Obviously, we focused in on his times when he traveled into the Palm Beac.A County area and that would be PBIA Or PHI, but I can certainly provide all the airport codes at our next session. + +12 BY MS. VfLLAFANA: + +13 • Q All right. Now throughout the Overt 14 15 16 Acts portion where there are discussions of various Jane Does, there will be mentioned a telephone call. + +17 18 19 20 So, tor example, if you look at Page Ten, Paragraph 17, it says on or about April 23rd, 2004, call to a telephone used by placed a telephone + +71 Do you see that? + +22 A Yes. + +23 24 25 Q And Special Agent what is the evidence that we have related to the telephone calls that are mentioned in the Overt Acts? + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 4 A we have issued administrative subpoenas to telecommunication companies for cell phone records for Mr. Epstein's assistants as well as many of the Jane Does. + +S 6 7 8 9 10 These specific Overt Acts are reflected in those telephone records and we have also prepared for the grand jury -- I brought with me today, and I will bring with me next time, all of the telephone records for -- that we have received via administrative subpoenas\_ + +11 12 13 14 15 Today I brought the ones pertaining to the Overt Acts and what we have done is we have taken those cell phone records and we have marked for the grand jury all the Overt Acts that are listed in the indictment. + +16 17 18 19 You'll note when you go to that page. there will be a little mark by the telephone call that ue are specifically talking about in the Overt Acts. + +20 21 Q And can you just remind the grand jury what information will be on those records? + +22 23 24 25 A It will be telephonic contact between telephonic contact between his assistants and the Jane Does. + +> oPyrcIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (9541 467-8204 + +3 4 S 6 + +7 • And how -- has she beer: interviewed? + +9 10 11 Q During -- how old was she during the time frame that was involved with Mr. Epstein? + +12 13 A She was 14 at the time that she first met Mr. Epstein. + +14 15 And she was involved with him until the was 17? + +16 17 A Wo have in or about the beginning of 2001, which would make her 14 up until 2004- + +18 19 Q And how did she come to meet Mr. Epstein? + +20 A brought + +21 22 to Mr. Epstein's residence for the first time. mr. Epstein was introduced to + +23 by + +24 25 There was a massage that took place with. the two of them and then + +• Okay. So let's talk about + +Who is she? + +A Yes. + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +engaged in sexual activity that I mentioned 2 3 4 earlier where informed us that she sat on the and observed what she believed the two of them to engage in sexual intercourse. + +6 7 0 17 and And at the time, was 147 was + +8 A Yes. + +9 Q All right. + +10 11 12 13 A And I'm not sure if that was actually the first or second visit that she went- So it was either the first visit or the second that the isexual activity that t described took place. + +14 15 16 17 They may have gone there the first time and just performed a massage for Mr. Epstein, but on the second occasion the sexual activity that I described took place. + +16 19 ,0 21 22 stated that, you know, the three years that we discussed from 200: to 2004, she provided Mr. Epstein with over, in that three-year period, over 100 massages and all but three of the massages were sexually nature. + +23 24 0 How much was she paid for performing sexual massages for Epstein? + +25 A She was paid between 200 and \$400. + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 4 5 6 Originally, she was paid \$300 when she starting performing massages for Mr. Epstein. On at least two occasions, Mr. Epstein offered her \$100 more if she would take off her underwear, which she did, and on those two occasions she was paid \$400. + +9 10 When expressed to Mr. Epstein that she did not want him touching her vagina, informed us that he dropped the amount to \$200. + +12 She would also receive \$130 for bringing any girls. + +'3 14 15 16 O ALL right. Now you said that on all but three occasions with , the massages were sexual. Did Jeffrey Epstein masturbate during those massages? + +17 A Yes, he did. + +18 19 Q Did he instruct Lv do anything while he was masturbating? + +20 21 A Yes. He asked her to rub and pinch his nipples. + +22 Q And these started when she was still 14? + +23 A Yes. + +24 25 Q What was the involvement of with + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 4 5 6 A would schedule and sometimes would be out of town and be an New York and scheduled her to come and work, but primary role was to schedule or guess she was the one that would schedule to cone and perform the + +7 8 Q Dad ever actually lead upstairs up to the bedroom? + +9 10 A VAS\_ Aftlt took started + +:3 took from the + +14 15 kitchen and took her upstairs for the massage that was to he performed for Mr. Epstein. + +16 17 0 Now you mentioned the sexual activity that observed between + +18 19 other and Mr. Epstein. was there ever any females involved in the sexual activity? + +20 21 A Yes. Mr. Epstein introduced an unidentified female who performed oral sex on + +22 - • I'm sorry, on + +23 24 while Hr. Epstein had sexual intercourse w the unidentified female. + +25 Q Now you mentioned that at some point, + +going by herself. The first time that + +arrived at Mr. Epstean's by herself, + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (5541 467-8204 + +1 2 mr. Epstein asked bringing girls; start to is that correct? + +3 A Yes. + +4 5 6 7 S And did wants, the type briny? Did she had any younger in performing massages? he her to if she he describe what exactly of person that he wanted report that he asked her friends that would be interested + +10 A Yes. moment? have a He asked her -- can I just + +11 Q Of course, yes. + +12 A I'm sorry. Mr. 13 Epstein asked her if she had any friends that 14 would be interested in performing these massages 15 and then he also inquired if she had any younger 16 friends that would -- that she could bring to him 17 and then he offered to pay her \$100 for each 18 person that she brought. + +19 Q In addition to the sexual activity with 20 Mr. Epstein, did ever involve 21 in any specific activity? + +22 A Yes. contacted 23 by telephone and asked her to come to 24 Mr. Epstein's residence that Mr. Epstein wanted 25 to take pictures of + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVrCE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +2 3 4 paid \$500 to take naked photographs of al Mr. Epstein's residence in and around the house and pool area at the request of Mr. Epstein. + +6 7 Q And approximately how old or how old does time? believe she was at the + +8 a 10 A Was 16 years old when took the photographs of her naked. informed us that she + +11 12 • What did say about whether Jeffrey Epsteln knew her true age? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 A was informed by to say if asked her age that she was she should respond that she was 17. When they went -- and went to Mr. Epstein's residence and were upstairs performing massages, Mr. Epstein asked her age. + +19 20 21 22 She responded four --. And then he said, so you're 14? And Mr. Epstein informed that they would just keep that between them + +22 24 Q so in other words, he knew that she 14 when she started seeing him? Wit + +25 A Yes. She did not remember to say 17 and + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 '5ust naturally came out four -- . And then he 2 3 4 finished that statement for her, so you're 14? And then stated that they would keep that between them. + +5 6 your O Now is the -- can you summarize -- does testimony. .cover the evidence supporting the allegations in Overt Acts One through 18? + +8 A Yes, it does. + +9 10 1 1 12 13 14 Q And if could ask you to refer to Count Two, which appears on ?age 38. Is the evidence that you have just summarized the basis for the allegation that Jeffrey Epstein and procured to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 16? + +15 A Yes. + +16 17 Q So is there anything else that you wanted to mention with respect to either + +Is + +19 20 21 22 was the gifts A The only other thing I didn't bring up that Mr. Epstein provided to and Mr. Epstein would provide her with lingerie. + +23 24 25 He gave her tickets to a concert, a local concert. He would also send her via PedEx packages to her residence, and in one of those + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, t,1.0 (954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 packages informed us that there was a Massage for Dummies hook that she received by FedEx from Mr. Epstein. + +4 5 6 7 And the grand jury should know that we have received records from FedEx which corroborate Mr. Epstein's eddress and packages going to residence. + +8 9 10 Q And those records relate to Mr. Epstein's personal Federal Express account? A Yes. + +11 12 13 14 15 A GRAND JUROR: do we know how Old she was when Mr. Epstein asked her to bring younger friends? Was she already in his eyes up there and he wanted them younger? + +16 IS 19 20 THE WITNESS: When was 16, about midway through her 16th year, a: that point she did not provide Mr. Epstein with anymore massages. + +21 22 23 24 25 So I know she went away for a time period and when she came back, you know, she did not want to do massages anymore. So at that point, she may have brought her friends as well as prior to that. + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 EY NS. VILLAFANA: + +2 3 Q Du you know exactly when she started bringing other girls? + +4 5 6 7 A I don't know that. I want to say that it was before or after. We just know that she was asked by Mr. Epstein to bring other females and he would pay 5100. + +8 9 10 1 1 12 t2 The only other thing we haven't talked about is we have message pads that were recovered in the execution of the state search warrant on Mr. Epstein's residence, and I think the grand jury has seen copies of some of those message pads. + +14 15 1G 17 We do have a message pad for that gives you an example of -- and can pull that out\_ and read that to the grand jury, if you would like? + +18 Q Sure. + +19 20 21 22 23 A This particular message pad is basically -- it's a carbon copy message that. again was recovered during the execution of the state .search warrant at Mr. Epstein's residence and this shows that this was dated on March i t , 2003. + +24 25 It's from with her phone number and it's marked that she telephoned and it's + +> OFFICIAL REPOETINIG SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +1 3 marked, please call, and it was signed by one of Mr. Epstein's employees. So again the dale that the contact here is March 1 1 , 2003. + +5 And the age of 18 at that time? was still under + +6 A Yes, she was. + +7 Q Okay. Now if we could turn to + +e and who is she? + +13 1 1 + +12 O Has she been interviewed? + +13 A yes. + +19 • And daring what period of time did + +15 have contact with Jeffrey + +16 Epstein? + +17 A Beginning in or around 2003 to up 2005. + +18 19 Q And how old was she during that time frame? + +20 She was 15 when she first met Mr. + +21 Epstein. + +22 • And how did she meet him? + +23 A brought + +24 to Mr. Epstein's house. Tiie + +25 traveled by taxi there. + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +Mr. Epstein a nassage in 3 4 They provided their underwear. Mr. Epstein asked S to leave and 6 finished the massage. + +to meet Mr. upstairs 2 Epstein. + +7 Mr. Epstein masturbated in front of 8 on that first occasion, and 9 after the massage, she was paid 10 \$200 and he left the residence. + +11 Q All right. + +12 A On other occasions after that, 13 IIIIIIIkould be the one tc contact 14 to come to the residence to provide massages 15 for Mr. Epstein. + +16 Q And you have phone records showing calls 17 from phone to is 's phone? + +19 A Yes, I do. + +20 Q In addition to that, the listurbation 21 during that massage, was Ilere'other sexual 22 activity that occurred between the two of them? + +23 A Yes, there was. Mr. Epstein requested 24 that rab his chest dud 25 nipples while he masturbated. Ho also used a + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-6204 + +1 transcripts? + +1. A Yes. + +3 4 5 Q Okay. I also wanted to ask you about the victims who we have discussed today. We have discussed eight victims, + +5 + +7 a 9 Arc you aware of whether any of those victims have used illicit drugs or have had mental health issues? + +10 Yes. + +11 12 And can you summarize that for the grand jury? + +13 14 15 15 17 to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +![](_page_31_Picture_3.jpeg) + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 + +MM20-GJ TESTIMONY•000356 3501.125-020 Page 54 of 65 + +[REDACTED] + +Q With respect to those Jane Does, did you go about getting independent corroboration for their statements so that you weren't relying exclusive on what they told you about Mr. Epstein? + +A Yes. We talked about that today. Specifically, with [REDACTED] we have her statement, but along with that statement we have telephone records. + +Those telephone records indicate telephonic contact with [REDACTED] We have the + +OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC +(954) 467-8204 + +1 2 3 message pads recovered daring the search warrant, recovered during the execution of the state search warrant that indicates the contact here. + +4 We have statements from other Jane Woes S and witnesses that corroborate. We also have received the FedEx records indicating packages 7 were sent to from Mr. a Epstein. + +When you look at 10 the same thing, we have telephone records that 12 indicate recovered telephonic contact. He have message pads in the state search warrant, execution 13 of the state search warrant. + +14 Then we have the statements of other 15 Jane Does, and in regards to Jane Doe Number Nine, 16 again, we have the telephone records which 17 indicate telephonic contact with We 1e have the message pads. + +19 :n addition to that, we have the message 20 pads that were recovered by the state search 21 warrant and they also found her high school 22 transcript. It was found at Mr. Epstein's 23 residence. + +24 We have statements from other Jane Does, 25 and then we also have the records for her from the + +> OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC (954) 467-8204 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d308572a2edbad79da326e6201407aadbc49dc8f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/EFTA02832469.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1152 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 34, + "chars": 28421, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_31_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 409.95587158203125, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 409.95587158203125, + 255.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 255.91168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.64600000000002, + 110.16 + ], + [ + 440.13399999999996, + 110.16 + ], + [ + 440.13399999999996, + 144.432 + ], + [ + 209.64600000000002, + 144.432 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXAMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.32000732421875, + 286.65 + ], + [ + 372.7681579589844, + 286.65 + ], + [ + 372.7681579589844, + 299.69622802734375 + ], + [ + 276.32000732421875, + 299.69622802734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 120 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 120 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 126 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 40 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 118 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 61 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 136 + ], + [ + "Line", + 60 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 122 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832469" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/_page_31_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/_page_31_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a55d7339ea60963d8beb80beca0e10ea44b7ce36 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832469/_page_31_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2f83e3404dd4f665f87a591bfc27b3c771eba0659c6bf36ef05f7e8e0575e6d1 +size 48246 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..184da77be9cc64146bd4766d1f884162924d70e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## Exhibit D + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 1 of 21 + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA + +I + +Case No. 08-80736-Civ -Marra/Johnson + +IN RE: JANE DOE, + +Petitioner. + +![](_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg) + +## DECLARATION OF A. VILLAFARA IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TQYKIWII' EMERGENCYIMa N FOR ENFORCEMENT SW CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACTAMS.C.13711 + +1 I, A. Villafatia, do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Hoak M) in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the I Ion. David F. Levi in Sacramento, California, I was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota. and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. + +940 + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 2 of 21 \*4444 14.4-4 + +2. I am the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The federal investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, amongst other offenses. + +3. Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification letters were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist. Attached hereto arc copies of the letters provided to three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your AlTiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (I!x. 1 1. Your A Mantis letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).1 Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, which were sent on January 10, 2008 (Exs. 3 & 4). S.R. was identified via the FBI's investigation in 2007, but she initially refused to speak with investigators. S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by + +&#x27;Attorney filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, l will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. + +&#x27;Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.M. are not the dates that the letters were actually delivered. Letters to all known victims were prepared early in the investigation and delivered as each victim was contacted.

federal agents on May 28, 2008. The FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist sent a letter to S.R. on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5).

4. Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, and your Affiant had contact with C.W. and S.R. Attorney other client, I .VI., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.'

5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstc in' s attorneys sought a global resolution of the matter. The United States subsequently agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a federal remedy tor the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008. is the following:

"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title I8, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein

&#x27;The undersigned does not know when Mr. began representing T.M. or whether T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation.

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 4 of 21

had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less."

6. An agreement was reached in September 2007. The Agreement contained an express confidentiality provision.

7. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement was signed in September 2007, F.M. was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. the FBI attempted to interview S.R. in October 2007, at which time she refused to provide any information regarding Jeffrey Epstein. None of Attorney clients had expressed a desire to he consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation.

8. As explained above, one of the terms of the agreement deferring prosecution to the State of Florida was securing a federal remedy for the victims. In October 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions were discussed. One of those victims was C.W. who at the time was not represented, and she was given notice of the agreement. Notice was also provided of an expected change of plea in October 2007. When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of the victims had been

+ + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19df0245b4b41d116ed3af39fbf3de920694133d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/EFTA02832503.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,278 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7160, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.23, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.856, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.88983154296875, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 411.88983154296875, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 159.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 398.330810546875, + 159.91168212890625 + ], + [ + 398.330810546875, + 186.2005615234375 + ], + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 186.2005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION OF A. VILLAFARA \nIN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE \nTQYKIWII' EMERGENCYIMa N FOR ENFORCEMENT \nSW CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACTAMS.C.13711", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 136.476, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 463.29486083984375, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 463.29486083984375, + 381.47406005859375 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 381.47406005859375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832503" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e75a638ee08dc2af5638e4e89e201f19a29d08d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832503/_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c74add464b11a70141918bcca01e3bee84c29e39e37a0213fc16b6ee47edabaf +size 7703 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e2f97aa9b750f5005fa43799328584aca32c4fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit E (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..368a1a1cde826178f80f8def148fcf787401c787 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508/EFTA02832508.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832508.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit E \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4085693359375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4085693359375, + 238.645263671875 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.645263671875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832508" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84d8bfda9fe1d22cb7329f96187d012caaf71b51 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit F (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9a76ddb914739500e5f863f7e60d39d583917fe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509/EFTA02832509.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832509.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit F \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 154.4012451171875 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 154.4012451171875 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832509" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7870761b45f7d465b6fd45795f052569023c36c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit G (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f58960de4f43920d899bcab87983aa477e36c2e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510/EFTA02832510.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832510.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit G \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832510" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b732c0d9706fb7ede22d7c36cd393aa91822d96e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit H (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bfab656eaa0a468634c5a14b2e50aeb60ae32fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511/EFTA02832511.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832511.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit H \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832511" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb9bd851dcfc07cabe738f38027ab326b612fa87 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit I (Filed Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca5bdaedd7f53e6eab86db6329d6e12f0720b954 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512/EFTA02832512.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832512.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 31, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit I \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.404, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 461.4275817871094, + 238.819580078125 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 238.819580078125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832512" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f42eb9ab5b280086cd9200250db8aa94b6c672c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.md @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS RELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE S2 INDICTMENT | 4 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. | The NPA Bars Ms. Maxwell's Prosecution on Counts One, Three, Five, and Six. 5 | +| A. | Counts Five and Six Allege the Same Offenses that Were Part of the Florida | +| Investigation and Are Covered by the Plain Terms of the NPA | 6 | +| B. | The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and | +| Six. | 11 | +| C. Counts One and Three Must Also Be Dismissed | 17 | +| II. | Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under | +| the Double Jeopardy Clause | 18 | +| III. Counts Five and Six Are Time-Barred. | 20 | +| IV. | The Court Should Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as | +| Multiplicitous | 21 | +| V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay. | 22 | +| VI. The Court Should Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six. | 22 | +| VII. | The Court Should Order the Government to Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements | +| as Brady Material | 24 | +| VIII. Ms. Maxwell Incorporates All of the Arguments Raised in Her Initial Pretrial | | +| Motions and Reasserts Them as to the S2 Indictment. | 26 | +| CONCLUSION | 26 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| Clemmons v. Delo ,
124 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1997) ..... | 25 | +| ██████ v. Jago,
575 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1978) ..... | 25 | +| Ex Parte Lange ,
85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873) ..... | 18 | +| North Carolina v. Pearce ,
395 U.S. 711 (1969) ..... | 18 | +| United States v. Annabi ,
771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)..... | passin | +| United States v. Bortnovsky ,
820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987)..... | 22, 23 | +| United States v. ██████ ,
No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) ..... | 16 | +| United States v. Cambindo Valencia ,
609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)..... | 20 | +| United States v. Carter ,
454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) ..... | 17 | +| United States v. ██████ ,
714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2013) ..... | 21 | +| United States v. Gebbie ,
294 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2002) ..... | 14, 15, 16, 17 | +| United States v. ██████ ,
93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) ..... | 14, 16 | +| United States v. Harvey ,
791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Korfant ,
771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985)..... | 19 | + +# United States v. , + +356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 18, 19, 20 + +## United States v. Rooney, + +37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18 + +# United States v. Salameh, + +152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 14, 16 + +# United States v. + +719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 25 + +# United States v. Van Thournout, + +100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 15 + +# v. Helling, + +194 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 1999) 25 + +## Statutes + +18 U.S.C. § 371 21 + +18 U.S.C. § 1591 passim + +18 U.S.C. § 2422 4 + +18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) .......... ............ .................................................... ............................... ................ 4 + +18 U.S.C. § 3282 20 + +18 U.S.C. § 3283 20, 21 + +# Other Authorities + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(t) 22 + +U.S. Const., Amend. V 18 + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Omnibus Memorandum in Support of her Supplemental Pretrial Motions Related to the S2 Superseding Indictment ("Motion"). For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Maxwell moves the Court to: + +- I. Dismiss Counts One, Three, Five and Six for breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; +- 2. Dismiss Counts Five and Six for violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; +- 3. Dismiss Counts Five and Six as time-barred under the statute of limitations; +- 4. Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous; +- 5. Dismiss the S2 Indictment for pre-indictment delay; +- 6. Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six; +- 7. Order the government to produce Accuser-4's prior statements as Brady material. + +The S2 Superseding Indictment ("52 Indictment") demonstrates just how far the government is willing to go to "get" Ms. Maxwell and disingenuously blame her for the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. No longer content to charge a 25-year-old case based on purported conduct in the 1990s, the government now sweeps in the 2000s through the allegations of one person— Accuser-4.I But Accuser-4 is not a new witness; she first levied her accusations more than a decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their threeyear investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And remarkably, although interviewed just a few years after she claims any misconduct occurred, Accuser-4 never implicated Ms. Maxwell. Instead, she reported + +I Accuser-4 is identified in the S2 Indictment as Minor Victim-4. + +, facilitated her sexual abuse, and it was or Epstein himself—not Ms. Maxwell—who purportedly called her to schedule massage appointments, sent her gifts, and encouraged her to recruit other young females to provide massages to Epstein. Indeed, even after interviewing Accuser-4, the USAO-SDFL never found "any specific evidence against" Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation and thus determined she was not a target of the Florida Investigation.2 + +Epstein, himself, was never charged with federal crimes in connection with the Florida Investigation; Instead, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") in order to "resolve globally" his own criminal exposure and to immunize and any other "potential co-conspirators."3 As part of the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to state prostitution offenses and register as a federal sex offender. He also agreed, in a novel arrangement, to pay for attorneys to represent his victims in civil lawsuits against him and to waive his right to contest damages up to an agreed-upon settlement amount. Accuser-4 took full advantage of the NPA; she received both the benefit of experienced counsel and to resolve her claims against Epstein and his "potential co-conspirators." + +Now, over 13 years later, Accuser-4 has surfaced again, except this time with apparently brand-new allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Seemingly unconcerned with the gaping inconsistency in Accuser-4's prior (and near contemporaneous) recollections, the government has added two new counts charging Ms. Maxwell with sex trafficking offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Counts Five and Six) and has dramatically expanded the timeframe of the Act + +2 Ex. A (Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020) ("OPR Report") at 167 (internal quotations omitted). + +3 A copy of the NM is attached hereto as Exhibit B. + +conspiracies (Counts One and Three) to 2004 based entirely on Accuser-4's allegations. But these offenses are the exact same offenses that were the subject of the Florida Investigation and resolved by the NPA, which covers "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," including Ms. Maxwell. + +The Court ruled unequivocally that the NPA covers "any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation." (Dkt. 207 at 7). Yet Counts Five and Six fall squarely within all three categories of offenses for which the NPA immunizes Ms. Maxwell: + +- The allegations of Accuser-4 fall within the 2001-2007 timeframe and the new counts charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a statute specifically enumerated in the NPA. +- The Palm Beach FBI and the USAO-SDFL thoroughly investigated Accuser-4's allegations as part of the Florida Investigation. +- Accuser-4's allegations were presented to the grand jury in that District and formed the basis for a conspiracy charge and a sex trafficking charge in a proposed 60-count federal indictment of Epstein that was dropped pursuant to the terms of the NPA. + +Because Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same evidence investigated and presented to the SDFL grand jury in 2008, and are the exact same crimes included in the proposed SDFL indictment against Epstein later abandoned pursuant to the NPA, the government cannot now charge Ms. Maxwell with these offenses. + +Further, the NPA binds the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") as to the newly-indicted counts. We understand that the Court previously ruled that under United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) and its progeny, the language and drafting history of the NPA does not "affirmatively appear" to bind this District + +as to the Si Indictment counts. However, Annabi, by its own terms, is inapposite to the circumstances of this case, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will abandon certain offenses as part of a negotiated agreement and then a second federal district later seeks to charge those very same offenses based on the exact same conduct. Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are therefore barred by the NPA. The Court must dismiss these counts, as well as the expanded Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three, which incorporate the same conduct charged in Counts Five and Six for which Ms. Maxwell has immunity. + +In addition, because the USAO-SDNY is seeking duplicative punishment for the same offenses that were resolved by the NPA, prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six violates her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court should also grant the other relief Ms. Maxwell seeks for the reasons set forth below. + +# SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE S2 INDICTMENT + +Like the SI Indictment, Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423(a). Count One alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice "one and more individuals" to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 11-13). Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport "an individual" in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). (Id. ¶¶ 16-19). In the SI Indictment, these counts were based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. The S2 Indictment expands the date range of these conspiracies into the 2000s based on the + +allegations of Accuser-4, alleging conduct that occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 2004." (Id. ¶¶ 11, 17). + +The S2 Indictment also adds two new counts—Counts Five and Six—alleging that Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein and others to recruit "a person" knowing that the person "had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). (Id. ¶¶ 23-24). Count Six charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive violation of § 1591(a), claiming she "did recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means" individuals who were under the age of 18, including Accuser-4, "who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with Jeffrey Epstein." (Id. 1 27). Both counts are based on the allegations of Accuser-4 and allege conduct that purportedly occurred "Wrom at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004." (Id. ¶¶ 23, 27). + +# ARGUMENT + +## I. The NPA Bars Ms. Maxwell's Prosecution on Counts One. Three. Five, and Six. + +The NPA bars any prosecution of Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment. The Court has already concluded that the NPA bars prosecution for "three specific categories of offenses" deriving from the Florida Investigation: + +- (1) 'the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2' of the NPA; namely, `any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007' including five enumerated offenses; +- (2) 'any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office'; and +- (3) 'any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.' + +(Dkt. 207 at 6 (quoting NPA)). The Court has further concluded that the NM's co-conspirator provision covers "any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell" in any of these same three categories of offenses. (Id. at 7). There can be no serious dispute that the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six were investigated as part of the Florida Investigation and fall squarely within the three categories of immunized offenses that are covered by the NPA. Moreover, because Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same allegations from the very same accuser that were previously investigated and presented to the grand jury as part of the Florida Investigation, Annabi and its progeny do not apply and the NPA is binding on the USAO-SDNY as to these offenses. Accordingly, Counts Five and Six must be dismissed. Moreover, because Counts One and Three incorporate the same conduct from Counts Five and Six for which Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted under the NPA, they must also be dismissed. + +#### A. Counts Five and Six Allege the Same Offenses that Were Part of the Florida Investigation and Are Covered by the Plain Terms of the NPA. + +The plain terms of the NPA preclude Ms. Maxwell's prosecution on Counts Five and Six because they allege conduct that falls within the date range specified in the NPA and charge specifically enumerated offenses that were part of the Florida Investigation. Count Five alleges that Ifirom at least in or about 2001 up to and including in or about 2004," Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), the law prohibiting sex trafficking of minors. (S2 Indictment¶¶ 22-25). Count Six alleges that during the same time period, Ms. Maxwell committed a substantive violation of the same statute. (M11126-27). The NPA bars prosecution for Ms. Maxwell's involvement in "any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007 including five enumerated offenses." (Dkt. 207 at 6 (internal quotations omitted); see also id. at 7 (NPA covers, among other things, "any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by + +Epstein from 2001 to 2007")). Thus, the time period alleged in both Counts Five and Six falls squarely within the date range covered by the NPA for which Ms. Maxwell is immunized. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) is one of the five enumerated offenses in the NPA. (Ex. B at 2 of 7). As such, Counts Five and Six are clearly offenses covered by the NPA. + +Ms. Maxwell also cannot be prosecuted on Counts Five and Six because they are based on the exact same allegations that were already thoroughly investigated by the Palm Beach FBI and USAO-SDFL and were presented to a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida in connection with the Florida Investigation. The allegations underlying Counts Five and Six (and the expanded date range for Counts One and Three) come from a single accuser—Accuser-4 who alleges that Epstein sexually abused her from approximately 2001-2004 and that Ms. Maxwell allegedly facilitated that abuse. (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 9d, 22-27). Based on our review of the prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, which the government only recently produced to the defense on April 13, 2021, we know that FBI Special Agent interviewed the person we believe to be Accuser-4 in connection with the Florida Investigation. (Ex. C at 22:1-17).4 We also know that Special Agent presented her allegations the very same allegations that form the basis for Counts Five and Six—to the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida in support of a proposed 60-count federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein (Id. at 22:17-31:6). The indictment included a conspiracy count and a substantive count alleging a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:3-15 (Accuser-4's allegations formed the basis for "Overt Acts One through 18" and Count Two of the proposed indictment charging Epstein with "procur[ing] [Accuser-4] to + +4 Exhibit C is a transcript of the March I 8, 2008 grand jury testimony of Special Agent the lead case agent in charge of the Florida Investigation, in which she summarizes her interview of Accuser and other related evidence. + +engage in commercial sex acts knowing that [Accuser-4] was under 181).5 Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the proposed indictment was never returned, and the USAO-SDFL did not pursue it further, once Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008 to Florida state law charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. (Ex. A, OPR Report at i-ii). + +The similarity of the allegations presented to the SDFL grand jury and those alleged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment is striking and self-evident. The same overt acts, including the allegations that form the basis for jurisdiction in SDNY over the crimes charged in Counts Five and Six, were presented to both grand juries. Furthermore, the proof offered to corroborate Accuser-4's allegations—e.g., cell phone records, FedEx records, message pad notes, etc.—was identical. (See Ex. Cat 56:21-57:10). The chart below highlights these similarities: + +| S2 Indictment | SDFL Grand Jury Testimony | +|------------------------------------------|---------------------------| +| Sexual Massages | Sexual Massages | +| Indictment ¶ 9d; see also id. at ¶ 25a). | | +| Payment | Payment | +| each massage. (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; | see also id. | + +5 The government previously denied Ms. Maxwell's request that it produce copies of the proposed 60-count SDFL indictment and the related 82-page prosecution memo to the defense. To resolve any ambiguity about the charges in the proposed SDFL indictment and the evidence underlying the counts related to Accuser-4, Ms. Maxwell requests the Court to order the government to produce both of these documents to the defense. + +| at ¶ 25a). | Recruiting Others Recruiting Others "Mr. Epstein asked [Accuser-4] if she had any "Epstein ... encouraged [Accuser-4] to recruit other young females to provide sexualized friends that would be interested in performing | +|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| massages[.]" (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; | see also id. these massages ... that she could bring to | +| at ¶ 25b). | him[.)" (Ex. Cat 26:12-16). Gifts to Accuser-4 Gifts to Accuser-4 "On multiple occasions between approximately "Mr. Epstein provided [gifts] to [Accuser-4].... 2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees ... sent Epstein would provide her with lingerie.... He [Accuser-4] gifts, including lingerie, from an would also send her [gifts] via FedEx packages address in Manhattan, New York to [Accuser to her residence." (Ex. C at 28:20-29:10) 4's] residence in Florida." (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; (describing subpoenaed FedEx records). | +| see also id. at' | 25c). Scheduling Massage Appointments Scheduling Massage Appointments "[S]ometimes would be ... in "Epstein's employees ... called [Accuser-4], including from New York, to schedule New York an Accuser-4] to come appointments for [Accuser-4] to massage and work, but primary role was | +| Epstein." (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; 25d). | see also id. at ¶ Accuser-41 to come and to schedule ... perform the massages." (Ex. C at 25:2-6). n or about April 2314, 2004, "For example, in or about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's placed a telephone call to a called [Accuser-4] to schedule such telephone used by [Accuser-4]." (Ex. C at | +| | 17:18-19:4; see also id. at 56:24-25 appointments." (S2 Indictment ¶ 25d). (subpoenaed cell phone records "indicate telephonic contact with-")). | + +The one critical difference between the a legations in the S2 Indictment and the allegations presented to the SDFL grand jury is this: Accuser-4 never implicated Ms. Maxwell in the Florida Investigation. Ms. Maxwell is not mentioned even once in the grand jury testimony concerning Accuser-4. Instead, the grand jury testimony reflects that Accuser-4 implicated Epstein himself and . According to Accuser-4, it was not Ms. + +Maxwell, who called Accuser-4 from New York to schedule massage appointments. (Ex. C at 17:18-22, 25:1-6). It was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who encouraged Accuser-2 to recruit her friends to give him massages. (Id. at 25:25-26:18). And it was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who provided lingerie and other gifts to Accuser-4 and sent FedEx packages to her residence. (Id. at 28:19-29:10). Furthermore, Accuser-4 alleged that led Accuser-4 upstairs to Epstein's bedroom the first time she gave him a massage by herself (id. at 25:7-15) and that paid Accuser-4 \$500 to take nude photographs of her at the Palm Beach residence at Epstein's request (id. at 27:1-10). + +Ultimately, the proposed SDFL indictment sought to charge Epstein not Ms. Maxwell, with a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:11-14 (the evidence relating to Accuser-4 formed "the basis for the allegation [in Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment] that Jeffrey Epstein procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18")). This is entirely consistent with the language of the NPA, , and not Ms. Maxwell, as one of the four named "potential coconspirators." (Ex. B at 5 of 7). In fact, the USAO-SDFL conceded that it never found "any specific evidence against" Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation. (See Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)). + +Hence, it would not only be impermissible under the NPA to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment because they were "the subject of the Florida Investigation and "the related grand jury investigation." (Dkt. 207 at 7). It would also be entirely unjust to base a prosecution in this District on the same offenses related to the same accuser who never mentioned Ms. Maxwell—and instead implicated —when she first reported the allegations that form the basis of Counts Five and Six over thirteen years + +ago when the events were still recent.6 Accordingly, because the USAO-SDNY is bound by the terms of the NPA as to the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six for the reasons discussed below, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those counts. + +### B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six. + +Although the Court ruled that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges in the S I Indictment (Dkt. 207 at 4-6), the NPA does bind the USAO-SDNY as to the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six that were added to the S2 Indictment. United States v. Annaba, 771 F.2d 670 (1985) and its progeny, which the Court relied upon in its earlier ruling, do not mandate a different result. In its prior ruling, the Court noted that Annaba established "something akin to a clear statement rule" that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the district in which the plea is entered "unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." (Dkt. 207 at 4 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672). That interpretive rule, however, only applies in situations where the district bringing the second prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement in the first prosecution. Annabi itself specifically noted that it was not addressing a situation where the charges in the follow-on prosecution are "identical to the dismissed charges." Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by the rule in Annabi because Counts Five and Six are identical to the charges presented to the SDFL grand jury that were resolved by the NPA. When examined without the overlay of Annabi, the terms and the drafting history of the NPA indicate that the agreement should be read to preclude other districts, including the USAO- + +6Accuser-4's statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are exculpatory Brady material that the government should immediately produce to the defense. (See Section VII infra). + +SDNY, from prosecuting Epstein's "potential co-conspirators" for the offenses covered by the NPA.7 + +In Annabi, the defendants were arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York with (1) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Id. at 671. All three charges arose out of the defendants' arrest and the charged conduct was limited to November 23, 1982. Id. The defendants agreed to plead guilty to the substantive importation charge (Count Two) to resolve the case. Id. At the time of the plea, the prosecutor stated on the record that "the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant." Id. Counts One and Three were dismissed at sentencing. Id. + +Approximately two-and-a-half years later, the defendants were charged in the Southern District of New York in a multi-count indictment that included one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin (Count One) and one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count Three). Id. Both counts alleged a broader period of criminal conduct occurring from October 1982 until March 15, 1985. Id. The defendants argued that their plea agreement with the Eastern District of New York barred their prosecution on Counts One and Three of the + +7 As argued in our initial motion, Ms. Maxwell maintains that, even if the Court applies Annabi, the NPA precludes the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for any offense she allegedly committed with Epstein. (See Din. 142 at 18-25; Dkt. 223 at 7-13). We preserve that argument and reassert it with respect to Counts One through Six of the S2 Indictment. However, in light of the Court's prior ruling that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges in the SI Indictment, we argue here that the Court need not, and should not, apply Annabi to determine whether the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from charging the offenses in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. + +Southern District of New York indictment because they arose out of "the same conspiratorial agreement that underlay the charges dismissed in the Eastern District." Id. at 672. + +The Second Circuit rejected this argument finding that, as a general rule, a plea agreement only binds the prosecutor's office that entered into the agreement, unless it "affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." Id. However, the Court highlighted the apparent anomaly of this rule, noting that an agreement with "the Government" to dismiss counts of an indictment "might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the district in which the dismissed charges are initially brought." Id. The Court further explained that application of the "affirmative appearance" rule was nevertheless appropriate because it had not been presented with a situation where the counts in the second prosecution were identical to the dismissed counts. Id. Although the defendants had argued that the charges in Counts One and Three of the SDNY indictment "result[ed] from the same conspiratorial agreement" as the dismissed counts in the EDNY indictment, the Court found that the SDNY charges covered conduct "extending more than two years beyond the date of the period covered by the dismissed charges," are were therefore "not the same as the charges that were dismissed." Id. As a result, the Court found that the default rule could be applied in that case. Id. ("[T]he new charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant application of the ... rule concerning construction of plea agreements."). + +Annabi, therefore, did not hold that the "affirmative appearance" rule of construction applies in cases, like this one, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will abandon certain offenses as part of a negotiated agreement, and then a second federal district later seeks to charge those very same offenses based on the exact same conduct. By its own + +reasoning, Annabi does not apply in these circumstances, nor do subsequent Second Circuit cases that applied the Annabi rule. See, e.g., United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 118-20 (2d Cir. 1998) (defendant pled guilty in EDNY to using the passport of another person to enter the United States and later charged in SDNY with related, but distinct terrorism offenses); United States v. 93 F. App'x 268, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant pled guilty in the District of New Mexico to drug conspiracy and later charged in the Western District of New York with related, but distinct weapons possession offense). The Court should not apply them here. + +Instead, the Court should follow the Third Circuit's approach in United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2002), which involved a situation like this one where the charges in the second prosecution were identical to the dismissed charges. In Gebbie, the defendants were charged in a multi-count indictment in the Southern District of Ohio charging them with various offenses related to a scheme to make false statements to the U.S. Postal Service. 294 F.3d at 542. As part of their plea agreement, the defendants pled guilty to misprision of a felony in exchange for dismissal of the counts in the indictment. Id. at 543. The plea agreement further provided that the agreement did not protect the defendants from prosecution for "other crimes or offenses" which "the United States" discovers by independent investigation. Id. at 545-46. A few months after entering their plea, the defendants were charged in the Western District of Pennsylvania with "the same crimes and offenses that were at issue" in the Ohio prosecution. Id. at 546 (emphasis in original). Because the plea agreement barred "the United States" from prosecuting the defendants for the same crimes covered by the agreement, the question for the Court was: "who is bound when a plea agreement refers to `the United States' or 'the Government'?" Id. In other words, did the use of the term "the United States" in the Ohio plea + +agreement bind the Western District of Pennsylvania and bar it from charging the same offenses in a subsequent prosecution? The Court held that it did: + +> We hold, therefore, that when a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of "the United States" or "the Government" in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants. + +Id. at 550 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) ("Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an Assistant United States Attorney in one district will bind an Assistant United States Attorney in another district."); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986) ("It is the Government at large—not just specific United States Attorneys or United States `Districts'—that is bound by plea agreements negotiated by agents of Government."). + +This case presents the exact set of circumstances carved out by Annabi and directly addressed in Gebbie. Here, the co-conspirator provision of the NPA provides that if Epstein abides by the terms of the agreement, "the United States" will not institute any criminal charges "against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," which immunizes Ms. Maxwell for the offenses covered by the NPA. (Ex. B at 5 of 7; see also Dkt. 207 at 7). As set forth above, Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are based on the same alleged conduct involving Accuser-4 from 2001-2004 that was presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for several overt acts of a conspiracy charge and a substantive sex trafficking offense against Epstein in the proposed SDFL indictment. The prosecution of those offenses was abandoned as part of the bargain struck in the NPA, which Epstein fully performed and from which Accuser-4 benefitted. In sum, the USAO-SDNY is trying to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in Counts Five and Six for the identical charges that were resolved by the NPA. In these circumstances, Annaba and its + +progeny do not contras The Court should instead follow Gebbie and find that NPA precludes the USAO-SDNY from charging Counts Five and Six. + +This result is consistent with the terms and the drafting history of the NPA. As noted in our previous motion, the use of the phrase "the United States" in the co-conspirator immunity provision of the NPA stands in stark contrast to Epstein's immunity provision, which is expressly limited to the SDFL. (Dkt. 223 at 9-10). The broad language of the co-conspirator provision reflects Epstein's desire, which his attorneys communicated to the USAO-SDFL, that he would be "the only one who takes the blame for what happened" (Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)). Furthermore, it is consistent with Epstein's goal "to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability," which is set forth in the factual recitals of the NPA. (Ex. B at 2 of 7; see also Ex. Dig 5 (declaration of AUSA A. Villafafia noting that Epstein "sought a global resolution of the matter"). Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware that the investigation had extended beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses. Indeed, we now know from discovery recently produced by the government that the government interviewed at least three New York-based witnesses in connection with the Florida Investigation, two of whom implicated other potential co-conspirators of Epstein. (Exs. E-G). Hence, these provisions of the NPA reflect Epstein's desire to ensure that he would not become embroiled in subsequent prosecutions of his "potential co-conspirators" in any other districts. (Dkt. 223 at 11). + +Moreover, this result is consistent with fundamental fairness. Allowing a federal district to prosecute a defendant for an offense that is identical to one that was already resolved as part of + +8 For the same reasons, the Court is not bound by subsequent Second Circuit decisions interpreting Annabi, which have found that the use of phrases like "the United States" or "the government" in a lea a ment does not create an "affirmative "mance" to bind other districts. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120; 93 F. App'x at 270; United States v. No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at \*2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002). + +a non-prosecution agreement with another district would be a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Caner, 454 F.2d 426, 427-28 (4th Cir. 1972) (federally prosecuting defendant a second time for the same charges previously resolved by a plea agreement with a different federal district puts at stake "the honor of the government[,] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice in a federal scheme of government"); Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 550 ("United States Attorneys should not be viewed as sovereigns of autonomous fiefdoms. They represent the United States, and their promises on behalf of the Government must bind each other absent express contractual limitations or disavowals to the contrary."). For these reasons, the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. They must therefore be dismissed. + +# C. Counts One and Three Must Also Be Dismissed. + +Because Counts Five and Six must be dismissed, the expanded Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three must also be dismissed. In the SI Indictment, the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three were confined to a four-year period from 1994-1997, which the Court found was not covered by the NPA. (Dkt. 207 at 6-7). In the S2 Indictment, by contrast, the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three cover a much broader timeframe from 1994-2004 because they incorporate the same conduct from 2001-2004 involving Accuser-4 charged in Counts Five and Six. As previously discussed, the NM bars the government from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for these offenses. Hence, as currently charged, the government could offer inadmissible evidence excluded by the NPA as proof of Counts One and Three. It would be impermissible for the jury to consider such evidence in connection with Counts One and Three and any guilty verdict based on proof related to Accuser-4, or any other conduct covered by the NPA, might require reversal. See United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847, 855-56 (2d Cir. + +1994) (reversal of conviction may be required due to "prejudicial spillover" in cases in which the jury relies on inadmissible evidence related to an invalidated count to convict on the remaining counts). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Counts One and Three as well. + +#### II. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under the Double Jeopardy Clause. + +Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six would also violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const., Amend. V. The Clause protects criminal defendants against "a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal," "a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction," and "multiple punishments for the same offense." United States v. 356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) overruled on other rounds by Alabama v. M, 490 U.S. 794 (1989)). The Supreme Court first established the principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense almost 150 years ago in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873), and it is equally important as the protection against a successive prosecution for the same offense. + +> If there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and America, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the same offence. And ... there has never been any doubt of (this rule's) entire and complete protection of the party when a second punishment is proposed in the same court, on the same facts, for the same statutory offense. + +> (T)he Constitution was designed as much to prevent the criminal from being twice punished for the same offense as from being twice tried for it. + +Pearce, 395 U.S. at 717-18 (quoting Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 168) (emphasis added). + +Here, it is beyond dispute that Epstein was already punished for the offenses covered by the NPA. The NPA states that, in return for an agreement not to prosecute him for the offenses + +specified in the NPA, Epstein had to fulfill a series of terms and conditions. These included: (1) pleading guilty in Florida state court to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, (2) registering as a federal sex offender, (3) paying for an attorney to represent his victims to sue him for personal injuries, and (4) waiving his right to contest any damages awarded in those lawsuits up to an agreed-upon amount. (Ex. B at 2-5 of 7). One of the government's "key objectives" in the NPA was "to preserve a federal remedy" for Epstein's alleged victims. (Ex. Di 5). Epstein fully performed these conditions and paid over \$12.5 million in settlements to multiple alleged victims. (Ex. H). Indeed, Epstein paid to the person we believe to be Accuser-4 and her attorneys. (Id.; Ex. I). + +The USAO-SDNY cannot now seek additional punishment for the same offenses that were resolved by the NPA. Courts employ different tests to determine whether two offenses are the same for Double Jeopardy purposes. To determine whether a successive conspiracy prosecution is distinct from a previous conspiracy prosecution charged under the same statute, courts evaluate the so-called Korfant factors; namely: + +- (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; +- (2) the overlap of participants; +- (3) the overlap of time; +- (4) similarity of operation; +- (5) the existence of common overt acts; +- (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred; +- (7) common objectives; and +- (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies. + +M, 356 F.3d at 468 (quoting United States v. Kotfant,771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam)). "[I]f a defendant makes a non-frivolous showing that two indictments in fact charge only one conspiracy, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show, by a preponderance of the + +evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime." Id. at 467 (citations omitted). + +As previously discussed, it is clear from the grand jury testimony that Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge the same offenses based on the same allegations of Accuser-4 that were presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for a conspiracy count and a substantive sex trafficking count in the proposed SDFL indictment. (See Section I supra). The government cannot make a contrary showing. Accordingly, prosecuting Epstein for Counts Five and Six would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. And because Epstein negotiated immunity for Ms. Maxwell and any other "potential co-conspirators" as part of the terms of the NPA, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those crimes either. See United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 637 (2d Cir. 1979) ("If [the defendant's] earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against [his wife], the instant prosecution of [his wife] will also be barred."). Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment must therefore be dismissed. + +## III. Counts Five and Six Are Time-Barred. + +Counts Five and Six should also be dismissed because they are time-barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. In its previous motions related to the S I Indictment, the government asserted that the Act counts (Counts One through Four) are timely because they are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse ... of a child under the age of 18 years" to "during the life of the child." (Dkt. 204 at 24-26, 36-41). Ms. Maxwell argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3283 did not apply to the Act offenses because they do not "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of a minor and therefore are not "offense[s] involving" such conduct. (Dkt. 144 at 12-17; Dkt. 206 at 10-15). The Court ruled in favor of the government. (Dkt. 207 at 9-13). Ms. Maxwell nevertheless preserves her argument and reasserts it with respect to Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. + +As it existed in 2004, the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment provided that "[w]hoever knowingly ... recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person ... knowing that ... the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act" is guilty of a crime." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (2004). Because the statute uses the phrase "will be caused" before the phrase "to engage in a commercial sex act," it is not necessary for the commercial sex act to take place for the crime to be complete. See United States v. 714 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir. 2013) ("The future verb tense of the phrase 'will be caused'—which precedes 'to engage in a commercial sex act"'—indicates that a sex act does not have to occur to satisfy the elements of the child-sex-trafficking offense."). For the reasons already set forth in Ms. Maxwell's previous motion, the statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3283 does not govern 18 U.S.C. § 1591 because the offense does not "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of a minor and therefore is not an "offense involving" such conduct. Counts Five and Six must therefore be dismissed. + +#### IV. The Court Should Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous. + +Count Five must also be dismissed along with either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous. In her previous motions, Ms. Maxwell argued that the Court should dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the Si Indictment as multiplicitous because they charged the same conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. (Dkt. 122, 210). Count Five of the S2 Indictment charges Ms. Maxwell with yet another § 371 conspiracy from 2001-2004 based on the allegations of Accuser-4. (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 22-25). These same allegations are fully + +incorporated into the broader Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three. (Id. ¶q 1-9, 11-13, 16-19). For the same reasons discussed in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss Count Five and either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous. + +### V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay. + +The Court should also dismiss the S2 indictment due to the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell in violation of her due process rights. In her previous motions, Ms. Maxwell argued that the Court should dismiss the SI Indictment due to the excessive pre-indictment delay in charging her with those offenses. (Dkt. 138, 209). The S2 Indictment only compounds these issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore up its case against Ms. Maxwell. For the same reasons discaccrd in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss the S2 Indictment. The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's initial motion on these grounds, but preserved Ms. Maxwell's ability to renew her motion after trial. (Dkt. 207 at 18). Accordingly, we request that the Court defer consideration of this motion until trial. + +# VI. The Court Should Order a Kitt of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six. + +The Court should also order the government to file a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment do not sufficiently inform her of the nature of the charges against her. Rule 7(f) permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars "in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Counts Five and Six allege conduct that purportedly occurred over the course of a broad four- + +time period from 2001-2004. The counts do not specify, however, the dates that any of this alleged conduct occurred. For example, the S2 Indictment does not specify when Ms. Maxwell "interacted" with Accuser-4 or allegedly "recruited" her "to engage in sex acts with Epstein" or "enticed" her "to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts with Epstein." (S2 Indictment 9d, 25a, 25b). Nor does the S2 Indictment specify when Ms. Maxwell allegedly paid Accuser-4 or sent her gifts or called her to schedule massage appointments. (Id. ¶¶ 9d, 25c, 25d). A Bill of Particulars for Counts Five and Six is therefore necessary and appropriate. See Bonney\*, 820 F.2d at 575 (Bill of Particulars warranted where "[t]he relevance of key events was shrouded in mystery at the commencement of and throughout the trial"). Id. at 575. + +Furthermore, as discussed above, Ms. Maxwell has already credibly asserted that her prosecution on Counts Five and Six is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. (See Section II supra). In order "to interpose [her] plea of double jeopardy," Ms. Maxwell must confirm what is apparent from the grand jury testimony of Special Agent — that the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six are the same offenses that were presented to the SDFL grand jury. + +Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons already discussed in our previous motion for a Bill of Particulars, the Court should order the government to file a Bill of Particulars identifying the following information related to Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment: + +- (1) The dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly met and/or interacted with Accuser-4. (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d). +- (2) The dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" or "recruited" Accuser-4 "to engage in sex acts with Epstein." (Id. ¶¶ 9d, 25a). +- (3) The dates when Accuser-4 allegedly provided "nude massages" to Epstein, during which Epstein "engaged in multiple sex acts" with Accuser-4. (Id. ¶ 9d). +- (4) The dates when Ms. Maxwell allegedly was "present" when [Accuser-4] "was nude in the massage room of the Palm Beach Residence." (MI 9d). + +- (5) The dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly paid Accuser-4 "hundreds of dollars in cash." (Id. ¶¶ 9d, 25a). +- (6) The dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "encouraged [Accuser-4] to recruit other young females to provide sexualized massages to Epstein." (Id.11119d, 25b). +- (7) The dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "invited [Accuser-4] to travel with Epstein" and "offered to assist [Accuser-4] with obtaining a passport for purposes of such travel." (Id. ¶ 9d). +- (8) The dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly "sent [Accuser-4] gifts." (Id. ¶¶ 9d, 25c). The dates when, and locations where, Ms. Maxwell allegedly called Accuser-4 "to schedule appointment for [Accuser-4] to massage Epstein." (Id. ¶¶ 9d, 25d). +- (9) +- (10) The dates when the conspiracy charged in Count Five began and ended. (Id. ¶ 23). +- (11) The identities of the "others" who allegedly participated in the conspiracy charged in Count Five with Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24). +- (12) The identities of any individuals who were enticed to travel, or were transported, in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity with Epstein during the time period of the charged =I Act conspiracies (1994-2004), apart from Minor Victims-1-4. 13, 19). + +#### VII. The Court Should Order the Government to Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements as Brady Material. + +As explained above, it is apparent from the non-testifying witness material. which the government produced just a few weeks ago on April 13, 2021, that Accuser-4 has only recently included Ms. Maxwell in her allegations of sexual abuse. In her summary of Accuser-4's allegations that she gave to the SDFL grand jury on March 18, 2008, Special Agentmade no mention of Ms. Maxwell, indicating that Accuser-4 never discussed Ms. Maxwell when the FBI interviewed her in connection with the Florida Investigation. Indeed, it is clear from the grand jury testimony that Accuser-4 implicated not Ms. Maxwell. Only now, 13 years after she first reported these events to the Palm Beach FBI and several months after Ms. + +Maxwell had been indicted and publicly vilified in the press as Epstein's primary accomplice, did Accuser-4 suddenly allege for the very first time that Ms. Maxwell was involved in Epstein's sexual abuse. Accuser-4 now claims that Ms. Maxwell, among other things, "groomed" her to engage in sexualized massages with Epstein, encouraged her to recruit others to do the same, and was present when Accuser-4 was nude in the massage room of the Palm Beach Residence. (S2 Indictment 119d). Had Ms. Maxwell, in fact, done the things that Accuser-4 now accuses her of doing, Accuser-4 certainly would have mentioned it to the FBI and those allegations would have been part of the SDFL grand jury presentation. Ms. Maxwell surely would have been named as a co-conspirator in the proposed 60-count indictment like That never happened. (See Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)) (USAO-SDFL never found "any specific evidence against" Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of the investigation). + +An informed witness who fails to mention the defendant when making a report to law enforcement is exculpatory under Brady. United States v. 719 F.2d 549, 555-56 (2d Cir. 1983); v. Jago, 575 F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir. 1978); Clemmons v. Delo, 124 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 1997); v. !felling, 194 F.3d 937, 944 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Accuser-4's prior statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are exculpatory Brady material that the government must immediately produce to the defense. As the Court ruled: + +The Government must disclose to the defense all information 'favorable to an accused' that is 'material either to guilt or to punishment' and that is known to the Government. . . . The Government shall disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case. + +(Dkt. 68 at I) (emphasis added). + +#### VIII. Ms. Maxwell Incorporates All of the Arguments Raised in Her Initial Pretrial Motions and Reasserts Them as to the S2 Indictment. + +To the extent she has not already done so, Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference all of the arguments she raised in her pretrial motions related to the SI Indictment and reasserts them here with respect to the S2 Indictment.9 For the reasons set forth in those motions, the Court should grant the requested relief as to the S2 Indictment. + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court (1) dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment for breach of the NPA, (2) dismiss Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment for violation of Ms. Maxwell's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and (3) grant her other requested relief. + +Dated: May 7, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +9 We exclude the arguments raised in the Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment (Dkt. 126, 211), as Ms. Maxwell has conceded that the S2 Indictment renders these claims moot. (Dkt. 225). + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on May 7, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey, Esq. Maurene.Comey@usdoj.gov + +Alison Moe, Esq. Alison.Moe@usdoj.gov + +Lam Pomerantz, Esq. Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +Andrew Rohrbach, Esq. Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e7849c5c3860fe0e7ae11e4a4d3cc8757a13cf3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513/EFTA02832513.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1917 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832513.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 32, + "chars": 62855, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.38, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL \nIN SUPPORT OF HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS \nRELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 484.04248046875, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 484.04248046875, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 336.15 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. ,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 186.70370483398438, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 186.70370483398438, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Rooney,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 192.56411743164062, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 192.56411743164062, + 125.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 125.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Salameh,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 198.28561401367188, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 198.28561401367188, + 165.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 165.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 204.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 204.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States v. Van Thournout,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 230.07571411132812, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 230.07571411132812, + 244.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 244.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "v. Helling,", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 268.11 + ], + [ + 156.64859008789062, + 268.11 + ], + [ + 156.64859008789062, + 284.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 284.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 323.9830017089844 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 323.9830017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 488.43 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 488.43 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 503.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 503.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.32, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE S2 INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 483.7832336425781, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 483.7832336425781, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 346.98480224609375, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 346.98480224609375, + 444.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 444.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The NPA Bars Ms. Maxwell's Prosecution on Counts One. Three. Five, and Six.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 519.6290893554688, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 519.6290893554688, + 470.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 470.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Counts Five and Six Allege the Same Offenses that Were Part of the Florida \nInvestigation and Are Covered by the Plain Terms of the NPA.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 403.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 403.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8790283203125, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8790283203125, + 168.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 168.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Counts One and Three Must Also Be Dismissed.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 393.55047607421875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 393.55047607421875, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under \nthe Double Jeopardy Clause.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 534.5164184570312, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 534.5164184570312, + 182.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Counts Five and Six Are Time-Barred.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 310.519287109375, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 310.519287109375, + 472.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 472.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Court Should Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as \nMultiplicitous.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 520.6535034179688, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 520.6535034179688, + 541.4830017089844 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 541.4830017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.6183166503906, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.6183166503906, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. The Court Should Order a Kitt of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 477.9479675292969, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 477.9479675292969, + 498.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 498.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. The Court Should Order the Government to Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements \nas Brady Material.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 537.029052734375, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 537.029052734375, + 485.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 485.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. Ms. Maxwell Incorporates All of the Arguments Raised in Her Initial Pretrial \nMotions and Reasserts Them as to the S2 Indictment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 507.59869384765625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 507.59869384765625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 230.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 230.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 245.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 245.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 130 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832513" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b181712b921d00dd966def0b38b13951401d01de --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.md @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +## UNITI :1) STATES DISTRICT COURT SOITII II:RN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PURSUANT TO LOCAL GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) x + +## AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION CRIMINAL RULE 16.1 + +I, Christian R. Everdell, an attorney duly admitted to practice in New York State and before this Court, declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: + +- I. I am a partner at & Gresser LLP, counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned case. +- 2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that defense counsel has conferred in good faith with government counsel, but has not been able to reach an agreement concerning the disclosure requests raised in the accompanying Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Supplemental Pretrial Motions Relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment. + +I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. + +Dated: May 7, 2021 New York, New York + +> Is/ Christian R. Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 'Hurd Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..796a0a65024c46ea31d66b8e2e3fc75c8d00a01e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545/EFTA02832545.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832545.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1216, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITI :1) STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOITII II:RN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.9034423828125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.9034423828125, + 99.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION \nCRIMINAL RULE 16.1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 347.616, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.14794921875, + 136.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 541.14794921875, + 179.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 347.616, + 179.36248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832545" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8290b62a7fbc4c80cd2e60a5312b1ba636a43c36 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.md @@ -0,0 +1,261 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +------------------------------------------x + +# THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| ARGUMENT | 2 | +| I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Bar the Superseding | | +| Indictment | 2 | +| II. Counts Five and Six Are Not Barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause | 7 | +| III. Counts Five and Six Are Timely | 11 | +| PreTrial Delay Should Be Denied | 13 | +| as Niultiplicitous Is Premature | 16 | +| VI. A Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted | 17 | +| Do Not Warrant Immediate Disclosure | 20 | +| CONCLUSION | 22 | + +**TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** + +Cases + +| ■■■■ v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013)..... | 9 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| +| Gamble v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019)..... | 8 | +| Landgraf v. USI Film Products , 511 U.S. 244 (1994)..... | 12, 13 | +| Morris v. ■■■■ , 264 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001)..... | 9 | +| Serfass v. United States , 420 U.S. 377 (1975)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Abbamonte , 759 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1985)..... | 3 | +| United States v. Alessi , 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976)..... | 3 | +| United States v. Annabi , 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)..... | 2, 3, 4, 9 | +| United States v. Bonventre , 646 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2016)..... | 21 | +| United States v. Cambindo Valencia , 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) ..... | 11, 12 | +| United States v. Campo Flores , No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016)..... | 23 | +| United States v. Chen , 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004)..... | 21 | +| United States v. Coppa , 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001)..... | 23 | +| United States v. Cornielle , 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999)..... | 15 | +| United States v. Dionisio , 503 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2007)..... | 8, 9, 10, 11 | +| United States v. Drago , No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019)..... | 17 | +| United States v. Gebhie , 294 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2002) ..... | 7 | +| United States v. ■■■■ , 93 F. App’x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) ..... | 6 | +| United States v. ■■■■ , No. 09 Cr. 625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009).. | 9 | +| United States v. Herrera , No. 02 Cr. 477 (LAK), 2002 WL 31133029 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002) | | +| ..... | 10 | +| United States v. Josephberg , 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam)..... | 18 | +| United States v. Laskow , 688 F. Supp. 851, 853-56 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)..... | 6 | +| United States v. Losada , 674 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1982)..... | 12 | +| United States v. Mahabub , No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) | | +| ..... | 19 | +| United States v. Marcus , 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) ..... | 19 | +| United States v. Muric , No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) .... | 17 | +| United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683 (1974)..... | 23 | +| United States v. Olmeda , 461 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2006)..... | 10 | +| United States v. Pierre-Louis , No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) | | +| ..... | 15 | +| United States v. Podde , 105 F.3d 813 (2d Cir. 1997) ..... | 8, 9 | +| United States v. Prisco , 391 F. App’x 920 (2d Cir. 2010)..... | 6 | +| United States v. ■■■■ , 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988)..... | 6 | +| United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998)..... | 6 | +| United States v. ■■■■ , 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990)..... | 19, 21 | +| United States v. Vanhoesen , 366 F. App’x 264 (2d Cir. 2010)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Walsh , 194 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1999) ..... | 19 | + +United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 21 Van Stuyvesant v. Conway, No. 03 Civ. 3856 (LAK), 2007 WL 2584775 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007) 15 + +## Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 1591 | 13, 18 | +|-----------------------------------------|-----------| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | 18 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 18 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3283 | 1, 12, 14 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 3299 | 13, 14 | +| Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) | 19 | + +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's supplemental pre-trial motions, dated May 7, 2021 (the "Defense Motions"). For the reasons that follow, and for the reasons set forth in the Government's memorandum in opposition to the defendant's twelve pre-trial motions, dated February 26, 2021, and the Court's Opinion and Order, dated April 16, 2021 (Dkt. No. 207, the "April Opinion" or "Apr. Op."), the Defense Motions should be denied in their entirety. + +First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida does not apply to this District and does not bar the prosecution of the defendant. Second, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the prosecution of the defendant, who has never previously risked conviction for the sex trafficking offenses contained in Counts Five and Six of Indictment S2 20 Cr. 330 (the "S2 Indictment"). Third, Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment, which plainly involve the sexual abuse of minors, are timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which provides an extended statute of limitations for such crimes. Fourth, the defendant's claim that the Government delayed in bringing the S2 Indictment fails as a matter of law and fact. Fifth, the defendant's motion to dismiss certain conspiracy counts as multiplicitous remains premature. Sixth, a bill of particulars is not warranted, especially when both the speaking indictment and discovery in this case provide ample details regarding the charged offenses. Seventh, the defendant's request for immediate disclosure of impeachment material regarding one of the Government's witnesses should be denied consistent with this Court's prior conclusion that such material may be provided closer to trial. + +# ARGUMENT + +### I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Bar the Superseding Indictment + +In an Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2021, the Court denied the defendant's previous motion to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO-SDFL"). The Court concluded, among other things, that "under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York." (Apr. Op. at 3). In reaching this conclusion, the Court followed United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), which held that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." (Apr. Op. at 4). The defendant now moves to dismiss again based on the NPA. The bulk of the defendant's motion discusses the similarity between the additional charges in the S2 Indictment and the crimes enumerated in the immunity provisions of the NPA. But it does not matter what—or whom—the NPA purports to immunize, since the Court has already concluded that, under Annabi, the NPA does not bind this District. + +The defendant cannot clear the initial hurdle of establishing that the NPA applies in this District and, accordingly, the motion should be denied. In an effort to relitigate the Court's April Opinion, the defendant now claims that the rule of Annabi "only applies in situations where the + +district bringing the second prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement in the first prosecution." (Del. Mot. at 11) (emphasis in original). The defendant is wrong. Annabi contains no such exception, and the Government is not aware of any court in this Circuit to apply such a rule. + +In Annabi, the Second Circuit articulated a universal principle for interpreting whether a plea agreement is binding outside the district where it was executed. Annabi explained that. although it "might be thought" that a U.S. Attorney's Office's agreement which provided that "'the Government' will dismiss counts of an indictment" would bind the United States in every judicial district, "the law has evolved to the contrary." 771 F.2d at 672. Relying on several of its precedents, the Court explained that the default rule in this Circuit is that plea agreements bind only the district involved, absent an affirmative appearance to the contrary. Id. In particular, the Second Circuit relied on its opinions in United States v. Abbamonte, 759 F.2d 1065, 1072 (2d Cir. 1985), and United States v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139, 1154 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960 (1976). Nothing about the reasoning of Annabi turned on whether the new case charged the same offenses that were at issue in the original plea agreement or other offenses that might still be covered by the plea agreement. The holding of Annabi is clear and straightforward, and this Court has already concluded that, under Annabi, there is no affirmative appearance that the NPA binds entities aside from the USAO-SDFL. + +The defendant now claims that when the Government brings charges that are similar to those contained in a plea agreement, Annabi is silent, and that the Court is therefore free to apply the opposite presumption, namely, that the plea agreement is universally binding on the Government. The defendant's argument rests exclusively on the phrase "identical to the dismissed charges," which appears in a paragraph in Annabi. (Def. Mot. at 11). The defendant's reliance on + +this phrase is entirely misplaced. That phrase appears in a specific portion of the Second Circuit's opinion, in which the panel rejected the defendants' attempt to distinguish Abbamonte and Alessi by saying that they were only seeking the same protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause, while Abbamonte and Alessi involved protections greater than the Double Jeopardy Clause. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. In rejecting that argument, the Court explained: + +> The argument fails for two reasons. First, since appellants were never in jeopardy on the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the protection they now seek under the plea agreement is necessarily broader than that accorded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Second, to the extent that the appellants rely on a claim that the Clause, if applicable, would protect them from prosecution on charges identical to those dismissed, the short answer is that the pending charges, covering conduct extending more than two years beyond the date of the period covered by the dismissed charges, are not the same as the charges that were dismissed. Even if, as appellants contend, the Southern District charges result from the same conspiratorial agreement that underlay the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the allegation that the conspiracy extended for an additional two years suffices to show that the new charges are not identical to the dismissed charges. + +Id. As the foregoing makes clear, the Second Circuit did not in any way qualify the plain-statement rule set forth in its opinion. Rather, the Second Circuit addressed the defendant's efforts to distinguish precedent based on the Double Jeopardy Clause and explained why the Clause did not preclude a prosecution in that case. In other words, this language in Annabi was cabined to an analysis under the Double Jeopardy Clause. As discussed in greater detail below, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a prosecution in this case because Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment. + +Ignoring the Double Jeopardy language in Annabi, the defendant argues that the phrase "identical to the dismissed charges" somehow creates a different rule of interpretation for plea agreements, under which the Court must first analyze the similarity between the NPA and the S2 + +Indictment before determining whether the plain-statement rule of Annabi applies. Annabi, the defendant suggests, creates a three-part schema for analyzing the relationship between newly charged offenses and earlier plea agreements: if the offense is not covered by the plea agreement, the agreement is irrelevant; if the offense is covered by the agreement but different' from a count "resolved" when that agreement was entered, the Annabi rule applies; and if the offense is identical to a "resolved" count, Annabi is silent. (Def. Mot. at 13-14). Nothing in Annabi comes close to articulating this unusual and confusing rule. Instead, the language the defendant points to in Annabi simply addressed—and rejected—the defendants' effort to distinguish precedent. Indeed, nothing about the reasoning of Annabi turned on whether the new case charged the same offenses that were at issue in the original plea agreement or other offenses that might still be covered by the plea agreement. + +Moreover, the cases in which the Second Circuit has applied Annabi provide no support to the defendant's theory. Like Annabi itself, those cases evaluate the text and history of plea agreements to determine the scope of the immunity provided by those agreements, including by application of the affirmative appearance rule. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("In the absence of any language in the New Jersey plea agreement to suggest otherwise, and with no compelling reason to infer any intent to the contrary, we decline to extend the New Jersey plea agreement beyond its clearly stated terms." (citation omitted)); United States v. 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Thus, we conclude + +The defense motion uses the phrase "exact same" when asserting that this rule exists, but it is unclear what precisely that means because it is not a legal term of art, and there are of course complicated considerations when examining the similarity or differences between charges, as Double Jeopardy Clause jurisprudence illustrates. The defendant's motion does not offer a mode of analysis for this nuanced issue, but in any event the Court need not resolve the question of whether the charges in the NPA are indeed the "exact same," because the NPA does not apply at all in this District. + +that could not have reasonably understood the plea agreement to restrict the Western District of New York."); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Here, Ajaj presents no evidence that the parties to the Eastern District plea agreement contemplated that it would bar the prosecution of Ajaj in any district other than the Eastern District."). But they contain no analysis of overlap between immunized offenses and the offense charged—a question that can be analytically complicated—when evaluating whether the affirmative appearance rule applies at all. See, e.g., Prisco, 391 F. App'x at 931; United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 853-56 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (analyzing whether the Eastern District of New York was bound by a California plea agreement and then discussing the "unnecessary" question whether the new charges fell within the scope of the plea agreement), ard, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir.) (tbl.); cf., e.g., United States v. 844 F.2d 916, 922-24 (2d Cir. 1988) (analyzing whether a narcotics conspiracy count, dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement with USAO-SDNY, was the same narcotics conspiracy later charged by USAO-SDNY).2 + +As the foregoing cases illustrate, the Second Circuit has repeatedly cited Annabi for a clear rule of interpretation: a plea agreement does not bind another district unless it affirmatively appears otherwise. Under this clear rule, this Court has already held that the NPA does not bind this District. To be sure, if the NPA applied in this District—and if Maxwell could invoke it—the + +2 In her motion, the defendant urges the Court to apply caselaw from the Third Circuit. This Court is, of course, bound by Annabi and not by the decisions of a circuit that expressly deviates from Annabi's rule. See United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 546-50 (3rd Cir. 2002) (criticizing Annabi and holding that "that when a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of 'the United States' or `the Government' in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants"). + +crimes listed in the NPA overlap with some (but not all) 3 of the offenses in the S2 Indictment. But at this stage of the litigation, in which the Court has already concluded that the NPA has no force in this District, it makes no difference what the precise terms of the NPA were. The NM has no bearing on this case. + +The balance of the defendant's motion seeks to relitigate the Court's rulings in this case, asserting that the history of the negotiations of the NPA indicate that the parties intended broader coverage. (Def. Mot. at 16). This Court has firmly rejected that argument and has concluded that "[n]o evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his coconspirators in other districts." (Apr. Op. at 6). The motion should be denied for precisely this reason. + +# II. Counts Five and Six Are Not Barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause + +It is axiomatic that "an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy." Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 393 (1975). Here, the S2 Indictment is the first time the defendant has been charged with sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy, and the Double Jeopardy Clause therefore does not prohibit prosecution of those offenses. The defendant's argument to the contrary fundamentally misunderstands that Clause's protections. + +"[A]t its core," the Double Jeopardy Clause "means that those acquitted or convicted of a particular 'offence' cannot be tried a second time for the same 'offence.'" Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1963 (2019). Accordingly, "[a] defendant may only raise a Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (Le. jeopardy has 'attached') sometime before the alleged 'second' prosecution." United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 816 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second + +3 At most, the scope of the NPA's coverage would appear to encompass Counts Five and Six. The remaining counts encompass conduct that both postdates and predates the temporal limitations in the NPA, which was expressly limited to offenses between 2001 and 2007. (Apr. Op. at 6-7). + +Circuit has explained, the "key issue" for jeopardy attachment is "whether the disposition of an individual's indictment entailed findings of facts on the merits such that the defendant was placed in genuine jeopardy by the making of such fmdings." United States v. Dionisio, 503 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 158 (2008); see United States v. Vanhoesen, 366 F. App'x 264, 266-67 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("Jeopardy attaches when 'there has been a fact-based resolution of elements of the offense charged as a result of a process in which the defendant risked conviction.' (quoting Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 85)). Traditionally, jeopardy attaches "to the entire indictment as soon as a jury is empaneled." Podde, 105 F.3d at 816. + +In the context of pretrial dispositions, it is "essential" for jeopardy attachment that the resolution involve "adjudication of some facts that go to the merits of a charge against a defendant." Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84 (emphasis in original). For a guilty plea, jeopardy attaches to the offense of conviction. See Morris v. 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001) ("Given that a guilty plea is a conviction, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, the Clause prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense following a guilty plea." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). But it generally does not attach to counts that are dismissed simply pursuant to "an agreement between the parties," involving no "process that put [the defendant] at any risk of conviction." Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 89; see Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672 ("[S]ince appellants were never in jeopardy on the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the protection they now seek under the plea agreement is necessarily broader than that accorded by the Double Jeopardy Clause."); United States v. No. 09 Cr. 625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2009) (explaining, under Dionisio, that where "Judge Hellerstein merely granted the Government's motion to dismiss Count One pursuant to the plea agreement," jeopardy did not attach to Count One); cj. v. + +Michigan, 568 U.S. 313, 319 (2013) (distinguishing between a "merits-related ruling" during trial that "concludes proceedings absolutely" under the Double Jeopardy Clause and "termination of the proceedings . . . on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offense" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In order for jeopardy to attach to counts dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, the dismissal must involve some adjudication of facts that go to the merits. For instance, "a plea agreement in which the court was directly involved in a defendant's decision to plead guilty to two counts, in exchange for an agreement to drop with prejudice a third count, all on the basis of findings of certain facts which support that agreement, might perhaps constitute a pretrial fact-finding that implicated jeopardy in its proper sense of risk of exposure." Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84 (footnote omitted). + +Here, the defendant was never placed in jeopardy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She was never indicted, acquitted, convicted, or punished for the offenses in Counts Five and Six. See United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that "[i]n essence, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants against" second prosecutions after acquittal or conviction, or "multiple punishments for the same offense" (quotation marks omitted)). At no point did the defendant even risk conviction. + +That analysis is unaffected by the NPA. Again, neither the defendant nor Epstein was ever indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida nor found guilty of any federal offense. NPA or no NPA, jeopardy never attached for the offenses in the proposed USAO-SDFL indictment, which was of course never filed. See United States v. Herrera, No. 02 Cr. 477 (LAK), 2002 WL 31133029, at 4'1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002) ("The analysis of the Korfant factors in which defendant would have the Court engage will become necessary if, and only if, jeopardy attaches on one of the indictments . . . ."). And the NPA would not have provided protection to the + +defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Whatever Epstein's rights and obligations were under the NPA, including his obligation to plead guilty to two state solicitation offenses, the NPA is simply an agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. The USAO-SDFL's agreement to decline to prosecute other offenses is not an adjudication of any facts that goes to the merits of those offenses. Nor could it be: neither Epstein nor the defendant was charged with those offenses, and the NPA was never put before a judge who could engage in fact-finding or even so-order the agreement. There is no sense in which the defendant risked conviction or was ever in genuine jeopardy. See Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84. + +This point is only underscored by United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979), on which the defendant relies. In that case, two defendants, Jesus and Rosalinda Losada, were prosecuted for a 1974 conspiracy to distribute cocaine, resulting in a guilty plea for Jesus and, "as part of his plea bargaining agreement, the dismissal of charges against" Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The two were later charged as part of another cocaine conspiracy. Id. at 607. The defendants argued that the new prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause as to both of them, and the plea agreement as to Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The Second Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of its other holdings narrowing the charged conspiracy. It added that "[i] f Jesus's earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against Rosalinda, the instant prosecution of Rosalinda will also be barred." Id. at 638. That is, if double jeopardy barred re-prosecution of Jesus, the prosecution of Rosalinda was barred because of the plea agreement. Accordingly, when the district court later dismissed the count against Jesus on double jeopardy grounds, it dismissed the count against Rosalinda "because of the government's + +failure to honor a plea agreement." United States v. Losada, 674 F.2d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 1982).4 There, as here, any barrier to prosecution of the defendant arose from the agreement with the prosecution, not the Double Jeopardy Clause. And, as described above, the NPA presents no barrier. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six should be denied. + +# III. Counts Five and Six Are Timely + +Counts Five and Six are timely charged because the applicable limitations period, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), permits prosecution for offenses "involving the sexual or physical abuse ... of a child" at any time "during the life of the child," and the victim identified in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment remains alive. The crimes alleged in Counts Five and Six plainly involved the sexual abuse of minors, meaning the § 3283 limitations period applies to both charges. See S2 Indictment 1 9(d) (discussing the sexual abuse of Minor Victim-4). + +In her motion, the defendant argues that § 3283 only applies if the elements of the crime of sex trafficking "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of minors? (Def. Mot. at 20-21). In other words, the defendant claims that the "categorical approach" or "essential ingredients" test applies here. The Court has already considered and rejected this argument. (Apr. Op. at 9-13). As this Court has held, "[tic) the extent that the categorical approach is ever appropriate in other contexts, it is inappropriate here." (Apr. Op. at 11). Instead, with respect to the statute of limitations, the + +4 Although the opinions do not say whether the prosecuting office that signed the plea agreement was the same office that later prosecuted the Losadas, the prosecution also does not appear to have resisted the plea agreement on that basis. See Cambindo-Valencia, 609 F.2d at 638. + +\$ In her previous motions, the defendant argued that Counts One through Four were untimely, claiming that § 3283 cannot be applied retroactively. The Court rejected this argument. (Apr. Op. at 13-16 (analyzing the applicability of § 3283 to pre-2003 conduct under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994))). In her current motion, the defendant does not appear to assert retroactivity arguments with respect to Counts Five and Six. Nor could she. Because Counts Five and Six involve conduct up to and including 2004, application of the 2003 amendment to § 3283 does not require the Court to engage in a retroactivity analysis. + +question is simply "whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse of a minor on the facts alleged in this case." (Apr. Op. at 13). As was the case for Counts One through Four, there is no question that Counts Five and Six involved the sexual abuse of a minor on the facts alleged in this case. Accordingly, the motion should be denied. + +Counts Five and Six are also timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitation for certain sex crimes, including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Enacted in July 2006, § 3299 provides that: + +> Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a minor victim, and for any felony under chapter 109A, 110 (except for section 2257 and 2257A), or 117, or section 1591. + +Because Count Five alleges a conspiracy to violate § 1591 and Count Six alleges a substantive violation of § 1591, there is no statute of limitation for these counts, pursuant to § 3299. + +Applying § 3299, which was passed in 2006, to charges arising from conduct between 2001 and 2004 is appropriate under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). At step one of the Landgraf analysis, the statute unambiguously applies to offenses notwithstanding any other statute of limitations, as the plain text of § 3299 applies "[n]otwithstanding any other law." And at step two, because the statute of limitations for Counts Five and Six had not run in 2006 when § 3299 was passed, its application here has no impermissible retroactive effect. Indeed, in many respects the analysis of § 3299 under Landgraf mirrors the analysis of § 3283, which the Court has held applies to pre-enactment conduct. (See Apr. Op. at 16 (analyzing the retroactive application of § 3283 and concluding that the statute applies to pre-enactment conduct)). + +Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Government's previous briefing (Dkt. No. 204 at 23-36), and for the reasons set forth in the Court's April Opinion (Apr. Op. at 9-16), the prosecution of Counts Five and Six is timely. + +### IV. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the S2 Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied + +The defendant contends that the Court should dismiss the S2 Indictment because the Government's delay in bringing the charges violates her due process rights. (Def. Mot. at 22). In making this motion, the defendant asks the Court to provide such relief for the "same reasons discussed in her prior motion" (Def. Mot. at 22)—reasons this Court already considered and rejected. This Court evaluated the defendant's speculative and baseless arguments and concluded that the defendant could not meet the "stringent standard" necessary to prevail on a claim that any alleged pre-indictment delay violates her due process rights. (Apr. Op. at 17). "To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the charges." (Apr. Op. at 17 (citing United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999))).6 + +As to the element of actual and substantial prejudice, the Court found that the defendant did "not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support" her claim. (Apr. Op. at 17). The Court concluded that the defendant "failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in bringing charges," rejecting the defendant's "highly speculative" arguments that the death of certain potential witnesses, failing memories, or lost records prejudiced + +6 Moreover, "[w]here an indictment is brought within the statute of limitations, there is a presumption that the [defendant] was not prejudiced." Van Stuyvesant v. Conway, No. 03 Civ. 3856 (LAK), 2007 WL 2584775, at •42 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Apr. Op. at 17. As this Court previously found, and as detailed above, the "applicable statute of limitations" does not "bai[] the charges here." (Apr. Op. at 18). + +her interests or would have made a "substantial difference" in her case. (Id. at 17). In her current motion, the defendant offers no additional factual claims in support of her argument that the passage of time has prejudiced her defense. She instead refers the Court back to her prior hypothetical, vague, and conclusory claims of prejudice that do not withstand scrutiny. The defendant has not remotely carried her "heavy burden" of proof. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. Her renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pm-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied. + +Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the defendant's specious arguments that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). In any event, in denying the defendant's pre-trial motions filed in January, the Court noted the absence of "evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense." (Apr. Op. at 17). That remains true. + +The defendant argues that the "S2 Indictment only compounds [the excessive pmindictment delay] issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore up its case against Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. at 22). The defendant's argument that the Government acted in bad faith—to the extent she is making such an argument—is based on no evidence whatsoever, and for good reason: it is not true. + +As the Government has previously explained (see Dkt. No. 199), the Government obtained the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant's abuse of an additional minor victim, Minor Victim based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the time the defendant was indicted in July 2020 or at the time Jeffrey Epstein was indicted in 2019. Specifically, although Minor Victim-4 had previously been interviewed once in or about 2007 in connection with a prior investigation conducted by the USAO-SDFL, Minor Victim-4 did not agree to be interviewed by the prosecution team handling this case until July 2020. The Government then conducted two preliminary interviews with Minor Victim-4 by video teleconference in the summer of 2020. Because of the difficult nature of the interview topics, however, the Government was not able to fully debrief Minor Victim-4 over video. Due to travel constraints and safety concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government was unable to travel to meet with Minor Victim-4 until late January 2021, at which time the Government conducted multiple in-person interviews with Minor Victim-4. The Government then took additional investigative steps and sought the S2 Indictment in late March 2021, approximately two months after concluding its debriefing of Minor Victim-4. + +Simply put, the S2 Indictment was brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the additional charges. Any suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the S2 Indictment to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact. The defendant has not established—and cannot establish—an undue delay, much less an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose. + +Finally, the defendant again asks the Court to "defer consideration of this motion until trial." (Def. Mot. at 22). The Court should again reject the defendant's invitation to defer ruling on this motion. See Apr. Op. at 18 (denying motion but allowing renewal of motion if the "factual record at trial shows otherwise"); see also United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) ("The motion to dismiss the Indictment as the result of pre-indictment delay is therefore denied, without prejudice to appropriately supported later motion + +practice."); United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss on the ground of pre-indictment delay without prejudice to renewal). + +Because the defendant cannot meet her "heavy burden" of establishing either element of unconstitutional delay, let alone both, her motion to dismiss the S2 Indictment for pre-indictment delay is meritless and should be denied. + +# V. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature + +The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One, Three, or Five on the ground that they are multiplicitous. Consistent with this Court's prior ruling on a nearly identical issue, this motion should be denied as premature. (See Apr. Op. at 27-28). Each of these three counts charges the defendant with conspiring to commit distinct and separate crimes. In particular, Count One alleges that the defendant agreed to entice minors to travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, Count Three alleges that she agreed to transport minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), and Count Five alleges that she agreed to engage in the sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 11-13, 17-19, 23-25. Given the different objects of each conspiracy count, a jury could possibly find that the defendant committed some but not all of these charged offenses, and the Court will be best positioned to complete any multiplicity analysis after a full factual record is developed at trial. Accordingly, and consistent with the Second Circuit's prior finding that district courts should defer ruling on a multiplicity challenge until after trial, this motion should be denied as premature. United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). + +# VI. A Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted + +The defendant again seeks a bill of particulars, this time related to Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. Because the Government has provided the defendant with more than sufficient information—through both the S2 Indictment and discovery—to understand the charges against her, to prepare a defense, and to protect against double jeopardy, this motion should be denied. The instant motion seeks essentially the same type of details that the defendant sought with regards to Counts One through Four in her prior motions. For the same reasons that the Court denied that prior motion, this motion should also be denied. (See Apr. Op. at 19). + +The proper purpose of a bill of particulars under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) is "to provide defendant with information about the details of the charge against him if this is necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required 'only where the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.' United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 901 F.2d at 234); see United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014). + +As was the case with the charges contained in the prior indictment, the charges contained in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are clear from the face of the charging instrument, which provides significant detail. As is apparent from the 23-page speaking S2 Indictment, Counts Five and Six concern the defendant's participation in a conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors with Epstein and her participation in, and aiding and abetting of, the sex trafficking of a particular minor identified as Minor Victim-4 with Epstein from approximately 2001 through 2004. + +The S2 Indictment identifies Minor Victim-4 as a victim of the conspiracy charged in Count Five and the trafficking offense contained in Count Six. See, e.g., S2 Indictment ¶¶ 9(d), 25, 27. Further, the S2 Indictment provides extensive detail regarding how the sex trafficking scheme operated. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 6-7. In particular, the S2 Indictment explains that the defendant or another of Epstein's employees would: call a minor victim to schedule an appointment to massage Epstein; greet the minor victim at Epstein's Palm Beach residence and escort her into a massage room, where Epstein would then engage in sex acts with the victim; and pay the minor victim hundreds of dollars in cash after the massage. See id.1 7. The S2 Indictment specifies the types of sex acts involved in this conduct, see id. ¶ 7(b), and further identifies the particular role that the defendant played in facilitating the trafficking of Minor Victim-4, see id. ¶ 9(d). Among other things, the S2 Indictment describes conversations the defendant had with Minor Victim-4 and further explains that the defendant called Minor Victim-4 to schedule massage appointments, paid Minor Victim-4 after completing massages, sent Minor Victim-4 gifts from New York to Florida, and encouraged Minor Victim-4 to bring other young females to massage Epstein. See id. + +Given all of these details, the S2 Indictment alone provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F. App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ("'[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' Particulars are necessary only where indictment charges are 'so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.' (internal citation omitted) (quoting , 901 F.2d at 234; United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151, 163 (2d Cir. 2004))); United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) (denying motion for bill of particulars where "the Indictment is a 'speaking' Indictment that provides a significant amount of detail as to the Government's theory of the case and the nature of the proof that will underlie the charges at trial"). + +Moreover, the discovery in this case has provided the defense with even more information regarding the charges contained in Counts Five and Six, thus providing another basis on which to deny this motion. To assist the defense in reviewing this discovery, the same day that the S2 Indictment was returned, the Government provided the defense with a list of particular ranges that relate specifically to Minor Victim-4 and the charges contained in Counts Five and Six. As a result, the Government has identified particularly relevant pieces of evidence regarding these charges for the defense. (See Dkt. No. 188 at 3-4). This evidence includes, among other things, portions of message pads seized from Epstein's Palm Beach residence referencing messages left by Minor Victim-4 during the period charged in Counts Five and Six; phone records reflecting calls made by another Epstein employee to Minor Victim-4; Federal Express records reflecting a shipment from Epstein's address in New York to Minor Victim-4; and contemporary photographs of Minor Victim-4. The Government has also provided the defense with Minor Victim-4's birth month and year. Additionally, the defense has flight records for Epstein's private plane, reflecting when Epstein, the defendant, and other employees traveled to and from Palm Beach on the plane during the period charged in Counts Five and Six. In other words, the discovery provides the defendant with more than sufficient information about Minor Victim-4 to permit her to prepare for trial. + +Similar to the other three minor victims referenced in the S2 Indictment, any remaining detail regarding the specifics of abuse and particular interactions will come from witness testimony. As is to be expected when describing events more than a decade in the past, that testimony will provide approximate time periods when events occurred, rather than specific dates. + +Given the information the defendant already has from the Indictment and discovery, any additional detail would essentially serve as early Jencks Act production. The discovery gives the defense ample information to assist in its investigation, and given the defense's apparent ability to understand who Minor Victim-4 is from the productions, (see, e.g., Def. Mot. at 3, 7-9, 24-25), there is no real concern that the defense will waste efforts conducting any such investigation before receiving Jencks Act material.? Accordingly, and consistent with the Court's prior ruling on a similar issue in this case, the motion for a bill of particulars should be denied. + +# VII. Minor Victim-4's Prior Statements Constitute Giglio and Jencks Act Material, Which Do Not Warrant Immediate Disclosure + +The defendant moves for the immediate disclosure of any prior inconsistent statement made by Minor Victim-4. In other words, the defense seeks immediate production of impeachment material for this particular witness under Giglio. As the Government has already noted in prior briefing, it is aware of its disclosure obligations and intends to produce Giglio material for all of its witnesses, including Minor Victim-4, at least six weeks in advance of trial. Consistent with the practice in this District, the Court has previously concluded that such time is sufficient for the defense to prepare for trial and make use of any impeachment material. (See Apr. Op. at 30). + +The Government agrees that any prior statement in which Minor Victim-4 discussed her interactions with Epstein, but omitted mention of the defendant, must be disclosed to the defense in advance of trial. Contrary to the defense's assertion, however, such prior statements are classic impeachment material that need only be produced sufficiently in advance of trial to permit the defense adequate time to make use of them. See United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144, 146 + +7 Although Minor Victim-4's identity is clear from the discovery, and the defendant's motion makes clear that she strongly suspects Minor Victim-4's identity, there is no basis at this time to require the Government to turn over the names of its witnesses, including its victim-witnesses in advance of its Jencks Act production, which is customary in this District. + +(2d Cir. 2001) (prosecution must produce Giglio material "in time for its effective use at trial"). Impeachment material simply does not warrant immediate disclosure. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 701 (1974) ("Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial."); United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) ("The Government has represented that it will make impeachment material relating to its anticipated witnesses available ... ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."). + +Although not essential to the timing analysis here, the Government notes that the defense motion overstates the significance of the particular statements Minor Victim-4 made during the USAO-SDFL's investigation. The Government understands from its more recent interviews with Minor Victim-4, the notes of which the Government will produce to the defense as part of Minor Victim-4's Giglio and Jencks Act material, that she was not asked any questions about the defendant during her only interview in connection with the USAO-SDFL's investigation, which focused instead on Epstein and another of Epstein's employees. Notably, though, when Minor Victim-4 was deposed in connection with a civil lawsuit after she was interviewed during the USAO-SDFL's investigation but more than a decade before the defendant was indicted in this case, Minor Victim-4 affirmatively stated that the defendant was one of the individuals who scheduled her massage appointments with Epstein. Minor Victim-4 was not asked any follow-up questions about the defendant during that deposition, but her prior consistent statement regarding the defendant's involvement in scheduling her massages severely undercuts the defense's suggestion that Minor Victim-4 entirely fabricated the defendant's role in Epstein's scheme after the defendant was indicted in 2020. The Government fully intends to provide the defense with all + +prior statements of Minor Victim-4 in its possession, including the transcript of this civil deposition and reports of more recent interviews, at least six weeks in advance of trial. Accordingly, the defense motion for immediate disclosure of impeachment material should be denied. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny all of the defendant's supplemental pretrial motions. + +Dated: New York, New York May 21, 2021 + +Respectfully submined, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f583212347b3b2448be9291be267991b08e60028 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546/EFTA02832546.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1372 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832546.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 26, + "chars": 52062, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.42, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION \nTO THE DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.952, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 492.26953125, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 492.26953125, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 119.952, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.143310546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.143310546875, + 85.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 85.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.052, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.052, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 84.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 110.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 113.4096908569336, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 113.4096908569336, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Bar the Superseding \nIndictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Counts Five and Six Are Not Barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 465.5300598144531, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 465.5300598144531, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Counts Five and Six Are Timely", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 279.42864990234375, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 279.42864990234375, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the S2 Indictment Based on Alleged Improper \nPre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 542.913330078125, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 542.913330078125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count \nThree as Multiplicitous Is Premature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8721923828125, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8721923828125, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. A Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.86907958984375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.86907958984375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. Minor Victim-4's Prior Statements Constitute Giglio and Jencks Act Material, \nWhich Do Not Warrant Immediate Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.565673828125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.565673828125, + 293.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 293.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 192.363037109375 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 192.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832546" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5ef46564843d092b85d0aef242acaecea0a8090 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-76(X) ceverdelletcohengn:sser.c. + +May 28, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +800 Third Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone venewcthengresser.com + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing our Omnibus Reply Memorandum in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Supplemental Pretrial Motions Relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment. + +The reply memorandum contains Confidential Information produced in discovery that is governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). Accordingly, pursuant to our prior practice, we will not file the reply memorandum on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court. Instead, we will submit the reply memorandum by email to the Court and the government under seal—pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice—to give the government the opportunity to propose and justify any redactions it deems necessary. + +Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 2Ist Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (via email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a63cf4152403fc3099e4578ba1bad90e702cce18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/EFTA02832572.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1454, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 238.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 238.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832572" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0512ba4050ec7a6b864e2dbb2183412bfc9956c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832572/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4b1fcf474c8b826f7ed1ac23c05947992723594aa103907a10afacff81b71887 +size 1591 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d56b4c9f409f7b172e6ca2c973e3bca1fa50dad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|--------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 6/2/21 | + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Having considered the parties' respective proposals, Dkt. No. 291, the Court hereby sets the following disclosure schedule: + +September 13, 2021: Disclosure of alleged victims' identities (Government's proposal) October 11, 2021: Government's disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, co-conspirator statements, and Government AA I mess list (Government's proposal) October 11, 2021: Government's disclosure of its proposed exhibit list (Defendant's proposal) October 18, 2021: Simultaneous filing of motions in limine (agreement of the parties) October 25, 2021: Simultaneous filing of proposed jury questionnaire and voir dire (agreement of the parties) November 1, 2021: Defense expert disclosures (Defendant's proposal) November 1, 2021: Responses to motions in limine (agreement of the parties) November 8, 2021: Simultaneous filing of requests to charge and verdict sheet (agreement of the parties) + +- - November 8, 2021: Defense disclosures pursuant to Rules 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) materials (The Government proposed November 1, 2021; the Defendant proposed the close of the Government's case-in-chief) +- - Close of the Government's case-in-chief: Defense witness list and 26.2 statements (Defendant's proposal) + +These dates establish a baseline for when the parties must disclose certain materials. + +Each of the parties has a continuing obligation to update all disclosures if they become aware of additional responsive materials. In addition, and as requested by the parties, the parties may bring issues to the Court's attention that arise after the deadline for motions *in limine* if the issues could not have been raised within the deadline set for *in limine* motions. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 2, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a68cda2a6f1e549fa6913830b0394dd5a51aba25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573/EFTA02832573.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832573.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2229, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.39, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832573" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..971c2071db18c87fdd1e7000e39c1eea1c4330b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 6/4/21 + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 27, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request for authorization to serve a subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Dkt. No. 252. The Court requested the Government's views as to three of those requests: Request 9, which sought production of Minor Victim-2's entire diary from her teenage years; Request 10, which targeted a pair of boots that Minor Victim-2 allegedly received as a gift from Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell; and Request II, which sought original versions of certain photographs. Id. The Government submitted its views on May 4, 2021. Dkt. No. 269. It supplemented its letter on May 6, 2021. Dkt. No. 271. The Defendant filed a response on May 12, 2021. Having considered the parties' views, the Defendant's request is denied in full. + +As noted, Request 9 seeks the original copy of a journal from an alleged victim from when she was a teenager. Maxwell received copies of some of the pages in the journal from the Government pursuant to Rule 16, but the Government represents that it does not have access to the entire journal. In those pages, Minor Victim-2 describes a trip to New York in which she spent time with Epstein and, among other things, visited his residence. Minor Victim-2 also describes her impression of Epstein at the time. Them is no indication that Maxwell is mentioned there or anywhere else in the journal. + +Maxwell appears to proffer two theories of relevance as to the entire journal. While she studiously avoids using the word, one such theory relates to impeachment. As this Court has noted, the potential impeachment of a witness does not provide grounds for issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena because such materials would only become relevant after a witness has testified. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 22.54538, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases). + +The other theory of relevance that Maxwell proffers is that if the rest of the journal does not mention her, the journal as a whole may serve as exculpatory evidence. At best, the theory amounts to little more than a "fishing expedition," which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-70 (1974). In any event, the argument is too speculative to meet the standard set forth in Nixon. To begin with, the request appears to be overbroad; under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR-55 I (MN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). It appears from the briefing that the diary includes entries from before Minor Victim-2's first time meeting Epstein or Maxwell. Maxwell does not explain why the absence of references to her in those entries would be relevant, and she provides no other basis as to the relevance of any portions of the diary that precede her meeting Epstein or Maxwell. And here, too, the theory that the rest of the journal contradicts Minor Victim-2's anticipated testimony as to specific incidents is, in its nature, targeted at impeaching the alleged victim's anticipated testimony. + +In addition, Maxwell does not plausibly establish the relevance of the rest of the diary other than the pages she has already received. BSF has represented that the rest of the journal does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Dkt. No. 191 at 5. The Government has similarly represented that it understands that Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in the diary shortly after meeting Jeffrey Epstein and that the diary, as a result, has no entries relating to any later trips she took with Epstein. Dkt. No. 204 at 187. Maxwell does not provide any nonconclusory basis to doubt these representations. So while it is undisputed that Maxwell is not referenced in the diary—BSF, the Government, and Maxwell all agree on this point—the absence of references alone, without regard to whether the diary contains entries relevant to the incidents about which Minor Victim-2 is expected to testify at trial, does not establish any relevance except as to potential impeachment. + +Nor do any of Maxwell's additional arguments establish the relevance of the rest of the journal. She points to the fairness doctrine and Rules 106 and Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as providing additional bases for the propriety of the request under Rule 17(c). She cites cases regarding the fairness doctrine in the context of attorney-client privilege that have no application to the issue presently before the Court. Furthermore, to the extent she makes an argument under Rule 106 or Rule 612, the argument is premature. Even assuming that Rule 106 and Rule 612 could provide grounds for admissibility and relevance at trial, that would only ripen at trial if portions of the journal are introduced and admitted. Her Rule 612 argument is further strained by the fact that, even if that rule applied, it would not entitle the Defendant to production of the entire journal. The Rule provides that "[i]f the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party." Fed. R. Evid. 6I2(b). Here, both the Government and BSF, on behalf of Minor Victim-2, have asserted that the rest of the journal is unrelated. In any event, none of these principles establish the relevance of the journal beyond impeachment, and all of the arguments presented to the contrary are + +meritless. Lastly, Maxwell's theory that a forensic analysis could reveal the date that the journal was written and whether it had been altered is for impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. Moreover, it is entirely speculative and unsubstantiated. Maxwell provides no actual reason to doubt the journal's authenticity. In her May 12, 2021 letter, Maxwell claims that two copies of one of the pages are "obviously, and noticeably, different." The difference, which is not explained in the letter, is neither obvious nor noticeable to this Court. Indeed, the writing and handwriting in the two exhibits certainly look identical. At most, one version appears to be a photograph of the page in the journal (Exhibit A), while the other appears to be a photocopy of the same page (Exhibit B). Maxwell fails to identify any actual differences. Separately, here again Maxwell's arguments sound in impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that a Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper vehicle for Request 9. + +Request 10 seeks production of a pair of black boots that Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly gave to an alleged victim. The Government has indicated that it has requested that BSF produce the boots to the FBI and that, when the boots are in the FBI's possession, the Government will promptly make them available to the defense for examination and use at trial. Maxwell contends that the Court should nonetheless order the boots' production to the defense. The argument is meritless. Rule 17(c) is not the proper mechanism for discovery from third parties where the sought-after item is "otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700. That is the case here: The Government has represented that the defense will be able to inspect the boots before trial. The Defendant's request is therefore denied as moot. If the Government fails to make the boots available for inspection within a reasonable + +timeframe, the Defendant may make an application to the Court to compel the Government to adhere to its representation. + +Request 11 seeks production of the original versions of certain photographs of the alleged victim. Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their authenticity. In its May 6 letter, the Government indicated that the original versions of a subset of the photographs are in the FBI's possession. and the Government will make those photographs available to the defense for inspection upon request. The Court agrees with the Government that the request is moot as to those photographs. Again, to the extent that the Government fails to comply with its representation that it will make those photographs available to the defense upon request, the defense may make an application to the Court. + +As to the remaining photographs, the request is denied on the basis that the defense has failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. But the defense proffers that it seeks the original versions of these photographs in order to determine whether they are genuine. The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment. Maxwell does not set forth any other nonconclusory basis for their relevance. And again, because impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon's relevance requirement. But even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs. + +## I. Conclusion + +The Defendant's motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(cX3) is DENIED. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 4, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea2bec66f436d5e1be080dd84e9f904c1cbd4e57 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575/EFTA02832575.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,291 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832575.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 9797, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.72, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 186.28225708007812, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 186.28225708007812, + 638.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 638.6030120849609 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832575" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a10ac54438e05b19356bd92cf80bb34d926263d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +21-58-cr (L), 21-770-cr +United States v. Maxwell + +**United States Court of Appeals** +FOR THE +**SECOND CIRCUIT** + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: June 07, 2021 | + +At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. + +PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, +RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., +RICHARD J. [REDACTED], +*Circuit Judges.* + +United States of America, + +*Appellee,* + +v. + +21-58-cr (L) +21-770-cr + +Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, + +*Defendant-Appellant.* + +Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals from orders of the District Court entered December 28, 2020 and March 22, 2021, which denied her renewed requests for bail pending trial. See Dkts. 1, 20. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the District Court's orders are AFFIRMED and that Appellant's motion for bail, or in the alternative, temporary pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), Dkt. 39, is DENIED. During oral argument, counsel for Appellant expressed concern that Appellant was improperly being deprived of sleep while incarcerated. To the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court. + +FOR THE COURT: +Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court + +A True Copy + +Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe Clerk + +United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e86b4c3dea32de65f3cf2c78ff42d1fc4afbf417 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581/EFTA02832581.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832581.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1673, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 425.34000000000003, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 425.34000000000003, + 162.0 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 162.0 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832581" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c3ed9c2d171fd719ed9f77195611ac6be6918d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.md @@ -0,0 +1,1163 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-306.6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheIrnlow.com + +June 15, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +This letter is submitted in response to the government's letter of June 7, 2021, updating the Court concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of detention. This letter, like the ones before it, contains second- and third-hand information and presents a one-sided review, giving the Court and the public the false impression that Ms. Maxwell is detained under favorable and privileged conditions. Each time, the defense feels compelled to respond to give the Court and the public a complete and accurate picture of Ms. Maxwell's unacceptable conditions of confinement. This is not the purpose that these updates were designed to serve. Accordingly, the defense requests that any further updates be limited to changed circumstances. + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell can personally attest to many problems that are not reported to the government, not conveyed to the Court, and not docketed for public review. The following is a sample of new and recurring problems: + +- **Last week, raw sewage permeated Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell, necessitating her removal to another cell.** +- **Vermin droppings fell from air vents.** +- **Guards now prevent Ms. Maxwell from removing legal documents from the videoconferencing room for review during the lunch hour.** + +- **On Sunday, guards initially refused to allow Ms. Maxwell to bring a notebook to a scheduled in-person legal conference, disbelieving her assertion that it contained legal material. A guard reviewed the contents of the notebook, reading pages containing confidential and privileged work product, before permitting Ms. Maxwell to bring the notebook to the legal visit.** +- **Contrary to previous legal conferences, neither counsel nor Ms. Maxwell were permitted to have any water in the individual conference room during Sunday's four-hour legal conference.** +- **Three to six guards watched Ms. Maxwell and counsel for the entirety of the conference.** +- **Neither counsel nor Ms. Maxwell were permitted to use the most rudimentary of earbuds to listen to audio files on counsel's laptop, requiring the volume to be raised to maximum level. Ms. Maxwell cannot have privileged communications with her counsel and adequately prepare for trial if the prison guards can hear what she is reviewing and discussing with counsel.** +- **The prison guards ordered counsel to reposition her portfolio, which was being used to shield glare from the plexiglass divider separating counsel from Ms. Maxwell to permit counsel to have a clearer view of the laptop, because the portfolio was restricting the guards' view of counsel.** +- **At one point, a prison guard interrogated counsel about what she was doing with her hands. (Counsel was blotting a bleeding finger with note paper.)** +- **At the conclusion of Sunday's legal visit, counsel requested that the guards inventory Ms. Maxwell's documents in the presence of counsel to avoid the problem that ensued following the April 24'h visit when counsel was falsely accused of improperly leaving documents with Ms. Maxwell.** +- **Yesterday, the monitor which has been used for video conferencing for months was repositioned to a distance further away from Ms. Maxwell impacting her ability to review screen-shared documents with counsel. The request was immediately denied.** +- Today's videoconferencing was reduced by 90 minutes while changes were made to MDC equipment. These changes have disrupted videoconferencing, which had been working well, and now severely impact attorney-client communication and the ability to prepare the case for trial. On counsel's end, the audio is impacted by a whirling, whistling sound - like water going down a drain. The video is completely blurred, causing eye strain, and compromising the sharing of documents, which are too hazy to decipher. On the MDC end, the audio is loud and echoes, making it difficult to understand and audible to staff, compromising attorney-client confidentiality. The monitor- now enclosed in a box with a plastic cover - is now positioned some three to four feet away from Ms. Maxwell. This distance impacts Ms. Maxwell's ability to view screen-shared documents and requires her to contort her body - back and neck - and risk further injury while attempting to see shared legal documents. + +During a recent sentencing in which defense counsel described deplorable conditions at the MCC, Judge McMahon acknowledged that the defendant had been subjected to conditions as "disgusting, inhuman as anything I've heard about any Colombian prison, but more so because we're supposed to be better than that." United States v. Tiffany Days, 19 Cr. 619 (CM), Sentencing Transcript at 19 (annexed as Exhibit A.) Addressing both the MCC and the MDC, Judge McMahon boldly stated: + +[T]here is no excuse for the conditions in those two institutions.... [Detainees] shouldn't suffer for the incompetence of the United States Department of Justice and its subsidiary agency, the Bureau of Prisons. I will do what I can to bring your situation to the people who, if they give a damn, might do something. + +Exhibit A at 20. + +Numerous complaints have been brought to the Court's attention regarding recurring problematic conditions at the MDC and over-management of Ms. Maxwell. Little if anything has been done to improve Ms. Maxwell's conditions; and the government's updates to the Court embolden the MDC to maintain the status quo. The ever-changing rules are negatively impacting Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and are interfering with privileged attorney-client communication. The hyper-surveillance of Ms. Maxwell and counsel during legal visits is highly inappropriate and invasive. At a minimum, this should not be sanctioned by the Court. + +Very truly yours, + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Counsel for both parties + +## EXHIBIT A + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. 19 CR 0619(CM) Videoconference + +TIFFANY DAYS, + +Defendant. + +Before: + +x + +New York, N.Y. April 29, 2021 11:23 a.m. + +HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON, + +District Judge + +APPEARANCES VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE + +AUDREY STRAUSS, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: NICHOLAS W. CHIUCHIOLO Assistant United States Attorney + +DONALDSON, CHILLIEST & McDANIEL, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: XAVIER R. DONALDSON + +4 5 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Good morning, your Honor. Nicholas Chiuchiolo on behalf of the government. + +6 THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Chiuchiolo. + +7 8 9 MR. DONALDSON: Good morning, your Honor. Xavier R. Donaldson on behalf of Ms. Days. Good morning, Mr. Chiuchiolo. Good morning, everyone else. + +10 THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Donaldson. + +11 Good morning, Ms. Days. + +12 THE DEFENDANT: Good morning, Judge. + +13 THE COURT: The court reporter. + +14 I'm very sorry about the technical difficulty. + +15 Mr. O'Neil may be looking at himself on five screens. + +16 THE DEPUTY CLERK: I'm going to try again, Judge. + +17 18 19 THE COURT: I'm going to proceed. This matter is on for sentencing under docket number 19 CR 619, United States of America v. Tiffany Days. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Days, having pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, a class B felony, in violation of 21, United States Code, Section 846, 841(b)(1)(B) and 841(a)(1). This crime carries a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years, to a statutory mandatory -- not mandatory, + +(The Court and all parties appearing via videoconference) + +THE COURT: 19 CR 619, United States of America v. + +Tiffany Days. Your appearances, counsel? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +statutory maximum of 40 years' imprisonment, a minimum term of four years to a maximum term of lifetime supervised release, a maximum fine of \$5 million, and a \$100 special assessment. + +In connection with this matter, I have received and reviewed the presentence sentence investigation report prepared by United States Probation Officer Sandra Vella . It was filed with the Court on October 15, 2020. I have a letter on the stationery of the United States Attorney's Office dated March 27, 2020. That looks to me like the plea agreement. So I have a copy of the plea agreement. I have a memo dated April 22nd, 2021, on the stationery of the United States Attorney's Office, which is in the nature of a sentencing memorandum from the government. I have a sentencing memorandum filed on April 21st, 2021 from Mr. Donaldson. + +Aside from the waiver, which we'll talk about in one minute, is there anything else I should have seen in writing prior to today's proceeding? I should note that Mr. Donaldson's memorandum has, I believe, some attachments to it. No, it doesn't. It does not. That's the other one. Okay. + +Is there anything else I should have seen in writing prior to today's proceeding from the government? + +MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Not from the government, your Honor. + +THE COURT: From the defense? + +MR. DONALDSON: No, I don't believe so, your Honor. + +Thank you. You have everything. + +THE COURT: Okay. Now, I have in front of me a document entitled Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding and Consent to Proceed Via Video or Telephone Conference. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I make the findings required of me under the CARES Act. I make the findings required of me under the CARES Act that it is necessary to hold this proceeding remotely, and I understand, by the way, that this is also being done at Ms. Days' request. + +Is that correct, Mr. Donaldson? + +MR. DONALDSON: That is correct, your Honor. Yes. + +THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Days, I have in front of me this waiver of your right to be present at this proceeding. Do you understand that you have the right to be in the courtroom physically present with me, physically present, at the time of your sentence? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to speak directly in that courtroom to me? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +THE COURT: Is it your wish to proceed with your sentencing via this video and teleconference? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Have you discussed these issues with + +4 5 THE COURT: And have you authorized Mr. Donaldson to sign this document in which you waive your right to be present in the courtroom at your sentencing? + +6 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes, your Honor. + +7 8 THE COURT: Mr. Donaldson, did you, in fact, sign this document on behalf of your client? + +9 MR. DONALDSON: I did, your Honor. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: Ms. Days, you should understand that you will have the right, anytime you want to, to speak privately to Mr. Donaldson. One of the ways in which this device works, this CourtCall works, is we can put you in a breakout room with your lawyer if you need to speak to him privately during the sentencing. Do you understand that? + +16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +17 18 THE COURT: All right. Has the government reviewed the presentence report? + +19 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Yes, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: Any additions, deletions or corrections? + +21 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: No, your Honor. + +22 23 THE COURT: Does the government wish to be heard on sentencing? + +24 25 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Your Honor, the government will rely on its sentencing submission, which the Court has reviewed. + +Mr. Donaldson? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, several times. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +As the Court is aware, this is the defendant's fourth felony conviction for narcotics offense, and we agree with the probation office that a guidelines sentence would be appropriate in this case. + +THE COURT: Thank you very much. + +Mr. Donaldson, have you reviewed the presentence report? + +MR. DONALDSON: Yes, I have, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Have you gone over it with Ms. Days? + +MR. DONALDSON: Several times, your Honor. + +THE COURT: I will hear you on sentencing, sir. + +MR. DONALDSON: Thank you very much, your Honor. + +As the Court is aware, the Court read the PSR, as we all did, and the guideline range that came back from the PSR was 63 to 78 months, similar to what we agreed to in our plea agreement. The probation department recommended 63 months of incarceration. + +We are recommending -- requesting that the Court sentence Ms. Day to 60 months, approximately three months below what the probation department is recommending and which would be the statutory minimum. + +In our writing to the Court, we tried to provide the Court a background of Ms. Days and, we hope, some indication of why we believe 60 months is appropriate, rather than 63 months or rather than a guidelines sentence. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +First and foremost, we believe, I think, this case pretty much revolves around deterrence and whether Ms. Days will be a productive member of society when she returns or when she gets released. I think that's probably the central issue for the sentencing proceeding. + +We do agree -- there's no way we can disagree -- that Ms. Days does have several prior convictions. That's a given, and we agree that Ms. Days has been convicted of a felony narcotics, that's a given as well. I guess, it's my opinion in doing these sentencing proceedings so many times, I think the focus of this particular case, if we isolate it, would be whether or not -- or what would be deterrence to Ms. Days and what we believe would be sufficient to ensure that when she comes back out, that she's productive. The minimum of that, not the maximum. What the least we can do to make sure she's deterred. + +In our opinion, we believe the 60 months is appropriate for a number of reasons. One, we believe that, like most defendants when they get arrested in Federal Court, we believe that rehabilitation starts at the time that they are arrested and, generally, if they're detained, at the time when they are detained. + +In this particular situation, we think that Ms. Days' rehabilitation and her deterrence started at that time, while in MCC and MDC. Start with MCC. Ms. Days made sure that she + +got involved in as many programs as she could to make sure that she was preparing herself for when she got released. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I think as soon as she got arrested and as soon as she got detained and as soon as she was at MCC, she realized that it's time to start making herself a better person. So in order to do that, as I indicated on page 6 of my writing submission, she must have completed at least nine or ten different programs. + +Just to name a few, the first one I thought was really important was the inmate companion program. The reason why I put that first, and I think that's probably, in my opinion, the most important, is because not only does it help herself out, but she was trying to help others. And I think that's important going forward, that Ms. Day understands that's important to better herself while she's incarcerated. + +If she can help someone else out, that's good as well, and we need those kind of people when we get outside, people who not only help themselves but people who help others. So the fact that she participated in this inmate companion program for at least 16 or 17 months is very important. + +She also completed the Focus Forward project, which I know the courts in this district really take some good solace and put some weight behind that. She completed that program as well. + +She completed the Alternative to Drug Dealing, which + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +is important because she has a drug-selling history; so she participated in a program to help her understand the alternatives to that. So she did that program as well. + +She did the Square One program, Trauma in Life workshop. That's important because Ms. Days suffered significant trauma while she was growing up. That's articulated in my writing. I won't go through that again, but there is no doubt that Ms. Days suffered significant trauma while she was growing up. + +Did that participate into why she committed crimes? Yes, it did. When I do my case -- when I represent my clients, I try to figure out the why and at least articulate the why to the Court. The why, I think, is stated in my papers why she began this track or this road towards criminality. + +I think -- I'm sure that this time at MCC has cut that and stopped that. We'll get to that in a second, but I'm sure that that's stopped at this point. Women in the 21st Century program, she did that, creative arts and several other programs, a lot involving actually reading, understanding and appreciating literature, which I think is significantly important. I think the more folks read different books, read literature, it's like going on vacation to that particular place, they learn more and they learn more about themselves + +I was very interested in knowing that she read books by very good authors. Actually, one of my favorites is + +Mr. Coates, but she read some books by Mr. Coates. She read a 4 5 few books by Mr. Baldwin. So those are fantastic books to read. The fact that she's reading those books and participating in discussing the topics and the subject matters of those books means a lot. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 It can take weeks to talk about why, but those books and books like that, when you read them and you talk about them, you discuss them, it opens your mind up and it takes you away from the criminality and more to thought processing and understanding how life really works. So I thought those were very important. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 She also has significant community support. Her mother is in support of -- albeit, very ill, but still supportive. Her brother is, her aunts are, her uncle is. I believe some other people, maybe one or two, are on the line right now. But she does have that family support, and I think and I'm sure will assist her, when she gets released, to ensure that she doesn't come back to court. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 Finally, and this is most important -- not most important but very important to me. This Covid-19 lockdown, and she even participated in the other lockdown regarding a particular inmate. MCC, over the last 18, 19 months, have been nothing short of -- I mean, I'll say it on the record -- I think it's been inhumane. + +25 I don't think our society is being as just as it is. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I'm a firm believer that any society should be judged and can be, I guess, rated by how they treat its poorest citizens and by how it treats those that are incarcerated. + +MCC is not a good, for lack of a better word, a good look for America. Its treatment of its prisoners, the inmates, in the last 14 months have been nothing short, in my opinion, of inhumane, cruel and harsh and unreasonably unjust. If there's -- if I can say, unreasonably unjust. + +She has suffered immensely. She can tell you more about that, and Ms. Days is one of the few clients of mine that can articulate very well what she's experienced and what's going on in there. + +I firmly agree with Judge Oetken when he ruled just recently in U.S. v. , that we should be providing some extra time for anybody who spent time in MCC or MDC during this lockdown. I will note that several years ago we used to try to articulate, when people spent time in prisons in other countries related to a crime, that they were going to be brought back to America, we sometimes used that to say, well, he spent a year or two in a harsh, Mexico or El Salvadoran prison and that's significantly different than U.S.A. + +The time that she's spent in MCC is significantly worse than any time that anyone thought possible in the last 400 years in a federal jail in America. It's just been, again, nothing short of inhumane, in my opinion. And to bring that + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +point home, Ms. Days -- although she's never had a single ticket since she's been locked up in MCC or MDC, and I would be remiss if I didn't say that's been difficult and challenging because the inmates, the officers, everyone is frustrated and their frustrations breeds hostility and breeds, you know, people just coming at each other. + +She has resisted any of that and has not had any tickets. In fact, she's tried to help people instead of get tickets, but nonetheless, she spent 75 days in the SHU. Now, the SHU is normally reserved for persons who get tickets. It's a disciplinary action. And I think society, we know that, is now moving away from the isolation because we know that it causes significant mental hardship. It's debilitating. It causes future mental hardship once you get released from the SHU. + +Ms. Days has spent 75 days in the SHU. That is absolutely, positively incredible, in my opinion, because I've not had a client do that who has not had a ticket. So because of that, because of the other reasons I've articulated, I firmly believe that Ms. Days has been specifically deterred. + +I don't like to talk about general deterrence because I don't think that works. I think it's -- well, that's my own issues, but I do think she's been specifically deterred. I think that she has been really punished. I think the five years will be significantly more than time she's spent before. + +I think it will serve to ensure that she does not come back to court. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +If the Court has any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but I do believe 60 months is appropriate and sufficient for Ms. Days for this particular case. + +THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Donaldson. + +Anything else from the government? + +MR. CHIUCHIOLO: No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Days, is there anything that you want to say to me before I sentence you? + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor, I would like to. + +First, I would like to say thank you for even allowing me to be on video court. I haven't been in your courtroom since 2019, and it's been a long haul, the time that I've spent in federal prison. + +Your Honor, I just would like to focus a couple of things and reiterate in my letter and speak to you because I haven't seen you in all this time, in all these years. Doing time in MCC has been very hard for me. It seems like doing time in MCC was three times harder than doing time in MDC's dorm setting. + +In MCC, we were locked in for anything from minor to major. I was locked up during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and I went straight to being locked in a cell, unable to speak to my family or my son. I was arrested and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +kept inside of the cell and unable to even make a phone call to speak to anyone. + +In February 2020, during the firearm lockdown, we were locked down for 14 days. In those 14 days we were given three showers, and that's because we begged for them. We kicked and screamed on the doors, and the exact words were "Use the sink." No phones, no computers, or things that we used to communicate with the outside world were denied to us. + +We were totally ignored. No water, no sanitary napkins. Girls that caught their period, were bleeding and had to sleep in garments and stay in those sheets, and were unable to use the laundry. And for the most part, we just got totally ignored every time we would scream and bang and ask for anybody to tell us what was going on. + +When Floyd got killed, we were locked in for another ten days. We were not given showers again, no phone calls, no recreation, no commissary. + +I also survived the disgusting feces flood that we were actually told to clean with our own hands. It was humiliating. Floating, dead water bugs, mice, chunks of defecation coming out of the pipes and urine-filled water gushing all through the area. The water was as high as my ankles, and the smell was as bad. It was so bad, the inmates were vomiting due to nausea. Chunks of feces. And officers telling us that we had to clean it and clean it quick because + +4 5 6 7 I froze in a cell for seven-and-a-half months with no heat, sleeping with a hat, gloves, sweat pants and sweatshirts. The cell that they put me in MCC, the ventilation was totally broke. I would cry myself to sleep, teeth chattering, thinking at times I would die. I would wake up with lines on my eyes. The tears I cried, they were frozen on my face. + +8 9 10 My roommates were mice. They would come out of large holes in the wall that were as big as tennis balls, jumping around, running around the cells, just playing on the vents. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 On April 20th -- excuse me -- on April 20th, 2020, I was the first female inmate to catch Covid-19. I was put in a room, a SHU room that's used for disciplinary, with no water, no medication, and I wasn't seen for six days. It wasn't until five days after I was sick that the women in the unit were provided with facemasks. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 I was so sick and dehydrated that my lips were cracking and bleeding through the mask. When a nurse noticed, she asked the officer if I could have a cup because cups are not provided in SHU. So I was unable to take in water like I needed. Two days later, she came back and said she had given me the wrong medication. + +23 24 25 I was so weak from suffering from fever and diarrhea, that I was even unable to be on the phone for my own bail hearing that was conducted with all of you guys. They had me + +lunch was on the way. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +on full quarantine and full isolation and said I was not going to be able to use the phone because I was infected. + +During the lockdown and the time that I was in SHU, I was without a cup to drink water. I was fed frozen boxes of baloney sandwiches that most of the time came molded because it was expired. They gave us frozen peanut butter, lunch and dinner, jelly sandwiches that were frozen -- they hurt your teeth -- potato chips that had expiration dates of 2019. + +At MCC, no matter how much I complained or told them the pain that I was going through, nobody cared. I was left in the SHU cell and people would just come by to see the person that was sick from Covid. They wasn't trying to help me. They just wanted to see who was the person in the cell that was infected so they know who to stay away from. The solitude of lockdown drove me insane, and came to the point that I started talking to myself and seeing shadows. + +After being transferred to MDC Brooklyn, I was tested for Covid-19, and I tested positive again in December 2020. I was put in SHU for five days. I was there for five days, on a 23-hour lockdown, handcuffed to come out and shower, fed through a hole in the door, in a cell with no windows, mentally broken inside out again. + +Later, they came back and said it was a false positive. Anytime the doctors called me for anything, I'm paranoid, I'm nervous, my hands start sweating, I get dry + +4 5 6 7 8 I've been incarcerated since August 2019, and I never received a disciplinary ticket, but I've been housed in SHU for over 75 days. MCC and MDC are the most degrading and humiliating memories of my life. I will hold onto these memories forever, but these memories are my motivation to stay out of trouble, your Honor. + +9 10 11 12 13 I want to apologize directly to the Court. I want to apologize to you, and I want to take full responsibility for my actions. I am guilty. I am guilty for the crimes committed, but through this experience, I've matured. I recognize my values, and I promise to live my life with integrity. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 I'm asking you to please give me a chance to do something with my life. In life, you come across so many challenges, but the truth will always persevere. Everything I suffered, everything I shared in this horrific place will be a reminder and strength to me to do the right thing. My incarceration has been very painful. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 I have suffered tremendously, and I'm still suffering. Your Honor, I have not been outside since February 2020. I don't see the sun. I don't feel the rain. I don't feel the snow. We are locked in here all day. That is one of the rights that we are supposed to have, to even be able to go out for rec, but I have not been outside since February 2020. I + +mouth, and I just think, for some reason, I was going to be brought back to the SHU again. + +4 5 6 But even through all I've been through, I still focused on taking all the programs that I'm allowed, and I try to keep myself as busy in a positive way, educate myself even more for the reentry into society. My biggest goal has been staying drug free and not using drugs. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 I am also in the RDAP program, which has taught me how to recognize my criminal thinking errors and has strengthened me by teaching me and incorporating my learning to focus on smart goals, smart goals and positive ways of thinking, principles to apply to my daily life that will help me to avoid repeated problematic behaviors. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 I want to thank my lawyer, and I want to thank you, your Honor, for giving me a chance to express myself. I've been compliant ever since I've been locked up. I've tried to help people ever since I've been in here, and I've been taking courses to prepare myself for reentry, and I'm truly sorry for my mistakes. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So I can't give Ms. Days a just sentence. I can give her a five-year sentence. My hands are tied. I have to give her a five-year sentence and that I will do, 60 months. The 75 days that she spent in the SHU takes care of the other three. Ms. Days is a very educated and eloquent woman, and I have, sadly, heard, both as a sentencing judge and in my capacity as the chief judge that I've just relinquished, + +have not seen my family. We're not allowed visits. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +entirely too many stories like the one she just recounted on the record. + +I wish that the Attorney General, whoever, head of the Bureau of Prisons and the leader of the Congress, would have heard that presentation. The single thing in the five years that I was chief judge of this court that made me the craziest was my complete and utter inability to do anything meaningful about the conditions at the MCC, especially at the MCC and the MDC, two federal correctional facilities located in the City of New York that are run by morons, which wardens cycle repeatedly, never staying for longer than a few months or even a year. So there is no continuity, there is no leadership, there is no ability to get anything done. They lurch from crisis to crisis, from the gun smuggling to Jeffrey Epstein, none of which is the fault of Ms. Days or any of the other inmates I have sentenced or will sentence. + +It is the finding of this Court that the conditions to which she was subjected are as disgusting, inhuman as anything I've heard about any Colombian prison, but more so because we're supposed to be better than that. + +So if I could, Ms. Days, I would say you've been punished enough, and I would send you home, but I can't. The law doesn't allow me to sentence you to less than five years. Some of what you've endured has been endured by prisoners even in well-run facilities, some of it. + +The fact that you haven't been out for a year is a result of the pandemic. Nobody's been out for a year. Nobody's had visitors. People have the country in the SHU when they've the great misfortune to not only to gotten locked up all over gotten sick, and you had get Covid but to get Covid in the earliest days, when we didn't know what we were doing. And that being so, I think you've suffered triply as a result. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +But there is no excuse for the conditions in those two institutions. There is no excuse for the serial leadership that does not allow the office of warden to take control and get control of those facilities, that they just cycle through, most of them at the end of their careers, and it is unfair and unjust. You shouldn't have to suffer for the incompetence of the United States Department of Justice and its subsidiary agency, the Bureau of Prisons. + +I will do what I can to bring your situation to the people who, if they give a damn, might do something. + +You have committed a serious crime under circumstances that were particularly difficult for me to swallow what was done and everything, but I am convinced that no good would be served by keeping you incarcerated for one minute more than I am required to do by law. And so I conclude that a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months is hardly any different from the guidelines lower end sentence of 63 months. It is sufficient but not greater than necessary to punish you for your sins. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +I have reviewed the presentence report. I accept and adopt as my findings the described offense and offense conduct, the calculation of the guidelines. The total offense level is 25. The defendant's criminal history category is II. I accept and adopt as my findings the description of the offender characteristics as are set forth beginning at paragraph 56 of the presentence report. + +I want to thank Mr. Donaldson for his eloquent memorandum. I'm not going to put all of the details on the record, but it is pretty clear to me that Ms. Days' life might have been very, very different if she had not been subjected to the abuse she was subjected to as a young teenager. I have no reason to believe that she was on that path. + +I have considered all of the section 3553(a) factors, and I conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence meets the parsimony goals of the statute and is sufficient to provide deterrence to this defendant and to punish her for the crimes committed. + +Accordingly, under docket number 19 CR 619, a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of II, I hereby sentence you, Tiffany Days, to the mandatory minimum term of 60 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a term of four years' supervised release. I am not imposing a fine. The defendant has no ability to pay. Restitution is not applicable. + +4 5 6 7 THE COURT: Ms. Days, you're required to pay \$100 in court costs. That will be taken out of your prison wages at the rate of \$25 per calendar quarter, or 50 percent of your gross monthly earnings if you're in a Unicor grade one through four program. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I should interrupt myself to say that Ms. Days has done two very admirable things. First of all, she's accomplished a pretty impressive record, under pandemic circumstances, of coursework; and, second, she has completed this Court's Focus Forward program, run by our pretrial division, and I'm a big fan of that program. It was started on my watch, and I'm a big supporter of that program. + +15 16 17 18 I'm glad, Ms. Days, that they let you into the program, and I'm proud of you for having completed the program. I believe that it is one of the best tools that you will have going forward. + +19 20 Mr. Donaldson, did you have any recommendation for place of incarceration? + +21 22 23 24 25 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, your Honor. We are asking for as near to New York City as possible, and I would say that one very near, but that has problems sometimes; so I say the nearest one to New York City as possible. I'm sure, hopefully, at some point, Tiff will start getting some family visits so + +Is the government seeking forfeiture? + +MR. CHIUCHIOLO: No, your Honor. + +4 5 6 7 8 I also neglected to mention that I would ask the Court Lo strongly suggest to the Bureau of Prisons that Ms. Days be allowed to continue with any of her drug treatment. She's taking drug treatment programs, as well as any vocational or educational programs that she is allowed to participate in. I think it will only help. She is going to try to get into any program she can as much as she can, but -- + +9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: It is my recommendation that she be incarcerated at Danbury, but as close as possible to the New York City Metropolitan area in order to have facilitate family visitation, which as a result of the pandemic, she has been denied for over a year. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 It's my recommendation that Ms. Days be considered for the RDAP program. It's my recommendation that Ms. Days be given continuing drug treatment, and as Ms. Days has proven that she is someone who benefits from coursework and from being put in a position to assist other inmates, it is my hope that the Bureau of Prisons will take note of that and make sure that she has plenty to do, both education-wise and mentoring-wise. + +21 MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Ms. Days, when you are released, you will have 72 hours to report to a United States probation officer here at the courthouse on the sixth floor, and for four years you'll meet on a regular basis with your probation officer. + +she can see somebody. + +4 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Yes, your Honor. + +5 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: Okay. During your period of supervised release, you may not commit another federal, state or local crime, unlawfully possess a controlled substance, and you must comply with all of the standard conditions that have been adopted by this Court. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 You'll be required to participate in an outpatient treatment program approved by the probation office, which will include testing to determine whether you've reverted to the use of drugs or alcohol. You must contribute to the cost of services rendered based on your ability to pay or the availability of third-party payments. And I authorize release of available drug treatment evaluations and reports, including the presentence investigation report, to the substance abuse treatment provider. + +19 20 21 22 You must participate in a cognitive behavioral treatment program under the guidance and supervision of your probation officer, until your probation officer decides that's no longer necessary. + +23 24 25 You must submit your person and any property, residence, vehicle, papers, computer, electronic communications, data storage devices, cloud storage or media + +You'll do everything the probation officer tells you to do. You can't do anything the probation officer tells you you're not allowed to do. Do you understand that? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +and your personal effects to a search by the United States probation officer, if needed with the assistance of law enforcement, as long as there is reasonable suspicion that you have violated a condition of supervision or engaged in unlawful conduct. + +Your failure to submit to a search will be grounds for revocation of your supervised release and could result in your re-incarceration. You need to warn the people that you live with that the place where you live can be subject to searches. I've effectively just signed the warrant pursuant to this condition. + +It is my recommendation that the defendant be supervised in her district of residence. + +I want to emphasize a couple of the standard conditions. Obviously, you can't lie to your probation officer. You can't leave the judicial district where you're authorized to reside without getting permission from the probation officer. + +The probation officer gets to have approval rights over where you live and who you live with and where you go to work, what kind of job you have. And the probation officer can visit you at home at anytime. + +You're not to communicate or interact with people who are engaged in criminal activity. + +You have to notify your probation officer if you're + +4 5 6 You must not own, possess or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive device or any dangerous weapon. There are no excuses. + +7 8 9 And you can't act or make any agreement with law enforcement to act as a confidential informant or a human source without getting the permission of the Court. + +10 Was there an appeal waiver in the plea agreement? + +11 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, there was. + +12 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Yes, your Honor. + +13 14 15 THE COURT: So, Ms. Days, do you recall that at the time you took your plea of guilty, you also signed a letter of agreement with the government? It's dated April of last year. + +16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Okay. In that letter it says that if I sentenced you to 78 months or less in prison, you wouldn't take an appeal from your sentence or file a lawsuit challenging the legality of your sentence. Do you recall that? + +21 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Did Mr. Donaldson explain to you before you signed the letter that you were giving up your right to take an appeal, as long as I didn't sentence you to more than 78 months? + +arrested or even questioned by a law enforcement officer. You've got to tell your probation officer within 72 hours. This is a big important one. + +4 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I've sentenced you to 60 months, which is the absolute minimum term I can give you, Ms. Days, and it's my understanding that you have waived your right to take an appeal from that sentence. Is that also your understanding? + +9 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. + +10 11 THE COURT: Mr. Donaldson, is there anything else that we need to do for your client today? + +12 13 MR. DONALDSON: No, your Honor. I thank the Court for its time. Thank you very much. + +14 15 16 THE COURT: Let me just put on the record that I have countersigned the waiver of Ms. Days' right to be present personally at her sentencing. + +17 Is there anything else from the government? + +18 19 20 MR. CHIUCHIOLO: Yes, your Honor. There is an open count; so at this time, the government would move to dismiss all open counts. + +21 22 THE COURT: Open counts are dismissed as against Ms. Days. + +23 Thank you, all, for being here today. + +24 Ms. Days, good luck to you. + +25 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, can I -- + +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And did you sign that letter of your own free will? + +4 5 6 7 8 THE DEFENDANT: I just want to thank you for your time today and thank you for the things that you do to help us here in federal prison and the programs and the conditions that we're going through, that you do fight for to make things better. It is appreciated. Thank you so much. + +9 10 11 THE COURT: Well, I wish I had done something that you could appreciate. That's one of the great frustrations of my life. Good luck to you, + +12 These proceedings are closed. + +13 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you. + +14 MR. DONALDSON: Thank you very much. + +15 THE DEFENDANT: Have a good day. + +16 (Adjourned) + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: I hope we'll never meet again. + +THE DEFENDANT: Can I just say one thing? + +THE COURT: Yes, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0c7e10ebeab8d555084729239779da1fecdd128 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582/EFTA02832582.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1175 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832582.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 32, + "chars": 43257, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 685.26 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 685.26 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 716.7339630126953 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 716.7339630126953 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832582" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9591080cf964ee9f5d606e877812e9fa22e6058 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On June 7, 2021, the Government submitted an update on the Defendant's conditions of confinement. It submitted it under temporary seal to permit the Defendant to propose redactions. On June 15, 2021, the Defendant proposed narrowly tailored redactions, which the Court adopts after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lagosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +The Government is ORDERED to publicly docket the redacted version of its June 7, 2021 letter by June 17, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 16, 2021 New York, New York AL + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04123c4a77961ba4a330e19841a4af1427d28cde --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/EFTA02832614.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 842, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832614" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d6e9475aa3c4bccefc6d1581b26d322e4356f17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832614/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1c5e1a9ba8a28638594b5ae08d072d9ef7ac62212a2335ee2da527102c714d1d +size 11246 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d22fd33cdc8c4bb7039791c1c3ce01d4521023c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's It New York New York I0007 + +June 7, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (A.IN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel regarding the conditions of the defendant's confinement over the last two months. + +The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant still has access to both a desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. This discovery review takes place in a day mom that is separate from the defendant's assigned cell. Accordingly, the defendant continues to be permitted out of her cell from 7am to 8pm every day. While in the day room, the defendant continues to have exclusive access to the MDC desktop computer, the laptop, a television, a phone on which to place social or attorney calls, and a shower. The defendant is + +also permitted outdoor recreation every day, although she has the option of declining such recreation time if she wishes. + +The defendant also continues to receive as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Currently, the defendant receives five hours of videoteleconference ("VTC") calls with her counsel every weekday, for a total of 25 hours of attorney VTC calls per week. All of these VTC calls take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. During these VTC calls, MDC staff place a camera approximately 30 feet away from the door to the room where the defendant conducts the VTC calls. The camera has a full view of the door to the VTC room, but the camera does not capture any sound from the defendant's VTC calls with her attorneys. The defendant is also permitted to use the phone in the day room to place phone calls to her attorneys as needed. + +In addition, the defendant receives in-person visits from her attorneys as needed on weekends. These meetings take place in a room where the defendant is alone with her counsel and where no MDC staff can hear the defendant's communications with counsel. During these visits, MDC staff place a camera approximately 30 feet away from the door to the attorney visit room. The camera has a full view of the door to the attorney visit room, but the camera does not capture any sound from the defendant's meetings with her counsel. + +Like any other inmate, the defendant is patted down by MDC staff whenever she is moved to a different part of the facility. As part of every pat-down search, the defendant is required to open her mouth briefly so that MDC staff can confirm she has not hidden contraband in her mouth. These pat-down and mouth searches continue to be consistent with MDC's policy that all inmates be searched whenever they move to a different location within the jail facility. Also like all other inmates, after each in-person visit she receives, the defendant is strip searched. + +After any in-person visit the defendant receives, MDC staff conduct a body scan of the defendant, which is a non-invasive machine scan, to check for any secreted contraband. MDC staff also search the defendant's cell for contraband approximately once per day. Finally, as discussed in detail in the Government's May 5, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 270), MDC staff conduct wellness checks on the defendant every fifteen minutes at night to confirm that the defendant is breathing. The MDC continues to be of the view that all of these searches are necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant, including for the reasons detailed in the Government's May 5, 2021 letter. + +MDC medical staff and psychology staff continue to monitor the defendant daily. + +MDC medical staff continue to assess that the defendant is physically healthy. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will promptly provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c158e4b82726b7b42bea42db631ff7d3bedb18ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/EFTA02832615.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5060, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.03, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832615" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c6d64b4f952c17e945a49f2766d4fe0d3aec0a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832615/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:91a102e90d7e8137aad587a90715ecece4d5b965c277e4cf25fed4fea17e9dbc +size 3365 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..588508a7b8cc088fa7dca755a114703e41604f22 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +L'SDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: I/ATE FILED: 6/25/2021 + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence (Dkt. Nos. 133, 139) are DENIED. The Court sets out its reasoning in an opinion concurrently filed under temporary seal to allow Maxwell and the Government the opportunity to propose redactions. The parties may file under seal any proposed redactions to the opinion within three days. + +The Court further ORDERS that the April 9, 2019 memorandum decision and order on the Government's application to modify the protective order in v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433, as well as the transcripts of the March 26, 2019 and April 9, 2019 ex parte hearings on that application shall be unsealed. These documents were previously filed under seal as Exhibits D, E, F, and G to the memorandum of law in support of Maxwell's first motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 134). Within one week, the parties shall confer and file under seal any proposed redactions to the memorandum decision, order, and transcripts. + +Any proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that has already been made public. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 25, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d71fbb908a99ecd7a52e1c6e189589507beb11dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618/EFTA02832618.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832618.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1592, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.92, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832618" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28c94306a949380a73fbbc117598623e1de99900 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 6/25/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +The Court grants the Defendant's request that going forward the Government shall only file updates if there are any material changes to Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 300 at 1. In the absence of any other specific or supported application for relief from the Defendant, the Court will take no further action at this time. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 25, 2021 New York, New York AL + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86023a10abe1cfaf13141cf31b186a2fdcefcb70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620/EFTA02832620.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832620.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 845, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.08, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832620" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0ead3b046d369183fe07913f7fb7918f12ab86e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_97.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +OPINION + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Pursuant to the Court's order of June 25, 2021 (Dkt. No. 303), any proposed redactions to the Court's opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence must be filed no later than today, June 30, 2021. Any proposed redactions to the other documents ordered unsealed in that order must be filed no later than July 2, 2021. The parties shall file a joint letter by each of these dates informing the Court if no redactions are sought. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 30, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bc156527bd53c03a26aa01c3fbf03e7abcdfeb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/EFTA02832621.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 758, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.86, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_97.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832621" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/_page_0_Picture_97.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/_page_0_Picture_97.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec9750e3fe11b8f292449b68650d9072faef2549 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832621/_page_0_Picture_97.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e0927cefac5fa03b94284a46caefd48b909cf34bd8a21b115c1060329a54eb4b +size 8646 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b005ec859b69f83a61d39385ce12cbf1189cc1f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +June 30, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties jointly submit this letter in response to the Court's June 30, 2021 Order directing the parties to indicate whether they propose any redactions to the Court's June 25, 2021 Opinion and Order denying the defendant's suppression motions as well as Exhibits D, E, F, and G (the "Exhibits") to the memorandum of law in support of the defendant's first motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 134). (Dkt. No. 305). The parties have conferred and do not seek any redactions to the Court's June 25, 2021 Opinion and Order or the Exhibits. Accordingly, the parties have no objection to the public filing of the Opinion and Order and the Exhibits without redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6a62a453474e53615a842f4dfc34955dd2b54a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/EFTA02832622.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1307, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 119.35272216796875, + 169.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832622" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79470d4bf366227fdd28d0b0080cb59a8096026a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832622/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2dab2756d9b6d891d92b3cc29d603d9185e4341fbb21e8a33a4a35d7fb915218 +size 3370 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dda95e301fc0f4d54878516fef66d2675ea94753 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.md @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY DOCU ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 6: DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. + +# I. Background + +In late 2015, sued Maxwell for defamation. See v. Maxwell, No. I 5-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) represented in the dispute. The parties litigated the case for about two years before signing a confidential settlement agreement. + +Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three attorneys who represented on February 29, 2016. The AUSA's notes from the meeting reflect that it focused primarily on Epstein. However, the notes also identify Maxwell as Epstein's "head recruiter" of underage girls. The attorneys sent a few follow-up emails to the AUSA in the following weeks. The United States Attorney's Office did not pursue a criminal investigation at that time. + +Maxwell claims based on a New York Daily News article published in October 2020 that a second meeting took place between federal prosecutors and a principal of BSF in the summer of 2016. The Government has represented to the Court that the AUSA who participated in the February 29, 2016 meeting did not participate in a second meeting with BSF attorneys and that the Government has "uncovered no evidence that such a meeting ever occurred." Dkt. No. 204, at 92. However, for purposes of deciding this motion, the Court assumes that it occurred. + +About two weeks after the February 29, 2016 meeting, the judge presiding over the civil case entered a protective order that allowed the parties in that case to designate documents produced in discovery as confidential. See Dkt. No. 134-1. That order prohibited the parties from disclosing confidential documents to anyone other than people involved in the case. Although BSF initially proposed language that would allow disclosure of documents to law enforcement without a court order, the final version of the protective order included no such exception. The protective order did not require the parties to obtain the court's approval to mark a document as confidential. It allowed the court to modify the order at any time for good cause after notice to the parties. It also allowed the parties to use any confidential information at trial, at which point that information would become public. It required the parties to return or destroy confidential records after the case ended. + +Following entry of the protective order, Maxwell testified in two depositions in the civil case. The parties designated the depositions as confidential under the protective order. Counts five and six of the SI superseding indictment in this case (and counts seven and eight of the S2 superseding indictment) charge that Maxwell made false statements under oath in each of the depositions. + +The Government represents that the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York formally opened its investigation into Epstein on November 30, 2018, following a series of articles in the Miami Herald about Epstein's conduct and the lenient plea deal he received in the Southern District of Florida. The same day, the AUSA who attended the February 2016 meeting forwarded the emails she received from attorneys in the civil case to the prosecutors working on the fledgling investigation. There is no indication that she was involved in the decision to begin the investigation into Epstein in 2018. + +About two months later, the Government served a grand jury subpoena on BSF seeking to obtain documents for its investigation of Epstein. BSF informed the Government that many of the requested documents fell under the protective order. The Government then applied for an ex parte order modifying the protective order to allow BSF to comply with the subpoena. The Government made a second, similar application in connection with a protective order in a different case. + +The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then-Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to + +a protective order to the Government absent a formal motion or subpoena. It further held that a court should modify a protective order that a party reasonably relied on only if the order had been improvidently granted or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or compelling need. + +Judge McMahon held a second ex parte hearing on April 9, 2019. At that hearing, citing a district court case called Chemical Bank for the proposition that civil litigants ought not foment criminal investigations against their opponents to gain strategic advantage, she asked the Government about contacts between the U.S. Attorney's Office and BSF on the subject of the Government's investigation. The Government explained that BSF had informed the Government that some of the documents the Government sought were covered by a protective order. The Government did not mention any of the communications with BSF attorneys in 2016. + +Judge McMahon issued a sealed order granting the Government's application followed by a sealed opinion dated April 9, 2019. In the opinion, she explained that Martindell governed the Government's application, but that two of the Martindell factors supported modification of the protective order. First, Maxwell did not reasonably rely on the protective order because it was subject to modification. Second, the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances supporting modification of the protective order because it could not otherwise obtain information about the high-profile targets of its investigation without tipping them off. Magistrate Judge Netbum denied the Government's similar application in another case, applying the same standard but concluding that the Government had not shown extraordinary circumstances or compelling need. + +Following Judge McMahon's order, BSF turned over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The + +Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcripts Maxwell now seeks to suppress, have since been unsealed by court order in the civil case. See = No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 1137, 1212. + +#### H. Discussion + +Maxwell objects both to the Government obtaining documents covered by the protective order and to the Government's conduct in doing so. She contends that she agreed to testify in the civil case only because of the protective order, and thus that the Government's use of her deposition testimony against her would violate her right against compelled self-incrimination. She contends that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents covered by the protective order, and thus that the Government should not have been able to obtain them without a warrant. And she contends that the Government circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF. + +The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing. The Court begins with Maxwell's claim that the Government violated her right against compelled self-incrimination by obtaining her deposition testimony from the civil case. It next turns to her claim that the Government violated her right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finally, it addresses Maxwell's claim that the Government misled Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the protective order in the earlier civil case. + +#### A. The Government did not violate Maxwell's right against self-incrimination + +The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. "The [Supreme] Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of 'physical or moral compulsion' exerted on the person asserting the privilege." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397 (1976) (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918)). It does not prohibit the Government from using a defendant's voluntary statements in a subsequent criminal prosecution. + +To establish a violation of the right against compelled self-incrimination, Maxwell must "demonstrate the existence of three elements: I) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication, and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166, 1168 (2d Cir. 1987). Maxwell contends that the Government violated her right against compelled self-incrimination by obtaining copies of her deposition transcripts from her earlier civil case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and using it in a subsequent criminal case against her. + +Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell's argument. "A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overturned or modified by another court in another proceeding. Id. A civil protective order may (as here) be limited by its terms to pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See in re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in the public interest. See-, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against the use of their testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding. + +Maxwell thus has failed to establish the first and most fundamental element of a violation of her right against compelled self-incrimination: compulsion. Because the protection typically afforded by a civil protective order is both porous and ephemeral, the Second Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstanding precedent made clear that if she did not do so, the Government could use any such testimony that it learned of against her in a later criminal case. Because the Government did not compel Maxwell to offer incriminating testimony, it did not violate her right against compelled self-incrimination. + +Maxwell's alternative argument that BSF's act of turning over her deposition transcripts was itself compelled testimony is likewise without merit. The Supreme Court has held that the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena implicates the Fifth Amendment only in narrow circumstances—when the existence of responsive documents, rather than their content, is + +inculpatory. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410-11. This is no such case. The existence of deposition transcripts in Maxwell's civil case is not inculpatory. It is the content of those transcripts that is at issue. + +In the face of these straightforward precedents, Maxwell relies primarily on a single district court case decided the year before the Second Circuit's decision in Andover that quashed a subpoena for deposition testimony covered by a civil protective order. See Dkt. No. 140, at 16-17 (citing United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)); Dkt. No. 212, at 12- 13 (same). Oshatz does not suggest that the use of civil deposition testimony in a subsequent criminal trial would violate a defendant's right against compelled self-incrimination—and if it did, that view would be plainly inconsistent with the Second Circuit's later, precedential opinions. Instead, the case simply describes the standard for whether a court should modify a protective order to allow a government subpoena. Maxwell cites no case in which a court has suppressed evidence because another court erred in modifying a protective order. Even if Maxwell were right that the protective order should not have been modified, it would not transform her earlier deposition testimony into the product of coercion. + +The Government would also be entitled to use Maxwell's deposition testimony against her in her perjury trial notwithstanding any violation of her right against compelled selfincrimination. The Supreme Court has held that a defendant may be prosecuted for false statements in unlawfully compelled testimony. See United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 179 (1977); United States v. Knox, 396 U.S. 77, 82 (1969). As in Knox, Maxwell seeks to suppress her deposition transcripts not because they are inculpatory "for a prior or subsequent criminal act" but because her statements in those depositions were themselves allegedly criminal. Knox, 396 U.S. at 82. In these circumstances, the Fifth Amendment does not bar the Government's use of her testimony in a prosecution for perjury. + +The Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. + +#### B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation + +"The Fourth Amendment protects '(t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV). Government activity qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment only if it involves a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected space or the violation of a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." United States v.M, 565 U.S. 400, 406-07 (2012) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). Thus, government agents need a warrant to rummage through someone's home, listen in on their phone calls, or search through their phones seized incident to arrest. The Fourth Amendment imposes no limitation on their ability to gather evidence of public activity or review public records. + +A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy only if they seek to keep something private and have an objectively reasonable expectation that it will remain private. v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979). The Supreme Court has held that people generally lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily disclose to others. See id. at 743-44; United States v. 425 U.S. 435, 440 (1976). This is true even if they expect that information to be safeguarded and used only for specific purposes. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that police may obtain bank records or a list of phone numbers a person has dialed without a N'atrant a 442 U.S. at 742; =, 425 U.S. at 440. In a lone exception to this rule, the + +Supreme Court has held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in geographical information obtained from their cell phones, because that information provides a comprehensive account of a person's movements akin to invasive physical surveillance. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2219-20. + +Under this standard, Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents produced during the civil litigation. Those documents may not have been public, but they were hardly private. The protective order allowed them to be shared freely with each of the following categories of people: + +- The parties to the case. +- Attorneys involved in the case. +- People employed by or associated with attorneys involved in the case. +- Expert witnesses. +- Fact witnesses. +- Potential witnesses. +- Court personnel and stenographers. + +It also allowed any documents to be publicly used at trial. This is not a case like Carpenter where new technology has allowed police to access heretofore "unknowable" information about a person's private life. Id. at 2218. This is a case where Maxwell shared information with third parties through the routine process of civil litigation and now objects that they shared it with the Government, too. + +Second Circuit precedent makes clear that Maxwell had no reasonable expectation that documents covered by the protective order would remain shielded from view of the public or prosecutors. The Second Circuit has cautioned civil litigants that a civil protective order is no guarantee against the use of evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. See Andover, 876 F.2d at 1083. Second Circuit precedent allows a court in a subsequent proceeding to modify a protective order. Id. And if confidential materials turn out to be relevant to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See=, 929 F.3d at 48 & n.22; =, 827 F. App'x at 145. It is "unrealistic" to believe that deposition testimony central to a civil case of high public interest will remain effectively sealed indefinitely. Andover, 876 F.2d at 1083. + +Maxwell claims that she did not expect the Government to be able to obtain her deposition testimony, and that if she knew it would, she never would have testified. If Maxwell subjectively harbored this belief, it was nonetheless unreasonable. See 442 U.S. at 743. The Court further notes that Maxwell was ably represented by a number of attorneys during the civil litigation, who the Court is confident were familiar with the precedents governing protective orders and public access to judicial documents. + +Because Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents shared with third parties during the civil case, the Government did not engage in a search when it obtained those documents from a third party by subpoena. Maxwell also makes a half-hearted argument that obtaining those documents was a seizure of her personal property. Copies of documents held by a law firm that represented Maxwell's adversary in a civil case were not Maxwell's personal property. Thus, the Government engaged in neither a search nor a seizure, and so it did not violate Maxwell's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. + +The Government also contends that even if it improperly obtained documents pursuant to the grand jury subpoena, the Court should not suppress those documents because the Government acted in good faith and would have obtained the documents anyway. See Nix v. + +, 467 U.S. 431, 446 (1984); United States v. 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). The Court agrees that, at the very least, the exception to the exclusionary rule for inevitable discovery applies to the documents that have since been unsealed and made public in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. + +## C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority + +Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed because the Government violated her due process rights in obtaining them. The gravamen of this claim is that the Government misrepresented its prior contacts with BSF to Judge McMahon. Maxwell contends that this misrepresentation violated her due process rights, or alternatively that the Court should exercise its inherent authority to suppress the evidence obtained through the subpoena as a sanction for governmental misconduct. She contends that even an inadvertent misstatement to a court requires suppression of evidence obtained as a result. She further seeks an evidentiary hearing to explore whether any misrepresentation by the Government in that hearing was intentional. + +The Supreme Court has recognized that federal courts have a limited inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained in "willful disobedience of law." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 735 n.7 (1980) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 345 (1943)). But it has also cautioned that courts must exercise this power with restraint. Id. Thus, "the court should not exercise its inherent or supervisory power 'as a substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?" United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 401 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 792 (2d Cir. 1996)). In situations where the Fourth Amendment + +or another substantive constitutional provision supplies a standard for the suppression of evidence, courts must follow that standard, not invent their own. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 735. + +Maxwell has not established a violation of due process or justified the exercise of the Court's inherent supervisory authority. Not every misstep by the Government during a criminal investigation justifies suppressing relevant evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the exclusionary rule weighs the interest in deterring investigatory misconduct against the truth-seeking function of the judicial process. That balance "do[es] not change because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power instead of some other constitutional provision. Id. at 736. Due process provides an independent basis to suppress evidence only when the Government engages in conduct that is "fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice" or is "so outrageous that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v.M, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Ordinarily such official misconduct must involve either coercion or violation of the defendant's person." Id. (citations omitted). This case involves neither. Omitting information about communications with BSF years earlier falls well short of the sort of extreme misconduct supporting suppression as a matter of due process. + +To the extent Maxwell asks the Court to engage in a freewheeling exercise of its inherent supervisory power instead, the Court declines to do so. To begin with, suppression under a court's supervisory authority is only appropriate, if at all, when the Government has engaged in "willful disobedience of law." Payner, 447 U.S. at 735 n.7 (emphasis added). Maxwell all but concedes that the present record does not show willful misconduct, contending instead that it "doesn't matter" whether the prosecutor knew his statements to Judge McMahon were + +misleading. Dkt. No. 134, at 14. In any event, the Court is not without guidance on when a prosecutor's misrepresentation requires a court to suppress evidence. Precedent requires courts to adhere to the standards governing analogous Fourth Amendment claims when asked to suppress evidence under their inherent authority. See Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401-02. + +The Supreme Court has set out a clear standard governing when a misrepresentation to a magistrate in a warrant affidavit justifies suppression of evidence obtained as a result. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). That standard requires more than an inadvertent misstatement. "To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an affidavit containing erroneous information, the defendant must show that: (I) the claimed inaccuracies or omissions are the result of the affiant's deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A defendant cannot circumvent this standard by couching the same arguments in due process or the court's inherent authority instead. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 736. + +Franks also defines the standard governing when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress based on the Government's misrepresentation to a court. To justify an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing" of a deliberately or recklessly false statement and that the alleged false statement was necessary to the court's decision. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155. "Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient." Id. at 171. + +Although Maxwell relied on Franks in her opening brief, she argues in reply that she need not satisfy that standard. See Dkt. No. 134, at 16; Dkt. No. 285, at 23. However, she provides no explanation for why Franks should not apply. To the extent she offers any alternative framework in her reply, it is that an evidentiary hearing is required whenever any factual issue related to a motion to suppress is in dispute. That formulation is far too broad. + +The Court agrees with the Government (and the suggestion in Maxwell's opening brief) that Franks provides the appropriate standard for whether Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her motion. To be sure, these cases are not identical. Franks dealt with an alleged false statement in a warrant affidavit. This case involves an alleged false statement in a hearing to modify a protective order to allow a grand jury subpoena. Franks involved a claim under the Fourth Amendment, while Maxwell couches hers in the Fifth. But while not identical, these settings are closely analogous. Each involves alleged misstatements to a court that allowed the Government to obtain evidence. Each presents a risk of a defense fishing expedition where no wrongdoing appears on the face of the Government's application. Each requires balancing similar interests—deterrence of deliberate misconduct on the one hand, and suppression of evidence inevitably discovered or obtained through innocent error on the other. The Second Circuit has already extended Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnarn, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inherent authority. + +Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government deliberately or recklessly misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon. Second, she must make a substantial preliminary showing that Judge McMahon would have denied the Government's application absent any such misrepresentation. The Court finds that Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing on either prong. + +Maxwell's argument here centers on the Government's statements to Judge McMahon during the second proceeding on April 9, 2019, concerning its application to modify the protective order. At that proceeding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confidential documents in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all communications between the U.S. Attorney's Office and BSF after the current investigation began—namely, that the Government told the firm that it intended to make a document request and that the firm told the Government that some of the materials were subject to a protective order. Although the prosecutor was included on an email several months earlier from the AUSA who met with attorneys in 2016, he did not inform Judge McMahon about any communications with BSF before the current investigation began. + +Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing that the Government's statement was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. The AUSA could reasonably have understood Judge McMahon's question to concern only communications about the Government's current investigation. Maxwell contends that the question asked for any + +communications between BSF and the Government related to Epstein or Maxwell. But an equally plausible understanding of the phrase "on the subject of your investigation" is "related to the investigation itself." That interpretation is all the more reasonable in context, because Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not communications years earlier that did not lead to a criminal investigation. The Government has represented that its present investigation into Epstein (and later Maxwell) began only following publication of the Miami Herald expose in 2018. Maxwell has made no substantial preliminary showing to the contrary. + +The Court also concludes that Maxwell has made no substantial preliminary showing that Judge McMahon would have denied the Government's application to modify the protective order if she knew about the 2016 communications. Materiality under Franks requires more than that a fact be important. It allows suppression only if "the allegedly false statement is necessary" to the court's finding. Franks, 438 U.S. at 156 (emphasis added). If Judge McMahon would still have ruled that the Government was entitled to ex parte modification of the protective order even after setting aside the Government's alleged misrepresentation, then Maxwell is not entitled to suppression. Judge McMahon's opinion reflects that she would have. + +Judge McMahon's ruling rested on two independent grounds. Analyzing the Government's application under Martindell, she first held that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the protective order to keep the Government from obtaining documents produced during the civil litigation. Judge McMahon reasoned that a civil litigant ordinarily may not rely on a protective order subject to modification to keep evidence out of the hands of + +prosecutors. As the Court has explained above, this is consistent with the Second Circuit's statement that a protective order "provides no guarantee that [evidence] will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1083. Judge McMahon further reasoned that Maxwell could only have reasonably relied on the protective order insofar as it prohibited BSF from fomenting an investigation against her with confidential documents. If Judge McMahon had known of the 2016 meeting, it is arguable—albeit far from certain—that she might have instead concluded that BSF breached Maxwell's reasonable reliance interests. + +But Judge McMahon also held that the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances justifying ex parte modification of the protective order. She observed that modification of the protective order would serve a "significant public interest" and that the Government had demonstrated good cause to obtain the sought materials through a grand jury subpoena without alerting potential targets of its criminal investigation. Extraordinary circumstances or compelling need provide a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMahon about communications with BSF in 2016, and even assuming that information was material to her analysis of Maxwell's reasonable reliance on the protective order, Judge McMahon would still have granted the Government's application. Because the Government's alleged misrepresentation was not necessary to Judge McMahon's ruling, it cannot support suppression under Franks. + +The Court thus finds that Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing under either prong of Franks, and thus that she is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. For the same reasons, and because the present record does not establish a violation of due process, the Court declines to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government's grand jury subpoena. + +# D. Martindell provides no independent basis for suppression + +The Court turns finally to Maxwell's argument that Martindell provides an independent basis for suppression. Maxwell cites no authority in her opening brief for the proposition that a court may suppress evidence because it disagrees with another court's decision to modify a protective order under Martindell. Indeed, there is no such authority. No court has ever granted a motion to suppress on this ground. The Court declines to review Judge McMahon's decision, because Martindell provides no basis to suppress evidence even if this Court were to disagree with it. + +Even if Maxwell were right that this Court should review Judge McMahon's decision on the merits, that decision—like a magistrate's probable cause determination—would be entitled to "great deference." M, 468 U.S. at 914. Courts will uphold another judge's decision to allow the Government to obtain evidence on a motion to suppress so long as there is a "substantial basis" for the decision. Salameh, 152 F.3d at 113 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238- 39 (1983)). Judge McMahon found that the Government had established exceptional circumstances to modify the protective order based on the factual record before her. Judge McMahon concluded that modification was necessary under the circumstances to allow the Government to investigate a high-profile matter in secrecy and so not to tip off the target of the investigation. Although reasonable minds may differ—indeed, Judge Netbum reached the opposite conclusion—there was a substantial basis for Judge McMahon's decision and it is thus + +entitled to deference. As discussed, the Court is aware of no authority suggesting review of Judge McMahon's modification order is necessary or appropriate in these circumstances. If necessary, the Court would afford it deference and would not disturb Judge McMahon's reasoned and supported decision. + +Maxwell's reply brief recasts her claim for suppression under Martindell as simply another argument for suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority. Because, in her view, the Government did not satisfy the requirements of Martindell, its attempt to modify the protective order violated her due process rights. And because, she alleges, the Government misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon, this Court should exercise its inherent authority to suppress evidence as a sanction for governmental misconduct. + +The Court is not persuaded. For the reasons set forth above, the Government's application for modification of the protective order did not violate Maxwell's due process rights. Due process does not categorically bar an ex parte modification to a protective order, and Judge McMahon found that the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances to do so. To the extent Maxwell seeks suppression based on an alleged misrepresentation to Judge McMahon, for the reasons set forth above, she has not met the high bar for a due process violation or made the required showing under Franks that would entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. Whether Maxwell advances these arguments under Martindell or directly under due process, they do not support suppression. + +## Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Government did not violate Maxwell's constitutional rights when it obtained evidence covered by a protective order in her earlier civil case. It further finds that Maxwell is not entitled to suppression of any evidence or to an + +evidentiary hearing. The Court thus DENIES Maxwell's motions to suppress (Dkt. Nos. 133, 139). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 25, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..874f0f2f2d821358f02a2302d4c538cb88fc674c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623/EFTA02832623.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,963 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832623.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 38688, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.02, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.6925964355469, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 495.72 + ], + [ + 173.94503784179688, + 495.72 + ], + [ + 173.94503784179688, + 511.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 511.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Government did not violate Maxwell's right against self-incrimination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 510.6951599121094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 510.6951599121094, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in \ncivil litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 521.5189208984375, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 521.5189208984375, + 210.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 210.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent \nauthority", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 540.29541015625, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 540.29541015625, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Martindell provides no independent basis for suppression", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 421.1098327636719, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 421.1098327636719, + 196.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 196.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 338.0235290527344, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 338.0235290527344, + 610.3000030517578 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 610.3000030517578 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832623" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b66f0b85e9576d6149984cfbab6394661aa234c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_108.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +No party has proposed redactions to the Court's opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence or the documents ordered unsealed in the Court's June 25, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 303). Thus, the Court lifts the temporary seal on its June 25, 2021 opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress. It also unseals the April 9, 2019 memorandum decision and order on the Government's application to modify the protective order in [REDACTED] v. *Maxwell*, No. 15-cv-7433, as well as the transcripts of the March 26, 2019 and April 9, 2019 ex parte hearings on that application, originally filed under seal as Exhibits D, E, F, and G to the memorandum of law in support of Maxwell's first motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 134). Maxwell shall file those exhibits on the public docket without redaction by July 2, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 1, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..409f6173848e24ae182eb33556dc22bbea40a151 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/EFTA02832644.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1123, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.8, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_108.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.63 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832644" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/_page_0_Picture_108.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/_page_0_Picture_108.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba41d567d0580eae23b9cb911f241ea1006561ed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832644/_page_0_Picture_108.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:81f759ed2d4c599a3c816620b861f06a7d37f49834a1e6dfb0f943a62ec9bf5d +size 10713 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f4a96dd99a8f7f4ffaf1ec2c79ed68fe269e55b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Moll° Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +July 1, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter to bring to the Court's attention an opinion piece (the "Op-Ed") published yesterday in the New York Daily News, which was authored by David Markus, Esq., who represents the defendant in connection with this case. Mr. Markus's statements in the Op-Ed were in violation of Local Rule 23.1, which contains provisions relating to extrajudicial public statements by attorneys. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court order Mr. Markus to comply with Local Rule 23.1. + +## A. Mr. Markus's Statements to the Media + +David Markus represents the defendant in connection with appellate matters in this case. In particular, Mr. Markus has handled the defendant's bail appeals in this case, including an argument on her behalf in the Second Circuit. As the Court may recall, on April 14, 2021, Mr. Markus emailed requesting permission to bring electronics to the courthouse to attend the defendant's arraignment on the superseding indictment. The Court informed Mr. Markus that he would need to file a notice of appearance before making such an application to the Court. Mr. Markus did not file a notice of appearance, but he attended the arraignment and spoke to members of the media thereafter.' + +&#x27; See Stephen Rex =, Ghislaine Maxwell Makes First Court Appearance, N.Y. Daily News (Apr. 23, 2021), httpilAvn.nydailynews.cominew-york/ny-ghislaine-maxwell-arraignment-20210423 b3aza5eh7bddna7r247px2yb7e-story.html (quoting Mr. Markus, speaking outside the courthouse following the defendant's arraignment and identifying him as "her attorney"). + +July I, 2021 + +Page 2 + +Mr. Markus has made multiple statements to the media in the past few months? On May I I, 2021, the Government emailed the defendant's counsel of record in this case and expressed concern about Mr. Markus's statements, citing Local Rule 23.1. Defense counsel did not respond. + +Most recently, on June 30, 2021, Mr. Markus authored an Op-Ed in the New York Daily News.3 The Op-Ed compared the defendant to Bill Cosby and argued that this case should be dismissed in the wake of Mr. Cosby's release from prison. The Op-Ed claims that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is binding in this District, but that "[t]he trial court, just like the trial court and intermediate appellate court in Cosby's case, has agreed to let the government out of its deal." The Op-Ed further claims that this case is "extremely weak" and asserts that "[a] jury should reject those flimsy and stale charges." The Op-Ed also identifies Mr. Markus as "Maxwell's appellate counsel." Other news outlets have subsequently issued articles regarding the Op-Ed' + +## B. Relief Is Warranted Under Local Rule 23.1 + +Local Rule 23.1 generally prohibits extrajudicial statements of opinion that a reasonable person would expect to create "a substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(a). The Rule further provides, in relevant part, that statements of "opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case" are among those that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(dX7). The Rule applies to all statements made by lawyers "in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(a). Furthermore, the Rule provides that the Court "may issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesses likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury ...." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(h). + +Mr. Markus is plainly governed by Local Rule 23.1, because he is not only "associated" with this criminal case, but he is also counsel of record in the defendant's appeals in connection with this matter. Mr. Markus's comments to the media—most egregiously, the Op-Ed—were clearly in violation of Local Rule 23.1. Not only did his statements directly comment on the merits of this case, but they did so in a manner designed to appeal directly to the pool of potential jurors + +2 See Ben Feuerherd, Feds Detail Ghislaine Maxwell's 'Enhanced Security Schedule' In Prison, N.Y. Post (May 5, 2021), hups://nypost.com/2021/05/05/ghislaine-maxwell-on-enhanced-security-schedule-lockup-feds/ (quoting Mr. Markus); David Oscar Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be Released: She Should Await Her Trial Outside Confinement, N.Y. Daily News (Feb. 24, 2021), https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-g,hislaine-maxwellshould-be-released-20210224-xocbnloc25exflbqbaf6fp76he-story.html (Op-Ed authored by Mr. Markus). + +See David Oscar Markus, Bill Cosby is Free; Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be, Too, N.Y. Daily News (June 30, 2021), http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-cosby-maxwell-free-202 I 0630-gqIcsn6yezaivp5h7g7x731fzustory.html (Op-Ed authored by Mr. Markus). + +See Louis Casiano, Bill Cosby Ruling Should be Used to Free Ghislaine Maxwell. Her Lawyer says, Fox News (July I, 2021), https://www.foxnews.com/uslbill-cosby-free-ghislaine-maxwell; Daniel Villarreal, Bill Cosby Ruling Shows Why Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be Freed. Her Lawyer Says, Newsweek (June 30, 2021), hups://www.newsweek.com/bill-cosby-ruling-shows-why-ghislaine-maxwell-should-freed-her-lawyer-says-1605828. + +July 1, 2021 + +Page 3 + +in this case: the Op-Ed was published in a local newspaper, and it contained an express overture to jurors, discussing the verdict defense counsel wishes jurors to reach in this case. What is more, the Op-Ed falsely suggested to potential jurors that this prosecution is barred by a non-prosecution agreement—a legal contention this Court has considered and squarely rejected. + +This Court has already entered an Order—at the request of the defendant—indicating the Court's expectation that "all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1." (Dkt. No. 28). Mr. Markus's continued comments are in violation of that Order, are inappropriate, and are likely to interfere with the Court's ability to conduct a fair trial with an impartial jury in this case. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court issue an order pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(h) directed specifically to Mr. Markus and instructing him to comply with Local Rule 23.1. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +United States Attorney + +By: /s + +Alison Moe / Maurene Comey / Lara Pomerantz + +Assistant United States Attorneys + +Southern District of New York + +Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: Christian Everdell, Esq. (by ECF) + +Mark =, Esq. (by ECF) + +Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. (by ECF) + +Laura Menninger, Esq. (by ECF) + +Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. (by ECF) + +David Markus, Esq. (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1373b9f190e64b10a79ac991efab3b81f148de7e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/EFTA02832645.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7476, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 199.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 199.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Mr. Markus's Statements to the Media", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 328.8414306640625, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 328.8414306640625, + 481.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 481.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Relief Is Warranted Under Local Rule 23.1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 350.1385192871094, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 350.1385192871094, + 292.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 292.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832645" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb87721341a99c8834469c970eac0ff3e5b79121 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832645/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8a04f9d44884c6a4c64cb55fb68e9fe4ad9787263b1b22b654fb3e118bc6fe9a +size 3546 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..caf1c653a552b0771c67347bd9d50600a45d7fb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.md @@ -0,0 +1,654 @@ +# Exhibit A + +#### [J-100-2020] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT + +BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. + +COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 39 MAP 2020 Appellee v. WILLIAM HENRY COSBY JR., Appellant : Appeal from the Order of Superior : Court at No. 3314 EDA 2018 dated : December 10, 2019 Affirming the : Judgment of Sentence dated t m r 25, 2018 of the Court of Common : Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP- : 46-CR-3932-2016 : ARGUED: December 1, 2020 + +#### JUSTICE WECHT + +In 2005, County District Attorney Bruce Castor learned that Andrea Constand had reported that William Cosby had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at his Cheltenham residence. Along with his top deputy prosecutor and experienced detectives, District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand's claim. In evaluating the likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties with Constand's credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, "there was insufficient credible and admissible + +#### OPINION + +DECIDED: June 30, 2021 + +evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."' + +Seeking "some measure of justice" for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.2 Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney's declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. + +D.A. Castor's successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby's reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision—Cosby's sworn inculpatory testimony—were then used by D.A. Castor's successors against Cosby at Cosby's criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.3 + +# I. Factual and Procedural History + +In the fall of 2002, Constand, a Canadian-born former professional basketball player, was employed as the Director of Basketball Operations at Temple University. It was in this capacity that Constand first met Cosby, who had close ties to, and was heavily + +1 Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), Habeas Corpus Hearing, 2/2/2016, at 60. + +2 Id. at 63. + +3As we discuss in more detail below, at Cosby's trial, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to call five witnesses who testified that Cosby had engaged in similar sexually abusive patterns with each of them. We granted allowance of appeal here as well to consider the admissibility of that prior bad act evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b). However, because our decision on the Castor declination issue disposes of this appeal, we do not address the Rule 404(b) claim. + +involved with, the university. That fall, she, along with a few other Temple administrators, showed Cosby around the university's then-recently renovated basketball facilities. Over the course of several telephone conversations concerning the renovations, Cosby and Constand developed a personal relationship. + +Soon after this relationship began, Cosby invited Constand to his Cheltenham residence. When Constand arrived, Cosby greeted her, escorted her to a room, and left her alone to eat dinner and drink wine. Cosby later returned, sat next to Constand on a , and placed his hand on her thigh. Constand was not bothered by Cosby's advance, even though it was the first time that any physical contact had occurred between the two. Shortly thereafter, Constand left the residence. + +As the personal nature of the relationship progressed, Cosby eventually met Constand's mother and sister, both of whom attended one of Cosby's comedy performances. Soon thereafter, Cosby invited Constand to return to his home for dinner. Constand arrived at the residence and again ate alone, in the same room in which she had eaten during her first visit. When Constand finished eating, Cosby approached and sat next to her on the At first, the two discussed Constand's desire to work as a sports broadcaster, but Cosby soon attempted physical contact. Cosby reached over to Constand and attempted to unbutton her pants. When she leaned forward to prevent him from doing so, Cosby immediately ceased his efforts. Constand believed that her actions had communicated to Cosby clearly that she did not want to engage in a physical relationship with him. She expected that no further incidents like this one would occur. + +Toward the end of 2003, Cosby invited Constand to meet at the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut. Constand accepted the invitation and, once at the casino, dined with Cosby and a casino employee, Tom Cantone. After dinner, Cantone walked Constand to her hotel room. Cosby called Constand and asked her to meet him for dessert in his room. Constand agreed. When she arrived, she sat on the edge of Cosby's bed as the two discussed their customary topics: Temple athletics and sports broadcasting. Cosby then reclined on the bed next to Constand. Eventually, he drifted off to sleep. After remaining in Cosby's room for a few minutes, Constand left and returned to her own room. Constand interpreted Cosby's actions as another sexual overture. Notwithstanding these unwelcome advances, Constand still regarded Cosby as a mentor, remained grateful for his career advice and assistance, and did not feel physically threatened or intimidated.° + +Eventually, Constand decided to leave her job at Temple and return to Canada to work as a masseuse. In January 2004, Constand went to Cosby's Cheltenham residence to discuss that decision. As on her previous visits to Cosby's home, Constand entered through the kitchen door. On this occasion, however, Constand noticed that Cosby already had placed a of water and a of wine on the kitchen table. While she sat at the table with Cosby and discussed her future, Constand initially chose not to sample the wine because she had not yet eaten and did not want to consume alcohol on an empty stomach. At Cosby's insistence, however, Constand began to drink. + +At one point, Constand to use the restroom. When she retumed, Cosby was standing next to the kitchen table with three blue pills in his hand. He reached out and offered the pills to Constand, telling her that the pills were her "friends," and that they would "help take the edge off."5 Constand took the pills from Cosby and swallowed them. The two then sat back down and resumed their discussion of Constand's planned departure from Temple. + +Constand soon began experiencing double vision. Her mouth became dry and she slurred her speech. Although Constand could not immediately identify the source of + +4N.T., Trial, 4/13/2018, at 53, 55. + +5N.T., Trial, 4/13/2018, at 59-60. + +her sudden difficulties, she knew that something was wrong. Cosby tried to reassure her. He told her that she had to relax. When Constand attempted to stand up, she needed Cosby's assistance to steady herself. Cosby guided her to a sofa in another room so that she could lie down. Constand felt weak and was unable to talk. She started slipping out of consciousness. + +Moments later, Constand came to suddenly, finding Cosby sitting behind her on the sofa. She remained unable to move or speak. With Constand physically incapable of stopping Cosby or of telling him to stop, Cosby began fondling her breasts and penetrating her vagina with his fingers. Cosby then took Constand's hand and used it to masturbate himself. At some point, Constand lost consciousness. + +When Constand eventually awakened on Cosby's in the early morning hours, she discovered that her pants were unzipped and that her bra was raised and out of place. Constand got up, adjusted her clothing, and prepared to leave the residence. She found Cosby standing in a doorway, wearing a robe and slippers. Cosby told Constand that there was a muffin and a cup of tea on a table for her. She took a sip of the tea, broke off a piece of the muffin, and left. + +After the January 2004 incident, Constand and Cosby continued to talk over the telephone about issues involving Temple University athletics. In March of that year, Cosby invited Constand to dinner at a Philadelphia restaurant. She accepted the invitation in hopes of confronting Cosby about the January episode, but the two did not discuss that matter during dinner. Afterward, Cosby invited Constand to his residence. She agreed. Once there, Constand attempted to broach the subject by asking Cosby to identify the pills that he had provided to her. She then tried to ask him why he took advantage of her when she was under the influence of those pills. Cosby was evasive and would not respond directly. Realizing that Cosby was not going to answer her questions, Constand got up and left. She did not report to the authorities what Cosby had done to her. + +A few months later, Constand moved back to her native Canada. She spoke with Cosby over the telephone, mostly about an upcoming Toronto performance that he had scheduled. Cosby invited Constand and her family to the show, which especially excited Constand's mother, who had attended two of Cosby's other performances and who brought a gift for Cosby to the show. + +Constand kept the January 2004 incident to herself for nearly a year, until one night in January 2005, when she bolted awake crying and decided to call her mother for advice. Initially, Constand's mother could not talk because she was en route to work, but she returned Constand's call immediately upon arrival. During the call, Constand told her mother that Cosby had sexually assaulted her approximately one year earlier. Together, the two decided that the best course of action was to contact the Durham Regional Police Department in Ontario, Canada, and to attempt to retain legal counsel in the United States. + +That night, Constand filed a police report with the Durham Regional Police Department. Shortly thereafter, Constand called Cosby, but he did not answer his phone. When Cosby returned the call the next day, both Constand and her mother were on the line. Constand brought up the January 2004 incident and asked Cosby to identify the three blue pills that he had given to her that night. Cosby apologized vaguely. As to the pills, Cosby feigned ignorance, promising Constand that he would check the label on the prescription bottle from which they came and relay that information to her. + +Frustrated, Constand left the call, but her mother remained on the line and continued to speak with Cosby. Cosby assured Constand's mother that he did not have sexual intercourse with Constand while she was incapacitated. Neither Constand nor her mother informed Cosby that Constand had filed a police report accusing him of sexual assault. + +Constand later telephoned Cosby again and, unbeknownst to Cosby, recorded the conversation with a tape recorder that she had purchased. During this conversation, Cosby offered to continue assisting Constand if she still desired to work in sports broadcasting. He also indicated that he would pay for Constand to continue her education. Cosby asked Constand to meet him in person to discuss these matters further, and told her that he would have someone contact her to set up the meeting. As with the previous call, Cosby again refused to identify the pills that he had provided to Constand on the night of the alleged assault. + +Within days of filing the police report, Constand received two telephone messages from people associated with Cosby. The first message was from one of Cosby's assistants, calling on Cosby's behalf to invite Constand and her mother to Cosby's upcoming performance in Miami, Florida. Constand called the representative back and recorded the call. The representative asked for certain details about Constand and her mother so that he could book flights and hotel rooms for them. Constand declined the offer and did not provide the requested information. Constand then received a message from one of Cosby's attorneys, who stated that he was calling to discuss the creation of a trust that Cosby wanted to set up in order to provide financial assistance for Constand's education. Constand never returned the attorney's call. + +In the meantime, the Durham Regional Police Department referred Constand's police report to the Philadelphia Police Department, which, in turn, referred it to the Cheltenham Police Department in County, where Cosby's residence was located. The case was assigned to Sergeant Richard Schaeffer, who worked in tandem with the County Detective Bureau and the County District Attorney's Office to investigate Constand's allegation. + +Sergeant Schaeffer first spoke with Constand by telephone on January 19, 2005. According to Sergeant Schaeffer, Constand seemed nervous throughout this brief initial interview. Thereafter, Constand traveled from Canada to Cheltenham to meet with the investigating team in person. Because this was Constand's first time meeting with law enforcement personnel, she felt nervous and uncomfortable while discussing with them the intimate nature of her allegations. + +On January 24, 2005, then County District Attorney Bruce Castor issued a press release informing the public that Cosby was under investigation for sexual assault. Sergeant Schaeffer and other law enforcement officials interviewed Cosby in New York City, utilizing a written question and answer format. Cosby was accompanied by his attorneys, Walter M. Esquire, and John P. Schmitt, Esquire. Cosby reported that Constand had come to his home at least three times during their social and romantic relationship. Cosby claimed that, on the night in question, Constand came to his house complaining of an inability to sleep. Cosby stated that he told Constand that, when he travels, he takes Benadryl, an antihistamine, which immediately makes him drowsy. According to Cosby, he then handed Constand one-and-a-half Benadryl pills, but did not tell her what they were. + +Cosby recalled that, once Constand ingested the pills, they kissed and touched each other on the . Cosby admitted that he touched Constand's breasts and vagina, but he insisted that she neither resisted nor told him to stop. Additionally, Cosby told the investigators that he never removed his clothing and that Constand did not touch any part of his body under his clothes. Cosby denied having sexual intercourse with Constand and disclaimed any intent to do so that night. In fact, Cosby claimed that the two never had sexual intercourse on any occasion. Cosby admitted that he told Constand and her mother that he would write down the name of the pills and provide them that information, but he acknowledged that he never actually did so. After the interview—and without being asked to do so—Cosby provided the police with pills, which laboratory testing confirmed to be Benadryl. + +In February 2005, then-District Attorney Castor reviewed Constand's interviews and Cosby's written answers in order to assess the viability of a prosecution of Cosby. The fact that Constand had failed to promptly file a complaint against Cosby troubled the district attorney. In D.A. Castor's view, such a delay diminished the reliability of any recollections and undermined the investigators' efforts to collect forensic evidence. Moreover, D.A. Castor identified a number of inconsistences in Constand's various statements to investigators. After Cosby provided his written answers, police officers searched his Cheltenham residence and found no evidence that, in their view, could be used to confirm or corroborate Constand's allegations. Following the search of Cosby's home, Constand was interviewed by police again. D.A. Castor noted that there were inconsistences in that interview, which further impaired Constand's credibility in his eyes. He also learned that, before she contacted the police in Canada, Constand had contacted civil attorneys in Philadelphia, likely for the purpose of pursuing financial compensation in a lawsuit against Cosby. + +Additionally, according to D.A. Castor, Constand's behavior in the year since the alleged assault complicated any effort to secure a conviction against Cosby. As evidenced by the number of telephone calls that she recorded, Constand continued to talk with Cosby on the phone, and she also continued to meet with him in person after the incident. D.A. Castor found these recurring interactions between a complainant and an alleged perpetrator to be atypical. D.A. Castor also reasoned that the recordings likely were illegal and included discussions that could be interpreted as attempts by Constand and her mother to get Cosby to pay Constand so that she would not contact the authorities. The totality of these circumstances ultimately led D.A. Castor to conclude that "there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against [] Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 60. + +Having determined that a criminal trial likely could not be won, D.A. Castor contemplated an alternative course of action that could place Constand on a path to some form of justice. He decided that a civil lawsuit for money damages was her best option. To aid Constand in that pursuit, "as the sovereign," the district attorney "decided that [his office] would not prosecute fl Cosby," believing that his decision ultimately "would then set off the chain of events that [he] thought as a Minister of Justice would gain some justice for Andrea Constand." Id. at 63-64. By removing the threat of a criminal prosecution, D.A. Castor reasoned, Cosby would no longer be able in a civil lawsuit to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for fear that his statements could later be used against him by the Commonwealth. Mr. Castor would later testify that this was his intent: + +The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a person may not be compelled to give evidence against themselves. So you can't subpoena somebody and make them testify that they did something illegal—or evidence that would lead someone to conclude they did something illegal—on the threat of if you don't answer, you'll be subject to sanctions because you're under subpoena. + +So the way you remove that from a witness is-if you want to, and what I did in this case—is I made the decision as the sovereign that Mr. Cosby would not be prosecuted no matter what. As a matter of law, that then made it so that he could not take the Fifth Amendment ever as a matter of law. + +So I have heard banter in the courtroom and in the press the term "agreement," but everybody has used the wrong word. I told [Cosby's attorney at the time, Walter] that I had decided that, because of defects in the case, that the case could not be won and that I was going to make a public statement that we were not going to charge Mr. Cosby. + +I told him that I was making it as the sovereign Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, in my legal opinion, that meant that Mr. Cosby would not be allowed to take the Fifth Amendment in the subsequent civil suit that Andrea Constand's lawyers had told us they wanted to bring. + +[Attorney] agreed with me that that is, in fact, the law of Pennsylvania and of the United States and agreed that if Cosby was subpoenaed, he would be required to testify. + +But those two things were not connected one to the other. Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all ever as far as I was concerned. And my belief was that, as the Commonwealth and the representative of the sovereign, that I had the power to make such a statement and that, by doing so, as a matter of law Mr. Cosby would be unable to assert the Fifth Amendment in a civil deposition. + +[Attorney] , a lawyer of vastly more experience even than me—and I had 20 years on the job by that point—agreed with my legal assessment. And he said that he would communicate that to the lawyers who were representing Mr. Cosby in the pending civil suit. + +Id. at 64-66. Recalling his thought process at the time, the former district attorney further emphasized that it was "absolutely" his intent to remove "for all time" the possibility of prosecution, because "the ability to take the Fifth Amendment is also for all time removed." + +Id. at 67. + +Consistent with his discussion with Attorney , D.A. Castor issued another press release, this time informing the public that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby. The press release stated, in full: + +County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr. has announced that a joint investigation by his office and the Cheltenham Township Police Department into allegations against actor and comic Bill Cosby is concluded. Cosby maintains a residence in Cheltenham Township, County. + +A 31 year old female, a former employee of the Athletic Department of Temple University complained to detectives that Cosby touched her inappropriately during a visit to his home in January of 2004. The woman reported the allegation to police in her native Canada on January 13, 2005. + +Canadian authorities, in turn, referred the complaint to Philadelphia Police. Philadelphia forwarded the complaint to Cheltenham Police. The District Attorney's Office became involved at the request of the Cheltenham Chief of Police John Norris. + +Everyone involved in this matter cooperated with investigators including the complainant and Mr. Cosby. The level of cooperation has helped the investigation proceed smoothly and efficiently. The District Attorney commends all parties for their assistance. + +The District Attorney has reviewed the statements of the parties involved, those of all witnesses who might have first hand knowledge of the alleged incident including family, friends and co-workers of the complainant, and professional acquaintances and employees of Mr. Cosby. Detectives searched Mr. Cosby's Cheltenham home for potential evidence. Investigators further provided District Attorney Castor with phone records and other items that might have evidentiary value. Lastly, the District Attorney reviewed statements from other persons claiming that Mr. Cosby behaved inappropriately with them on prior occasions. However, the detectives could find no instance in Mr. Cosby's past where anyone complained to law enforcement of conduct, which would constitute a criminal offense. + +After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this finding, the District Attorney has analyzed the facts in relation to the elements of any applicable offenses, including whether Mr. Cosby possessed the requisite criminal intent. In addition, District Attorney Castor applied the Rules of Evidence governing whether or not evidence is admissible. Evidence may be inadmissible if it is too remote in time to be considered legally relevant or if it was illegally obtained pursuant to Pennsylvania law. After this analysis, the District Attorney concludes that a conviction under the circumstances of this case would be unattainable. As such, District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter. + +Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint prospective jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering + +light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric. + +Press Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4. + +D.A. Castor did not communicate to Constand or her counsel his decision to permanently forego prosecuting Cosby. In fact, Constand did not learn of the decision until a reporter appeared at one of her civil attorney's offices later that evening. With the resolution of her allegations removed from the criminal courts, Constand turned to the civil realm. On March 8, 2015, less than one month after the district attorney's press release, Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.6 + +During discovery in that lawsuit, Cosby sat for four depositions. Cosby's attorney for the civil proceedings, John Schmitt, had learned about the non-prosecution decision from Cosby's criminal counsel, Walter From the perspective of Cosby's attorneys, the district attorney's decision legally deprived Cosby of any right or ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, not once during the four depositions did Cosby invoke the Fifth Amendment or even mention it. During one deposition, Attorney Schmitt advised Cosby not to answer certain questions pertaining to Constand, but he did not specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment.' Nor did Cosby claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment when asked about other alleged victims of his sexual abuse, presumably because he believed that he no longer retained that privilege. In fact, no one involved with either side of the civil suit indicated on the record a belief that Cosby could be prosecuted in the future. D.A. Castor's decision was not included in any written stipulations, nor was it reduced to writing. + +6See Constand v. Cosby, Docket No. 2:05-cv-01099-ER. + +7Constand's attorneys subsequently filed a motion to compel Cosby to answer. + +At deposition, Cosby testified that he developed a romantic interest in Constand as soon as he met her, but did not reveal his feelings. He acknowledged that he always initiated the in-person meetings and visits to his home. He also stated that he engaged in consensual sexual activity with Constand on three occasions, including the January 2004 incident. + +Throughout the depositions, Cosby identified the pills that he provided to Constand in 2004 as Benadryl. Cosby claimed to know the effects of Benadryl well, as he frequently took two of the pills to help himself fall asleep. Thus, when Constand arrived at his house on the night in question stressed, tense, and having difficulty sleeping, Cosby decided to give her three half-pills of Benadryl to help her relax. According to Cosby, Constand took the pills without asking what they were, and he did not volunteer that information to her. + +Cosby explained that, after fifteen or twenty minutes, he suggested that they move from the kitchen to the living room, where Constand met him after going to the restroom. Cosby testified that Constand sat next to him on the and they began kissing and touching each other. According to Cosby, they laid together on the while he touched her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. Afterwards, Cosby told her to try to get some sleep, and then he went upstairs to his bedroom. He came back downstairs two hours later to find Constand awake. He then escorted her to the kitchen where they had a muffin and tea. + +Cosby was questioned about his telephone conversations with Constand's mother. Cosby admitted that he told Constand and her mother that he would write down the name of the pills that he gave her and then send it to them, but that he failed to do so. He further explained that he would not admit what the pills were over the phone with Constand and her mother because he did not want Constand's mother to think that he was a perverted old man who had drugged her daughter. He also noted that he had suspected that the phone calls were being recorded. Although he did not believe that Constand was making these allegations in an attempt to get money from him, Cosby explained that, after Constand and her mother confronted him, he offered to pay for her education and asked his attorney to commence discussions regarding setting up a trust for that purpose. Cosby admitted that it would be in his best interests if the public believed that Constand had consented to the encounter, and that he believed he would suffer financial consequences if the public believed that he had drugged and assaulted her. + +Notably, during his depositions, Cosby confessed that, in the past, he had provided Quaaludes8—not Benadryl—to other women with whom he wanted to have sexual intercourse. + +Eventually, Constand settled her civil suit with Cosby for \$3.38 million.9 Initially, the terms of the settlement and the records of the case, including Cosby's depositions, were sealed. However, following a media request, the federal judge who presided over the civil suit unsealed the records in 2015. + +By that point, then-D.A. Castor had moved on from the district attorney's office and was serving as a County Commissioner. He was succeeded as district attorney by his former first assistant, Risa Vetri Ferman, Esquire.70 Despite her predecessor's decision not to prosecute Cosby, upon release of the civil records, District Attorney Ferman reopened the criminal investigation of Constand's allegations. Then- + +8"Quaalude" is a brand name for methaqualone, a central nervous system depressant that was a popular recreational drug from the 1960s through the 1980s, until the federal government classified methaqualone as a controlled substance. + +9Constand also received \$20,000 from American Media, Inc., which was a party to the lawsuit as a result of an interview that Cosby gave to the National Enquirer about Constand's allegations. + +10 D.A Ferman, now Judge Ferman, was subsequently elected to a seat on the Court of Common Pleas of County. + +First Assistant District Attorney Kevin R. Steelell was present during the initial stages of the newly-revived investigation and participated in early discussions with Cosby's new lawyers, Brian J. McMonagle, Esquire, and J. O'Conner, Esquire. + +On September 23, 2015, upon learning that D.A. Ferman had reopened the case, former D.A. Castor sent her an email, to which he attached his February 17, 2005 press release, stating the following: + +Dear Risa, + +I certainly know better than to believe what I read in the newspaper, and I have witnessed first hand your legal acumen. So you almost certainly know this already. I'm writing to you just in case you might have forgotten what we did with Cosby back in 2005. Attached is my opinion from then. + +Once we decided that the chances of prevailing in a criminal case were too remote to make an arrest, I concluded that the best way to achieve justice was to create an atmosphere where [Constand] would have the best chance 'wailing in a civil suit against Cosby. With the agreement of [Attorney] and [Constand's] lawyers, I wrote the attached as the ONLY comment I would make while the civil case was pending. Again, with the agreement of the defense lawyer and [Constand's] lawyers, I intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution of Cosby in order to remove from him the ability to claim his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, thus forcing him to sit for a deposition under oath. [Attorney I was speaking for Cosby's side at the time, but he was in contact with Cosby's civil lawyers who did is;with me directly that I recall. I only discovered today that [Attomey had died. But those lawyers representing [Constand] civilly, whose names I did not remember until I saw them in recent media accounts, were part of this agreement because they wanted to make Cosby testify. I believed at the time that they thought making him testify would solidify their civil case, but the only way to do that was for us (the Commonwealth) to promise not to prosecute him. So in effect, that is what I did. I never made an important decision without discussing it with you during your tenure as First Assistant. + +Knowing the above, I can see no possibility that Cosby's deposition could be used in a state criminal case, because I would have to testify as to what happened, and the deposition would be subject to suppression. I cannot + +11Mr. Steele has since been elected District Attorney of County. + +believe any state judge would allow that deposition into evidence, nor anything derived therefrom. In fact, that was the specific intent of all parties involved including the Commonwealth and the plaintiff's lawyers. Knowing this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action against the County and maybe even against you personally. That is why I have publically suggested looking for lies in the deposition as an alternative now that we have learned of all these other victims we did not know about at the time we had made the go, no-go decision on arresting Cosby. I publically suggested that the DA in California might try a common plan scheme or design case using [Constand's] case as part of the *res gestae* in their case. Because I knew [REDACTED] County could not prosecute Cosby for a sexual offense, if the deposition was needed to do so. But I thought the DA in California might have a shot because I would not have the power to bind another state's prosecutor. + +Some of this, of course, is my opinion and using Cosby's deposition in the CA case, might be a stretch, but one thing is fact: the Commonwealth, defense, and civil plaintiff's lawyers were all in the agreement that the attached decision from me stripped Cosby of this Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, forcing him to be deposed. That led to Cosby paying [Constand] a lot of money, a large percentage of which went to her lawyers on a contingent fee basis. In my opinion, those facts will render Cosby's deposition inadmissible in any prosecution in [REDACTED] County for the incident that occurred in January 2004 in Cheltenham Township. + +Bruce + +N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5. + +Replying by letter, D.A. Ferman asserted that, despite the public press release, this was the first she had learned about a binding understanding between the Commonwealth and Cosby. She requested a copy of any written agreement not to prosecute Cosby. D.A. Castor replied with the following email: + +The attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff's lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ. That meant to all involved, including Cosby's lawyer at the time, Mr. [REDACTED], that what Cosby said in the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this reason, at the request of [Constand's] counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and + +complete intent to bind the Commonwealth that anything Cosby said in the civil case could not be used against him, thereby forcing him to be deposed and perhaps testify in a civil trial without him having the ability to "take the 5try I decided to create the best possible environment for [Constand] to prevail and be compensated. By signing my name as District Attorney and issuing the attached, I was "signing off" on the Commonwealth not being able to use anything Cosby said in the civil case against him in a criminal prosecution, because I was stating the Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for this incident based upon then-available evidence in order to help [Constand] prevail in her civil action. Evidently, that strategy worked. + +The attached, which was on letterhead and signed by me as District Attorney, the concept approved by [Constand's] lawyers was a "written declaration" from the Attorney for the Commonwealth there would be no prosecution based on anything Cosby said in the civil action. Naturally, if a prosecution could be made out without using what Cosby said, or anything derived from what Cosby said, I believed then and continue to believe that a prosecution is not precluded. + +Id., Exh. D-7. + +Despite her predecessor's concerns, D.A. Ferman and the investigators pressed forward, reopening the criminal case against Cosby. Members of the prosecutorial team traveled to Canada and met with Constand, asking her to cooperate with their efforts to prosecute Cosby, even though she had specifically agreed not to do so as part of the civil settlement. Investigators also began to identify, locate, and interview other women that had claimed to have been assaulted by Cosby. + +Nearly a decade after D.A. Castor's public decision not to prosecute Cosby, the Commonwealth charged Cosby with three counts of aggravated indecent assaultI2 stemming from the January 2004 incident with Constand in Cosby's Cheltenham residence. On January 11, 2016, Cosby filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus13 + +12By this time, Mr. Steele had replaced Judge Ferman as District Attorney. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(1), (a)(4), and (a)(5). + +13Cosby styled the as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Disqualify the r County District Attorney's Office." The trial court treated the omnibus motion as three separate motions: (1) a motion to dismiss the charges based upon the alleged non-prosecution agreement; (2) a motion to dismiss the charges based + +seeking, inter alia, dismissal of the charges based upon the former D.A. Castor's purported promise—made in his representative capacity on behalf of the Commonwealth—that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The Commonwealth filed a response to the motion, to which Cosby replied. + +From February 2-3, 2016, the trial court conducted hearings on Cosby's habeas petition, which it ultimately denied. Later, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained that "the only conclusion that was apparent" from the record "was that no agreement or promise not to prosecute ever existed, only the exercise of prosecutorial discretion." Tr. Ct. Op. ("T.C.O."), 5/14/2019, at 62. In support of this conclusion, the trial court provided a lengthy summary of what it found to be the pertinent facts developed at the habeas corpus hearing. Because our analysis in this case focuses upon the trial court's interpretation of those testimonies, we reproduce that court's synopsis here: + +On January 24, 2005, then District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr., issued a signed press release announcing an investigation into Ms. Constand's allegations. Mr. Castor testified that as the District Attorney in 2005, he oversaw the investigation into Ms. Constand's allegations. Ms. Ferman supervised the investigation along with County Detective Richard Peffall and Detective Richard Schaffer of Cheltenham. Mr. Castor testified that "I assigned who I thought were our best people to the case. And I took an active role as District Attorney because I thought I owed it to Canada to show that, in America, we will investigate allegations against celebrities." + +Mr. Castor testified that Ms. Constand went to the Canadian police almost exactly one year after the alleged assault and that the case was ultimately referred to County. The lack of a prompt complaint was significant to Mr. Castor in terms of Ms. Constand's credibility and in terms of law enforcement's ability to collect physical evidence. He also placed significance on the fact that Ms. Constand told the Canadian authorities that she contacted a lawyer in Philadelphia prior to speaking with them. He also reviewed Ms. Constand's statements to police. Mr. Castor felt that there were inconsistences in her statements. Mr. Castor did not recall press quotes attributed to him calling the case "weak" at a 2005 press conference. + +upon pre-arrest delay; and (3) a motion to disqualify the County District Attorney's Office. + +Likewise, he did not recall the specific statement, "[i]n Pennsylvania we charged people for criminal conduct. We don't charge people with making a mistake or doing something foolish;" however, he indicated that it is a true statement. + +As part of the 2005 investigation, [Cosby] gave a full statement to law enforcement and his Pennsylvania and New York homes were searched. [Cosby] was accompanied by counsel and did not invoke the Fifth Amendment at any time during the statement. After [Cosby's] interview, Ms. Constand was interviewed a second time. Mr. Castor never personally met with Ms. Constand. Following that interview of Ms. Constand, Mr. Castor spoke to [Cosby's] attorney Walter M. [REDACTED], Jr. Mr. [REDACTED] told Mr. Castor that during the year between the assault and the report, Ms. Constand had multiple phone contacts with [Cosby]. Mr. [REDACTED] was also concerned that Ms. Constand had recorded phone calls with [Cosby]. Mr. [REDACTED] told Mr. Castor that if he obtained the phone records and the recorded calls he would conclude that Ms. Constand and her mother were attempting was to get money from [Cosby] so they would not go to the police. While he did not necessarily agree with the conclusions Mr. [REDACTED] thought would be drawn from the records, Mr. Castor directed the police to obtain the records. Mr. Castor's recollection was that there was an "inordinate number of [phone] contacts" between [Cosby] and Ms. Constand after the assault. He also confirmed the existence of at least two "wire interceptions," which he did not believe would be admissible. + +As part of the 2005 investigation, allegations made by other women were also investigated. Mr. Castor delegated that investigation to Ms. Ferman. He testified that he determined that, in his opinion, these allegations were unreliable. + +Following approximately one month of investigation, Mr. Castor concluded that "there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." He testified that he could either leave the case open at that point or definitively close the case to allow a civil case. He did not believe there was a chance that the criminal case could get any better. He believed Ms. Constand's actions created a credibility issue that could not be overcome. + +\* \* \* + +Mr. Castor further indicated, "Mr. [REDACTED] never agreed to anything in exchange for Mr. Cosby not being prosecuted." Mr. Castor testified that he told Mr. [REDACTED] of his legal assessment and then told Ms. Ferman of the analysis and directed her to contact Constand's attorneys. He testified that she was to contact the attorneys to let them know that "Cosby was not going to be prosecuted and that the purpose for that was that I wanted to create + +the atmosphere or the legal conditions such that Mr. Cosby would never be allowed to assert the Fifth Amendment in the civil case." He testified that she did not come back to him with any objection from Ms. Constand's attorneys and that any objection from Ms. Constand's attorneys would not have mattered anyway. He later testified that he did not have any specific recollection of discussing his legal analysis with Ms. Ferman, but would be surprised if he did not. + +Mr. Castor testified that he could not recall any other case where he made this type of binding legal analysis in [REDACTED] County. He testified that in a half dozen cases during his tenure in the District Attorney's office, someone would attempt to assert the Fifth Amendment in a preexisting civil case. The judge in that case would then call Mr. Castor to determine if he intended to prosecute the person asserting the privilege. He could confirm that he did not and the claim of privilege would be denied. Mr. Castor was unable to name a case in which this happened. + +After making his decision not to prosecute, Mr. Castor personally issued a second, signed press release on February 17, 2005. Mr. Castor testified that he signed the press release at the request of Ms. Constand's attorneys in order to bind the Commonwealth so it "would be evidence that they could show to a civil judge that Cosby is not getting prosecuted." The press release stated, "After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham Detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt." Mr. Castor testified that this language made it absolute that [Cosby] would never be prosecuted, "[s]o I used the present tense, [exists], . . . So I'm making it absolute. I said I found that there was no evidence—there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence in existence upon which any charge against [Cosby] could be sustained. And the use of 'exists' and 'could' I meant to be absolute." + +The press release specifically cautioned the parties that the decision could be revisited, "District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise." He testified that inclusion of this sentence, warning that the decision could be revisited, in the paragraph about a civil case and the use of the word "this," was intended to make clear that it applied to the civil case and not to the prosecution. Mr. Castor testified that this sentence was meant to advise the parties that if they criticized his decision, he would contact the media and explain that Ms. Constand's actions damaged her credibility, which would severely hamper her civil case. He testified that once he was certain a prosecution was not viable "I operated under the certainty that a civil suit was coming and set up the dominoes to fall in such a way that Mr. Cosby would be required to testify." He included the language "much exists in this investigation that could be used by others to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a + +less than flattering light," as a threat to Ms. Constand and her attorneys should they attack his office. In a 2016 Philadelphia Inquirer article, in reference to this same sentence, Castor stated, "I put in there that if any evidence surfaced that was admissible I would revisit the issue. And evidently, that is what the D.A. is doing." He testified that he remembered making that statement but that it referred to the possibility of a prosecution based on other victims in [REDACTED] County or perjury. + +He testified that the press release was intended for three audiences, the media, the greater legal community, and the litigants. He testified about what meaning he hoped that each audience would glean from the press release. He did not intend for any of the three groups to understand the entirety of what he meant. The media was to understand only that [Cosby] would not be arrested. Lawyers would parse every word and understand that he was saying there was enough evidence to arrest [Cosby] but that Mr. Castor thought the evidence was not credible or admissible. The third audience was the litigants, and they were to understand that they did not want to damage the civil case. He then stated that the litigants would understand the entirety of the press release, the legal community most of it and the press little of it. + +Mr. Castor testified that in November of 2014 he was contacted by the media as a result of a joke a comedian made about [Cosby]. Again, in the summer of 2015 after the civil depositions were released, media approached Mr. Castor. He testified that he told every reporter that he spoke to in this time frame that the reason he had declined the charges was to strip Mr. Cosby of his Fifth Amendment privilege. He testified that he did not learn the investigation had been reopened until he read in the paper that [Cosby] was arrested in December 2015, but there was media speculation in September 2015 that an arrest might be imminent. + +On September 23, 2015, apparently in response to this media speculation, unprompted and unsolicited, Mr. Castor sent an email to then District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman. His email indicated, in pertinent part, + +I'm writing you just in case you might have forgotten what we did with Cosby back in 2005. . . Once we decided that the chances of prevailing in a criminal case were too remote to make an arrest, I concluded that the best way to achieve justice was to create an atmosphere where [Constand] would have the best chance of prevailing in a civil suit against Cosby. With the agreement of [Attorney [REDACTED]] and [Constand's] lawyer, I wrote the attached [press release] as the ONLY comment I would make while the civil case was pending. Again, with the agreement of the defense lawyer and [Constand's] lawyers, I intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution of + +Cosby in order to remove from him the ability to claim his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, thus forcing him to sit for a deposition under oath. . . . But those lawyers representing [Constand] civilly . . . were part of this agreement because they wanted to make Cosby testify. I believed at the time that they thought making him testify would solidify their civil case, but the only way to do that was for us (the Commonwealth) to promise not to prosecute him. So in effect, that is what I did. I never made an important decision without discussing it with you during your tenure as First Assistant. + +\* \* \* + +[B]ut one thing is fact. The Commonwealth, defense and civil plaintiff's lawyers were all in agreement that the attached decision from me stripped Cosby of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination forcing him to be deposed. + +He indicated in his email that he learned Mr. [REDACTED] had died on the date of his email. The email also suggested that the deposition might be subject to suppression. + +Ms. Ferman responded to Mr. Castor's email by letter of September 25, 2015, requesting a copy of the "written declaration" indicating that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted. In her letter, Ms. Ferman indicated that "[t]he first I heard of such a binding agreement was your email sent this past Wednesday. The first I heard of a written declaration documenting the agreement not to prosecute was authored on 9/24/15 and published today by Margaret Gibbons of the Intelligencer. . . . We have been in contact with counsel for both Mr. Cosby and Ms. Constand and neither has provided us with any information about such an agreement." + +Mr. Castor responded by email. His email indicated, + +The attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for the plaintiffs wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff's wanted it in writing was so Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. . . . That meant to all involved, including Cosby's lawyer at the time, Mr. [REDACTED], that what Cosby said in the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this reason, at the request of Plaintiff's counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and complete intent to bind the Commonwealth that anything Cosby said in + +the civil case could not be used against him, thereby forcing him to be deposed and perhaps testify in a civil trial without the ability to "take the 5th." I decided to create the best possible environment for the Plaintiff to prevail and be compensated. By signing my name as District Attorney and issuing the attached, I was "signing off" on the Commonwealth not being able to use anything Cosby said in the civil case against him in a criminal prosecution, because I was stating the Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for the incident based on the then-available evidence in order to help the Plaintiff prevail in her civil action . . . [n]aturally, if a prosecution could be made out without using what Cosby said, or anything derived from what Cosby said, I believed then and continue to believe that a prosecution is not precluded. + +Mr. Castor testified that he intended to confer transactional immunity upon [Cosby] and that his power to do so as the sovereign was derived from common law not from the statutes of Pennsylvania. In his final email to Ms. Ferman, Mr. Castor stated, "I never agreed we would not prosecute Cosby." + +As noted, Ms. Constand's civil attorneys also testified at the hearing. Dolores Troiani, Esq. testified that during the 2005 investigation, she had no contact with the District Attorney's office and limited contact with the Cheltenham Police Department. Bebe Kivitz, Esq. testified that during the 2005 investigation she had limited contact with then-First Assistant District Attorney Ferman. The possibility of a civil suit was never discussed with anyone from the Commonwealth or anyone representing [Cosby] during the criminal investigation. At no time did anyone from Cheltenham Police, or the District Attorney's Office, convey to Ms. Troiani, or Ms. Kivitz, that [Cosby] would never be prosecuted. They learned that the criminal case was declined from a reporter who came to Ms. Troiani's office in the evening of February 17, 2005 seeking comment about what Bruce Castor had done. The reporter informed her that Mr. Castor had issued a press release in which he declined prosecution. Ms. Troiani had not receive any prior notification of the decision not to prosecute. + +Ms. Constand and her attorneys did not request a declaration from Mr. Castor that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted. Ms. Troiani testified that if [Cosby] attempted to invoke the Fifth Amendment during his civil depositions they would have filed a motion and he would have likely been precluded since he had given a statement to police. If he was permitted to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege, they would have been entitled to an adverse inference jury instruction. Additionally, if [Cosby] asserted the Fifth Amendment, Ms. Constand's version of the story would have been the only version for the jury to consider. Ms. Constand and her counsel had no reason to request immunity. At no time during the civil suit did Ms. Troiani + +receive any information in discovery or from [Cosby's] attorneys indicating that [Cosby] could never be prosecuted. + +Ms. Troiani testified that she understood the press release to say that Mr. Castor was not prosecuting at that time but if additional information arose, he would change his mind. She did not take the language, "District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise," to be a threat not to speak publicly. She continued to speak to the press; Mr. Castor did not retaliate. + +Ms. Troiani was present for [Cosby's] depositions. At no point during the depositions was there any mention of an agreement or promise not to prosecute. In her experience, such a promise would have been put on the record at the civil depositions. She testified that during the four days of depositions, [Cosby] was not cooperative and the depositions were extremely contentious. Ms. Troiani had to file motions to compel [Cosby's] answers. [Cosby's] refusal to answer questions related to Ms. Constand's allegations formed the basis of a motion to compel. When Ms. Troiani attempted to question [Cosby] about the allegations, [Cosby's] attorneys sought to have his statement to police read into the record in lieu of cross examination. + +Ms. Troiani testified that one of the initial provisions [Cosby] wanted in the civil settlement was a release from criminal liability. [Cosby's civil attorney [REDACTED]] O'Conner's letter to Ms. Ferman does not dispute this fact. [Cosby] and his attorneys also requested that Ms. Troiani agree to destroy her file, she refused. Eventually, the parties agreed on the language that Ms. Constand would not initiate any criminal complaint. The first Ms. Troiani heard of a promise not to prosecute was in 2015. The first Ms. Kivitz learned of the purported promise was in a 2014 newspaper article. + +John P. Schmitt, Esq., testified that he has represented [Cosby] since 1983. In the early 1990s, he became [Cosby's] general counsel. In 2005, when he became aware of the instant allegations, he retained criminal counsel, William [REDACTED], Esq., on [Cosby's] behalf. Mr. [REDACTED] dealt directly with the prosecutor's office and would then discuss all matters with Mr. Schmitt. [Cosby's] January 2005 interview took place at Mr. Schmitt's office. Both Mr. Schmitt and Mr. [REDACTED] were present for the interview. Numerous questions were asked the answers to which could lead to criminal charges. At no time during his statement to police did [Cosby] invoke the Fifth Amendment or refuse to answer questions. Mr. Schmitt testified that he had interviewed [Cosby] prior to his statement and was not concerned about his answers. Within weeks of the interview, the District Attorney declined to bring a prosecution. Mr. Schmitt testified that Mr. [REDACTED] told him that the decision was an irrevocable commitment that District Attorney Castor was not going to prosecute [Cosby]. He received a copy of the press release. + +On March 8, 2005, Ms. Constand filed her civil suit and Mr. Schmitt retained O'Conner, Esq., as civil counsel. Mr. Schmitt participated in the civil case. [Cosby] sat for four days of depositions. Mr. Schmitt testified that [Cosby] did not invoke the Fifth Amendment in those depositions and that he would not have let him sit for the depositions if he knew the criminal case could be reopened. + +He testified that generally he does try to get agreements on [Cosby's] behalf in writing. During this time period, Mr. Schmitt was involved in written negotiations with the National Enquirer. He testified that he relied on the press release, Mr. Castor's word and Mr. ' assurances that what Mr. Castor did was sufficient. Mr. Schmitt did not personally speak to Mr. Castor or get the assurance in writing. During the depositions, Mr. O'Conner objected to numerous questions. At the time of the depositions, Mr. Schmitt, through his negotiations with the National Enquirer, learned that there were Jane Doe witnesses making allegations against [Cosby]. [Cosby] did not assert a Fifth Amendment privilege when asked about these other women. Mr. Schmitt testified that he had not formed an opinion as to whether Mr. Castor's press release would cover that testimony. + +Mr. Schmitt testified that during negotiations of the settlement agreement there were references to a criminal case. The settlement agreement indicated that Ms. Constand would not initiate a criminal case against Mr. Cosby. Mr. Schmitt did not come forward when he learned the District Attorney's office re-opened the case in 2015. + +T.C.O. at 47-61 (cleaned up). + +Notably, when District Attorney Castor decided not to prosecute Cosby, he "absolutely" intended to remove "for all time" the possibility of prosecution, because "the ability to take the Fifth Amendment is also for all time removed." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 67. The trial court sought clarification from Mr. Castor about his statement in his second email to D.A. Ferman that he still believed that a prosecution was permissible as long as Cosby's depositions were not used in such proceedings. Former D.A. Castor explained to the court that he meant that a prosecution may be available only if other victims were discovered, with charges related only to those victims, and without the use of Cosby's depositions in the Constand matter. Specifically, former D.A. Castor stated that what he was "trying to convey to Mrs. Ferman [was that his] binding of the Commonwealth not to prosecute Cosby was not for any crime in County for all time. It was only + +for the sexual assault crime in the Constand case." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 224-25. He continued, "[s]a if they had evidence that some of these other women had been sexually assaulted at Cosby's home in Cheltenham, then I thought they could go ahead with the prosecution of that other case with some other victim, so long as they realized they could not use the Constand deposition and anything derived therefrom." Id. + +As noted, the trial court denied the motion, finding that then-D.A. Castor never, in fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62. Instead, the trial court considered the interaction between the former district attomey and Cosby to be an incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court found no authority for the "proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign." Id. Rather, the court noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania's immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14 Per the terms of the statute, + +(a) General rule.—Immunity orders shall be available under this section in all proceedings before: + +- (1) Courts. + +(b) Request and issuance.--The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney General or district attorney: + +- (1) the testimony or other information from a witness may be necessary to the public interest; and +- (2) a witness has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination. + +14The immunity statute provides, in relevant part: + +permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity. See id. § 5947(b) ("The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court."). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the trial court, the "press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of an enforceable promise not to prosecute." T.C.O. at 62. + +The trial court also found that "Mr. Castor's testimony about what he did and how he did it was equivocal at best." Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney's characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited Attorney Troiani's statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer. + +(c) Order to testify.--Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding specified in subsection (a), and the person presiding at such proceeding communicates to the witness an immunity order, that witness may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination. + +(d) Limitation on use.—No testimony or other information compelled under an immunity order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information, may be used against a witness in any criminal case, except that such information may be used: + +- (1) in a prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902 (relating to perjury) or under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903 (relating to false swearing); +- (2) in a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an immunity order; or +- (3) as evidence, where otherwise admissible, in any proceeding where the witness is not a criminal defendant. + +42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(a)-(d). + +As further support for the view that no agreement was reached, nor any promise extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he asserted again later in his depositions. "Thus," the trial court explained, "there was nothing to indicate that [Cosby's] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed." Id. at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported to provide in anticipation of that litigation. + +The trial court further held that, even if there was a purported grant of immunity, Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of promissory estoppel, because "any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable." Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them "obtained [D.A.] Castor's promise in writing or memorialized it in any way." Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended. For these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby. + +Cosby filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Superior Court. In response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below. However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby's pre-trial efforts to appeal the adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings. + +On May 24, 2016, following a preliminary hearing, all of Cosby's charges were held for trial. Thereafter, Cosby filed a number of pretrial motions, including a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a motion to dismiss the charges on due process grounds, and, most pertinent here, a "Motion to Suppress the Contents of his Deposition Testimony and Any Evidence Derived therefrom on the Basis that the District Attorney's Promise not to Prosecute Him Induced Him to Waive his Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination." After holding a hearing on the suppression motion, at which no new testimony was taken, the trial court again concluded that former District Attorney Castor's testimony was equivocal, credited the testimony of Constand's attomeys, and found that no promise or agreement not to prosecute existed. Having so determined, the court discerned "no [c]onstitutional barrier to the use of [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony" against him at trial, and it denied the suppression motion.15 Later, the Commonwealth would introduce portions of Cosby's deposition testimony against Cosby, including his admissions to using Quaaludes during sexual encounters with women in the past. + +On September 6, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a "Motion to Introduce Evidence of Other Bad Acts of the Defendant," which Cosby opposed by written response. The Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence and testimony from other women who alleged that Cosby had sexually assaulted them, instances that could not be prosecuted due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations. On February 24, 2017, the trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion, but permitted only one of these alleged past victims to testify at Cosby's trial. + +On December 30, 2016, Cosby filed a motion seeking a change in venue or venire. The trial court kept the case in County, but agreed that the jury should be + +15 T.C.O. at 72 (quoting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Sur Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(1), 12/5/2016, at 5). + +selected from a different county. Thus, Cosby's jury was selected from residents of Allegheny County, and trial commenced. On June 17, 2017, after seven days of deliberation, the jury announced that it could not reach a unanimous verdict. The trial court dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial. + +Ahead of the second trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion seeking to introduce the testimony of a number of additional women who offered to testify about Cosby's prior acts of sexual abuse. Generally, the women averred that, in the 1980s, each had an encounter with Cosby that involved either alcohol, drugs, or both, that each became intoxicated or incapacitated after consuming those substances, and that Cosby engaged in some type of unwanted sexual contact with each of them while they were unable to resist. The dates of the conduct that formed the basis of these allegations ranged from 1982 to 1989, approximately fifteen to twenty-two years before the incident involving Constand. Again, Cosby opposed the motion. Following oral argument, and despite there being no change in circumstances other than the first jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict, the trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion in part, increasing the number of prior bad acts witnesses allowed at trial from one to five. The selection of the five witnesses from a pool of at least nineteen women was left entirely to the Commonwealth. + +The Commonwealth selected, and introduced testimony at Cosby's second trial from, the following women: + +Janice Baker-Kinney. In 1982, Baker-Kinney worked at a Harrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada. During that year, a friend invited her to a party that, unbeknownst to her, was being held at a temporary residence used by Cosby in Reno. At the time, Baker-Kinney was twenty-four years old; Cosby was forty-five. When Baker-Kinney arrived at the residence, she realized that there actually was no party, at least as she understood the term. Besides Cosby, Baker-Kinney and her friend were the only people there. Cosby gave Baker-Kinney a beer and a pill, which she believed may have been a Quaalude. A short time later, Cosby gave her a second pill. She took both voluntarily, after which she became dizzy and passed out. When she awakened, she was on a in another room. Her shirt was unbuttoned and her pants were unzipped. Cosby approached and sat next to her. Cosby then leaned her against his chest. He fondled her breasts and her vagina. Still intoxicated, Baker-Kinney followed Cosby to an upstairs bedroom. She had no memory of what happened after entering the bedroom until the following morning, when she woke up naked next to Cosby, who also was naked. Although she could not remember for sure, Baker-Kinney believed that they had had sex. She dressed and left. + +Janice Dickinson. Also in 1982, Janice Dickinson met Cosby. She was twentyseven years old. Dickinson was an aspiring model, and Cosby contacted her modeling agency to arrange a meeting. Supposedly, Cosby wanted to mentor Dickinson. Along with her agent, Dickinson met with Cosby. Sometime later, while she was on a modeling job, Cosby called her and offered to fly her to Lake Tahoe. There, Dickinson met with Cosby's musical director and practiced her vocal skills. At dinner that night, Cosby arrived and met with Dickinson, who was drinking wine. Dickinson mentioned that she was suffering from menstrual cramps. Cosby provided her with a pill to help relieve the discomfort. The musical director eventually left, and Cosby offered to discuss Dickinson's career in his hotel room. She agreed and accompanied him there. When they got to the room, Cosby put on a robe and made a phone call. Dickinson felt lightheaded and had trouble speaking. Cosby got off the phone, climbed on top of Dickinson, and had sexual intercourse with her. Dickinson stated that she was unable to move and that she passed out soon after Cosby had finished. When she woke up the next morning, she did not recall how she had arrived at Cosby's room. She was naked from the waist down, had semen on her legs, and felt pain in her anus. + +Heidi : In 1984, Heidi was twenty-seven years old, and Cosby was forty-six. wanted to be an actress and a model. Her agent told her that Cosby was looking to mentor a promising young talent. Eventually, Cosby invited to Reno for some personal acting lessons. believed that she would be staying at a hotel, but, when she got to Reno, a car took her to a ranch house where Cosby was staying. Cosby arranged a room in the house for her. When they were the only two people left in the house, Cosby asked to audition for him by pretending to be an intoxicated person, which she explained to Cosby would be a challenge for her because she had never been intoxicated. Cosby asked how she could play such a role without ever having had that experience. So, he gave her some wine. drank only a little of the wine before becoming extremely intoxicated. She faded in and out of consciousness. At one point she came to on a bed only to find Cosby forcing his penis into her mouth. She passed out and awoke later feeling sick. + +Chelan Lasha. Lasha met Cosby in 1986, while she was working as an actress and model. She was only seventeen years old. Cosby was forty-eight. Cosby called her at her home, and later visited her there. Lasha then sent him modeling shots and spoke with him a number of times on the phone about her career. Cosby invited her to meet him in Las Vegas, where, he told her, someone would take better pictures of her. He implied that she could get a role on "The Cosby Show." Enticed by the prospect, Lasha went to Las Vegas. As promised, once there, someone took pictures of her. Someone else gave her a massage. Eventually, Lasha was alone with Cosby. He gave her a blue pill, which he said was an antihistamine that would help with a cold from which she was suffering. Cosby also provided her with a shot of liquor. Because Lasha trusted Cosby, she voluntarily consumed both the alcohol and the pill. Cosby then gave her a second shot and led her to a . Lasha began to feel intoxicated. Lasha was unable to move on her own, and Cosby helped her to the bed. Cosby laid next to her, pinched her breasts, and rubbed his genitals against her leg until she felt something warm on her leg. Lasha woke up the next day wearing only a robe. + +Maud Lise-Lotte Lublin. When Cosby met Lublin in 1989, he was fifty-two years old, and she was twenty-three. Lublin also was an aspiring model and actress. Lublin's agent informed her that Cosby wanted to meet her. Soon after, Lublin met with Cosby, who told her that he would refer her to a modeling agency in New York City. Cosby then started to call her regularly. Lublin considered Cosby to be a mentor and a father figure. Once, Cosby invited her to his hotel, where they talked about improvisation. Cosby poured her a shot of liquor and told her to drink it. Not normally a drinker, Lublin initially declined the shot. When Cosby insisted, she drank it. He poured her another shot, and again strongly encouraged her to drink it. Because she trusted him, Lublin drank the second shot as well. She quickly felt dizzy and unstable, and was unable to stand on her own. Cosby asked her to sit between his legs and lean against his chest. He stroked her hair and talked, but she could not hear his words. She could not move or get up. She awoke two days later at her home, with no idea how she got there. + +The trial court rejected Cosby's arguments that the introduction of testimonies from the five prior bad acts witnesses violated his due process rights, and that the incidents were too remote in time and too dissimilar to have probative value, let alone probative value sufficient to overcome the unduly prejudicial impact of such evidence. The court noted that prior bad acts evidence generally cannot be used to establish a criminal propensity or to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with the past acts, but that such evidence can be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, so long as the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.16 The court then determined that the testimony of the five prior bad act witnesses—and the deposition testimony pertaining to the prior use of Quaaludes—was admissible to demonstrate Cosby's common plan, scheme, or design. The trial court reasoned that the similarity and distinctiveness of the crimes bore a logical connection to Constand's allegations, and amounted to a "signature of the same perpetrator."17 Comparing the past and present allegations, the court noted that each woman was substantially younger than Cosby and physically fit; that Cosby initiated the contact with each woman, primarily though her employment; that each woman came to trust Cosby and view him as a friend or mentor; that each woman accepted an invitation to a place that Cosby controlled; that each woman consumed a + +# (a) Character Evidence. + +(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. + +## (b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts. + +(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. + +(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. + +16T.C.O. 96-97 (citing Pa.R.E. 404(b)). Rule 404 provides, in relevant part: + +Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)-(2). + +17 Id. at 97 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)). + +drink or a pill, often at Cosby's insistence; that each woman became incapacitated and unable to consent to sexual contact; and that Cosby sexually assaulted each woman while each was under the influence of the intoxicant. Id. at 103-04. These "chilling similarities," the court explained, rendered Cosby's actions "so distinctive as to become a signature," and therefore the evidence was admissible to demonstrate a common plan, scheme, or design. Id. at 104. + +The court further determined that the prior bad acts evidence was admissible to demonstrate that Cosby's actions were not the result of mistake or accident. The court relied in large part upon then-Chief Justice Saylor's concurrence in Commonwealth v. Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114 (Pa. 2017), which suggested the "doctrine of chances" as another "theory of logical relevance that does not depend on an impermissible inference of bad character, and which is most greatly suited to disproof of accident or mistake." Id. at 1131 (Saylor, C.J., concurring). The trial court reasoned that the purpose of the evidence was not to demonstrate that Cosby behaved in conformity with a criminal propensity, but rather to "establish the objective improbability of so many accidents befalling the defendant or the defendant becoming innocently enmeshed in suspicious circumstances so frequently." Id. at 1133 (Saylor, C.J., concurring). The court noted that there was no dispute that a sexual encounter between Cosby and Constand had occurred; the contested issue was Constand's consent. The prior bad acts evidence, therefore, was "relevant to show a lack of mistake, namely, that [Cosby] could not have possibly believed that [] Constand consented to the digital penetration as well as his intent in administering an intoxicant." T.C.O at 108. Similarly, with regard to the "doctrine of chances," the court opined that the fact that nineteen women were proffered as Rule 404(b) witnesses "lends [sic] to the conclusion that [Cosby] found himself in this situation more frequently than the general population." Id. Accordingly, "the fact that numerous other women recounted the + +same or similar story, further supports the admissibility of this evidence under the doctrine of chances." Id. + +The trial court recognized that the alleged assaults upon the prior bad acts witnesses were remote in time, but it explained that remoteness "is but one factor that the court should consider." Id. at 97. The court reasoned that the distance in time between the prior acts and the incident involving Constand was "inversely proportional to the similarity of the other crimes or acts." Id. (citing Tyson, 119 A.3d at 359). Stated more simply, the "more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has passed." Id.at 98 (citing Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996)). The court noted that, while there was a significant temporal gap between the prior incidents and Constand's case, the alleged assaults involving the prior bad acts witnesses occurred relatively close in time to each other. Thus, "[w]hen taken together," the court explained, "the sequential nature of the acts coupled with their nearly identical similarities renders the lapse of time unimportant." Id. at 109. + +To be unfairly prejudicial, the trial court emphasized, the proffered evidence must be "unfair," and must have a "tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially." Id. at 100 (quoting Pa.R.E. 403 cmt). Evidence "will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful to the defendant," and a court "is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts." Id. at 100-01 (quoting Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1180- 81 (Pa. Super. 2018)). For the trial court, the aforementioned similarities between Constand's claim and that of the other alleged victims weighed in favor of admissibility, particularly because the court believed that the Commonwealth had a "substantial need" for the evidence. Id. at 109. "Where the parties agreed that the digital penetration occurred, the evidence of other acts was necessary to rebut [Cosby's] characterization of the assault as a consensual encounter." Id. "Furthermore," the court opined, "Ms. Constand did not report the assault until approximately one year later, further supporting the Commonwealth's need for the evidence." Id. at 110. With regard to the prejudicial impact of the evidence, the court suggested that it had sufficiently mitigated any potential prejudice when it limited the number of witnesses who could testify (at the second trial) to just five of the nineteen witnesses that the Commonwealth requested. Id. The court noted that it found all nineteen witness' testimony to be relevant and admissible, but limited the number to five so as to mitigate the prejudice to Cosby. The court added that it gave cautionary instructions on the permissible use of this evidence, designed so as to limit its prejudicial impact. Id. at 110-11. + +Finally, the trial court rejected Cosby's challenge to the admissibility of the contents of his deposition testimony to the extent that it concerned his use of Quaaludes in decades past. The court opined that Cosby's "own words about his use and knowledge of drugs with a depressant effect was relevant to show his intent and motive in giving a depressant to Constand." Id. at 115. Because the evidence demonstrated Cosby's knowledge of the effects of drugs such as Quaaludes, the court reasoned, Cosby "either knew [Constand] was unconscious, or recklessly disregarded the risk that she could be." Id. As with the Rule 404(b) witnesses, the court found that any prejudicial effect of this evidence was mitigated by the court's cautionary instructions. Id. Accordingly, the court trial opined that all of the Rule 404(b) evidence was admissible. + +At the conclusion of a second jury trial, Cosby was convicted on all three counts of aggravated indecent assault. Following the denial of a number of post-trial motions, the trial court deemed Cosby to be a "sexually violent predator" pursuant to the thenapplicable version of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. The trial court then sentenced Cosby to three to ten years + +in prison. Cosby was denied bail pending an appeal. He filed post-sentence motions seeking a new trial and a modification of his sentence, which were denied. + +Cosby timely filed a notice of appeal, prompting the trial court to order him to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Cosby complied. On May 14, 2019, the trial court responded to Cosby's concise statement with its opinion, issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). + +A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in all respects. Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Superior Court began by assessing Cosby's challenge to the admissibility of the prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b). The panel observed that a reviewing court must evaluate the admission of evidence pursuant to the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 397. Addressing the trial court's rationale regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence demonstrating a common plan, scheme, or design, the panel noted that the exception aims to establish a perpetrator's identity based upon "his or her commission of extraordinarily similar criminal acts on other occasions. The exception is demanding in it[s] constraints, requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by anyone other than the accused." Id. at 398 (citing Commonwealth v. 664 A.2d 1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995)). Although the common plan, scheme, or design rationale typically is used to establish the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime, the Superior Court pointed out that courts previously have also used the exception "to counter [an] anticipated defense of consent." Id. (quoting Tyson, 119 A.3d at 361). + +In Tyson, Jermeel Omar Tyson brought food to his victim, who was feeling ill. Tyson, 119 A.3d at 356. While Tyson remained in the residence, the victim fell asleep. When she awoke some time later, Tyson was having vaginal intercourse with her. She told Tyson to stop, and he complied. But, when she fell asleep a second time, he resumed the uninvited sexual contact. Tyson was arrested and charged with sex-related offenses. Id. + +Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of a rape for which Tyson had been convicted in Delaware twelve years earlier. Id. The Delaware offense involved a victim of the same race and of a similar age as the victim in Tyson. Id. The Delaware victim similarly was casually acquainted with Tyson, invited Tyson into her home, was in a compromised state, and awoke to find Tyson engaged in vaginal intercourse with her. Id. at 357. The trial court declined to admit the Rule 404(b) evidence against Tyson. Id. at 356. On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the proffered evidence was admissible. Id. at 363. The court reasoned that the "relevant details and surrounding circumstances of each incident further reveal criminal conduct that is sufficiently distinctive to establish [that Tyson] engaged in a common plan or scheme." Id. at 360.18 Notably, the Tyson Court found the twelve-year gap between Tyson's Delaware conviction and the offense at issue to be "less important" when compared to the strength of the similarities between the crimes. Id. at 361. + +With Tyson in mind, the Superior Court turned its attention to the case sub judice. Based upon the similarities between Constand's allegations and those of Cosby's other accusers identified by the trial court, the Superior Court agreed that the accounts of the + +18 The en banc majority opinion in Tyson was authored by then-President Judge Gantman and joined by then-Judge Mundy, President Judge Emeritus Elliott, and Judges Panella, Shogan, and Olson. Then-Judge Donohue dissented, joined by President Judge Emeritus Bender and Judge Ott, opining that the majority "overemphasize[d] the few similarities that exist between Tyson's prior rape conviction and the present matter while completely dismissing the several important differences between the two incidents." Tyson, 119 A.3d at 363 (Donohue, J., dissenting). The dissent further disputed the en banc majority's reliance upon the need for the prior bad acts evidence "to bolster the credibility of the Commonwealth's only witness where there is no indication that the witness is otherwise impeachable." Id. at 364. + +five prior bad acts witnesses established a "predictable pattern" that reflected Cosby's "unique sexual assault playbook." Cosby, 224 A.3d at 402. Accordingly, the panel concluded that the witnesses' testimony was admissible to show Cosby's common plan, scheme, or design. + +The Superior Court further agreed with the trial court that the prior bad acts evidence was admissible to demonstrate the absence of mistake on Cosby's part as to Constand's consent. The court concluded that Tyson's rationale was applicable to the instant case. The court rejected Cosby's efforts to distinguish Constand's allegations from those dating to the 1980s. Cosby emphasized the fact that the relationship between Cosby and Constand lasted longer than his relationship with any of the prior bad acts witnesses, that Constand was a guest at Cosby's home on multiple occasions, that Cosby and Constand had exchanged gifts, that Cosby had made prior sexual advances toward Constand, that the nature of the sexual contact differed among the alleged victims, and that the alleged prior assaults occurred in hotel rooms or at the home of a third party, while the incident with Constand occurred in Cosby's home. Id. at 401-02. The Superior Court dismissed these apparent dissimilarities as unimportant, opining that "[i]t is impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in all respects." Id. at 402. The court added that it would be "simply unreasonable" to require two incidents to be absolutely identical in order to be admissible under Rule 404(b), and concluded that "[i]t is the pattem itself, and not the mere presence of some inconsistencies between the various assaults, that determines admissibility under these exceptions." Id. + +As to the temporal gap between the prior bad acts and the incident involving Constand, the Superior Court acknowledged that, even if the evidence were otherwise admissible under Rule 404(b), it "will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote." Id. at 405 (quoting Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981)). The panel agreed with the trial court's statement that the significance of the age of a prior bad act is "inversely proportional" to the similarity between the prior bad act and the facts underlying the charged offense. Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2010)). Although the panel recognized the significant lag in time between the events in question, it relied upon the similarities as found by the trial court to conclude that "the at-issue time gap is relatively inconsequential." Id. "Moreover," the panel opined, "because [Cosby's] identity in this case was not in dispute (as he claimed he only engaged in consensual sexual contact with [Constand]), there was no risk of misidentification" through the admission of the prior bad acts evidence, "despite the gap in time." Id. + +Additionally, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's contention that the trial court had failed to weigh adequately the prejudicial impact of the prior bad acts evidence. The panel highlighted the fact that the trial court provided the jury with cautionary instructions on the use of the evidence, as well as that court's decision to limit the number of prior bad acts witnesses to five. These steps, in the Superior Court's view, were sufficient to mitigate the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Id. + +The Superior Court dealt separately with Cosby's Rule 404(b) challenge to the use of his deposition testimony regarding his provision of Quaaludes to women in the past. The court rejected Cosby's "attempts to draw a hard distinction between Quaaludes and Benadryl," and noted that "the jury was free to disbelieve [Cosby's] assertion that he only provided [Constand] with Benadryl." Id. at 420. The court credited the Commonwealth's argument that Cosby's familiarity with Quaaludes was suggestive of his mens inasmuch as it was "highly probative of 'the circumstances known to him for purposes of determining whether he acted with the requisite mens for the offense of aggravated indecent assault—recklessness." Id. (quoting Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2)). Moreover, Cosby's "knowledge of the use of central nervous system depressants, coupled with his likely past use of the same with the [prior bad acts] witnesses, were essential to resolving the otherwise he-said-she-said nature of [Constand's] allegations." Id. The Superior Court added that the trial court did not err in determining that the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice, inasmuch as, "in a vacuum, Cosby's use and distribution of a then-legal 'party drug' nearly half a century ago did not appear highly prejudicial," and "only becomes significantly prejudicial, and fairly so, when, in the context of other evidence, it establishes Cosby's knowledge of and familiarity with central nervous system depressants for purposes of demonstrating that he was at least reckless" in giving Constand such a drug before having sexual contact with her. Id. at 420-21 (emphasis in original) (cleaned up). The court added that any potential for unfair prejudice was mitigated substantially by the court's cautionary instructions, and that, accordingly, there was no error in the admission of this evidence. Id. at 421. + +Turning to Cosby's claims relating to the enforceability of the non-prosecution or immunity decision rendered by then-District Attorney Castor, the Superior Court viewed this as a challenge to the denial of a motion to quash a criminal complaint, which would be evaluated under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 410. Like the trial court, the panel found no "authority suggesting that a district attorney 'may unilaterally confer transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.'" Id. at 411 (quoting T.C.O. at 62). Therefore, the court opined, "it is clear on the face of the record that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no enforceable nonprosecution agreement in this case." Id. The court added: "Even assuming Mr. Castor promised not to prosecute [Cosby], only a court order can convey such immunity. Such promises exist only as exercises of prosecutorial discretion, and may be revoked at any time." Id. The court discussed the immunity statute and observed that it provides that "a district attorney may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court . . . ." Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(b)). Because no such order existed here, the Superior Court concluded that it could "ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that [Cosby] was not immune from prosecution, because Mr. Castor failed to seek or obtain an immunity order pursuant to Section 5947." Id. at 412. "Only a court order conveying such immunity is legally binding in this Commonwealth." Id. + +The Superior Court further rejected Cosby's invocation of promissory estoppel asserting reliance upon D.A. Castor's assurances, as demonstrated by Cosby's cooperation with Constand's civil suit and his decision not to invoke the Fifth Amendment during his deposition testimony. The panel opined that Cosby failed to cite sufficient authority to establish that a prosecution may be barred under a promissory estoppel theory. The panel further agreed with the trial court that, in any event, "it was not reasonable for [Cosby] to rely on Mr. Castor's promise, even if the trial court had found credible the testimony provided by Mr. Castor and [Cosby's] civil attorney," Attorney Schmitt. Id. The panel stated: "We cannot deem reasonable [Cosby's] reliance on such a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed." Id. at 413. + +The Superior Court further opined that there was "virtually no evidence in the record that [Cosby] actually declined to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the civil deposition based on Mr. Castor's purported promise not to prosecute." Id. Although the court noted that Attorney Schmitt was the only witness who could testify that Cosby indeed relied upon Castor's purported promise during his deposition (Attorney Schmitt did so testify), it emphasized the Commonwealth's argument that Attorney Schmitt allowed Cosby to give a statement to the police during the initial investigation, that Cosby did not incriminate himself at that point, that Attorney Schmitt further negotiated with the National Enquirer on the details of its published interview with Cosby, and that Attorney Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that "[i]t was not necessary for the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt's testimony, as it is patently obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some 'promise' from [Mr.] Castor not to prosecute." Id. (quoting Commonwealth's Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The Superior Court agreed that "the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby's] alleged reliance on Mr. Castor's promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil suit." Id. at 413-14. + +For the same reasons, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's claim that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby's suppression argument was "contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected." Id. at 414. The panel distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995). + +In Stipetich, Pittsburgh police personnel had promised and Heidi Stipetich that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted the Stipetiches' motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at 1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority to bind the Allegheny County District Attomey's Office to a non-prosecution agreement. Id. However, this Court opined: + +The decisions below, barring prosecution of the tes, embodied concern that allowing charges to be brought after Stipetich had performed his part of the agreement by answering questions about sources of the contraband discovered in his residence would be fundamentally unfair because in answering the questions he may have disclosed information that could be used against him. The proper response to this concern is not to bar prosecution; rather, it is to suppress, at the appropriate juncture, any detrimental evidence procured through the inaccurate representation that he would not be prosecuted. + +Id. at 1296. Although the Superior Court dismissed this passage from Stipetich as dicta, it found the situation distinguishable in any event inasmuch as former D.A. Castor testified that there was no "agreement" or "quid pro quo" with Cosby, and, therefore, any reliance that Cosby placed upon the district attorney's promise was unreasonable. Cosby, 224 A.3d at 416-17. + +The Superior Court concluded that it was bound by the trial court's factual findings and by its credibility determinations. The trial court had "determined that Mr. Castor's testimony and, by implication, Attorney Schmitt's testimony (which was premised upon information he indirectly received from Mr. Castor) were not credible." Id. at 417. The panel added that the trial court had "found that the weight of the evidence supported its finding that no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor to that effect when he sat for his civil deposition." Id. Thus, the Superior Court discerned no error in the trial court's decision to allow the use of Cosby's deposition testimony against him at trial.19 + +19In addition to the Rule 404(b) and non-prosecutions claims, the Superior Court rejected a number of other issues raised by Cosby, including an assertion of improper juror bias, a challenge to an allegedly misleading jury instruction, and a contention that SORNA was unconstitutional. Cosby, 224 A.3d at 396, 421-431. Because those issues are not relevant to the matters before us, we need not discuss them herein. + +#### II. Issues: + +On June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal, limited to the following two issues: + +(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were admitted at trial through the women's live testimony and [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial; (d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial; and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel err in affirming the admission of this evidence? + +(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted in order to force [Cosby's] testimony at a deposition in [Constand's] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, did the Panel err in affirming the trial court's decision to allow not only the prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony? + +Commonwealth v. Cosby, 236 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam).2° + +### III. Analysis + +We begin with Cosby's second listed issue, because, if he is correct that the Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot. + +On February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand's potential + +20In his petition, Cosby also sought this Court's review of his claim of improper juror bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those two claims. + +credibility issues, and the absence of direct or corroborative proof by which to substantiate her claim, led the district attorney to believe that the case presented "insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence upon which any charge could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt." Press Release, 2/17/2005 (cleaned up). Given his "conclu[sion] that a conviction under the circumstances of this case would be unattainable," D.A. Castor "decline[d] to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter." Id. In light of the non-prosecution decision, Cosby no longer was exposed to criminal liability relating to the Constand allegations and thus could no longer invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in that regard. With no legal mechanism available to avoid testifying in Constand's civil suit, Cosby sat for depositions and, therein, made a number of statements incriminating himself. + +D.A. Castor's declination decision stood fast throughout his tenure in office. When he moved on, however, his successor decided to revive the investigation and to prosecute Cosby. Ruling upon Cosby's challenge to this belated prosecution, the trial court concluded that the former district attorney's promise did not constitute a binding, enforceable agreement. To determine whether Cosby permanently was shielded from prosecution by D.A. Castor's 2005 declination decision, we first must ascertain the legal relationship between D.A. Castor and Cosby. We begin with the trial court's findings. + +It is hornbook law that reviewing courts are not fact-finding bodies. O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1199 (Pa. 2001). Appellate courts are limited to determining "whether there is evidence in the record to justify the trial court's findings." Id. at 1199 n.6. "If so, this Court is bound by them." Id. However, while "we accord deference to a trial court with regard to factual findings, our review of legal conclusions is de novo." Id. at n.7 (citation omitted). Indeed, it is a long-standing appellate principle that, "[w]ith respect to 0 inferences and deductions from facts and 0 conclusions of law, . . . appellate courts have the power to draw their own inferences and make their own deductions and conclusions." In re Pruner's Est., 162 A.2d 626, 631 (Pa. 1960) (citations omitted). + +Here, the trial court presided over the habeas corpus hearing, viewing and hearing the witnesses and their testimonies first-hand. From that vantage point, the trial court determined that, as a matter of fact, D.A. Castor had not extended a formal promise to Cosby never to prosecute him, let alone consummated a formal non-prosecution agreement with Cosby. The factual basis for the court's findings was two-fold. First, the court characterized the interaction between the district attorney and Cosby as a failed attempt to reach a statutorily prescribed transactional immunity agreement. Second, the court concluded that the former district attorney's testimony regarding the legal relationship between him and Cosby was inconsistent and "equivocal at best." T.C.O. at 63. Both findings are supported adequately by the record. + +Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947, when a prosecutor wishes to formalize an immunity agreement, he or she "may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court." Id. § 5947(b). Presented with such a request, the petitioned court "shall issue such an order," id., upon which a witness "may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination." Id. § 5947(c). At the habeas hearing, former District Attorney Castor testified that he intended to provide Cosby with transactional immunity. He explained that this conferral was predicated upon the state's common-law authority as a sovereign rather than any statutory provisions or protocols. T.C.O. at 57 (citing N.T., 2/2/2016, at 232, 234, 236). The record does not contradict his testimony. There is no evidence, nor any real contention, that the parties even contemplated a grant of immunity under Section 5947. The trial court's finding that the interaction between D.A. Castor and Cosby was not a formal attempt to bestow transactional immunity upon Cosby is supported by the record. + +The trial court's description of former D.A. Castor's testimony as inconsistent and equivocal finds support in the record as well. At times, the former district attomey was emphatic that he intended his decision not to prosecute Cosby to bind the Commonwealth permanently, provided no substantive changes occurred in the case, such as Cosby confessing to the alleged crimes or proof appearing that Cosby had lied to, or attempted to deceive, the investigators. In addition to the unconditional nature of the press release, former D.A. Castor told then-District Attorney Ferman in his first email to her that he "intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution." N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5. In his second email to D.A. Ferman, Mr. Castor asserted that, by "signing off" on the press release, he was "stating that the Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for this incident based upon thenavailable evidence." Id., Exh. D-7. + +Further indicative of his intent to forever preclude prosecution of Cosby for the 2004 incident, former D.A. Castor testified that the signed press release was meant to serve as proof for a future civil judge that Cosby would not be prosecuted, thus stripping Cosby of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Mr. Castor emphasized that his decision was "absolute that [Cosby] never would be prosecuted." T.C.O. at 52. The former district attorney stressed that his intent was to "absolutely" remove "for all time" the prospect of a prosecution, because, in his view, only a steadfast guarantee would permanently strip Cosby of his right to invoke the Fifth Amendment. N.T., 2/2/2016, at 67. Mr. Castor also expounded upon the purpose of his emails to D.A. Ferman, which he claimed were an attempt to inform her that, while he bound the Commonwealth with regard to the 2004 incident, she was free to prosecute Cosby for any other crimes that she might uncover. + +Although former D.A. Castor stated that he intended permanently to bar prosecution of Cosby, he also testified that he sought to confer some form of transactional immunity. In his second email to D.A. Ferman, former district attorney Castor suggested that his intent in "signing off' on the press release was to assure Cosby that nothing that he said in a civil deposition could or would be used against him in a criminal prosecution. N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-7. In the same email, he simultaneously expressed his belief that "a prosecution is not precluded." Id. As such, the evidence suggests that D.A. Castor was motivated by conflicting aims when he decided not to prosecute Cosby. On one hand, the record demonstrates that D.A. Castor endeavored to forever preclude the Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby if Cosby testified in the civil case. On the other hand, the record indicates that he sought to foreclose only the use in a subsequent criminal case of any testimony that Cosby gave in a civil suit. + +The trial court was left to resolve these seeming inconsistencies. The court concluded that Cosby and D.A. Castor did not enter into a formal immunity agreement. Because the record supports the trial court's findings in this regard, we are bound by those conclusions. Pertinently, we are bound by the trial court's determination that D.A. Castor's actions amounted only to a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This characterization is consistent with the former district attorney's insistence at the habeas hearing that what occurred between him and Cosby was not an agreement, a contract, or any kind of quid pro quo exchange. + +We are not, however, bound by the lower courts' legal determinations that derive from those factual findings. Thus, the question becomes whether, and under what circumstances, a prosecutor's exercise of his or her charging discretion binds future prosecutors' exercise of the same discretion. This is a question of law. + +For the reasons detailed below, we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced. + +Prosecutors are more than mere participants in our criminal justice system. As we explained in Commonwealth v. Clancy, 192 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2018), prosecutors inhabit three distinct and equally critical roles: they are officers of the court, advocates for victims, and administrators of justice. Id. at 52. As the Commonwealth's representatives, prosecutors are duty-bound to pursue "equal and impartial justice," Appeal of Nicely, 18 A. 737, 738 (Pa. 1889), and "to serve the public interest." Clancy, 192 A.3d 52. Their obligation is "not merely to convict," but rather to "seek justice within the bounds of the law." Commonwealth v. Starks, 387 A.2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1978). + +As an "administrator of justice," the prosecutor has the power to decide whether to initiate formal criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and, ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial. See, e.g., 16 P.S. § 1402(a) ("The district attorney shall sign all bills of indictment and conduct in court all criminal and other prosecutions . . ."); Pa.R.Crim.P. 507 (establishing the prosecutor's power to require that police officers seek approval from the district attorney prior to filing criminal complaints); Pa.R.Crim.P. 585 (power to move for nolle prosequi); see also ABA Standards §§ 3-4.2, 3-4.4. The extent of the powers enjoyed by the prosecutor was discussed most eloquently by United ... Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice) Robert H. . In his historic address to the nation's United States Atis gathered in 1940 at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., observed that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than person in America. His discretion is tremendous." Robert H. , The Federal Prosecutor, 31 AM. INST. GRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 3, 3 (1940). In fact, the prosecutor is afforded such great deference that this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States seldom interfere with a prosecutor's charging decision. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (noting that "the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether + +to prosecute a case"); Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that "the ultimate discretion to file criminal charges lies in the district attorney"). + +Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53 (cleaned up). + +As prosecutors are vested with such "tremendous" discretion and authority, our law has long recognized the special weight that must be accorded to their assurances. For instance, in the context of statements made during guilty plea negotiations, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that, as a matter of constitutional due process and as compelled by the principle of fundamental fairness, a defendant generally is entitled to the benefit of assurances made by the prosecutor. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).21 Santobello holds that, "when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement by the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Id. at 262 (emphasis added). + +This Court has followed suit with regard to prosecutorial inducements made during the guilty plea process, insisting that such inducements comport with the due process guarantee of fundamental fairness. In Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976), during plea negotiations in a murder case, the prosecutor agreed to recommend to the sentencing court that Rickey Zuber receive a sentence of seven to fourteen years in prison if he pleaded guilty. Id. at 442-43. The prosecutor also agreed to consent to a request that Zuber's sentence be served concurrently with "back time" that Zuber was required to serve for a parole violation. Id. at 443. The prosecutor stated the terms of the agreement on the record, and the trial court accepted the terms of Zuber's guilty plea and + +21 In Santobello, the Supreme Court of the United States did not state explicitly that it was premising its holding on due process guarantees. Nevertheless, it is only sensible to read Santobello's holding as resting upon due process principles because-as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion—without a constitutional basis the Court would have lacked jurisdiction over what was otherwise a state law matter. See Santobello, 404 U.S., at 266-67 (Douglas, J. concurring). + +sentenced Zuber accordingly. However, because the law requires that "back time" sentences and new sentences be served consecutively, Zuber was legally obligated to begin serving his sentences one after the other, instead of simultaneously. Id. + +Zuber sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the plea as stated in open court had to be enforced, statutory law notwithstanding. On appeal to this Court, Zuber argued that he was "induced by the specific promise made by the Commonwealth," which ultimately turned out to be a "false and empty one." Id. We noted that plea bargaining is looked upon favorably and that "the integrity of our judicial process demands that certain safeguards be stringently adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a defendant and accepted by the trial court will always be one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences to follow." Id. + +[T]here is an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecutor to honor any and all promises made in exchange for a defendant's plea. Our courts have demanded strict compliance with that duty in order to avoid any possible perversion of the plea bargaining system, evidencing the concern that a defendant might be coerced into a bargain or fraudulently induced to give up the very valued constitutional guarantees attendant the right to trial by jury. + +Therefore, in Pennsylvania, it is well settled that where a plea bargain has been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain. + +Id. at 444 (cleaned up). + +We then turned to the remedy to which Zuber was entitled, which was problematic because enforcement of the plea necessarily meant compelling an outcome that was prohibited by statute. Nonetheless, because, inter alia, Zuber had "reasonably relied upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open court by the assistant district attorney," id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the bargain. Thus, we modified Zuber's sentence by lowering the minimum range to reflect the point at which Zuber would have been eligible for parole had the original bargain been enforceable by law. Id. at 446. + +Interactions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness. The contours and attendant obligations of such interactions also can involve basic precepts of contract law, which inform the due process inquiry. The applicability of contract law to aspects of the criminal law has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, see Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 137 (2009), by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see McKeever v. Warden SCI-Graterford, 486 F.3d 81, 86 (3d Cir. 2007), and by this Court. See Commonwealth v. 147 A.3d 517, 531 (Pa. 2016). In order to succeed on a claim of promissory estoppel, the aggrieved party must prove that: (1) the promisor acted in a manner that he or she should have reasonably expected to induce the other party into taking (or not taking) certain action; (2) the aggrieved party actually took such action; and (3) an injustice would result if the assurance that induced the action was not enforced. See Crouse v. Cyclops Indus., 745 A.2d 606, 610 (Pa. 2000). + +In we reexamined the enforceability of terms of plea agreements made by prosecutors pertaining to the applicability of sexual offender registration obligations. There, three defendants entered into plea bargains with the Commonwealth, each of which was formulated in a way that either limited or eliminated the defendants' obligations under the then-applicable sexual offender registration statute. , 147 A.3d at 521- 22. However, after some time, our General Assembly enacted the first version of SORNA, which fundamentally altered the registration and reporting obligations of sexual offenders, including those of the three offenders in Each defendant was notified by the Pennsylvania State Police that he or she was subject to the intervening statute and thus had to comply with the new obligations under SORNA, even though those obligations contradicted the terms of each of their plea deals. Id. at 522-523. + +Each of the three offenders filed an action seeking the enforcement of the terms of his guilty plea, notwithstanding the fact that those terms conflicted with the newlyenacted statute. Id. at 523-24. Citing Santobello, Zither, Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), and other decisions, this Court held that the offenders were entitled to specific performance of the terms of the plea bargains to which the prosecutors had agreed. , 147 A.3d at 531-32. We held that, once a bargained term is enveloped within a plea agreement, a defendant "is entitled to the benefit of his bargain through specific performance of terms of the plea agreement." Id. at 533. + +The applicability of contract law principles to criminal negotiations is not limited to the plea bargaining process. See United States v. Carrillo, 709 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that fundamental fairness requires a prosecutor to uphold his or her end of a non-prosecution agreement). For instance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, like plea agreements, non-prosecution agreements are binding contracts that must be interpreted according to general principles of contract law, guided by "special due process concerns." United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). And, in Commonwealth v. Ginn, 587 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1991), our Superior Court similarly held that non-prosecution agreements are akin to plea agreements, necessitating the application of contract law principles to prevent prosecutors from violating the Commonwealth's promises or assurances. Id. at 316-17. + +Under some circumstances, assurances given by prosecutors during plea negotiations, even unconsummated ones, may be enforceable on equitable grounds rather than on contract law principles. Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980), is instructive. In that case, the parties had reached a tentative, preliminary plea agreement. But before the defendant could formally enter the plea, the prosecutor attempted to add another term to the deal. Id. at 361-62. The defendant rejected the new term and sought specific performance of the original, unconsummated agreement. Id. The district court denied his request. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the agreement was not formalized and accepted by the court, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance under a contract law theory. Id. at 362. The appellate court noted that, absent detrimental reliance upon the prosecutor's offer, a defendant's due process rights were sufficiently safeguarded by his right to a jury trial. Id. at 365. The court cautioned, however, that, by contrast, when a "defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees." /d.22 + +Considered together, these authorities obligate courts to hold prosecutors to their word, to enforce promises, to ensure that defendants' decisions are made with a full understanding of the circumstances, and to prevent fraudulent inducements of waivers of one or more constitutional rights. Prosecutors can be bound by their assurances or decisions under principles of contract law or by application of the fundamental fairness considerations that inform and undergird the due process of law. The law is clear that, based upon their unique role in the criminal justice system, prosecutors generally are bound by their assurances, particularly when defendants rely to their detriment upon those guarantees. + +22Ultimately, the court did not grant the defendant relief under a theory of detrimental reliance because there was "no claim in this case of such reliance." Scotland, 614 F.2d at 365. + +There is no doubt that promises made during plea negotiations or as part of fully consummated plea agreements differ in kind from the unilateral discretion exercised when a prosecutor declines to pursue criminal charges against a defendant. As suggested by the trial court in the present case, such an exercise of discretion is not per se enforceable in the same way that a bargained-for exchange is under contract law. The prosecutor enjoys "tremendous" discretion to wield "the power to decide whether to initiate formal criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and, ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial." Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53. Unless patently abused, this vast discretion is exercised generally beyond the reach of judicial interference. See Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that "the ultimate discretion to file criminal charges lies in the district attorney"). + +While the prosecutor's discretion in charging decisions is undoubtedly vast, it is not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a manner that violates a defendant's rights. The foregoing precedents make clear that, at a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor, his or her due process rights are implicated. See, e.g., Santobello, Baird, and Scotland, supra. + +The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandate that all interactions between the government and the individual are conducted in accordance with the protections of due process. See Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 941 n.6 (Pa. 2007) (noting that federal and state due process principles generally are understood as operating co-extensively). We have explained that review of a due process claim "entails an assessment as to whether the challenged proceeding or conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental and that defines the community's sense of fair play and decency." Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20, 27 (Pa. 2001) (cleaned up). Due process is a universal concept, permeating all aspects of the criminal justice system. Like other state actors, prosecutors must act within the boundaries set by our foundational charters. Thus, we discern no cause or reason, let alone any compelling one, to waive the prosecution's duty to comply with due process simply because the act at issue is an exercise of discretion, e.g., whether or not to charge a particular suspect with a crime. + +That is not to say that each and every exercise of prosecutorial discretion with regard to charging decisions invites a due process challenge. Charging decisions inhere within the vast discretion afforded to prosecutors and are generally subject to review only for arbitrary abuses. A prosecutor can choose to prosecute, or not. A prosecutor can select the charges to pursue, and omit from a complaint or bill of information those charges that he or she does not believe are warranted or viable on the facts of the case. A prosecutor can also condition his or her decision not to prosecute a defendant. For instance, a prosecutor can decide initially not to prosecute, subject to possible receipt or discovery of new inculpatory evidence. Or, a prosecutor can choose not to prosecute the defendant at the present time, but may inform the defendant that the decision is not final and that the prosecutor may change his or her mind within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations. Similarly, there may be barriers to a prosecution, such as the unavailability of a witness or evidence, which subsequently may be removed, thus enabling a prosecution to proceed. Generally, no due process violation arises from these species of discretionary decision-making, and a defendant is without recourse to seek the enforcement of any assurances under such circumstances. + +An entirely different situation arises when the decision not to prosecute is unconditional, is presented as absolute and final, or is announced in such a way that it induces the defendant to act in reliance thereupon. When a non-prosecution decision is conveyed in such a way, and when a defendant, having no indication to the contrary, detrimentally relies upon that decision, due process may warrant preclusion of the prosecution. Numerous state and federal courts have found that a defendant's detrimental reliance upon the government's assurances during the plea bargaining phase both implicates his due process rights and entitles him to enforcement even of unconsummated agreements. The cases are legion.23 + +--- + +23 See, e.g., *State v. Francis*, 424 P.3d 156, 160 (Utah 2017) (holding that, "[w]hen a defendant has reasonably and detrimentally relied on a plea agreement, the State should not be able to withdraw a plea agreement just because it has not yet been presented to the district court"); *State v. [REDACTED]*, 360 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Ark. 2010) (holding that, "when the State has entered into an agreement not to prosecute with a prospective defendant and the defendant has performed and acted to his detriment or prejudice in reliance upon that agreement, the government must be required to honor such an agreement."); *People v. Rhoden*, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 819, 824 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (explaining "unexecuted plea bargains generally do not involve constitutional rights absent detrimental reliance on the bargain"); *United States v. Streebing*, 987 F.2d 368, 372-73 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding that the defendant had to demonstrate, *inter alia*, that he had relied upon the government's promise to his detriment before the promise would be enforceable); *United States v. Savage*, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a defendant's detrimental reliance is an exception to the general rule that defendants are not entitled to enforcement of unconsummated plea agreements); *State v. Parkey*, 471 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Iowa App. 1991) (finding that, in the absence of a showing that the defendant detrimentally relied upon an agreement with the prosecutor, dismissal was not warranted); [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED], 676 F.2d 524, 528 (11th Cir. 1982) (stating that, when a promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled); *People v. Reagan*, 235 N.W.2d 581, 587 (Mich. 1975) (noting that, where the defendant was prejudiced by submitting to a polygraph in exchange for an agreement that his prosecution would be dismissed, trial court erred in refusing to enforce the agreement). + +That is what happened in this case. There has been considerable debate over the legal significance of District Attorney Castor's publicly announced decision not to prosecute Cosby in 2005. Before the trial court, the Superior Court, and now this Court, the parties have vigorously disputed whether D.A. Castor and Cosby reached a binding agreement, whether D.A. Castor extended an enforceable promise, or whether any act of legal significance occurred at all. There is testimony in the record that could support any of these conclusions. The trial court—the entity charged with sorting through those facts—found that D.A. Castor made no agreement or overt promise. + +Much of that debate, and the attendant factual conclusions, were based upon the apparent absence of a formal agreement and former D.A. Castor's various efforts to defend and explain his actions ten years after the fact. As a reviewing court, we accept the trial court's conclusion that the district attorney's decision was merely an exercise of his charging discretion.24 As we assess whether that decision, and the surrounding + +24The dissent agrees-as do we —with the trial court's conclusion that D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute was, at its core, an exercise of the inherent charging discretion vested in district attorneys. See D.O. at 1. But the dissent would simply end the analysis there. In the dissent's view, once a decision is deemed to fall within a prosecutor's discretion, that decision "in no way" can bind the actions of future elected prosecutors. Respectfully, this perspective overlooks the verity that not all decisions are the same. As to routine discretionary decisions, the dissent may be correct. But as we explain throughout this opinion, what occurred here was anything but routine. Here, D.A. Castor's exercise of discretion was made deliberately to induce the deprivation of a fundamental right. The typical decision to prosecute, or not to prosecute, is not made for the purpose of extracting incriminating information from a suspect when there exists no other mechanism to do so. + +The dissent would amalgamate and confine all "present exercise[s] of prosecutorial discretion" within a single, non-binding, unenforceable, and unreviewable category. Id. We decline to endorse this blanket approach, as such decisions merit, and indeed require, individualized evaluation. To rule otherwise would authorize, if not encourage, prosecutors to choose temporarily not to prosecute, obtain incriminating evidence from the suspect, and then reverse course with impunity. Due process necessarily requires that court officials, particularly prosecutors, be held to a higher standard. This is particularly so in circumstances where the prosecutor's decision is crafted specifically to + +circumstances, implicated Cosby's due process rights, former D.A. Castor's post-hoc attempts to explain or characterize his actions are largely immaterial. The answer to our query lies instead in the objectively indisputable evidence of record demonstrating D.A. Castor's patent intent to induce Cosby's reliance upon the non-prosecution decision. + +In January and February of 2005, then-D.A. Castor led an investigation into Constand's allegations. When that investigation concluded, Mr. Castor decided that the case was saddled with deficiencies such that proving Cosby's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was unlikely, if not impossible. For those reasons, D.A. Castor decided not to prosecute Cosby. To announce his decision, the district attorney elected to issue a signed press release—an uncommon tactic in the typical case, but not necessarily so in cases of high public profile or interest. + +In that press statement, D.A. Castor explained the extent and nature of the investigation and the legal rules and principles that he considered. He then announced that he was declining to prosecute Cosby. The decision was not conditioned in any way, shape, or form. D.A. Castor did not say that he would re-evaluate this decision at a future date, that the investigation would continue, or that his decision was subject to being overturned by any future district attorney. + +There is nothing from a reasonable observer's perspective to suggest that the decision was anything but permanent. The trial court found contrary indicia in the latter portion of the press release, where Mr. Castor "cautioned all parties to this matter that [District Attorney Castor] will reconsider this decision should the need arise," Press Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4. The trial court's narrow interpretation of + +induce a defendant to forfeit a constitutional right, and where the defendant has relied upon that decision to his detriment. The dissent's approach would turn a blind eye to the reality of such inducements. Due process does not. + +"this decision" is possible only when this sentence is read in isolation.25 The court ignored what came before and after, omitting all relevant and necessary context. The entire passage reads as follows: + +Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint potential jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. *District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise.* Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric. + +*Id.* (emphasis added). + +--- + +25 There is no doubt that there are two decisions at issue: the decision not to prosecute and the decision not to discuss that choice in public. The dissent would endorse the trial court's selective interpretation of D.A. Castor's language in the press release, finding at a minimum that D.A. Castor's assertion that he would reconsider the "decision" is ambiguous. But a plain reading of the release belies such a construction. Like the trial court's interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the press release, the dissent's finding of ambiguity can result only when one overlooks the context and surrounding statements quite entirely. D.A. Castor stated that he did not intend to discuss the details of his decision not to prosecute. In the very next sentence, D.A. Castor stated that he would reconsider "this decision" if the need arose. In context, "this decision" must naturally refer to the decision not to discuss the matter with the public. This is so because announcing that particular decision was the very purpose of the immediately preceding statement, and the subject sentence naturally modifies that prior statement. D.A. Castor already had stated earlier in the press release that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby. Thus, when D.A. Castor referred to "this decision" in the particular paragraph under examination, he was referring not to a decision addressed much earlier in the press release but rather to the decision that he had stated for the first time in the immediately preceding sentence. Even more compelling is the fact that the entirety of the paragraph relates to D.A. Castor's concern about the potential effect that any public statements that he would make might have on jurors empaneled in a civil case. Nothing at all in that paragraph pertains to the decision not to prosecute Cosby. As noted, D.A. Castor already had addressed the non-prosecution decision. There is no support for the notion that D.A. Castor was referring to his decision not to prosecute Cosby in the middle of a paragraph directed exclusively to: (1) the potential impact that any public explication by D.A. Castor might have upon the fairness of a civil case; and (2) D.A. Castor's derivative decision not to discuss the matter publicly in order to avoid that potential impact. + +When we review the statement in its full context, it is clear that, when D.A. Castor announced that he "will reconsider this decision should the need arise," the decision to which he was referring was his decision not to comment publicly "on the details of his [charging] decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action." The entire paragraph addresses the district attorney's concern that he might inadvertently taint a potential civil jury pool by making public remarks about the credibility of the likely parties in that highly anticipated case. Then-D.A. Castor expressly stated that he could change his mind on that decision only. Nothing in this paragraph pertains to his decision not to prosecute Cosby. The trial court's conclusion is belied by a plain reading of the entire passage. + +Our inquiry does not end there. D.A. Castor's press release, without more, does not necessarily create a due process entitlement. Rather, the due process implications arise because Cosby detrimentally relied upon the Commonwealth's decision, which was the district attorney's ultimate intent in issuing the press release. There was no evidence of record indicating that D.A. Castor intended anything other than to induce Cosby's reliance. Indeed, the most patent and obvious evidence of Cosby's reliance was his counseled decision to testify in four depositions in Constand's civil case without ever invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. + +The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the States via incorporation though the Fourteenth Amendment, commands that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. CONST. amend. V. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is an "essential mainstay" of our constitutional system of criminal justice. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 (1964). The privilege constitutes an essential restraint upon the power of the government, and stands as an indispensable rampart between that government and the governed. The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause "is not only a protection against conviction and prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well." Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting). + +We recently discussed the centrality of the privilege against compulsory selfincrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges "whose exercise a State may not condition by the exaction of a price." Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are "scrupulously observed," we emphasized that "it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon," id. at 1063-64 (quoting v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that "the Fifth Amendment is to be "broad[ly] construed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure." Id. at 1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892), 116 U.S. at 635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that "[t]he value of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them." Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black, J., concurring).26 + +The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until "the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists." Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It + +26To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to criminal matters. Its availability "does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites." Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). "The privilege may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or may be inculpatory." Gault, 387 U.S. at 49. + +is indisputable that, in Constand's civil case, Cosby was entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment. No court could have forced Cosby to testify in a deposition or at a trial so long as the potential for criminal charges remained. Here, however, when called for deposition, Cosby no longer faced criminal charges. When compelled to testify, Cosby no longer had a right to invoke his right to remain silent. + +Cosby was forced to sit for four depositions. That he did not—and could not choose to remain silent is apparent from the record. When Cosby attempted to decline to answer certain questions about Constand, Constand's attorneys obtained a ruling from the civil trial judge forcing Cosby to answer. Most significantly, Cosby, having maintained his innocence in all matters and having been advised by a number of attorneys, provided critical evidence of his recurring history of supplying women with central nervous system depressants before engaging in (allegedly unwanted) sexual activity with them—the very assertion that undergirded Constand's criminal complaint. + +The trial court questioned whether Cosby believed that he no longer had a Fifth Amendment right to invoke during the civil proceedings, or whether he would have invoked that right had he still possessed it. The court noted that Cosby voluntarily had submitted to a police interview and had provided the police with a consent-based defense. Cosby repeated this narrative in his depositions. The court found no reason to believe that Cosby would not continue to cooperate as he had, and, thus, discerned no reason for him to invoke the Fifth Amendment. In other words, it was not that the trial court surmised that Cosby had no privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to invoke, but rather that Cosby simply chose not to invoke it. + +The trial court's conjecture was legally erroneous. The trial court surmised that, although Cosby repeatedly told an exculpatory, consent-based version of the January 2004 incident, he naturally would have been willing to offer inculpatory information about + +himself as well. Assuming that a person validly possesses the right to refrain from giving evidence against himself, he may invoke that right "at any time." See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473 (1966); Commonwealth v. Dulaney, 295 A.2d 328, 330 (Pa. 1972). The fact that Cosby did not assert any right to remain silent to the police or while sitting for the depositions is of no moment. Had his right to remain silent not been removed by D.A. Castor's decision, Cosby would have been at liberty to invoke that right at will. That Cosby did not do so at other junctures is not proof that he held the right but elected not to invoke it, as the trial court evidently reasoned. To assume an implicit waiver of the right violates a court's "duty . . . to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen," and to construe the existence of such rights broadly. Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1064 (quoting supra). + +These legal commandments compel only one conclusion. Cosby did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the reasonable belief that D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute him meant that "the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed]." Id. at 1065. Cosby could not invoke that which he no longer possessed, given the Commonwealth's assurances that he faced no risk of prosecution. Not only did D.A. Castor's unconditional decision not to prosecute Cosby strip Cosby of a fundamental constitutional right, but, because he was forced to testify, Cosby provided Constand's civil attorneys with evidence of Cosby's past use of drugs to facilitate his sexual exploits. Undoubtedly, this information hindered Cosby's ability to defend against the civil action, and led to a settlement for a significant amount of money. We are left with no doubt that Cosby relied to his detriment upon the district attomey's decision not to prosecute him. The question then becomes whether that reliance was reasonable. Unreasonable reliance warrants no legal remedy. + +We already have determined that Cosby in fact relied upon D.A. Castor's decision. We now conclude that Cosby's reliance was reasonable, and that it also was reasonable for D.A. Castor to expect Cosby to so rely. The record establishes without contradiction that depriving Cosby of his Fifth Amendment right was D.A. Castor's intended result.27 His actions were specifically designed to that end. The former district attorney may have equivocated or contradicted himself years later with regard to *how* he endeavored to achieve that result, but there has never been any question as to what he intended to achieve. There can be no doubt that, by choosing not to prosecute Cosby and then + +The trial court's credibility finding regarding the existence *vel non* of a particular promise does not allow us to ignore the remainder of the overwhelming evidence of record. The record firmly establishes that D.A. Castor's desired result was to strip Cosby of his Fifth Amendment rights. This patent and developed fact stands separate and apart from the trial court's finding that D.A. Castor never extended a formal promise. + +The dissent would ignore the undeniable reality that Cosby relied to his detriment upon D.A. Castor's decision. The dissent does so by shifting the perspective from D.A. Castor's actions to Cosby's, focusing in particular upon the fact that Cosby did not record the purported agreement or reduce it to writing. As we note in this opinion, in this context, neither a promise, nor an agreement, nor a contract, nor evidence of reliance derives legal validity only upon being recorded or upon written materialization. The law knows no such prerequisite, and Cosby cannot be punished for failing to comply with a legal requirement that does not exist. The proof of Cosby's reliance is plain on the face of the record. It is the fact that, upon the advice and assistance of counsel, Cosby sat for four depositions and incriminated himself, obviously a decision made after and in direct reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision. + +--- + +27 The dissent asserts that we have predicated our decision upon the existence of an "unwritten promise," which was rejected by the trial court's credibility findings. D.O. at 3. To the contrary. As we explained earlier, we have accepted the trial court's findings in this regard, and those findings, which are supported by the record, are binding on this Court. *See, supra*, page 48 (citing *O'Rourke*, 778 A.2d at 1199 (Pa. 2001)). However, our deference is limited to the factual findings only; we may draw our own inferences therefrom and reach our own legal conclusions. *See In re Pruner's Est.*, 162 A.2d at 631. Thus, the trial court's factual finding that no formal bargained-for-exchange, written or unwritten, occurred does not constrain our legal analysis, nor does it in any way serve to immunize D.A. Castor's actions from constitutional scrutiny. That there was no formal promise does not mean that Cosby no longer had due process rights. + +announcing it publicly, D.A. Castor reasonably expected Cosby to act in reliance upon his charging decision. + +We cannot deem it unreasonable to rely upon the advice of one's attorneys. The constitutional guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel is premised, in part, upon the complexities that inhere in our criminal justice system. A criminal defendant confronts a number of important decisions that may result in severe consequences to that defendant if, and when, they are made without a full understanding of the intricacies and nuances of the ever-changing criminal law. As Justice Black explained in v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938): + +[The right to counsel] embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel. That which is simple, orderly, and necessary to the lawyer to the untrained layman may appear intricate, complex, and mysterious. Consistently with the wise policy of the Sixth Amendment and other parts of our fundamental charter, this Court has pointed to the humane policy of modern criminal law, which now provides that a defendant, if he be poor, may have counsel furnished [to] him by the state, not infrequently more able than the attorney for the state.' + +The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he [may] have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. + +Id. at 462-63 (cleaned up). Not only was Cosby's reliance upon the conclusions and advice of his attorneys reasonable, it was consistent with a core purpose of the right to counsel. + +To hold otherwise would recast our understanding of reasonableness into something unrecognizable and unsustainable under our law. If Cosby's reliance was unreasonable, as found by the lower courts and as suggested by the Commonwealth, then reasonableness would require a defendant in a similar position to disbelieve an elected district attorney's public statement and to discount the experience and wisdom of his own counsel. This notion of reasonableness would be manifestly unjust in this context. Defendants, judges, and the public would be forced to assume fraud or deceit by the prosecutor. The attorney-client relationship would be predicated upon mistrust, and the defendant would be forced to navigate the criminal justice process on his own, despite the substantial deficit in the critical knowledge that is necessary in order to do so, as so compellingly explained by Justice Black. + +Such an understanding of reasonableness is untenable. Instead of facilitating the right to counsel, it undermines that right. We reject this interpretation. We find nothing unreasonable about Cosby's reliance upon his attorneys and upon D.A. Castor's public announcement of the Commonwealth's charging decision. + +The trial court alternatively suggested that Cosby's belief that he would never be prosecuted, thus stripping him of his Fifth Amendment rights, based upon little more than a press release, was unreasonable because neither Cosby nor his attorneys demanded that the terms of any offers or assurances by D.A. Castor be reduced to writing. This reasoning is unpersuasive. Neither the trial court, nor the Commonwealth for that matter, cites any legal principle that requires a prosecutor's assurances to be memorialized in writing in order to warrant reasonable reliance. We decline to construe as unreasonable the failure to do that which the law does not require. + +It also has been suggested that the level of the defendant's sophistication is a relevant factor in assessing whether his reliance upon a prosecutor's decision was + +reasonable. Such a consideration is both impractical and unfair. There is no equitable method of assessing a particular defendant's degree of sophistication. Any attempt would be an arbitrary line-drawing exercise that unjustifiably would deem some sophisticated and some not. Nor are there any objective criteria that could be used to make that assessment accurately. Would sophistication for such purposes be established based upon one's ability to hire one or more attorneys? By the level of education attained by the defendant? Or perhaps by the number of times the defendant has participated in the criminal justice system? There is no measure that could justify assessing reasonableness based upon the so-called sophistication of the defendant. + +The contours of the right to counsel do not vary based upon the characteristics of the individual seeking to invoke it. Our Constitutions safeguard fundamental rights equally for all. The right to counsel applies with equal force to the sophisticated and the unsophisticated alike. The most experienced defendant, the wealthiest suspect, and even the most-seasoned defense attorney are each entitled to rely upon the advice of their counsel. Notwithstanding Cosby's wealth, age, number of attorneys, and media savvy, he, too, was entitled to rely upon the advice of his counsel. No level of sophistication can alter that fundamental constitutional guarantee. + +In accordance with the advice his attorneys, Cosby relied upon D.A. Castor's public announcement that he would not be prosecuted. His reliance was reasonable, and it resulted in the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right when he was compelled to furnished self-incriminating testimony. Cosby reasonably relied upon the Commonwealth's decision for approximately ten years. When he announced his declination decision on behalf of the Commonwealth, District Attorney Castor knew that Cosby would be forced to testify based upon the Commonwealth's assurances. Knowing that he induced Cosby's reliance, and that his decision not to prosecute was designed to + +do just that, D.A. Castor made no attempt in 2005 or in any of the ten years that followed to remedy any misperception or to stop Cosby from openly and detrimentally relying upon that decision. In light of these circumstances, the subsequent decision by successor D.A.s to prosecute Cosby violated Cosby's due process rights. No other conclusion comports with the principles of due process and fundamental fairness to which all aspects of our criminal justice system must adhere.28 + +Having identified a due process violation here, we must ascertain the remedy to which Cosby is entitled. We note at the outset that specific performance does not automatically apply in these circumstances. As a general rule, specific performance is reserved for remedying an injured party to a fully consummated agreement, such as an agreed-upon and executed plea bargain. Commonwealth v. Spence, 627 A.2d 1176, 1184 (Pa. 1993). "'Specific performance' is a traditional contract remedy that is available when monetary damages are inadequate." , 147 A.3d at 532 (citing BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1425 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "specific performance" as, inter alia, "a courtordered remedy that requires precise fulfillment of a legal or contractual obligation when monetary damages are inappropriate or inadequate")). + +This does not mean that specific performance is unavailable entirely. It only means that the remedy does not naturally flow to someone under these circumstances as an automatic consequence of contract law. Specific performance is awarded only when equity and fundamental fairness command it. See Scotland, at 614 F.2d at 365 (stating that, if "the defendant detrimentally relies on the govemment's promise, the resulting harm from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees"); see also Commonwealth v. Mebane, 58 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upholding trial court ruling that fundamental + +28 See Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Exam'rs, 842 A.2d 936, 946 (Pa. 2004) ("Substantive due process is the esoteric concept interwoven within our judicial framework to guarantee fundamental fairness and substantial justice . . . .") (cleaned up). + +fairness required enforcement of the prosecution's plea offer that was later withdrawn, where the defendant detrimentally relied upon the offer); Commonwealth v. McSorley, 485 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 1984), aff'd, 506 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1986) (per curiam) (enforcing an incomplete agreement based upon detrimental reliance). As noted earlier, the principle of fundamental fairness, as embodied in our Constitutions, requires courts to examine whether the challenged "conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental and that defines the community's sense of fair play and decency." Kratsas, 764 A.2d at 27. + +In our view, specific performance of D.A. Castor's decision, in the form of barring Cosby's prosecution for the incident involving Constand, is the only remedy that comports with society's reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system. It bears repeating that D.A. Castor intended his charging decision to induce the waiver of Cosby's fundamental constitutional right, which is why the prosecutor rendered his decision in a very public manner. Cosby reasonably relied to his detriment upon that decade-old decision when he declined to attempt to avail himself of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and when he provided Constand's civil attorneys with inculpatory statements. Under these circumstances, neither our principles of justice, nor society's expectations, nor our sense of fair play and decency, can tolerate anything short of compelling the County District Attorney's Office to stand by the decision of its former elected head. + +In Stipetich, we briefly contemplated a remedy for the breach of a defective nonprosecution agreement. In that case, Stipetich agreed with the police that, if he revealed his source for obtaining drugs, no charges would be filed against him or his wife. Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1294-95. Even though Stipetich fulfilled his end of the bargain, charges still were filed against him and his wife. Id. at 1295. The Stipetiches sought enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement with the police. This Court found that the non-prosecution agreement was invalid, because the police did not have the authority to make it. Only a prosecutor holds that power. Id. + +We recognized that what befell the Stipetiches may have been "fundamentally unfair," particularly if their discussions with the police produced additional evidence of criminality, including possibly self-incriminating statements. Id. at 1296. In dicta, we suggested that the remedy might be to suppress the evidence or statements that were obtained after the police purported to bind the Commonwealth in a non-prosecution agreement. Id. + +This remedy is insufficient here, for a number of reasons. First, as noted, the remedy statement was dicta, and is not the law in Pennsylvania. Second, the circumstances that led to the suggestion of that remedy are markedly different than those that occurred in the present case. In Stipetich, the agreement was formulated with arresting officers, who lacked the authority to make the promise not to prosecute. Here, conversely, the non-prosecution decision was made by the elected District Attorney of County, whose public announcement of that decision was fully within his authority, and was objectively worthy of reasonable reliance. Finally, a one-size-fits-all remedy does not comport with the individualized due process inquiry that must be undertaken. As outlined above, a court must ascertain, contemplating the individual circumstances of each case, the remedy that accords with the due process of law. In some instances, suppression of evidence may be an adequate remedy; in others, only specific enforcement will suffice. + +Here, only full enforcement of the decision not to prosecute can satisfy the fundamental demands of due process. See 676 F.2d at 528 (explaining that, when a promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled). In light of the extent and duration of Cosby's reliance, induced as intended by then-District Attorney Castor, no other remedy will do. Anything less under these circumstances would permit the Commonwealth to extract incriminating evidence from a defendant who relies upon the elected prosecutor's words, actions, and intent, and then use that evidence against that defendant with impunity. + +The circumstances before us here are rare, if not entirely unique. While this controversy shares some features of earlier cases that contemplate the constitutional role of prosecutors, that import contract principles into the criminal law, and that address the binding nature of prosecutorial promises in plea agreements and in other situations-as well as breaches of those promises—there are no precedents directly on point that would make the remedy question an easy one. As the concurring and dissenting opinion ("CDO") observes, the circumstances of this case present a "constellation of . . unusual conditions."29 It is not at all surprising, then, that a reasonable disagreement arises regarding the remedy that must be afforded for what we and the CDO agree was a violation of Cosby's due process rights. + +In our respectful judgment, the CDO's proposed remedy, a third criminal trial of Cosby—albeit one without his deposition testimony—falls short of the relief necessary to remedy the constitutional violation. Specific performance is rarely warranted, and should be imposed only when fairness and equity demand it. As the CDO notes, such a remedy generally should be afforded only under "drastic circumstances where the defendant detrimentally relies on an inducement and cannot be retumed to the status quo ante."30 + +29See CDO at 4. + +30Id. at 9. + +Our disagreement with the CDO arises concerning its view that mere suppression of Cosby's deposition testimony will remedy his constitutional harm and "fully" restore him to where he stood before he detrimentally relied upon D.A. Castor's inducement.31 This perspective understates the gravity of Cosby's harm in this case, and suppression alone is insufficient to provide a full remedy of the consequences of the due process violation. + +The CDO would limit our assessment of the harm suffered by Cosby to the Commonwealth's use of the deposition testimony at his two trials. But the harm is far greater than that, and it began long before even the first trial. It must be remembered that D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby, and to announce that decision orally and in a written press release, was not designed to facilitate the use of testimony against Cosby in a future criminal trial. Instead, D.A. Castor induced Cosby's forfeiture of his Fifth Amendment rights as a mechanism and a lever to aid Constand's civil action and to improve the chances that she would receive at least a monetary benefit for the abuse that she suffered, given that D.A. Castor had determined that Constand would not, and could not, get relief in a criminal trial. Through his deliberate efforts, D.A. Castor effectively forced Cosby to participate against himself in a civil case in a way that Cosby would not have been required to do had he retained his constitutional privilege against selfincrimination. To say the least, this development significantly weakened Cosby's legal position. Cosby was compelled to give inculpatory evidence that led ultimately to a multimillion dollar settlement. The end result was exactly what D.A. Castor intended: Cosby gave up his rights, and Constand received significant financial relief. + +Under these circumstances, where our equitable objective in remedying a due process violation is to restore an aggrieved party to the status he held prior to that violation, exclusion of the deposition testimony from a third criminal trial, and nothing + +31Id. at 5. + +more, falls short of what our law demands. Though this appeal emanates from Cosby's criminal convictions, we cannot ignore the true breadth of the due process violation. The deprivation includes the fact that D.A. Castor's actions handicapped Cosby in the derivative civil suit. Nor can we ignore the fact that weakening Cosby's position in that civil case was precisely why D.A. Castor proceeded as he did. Suppression of evidence in a third criminal trial can never restore Cosby to the position he held before he forfeited his Fifth Amendment rights. The consequences of D.A. Castor's actions include the civil matter, and no exclusion of deposition testimony can restore Cosby's injuries in that regard. + +It was not only the deposition testimony that harmed Cosby. As a practical matter, the moment that Cosby was charged criminally, he was harmed: all that he had forfeited earlier, and the consequences of that forfeiture in the civil case, were for naught. This was, as the CDO itself characterizes it, an unconstitutional "coercive bait-and-switch."32 It is the true and full breadth of the consequences of the due process violation that separates this case from the cases relied upon by the CDO, including Stipetich.33 Each of those prosecutions involved defective or unenforceable promises that resulted in suppression remedies. Critically, none of them featured the additional harm inflicted in this case. In none of those cases did the effects of the constitutional violation extend to matters beyond the criminal trial, as was the circumstance here. Accordingly, none of those cases support, much less compel, the limited remedy that the CDO proffers. + +The impact of the due process violation here is vast. The remedy must match that impact. Starting with D.A. Castor's inducement, Cosby gave up a fundamental + +32Id. at 1. + +33 See CDO at 6-8 (citirieetich, Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055 (Pa. 1977); Commonwealth v. , 611 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1922); People v. Gallego, 424 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. 1988); and United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 (1966)). + +constitutional right, was compelled to participate in a civil case after losing that right, testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor's compulsion of Cosby's reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO's remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he was before the due process violation took root. + +There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it might thwart the "public interest in having the guilty brought to book."34 It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society's interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society's interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons. + +## IV. Conclusion + +We do not question the discretion that is vested in prosecutors "over whether charges should be brought in any given case." Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not undermine a prosecutor's "general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case." Id. (quoting + +34See CDO (quoting Blue, 384 U.S. at 255). + +Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. 1968)). The decision to charge, or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion of the prosecutor. + +However, the discretion vested in our Commonwealth's prosecutors, however vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n.1 (W.Va. 1998) (explaining that "any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the standard of responsibility for the office"). A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental faimess. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain. + +For these reasons, Cosby's convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.35 + +Justices Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion. + +Justice Dougherty files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Baer joins. + +Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion. + +35Accordingly, we do not address Cosby's other issue. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b298c88139a21bea51f7b34d0582812c8d55f4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648/EFTA02832648.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3027 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832648.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 80, + "chars": 175084, + "elapsed_seconds": 22.06, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 416.9432678222656, + 203.51123046875 + ], + [ + 416.9432678222656, + 255.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 255.16168212890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "[J-100-2020] \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA \nMIDDLE DISTRICT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 441.9689636230469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 441.9689636230469, + 114.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 114.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JUSTICE WECHT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 173.4516143798828, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 173.4516143798828, + 398.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 398.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPINION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.848, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.62078857421875, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.62078857421875, + 368.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 277.848, + 368.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Factual and Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 405.2930908203125, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 405.2930908203125, + 469.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 469.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(a) Character Evidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 238.04515075683594, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 238.04515075683594, + 405.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 405.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 488.43 + ], + [ + 292.7668151855469, + 488.43 + ], + [ + 292.7668151855469, + 504.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 504.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Issues:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 80.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 336.7812805175781, + 80.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 336.7812805175781, + 94.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 94.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 342.4614562988281, + 465.75 + ], + [ + 342.4614562988281, + 481.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 269.28000000000003, + 481.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.324, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 351.48382568359375, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 351.48382568359375, + 544.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 261.324, + 544.9335174560547 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832648" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9776c0789bc59664474829158070ee0aee6629e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7600 ccvcrdclIticohengrcsscr.com + +July 2, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 ♦1 **212 957 7600 phone wwwochengrossor cam** + +We respectfully submit this letter to bring to the Court's attention the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Henry Cosby Jr., 3-100-2020 (Jun. 30, 2021), in which the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction and sentence because the District Attorney's Office that prosecuted him failed to live up to its express promise not to prosecute Mr. Cosby for the same crimes for which he was later convicted.' Ms. Maxwell's case presents a similar situation. As we argued in our supplemental pretrial motions currently pending before the Court (Dkt. 293), the government has failed to abide by its promise not to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses for which she was immunized by the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). We submit that this decision provides support for Ms. Maxwell's supplemental motion to dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment for violation of the NPA. + +In Cosby, Andrea Constand alleged that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her in his residence in January 2004. (Op. 4-5). Ms. Constand did not immediately report the assault to law enforcement authorities and continued to have contact with Mr. Cosby in the following months. (Id. at 5-7). In January 2005, approximately one ear after the assault, Ms. Constand reported Mr. Cosby's conduct to the police. (/d. at 6). The County District Attorney's Office investigated the allegations, but then-District Attorney Bruce Castor determined that "there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence" to bring criminal charges against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at 7-10). Among the factors weighing against bringing charges were that (i) Ms. Constand had waited a year to file her complaint, which diminished the reliability of Ms. Constand's recollections; (ii) Ms. Constand's statements about the events were inconsistent; (iii) there was a lack of corroborating evidence; (iv) Ms. Constand continued to speak to and meet with Mr. Cosby + +I The opinion ("Op.") is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 2, 2021 Page 2 + +after the assault; and (v) Ms. Constand had contacted civil attorneys to pursue financial compensation through a lawsuit against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at 9-10). + +DA Castor issued a signed public statement declining to prosecute Mr. Cosby, which he viewed as, and Mr. Cosby's lawyers understood to be, an agreement that Mr. Cosby would never be prosecuted for the events involving Ms. Constand. (Id. at 10-13, 16-18). Believing that he no longer had a basis to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, Mr. Cosby testified at several depositions in a civil suit brought against him by Ms. Constand and made inculpatory admissions. (Id. at 13- 15). Ten years later, the successor District Attorney, Risa Vetri Ferman, used those admissions to charge Mr. Cosby with the same crimes related to the sexual assault of Ms. Constand that were covered by DA Castor's promise. (Id. at 18). Mr. Cosby was convicted of those charges at trial. (Id. at 38). + +The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that DA Castor's promise was enforceable and that DA Ferman's prosecution of Mr. Cosby ten years later on the same charges violated his Due Process rights. (Id. at 78-79). As a result, the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction. (Id. at 79). In so holding, the Court noted the following: + +> Interactions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness. + +(Id. at 55). + +The same principle applies to Ms. Maxwell's case. As in Cosby, the government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity in the NPA. Indeed, the principle applies even more strongly in Ms. Maxwell's case because the NPA was a formal written agreement, as opposed to an informal promise like the one in Cosby. This is not consistent with principles of fundamental fairness. + +Accordingly, for the reasons already set forth in our supplemental pretrial motions, and the principles discussed in Cosby, the Court should hold the government to its agreement and dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 2, 2021 Page 3 + +Thank you for your attention to these matters. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..489f096a90f3d82c6b653d3708c420df50579e97 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/EFTA02832728.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5059, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.96, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832728" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cc7deaaef1b4910b45a0797c7978fd47d4a8273 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832728/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:12c5f809ccd9a4ccd1ddb7c75930c90566d8fa171ba0105243f5604b5e3b33ef +size 1580 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..060e33723863668a6b4d9025002de389254050a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.md @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ +## EXHIBIT D + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +In re: Grand Jury Proceedings + +Before: + +x + +Ex Parte Conference + +New York, N.Y. March 26, 2019 4:04 p.m. + +HON. COLLEEN McMAHON, + +District Judge + +## APPEARANCES + +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: ALEX ROSSMILLER Assistant United States Attorney + +(In the robing room) + +THE COURT: The following proceeding is being conducted ex parte and under seal. + +The problem is, it's not being conducted in a matter, and that is one of my first questions to Mr. Rossmiller: Why was this not filed on the Court's docket with a miscellaneous number? We don't file things under U.S. Attorney numbers. This should have been brought as a miscellaneous matter. + +MR. : So, your Honor, it was originally submitted with Judge Sweet -- + +THE COURT: I understand what he did, but I will tell you that in the opinion that will never issue, because Judge Sweet died, but he had written, and now I'm stuck with this, Judge Sweet questioned why you had not made this an "In re: The Matter of Application of the Grand Jury" or something or other, with a proper miscellaneous docket number. The fact that it would have gone to Judge Sweet doesn't mean anything. I have no way to docket USAO No. 2018R01618. That's your reference number, not ours. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: I understand, your Honor. I think we had understood that the submission should be made to the court that had entered the protective order and that -- + +THE COURT: That's true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't get a miscellaneous docket number. + +The first thing that's going to happen, this is going + +1 2 to be re-legended and it's going to get a miscellaneous docket number. + +3 4 MR. ROSSMILLER: Understood, your Honor. I apologize for that oversight. + +5 THE COURT: It's okay. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 All right. Now my second question, which is a procedural question, the government here has moved for relief on behalf of a third party to whom a grand jury subpoena has issued, and that third party would like to be relieved of its obligations under the protective order, and that third party is a law firm full of brilliant lawyers that are fully capable of making a motion bringing a proceeding to be relieved from the provisions of the protective order. Why are you doing this for them? + +15 16 17 18 19 Why doesn't Boies Schiller make an application for permission to be relieved from the protective order? Because it thought it was going to violate some duty that it had to its client in the underlying actions? Did they give you a reason why they weren't willing to come to court and -- + +20 21 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: No, your Honor. So I can't speak to why Boies Schiller in particular didn't make their own application. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: Because I understand that you don't think that Martindell is applicable here, but I do, and now I'm the judge. I wish I weren't. You know that the Second Circuit has + +1 2 3 4 very clearly said that, and Judge Broderick said in Chemical Bank the proper procedure is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the terms of the protective order. And it ain't you; it's somebody who's subject to the protective order. + +5 + +6 7 MR. ROSSMILLER: I think a little bit of context may help explain how the procedure developed, your Honor. + +8 9 10 Originally we had submitted an All Writs Act application to Judge Sweet, which we believe was appropriate given the sort of catch-all function of that + +11 12 13 THE COURT: Yes, I understand that, but it still has to have a docket number in order to be a proceeding in this court. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. ROSSMILLER: Totally understand, your Honor. But just with respect to our supplemental submission, Judge Sweet had reached out to us and asked us to submit an argument in connection with our application, and so I think whether that was sort of past experience or his preference, that is why we proceeded -- + +20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So here's why I'm being so persnickety. Forgive me. Not only do I have to like come up to speed pretty quickly, but you know -- I assume you know, but I certainly know, and everybody who follows civil litigation knows -- that Judge Sweet is about to get reversed in connection with this protective order in the Second Circuit. I mean, I don't have + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 that on any authority other than my reading of the tea leaves after the extensive press reporting and the fact that the Second Circuit has already issued an order giving the parties until last week to say why the summary judgment papers and all the supporting papers should not be unsealed by the Second Circuit and indicating that there would be a further order with respect to all the rest of the, I don't know, 150 or so sealed documents in connection with the underlying litigation, but you can hear it in the questioning, you can read it in the press reports, you can intuit it from the order. I don't know if you've seen the Second Circuit's order that issued last week, but -- + +13 MR. ROSSMILLER: I have, your Honor. + +14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Okay. You can intuit that something kind of unfavorable to Judge Sweet is happening, it's in the process of happening, it seems to me it's about to be happening, in connection with this protective order and its enforceability. Doesn't seem that way to you, Mr. Rossmiller? + +19 20 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, I've read the same articles and + +21 THE COURT: I mean, really, Mr. Rossmiller? + +22 23 24 25 MR. ROSSMILLER: So I would say, your Honor, that I would expect that any order to disclose materials that were filed in connection with, for example, the summary judgment papers, if in fact they are released or if in fact the + +1 2 3 protective order is overturned in some way, that those would be redacted as to individuals' names, personally identifying information -- + +4 THE COURT: Probably. + +5 6 7 8 MR. ROSSMILLER: -- which I would expect, your Honor. I don't believe that any indication is that the underlying discovery materials are likely to be unsealed, and I'm not sure whether that's at issue, but in any event -- + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: I don't think it is. I think the only thing that's at issue in the case that the Second Circuit has heard is the publicly -- only here, not publicly -- filed litigation documents, which is essentially a lawsuit, a libel action that has been filed and litigated under seal. It was settled by terms that would have expired because the protective order doesn't extend until it goes on to a trial, but there wasn't a trial. + +17 And I'm struggling with this for two reasons. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 First of all, it's like how much deference to give to this protective order that was issued by some judge, not myself, on the basis of I don't know what, except that from the questions that the Second Circuit asked about the litigation documents, it seemed like they were being critical of Judge Sweet for not having a particularized inquiry into each document that was sought to be filed in accordance with the protective order as to why this contained confidential + +1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 information and what was confidential about this, and just reading the tea leaves, I'm thinking to myself, what am I supposed to do with this protective order that looks like it stands on precarious footing to begin with? Is this the so-called improvidently granted protective order? How could I know that? I'm trying to go back in the files to see what Judge Sweet relied on in granting the protective order. I have no idea if there was an opinion. Ihave no idea if there was -- I mean, he recited the magic words at the beginning of the protective order. But, you know, he was doing this for five years, and he's dead, and I can't ask him. And his law clerks weren't around when he did it, although they're trying to help me find stuff in the files. So I'm just trying to figure out if there's something that's going to happen in the Second Circuit that would help you out here or that would further your investigation in a way that would make it not necessary to deal with it. + +18 19 20 21 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, I'm very sympathetic to that consideration. I think that even were the Second Circuit to unseal the entirety of what I believe is at issue, which is, as the Court noted, as the Court just noted + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: 150 litigation documents, and I don't think the Second Circuit is going to take the time that would be required to make the inquiry. I'm going to guess that, you know, some poor schlub in the district court is going to have + +1 to do that. And I hope it's not me. But -- + +2 3 4 5 MR. ROSSMILLER: And I believe it will apply to the docketed filings in the case and not, for example, the underlying discovery materials, deposition materials, investigation materials. + +6 THE COURT: Okay. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. ROSSMILLER: And so I think that, unfortunately, for the circumstances, for perhaps all of us, that even were the Second Circuit to grant sort of the most expansive invalidation of the protective order or sort of release of these materials, that our application would still be relevant and pending and active. + +13 14 THE COURT: Would still be relevant and pending and active. Okay. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And you can't explain to me why Boies Schiller didn't make a motion. Because there's no question in my mind that were this to be disclosed to the parties -- and I appreciate that we're not going to do that, but were this to be disclosed to the parties, Maxwell would protest, and the first thing that Maxwell would do would be to say the government lacks standing, it's not a party of the protective order, the issue can be litigated, if Boies Schiller chooses to make a motion to seek to be relieved from the protective order, or to quash the subpoena or to do something, but the government has no standing. It hasn't moved to intervene in the civil action. + +1 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +It hasn't done any of those things. So under Martindell, the government lacks standing, because remember, in Martindell, the government only had standing because all the parties were familiar with the government's application. It wasn't a secret. I don't know why it wasn't a secret, but it wasn't a secret. And nobody objected. And so they said, ah, okay, objection to standing waived. + +So, you know, once again, Judge Sweet, I can tell you, was somewhat troubled by. the procedural posture of the case even though, as I understand it, he was perhaps partly to blame for the procedural posture of the case, but it's not like Boies Schiller came in here and asked for relief from the protective order. And I am curious about why Boies Schiller didn't do that. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, what I can tell you about that is we, the government, thought that we were in a position to make the application via the All Writs Act submission that we originally made, that that would be an appropriate vehicle for the relief that we, as the government, were seeking in connection with the protective order. So I'm not sure -- + +THE COURT: You're seeking to have a third party, to have Boies Schiller, who were counsel for the plaintiffs in the Maxwell action, be relieved from the protective order, but if there's anybody on this planet who is capable of asking, "Please relieve us from the strictures of this protective + +1 order," it is David Boies and his partners. I mean, really. + +2 3 MR. ROSSMILLER: I'm sure you're right, your Honor, and -- + +4 5 THE COURT: They don't need the government's protection. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. ROSSMILLER: Not that I don't begrudge the dozens of hours that I have spent on it in lieu of Boies Schiller, but I think -- and with apologies of perhaps being persnickety myself, but the relief that we are seeking is not precisely to allow Boies Schiller to do something but rather for the modification of the protective order that would then allow that, but we did think that we were able to make the application via the All Writs Act, and I think it was our general understanding from Judge Sweet's response asking us for support for our submission, rather than, for example, denying it based on lack of standing at the outset or simply asking us to have Boies Schiller make the application. I don't know what, if any, difference there would be in terms of the legal analysis from Boies Schiller, but I can say that I think the current posture does allow the government to explain why the investigation is extraordinary in the sense of how other decisions and courts have described it and where we, the government, are better able to explain + +24 25 THE COURT: But what do you mean by what you just said? I mean, you have an investigation into an allegation of + +1 2 3 4 5 human trafficking. I have no idea if you're up against a statute of limitations so that I could take the time that really is needed to kind of grapple with the procedural issues, because you haven't told me that you're up against a statute of limitations. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. ROSSMILLER: I can tell your Honor -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. But I can tell you that, as most of our investigations do, this is moving sort of as fast as possible. This was a significant application that we thoroughly considered before making and made originally nearly two months ago, so we are hopeful to get an answer soon. Nevertheless, let me say that -- + +13 14 15 THE COURT: Unfortunately, but for the dead judge opinion and the Supreme Court last month, you would have gotten an answer, but -- + +16 17 18 19 MR. ROSSMILLER: That said, I would not describe this as an emergency application. There's not a particular day by which we are requesting a response. We had hoped to hear back from Judge Sweet -- + +20 THE COURT: Before. + +21 MR. ROSSMILLER: Before. Yes, your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: Would that that had happened. + +23 24 25 MR. ROSSMILLER: And if I may, just very briefly. I think with respect to the postural question, particularly regarding Boies Schiller, Boies Schiller simply isn't in a + +1 2 position to be able to describe the investigation in the way that we have in our submission. + +3 4 5 THE COURT: Well, that's clear. That's clear. I mean, were I Boies Schiller, I would have -- never mind. We won't say what I would have done. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 So I'm looking at the protective order itself, and of course not having been privy to any of the materials in the case -- and they're all under seal, so, I mean, I can dissolve the seal and get them, but there are 150 documents there that are under seal for filings, there are multiple documents that are under seal. + +12 13 MR. ROSSMILLER: Not to mention all the underlying materials, of course. + +14 15 THE COURT: Not to mention all the underlying materials. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So you argue there isn't any truly confidential material in this, this isn't a trade secrets case, and obviously it's not a trade secrets case. It's a libel case. It would seem that the most scurrilous of accusations would have already floated across the face of the complaint. But since Maxwell can't object, how can I know that all this is about is information that would be, you know, embarrassing? + +23 24 25 MR. ROSSMILLER: I would point the Court in the first instance to the definition of "confidential materials" in the protective order itself, which describes "confidential + +1 2 materials" as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of plaintiff + +3 + +4 5 THE COURT: I have absolutely no idea what that means, and you don't either, and none of us does. + +6 7 8 9 MR. ROSSMILLER: I don't, your Honor, but I think we argued in our submission that it, at least on its face, does not implicate the type of materials that are confidential business materials, trade secrets -- + +10 THE COURT: Ordinarily the subject of -- + +11 12 MR. ROSSMILLER: -- ordinarily the subject of the considerations developed in some of the cases that we cited. + +13 THE COURT: Okay. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: And I should also say that in responding to the subpoena, Boies Schiller has the ability to say that they will not produce certain materials because they are privileged, because they believe that there is some larger overarching confidentiality issue, at which point we would be in a different posture. I am not aware that they have identified any materials as confidential that they would withhold, but I do note that we would not ask for and would not expect to receive privileged materials. + +23 24 THE COURT: Okay. Did you provide Judge Sweet with a proposed order? + +25 MR. ROSSMILLER: We did, yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Could I see what you provided Judge Sweet. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, of course. + +And your Honor, just for the record, I'm handing over what was our initial sealed affirmation and application to the Court for an order under the All Writs Act, and that includes an affirmation and application that I signed with an exhibit attached of the original protective order, followed by which is a proposed order for entry by Judge Sweet, which we of course would be happy to submit to the Court in Word form or in revised form, subject to the Court's views. + +THE COURT: Right. I just wanted to see if it had a certain provision. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: If there is a provision that the Court thinks would address some of these issues, we would of course be happy to hear it. + +THE COURT: Of course I'm not Judge Sweet, so I don't know exactly what was going on in his head. + +I assume it would be the government's position that reliance on the nondisclosure of confidential materials to law enforcement in connection with a grand jury subpoena that has been duly authorized would be unreasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable reliance to assume that the protective order could never be modified to allow -- I mean, the parties to this negotiated the protective order, and the protective order does not contain the provision that is in every protective order I + +1 2 3 sign, which is, you can disclose it without the permission of the Court if, you know, law enforcement puts a gun to your head and says produce it. That's not in here. + +4 MR. ROSSMILLER: That's right, your Honor. + +5 6 THE COURT: I don't know. It's my understanding that it may have been negotiated out. + +7 8 9 10 11 MR. ROSSMILLER: It may have been. I will only say that I believe that -- I'm on less firm ground than in the cases that we discussed specifically, but I believe that the converse would be void for public policy; in other words, you would not be able to put in -- + +12 THE COURT: That was my question. + +13 14 MR. ROSSMILLER: -- you may not disclose this to law enforcement even given a duly authorized grand jury subpoena. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Thank you for saying the words "void for public policy," because I was going there. I take it it would be the government's position that because it would be void as against public policy to absolutely prohibit the disclosure of information to law enforcement, that if a party were to say, "But I relied on this, that it would not be disclosed to law enforcement," that that would not, in your view, be reasonable reliance. + +23 24 25 MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor, I think that's correct, and I think that that is borne out by the opinion in Chemical Bank, which essentially says: You should have asked, + +1 2 3 4 but of course this is fine for you to disclose this information to the government based on the validly issued grand jury subpoena, I think for the same type of reasons that the Court is describing. + +5 6 THE COURT: Okay. So let me see what other million questions that I have. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 It's a general subpoena. Did you take them for all discovery materials? I mean, everything that's in Boies Schiller's files, other than privileged documents, which of course you don't exclude from your subpoena but presumably they will exclude from their production. But it's literally everything. So remember, I know very little about the Maxwell case, both because it wasn't my case and, to the shock of nearly everyone that I talk to, we're all too busy to worry about some litigation that's being handled by somebody else; and second, it seems to have been litigated entirely under seal so how could I have found out anything about it. Everything I know about this case I learned from reading about the Second Circuit argument. Literally, everything. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 So what assurance do I have that so broad a grand jury subpoena -- given that I have these competing interests between the terms of the protective order and the government's interest in conducting an investigation, what assurance do I have that you need all that stuff, that that's all somehow going to be relevant to your investigation? That is a concern from me + +1 because I don't know anything about the case. + +2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. ROSSMILLER: Okay, your Honor, and I think the answer to that is in a couple parts. The first is, I would point the Court towards some of the opinions that have talked about the government's investigative ability and authority being broad, and it is the case that sometimes we issue grand jury subpoenas -- + +8 THE COURT: But that was true in Martindell too. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, of course, your Honor, but I just need to say that it is entirely possible that, in any grand jury subpoena, that materials will come back that are not helpful to our investigation, are not relevant, for whatever reason, that it was, however unintentionally, overbroad or included unnecessary aspects. Here, we are essentially unable to significantly narrow the request for information in part for exactly the reasons that you describe. We have either little or no additional information than the Court does in terms of what materials there are, who was deposed, and that is in marked contrast to some of the other cases. + +20 THE COURT: Every other case in the whole world. + +21 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: Of course, your Honor. Exactly. For exactly the reasons we described. + +23 24 25 So what I can say in terms of assurance is, we are not sort of an ordinary third-party intervenor. All of these materials will be subject to the extraordinary protections of + +1 2 3 4 5 Rule 60. We will be extremely restricted in our use of them. To the extent that we receive materials that otherwise wouldn't have been narrowly connected with our investigation, they will not go anywhere that they shouldn't; they will not be treated in any way they should not be. + +6 7 THE COURT: Let me ask a question that you may not wish to answer, and I'll appreciate it if you don't. + +8 9 10 11 I know who the target of your investigation is, at least the one that you've identified. Is there any expectation that these materials would be used to commence criminal proceedings against either of the parties to the libel case? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. ROSSMILLER: I can say that just as a general matter, that any materials that we gather in any part of any investigation that appear to give rise to criminal liability for individuals implicated in those materials could cause us to proceed with an investigation of any such individual. That's a little broad, your Honor, obviously, but -- + +18 19 THE COURT: II, no. I understand what you're saying. And I think Judge Sweet had some concerns about that. + +20 21 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: But I don't think that there's any additional protection for the parties of the lawsuit as opposed to nonparties' information. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: They're the ones who relied on the protective order. Of course you say it's not reasonable to rely, but they're the ones who relied on the protective order + +1 2 3 4 5 in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or -- then again, I can't fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don't know. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MR. ROSSMILLER: So just taking that very briefly in order, your Honor, I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order. In other words, anyone other than the parties who were deposed may have, in theory, and perhaps unreasonably, relied on it. + +16 17 THE COURT: For example, the target of your investigation. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. ROSSMILLER: For example, the target of our investigation. But I don't think that the parties would be differently situated in terms of their rights, and there are certainly many cases that talk about how the government has the ability to grant immunity in a criminal investigation, but not, of course, through restricting materials -- + +24 25 THE COURT: But that's the whole point of the government needing to follow the procedure, the proper + +1 2 3 4 5 6 procedure of either having the target of the subpoena make a motion to quash or a motion for relief or the government moving for relief to intervene, instead of engaging in self-help. There isn't an application like this in any case except the Chemical Bank case, and in the Chemical Bank case, it all was ex post facto and it all happened. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. ROSSMILLER: Right. And I'll just note, without wanting to be defensive at all about the posture -- I understand the Court's questions about that -- I cannot recall whether it was Martindell or one of the other cases, but one of the original cases in this line, one of the issues was that the court had gotten on the phone with the judge and requested it, you know, sort of informally, right? + +14 THE COURT: Yes. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: Despite our errors in the precise procedure, we did want to have a formal application with reasons and then subsequently, at the request of Judge Sweet, supporting law. And so I do apologize for the precise posture. We took the approach that we did in the hopes that we could avoid the types of problems that had been engendered by other types of applications which I think were made by the government in other cases, and so that's what we did here as well. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I'll tell you one thing that I am going to do. i am going to ask the clerk of the court to assign a miscellaneous number to this case and + +1 2 3 4 5 everything will be filed under seal, and it will be "In Re Grand Jury," you know, the usual, and it will have the treatment that "In Re Grand Jury" materials get, and everything will be filed under seal. But that way I at least have a place to put this, okay? + +6 7 8 9 10 MR. ROSSMILLER: I appreciate that, your Honor. I think we had expected that had the order been either granted or denied, that consistent with our usual All Writs application, that it would have then been identified with a number, but frankly, I'm not in the clerk's office, so -- + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Okay. But it has to have one, and I'm particularly acutely desirous of making sure that this is filed under a docket number with this court because I am concerned about the way everything has happened to date, given the Second Circuit's kind of, it seems to me, obvious displeasure with the fact that this whole thing has been litigated under seal. So grand jury material, absolutely. But let's be sure that there is a docket, you know, that we don't have something that's off the radar screen. + +20 21 MR. ROSSMILLER: Totally understood, your Honor, and appreciate that, and we're grateful to the Court for that. + +22 23 24 THE COURT: Great. Okay. And you'll get your answer by early next week. I have to go to the annual meeting of the chief district judges. + +25 MR. ROSSMILLER: I don't envy the Court that. + +THE COURT: It would be fine, but my biggest problem, frankly, is I don't know when Judge Sweet's funeral is and I'm trying to figure out when I need to be here for Judge Sweet's funeral. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: We're very grateful -- + +THE COURT: This goes to the top of the pile. I appreciate that this should have been dealt with sooner, and I'm sorry that it wasn't dealt with a week sooner or you would have had an answer. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: We're grateful for the Court's attention and certainly appreciate the opportunity to explain how we ended up here. + +THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: I appreciate it, Mr. Rossmiller. + +ooo \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12e374f39093b8db2c9af637a291b3dedfd2054c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731/EFTA02832731.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,857 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832731.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 23, + "chars": 28858, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.44, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.6777648925781, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.6777648925781, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 290.7, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 382.4327392578125, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 382.4327392578125, + 376.65000000000003 + ], + [ + 290.7, + 376.65000000000003 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 371 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832731" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27d936262dbc3feed1469486716afe9a15b8dd68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +## EXHIBIT E + +1 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, + +Before: + +x + +x + +19 Misc. 149 (CM) + +Conference + +New York, N.Y. + +April 9, 2019 + +11:45 a.m. + +HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON, + +Chief District Judge + +## APPEARANCES + +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ALEX ROSSMILLER + +Assistant United States Attorney + +(In the robing room) + +THE COURT: This is 19 Misc. 149, In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. I've had one conference with the government in this matter. You want to put your appearance on the record. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes. Good morning, your Honor. Alex Rossmiller for the government. + +THE COURT: Mr. Rossmiller, I now know a lot more about what's going on than I did the last time we were together. My question is this: I'll be very up-front with you. I want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. So with respect to this investigation, the investigation was opened in late November or early December, either on Friday, November 30, or Monday, December 3. + +THE COURT: OK. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: In the initial days and weeks of the investigation, we endeavored to identify information about the subject of the investigation, including, among other things, possible victims who we should speak to. In the process of doing so, we identified certain counsel that were identified as representing victims or witnesses either in public filings or + +1 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +in media reports. Boies Schiller was among those plaintiff attorneys. So following the opening of the investigation, we were in touch with Boies Schiller, among other plaintiff and witness counsel, in connection with their representation of witnesses or victims. + +With respect to Boies Schiller in particular, we quickly came to learn during the investigation that they had at the time either active or recently completed civil litigation and so asked them, as is our standard practice, told them, I should say, that we expected to make document requests. They generally advised us that they believed there was a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court. + +THE COURT: OK. That's all I needed to know. I want to make two little changes in this opinion, and if you come back in an hour, you'll have it. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: OK. + +THE COURT: All right. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And we are granting your request. + +MR. ROSSMILLER: Understood. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: OK. + +(Adjourned) + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 SDNY \_ GM \_ 00000903 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b9b58f3af32c4d6810145dc2bf832d7642915a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754/EFTA02832754.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832754.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 3004, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.27, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 384.691162109375, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 384.691162109375, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 387.239990234375, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 387.239990234375, + 379.45416259765625 + ], + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 379.45416259765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 41 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832754" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5b6fdad0dfd23cb7687a5ef7de42ac03c316a10 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +## EXHIBIT F + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA : SEALED ORDER + +19 Misc. 149 + +• + +X + +Upon the Affirmation and Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, by Assistant United States Attorney Alex Rossmiller, pursuant to the All Writs Act, Title 28, United States Code, Section 1651, requesting that an Order be issued relieving Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP cf their obligations under the protective order issued on March 18, 2016 in case v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), for the limited and exclusive purpose of complying with grand jury process to provide materials to the Government in connection with a federal grand jury investigation: + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP is permitted to provide the Government with copies of materials generated, received, obtained, or otherwise possessed in connection with case v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et al., 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), including discovery materials marked "CONFIDENTIAL" pursuant to the protective order dated March 18, 2016. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP may provide + +these materials to the Government notwithstanding their obligations under the March 18, 2016 protective order. + +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with the exception of a copy of this Order to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and the clerk of the court for files and testimony subject to this Order, this Order is to be sealed pending further order of this Court. + +Dated: New York, New York +April 4, 2019 + +![]() + +--- + +THE HONORABLE COLLEEN MCMAHON +CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64375a215fd622da764c6a0a2a9f3ece63988328 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758/EFTA02832758.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832758.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 1663, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.08, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT F", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.724, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 384.99859619140625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 384.99859619140625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 230.724, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832758" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..476e598ebfa803b7df305eee6d88c36fdb3da355 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.md @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@ +# EXHIBIT G + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA + +x + +x + +19 Misc. 149 (CM) + +#### SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER + +McMahon, C.J.: + +The Government has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. Robert W. Sweet in a civil defamation action, v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.) ("the Action"), in order to permit the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LIP ("Boles Schiller") to comply with a grand jury subpoena. + +The application is granted. + +#### 1. Background + +#### A. The Protective Order + +In September 2015, Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine by stating that was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (I 5-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1.) Boies Schiller represented the plaintiff in the litigation, and continues to represent her on a pending post-settlement appeal, which is described below. + +On March 3, 2016, Maxwell moved before the assigned judge, the Hon. Robert W. Sweet, for entry of a protective order for materials produced in discovery. Maxwell cited + +statutory and common law privacy concerns. (Dkt. No. 38 at 1.) Maxwell submitted a proposed form of order for Judge Sweet's consideration. (Dkt. No. 39-1.) + +represented that she "[did] not oppose the entrance [sic] of a Protective Order in this case, but [did] oppose a Protective Order in the form proposed by Defendant because it is overly broad and can lead to abuse and over designation[.]" (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) + +redlined Maxwell's proposed protective order, deleting some provisions and (insofar as is relevant) adding language to paragraph 4—stating that confidential information "shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case"—to provide that confidential materials also could be disclosed with impunity "in any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement." (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 41-5 ¶ 4.) Maxwell opposed these modifications. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49.) + +At a hearing held on March 17,2016, Judge Sweet concluded that "of course" a protective order was warranted. (Hrg. Tr., 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 66, at 4:25-5:1.) He gave no reason, but as Maxwell made her motion on the basis of privacy concerns, and consented to entry of some form of a protective order for the same reason, i assume that Judge Sweet found privacy concerns to constitute good cause—which, given the subject matter of the lawsuit, would certainly have been warranted. + +Judge Sweet did not, however, resolve any of the disputes between the parties about what should or should not be in the order. Instead, he directed the parties to come up with an agreement to which everyone could stipulate. (Id. at 5:1-12.) By the end of the hearing, who was eager to take Maxwell's deposition, agreed to the form of order originally proposed by Maxwell. (Id 9:7-24.) The court agreed that it would "so order" Maxwell's proposed version + +pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Judge Sweet made no specific findings about any provision of that order. (Id. 9:25-10:6.) + +On March 18, 2016, the court formally entered the Protective Order. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 62.) It provided, as such orders generally do, that any documents, materials and/or information designated confidential by the parties (the "Confidential Materials") would be subject to the protections of, and could be disclosed to non-parties only in accordance with the terms of, the Protective Order. (Id. ¶¶ 1-5.) The Protective Order also required all parties, at the conclusion of the case, either to return to the party who made the confidentiality designation, or (in the alternative) to destroy, each document and all copies of Confidential Materials in their possession. (Id. 1115-7, 12.) This destruction obligation extended to the parties' lawyers as well as to the parties themselves. (Id. ¶ 12.) + +The Protective Order specified that if Confidential Materials were contained in any document presented to the court, the filing "shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York." (Id. ¶ 10.) The docket sheet in v. Maxwell reveals that such motions were frequently made and routinely granted. As a result, a vast amount of the Action was conducted, in effect, in secret—despite the fact that there was immense public interest in the matter. + +The Action was settled and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation for dismissal on May 25, 2017, which was shortly before the trial was to begin. (15 cv-7433, Dkt. No. 919.) The terms of the settlement remain confidential. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 953 at 10.) + +#### B. Attacks on the Protective Order + +Both during and after the settlement of the =Action, third parties made highlypublicized applications to have documents that were filed under seal by order of Judge Sweet unsealed and made public. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 362, 550, 935.) Harvard Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom =publicly alleged of perpetrating sex crimes alongside Epstein, moved to unseal a limited portion of the record in order to clear his name. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 364 at 1.) Alt-right activist and provocateur Michael Cemovich also sought to unseal the papers filed as part of Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, arguing, "Cemovich Media cannot conduct its Forth [sic] Estate function if this Court allows the Parties to conduct their dispute outside of the normal sunlight of transparency and accessibility." (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 551 at 1.) The Miami Herald Media Company and investigative journalist Julie = whose feature story about Epstein recently garnered significant public interest, also moved post-settlement to unseal the entire record. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 936.) + +All such applications were denied by Judge Sweet. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 439 (sealed), 892, 953.) A consolidated appeal from the orders denying the unsealing motions is currently pending before the Second Circuit. v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.). On March 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals heard argument on the consolidated appeal, which was widely covered in the legal press. I think it is fair to say that during the argument, the panel seemed critical of the district court's failure to make specific findings about why any particular document as to which unsealing was sought should remain sealed. For example, Circuit Court Judge Jose A. Cabranes stated that Maxwell's lawyer "[couldn't] possibly be serious" when he argued that no documents should be made public, even after the case had settled.' + +Priscilla DeGregory, Documents related to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may be unsealed, N.Y. Post (Mar. 6, 2019), https://nypost.conV2019/03/06/documents-related-to-pedophiledeffrey-epstein-may-be-unsealedt + +Shortly after the oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an unusual order, giving the parties to the appeal ten days to explain why all papers submitted in connection with Maxwell's unsuccessful motion for summary judgment should not immediately be unsealed. (18-2868, Dkt. No. 138.) The docket reveals that responsive filings were in fact delivered to the Court of Appeals; no further order has been entered in the Second Circuit. + +The consolidated appeal relates only to the unsealing of what would, but for the Protective Order and Judge Sweet's repeated decisions to permit materials to be filed under seal and his refusal to unseal those materials on the motions of the Intervenors, be publicly available in the files of the court. They do not address materials that may be in the files of the parties or their counsel. + +## C. The Government's Application + +In late November or early December 2018, the Government commenced an investigation into Epstein and others for unlawfully trafficking minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1594(c) and unlawfully enticing minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6). (Sealed Aff. and Appl. of AUSA Alex Rossmiller dated Feb. 5, 2019 ("Gov't Appl."), Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 3.) + +As part of that investigation, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies Schiller "requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials in [the Action]." (Gov't Appl., ¶ 5.) These materials are arguably subject to the Protective Order. + +On February 5, 2019, the Government made an ex parte, in camera application to Judge Sweet under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), seeking to relieve Boies Schiller from the Protective Order so that it could respond to the subpoena. The Government represented in that application that Boies Schiller was willing to comply with the subpoena but for the Protective + +Order. (Letter from AUSA Alex Rossmiller to the Hon. Robert W. Sweet, dated Feb. 28, 2019 ("Gov't Letter Br."), Dkt. No. 2, at 1.) + +Judge Sweet asked for further briefing. On February 28, 2019, the Government submitted a letter brief in camera, to which it appended a copy of the Protective Order and a proposed order granting the relief requested. (See Gov't Letter Br.) Neither the initial application nor the subsequent letter brief was initially filed with the Clerk of Court. + +Prior to ruling on the Government's application, Judge Sweet died. The open application was referred to me. + +I directed that a miscellaneous docket number be assigned to the Government's application and that all materials theretofore sent to Judge Sweet's be filed under seal .2 + +I also held two conferences in which I questioned the U.S. Attorney's Office about the application. + +# II. The Government's Application, While Irregular, Is Granted + +# A. Procedural Irregularities Attendant to This Application + +In the ordinary course, one would expect this application to arise in a different procedural posture. + +First, one would have expected Boies Schiller, the recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure ... is . . . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in a pending proceeding such as a grand jury investigation or trial, in which the issue could be raised + +2 All materials under this docket number, 19-mc-149, including this opinion, will be kept under seal as related to a pending grand jury investigation. + +by motion to quash or modify the subpoena ... or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). + +During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boies Schiller, made the application. Boies Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm's failure to seek for itself permission to respond to the subpoena seems particularly mysterious in light of the fact that it has filed papers on behalf of = in both the district and appellate proceedings, supporting the intervenors' applications to unseal the entire record. See, e.g., Br. for Pl.-Appellee ' =v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2018), ECF No. 83 at 1 (` ... is now prepared to have the world see what the record contains."). I suppose that Boies Schiller might not want to seem too cooperative with the Government, especially if it is concerned about ending up as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract if it has failed to return or destroy the Confidential Materials in its possession. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co., No. 12-cv-3274, 2012 WL 3583176, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). But that does not strike this Court as a reason for the Government to carry the firm's water—the moreso because Judge Sweet ruled some months before he died that the intervenors' appeals in meant the lawsuit had not "concluded," and so had postponed the day when that contractual obligation kicked in. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 967 at 6.)3 + +3 This ruling came in response to a motion by Maxwell to compel compliance with the document destruction provision. It argued that obligations thereunder were ggered at the time of settlement. (15 cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 957.) Judge Sweet eme that motion in light of the pending appeals. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 967). + +Alternatively, the Government could have moved ex parte for permissive intervention in the Action, and then sought modification of the Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modification of a protective order."); ILL. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that `this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . . where the only purpose was to obtain modification of a pretrial order for investigative purposes."). Or it could have filed a writ of mandamus, since "mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation," United States v. , 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. It cites no authority for that procedure. + +Nonetheless, there is precedent in this Circuit for granting procedurally puzzling applications by the Government to unseal materials for use by a grand jury. For example, in 702 F.2d 418, the Government, which was not a party to the underlying civil litigation, successfully "moved the Bankruptcy Court for an order permitting it access to the materials under seal," including transcripts of examinations taken under Rule 205 and exhibits marked at those examinations. Id. at 420-21. On appeal, the Second Circuit rejected the defendantappellants' argument that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in granting the Government's application: "A court may direct access to such material upon a proper showing of + +need. Here such a showing was amply demonstrated. To have refused access to these records in the face of a subpoena from a grand jury would have been an abuse of discretion." Id. at 423. + +I will, therefore, consider the Government's application. + +## B. The Martindell Standard Applies + +Ordinarily, "Where there has been reasonable reliance by a party or deponent, a District Court should not modify a protective order granted under Rule 26(c)." S.E.C. v. TheStreet. Com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001). However, the Second Circuit established a limited exception to this rule in Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). + +Martindell arose after the Government made an informal, telephonic request to the district court in a stockholder derivative suit for access to deposition transcripts, which were subject to a protective order and which the Government planned to use in a criminal investigation. Id at 293. The district court denied the Government's request to modify the protective order to enable it to access the transcripts. Id. Affirming the lower court, the Second Circuit reasoned that, when the Government moves to modify a protective order, it is especially appropriate to require a higher showing, because the Government both (i) possesses extraordinary police powers that it can use to obtain the information in other ways, and (ii) typically seeks the information "in the context of a public investigation in which the assertion of a privilege might be of critical importance." In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Ling., 104 F.R.D. 559, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 821 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295). The court concluded, "After balancing the interests at stake, we are satisfied that, absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, none of which appear here, a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government, + +and that such an order should not be vacated or modified merely to accommodate the Government's desire to inspect protected testimony for possible use in a criminal investigation[.]" Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. + +Since Martindell, "It is well-settled [in this Circuit] ... that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified [only] based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need." Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080,1083 (2d Cir. 1989). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that Martindell applies to the Government, as well as to any other third party seeking to modify a protective order. TheStreet. Com, 273 F.3d at 229 n.7. + +The Government argues that Martindell should not apply to the instant application, for three reasons. (Gov't Letter Br. at 3-5.) + +First, it argues that the rule of Martindell is inapplicable because here the grand jury issued a valid and proper subpoena to Boies Schiller, while in Martindell the Government "'was proceeding outside of its usual investigative powers to secure the requested testimony, not by grand jury subpoena,' a 702 F.2d at 422." (See Gov't Letter Br. at 3-4.) However, the statement from that is quoted above concerned the testimony of a non-party appellant whose testimony was not subject to a Rule 26(c) protective order, but rather to an informal "understanding of confidentiality" that was never reduced to writing. S 702 F.2d at 422. The opinion underscored that the parties' unwritten understanding about the confidentiality of this deponent's testimony would not trump a formal grand jury subpoena. That discussion is irrelevant to the question of whether this Court is required to apply the Martindell rule in evaluating this application. + +Second, the Government argues that Martindell does not apply when "as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited." (Gov't Letter Br. at 4.) But the Protective Order in this case is at least arguably not temporary or limited. It would have expired had the case gone to trial, but, as the case settled, it appears to me to bind the parties permanently. It is true that nothing in the Protective Order seems to prevent either =or Maxwell from making public documents that were designated confidential by that party once the lawsuit is over. However, as to documents designated confidential by the other party, the promise of confidentiality plainly survives termination of the lawsuit—even to the point of requiring that those materials be returned or destroyed. + +Third, the Government argues that applying Martindell to its application here "would risk rendering [Martindell] in even further conflict with the well-reasoned decisions of numerous other Circuits." (Gov't Letter Br. at 5 n.3.) Martindell is indeed an outlier; every other Circuit that has considered the clash between protective orders and grand jury subpoenas has questioned its wisdom and has come up with a standard more favorable to the Government's position. See generally Dane L. Steffenson, Are Rule 26(c) Protective Orders Viable Against Grand Juries?, 26 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 183 (1996); 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2044.1 (3d ed. Nov. 2018). I happen to agree with the other Circuits, but Martindell is the law in this Circuit, and I am not at liberty to ignore it. + +The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective order unilaterally approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, "suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case." Id. at 93. The District Attorney then issued + +a grand jury subpoena, with which the party (the defendant) complied. At no point did the defendant seek relief from the protective order. Id. When the other party to the protective order learned of the defendant's blatant disregard of its obligations, it moved for sanctions in the civil action. Id. + +The district court condemned the defendant's behavior as "entirely unnecessary and inappropriate," but nonetheless refused to sanction the defendant—apparently because, had the defendant sought relief from that order, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93-94. While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals"—factors that, if present, he would have had more difficulty balancing against the investigative needs of law enforcement. Id at 94. + +There are three reasons why Chemical Bank does not justify this Court's refusing to apply the Martindell factors to the Government's application. First and foremost, the opinion of another district judge does not trump an opinion from the Second Circuit. Second, while a reader of Chemical Bank cannot be certain whether the district court complied with Martindell, the language quoted above certainly suggests that the district court engaged in the balancing exercise that Martindell contemplated. Finally, nothing in the record suggests that the Government's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion. + +The Court will, therefore, analyze the Government's request in light of the Martindell factors. + +#### C. On the Current Record, the Court Cannot Find That the Protective Order Was "Improvidently Granted" + +Under Martindell, a Rule 26(c) protective order may be modified, for among other reasons, where a party can show "improvidence in the grant." 594 F.2d at 296. While the Government has not moved for modification on these grounds, I address this factor in light of the current proceedings before the Second Circuit. + +The term is not well understood. See United States v. Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 501, 511 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (observing that the Circuit "provided no guidance as to what might constitute `improvidence in the grant of a . . . protective order"). To date, the Second Circuit has identified two ways in which an order might be considered "improvidently granted." The first is, essentially, that it was issued in bad faith. However, this is a high bar. For example, a sealing order is "improvidently granted" where the presiding judge "reasonably should have recognized that [it] would facilitate or further criminal activity." Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 865-66. But there is absolutely no evidence that the district court harbored any such realization; indeed, at the time Judge Sweet entered the Order, it appeared that criminal activity against Maxwell and Epstein was a thing of the past.' Nothing in the record indicates that the entry of the Protective + +In 2007, financier Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court, arising from allegations that he "assembl[edj a large, cult-like network of underage girls---with the help of young female recruiters" (including Maxwell)—whom he coerced into performing sex acts "behind the walls of his opulent waterfront mansion," among other locations, "as often as three times a day." Julie K. How a fitture Thump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime, Miami Herald (Nov. PAX https://www.miamiherald.cominews/localfarticle220097825.html. The deal also included a non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which immunized Epstein and four named accomplices from all federal charges, broadly immunized "any potential co-conspirators," and—in contravention of federal law—kept the agreement secret from Epstein's victims. Id. Epstein served just thirteen months in county jail, during part of which he was permitted to continue working from his downtown office. Id. + +In November 2018, the Miami herald published a series of feature articles describing the allegations against Epstein and suggesting that the plea deal constituted Government misconduct. Liam Stack, U.S. Opens Inquiry Into Handling of Jeffivy Epstein's Sex Abuse Case, N.Y. Times (Feb. 6, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/usifbi-jeffrey-epstein.html. The expose garnered attention from the media and from Congress and has apparently prompted an investigation by the Department of Justice. Id. Whether the grand jury subpoena arose out of this renewed interest in Epstein's behavior is ultimately not relevant to the Court's decision—but it seems likely. + +Order itself facilitated or furthered criminal activity; and the record contains no evidence of bad faith. + +The second way in which a protective order might be "improvidently granted" is if the presiding judge did not require the moving party to show "good cause" for entering an order that permitted documents to be filed with the court under seal. It was long the law that the parties needed to make a document-by-document showing of good cause whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange). + +In recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) "good cause" showing for discovery materials that are never filed with the court, in light of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 233 n.11. The new, more lax standard recognizes that, "Without an ability to restrict public dissemination of certain discovery materials that are never introduced at trial, litigants would be subject to needless annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola, Inc., 165 F. App'x 878, 881 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order) (emphasis added) (quoting TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229). + +As a result, the "good cause" showing necessary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). "[Wjhere "a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at \*4 + +(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where "parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct competitors"). In fact, at least one district court in this Circuit has held that "stipulated, umbrella confidentiality orders are not per se improvident even i f good cause was not shown." Intl Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 779314, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (emphasis added), objections overruled, No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 1459178 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010), aff'd, 415 F. App'x 286 (2d Cir. 2011). + +The Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet was certainly not "improvidently granted" under the standard articulated in Dorsett. The Protective Order was granted on the basis of legitimate privacy concerns on the part of both and Maxwell, as well as third parties. See In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding "no showing of improvidence where the justifications for the Protective Orders (were] immediately apparent"). Material turned over in discovery that was ultimately used at trial would have been publicly available. (Protective Order T 13 ("This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.").) The Second Circuit may well be on the verge of making material used in connection with the summary judgment motions publicly available, though of course I cannot predict what order will ultimately issue from the Court of Appeals. And there does not appear to be any problem with the entry of a Protective Order that specifically contemplates case-by-case consideration of whether materials filed with the court should or should not be sealed. + +I have no idea whether Judge Sweet made the requisite findings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and + +strong presumption against access to documents . . . we have held more recently in United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1995)(`Amodeo P ), that a subspecies of sealed documents in civil cases—so-called `judicial documents'—deserve a presumption in favor of access.") (emphasis in original). That, I gather, is the subject of the pending appeal. Press reports of the oral argument suggest that perhaps the necessary findings might not have been made before certain court filings were sealed. I cannot and will not pretend not to know that the issue is out there. However, I know of no reason why it would have been improper to shield sensitive materials from public disclosure before any court filings were made. + +#### D. If Any Party Relied on the Protective Order To Shield Confidential Materials from Disclosure to Law Enforcement, That Reliance Was Unreasonable + +Under Martindell, a court must consider the degree to which the party opposing unsealing (or, in this case, the party who could be expected to oppose unsealing) reasonably relied on the protective order. "Once a confidentiality order has been entered and relied upon, it can only be modified if an `extraordinary circumstance' or `compelling need' warrants the requested modification." v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230, 232 (2d Cir. 1982) (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted). + +I will assume, for purposes of argument, that Maxwell would oppose releasing Boies Schiller from the terms of the Protective Order in order to accommodate the grand jury subpoena; that is fairly obvious from her refusal to agree to a protective order that would have permitted Boies Schiller to comply with the subpoena without a court order authorizing compliance. 1 further assume she would argue that she relied on the Protective Order in deciding whether and how to comply with various discovery requests. The question to be decided is whether such reliance was reasonable. + +"An examination of Second Circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order: (1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order." In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). + +The first factor—the scope of the Protective Order—favors granting the Government's application for modification. As discussed, the Protective Order was "a broad blanket order, stipulated to by the parties, which afforded the parties the discretion to designate whatever they produced as `confidential." Nielsen Co. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Blanket pretrial protective orders, drafted by the parties and "so ordered" by the court, are common. This case was no exception. "A broad protective order is less likely to elicit reliance `because it is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition."' Id. (quoting EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). + +The second factor—the language of the Protective Order itself-similarly weighs in favor of modification. The Protective Order provided that confidential information could be used at trial. (Protective Order, Irf 4, 13.) As the Second Circuit has repeatedly held, a temporary or limiting provision in a protective order undercuts a finding of reasonable reliance, because from the outset there was the very real possibility that material produced in discovery would end up in the public record. See, e.g., Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 147. The very fact that material would have to be unsealed for trial undercuts a finding of reliance. + +Additionally, where material contained in court filings is concerned, any expectation of confidentiality is necessarily grounded on the court's decision whether to grant the motion to seal (presumably after weighing the necessary factor)—not reliance on the protective order. And + +while the Protective Order also had a permanent aspect about it—i.e., it provides for the return or destruction of documents upon conclusion of the case (see Protective Order ¶ 12)—this provision neither trumped the law concerning the public's right of access to materials filed in court, nor specifically required the designating party to maintain confidentiality over its own designated materials once the Protective Order expired. (See id.) + +Of course, this case contains an unusual fact that might seem to render Maxwell's reliance on a blanket Protective Order reasonable, as against even disclosure pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. We know that Maxwell refused to agree to any Protective Order containing a provision that is customary in all the protective orders entered by this Court: a provision permitting the production of confidential materials to law enforcement without further order of the court. (See Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5.) This might seem ironic, since Maxwell argued, in support of her motion for entry of a protective order, that prosecution of anyone based on allegations was unlikely. (Id) But whether prosecution seemed likely or not, Maxwell did indeed bargain for such a provision; and for whatever reason, and Boies Schiller agreed to it. + +However, the Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet contains a provision that permits the court to order disclosure of Confidential Material in circumstances other than those listed in Paragraph 5 (a)—(h). See Protective Order ¶ 5 ("CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed[.]") (emphasis added). All the list of exceptions at subparagraphs 5(a) through (h) does is indicate when there is no need for the opponent's consent or a court order before disclosure can be made. As the Protective Order plainly gives the court the power to enter an order compelling disclosure to anyone—law enforcement included—Maxwell could not reasonably have relied on the + +absence of automatic permission for such disclosure to shield anything she said or produced from a grand jury's scrutiny. As the court reasoned in EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 321, language stating that the party receiving designated confidential information "shall not use or disclose the information except . . . by such others as may be issued by the Court during the course of this litigation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Other shall not prevent anyone from applying to the Court for relief therefrom," the Second Circuit held, "Given this provision, it is difficult to see how the defendants can reasonably argue that they produced documents in reliance on the fact that the documents would always be kept secret." + +Third, there is no evidence before me indicating that the court undertook any sort of detailed inquiry prior to entering the Protective Order. (Hrg. Tr., 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 66 at 4:25-5:12.). Obviously, I was not there, but I have reviewed the transcript of the argument on the motion for a protective order, and it seems clear that the parties were given ample discretion to designate discovery materials as confidential, with virtually no oversight unless those materials were to be filed with the court—in which case a motion for sealing had to be made.s (Protective Order 910); cf. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc., 122 F.R.D. 433, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (declining to enforce protective order where "the protective order did not adjudicate the appropriateness of confidentiality as to particular items of discovery"). The fact + +&quot;The question about a protective order, of course there should be a protective order in this case. You are good lawyers, and you have been around this track more times than I have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a risk if you leave it to me." (Hrg. Tr., 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 66 at 4:25- 5:12.) + +that confidentiality originated with the consent of the parties, and not with a judicial determination that the materials at issue were deserving of protection, militates against a finding of reasonable reliance. "[C]ourts have been reluctant to find reliance, or that reliance was reasonable, where a protective order is, as here, a blanket order entered by stipulation of the parties." In re NASDAQ MM.-Makers Antitrust Ling., 164 F.R.D. 346, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). + +As for the last factor, the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modification. "The classic situation in which a party `relies' on a protective order is where the party creates material during the course of the litigation on the understanding that it will be kept confidential—for example, by ... giving confidential testimony." v. City of N.Y., 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300-01 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The record shows that likely could not have secured Maxwell's deposition—at least in the absence of substantial court involvement—without the Protective Order.6 Maxwell specifically mentioned "the specter of some theoretical prosecution" when arguing in support of the entry of her version of the Protective Order. Although, as noted above, she discounted the likelihood of any such prosecution (see supra, at 18.), she argued that, "A witness adverse to Plaintiff would be reluctant to testify and may be bullied into asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid the potential of information being forwarded to a prosecutor by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def. 's Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); cf. Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from using the threat + +6 I cannot possibly second guess how Judge Sweet ran this litigation; he had far more experience than I and was justly respected for it. Had the case been before me, Maxwell would have been required to testify, or she would have been held in contempt or had issues resolved against her, Protective Order or no. And in every case in which I sign a protective order, I require the parties to agree to an addendum—the very terms of which would render blanket reliance on eternal confidentiality unreasonable. My practices make it difficult to put myself into Judge Sweet's shoes for purposes of this application. But do so I must. + +of turning over their discovery to the government in order to coerce a settlement"). The parties also settled just a short time before trial; such a settlement could have been occasioned, at least in part, to avoid the public disclosure of any confidential materials. + +However, the only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Action. On the contrary—the Government has advised the Court that it contacted Boics Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of "collusion," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions. + +The literal terms of the Protective Order permit the court to authorize the release of Confidential Materials by parties to the Order "for good cause shown." (Protective Order, 1 14.) Any party who read the order had to be aware that it contained no promise that Confidential Materials would forever be withheld from a prosecuting agency—especially where, as here, a duly empowered grand jury seeks their production. + +This decision accords with those of other courts in this Circuit. "Where a protective order contains express language that limits the time period for enforcement, anticipates the potential for modification, or contains specific procedures for disclosing confidential materials to non-parties, it is not reasonable for a party to rely on an assumption that it will never be modified." EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 320. More to the point, "Uncertainty about the ultimate outcome of a protective order will mean that no deponent may always effectively rely on a protective order to secure his right against self-incrimination." Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1084 (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468, 1478 (4th Cir. 1988)). + +Because Maxwell's reliance on the Protective Order to shield her from the court-ordered disclosure of Confidential Materials pursuant to a grand jury subpoena was unreasonable, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant the Government's application. "Where a litigant or deponent could not reasonably have relied on the continuation of a protective order, a court may properly permit modification of the order. In such a case, whether to lift or modify a protective order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protective order."). + +For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that modification of the Protective Order is appropriate to aid law enforcement. + +#### E. The Government Has Shown "Extraordinary Circumstances" That Warrant Modification of the Protective Order + +The Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event. + +The term "extraordinary circumstances" is not well defined. See Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. at 511. However, the Second Circuit has recognized that this requirement may be met in circumstances involving significant public interest, particularly where no good cause showing was made to the court initially. See Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 148 ("exceptionally pervasive protection granted appellants during the pretrial stages of this litigation, coupled with the fact that appellants never were required to show good cause," as well as the fact that there was "enormous public interest in the Agent Orange litigation," demonstrated extraordinary circumstances); but see Ionosphere Clubs, 156 B.R. at 435 ("[M]ere breadth" of a protective order does not, by itself constitute "extraordinary circumstances."). Indeed, some district courts in this Circuit go one step further, holding that "The heightened Martindell 'extraordinary circumstances' standard ... is not appropriate in cases with stipulated protective orders that grant parties open-ended and unilateral deference to protect whichever discovery materials they choose." EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 321. + +Here, as discussed, no party was required to make a good cause showing before designating any particular discovery materials as confidential. Moreover, there is significant public interest: the Government has convened a grand jury to investigate a serious crime (potentially involving multiple victims), which from its inception has garnered extensive publicity, and which (most recently) includes troubling allegations of misconduct on the part of Government officials, including a then-United States Attorney who is now a member of the President's Cabinet. The Court agrees with the Government that, because the investigation is not publicly known, "the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [i.e., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] ... would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to + +destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boics Schiller] and its related Application." (Gov't Letter Br. at 5.) + +To be sure, the convenience of having potentially incriminating testimony readily available does not in and of itself rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. In Marlindell itself, for example, the Second Circuit found no extraordinary circumstance because "the Government, by discharging the grand jury investigating the matters in connection with which the Government sought the witnesses' deposition transcripts, apparently chose not to use grand jury investigative processes to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "[T]he possibility that [an individual] might one day invoke the Fifth Amendment at her criminal trial does not automatically create for prosecutors a compelling need for the testimony that [the individual] might have given [in the civil proceeding] [.] Prosecutors often make do without the testimony of a defendant." Id. at 595-96 (citing Manindell, 594 F.2d at 296). + +Here, however, the extraordinary amount of publicity surrounding all aspects of what I will call the Epstein matter does create practical limitations to the grand jury's ability to secure certain information with the secrecy it requires to conduct an appropriately thorough and thoughtful investigation. Moreover, it does not appear to this Court that we are in a situation in which the Government seeks information merely to "ascertain the truth of much of what it has independently discovered." Minpeco, 832 F.2d at 743. This is not a case, like United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), where the Government was trolling for evidence + +to use at a trial, rather than seeking information as part of a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding. See also Botha v. Don =Productions, Inc., No. 97-cv-7587, 1998 WL 88745, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) ("[T]he Government may not use its `awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of . . . discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action."). + +Additionally, the Government is not on a fishing expedition, merely hoping to inspect the protected materials for possible use in a future criminal investigation. In Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296, the Second Circuit concluded that the purported public interest in obtaining all relevant evidence was less than compelling in view of the Government's subpoena power. Here, however, a grand jury that is presently conducting an investigation has issued a subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation. The Government's interest is bolstered when the request is made by a grand jury, rather than informally by the United States Attorney. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 94 n.4 (2d Cir. 1993). The Government's application is therefore based on more than a desire to "exploit[] ... the fruits of private litigation." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. And the fact that the request comes from a grand jury, whose proceedings are by law conducted in secret, In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997), gives Maxwell the degree of protection that could reasonably be expected in the context of a criminal investigation. + +Finally, while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because the Action was litigated entirely almost under seal. Cf. Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a "lengthy report" of the bankruptcy examination, which included deposition excerpts, "was made available to the public"). The fact that the Second + +Circuit—even before a final order disposing of the intervenors’ appeal—has been critical of that fact, and has demanded an explanation for why it should not immediately unseal at least the materials filed in connection with the motion for summary judgment, lends force to the Government’s request, despite its breadth. + +For these reasons, the Government has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the Protective Order. + +**III. Conclusion** + +For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Government’s application to modify the Protective Order, in order to permit Boies Schiller to comply with the subpoena. + +The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to file this memorandum opinion and order under seal. + +The Clerk of Court is also respectfully requested to close the open application at Docket Number 2. All materials in this matter, 19 Misc. 149; are ORDERED to be kept under seal until further notice. + +Dated: April 9, 2019 + +![]()\_\_\_\_\_ +Chief Judge + +BY HAND TO AUSA ALEX ROSSMILLER \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01923b672e685451e126ab7c9a756b0fa8cf8028 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761/EFTA02832761.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1926 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832761.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 27, + "chars": 51711, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT G", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 293.5601501464844, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 293.5601501464844, + 101.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 101.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING \nTHE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 530.617919921875, + 218.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 530.617919921875, + 247.10302734375 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 247.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 173.18109130859375, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 173.18109130859375, + 466.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 466.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Protective Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 256.14642333984375, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 256.14642333984375, + 491.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 491.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 50.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 50.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 50.60302734375 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 50.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Attacks on the Protective Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 312.4371643066406, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 312.4371643066406, + 88.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 88.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.3368530273438, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.3368530273438, + 52.10302734375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 52.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Government's Application", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 349.92 + ], + [ + 306.6614685058594, + 349.92 + ], + [ + 306.6614685058594, + 365.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 365.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 53.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 53.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government's Application, While Irregular, Is Granted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 419.70733642578125, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 419.70733642578125, + 432.10247802734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 432.10247802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Procedural Irregularities Attendant to This Application", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 440.6400000000001 + ], + [ + 432.683349609375, + 440.6400000000001 + ], + [ + 432.683349609375, + 457.98248291015625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 457.98248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.3480224609375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.3480224609375, + 50.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 50.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 51.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 51.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 543.7710571289062, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 543.7710571289062, + 53.35247802734375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 53.35247802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Martindell Standard Applies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 316.7536315917969, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 316.7536315917969, + 174.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 174.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.0210571289062, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.0210571289062, + 52.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 52.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 544.080078125, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 544.080078125, + 52.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 52.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.4572143554688, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.4572143554688, + 52.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 52.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. On the Current Record, the Court Cannot Find That the Protective Order \nWas \"Improvidently Granted\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 527.5250854492188, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 527.5250854492188, + 101.6834716796875 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 101.6834716796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.9768676757812, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.9768676757812, + 53.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 53.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.2733764648438, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.2733764648438, + 50.60302734375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 50.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.7268676757812, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.7268676757812, + 52.85302734375 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 52.85302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. If Any Party Relied on the Protective Order To Shield Confidential \nMaterials from Disclosure to Law Enforcement, That Reliance Was \nUnreasonable", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 493.7992248535156, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 493.7992248535156, + 338.9730224609375 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 338.9730224609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 415.54800000000006, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.5308837890625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.5308837890625, + 53.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 415.54800000000006, + 53.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 52.98248291015625 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 52.98248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 543.4572143554688, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 543.4572143554688, + 51.85247802734375 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 51.85247802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 51.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 414.93600000000004, + 51.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 50.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 50.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Bc Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 415.54800000000006, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 50.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 415.54800000000006, + 50.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Government Has Shown \"Extraordinary Circumstances\" That Warrant \nModification of the Protective Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 596.97 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 627.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 627.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 543.8472290039062, + 52.98248291015625 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 52.98248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.2733764648438, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 542.2733764648438, + 50.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 50.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 543.28271484375, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 543.28271484375, + 52.85302734375 + ], + [ + 416.15999999999997, + 52.85302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "To Be Filed Under Seal", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 414.324, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 414.324, + 48.599999999999994 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 165.85200000000003, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 165.85200000000003, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 263.25 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832761" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..928f5196285f634c5f2a49aa7799f86e78116236 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-761X1 avcrdcliCitcohengrasscr.com + +July 2, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone vAwe.< thong( ono. corn + +Pursuant to the Court's order dated July 1, 2021 (Dkt. 308), we have attached to this letter the unsealed copies of Exhibits D, E, F, and G of Ms. Maxwell's memorandum of law in support of her first motion to suppress (Dkt. 134) to be filed on the public docket. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ce88793daf71e7fc9d6f451ebd784600310bfd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/EFTA02832788.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 891, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832788" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a34c076a5e1c16b05ac29e054c45844df5c4abf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832788/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:39c72a8bdfdf1707ca0da1f8321eeda9b001ed7461ad3f881db2ea88ae054192 +size 1603 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a491333d932599314195f056dcf6fd98d36f9583 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_87.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defense counsel, including David Markus, are ORDERED to respond to the Government's July 1, 2021 letter motion, Dkt. No. 309, by July 9, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 2, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f93697efa1c1fcd17f9e755811b77220a6bf9ae --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/EFTA02832789.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 466, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.27, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_87.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832789" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/_page_0_Picture_87.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/_page_0_Picture_87.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63194a02366ea4692d11fc6526eb71832d7ae313 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832789/_page_0_Picture_87.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2e128fd985c5655f621a3d740fd0696a3c4316f4e8529e0fe6a635c519559b15 +size 10179 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a9a3315148316f05ab39581e033b70301e6c128 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +212-243.1100 • Main 917-306-6666 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternhelmlow.com + +July 9, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The below-signed counsel of record for Ghislaine Maxwell submit this letter in response to the Court's order of July 2, 2021. (Dkt. 312). + +Ms. Maxwell's counsel of record have scrupulously complied with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and assiduously refrained from any involvement with the media, despite repeated, persistent and borderline-harassing requests for comment. The statements in the New York Daily News Op-Ed piece were from Mr. Markus, who is not counsel of record in this case. These statements did not violate Rule 23.1. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that Mr. Markus, not Ms. Maxwell's counsel of record, be afforded the opportunity to address the government's unfounded complaints by separate letter response.' + +We feel compelled to point out, however, that the government's position betrays a double standard that exists for public statements made by the government, its agents, and the alleged accusers and their counsel. + +After Ms. Maxwell was arrested just over a year ago, Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss gave a deliberate press conference in blatant violation of Rule 23.1 espousing comment and opinion beyond the facts and circumstances of the arrest. The government filed a "speaking + +Indeed, the government's letter to the Court raising this issue was directed to Mr. Markus, not counsel of record. + +indictment" which provided the narrative for Ms. Strauss's choreographed press conference. Ms. Strauss exceeded the text of the indictment and went off-script, as did members of law enforcement involved in the investigation whom Ms. Strauss invited to speak. Collectively, these members of the government, who were directly involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case, purposely villainized Ms. Maxwell and gave the accusers — the individuals who will testify before a jury — the imprimatur of credibility. The press conference was the government's unbridled opportunity to deliver an extrajudicial opening statement in the court of public opinion and the media has followed its lead ever since. + +Similarly, counsel for undisclosed Accusers 1 to 4 have made numerous public statements without any reprisal or public reprimand by the government. They have participated in countless podcasts, documentaries, and other media and print publications espousing personal opinions regarding Ms. Maxwell's "guilt or innocence" and the "merits of the case," commenting on her "character and reputation," the "possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense," and continually jeopardizing her right to a fair tria1.2 + +Undersigned counsel wrote to the government expressing concern about a particular counsel's public remarks as that counsel has (we believe) previously represented one of the accusers. The government responded that "[t]o our knowledge, [that lawyer] does not represent any of the witnesses the Government expects to call at trial in this case. Because this individual does not represent any witnesses in this case, we do not see a need to raise this issue with the Court." Now, the government asserts that the Court needs to know about a lawyer who is not + +2 Ms. Maxwell previously brought to the Court's attention violations of Local Crim. R. 23.1 by David Boles, Esq. and his law partner, Si q., each having filed a notice of appearance as intervenors for accusers, as well as Esq. (See Dkt. 27 at 4.) Many of their public and incendiary comments occurred after this Court "warn[ed] counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the fact of violations of any relevant rules." (Dkt. 28) (July 23, 2020). + +representing any party or witness to the case. Their position on the applicability of Rule 23.1 apparently fluctuates depending on who is talking to the press. + +Accordingly, we would ask the Court to be mindful of two important points. First, Ms. Maxwell has been, and continues to be, the subject of an unquestionable tsunami of adverse publicity every day, which is surely impacting the pool of jurors in the Southern District of New York. Second, efforts to persuade the public and the government that a defendant should not be prosecuted are permissible. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1043 (1991) ("A defense attorney may pursue lawful strategies to obtain dismissal of an indictment or reduction of charges, including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried."). + +Respectfully submitted: + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Is/ + +Christian R. Everdell + +/s/ + +Laura A. Menninger + +Is/ + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +cc: Government counsel + +David Oscar Markus, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8cdd7e0c2bfbc3dbeed8bd1a20a73bc77a1d88aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790/EFTA02832790.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832790.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5056, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 32.32421875 + ], + [ + 514.4203491210938, + 57.28240966796875 + ], + [ + 98.53200000000001, + 57.28240966796875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832790" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..514b0c07cd3f8194d21fb29bdfdd9e1bd0af6151 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.md @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +MARKUS / + +July 9, 2021 + +## VIA EMAIL TO + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Even though I do not currently represent Ms. Maxwell in any proceedings and have never entered an appearance in connection with her trial before Your Honor, the Government submitted a letter "to bring to the Court's attention" an article that I wrote on June 30, 2021, and asked that the Court "issue an order pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(h)" directed at me. (Dkt. No. 309). This Court ordered that I respond (Dkt. No. 312), and I do so here. I respectfully request that the Court deny the Government's request for the following reasons: + +## I. The local rules do not apply as I do not currently represent Ghislaine Maxwell in any proceeding and have not entered an appearance in this Court. + +Because undersigned counsel does not currently represent Ms. Maxwell in any court and has never entered an appearance as her lawyer in this Court, the local rules do not apply. See, e.g., Local Rule 23.1(h) (explaining that the Court "may issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesseslikely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury") (emphasis added). Because undersigned counsel does not represent a party or a witness, the Government's request should be denied. + +Undersigned counsel was previously retained to represent Ms. Maxwell's family. Then, when this Court denied her third bail application, undersigned counsel was retained to represent Ms. Maxwell in the Second Circuit on her bail appeal (and not regarding the merits of the case). That proceeding is concluded, and undersigned counsel no longer represents Ms. Maxwell in any capacity. + +MARKUS, PLLC AO NW 3rd Street. PH 1 Miami, FL 33128 T 305 379-6667 F 305 379.6668 mareuslaw corn + +Page 2 + +Moreover, undersigned counsel has never entered an appearance in this Court and does not represent Ms. Maxwell in connection with her upcoming trial. In fact, undersigned counsel and Ms. Maxwell's trial team have been very careful to keep the representation separate. I have not been provided any of the trial discovery. + +The local rules do not and could not reach lawyers who do not represent a client (or witness) in a pending case because of the First Amendment. *Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada*, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991) (stating that "**lawyers representing clients in pending cases** may be regulated" by substantial prejudice standard and not heightened general First Amendment standard of clear danger) (emphasis added); *id.* at 1076 ("The regulation of attorneys' speech is limited—it applies only to speech that is substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect ... applying equally to all **attorneys participating in a pending case**") (emphasis added); *see also United States v. [REDACTED]*, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000) (discussing the factors to consider in entering a gag order for "trial participants"). + +The Government, however, argues that because Local Rule 23.1(a) states that lawyers "associated" with the "pending criminal litigation" are subject to the restrictions in local rules, the rule applies to undersigned counsel because of the appellate litigation in the Second Circuit regarding bail. As explained above, that litigation is concluded. The Government cites no authority for the proposition that the local rules would apply to a lawyer who previously entered an appearance in another court regarding litigation that has been concluded, nor could it since the Supreme Court has foreclosed such an expansive view of the ability to gag individuals not involved in the trial itself. + +Recognizing the weakness of its position, the Government states that because I asked for permission to bring my cell phone into the courtroom for the arraignment,1 I must be associated with the litigation. But that example disproves the Government's claim that I am associated with this case. It is true that I asked the Court for permission to bring my phone into the courtroom, *but the Court denied the request* and said that I would have to enter an appearance in order to do so, as only lawyers actually associated with the proceedings could obtain permission to enter with electronics. Because I had not entered an appearance for Ms. Maxwell in this Court, I was not given such permission. + +Finally, the Government itself has taken the position that not all lawyers who have a connection to this case are governed by the local rules. For example, Ms. Maxwell's trial lawyers brought to the Government's attention that one of the accuser's + +--- + +1 At that time, I represented Ms. Maxwell before the Second Circuit and it was a few days before the oral argument. This was the only proceeding before this Court that I have attended in person or on Zoom. + +lawyers was making outrageously false statements to the press.2 The prosecution responded: "Spencer Kuvin does not represent any of the witnesses the Government expects to call at trial in this case. Because this individual does not represent any witnesses in this case," the local rules did not apply to him and there was no "need to raise this issue with the Court." + +## II. Even if the local rules somehow applied to undersigned counsel, the Op-Ed did not violate the local rule. + +Even if the local rule applies to a lawyer who does not currently represent a party or a witness and has never appeared in the trial court, the opinion piece here did not violate the rule. + +First, there is no risk of danger or prejudice to the upcoming trial because the Op-Ed raised the same argument — that the Cosby decision applied to Ms. Maxwell's case — that was filed in public pleadings that were quoted by the press. No confidential information was disclosed.8 Ms. Maxwell's trial lawyers made the very same argument in a public pleading that was quoted by the press. (Dkt. No. 310). In that public pleading, Ms. Maxwell's lawyers argue: + +The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that DA Castor's promise was enforceable and that DA Ferman's prosecution of Mr. Cosby ten years later on the same charges violated his Due Process rights. (Id. at 78-79). As a result, the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction. (Id. at 79). In so holding, the Court noted the following: + +Interactions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness. (Id. at 55). + +The same principle applies to Ms. Maxwell's case. As in Cosby, the government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity in the NPA. Indeed, the principle applies even more strongly in Ms. Maxwell's case because the NPA was a formal + +2 Emma Parry, Will She Survive?, (May 6, 2021), https://www.thesun.co.uldnews/14875477/ghislaine-maxwell-plea-deal-same-fate-asenstein/ + +3 See Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074 (explaining that the risk of influencing a potential jury exists for trial lawyer because they "have special access to information through discovery and client communications" that others do not have). + +Page 4 + +written agreement, as opposed to an informal promise like the one in Cosby. +**This is not consistent with principles of fundamental fairness.** + +(emphasis added). + +The press (including Bloomberg, NBC, the New York Post, and Forbes)4 reported on this argument by Ms. Maxwell's lawyers. Accordingly, there is no substantial likelihood that the Op-Ed, which made the very same arguments that were made by Ms. Maxwell's lawyers and covered extensively in the press, will interfere with a fair trial, and the Government does not even really attempt to argue to the contrary.5 + +*Second*, Ms. Maxwell's family, and undersigned as counsel for her family, have the right to respond to the numerous lawyers, witnesses, and surrogates who are speaking to the press and making it impossible for Ms. Maxwell to receive a fair trial. As Justice Kennedy explained in *Gentile*, "in some circumstances press comment is necessary to protect the rights of the client and prevent abuse." Such "statements have the full protection of the First Amendment." *Gentile*, 501 U.S. at 1058 (Kennedy, J., concurring). + +The press has been unrelenting and overwhelmingly prejudicial in its coverage of Ms. Maxwell and her family, fueled by statements from involved parties about the matters at issue. It is not an understatement to say that 99.9% of the press coverage is pro-government and anti-Maxwell. The press has already tried and convicted her. And the Government has done nothing to control its surrogates, which has only made the problem worse. How can Ms. Maxwell be expected to receive a fair trial when lawyers for the accusers are holding press conferences, leaking information, and + +--- + +4 See, e.g., ; ; ; and + +5 The Government also complains that the Op-Ed described the accusations as "stale" and "flimsy." But both descriptions have been used in publicly filed pleadings. Moreover, many of the accusations are in fact decades old, and similar descriptive words have been held not to violate the rules. See, e.g., Law360, *Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's Pretrial Remarks Fair Game*, *Judge Says*, July 1, 2021 (reporting that Judge Dora Irizarry held that U.S. Attorney's comments that defendant had engaged in a "spree" of robberies that were "unprecedented" did not violate the local rule and also did not prejudice the defendant), story available at: + +Page 5 + +otherwise making wholly inappropriate comments to the press? + +For example, Spencer Kuvin (who represents some of Maxwell's accusers) was interviewed for a recent show on Peacock called *Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell*, which aired June 24, 2021. On Episode 3, Mr. Kuvin, who is identified as "Victim's Attorney," stated: "When you capture someone like [Ghislaine Maxwell] I don't besmirch the U.S. Government from taking a victory lap. To be able to come back one year later and say 'we've got the co-conspirator', they wanted a little good press, as well they should. Take her down and embarrass the hell out of her. It's what she deserves." In another example, Brad [REDACTED], counsel to numerous accusers, changed the subtitle of his book *Relentless Pursuit* after Ms. Maxwell's arrest from "My fight for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein" to "My fight for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell."6 + +These examples do not amount to a drop in the bucket of the overwhelming press against Ms. Maxwell, which has been instigated or fueled by the Government and its witnesses. The "circus atmosphere" and "hostile" press that led to a reversal in the [REDACTED] Sheppard case are no match for what is occurring here. *See Sheppard v. Maxwell*, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (reversing conviction based on hostile television and radio reporting of case: "Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take + +--- + +6 There are countless other examples of the accusers' lawyers appearing on TV, podcasts, radio, print (including writing books about the case), and social media, making inflammatory and many times, untrue statements that will make it impossible for Ms. Maxwell to receive a fair trial (some of which occurred after the Court's Order about speaking with the media). *See, e.g.*, Armchair Expert Podcast, August 6, 2020, Interview with Brad [REDACTED], counsel to accusers ("Q. How do you explain or what is your theory on Ghislaine Maxwell? Brad [REDACTED]: So she needed money and Epstein needed connections. They were kind of the perfect pair. And then she realized, hey, this is this guy who has this crazy sex addiction that I can't fulfill. And I think she would have done anything for him. And so she starts feeding him and just fuels the addiction. Without her, there would be no Jeffrey Epstein, we wouldn't be talking. None of this would have happened. ... She created him. The first people that were brought to him to start this pyramid, they were brought by her. None of this could have grown. He could not have become who he was without her. She created the monster, no doubt about it."); BBC Panorama, December 2, 2019, interview with David Boies ("I must say I think she is very culpable. She was a central part of the Epstein sex trafficking operation. Er, she played an important role in recruiting, grooming, manipulating. Host: She denies all of this of course. [10 seconds of silence] Boies: Um, if you say so."); David Boies at press conference on the courthouse steps after the arraignment, April 24, 2021 (urging listeners not to have sympathy for Ms. Maxwell despite her conditions of confinement and her frail appearance); Sigrid McCawley, Lifetime, Surviving Jeffrey Epstein, August 15, 2020 ("Ghislaine was the [REDACTED]."). + +strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused."). The Government's contention that the prosecution won't receive a fair trial based on my statements is completely divorced from the reality of what is occurring in the media in this case? + +Third, the Government has helped to create a totally unlevel playing field and it should not be heard to complain. For starters, the Government conducted an over-thetop press conference upon Ms. Maxwell's arrest — with blowups, photographs, soundbites, inflammatory language, and strategic pauses to get the most impactful photo opportunity, all designed to stir up the press, inflame the passions of the public, and prejudice the potential jury against Ms. Maxwell. And it worked. The Government's press conference was one of, if not the most, covered Government's press conferences in U.S. history. The Government's complaint about an Op-Ed that discusses the legal impact of the Cosby decision is the definition of chutzpah. + +![](_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Then-U.S. Attorney conducting o press conference on the arrest of Ms. Maxwell with visual aides + +The Government did not stop with the unjust press conference. It has continued to inflame the press with inappropriate and untruthful statements, thinking that + +7 In any event, Rule 23.1(h), which the Government cites as the authority to issue a "special order" here, is actually better viewed as concerned with the rights of the accused than the Government. See Rule 23.1(h) ("The Court, on motion of either party or on its own motion, may issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesses likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury....") (emphasis added). + +because it is doing so in pleadings, it is not crossing the line in the local rules. For example, the Government filed in a public pleading that Ms. Maxwell was vaccinated while at MDC. (Dkt. No. 196). There was no valid reason for saying this at all, let alone in a public pleading. (Imagine if the defense publicly filed medical information about one of the accusers). But it believed that it could legally speak to the media in such a fashion. + +The Government also falsely claimed that Ms. Maxwell had an "eye mask" and that she was responsible for the stench in her cell. Id. Both claims were proven to be untrue. She has never been provided an eye mask and the stench in her cell is caused by a sewage problem in the jail, which has been well-documented by other inmates and judges. But the damage was done. The media went into a feeding frenzy, reporting the false Government statements and ignoring the truth when it came out. As Mark Twain said, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." The Government's responsibility for the fair administration of justice commands it to a realignment of the scales. + +The Government's request should be denied because (1) undersigned counsel does not currently represent Ms. Maxwell, and (2) the Op-Ed did not violate the local rules. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ David Oscar Markus David Oscar Markus \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a72bddb686c5047294054b7619b6f6b2c5e9f2c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/EFTA02832793.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,350 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 16911, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.27, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL TO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 162.62200927734375 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 162.62200927734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The local rules do not apply as I do not currently represent Ghislaine \nMaxwell in any proceeding and have not entered an appearance in \nthis Court.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 434.97 + ], + [ + 549.5216064453125, + 434.97 + ], + [ + 549.5216064453125, + 480.2419738769531 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 480.2419738769531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Even if the local rules somehow applied to undersigned counsel, the \nOp-Ed did not violate the local rule.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 549.7401733398438, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 549.7401733398438, + 197.49200439453125 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 197.49200439453125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832793" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..026640e4a666ccf31235a7480cd9312b3651b795 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832793/_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c909b213eae55f8790b82c2091d3775dc6dbef60ad8c2685f4b8fa96e1603877 +size 72763 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b1509faabd9abaf9624925aa8947a107866ee41 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 7/30/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Government has moved for an order requiring David Markus to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 following an op-ed that he authored opining on the merits of this pending case. Dkt. No. 309. + +Mr. Markus is plainly a lawyer associated with the defense in this case. His formal representation has involved handling at least one pre-trial issue for Ms. Maxwell—in particular, appeals to the Second Circuit of this Court's bail-denial determinations. Dkt. No. 173; see also United States v. Maxwell, Nos. 21-58-cr(L), 21-770-cr (2d Cir.). Beyond that, he has held himself out as Ms. Maxwell's attorney in press related to the current trial stage, including in the op-ed at issue in the Government's letter application, which describes him as "Maxwell's appellate counsel." He has also attended a proceeding in this matter and spoken on Ms. Maxwell's behalf to the press afterwards while identified as Ms. Maxwell's attorney. See Stephen Rex =, Ghislaine Maxwell Makes First In-Person NYC Court Appearance, N.Y. Daily News (Apr. 23, 2021), https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-ghislaine-maxwellarraignment-20210423-b3aza5eh7bddna7r247px2yb7e-story.htrnl. + +Nevertheless Mr. Markus argues that he is not subject to Rule 23.1 because he does not currently represent Ms. Maxwell in any proceedings and has not made an appearance in this + +Court. Dkt. No. 314. Rule 23.1 is not so superficial nor easily circumvented. Nothing in the rule limits its application to lawyers who have formally noticed an appearance. To the contrary, as the text throughout the rule makes clear, it applies to statements made by lawyers (and others) "associated" with "pending or imminent criminal litigation." S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) (last updated Oct. 29, 2018); see also Rule 23.1(b) ("a lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation"); Rule 23.1(c) ("lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense"). An attorney need not be of record in order to be sufficiently "associated" with a case as to justify application of disciplinary rules regarding extrajudicial statements. Lawyers who have not filed a formal notice of appearance may still possess information that lends a perception by the public that their remarks on a pending case hold greater authority. See In re Hinds, 449 A.2d 483, 496 (N.J. 1982); see also People v. Buttafuoco, 599 N.Y.S.2d 419 (Nassau Cty. Ct. 1993). + +Such is the case with Mr. Markus's role in the pending matter. As noted, Mr. Markus has attended a proceeding in this Court, after which he spoke to the press on Ms. Maxwell's behalf. He has represented Ms. Maxwell on appeals of this Court's pre-trial bail determinations. Moreover, Mr. Markus has identified himself as Ms. Maxwell's appellate lawyer in a published op-ed discussing his opinion of the merits of this case. These facts mean that the public, which includes potential jurors, may perceive Mr. Markus as an authoritative source of information regarding the pending matter and may readily consider his remarks to be accurate and reliable. Mr. Markus is therefore ORDERED to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1. + +The Government does not ask the Court to discipline Mr. Markus based on his op-ed and the Court declines to consider whether it violated Rule 23.1 given the potential lack of clarity with respect to whether Mr. Markus was bound by the rule. The Court emphasizes that the rule + +provides illustrative examples of statements that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of the rule." S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23(d). + +Going forward, Mr. Markus and all lawyers associated with the pending case are now clearly on notice that their conduct falls under the purview of Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Indeed, the above concerns do not apply only to Mr. Markus. This Court has previously noted that "counsel[,] agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses" must take care to "protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury." Dkt. No. 28. This Court is cognizant that criminal matters heading toward trial are especially sensitive to extrajudicial statements. All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: July 30, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05daa55604d642403a0f80c35833aa27626b93ba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800/EFTA02832800.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832800.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5138, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.2, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832800" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50ff97f3057682ff1b918319cd5201d1c61a4919 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.md @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ +LEARN MORE ABOUT SUBSCRIPTIONS + +Belarusian athlete claims she was forced to airport after complaining about Olympic... + +![](_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg) + +Kathy [REDACTED] reveals lung cancer diagnosis + +![](_page_0_Picture_130.jpeg) + +Governors Ball dur after homop > + +ADVERTISEMENT + +NEW YORK + +# Ghislaine Maxwell makes first in-person NYC court appearance + +By STEPHEN REX BROWN +NEW YORK DAILY NEWS | APR 23, 2021 + +![](_page_0_Picture_136.jpeg) + +FEEDBACK + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +.111 CP CP a + +In this courtroom sketch, Ghislaine MaxwellcOrktgkappea In Manh4tanSileral court seated next to her attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, second from left, alcdelier sistcpsabel Meifel r left, during her arraignment on a superceding indictment, Friday, April 23, irkNit YorkOzabeth \58ilatAP) + +(1>) SC) + +c• • co + +A thin Ghislaine Maxwell made her firoirktikrson court appearance Friday, nearly a &sr year after her arrest for allegedly) h! into Jeffrey Epstein's underage sex trafficking trap. sr.& + +14/)- + +(<\ Maxwell, 59, walked stiffly into the Manhattan federal courtroom sporting a blue jail uniform. She had gray roots showing in her shoulder-length black hair. The British socialite, worth more than \$20 million, chatted with her defense attorneys and stared straight ahead, showing no obvious signs of the torture she claims to be enduring in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. + +Maxwell pleaded not guilty to a new charge of sex trafficking a minor in the early 2000s. The British socialite is fighting with prosecutors on multiple fronts — though they were not addressed during the brief hearing. + +![](_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg) + +FILE Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are pictured at Cipriani Wall Street on March 15, 2005 in New York City. McMullan via Getty Image) + +“It’s painful, but it’s good too; it’s healing,” [REDACTED] said after the hearing. “After not having a trial for Epstein this will provide closure for the victims.” + +[[More New York](#)] Governors Ball dumps DaBaby after homophobic comments » + +Maxwell has complained about the conditions of her confinement, the start date of her trial and a 2016 meeting between lawyers for Epstein victims and prosecutors. + +FEEDBACK + +Cited in US v Maxwell +20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 + +Archived on 8/2/21 +This document is protected by copyright. +Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. + +Protestors display an anti-Jeffrey Epstein banner outside Manhattan Federal Court after Ghislaine Maxwell's court appearance Friday, April 23, in Manhattan, New York. (Barry [REDACTED] for New York Daily News) + +Maxwell says she's being [held in solitary confinement](#) in the jail on the Sunset Park waterfront. Jail staff shine a light in her cell every 15 minutes overnight, preventing her from sleeping, she says. The food is often inedible and the water is filthy, her attorneys claim. She claims she's lost weight and her hair is falling out. An MDC staffer allegedly [abused her](#) in one encounter, the details of which have not been revealed. + +As it happens + +Get updates on the coronavirus pandemic and other news as it happens with our free breaking news email alerts. + +“Ghislaine is in very, very difficult conditions none of us would wish on our worst enemy,” her attorney, David Oscar Markus, said outside of court. “She’s staying strong, she’s getting ready for trial. Ghislaine is looking forward to that trial and she’s looking forward to fighting, and she will fight.” + +FEEDBACK + +Cited in US v Maxwell +20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 +Archived on 8/2/21 +This document is protected by copyright. +Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. + +[REDACTED] (center) speaks to the media with attorneys Sigrid McCawley, left, and David Boies, after leaving Manhattan Federal Court Friday, April 23, in Manhattan, New York. (Barry [REDACTED] for New York Daily News) + +Maxwell is currently scheduled to face trial starting July 12 for procuring and grooming three underage Epstein victims in the mid-1990s, as well as trafficking a fourth + +underage victim between 2001 and 2004. Her lawyers have asked for a delay until early next year. Prosecutors say they “strenuously” oppose the request. + +**MOST READ** + +--- + +**Belarusian athlete claims she was forced to airport after complaining about Olympic coaches** + +--- + +**Kathy [REDACTED] reveals lung cancer diagnosis** + +--- + +**Governors Ball dumps DaBaby after homophobic comments** + +Judge Alison Nathan said she will soon rule on whether to postpone the start of trial. The judge recently ordered that Maxwell face a second trial on charges of lying under oath at a later date to be determined. + +FEEDBACK + +Cited in Case 1:20-cr-00389-RAE +20CR330 Declared 8/20/21 +Archived on 8/2/21 +Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. + +Isabel Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, leaves Manhattan Federal Court Friday, April 23, in Manhattan, New York. (Barry [REDACTED] for New York Daily News) + +A legal battle is also brewing over a 2016 meeting — [first revealed by the Daily News](#) — between Manhattan federal prosecutors and attorneys for Epstein accusers. Sources told the Daily News that the victims' lawyers urged the office to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell. But the [request went nowhere](#). + +FEEDBACK + +Cited in US v Maxwell +20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 + +Archived on 8/2/21 +This document is protected by copyright. +Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. + +Isabel Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, right, leaves Manhattan Federal Court Friday, April 23, in New York. (Barry [REDACTED] for New York Daily News) + +Maxwell now cites that meeting as evidence that prosecutors and victims' lawyers were improperly in cahoots. Manhattan federal prosecutors say they opened an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell in response to investigative reporting by the Miami Herald in late 2018. Sources familiar with the meetings said victims' lawyers were frustrated by prosecutors' failure to take action following the outreach — rebutting Maxwell's claims of collusion. + +"I don't believe there is any credible basis whatsoever to assert Ms. Maxwell is the victim. The media blitz the defendant is putting out, I don't believe it's fair to the real victims. I think it's highly undesirable," victims' attorney David Boies said. + +**Woman Files For Divorce After Seeing This Photo - Can You See Why?** + +MISTERSTORY | SPONSORED + +**Keith Urban Just Made A Heartfelt Statement About Nicole Kidman** + +ZENHERALD.COM | SPONSORED + +**No One Knew She Felt This Way For Him Until Now** + +MATERNITYWEEK.COM | SPONSORED + +Cited in Case v Maxwell +20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 +Archived on 8/2/21 +This copy statement is protected by copyright. +COPYING IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. + +![](_page_7_Picture_36.jpeg) + +**Scene That Made American Pickers Cancel** Fritz + +**They Drained Niagara Falls — They Weren't Prepared For This Sickening Discovery** + +COPYING IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. + +NY DAILY NEWS + +**Queens husband gets 16 years for killing newlywed wife after she flipped him off, challenged his a...** + +NY DAILY NEWS + +**SEE IT: Tourist thrown to ground, dragged down sidewalk by Manhattan mugger after her purse** + +By JOSH PANNESERATMAN, JOHN ANNESE + +OS ORLANDO SENTINEL + +**Pictures: Carnival Downtown** + +![](_page_7_Picture_47.jpeg) + +## This Picture Shows Who Prince Harry's Father Really Is + +Medical Matters + +## Amal Clooney's No Makeup Photo: Her Real Face Is Quite Different + +Loan Insurance Wealth + +## Faith [REDACTED] Daughter Is Probably The Prettiest Woman To Ever Exist + +Lovesobserver + +## Here's The Salaries Made For Each Military Rank + +thedelite.com + +![](_page_8_Picture_43.jpeg) + +Cited in US v Maxwell + 20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 + ADVERTISEMENT + Archived on 8/2/21 + This document is protected by copyright. + Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. + +### TRIBUNE PUBLISHING + +| Chicago Tribune | The Baltimore Sun | +|-------------------------|----------------------| +| Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel of Fla. | +| The Morning Call of Pa. | Hartford Courant | +| Daily Press of Va. | The Virginian-Pilot | +| The Daily Meal | Studio 1847 | + +Help Center + +Site Map + +Manage Web Notifications + +Manage Subscription + +Place an Ad + +Contests + +Media Kit + +Special Sections + +Privacy Policy + +The Active Times + +Terms of Service + +About Us + +Copyright © 2021, New York Daily News + +FEEDBACK + +Cited in US v Maxwell +20CR330 Decided 7/30/21 +Archived on 8/2/21 +This document is protected by copyright. +Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc7f7a4ec287970547479fef32ba3a5d6878e56c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/EFTA02832803.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,720 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 8578, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.97, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_130.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_136.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_36.jpeg", + "_page_7_Picture_47.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_43.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LEARN MORE ABOUT SUBSCRIPTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.856, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 402.696, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 402.696, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 81.81 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ghislaine Maxwell makes first in-person NYC court appearance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 56.304, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 492.04800000000006, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 492.04800000000006, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 56.304, + 389.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Breaking News Newsletter", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.864, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.864, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 59.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MOST READ", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 138.312, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 138.312, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 112.59 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Woman Files For Divorce After Seeing This Photo - Can You See Why?", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 367.2, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 367.2, + 200.07 + ], + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 200.07 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keith Urban Just Made A Heartfelt Statement About Nicole Kidman", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 359.24399999999997, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 359.24399999999997, + 293.21999999999997 + ], + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 293.21999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "No One Knew She Felt This Way For Him Until Now", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 285.192, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 285.192, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 41.61600000000001, + 377.46000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "You May Like", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 29.159999999999997 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 29.159999999999997 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 46.980000000000004 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 46.980000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "This Picture Shows Who Prince Harry's Father Really Is", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 296.20799999999997, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 82.62 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Amal Clooney's No Makeup Photo: Her Real Face Is Quite Different", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 354.96, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 354.96, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 152.28 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Faith [REDACTED] Daughter Is Probably The Prettiest Woman To Ever Exist", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 41.004000000000005, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 359.24399999999997, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 359.24399999999997, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 41.004000000000005, + 221.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Here's The Salaries Made For Each Military Rank", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 290.78999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TRIBUNE PUBLISHING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 161.568, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 161.568, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 572.67 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPANY INFO", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 735.48 + ], + [ + 129.132, + 735.48 + ], + [ + 129.132, + 748.44 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 748.44 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832803" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21e8efb64ae932cb052d23ba9de7a5cda71f535e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:778981cec30bde6588275d30f39cbf08ed8f6c05d31fa8736bd249bbca1835f9 +size 3000 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_130.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_130.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28cf83d0e899a5f9e5820676374aab945d75bd2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_130.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5ac67090a06c2452350a73ccb4067045f3751f983dfdcc3b9d94382d5810a3b8 +size 3487 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_136.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_136.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..847fe38c4019035b5696d9c49dda30d4f00ac1c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_0_Picture_136.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2aa69c5e264d76f4c8fa755468847e5226f4e901cd68b64f6be26884f25752ee +size 1945 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53c9bb2803e300375d95d6d416140bc0d1c6ed0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4a5316b41f021c9606c7b5442804cf669732fd91d507cd7146b19e7a8087ae93 +size 103177 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..864f5158d7ad3ce0ae85dbd1fbf16931bb3d03d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3eb48b6821a1fe00af8b8a6a287b0667d9ae35847a40b505e1d2c257de199e19 +size 94145 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_36.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_36.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..396c2327a7fe0ebca77c03c009098cee6edeae1b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_36.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ff66961e99530b9d667bad010beba2150dc7c354f65767c0f890cb7430bd9a5e +size 2011 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_47.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_47.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7aa49bd63928af77971e404bf7472399afb7396c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_7_Picture_47.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4a71b2181f47a14b7147ecbad4111351532dac902e35ca578a778cd94f99b211 +size 1069 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_8_Picture_43.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_8_Picture_43.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf2b3d2c5f5db693b889af32f0c8a597c1bf341c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832803/_page_8_Picture_43.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3522adfa8d65c67a8c74196de0f9392e3f6e7cbb28d1d7ef53ee1d0afe9774a3 +size 7081 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e3663fa7615b863e3b53e938c1d7654108597f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-cr-330 (AJN) + +OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On April 16, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in part Ghislaine Maxwell's various pretrial motions seeking to dismiss portions of the Government's (S1) superseding indictment and compel discovery. Prior to the issuance of that Opinion & Order but after the motions were fully briefed, a grand jury returned a second (S2) superseding indictment adding a sex trafficking count and sex trafficking conspiracy count. The Court did not address the new charges in the April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. On May 25, 2021, Maxwell filed another round of pretrial motions seeking to dismiss the S2 indictment in whole or in part and to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 292, 293. For appeal preservation purposes or otherwise, the arguments largely, though not entirely, rehash the positions rejected by the Court in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. To the extent new arguments are made, they are addressed below. All pending motions are DENIED. The Court provides a brief summary of its conclusions here and its reasoning on the pages that follow: + +- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts one, three, five, and six as barred by Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the agreement does not bind the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. + +- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six on the grounds that prosecuting her on those counts would violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the charges within the applicable statute of limitations. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial. +- Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her rights to due process. +- Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently specific. +- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim 4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted. + +# I. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 indictment + +In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order on Maxwell's first set of pretrial motions, the Court held that the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in the SI superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 1518675, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021). Maxwell now renews those arguments for the charges in the S2 superseding indictment. The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell's renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review, and the Court denies the + +renewed motion for substantially the same reasons set forth in its April 16 opinion. The Court will proceed to briefly explain why neither the new charges in the S2 superseding indictment nor the supplemental authority Maxwell cites change the Court's conclusion that the NPA does not bar the charges against her. + +As the Court explained in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Annabi that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam). The Second Circuit's opinion in Annabi is clear, and that court has followed it steadfastly since. See, e.g., United States v. 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at \*2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language nearly identical to that in Epstein's NPA is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of single-district plea agreements. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120. Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indictment. + +Maxwell advances two new arguments for why the Court should depart from this reasoning—the first in her renewed motion and the second in a letter of supplemental authority. See Dkt. Nos. 293, 310. In her renewed motion, she contends that Annabi contains an exception for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are "identical to the dismissed charges." And in the letter of supplemental authority, she contends that the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme + +Court in Commonwealth v. Cathy, No. 39 MAP 2020, 2021 WL 2674380 (Pa. June 30, 2021), requires dismissal. Neither argument is persuasive. + +Annabi contains no exception for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are "identical to the dismissed charges." In the language Maxwell cites from Annabi, the Second Circuit discussed (and rejected) a claim based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, not a claim based on the plea agreement in that case. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. In that section of the opinion, the Second Circuit held that even if the charges had been identical to the dismissed charges, the defendants' double jeopardy claims would fail because they were never in jeopardy on the charges that were dismissed under the plea agreement. Nothing in Annabi suggests that the presumption in favor of single-district plea agreements does not apply if later charges in another district are sufficiently "identical" to the dismissed ones, and no subsequent Second Circuit case applying Annabi has so held. Annabi applies squarely to the facts of this case and binds this Court. + +The Court also disagrees that Cosby mandates a different result. To begin with, this Court must follow the precedential opinions of the Second Circuit on questions of federal law, not those of a state court. Thus, nothing in Cosby could change this Court's view that Second Circuit precedent in Annabi forecloses Maxwell's arguments related to the NPA. In any event, the state court in Cosby did not purport to decide the same federal question at issue here. In Cosby, the court held that it was unfair for a district attorney to proceed with charges against Bill Cosby after the district attorney's office had, in that court's view of the facts, unequivocally promised that it would not charge him. Cosby, 2021 WL 2674380, at \*34. That case did not involve a question of whether one office's promise bound another, much less whether a plea agreement in one federal district should be construed to apply in another district. Instead, the + +case focused on whether prosecutors were required to honor a promise that the court found to be clear in the absence of a formal plea agreement. Even if this Court agreed with the analysis in Cosby, that opinion sheds no light on the proper interpretation of the NPA in this case. + +After considering the arguments in Maxwell's renewed motion and letter of supplemental authority, the Court's view remains unchanged from its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Under Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It thus does not bar the charges in the 52 superseding indictment. + +# II. This prosecution does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy + +The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that "[n]o person shall be . . . subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. "This protection applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense." United States v. 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). "A defendant may only raise a Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (i.e. jeopardy has 'attached') sometime before the alleged 'second' prosecution." United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 816 (2d Cir. 1997). A defendant is put in jeopardy when the jury in their case is empaneled or upon the defendant's entry of a guilty plea. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); Morris v. 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001). Until then, a defendant has not been put in jeopardy and the Government is free to commence a prosecution. + +Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for the offenses charged in this case. She concededly has not been punished or prosecuted for any prior offense. She was never charged in the Southern District of Florida in connection with the Epstein investigation. She agreed to nothing in Epstein's NPA, because she was not a party to it. She suffered no criminal consequences as a result of Epstein's guilty plea in Florida state court. To the contrary, there is + +no indication that Maxwell was even a subject of the Florida investigation. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars only successive prosecution or punishment for the same offense, and Maxwell has endured neither. Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the charges against her. + +Despite facing no prior prosecution or punishment herself, Maxwell contends that she is immune from prosecution because Epstein was already punished for the same conspiracy. The cases she cites, however, deal with successive prosecutions of a particular defendant for the same conspiracy, not separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v. + +356 F.3d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 2004). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not require all coconspirators be tried together for related offenses. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1014 (2d Cir. 1976). Whether the Government could have charged Epstein again in this case has nothing to do with Maxwell's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. + +Maxwell finally points to one case in which the Second Circuit held that a subsequent prosecution might not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husband's plea agreement, not the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d at 638. No precedent stands for the proposition that an uncharged co-conspirator is put in jeopardy when another co-conspirator accepts a non-prosecution agreement. This is the first case in which Maxwell will be put in jeopardy for these offenses, and so this prosecution does not put her in jeopardy a second time. + +# III. Counts five and six are not time-barred + +For most non-capital offenses, the statute of limitations under federal law is five years. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Congress has enacted longer limitations periods for certain crimes, in particular for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping" of a minor in 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Prior to 2003, the limitations period in § 3283 lasted until the victim reached the age of 25, and then Congress extended the limitations period to the life of the victim with the PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat 60. In 2006, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitations for the sex trafficking of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and for some other sex crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299 ("Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense under .. . section 1591."). + +In her previous motion, Maxwell argued that the Act charges against her in the indictment were time-barred on the grounds that the extended limitations period § 3283 was not applicable. The Court denied that motion in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at \*5. Maxwell now argues that the new charges the Government has brought against her in the S2 indictment, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and Sex Trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591), are time-barred as well because § 3283 does not apply to those offenses either. She renews her contention from her previous motion that the limitations period in § 3283 only applies to offenses which "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of a minor and argues that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 does not. Thus, according to Maxwell's reasoning, the general five-year statute of limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) applies to the sex trafficking counts and, because the alleged conduct occurred from 2001 to 2004, the Government is now time-barred for prosecuting her for these offenses. + +The Court denies this motion for substantially similar reasons as those discussed in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. As an initial matter, the Court reiterates that Maxwell's analysis of § 3283 is incorrect. As the Court explained, § 3283 does not call for a "categorical approach" nor an "essential ingredient" test, but instead requires that the defendant's conduct in that particular case involved the sexual abuse of a minor. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675 at \*5-7. Here, there is no question that Maxwell is alleged to have engaged in activity that constitutes the sexual abuse of a minor with respect to the sex trafficking counts. + +But in any event, as the Government pointed out in its brief— and as Maxwell did not contest in her reply — § 3283 is not the only statute of limitations that applies to the sex trafficking counts. As discussed above, in 2006, Congress enacted § 3299 to eliminate altogether the limitations period for the offense of sex trafficking children in violation of § 1591. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. + +Moreover, while the alleged sex trafficking in the S2 indictment is alleged to have occurred prior to the enactment of § 3299 in 2006, the Court holds that the provision nonetheless applies retroactively to cover that conduct. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court analyzed § 3283 under the Landgraf v. USA Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) framework and concluded that the limitations period applied retroactively so long as the previous limitations period had not yet expired. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at \*7-8. Similar to § 3283, which states that "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution" shall apply, the language of § 3299 provides that an indictment may be instituted at any time for certain offenses "[n]otwithstanding any other law." As discussed in the Court's previous opinion with respect to § 3283, this kind of language unambiguously requires that the limitations period apply retroactively to prosecutions for offenses committed before the date of enactment so long as the + +applicable limitations period has not yet run — offenses that by definition are those for which "other law[s]" of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover, as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at \*74. The Court therefore joins multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (ED. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at •6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v.=, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at \*8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at \*3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). + +The sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell's alleged conduct prior to the enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation. + +# IV. Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous is premature + +In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the Si indictment, the Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are multiplicitous. In the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without + +prejudice. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at \*14. In the instant motion, Maxwell similarly argues that count five of the S2 indictment, the sex trafficking conspiracy charge, is duplicative of either counts one or three. Maxwell's motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. + +### V. The Government's dela? in bringing the charges did not violate due process + +Maxwell also renews her motion to dismiss the S2 indictment based on alleged improper pretrial delay. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court denied Maxwell's motion, concluding that her efforts to show actual and substantial prejudice fell far short of the "stringent standard" necessary to prevail on such a claim. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at \*9. Maxwell's motion to dismiss the S2 on these grounds fails for the same reasons. As before, nothing in the record indicates that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. However, it is sufficient to conclude that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government's delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case. + +The Court thus again concludes for the reasons stated in the April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges here. + +# VI. No bill of particulars is warranted + +Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars as to counts five and six. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an indictment contain "a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.J" The indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. See United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975). + +"Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). "The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supplement the allegations in the indictment when n Pssary to (1) enable the defendant to prepare his defense, (2) avoid unfair surprise to the defendant at trial, and (3) preclude a second prosecution of the same offense." United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)). On the other hand, the Court must balance these interests against the harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial. See United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09-cr-1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010). + +In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that the Act counts in the indictment should be dismissed for lack of specificity or that, in the alternative, the Court should compel the Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges. Maxwell + +contended specifically that the indictment is too vague because it refers to open-ended time periods for the Act counts. The Court disagreed in light of Circuit precedent requiring only that an indictment describe the time and place of the charged conduct in "approximate terms" and permitting the use of "on or about" language to describe the window of when a violation occurred. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at •I0 (citing Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113; United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)). The Court explained that approximate time periods are particularly appropriate if the allegations involved ongoing conduct and especially if the indictment alleges sexual abuse against minor victims. Id. (citing United States v. Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008)). + +Maxwell now again moves for a bill of particulars. Maxwell primarily argues that the S2 indictment does not provide specific dates for the conduct alleged with respect to the sex trafficking counts. Instead, the S2 indictment provides a four-year time period from 2001 to 2004 in which the alleged sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy occurred. Maxwell's motion in this respect is denied for the same reasons stated in the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. The indictment alleges ongoing conduct that involve the sexual abuse of minors with respect to counts five and six and therefore the approximate time period provided is sufficient. Accordingly, the motion for a bill of particulars is denied.' + +# VII. The current disclosure schedule for impeachment material is adequate + +Finally, Maxwell moves to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell, including prior statements made to the + +&#x27; Additionally, Maxwell includes in her motion for a bill of particulars a request to require the government to identify the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment. Maxwell also made this request in the parties' joint May 21, 2021 letter to the Court regarding the disclosure schedule. Dkt. No. 291. In both her motion and the May 21, 2021 letter, Maxwell requests that this information be disclosed to the defense at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act material. The Government has not opposed this request. In the absence + +FBI. The Court has ordered the Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material by October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at '11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016). Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in preparation of her defense. + +To the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement), rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's obligation to "disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case." Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the Government to make these assessments a ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied. + +of objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that as it discloses Jencks Act material. + +**Conclusion** + +For the reasons above and in this Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion to obtain relief specified in her supplemental pre-trial motions relating to the S2 indictment. This resolves Dkt. No. 292. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 13, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eade314245e4bd5af6b9d29d72af715891416aba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/EFTA02832813.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,778 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 26846, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 \nindictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 516.4375610351562, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 516.4375610351562, + 511.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 511.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. This prosecution does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 485.8941650390625, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 485.8941650390625, + 279.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 279.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Counts five and six are not time-barred", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.9345703125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 312.9345703125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as \nmultiplicitous is premature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 506.6116638183594, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 506.6116638183594, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Government's dela? in bringing the charges did not violate due process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 498.4034423828125, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 498.4034423828125, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. No bill of particulars is warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 285.84814453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 285.84814453125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. The current disclosure schedule for impeachment material is adequate", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 472.4159851074219, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 472.4159851074219, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 335.98800000000006, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 335.98800000000006, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832813" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d8ebff862f49fc087a36a03dd3129c2d50c29aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832813/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c899af327c136eaed30bdeafbc21f6f2783cbe3e33cd5742878541179eb8003a +size 11637 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..899dc591267ea92bdd477141f6f8bbbcde8c1b0d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On March 19, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a sealed and ex pane motion for an order authorizing four subpoenas pursuant to Rule I 7(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. By sealed order dated March 22, 2021, the Court provided an opportunity for recipients of the subpoenas to respond to the requests by March 30, 2021, but it received no responses. + +In an Opinion and Order temporarily filed under seal, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion without prejudice. It does so after concluding that none of the proposed subpoenas conform to the factors first set out in United Slates v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-70 (1974). + +The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion and Order to defense counsel. By August 18, 2021, Maxwell is ORDERED to inform the Court whether she seeks sealing or limited redactions of the Court's opinion and of her original motion papers, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date Maxwell shall inform the Court whether she seeks full sealing or redactions of the original motion, again justifying any such request by reference to the Lugosch test. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 13, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14fb7b2c37b4c378704bb729b54c3f4f8a838da2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/EFTA02832827.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1581, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832827" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cda5b1d68cfdfcbbee2f9bb0546ed1a52e7a0ded --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832827/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:56191e083d3d09810887237af1d74ba374dd015126d89db96f697b55620cb356 +size 11080 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1a9e862a9d5fd3cbcb47fef1df20eff7c196f18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +August 18, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan; + +I write to update the Court regarding MDC ongoing interference with attorney-client communication between Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel. + +Since December 2019, video teleconferences ("VTCs") between Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have been conducted via defense counsel's WebEx platform. There were no problems with VTCs with the exception of when the MDC placed the VTC monitor inside a box with a screen, which severely impacted Ms. Maxwell's ability to see counsel and documents shown to her. That issue, which arose on June 14, 2021, was resolved between defense counsel and the MDC. + +However, on August 6, 2021, MDC Legal sent counsel an email stating that starting Monday (August 9th) we could no longer use defense counsel's WebEx platform for the VTCs, and instead had to use any of four Zoom access codes provided by the MDC. When questioned why the platform was being changed from WebEx to Zoom, MDC Legal stated the VTC platform was changed due to complaints made by Ms. Maxwell. Upon information and belief, the complaints concerned visual evidence that someone on MDC's end of the WebEx connection, other than Ms. Maxwell, appeared on the screen as a VTC participant called "NER/BRO," adjusted the volume during the VTC, and moved the viewing box used to view documents on the screen. During the past several weeks, interruption in Ms. Maxwell's VTC signal and bandwidth suggested that her connection was split, causing her VTC sessions to go in and out, and her screen often turned and became blurry. No other participants experienced I + +. Maxwell raised these concerns to various staff members, no one seemed surprised. The fact that MDC immediately provided a "more secure" link (in their words) suggests there was some type of breach or interference with the attorney-client VTC which impinged upon confidentiality of privileged attorney-client communication and is placing an on-going chill on communication between Ms. Maxwell and her defense team. + +It is my understanding that the new MDC Zoom platform does not preclude third parties who have the access information to the Zoom "Courtrooms" from interfering (inadvertently or intentionally) with Ms. Maxwell's privileged communication. That concern manifested itself on August 12th when + +third parties accessed the Zoom room used by Ms. Maxwell and counsel. This breach was reported to, and I believe witnessed by, MDC staff, including an MDC technician named who is tasked with dealing with Ms. Maxwell's electronics issues. + +By email dated August 12'h to MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, I reported that this purported breach severely impacts confidential privileged attorney-client communication and is especially concerning in this high-profile case. I requested that the VTC revert to the original WebEx platform controlled by defense counsel. + +In an email response, dated August 13th, MDC Legal stated: + +There was a miscommunication on our end internally. There was no breach. The address provided was a very secure line, however, it was already one being used. We are creating a line as secure as possible. We are hoping for this to be complete by the 9:30 scheduled call, but I cannot confirm it will be ready by then. + +On August le, I again emailed MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, requesting clarification as to why the VTC is still not proceeding, as it did not on Friday, and renewed my request that VTCs be reinstated on defense counsel's WebEx platform because the substituted Zoom platform is not secure and seems to have caused cancellation of Ms. Maxwell's VTCs. I also informed MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, that during my in-person visit with Ms. Maxwell on Saturday, August 14'h, both Ms. Maxwell and I were told we could not pass documents. This restriction frustrated and affected the productivity of a four-hour visit. + +In a reply email later that day, MDC Legal stated: + +Please understand this is not a simple process and may take a few days. With that said you have had access to your client via telephone. Additionally, as you have had weekend visit on weekend with Ms. Maxwell, we can gladly arrange for the same on any day moving forward. + +As far as your weekend legal visit- the staff who did not allow the passing of legal documents have been informed of the appropriate instructions. + +The restrictions placed on Ms. Maxwell, including limiting the quantity of legal documents she may bring to the VTC room or day room and the prohibition on review of documents during in-person legal conferences- coupled with problems with conducting confidential legal conference VTCs - has limited Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial. Legal calls do not suffice because we cannot share documents. For example, Ms. Maxwell received new discovery today and yet again a significant amount is not viewable on the hardware and software provided by the government. Because we cannot share documents, that discovery remains unviewable by Ms. Maxwell. Further, ongoing delays in bringing Ms. Maxwell to the day room continue, which reduces the time she is permitted to work on her case and limitations + +of the quantity of legal materials she is permitted to use during working session severely hamper her ability to prepare her defense for trial. + +On August 17th, the third day without VTC for Ms. Maxwell and counsel, I told MDC Legal that the defense has reason to be concerned that VTCs between Ms. Maxwell and counsel may have been tape recorded by the MDC, a concern that accords with our belief that there has been inference with the VTCs on the MDC's end. Notably, when Ms. Maxwell reported to MDC staff her concern that VTCs were being taped, she received no response. Likewise, counsel have received no response from MDC Legal regarding this concern. + +As of the writing of this letter, them has been no resumption of VTCs, and the MDC has provided no information. + +Any interference by the MDC, BOP, or other government entity with confidential privileged communication between Ms. Maxwell and her counsel is a serious breach of BOP policy, professional ethics, ABA standards and a violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. Further, it is seriously impacting her ability to prepare for trial, a situation already compromised by the conditions of her detention. + +Based on the foregoing, I request that the Court direct MDC Legal to show cause + +- **Why the VTC platform has been changed.** +- **Why resumption of VTCs has been delayed.** +- **Why VTCs cannot be reinstated on defense counsel's WebEx platform.** + +**Further, it is requested that MDC legal provide a sworn statement regarding whether any VTCs between Ms. Maxwell and counsel have been interfered with, listened to, and/or recorded.** + +**Your consideration is greatly appreciated.** + +**Very truly yours,** + +**/s/** + +**BOBBI C. STERNHEIM** + +**cc: All counsel** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd425eb624ff050ea8ae215b15e7eecb4cf3098d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829/EFTA02832829.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832829.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7197, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832829" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..765e3dad963a052db2e5b4ae5456c7e0279f9e6a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 18, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to footnote 1 of the Court's Opinion and Order denying the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental pretrial motions. (Dkt. No. 317). In that footnote, the Court noted that the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars included a request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators, as did her position in the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule. The Court wrote that, because the Government had not objected, it "presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that ... it discloses Jencks Act material." (Id. at 12 n.1). To be clear, the Government objects to any requirement that it provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise, and does not intend to do so absent further order of the Court.' + +The Government has opposed the defendant's requests for such a list as part of its opposition to the defense motions for a bill of particulars. In the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule, the defendant sought early disclosure of both the identities of unindicted co-conspirators and their statements. (Dkt. No. 291 at 7-8, 10-13). The Government took the position that the defense could "receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits." (Id. at 5). The Government also noted that "[t]he cases cited by the defense all + +August 18, 2021 + +Page 2 + +The Government will produce Jencks Act material and its proposed exhibit list substantially in advance of trial, and respectfully submits that nothing more is required in this regard. Although it is not required to do so, the Government can state that—as of the date of this letter, and although the Government may change its view as it prepares for trial—it currently intends to introduce co-conspirator statements at trial from only two individuals, both of whom are specified in the S2 Indictment: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein's referenced in paragraph 25(d) of the S2 Indictment. There is accordingly no significant risk that the defense will be surprised at trial by a profusion of co-conspirators and their statements, even if the Government identifies statements for use at trial from additional co-conspirators. + +In any event, there is no basis to require the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of unnamed co-conspirators. This Court has twice concluded that no bill of particulars is warranted because the defendant has adequate information to prepare for trial and avoid unfair surprise. (Dkt. No. 207 at 19-21; Dkt. No. 317 at 11-12). The same analysis applies to the defendant's request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators. See United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[C]ourts in this circuit frequently exercise their discretion to deny requests to identify co-conspirators through a bill of particulars."). The S2 Indictment already contains "more details than those strictly required." (Dkt. No. 207 at 20 (discussing the SI Indictment)). The Government has provided the defendant with extensive discovery that she has largely had in her possession for months, and it will provide + +involved orders granting bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators," and the Government had separately opposed the defense supplemental motion for a bill of particulars. (Id. at 5). In that motion, the defense requested the identities of co-conspirators in Count Five as part of its motion for a bill of particulars. (Dkt. No. 293 at 24). The Government opposed that motion, albeit without specific reference to the identities of coconspirators. (Dkt. No. 295 at 17-20). The Government regrets any confusion on this point. + +August 18, 2021 + +Page 3 + +witness statements in Jencks Act material and a proposed exhibit list seven weeks before trial before motions in limine are due, and earlier than is typical in this district even in complex cases. Finally, given the nature of the conspiracy, the defendant is likely already aware of the identities of persons who could be considered to be co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2021 WL 3168250, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) ("This is not a case where a defendant is likely to be surprised by the identity of co-conspirators, whom he may never have met." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). + +By contrast, requiring the Government to identify a complete list of co-conspirators risks "harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial." (Dkt. No. 317 at 11 (citing United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010)). Ordering the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of the defendant's uncharged co-conspirators when Jencks Act material is produced would require the Government to commit to a particular view of those co-conspirators and provide that preview of the Government's case to the defense seven weeks before trial. See Rajaratnam, 2010 WL 2788168, at •1 ("[A] bill of particulars confines the government's evidence at trial to the particulars furnished." (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is far more than is required by Rule 7(f). A defendant is "not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the 'when,' wheres,' and 'with whoms' regarding a conspiracy." Ray, 2021 WL 3168250, at \*6 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).2 + +2 The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. (Dkt. No. 291 at 11). See United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering the Government to identify alleged coconspirators in a case that involved "at least 20" coconspirators, many of whom used "several aliases and/or code names to conceal their identities," so it was difficult for defense counsel to "decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators"); United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp. 3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (ordering the Government to confirm its representation that there + +Honorable Alison .1. Nathan August 18, 2021 Page 4 + +Insofar as the defendant claims that identification of uncharged co-conspirators is necessary for her to interpose objections to the admissibility of co-conspirator statements (Dkt. No. 291 at 10-11), such an argument "misunderstands the hearsay exception for the statements of co-conspirators." Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 722. The hearsay exception is "rooted in agency law and is not constrained by the text of an indictment." Id. Accordingly, a co-conspirator statement may be admissible even if the conspiracy is not one charged in the indictment. And if the Government is not required to charge a conspiracy in the indictment in order to introduce statements by the defendant's co-conspirators in that conspiracy, it surely cannot be required to provide a bill of particulars as to a conspiracy charged in the indictment for that same purpose. See id. at 723. + +In sum, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should not require the Government to provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s/ Alison Moe / Maurene Comey / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: All counsel of record (by ECF) + +were only two co-conspirators or identify any others, which would "meaningfully alter the nature of the charges"); United States v. Akhavan, No. 20 Cr. 188, 2020 WL 2555333, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co-conspirators who "represented several distinct organizations" over three years, "creatting] the possibility that different coconspirators may have been involved at different times," presenting a high risk of surprise). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..386a63098187a9ca960bf45846c5b26aed77fbdb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/EFTA02832832.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 8499, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.02, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 199.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 199.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832832" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f958b18b3cd30a55c951fe915f9a7d8f64c20aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832832/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7079be2ad3ac21f2a1d7c6cdf50edaa6889674773f8048923b420b88cfea24eb +size 3529 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2cff281e4bb4a4e2d5048ea73951c3576da34d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +917-912-9698 • Cell 888-587-4737 • Fox batemheim@mac.com + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Nathan; + +![](_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg) + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +The Government is hereby ORDERED to confer with BOP and MDC Legal and file a response to Defendant's letter on or before August 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +I write to update the Court regarding MDC ongoing interference with attorney-client communication between Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel. + +Since December 2019, video teleconferences ("VTCs") between Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have been conducted via defense counsel's WebEx platform. There were no problems with VTCs with the exception of when the MDC placed the VTC monitor inside a box with a screen, which severely impacted Ms. Maxwell's ability to see counsel and documents shown to her. That issue, which arose on June 14, 2021, was resolved between defense counsel and the MDC. + +However, on August 6, 2021, MDC Legal sent counsel an email stating that starting Monday (August 9th) we could no longer use defense counsel's WebEx platform for the VTCs, and instead had to use any of four Zoom access codes provided by the MDC. When questioned why the platform was being changed from WebEx to Zoom, MDC Legal stated the VTC platform was changed due to complaints made by Ms. Maxwell. Upon information and belief, the complaints concerned visual evidence that someone on MDC's end of the WebEx connection, other than Ms. Maxwell, appeared on the screen as a VTC participant called "NER/BRO," adjusted the volume during the VTC, and moved the viewing box used to view documents on the screen. During the past several weeks, interruption in Ms. Maxwell's VTC signal and bandwidth suggested that her connection was split, causing her VTC sessions to g.o i in and out, and her screen often turned and became blurry. No other participants experienced I + +. Maxwell raised these concerns to various staff members, no one seemed surprised. The fact that MDC immediately provided a "more secure" link (in their words) suggests there was some type of breach or interference with the attorney-client VTC which impinged upon confidentiality of privileged attorney-client communication and is placing an on-going chill on communication between Ms. Maxwell and her defense team. + +It is my understanding that the new MDC Zoom platform does not preclude third parties who have the access information to the Zoom "Courtrooms" from interfering (inadvertently or intentionally) with Ms. Maxwell's privileged communication. That concern manifested itself on August 12th when + +third parties accessed the Zoom room used by Ms. Maxwell and counsel. This breach was reported to, and I believe witnessed by, MDC staff, including an MDC technician named who is tasked with dealing with Ms. Maxwell's electronics issues. + +By email dated August 12th to MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, I reported that this purported breach severely impacts confidential privileged attorney-client communication and is especially concerning in this high-profile case. I requested that the VTC revert to the original WebEx platform controlled by defense counsel. + +In an email response, dated August 13th, MDC Legal stated: + +There was a miscommunication on our end internally. There was no breach. The address provided was a very secure line, however, it was already one being used. We are creating a line as secure as possible. We are hoping for this to be complete by the 9:30 scheduled call, but I cannot confirm it will be ready by then. + +On August le, I again emailed MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, requesting clarification as to why the VTC is still not proceeding, as it did not on Friday, and renewed my request that VTCs be reinstated on defense counsel's WebEx platform because the substituted Zoom platform is not secure and seems to have caused cancellation of Ms. Maxwell's VTCs. I also informed MDC Legal, with government counsel copied, that during my in-person visit with Ms. Maxwell on Saturday, August 14'h, both Ms. Maxwell and I were told we could not pass documents. This restriction frustrated and affected the productivity of a four-hour visit. + +In a reply email later that day, MDC Legal stated: + +Please understand this is not a simple process and may take a few days. With that said you have had access to your client via telephone. Additionally, as you have had weekend visit on weekend with Ms. Maxwell, we can gladly arrange for the same on any day moving forward. + +As far as your weekend legal visit- the staff who did not allow the passing of legal documents have been informed of the appropriate instructions. + +The restrictions placed on Ms. Maxwell, including limiting the quantity of legal documents she may bring to the VTC room or day room and the prohibition on review of documents during in-person legal conferences- coupled with problems with conducting confidential legal conference VTCs - has limited Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial. Legal calls do not suffice because we cannot share documents. For example, Ms. Maxwell received new discovery today and yet again a significant amount is not viewable on the hardware and software provided by the government. Because we cannot share documents, that discovery remains unviewable by Ms. Maxwell. Further, ongoing delays in bringing Ms. Maxwell to the day room continue, which reduces the time she is permitted to work on her case and limitations + +of the quantity of legal materials she is permitted to use during working session severely hamper her ability to prepare her defense for trial. + +On August 17th, the third day without VTC for Ms. Maxwell and counsel, I told MDC Legal that the defense has reason to be concerned that VTCs between Ms. Maxwell and counsel may have been tape recorded by the MDC, a concern that accords with our belief that there has been inference with the VTCs on the MDC's end. Notably, when Ms. Maxwell reported to MDC staff her concern that VTCs were being taped, she received no response. Likewise, counsel have received no response from MDC Legal regarding this concern. + +As of the writing of this letter, there has been no resumption of VTCs, and the MDC has provided no information. + +Any interference by the MDC, BOP, or other government entity with confidential privileged communication between Ms. Maxwell and her counsel is a serious breach of BOP policy, professional ethics, ABA standards and a violation of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. Further, it is seriously impacting her ability to prepare for trial, a situation already compromised by the conditions of her detention. + +Based on the foregoing, I request that the Court direct MDC Legal to show cause + +- **Why the VTC platform has been changed.** +- **Why resumption of VTCs has been delayed.** +- **Why VTCs cannot be reinstated on defense counsel's WebEx platform.** + +**Further, it is requested that MDC legal provide a sworn statement regarding whether any VTCs between Ms. Maxwell and counsel have been interfered with, listened to, and/or recorded.** + +**Your consideration is greatly appreciated.** + +**Very truly yours,** + +**/s/** + +**BOBBI C. STERNHEIM** + +**cc: All counsel** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..466bfe2ce39a4dc2daad53f4d860dbb5ff3e4996 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/EFTA02832836.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7328, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.0, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832836" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14548bf5d7322ce2ca792cdc152ecc87e8781a09 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:77f9ce10171f5f2111cfba2a4e6891994211918182837d5cf625893b797f56a4 +size 25984 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42b73b29160f406acfc333cd792dcb0b9e4f9f87 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832836/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:27fc706bb64016956db744076edee5d12dc9c64ede310bde69a30d405587e130 +size 11479 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af9ca335ac8385d7fd1a8b648b940bfeabe5c94d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 8/19/21 + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Sibio J. Mao Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 18, 2021 + +![](_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg) + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer in an effort to reach an agreement on the disclosure issues raised in this letter. If the parties reach an agreement, they shall inform the Court by August 26, 2021. If the parties do not reach agreement, the Defendant may file a response to the arguments made here by the Government on or before August 30, 2021. Any response letter shall confirm that the meet and confer occurred. SO ORDERED. + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to footnote I of the Court's Opinion and Order denying the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental pretrial motions. (Dkt. No. 317). In that footnote, the Court noted that the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars included a request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators, as did her position in the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule. The Court wrote that, because the Government had not objected, it "presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that ... it discloses Jencks Act material." (Id. at 12 n.1). To be clear, the Government objects to any requirement that it provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise, and does not intend to do so absent further order of the Court.' + +I The Government has opposed the defendant's requests for such a list as part of its opposition to the defense motions for a bill of particulars. In the parties' joint letter regarding the disclosure schedule, the defendant sought early disclosure of both the identities of unindicted co-conspirators and their statements. (Dkt. No. 291 at 7-8, 10-13). The Government took the position that the defense could "receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits." (Id. at 5). The Government also noted that "[tjhe cases cited by the defense all + +August 18, 2021 + +Page 2 + +The Government will produce Jencks Act material and its proposed exhibit list substantially in advance of trial, and respectfully submits that nothing more is required in this regard. Although it is not required to do so, the Government can state that—as of the date of this letter, and although the Government may change its view as it prepares for trial—it currently intends to introduce co-conspirator statements at trial from only two individuals, both of whom are specified in the S2 Indictment: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein's referenced in paragraph 25(d) of the S2 Indictment. There is accordingly no significant risk that the defense will be surprised at trial by a profusion of co-conspirators and their statements, even if the Government identifies statements for use at trial from additional co-conspirators. + +In any event, there is no basis to require the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of unnamed co-conspirators. This Court has twice concluded that no bill of particulars is warranted because the defendant has adequate information to prepare for trial and avoid unfair surprise. (Dkt. No. 207 at 19-21; Dkt. No. 317 at 11-12). The same analysis applies to the defendant's request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators. See United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[C]ourts in this circuit frequently exercise their discretion to deny requests to identify co-conspirators through a bill of particulars."). The S2 Indictment already contains "more details than those strictly required." (Dkt. No. 207 at 20 (discussing the SI Indictment)). The Government has provided the defendant with extensive discovery that she has largely had in her possession for months, and it will provide + +involved orders granting bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators," and the Government had separately opposed the defense supplemental motion for a bill of particulars. (Id. at 5). In that motion, the defense requested the identities of co-conspirators in Count Five as part of its motion for a bill of particulars. (Dkt. No. 293 at 24). The Government opposed that motion, albeit without specific reference to the identities of coconspirators. (Dkt. No. 295 at 17-20). The Government regrets any confusion on this point. + +August 18, 2021 + +Page 3 + +witness statements in Jencks Act material and a proposed exhibit list seven weeks before trial before motions in limine are due, and earlier than is typical in this district even in complex cases. Finally, given the nature of the conspiracy, the defendant is likely already aware of the identities of persons who could be considered to be co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2021 WL 3168250, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) ("This is not a case where a defendant is likely to be surprised by the identity of co-conspirators, whom he may never have met." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). + +By contrast, requiring the Government to identify a complete list of co-conspirators risks "harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial." (Dkt. No. 317 at 11 (citing United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010)). Ordering the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of the defendant's uncharged co-conspirators when Jencks Act material is produced would require the Government to commit to a particular view of those co-conspirators and provide that preview of the Government's case to the defense seven weeks before trial. See Rajaratnam, 2010 WL 2788168, at \*1 ("[A] bill of particulars confines the government's evidence at trial to the particulars furnished." (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is far more than is required by Rule 7(f). A defendant is "not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the 'when,' wheres,' and 'with whoms' regarding a conspiracy." Ray, 2021 WL 3168250, at \*6 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).2 + +2 The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. (Dkt. No. 291 at 1 I). See United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering the Government to identify alleged coconspirators in a case that involved "at least 20" co-conspirators, many of whom used "several aliases and/or code names to conceal their identities," so it was difficult for defense counsel to "decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators"); United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp. 3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (ordering the Government to confirm its representation that there + +August 18, 2021 + +Page 4 + +Insofar as the defendant claims that identification of uncharged co-conspirators is necessary for her to interpose objections to the admissibility of co-conspirator statements (Dkt. No. 291 at 10-11), such an argument "misunderstands the hearsay exception for the statements of co-conspirators." Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 722. The hearsay exception is "rooted in agency law and is not constrained by the text of an indictment." Id. Accordingly, a co-conspirator statement may be admissible even if the conspiracy is not one charged in the indictment. And if the Government is not required to charge a conspiracy in the indictment in order to introduce statements by the defendant's co-conspirators in that conspiracy, it surely cannot be required to provide a bill of particulars as to a conspiracy charged in the indictment for that same purpose. See id. at 723. + +In sum, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should not require the Government to provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: /s/ Alison Moe / Maurene Comey / Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: All counsel of record (by ECF) + +were only two co-conspirators or identify any others, which would "meaningfully alter the nature of the charges"); United States v. Akhavan, No. 20 Cr. 188, 2020 WL 2555333, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co-conspirators who "represented several distinct organizations" over three years, "creatting] the possibility that different coconspirators may have been involved at different times," presenting a high risk of surprise). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d217f41f06ab0f8e63044fb83900f6cf28d56bb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/EFTA02832839.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 9044, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.61, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 320.076, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 320.076, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832839" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a2797f6fd779216888a0287aaa468b80475e5df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fc7d90e6bfeda232772195012c347880ea2fe1d803cd44ac2cd4e930af0b535a +size 3537 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b427e8b291f998fb951f65e65c1632ee82c0dcac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832839/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3147b141ad644708119849c1ac53c0c2ed9f2e55f6077d5c17134ae50d2166f5 +size 11673 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d6e3225dc28779561433deb3d46259d7db9ccb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 avcrdcliCicohengresscr.com + +August 19, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone vAwe.< thong( ono. Corn + +Pursuant to the Court's order, dated August 13, 2021, we respectfully submit this letter to inform the Court that Ms. Maxwell does not seek any redactions to the Court's sealed Opinion and Order, dated August 13, 2021, or the underlying motion papers. + +We note that, under the terms of the Protective Order entered in this case, defense counsel are prohibited from "filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the discovery, who have not spoken by name on the public record in this case." (Dkt. 36 1 6). The underlying motion papers reference the names of accusers and potential witnesses who have spoken on the public record in this case and others who have spoken publicly but not associated themselves directly with this case. The Court has ruled that the existence of the Protective Order, by itself, is not sufficient to justify redactions, and that any redactions must be justified under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +The defense has consistently taken the position that the names of the accusers and other witnesses who have chosen to speak to the media about their alleged experiences, including regarding the very materials sought by the subpoena, should be publicly disclosed and that it is not the defense's burden to justify redacting their names. Accordingly, the defense does not seek any redactions. If the government wishes to seek any redactions, we respectfully submit that it is their burden — not Ms. Maxwell's — to justify them under Lugosch. + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 19, 2021 Page 2 + +The exhibits to the motion also attach documents that were obtained independent of the criminal discovery. We submit that it is the government's burden to justify any redactions to these documents under Lugosch.' + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor + +New York, New York 10022 + +(212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) + +Page 20 of Exhibit I to the motion appears to contain personal email addresses of one of the accusers and another person. The defense has no objection to redacting these email addresses. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ada14bfb85d6a77ef1a7ec666091dafd89fa64a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/EFTA02832843.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2720, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832843" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05154f754b80091823347867bf21bec30227226c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832843/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:af637f64fc059996258fd421cb62e10c0cf17e0dbb0b254ed788bb93f3fd2058 +size 1564 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff94fdee52b392c6e219bf84e9e851b09e6f0b05 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## . ' • U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SibioJ. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 20, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government writes in response to defense counsel's letter of August 19, 2021 (Dkt. No. 323). The Court denied defense counsel's sealed, ex pane motion for an order authorizing four Rule I7(c)(3) subpoenas in a sealed opinion dated August 13, 2021, and the Court ordered defense counsel to inform the Court whether they seek any sealing or redactions. (Dkt. No. 318). The defense has responded that they seek no redactions, and that they believe the burden to justify any redactions is on the Government. (Dkt. No. 323). + +Because the Government does not have a copy of the sealed motion papers or the Court's Opinion and Order, the Government is unable to propose or justify any redactions. For instance, it appears that the motion papers include the names of victims and potential witnesses (id. at 1), which the Government would likely move to redact. The Government has conferred with defense counsel, who have informed the Government that they are unable to provide a copy of those documents absent further order of this Court. Accordingly, the Government moves for a limited + +August 20, 2021 + +Page 2 + +unsealing of the Court's August 13, 2021 opinion and the underlying motion papers so that the Government may review those documents and propose any redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +United States Attorney + +By: /s/ + +Alison Moe / Maurene Comey / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 + +Cc: All counsel of record (by ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3469d39a7911311113c433f4a3821aa864850afe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/EFTA02832845.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1985, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": ". ' \u2022 U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.45999908447266, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 71.60302734375 + ], + [ + 81.45999908447266, + 71.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 199.26 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 213.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 213.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832845" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ba8479d624fc59fe88608782a4a040cacdf29a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832845/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2110f9866b92eea5557d921fc901948079518ced8401f539553bbad953663f4b +size 3549 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..778226be0ab3d3c3bcaafae36e4df6822cd25f08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 8/23/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On August 19, 2021, Defendant informed the Court that she does not intend to seek any redactions to the Court's temporarily sealed Opinion and Order, dated August 13, 2021. Dkt. No. 323. + +Defense counsel is ORDERED to provide this Order and the temporarily sealed Opinion and Order to the intended recipients of the subpoenas. By August 25, 2021, defense counsel is ORDERED to confirm service of this Order and the temporarily sealed Opinion and Order. + +The Court GRANTS the Government's request for a limited unsealing of the Court's August 13 Opinion and Order and the underlying motion papers. Dkt. No. 324. The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion and Order and motion papers to the Government. By September 1, 2021, the Government and the intended recipients of the subpoenas are ORDERED to inform the Court whether they seek sealing or limited redactions of the Court's opinion, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date the Government shall inform the Court whether it seeks full sealing or redactions of the original motion papers, again justifying any such request by reference to the Lugosch test. + +This resolves Dkt. No. 324. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 23, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7db6239c8e846b63b6b07468117fc1605b6ef2eb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847/EFTA02832847.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832847.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1752, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832847" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e0b4151dcbf02da54a201b847578d8950e761b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +August 23, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 19, 2021 (Dkt. No. 321) directing the Government to confer with legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") and to file a response to the defense's letter dated August 18, 2021 (Dkt. No. 319). The Government has conferred with legal counsel at the MDC, and this letter is based on information provided to the Government during that conferral. + +As the Court is aware, over the past several months, the defendant has been provided with five hours of video-teleconference ("VTC") calls with her attorneys every weekday. MDC legal counsel has assured the Government that no MDC staff members have interfered with, recorded, or otherwise listened to the defendant's VTC meetings with counsel. + +Previously, the defendant's VTC sessions with counsel were conducted over a WebEx connection generated by defense counsel. Recently, however, the MDC determined that the use of a VTC connection generated outside of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") system posed a security threat and could more easily be accessed by third parties than a VTC connection generated by the BOP itself. In order to address that security concern, the MDC provided its own BOP-generated VTC virtual room for the defendant and her attorneys to use. + +On or about August 12, 2021, MDC IT staff assigned the defendant such a BOP-generated VTC virtual room for her to use with her attorneys. Due to an oversight by MDC IT staff, however, that same VTC virtual room had also been assigned for a different group's use at the same time as the defendant's VTC appointment. As a result of the inadvertent double-booking of the virtual room, the participants in both VTC meetings were logged into the room at the same time. + +In order to ensure that such an issue does not occur again, MDC and BOP staff spent several days working to set up a unique VTC virtual room for the defendant's exclusive use on the BOP's system. That process was completed last week, and the defendant's VTC meetings with counsel resumed on or about August 20, 2021 using a unique VTC virtual room. MDC staff assess that this VTC virtual room on the BOP's system is more secure than a WebEx link generated by defense counsel and will be exclusively for the defendant's use, such that no other meeting will overlap with the defendant within the virtual room. Now that this unique VTC virtual room is ready for use, the defendant's regularly scheduled VTCs with counsel have resumed for five hours every weekday. Even during the temporary unavailability of VTCs, however, the defendant still had regular access to counsel both over the phone and through in-person meetings at the MDC, during which the defendant and counsel may review documents together. As noted in MDC legal counsel's August 14, 2021 email to defense counsel, (see Dkt. No. 319 at 2), such phone calls and in-person visits with counsel are available every weekday.' + +During VTCs with her attorneys, the defendant is currently permitted to bring any legal + +The defense letter references certain discovery materials that the defendant has recently had difficulty accessing. Defense counsel has not informed the Government which discovery materials are the source of this issue, but the Government remains available to address any specific issues the defendant may have reviewing her discovery should the defense wish to seek assistance from the undersigned. Otherwise, the Government understands that the defendant has worked with her attorneys and MDC IT staff to address technical issues with discovery materials as needed. + +materials she can carry into the VTC room. Previously, the defendant was permitted to bring a cart full of legal materials into the VTC room for meetings with defense counsel; however, the defendant used that cart to barricade the door to the VTC room, thereby preventing MDC staff from being able to access the room. Because of the security threat posed by the use of the cart to barricade the door to the VTC room, the defendant is no longer permitted to bring the cart into the room. Instead, the defendant may bring whatever materials she can carry into the room, and if she needs other materials during a particular meeting with counsel, she may leave the VTC room, retrieve those materials by hand, and then return to her meeting with counsel. With respect to inperson meetings, as noted in MDC legal counsel's August 14, 2021 email to defense counsel (see Dkt. No. 319 at 2), MDC staff have been instructed that the defendant and defense counsel should be allowed to pass documents to each other and review materials together during in-person visits. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will promptly provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: + +Maurene Comey / Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d31e55c22b378599a6d83fb4add9fb838fdfc5c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/EFTA02832849.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5506, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832849" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db12999284b3a4d7061522524fc081f7326d60e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832849/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f278a290853b62e6a60f39c71648f666338f637696370bfe369dff75418ba41f +size 3452 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c84f8e16a26d06db28ae23fd7069bafe2480a40 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +August 24, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The government cannot resist the opportunity to gratuitously cast Ghislaine Maxwell in a negative light while it defends the Metropolitan Detention Center at all costs, regardless of the facts. [Dkt. 326]. The government accuses Ms. Maxwell of using a cart to barricade the door to the VTC room. The cart was never used to barricade. The government has chosen to make this an issue - when it never was - to justify the restriction placed on the amount of legal materials Ms. Maxwell can bring into the VTC room on any given day. + +The government mischaracterizes facts to which it does not have first-hand knowledge. Ms. Maxwell continues to use the cart daily to bring legal material into the VTC room and to remove those documents at the end of the VTC session. Most of her legal papers are kept in a separate room. She is only allowed to bring a certain portion of documents to any given VTC session and is not allowed to leave the VTC room to collect additional documents that may be needed for review and discussion with counsel. The amount of legal material Ms. Maxwell can access depends upon rules that fluctuate with each team rotated into the MDC every two weeks to guard her. + +This limitation impacts the productivity of VTC and in-person legal conferences and compromises Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b2a9103eba33a8394395770be2715e208dac821 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852/EFTA02832852.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832852.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1723, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832852" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9fcd117cfeeb07b65eb67570e249a435cd40026 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Evcrdell +1 (212) 957.76(X) ccvcrdcll@,,onhengrcsscr.com + +August 25, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wywd.cchingresstr.com + +Pursuant to the Court's Order, dated August 23, 2021 (Dkt. 325), we write to advise the Court that defense counsel provided copies of the Court's August 23nd Order and its August 13th temporarily sealed Opinion and Order to the intended recipients of the subpoenas or their counsel via email on August 24, 2021 and August 25, 2021. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& MESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c7a22e8e7fa1a1bbdbea06fcdaaa5c7ac7e2b23 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/EFTA02832853.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 949, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.97, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832853" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..900f789c1386fb7272187d9b748f2db08c2145b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832853/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:20bda6d4b058d36375eb115c1eb38ff0ccdafed2bd5115463a72807c0e95b1a4 +size 1601 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34af89b3da9110f0bd69817c3b4356c6ff6a12fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 8/25/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant submitted a letter on August 18 informing the Court about disruptions of attorney-client video teleconferences. Dkt. No. 319. After conferring with MDC Legal, the Government responded on August 23. Dkt. No. 326. According to the Government and MDC Legal, the Defendant's difficulties in communicating with her counsel via video teleconference have been resolved, and the Government's letter sufficiently addresses her other requests. The Court finds MDC Legal's assurance that Defendant's communications have not been interfered with, recorded, or listened to sufficient. No further application for relief was made in Defendant's August 24 reply. Dkt. No. 327. The Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell is fully able to communicate with her defense counsel and to prepare for trial. If Defendant experiences further issues in communicating with her counsel, she should promptly notify the Court after conferring in good faith with the Government and MDC Legal. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 25, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dca74092a1c7d95c65473a2a7e151e94250a014 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854/EFTA02832854.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832854.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1473, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832854" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..492f63949dd88c00726ecae37ed85febf06f182e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 8/27/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On May 11, 2021, the Court informed the parties that it set a tentative trial date for November 29, 2021. The Court accordingly requested a jury trial for that date pursuant to the COVID rules for centralized jury trial scheduling in the district. The Clerk's Office has now confirmed that a jury trial in this case has been scheduled to commence on November 29, 2021. This is a firm trial date. When the information is available, the Court will provide courtroom location and public access information by separate order. + +Due to space limitations resulting from the SDNY COVID protocols, the Clerk's Office has also provided the following dates for administering a juror questionnaire and conducting voir dire: November 4, 5, and 12 (questionnaire), and November 16-19 (voir dire). The Court intends to use a streamlined questionnaire as much as feasible given all relevant circumstances. The parties shall bear this in mind when they discuss and jointly propose a questionnaire and voir dire on the schedule outlined below. + +In light of the firm dates discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties appear for a telephone conference to discuss jury selection matters on October 21, 2021 at 12:00 P.M. Dial-in information for the parties and for public access will be provided when it is available by separate order. + +In light of the jury selection dates provided by the Clerk's Office, the Court amends the schedule that it set on June 2, 2021 as follows. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire by **October 11, 2021**. The parties shall file a joint proposed charge and verdict sheet, with any differing proposals supported by authority or other justification, by **October 27, 2021**. Any motions in limine must be simultaneously filed by **October 18, 2021**, and any responses to motions in limine are due by **October 25, 2021**. Otherwise, the parties shall continue to follow the schedule that the Court set on June 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 297. + +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties appear for an in-person pretrial conference on **November 1, 2021 at 11:00 A.M.** Location information and public access information will be provided by separate order when available. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 27, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29b7cbf4e5e16fab0453ea84fab98a665dbd448b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855/EFTA02832855.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832855.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2767, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832855" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63b450ed5e4d39919c0a01a4c87c7e5397a5f05d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON N N + +August 30, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and MI P.c Jeffrey Paglluca + +150 East lOth Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com jpagluco4hmflaw.com + +Re: Response to Government Letter dated August 18, 2021, Dkt. 320, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +I write in response to the government's letter dated August 18, 2021, Dkt. 320, which raises two issues.' + +## Identifies of Co-Conspirators + +The government first attempts to walk back its multiple concessions regarding disclosure of the identities of the unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment. + +As this Court noted, Ms. Maxwell has on at least two occasions requested such disclosure. Dkt. 317 at 12 n.1 (citing Dkt. 291 and Dkt. 293). Only after this Court ordered disclosure of the identities of the unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment did the government finally object. The government's objection comes too late. + +As directed by the Court, on August 24 the parties conferred about the government's letter, but they were unable to reach an agreement on the government's requests for reconsideration. + +August 30, 2021 + +Page 2 + +The government's objection is, in substance, a motion to reconsider. "There is 'no specific rule, either in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or in this district's local criminal rules that provide for reconsideration of a ruling in a criminal matter."' United States v. Okparaeke, No. 17-CR-225 (NSR), 2019 WL 4233427, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2019) (quoting United States v. Cartagena, No. 10 Cr. 222-2, 2012 WL 2958175, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2012)). Even so, courts have discretion to reconsider prior rulings in criminal cases when the moving party can point to "controlling law or factual matters which it believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision." United States v. Berger, 188 F. Supp. 2d 307, 328-39 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). + +But "[t]he standard for granting a motion for reconsideration 'is strict.' v. United States, No. 12-CR-758/15-cv-6287 (MN), 2017 WL 3448014, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017) (quoting Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012)). That's because "[r]econsideration of a court's previous order is an 'extraordinary remedy to be employed in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.' Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). + +The government cannot show extraordinary circumstances here. The government twice had notice of Ms. Maxwell's request for disclosure, and the government twice chose not to object. The government cannot use a motion to reconsider to save itself from the consequences of its deliberate decisions. "[A] losing party" is not permitted to "examin[e] a decision and then plug[] in the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters." Berger, 188 F. Supp. 2d at 339. Because that is exactly what the government is attempting to do, this Court should deny the government's request. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the disclosure this Court ordered. + +August 30, 2021 + +Page 3 + +## Co-Conspirator Statements + +The government's letter raises a second issue—disclosure of the purported co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial. The government says that, at least as of August 18, it intends to seek admission of co-conspirator statements from only two individuals: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein's referenced in paragraph 25(d) of the S2 Indictment. Dkt. 320 at 2. But the government also hedges, allowing for the possibility that it might identify "statements for use at trial from additional co-conspirators." Id. + +Both in its August 18 letter and during an August 24 conferral call, the government took the position that it has no obligation to identify the specific statements it intends to offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The government told defense counsel that Ms. Maxwell could glean what statements might be offered from the government's witness list and exhibit list, once those lists are disclosed on October 11. + +This Court has already resolved this matter, and the government's position is another improper attempt to obtain reconsideration. + +After conferral, the parties spelled out their positions with respect to the disclosure of coconspirator statements and the identities of co-conspirators. Dkt. 291 at 5, 8-9. On June 2, this Court ordered the government to disclose "co-conspirator statements" no later than October 11. Dkt. 297 at 1. In the same order, the Court additionally ordered the government to disclose its witness list and proposed exhibit list, also by October 11. Id. The Court then ordered the parties to file their motions in limine by October 18 and responses by November 1.2 + +2 The in limine response date since has been advanced to October 25, 2021. Dkt. 330. + +August 30, 2021 + +Page 4 + +If disclosure of the witness and exhibit lists were by themselves sufficient to give Ms. Maxwell notice of the specific co-conspirator statements the government intends to admit at trial, this Court would not have separately ordered the government to disclose "co-conspirator statements." Id. But that's not what the Court did. + +There are very good reasons for this. This Court serves as a gatekeeper to the admission of alleged co-conspirator statements. The Supreme Court's decision in Bourjaily v. United States requires the Court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether statements of a coconspirator are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). 483 U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987). In making this determination, the Court must find that a conspiracy existed, that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and that the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 175. + +If the government does not disclose what co-conspirator statements it intends to offer, as this Court already ordered the government to do by October 11, then Ms. Maxwell will be unable to file a motion in limine by October 18 challenging the admissibility of the co-conspirator statements and thereby put the government to its burden of proof and ensure this Court is able to discharge its gatekeeping function. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 175-76. Although the government may not wish to give Ms. Maxwell the required notice, this Court has already entered its order. + +The government's letter offers no reason, much less a compelling reason, for this Court to reconsider its order. The government has not even attempted to identify "controlling law or factual matters which it believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision." Berger, 188 F. Supp. 2d at 328-39. And that's because the Court didn't overlook anything. The parties briefed this issue in their joint letter regarding pretrial + +August 30, 2021 + +Page 5 + +scheduling deadlines, this Court considered the parties' positions, and it made a decision. Dkt. + +297 at 1. The government has offered nothing to justify reconsideration. + +## Conclusion + +Ms. Maxwell asks this Court to confirm what it already ordered: (1) that the government disclose the identities of the unnamed co-conspirators charged in the S2 indictment at the same time it discloses Jenks Act material; and (2) that, no later than October 11, the government disclose the specific co-conspirator statements it intends to admit at trial. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a180b0bd776da6a747b07af12799d04baf7f24c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/EFTA02832857.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7787, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.06, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identifies of Co-Conspirators", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 261.4903869628906, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 261.4903869628906, + 457.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 457.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Co-Conspirator Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 252.4549102783203, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 252.4549102783203, + 105.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 105.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 168.28225708007812, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 168.28225708007812, + 160.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 160.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832857" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d82a5cd8c240c5bd8f5e73ee583e3db980b5bd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832857/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9b92147c4938ae49cf81512346198a657fdb68ec0c2f33be7ccd7043adf59dda +size 2918 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b06fdc386f00c07d6b884d78195ab8e2193867fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +75e SilvioJ. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +September 1, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated August 23, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the Court's temporarily sealed August 13, 20201 Opinion and Order and the underlying motion papers. (Dkt. No. 325). After reviewing the Court's August 13 Opinion and Order, the Government agrees with the defense that no redactions are necessary to that document and accordingly has no objection to the public filing of that document in its entirety. + +After reviewing the underlying motion papers, the Government respectfully submits that portions of those papers should be redacted. With respect to Ms. Maxwell's Second Ex Pane and In Camera Motion for an Order Authorizing a Subpoena Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(cX3) (the "Motion"), the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the Motion. With respect to Exhibit 1 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that the journal entries and photographs contained in Exhibits A, B, and C to Exhibit 1 should be redacted in their entirety to protect the privacy + +interests of the victims who provided those materials to their attorneys, the victims who are depicted in those photographs, the third parties who are referenced in the journal entries, and the third parties who are depicted in those photographs. The Government does not seek any redactions of Exhibit 2 to the Motion. With respect to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and of third parties referenced in the Motion. + +Simultaneously with the filing of this letter, the Government is submitting to the Court under seal its proposed redactions to the Motion, Exhibit I, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Motion and Exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims—including two victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case—and third parties referenced in the documents. The Court has accepted other filings under seal or in redacted form in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232, 284, 290). The Government notes that it does not seek to redact the names and identifying information of individuals who have previously been mentioned by name without redaction in public filings in this case. Rather, the Government only seeks to redact the names and identifying information of victims and third parties who have not previously been referenced in public filings in this case. Similarly, the Government seeks to redact photographs and documents that have not previously been filed publicly in this case and which constitute the personal property of victims and third + +parties. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court direct the defense to file the Motion and Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 thereto with the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85fdc359a557d6daacde9e2ab34aa881abad0f80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/EFTA02832862.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4264, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832862" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88955aedee26cb1dff4454f48ad358f00a9e6c8a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832862/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fd16a0a912d760e2535972ff50d81cfeac49693c77932ee2ef15841a63aff3b1 +size 3521 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14c6211d6eebf616014f77f801370a055c525abb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC I: DATE FILED: 9/3/21 + +BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +September 1, 2021 + +The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds that they are narrowly tailored and necessary to protect the privacy and identities of third parties not identified on the record in this case. The intended recipients of the subpoenas did not file proposed redactions by September 1, 2021, per this Court's August 23 Order. Dkt. No. 325. The Court accordingly ORDERS Defendant to file the redacted Motion and Exhibits 1, 3, and 4, and unredacted Exhibit 2, by September 7, 2021. The Court hereby unseals the August 13 Opinion, and the Court will file the Opinion on the public docket. SO ORDERED. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) cAL L' 9/2/21 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated August 23, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the Court's temporarily sealed August 13, 20201 Opinion and Order and the underlying motion papers. (Dkt. No. 325). After reviewing the Court's August 13 Opinion and Order, the Government agrees with the defense that no redactions are necessary to that document and accordingly has no objection to the public filing of that document in its entirety. + +After reviewing the underlying motion papers, the Government respectfully submits that portions of those papers should be redacted. With respect to Ms. Maxwell's Second Ex Pane and In Camera Motion for an Order Authorizing a Subpoena Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(cX3) (the "Motion"), the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the Motion. With respect to Exhibit 1 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that the journal entries and photographs contained in Exhibits A, B, and C to Exhibit 1 should be redacted in their entirety to protect the privacy + +interests of the victims who provided those materials to their attorneys, the victims who are depicted in those photographs, the third parties who are referenced in the journal entries, and the third parties who are depicted in those photographs. The Government does not seek any redactions of Exhibit 2 to the Motion. With respect to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and of third parties referenced in the Motion. + +Simultaneously with the filing of this letter, the Government is submitting to the Court under seal its proposed redactions to the Motion, Exhibit I, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Motion and Exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims—including two victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case—and third parties referenced in the documents. The Court has accepted other filings under seal or in redacted form in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232, 284, 290). The Government notes that it does not seek to redact the names and identifying information of individuals who have previously been mentioned by name without redaction in public filings in this case. Rather, the Government only seeks to redact the names and identifying information of victims and third parties who have not previously been referenced in public filings in this case. Similarly, the Government seeks to redact photographs and documents that have not previously been filed publicly in this case and which constitute the personal property of victims and third + +parties. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court direct the defense to file the Motion and Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 thereto with the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89ad0d0d6eb43a89309eb33da33f13240550f74f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/EFTA02832865.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4945, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.18, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832865" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3be1eb62c648f01a2cd508c7932e2a309a06e09 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832865/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9e5967ff82086b0066deb38dedf7f06f4ec84d412d74546a0848e19f5cd8fb90 +size 3415 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbd7877d31c03e5537f2ba23c8d2608aef37bfdb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks an order authorizing four subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, she seeks authorization to serve subpoenas on four individuals. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion without prejudice. + +#### I. Legal Standard + +Rule 17(c) permits subpoenas ordering the production of "books, papers, documents, data, or other objects." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)( I). When the subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential information about a victim, it may be served on a third party only by court order. Fed. R. Crim. P. I7(c)(3). + +The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698- 99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional means of discovery or to serve as a general "fishing expedition." Id. at 698-700. As a result, courts must be mindful not to allow the Rule 17(c) process to become a "broad discovery device" that would undermine the discovery procedures set forth in Rule 16. United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, if + +an item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04-CR-I 86 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008). + +To determine whether issuance of the subpoena is appropriate, the Court considers the factors articulated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. In Nixon, the Supreme Court explained that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general 'fishing expedition.'" Id. at 698-700. To clear that hurdle, the Court considers (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity. Id. at 700. + +# H. Discussion + +On April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021, the Court denied Maxwell's request for an order authorizing issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Boies, Schiller, Flexner LLP. See Dkt. Nos. 252, 298. In doing so, the Court noted that the requests contained in that proposed subpoena all failed the Nixon test. The proposed subpoenas to these four individuals seek similar materials, and the subpoenas fail for similar reasons. + +### A. Subpoena Recipient-1 + +The Court begins with the proposed subpoenas to Subpoena Recipient-I. The proposed subpoena to her makes five requests which overlap entirely with requests contained in the proposed subpoena to BSF. Specifically, Maxwell requests (1) any contingent fee and engagement agreements between Subpoena Recipient-land any attorneys; (2) Subpoena + +Recipient-1's original journal for inspection and copying; (3) a pair of black boots that Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly gave to Subpoena Recipient-I; (4) production of the original copies of certain photographs of Subpoena Recipient-I; and (5) materials related to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. As the Court previously noted, all of these requests fail the Nixon test. + +The request for any contingent or engagement agreements fails because Maxwell has not made the required showing that such records would be relevant or admissible. The only plausible theory of relevance set forth in Maxwell's papers is that these documents are necessary for purposes of impeachment. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 4-5. The need to impeach witnesses generally "is insufficient to require [materials'] production in advance of trial." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. As a result, many courts have held that mere impeachment material does not become relevant until after the witness testifies. United States v. Skelos, No. I5-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018)), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases). Here, there is no other plausible theory of relevance to these materials—and Maxwell does not advance any explanation, other than impeachment, as to why these materials might be relevant under the Nixon test. Lacking any relevance or admissibility, the request is improper for purposes of Rule 17(c). In any event, there is little risk that review of these materials, if they become relevant and admissible, will lead to a delay at trial, given their limited volume. United States v. Seabrook, No. 16-CR-467 (ALC), 2017 WL 4838311, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017). If the materials become relevant at trial, Maxwell will be able to procure them at that time. + +Maxwell's request for production of Subpoena Recipient-1's journal also fails the Nixon test. As the Court noted in its June 2, 2021 opinion, the original and complete journal is not the proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. As already noted, mere impeachment purposes do not + +warrant the issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. See Dkt. No. 298, June 2,2021 Order, at 1-2. Maxwell's other theories of relevance similarly fail; as the Court previously observed, there is no merit to Maxwell's contention that the contents of the journal, other than the pages to which she already has access, are exculpatory. See id. And more generally, the request for production of the entire original journal is speculative and overbroad, amounting to little more than a "fishing expedition," which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-70. + +The request for the original pair of black boots is moot. See Dkt. No. 298, June 2,2021 Order, at 4-5. The Government has indicated that it has requested that BSF produce the boots to the FBI and that, when the boots are in the FBI's possession, the Government will promptly make them available to the defense for examination and use at trial. Rule 17(c) is not the proper mechanism for discovery from third parties where the sought-after item is "otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700. That is the case here: The Government has represented that the defense will be able to inspect the boots before trial. See Dkt. No. 298, June 2,2021 Order, at 4-5. + +The request for original copies of certain photographs similarly fails. As the Court previously noted, the defense has access to photocopies of those photographs; the request is therefore for the originals. The Government has indicated that a subset of those photographs are in the FBI's possession and that it will make them available to the defense for inspection; the request is moot as to those photographs. See Dkt. No. 298, June 2,2021 Order, at 4-5. And as to the remaining photographs, the request is again denied on the basis that the defense has failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. The only discernible theory of relevance as to the original versions of these photographs is impeachment. Once again, it is + +improper to issue a Rule 17(c) subpoena where the sole relevance of the requested materials is impeachment. There is no plausible claim that inspection of the original photographs is warranted, and to the extent that Maxwell seeks the photographs in order to disprove their authenticity (and challenge any potential testimony that might be advanced at trial), the request is entirely speculative. Even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs. + +Finally, the request for materials related to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund is denied for substantially the same reasons the Court articulated in its April 27, 2021 Opinion. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 6-8. Here, too, Maxwell has failed to establish the materials' relevance. The briefing makes clear that Maxwell seeks these documents for mere impeachment purposes, which again does not warrant issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. Furthermore, to the extent that Maxwell hinges her theory of relevance on the possibility that these documents may contain some exculpatory evidence, the request is entirely speculative. The "mere hope" that documents might produce some degree of exculpatory evidence is also insufficient. See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR-579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell has proffered no plausible basis why these materials might be exculpatory beyond her theory that they will help her undermine the potential witness's credibility. + +In sum, for the reasons stated by the Court in its April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021 orders, the request for authorization of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-1 is DENIED. + +### B. Subpoena Recipient-2 + +The proposed subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-2 contains four requests. The first seeks any contingent fee and engagement agreements between Subpoena Recipient-2 and any attorneys; the second seeks an envelope that allegedly has Epstein's and Maxwell's "touch DNA"; the third seeks certain physical evidence, including photographs, old diaries, and telephone books; and the fourth seeks EVCP materials. The first and fourth requests fail for the same reasons as discussed above; their only plausible theory of relevance is impeachment, which places them outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c). + +The second and third requests are plainly sought for impeachment purposes. Indeed, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks production of the envelope in order to "disprove" claims that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial if called to testify. Beyond a conclusory assertion regarding Subpoena Recipient-2, however, Maxwell does not make any effort to identify which claims she seeks to disprove. Nor does she explain why the envelope, or any information derived from its inspection, is relevant to the criminal charges she is facing. At most, that is, she seeks the envelope in order to impeach any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might have if called to testify. The request is speculative and clearly beyond the proper scope of Rule 17(c). + +The third request, for vast amounts of physical evidence that Subpoena Recipient-2 showed or produced to Subpoena Recipient-3, fails for two reasons. The first is relevance; as above, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks to examine the evidence in order to prepare to rebut any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial (or any evidence introduced through Subpoena Recipient-2). Here, too, the request seeks to impeach Subpoena Recipient-2's potential testimony. That is insufficient. Other than that, Maxwell makes no effort to justify the relevance of that evidence; she does not claim, for instance, that that evidence is exculpatory or that the evidence is otherwise relevant to her defense. Furthermore, Maxwell does not attempt to justify the relevance of all of the requested materials. The very nature of the request evinces that it seeks considerable amounts of physical evidence, and the only thing tying the evidence together is that Subpoena Recipient-2 may have shown that evidence to certain attorneys at some point. To prevail under Nixon, however, a movant must show why all of the requested evidence is relevant. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). That is not the case here. + +The request thus fails because Maxwell has not established the relevance of all of these materials. The most she can muster is that some of it may be relevant for impeachment purposes, if Subpoena Recipient-2 is called to testify. On that basis alone, the request fails. In addition, the third request separately fails because it amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700. + +As a result, the request for authorization of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-2 is DENIED. + +# C. Subpoena Recipient-3 and Subpoena Recipient-4 + +The final two requests for authorization of Rule 17(c) subpoenas—one relating to Subpoena Recipient-3, the other to Subpoena Recipient-4—are the same. The first five requests in both of these proposed subpoenas concern communications regarding meetings with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. These requests parallel those that Maxwell made in the proposed subpoena to BSF. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27,2021 Op., at 3-4. As set forth in the subpoenas, the term "communications" encompasses "all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written + +communication of information of any kind." As a general matter, the use of the terms "all" and "any" "do not evince specificity." United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). And while the requested subpoenas are limited to the period between 2015 and 2021, the timeframe is still overly broad. Here, too, the requests are precisely the kind of "fishing expedition" that the specificity requirement is designed to prevent. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 3-4; Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 221. Indeed, the requests are akin to discovery requests in civil litigation. See United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) 19-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698; United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). On the specificity prong alone, Requests 1 through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard. They also fail because there is no plausible theory of relevance to these requests, and the briefing papers advance no discernible explanation for why these documents may be relevant at trial. The papers suggest that part of the impetus for the requests relate to impeachment, but that is insufficient to warrant issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. + +Requests 6 and 7 seek "any" notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications between Subpoena Recipient-3 and Subpoena Recipient-4 and certain victims or their counsel. These requests are plainly a "fishing expedition," and they fail on that basis. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698. In any event, and more generally, the requests do not satisfy Nixon's relevance requirement. Once again, the requests are sought for mere impeachment purposes, and to the extent that the materials may become relevant, they would only do so after the witness(es) are called to testify. A pre-trial Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper mechanism for procuring such impeachment materials. Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2. Maxwell presents + +no other theory of relevance (including that the materials are exculpatory or otherwise relate to the criminal charges at issue), and on this independent basis, the requests fail. + +Request 8 seeks "all" photographs, diaries, journals, or other documentary evidence obtained from "any" person who has accused Maxwell. The request, another fishing expedition, is plainly unjustified under the Nixon test. The first problem relates to specificity. As above, the words "all" and "any" do not "evince specificity." United States v. Tagliaferro, No. I 9-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). Here, Maxwell does not attempt to narrow the request and instead seeks all materials obtained from any person who has accused Maxwell—at any point, without any limitations. Nixon requires greater specificity. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-70. In addition, the requests fail because Maxwell has not established the relevance of all of those materials. Under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (MN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). Clearly, the request seeks materials related to people who are not referenced in the Indictment. Maxwell has not made any kind of showing why those materials are relevant to the criminal charges she faces in this case. Thus, the request is improper. + +Request 9 seeks the same evidence as the third request in the proposed subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-2. For the reasons discussed above, that request fails. + +Finally, Request 10 seeks EVCP materials. As discussed above, the only plausible theory of relevance for those materials is impeachment, and as such Maxwell has not established the relevance of those materials for purposes of the Nixon analysis. + +In sum, none of the requests contained in these two subpoenas satisfy the Nixon factors. As a result, the requests are DENIED in full. + +**III. Conclusion** + +For the reasons set forth above, Maxwell's motion is, at this time, DENIED without prejudice. She may renew any Rule 17(c) applications upon a proper showing that each of the requested materials satisfies the *Nixon* test, as described above and in the Court's April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021 Orders. The Court will file this Opinion & Order under temporary seal to allow consideration of any sealing or redaction requests. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: August 13, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..935a873f738c41e2bcd149cd4d7e2d94bdd83f2b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/EFTA02832868.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,556 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 17823, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.21, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 208.2135467529297, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 208.2135467529297, + 414.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 414.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Subpoena Recipient-1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 240.08514404296875, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 240.08514404296875, + 583.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 583.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Subpoena Recipient-2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 240.50340270996094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 240.50340270996094, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Subpoena Recipient-3 and Subpoena Recipient-4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 375.9278869628906, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 375.9278869628906, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832868" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d19f1ea28affab3c500822701505f8659d744182 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832868/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:82540832fb873790e7a4419bcb090aeae85e078564262a51b9103725de29ea7a +size 11430 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c76f4a79d84792159d1e93344352c82419b15651 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Defendant seeks the Government's "disclosure of the identities of the unnamed coconspirators alleged in the S2 indictment." Dkt. No. 331 at I. In its August 13 Opinion & Order, this Court noted that the Government had not objected to Defendant's two prior requests that the Government identify the unnamed co-conspirators. Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1; see also Dkt. No. 331 at I. On August 18, 2021, the Government filed a letter stating that it "objects to any requirement that it provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise ... absent further order of the Court." Dkt. No. 320 at 1. The Court concludes that the Government's objection comes too late as the Government had multiple opportunities to raise its objection before this Court issued its opinion. For this and the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act materials, the Government must also disclose to the Defendant the identities of all unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment to whom it will refer at trial. See United Stales v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). + +Even if the Court were to find that the Government had not waived its objection, it would find unpersuasive the Government's justifications for withholding this information. "In considering whether to grant a request for identification of unnamed co-conspirators, `the Court + +must balance the risk of surprise to the defendant, which is enhanced if `there are a large number of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy' with legitimate law enforcement concerns, such as the potential danger to co-conspirators and the risk of compromising continuing investigations."' United States v. Akhavan, No. S3 20-CR-188(JSR), 2020 WL 2555333, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (quoting United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp. 3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). + +The conspiracies charged are long-running, increasing the risk of surprise to the Defendant. See Akhavan, 2020 WL 2555333, at \*2. Count Three charges Maxwell with a conspiracy running from 1994 to 2004 and Count Five charges a conspiracy running from 2001 to 2004. Dkt. No. 187 11 17, 23. And as the Court has previously found, Maxwell is likely able to determine the names of the alleged victims described in the Indictment due to the Government's extensive discovery, see Dkt. No. 207 at 20; however, this logic does not necessarily extend to the identities of alleged co-conspirators. See Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 241. + +The Government argues that there is no risk of surprise because "it currently intends" to introduce the alleged co-conspirator statements of only two individuals. Dkt. No. 320 at 2. At the same time, however, the Government proffers that it "may change its view as it prepares for trial." Dkt. No. 320 at 2. The Court thus finds the Government's reassurance hollow and insufficient to ensure that the Defendant may adequately prepare her defenses. See Pinto-352 F. Supp. 3d at 301-02. + +Moreover, the Government has not alleged that disclosure here would create "potential danger to co-conspirators" or risk "compromising continuing investigations." See Akhavan, 2020 WL 2555333, at \*2. It merely argues that disclosing the identities risks "harm to the + +Government from restricting its proof at trial." Dkt. No. 320 at 3. The Government provides no explanation for this purported harm and none is apparent to the Court. Thus, the Court finds that this concern alone does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay. In light of the interests discussed above and consistent with other courts that have required disclosure of co-conspirator identities to the defense, the Court will require the Government to disclose the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment whom the Government intends to refer to at trial. + +Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act material, the Government shall also disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the Government will refer at trial. The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: September 3, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfb4e0ec2f7a36b793c1a39885111a019629131e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/EFTA02832878.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4906, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832878" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a80c8cda15802e92ca0ff6962a62edc5180293d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832878/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8fb46d228ad43c346b539a43af809c04b280ee6392dced57886208673f1edc66 +size 11016 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed3447fecd8d41436e3eb9169c22cd08dd4e2d55 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.md @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ +# EXHIBIT 1 + +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the Southern District of New York + +To: Go Boies Schiller & Flexner. LLP + +United States of America Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant Haddon, & P.C. 150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 (SEAL) + +Case No 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE + +(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) + +YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers, documents, data, or other objects: + +See Attachment A + +Place: Jeffrey S.Ilica + +Date and Time: 04/01/2021 1:00 pm + +Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(cX2), relating to your ability to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. + +Date: + +CLERK OF COURT + +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ghislaine Maxwell , who requests this subpoena, are: + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, P.C., 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colorado 30203, 303.831.7364, jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +#### Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena + +Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to 1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the sub na. either on notice or ex parte; 2) specify where the documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3) require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. + +Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order. + +Case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### PROOF OF SERVICE + +This subpoena for (name of mini:dual and tide, al any) was received by me on (date) + +O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: + +on (date) + +O I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: + +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents. I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law. in the amount of + +My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00 + +Date: Server's signature + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. + +Printed name and title + +Additional information regarding attempted service. etc.: + +Server's address + +#### Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08) + +#### (c) Producing Documents and Objects. + +(I) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they arc to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. + +(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly. the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. + +(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or infonnation is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object. + +(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least IS years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's witness-attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the subpoena. + +#### (e) Place of Service. + +(I) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. + +(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the subpoena's service. + +(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who. without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). + +- ATTACHMENT A DEFINITIONS +- I. "You" or "Your" means +- 2. "Journal" means the spiral notebook depicted in Exhibit A to this Attachment A. +- 3. "Black Boots" means the footwear depicted in Exhibit B to this Attachment A. +- 4. "Photographs" means the original developed film photographs, any negatives reflecting these photographs, and any digital images of those photographs, all produced in the Annie Farmer + - v. Darren Indyke, et. al., Case No. 19-cv-10475-LGS (S.D.N.Y) depicted in Exhibit C to this Attachment A as AFARMER 10470, 11339, 11688-11694, 12106-12107, 537-558. +- 5. "Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement" means any writing describing the terms that You agreed to receive legal services as required by New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1215. +- 6. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, any releases signed by You and/or the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program, and any compensation received by You. The EVCP is described in Exhibit D to this Attachment A. INSTRUCTIONS +- I. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made no later than April I, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Except for the originals of the "Journal", "Black Boots" and "Photographs," you may provide the records electronically by that date and time to Jeffrey S. Pagliuca or by such other method as agreed upon with counsel for the subpoenaing party. +- 2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. +- 3. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition. +- 4. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. +- 5. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. +- 6. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in the ordinary course of business. +- 7. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business. + +- 8. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. +- 9. Unless otherwise specified, the time frame of this request is from 1994 to present. +- 10. This Request is deemed to be continuing. lf, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Defendant. + +### DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED + +- I. Any Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement between You and any attorney related to or concerning Your allegations against Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. +- 2. The original, complete Journal for inspection and copying. +- 3. The Black Boots for inspection. +- 4. The Photographs for inspection and copying. +- 5. "EVCP Material" for inspection and copying. + +# EXHIBIT A + +![](_page_7_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg) + +![](_page_9_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_12_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg) + +# EXHIBIT B + +![](_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg) + +# EXHIBIT C + +![](_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg) + +From: Jong, Irene +To: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:04 AM +To: Amelie Farner +Subject: Re-Photos + +Thank you Artery + +OH Officek, Jocks + +Irene Amelie Farner +Sent Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:04 AM +To: Jong, Irene +Subject: Photos + +![](_page_19_Picture_20.jpeg) + +![](_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_21_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_24_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_25_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_27_Picture_1.jpeg) + +# EXHIBIT 42 (Filed Under Seal) + +![](_page_29_Picture_6.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007162 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000538 + +![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![]()![](_page_31_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007164 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000540 + +![](_page_32_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007165 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000541 + +![](_page_33_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007166 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000542 + +![](_page_34_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007167 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000543 + +![](_page_35_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007168 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000544 + +![](_page_36_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007169 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000545 + +![](_page_37_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007170 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000546 + +![](_page_38_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007171 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000547 + +![](_page_39_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007172 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000548 + +![](_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007173 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000549 + +![](_page_41_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007174 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000550 +EFTA02832922 + +![](_page_42_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007175 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000551 + +![](_page_43_Picture_5.jpeg) + +![]()AFARMER00000000000000 +EFTA02832924 + +![](_page_44_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007177 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000553 + +![](_page_45_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007178 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000554 + +![](_page_46_Picture_6.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007179 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000555 +EFTA02832927 + +![](_page_47_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007180 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000556 + +![](_page_48_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007181 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000557 + +![](_page_49_Picture_5.jpeg) + +GIUFFRE007182 +CONFIDENTIAL + +AFARMER00000558 + +# EXHIBIT D + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). Thls Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All Individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. , a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-b -case basis, in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or her representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimant? submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +#### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +#### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or asigned statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that alicensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +## III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Proces + +Individuals who have filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed alawsuit need not agree to astay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of acompensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, asummary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. if the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Attn: Jordana H. Administrator 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW #65488 Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +## B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +# 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The + +Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +### 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including /is pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +### 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrators determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +#### C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.' By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- 1) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent + +&#x27;All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +## E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7e45a07e9b6a2ee4248e073b617270d937f94bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/EFTA02832881.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2798 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 60, + "chars": 34964, + "elapsed_seconds": 16.23, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_7_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg", + "_page_9_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_12_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_19_Picture_20.jpeg", + "_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_24_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_27_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_29_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_31_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_32_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_33_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_34_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_35_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_36_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_37_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_38_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_39_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_41_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_42_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_43_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_44_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_45_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_46_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_47_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_48_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_49_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 421.4234313964844, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 421.4234313964844, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 78.29827880859375 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 78.29827880859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR \nOBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 468.6097412109375, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 468.6097412109375, + 211.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 211.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 608.8305816650391 + ], + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 608.8305816650391 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3355712890625, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3355712890625, + 97.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 97.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.05950927734375, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.05950927734375, + 82.45367431640625 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 82.45367431640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Producing Documents and Objects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 102.8624267578125 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 102.8624267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Place of Service.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 304.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 304.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 456.53631591796875, + 203.31 + ], + [ + 456.53631591796875, + 218.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 218.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 387.7445068359375, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 387.7445068359375, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 386.343017578125, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 386.343017578125, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 42 \n(Filed Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 464.236572265625, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 464.236572265625, + 397.5491638183594 + ], + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 397.5491638183594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 386.6777648925781, + 382.32 + ], + [ + 386.6777648925781, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 59.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 59.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 204.40800000000002, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 83.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 204.40800000000002, + 83.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.236, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 113.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 277.236, + 113.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 182.947021484375 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 182.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.708, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 85.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 66.708, + 85.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 117.3070068359375 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 117.3070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 486.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 486.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 132.58331298828125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 132.58331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Proces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 154.50103759765625 + ], + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 154.50103759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 460.0570373535156 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 460.0570373535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 555.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 555.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 656.1770477294922 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 656.1770477294922 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 160.43701171875 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 160.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 625.4370422363281 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 625.4370422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 112.0469970703125 + ], + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 112.0469970703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.75, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 347.9270324707031 + ], + [ + 101.75, + 347.9270324707031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 267.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 267.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 41 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 538 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832881" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..019c07ec49cf2bc873e26698a1db0aaae3396626 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2bd07f0b02c0a3c6491d57df6d34312a7647076de2fefdb69dde0fd6f467f09e +size 58213 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d09352ef4545e2e928373398212a1eb3b4bf2b24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:266bf418246e5241b2e2f06c07f41353fd4b49a9c4781e493094f5419309214d +size 63595 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_12_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_12_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..912c4266e2050a692d95573af266f25dae00ef0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_12_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2d0148f92c5864978ad295a6ab7c27f23b3ce74222f4e935d376b640ed0c4805 +size 57036 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e28d830913cdbb5a83a965029ea1816f51907dfd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4b83038d54d882c527e9ee9c5f20655580bb173df5a0e8eaee082407525df311 +size 55094 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e54cc74f1aaa10e4b9daa408b2c4e34373dcce19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f3e906fa69a2faa67a36c1e4a0e2fc8e5e3c465d4c28cec869e5a113f07469d3 +size 36267 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d07466df2630abd4a3bb2e33ae573ef1c4b39a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a23ee9d41ba2eb9e0074eb7d115b32a6160f8ac11bf3124b3a6405b17713757c +size 42737 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07954aa68edc6525017f0d28d1cf1f47e228c283 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:660bd00804a510591d9950adadba64dffe158a53e7654e70b6d2e3d891dcaebd +size 38871 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_19_Picture_20.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_19_Picture_20.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0976593933815bd72170f65ffe9021c1c057b6e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_19_Picture_20.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c339fdcb9fb1c28f12f0c0ae34f746b1fc098134ff3c686c089b67954dff1cc7 +size 38108 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1e2a2051c9b0f87c6bf4103556af8e7e92b234a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:25dc55cc69ca815bc91216b9b56bd878b0f466dce4f8c48024e2e28d346d11d0 +size 32631 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_21_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_21_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b6d35909efb7d4c8b07ce73a6dcd983bede1e59 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_21_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:046eba861e8388f6ba6f9d0885d47e5abcab659399c987bb4c608338acf07084 +size 38181 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1220ffac1184df33fce265253bf7b3ee2e319dcc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:54fa48bae963ed2daacd518037917d5eec8ffdb0ab48596dee9ab4e69bf8703c +size 37703 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5b6da72559a768f6194ceef07acdc83023dc9c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b72907cfb542e18321e68361061e26ad88ede2d21aa77906a7572d02486457ed +size 36339 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_24_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_24_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f740ae99991beedb788adc8bea21b9f58913d9f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_24_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fc556ab8d2078dcee776bdbe2222f1d8065ce09218b3e33ff8001e359c1baeea +size 33864 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_25_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_25_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0561197cd527f6d204343434e4a70210606246e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_25_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c43baf0ca65c993948eb05fca1856e711067a535d13211f7b394fcd4b9a1ea64 +size 38771 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8872f205c034b1af8b0a36bfdab3ac1b40758cd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d78abb6e9ba4db8fcfe98d7199f35bc98115df3670f788ed6e5010c1a4c57af5 +size 42005 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_27_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_27_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c34feb5c74c40c697bb6446dc22133e2fb02de6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_27_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ddd6a62d6a4653d74e6b427fbed8c3dc73f30a274ddeb852d912d9db570aea4d +size 36544 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_29_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_29_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2df3b282328e879bb910ad1299983f49a092bdb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_29_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e9cd8732f551400cd8dec25958842035a91c524eec2669e3cb7b941ffdd9b9e2 +size 69746 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_31_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_31_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99139e7e8838ef81f38fbea317b44d2272a360c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_31_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d05396daf3576f14bf57989d2676998acb9bf7ec95eb413cc6f000927151e291 +size 24640 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_32_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_32_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..465b601dd754dd02d199da8249380f2c4033b25e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_32_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:98ec474dead0fb00dc70112381c4bbb4ffc3fa5cd61aadf87e6e31a3efed11c5 +size 20996 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_33_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_33_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da712359f4579588cf35b4064a909438a10df25b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_33_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c6115a98f20b60e8734234f1ce925897fcfdb2110b9105b31bbf74413c59e200 +size 20166 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_34_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_34_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1351e90c9902b4c09f04d33ca90f866cc59bb952 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_34_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:40f7a2f0264a553d3b2a286dcc23041bfd3de7eb85b5a51ceab154d67ea17f4f +size 24968 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_35_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_35_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..208a4316a60e5342775765af5273febe41b45cda --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_35_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8f93cd0b0c97215c13411e67e9a1cfdc8810ba1a128e6bfc2250e74819cf5e7f +size 25082 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_36_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_36_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21bf4d845ca4dcb8d5224ae0bec1459520533158 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_36_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:657ef2ad12f349bf5a29415c0e7bee8679307fd57bb624f5d435a43c50afabdf +size 24625 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_37_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_37_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..498ab77d45f07d588a5f898697ea03046c4dafd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_37_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f20e76932531e67dd50baa559f3f3a46eddb80d7077a32e53c864c0d1df302bd +size 23873 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_38_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_38_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78b2219858c87dbf1754a55f7e2046de76f7acdb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_38_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8865a102f4afc37182be88bb6708abb1429554ff896d2bbeda75e9422eb26aff +size 21709 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_39_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_39_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a139930b9eeda010890238c33ccb888c4a28785 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_39_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3d5ac2bc15bb0db3636720a774970765eb747b91128116945974e5f73e9e55f5 +size 22055 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd33710564dc6fa144db6ab29ab60acfc1cbb310 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fbd4debf4f5d8fc161b02a4947c29c454ab37e4d2e36c3809bcdbfdb2652850f +size 25836 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_41_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_41_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cbf6175f40dd7c0e6f70d99fa47d6d1e7e72fc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_41_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9130bd1c4360f09364392252530c39d23dd7a66d047ebe4904cf4c80ecd678f4 +size 32612 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_42_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_42_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4cbb1e3f43d16f19c1aa120c1fc348d7333b8a6c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_42_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b4efe8369ebb3e0e7678d0b1025aeae7fc7fcd36f5d466a969cf11cb4e371797 +size 23821 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_43_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_43_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e1cbd336bba2f5ed984285c304ea2f20bd0490b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_43_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4af43bbf9d122bdc3ee18fee1d160938d2114f358b0910fb29a1849054d2f8ad +size 23515 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_44_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_44_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4e69a06c0ff2d6fa792fdee84a405b8a29dda2b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_44_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ce310b62ec91e97db8656f55deaf0666b665f1df3bf809f57f45a902828f8209 +size 24879 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_45_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_45_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a913e7b31405c47a077e96398526106f69b2f87a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_45_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e59c441d295b6bb6564ffb71a5fe42d9a4e02989e975b301cc5a48ae63e3804d +size 25315 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_46_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_46_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39b793373152ae0bdb321f92dc65d184e3290bcc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_46_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b11cea0b01d40b633c1815aa1a07acba1bc0d6b8e9b4985cb4730fcb6e4c0f51 +size 28430 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_47_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_47_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd1e0f4cd1d9c955894b593de1428f13742cda8f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_47_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:15314e4b1456119090431da2914c26a7b1de5ba0d0cf0373ade1b6f0e5d23255 +size 24041 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_48_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_48_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f249de12aa43b3708d4a06771af784ead6aafa0a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_48_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:822dcde8c8fb8c133f9e08cc5a84df315657ae71d5e748c0ff56d54b3f5b5dec +size 26699 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_49_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_49_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fc1e0f4faf1955b76254380fefa00f2a65fb979 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_49_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0601b0c910cdedd1ee4da42ef4bf244a8ffd18e3740ec985aa3ee254098e47de +size 24554 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_7_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_7_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3933f4e347fbf5562d3c70d8edcf6577c917cf49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_7_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:895261179f54793a297b99e192c45a23298400bfc5e85c52ba5aed1c589cba54 +size 58675 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b293536c4acad036aa6fefe4482943e0f8c6677 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:756f582310b72f5d5b2eba68533aba2019913acbe0d992f7228df377aed132c2 +size 52250 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_9_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_9_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f90a24574baec12cdbae25e814024fd0a092412 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832881/_page_9_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bdf078a03be20313dbd0806ece9273c8b942d1515f6f978acddb23bfbb1db701 +size 48815 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66cc50afad3ae346e1fa29d46099c2770e40d02f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.md @@ -0,0 +1,314 @@ +# EXHIBIT 2 + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the + +Southern District of New York + +To: do Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP + +United States of America + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Defendant + +Case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE + +(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) + +YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers, documents, data, or other objects: + +See Attachment A + +Place: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Haddon, & , P.C. 150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 + +Date and Time: 04/01/2021 1:00 pm + +Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(cX2), relating to your ability to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. + +(SEAL) + +Date: + +CLERK OF COURT + +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ghislaine Maxwell , who requests this subpoena, are: + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca. Haddon, P.C., 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colorado 30203, 303.831.7364, jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +#### Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena + +Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to 1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the stiaa. either on notice or ex pane; 2) specify where the documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3) require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. + +Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order. + +Case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### PROOF OF SERVICE + +This subpoena for (name of individual and ride. if any) was received by me on (date) + +O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: + +on (date) ; or + +II I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: + +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of + +My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00 + +Date: Server:, signature + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. + +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: + +Printed name and title + +Server's address + +#### Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08) + +#### (c) Producing Documents and Objects. + +(I) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to product the designated items in court before trial or before they arc to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. + +(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. + +(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or infonnation is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there arc exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object. + +(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least 18 years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's witness attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the subpoena. + +#### (e) Place of Service. + +(I) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. + +(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the subpoena's service. + +(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse. disobeys a subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). + +#### DEFINITIONS + +- I. "You" or "Your" means +- 2. "Envelopes" means the envelopes that You described in a podcast with Whitney that aired on May 26, 2020 that You claimed "still have the touch DNA and fingerprints on them" of "Jeffrey and Ghislaine" and that you offered to the FBI but the FBI said "we don't need it." https://soundcloud.corn/user-414392239/271-epstein-victim speaks-part-2 the-last-american-vagabond-whitney-M. +- 3. "Physical Evidence" means the "hundreds of photographs," "old diaries," "telephone books," "Rolodexes," and "mementos ... collected from [Your] time with Epstein and Maxwell" that You showed to Brad and/or Stanley Pottinger at Your Paducah, KY home in June 2016, as described in excerpts from Relentless Pursuit, attached as Exhibit A. +- 4. "Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement" means any writing describing the terms that You agreed to for legal services from any attorney as required by New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1215. +- 5. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, any releases signed by You and/or the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program, and any compensation received by You. The EVCP is described in Exhibit B. + +#### INSTRUCTIONS + +- I. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made no later than April I, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Except for the originals of the "Envelopes" and "Physical Evidence," you may provide the records electronically by that date and time to Jeffrey S. Pagliuca or by such other method as agreed upon with counsel for the subpoenaing party. +- 2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. +- 3. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition. +- 4. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. +- 5. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. +- 6. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in the ordinary course of business. +- 7. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business. + +- 8. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. +- 9. Unless otherwise specified, the time frame of this request is from 1994 to present. +- 10. This Request is deemed to be continuing. lf, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Defendant. + +#### DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED + +- I. Any Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement between You and any attorney related to or concerning Your allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. +- 2. The original Envelopes for inspection and copying. +- 3. The Physical Evidence for inspection and copying. +- 4. "EVCP Material" for inspection and copying. + +# EXHIBIT A + +![]()![]()MY FIGHT FOR THE VICTIMS OF +**JEFFREY EPSTEIN** + +![]()**WITH BRITTANY HENDERSON** + +as his lawyer Marty Weinberg would earnestly characterize Epstein's behavior modification at his bond hearing in federal court in New York on July 15, 2019. That just meant that he tried harder not to have sex with children after getting in trouble in Florida, making sure that each of the females recruited to his house was at least eighteen years old. His appetite did not diminish at all, and the harm he was causing to these barely legal females was significant. In some ways, his schemes to lure the girls into his homes became even more insidious. He targeted vunlerable young women with immigration problems, medical problems, or lofty professional ambitions and promised to make them legal, get them treatment, or make their educational or professional dreams come true. They just had to do as he said. Which, whether they liked it or not, was all about sex. + +# THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH AND BEYOND + +KNOWING NOW THAT EPSTEIN WAS actively pursuing minors for sex in the 1990s, when Maxwell was widely known to be with Epstein every day, I looked back at my files to locate witnesses I knew were also around the pair during that time period. had a star by her name in my notes. I had been told by a source that she had been assaulted by both Epstein and Maxwell. In fact, she was the very first victim to ever come forward and report the duo to law enforcement, in 1996. + +It was June 2016 and I really wanted to meet with Maria in person. She was someone I had known about for many years and had tried to track down + +in the past. I had good reason to believe she had information on Ghislaine's role in recruiting girls for Epstein. This type of information was becoming more crucial than ever, because it was at the center of Virginia's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. + +I called every number for Maria that I could find. I had my investigators call every number that they could find. Finally, Maria called me back and left me a message saying that she knew I was trying to reach her. I returned her call immediately. She started off by telling me that she had spoken with Vicky from Vanity Fair a long time ago but her experience was not included in story, which was devastating to her, and that she really didn't know whether she should talk to me. She had already suffered more than she could handle from her experiences with Maxwell and Epstein. She didn't know me, and she certainly didn't trust me. + +Maria eventually agreed that she would talk to me, but only in person. She gave me her address in Paducah, Kentucky. This was a town and region of the country that I knew nothing about. I told her I would go there and spend as long as I needed for her to have the opportunity to tell me everything. By the end of the phone call we had built a rapport. + +Later that month I flew up to meet with her. To get there I had to fly to Nashville and drive over to Paducah. I stayed in the only hotel that I could find within ten miles of her house and planned to meet with her the next morning. By the time I arrived for our meeting, Maria had hundreds of photographs sprawled across her floor. She had also dug out her old diaries, telephone books, and Rolodexes. It looked like she might have spent the whole night before digging things out of boxes in her closet. + +We chatted for only a few minutes before she launched into everything that she thought I had come to Paducah to hear and see. Unlike other witnesses who were cagey and reluctant to share, Maria was grateful that I had come so + +far, and she was ready to tell me everything she knew. She had researched me before I arrived and knew about all the work that I had done to shed light on the case. She admired that I had given a voice to the victims of people whom she felt were the most evil human beings on the planet. I didn't fully appreciate how much my commitment to seeing her in person meant to her until I understood her background and how Maxwell and Epstein had affected her life and her career. + +Additionally, she had been fearful about what Epstein might do to her when Vicky = had discovered her in 2002, and she still felt some of that worry now. When she decides to do something, Maria is one of these people who is all in. She either trusts you or she doesn't. After Vanity Fair broke her trust, it took a long time for her to open up again. But she took a chance with me. + +She thinks fast. And talks fast. She's an eccentric artist who certainly doesn't think like a lawyer, which allowed her to share her whole narrative rather than only the specifics that a lawyer would need to know. Maria and I spent hours that day going through photos and other mementos she had collected from her time with Epstein and Maxwell. + +Maria was in her early twenties when she met New York socialite Eileen Guggenheim (unrelated to the Guggenheim Museum). Eileen recognized Maria's extraordinary artistic abilities. While Maria was in art school, Eileen got her a job with her sister, Barbara Guggenheim, who is married to the successful entertainment lawyer Bert =. Maria was hired by Barbara and Bert to perform mundane tasks around their home in New York. Wanting to help her find a job in her chosen field, Burt or Eileen spoke to Epstein because he was known as an art aficionado who could no doubt advance Maria's artistic career. Sure enough, Epstein called Maria and offered her a job at his mansion in New York City. Which, in turn, led to Maria's + +# EXHIBIT B + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-b -case basis in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or her representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +#### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +#### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or asigned statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that alicensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +### CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed alawsuit need not agree to astay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of acompensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, asummary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +Attn: Jordana H. l= Administrator + +1050 Connecticut Ave., NW + +#65488 + +Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +#### B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +### 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The + +Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant acompensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +### 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including /is pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +#### 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrators determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +#### C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.1 By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- 1) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent + +&#x27; All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +#### E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ed016fafcbfb67b0db1a09205f048d671b1006c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941/EFTA02832941.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1610 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832941.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 38139, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.65, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 415.6628112792969, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 415.6628112792969, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 56.12432861328125 + ], + [ + 443.9737854003906, + 56.12432861328125 + ], + [ + 443.9737854003906, + 78.427734375 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 78.427734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR \nOBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 211.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 211.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 608.8305816650391 + ], + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 608.8305816650391 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 363.4100036621094, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 363.4100036621094, + 97.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 97.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 489.646484375, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 489.646484375, + 82.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 82.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Producing Documents and Objects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 102.8624267578125 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 102.8624267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Place of Service.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 120.2081527709961, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 120.2081527709961, + 304.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 304.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTACHMENT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.94879150390625, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.94879150390625, + 54.889404296875 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 54.889404296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 385.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 385.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 400.863037109375 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 400.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 456.53631591796875, + 204.12 + ], + [ + 456.53631591796875, + 218.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 218.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.19744873046875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.19744873046875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH \nAND BEYOND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.92852783203125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.92852783203125, + 442.6224060058594 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 442.6224060058594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 59.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 59.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 205.02, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.6112365722656, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.6112365722656, + 83.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 205.02, + 83.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 113.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 113.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.096, + 168.79034423828125 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 168.79034423828125 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 182.947021484375 + ], + [ + 66.096, + 182.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.096, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 85.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 66.096, + 85.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 219.79905700683594, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 219.79905700683594, + 117.3070068359375 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 117.3070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 486.68707275390625 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 486.68707275390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 132.58331298828125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 132.58331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 260.8912658691406, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 260.8912658691406, + 154.17974853515625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 154.17974853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 360.2281188964844, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 360.2281188964844, + 137.18707275390625 + ], + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 137.18707275390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.428, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 460.0570373535156 + ], + [ + 103.428, + 460.0570373535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 555.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 555.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 270.030029296875, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 270.030029296875, + 656.8221435546875 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 656.8221435546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 160.43701171875 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 160.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 625.4370422363281 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 625.4370422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.42999267578125, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 111.677001953125 + ], + [ + 103.42999267578125, + 111.677001953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.75, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 347.9270324707031 + ], + [ + 101.75, + 347.9270324707031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.82896423339844, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.82896423339844, + 267.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 267.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 538 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 440 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832941" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb37b7f39df4635b25c83d366fdb4c98a32891ea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.md @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@ +# EXHIBIT 3 + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the + +Southern District of New York + +To: Brad Pottinger LLC + +United States of America + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Defendant + +Case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE + +(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) + +YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers, documents, data, or other objects: + +See Attachment A + +Place: Jeffrey S. Haddon, & , P.C. 150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 + +Date and Time: 04/01/2021 1:00 pm + +Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(cX2), relating to your ability to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. + +(SEAL) + +Date: + +CLERK OF COURT + +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of pan)) Ghislaine Maxwell , who requests this subpoena, are: + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, P.C., 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203, 303.831.7364, jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +#### Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena + +Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to 1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the stiaa. either on notice or ex parte; 2) specify where the documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3) require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. + +Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order. + +Case No. 20CR330 (MN) + +#### PROOF OF SERVICE + +This subpoena for (name of why:dual and ntle, Many) was received by me on (date) + +O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to die named person as follows: + +on (date) : or + +O I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: + +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States. or one of its officers or agents. I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of + +My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00 + +Date: Server's signature + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. + +Printed name and tide + +Additional information regarding attempted service. etc.: + +Server's address + +#### Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08) + +#### (c) Producing Documents and Objects. + +(I) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to product any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to product the designated items in court before trial or before they arc to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. + +(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. + +(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or infonnation is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object. + +(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least 18 years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's witness-attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the subpoena. + +#### (e) Place of Service. + +(I) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. + +(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the subpoena's service. + +(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). + +#### DEFINITIONS + +- I. "You" or "Your" means Brad and any owner, shareholder, partner, employee or independent contractor of Pottinger and any former owner, shareholder, partner or employee, or independent contractor of the firm. "You" or "Your also refers to any shareholder, partner, employee or independent contractor of any other law firm with which You were employed or formally associated at the responsive time. +- 2. "United States Attorney" means any employee of the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York during the relevant time period including but not limited to Amanda Kramer, Alex Rossmiller, Allison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, Maurene Comey and Andrew Rohrbach. "United States Attorney" also includes any employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. +- 3. "Communication" means all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind. +- 4. "Contingent Fee Agreement" or "Engagement Agreement" means any writing describing the terms that You agreed to perform legal services for Physical Evidence" means the "hundreds of photographs " "old diaries," "telephone books," "Rolodexes," and "mementos . . . collected from time with Epstein and Maxwell" that You viewed at the home of in Paducah, KY home in or about June 2016, as described in excerpts from Relentless Pursuit, attached as Exhibit A. +- 6. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients. The EVCP is described in Exhibit B. + +### INSTRUCTIONS + +- I. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made no later than April 1, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Except for Items 8 and 9 below, you may provide the records electronically by that date and time to Jeffrey S. Pagliuca or by such other method as agreed upon with counsel for the subpoenaing party. +- 2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. +- 3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents, regardless of the firm with which You were affiliated at the time the Document was created. +- 4. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition. + +- 5. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. +- 6. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. +- 7. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in the ordinary course of business. +- 8. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business. +- 9. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. +- 10. Unless otherwise specified, the time frame of this request is from 1994 to present. +- II. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Defendant. + +#### DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED + +- I. Communications between You and the United States Attorney about or referencing the following individuals between 2015 and the date of this subpoena including, but not limited to, documents regarding any meeting or correspondence with Amanda Kramer: + - a. Ghislaine Maxwell, + - b. Jeffrey Epstein, + - c. + - d. +- 2. Communications between You and any one or more of the following lawyers, or any employee or partner of the following law firms, between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about or referencing any meeting with the United States Attorney that concerned or referenced Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or-: + - a. Boies Schiller & Flexner, including Peter Skinner, Sigrid McCawley and/or David Boies; + - b. Stanley Pottinger; + - c. Paul Cassell; + +d. + +- 3. Communications between You and between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about or referencing Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any meeting with the United States Attorney. +- 4. Any Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement between You and any of the following individuals: + - a. + - c. + - d. +- 5. Any Communications between You and any member of the media or press about or referencing the following topics: + - a. Ghislaine Maxwell, including all of the "notes" that You shared with Julie or + - b. any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's Office, including statements to any affiliate of the New York Daily News concerning your meeting(s) or communications with Amanda Kramer; +- 6. All notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications You had with (or their counsel). +- 7. All notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications You had with or (or their counsel) when You were not counsel for such individual. +- 8. All photographs, diaries, journals, or other documentary evidence in Your possession obtained from any person who has made accusations against Ghislaine Maxwell, including any photographs or diaries of or Such documents should be produced in their native format for inspection and copying. +- 9. The Physical Evidence for inspection and copying. +- 10. My "EVCP Material." + +# EXHIBIT A + +![]()**PURSUIT** + +**MY FIGHT FOR THE VICTIMS OF +JEFFREY EPSTEIN** + +**J.** + +**WITH BRITTANY HENDERSON** + +as his lawyer Marty Weinberg would earnestly characterize Epstein's behavior modification at his bond hearing in federal court in New York on July 15, 2019. That just meant that he tried harder not to have sex with children after getting in trouble in Florida, making sure that each of the females recruited to his house was at least eighteen years old. His appetite did not diminish at all, and the harm he was causing to these barely legal females was significant. In some ways, his schemes to lure the girls into his homes became even more insidious. He targeted vunlerable young women with immigration problems, medical problems, or lofty professional ambitions and promised to make them legal, get them treatment, or make their educational or professional dreams come true. They just had to do as he said. Which, whether they liked it or not, was all about sex. + +# THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH AND BEYOND + +KNOWING NOW THAT EPSTEIN WAS actively pursuing minors for sex in the 1990s, when Maxwell was widely known to be with Epstein every day, I looked back at my files to locate witnesses I knew were also around the pair during that time period. had a star by her name in my notes. I had been told by a source that she had been assaulted by both Epstein and Maxwell. In fact, she was the very first victim to ever come forward and report the duo to law enforcement, in 1996. + +It was June 2016 and I really wanted to meet with Maria in person. She was someone I had known about for many years and had tried to track down in the past. I had good reason to believe she had information on Ghislaine's role in recruiting girls for Epstein. This type of information was becoming more crucial than ever, because it was at the center of Virginia's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. + +I called every number for Maria that I could find. I had my investigators call every number that they could find. Finally, Maria called me back and left me a message saying that she knew I was trying to reach her. I returned her call immediately. She started off by telling me that she had spoken with Vicky = from Vanity Fair a long time ago but her experience was not included in story, which was devastating to her, and that she really didn't know whether she should talk to me. She had already suffered more than she could handle from her experiences with Maxwell and Epstein. She didn't know me, and she certainly didn't trust me. + +Maria eventually agreed that she would talk to me, but only in person. She gave me her address in Paducah, Kentucky. This was a town and region of the country that I knew nothing about. I told her I would go there and spend as long as I needed for her to have the opportunity to tell me everything. By the end of the phone call we had built a rapport. + +Later that month I flew up to meet with her. To get there I had to fly to Nashville and drive over to Paducah. I stayed in the only hotel that I could find within ten miles of her house and planned to meet with her the next morning. By the time I arrived for our meeting, Maria had hundreds of photographs sprawled across her floor. She had also dug out her old diaries, telephone books, and Rolodexes. It looked like she might have spent the whole night before digging things out of boxes in her closet. + +We chatted for only a few minutes before she launched into everything that she thought I had come to Paducah to hear and see. Unlike other witnesses who were cagey and reluctant to share, Maria was grateful that I had come so + +far, and she was ready to tell me everything she knew. She had researched me before I arrived and knew about all the work that I had done to shed light on the case. She admired that I had given a voice to the victims of people whom she felt were the most evil human beings on the planet. I didn't fully appreciate how much my commitment to seeing her in person meant to her until I understood her background and how Maxwell and Epstein had affected her life and her career. + +Additionally, she had been fearful about what Epstein might do to her when Vicky = had discovered her in 2002, and she still felt some of that worry now. When she decides to do something, Maria is one of these people who is all in. She either trusts you or she doesn't. After Vanity Fair broke her trust, it took a long time for her to open up again. But she took a chance with me. + +She thinks fast. And talks fast. She's an eccentric artist who certainly doesn't think like a lawyer, which allowed her to share her whole narrative rather than only the specifics that a lawyer would need to know. Maria and I spent hours that day going through photos and other mementos she had collected from her time with Epstein and Maxwell. + +Maria was in her early twenties when she met New York socialite Eileen Guggenheim (unrelated to the Guggenheim Museum). Eileen recognized Maria's extraordinary artistic abilities. While Maria was in art school, Eileen got her a job with her sister, Barbara Guggenheim, who is married to the successful entertainment lawyer Bert =. Maria was hired by Barbara and Bert to perform mundane tasks around their home in New York. Wanting to help her find a job in her chosen field, Burt or Eileen spoke to Epstein because he was known as an art aficionado who could no doubt advance Maria's artistic career. Sure enough, Epstein called Maria and offered her a job at his mansion in New York City. Which, in turn, led to Maria's + +# EXHIBIT B + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). Thls Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All Individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. , a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that a review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-b -ca • • her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or he representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimant? submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +#### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +#### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or asigned statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that alicensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +### CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Proces + +Individuals who have filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed alawsuit need not agree to astay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of acompensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, asummary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Attn: Jordana H. Administrator 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW #65488 Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +#### B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +### 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The + +Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +#### 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including /is pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +#### 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrators determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +#### C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.' By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent + +I All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +#### E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ca0a1e575ed7048fb8731b4f2abf80c3b9812b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962/EFTA02832962.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1637 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832962.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 40542, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.98, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 418.4693908691406, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 418.4693908691406, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 78.29827880859375 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 78.29827880859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR \nOBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 211.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 211.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.01092529296875, + 608.8305816650391 + ], + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 608.8305816650391 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3156433105469, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3156433105469, + 97.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 97.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.0890197753906, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.0890197753906, + 82.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 82.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Producing Documents and Objects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 102.8624267578125 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 102.8624267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Place of Service.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 304.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 304.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTACHMENT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.2852478027344, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.2852478027344, + 54.7598876953125 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 54.7598876953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 523.10302734375 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 523.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.9566955566406, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.9566955566406, + 391.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 391.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH \nAND BEYOND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.90478515625, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.90478515625, + 442.492919921875 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 442.492919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 59.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 59.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.796, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 83.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 203.796, + 83.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.236, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 113.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 277.236, + 113.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 182.947021484375 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 182.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.708, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 71.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 85.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 66.708, + 85.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 117.3070068359375 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 117.3070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 486.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 486.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 132.58331298828125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 132.58331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Proces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 154.50103759765625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 154.50103759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.428, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 460.0570373535156 + ], + [ + 103.428, + 460.0570373535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 555.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 555.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 656.1770477294922 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 656.1770477294922 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 160.43701171875 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 160.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 625.4370422363281 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 625.4370422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 112.0469970703125 + ], + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 112.0469970703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.75, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 347.9270324707031 + ], + [ + 101.75, + 347.9270324707031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 267.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 267.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 537 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832962" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7484d25a89f213f7d882a3626d6f9f6c351e3fbd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.md @@ -0,0 +1,328 @@ +# EXHIBIT 4 + +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the + +Southern District of New York + +United States of America + +Ghislaine Maxwell + +Defendant + +Case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE + +Ft,: Stanley Pottinger, Pottinger LLC + +(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) + +YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers, documents, data, or other objects: + +See Attachment A + +Place: Jeffrey S. SI iluca Date and Time: 04/01/2021 1:00 pm Haddon, MI & , P.C. 150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 + +Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(cX2), relating to your ability to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. + +(SEAL) + +Date: + +CLERK OF COURT + +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ghislaine Maxwell , who requests this subpoena, are: + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, P.C., 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colorado 30203, 303.831.7364, jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +#### Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena + +Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to 1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the m1 .1E,, either on notice or ex parte; 2) specify where the documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3) require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. + +Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order. + +Case No. 20CR330 (MN) + +#### PROOF OF SERVICE + +This subpoena for (name of indnadual and tale, wry) was received by me on (date) + +CP I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to die named person as follows: + +El I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: + +on (date) : or + +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States. or one of its officers or agents. I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of + +My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00 + +Date: Server's signature + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. + +Pruned name and tale + +Additional infonnation regarding attempted service. etc.: + +Server's address + +#### Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08) + +#### (c) Producing Documents and Objects. + +(I) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they arc to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. + +(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. + +(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object. + +(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least 18 years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's winless-attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the subpoena. + +#### (e) Place of Service. + +(I) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. + +(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the subpoena's service. + +(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who. without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). + +#### DEFINITIONS + +- I. "You" or "Your" means J. Stanley Pottinger and any owner, shareholder, partner, employee or independent contractor of Pottinger and any former owner, shareholder, partner or employee, or independent contractor of the firm. "You" or "Your" also refers to any shareholder, partner, employee or independent contractor of any other law firm with which You were employed or formally associated at the responsive time. +- 2. "United States Attorney" means any employee of the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York during the relevant time period including but not limited to Amanda Kramer, Alex Rossmiller, Allison Moe, Lam Pomerantz, Maurene Comey and Andrew Rohrbach. "United States Attorney" also includes any employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. +- 3. "Communication" means all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind. +- 4. "Contingent Fee Agreement" or "Engagement Agreement" means any writing describing the terms that You agreed to perform legal services for Physical Evidence" means the "hundreds of photographs " "old diaries," "telephone books," "Rolodexes," and "mementos . . . collected from time with Epstein and Maxwell" that You viewed at the home of in Paducah, KY home in or about June 2016, as described in excerpts from Relentless Pursuit, attached as Exhibit A. +- 6. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients. The EVCP is described in Exhibit B. + +#### INSTRUCTIONS + +- I. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made no later than April I, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Except for Items 8 and 9 below, you may provide the records electronically by that date and time to Jeffrey S. Pagliuca or by such other method as agreed upon with counsel for the subpoenaing party. +- 2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. +- 3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents, regardless of the firm with which You were affiliated at the time the Document was created. +- 4. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition. + +- 5. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. +- 6. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. +- 7. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in the ordinary course of business. +- 8. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business. +- 9. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. +- 10. Unless otherwise specified, the time frame of this request is from 1994 to present. +- II. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Defendant. + +#### DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED + +- I. Communications between You and the United States Attorney about or referencing the following individuals between 2015 and the date of this subpoena including, but not limited to, documents regarding any meeting or correspondence with Amanda Kramer: + - a. Ghislaine Maxwell, + - b. Jeffrey Epstein, + - c. + - d. +- 2. Communications between You and any one or more of the following lawyers, or any employee or partner of the following law firms, between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about or referencing any meeting with the United States Attorney that concerned or referenced Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or + - a. Boies Schiller & Flexner, including Peter Skinner, Sigrid McCawley and/or David Boies; + - b. Brad + - c. Paul Cassell; + +- d. +- 3. Communications between You and between 2015 and the date of this subpoena about or referencing Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any meeting with the United States Attorney; +- 4. Any Contingent Fee Agreement or Engagement Agreement between You and any of the following individuals: + - a. + - c. + - d. +- 5. Any Communications between You and any member of the media or press about or referencing the following topics: + - a. Ghislaine Maxwell, or + - b. any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's Office, including statements to any affiliate of the New York Daily News concerning your meeting(s) or communications with Amanda Kramer; +- 6. All notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications You had with (or their counsel). +- 7. All notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications You had with or (or their counsel) when You were not counsel for such individual. +- 8. All photographs, diaries, journals, or other documentary evidence in Your possession obtained from any person who has made accusations against Ghislaine Maxwell, including any photographs or diaries of or Such documents should be produced in their native format for inspection and copying. +- 9. The Physical Evidence for inspection and copying. +- 10. My "EVCP Material." + +## EXHIBIT A + +![]()**PURSUIT** + +**MY FIGHT FOR THE VICTIMS OF +JEFFREY EPSTEIN** + +**BRADLEY J. EDWARDS** +**WITH BRITTANY HENDERSON** + +as his lawyer Marty Weinberg would earnestly characterize Epstein's behavior modification at his bond hearing in federal court in New York on July 15, 2019. That just meant that he tried harder not to have sex with children after getting in trouble in Florida, making sure that each of the females recruited to his house was at least eighteen years old. His appetite did not diminish at all, and the harm he was causing to these barely legal females was significant. In some ways, his schemes to lure the girls into his homes became even more insidious. He targeted vunlerable young women with immigration problems, medical problems, or lofty professional ambitions and promised to make them legal, get them treatment, or make their educational or professional dreams come true. They just had to do as he said. Which, whether they liked it or not, was all about sex. + +## THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH AND BEYOND + +KNOWING NOW THAT EPSTEIN WAS actively pursuing minors for sex in the 1990s, when Maxwell was widely known to be with Epstein every day, I looked back at my files to locate witnesses I knew were also around the pair during that time period. had a star by her name in my notes. I had been told by a source that she had been assaulted by both Epstein and Maxwell. In fact, she was the very first victim to ever come forward and report the duo to law enforcement, in 1996. + +It was June 2016 and I really wanted to meet with Maria in person. She was someone I had known about for many years and had tried to track down + +in the past. I had good reason to believe she had information on Ghislaine's role in recruiting girls for Epstein. This type of information was becoming more crucial than ever, because it was at the center of Virginia's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. + +I called every number for Maria that I could find. I had my investigators call every number that they could find. Finally, Maria called me back and left me a message saying that she knew I was trying to reach her. I returned her call immediately. She started off by telling me that she had spoken with Vicky = from Vanity Fair a long time ago but her experience was not included in story, which was devastating to her, and that she really didn't know whether she should talk to me. She had already suffered more than she could handle from her experiences with Maxwell and Epstein. She didn't know me, and she certainly didn't trust me. + +Maria eventually agreed that she would talk to me, but only in person. She gave me her address in Paducah, Kentucky. This was a town and region of the country that I knew nothing about. I told her I would go there and spend as long as I needed for her to have the opportunity to tell me everything. By the end of the phone call we had built a rapport. + +Later that month I flew up to meet with her. To get there I had to fly to Nashville and drive over to Paducah. I stayed in the only hotel that I could find within ten miles of her house and planned to meet with her the next morning. By the time I arrived for our meeting, Maria had hundreds of photographs sprawled across her floor. She had also dug out her old diaries, telephone books, and Rolodexes. It looked like she might have spent the whole night before digging things out of boxes in her closet. + +We chatted for only a few minutes before she launched into everything that she thought I had come to Paducah to hear and see. Unlike other witnesses who were cagey and reluctant to share, Maria was grateful that I had come so + +far, and she was ready to tell me everything she knew. She had researched me before I arrived and knew about all the work that I had done to shed light on the case. She admired that I had given a voice to the victims of people whom she felt were the most evil human beings on the planet. I didn't fully appreciate how much my commitment to seeing her in person meant to her until I understood her background and how Maxwell and Epstein had affected her life and her career. + +Additionally, she had been fearful about what Epstein might do to her when Vicky = had discovered her in 2002, and she still felt some of that worry now. When she decides to do something, Maria is one of these people who is all in. She either trusts you or she doesn't. After Vanity Fair broke her trust, it took a long time for her to open up again. But she took a chance with me. + +She thinks fast. And talks fast. She's an eccentric artist who certainly doesn't think like a lawyer, which allowed her to share her whole narrative rather than only the specifics that a lawyer would need to know. Maria and I spent hours that day going through photos and other mementos she had collected from her time with Epstein and Maxwell. + +Maria was in her early twenties when she met New York socialite Eileen Guggenheim (unrelated to the Guggenheim Museum). Eileen recognized Maria's extraordinary artistic abilities. While Maria was in art school, Eileen got her a job with her sister, Barbara Guggenheim, who is married to the successful entertainment lawyer Bert =. Maria was hired by Barbara and Bert to perform mundane tasks around their home in New York. Wanting to help her find a job in her chosen field, Burt or Eileen spoke to Epstein because he was known as an art aficionado who could no doubt advance Maria's artistic career. Sure enough, Epstein called Maria and offered her a job at his mansion in New York City. Which, in turn, led to Maria's + +## EXHIBIT B + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All Individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. , a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that a review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-b -case basis, in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or he representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +#### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +#### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or asigned statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that alicensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +#### III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Proces + +Individuals who have filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed alawsuit need not agree to astay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate In the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of acompensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, asummary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed alawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Attn: Jordana H. Administrator 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW #65488 Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +#### B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +#### 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The + +Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +#### 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including /is pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +#### 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrators determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +#### C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, Irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.' By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent + +I All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +#### E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9851213464ed9e4ca6c1c47469fc8e820f55065c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984/EFTA02832984.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1625 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02832984.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 40556, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.92, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 415.8756103515625, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 415.8756103515625, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 169.524, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 443.7139587402344, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 443.7139587402344, + 78.16876220703125 + ], + [ + 169.524, + 78.16876220703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR \nOBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 468.6097412109375, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 468.6097412109375, + 211.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 211.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 438.74737548828125, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 438.74737548828125, + 609.1040649414062 + ], + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 609.1040649414062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3156433105469, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.3156433105469, + 97.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 97.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 489.93572998046875, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 489.93572998046875, + 82.45367431640625 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 82.45367431640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Producing Documents and Objects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 102.8624267578125 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 102.8624267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Place of Service.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 304.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 304.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTACHMENT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.2852478027344, + 37.26 + ], + [ + 375.2852478027344, + 54.7598876953125 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 54.7598876953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 373.3839111328125, + 523.10302734375 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 523.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.9566955566406, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 456.9566955566406, + 391.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 391.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THIRTY-NINE PADUCAH \nAND BEYOND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.90478515625, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 493.90478515625, + 442.492919921875 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 442.492919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.6071472167969, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 59.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 59.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 204.40800000000002, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 83.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 204.40800000000002, + 83.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.236, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 100.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 113.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 277.236, + 113.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 182.947021484375 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 182.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 85.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 85.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.384, + 102.87 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 102.87 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 117.3070068359375 + ], + [ + 111.384, + 117.3070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 486.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 486.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 504.5107727050781, + 132.58331298828125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 132.58331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Proces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 154.50103759765625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 154.50103759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 460.0570373535156 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 460.0570373535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 555.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 555.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 269.0374450683594, + 656.1770477294922 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 656.1770477294922 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.952, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.89483642578125, + 160.43701171875 + ], + [ + 119.952, + 160.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.952, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 625.4370422363281 + ], + [ + 119.952, + 625.4370422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 112.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 103.41000366210938, + 112.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.75, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 347.9270324707031 + ], + [ + 101.75, + 347.9270324707031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.8414306640625, + 267.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 267.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 538 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02832984" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..138019375275f79bebf60e99aa3ff641e2a2a982 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.md @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### MS. MAXWELL'S SECOND EX PARTE AND IN CAMERA MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell makes this second ex parte and in camera motion for the Court to enter an Order authorizing her counsel to issue additional subpoenas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The legal and factual grounds for this second motion are largely identical to those set forth in Ms. Maxwell's first ex parte and in camera motion ("First Motion") for issuance of a subpoena to the law firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP ("BSF"), filed with the Court on February 21, 2021, and Ms. Maxwell expressly incorporates that First Motion by reference. Because additional subpoenas are necessary for (a) her pending pre-trial motions, and (b) in order to examine certain physical pieces of evidence in advance of trial in order to adequately prepare for trial, she hereby sets forth additional facts and argument pursuant to United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974), to justify these additional subpoenas. + +As with her First Motion, she makes this motion ex parte for the "strong policy reasons in favor of an ex pane" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility requirements of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 subpoena. United States v. M, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). + +# I. The Additional Subpoenas + +Ms. Maxwell seeks to serve Rule 17 subpoenas on the following law firms and individuals. The subpoenas seek specific items each identified in their respective Attachment A: + +# II. + +- 2. (Ex. 1) (Ex. 2) +- 3. Brad Esq. of Pottinger (Ex. 3) +- 4. Stanley Pottinger, Esq. of Pottinger (Ex. 4) + +Items 1-5 + +As previously detailed, is believed to be the alleged victim referred to in the superseding indictment as "Minor Victim 2." She is represented by BSF. See, e.g., v. Indyke, et at, No. 19 Civ. 10475 (LGS). The proposed BSF Subpoena calls for production of particular physical items that belong to specifically a journal, black boots, and certain photographs. BSF produced photos of those items (and PDF replications of the photographs) to Ms. Maxwell in the are currently in the possession of BSF or subpoena, attached as Exhibit 1, on action. It is unknown whether the items . Maxwell proposes to serve a for the physical items; counsel also proposes that service be effected through BSF if they are willing to accept service.' Inspection of each of these items in advance of trial is necessary for the reasons set forth in the Ms. Maxwell's First Motion. + +Ms. Maxwell seeks also to serve a subpoena on in the event that BSF claims the physical items are not in their custody or control, but rather belong to (and are in the possession of) their client. The proposed subpoena seeks no new or additional information beyond that which is sought by the BSF Subpoena. + +Similarly, Ms. Maxwell seeks also to serve a subpoena on older sister, See Exhibit 2. Like is represented by BSF. See v. Indyke et at, 19 Civ. 10474 (NRB). Ms. Maxwell seeks to serve the proposed subpoena on through BSF if they are willing to accept service. + +Defense counsel does not believe that is mentioned in the Indictment, however, counsel believes the government will offer her as a witness at this criminal trial either + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(cX3) requires notice to an alleged victim where "personal or confidential information about a victim" is being sought. These subpoenas are addressed directly to the alleged victims so notice should be provided upon issuance. + +under Rule 404(b) or as res gestae evidence in conjunction with her sister's allegations. See First Motion at II, 15-16. is the individual who purportedly introduced her younger sister to Jeffrey Epstein. In her civil lawsuit and in numerous public statements, El has asserted that she has certain physical items that substantiate her allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. She described in various publications certain "envelopes" that she "still has" with the touch DNA and fingerprints of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell .2 Ms. Maxwell seeks to examine those envelopes and to test them in advance of trial to disprove + +also reportedly met with attorneys Brad and Stanley Pottinger at her home in Paducah, KY in or about June 2016. To counsel's knowledge, those attorneys have never represented Relentless Pursuit, that Brad describes in his self-published memoir, during that meeting showed him substantial physical evidence corroborating her claims against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including photographs, diaries, telephone books, Rolodexes and mementos collected from her "time with Epstein and Maxwell." See Ex. 2(A). Ms. Maxwell also seeks to examine these items of physical evidence in advance of trial so that her experts and investigation team may rebut any such evidence and effectively confront this accuser. The requests for her attorneys' fee agreements and her EVCP Materials are identical to those in the BSF subpoena, but are being requested directly from her in the event her attorneys claim they do not have constructive possession or control over those items. + +2 In a podcast with journalist Whitney which aired on May 26, 2020, claimed to possess "envelopes" that "still have the touch DNA and fingerprints on them" of "Jeffre and Ghislaine" and that she offered them to the FBI but the FBI said "we don't need it." american-vagabond-whitne + +#### Nixon Factors: + +Each of the items specified in the proposed subpoenas is relevant, specific and admissible. These two alleged victims have publicly identified the materials and publicly proclaimed they corroborate and support their allegations. There are no evidentiary impediments to admissibility. The documents, photographs, footwear, envelope and mementos presumably can be authenticated by at trial. To the extent that the items turn out to have been altered or do not exist the absence of this evidence is also relevant and admissible at trial as exculpatory evidence. + +# III. Brad and Stan Pottinger + +### Items 1-5: Communications Concerning Meetings with the U.S. Attorney's Office + +As detailed in the First Motion, Brad and Stan Pottinger3 represented (along with BSF) beginning in or about 2015. It was in connection with that representation that both attorneys apparently met with AUSA Amanda Kramer on or about February 29, 2016 in order to press a criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. See First Motion at 4-9. Based on the discovery recently produced, Mr. Pottinger is known to have emailed with Ms. Kramer in or about May 2016. According to a "source," the NY Daily News reported that "Boles and Pottinger re-approached Kramer [after Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition] and asked if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury." AUSA Kramer has claimed that she does not "remember" a second meeting. Mr. wrote about his first meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office in his memoir, Relentless Pursuit + +3 In 2015-17, Mr. Pottinger and Mr. worked at different law firms. At some unknown later time, they joined efforts and formed their current firm, Pottinger. It is unclear who the current custodian of their records might be, so Ms. Maxwell proposes serving subpoenas on both of them individually. + +Likewise, based on the Pottinger-Kramer emails and Relentless Pursuit details, it appears that Mr. Pottinger and Mr. were attempting to present as a cooperator against Ms. Maxwell. + +Because the government's account of its interactions differs from the accounts of Mr. in his book and Mr. Pottinger in his emails, Ms. Maxwell seeks documents from these two attorneys concerning their interactions with the U.S. Attorney's Office, which we believe will directly rebut the government's claims made in their response to Ms. Maxwell's pre-trial motions. Likewise, Ms. Maxwell believes that Mr. Pottinger or Mr. is the "source" quoted in the NY Daily News concerning these meetings with the government, so she seeks their communications with the press concerning only Ghislaine Maxwell's or any meetings with the US Attorney's Office. + +### Items 6-9: Physical Evidence Concerning the Alleged Victims + +Mr. has identified himself as the attorney representing 5 At the February 29, 2016, meeting with Ms. Kramer, it appears that Mr. discussed both as well as According to AUSA Kramer's notes of that meeting, Mr. referenced by name and gave an account of allegations that made no mention of Ms. Maxwell and was substantially different from the account contained in the Indictment. For example, the summary of account is that she was + +4 m i.. also shared all of his "notes" with Julie of the Miami Herald. + +5 + +Now claims she was abused by Epstein and Maxwell, and See Indictment ¶ 7(a); notes of Mr. Ms. Maxwell seeks any or Mr. Pottinger's communications with or her counsel6 because of their obvious exculpatory value and in order to authenticate them prior to trial. + +As described above, Mr. and Mr. Pottinger both met with of alleged victim-2 sister , in or about June 2016, and purportedly were provided access to physical evidence documenting the Farmers' claims. Ms. Maxwell seeks to inspect any such physical evidence in advance of trial, as well as their notes of those meetings, in order to test the authenticity of the materials and to rebut it. + +With regard to their clients, and the proposed subpoena seeks any physical evidence in Mr. and Mr. Pottinger's possession and any nonprivileged notes of their interactions. + +Finally, Mr. and Mr. Pottinger have publicly identified themselves as having participated in the crafting of the Epstein Victims Compensation Program and representing some women in submissions to that program, including + +### Nixon Factors + +As to Items 1-5, we know that these lawyers communicated with SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorneys; the time frame is definite, 2015 to present, and the requests are limited to a discrete + +6In the notes of the meeting with Ms. Kramer, it appears that was then represented by attorney + +topic, communications about Ms. Maxwell, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].7 The communications are relevant, authentic, and an appropriate evidentiary foundation can be established under many rules of evidence including F.R.E. 803(6). Ms. Maxwell seeks to introduce this evidence in connection with the pending motions. However, the information may also be admissible at any trial. Ms. Maxwell was the target of these lawyers who sought to profit by suing her and Epstein. Having Ms. Maxwell indicted during the pendency of the defamation action would have been very helpful to their cause. The lawyers also represent two of the accusers and many of the potential witnesses. The lawyers, and their clients, have traded information for years which has either, intentionally or unintentionally, allowed the witnesses to conform their testimony. Establishing the relationships between the witnesses, their lawyers, and the government will be a significant aspect of Ms. Maxwell's defense. Additionally, there is reason to believe the government will attempt to call one or more of the lawyers to testify at trial to attempt to establish the materiality of Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony to the [REDACTED] civil action. + +With respect to the physical evidence (Items 6-9), each of the items specified is relevant, specific and admissible. Brad [REDACTED] has described his and Mr. Pottinger's meeting with [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] There are no evidentiary impediments to admissibility. The documents and photographs presumably can be authenticated by [REDACTED] at trial. To the extent + +--- + +7The government's recent disclosures concerning Ms. Kramer's communications with Mr. Pottinger in May 2016 included an email from [REDACTED] that contained a screenshot of a new witness, [REDACTED] + +that the items turn out to have been altered or do not exist the absence of this evidence is also relevant and admissible at trial as exculpatory evidence. + +### IV. Request + +Ms. Maxwell filed various pretrial motions which are currently pending before the Court. Ms. Maxwell anticipates that one or more of her pending motions will require the presentation of evidence, that certain evidence central to the accusations in this matter will need to be examined in advance of trial as part of the investigation of her defense, and that the requested evidence is admissible at trial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell seeks production of these materials in advance of trial. She makes this motion ex pane for the "strong policy reasons in favor of an ex pane" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility requirements of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. M, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). + +It is well-established that the Court may order that the materials should be produced to counsel's office, rather than to the courtroom itself. See, e.g., United States v. DNRB, Inc., No. 4:15-cr-0362, 2017 WL 2806251, at '3 (W.D. Mo. June 27, 2017) (directing production to requesting party); United States v. Jewell, Crim. No. 4:07-cr-00103, 2008 WL 3871736, at •3 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 15, 2008) (directing third-party to produce nonprivileged responsive material to defendant's counsel). Once delivered to counsel's office, the materials are not automatically required to be shared with the government. Whether they are required to be shared is determined by other applicable rules, e.g., Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b). + +As with her First Motion, she makes this motion ex pane for the "strong policy reasons in favor of an ex parte" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility + +requirements of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 subpoena. United States v. 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). + +WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests an ex parte and under seal Order from this Court authorizing service of the attached subpoenas on the individuals described for the documents and items detailed in each of the subpoenas' respective Attachment As. + +Dated: March 19, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Laura A. Menninger + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b68c95d587acf80338fe805c6706a040efc6635 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006/EFTA02833006.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,651 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833006.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 15305, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.12, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.95135498046875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.95135498046875, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MS. MAXWELL'S SECOND EX PARTE AND IN CAMERA MOTION FOR \nAN ORDER AUTHORIZING A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO \nFED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 523.4471435546875, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 523.4471435546875, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 349.11 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Additional Subpoenas", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 259.0884704589844, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 259.0884704589844, + 501.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 501.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 677.16 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 677.16 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 693.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 693.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Nixon Factors:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 184.29541015625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 184.29541015625, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Brad and Stan Pottinger", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 300.5045166015625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 300.5045166015625, + 308.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 308.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Items 1-5: Communications Concerning Meetings with the U.S. Attorney's Office", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 504.2579345703125, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 504.2579345703125, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Items 6-9: Physical Evidence Concerning the Alleged Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 410.3235778808594, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 410.3235778808594, + 390.363037109375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 390.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Nixon Factors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 180.4023895263672, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 180.4023895263672, + 583.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 583.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Request", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 156.32461547851562, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 156.32461547851562, + 142.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 142.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833006" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0faa88c78610bbcabff1e6dfe74049df631869e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 10/5/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is currently in the process of planning logistics for trial in this matter and requires the parties' best and current estimate of length of trial. The Court plans to have the jury sit 5 days a week from 9am until 5pm. Given that jury selection will be complete by November 19 and opening statements will occur on November 29, the Court requests that the parties provide their best estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. This will allow the Court to assess the likelihood that trial may continue after the Christmas holiday and therefore whether the jury may be required to sit some days during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Accordingly, on or before October 12, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to confer and submit a joint letter with their best and current estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 5, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4e8a4e6ade94f99883190f5d3e0ff45a8eec15d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016/EFTA02833016.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833016.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1317, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.41, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.01 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833016" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d00dd999f67a5ca7aa132ccbb0f1b654384f343 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.md @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +| INDEXED | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC | +| DATE FILED: 10/12/21 | + +RECEIVED +SDNY PRO SE OFFICE + +2021 SEP 24 PM 1:13 United States District Court Dept. 21 + +For The Southern District of NY Alis J. Nathan 10/12/21 + +Regarding: + +The motion to intervene is DENIED. +SO ORDERED. + +United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell + +2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73882 (S.D. NY, April 2021) + +Motion To Intervene + +Now comes David A. Dichl who seeks leave to permissively intervene in the above styled cause per Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (b) (1). + +Dichl seeks to intervene because he has a claim or defense that shales with the main action of the Maxwell case a common question of law or fact. Without participation in the Maxwell case as an intervenor, Dichl's interests in a separate case may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded. Separately the Interests of Ghislaine Maxwell is not being adequately represented with regard to the statute of limitations argument presented in the above styled cause, + +| RECEIVED | +|-----------------------------------------------------| +| SEP 29 2021 | +| ALISON J. NATHAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
S.D.N.Y. | + +Diehl's request to intervene will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties if granted. + +Diehl has no further interest in the aforementioned cause. + +## Interest. + +In the above cause the court considers whether or not the Statute of limitations at 18 USC §3283 applies to defendant Maxwell's charges. Dienl faced this same issue on appeal. See United States v. Dichl, 775 F.3d 714 (5th cir. 2015). The fact is the issue should not have been heard in the first instance on appeal, because Dienl had shown substantial evidence indicating that the United States was knowingly misapplying 18 USC §3283, and requested an investigation referencing highly suspect facts. Since that time, extensive investigation into §3283's legislative history shows what its true purpose was. See the enclosed brief. + +Dichl has curiously filed with the Western district of Texas, a Rule 60(d)(3)-fraud on the court motion, with regard to the United States fraudulent misapplication of §3283. + +The United States, continues to knowingly misapply §3283 and does so again in the above styled cause. + +The legislative history of § 3283 goes far beyond congress raising the limitation period, and actually originates from the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act. + +This court's findings are patently wrong. For example § 3283 doesn't say, "conduct involved" (brackets in opinion), its "offense involving." In Davis (see brief) the Supreme Court found the later most probably requires a statutory elements inquiry. There is also no reason to use Dodges (sorna) to difference Bridges (offense involving fraud), because in fact the legislative history of § 3283 does show the narrow purpose of § 3283. Furthermore, Morgan (cited from Maxwells brief) is highly relevant, regardless whether Uenue is the subject. Why would that have relevance? + +Section 3283's "no other statute of limitation shall preclude ..." is not intended to extend prof versions of § 3283; that is in fact ridiculous. § 3283 superceals other statutes of limitations. See brief. + +The truth (not that the government would have any respect for truth) is § 3283 is for sexual assault and other enclave offenses. § 3299 courts sex related offenses. See Toussie Vo + +United States 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970) (" A limitation carrying out an exception should apply to cases shown to be clearly within its purpose.") Congress' purpose was to extend the limitation period for Rape, and assault to Commit Rape, where the United States had jurisdiction of these offenses. Only this explains the need for 18 USC §3299 which is purposely not retroactive. To have made it retroactive would have violated Stogner v. California. because chapter 77, 117, and 110 were not previously included. + +For these reasons David A. Dichl should be glanted intervener status, and the enclosed birth should be filed in the Maxwell's case styled above. + +David A. Dichl, 53214018 +Federal Conferential Complex +USP Coloman II +PO Box 1034 +Coloman, FL 33521 + +David A. Dichl +David A. Dichl +8-4-2021 + +9-12 offense involving + +12 3299 + +18 USC §3283 13 Summary + +In United States v. Dienl, 778 Fo.3d 714 (5th cir. 2015) the court found that 18 USC §3283's "any offense involving sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping" included the sexual exploitation offense at 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). To reach the finding the court avoided §3283's plain language and instead relied on a sexual abuse definition at 18 USC § 3509(a)(8). + +Fifth Circuit "under the definitions in § 3509(a) using children to engage in sexually explicit conduct, including "exploitation" in the form of child paragraphy, constitutes "sexual abuse" of a child. 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(4), (a)(8)." + +Since the plain language does not include Exploitation they use the sexual abuse definition at (a)(8) which includes the phrase "other form of exploitation," as a work around. This solution however causes "exploitation" to be superfluous at the § 3509(a)(2) child definition,2 which keeps sexual abuse and exploitation separate. See United States v. Briley, 516 U.S. 137, 147 (1995). (Use assume congress used two terms because + +1 And a, b child Abuse definition + +it intended each term to have a particular meaning"); Lockhart v. United States 136 S.Ct. 958, 964 (2016) ("Cannon of superfluity assists where a competing interpretation gives effect to every clause and word of a statute"). There is a competing interpretation described below that uses the plain language and leaves no term insignificant. + +The Fifth Circuit's solution makes little sense in that surely congress would have just added the two exploitation terms to the Sexual Abuse definition had that been the intent.7 The sexual abuse definition includes "other forms of exploitation" perhaps like indenturhood. Given this ambiguity repose should apply "... we have stated before 'the principle that criminal limitation statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose'." Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15. (1970); "A limitation causing out an exception should apply to cases shown to be clearly within its purpose," United States v. the Elvin, 272 US 633 (1926). + +1. 1. The Fifth Circuit provided no independent analysis instead relying on United States v. Cevientos, 651 F.3d 809, 816-817 (8th Cir. 2011) and United States v. Carpenter, 680 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2012). + +### Plain Language + +when Congress wants to include exploitation they say so. See Patterson v. Schirlo, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 87501 (Dist A2 2009) (tiening 'sexual or physical abuse separate from exploitation'); Western Protectors Ins. Co. ... 624 F. Supp 21 1292 (W.D. WA, 2009) (Same); United States v. Pharis, 176 F. 3d 434, 436 (5th cir. 1999) (Same). Also See 18 USC §1101 (A) (43) (a) versus (1). "To define the meaning of a statute, we first look to the text of the statute itself, if the statute is unambiguous, the statute should be enforced as written... If the language is ambiguous, legislative history can be helpful to determine congressional intent. 'Statutory construction... is a holistic endeavor' we cannot read a single word or provision of the statute in isolation." United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th cir. 2010). + +This guidance was ignored entirely by the Fifth circuit. First, the court ignored the fact that the statute of limitation was misfiled for completely unknown reasons as the first sentence of civil stay language at 33509 (K) in 1990. Several proposals targeted the limitations, Chapter (2)(3) from the Start. See Laure H.R. 4688, May 4, 1990, Downe H.R. 3958 Feb 6, 1990. + +when congress corrected this as a "technical correction" / conforming repeal in 1994 they knowingly did not include or reference the child Abuse definitions at § 3509(a)(3)-(a)(9), (11), which appear to be for tort law, and are clearly incompatible with the child definition at § 3509(a)(2). These civil definitions are for Reporting of abuse.1 see + +18 use § 2258 which references them from THIE 42. see Ibnin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 902, 910 (10th cir. 2013) (Civil and Criminal definitions frequently differ). + +"Courts do not lightly assume that congress has ommitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply" Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 341 (2005). After one technical correction and two later amendments surely congress knew what it was doing by not including or referencing the § 3509(a) definitions from § 3253. Furthermore, the limitation was misplaced. "Proper statutory construction requires considering a phrases placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.... The meaning of statutory language plain or not depends on context," Brown v. Gartner, 513 US 115, 118 (1994) + +Simply put, there was never any in Pari materia between Courtroom procedural rules and the statute of limitations.1 Wachouia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (in general). see United States v. McElney, 54 Mo.J. 120, 126 (33509(K) stands alone). + +The second major problem with the Fifth Circuit's non-principled interpretation is that it is not "holistic." The fact §3283 defines child itself (instead of using §3509(a)(a)), and §3509(a) doesn't include either physical abuse or kidnapping was just ignorred entirely. Also ignorred was the misfiling, and the fact that §3283 has the odd quality of superceeding other statutes of limitations. + +The Fifth Circuit found a definition of sexual abuse they felt could pass as including 18 USC §2251(a), and that was the end of the analysis. To top it off the Fifth Circuit had previously found, in an in bane hearing, §3509(a)(8) was not acceptable as a definition of sexual abuse. see Conteras v. Haller, 754 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2014) (§3509() is "directly contrary to the definitional method mandated in our Circuit." Citing United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 550 (5th c. 2013)) + +2. Biden's S. 1965 (1990) combined stay language with limitation + +## Legislative History + +### Hollistic Analysis + +The only way to properly interpret the meaning of "any offense involving sexual or physical abuse ..." is to understand the goals of the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act (SAA). See 1984 Federal Rape Law Reform, Hearing Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2d session Aug 31, Sept 12 (herein after 1984). Also, 1986 Sexual Abuse Act H.R. 99-594 (1986). + +In Dienl and Related § 3283 cases, the Courts have relied on: "Title 18's only definition of the term sexual abuse is in 18 USC § 3509(a)(8)" as justification not to define § 3283's phase "sexual or physical abuse;" According to the SAA however, "Chapter 109A Complementarily defines sexual abuse offenses," 1986 p. 20. Further, "H.R. 4745 is divided to cover the widest possible variety of sexual abuse." Chapter 109A alone defines sexual abuse for Federal offenses. + +The Sexual Abuse Act also included physical abuse. See 1986 p. 20; "Subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) in effect delete the curient law offense of assault with intent to commit rape. Such an offense + +is necessary in current law, which does not proscribe attempted pape, but is no longer necessary because new chapter 109A proscribes attempts ..." Only 7 use § 113(a) was amended by the SAA. It's not clear why § 113(a) wasn't repeated, or what "in effect" meant. + +Courts have used H.R. 99-594 to define sexual abuse. see United States v. Shaw, 891 F.3d 441 (3rd Cir. 2017) (citing other cases); United States v. Haynsworth, 1197 U.S. App. Lexis 2383 (4th Cir. 1997) (SAA eliminates force requirement from common law pape). Territorial offenses were the goal. + +### Sexual Abuse Act To § 3283 Relationship + +There is a close relationship between the 1986 SAA and the victim of Child Abuse Act that created 18 use § 3509(k) - the predecessor of § 3283. First, the statute of limitations was originally proposed in the 1986 act. See 1984 p. 100, 108. By 1990 five years was quickly approaching. + +Second, the 1986 definitions sex crime and sex offense were used interchangable with the phrase "sexual or physical abuse" in the 1990 proposals. see + +House Proposal H.R. §1303 (1989), "any sex offense ... regardless of force ..." But Dewines Second proposal was written as "sexual or Physical abuse or sexual exploitation," H.R. 3958 (1990). In the Senate "sexual or Physical abuse or exploitation (S. 1923, and 1965 (1990)) became 'sex crime involving a child victim regardless whether the crime involved force ..." sec 1984, "... the proposed federal statute defining sex crimes properly does not include incest as a separately defined offense."7 1984 p.95 mrs. Toening Assistant A.G. sexual exploitation was removed from the bill as enacted, presumably because it wasn't included in the 1986 SAA; nor does sexual exploitation punish the independent crime of sexual abuse, or necessarily involve it. + +### Precluding Other Limitations + +Section 3509(k) was enacted to preclude other limitations, because it was enacted for territorial and maritime jurisdictions where other limitations contralied. See United States v. Roberts, 1 F.Supp. 2d 601 (5th cir. 1998) (applying 18 USC § 2243 (a) to a foreign ship in foreign water using §7(1)(8).) + +1. 1. Sex crime is defined but not used at §3009(a)(10). + +See United States v. Johnson, 699 F. Supp. 226 (1998 N.D. Cal.) (United States suppresseding State limitation) + +See Miller v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17485 (Dist of Main, 2021) (Struggling with 3283's preclusion language.) + +### Section 3283's "Offense Involving" + +Section 3283's "offense involving" language therefore applies to the repeated offenses, 1 Chapter 109A offenses, and possibly 18 use § 113(a). The 109A offenses include sub-offenses, and 109A defines sex act and sexual contact. Section 3283 is limited to territorial and maritime jurisdictions, which is why 18 use § 3299 was enacted. This is obvious. + +Several courts however have found that § 3283 applies to any and all statutes were the offense "conduct" involves sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping. See United States v. Kepler, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2820 (N. Dist. of OK, 2021) (considering applying § 3283 to assault with dendry weapons, citing United States v. Schneider, 801 F. 3d 186, 195-97 & 3rd cir. 2015)). + +2. 18 use § 2031 (rape), § 113(a) (assault to commit) (rape), § 2032 (extraordinary knowledge) + +Schneider failed to examine §3283's legislative history and thus concluded, "[3283] has no restrictive language or legislative history suggesting congressional intent to limit its application to specific subset of circumstances. Congress rather has envisaged a general intention to 'cast a wide net to enshare as many offenses against children as possible.'" Citing Dodge (Supra) at 1355. The purpose of this finding was to avoid the essential ingridant test laid out in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953). Bridges evaluates the language "offense involving fraud" in the context of a statute of limitation, and is thus directly on point. Note that the Dodge court was evaluating SORNA1 which has nothing to do with §3283. There is no legitimate reason to distinguish Bridges, because as shown there is legislative history limiting §3283 to a specific subset of circumstances. Dodges also is based on a categorical test not on essential element test. A categorical approach would have required the Schneider court to create a "common" definition of sexual abuse, which for good reason the Schneider court failed to do. The court in Schneider + +instead opted to rely on the very un common definition of sexual abuse at § 3509(a)(8) to save the day. See Esquivel- Quintana v. Sessions, 198 L. ED 22 (2017) (finding that sexual abuse of a minor applies to those under 17). This is to say, nothing of the fact sexual or physical abuse must be resolved as an explication. See Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2019) ("Courts must give effect to every clause of word if possible"); Montclint v. Ramsdell 107 US 147, 152 (1883). + +Finally Dodge isn't even current on Categorical holdings, United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, N. 10 "... if anything the statutes use of the present tense ... supports a Categorical (reading)" Section 3283's "any offense involving" is present tense, and doesn't mention "conduct". + +At the end of the day the Schneider decision was based on the sexual abuse definition at § 3509(a)(8) not a Categorical rationale. Notably that definition never came into play until the United States started misapplying § 3283 to more Chapter 109A offenses in United States v. Pannet 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101192 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (Applying § 3283 to Chapter 110 offense1). See United States + +2. Added 2251(a) as sentence enhancement. + +V. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682 (8th cir. 2005) (No mention of 33509(a)(8) at all); United States v. Johns, 15 F.3d 740 (8th cir. 1993) (same). See United States v. Coutentos (supra) (applying 33509(a)(8) without explanation as to why); See Carpenter (supra) (justifying the use of 33509(a)(8) because it was originally mislocated, and it was recodified as a part of a "general Consolidation", which is False.) + +The United States has also repeatedly tried to alter video production dates to avoid 33283 altogether in {2251(a)} exploitation cases. See defenses Final Reply brief in Coutentos available on PACER: case 10-2625, Dec 14, 2010. P.2. + +### 18 USC § 3299 + +In 2002 the Justice Reportment recommended 18 USC 33299 type language, which would have expressly included chapters 109A, 110, 117, § 1591, and kidnapping at chapter 55.2 The proposal did not pass. Instead a DNA exception at {3282(b)} Courting chapter 109A was enacted to cover death, and {3283} went to life. This was a comprehensive 109A solution. + +2 Letter to Biden Nov 25, 2002 From D.J. Bryant Assistant A.S. DoJ. + +When 18 USC § 3299 was passed in 2006 it was not made retro active, presumably because it included the new offenses. It also has no physical abuse because as explained physical abuse is a part of loga. This solution leaves all § 3283 terms accounted for. Lockhart supra. + +### Summary + +Whether or not the § 3509(a)(8) definition of sexual abuse is used, child pornography / exploitation offenses are not included, and the repurcusion of this should not be understated. There is compelling evidence showing the Justice Department has always been aware of it. As demonstrated, sexual exploitation is not included in "sexual or physical abuse" and sexual exploitation was removed from the proposals! Adding child pornography offense via § 3509(a)(8) causes superficity. Repose is mandated by supreme court precident, if precident means anything at all. + +Finally, in both the House and Senate congress said the UCAA was for enclaves. see cong. Rec. Senate June 28, 1990 p. 16238 "... Protect children in Federal Courts, IN Federal facilities, and on Federal lands, and House Report No 101-681 (I), Sept 5, 1990 p 6572. + +## Reporting of Child Abuse + +There is one final consideration that no court has analyzed regarding § 3509(k) and § 3283. The question asks why was the limitation put in § 3509(k) as the first sentence of Civil Reporting Stay language. The Stay language is relevant to section 226 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647). See CRS Report to Congress 91-69 Gov., January 11, 1991 page 3. The report says the statute of limitation is also a section 226 component. One could easily assume that § 3509(k) was enacted to superseed the statute of limitations for Federal Tort Claim Act, State Statutes. And, despite what the government has said in numerous cases concerning the statute of limitations, it wasn't "simply moved" to § 3283 in 1994, it was infact moved as part of a "conforming Repeal."2 See 330018 of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. + +The generic language of § 3283 would have been perfect for FTCA applications. The October 27, 1990 release report of the Crime Control Act doesn't discuss or even mention any extended limitation. + +2 Under the oversight of Jack Blooks Rep. TX + +## Certificate of Service + +The United States was not served separately as they are electronic filers and will receive electronic filers. + +David A Diew + +David A Diew + +8-4-2021 + +Clerk of Court, + +Please file the enclosed motion to intervene into United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73882 (S.D. NY, April 2021) per Fed R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). + +Please notify me at the below problem address of any problems + +David A. Diehl 532 14018 +Federal Confectional Complex +USP Coleman II +PO Box 1034 + +Respectfully +Samila Siebl +8-4-2021 + +David A. Dicki, 53214018 + +Federal Correction Co. Rec'd + +USP Coleman II + +PO. Box 1034 + +Coleman II, FL 335-21 + +RECEIVED +SDNY PRO SE OFF. +AM 10:13 +2025 FEB 14 + +![](_page_21_Picture_27.jpeg) + +CLERK'S OFFICE +S.D.N.Y. + +![](_page_21_Picture_29.jpeg) + +![](_page_21_Picture_30.jpeg) + +FOREVER / USA FOREVER / USA + +pro se + +Daniel Patrick Moyniham U.S. Courthouse +500 Pearl St. Room 120 +New York, NY 10001-1312 + +RECEIVED +SDNY PRO SE OFF. +2025 FEB 14 + +ID OFFICE SECTION + +Legal Mail \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b8de2c97d3b1c658a285b1ef4e8832e42c64462 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/EFTA02833017.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,946 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 22, + "chars": 21428, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.94, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_21_Picture_27.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_29.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_30.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Motion To Intervene", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.18, + 233.27999999999997 + ], + [ + 440.64, + 233.27999999999997 + ], + [ + 440.64, + 255.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 255.14999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Interest.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 354.34799999999996, + 102.06 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 102.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Plain Language", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 107.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Legislative History Hollistic Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.036, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 400.248, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 400.248, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 216.036, + 135.27 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sexual Abuse Act To \u00a7 3283 Relationship", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.96, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.96, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 429.29999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Precluding Other Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 471.24, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 471.24, + 507.87 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 507.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Section 3283's \"Offense Involving\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 139.536, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.524, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 475.524, + 258.39 + ], + [ + 139.536, + 258.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "18 USC \u00a7 3299", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 400.86, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 400.86, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 482.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Summary", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 283.5 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 283.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reporting of Child Abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.348, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 444.31199999999995, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 444.31199999999995, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 201.348, + 107.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.64799999999997, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 446.148, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 446.148, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 216.64799999999997, + 137.70000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833017" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_27.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_27.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd8a7489f34a308bd8f3ac76b389ce2f82750816 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_27.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:31a551ae1d985df4a4a8d1a14369cb2d58d48f8101d3f8b5643db8b1d7805b9b +size 24077 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_29.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_29.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3536b6467c608716409f7fe71a4e0b7b4de3fd9a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_29.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8c15f9453d590aef6055a563ca016bceda25b137e4885f8decee8b23114de534 +size 6726 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_30.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_30.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c0757f473779c73062b8101030e62a26620e179 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833017/_page_21_Picture_30.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6d370e5223703d668ca3dd2cf88c5d791fe0f4838dab7f50c28a63714b5d2307 +size 16800 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b1d75660f06666e7f9de49292ce975a1eeb4d03 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's It New York New York 10007 + +October 11, 2021 + +## BY EMAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order dated August 27, 2021 (Dkt. No. 330). The parties have conferred, in accordance with the Court's Order, and submit the enclosed joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire. Where the parties disagree in the enclosed documents, the parties have so indicated and included the basis for the objections. In particular, the text proposed by the defense to which the Government objects is in with specific objections in comment bubbles. The text proposed by the Government to which the defense objects is in purple with specific objections in comment bubbles. + +The defense respectfully requests that the joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire be filed under seal to avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The Government consents to the defense's request. + +Respectfully submitted. + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys + +Cc: Defense Counsel (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41e23a45fd94d9de3d28eba02265346e1d3235d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/EFTA02833039.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1504, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 135.3961639404297, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 135.3961639404297, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833039" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5bc4e98cb6e1d15bfae882778235a8196ac8ca3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:481ea02c188839c50cd79abf13f25e0ca4ab4288456e04bb4822d46cf54a409f +size 3325 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c838bd7706d3dca99f95f23ada236e2ada9a3fc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mollo Building One Saint dame's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +October 12, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government submits this letter pursuant to the Court's Order dated October 5, 2021 (Dkt. No. 337) directing the parties to confer and submit a joint letter estimating when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. The parties have conferred, in accordance with the Court's Order. + +Government Position: The Government estimates that it would rest within four weeks from the start of the trial. That estimate is conservative, and the Government anticipates that it could rest as early as the third week of trial, provided that the cross examinations of witnesses do not exceed the length of direct examinations. In an abundance of caution, however, the Government projects approximately four weeks for its case in chief. + +As the defense notes below, conversations between the parties about the length of trial are ongoing. The Government timely produced its exhibit list, witness list, and Jencks Act material to the defense yesterday.' + +Although the anticipated length of trial may change, based on current estimates and the + +I Specifically, the Government produced those materials by FedEx and by making them available for pickup at the U.S. Attorney's Office, as is usual practice. + +Government's conversations with the defense, the Government requests that the Court seat only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday. + +Defense Position: The defense anticipates it will present a defense case, which it currently estimates will last approximately two weeks. That estimate may change after the defense has had an opportunity to review the Government's witness and exhibit lists which were made available to defense counsel last night after the close of business.' Additionally, as a general matter, the defense believes that the length of cross-examination is determined by the scope of the direct examination, not its length. + +Joint Position: Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court seat only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324 + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) + += Ms. Maxwell has not yet been provided a copy of the Government's late-night disclosures because the Government was unwilling to hand-deliver a co of their disclosures to MDC on the due date. The Government has informed defense counsel that that receive the materials some time later this week via mail. After the defendant has had an opportunity to review the disclosures and confer with counsel, the defense can update the Court with any anticipated changes to its defense-case projections. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6bce4eff2b39c998a59cc248afbbd3ae2e36146 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/EFTA02833041.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3129, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833041" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48051b523cf12eee8ef645f6467b7f0cc80c3eb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833041/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8642444ac130d982733e463a1b84724d9066f835c6a711de30d516ad70e94924 +size 3510 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8f0d72497842e1275cd521f91657b2e897fe1e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +-------------------------------- x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +NOTICE OF MOTION + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all papers and proceedings had herein, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell will move this Court before the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, for the following: + +An Order granting individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. + +Dated: New York, NY. October 13, 2021 + +/s/ Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway -Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 212-243-1100 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennis HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +Via ECF to: Clerk of the Court Government Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f72b3e084e0d23b694d6084b8f8fee060e3cae04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043/EFTA02833043.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833043.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1048, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 302.328, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 302.328, + 85.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 85.61248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833043" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b52d2d09b9e2806bb823273fec9ea3ff84769f5d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.md @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED JUROR VOIR DIRE AND LIMITED COUNSEL-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennii er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +303-831-7364 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway -Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### INTRODUCTION + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submits this memorandum of law in support of her motion for individual sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors and limited attorney-conducted voir dire. + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Court has already determined that a juror questionnaire is appropriate in this case. Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties recently submitted, under seal, a joint proposed jury questionnaire. The Court has scheduled three days for prospective jurors to complete the final Court-approved questionnaire, and four days to conduct examination of prospective jurors. + +But a questionnaire by itself is not sufficient in this case to root out potential juror bias and to permit the attorneys to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges. Supplementing a robust questionnaire with individual sequestered voir dire and limited examination of jurors by counsel is necessary in this case because of the sensitive subject matter of the charges and two types of unfairly prejudicial media attention: (i) the pretrial publicity that this case has received and will continue to receive throughout the duration of the trial and (ii) the extensive prior negative publicity concerning Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. + +The intense negative media coverage of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein, most profoundly in the aftermath of his death in August 2019 and the arrest of Ms. Maxwell in July 2020, has significantly increased the likelihood that prospective jurors will report to jury selection with preconceptions, impressions, and opinions about the conduct at issue in the trial and those accused of the charges in the indictment: Ms. Maxwell and Epstein An unprecedented amount of media coverage has focused on this case, Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The publicity includes extensive coverage in the press, including newspapers, magazines, and on-line sites; in broadcast media, including regular and cable television stations, radio, and streaming platforms, such as + +Netffix, Peacock, and Amazon; in podcasts and YouTube recordings; in social media sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter; in online sites, chat rooms and blogs. The publicity has covered a wide range of topics including and beyond those that will be presented at trial. + +Prospective jurors may also have a strong reaction to the sensitive nature of the charges and some of the evidence that to be adduced at trial. Epstein's arrests and prior conviction for sexual misconduct, allegations of his sexual misconduct of minors over the course of two decades, and his untimely death awaiting his federal trial will be front and center during Ms. Maxwell's upcoming trial. + +The standard voir dire typically conducted by the Court is insufficient for this case and will be redundant to questions posed in the proposed jury questionnaire. A written questionnaire coupled with sequestered voir dire of individual prospective jurors and limited open-ended questioning by counsel will assist the Court and parties in determining whether prospective jurors have developed prejudicial preconceptions regarding this case, Ms. Maxwell, and Epstein due to this intense media coverage and pretrial publications and broadcasts. + +#### ARGUMENT + +## I. THE APPLICABLE LAW + +A prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality. As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred: + +> Actual bias is "bias in fact," generally evidenced by "express proof," such as a juror's admission to "a state of mind prejudicial to a party's interest." Implied bias is "bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law" from circumstances in which an average person in the position of the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists "when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias." + +United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. , 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)). All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury selection process should screen for each type. See id. + +Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the Constitutional right of a fair trial "by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors." United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these reasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v. Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States v. Elizabeth M, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) ("Theranos case"); United States v. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (EDNY) ("Nexium case"). + +Individual voir dire is appropriate and within the court's discretion in cases like this where the potential jury pool has been exposed to extensive pretrial publicity and may harbor prejudice against the defendant, and where the allegations touch on issues that are potentially inflammatory. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303; see also United States v. Rahman,189 F.3d 88, 122 (2d Cir. 1999). Using individual voir dire, in addition to a juror questionnaire, is necessary in this case (i) to expose potential biases by maximizing the likelihood that members of the venire will respond honestly to questions, and (ii) to avoid contaminating unbiased members of the venire when other members disclose prior knowledge of prejudicial information or blurt out a prejudicial remark. As the Supreme Court has stated: + +> It may sometimes be necessary to question on voir dire prospective jurors individually or in small groups, both to maximize the likelihood that members of the venire will respond honestly to questions concerning bias, and to avoid contaminating unbiased members of the venire when other members disclose prior knowledge of prejudicial information. + +Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 602 (1976). + +#### II. THE JURY POOL HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO SUBSTANTIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ABOUT GHISLAINE MAXWELL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, AND THIS CASE + +# A. A Tsunami of Pretrial Publicity About this Case + +Countless articles, books, podcasts, television shows, and docuseries from various sources have been published and broadcast concerning this case since it was filed in July 2020. This followed closely on the heels of an avalanche of media reports preceding and following Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and following his death in August 2019. A tsunami of reporting in every conceivable form — newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, video streaming services, podcasts, social media platforms — has broadcast this case locally, nationally, and globally. Without a doubt, and without any credible evidentiary basis, Ms. Maxwell has been + +tried, convicted, and condemned in the court of public opinion. Based on widespread coverage of her extraordinary and miserable conditions of pretrial detention, unworn "jurors" likely believe sentence has already been imposed. The pretrial publicity and publications are far too extensive to list. As of this writing, a simple Internet search by Google yields the following: + +- Ghislaine Maxwell: "about 4,590,000 results (0.77 seconds)" +- **Jeffrey Epstein: "about 25,800,000 results (0.87 seconds)"** + +**Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her undersigned defense team has ever spoken to the media and have not contributed to the polluting effect of this unprecedented coverage.** + +**In addition, there have been numerous books, podcasts, and documentaries published and broadcast about Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, and the allegations in this case. The following is just a small sample of recent publications concerning Ms. Maxwell:** + +# **Documentaries** + +- **Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich** (Netflix) +- **Notorious: Ghislaine Maxwell** (ABC 20/20) +- **Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell** (Peacock) + +# Podcasts: + +- **Chasing Ghislaine: The Untold Story of the Woman in Epstein 's Shadow** (Vicky M) +- **Hunting Ghislaine** (John Sweeney) +- **The Ghislaine Maxwell Spiral** (Audible) + +## Books: + +- Ghislaine Maxwell (Steve H. Dwight) +- **Relentless Pursuit:1a for the Victims of:Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (M** +- **Trash: Encounters with Ghislaine Maxwell** (Christina Oxenberg) +- **Perversion ofJustice** (Julie K. =) + +- Ghislaine Maxwell: The Rise and Fall of Manhattan's Most Famous Socialite (Nigel Cawthome) +- The Spider: Insider the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (Barry Levin) +- Jeffrey Epstein's Other Women: Behind Ghislaine Maxwell (Lisa Tait) +- The Jeffrey Epstein Case: What We Do and Don't Know About Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (Stephen =) + +Much of the pretrial reporting, publications, and broadcasts refer to Epstein's 2008 case in Florida and the public outrage over his charges, plea deal, the leniency he received. The aftermath of this coverage resulted in the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, former U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of Florida, whose office was the subject of an inquiry conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") concerning the federal criminal investigation of Epstein and its interactions with victims. OPR released a report of its investigation in November 2020, which again led to a series of media articles about Epstein's conduct and the appropriateness of the deal he received. The effect of such recurring reporting regarding Epstein has had an incalculable spillover effect that has indelibly stained Ms. Maxwell and significantly impacted her ability to receive a fair trial by an impartial jury. + +## B. Allegations of Sex Abuse Abound in New York + +Ms. Maxwell approaches trial under the cloud of massive negative publicity focused on one of the most sensational, hot-button social issues in recent years — sexual harassment and abuse of females of all ages, including inappropriate sexual contact with minors. High-profile investigations, prosecutions, and trials involving politicians, moguls and celebrities are daily occurrences. New York has been the venue for some of the most notorious events, including but hardly limited to the recent investigation and resignation of Governor Andrew and trials and convictions of Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly. These are not rare occurrences. Consider the downfall of other prominent New Yorkers due to sex scandals: former Governors David Paterson and Andrew Spitzer, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, former U.S. Congressman Andrew Wiener, not to mention the many New York-based television celebrities against whom serious allegations of sexual abuse have been alleged: Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly. + +The fact that a woman now stands trial for charges almost exclusively alleged against men heightens the interest and intrigue of this case. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of negative articles about Ms. Maxwell and Epstein in the very newspapers, television stations, and streaming platforms to which the jury pool in this case are regularly exposed (New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NY I, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Neylix, Peacock). + +The jury pool from which the jury in this case will be selected has been exposed to more than its fair share of media coverage fomenting public outrage at individuals accused of sex crimes, like Ms. Maxwell. The negative publicity has been so pervasive, vitriolic, and extreme that Ms. Maxwell has been demonized in the press. While the Court has no power to protect public contempt, it can exercise its supervisory powers and discretion and implement protocols designed to obtain an open-minded jury sworn to return a verdict based solely on evidence presented at trial. + +#### III. A ROBUST JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE ARE NECESSARY FOR THIS CASE + +# A. A Questionnaire Alone Is Insufficient to Uncover Potential Juror Bias + +In cases like this—where there has been pervasive media exposure that inflames passions about the underlying events and demonizes a party—prospective jurors can form biases long before they appear for jury service. Once a pretrial judgment is made, the concepts of "belief + +persistence" and "confirmation bias" are at work. Belief persistence occurs when an opinion formed is resistant to change even when proven wrong. Confirmation bias occurs when an individual forms an opinion early in the decision-making process and then evaluates new information in a way that supports the earlier decision.' The jury questionnaire is the first opportunity jurors have to tell the lawyers and the Court what they are thinking and, more importantly, what influenced them to think that way. + +Given the likelihood intense media scrutiny of this trial, it is critical to use both a robust written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to inquire about the extent to which each potential juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity and to what extent each juror has formed an opinion of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein + +Because there is always the fear that a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity, a jury questionnaire and individual voir dire in a case such as this is particularly warranted. If the Court were to engage in public questioning of the venire panel en masse, answers could infect the entire panel. Alternatively, concerns about a panel member's unanticipated answer may render the questions too carefully worded to uncover the problem. Further, questions asked pose privacy concerns that would require constant side bars. A questionnaire can solve some, but not all, of these issues. + +Individual sequestered voir dire would encourage jurors to answer questions more completely and more honestly because the jurors would not be influenced by (or influence) the answers given by fellow jurors or fear embarrassment in giving an honest response. Jurors avoid the pressure to give "right" or socially acceptable answers in front of a large group or to parrot + +&#x27; See Hope, Memon & McGeorge, Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock Jurors, 10 J. Experimental Psych. Applied, 111-119 (2004). + +answers that seem acceptable to the Court and counsel. For example, in this case it is necessary to ask jurors if they or a family member have ever been a victim of sexual abuse—a question that most jurors will not be inclined to answer in public. In a case that has received media attention or involves a well-known defendant, a larger jury panel is often assembled in an attempt to increase the odds of obtaining a fair jury. The paradox is that a larger panel can mean that jurors are even less inclined to speak up in front of a large group. Accordingly, in a high-publicity case such as this, q questionnaire alone is insufficient. + +# B. Individual Sequestered Voir Dire is Necessary Due to the Sensitive Nature of the Charges + +The nature of the charges in this case poses special problems for jury selection rarely encountered in the average federal jury trial. The crimes charged (concerning sexual abuse of minors) are particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from which jurors are drawn. The charges tap into strongly held moral, ethical, and religious beliefs concerning appropriate, inappropriate, and immoral behavior and conduct, and can produce visceral and emotional reactions leading to more severe judgments based on preconceived viewpoints rather than on admissible evidence presented at trial As such, prospective jurors' opinion and beliefs regarding the nature of the crimes charged will need to be addressed through procedures that maximize juror openness, honesty, and candor. + +It is only through in-depth questioning and exploration of jurors' views on these issues that both the defense and prosecution can uncover what is needed to pursue challenges for cause and to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges. The experiences and backgrounds of jurors could have significant bearing on the potential biases that they have. A variety of potential experiences, both general (e.g., being a victim of a crime or closely related to a victim) and specific (e.g., harassment, molestation, unwanted sexual contact, sexual assault, rape, domestic + +violence, etc.) are relevant to the subject matter of this case. Such experiences are of a highly personal nature, the revelation of which in a public courtroom could lead to embarrassment and emotional distress. As a result, issues relevant to this case need to be addressed in a sensitive and private setting. + +The jury selection procedures normally used by this Court — i.e., group voir dire with questioning exclusively by the judge — pose heightened problems to an effective and informative voir dire in a case involving topics that are difficult to discuss, let alone in a large public forum. It is typically anxiety producing and discomforting for jurors to make public disclosures. This case amplifies the likelihood that jurors will be more apprehensive and constrained to respond openly and honestly in open court within earshot of other jurors, members of the public, and the media. + +### IV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED EXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES + +Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court broad discretion in conducting the voir dire examination. The Court has the right to control who conducts the voir dire and has the discretion to allow attorneys to conduct some, or all, of the voir dire. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(I) and (2) ("The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so."). + +The Court should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire because it will yield more complete information about the potential jurors for the proper exercise of peremptory challenges. For a peremptory challenge to serve its purposes, it must be intelligently exercised. This requires that the parties obtain sufficient information from the potential jurors upon which to base their challenges. United States v. Ledee, 549 F.2d 990, 993 (5th Cir.), cent. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) ("Peremptory challenges are worthless if trial + +counsel is not afforded an opportunity to gain the necessary information upon which to base such strikes."). Without the opportunity for counsel to effectively probe for hidden prejudices, it would be difficult to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges. + +### A. The Attorneys Have More In-Depth Knowledge of the Case + +It is counsel, not the Court, who is in the best position to obtain the information necessary to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See. e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at •3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons, including the fact that a judge "does not have the advocate's awareness that soon [s]he will be making peremptory challenges based on inferences from what prospective jurors have said" and the fact that "the judge does not know the case of either party in detail, so that [s]he cannot realize when responses have opened areas for further inquiry."2 As the Fifth Circuit has recognized: + +> A judge cannot have the same grasp of the facts, the complexities and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of the case. The court does not know the strength and weaknesses of each litigant's case. Justice requires that each lawyer be given an opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed. + +Ledee, 549 F.2d at 993 (citing Frates and Greer, Jury Voir Dire: The Lawyer's Perspective, 2 A.B.A. Litigation No. 2 (1976)). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit later amplified this concept, stating that "voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel." + +> While Federal Rules [sic] of Criminal Procedure 24(a) gives wide discretion to the trial Court, voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel. The "federal" practice of almost exclusive voir dire examination by the Court does not take + +2 Babcock, Voir Dire: Preserving "Its Wonderful Power", 27 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 549 (1975). + +into account the fact that it is the parties, rather than the Court, who have a full grasp of the nuances and the strength and weaknesses of the case... Experience indicates that in the majority of situations questioning by counsel would be more likely to fulfill this need [for information upon which to base the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges] than an exclusive examination in general terms by the trial Court. + +United States v. Ible, 630 F.2d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 1980). + +In this case, voir dire conducted solely by the Court will interfere with the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. Attorneys have been working on this case well over a year. They are most likely to know the areas of questioning that must be explored to further uncover the prejudices that are most pertinent to the evidence that will be presented at trial. They also act with an awareness that they will have to base peremptory challenges on the juror's answers. Permitting attorney-conducted voir dire in addition to Court voir dire will therefore maximize the information obtained in voir dire. + +### B. The Extensive Pretrial Publicity Related to This Case Necessitates Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire + +The possibility of prejudice in this case due to the extensive pretrial publicity is so great that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary. In United States v. M, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in not undertaking a more thorough examination of panel members exposed to publicity ("[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough."). A district court is required, under M, to determine what each juror may have heard or read and how it may have affected his attitude toward the trial, and whether any juror's impartiality had been destroyed. Id; see also Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627, 638 (9th Cir. 1968) ("[I]n the absence of an examination designed to elicit answers which provide an objective basis + +for the court's evaluation, `merely going through the form of obtaining jurors' assurances of impartiality is insufficient [to test that impartiality]") (citation omitted). + +Because it is extremely likely that prospective jurors have been exposed to potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity, specific, individual voir dire is required. M, 583 F.2d at 196-97. To increase the likelihood that any hidden prejudices of the jurors will be uncovered, to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges, and to ensure that a fair and impartial jury is empaneled in this case, counsel should be given an opportunity to individually examine prospective jurors. + +Individual sequestered voir dire conducted jointly by counsel and the Court has a variety of benefits. It invites a conversation rather than posing an interrogation. It eliminates the pressure on jurors to provide socially desirable or acceptable answers in a group setting, reduces conformity pressures that can diminish candor, and removes the risk of other jurors being influenced by statements made during group voir dire that enable them to either stay on the jury or be removed for cause. It increases juror comfort, minimizes the anxiety of public speaking, encourages candor, and promotes honesty. + +Furthermore, questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid. Attorney-conducted questioning the status gap between the humble layperson and the honorable judicial officer exalted high above the venire. Research indicates that expansive voir dire yields greater revelations of juror bias;; and in-depth attorney-conducted voir dire combined with individual sequestered voir dire elicits greater + +3 See, e.g., Moran, Cutler & Loftus. July Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for &tended Voir Dire, 3 Forensics Reports 331(1990). + +admissions of bias on the part of jurors.° In-depth voir dire including limited open-ended questions posed by counsel also helps to attack the minimization effect, whereby jurors often seek to decrease the extremity of their opinions in addition to their exposure to and the impact of pretrial publicity.5 + +#### C. The Court Can Reasonably Limit the Scope of Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire + +The Court can also fairly and reasonably limit the time and scope of the attorneyconducted voir dire and prevent any abuse of the process. For example, the Court can direct demand that the attorneys restrict themselves to new or proscribed areas of examination or relevant follow-up examination to ferret out bias and prejudice. In addition, the Court can legitimately place a specific time limit on attorney-conducted voir dire. Permitting each party one minute per juror (expanded to three minutes if there is basis to pursue a cause challenge) is eminently justifiable after basic voir dire has been conducted by the Court. An attorney who is given mere minutes for additional voir dire examination is unlikely to waste that precious time. Permitting each party a mere minute of attorney-conducted voir dire will increase the possibility of rooting out prejudice and bias in this unique case. + +# D. The Uniqueness of This Case Warrants Limited Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire + +The conventional voir dire procedures utilized in this district are inadequate to screen venire members for bias and prejudice due to the nature of the charges and the extensive pretrial publicity and exposure. This case presents unique issues that require an expansion of traditional voir dire protocols. + +&amp; Haney, Felony Voir Dire: An exploratory Study of its Contents and Effect, 18 Law and Human Behavior 309 (1994). + +5 Vidmar, Case Studies of Pre- and Midtrial Prejudice in Criminal and Civil Litigation, 26 Law and Human Behavior 73 (2002). + +This application is not seeking to conduct unduly invasive questioning, to "pre-try" the case to the venire, to create impressions or sympathies which will help either party during the trial, or to unreasonably extend the time for jury selection. The Court can restrict attorneys to posing open-ended questions to identify bias, prejudice and preconceptions, subject to reasonable time limits. + +Long ago, the Supreme Court observed: + +Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference, the Constitution lays down no tests and procedure is not chained to any ancient and artificial formula. + +United States v. M, 299 U.S. 123, 145-146 (1936). Like impartiality, bias, prejudice, and preconceptions are mental states, making them all the more difficult to identify and assess when a prospective juror is not forthcoming in revealing these mental attitudes. Limited attorneyconducted voir dire will help uncover any potential bias in the jury pool. + +### CONCLUSION + +Voir dire is a mutual search between lawyers and the Court to determine whether a particular individual can ensure integrity of the trial process in each case. In the words of a federal appeals judge: + +> We would, as judges, have to ignore what we know as men to assume that only the law and the naked facts carry the burden of persuasion. Psychology governs human affairs even in the courtroom... Our system of justice is deprived of its fullest potential when the lawyer is denied the right to examine veniremen in an adversary setting. + +Honorable Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.) "In a Fair Adversary System, the Lawyer Should Conduct the Voir Dire of the Jury." + +Considering the sensitive nature of the charges and the pervasive pretrial publicity and exposure of this case, the Court should grant the request for individual sequestered voir dire and limited questioning by counsel. + +Dated: October 13, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & P.C. + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01cb296a9b32255ffc212aea57a511c293da41ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044/EFTA02833044.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1170 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833044.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 17, + "chars": 30050, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.06, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.2911376953125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.2911376953125, + 102.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S \nMOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED JUROR VOIR DIRE \nAND LIMITED COUNSEL-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 521.560791015625, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 521.560791015625, + 351.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 351.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 361.3661193847656, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 361.3661193847656, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 214.2, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 399.3031311035156, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 399.3031311035156, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 214.2, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.0113525390625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.0113525390625, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE APPLICABLE LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 248.47044372558594, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 248.47044372558594, + 112.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 112.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE JURY POOL HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO \nSUBSTANTIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ABOUT GHISLAINE MAXWELL, \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN, AND THIS CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.62, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 524.4105224609375, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 524.4105224609375, + 485.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 82.62, + 485.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. A Tsunami of Pretrial Publicity About this Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 494.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 379.2763977050781, + 494.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 379.2763977050781, + 510.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 510.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Documentaries", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 184.44781494140625, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 184.44781494140625, + 390.0994567871094 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 390.0994567871094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Podcasts:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 467.37 + ], + [ + 156.6212921142578, + 467.37 + ], + [ + 156.6212921142578, + 483.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 483.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 584.01 + ], + [ + 145.4281768798828, + 584.01 + ], + [ + 145.4281768798828, + 599.3035125732422 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 599.3035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Allegations of Sex Abuse Abound in New York", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 372.1705627441406, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 372.1705627441406, + 519.0635375976562 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 519.0635375976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. A ROBUST JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE ARE \nNECESSARY FOR THIS CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 513.6356811523438, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 513.6356811523438, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. A Questionnaire Alone Is Insufficient to Uncover Potential Juror Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 621.27 + ], + [ + 489.9978332519531, + 621.27 + ], + [ + 489.9978332519531, + 636.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 636.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Individual Sequestered Voir Dire is Necessary Due to the Sensitive Nature \nof the Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 295.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 295.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED \nEXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 507.6317443847656, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 507.6317443847656, + 416.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 416.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Attorneys Have More In-Depth Knowledge of the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 437.0263977050781, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 437.0263977050781, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Extensive Pretrial Publicity Related to This Case Necessitates Attorney-\nConducted Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 522.648, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 522.648, + 429.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 429.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Court Can Reasonably Limit the Scope of Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 531.7996826171875, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 531.7996826171875, + 196.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 196.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Uniqueness of This Case Warrants Limited Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 539.2996826171875, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 539.2996826171875, + 498.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 498.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 429.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 429.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833044" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab4ecba2793ff1521a0637388ef0efea339c0c3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 10/13/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of Defendant's motion for an order granting individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. Dkt. No. 341. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Monday, October 18, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 13, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7153cd37f6a99205f2561b952416840ca618a606 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061/EFTA02833061.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833061.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 683, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.72, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833061" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f6daeca20f8079af5f899c6b68a172663a9e41e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court received a letter via email from a lawyer for an alleged victim regarding victim attendance at the upcoming trial. The Court will file the letter under seal and forward a copy to counsel for both sides. + +Consistent with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the Court will ensure public access for pre-trial proceedings and trial, including several overflow rooms at the courthouse with live feeds of the proceedings. Additional information will be provided as soon as it is available. + +Access for alleged victims will be coordinated between the Victim Witness Unit and the District Executive's Office. The contact information for each office is provided below. Furthermore, Defense counsel may coordinate access for the Defendant's family members with the District Executive's Office. + +Wendy Olson, Coordinator Victim Witness Unit United States Attorney's Office (212) 637-1028 Wendy.Olson@usdoj.gov + +SO ORDERED. + +Pecorino District Executive's Office United States District Court Southern District of New York (212) 805-0504 + +Dated: October 14, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d8efd65370b99099c2eb0c2a7cc42df96cf711d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/EFTA02833062.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1354, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.01, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833062" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8edb11a87676fa9cbfd6e04653376dcea6df51e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833062/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:17e40f0a71a681aace2399a5717f5da71550c25d4596404c6733850444be4959 +size 11359 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ffc9d182fbb3ea26d233c56b209b716ee91573c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON N N + +October 14, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and t.c Jeffrey Pagthrea + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflave.com jpagliuca4hrnflow.corn + +Re: Deadline for Filing Motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +I write to confirm that November 15, 2021 is the deadline for Ms. Maxwell to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which governs the admissibility of evidence of an alleged victim's sexual behavior. + +Under this Court's pretrial scheduling order, motions in limine are due on October 18. A motion in limine is a "pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial." Black's Law Dictionary (11th S. 2019). + +A motion under Rule 412 is not a motion in limine. Rather, it is a motion seeking permission to admit evidence the Rules of Evidence might otherwise exclude. It is a substantive motion under a specific rule of evidence with specific procedures for its filing, consideration, and determination. Fed. R. Evid. 412(c). And the Rule itself sets a deadline for filing a motion under its terms-14 days before trial. Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(B) (providing that a defendant must file her motion "at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time"). + +October 14, 2021 + +Page 2 + +Ms. Maxwell's counsel conferred with the government about the timing for filing a motion under Rule 412. The government seeks to have the motion briefed before jury selection begins. + +Implicit in the language of Rule 412(c)(1)(B) is authority for the Court to permit a defendant to file a motion closer to trial than 14 days, for good cause. But contrary to the government's suggestion, the Rule does not contemplate a deadline more than 14 days before trial) + +In any event, Ms. Maxwell should not be required to file her Rule 412 motion any time before November 15, since it was just three days ago (October 11) that the government disclosed its 3500 material, including more than 8,000 pages of testifying witness disclosures. It will require significant time and resources to review and investigate this material and to identify any potentially admissible Rule 412 evidence. + +It was also just three days ago that the government alerted defense counsel to its anticipated Rule 404(b) witnesses. Rule 412's procedures apply not just to alleged victims named in the indictment but to any alleged victim in a case involving sexual misconduct, including alleged 404(b) victims. Fed. R. Evid. 412, Advisory Committee Notes, 1994 Amendments ("Rule 412 extends to 'pattern' witnesses in both criminal and civil cases about other instances of sexual misconduct by the person accused is otherwise admissible."). + +Finally, Ms. Maxwell (who is in custody) was only provided a copy of the government's disclosures earlier today in the late morning. Until Ms. Maxwell is able to review the material, + +&#x27; See Fed. R. Evid. 412, Advisory Committee Notes, 1994 Amendments, Subdivision (c) ("The requirement of a motion before trial is continued in the amended rule, as is the provision that a late motion may be permitted for good cause shown." (emphasis added)). + +October 14, 2021 + +Page 3 + +her counsel cannot adequately consult with her about the defense. Allowing Ms. Maxwell to file her Rule 412 motion 14 days before trial, as the Rule itself provides, is essential for counsel to effectively consult with Ms. Maxwell, to investigate and research what evidence they will seek to admit under Rule 412, as well as to comply with the several procedural steps required by the Rule. + +Accordingly, unless this Court orders otherwise, Ms. Maxwell will file her Rule 412 motion on or before November 15, 2021, as provided in Rule 412(c)(1)(B). + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e93a3188e023ef281f8411a6cbd97313eb97c539 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/EFTA02833064.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4067, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.05, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.22271728515625, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.22271728515625, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833064" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..872826359f486fe2a4795ce3fea167a08694b3e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833064/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9536d21effb967dfc555a100c862b2bedebbfe9d729fff50dc93f873da190947 +size 2930 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81edb3fa5dfb5cfbedc1a8c6f224a6492e8d61f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fox bcstemheim@maccom + +October 14. 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I respectfully request that the Court issue an order directing the MDC to provide to Ms. Maxwell all legal mail, including mailings sent or hand-delivered by counsel and the government, within one day of receipt by the MDC. A hard drive containing Court-ordered disclosures (3500 material, non-testifying witness materials, and the Government's proffered exhibits) was sent via FedEx by the Government on October I I and received by the MDC on October 12. The hard drive was not provided to Ms. Maxwell until late morning today, October 14. + +This is but the latest episode in the persistent practice by MDC of delaying delivery to Ms. Maxwell of critical legal materials sent to the MDC via FedEx and/or the U.S. Postal Service or handdelivered and deposited by counsel in the legal mailbox. Legal mail deposited in the MDC legal mailbox on October 2 was not discovered by the MDC until October 7, after staff insinuated that Ms. Maxwell's counsel had not deposited it in the mailbox. When finally discovered, a questionable bar code sticker was attached to the envelope that was not affixed by counsel or familiar to MDC staff, suggesting that it had been tampered with. This was brought to the attention of the Warden. The Unit Manager contacted counsel regarding this irregularity and personally returned the legal mail to counsel on October 9. These ongoing delays have interfered with Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and to confer with + +counsel. They compromise her right to prepare her defense and deprive her of her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. + +Ms. Maxwell has been in custody for over 15 months without access to the evidence the Government intends to introduce at trial. The Court established a deadline of October 11 for those and other materials to be disclosed. Late in the evening of October 11, the Government produced to counsel approximately 14,0001 pages of single-spaced witness materials, as well as numerous exhibits and its purported 404(b) Notice and Co-Conspirator Notice. But the Government refused to hand-deliver those materials to MDC as they have with previous productions in this case. Because the MDC will not accept hard drives from defense counsel but will from the Government, counsel provided hard-drives to the Government a week in advance of October 11 and requested that it hand deliver the hard drive to MDC on October 11, the day of Court-ordered disclosure. The government denied this request, choosing instead to send the hard drive via FedEx. + +Tracking information confirms that the MDC received the hard drive on October 12. On October 13, counsel informed the Government that Ms. Maxwell still had not received the hard drive and emailed MDC Legal. Again this morning, counsel emailed MDC Legal regarding the failure to provide Ms. Maxwell with the hard drive containing 3500 material. The MDC has failed to respond. Ms. Maxwell did not receive the hard drive until late this morning. + +It is imperative that the Court intervene. As we approach trial, it is ever more imperative that critical trial documents and Jencks Act and Giglio material be given to Ms. Maxwell promptly upon delivery to the institution. Based on the MDC's inefficiency and mishandling of legal mail, I have no confidence MDC is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities and every reason + +There appear to be approximately 8,000 pages of testifying witness materials, and another 6,000 singlespaced pages of newly produced "non-testifying witness" materials, the bulk of which appears exculpatory. + +to believe that Ms. Maxwell's ability to defend and prepare for trial will continue to be severely compromised. + +The incompetence demonstrated by the MDC is concerning and gives counsel reason to believe that these problems will continue and that Ms. Maxwell will not receive vital trial materials with sufficient time to review them and confer with counsel. Counsel have wasted considerable time and effort to ensure that Ms. Maxwell can prepare for her upcoming trial under the most extraordinary and onerous conditions of pretrial release for a non-violent detainee with no criminal history, let alone a woman approaching the age of 60. The cost in time and dollars is wasteful and unacceptable. + +The consequence of inaction will be further erosion of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and may result in delay of trial. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e47bd46487900926cdfcd10d2da9b3dd7df77828 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067/EFTA02833067.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833067.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4777, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.08, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1971435546875, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1971435546875, + 53.13409423828125 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 53.13409423828125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833067" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a753ae7d95300dbf90c21e7bfd2ecd779467a8d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU: [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 10/14/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter regarding the deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Dkt. No. 345. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, October 15, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 14, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1339b20f72f12bb597a473a454af50c3d588e1f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070/EFTA02833070.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833070.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 672, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.88, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833070" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2cbffe242a7a5b050e9f4262efef3fca9471f88c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +USDC SDNY +DOCU [REDACTED] +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 10/15/21 + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter regarding delivery of Defendant's legal mail at MDC. Dkt. No. 346. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond as soon as possible but by no later than today, October 15, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 15, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..828a61092a5c2aabfa5de39e0db429440f4017b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071/EFTA02833071.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833071.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 627, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833071" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..144d765991a4ef5e386b5ec4f2da08b0181b6c30 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Motto Building One Saint Andrrw's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +October 15, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 348) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October 14, 2021 letter regarding delivery of the defendant's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") (Dkt. No. 346). + +The Government conferred with legal counsel at the MDC in response to the Court's Order and was informed of the following: As a general matter, legal mail from a defendant's counsel is delivered to the defendant within one business day of receipt at the MDC. Legal mail sent to a defendant from the Government via FedEx goes to the MDC's warehouse. Staff at the MDC's warehouse process and log the mail in a tracking system and then contact the relevant department—in this case, the legal department—about the mail. The legal department has to then go to the warehouse to retrieve the mail, log the mail, assign the mail an internal number for tracking purposes, and fill out a form authorizing the delivery of the mail to the inmate before delivering the mail to the inmate. + +Legal counsel at the MDC has explained to the Government that these are the MDC's + +standard procedures for legal mail, and these protocols apply to each one of the approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. Legal counsel at the MDC has further explained that defense counsel's request that the MDC be ordered to provide the defendant with all legal mail within one day of receipt by the MDC would be extremely burdensome and is not practicable in light of the various responsibilities of the MDC's legal department, which is responsible for issues relating to the approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. The Government respectfully submits that there are no circumstances that merit special expedited delivery for this defendant, and that the delivery of the defendant's mail should not receive priority over the services the legal department's staff provides to other inmates. + +As noted in the defense's letter, the Government sent a hard drive containing Court-ordered disclosures to the defendant via FedEx on October II, 2021. The hard drive was received by the MDC on October 12, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government that there was an institutional emergency impacting the safety and security of the MDC on October 13, 2021, such that no inmate at the MDC received any legal mail from the warehouse that day. On the morning of October 14, 2021, legal counsel at the MDC personally delivered the hard drive to the defendant. + +The Government has made best efforts to obtain accurate information and respond to the Court's Order within a short time frame. Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will confer with legal counsel at the MDC and provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted. + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a02c23834e83dd25d3077b11e74dea6e7f4e4654 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/EFTA02833072.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3465, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833072" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..376427f48b7be8421cb4b5c8f37ce8011c7a7416 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833072/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1713605b5c6e021c163f2cdd0fa164c5e474da8684631a03296e5e0a83dc805b +size 3364 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e14fa2aeb465e56d51b13c6c9ed29315fd7846fe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Ito New York New York 10007 + +October 15, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 14, 2021 (Dkt. No. 347) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October 14, 2021 letter regarding the deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Dkt. No. 345). In particular, the defendant wrote the Court to "confirm that November 15, 2021 is the deadline for [her] to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412." (Dkt. No. 345). + +Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a)(1) provides that in a case involving allegations of sexual misconduct, "evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior" is inadmissible. The Rule "'aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details."' United States v.=, 799 F.3d 180, 184 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note). "The exclusion, however, is not absolute" as Rule 412(b) provides certain exceptions to this general prohibition in criminal cases. Id. Rule 412 provides that "[i]f a party intends to offer evidence under Rule 412(b)," the party must file a motion specifically describing the evidence and the purpose of the evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1XA), and must "do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time." Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This language plainly gives the Court authority to set a "different" time, not necessarily a "later" time, to require the defense to file a Rule 412 motion. See, e.g., Order, United States v. Andrews, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 287) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of February 13, 2020, for a March 9, 2020 trial); Order, United States v. No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 384) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of October 15, 2020, for a November 9, 2020 trial); United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2019) (Dkt. No. 202) (requiring a "finalized proffer of evidence" the defense sought to admit under Rule 412 by December 6, 2019, in advance of a January 13, 2020 trial); United States v. Backman, 817 F.3d 662, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion when setting Rule 412 deadline more than 14 days before trial and denying request to amend the motion less than 14 days before trial); United States v. Valenzuela, No. Cr. 07-11, 2008 WL 2824958, at •4 n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) ("Good cause exists to advance the deadline for filing a Rule 412(c) motion by eleven days given the complex nature of the action and the volume of evidence that will likely be presented at trial."); see also Charles Alan & Arthur R. =, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5377 (2d ed. 2020) (explaining that the text of Rule 412(cX1)(B) "suggests that the court might require that the motion be filed earlier than 14 days before trial or might permit the motion to be brought later, including during trial."). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the express terms of Rule 412 contemplate that the Court can set an earlier briefing schedule. + +A deadline more than two weeks in advance of trial is consistent with the Rule's procedural requirements. Before admitting evidence under Rule 412, the Court "must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard." Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2). + +"Given that the hearing provides an opportunity for the Rule 412 movant to detail the evidence he seeks to admit and for the parties to discuss the propriety of its admission, the notice requirement should be seen as serving two purposes: I) aiding the Court in determining the threshold matter of whether a hearing is necessary; and 2) providing sufficient notice to the nonmovant and victim alike to prepare for and argue against the necessity of any in camera hearing." United States v. M, 19 Cr. 324 (BAH), 2020 WL 5995100, at \*19 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2020). + +Here, the Government produced to the defense a witness list, Giglio material, Jencks Act material, and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks in advance of trial. The Government understands that the Court's schedule for early disclosure of Jencks Act material and early motions in litnine was designed, in part, to ensure that any significant issues are resolved substantially in advance of trial. The Government respectfully submits that the Court has "good cause" to set an earlier deadline in order to ensure that any issues stemming from Rule 412 litigation are resolved in a timely fashion in advance of trial, including the need for the Government to investigate and meaningfully respond to such sensitive and important issues. See 2020 WL 5995100, at \*19. + +Additionally, a deadline of 14 days before trial for the defense's Rule 412 motion is not practical in light of the trial schedule. Under the defense schedule, the defense will file their Rule 412 motion on November 15, 2021, and give notice to both the Government and victims. See Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1XD). At some point over the following two weeks—during jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday—the Government will respond to the motion, and the Court "must conduct an in camera hearing" that gives the parties and the victims the right to be heard. See Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2). Given that there are multiple victim witnesses and the defense has not yet notified the Government whether it intends to make a Rule 412 motion as to one or more than one of them, there may be a need for multiple such hearings. The Court must then adjudicate the motion before trial starts or during trial. There is no reason to impose the defense's cramped schedule on the Court or the parties, particularly where the motion concerns such sensitive issues. + +For these reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should maintain the October 18, 2021 in limine deadline as the deadline for the defense to file a motion under Rule 412, or order that any Rule 412 motion be made, at the latest, by October 25, 2021. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: si Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d3a10f994172bd67b4e1ae6caa978dbd046642b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/EFTA02833075.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6809, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833075" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be56f4ac6255096045830ffbafb02682a7fc1b2f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833075/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:922c37f3d76c5c69490b42e3130a51aec7440ecafaea6536c0ed160d38b07b2c +size 3370 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89cffcf2b5a947dd5df4a497b82f64ba271df54e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fox Eicstemheim@maccom + +October 15, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United Stales v. Ghislaine Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government's letter concerning delayed delivery of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail (Dkt. 350) merely parrots the MDC's standard excuses, adding a BOP version of "my dog ate my homework." The response is woefully inadequate and makes light of the MDC's encroachment on Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and confer with counsel. It does not explain MDC's failure to respond to counsel's requests. It utterly fails to address the issue regarding the extremely late delivery of legal mail placed by counsel in the legal mailbox on October 2 but not discovered until October 7; nor the presence of a sticker with a bar code of the type issued by the U.S. Post Office and unfamiliar to the Warden and Unit Manager. + +If it is not too burdensome for the MDC to rotate in extra officers from BOP facilities nationwide to overmanage and monitor Ms. Maxwell's every move and every second she confers with counsel in the visiting room, the MDC should be able to deliver legal mail in a timely fashion. It is not surprising that the Government asserts that this case and the circumstances do not merit special expedited delivery. It dug its heels in when making it clear that it would not go out of its way to have the hard drive hand delivered to the MDC to ensure that Ms. Maxwell would receive it expeditiously, an accommodation it had previously made. + +It is time for the Government and the Court to seriously reconsider Ms. Maxwell's detention. This situation is untenable, unreasonable, and usurping Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c25da72fefb6bd71332d115537fff5adf7fa5e75 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079/EFTA02833079.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833079.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1938, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.6, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 349.452, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7569580078125, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7569580078125, + 48.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 349.452, + 48.06353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833079" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f761c913393aa860a636702a81ccda483c4528ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio .1 Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +October 15, 2021 + +![](_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg) + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 348) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October 14, 2021 letter regarding delivery of the defendant's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") (Dkt. No. 346). + +The Government conferred with legal counsel at the MDC in response to the Court's Order and was informed of the following: As a general matter, legal mail from a defendant's counsel is delivered to the defendant within one business day of receipt at the MDC. Legal mail sent to a defendant from the Government via FedEx goes to the MDC's warehouse. Staff at the MDC's warehouse process and log the mail in a tracking system and then contact the relevant department—in this case, the legal department—about the mail. The legal department has to then go to the warehouse to retrieve the mail, log the mail, assign the mail an internal number for tracking purposes, and fill out a form authorizing the delivery of the mail to the inmate before delivering the mail to the inmate. + +Legal counsel at the MDC has explained to the Government that these are the MDC's + +standard procedures for legal mail, and these protocols apply to each one of the approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. Legal counsel at the MDC has further explained that defense counsel's request that the MDC be ordered to provide the defendant with all legal mail within one day of receipt by the MDC would be extremely burdensome and is not practicable in light of the various responsibilities of the MDC's legal department, which is responsible for issues relating to the approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. The Government respectfully submits that there are no circumstances that merit special expedited delivery for this defendant, and that the delivery of the defendant's mail should not receive priority over the services the legal department's staff provides to other inmates. + +As noted in the defense's letter, the Government sent a hard drive containing Court-ordered disclosures to the defendant via FedEx on October II, 2021. The hard drive was received by the MDC on October 12, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government that there was an institutional emergency impacting the safety and security of the MDC on October 13, 2021, such that no inmate at the MDC received any legal mail from the warehouse that day. On the morning of October 14, 2021, legal counsel at the MDC personally delivered the hard drive to the defendant. + +The Government has made best efforts to obtain accurate information and respond to the Court's Order within a short time frame. Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will confer with legal counsel at the MDC and provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted. + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) + +Based on the information in this letter, the Court will not enter the Defendant's requested order. See Dkt. No. 346. However, it is the Court's firm expectation that a defendant in a pre-trial posture like Ms. Maxwell will in most circumstances receive legal mail within approximately 1 business day. Going forward, if another delay occurs, the Defendant may renew the request for a specific order requiring delivery within that time frame. With this understanding and in light of the unusually early pre-trial disclosure schedule set by the Court, the Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys are fully able to prepare for trial. This resolves Dkt. No. 346. SO ORDERED. + +dila + +10/15/21 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..182f0a59451a4b28fae1dec54f29b86228c16b01 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/EFTA02833081.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4203, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833081" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64ffb219055dfc6ccc61cf744fca5b7b1b9949e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:06b1c40031f2b9261a305c31a8fa41d6c8d2d57c12eeffe146e87ae848125f04 +size 3390 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f79bdf26ecc4d641792db7935879685e5609b445 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833081/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:71e135f8f28fa39159b72f1c36a7de60a0d600782739e7456b845b9867541d3c +size 11241 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1551debddd173dc055c05e646bed8a4743d5cfa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio I. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Ito New York New York 10007 + +October 15, 2021 + +For the reasons stated in this letter, the Court fords that there is good cause for any motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 to be filed no later than October 27, 2021. Any response will be due November 1, 2021. Any hearing will tentatively be scheduled for November 5, 2021. Additional details will be provided if and when any motions are filed. SO ORDERED. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) A. Ce fr 10/15/21 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 14, 2021 (Dkt. No. 347) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October 14, 2021 letter regarding the deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Dkt. No. 345). In particular, the defendant wrote the Court to "confirm that November 15, 2021 is the deadline for [her] to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412." (Dkt. No. 345). + +Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a)(1) provides that in a case involving allegations of sexual misconduct, "evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior" is inadmissible. The Rule "'aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details."' United States v.=, 799 F.3d 180, 184 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note). "The exclusion, however, is not absolute" as Rule 412(b) provides certain exceptions to this general prohibition in criminal cases. Id. Rule 412 provides that "[i]f a party intends to offer evidence under Rule 412(b)," the party must file a motion specifically describing the evidence and the purpose of the evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(IXA), and must "do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time." Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)( 1 )(B) (emphasis added). This language plainly gives the Court authority to set a "different" time, not necessarily a "later" time, to require the defense to file a Rule 412 motion. See, e.g., Order, United States v. Andrews, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 287) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of February 13, 2020, for a March 9, 2020 trial); Order, United States v. No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 384) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of October 15, 2020, for a November 9, 2020 trial); United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2019) (Dkt. No. 202) (requiring a "finalized proffer of evidence" the defense sought to admit under Rule 412 by December 6, 2019, in advance of a January 13, 2020 trial); United States v. Backman, 817 F.3d 662, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion when setting Rule 412 deadline more than 14 days before trial and denying request to amend the motion less than 14 days before trial); United States v. Valenzuela, No. Cr. 07-11, 2008 WL 2824958, at \*4 n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) ("Good cause exists to advance the deadline for filing a Rule 412(c) motion by eleven days given the complex nature of the action and the volume of evidence that will likely be presented at trial."); see also Charles Alan & Arthur R. =, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5377 (2d ed. 2020) (explaining that the text of Rule 412(cX1)(B) "suggests that the court might require that the motion be filed earlier than 14 days before trial or might permit the motion to be brought later, including during trial."). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the express terms of Rule 412 contemplate that the Court can set an earlier briefing schedule. + +A deadline more than two weeks in advance of trial is consistent with the Rule's procedural requirements. Before admitting evidence under Rule 412, the Court "must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard." Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2). "Given that the hearing provides an opportunity for the Rule 412 movant to detail the evidence he seeks to admit and for the parties to discuss the propriety of its admission, the notice requirement should be seen as serving two purposes: I) aiding the Court in determining the threshold matter of whether a hearing is necessary; and 2) providing sufficient notice to the nonmovant and victim alike to prepare for and argue against the necessity of any in camera hearing." United States v. + +M, 19 Cr. 324 (BAH), 2020 WL 5995100, at \*19 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2020). Here, the Government produced to the defense a witness list, Giglio material, Jencks Act material, and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks in advance of trial. The Government understands that the Court's schedule for early disclosure of Jencks Act material and early motions in limine was designed, in part, to ensure that any significant issues are resolved substantially in advance of trial. The Government respectfully submits that the Court has "good cause" to set an earlier deadline in order to ensure that any issues stemming from Rule 412 litigation are resolved in a timely fashion in advance of trial, including the need for the Government to investigate and meaningfully respond to such sensitive and important issues. See 2020 WL 5995100, at \*19. + +Additionally, a deadline of 14 days before trial for the defense's Rule 412 motion is not practical in light of the trial schedule. Under the defense schedule, the defense will file their Rule 412 motion on November 15, 2021, and give notice to both the Government and victims. See Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1XD). At some point over the following two weeks—during jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday—the Government will respond to the motion, and the Court "must conduct an in camera hearing" that gives the parties and the victims the right to be heard. See Fed. R. Evid. 412(cX2). Given that there are multiple victim witnesses and the defense has not yet notified the Government whether it intends to make a Rule 412 motion as to one or more than one + +of them, there may be a need for multiple such hearings. The Court must then adjudicate the motion before trial starts or during trial. There is no reason to impose the defense's cramped schedule on the Court or the parties, particularly where the motion concerns such sensitive issues. + +For these reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should maintain the October 18, 2021 *in limine* deadline as the deadline for the defense to file a motion under Rule 412, or order that any Rule 412 motion be made, at the latest, by October 25, 2021. + +Respectfully submitted, + +![]()By: s/ +Alison Moe +Lara Pomerantz +Andrew Rohrbach +Assistant United States Attorneys +Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5c0b83b3b07180cf43e13129d9bdbd59edd162c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/EFTA02833084.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7207, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.29, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833084" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e6e85796b24708e3ed8a557eb62d4ed1908e0ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:292248132d7e95e6fac3e38b1c269a6adaf46e6fc861fcf2cac250c284fde246 +size 3315 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f4445f378413f4b4e5ca8ce2f76e4f7648d5158 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833084/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2a75de2e4cec0353854450858dad63dfeb1cbe373c268dfcf2f4569fc8f0f8f5 +size 12031 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25131d4f14e808b990ba0fb9e987d63b94f04b88 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's New York New York 10007 + +October 18, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter pursuant to the Court's Order dated October 14, 2021 (Dkt. No. 343) directing the Government to respond to the defendant's motion for an order granting limited counsel-conducted voir dire and individual sequestered voir dire (Dkt. No. 341). + +## I. Attorney Voir Dire Is Not Warranted + +None of the defendant's arguments warrant departing from the well-settled practice in this District of Court-led voir dire. The Court is well-equipped to thoroughly question prospective jurors and to appropriately filter questions prepared by the parties. + +It is well established that "[a] district court is `accorded ample discretion in determining how best to conduct . . . voir dire.'" United States v. Lawes, 292 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Rosales= v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189 (1981)); accord United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 299 (2d Cir. 2007). As a general matter, Ivioir dire is necessarily a matter in which the trial court has extremely broad discretion," and "federal trial judges are not required to ask every question that counsel—even all counsel—believes is appropriate." Lawes, + +292 F.3d at 128; see also United States v. Kyles, 40 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 1994) (stating that a district court has "broad discretion whether to pose a defendant's requested voir dire questions"). Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplate that district courts may exercise that discretion by permitting counsel to conduct the questioning of potential jurors, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a), the usual practice is for the court to conduct its own questioning, and federal courts generally have resisted efforts by counsel to expand their own role. See, e.g., Lawes, 292 F.3d at 128 (noting the "long struggle between bench and bar" over juror questioning and observing that "federal courts have successfully resisted such attempts" by counsel to have a greater role). Courts are generally resistant to such efforts because "Mourt and counsel have somewhat different goals in voir dire." Id. As the Second Circuit has observed: + +> The court wants a fair and impartial jury to be chosen and to move expeditiously to the presentation of evidence. Counsel want a jury favorable to their cause—fair or not—and voir dire aids them in exercising peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Counsel have an additional purpose in voir dire moreover and that involves exposing jurors to various arguments they intend to make at trial. Counsel view voir dire as an opportunity for advocacy similar to, albeit not the equivalent of, openings or summations. + +Id.; see also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) ("[Tjhe purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case." (quotation marks and citation omitted)). + +The defendant offers no persuasive reason to abandon the customary practice in this District,' and of federal courts generally, and to adopt an alternative procedure for this case. The + +I See, e.g., United States v. Saipov, No. 17 Cr. 722 (VSB), 2020 WL 958527, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2020) (rejecting defendant's arguments for attorney conducted voir dire in capital case)- United States v. Barone, No. 09 Cr. 91 (NRB), 2010 WL 2976505, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2010) (declining to permit attorney-conducted voir dire); United States v. Wilson, 571 F. Supp. 1422, + +defendant claims that because this case has received significant pretrial publicity and the charges involve a "sensitive subject matter," the Court "should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire," but she does not identify what information she believes that her attorneys would be more capable of discovering than the Court. (Dkt. No. 342 at I, 10). Even if counsel identify specific or additional issues the defendant believes her attorneys should be able to explore in light of, as the defendant claims, the attorneys' "more in-depth knowledge of the case" (id. at 11), counsel are free to propose additional questions that the Court may ask, and the Court is in the best position to consider whether such inquiry is appropriate and, if so, how to pose such questions in a way that is fair to the interests of all parties and the potential jurors. Even if counsel attempt to ask their additional questions in an even-handed way, counsel may easily and inadvertently step over the line and significantly prejudice the other side. See Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at \*1 (holding that court-conducted voir dire "assures that the parties do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors' answers or point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their adversary"). + +The defendant claims that "questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid." (Dkt. No. 342 at 13). The defendant's motion does not expand upon this conclusory assertion, but instead cites "research" that appears to broadly recommend in-depth voir dire. (Id. at 13-14). But there is no reason to + +1428 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (rejecting defense request for attorney-conducted voir dire and noting that court-conducted voir dire has resulted in the "empanelling of fair and impartial juries"; "And this has been true of cases that have attracted in advance of trial the widest publicity in the news media over extended periods of time."). + +believe that counsel will be better than the Court at identifying bias, nor that counsel will be more interested than the Court in removing biased jurors. Indeed, it is unlikely that attorney-led questioning will yield a significant change in the candidness and openness of prospective jurors if the Court also limits those questions to one minute per juror, as the defense also proposes. (Id. at 14). Given that prospective jurors are likely to "respond honestly to questions directed to them by a federal judge," Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at \*1, Court-led voir dire remains appropriate in this case. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the well-established practice in this District of Court-led voir dire should be followed. Counsel can address potential bias by proposing questions for the Court to ask (as it already has) and engaging in the strike process, as is customary and appropriate here. + +## II. Individual "Sequestered" Voir Dire Is Not Warrants + +The Government respectfully submits that the well-established practice in this District should be followed; that is, the Court should ask most questions in open court and ask sensitive questions, such as those that relate to sexual abuse and media exposure, at sidebar. The defendant argues that individual sequestered voir dire is necessary in light of the nature of the charges in this case, which she claims are "particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from which jurors are drawn," and her concern that "a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity." (Dkt. No. 342 at 8-9). Of course, under the typical practice in the District, prospective jurors would not be asked to describe their experiences with sexual assault or the details of pretrial publicity in front of the rest of the venire. That questioning would happen at sidebar, in an "individual, sequestered" setting. But not every prospective juror may need additional questions on those + +topics, and other topics can safely be discussed in the group setting. Accordingly, it is more efficient to conduct voir dire following the usual practice in this District. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e510b13f86760262fc30170679a9140e31f8c6f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/EFTA02833088.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 8564, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.02, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 320.076, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 320.076, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Attorney Voir Dire Is Not Warranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 321.11907958984375, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 321.11907958984375, + 467.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 467.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Individual \"Sequestered\" Voir Dire Is Not Warrants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 406.5594482421875, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 406.5594482421875, + 408.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 408.06353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833088" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97127e7f8a8201b856554c1af23363d896266fba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833088/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a211c93cd0d069baed35fc3a486de029333caba29991f4f16111405b81e7e26e +size 3369 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ed5004a40dfb2866ab6bbae0d1eaa436bc7ccfc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +October 18, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +There is nothing surprising about the government's opposition to limited attorneyconducted voir dire and individual sequestered voir dire. (Dkt. 355.) The government's response is standard SDNY operating procedure: "We don't do that here." Rarely is there an AUSA who has ever conducted voir dire, so it is easy to just say "no." In this case, counsel are better positioned to address particular areas of case-related bias than is the Court, and requesting a mere minute per juror is far from onerous. + +The proposed questionnaire seeks highly sensitive and personal information regarding each juror. Simply asking jurors to raise their hand in response to an invitation to speak privately on a personal topic is revealing and invasive. One would hope that the government would be sensitive to that fact and would want to ensure that a fair and impartial jury will be seated in this high-profile case. With each passing day, the amount of public exposure this case receives erodes that possibility. Below are today's Google search results: + +- **Ghislaine Maxwell: "about 4,740,000 (about 0.89 seconds)"** +- **Jeffrey Epstein: "about 26,200,000 results (0.86 seconds)"** + +**The Court has the power and the obligation to ensure that jury selection eliminates jurors who are biased and/or motivated to serve for reasons beyond being fair and impartial.** + +**This is an extraordinary case involving sensitive issues. We urge the Court to exercise its supervisory powers and discretion and grant the defense request for individual sequestered voir dire and very limited counsel-conducted voir dire.** + +**Very truly yours,** + +**/s/** + +**BOBBI C. STERNHEIM** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..915f5286481cc84cc5d17490a0701da157c61910 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093/EFTA02833093.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833093.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1990, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833093" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a371f661b86003cb9e90dea770ade50414af8587 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memoranda and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves the Court in limine to exclude certain evidence during her upcoming trial. Specifically, Ms. Maxwell hereby gives notice of her filing of the following motions: + +- 1. Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements as a Sanction for Failing to Comply with This Court's September 3, 2021 Order +- 2. Motion to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement; +- 3. Motion to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Request for Daubert Hearing; + - 4. Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3; + - 5. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Flight; + +6. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Ms. Maxwell's Alleged False Statements and to Redact Allegations Related to the Perjury Counts from the Second Superseding Indictment; + +7. Motion to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from Suspect Sources; + +8. Motion to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005; + +9. Motion to Suppress Identification; + +10. Motion to Preclude Law Enforcement Witnesses from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony; + +11. Motion to Preclude Testimony About Any Alleged "Rape" by Jeffrey Epstein; + +12. Motion to Preclude Reference to the Accusers as "Victims" or "Minor Victims"; and + +13. Motion to Preclude Introduction of Government's Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Motions in Limine with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c33a2bd3835f63ea860b9bca23f1ed0a354b9b95 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/EFTA02833094.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,252 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 2821, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S \nNOTICE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.988, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 430.75439453125, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 430.75439453125, + 333.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 182.988, + 333.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.904, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.65679931640625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.65679931640625, + 89.13043212890625 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 89.13043212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833094" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2cc7efe63b2af31ebf0c4e2c1eadcf6c58a5d2ed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833094/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:faf1bc59be36441bab804913e067cce8a63b64d30fbc242509268db15d5c438a +size 947 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e36cc8c7596a550542d026d62c81c5708fc871f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON ISM + +October 18, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and MI P.c Jeffrey Pagliuca + +150 East lOth Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 pH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmftaw.corn jpagfiuco4 hmflow.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Today, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed 13 motions in limbie and accompanying exhibits seeking the following relief: + +to Preclude the Introduction of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements as a Sanction for Failing to Comply with This Court's September 3, 2021 Order, + +to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement; + +to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Dauber: v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Request for Daubert Hearing; + +to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3; + +to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Flight; + +to Exclude Evidence of Ms. Maxwell's Alleged False Statements and to Redact + +Allegations Related to the Perjury Counts from the Second Superseding Indictment; + +October 18, 2021 + +Page 2 + +to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from Suspect Sources; + +to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20,2005; + +to Suppress Identification; + +to Preclude Law Enforcement Witnesses from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony; + +to Preclude Testimony About Any Alleged "Rape" by Jeffrey Epstein; + +to Preclude Reference to the Accusers as "Victims" or "Minor Victims"; and + +to Preclude Introduction of Government's Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606. + +## Temporary Sealing + +Some of the memoranda and exhibits in support of the motions in limine contain Confidential Information produced in discovery that is governed by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 36). Accordingly, pursuant to our prior practice, we will not file the memoranda and exhibits on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court. Instead, we will submit the memoranda and exhibits by email to the Court and the government under seal—pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal practice—to give both parties the opportunity to propose and justify any redactions it deems necessary. The government has agreed to do the same for its motions in limine. We will, however, file the Notice of Motion and this cover letter on the public docket because they do not contain Confidential Information. + +## Reservation of Rights to File Additional Motions in Limbic + +As directed by the Court, we endeavored to comply with today's filing deadline, but as previously raised with the government and the Court, additional time is required to determine + +October 18, 2021 + +Page 3 + +whether additional motions are required based on voluminous disclosures made less than one week ago.' + +By court order, the government produced Jencks Act and Giglio material and a list of government exhibits on the evening of October II. New York counsel picked up the hard drives from the U.S. Attorney's Office that evening. Colorado counsel received their hard drives via Federal Express on October 12 at approximately 6:30 p.m. The hard drives contained thousands of pages of disclosures: approximately 8,000 single-space typed and hand-written pages of testifying witness materials; approximately 6,000 pages on "non-testifying" witness materials, the bulk of which is exculpatory; and Excel spreadsheets identifying hundreds of government exhibits. + +Ms. Maxwell received her hard drive late morning on October 14 without inclusion of various .pdf disclosures, most significantly the government's exhibit list, which counsel copied, hand-delivered, and deposited in the MDC legal mailbox on October 17. + +Counsel have been unable to thoroughly review and analyze this voluminous production in sufficient time to assess whether additional motions in limine are required. Nor has Ms. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: [W]e don't think it's tenable to stick to the motion in limine schedule based on the government's proposed disclosures. + +Dkt. 261 at 6. + +MS. COMEY: And as is typical with trials in this district, it is possible there may be supplemental motions in limine after the date that the parties have proposed for motions in limine in this case. + +Id. + +THE COURT: And to the extent that there is some additional supplementation after that date, we can consider that. + +&#x27; This issue was discussed during the arraignment on April 23, 2021: + +October 18, 2021 + +Page 4 + +Maxwell had sufficient opportunity to review the disclosures or the opportunity to effectively review and discuss the production with counsel. Clearly, there has been insufficient time to prepare any additional filings to meet today's deadline, a concern previously raised with government counsel and the Court.2 + +Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to file additional/or supplemental motions in limine in response to the government's recent disclosure of Jencks Act, Giglio material and government exhibits, dated October 11, 2021. See 6/2/2021 Order (Dkt. 297) ("In addition, and as requested by the parties, the parties may bring issues to the Court's attention that arise after the deadline for motions in !inane if the issues could not have been raised within the deadline set for in limine motions."). + +Your consideration is greatly appreciated. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +2 In addition, Ms. Maxwell's counsel provided the government with encrypted hard drives to obviate the need for the government to encrypt the underlying files. Contrary to the defense's specific request, the government encrypted the files themselves necessitating two passcodes—one to open the hard drive and one to open the files—to access the documents each time we wish to review them. This two-step process has slowed the review process. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97fe5281ed33beff9616c6bda52f688fa9697567 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/EFTA02833098.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6061, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.12, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Temporary Sealing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 359.60150146484375, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 359.60150146484375, + 353.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 252.75599999999997, + 353.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reservation of Rights to File Additional Motions in Limbic", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 458.9443359375, + 641.52 + ], + [ + 458.9443359375, + 657.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 657.0635223388672 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833098" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b618ba671ce757e2e758595bfa3afe0e382c37dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833098/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3e81107990fe6ea017b5fafb1dd2069ecb8ca9109c5cb905ee6d8ff7e54e786b +size 2913 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e16f5d7471e24040b055e81007fd48da846b4a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +October 18, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits its motions in limine, which the Government is submitting to the Court under seal by email with proposed redactions. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's motions in limine are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims—including victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case—and third parties referenced in the document. + +In addition, the Government seeks redaction of Section X at least until the conclusion of trial. Additional justification for this sealing request is located in footnote 11 on page 49 of the Government's motions in limine. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the Ciovernment to publicly file its motions in limine with its proposed redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3fe93ff5d41aefe9f2d584d579e4f25e5fe3233 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/EFTA02833102.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1768, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department ofJustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833102" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e159c358465fab4df8c31b80e9c851ad3812d391 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833102/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:48173125cbf7ca353e2443813f4e0881c57888ee493a46334b8d609a8f4a75a9 +size 3422 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..432ddd0ad9e050dff42447a98fb5d8469456b631 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As noted in its previous order, the Court will hold a telephone conference to discuss jury selection matters on October 21, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. Dkt. No. 330. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 844- 721-7237 and using access code 9991787. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 409-207-6951 and using the same access code. + +The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used by counsel, the Defendant, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. + +Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including monetary fines, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 19, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db76b91bbe94be04a5fce0cce07d18aa670a25e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/EFTA02833104.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1266, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 282.8160095214844, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 282.8160095214844, + 100.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 100.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833104" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31a139348d551887bd8966212b87c23c96c6787a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833104/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:87620583e1ee245d49408282287d20861f0510b37c4d2084125cf3b8940e59ae +size 12084 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..feff8c7dcf2d1dc891cae8f6858f0944fe7c1e45 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +At the telephone conference scheduled to take place on October 21, 2021, in which the Court will discuss jury selection matters and logistics with the parties, the Court will hear from counsel regarding the unopposed request to seal their joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire. See Dkt. No. 339. The Court will also inquire as to whether the sealing request extends to the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire and any justification for such sealing. + +In the meantime, the Court will today transmit via email its draft questionnaire and draft voir dire to the parties so that the drafts can be discussed at the conference tomorrow. After the Court explains how jury selection will proceed, the parties should be prepared to raise any objections to the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 20, 2021 New York, New York A L. + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4d6cd320a1759357fc8ffec0aba6e7ec215ef85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/EFTA02833106.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1133, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 282.8160095214844, + 72.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 282.8160095214844, + 100.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 100.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833106" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ecffee79bc5a3bf9c4f90669d3870d9aeb1b4be --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833106/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eb463f291b4c48de1e85483c8b077dd7fc447628e7fa5b14950e2ca432a23c58 +size 11560 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..232141fb75240d1981c9c5fab57adc45ffec2d3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.md @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +**REPORTERS +COMMITTEE** +**FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS** + +1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020 +Washington, D.C. 20005 +(202) 795-9300 • www.rcfp.org + +Bruce D. [REDACTED] Executive Director +bbrown@rcfp.org • (202) 795-9301 + +**STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN** + +STEPHEN J. ADLER + +**STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS** + +[REDACTED] BLITZER +CNN + +DAVID BOARDMAN +Temple University + +THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. + +[REDACTED] David & Cratcher LLP + +MASSIMO CALABRESI +Time Magazine + +MANNY [REDACTED] +Austin American-Statesman + +EMILIO [REDACTED] RUIZ +San Francisco Chronicle + +JOSH GERSTEIN +POLITICO + +ALEX GIBNEY +Jigsaw Productions + +SUSAN GOLDBERG +National Geographic + +JAMES GRIMALDI +The Wall Street Journal + +LAURA HANDMAN +[REDACTED] Fremaine + +DIEGO IBARGUEN +Hearst + +JEREMY JOJOLA +9NEWS Colorado + +KAREN KAISER +Associated Press + +DAVID LAUTER +The Los Angeles Times + +MARGARET LOW +WBUR + +COLLEEN MCCAIN NELSON +The McClatchy Company + +MAGGIE MULVIHILL +Boston University + +JAMES NEFF +The Philadelphia Inquirer + +NORMAN PEARLSTINE +New York, New York + +[REDACTED] C. RUBIN +Stanford Law School + +BRUCE W. SANFORD +BakerHostetler, ret. + +CHARLIE SAVAGE +The New York Times + +JENNIFER SONDAG +Bloomberg News + +NABIHA SYED +The Markup + +ADAM SYMSON +The E.W. Scripps Company + +PIERRE [REDACTED] +ABC News + +MATT THOMPSON +The New York Times + +VICKIE WALTON-JAMES +NPR + +JUDY WOODRUFF +PBS/The NewsHour + +SUSAN ZIRINSKY +CBS News + +**HONORARY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL** + +J. SCOTT APPLE [REDACTED] Associated Press + +CHIP BOK, Creators Syndicate + +DAHLIA LITHWICK, State + +TONY MAURO, American Lawyer Media, ret + +October 20, 2021 + +**BY ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +With the government's consent, the defendant has requested to file the parties' joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire under seal. Letter of U.S. Att'y, October 12, 2021 (Dkt. No. 339) ("Letter"). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the 17 undersigned news media organizations respectfully urge the Court to deny the defendant's request. *Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cty.*, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) (stating that "representatives of the press and general public must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of their exclusion" (cleaned up)).1 + +Both the common law and the First Amendment afford the public a qualified right of access to criminal proceedings. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long recognized that public access to criminal proceedings assures both the fairness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system. *Id.* at 606 ("Public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the factfinding process, + +1 The defendant also has requested that the Court order "individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire." ECF No. 341. The government opposes both requests. ECF No. 355. To the extent that the defendant seeks to limit press and public access to any aspect of voir dire in this case, the same constitutional and common law presumptions of public access discussed herein apply. + +with benefits to both the defendant and to society as a whole."). + +Voir dire is a critical stage of criminal proceedings, and the public interest in favor of access to voir dire is correspondingly weighty. United States v. Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d 257, 259-60 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ("Press coverage of voir dire, no less than coverage of opening statements or the cross examination of a key witness, contributes to the fairness of trials."); accord United States v. Avenatti, 2021 WL 1819679, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021). Recognizing that interest, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires the voir dire process be presumptively open to the press and public. Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cry., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984). + +Juror questionnaires, which are used to facilitate and expedite the jury selection process, are subject to the same presumption of openness as that which attaches to voir dire generally. See United States v. 140 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (including juror questionnaires when analyzing whether limited closure of voir dire violated public's right of access); see also Order, In re The Washington Post, No. 15-1293 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (stating that "the public enjoys a presumptive right of access to voir dire proceedings, including voir dire questionnaires"); In re Access to Jury Questionnaires, 37 A.3d 879, 886 (D.C. 2012) ("Every court that has decided the issue has treated jury questionnaires as part of the voir dire process and thus subject to the presumption of public access." (citing In re South Carolina Press Ass 'n, 946 F.2d 1037, 1041 (4th Cir. 1991), and collecting other cases)); Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (Nev. 2009); Forum Commc its Co. v. Paulson, 752 N.W.2d 177, 182-83 (N.D. 2008); Ohio a rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Bond, 781 N.E.2d 180, 187-89 (Ohio 2002); United States v. Bonds, No. C 07-00732 SI, 2011 WL 902207, at '3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011); United States v. McDade, 929 F. Supp. 815, 817 n.4 (ED. Pa. 1996); In re Washington + +Post, No. 92-301, 1992 WL 233354, at \*2 (D.D.C. July 23, 1992); Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 77, 89 (1991). + +The presumption of openness that attaches to voir dire—including juror questionnaires— "may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 260 (quoting Press—Enter. Co., 464 U.S. at 510). "Where the overriding interest to be protected is the defendant's right to a fair trial, the court must make specific findings that 'there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent and, second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights.' Id. (quoting ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2004)). "The Second Circuit has explained that the party seeking to restrict press access bears a 'heavy' burden." Id. (quoting Stewart, 360 F.3d at 106). + +Here, the defense manifestly fails to carry its "heavy burden." Id. The defendant's request to seal provides the Court with no basis on which to make the specific factual findings required to conceal voir dire, including the parties' joint juror questionnaire, from the public. Stewart, 360 F.3d at 98. In an effort to justify the defendant's request, the Letter speculates that "media coverage may prejudice the jury selection process." Letter I. Such conclusory speculation cannot overcome the deeply rooted presumption of openness applicable to voir dire. Accordingly, the Court should order the parties to file the proposed juror questionnaire and proposed voir dire on the public docket. + +Respectfully submitted, + +IslKatie Townsend + +Katie Townsend REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020 + +Washington, DC 20005 (202) 795-9300 ktownsend@rcfp.org + +The Miami Herald American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. The Center for Investigative Reporting The Daily Beast Company LLC Daily News, LP The Media Institute MPA—The Association of Magazine Media National Newspaper Association Society of Environmental Journalists + +The National Press Club The National Press Club Journalism Institute NBCUniversal Media, LLC The New York Times Company Radio Television Digital News Association Reuters News & Media Inc. Society of Professional Journalists The WNET Group \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ffe9103729e39736a679d53577fbfb70e48a9a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107/EFTA02833107.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833107.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 7871, + "elapsed_seconds": 17.64, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 15.3, + 19.44 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 19.44 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 15.3, + 67.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 15.3, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 15.3, + 147.42000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 15.3, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 165.24 + ], + [ + 15.3, + 165.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HONORARY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 15.3, + 665.01 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 665.01 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 15.3, + 674.73 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 111.78000000000002 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 127 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833107" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13437f452f97dfa85e644e6b0ace37a39be81541 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +members of SDNY press corps join RCFP in opposition to secret jury selection in USA v. Maxwell + +Pete Brush + +Thu 10/21/2021 11:28 AM + +To: Nathan NYSD + +Cc: Matthew R. Lee ; CNS New York Fed ; thays\_ap.org ; adamklasfeld@lawandcrime.com ; Shayna + +## CAUTION - EXTERNAL: + +Dear Judge Nathan - + +Reporters belonging to the Southern District of New York's in-house press corps write respectfully in support of the arguments made by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (docket #362) in opposition to any secret jury selection and/or secret juror-vetting in the upcoming USA v. Maxwell trial. + +The case is USA v. Maxwell, case number 1:20-cr-00330, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. + +best regards, + +Pete Brush, Law360; Tom Has, Josh =, Courthouse News Service; Shayna Washington Post Matthew Lee, Inner City Press; Adam Klasfeld, Law&Crime + +Pete Brush, reporter, New York federal courts + +212 267 3090 + +Law360 Newswires + +www.law360.com + +@petebrush + +CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b74a1d87a061a2d2d5aabb9649a18786442f7fcc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111/EFTA02833111.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833111.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1314, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "CAUTION - EXTERNAL:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 171.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 176.14898681640625, + 171.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 176.14898681640625, + 185.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 185.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833111" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17a62ed3d8183911612b7952b3f677c5ffdfa873 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +For the reasons stated on the record at yesterday's conference, the Court will implement the following procedures for jury selection: + +- A screening questionnaire will be administered on November 4, 5, and 12. +- The Clerk's Office will create a corresponding list of names and randomly assigned juror numbers. The list will be provided to counsel and the Court for use throughout jury selection. Jurors will be identified on the questionnaire and in court throughout the process by their assigned number only. +- Completed questionnaires will be copied and distributed to defense counsel by the U.S. Attorney's Office. +- After reviewing the completed questionnaires, counsel must confer in good faith and jointly submit four lists: (1) prospective jurors that both sides agree should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both sides agree should be excused; (3) prospective jurors that the defense, but not the Government believes should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government, but not the defense believes should be excused. + +- o Lists for questionnaires completed on November 4 and 5 will be due to the Court via email by November 7. o Lists for questionnaires completed on November 12 will be due to the Court via email by November 13. o If necessary, there will be an in-person conference on November 15 at 9:30 a.m. to resolve any disputes. +- Voir dire will proceed on November 16-19. The Court will conduct one-on-one voir dire with each prospective juror in the presence of the parties and with public access to the proceeding. At the conference, both sides indicated the potential need for additional procedures during voir dire under certain circumstances. See Transcript at 10-11. As the Court indicated, it will consider proposed narrowly tailored measures that may be necessary during voir dire on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 12. +- The Court will decide in due course whether the exercise of peremptory strikes will proceed on November 19 or November 29. + +The Court implements these procedures taking into account the significant publicity this case has garnered, the nature of the charges, and the District's COVID-19 protocols. These procedures are carefully balanced and tailored to ensure the safety of the parties and prospective jurors in light of the continuing pandemic; to ensure juror candor, impartiality, and privacy; and to ensure the First Amendment right to public access of crimina I proceedings. + +Also for the reasons stated on the record at yesterday's conference, the request to seal the parties' proposed questionnaire and voir dire and the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire until after jury selection is completed is denied. Although the Court has and will continue to implement tailored measures to ensure a fair trial despite significant media interest, see Dkt. Nos. + +28, 81, 95, 99, 101, 232, 241, 284, 301, 315, the defense did not justify sealing the entirety of the proposed and draft questionnaires and voir dire. *See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court's planned individual voir dire process is designed to carefully probe the prior exposure to and the potential influence of any pre-trial media. As noted at the conference, the parties may continue to propose for the Court's consideration, any appropriate and tailored procedures in light of the specific factors related to this case and upcoming trial. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 22, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5525ad8a72eac02dfb27be9cd165c3aa04fc6a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/EFTA02833112.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3767, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.65, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833112" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9306efe7cf8266d22502be10ed972f811dece545 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833112/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5c73971e5180e9c2f4ce450a63a024d07f15302cb13cdafaaa9428800f56a992 +size 11506 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46ed582783779fd41d6874fa85183ae53e3dc297 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.md @@ -0,0 +1,443 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Attached are the Court's draft jury questionnaire—with changes adopted at yesterday's proceeding in redline—and draft voir dire. + +In light of the District's COVID-I9 protocols, the Court has proposed an additional question on page 6 of the questionnaire, which is also indicated in redline. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 22, 2021 New York, New York AL + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +-v-20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, JURY QUESTIONNAIRE + +Defendant. + +X + +#### INSTRUCTION SHEET + +Dear Juror: + +Please call (212) 805 0158 on November 15, 2021 after 6:00 p.m. for further reporting instructions. Please bring this instruction sheet with you to the courthouse if you are instructed to return. + +!INSERT JUROR INFORMATION SHEET FROM JURY DEPARTMENT! + +### PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS + +Please read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of each page. Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please answer each and every question fully. Some questions have more than one part. + +YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. This questionnaire is designed to help simplify and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury. + +Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a question then write, "I don't know." There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, only truthful answers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone. It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions. + +If you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page. + +DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers (except in the presence of the Court), your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail, any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet. + +DO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this case. + +Your name will not be disclosed or connected to this questionnaire beyond the Judge and the parties in this case. However, if you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the Judge and parties, please indicate the particular question number at the end of the questionnaire. + +### SUMMARY OF THE CASE + +The Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday, November 29, 2021. Although it is never possible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected to last approximately six weeks. + +This is a criminal case. The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged in an Indictment with various criminal offenses. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges—referred to as "counts"—that the Government intends to prove to the jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. + +The charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the Defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. + +The Indictment charges the Defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two charges the Defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three charges the Defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four charges the Defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges the Defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the Defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same. + +Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +#### SCHEDULE + +Potential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection tt on] Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availabilih during that week will be required. + +The trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve). + +If you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court. + +All jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service. + +#### PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: + +| | ABILITY TO SERVE | +|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to | +| 1. | Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| I a. | If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names who you are): | +| 2. | Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 2a. | If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names who you are): | +| 3. | Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 374. | Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 4a4la | If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience: | + +| 4.5. |

Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors).

Yes                      No

| +|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 4a.5a |

If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.:

_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| 5.6. |

Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English?

Yes                      No

| +| 6.7. |

Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating?

Yes                      No

| +| 6a.7c |

If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation.

_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| 7.8. |

Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial?

Yes                      No

| +| 7a.8c |

If yes, please explain:

_____
_____
_____
_____

| + +| 879. | Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you | +|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 8fir% | If yes, please explain: | + +| 9710. | Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to | +|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 9th-10 | If no, please explain: | +| 10 I I | The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all serve on this jury? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 10a 1 | If no, please explain: | + +| -I-612 | The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to | +|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | o Yes o No | +| -14a,1 | If no, please explain: | +| -I-2713 | A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence | +| | o Yes o No | +| -1-2071 | If no, please explain: | +| -l--3,14 | Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus | +| | o Yes o No | +| -?a:1 4 | If no, please explain: | + +| -14715 | You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain | +|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| -I-4a, I | If yes, please explain: | +| -I-5, lb | You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any | +| | o Yes ❑ No | +| -1-5071 | If yes, please explain: | +| -14.17 | As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | + +**+6a-1** If yes, please explain: + +| PRIOR JURY SERVICE | | +|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 17-18 | Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?
Yes No | +| 18-19 | Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court?
Yes No | + +| EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM | | +|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 19-20 |

Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?

  • Yes (self)
  • Yes (friend or family member)
  • No
| +| 19a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

  • Yes
  • No
| +| 19b-2
0b. |

If yes to 19a20a, please explain:

| +| 20-21 |

Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?

  • Yes (self)
  • Yes (friend or family member)
  • No
| + +| 20a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 20b2
1b. |

If yes to 20a21a, please explain:

| +| 21-22 |

Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +| 21a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 21b2
2b. |

If yes to 21a22a, please explain:

| +| 22-23 |

Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +| 22a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 22b2
3b. |

If yes to 22a23a, please explain:

| + +| 23-24 |

Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any grand jury, state or federal, or any other investigation?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 23a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 23b2
4b. |

If yes to 23a24a, please explain:

| +| 24-25 |

Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +| 24a-2 |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 24b2
5b. |

If yes to 24a25a, please explain:

| +| 25-26 |

Have you, or has any member of your family or any of your close friends—either as individuals or in the course of their business affairs—ever been a party to a legal action or dispute with the United States, or with any of the officers, departments, agencies, or employees of the United States, including the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, or the NYPD?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | + +| 25a-2 | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 25b2
6b. | If yes to 25a26a , please explain:

_____

_____

_____ | +| 26-27 | Have you, or has any member of your family, ever had a dispute concerning money owed to you by the Government or owed by you to the Government?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +| 26a-2 | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 26b2
7b. | If yes to 26a27a , please explain:

_____

_____

_____ | + +| | OTHERS | +|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 2Z28 | Do you or any member of your family or a close friend work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts? | +| | o Yes o No | +| )" | If yes, please explain: | + +| 27b2
8b. |

If yes to 2728, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No

| +|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 27e2
8c. |

If yes to 27b28b, please explain:

| +| 28-29 |

Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or indirect—with any member of the staff of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York?

Yes No

| +| 28a-2 |

If yes, please explain:

| +| 28b2
9b. |

If yes to 2829, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No

| +| 28e2
9c. |

If yes to 28b29b, please explain:

| +| 29-30 |

Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or indirect—with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, commonly known as the FBI?

Yes No

| +| 29a-3 |

If yes, please explain:

| + +| 29b3 Ob. this case? | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| o Yes 29e3 If yes to 29b30b, please explain: 0c. | o No | +| 3-0-31 NYPD? | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or | +| ❑ Yes | ❑ No | +| 1:Nci 1 If yes, please explain: 30b3 I b. this case? | | +| o Yes 30e3 If yes to 30b31b, please explain: 1 c. | o No | +| 3-632 Do you have any opinion of the U.S. Attorne | 's Office for the Southern District of | +| New Yorker, the U.S. Attorney Damian impartial juror in this case? | or the former Actin U.S. | +| o Yes | o No | + +3.1a:3 If yes, please explain: + +| 3233 32e3 3a. her family members? | The next subset of questions asks whether you or any member of your family or a | +|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| o Yes 34b3 3b. | o No have past or present dealings with Jeffrey Epstein? | +| o Yes 3-2e3 | o No | +| have past or presentiri. 3c. | ,with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of | +| New York, Damian | the former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern | +| o Yes 3d. are prosecuting this case: | o No | +| Maurene Comey | o Yes o No | +| Alison Moe | o Yes o No | +| Lara Pomerantz | o Yes o No | +| Andrew Rohrbach | o Yes o No | + +32e3 3e. + +Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with any of the defense attorneys or law firms who are representing the Defendant: + +Christian Everdell of & Gresser LLP ❑ Yes ❑ No Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon, and P.C. a Yes ❑ No Laura Menninger of Haddon, and P.C. a Yes a No Bobbi Sternheim of Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim ❑ Yes ❑ No + +32€3 3f. + +Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or i have past or present dealings with the United States District Court Judge who is presiding over this case, Alison J. Nathan, or anyone who works on her staff? + +❑ Yes ❑ No + +32g3. lg. + +If you answered "yes" to any of the above sub-questions (32a, 32b, 32o, 32d, 32.33a. 33b. 33c. 33d. 33e, or 3-243 , please explain whom you know, how you know the individual(s), and whether your relationship with that person might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case: + +| | KNOWLEDGE OF CASE AND PEOPLE | +|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 33,34 | Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Ms. Maxwell? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unsure name: | +| 34,35 | Have you personally formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of | +| | ❑ Yes a No ❑ Unsure If yes or unsure, please summarize your opinion: | + +| 35-36 |

Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including anything about criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell, have you formed any opinions about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes      No      Unsure
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell

| +|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 35a3
6a. |

If yes or unsure, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case:

| +| 36-37 |

Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein?

Yes      No      Unsure

| +| 36a3
7a. |

If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you heard about Mr. Epstein from a media source, please identify the media source by name:

| +| 37-38 |

Have you verbally stated or posted your opinion on social media or online about Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein?

Yes      No
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein/Ms. Maxwell

| +| 37a3
8a. |

If yes, when and where did you state or post your opinion?

| + +| .1,W19 | | | +|--------------------------------------------|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| o Yes lx,i 1 impartial juror in this case: | o No | o Unsure | +| PAO on the evidence? | | If you have heard about Jeffrey Epstein, do you think Ms. Maxwell's alleged | +| o Yes Pa4 Oa. | a No Jeffrey Epstein | o Unsure | +| 40 41 | | Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including | +| o Yes | o No | o Unsure | + +Juror ID: \_\_\_\_\_ + +| 40a4
1a. |

If no or unsure, please explain:

| +|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| +|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| + +| NATURE OF CHARGES | | +|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 41.42
2a. |

During the trial, you will hear evidence alleging sex crimes against underage girls. Some of the evidence in this case will involve sexually suggestive or sexually explicit conduct. Is there anything about the nature of this case and the accusations as summarized at the beginning of this questionnaire that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes                      No

| +| 41a4
2a. |

If yes, please explain:

| +| 42.43
3a. |

Do you have any specific views or feelings concerning laws regarding the age at which individuals can or cannot consent to sexual activity with other individuals that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror?

Yes                      No

| +| 42a4
3a. |

If yes, please explain:

| +| 43.44
4a. |

Do you have any opinion about the enforcement of the federal sex trafficking laws or the federal laws concerning sex crimes against minors that might prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case?

Yes                      No

| + +| 41a4 If yes, please explain: 4a. | | +|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 44745 | Have you or a family member ever supported. lobbied, petitioned, protested, or | +| sexual harassment? | worked in any other manner for or against any laws-era regulations. or organizations | +| o Yes 44a4 5a. 44b4 5b. | o No serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case? | +| o Yes 44e4 If yes to 4413456, please explain: 5c. | o No | +| 4-5746 would any other witness? | The witnesses in this case may include law enforcement witnesses. Would you have | +| ❑ Yes 45a4 If yes, please explain: 6a. | ❑ No | + +| 46-47 |

Witnesses in this case may testify claiming sexual abuse or sexual assault. Would you have any difficulty assessing the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse just like you would any other witness?

Yes                      No

| +|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 46a4
7a. |

If yes, please explain:

_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| 47-48 |

Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)

Yes (self)                      Yes (friend or family member)                      No

| +| 47a4
8a. |

If yes, without listing names, please explain:

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| 47b4
8b. |

If your answer to 47f8 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?

Yes                      No

| +| 47e4
8c. |

If yes to 47b48b, please explain:

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

| + +| 48749 | | Have you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment, | | +|--------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| o Yes (self) | ❑ | Yes (friend or family member) | o No | +| If yes, | without listing names please explain: | | | +| ❑ | Yes | ❑ | No | +| 49750 | | Is there any other experience that you or anyone close to you has had that may | | +| ❑ | Yes | ❑ | No | + +| CLOSING QUESTION | | +|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 50-51 |

Do you wish for any particular answers to remain confidential and to not go beyond the Judge, counsel, and the Defendant, because the answer would embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy?

Yes No

If yes, please list which question number(s):

| + +### DECLARATION + +1, Juror Number declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers set forth in this Jury Questionnaire are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have not discussed my answers with others, or received assistance in completing the questionnaire. + +Signed this day of November, 2021 + +DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME. PLEASE SIGN USING YOUR JUROR NUMBER. + +You may use these pages to finish any answers that you could not fit in the spaces provided above. If you write anything below, please indicate the number of the relevant question. + +|

| | +|----------|--| +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | + +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. x + +# [DRAFT[ EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS + +# Introduction + +[PLACEHOLDER FOR INTRODUCTORY REMARKS] + +#### INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS + +#### Ability to Follow Instructions + +- 1. As I instructed you earlier, one of the important principles of criminal law is that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. Like anyone accused of a crime in this country, Ms. Maxwell is, and must be, presumed innocent of any and all charges made against her unless and until the Government proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the Government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the Government's burden of proof alone. The defendant has no burden to prove her innocence or to present any evidence. Are you able to follow these instructions? +- 2. As I instructed you earlier, until you are excused from this case, you may not read, listen to, or watch any accounts of this case reported on television, the radio, or over the Internet or social media. Jurors are also not allowed to do any research regarding this case, whether over the Internet, on social media, or in any other manner. The case must be decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the courtroom. Would you have any difficulty following these rules, which are binding on every juror? +- 3. When you filled out your questionnaire, you were told not to research, read, or watch anything about the case or learn anything about the case. Have you, even though you were instructed not to do that, done that anyway? Have you looked things up on the internet, even if you just Googled it? If you have, now is the time to tell me. + +# General Ability to Serve + +- 4. On your questionnaire, you stated that you do not have any unmovable commitments between November 29 and approximately January 15. Does that continue to be accurate? + +#### Prior Know ledge of Ms. Maxwell + +- 5. [If Juror HAS HEARD of Ms. Maxwell] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had heard of Ms. Maxwell before starting this process. Have you formed an opinion or heard, read, or seen anything about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 6. [If Juror HAS NOT heard of Ms. Maxwell] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had not heard of Ms. Maxwell before starting this process. Is that accurate? + +# Prior Knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein + +- 7. [If Juror HAS HEARD of Epstein] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had heard of Jeffrey Epstein before starting this process. Have you formed an opinion or heard, read, or seen anything about Mr. Epstein that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 8. [If Juror HAS NOT heard of Epstein] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had not heard of Jeffrey Epstein before starting this process. Is that accurate? + +# Nature of Charges + +- 9. You reported in your questionnaire that [insert question number of any YES answers for question 47, 48, or 49]. Would that experience affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +#### Knowledge of the Trial Participants + +- 10. In the questionnaire I listed the names of all the trial participants and you indicated that you did not know any of those individuals by name. I'll ask you to also look around now and let me know if you recognize anyone in the courtroom. +- 11. I will now read a list of individuals who may be mentioned during the trial, or who may be witnesses in this case: + +[Names to be supplied] + +Do you know any of those people? Have you had any dealings, directly or indirectly, with any of these individuals? To your knowledge, have any of your relatives, friends, or associates had any dealings with any of these individuals? + +# Kom'11.•clue 01 Location + +- 12. Events in this case are alleged to have taken place at the following locations: + +[List to be supplied] + +Are you particularly familiar with any of those locations? + +# Prior Jury Service + +- 13. [For jurors who answered YES to question 17] On your questionnaire you said that you have served as a juror. In what court did you serve and was it a civil or criminal case? What type of case was it? Without telling us what the verdict was, did the jury reach a verdict? +- 14. [For jurors who answered YES to question 18] On your questionnaire you said that you have served as a grand juror. When and where? + +- 15. [For jurors who answered YES to either question] Is there anything about your prior experiences as a juror that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +### Relationship sNith, and ViON of, CON (TIIIIICIli, Defense, and Others + +- 16. Have you, either through any experience you have had or anything you have seen or read, developed any bias or prejudice or other feelings for or against the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the FBI, or the NYPD? +- 17. Do you have any opinions about prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys generally that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 18. Do you have any opinion about the criminal justice system generally or the federal criminal justice system in particular that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 19. Do you have any opinion about people who are wealthy or have luxurious lifestyles that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +# Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crinie Victim + +- 20. [For jurors who answered YES to question 19] On your questionnaire you said that [you or a friend/family member] has/have participated in a state or federal court case. What kind of cases And, what was your/their role in that case? Is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +21. [For jurors who answered YES to question 24] On your questionnaire you said that [you or a friend/family member] has/have been a victim of a crime. Please describe the circumstances, including the type of crime, when it happened, and the outcome of any law enforcement action. Is there anything about that experience that could affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? + +### Juror's Itackurotind + +22. How old are you? + +23. Please state your current county of residence and list each county of residence during the past ten years. + +24. How far did you go in school? And what did you study? + +25. If you work, what kind of work do you do? Describe the type of your employer (for example, a private company, government entity, non-profit organization, etc). (If retired or unemployed, describe your last employment.) + +26. How long have you been employed in your current position? What work did you previously do? + +27. Who are the members of your household? + +28. If the members of your household work, what kind of work do they do? + +29. What newspapers or magazines do you typically read and how often? + +30. Do you typically read any websites? If so, do you post comments or information on these websites? + +31. Do you regularly use social media? If so, what social media do you regularly use? + +32. Do you regularly watch any television shows? If so, what shows? + +33. Do you regularly listen to any radio programs or podcasts? If so, which? + +- 34. What are your hobbies, major interests, recreational pastimes, and leisure-time activities? +- 35. Have you ever followed a criminal case in the media? If so, what case? +- 36. Are you a member of any clubs or organizations to which you contribute time or money? + +### FINAL OUESTION + +- 37. I have tried to direct your attention in these questions and through the questionnaire you filled out to possible reasons why you might not be able to sit as a fair and impartial juror. Apart from any prior question, do you have the slightest doubt in your mind, for any reason whatsoever, that you will be able to serve conscientiously, fairly, and impartially in this case and to render a true and just verdict without fear, favor, sympathy, or prejudice, and according to the law as it will be explained? \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e9453588641feea51294d72a22f6cab36c6a228 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/EFTA02833115.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2189 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 40, + "chars": 63050, + "elapsed_seconds": 87.3, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTION SHEET", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.904, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 372.85589599609375, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 372.85589599609375, + 377.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 377.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 400.39776611328125, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 400.39776611328125, + 89.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 89.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF THE CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 382.439453125, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 382.439453125, + 170.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 170.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SCHEDULE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 279.072, + 75.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 351.7061767578125, + 75.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 351.7061767578125, + 89.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 279.072, + 89.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 453.1441650390625, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 453.1441650390625, + 89.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 89.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 208.17000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 157.89600000000002, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 157.89600000000002, + 364.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.048, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 515.9159999999999, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 515.9159999999999, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 208.17000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 353.5515441894531, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 353.5515441894531, + 89.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 89.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "[DRAFT[ EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 460.8952941894531, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 460.8952941894531, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 324.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 343.8332824707031, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 343.8332824707031, + 86.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 86.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 383.5099792480469, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 383.5099792480469, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 230.11199999999997, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ability to Follow Instructions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.276, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 386.33465576171875, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 386.33465576171875, + 114.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 228.276, + 114.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "General Ability to Serve", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 372.47222900390625, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 372.47222900390625, + 639.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 639.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Know ledge of Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 218.484, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 394.42510986328125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 394.42510986328125, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 218.484, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 399.9957580566406, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 399.9957580566406, + 308.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 308.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Nature of Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.428, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 357.8206481933594, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 357.8206481933594, + 529.10302734375 + ], + [ + 256.428, + 529.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Knowledge of the Trial Participants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 402.4844665527344, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 402.4844665527344, + 87.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 87.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Kom'11.\u2022clue 01 Location", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 369.3954162597656, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 369.3954162597656, + 390.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 390.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Jury Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.428, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 358.1983947753906, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 358.1983947753906, + 528.8035278320312 + ], + [ + 256.428, + 528.8035278320312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Relationship sNith, and ViON of, CON (TIIIIICIli, Defense, and Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 135.252, + 182.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 479.37481689453125, + 182.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 479.37481689453125, + 197.60302734375 + ], + [ + 135.252, + 197.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crinie Victim", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 167.07600000000002, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 447.7275085449219, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 447.7275085449219, + 556.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 167.07600000000002, + 556.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Juror's Itackurotind", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 360.9866638183594, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 360.9866638183594, + 236.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 236.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FINAL OUESTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 361.44671630859375, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 361.44671630859375, + 211.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 211.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Form", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833115" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..866f0c400ed045ce1fd2c7f730af038fd81e102c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833115/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d68d5498010d7ddd8b8ed4cd86e087d2d5696089e149cba04149b66a2fb81f46 +size 11761 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4b766432a0fb57b4073535ffa9dd4c79fc65c9a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +![](_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg) + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As discussed at yesterday's conference, attached is the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each questionnaire session. The parties may suggest any proposed edits by letter on or before October 26, 2021, or they shall indicate by that date that they have no objections or suggestions. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 22, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +United States v. Maxwell, 20cr330 + +Preliminary Remarks Prior to Questionnaire + +To be video recorded and played on 11/4, 11/5, and 11/12 + +Hello everyone. Thank you so much for being here. And welcome to the Southern District of New York. My name is Judge Alison Nathan and I am the judge who will preside over the trial for which you have been summoned. I have recorded this message to you because you are spread out in different rooms and over different times as part of the District's COVID safety protocols. I look forward to seeing you in person as this process moves forward. + +We are about to start the process of selecting a jury to try a criminal case. I'm going to briefly describe the process to you as it may be different than what some of you have previously experienced when summoned for jury duty. + +The first part of the process is going to occur now. In a few minutes, after you've been sworn to tell the truth, you will fill out a questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire is for you to provide information to myself, to the prosecutors, to defense counsel, and to the defendant to assist all of us in determining whether you can be a fair and impartial juror in this case. + +When you are done filling out the questionnaire, you will return it to the Jury Department staff and you will be done for the day. Some of you will be asked to return for a phase two, which will involve in-person questioning by me. That is going to start on November 16. So you are free of jury service with respect to this case from whenever you finish the questionnaire until at least November 16. Some of those who are going to return will come in on November 16, some will come on November 17th, and possibly there will be one or two more days. You will get instructions before you leave here today about how you will find out whether you are going + +to have to come back at all for the in-person questioning in this case and exactly what date and time you would be obliged to be here. + +Once that in-person questioning is completed, some of that group will be asked to return for the last step in the jury selection, and some of that last group will be selected to serve on the jury + +The trial in this case will begin on November 29 and we expect it to last approximately six weeks. We will of course not sit on federal holidays, including Christmas Eve and Christmas and New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. The questionnaire will explain the estimated schedule more fully and you will get to that in a moment. + +But first, I want to tell you a little bit about the case. As I mentioned, this is a criminal case. The charges against the Defendant are set forth in an indictment. An indictment is a formal method of accusing someone of a crime. It is not evidence of any kind. It is the Government's burden at trial to establish a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. + +This case is brought by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. The indictment against Ms. Maxwell alleges that she conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minor females to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +Now, as some of you may have already figured out, there is going to be significant press coverage of this trial. Some of you may have already heard about this case in the media, and that is OK. But from this moment on, I instruct you that you are not to read or watch or listen to + +anything that has anything at all to do with this case or anyone involved in the case. You are not to discuss this case among yourselves, you are not to discuss it with anyone, including your family, friends, anyone. You may say that you are part of the jury selection process in a criminal case in federal court, but that is all you may say. Moreover, you are not to do any research through any means about the case or anyone involved in it. That includes the defendant, it includes the judge, it includes the lawyers, and it includes any other names you hear about today. And it means, among other things, that you are not to chatter about it on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok, Snapchat, or any other social media services. You are not to read anything about it online or in the paper. You are not to watch or listen to anything about it on television, the radio, or on podcasts. You are not to do a Google search or any other kind of search. You may not do any of that and that is very important. As I am sure you understand, we must ensure that we have a jury of citizens who will decide the issues in this case based only on the evidence that is presented in court during the trial. + +Because this is a high-profile case AND because we are still in the age of COVID, I want to assure you that the Court will take a number of steps to protect your privacy and safety. First, when you are filling out the questionnaire and as we go through the later stages of the process, I ask that you please not identify yourself by your name or identify anyone you are associated with by name. Throughout the selection process and if you are selected as a juror, although the lawyers and I will know your names, we will only refer to you in Court by your juror number. This will protect your privacy. + +Second, due to COVID and to ensure easy access into and out of the Courthouse, the Court will arrange and provide transportation for selected jurors to and from the Courthouse every day of trial. + +And third, for those of you who are selected, we will provide breakfast, lunch, and snacks as well as places in the Courthouse where you can eat while maintaining adequate distance from each other while doing so. We also have all kinds of measures in place to assure safe distancing and air filtration in the Courtroom. And of course, everyone is required to wear masks. + +Ok, I will end here with a few points about how to fill out the questionnaire and then I will leave you to it. First, read all of the directions in the questionnaire. Second, please enter your juror number on the front page of the questionnaire and at the top of each page. Where indicated, please check the space for yes or no or unsure and, as requested, provide answers, explanations or details on the lines provided. + +Please answer every question. If you don't understand a question, please write, I don't understand. If you don't know the answer to a question, write I don't know. Please do not write on the back of any page. There are pages at the end for extra space if you need it. + +Please don't leave the room while you are completing the questionnaire. If you need to use the restroom, please hand the questionnaire to one of the members of the Jury Department staff, follow their directions, and retrieve it upon your return. + +Please do not discuss the questions or your answers with anyone, including your fellow prospective jurors. + +Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your service. Jury trials are part of the bedrock of American democracy. Citizen jurors, not judges, decide the outcome of criminal and civil disputes. This right to trial by jury is enshrined in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to our Constitution. + +Each of you have responded to the call to serve. Doing so will involve some inconvenience and hardship. But by your willingness to serve, by your truthful answers to the questions posed to you, and by your careful following of the rules and instructions I have provided, you are doing your part to support the cherished American institution of trial by jury. + +Thank you. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47858befddbbaebb7f0c16cd550e44f6c011b23d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/EFTA02833155.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,266 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 8513, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.41, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833155" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3bf4fd0360367907a4c940565ac2b16052cba0f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833155/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:828de9196f054ca78b05476212c694c74cfa9d7830f3f71c700abe014e35e557 +size 10603 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e96987d088e4de472e953d8396cc2fe9fa82c922 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.md @@ -0,0 +1,308 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +It + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +### JOINT PROPOSED EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America + +Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - + +Christian Everdell, Esq. & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York. NY 10022 + +Laura Henninger. Esq. Jeffrey Pa:littsa. Esq. Haddon. "MI and P.C. ISO East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Stemheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 + +### Introduction + +The parties respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court include the following questions in its examination of prospective jurors. The Court is requested to pursue more detailed questioning if a particular juror's answer reveals that further inquiry is appropriate and, in such an instance, to conclude with an inquiry whether the particular fact or circumstance would influence the juror in favor of or against either the Government or the defendant, or otherwise affect the juror's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case. + +You arc being considered for jury service in a criminal case involving charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. + +It is important for you to remember that Ms. Maxwell has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Like anyone accused of a crime in this country, Ms. Maxwell is. and must be. presumed innocent of any and all charges made against her unless and until the government proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Indictment is only an accusation and is not proof or evidence of anything. + +The government and only the government has the burden of proving each of the essential elements of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether the government has met this burden. + +A defendant in a criminal trial never has to prove innocence. Every defendant is presumed innocent of the charges in an indictment, unless and until during your deliberations you determine that the government has met its burden of proof. + +Four rules apply in every criminal case that you must keep in mind. + +First, the defendant is presumed innocent until the government has proven her guilty of the charges based on evidence. + +Second. the government has the burden of proof - • based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden to prove her innocence or to present any evidence. The burden of proof never shifts to the defendant. + +Third. the defendant does not have to testify or present any evidence whatsoever. You must not hold the right and decision not to testify against the defendant. + +Four, jurors may not engage in any reading. viewing, review or discussion of this case until the jury begins deliberations. + +Arc you able to follow these instructions? llf No/Unsure, question privately] + +There has been press coverage of this case that will undoubtedly continue throughout the trial. What you may have read, seen, or heard about this case is not evidence and may not he considered by you in deciding whether the government has met its burden of proof based solely on the evidence - testimony and exhibits- admitted during trial. + +You may not read, watch, or listen to any news or reports in any form whatsoever about this case. You may not use the Internet or in any way conduct any independent research about anything having to do with this case: not about the people that are involved. including witnesses and lawyers not about the facts, not about the law. You must not discuss this case with anyone. Not your spouse. domestic partner. family, colleagues. co-workers, anybody. You must not try to find out any information about his case from any source outside this courtroom. You must not talk about it. Twitter about it. post about it. talk about it. communicate about it. You may not express any opinion about this case and may not read about, seek, or inquire about other people's opinions. You arc not permitted to discuss or talk about this case with anyone including fellow jurors until + +all the evidence has been presented, the lawyers have delivered closing arguments, and I have given you instructions on the law. At that time and only then, can you begin deliberating, and only then can you discuss this case with other jurors and only other jurors in this case. To read, view, or talk about this case in any way before you retire to deliberate will be in violation of your sworn oath as jurors. + +1. 1. Are you able to follow these instructions? [If No/Unsure, question privately] +2. 2. Do you have any personal knowledge of the charges in this case as they are described above? + +**Pretrial Publicity** + +1. 3. Have you read, seen, or heard anything about this case? +2. 4. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about this case? [If Yes, question privately] +3. 5. Have you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein? +4. 6. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about Jeffrey Epstein? [If Yes/Unsure, question privately.] +5. 7. Have you read, seen, or heard anything about Ghislaine Maxwell? +6. 8. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about this Ghislaine Maxwell? [If Yes/Unsure question privately.] +7. 9. Based on anything you have read seen or heard about the case, Mr. Epstein, or Ms. Maxwell, including anything about the criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell, would you be able to follow the Court's instructions to put that information out of your mind and decide this case based only on the evidence presented at trial? [If No/Unsure question privately.] + +**Commented [A1]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION:** The Government objects to the language in ██████ color font, proposed by the defendant, on the grounds that the proposed language is not appropriately part of voir dire. Rather, prospective jurors can simply be asked if they can follow the judge's instructions. Selected jurors can and will be advised of the burdens of proof and obligations of the parties as part of the court's later instructions to the jury. In addition, the instructions proposed are repetitive. + +**Commented [A2R1]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE:** The Government proposes numerous questions asking whether the jurors can abide by the Court's instructions on topics including search-obtained evidence, sympathy and empathy, investigative techniques used by government, the fact that others not charged cannot enter their analysis, and punishment. In order to empanel an impartial jury, it is appropriate to enquire of the jurors whether they likewise can hold the government to their burden of proof. Also, the government proposes to summarize all of the 6 charges and to counterbalance that proposal, it is important that the jurors understand that Ms. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. + +**Commented [A3]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION:** The Government objects to the questions in the "Pretrial Publicity" section proposed by the defendant on the grounds that the questions are duplicative of questions included in the proposed questionnaire. Jurors should be asked follow-up questions during voir dire as necessary, but need not be asked the same questions again. + +**Commented [A4R3]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE:** The defense responds that (a) the Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the questions on the questionnaire, (b) there undoubtedly will be publicity between the time the jurors fill out the questionnaire and appear for voir dire, and (c) asking the questions live when the jurors reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury. *See, e.g., United States v. Tsarnaev*, 968 F.3d 24, (1st Cir. 2020) (failure to ask each juror to identify what content they had already read about the case and to identify what they already thought they knew about the case grounds for reversal of death sentence), *cert. granted*, 141 S.Ct. 1683 (Mar. 22, 2021), *oral argument scheduled* (Oct. 13, 2021); *Patriarca v. United States*, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968) (judge must elicit "the kind and degree" of each prospective juror's exposure to the case or the parties" if asked by counsel); ██████ v. ██████, 455 U.S. 209, 221-22 (1982) (██████, concurring) (prospective juror "may have an interest in concealing [their] own bias" or "may be unaware of it"). + +10. Based on the nature of the charges, might it be difficult for your to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? Ilf Yes/Unsure question privately.' + +# The aillat/ + +This is a criminal case. The defendant on trial, Ghislaine Maxwell. has been charged with the commission of federal crimes in an Indictment filed by a grand jury sitting in this District. + +The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges that the Government is required to prove to the satisfaction of the trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The charges were summarized in the questionnaire you all filled out. The Indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minor females to travel to engage in illegal sex acts. transported a minor female to engage in criminal sexual activity, and engaged in sex trafficking of a minor. + +I will summarize the charges again briefly in this case in order to determine whether there is anything about the nature of this case that may make it difficult or inappropriate for any of you to serve on the jury. + +### The Indictment in this case contains six counts or charges: + +- Count One of the Indictment charges that, from at least in or about 1994. up to and including in or about 2004, Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant, conspired with others to entice minors to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. +- Count Two charges that, from at least in or about 1994. up to and including in or about 1997. Ghislaine Maxwell enticed a minor to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aided and abetted the same. +- Count Three charges that, from at least in or about 1994. up to and including in or about 2004, Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with others to transport minors in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. +- Count Four charges that. from at least in or about 1994. up to and including in or about 1997. Ghislaine Maxwell transported minors in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. and aided and abetted the same. + +- Count Five charges that, from at least in or about 2001, up to and including in tt, 2004, Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein and others to engage trafficking of minors. +- Count Six charges that. from at least in or about 2001. up to and including in or about 200d. Ghislaine Maxwell engaged in sex trafficking of minors, and aided and abetted the same. + +Does any juror have any personal knowledge of the charges in the Indictment, as + +have described them beyond what you have already noted in your questionnaire{ + +# LEGAL PRINCIPLES + +12. The Court will instruct the jury that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent; an indictment, which is only an accusation, is not pniof of anything; and a defenditm cannot be found guilty unless the jury, having heard all the evidence in the case. unanimously decides that the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Will you accept and apply this rule of law? + +- a. Is there anyone on this panel who thinks that because Ms. Maxwell is charged with a crime. she is probably guilty of something? +- b. Do you agree that the worst thing that can happen under our American system of criminal justice is for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime she did not commit? + +11 Ms. Maxwell's presumption of innocence never goes away unless and until the government proves each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle applies to each of the charges in this case. just as in any criminal case. Do you have any opinions about the reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases? + +14. Does each member of the jury understand that the reasonable doubt standard of proof is the highest standard of evidence provided for under our laws? + +Commented MS]: The Goscrnmcm's proposed language of the charge, is reflected in purple colored font. The defendant's proposed language is reflected in color font. + +Commented (A6itSj: DEFENDANT OBJECTION: The Defendant objects to the full-wale recapitulation of the charges in this case. There is link distinction between each Count and summarizing each of the six counts places an °Mini emphasis on the fact that the Government has chosen to charge largely the same conduct in six different ways. If the ('cam is inclined to summarize each of the six counts. the defense requests that each he followed with a %tilICMCIII that Ms. Maxwell has denied the charge and is presumed innocent of n. + +Commented (An GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the questions in the "Legal Principles" section [unposed by the defendant on the grounds that the questions are overly proud. argumenutives vague. confusing. and redundant. + +COMmented IAIIR7]: IWEENDANT RESPONSE.: The defense incorporates by 'defence their response to the Gosanment obssmon, to the Innoduction and her Objection to theChages section included by the Government. + +IS. Do you understand that the prosecution has the burden of proof in this as in every other criminal case and that Ms. Maxwell has no burden of coining forward with any evidence to establish his innocence, but rather the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the allegations charged? + +- a. On the other hand, the defense may also produce evidence. Would you be able to follow the Court's instructions that even if Ms. Maxwell or her lawyers introduce evidence, the burden of proof never leaves the prosecution. and it is always the prosecutor that must prove the Ms. Maxwell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'? +- b. Do any of you believe evidence is more compelling or a case is more persuasive if it is presented by the federal government rather than a private party? + +16. The law provides that Ms. Maxwell. as the defendant. does not have to testify. Our laws further provide that if Ms. Maxwell does not testify. you may not consider that for any purpose in deciding her guilt or innocence. Is there anyone on this jury panel who, because of personal feelings or otherwise. would not he able to follow that rule? + +17. Does any member of the jury panel feel that if a defendant does not testify that she may be hiding something? + +18. Do any of you believe that a witness can swear to tell the truth and nonetheless not be completely truthful? + +19. Would any of you consider the testimony of a government agent more credible than that of an ordinary person? + +20. Would you be inclined to believe or disbelieve a witness solely because the witness is an FBI or law enforcement officer? + +21. If you are selected as a juror in this matter, after you have heard all the evidence. you will deliberate. During deliberations. if you find you am of one view and all the rest of the jurors of an opposite view, and if, after full and free discussion, you remain convinced by reason and by logic that you are correct, will you have the strength of your convictions to adhere to your decision. notwithstanding the fact that all the other jurors disagree with you? 22. If a friend or loved one was standing trial here, on the same charges. do you know of any reason why you would not be satisfied to have his or her case tried by someone in your frame of mind or with the attitudes and beliefs that you hold? 23. Given the high profile nature of this case and the sensitive nature of the charges, is there any reason why you would feel pressure - personally, professionally, politically, ethically, or religiously-to return a serdiet other than one ,ay on the evidence? (If Yes/Unsure, question privately.] + +# Knowledge of the Trial Participants + +24. As noted in your questionnaire.. Ghislaine Maxwell. is represented by Christian Everdell. Laura Menninger, Jeffrey Pagliuca. and Bobbi Stemheim. [Please ask them to stand.] Seeing them here today, do any of you know Mr. Everdell, Ms. Menninger. Mr. Pagliuca. or Ms. Stemheim? Has any juror had any dealings with them or individuals in their offices? They will be assisted by senior paralegal specialist Ann Lundberg. 25. Similarly, as noted in your questionnaire, the prosecution. referred to here as the Government, is represented here, as in all cases where it is a party before this Court. by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Damian The conduct of the trial will be in the immediate charge of Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comcy, Alison Moe, Lam Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach. They will be assisted by FBI Special Agent Amanda + +Commented (All: GOVERNMENT OBJECtiON: Chihli= Maxwell is the defendant in the case. and should be referred to as such. a is the case in vinually every criminal prouxution. Commented lAleltel: DEFENDANT RESPONSE Ms. Maxwell is merely accused of the coadoet iachaded in the charges and this quesdoendre. • point that bears repeating. Commented (All]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The defense objects that this lasguage is umerflums and enaccesstty. No other case before this Con' is at issue. Amber. the US. Govenunent is represented by numerous other panics before this Can including the SEC and other arena + +Young and FBI Task Force Officer Paul Byrne, and Sunny Drescher and Annie Phifer, paralegal specialists in the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Please ask them to stand]. Do any of you know Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Rohrbach, Special Agent Young, Task Force Officer Byrne, Ms. Drescher, or Ms. Phifer? To your knowledge. have you, your family members, or your close friends had any dealings with them? + +26. I will now read a list of names of individuals who may be mentioned during the trial, or who may be witnesses in this case: + +(Names to be supplied] + +27. Do any of you know any of those people? Have you had any dealings, directly or indirectly, with any of these individuals? To your knowledge, have any of your relatives, friends. or associates had any dealings with any of these individuals? + +### Knowledge of Location + +28. Events in this case are alleged to have taken place at the following locations: + +fiat to be supplied] + +29. Are any of you particularly familiar with any of those locations? + +## Prior Jun Service + +30. Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court? If so. in what court did you serve and was it a civil or criminal case? What type of case was it? Without telling us what the verdict was, did the jury reach a verdict? + +31. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury. whether in federal, state, county, or city court? If so. when and where? + +32. For those of you who have described prior jut,/ service, is there anything about your prior experiences as a juror that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +### Experience as a Witness. Defendant, or Crime Victim + +33. Have you. or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil. as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant? If so. what kind of case? And, what was your role in that case) If so. is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +34. Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency? If so, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +35. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation? If so, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +36. Have you. or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime? If so. is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? Again, if you would prefer not to give your answer in open court. please say so. + +37. Have you. or has any relative or close friend, ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any grand jury, state or federal, or any other investigation? If so. is + +there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +38. Has any juror, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime? If you would feel uncomfortable answering this question in open court, please say so and we can follow up at the sidebar. If you answer yes. please describe the circumstances, including the type of crime, when it happened. and the outcome of any law enforcement action. Is there anything about that experience that could affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? + +39. Have you. or has any member of your family or any of your close friends—either as individuals or in the course of their business affairs—ever been a party to a legal action or dispute with the United States, or with any of the officers, departments, agencies, or employees of the United States, including the United States Attorney's Office or the FBI. or the NYPD? + +40. Have any of you had any legal, financial, or other interest in any such legal action or dispute or its outcome? Have you, or has any member of your family, ever had such a dispute concerning money owed to you by the government or owed by you to the government? If so. is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +## Views on Certain Witnesses, Investigative Techniques, and Evidence + +41. The witnesses in this case will include law enforcement witnesses. Would any of you be more likely to believe a witness merely because he or she is a member of a law enforcement agency? Would any of you be less likely to believe a witness merely because he or she is a member of a law enforcement agency? + +42. rYou will hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do you have any feelings or opinions about searches conducted by law enforcement officers. or the use of evidence obtained + +from searches. that tumid affect your ability to he fair and impartial in this case? + +43. You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have any of you had any experiences with experts. or do you have any general feelings about the use of experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? 44. Does anyone have any expectations about the types of evidence that the Government should or will present in this criminal trial, or in a criminal trial more generally? 45. Is there anything that has been covered or that has not been covered that you wish to discuss privately with the Court and counsel? 16 Would any of you be unable to follow my instructions that the Government is not required to use any particular investigative technique uncovering evidence of or prosecuting a crime'? 47. The defendant is charged with acting with others in the commission of the charged crimes. Those other individuals arc not on trial here. You may not draw ail) inference, favorable or unfavorable, toward the government or the defendant from that fact. You also may not speculate as to the reason why other persons are not on trial. Is there anyone who cannot follow this instruction or who for this reason could have dirt rendering a fair and impartial verdict. + +# Function of the Court and Jury + +48. The function of the jury is to decide questions of fact. You are the sole judges of + +the facts and nothing that the Court or the lawyers say or do may encroach in any way on your role + +as the exclusive fact finders. However, when it comes to the law, you must take your instructions + +from the Court and you arc bound by those instructions. You may not substitute your notions of + +Conunented (Alt]: DEFENDANT OBJECTION: The &few to this question became it is not relevant for thejury to know about multiple sacks. Further. there have been no motions to suppress them searches and the court has not made any slot dew-mistake. In addition to being factually Mamma:0. the question causes any prospective juror to necessarily speculate about the admissibility or nos- + +admisaarility of certain evidence. + +Commented (Al 3R12]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This position minors a standard jury imaniesion on this + +subject + +Commented (A14]: DEFENDANT OBJECTION: The Sixth Ameodment secures to Moduli deferadaam the right to trial by an impartial jury. killing v. Unked Stares. 561 US. 1St 377-711(20I0). The Amnion of vole dire is moo counsel prospective jurors on the nolo and procedures of minded law bat tatherno expose proemial bias or preps:hoe. traliniSiareslaalem6I0 F.30 168. I84-85(2d Cir. 20 It) (citing v.Iuinolx 504 U.S. ?IP I I992)). The Goan: em proposed questions are not designed to expose potential bias or prejudice. Volt dire is not as opportunity for as party to inject their theory of the case or preview panatelas evidence for the jury. The Govanmears questioa mho masonica the law. For example, dun me grounds (such as a missing YAWS; insauction) that would allow the jury to draw inferences against the Government based on the exact of certain testifying individuals. what the law is or what you think it should be. At the conclusion of the case, your job will be to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty as charged in the Indictment. Does any juror have any difficulty with that principle, or any problem in accepting and following the instructions of the law that I will give you in this case? + +49. Will each juror accept the proposition that the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and that the possible punishment must not enter into the deliberation of the jurors as to whether the defendant on trial here is guilty or not guilty? + +50. Will each of you accept the proposition that sympathy or empathy must not enter into the deliberations of the jurors as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. and that only the evidence presented here in Court may be used by you to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged? + +51. It is not a particularly pleasant duty to find another individual guilty of committing a crime. Is there any juror who feels that even if the evidence established a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he or she might not be able to render a guilty verdict for reasons unrelated to the law and the evidence? + +52. It also is not a particularly pleasant duty to find another individual not guilty of committing a crime, especially if one's friends and families may disagree with that decision. Is there any juror who feels that if the government fails to establish each element of each charge against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, he or she might not be able to reach a not guilty verdict for reasons unrelated to the law and evidence? + +53. Does any juror have any religious. philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a guilty 'ir a nut guilty verdict in a criminal case? + +Commented [AIM GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Govcnnwut objects to dna qaestion as confusing aid inappropriate\_ + +' Commented IA163: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Govenunent objects to the addition of this language as confusing. + +54. I have tried to direct your attention in these questions and through the questionnaire you filled out to possible reasons why you might not be able to sit as a fair and impartial juror. Apart from any prior question, does any juror have the slightest doubt in his or her mind. for any reason whatsoever, that he or she will be able to serve conscientiously, fairly. and impartially in this case and to render a true and just verdict without fear, favor. sympathy. or prejudice. and according to the law as it will be explained? + +55. If you are chosen to serve as a juror in this case, the Court will order you not to read, listen to. or watch any accounts of this case reported on television, the radio. or over the Internet or social media. Jurors arc also not allowed to do any research regarding this case. whether over the Internet. on social media or in any other manner. The cast must be decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the courtroom. Would you have any difficulty following these rules, which are binding on every juror? + +### HARDSHIP AND ABILITY TO SERVS + +56. This trial is expected to at least six weeks and may extend beyond the holidays. The jury will normally sit front -nn 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. five days per week although there mat he deviations from these times. 'The Court will not sit from December 24th through New Year's and will resume on January 3d.1 The Court and counsel recognize that jury service may be an inconvenience. On the other hand, jury service is an important responsibility for citizens of our democracy. Only in the United States do we rely on our fellow citizens for the determination of justice. Only if service will impose a true hardship. will the Court consider excusing you from service. If you believe you have a true hardship. please let me know. + +57. Do you have any physical or personal problem. or do you take any medicine that you believe would affect you during the trial? + +Commented \$171: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Crosernment objects to the questions in the "Hardship and Ability to Save" section proposed by the Defendant on the grounds that the questions arc duplicative of questions included in the proposed 44VCS410011elle. Jurors should he asked follow.up questions during sod dire as necessary. but need not be asked the same questions again. + +Commented 1A18R171: DEFT.NDANT RESPONSE: The defense responds that fa) the Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the questions on the questionnaire. dsl there undoubtedly will be potential hardship issues that may arise between the time the jumn fill out the questionnaire and appear for volt' dire. and (et asking the questions live when the jurist% reactions. hesitation.. explanations can he explored by the Can and observed by the panics will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury. + +58. Do you have any difficulty with your sight or hearing that could affect your ability to see or hear what happens during the trial? + +59. Do you have any difficulty understanding, reading, or speaking the English language? + +60. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been charged with a crime? + +61. Have you or anyone close to you ever been accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment? + +62. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime? [If Yes/Unsure question privately.] + +63. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime? [If Yes/Unsure question privately.] + +**Jurors' Background** + +64. The parties respectfully request that the Court ask each juror to state the following information: + +(a) the juror's age; + +(b) the juror's family status (including whether the juror has any children and, if so, ages of the children); + +(c) the juror's current town of residence and length of time at the residence; + +(d) the juror's county of residence during the past ten years; + +(e) the educational background of the juror, including the highest degree obtained; + +(f) the juror's occupation; + +(g) the name and general location of the juror's employer, and the period of employment with that employer; + +(h) the same information concerning other employment within the last five years; + +**Commented [A19]:** DEFENDANT: The defense proposes that these questions should be more appropriately asked in the questionnaire rather than voir dire. See Joint Proposed Jury Questionnaire. The Government objects but it was the Government, in the most recent high-profile federal cases, who included the very same background information questions in the written questionnaire. See *United States v. Elizabeth* (*Thermos*), 18 Ct. 258 (EDD) (N.D. Cal.); *United States v. Robert Kelly*, 19 Ct. 286 (AMD) (EDNY); *United States v. Keith Rainier (Nevin)*, 18 Ct. 204 (NGG) (EDNY). + +In addition to saving immense time, it provides a good-faith foundation for combacting research on the jurors to confirm truthfulness and/or uncover bias. In addition, the verdict in one of longest financial fraud trials in SDNY was overturned due to jury deceit. See *United States v. Dangerdas*, 867 F.Supp. 24 445 (SDNY 2012). + +- (i) the same employment information with respect to the juror's significant other and any working children or member of the juror's household; +- (j) the newspapers or magazines that the juror typically reads and how often: +- (k) the websites that the juror reads and/or posts comments or information on: +- (I) the television shows that the juror typically watches and or radio programs the juror regularly listens to: (m)the juror's hobbies and leisure-time activities: and +- (n) whether the juror is a member of any clubs or organizations to which you contribute your time or money. +- (O) Do you know. or have you had any dealings, personal or business, with Jeffrey Epstein. or with any of his relatives or friends'? llf Yes/Unsure. question privately] +- (p) Do you know, or have you had any dealings, personal or business, with NIN. Maxwell, or with any of her relatives or friends? lIf Yes/Unsure, question privately] + +# Rertuested Instruction Following Impaneling of the Jun + +65. From this point until the time when you retire to deliberate your verdict, it is your duty not to discuss this case, and not to remain in the presence of other persons who may be discussing this case. The rule about not discussing the case with others includes discussions even with members of your own family. and your friends. + +66. If at any time during the course of the trial, any person attempts to talk to you or to communicate with you about this case, either in or out of the courthouse. you should immediately report such an attempt to me through my deputy clerk. In this regard. let me explain to you that the attorneys and defendant in a case are not supposed to talk to jurors, not even to offer a friendly greeting. So, if you happen to see any of them outside this courtroom, they will, and should, ignore you. Please do not take offense. They will be acting properly by doing so. + +Commented (Ate GOVERMENT OBJECTION: The Go.cninnu objects to Questions65(o) and (p) proposed by the defendant on the grounds that the questions ate duplicainc of questions included in the proposal questionnane. Jurors should he asked follow -up question+ during sou dirt as necessary. hut nerd ma be asked the same questions again + +Commented IAZ1Ft201: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The &lane responds that (a) the Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the questions on the questionnaire. and ib) asking the questions ha e when the jurors reactions. he ekplanations van be explored by the Court and obscno.1 by the panics will aid in the .election of an impanial and lair jury. + +67. [Per the suggestion of the court of appeals in United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125, 132-33 (2d Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (en bans)): I know that many of you use cell phones, Blackberries, the intemet, and other tools of technology. You also must not talk to anyone about this case or use these tools to communicate electronically with anyone about the case. This includes your family and friends. You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cell phone. iPhone. Blackberry. text messaging. e-mail, social media websites or applications (including Facebook. Instagram. Twitter. Linkedln. YouTube). blogs. websites. interact chat rooms, or by other means. + +Dated: New York. New York October 11, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted. + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: At Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys + +> Is! Christian Everdell Laura Menninger Jeffrey Pagliuca Bobbi Stemheim Counsellor Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69bcb0b720195d6b175aaf651dc7f50c41d7a4d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161/EFTA02833161.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1051 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833161.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 17, + "chars": 37297, + "elapsed_seconds": 16.08, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 213.33494567871094, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 213.33494567871094, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT PROPOSED EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.86, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 369.6375427246094, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 369.6375427246094, + 338.9536437988281 + ], + [ + 94.86, + 338.9536437988281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 259.4169006347656, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 259.4169006347656, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Pretrial Publicity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 195.228, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 266.832, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 266.832, + 327.24 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 327.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The aillat/", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 190.35 + ], + [ + 258.74432373046875, + 190.35 + ], + [ + 258.74432373046875, + 204.482421875 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 204.482421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Indictment in this case contains six counts or charges:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 296.5727844238281, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 296.5727844238281, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 453.6 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LEGAL PRINCIPLES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 279.39971923828125, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 279.39971923828125, + 266.732421875 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 266.732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Knowledge of the Trial Participants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 399.168, + 307.24322509765625 + ], + [ + 412.63200000000006, + 307.24322509765625 + ], + [ + 412.63200000000006, + 453.59999999999997 + ], + [ + 399.168, + 453.59999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Knowledge of Location", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 279.9883728027344, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 279.9883728027344, + 390.8623962402344 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 390.8623962402344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Jun Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.168, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 270.5683898925781, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 270.5683898925781, + 474.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 192.168, + 474.65999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Experience as a Witness. Defendant, or Crime Victim", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.619873046875, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 338.619873046875, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 223.56000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Views on Certain Witnesses, Investigative Techniques, and Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.696, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 367.3159484863281, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 367.3159484863281, + 495.4823913574219 + ], + [ + 96.696, + 495.4823913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Function of the Court and Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 525.096, + 316.2764587402344 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 316.2764587402344 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 443.52 + ], + [ + 525.096, + 443.52 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HARDSHIP AND ABILITY TO SERVS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 150.552, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 315.0405578613281, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 315.0405578613281, + 412.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 150.552, + 412.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Jurors' Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 378.57599999999996, + 339.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 390.45599999999996, + 339.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 390.45599999999996, + 422.73 + ], + [ + 378.57599999999996, + 422.73 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rertuested Instruction Following Impaneling of the Jun", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 388.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 344.5830383300781, + 388.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 344.5830383300781, + 402.1023864746094 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 402.1023864746094 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833161" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52620e5b0dd7756a6201f4cb6cd82471c0cac7d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.md @@ -0,0 +1,731 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X + +UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +X + +## PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +JURY OUESTIONNAIRE + +Please read the following instniction. carefully before completing any portion of this qtte.tiiiiinaire Plea< print pour juror initithcr in the space provided at the top of each page. Do 'lease answer each and every question fully. Some questions have more than one part. YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. This questionnaire is designed to help simplify and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury. Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a question then write, "I don't know." There arc no "right" or "wrong" answers, only truthfulanswers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone. It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions. If you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page. DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly. do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers + +WOnneinented MID DEFENDANT OWEC710N: An disansof below. the Mosta Miens that baetsround Sefton:Son on awl "HUI timid be Inclatkd on this quodonnairt. a\* the (lovernowni propo.ol lo do in the n,ilwa quelaionnaire in each or the asrA wan higbpeofile Ent (except in the presence of the Court), your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail, any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet. DO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this case. If you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the judge and counsel, you may indicate that on one of the blank pages at the end of this form. (Please identify the specificanswer or answers that you believe should remain confidential.) After a jury has been selected, all copies of your responses to the questionnaire will be returned to the Court. + +## SUMMARY OF THE CASE + +The Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday. November 29, 2021. Although it is never passible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected to last approximately I ] weeks. This is a criminal case. The defendant. Ghislaine Maxwell. has been charged in an indictment with various criminal offenses. The indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the chargesreferred to as "counts"—that the Government intends to prove to the jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. The charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004. the defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. The Indictment charges the defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two charges the defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four charges the defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges the defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same. + +Commuted [M]: The Pita will steak &JOS law le the Own as OntvlL 2021 powidieg en Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience ? | Yes No | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| + +| | for placement on another panel for another case. | +|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 2. | Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court | +| | a Yes oNo | +| 3. | Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? | +| | a Yes oNo | +| 4. | Do you have any medical. physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to | +| | a Yes oNo | +| 5. | Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the | +| | o Yes o No | + +| 6. Do you have any pre-paid travel plans between November 29, 2021 and January 15, 2022?
Yes No |

If yes, please describe your plans and the dates of travel (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):

_____

_____

| +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +|

Do you have any holiday plans for the period December 24th through January 3rdth?
Yes No

| | +|

7. Do you have any appointments during the next [ ] weeks that cannot be changed?
Yes No

| | +|

If yes, please explain:

_____

_____

_____

| | +|

Have you received a vaccine for COVID-19? Yes No

If Yes, when did you receive the vaccine? _____

| | +|

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, do you have concerns about your ability to concentrate at trial, consider all the evidence, and make a conscientious decision in deliberation?
Yes No

| | +|

If yes, would courtroom precautions (ex. the use of air filters, use of a larger courtroom) alleviate your concerns?

| | +|

Is there any reason relating to the COVID-19 pandemic that would make jury service an undue hardship for you or anyone in your household? No

| | +|

If yes, please explain. _____

Is there anything else going on in your life or work that would prevent you from giving this case your full attention for the duration of trial? Yes No

If yes, please explain. _____

| | + +| 8. Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| +| o Yes | a No | +| o Yes | a No | +| c. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Damian | or | +| o Yes | a No | +| Maurene Comey | ❑ Yes o No | +| Alison Moe | o Yes ❑ No | +| Lara Pomerantz | o Yes a No | +| Andrew Rohrbach | o Yes o No | +| Christian Everdell of | & Gresser LLP o Yes o No | +| Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon. | and P.C. a Yes o No | +| Laura Menninger of Haddon. | and P.C. o Yes o No | +| Bobbi Stemheim of Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim o Yes | o No | +| I The United States District Court Judge who is presiding over this case. Alison J. | | +| o Yes | o No | + +|

CHARGES AND INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED

| | | | | | | | | | | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| +|

The indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein and did entice minor females to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transported a minor female to engage in criminal sexual activity, and engaged in sex trafficking of a minor.

The indictment is not evidence; it is a formal way of charging a person with a crime in order to bring her to trial. Ms. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty. She is presumed innocent. Unless the government proves that she is guilty of these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty.

| | | | | | | | | | | | +| Would the fact that Ms. Maxwell faces a number of charges lead you to believe that she must be guilty of something?
Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

If yes, please explain:

| | | | | | | | | | | | +|

Please indicate if you ever had any connection with any of the following?

Palm Beach County (Florida) Police Department Yes      No
Federal Bureau of Investigations Yes      No
U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District of Florida Yes      No
U.S. Attorney's Office- Southern District of New York Yes      No
U.S. Department of Justice Yes      No
| | Palm Beach County (Florida) Police Department | Yes No | Federal Bureau of Investigations | Yes No | U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District of Florida | Yes No | U.S. Attorney's Office- Southern District of New York | Yes No | U.S. Department of Justice | Yes No | +| Palm Beach County (Florida) Police Department | Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | +| Federal Bureau of Investigations | Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | +| U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District of Florida | Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | +| U.S. Attorney's Office- Southern District of New York | Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | +| U.S. Department of Justice | Yes No | | | | | | | | | | | +|

If you indicated Yes, please explain your connection:

| | | | | | | | | | | | +|

EXPERIENCE WITH LEGAL SYSTEM

| | | | | | | | | | | | +|

Have you ever served as a juror at trial or in a grand jury? Yes      No

If yes, how many times? _____

| | | | | | | | | | | | + +**Commented [A13]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the "Charges & Individuals Involved" section proposed by the defendant on the grounds that it is duplicative of the questions proposed by the Government. In particular, the first question is duplicative of questions above and is argumentative and inappropriate. + +**Commented [A14R13]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The Government has not identified which questions they believe are duplicative. The first question, pertaining to the number of charges, does not appear to be duplicated in any Government-proposed question. + +The Second Circuit has specifically approved discussion of the presumption of innocence in jury selection. See *United States v. Velez-Vasquez*, 116 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1997) (upholding conviction where judge forgot to instruct on presumption of innocence in closing instructions where the concept had been discussed during voir dire). + +**Commented [A15]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to any references to the Southern District of Florida at this trial. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is not prosecuting this case. As the Government will address in a motion in limine, references to the USAO-SDFL are not appropriate at this trial. + +**Commented [A16]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government does not believe the questions in the "Experience with Legal System" section should be included in the written questionnaire, because these questions will not reveal any bias or otherwise provide a basis for a for-cause challenge. Rather, the Government submits that such questions should be asked during the oral voir dire. + +**Commented [A17R16]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The defense believes that asking these questions on the questionnaire will save substantial amount of time and will allow the Court (and potentially parties) to follow up at the time of voir dire. Access to the information ahead of the voir dire will allow the Court to prepare to ask individual questions as necessary, some of which may best be asked outside the presence of other jurors (for example a prospective juror who previously had a negative experience as a juror). + +| Did you serve as a juror in state or federal cowl? 0 Yes | | ❑ No | +|----------------------------------------------------------|------|-------------------------------------------------------| +| Were you ever the foreperson of the jury? | | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| Criminal or Civil | | Type of case | +| | | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| | | O Yes 0 No | +| | | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| | | O Yes 0 No | +| | | ❑ Yes ❑ NO | +| impartial juror in this case? | | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| O Yes | 0 No | If Ycs, please explain: | +| O Ycs | 0 No | If Ycs, please explain: | +| O Ycs | 0 No | If Yes, please explain: | +| O Yes | 0 No | If Yes, please explain and provide area of expertise: | + +|

Have you ever filed a criminal complaint?

Yes No If Yes, please explain: _____

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------|------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------| +|

Have you ever contacted any prosecutor office: State District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, State Attorney General?

Yes No If Yes, please explain the reason?

_____

_____

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

Have you ever reported someone for wrongdoing to your employer or a government agency?

Yes No If Yes, please explain: _____

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

Other than for a minor traffic citation, have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a crime?

Yes No If Yes, please explain: _____

_____

_____

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

MEDIA ISSUES

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

How much do you rely on the following sources for your news?

A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all
Newspapers:
Social Media:
Television:
Radio:
Internet:
Conversations:
Other: _____
| | A lot | Somewhat | Not much | Not at all | Newspapers: | | | | Social Media: | | | | Television: | | | | Radio: | | | | Internet: | | | | Conversations: | | | | Other: _____ | | | | +| A lot | Somewhat | Not much | Not at all | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Newspapers: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Social Media: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Television: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Radio: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Internet: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Conversations: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +| Other: _____ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +|

How often do you use or access those sources: Daily Occasionally Rarely

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + +**Commented [A18]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the "Media Issues" section proposed by the defendant on the grounds that it is not streamlined in accordance with the Court's Order. The Government submits that its proposed questions ask the jurors what is necessary on the subject but is not as unduly burdensome as the defendant's proposal. Many of the questions are vague, confusing, and argumentative. + +**Commented [A19R18]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: A critical purpose of individual voir dire in a high-profile case such as this is to ascertain what content the jurors have read and what they think they know about the case. The First Circuit's well-reasoned opinion in *Tsarmaev*, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court explains why. It is insufficient simply to ask the jurors if they think they can be fair even after seeing media about the case. *See, e.g., United States v. Tsarmaev*, 968 F.3d 24, (1st Cir. 2020) (failure to ask each juror to identify what content they had already read about the case and to identify what they already thought they knew about the case grounds for reversal of death sentence), *cert. granted*, 141 S.Ct. 1683 (Mar. 22, 2021), *oral argument scheduled* (Oct. 13, 2021); *Patriarca v. United States*, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968) (judge must elicit "the kind and degree" of each prospective juror's exposure to the case or the parties' if asked by counsel); ██████ v. ██████, 455 U.S. 209, 221-22 (1982) (██████ concurring) (prospective juror "may have an interest in concealing [their] own bias" or "may be unaware of it"). + +Further, as in *Tsarmaev* decision, much of the information shared on the media about Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein is either inaccurate or inadmissible, or pertains to persons and charges not before this jury. 968 F.3d at 58 ("while the media (social, cable, internet, etc.) gave largely factual accounts, some of the coverage included inaccurate or inadmissible information — like the details of his un-Miranda-ized hospital interview and the opinions of public officials that he should die") (citation omitted). It also included a number of individuals' personal opinions regarding Ms. Maxwell's guilt. + +|

Please identify by name (all that apply)

Newspapers _____

Online News Sources _____

Magazines _____

Radio stations _____

Television/Cable stations _____

Streaming sources (Netflix, Peacock, Amazon, etc.) _____

Podcast providers _____

Internet Sites _____

Social media platform (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) _____

| | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +|

Do you belong to any groups on social media (ex. Facebook or WhatsApp groups)?

Yes   No   If Yes, please list the groups: _____

| | +|

Have you ever posted messages, comments, or opinions on websites/social media, or blogged?

Yes   No

| | +|

If Yes, please describe the websites or social media platforms that you have used; the types of things you have posted or blogged; and how often you have done it: _____

| | +|

Do you regularly watch any television shows, movies, dramas, documentaries, or docuseries (on any video platform) involving criminal investigations, crime solving, or criminal trials?

Yes   No   If Yes, please identify the shows: _____

| | +|

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following:
The media can be trusted to report both sides of controversial issues.

Strongly agree   Agree   Disagree   Strongly disagree

| | +|

Please identify by name any criminal cases have you followed in the media?

| | + +|
| | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +|
| | +|

This case has been widely reported in the national and local media. There is nothing wrong with having heard something about this case. It is important to truthfully and fully answer all of the following questions.

| | +|

Before coming here today have you read, seen, or heard anything about:

Ghislaine Maxwell Yes No

Jeffrey Epstein Yes No

This Case Yes No

| | +|

How closely have followed any reports about this case, Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein?

Very closely Somewhat closely Not closely Not at all

| | +|

Please indicate the sources from which you have read, seen, heard, or received information about the case, Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein? (check all that apply)

Newspapers Books Magazines Television Radio

Streaming Sites (Netflix, Peacock, Amazon, etc.) Podcasts Internet

Social Media Chat Rooms Court Proceedings Talked with people

Overheard people talking Other Sources (please list) _____

| | +|

Please identify by name anything you read, viewed, or listened to regarding this case, Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein:

News articles _____

Books _____

Television Show _____

Documentaries _____

Docu-Series _____

Podcast _____

| | + +|

Summarize what you know or have heard about this case, Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein:

| | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

Please respond to the following based upon anything :

| +| |

Have you read, seen or heard anything you have read, seen, heard and discussed with family, friends, colleagues and co-workers, have you formed any impression or opinion about this case?

| +| |

Yes No If Yes, please state your impressions or opinions:

| +| |
| +| |
| +| |
| +| |
| +|

Have you personally formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence as a result of anything you have heard, read or seen? Yes No

| | +|

If Yes, please state summarize your opinion:

|
| +| |
| +| |
| +|

Have you discussed this case with family, friends, colleagues, or co-workers

| | +|

Yes No If Yes, summarized what was discussed:

|
| +| | | +|

Have you verbally stated or posted your opinion on social media about Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein?

|
| +|

Yes No

| | +|

If Yes, when and where did you state or post your opinion?

|
| +|

Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell?

|
| +|

Yes No

| | +|

If yes, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website):

| | + +| 10. | Aside from anything you may have read, seen, or heard about criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell, before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about [REDACTED] | | | | | +|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|--|--| +| | Yes | No | | | | +| | If yes, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard about Ms. Maxwell (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website): | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| 11. | Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including anything about criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell, have you formed any opinions about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? | | | | | +| | Yes | No | | | | +| | Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell | | | | | +| | If yes, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case: | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| 12. | Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein? | | | | | +| | Yes | No | | | | +| | If yes, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website): | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| | | | | | | + +| | _____ | +|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 13. |

Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Jeffrey Epstein, have you formed any opinions about Mr. Epstein that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes                      No
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein

| +| |

If yes, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| 14. |

Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including anything about criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell, would you be able to follow the Court's instruction to put that information out of your mind and decide this case based only on the evidence presented at trial?

Yes                      No
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell

| +| |

If no, please explain:

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

| +| |

When you first learned about this case, what were your reactions?

_____

| +| |

Have your reactions changed since then? Yes                      No
If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

Have you formed any opinion about:

| + +**Commented [A22]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the next series of questions proposed by the defendant that are in ██████████ color font. The Government objects on the grounds that these questions would not provide a basis for a for-cause challenge and ask jurors to express opinions based on media coverage. If jurors have had reactions to media coverage, questions about their ability to be fair and impartial will address any questions about their ability to serve as jurors. The proposed questions inappropriately ask jurors to deliberate based on media reporting. + +**Commented [A23R22]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The defense incorporates by reference her response to the Government's objection to her "media" related questions and the case law cited therein. + +| | This Case O Yes | | ❑ No | +|---------|-------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | Ghislaine Maxwell O Yes | | O No | +| | Jeffrey Epstein O Yes | | ❑ No | +| O Yes | O No | | | +| ❑ | Definitely Guilty | | ❑ Probably Guilty O Probably Not Guilty | +| ❑ | | Definitely Not Guilty | ❑ Unsure/No Opinion ❑ Not enough information to | +| ❑ Ycs | ❑ | No | If Yes. please explain: | +| ❑ Ycs | ❑ | No | If Yes. please explain: | +| | | | I lave you discussed this case with anyone working for the media? O Yes ❑ No | +| ❑ A lot | | O A little | ❑ None | + +| |

How accurate do you feel the reports about this case, in any medium, have been?

Very accurate Somewhat accurate Not very accurate Not accurate

Don't know/No Opinion

| +|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

Do you think Ghislaine Maxwell's association with Jeffrey Epstein will make it difficult for you fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented at trial and render a verdict based solely on the evidence?

Yes No Unsure

| +| |

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

| +| |

If you are selected as a juror in this case, would you be able to refrain from reading about, listening to, or watching any print, electronic media, or Internet coverage in this case?

Yes No Unsure

| +| |

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

| +| 15. |

During the trial, you will hear evidence alleging sex crimes against underage girls. Some of the evidence in this case will involve sexually suggestive or sexually explicit conduct. Is there anything about the nature of this case and the accusations as summarized at the beginning of this questionnaire that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No

| +| |

If yes, please explain:

| +| 16. |

Do you have any specific views or feelings concerning laws regarding the age at which individuals can or cannot consent to sexual activity with other individuals?

Yes No

| +| |

If yes, what are your views or opinions, and would they affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror?

| + +| |

17. Do any of you have any opinion about the enforcement of the federal sex trafficking laws or the federal laws concerning sex crimes against minors that might prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case?

Yes No

| +|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

If yes, please explain:

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| |

18. Have you or a family member ever lobbied, petitioned, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws or regulations relating to sex trafficking or sex crimes against minors?

Yes No

| +| |

If yes, please explain when and what you or your family member did:

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| |

Whether reported or not, have you, any family member or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever been the victim of any form of sexual abuse? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)

Yes No

If yes, please explain: _____

_____

| +| |

Whether reported or not, have you, or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever felt in danger of being sexually assaulted by another person, including a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member?

Yes No

If yes, please explain: _____

_____

| +| |

Have you or anyone close to you ever participated in a class or discussion group, read books or articles listened to podcasts, or participated in blogs or chat rooms concerning sexual assault or sexual abuse? Yes No

| + +**Commented [A25]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the next series of questions proposed by the defendant that are in ██████████ color font. The Government objects on the grounds that these questions are inappropriate, argumentative, confusing, and excessively detailed. The defendant's proposed questions are not streamlined in accordance with the Court's Order. The Government submits that its proposed questions ask the jurors what is necessary on the subject but is not as unduly burdensome as the defendant's proposal. + +**Commented [A26R25]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: Juror's personal experiences (directly or indirectly through family members and close friends) with sexual misconduct has significant potential to bias their opinions towards Ms. Maxwell based on the allegations and evidence in this case. The privacy of a questionnaire affords an opportunity to share these biases confidentially and candidly and best allow the parties to identify who cannot be a fair juror in this case or allows the Court to decide whether individual questioning of that juror is appropriate, based on the sensitive nature of the content of the questions. + +| | If Yes, please explain: _____ | +|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | Have you ever made a claim of inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind (sexual harassment, sexual contact, sexual abuse, or sexual assault/rape)? Yes No | +| | If Yes, please explain: _____ | +| | Have you ever been accused of any inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind (sexual harassment, sexual contact, sexual abuse, or sexual assault/rape)? Yes No | +| | If Yes, please explain: _____ | +| | Has your spouse, significant other, any family member, friend, or co-worker ever made a claim of sexual harassment, sexual contact, sexual abuse, or sexual assault/rape?
Yes No | +| | If Yes, please explain: _____ | +| | Has your spouse, significant other, any family member, friend, or co-worker ever been accused of sexual harassment, sexual contact, sexual abuse, or sexual assault/rape?
Yes No | +| | If Yes, please explain: _____ | +| | Have you, any family members or close friends, ever suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of inappropriate sexual behavior?
Yes No Unsure | +| | If Yes or Unsure, please explain the cause and, without using any names, identify who was involved: _____ | +| | Do you belong to any organizations or groups that have as one of the primary purposes, advocating or promoting federal, state, or local legislation regarding sex abuse?
Yes No | +| | If Yes, please identify the organization or group _____ | +| | Are you active in the organization or group or its activities? Yes No | +| | If Yes, describe the extent of involvement and how often _____
_____ | +| | Have you, any family member or close friend, ever worked or volunteered at any sex abuse crisis center, sex abuse crisis hot line, sex abuse counseling center, or any related entity?
Yes No | +| | If Yes, please identify: _____ | +| | Are you familiar with political movements in response to sexual abuse, including but not | + +| |

limited to #MeToo, #TimesUp?

Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

Have you, your spouse, significant other, any family, friend, co-worker been involved in or in any way supportive (financially, philosophically or politically) of organizations such as #MeToo, #TimesUp?

Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

Have you ever attended a rally, fundraising event or other events concerning the treatment of women who have been sexually assaulted?

Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

Have you ever contributed money or volunteered time to groups or organizations concerned with women's issue, such as #MeToo, #TimesUp?

Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

Have you or anyone you know had any contact with, worked for, volunteered with, used the services of, or contributed to any entity providing support to individuals claiming to have been sexually abused?

Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

This case involves allegations of sexual assault and sex trafficking of minors.

Would you feel uncomfortable if you are selected to sit on this case? Yes No

If No, is there any experience that you or anyone close to you has had that may affect your ability to listen to the evidence and reach a fair verdict based only on the evidence or lack of evidence? Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| +| |

Is there any experience that you or anyone close to you has had that may affect how you might view a case such as this Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| + +| |

Do you believe that anyone who discloses having been sexually abused must be telling the truth? Yes No Unsure

If Yes or Unsure, please explain:

| +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

Would you tend to believe the testimony of woman claiming sexual abuse more, less, or the same as any other witness?

Believe more Believe less Believe the same Unsure

| +| |

Would you tend to believe the testimony of a defendant accused of sexual abuse more, less, or the same as any other witness?

Believe more Believe less Believe the same Unsure

| +|

19. Have you ever been involved—as defendant, victim, or any other way—in a case involving sex trafficking or sex crimes against minors?

Yes No

| | +| |

If yes, without listing names, please explain the nature of the allegations, the approximate date(s), and the outcome, and indicate whether that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____

_____

_____

| +| |

Yes No

| +|

20. Has a relative, close friend, or associate ever been involved—as defendant, victim, or any other way—in a case involving sex trafficking or sex crimes against minors?

Yes No

| | +| |

If yes, without listing names, please explain the nature of the allegations, the approximate date(s), and the outcome, and indicate whether that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____

_____

_____

| +| |

Yes No

| +|

21. Have you ever been the victim of sexual abuse of any nature?

Yes No

| | +| |

If yes, please explain, and indicate whether that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case:

| + +| MENTAL HEALTH, LAW, LAW ENFORCEMENT | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +|

Have you, your spouse or significant other, family or close friends ever studied or received any mental health training? Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| | +|

Have you ever had any employment or volunteer experience in any of the following areas? (Check each on that applies)

  • Psychiatry
  • Psychology
  • Social Work
  • Mental Health
  • Therapy/Counseling
  • Sex Abuse Counseling
| | +|

Do you have any family or friends who are psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health therapists/counselors or sex abuse counselors? Yes No

If Yes, do you often discuss their work with them? _____

| | +|

Have you received any training in law, law enforcement or criminology? Yes No

If Yes, please explain: _____

| | +|

Have you ever had any employment or done any volunteer work in any of the following areas? (Check each one that applies to you)

  • Law Enforcement
  • Investigations
  • Corrections/Jail/Prison
  • Legal Profession
  • Prosecution
  • Criminal Defense
  • Justice System/Courts
  • Local/State/Federal Government
| | +|

Do you have any family or friends who are in the legal or law enforcement profession?

  • Yes
  • No

If Yes, do you often discuss their work with them? _____

| | +|

Would you believe the testimony of a law enforcement officer simply because he/she is a law enforcement officer? Yes No

If yes, please explain: _____

| | +|

Would you favor the side that had law enforcement officers as witnesses? Yes No

| | + +**Commented [A28]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The defendant has proposed additional questions in this section in addition to the questions proposed below on consent. The additional questions proposed by the defendant are duplicative, unnecessarily burdensome, and overly detailed. In addition, questions about experience with mental health issues are not designed to screen for bias and are not appropriate for inclusion in a written questionnaire. + +**Commented [A29R28]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The defense-proposed questions are designed to identify individuals whose training, education and employment may cause the juror to follow their own independent knowledge and not follow the evidence actually presented at trial, or may reveal biases in favor of the Government. + +| If yes. please explain: __ | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 22. Do you or any member of your family justice system, or the cowls? | or a close friend work in law, law enforcement, the | +| a Yes and impartial juror in this case: | o No | +| 23. of New York? | Do you know or have any association—professional. business, or social, direct or indirect— | +| a Yes and impartial juror in this case• | o No | +| 24. | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or indirect— | +| a Yes and impartial juror in this case: | o No | +| 25. | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or indirect— | +| a Yes and impartial juror in this case: | o No | + +| 26. Have you. either through any experience you have had or anything you have seen or read. | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| +| a Yes | a No | +| 27. Do you have any opinion of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New | | +| York or the U.S. Attorney Damian | that might make it difficult for you to be a fair | +| o Yes | o No | +| 28. Do you have any opinions about prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys generally that | | +| o Yes | o No | + +| 29. |

Do you have any opinion about the criminal justice system generally or the federal criminal justice system in particular that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No

| +|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

If yes, please explain:

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| CLOSING QUESTIONS | | +| |

Do you think Ghislaine Maxwell's association with Jeffrey Epstein will make it difficult for you fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented at trial and render a verdict based solely on the evidence? Yes No Unsure

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

| +| |

Do you think what you have heard, seen, and read about Ghislaine Maxwell make it difficult for you fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented at trial and render a verdict based solely on the evidence? Yes No Unsure

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

| +| |

If you were a party to this case - either the prosecution or Ms. Maxwell - is there any reason you would not want yourself to be a juror? Yes No Unsure

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

| +| |

Some people who are called for possible jury service want to be chosen while others do not. How do you personally feel? (Please check one.)

Very strongly want to serve Somewhat want to serve Indifferent

Opposed to serving Strongly opposed to serving Would be difficult to serve

Please explain your feelings: _____

| +| |

If you were convinced, at the conclusion of the trial, that Ms. Maxwell is either guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged, and a majority of the jurors disagreed with you, would you change your verdict simply because you were in the minority? Yes No Unsure

If Yes or Unsure, please explain: _____

Is there anything that has come up in this questionnaire that creates doubt in your mind about whether you could be a fair, objective, and impartial juror in this particular case?

Yes No

| + +**Commented [A30]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the questions proposed by the defendant in the "Closing Questions" section. The Government does not believe these questions should be included in the written questionnaire because these questions will not provide a basis for a for-cause challenge. Some of the questions proposed by the defendant are duplicative of prior questions. Many of the questions are inappropriate, argumentative, confusing, and excessively detailed. + +**Commented [A31R30]:** DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The questions are designed to identify persons for whom a for-cause challenge may be sustained by this Court. The Government has not identified any particular question that is "inappropriate, argumentative, confusing, and excessively detailed," nor have they proposed limiting language that would cure any such problem. + +| If yes, please explain: in this case? case: | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| o Yes a No Iiyes. please explain: | | +| Do you believe you should not serve as a juror in this case? o Yes If Yes or Unsure, please explain: | a No a Unsure | +| Do you believe you should serve as a juror in this cast? o Ycs If Yes or Unsure, please explain: | ❑ No o Unsure | +| instructed by the Court? o Yes If Yes or Unsure, please explain: | o No o Unsure | +| allegation of sexual assault and sex trafficking of minors? o Yes | ❑ No a Unsure | +| to be a juror in this case? o Yes If Yes or Unsure, please explain: | a No a Unsure | +| a juror in this case? o Ycs If Yes or Unsure, please explain: | ❑ No a Unsure | +| Yes ❑ No o Unsure II Yes or Unsure, please explain: | | + +| objective, and impartial juror in this particular case? o Ycs If Yes. please explain: | o No | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| (II Yes o No If Yes, please list which question number(s): | | +| Is there any matter you wish to discuss privately with the Judge? If Yes, please explain: | ❑ Yes n No | +| considering you as a juror in this case? o Ycs If Yes, please explain: | ❑ No | +| be tempted to disregard this instruction? o Yes If Yes, please explain: | ❑ No | +| in the jury room, would you have ditliculty in following that instruction? a Ycs If Yes. please explain: | ❑ No | + +## DECLARATION + +(juror number) declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers set forth in this Jury Questionnaire are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have not discussed my answers with others, or received assistance in completing the questionnaire. + +Signed this day of November, 2021 + +You may use these pages to finish any answers that you could not fit in the spaces provided above. If you write anything below, please indicate the number of the relevant question. + +|
| +|--------------------------| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| +|
| + +|

| | +|----------|--| +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | + +![](_page_32_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_33_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_34_Picture_2.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bfb1e283f262cbaa17164a905f2bbe02e80cbe1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/EFTA02833178.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1410 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 35, + "chars": 167111, + "elapsed_seconds": 83.48, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_32_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_33_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_34_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.296, + 307.86553955078125 + ], + [ + 318.384, + 307.86553955078125 + ], + [ + 318.384, + 451.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 307.296, + 451.0799999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF THE CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 343.72799999999995, + 321.3454895019531 + ], + [ + 354.81600000000003, + 321.3454895019531 + ], + [ + 354.81600000000003, + 437.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 343.72799999999995, + 437.84999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 629.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 629.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 640.71 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 640.71 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 343.944, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 414.324, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 414.324, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 343.944, + 622.08 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.61599999999999, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 269.35137939453125, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 269.35137939453125, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 194.61599999999999, + 180.63 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833178" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_32_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_32_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49fb5a30a6ea60084f7ee2ac8459f0541b5f6296 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_32_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:be622ec56c781ec4e8c27fc940f3ead3cea3240904eab4485a477715c5c0a46b +size 16371 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_33_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_33_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38f5ea332fa25771907fdc51ca79b77728e544ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_33_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:311f06d2ad0a623a9e2f020b5d9f5b28920d81c265f5e34041b3281283f14f8a +size 15849 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_34_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_34_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44e5cad6ec723a19390a1833cd43e694994fbf7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833178/_page_34_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:77698d8a927430db35190218a7e5a83e601d02867a5cd5a95a3fb65a32b8df84 +size 17568 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fc81ceae7c5785e7bd82fc3fe42d899a83e8528 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On October 18, 2021, the parties filed their respective motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 355, 357, 358. Responses are due today, October 25, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED that reply briefs, if any, are due by October 27, 2021. Each sides' responses and any replies must be tiled as a single document. For example, the Government should file an omnibus response brief to all of the motions in limine filed by the Defendant, and the Defendant should file an omnibus response brief to the Government's omnibus motion in limine. Similarly, any reply by the Defendant should be an omnibus reply document and same for the Government. + +The parties filed their motions in limine temporarily under seal to allow for the other side's proposal and the Court's consideration of redactions. See Dkt. Nos. 358-59. Each side should consider the other party's briefs—including any responses filed on October 25, and any replies filed on October 27—and indicate whether they seek any additional redaction requests. The parties are ORDERED to file on the public docket all briefing with both parties' proposed redactions, and a joint letter justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), on or before October 29, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 25, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72b44fc20e5f6eee07011c15279fb6b8f1707198 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/EFTA02833213.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1666, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.91, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833213" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23a9f12104f1290387c0c7a701121847271f7b38 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833213/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fadd9e9e32000b882c7b456abfbc90c223b91a0ee956ee71acdc19321021fcb8 +size 11856 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc900af10f16238a53a15a7c97f06cc0987b25bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. liverdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohcngresscr.c. r + +October 25, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cchongrosstr.com + +We respectfully submit this letter to request a one-week extension until November 3, 2021, to file the joint proposed jury charge and verdict sheet, which are currently due on October 27, 2021. See 8/27/2021 Order (Dkt. 330). The government consents to this request. + +On October 20, 2021, the government provided the defense with its proposed jury charge. Because of the press of other deadlines in this case—including the motions in limine responses and replies, and the Rule 412 briefing—the defense requests an additional week to provide its counterproposals to the government and to submit the final proposed jury charge to the Court. + +The government and the defense have met and conferred and agreed that the defense will send the government a redlined version of the government's proposed jury charge containing the defense's counterproposals by 7:00 p.m. on November I, 2021. The parties will submit the final joint proposed request to charge and verdict sheet, with the areas of continued disagreement shown in redline, on November 3, 2021. We respectfully request that the Court approve this revised schedule. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7355ece57e3b5cfb995f631c889ffb7486b4d0fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/EFTA02833215.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1702, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.12, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 176.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 176.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833215" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efe0fcb0fbbdb125b00e939462dbabf55a097896 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833215/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a35380f09039817b2b4e59a3b9a62e73e95d2330d3a2618eaebd9398dae8276e +size 1580 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81c9184a31abb90c3defe674953dd1bd7a2d5430 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON AN + +October 25, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon. and S t.c Jeffrey Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7361 FX 303.832.2628 wonv.hmllaw.com jpagiucaahmflaw.corn + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Today, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed her Omnibus Response to the Government's Motions in Limine temporarily under seal in order to provide the parties time to consider whether any proposed redactions can be justified under the relevant legal test. + +Consistent with the Court's Order of today (Dkt. 368), counsel for Ms. Maxwell will file this Response together with her other pleadings regarding in lirnine issues on the public docket with any proposed redactions and a joint letter justifying any such redactions on or before + +October 29, 2021. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc5a9cd30e04bbcdbc552ec72fd1d4146cf28e95 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/EFTA02833216.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1053, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.65464782714844, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833216" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ff44b410bdef511d40cb79295dc576446aebe54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833216/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:388e3d3a5496732b81a94db7113e1adb595d5d592282953d850df3244a95d353 +size 2915 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e0cce34fb89b6bd6f72001dc26855f8926a186b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7600 ccvcrdc11(2,1cohengrcsscr.com + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.Cchongrossof corn + +October 25, 2021 + +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC #: \_\_\_\_\_ +DATE FILED: 10/26/21 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: SO ORDERED. + +We respectfully submit this letter to request a one-week extension until November 3, 2021, (AL- Q. to file the joint proposed jury charge and verdict sheet, which are currently due on October 27, 10/26/21 2021. See 8/27/2021 Order (Dkt. 330). The government consents to this request. + +On October 20, 2021, the government provided the defense with its proposed jury charge. Because of the press of other deadlines in this case—including the motions in limine responses and replies, and the Rule 412 briefing—the defense requests an additional week to provide its counterproposals to the government and to submit the final proposed jury charge to the Court. + +The government and the defense have met and conferred and agreed that the defense will send the government a redlined version of the government's proposed jury charge containing the defense's counterproposals by 7:00 p.m. on November I, 2021. The parties will submit the final joint proposed request to charge and verdict sheet, with the areas of continued disagreement shown in redline, on November 3, 2021. We respectfully request that the Court approve this revised schedule. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f8a507c39d1a677ebad2eb680c1fe4e0cbe65d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/EFTA02833217.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1821, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.27, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 176.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 176.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833217" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3c316000d1356af52c828080805a64a7554fd4c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833217/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c9b063b4f69ea85ff27e9669afe010cfd3dc88820bd57e8db98e3055a18f9150 +size 1578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c1e9438358a584715b85ecce0da5ce925f9daf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +October 26, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 22, 2021, attaching the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each questionnaire session and directing the parties to suggest any proposed edits by letter. (Dkt. No. 366). The Government has no objection to the Court's proposed remarks. However, the Government seeks clarification from the Court of the following line in the Court's draft remarks: "Throughout the selection process and if you are selected as a juror, although the lawyers and I will know your names, we will only refer to you in Court by your juror number." (Id. at 3). In particular, the Government respectfully requests that the Court clarify for the parties when during the jury selection process that the parties will be provided with the names of prospective jurors. + +The Government understands that during the jury selection process, prospective jurors will only be referred to in open court by their juror numbers. The Government seeks confirmation that, consistent with the practice in other high profile cases in this District using jury questionnaires, the parties will be provided the prospective jurors' names no earlier than November 16, 2021, the day that oral voir dire begins. See, e.g., United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); United States + +v. Kaloyeros, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); United States v. Percoco, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); cf. Oct. 12, 2021 Tr. at 7:14-8:1, United States v. Parnas, 19 Cr. 725 (JPO) (denying defense's request for a second day of jury selection to allow time for background research on potential jurors; no juror questionnaire used). Here, the time between the administration of the jury questionnaire, oral voir dire, and the start of trial is significantly more extended in light of, among other things, COVID-19 precautions. + +As the Court has noted, the purpose of the jury questionnaire process is to streamline challenges for cause. Juror identities are not necessary for that process. The Government submits that having identifying information for jurors for weeks in advance of selection would be unusual, and is not necessary, because "the purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case." United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). For similar reasons, the Government respectfully requests that peremptory challenges be exercised at the conclusion of voir dire and not on November 29, 2021, the day that trial is scheduled to commence. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court clarify for the parties when during the jury selection process the parties will be provided with the names of prospective jurors. + +Respectfully submitted. + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..910ffd01d47261a8131e747e648db4b2ddb28dc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/EFTA02833218.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3495, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833218" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5ef64ec9deaec4d432be4dc19f4cae73d3affa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833218/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2b253ea869700d07f056220d190c9fb2004487ac5b88b0bda4d45a452c566a81 +size 3399 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8cd26d897de52b3c1b54e17b5f1f89e536775d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fox bcstemheim@maccom + +October 26, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 22, 2021, regarding the Court's draft preliminary remarks for prospective jurors. (Dkt. 366). The defense has no objection to the proposed remarks. However, the defense does object to the government's position that the parties should not receive the names of the prospective jurors until the first day of oral voir dire on November 16, 2021. (Dkt. 371). The Court has already determined that the names of the prospective jurors will be given to the parties with the juror questionnaires. The second page of the Court's draft jury questionnaire is a blank page that will be filled in with the "juror information sheet from the jury department." (Dkt. 365). It is the defense's understanding that the juror information sheet includes the name of the prospective juror. If the government had wanted to delay the disclosure of the names of the prospective jurors, they could have made a request to the Court when the parties submitted their joint proposed juror questionnaire. The government did not do so. Accordingly, the Court should deny this request. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Government Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..368f49f34ed73f6e68c9df620562fd1c625f6f26 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221/EFTA02833221.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833221.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1566, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833221" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8803a0f2189d34238e98092a687aff880c0e3162 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax batemheim@maccom + +October 27, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +In response to the Court's Order dated October 22, 2021, regarding the Court's draft preliminary remarks for prospective jurors (Dkt. 366), the government took the opportunity to reargue its request that counsel exercise challenges to the final venire on the last day of jury section (November 19) rather than on November 29. The Court merely invited a discrete response to its proposed address to prospective jury but the government seized the opportunity to reargue. + +During the October 21 conference, the defense stated its reasons for preferring November 29, a date when the Court could inquire whether any prospective jury might not be able to be fair or otherwise impacted or influenced by any reference to this case during the 10-day interval that included the Thanksgiving holiday. Further, it would eliminate the need to substitute alternates in the event any juror was exposed to COVID or otherwise became ill. If last year was any indication, Thanksgiving week is a likely time for COVID to spike due to high-volume travel, students returning home from college, and friends and families congregating. Even an exposure to the virus during the holidays can necessitate a prospective juror to quarantine for a time period past November 29. + +During the conference, the government pressed for November 19 because it wanted a have a firm start date for witnesses coming from out of state. November 29 is the firm start date and openings will commence following exercise of challenges and the swearing in of the jury. The government appears + +more focused on unfounded inconvenience to its witnesses above prudence in seating a jury that can be fair and impartial. It is but another effort by the government to seek an undue and unreasonable advantage and it should not be countenanced. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: Government Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3053e9ac911ad5db672270cdede2194ea56e32a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223/EFTA02833223.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833223.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2194, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIAN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7228393554688, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7228393554688, + 48.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 48.06353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833223" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..155fedf6b0c4eeb782dd5bcb17a621eb36420629 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is receipt of the parties' letters regarding the jury questionnaire and voir dire. See Dkt. Nos. 372, 373, 375. + +The Court will provide counsel the corresponding list of juror names and assigned juror numbers on November 16 at the commencement of voir dire. The placeholder for the juror information sheet in the Court's draft questionnaire refers to the information sheet required by the Jury Department. See Dkt. No. 365. The information sheet will be removed and collected by the Jury Department from the packet before the parties' review of the questionnaires. + +The Court is still considering the logistics of when peremptory strikes will be exercised, but the Court anticipates peremptory strikes will be exercised on November 29. Assuming so, the swearing in of the jury, preliminary instructions, and opening statements would commence immediately following the simultaneous (via submission of lists) exercise of peremptory challenges. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5cfca32b1fde2cfdd3394acbbe3758f40ca1405 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/EFTA02833225.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1286, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.92, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833225" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed0650838696cb4fb6b911dfcf64be0da69257bc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:378406a5f664f9c3d1b87238928b6fe720e999bf9e6a411c9394a34b3f4080fe +size 11481 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ee4e3b7baff1257124027b9b4413db7dbaeac54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +II A DDOS N N + +October 27, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and\_, P.0 Jeffrey Poolloco + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpogliucaa hmflaw.com + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Attached is Ms. Maxwell's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Subsection (2)(c) of the Rule requires this motion to be sealed unless this Court orders otherwise. Accordingly, unless instructed by the Court, Ms. Maxwell will not file this motion on the public docket. + +The Rule also requires Ms. Maxwell to notify the alleged victims whose behavior is at issue in the motion. Accordingly, unless otherwise directed, we will serve a redacted copy of this motion tailored to each alleged victim addressed in the motion on their counsel of record and provide proof of service to the Court when it is accomplished. + +Respectfully Submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bc09acdbdbe6c346c04d8049dc581a3934790b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/EFTA02833227.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1123, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.83, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.22271728515625, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 124.22271728515625, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833227" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74a1333a88c737177470561a197dcd9183726717 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:33cfafe84f3362f043b0509353e1e089f2c8f69f6107147eede6dbeab1a17b13 +size 2922 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9663a00287dd99e05bafd90f52f6b67877d29120 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## NOTICE OF MOTION + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 412 TO PERMIT QUESTIONING ABOUT HER ACCUSERS' SEXUAL BEHAVIOR + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and the constitutional rights to present a defense and to confrontation to permit questioning regarding her accusers' other sexual behavior. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7c920a07b9f08f537050ced038330e07bb4b0ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228/EFTA02833228.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833228.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1048, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.52, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF MOTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.85699462890625, + 191.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 191.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 412 \nTO PERMIT QUESTIONING ABOUT HER ACCUSERS' SEXUAL BEHAVIOR", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 534.0110473632812, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 534.0110473632812, + 314.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 314.6030578613281 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833228" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81ec76b0fcce56019a5b370ac797893ae1c03c97 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As noted in its previous order, the Court will hold an in-person pretrial conference on November 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Dkt. No. 330. The conference will take place in Courtroom 518 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. In accordance with its prior Order, the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family. Dkt. No. 344. Two pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper. + +In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the public will be able to access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 110, 506, 619, 905, and 906 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the proceeding. The use of an electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited. + +The Court anticipates seating capacity in the overflow rooms for at least 100 members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. Response to COVID-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet + +the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see . + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 28, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd4369dcf21a9750ea7b218802eeb1adfa38fe98 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/EFTA02833230.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2298, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.87, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833230" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..843b4bb7914ab0154e066e3bf6cd279dfc6660cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833230/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8c8cd291b96eacee46497a3ba17488e60f9c4f39d0a38efac87a431cdae0d7b7 +size 11460 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38a6b812c71791384e196555ac40171cb1f68f0e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## Exhibit A + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +annum It Emden +I (212) 957-76® cevezdel4cohengtenet cons + +August 30, 2021 + +## BY FIRST CLASS MAIL + +Mr. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 + +w. • M r 100:0 • r 2'2957 7600 phone v. cohencresmorcorn + +Re: United Slates v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Assistant Attorney General Polite: + +We represent the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the above-referenced matter. This letter constitutes a request made pursuant to United States ex. ReL Toul v. R an, 340 U.S. 462 • for the testimony of (1) FBI Special A ent , (2) FBI Special , (3) FBI Special Agent Tas Force Officer, at the trial in this case on Novem r 2 , 2019 at 9:00 A.M., before the son athan, United States District Judge. + +In accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), we make the following statement setting forth a summary of the testimony we seek: + +were co-case agents in charge of an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein conducted by the Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida from approximate) July 2006 to June 2008. We request testimony from and concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as wet as t e various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena, and their testimony before the grand jury. + +and are the co-case agents in charge of the current investigation beWicted by the New York FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which resulted in the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein returned on July 2, 2019 (19 Cr. 490 (RB)) and the above-captioned superseding indictment against Ms. Maxwell (S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)), the initial indictment against Ms. Maxwell having been returned on June 29, 2020 (20 Cr. 330 U.S. Department of Justice August 30, 2021 Page 2 + +> (AJN)). We request testimony from and concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as wel as t e various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena, their testimony before the grand jury, and the indictments returned by the grand jury. + +The testimony of these law enforcement officers is relevant and material to the issues in this case. Furthermore, it is Ms. Maxwell's position that the disclosure is appropriate under rules of procedure and that disclosure, to Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, would not violate any statute or regulations or reveal confidential sources, classified information, trade secrets, ongoing investigations, or investigatory techniques. (28 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)). + +me. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9b185b5b140b12a651295eae0ca8e02c17d276e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/EFTA02833232.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3246, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.02, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.348, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 201.348, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY FIRST CLASS MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 207.3186798095703, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 207.3186798095703, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833232" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09049587ef8939beecb9f563d59fbc47cf60d5eb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833232/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b83ecc69138c498556601a0c3b7db20b5f4a51e07ffda4818ca157ab6176dcce +size 1575 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5098ebe6ec1f1eba193a128603af5231a44d90f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.md @@ -0,0 +1,470 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 2 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| ARGUNIENT | 3 | +| I. | The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First | +| Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits | 3 | +| A. Applicable Law | 4 | +| B. Discussion | 10 | +| H. The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth If the | | +| Defense Challenges Their Credibility | 17 | +| A. Applicable Law | 17 | +| B. Discussion | 19 | +| III. | The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the Defendant 20 | +| Possible Reasons for Them | 22 | +| Steps Taken During Current or Prior Investigations | 29 | +| Basis for Their Testimony | 32 | +| IV. | The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Government's Alleged Motives | +| for Prosecution | 33 | +| V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not | | +| Witnesses at This Trial | 36 | +| VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is Inadmissible | 38 | +| VII. | Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit Other Bad | +| Evidence | 41 | +| VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements | 44 | +| IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification | 47 | +| XI. | The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A "Prevailing Party" in | +| Civil Litigation | 51 | +| CONCLUSION | 53 | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits the following motions in limine. First, the Government respectfully requests that the Court protect the dignity and privacy of victims by permitting certain witnesses to testify under pseudonyms or using only their first names, and permitting the filing of related trial exhibits under seal. Second, the Government moves to admit prior consistent statements made by the minor victims in this case. Third, the Government moves to preclude the defense from distracting the jury with irrelevant and confusing testimony and argument relating to the investigative and prosecutive decisions of law enforcement agents and prosecutors. In particular, the Government moves to preclude the defense from calling agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), in an improper effort to put the Government on trial. Fourth, and relatedly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court preclude the defense from offering argument or evidence at trial in support of the defense's unfounded theory that the Government is prosecuting the defendant for nefarious reasons. Fifth, the Government moves to preclude the defense from attempting to impeach the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial. Sixth, consent is not a legal defense in this case, and the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury that the victims consented to their abuse. Seventh, the Government requests that the Court require the defendant to explain the relevance of any evidence she seeks to offer showing that she did not commit crimes with which she is not charged, before she offers that evidence or makes argument based on that evidence. Eighth, the Government requests that the Court preclude the defense from offering out-of-court statements by the defendant, which are hearsay. Ninth, the Government moves to preclude the defense from offering irrelevant evidence to garner sympathy for the defendant. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]. *Eleventh*, and finally, the Government moves to preclude the defense from misleadingly suggesting to the jury that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation related to the facts of this case. + +For the reasons set forth below, the Court should grant the Government’s motions. + +### **ARGUMENT** + +#### **I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits** + +The Government requests, pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, that the Court take certain measures at trial to protect the dignity and privacy of victims. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The Government expects the four Minor Victims named in the Indictment to testify at trial. In the course of their testimony—and the corroborating testimony of other trial witnesses—the jury will learn that two other minors (Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6) were also victims of the conspiracies charged in the Indictment. Specifically, Minor Victim-4 will testify that she was recruited by Minor Victim-5, and that she in turn recruited Minor Victim-6. Neither Minor Victim-5 nor Minor Victim-6 will testify at trial. + +In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, the Government respectfully requests that the Court take certain measures at trial, which are narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances and privacy interests of each victim and consistent with the protections victims of sex crimes have been afforded in recent federal trials. To be clear, the defense is already aware of the identities of all of these victims and witnesses, and the jury will be made aware of the identities of these victims and witnesses. The Government simply proposes measures that will + +protect against unnecessary public disclosure of their identities, in order to protect the Minor Victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment, and other adverse consequences. + +Specifically, the Government requests that (1) that Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and certain witnesses related to them be referred to at trial using only pseudonyms; (2) Minor Victim-4, Minor Victim-6, and certain witnesses related to them be referred to at trial using only their first names; (3) the Court preclude the defense from eliciting personally identifying details of those witnesses; and (4) the Court seal exhibits that contain the first and/or last names of witnesses which are not otherwise permitted to be stated at trial. Below, we address the applicable law, before turning to the specific relief the Government requests in this case.' + +## A. Applicable Law + +The Confrontation Clause guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against them. See, e.g., United States 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008). This right, however, is not absolute. A defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause must yield to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e.g., id. For instance, trial courts have "wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits . . . on . . . crossexamination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, . . . or the witness's safety." United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21, 25 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary + +Simultaneously with the filing of this motion, the Government is filing a sealed letter providing the names of the Minor Victims and witnesses identified in this section, along with certain other personal information. The Government requests that the defense omit identifying information from its response brief or permit the Government an opportunity to seek necessary redactions or sealing. + +order) (alterations in original) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986)); see Fed. R. Evid. 611(6) (imposing limits on the scope of cross-examination). + +In the context of the disclosure of witness identifying information, the Second Circuit has identified two primary interests of defendants: "(1) obtaining information needed for in-court and out-of-court investigation of the witness; and (2) enabling defense counsel to elicit information that might be relevant to the jury's deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness." United States v. Marcus, No. 05 Cr. 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at •1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970)) (finding the defendant's argument that "the district court's decision permitting two of the Government's witnesses to testify using only their first names and not to disclose their addresses or employment violated" the defendant's due process rights to be "without merit" in a sex trafficking and forced labor case), aff'd, 628 F.3d 36, 45 n.12 (2d Cir. 2010). If the Government provides a reason to "limit disclosure of identifying information in open court," the defendant must "demonstrate a `particularized need' for disclosure . . . which the court weighs against the risks to the witness." Id. (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266; United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 901 (2d Cir. 1969)); see United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568, 572-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting an undercover law enforcement officer to testify under a pseudonym, after balancing the relevant interests); cf. United States v. 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977) ("[W]here the government voices a legitimate concern for a witness' safety, the trial court must balance the potential danger to the witness against the need of the defense for the information."). + +"[There is no absolute right of an accused to have a jury hear a witness's true name and address." Clark v. Ricketts, 958 F.2d 851, 855 (9th Cir. 1991). Strong public interests support limiting public disclosure of victim identities and other sensitive information. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, requires district courts to implement procedures to ensure that crime victims are accorded, among other rights, "[t]he right to be reasonably protected from the accused," and "Mlle right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Id. §§ (aX1), (a)(8). Moreover, the public "has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." Doe on behalf of Doe No. I v. Nygard, No. 20 Civ. 6501 (ER), 2020 WL 4890427, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020) (quoting Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). + +These interests are particularly salient in sex abuse cases. Victims in such cases often testify or are referred to only using pseudonyms or without using their last names. See Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 32:1-36:6, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.) Dkt. No. 198 (permitting use of real first names and fake last names); Order at 10-11, United States v. Kidd, No. 18 Cr. 872 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019), Dkt. No. 60 ("The Court is persuaded that, to protect the minor victims, they should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms and that such anonymous testimony does not violate Kidd's Sixth Amendment rights."); May 8, 2019 Tr. at 6:20-21, United States v. No. 18 Cr. 874 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 53; Order at 29-35, United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622; United States v. + +Zhong, No. 16 Cr. 614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018) (granting government's motion to have victim witnesses testify using pseudonyms); Order at 2-3, United States v. No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("Jane Doe will be permitted to testify as `Jane Doe' at trial, and will not be required to disclose her address, names of family members or exact place of employment (if any)."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 6-10, United States v. Quraishi, No. 15 Cr. 598 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 46 (permitting a witness to testify using only her first name); United States v. Corley, No. 13 Cr. 48 (MN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (noting that "Judge Patterson .. . permitted the minor victims to testify under a pseudonym at trial" and denying the pro se defendant's request for the surnames of the minor victims for his appeal); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (ER), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (permitting victims to testify using their first names only); Order at 2, United States v. =, No. 09 Cr. 619 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011), Dkt. No. 231; United States v. Paris, No. 06 Cr. 64 (CFD), 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007). Because of the explicit nature of the offense conduct, which may require victims to testify about "degrading and humiliating treatment," revealing victim identities "would likely cause . .. anxiety and risk social stigma," and "could chill the willingness of other alleged victims of sex crimes to come forward." Order at 2, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34. Additionally, victims in sex abuse cases suffer from "likely adverse personal, professional and psychological consequences of publicly linking their identities to their past" conduct. Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2. "In light of the explicit nature of the conduct" that is the subject of the case, victims have "legitimate" fears "of harassment by + +the media" and "loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity." Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at \*1. These interests significantly outweigh any defense interest, especially where the defense knows the true identities of victims and is able to mount their defense. See id.; Order at 2-3, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34.2 + +Indeed, in two recent highly publicized cases in the Eastern District of New York, the district court judges permitted victims to testify using pseudonyms or using only their first names. In United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y.), the Government moved to allow testifying victims to testify "under a nickname, first name, or pseudonym only, and to not be required to disclose uniquely identifying information," such as "addresses, names of family members, or exact places of education or employment." Order at 29, 32, Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622. The Court granted the motion, explaining that "requiring victims of sex trafficking . . . and other crimes to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to testify," and "would only cause further embarrassment and humiliation, given the inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged." Id. at 32, 35 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It also may "cause other victims to fear seeking help from law enforcement as that could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although the defendant claimed that several victims' + +2 Sex abuse cases are not unique. In other contexts, courts have permitted the Government to call witnesses using pseudonyms or using their first names only, notwithstanding a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. See, e.g., United States v. Schulte, 436 F. Supp. 3d 698, 706 2020) (permitting use of pseudonyms in national security case); United States 12 Cr. 809 (PKC), 2013 WL 3936185, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013) (permitting use of pseudonym for undercover agent in narcotics case). + +names were already public and that some victims had come forward by choice, Judge Garaufis found those facts "irrelevant": "just because some victims' names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experiences are already available," and "the choice of a victim to publicly discuss a crime is not analogous to being put on the stand about it, as, in court, the victim will not be able to choose how and to what level of detail she discusses the crime." Id. at 34 n. I 7. + +Judge Donnelly reached a similar result in United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD). In that case, the Government also moved in limine to permit certain victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names and prevent public disclosure of their addresses, names of family members, or exact places of employment. Mot. at 1, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 121. As the Government explained, the victims were "expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning their .. . illegal sexual abuse by the defendant, some of which occurred while most of the Victim-Witnesses were under the age of 18." Id. at 9-10. The Government also explained that two of the victims had "not spoken publicly about their experiences," and while a third had done so, "her anticipated testimony at trial will be more fulsome than her prior public disclosures and will include sensitive information that has not been previously publicly revealed." Id. at 11. The Court granted the motion. Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.). + +### B. Discussion + +The victims are expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning sexual abuse, most of which occurred while they were under the age of 18. The limited protections requested by the Government are reasonable, necessary, and narrowly tailored to protect the victims' well-being, prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences, including loss of employment, and prevent the victims from being harassed by the press and others. + +Specifically, the Government requests that Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3—M —be permitted to testify under a pseudonym. + +Additionally, + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The Government also requests that two witnesses (“Witness-1” and “Witness-2”), who the Government expects will testify at trial about Minor Victim-1, be permitted to testify under pseudonyms. This request is a corollary of the protection requested for Minor Victim-1: + +Witness-1 is [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +Witness-2 is [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The Government requests that Minor Victim-4 be permitted to testify using her first name only, and that two witnesses (“Witness-3” and “Witness-4”), who the Government anticipates will testify about Minor Victim-4, also be permitted to testify using their first names. Further, the Government requests that Minor Victim-6, who will not testify at trial, be referred to in open court by her first name only. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Finally, the Government asks that the Court: (1) limit references at trial for the above Minor Victims and witnesses to the manner described above, including in jury addresses and + +examination of other witnesses; (2) preclude the defense from eliciting personal identifying information for the Minor Victims, Witness-1, Witness-2, Witness-3, or Witness-4, including their addresses or the details of their current employment; and (3) seal exhibits containing the names of Minor Victim-I, Minor Victim-3, and Witness-1, or the last names of Minor Victim-4 and Minor Victim-6. + +To be clear, the Government's request is that those names not be stated in open court or read into the record. The defendant already knows the true names of these victims and witnesses. And the Government expects the jury to learn the true names of the relevant minor victims and witnesses at trial. The Government intends to offer documentary evidence that would corroborate the testimony of the Minor Victims and which contains the names of certain of the Minor Victims. While those names may remain hidden from the public, they will be revealed to the jury.' + +Since the defendant's arrest, this case has garnered significant media attention, and the Government expects that members of the media will attend and report on the trial. Under these circumstances, it is highly likely that, if stated publicly in open court, the names of the Minor Victims will be widely publicized. + +That publicity imposes real costs on the Minor Victims and the public. First, publicizing the names of the Minor Victims will cause them significant embarrassment, anxiety, and social + +3 This can be accomplished simply. For instance, the jury can leam Minor Victim-I's name by displaying a document containing Minor Victim-I's name for the witness and the jury—but not the public—and asking Minor Victim-1 whether the name on the document is her name. + +stigma. These details are "inflammatory" in light of the "nature of the conduct alleged." Order at 32, United States v. Raniere (May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622. Minor Victims- I through -4 are expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning illegal sexual abuse by the defendant and Epstein, much of which occurred while they were under the age of 18. While Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 will not testify, similar details are expected to be elicited as to them. These details will likely appear in the news and on the Internet, but the Court can ensure that they will not be publicized side-by-side with the victim's true name. See Order at 2-3, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("This case has already received significant national and local press coverage. Revealing Jane Doe's identity would likely cause her anxiety and risk social stigma."). + +Second, the publicity increases the personal and professional consequences to the Minor Victims for testifying. One Minor Victim has expressed substantial concern to the Government about the risks that her association with this case will pose to future employment. Making that association widely public—for that victim and others—requires the Minor Victims to be associated with the graphic details of their experiences, not just in the general public consciousness, but with their friends, families, colleagues, and prospective employers. + +Third, the publicity increases the risk that the Minor Victims will be harassed by the press and public. In light of the significant media attention this case has generated, it is likely that the Minor Victims will be approached and harassed by members of the press and the public after their testimony. Publicizing their names will subject them to unwanted attention at the time they are testifying in a criminal sex abuse trial?' + +Taken together, requiring the Minor Victims to testify under their true and full names imposes serious costs on them. It is inconsistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's exhortation that victims are to be treated with respect for their "dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). And requiring victims of sex crimes to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to testify, for fear of having their personal histories publicized as they rebuild their lives. See Order at 2, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34. It could also cause other victims—including minors—to avoid seeking help from law enforcement because of fear that coming forward could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 412 Advisory Committee Note (explaining that, by protecting the victim "against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details," the rule "encourages victims of sexual misconduct to ... participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders"). + +4 The Government would consent to an appropriate jury instruction explaining that the reason for the precautions is "regard for the witnesses' and non-witness victims' privacy," and that no inference should be drawn against the defendant because of those precautions. Order at 33-34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 ("[T]he court is confident that any prejudice can be cured with a jury instruction explaining that the reason for the anonymity is regard for the witnesses' and non-witness victims' privacy."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 9-10, United States v. Quraishi (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016), Dkt. No. 46. As the district court in the Raniere case explained, "[Oven the potentially embarrassing nature of the allegations, and the media attention thus far, such an explanation will certainly seem plausible to the jury." Order at 34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 (footnote omitted). + +Public disclosure of victim information is unnecessary. The defendant already knows the true identity of all six Minor Victims. Witness-1, Witness-2, Witness-3, and Witness-4. The defense is therefore filly able to complete an investigation in advance of trial. Indeed, defense investigators have contacted many of the victims and witnesses at issue in this motion already. The defense will then be able to use that information on cross-examination. And, because the jury will know the Minor Victims' true names, the defense is free to make every argument, including by reference to the general occupation and living situation of the Minor Victims or witnesses. But there is no need—much less a particularized need—for the victims' true names or other personal identifying information to be stated in open court to accomplish that ptupose.5 + +In sum, the identifying information the Government seeks to limit in open court, including the full names of the victims and witnesses, specific employment and family information, is largely irrelevant to their testimony.6There is a substantial risk, however, that + +ccor. mg y, t e ourt an' parties may screen or juror las wit out requiring any juror to state a protected name in open court. + +5 Public disclosure of these names is also not necessary for jury selection. At voir dire, prospective jurors can be given a sheet of paper with the true names and pseudon ns of the rotected witnesses and asked whether the know an individuals on the • a r. + +6 The Government has no ob.ection to cross-examination of Minor Victim-1 Minor Victim-3, and Witness-2 on + +e e ense s ou prec u e om e waling suc etai s. + +disclosure of such information will identify the Minor Victims with particularity, and thus subject them to harassment, retaliation, and embarrassment, or additional consequences.' + +The sealing of exhibits containing the names of Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and Witness-1, or the last names of Minor Victim-4 and Minor Victim-6, is also appropriate. Although "the public has an `especially strong' right of access to evidence introduced in trials," United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995), it "is not absolute," Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); see also United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2001). For example, "subject matter [that] is traditionally considered private rather than public" will weigh "heavily against access." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. This includes certain "financial records . . . , family affairs, illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters . . . ." Id. at 1051. "[T]he `venerable' privacy-interest exception to the presumption of access exists to avert ccater[ing] `to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.'" United States v. =, 366 F. Supp. 3d 612, 626-627 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1051). The Government's sealing request is narrowly tailored to prevent public disclosure only of those exhibits which would identify by name the Minor Victims testifying in this case. Any other result would defeat the purpose of permitting the Minor Victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names, incurring all the harms described above. See Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (concluding that the interest in + +7 For the same reasons, any courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims. See May 6, 2019 Text Order, Raniere, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.) ("Sketch artists . . . may not draw exact likenesses of jurors or witnesses other than co-defendants should they testify ...."). + +protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because "the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does' and Minors' testimony in full"). + +### H. The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth If the Defense Challenges Their Credibility + +If the defendant claims that the Minor Victims' testimony has been recently fabricated or that the Minor Victims have motives to lie, or if the defense otherwise attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, the Government will seek to introduce the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein. + +## A. Applicable Law + +Under Rule 801(d)(1XB) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a prior statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross examination about the statement, the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and the statement is offered either "(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground." Notably, "the prior consistent statement need not be proffered through the testimony of the declarant but may be proffered through any witness who has firsthand knowledge of the statement." United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of prior consistent statements to rebut defense insinuation that witness had testified from improper motive). + +Prior to 2014, a witness's prior consistent statement was only permitted to rebut a charge of recent fabrication that postdated the prior consistent statement. See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995). Many courts, however, including the Second Circuit, had developed + +rules allowing admission of prior consistent statements outside of the context of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) in order to rehabilitate a witness after certain attacks on credibility. See, e.g., United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d Cir. 1986). In 2014, the Rule 801 was amended to allow prior consistent statements that were "otherwise admissible for rehabilitation" to come in "substantively as well." Fed R. Evid. 801 (Advisory Committee's Note to 2014 Amendment) ("The intent of the amendment is to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness—such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory."). + +Thus, as amended in 2014, Rule 801(dX1XB)(ii) "expands the purposes for which prior consistent statements may be offered." United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196 (2d Cir. 2020). The Second Circuit has relied on subsection (ii) of the amended Rule 80 1(d)(1)(B) in finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior consistent statements that were introduced to rebut "defendants' attacks on [the declarant's] credibility and memory," notwithstanding that the defendants' "challenges to [the declarant's] memory were brief and were not their main challenges." United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 705-06 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801 Advisory Committee Note (2014) for the proposition that "[t]he intent of the amendment [adding subpart (B)(ii)] is to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness—such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory." (emphases in Flores)); see also Purcell, 967 F.3d at 196-98 (affirming admission of statements under Rule 801(dX1)(B)(ii) where the declarant was accused of making inconsistent statements and defense counsel never suggested "that the accuracy of [declarant's] trial testimony was marred by recent fabrication or a recently created improper motive or influence"). + +Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has found that a district court properly admitted evidence of prior consistent statements that "rebutted [the d]efendant's attack on [the declarant's] purportedly faulty memory." United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2017). + +## B. Discussion + +The Government expects the Minor Victims to testify at trial about their experiences with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, including the sexual abuse to which they were subjected, in the 1990s and early 2000s. To the extent the defendant challenges the credibility of the testimony of the Minor Victims—whether in opening statements or on cross-examination—the Government intends to call a number of witnesses to introduce certain of the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein. See, e.g., Flores, 945 F.3d at 705-06 (admitting prior consistent statement of witness after defense's opening statement called into question the witness's credibility); United States v. Burrell, 43 F. App'x 403, 406 (2d Cir. 2002) (allowing prior consistent statements of cooperating witness because the defendant "argued in her opening statement that the cooperating witnesses had a motive to lie"). + +Such testimony is admissible under both subparts (i) and (ii) of Rule 801(d)(1)(B). As to subpart (i), if the defendant claims that a Minor Victim recently fabricated her testimony, the admissibility of her prior consistent statements will depend in part on the alleged "recent improper influence or motive in so testifying." Because the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein were made well over a decade ago, they are almost certain to qualify as having been made prior to any accusation of motive to fabricate. They therefore tend to rebut any assertion that the victims or witnesses recently fabricated their allegations about the defendant. See Tome, 513 U.S. at 159, 167 (holding that the Rule "permits the introduction of a declarant's consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive" where "those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive"). + +And regardless of the timing of any alleged motive to lie, the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements will be admissible under subpart (ii), which was enacted "to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness." 2014 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 801 (emphasis added); see Flores, 945 F.3d at 705 ("As `not hearsay,' such statements are—subject to the usual prerequisites such as relevance—admissible as proof of the substance of the statement."). If the defense attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, such as inconsistency or faulty memory, the Government is entitled to rehabilitate the Minor Victims through prior consistent statements made to other witnesses. See, e.g., Purcell, 967 F.3d at 197; Flores, 945 F.3d at 705-06; Cox, 871 F.3d at 487. + +## 111. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the Defendant + +In the 2000s, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. which later became part of an FBI investigation (together, the "Florida Investigations"). Those investigations culminated in a September 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), which did not name the defendant as a co-conspirator, and pursuant to which Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state offense. In or about November 2018, this Office opened its + +investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators, leading to a 2019 indictment against Epstein and a 2020 indictment against the defendant. + +The defense has indicated that it will seek to make the prior investigations and charging decisions the subject of testimony at this trial. For example, the defense has notified the Government that it seeks to call FBI case agents from these investigations to testify "concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including by not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, [and] documents they obtained by subpoena." (See Exhibit A). In their voir dire motion, the defense stated that they expect "Epstein's arrests and prior convictions for sexual misconduct, allegations of his sexual misconduct of minors over the course of two decades, and his untimely death awaiting his federal trial will be front and center" at this trial. (Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 342 at 2). + +The Court should preclude any evidence and argument about (1) charging decisions in criminal investigations of Epstein and his co-conspirators, and possible reasons for those decisions, and (2) the investigative steps taken during the current and prior investigations, including the length of those investigations. The Government's charging decisions are squarely within its discretion and not a probative topic on which the jury should speculate, and the Government has no obligation to use any particular investigative technique. The Court should not permit evidence on these subjects, which would create an irrelevant sideshow that would significantly delay this trial and confuse the jury. Similarly, the Court should not permit the defense to call FBI case agents in order to introduce evidence about those topics. + +#### A. The Court Should Not Permit the Defense to Elicit Evidence About Charging Decisions or Possible Reasons for Them + +### 1. Applicable Law + +Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that "(i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible." Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court may "exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Accordingly, any evidence that is likely to distract the July from the issue of guilt or innocence should be excluded under Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984) (criticizing admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues in a criminal trial"). + +Evidence about charging decisions made by law enforcement officials is rarely admissible because such evidence typically consists of hearsay, is not relevant, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury. As such, courts in this Circuit have repeatedly precluded evidence of charging decisions for one or more of these reasons. See, e.g., United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (precluding cross examination regarding a government charging decision in part because "the limited amount of probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of + +22 + +undue confusion and an unnecessary sideshow . . ."); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) (explaining that the defendant "may offer evidence that Powell killed . He may not, however, offer evidence concerning that Powell was arrested and prosecuted for the murder."); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. Supp. 2d 486, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (to avoid confusing jurors, defendants precluded from introducing evidence about dismissals of prior charges against them in trial for the same conduct four years later); United States v. ■. **No. 12 Cr. 214 (KAM), 2014 WL 198813, at \*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014) (precluding evidence or cross examination of a detective regarding the Kings County District Attorney's Office decision to question but not charge the defendant for a murder that occurred in 1997 but was only indicted fifteen years later because such testimony is hearsay, irrelevant, and confusing);** United States v. M, 934 F. Supp. 2d 451, 484-486 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (precluding the defendant from eliciting basis of decision not to charge a possible coconspirator); United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (JBW), 2009 WL 185725, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009) ("'[T]he government's charging decisions are not proper subjects for cross-examination and argument.' Evidence related to the government's charging decisions may be excluded at trial based on lack of relevance." (quoting United States v. Re, 401 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2005))).8 + +8 Although there is no per se bar to admission of charging decisions, the Second Circuit has permitted such evidence under narrow circumstances not present here, as discussed in greater detail below. See infra pp. 25-26 (discussing United States v. M, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012)). + +### 2. Discussion + +The defense should be precluded from offering evidence or making arguments about (1) the fact that the USAO-SDFL entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2008; or (2) the fact that the USAO-SDNY first indicted Epstein alone in 2019 before it indicted the defendant. Such evidence is irrelevant, would confuse and mislead the jury, and calls for hearsay. + +First, those facts are irrelevant. These charging decisions say nothing at all about guilt or innocence and fail to make more or less probable any fact of consequence. Such decisions are often made after consideration of multiple factors, including, for example, available prosecutorial or investigative resources and a desire not to disrupt an ongoing investigation. Even if a decision not to prosecute is based upon the prosecutor's view of the available evidence, it is irrelevant both because investigations routinely uncover additional evidence and because it is not the prosecutor's view of the evidence that matters, but rather that of the jury. + +Those points are particularly true here. It is entirely speculative to assume that the USAO-SDFL did not charge the defendant in 2008—or immunize her by name in the nonprosecution agreement—and that this Office did not charge her in 2019 solely because it lacked the evidence to do so and that such evidence could not have been developed had the investigation focused its resources on the defendant. See M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*2 ("Any connection between purported concerns about [a witness's] identification [of the defendant] and the decision not to charge in 1997 would thus be based on speculation and conjecture by government witnesses who did not decide whether to charge [the defendant] in 1997." (emphasis in original)). And because signification portions of the Government's evidence were developed + +after 2019, including testimony from two of the Minor Victims, any connection between the evidentiary background of the USAO-SDFL's charging decisions or this Office's 2019 indictment of Epstein and the defendant's guilt or innocence is attenuated. + +It is not the Government's view of the evidence at any one time that matters—it is the view of the jury considering the evidence before it, and past charging decisions have no bearing on that evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) ("Defendants may not invite the jury to speculate as to why [a particular] charge was not included in the indictment."), aff'd and remanded, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). At trial, the questions for the jury will be whether, based on the evidence presented, the defendant participated in the charged Act and sex trafficking offenses. Nothing about the decisions of the USAO-SDFL and this Office has any bearing on the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. M, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012), only underscores this point. In that case, the appellant challenged his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 238. "The only significant issue at trial was whether possessed a firearm, and, more specifically, whether the jury would believe the officers' claim that one was recovered from his front pocket." Id. at 247. was traveling in a vehicle with four other people on the day of his arrest, and "[t]he defense's strategy was to seek to demonstrate that the [firearm in question] was found in the vehicle and not on person." Id. at 238. All five individuals were arrested and charged that day in state court with possession of the firearm at issue. See id. at 239. Under New York law, a firearm found in an automobile is deemed to be the possession of all passengers in the automobile unless the firearm is found on the person of a particular passenger. See id. at 245, 247 (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 265.15(3)). The district attorney dropped the charges against the defendant and three other individuals, leaving only one of the individuals facing state charges for other firearms. See id. at 245. + +therefore sought to admit the initial charging decisions at his federal trial. arguing that "if the gun had actually been recovered from his person, none of the other individuals would have been charged with possession of that particular gun." Id. at 245. The district court rejected that argument, and the Second Circuit reversed, explaining that the "decision to charge all passengers traveling in the vehicle with possession . . . supports theory that none of the firearms was found on his person and discredits the officers' testimony to the contrary." Id. at 247. + +This case thus contrasts quite sharply with M. In M, the state's earlier charging decision directly contradicted a consequential fact in the case—whether the defendant was in actual possession of the gun. It was therefore highly relevant as evidence used to undermine the credibility of the officers testifying to the defendant's possession. Here, however, the Government's past charging decisions are entirely irrelevant to any factual issue in the case or the credibility of any witness. See M, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 485 (distinguishing in a conspiracy case because "a conspiracy necessarily involves agreement amongst more than one actor to engage in criminal conduct for which all members of the conspiracy may be found equally culpable"). + +Second, even if the decision of whether to charge the defendant in 2008 or 2019 had some minimal relevance, it would be substantially outweighed by the dangers of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. As courts in this Circuit have routinely held, introduction of irrelevant decisions of whom and when to charge presents a substantial risk of confusing and misleading the jury because a prosecutorial charging decision would tend to misdirect the jury's attention to a discretionary decision that is not connected to the ultimate quantum of evidence that the Government adduces at trial. See, e.g., Borrero, 2013 WL 6020773, at •2 (holding that "the limited amount of probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue confusion and an unnecessary sideshow into [the] circumstances"); M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*2 ("[T]he reasons for the Kings County District Attorney's Office decision not to charge [the defendant] in 1997 are unknown and would cause confusion of and speculation by the jury."). That evidence invites the jury to abdicate its own view of the fully developed evidentiary record in favor of speculation about charging decisions by prosecutors at different times looking at different evidence and weighing different factors. + +Those risks are particularly acute here. Any discussion of the Government's prior charging decisions would require extended trials within a trial concerning the bases for those decisions. For instance, if the defense wishes to argue that the USAO-SDFL did not charge the defendant in the Florida Investigations because those investigations did not generate inculpatory evidence as to the defendant, it therefore puts at issue the non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances of its creation. As the Court is aware, those circumstances were the subject of a 290 page report from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. (See Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No 293 Ex. A). Discussion of those issues would be all the more confusing to the jury because it involves decisions of a different prosecuting authority, because the USAO-SDFL resolved its investigation before significant investigative steps were completed, and because the USAO-SDFL investigation did nonetheless generate inculpatory material as to the defendant. To evaluate the evidence, jurors would also need to understand the sequencing of the various investigations into Epstein and the defendant, so they could understand which witnesses and evidence were available to which law enforcement agencies and prosecutors at what times. The history of various investigations into Epstein reaches back 20 years, and a review of that history would create an extensive sideshow. Any marginal probative value of evidence of the Government's charging decisions is substantially outweighed by the extended digression and confusion that such evidence would require. + +Third, eliciting information about past charging decisions would be hearsay. See M, 692 F.3d at 244-45 (declining to decide whether the evidence in that case was hearsay); id. at 253 (, J., dissenting) ("[A]s the majority opinion observes, hearsay problems abound in this case; yet, since neither party raised these issues on appeal, the Court has not decided whether the charging documents . . . are admissible hearsay."). Those charging decisions were made internally by prosecutors at the USAO-SDFL or at this Office. No prosecutors from either office are testifying at trial, and no witness testifying at this trial can explain the Government's past charging decisions. Any knowledge that an FBI agent has, or that a witness has, about the basis for a prior charging decision is based on statements made by prosecutors, which are themselves hearsay. See id. at 246 (majority op.) (charging decisions proper subjects for cross-examination only "if otherwise admissible"); M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*1-2 (precluding cross examination of agent regarding district attorney's charging decision as inadmissible hearsay). + +The Government's prior charging decisions and the bases for them are irrelevant, hearsay, and disruptive to the trial. They should not be admitted. + +### B. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Length of And Investigative Steps Taken During Current or Prior Investigations + +For similar reasons, the defense should be precluded from offering evidence or arguing to the jury about the investigative steps taken during the Florida Investigations or this Office's investigation, including the duration of those investigations. + +## 1. Applicable Law + +It is settled law that the jury should "base its decision on the evidence or lack of evidence that had been presented at trial." United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The Government's "failure to utilize some particular technique or techniques does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged." Id. at 53; see, e.g., United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19, 24 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) ("We have held that a district court does not commit error in instructing the jury that the Government has no legal obligation to use any particular investigative technique in preparing its case."). While a defendant "may comment on the failure of proof in the record, such as the absence of forensic evidence in the form of voice, handwriting, or fingerprint analysis," such comment becomes improper when it encompasses the further argument that "the government had failed to undertake to procure such evidence." United Stales v. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (affirming a district court that sustained an objection during a defense summation). Accordingly, issues like the "length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that [the defendant] was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant." United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); see United States v. Aleynikov, 785 F. Supp. 2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("As a general matter, the quality and scope of the Government's investigation are not appropriate lines of examination ...."), rev'd on other grounds by 676 F. 3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). + +# 2. Discussion + +It is not relevant or probative for the defense to elicit evidence or make argument about investigative steps taken or untaken by the Government, either in this investigation or the Florida Investigations, or about the length of those investigations. + +The issue before the jury is whether the admissible evidence before it demonstrates the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The particular investigative steps used (or not used) by the Government, and the length of the investigation, are wholly irrelevant to question. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rather, the jury's decision should be fixed on "the evidence or lack of evidence that had been presented at trial." Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d at 52. The defendant should be precluded from eliciting testimony about facts the jury cannot properly consider, and which do not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +Moreover, whatever marginal relevance a discussion of investigative steps or the length of an investigation may have is outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is routine practice in this District to give an instruction that "the government is not on trial." See, e.g., United States v. Knox, 687 F. App'x 51, 54-55 (2d + +Cir. 2017) (summary order) (instructing jury that the "government is not on trial" is "appropriate" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Introducing evidence about investigative decisions would only confuse the issues properly before the jury and suggest that jurors should focus on the history of investigations into Epstein and his co-conspirators rather than the evidence against the defendant. + +Judge decision in United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), is instructive. In that case, a defendant sought to call a case agent on three topics: (1) the length of the FBI's investigation, (2) the law enforcement techniques that were used and not used, and (3) contacts and communications with that defendant prior to his arrest. Letter, id., Dkt. No. 130. The Court explained that defense counsel "wanted to bring out that [the defendant] was not a target of the investigation for a long period of time." May 16, 2019 Tr. at 1168:12-23, id, Dkt. No. 159. Citing Saldarriaga, the Court explained that the argument was "absolutely irrelevant," because "[w]hat matters is whether the government has proven its case against [the defendant] here beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 1168:12-25; see Duncan, 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 ("Evidence about the length of the investigation, the techniques used, and when Locust became a target is therefore not admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401."). + +So too here. It is irrelevant what investigative steps were taken during the Florida investigations or this investigation, and it is irrelevant how long those investigations lasted. Testimony and argument on those points would not assist the jury in evaluating the defendant's guilt or innocence, but it would confuse the jury by directing them to focus on investigators' conduct. Especially where the investigative context is complicated and a topic of public interest (see generally Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No. 293 Ex. A at v-vi), evidence or argument on that point can only distract the jury from its function. + +The defense is free to offer its own evidence about the victims and instances charged in this case, and it is free to attempt to impeach the Government's witnesses through legitimate evidentiary means. But evidence about unrelated investigative steps and their outcomes would only serve to extend the trial and distract the jury with irrelevant information. This Court should preclude such evidence. + +## C. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering a Valid Basis for Their Testimony + +As explained above, the Court should preclude evidence or argument regarding either the outcomes of the prior investigations, investigative steps taken during those investigations, the length of those investigations, or the evidence developed during those investigations about unrelated events. Nevertheless, it appears the defense intends to call one or more case agents in order to elicit such improper testimony. The Court should preclude testimony from case agents unless the defense identifies a proper basis for their testimony. + +The Government has received a request from the defense pursuant to United States ex. rel. Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) for the testimony of two FBI case agents from the Florida Investigations and two FBI case agents for the investigation that led to charges in this District against Epstein and the defendant. The notice is attached as Exhibit A. According to the Touhy request, which must summarize the testimony sought, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), the defendant seeks testimony "concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena," and their activities before the grand jury. (Ex. A at 1-2). + +But as set forth above, testimony about the "resolution" of a prior investigation is irrelevant hearsay that would only serve to confuse the jury. Evidence about the "scope," "timeline," or "various investigative steps taken by the agents" is similarly irrelevant and misleading. The case agents are not summary witnesses that the defense can use to place before the jury sweeping conclusions about the Florida Investigations or this one.9 The bases identified for their testimony are improper, and the Court should preclude them unless the defense identifies a specific, valid purpose for their testimony. + +### IV. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Government's Alleged Motives for Prosecution + +As the Court is aware, the defendant has claimed that she is being prosecuted as a scapegoat because Jeffrey Epstein is dead. (See, e.g., Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 142, at 1 ("[T]he government has sought to substitute our client for Jeffrey Epstein . . . .")). That claim is as false as it is offensive. But in any event, the Government's motives for prosecution are irrelevant to the question of the defendant's factual guilt that will be before the jury at trial, and any probative + +9 Furthermore, the proffered bases for the case agents' testimony will likely run afoul of numerous evidentiary rules. The Government's case agents cannot testify to the substance of "numerous witness interviews they conducted" with uncalled witnesses, which is hearsay. The agents' prior testimony before the grand jury is admissible only under the limited principles that govern prior consistent or inconsistent statements. And there is significant risk that case agent testimony will introduce additional evidentiary issues. For instance, questioning the case agents about information their investigations generated about the defendant would likely yield hearsay responses and would open the door to agents offering other information that is inculpatory to the defendant and that the Government would not otherwise offer at trial. + +value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to the Government and risk of distracting the jury or encouraging jury nullification. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. The Court should therefore preclude evidence or argument regarding the Government's supposed motives for prosecution, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant. + +The Second Circuit has explained that claims of purported government misconduct must be "directed to the court rather than jury." United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997). Allegations concerning the government's conduct are "ultimately separate from the issue of [a defendant's] factual guilt" and concern an alleged "defect in the institution of the prosecution." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, district courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising these arguments at trial. See id. ("[W]e agree with the district court's decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States v. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting motion to preclude the defendant from "presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting" the defendant), aj/'d and remanded, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). + +This extends to claims challenging the motives of a prosecution. In general, "the decision as to whether to prosecute generally rests within the broad discretion of the prosecutor, and a prosecutor's pretrial charging decision is presumed legitimate." United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716 (2d Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States + +v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996) ("[S]o long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute . . . generally rests entirely in [the prosecutor's] discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendants are permitted to challenge the motives for a prosecution by seeking dismissal of an indictment due to vindictive or selective prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 558, 562-64, 576 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020) (denying vindictive and selective prosecution claims). Such challenges, however, are issues "for the court rather than for the jury." United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(bX3XAXiv) (listing, among pretrial motions, "a defect in instituting the prosecution, including . . . selective or vindictive prosecution"). Accordingly, courts have sustained objections or precluded defendants from arguing to the jury about the Government's motives. See Farhane, 634 F.3d. at 166-67 (affirming a sustained objection to a defense closing argument that "the government had targeted him for prosecution based on his religion"); United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) ("[T]o the extent Locust seeks to highlight the fact that he was not a target of the investigation to suggest that the government's true targets were the doctors and lawyers allegedly involved in the conspiracy and to draw attention to their absence from this case, the Court has already ruled that such argument is improper."). + +The defense is free to argue that the defendant is not guilty. However, offering evidence or argument to claim the Government is prosecuting the defendant because Epstein is dead, as a scapegoat for Epstein, or for any other improper motive, is impermissible—and untrue. The reasons for the prosecution have no bearing whatsoever on the jury's proper function. If the facts gave rise to a viable claim of improper motive, the proper course would have been to file a motion to dismiss the Indictment on those grounds. But the defendant did not do so, and she may not now pursue that theory before the jury. + +Evidence or argument about Epstein's death while awaiting prosecution is also irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The fact that Epstein died while awaiting prosecution more than fifteen years after the charged conduct is entirely irrelevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Introducing that evidence to the jury and arguing that it somehow relates to the Government's case would only confuse the jury about their task and unfairly prejudice the Government should the defense then imply or argue that it relates to the Government's motives for prosecution. + +### V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at This Trial + +At trial, the Government expects that witnesses will testify about individuals who are not witnesses at trial, and whose out-of-court statements will not be offered for their truth. For example, witnesses will testify about Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, who will not be witnesses at trial. The Court should preclude the defense from attempting to impeach the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial, and whose credibility is therefore irrelevant. + +An "essential safeguard" of a fair trial is the "right to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test." United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, 723 (2d Cir. 1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, + +the Federal Rules of Evidence contain extensive provisions governing the impeachment of witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 607-13. Rule 806 also authorizes attacks on the credibility of hearsay declarants, agents, and co-conspirators when those individual's statements have been admitted into evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 806. This rule "effectively treats the hearsay declarant as a witness for impeachment and rehabilitation purposes." 2 McCormick on Evid. § 324.2 (8th ed.). + +For individuals who are not witnesses and not hearsay declarants, however, none of those rules apply. Instead, those non-witnesses' "credibility is irrelevant." United States v. McGowan, 58 F.3d 8, 15-16 (2d Cir. 1995). The Second Circuit has therefore "clearly established . . . the principle that a statement not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may not be impeached under Rule 806." United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 217 (2d Cir. 2006); see United States v. No. 02 Cr. 1237 (SWK), 2005 WL 1430483, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2005) ("It has long been the case in the Second Circuit that it is proper to preclude crossexamination of an individual whose statements are not admitted for their truth."). Even if the individual is a "'central figure" in the case, "a district court need not allow impeachment" if the individual's "out-of-court statements were not admitted for their truth." United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1083 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting McGowan, 58 F.3d at 15-16); see United States v. M, No. 05 Cr. 441 (PKL), 2005 WL 2709160, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2005) ("Because the informant's statements are not hearsay, and because the government will not call the informant as a witness at trial, it follows that defendant may not impeach the credibility of the informant."). + +In this case, the Government is not planning to call Minor Victim-5 or Minor Victim-6. To the extent other witnesses are expected to testify about the activities of Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, including statements made by them, that testimony will not include any statements by Minor Victim-5 or Minor Victim-6 offered for the truth of the matter asserted or under one of the other exceptions listed in Rule 806. See Fed. R. Evid. 806 (referencing Fed. R. Evid. 80I(dX2XC)-(E), which concern authorized speakers, agents or employees acting within the scope of that relationship, and co-conspirator statements). That testimony instead is expected to include discussion of acts by Minor Victim-5 and Minor Vicitm-6 and statements offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but for some other reason, such as the effect on the listener. For instance, and as noted above, Minor Victim-4 is expected to testify that she was recruited by Minor Victim-5. Those statements are not offered for their truth, but to explain Minor Victim-4's actions. Similarly, Minor Victim-4 is expected to testify that she personally observed the sexual abuse of Minor Victim-5—observations that require no hearsay statements from Minor Victim-5. Accordingly, since Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 arc neither witnesses nor hearsay declarants, their credibility is not at issue, and they should not be subject to impeachment or attack on that basis.10 + +## VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is Inadmissible + +A defendant is entitled to present a defense only if it has a foundation in the evidence and it does not fail as a matter of law. See, e.g., United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485, 489 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ("A federal court may preclude a defendant from presenting a defense when + +i° This analysis is not unique to the Minor Victims. Attacks on the credibility of any individual who is neither a witness nor a hearsay declarant, including victims' counsel, is improper. (See, e.g., Reply Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 285 (arguing that the Government improperly colluded with victim's counsel)). + +the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053, 1057 (2d Cir. 1990) ("This procedure enabled [the Court], upon finding that the defense failed as a matter of law, to preclude the evidence and thereby avoid unnecessary jury confusion."). If there is a question of whether a defense is sufficient as a matter of law, the Court may conduct a hearing. See Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d at 1057. But if the Court finds a defense insufficient as a matter of law, the Court is under no duty to allow the defendant to present the evidence, or advance the defense, to the jury. See Miles, 748 F.3d at 489; United States v. Paul, 110 F.3d 869, 871 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing United States v.=, 444 U.S. 394, 416-17 (1980)). + +Consent is not a valid defense to any of the counts in the Indictment. It is not a valid defense to sex trafficking of minors. See United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x 1, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) ("Further, the victims could not consent because they were minors."); United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2009) ("Because the victims were minors and could not legally consent, the government did not need to prove the elements of fraud, force, or coercion, which are required for adult victims."); United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). It is not a defense to the Act counts. See United State v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) "makes no distinction between victims and coconspirators for purposes of imposing liability on the person who transports another; the defendant need only have transported an `individual' . . . to be guilty under the Act."); United States v. M, 529 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2008) ("[C]onsent is not a defense to a prosecution under section 2423(a)."); United States v.M, 808 F.2d 561, 565 (7th + +Cir. 1986) ("[C]onsent is a defense to kidnapping but not to a Act charge . . . ."); United States v. No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1886967, at \*7 n.4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2015) ("[C]onsent is not a defense to the sex trafficking of minors . . . and is also not a defense to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422."); United States v. Griffith, No. 99 Cr. 786 (HB), 2000 WL 1253265, at \*18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) ("The Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241-3) has never, since its inception, provided for a defense of consent."); see also Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 119 (1932) ("For the statute is drawn to include cases in which the woman consents to her own transportation."). And it is not a defense to the New York offense which is the object of the Act counts. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(3Xa) ("A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is ... less than seventeen years old ...."). + +The Indictment concerns only minor victims, and as a matter of law, such underage victims could not consent to engage in sexual activity. Accordingly, evidence or arguments that the victims consented to being trafficked, transported, enticed, or sexually exploited would not give rise to a valid defense, and they should be precluded. See Elbert, 561 F.3d at 777-78 (affirming exclusion of evidence of a victim's consent under Federal Rule of Evidence 412). In the absence of a consent defense, evidence about the victims' consent to sexual activity should also be excluded as irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Such evidence is not probative or relevant to any issue at the trial. It cannot support a defense, and it does not impeach the witnesses or undermine their credibility. + +And in any event, argument and evidence about victims' consent should be excluded under Rule 403. Any marginal value of such evidence would serve primarily to cast aspersions on the victims for participating in the defendant's crimes, embarrassing the victims and inviting the jury to engage in stereotyping and nullification. These are precisely the forms of harm the law elsewhere tries to mitigate. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 412 & Advisory Committee Note (restricting introduction of evidence of a victim's other sexual behavior to encourage victims to come forward and avoid "invasion of privacy, potential embossment and sexual stereotyping"); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8) (giving victims the right to be treated with "respect for the victim's dignity and privacy"). The probative value of such evidence is therefore significantly outweighed by the danger of prejudice. + +The Court should permit evidence of a minor victim's consent to engage in sexual activity only if doing so would aid the jury to evaluate a legitimate defense theory, which the defense has not yet proffered. + +### VII. Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit Other Bad Acts, the Court Should Require the Defense to Proffer the Basis and Relevance of Such Evidence + +The defense has repeatedly suggested that any witness who did not observe the defendant participating in criminal conduct is exculpatory evidence. Specific-act propensity evidence is no more admissible to refute a criminal charge than it is to establish one. Accordingly, before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence. + +"No less than evidence of a defendant's prior 'bad acts' used to show that he committed the crime charged, . . . 'good acts' evidence is only relevant if we assume that a defendant acted in conformity with those prior good acts—i.e., if we make the exact propensity inference Rule 404(b)(1) is designed to prohibit." United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767, 792 (2d Cir. 2021) (upholding exclusion of "testimony regarding [defendant's] relationships with coaches whom he did not bribe"). Accordingly, "[a] defendant may not seek to establish his innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions." United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1011 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A single occurrence of lawful conduct is 'simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of unlawful conduct." United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. = 191 F.3d 326, 336 (2d Cir. 1999)); see United States v. M, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) ("We reject assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the government did argue that had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips."); Boyce v. =, No. 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WI. 2821154, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (in a civil sex trafficking case, excluding evidence of witnesses who would testify that the defendant did not abuse them, because "[i]t is well established that a defendant may not seek to establish his innocence through proof of absence of criminal acts on specific occasions" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). + +The Government has produced to the defendant records of interviews of many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein, some of whom did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy. The defendant is not charged with committing crimes against these victims. In prior filings, the + +defendant has emphasized these witness statements, and claimed that they are exculpatory. (See, e.g., Mem. of Law, Dkt. 138 at 7-11; Letter, Dkt. 64 at 1; Mot., Dkt. No. 346 at 2 n.1). + +As explained above, as a general matter, "evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged" is inadmissible. United States v. =, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015). The Government will not contend at trial that the defendant personally participated in the abuse of all of Epstein's victims, and it is not a defense to claim that the defendant is not guilty of crimes with which she is not charged. This Court has already said as much. In the defendant's pretrial motions, she alleged pmindictment delay on the grounds that the lead detective from the Palm Beach Police Department investigating Epstein "revealed that not one of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Ms. Maxwell's name and she was never considered a suspect." (Mem. of Law, Dkt. 138 at 10-11). The Court rejected this argument, explaining that the testimony the defendant suggested that the detective might have offered "is propensity evidence that does nothing to establish her innocence of the charged offenses." (Opinion & Order, Dkt. 207 at 18); see United States v. Raniere, 384 F. Supp. 3d 282, 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (rejecting a motion for discovery because "statements by individuals who were not allegedly directed to have sex with [the defendant] or were not threatened with the release of collateral in exchange for acts of care are not Brady material because they have no bearing on whether the alleged victims were so directed or threatened"). + +Moreover, the Government notes that evidence of these encounters is only admissible through the victims themselves. Any other method of eliciting that evidence, such as through testimony by a case agent, is inadmissible hearsay. While the defendant has no burden to put on a defense case, she can only introduce this evidence by doing so. + +Accordingly, before the defendant—in opening or during trial—argues or offers evidence about the defendant's absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the Government's case-in-chief, the Court should require the defendant to explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible. + +### VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements + +The Government has produced to the defendant many of her own statements, including primarily (1) statements contained in emails or other communications, and (2) statements from her own deposition. Some of the latter statements contain denials of portions of the offense conduct, for which the defendant is separately charged with perjury. (See Indictment ¶¶ 28-31). The Court should not permit the defense to introduce these statements. + +A defendant may not offer her own statement into evidence without subjecting herself to cross-examination. "When the defendant seeks to introduce his own prior statement for the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay, and it is not admissible." United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., United States v. ■, **958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992) (similar); United States v. Fernandez, 839 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) ("[D]efense counsel wished to place [the defendant's] statement . . . before the jury without subjecting [the defendant] to cross-examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids."); United States v. 435 F. Supp. 3d 526, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ("Finally, the Court agrees with the Government that, in the event evidence of his flight is admitted, may not** + +automatically admit his alternative explanation for his flight, insofar as he wishes to bring in his out-of-court statements to others on social media or to prison officials."). The Government is able to introduce the defendant's statements as statements of an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2XA). See Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2)(A) (defining as "not hearsay" a statement "offered against an opposing party" and "made by the party"). But the Federal Rules contain no parallel provision for the defendant. See 669 F.2d at 84. Instead, if the defendant wishes to place her own statements before the jury, she must testify so the Government may cross-examine her. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 153 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that defendant "could have testified to everything asserted in his statement, [but] he could not offer the document itself for the truth of the matter asserted"), overruled on other grounds by Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009). + +Notwithstanding the hearsay bar, a defendant may in limited circumstances invoke the so-called "rule of completeness" to require the introduction of additional portions of his or her own out-of-court statement when the Government offers excerpts of it. See Fed. R. Evid. 106 ("If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time."). "Under this principle, even though a statement may be hearsay, an 'omitted portion of [the] statement must be placed in evidence if necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid misleading the jury, or to ensure fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion." United States v. M, 507 F.3d 793, 796 (2d Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting + +United States v. Castro, 813 F.2d 571, 575-76 (2d Cir. 1987)). But this doctrine "has never required the admission of portions of a statement that arc neither explanatory of nor relevant to the admitted passages." United States v. M, 930 F.3d 44, 58 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see id. at 61 ("[T]he rule of completeness does not require the admission of self-serving exculpatory statements in all circumstances." (emphasis in original)). This rule is strictly applied, leading the Second Circuit to hold, for example, that a defendant could not introduce a portion of his confession relating "to the execution of [a] robbery," where the portion introduced by the Government concerned only "plans to execute the robbery." , 507 F.3d at 796 (emphasis in original). + +The Government expects to offer certain of the defendant's written statements contained in her cmails and oral statements through witness testimony. To the extent the defendant wishes to offer her own out-of-court statements, they are hearsay, whether in emails, deposition transcripts, or elsewhere. And unless they accomplish the narrow function of the rule of completeness, the Court should preclude them. Given the limited admissibility of such statements, and to avoid mid-trial delays, the Government requests that (a) to the extent the defense seeks to admit such evidence during the Government's case-in-chief during crossexamination of witnesses, the defense preview with the Government and the Court prior to each trial day any statement of the defendant it intends to admit, so that any evidentiary issues can be addressed outside of the trial day; and (b) that the defendant be required to mark any such statements that she intends to offer during her case-in-chief at the time of her Rule 26.2 disclosures. + +### IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification + +The defendant may attempt to offer evidence of aspects of her life that may tend to elicit the juror's sympathy, such as her charitable works or evidence of her family history. Such evidence should be excluded as irrelevant, confusing, and prejudicial. + +As discussed above, the Federal Rules of Evidence preclude the use of good acts to draw a propensity inference in favor of the defendant, just as they preclude the use of prior bad acts for the same purpose. See supra Section VII. Evidence and argument that makes the defendant appear sympathetic for reasons unrelated to the charges at issue should also be excluded as inviting the jury to acquit a defendant even where the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries are not "to act based on their ... sympathy." United States v. Stroming, 838 F. App'x 624, 627 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order); see, e.g., United States v. Mustaga, 753 F. App'x 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) ("The district court correctly recognized that evidence of solitary confinement could be used for the improper purpose of provoking juror sympathy."). Any attempt to encourage such sympathy is therefore an attempt at nullification, which is itself plainly improper. See, e.g., United States v. 116 F.3d 606, 615 (2d Cir. 1997) (Jury nullification is "by no means a right or something that a judge should encourage or permit if it is within his authority to prevent."); id. at 614 ("We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent."); see also United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam) ("A jury has no more 'right' to find a 'guilty' defendant 'not guilty' than it has to find a `not guilty' defendant 'guilty,' and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the + +power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power." (emphasis in original)). + +Even if a defendant offers character evidence, that evidence may not include specific instances of good conduct, unless the defendant's character is an "essential element" of the offense. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a) & 405; see, e.g., United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767, 792 & n.77 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Nachamie, 28 F. App'x 13, 20-21 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order). Character evidence is only admissible "by testimony about the person's reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion." Fed. R. Evid. 405(a); see, e.g., United States v. M, 638 F. App'x 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) ("The limitations imposed by the district court followed directly from the Rules of Evidence, which permit a defendant to offer evidence of a personal opinion or his reputation for a pertinent character trait, but not to offer testimony regarding `specific instances' of conduct in conformity with a trait that is not at issue." (citations omitted)). + +The Government is unaware of any relevant reason for the jury to consider the defendant's charitable activities, family history, or similar facts. Because those facts have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, and they are not permissible character evidence, she should be precluded from mentioning such subjects in her opening statement, during the presentation of evidence, or in closing statements, absent a ruling that a specific fact is relevant and more probative than unfairly prejudicial. + +■ + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] ■ + +■ + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**XI. The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A "Prevailing Party" in Civil Litigation** + +The Court should preclude the defense from inaccurately suggesting to the jury that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation related to some of the events at issue at trial. + +By way of background, Minor Victim-2 filed a civil action in this District, bringing claims against the defendant and the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. *See* [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]. Minor Victim-2 received a substantial settlement from the estate after participating in a compensation program for victims of Jeffrey Epstein. As part of that settlement, Minor Victim-2 moved to dismiss her civil action in its entirety. The defendant—who was represented in that lawsuit by attorneys who represent her in this criminal case—asked + +[REDACTED] + +the court to declare the defendant the prevailing party in that suit, because Minor Victim-2 had dismissed the case with prejudice in connection with the settlement agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) ("[C]osts . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party."). The defendant further filed a motion for costs, demanding that Minor Victim-2 pay the defendant in costs, because, by virtue of the dismissal, the defendant was technically the "prevailing party." See + +While Minor Victim-2 did "not agree that the Defendant is the prevailing party," she agreed to pay the costs rather than engage in motion practice that would "far exceed the above cost." + +At trial, the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury—during cross examination or otherwise—that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation. Such evidence is irrelevant and confusing and would potentially mislead the jury into believing that the civil matter was adjudicated on the merits and resolved in the defendant's favor. Although the Government has no objection to the defense cross-examining Minor Victim-2 about filing a civil lawsuit and obtaining a settlement, the defense should be precluded from claiming at trial that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation.13 + +13 + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government's in limine motions. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..786bf2912bbbeec3282ed1091e2eb59af7f60911 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235/EFTA02833235.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2602 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833235.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 54, + "chars": 94735, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.25599999999997, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 435.3695068359375, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 435.3695068359375, + 349.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 176.25599999999997, + 349.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.12225341796875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.12225341796875, + 85.60406494140625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 85.60406494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 343.33200000000005, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 343.33200000000005, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 223.56000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 164.8201904296875, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 164.8201904296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their \nTruth If the Defense Challenges Their Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 291.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "111. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the \nDefendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.8884887695312, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.8884887695312, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Not Permit the Defense to Elicit Evidence About Charging \nDecisions or Possible Reasons for Them", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 210.54061889648438, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 210.54061889648438, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.39990234375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.39990234375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Length of And \nInvestigative Steps Taken During Current or Prior Investigations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 542.5147094726562, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 542.5147094726562, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 210.59771728515625, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 210.59771728515625, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering \na Valid Basis for Their Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.9627075195312, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.9627075195312, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Government's \nAlleged Motives for Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.8726196289062, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 543.8726196289062, + 348.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 348.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who \nAre Not Witnesses at This Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.5841064453125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.5841064453125, + 403.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 403.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is \nInadmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit \nOther Bad Acts, the Court Should Require the Defense to Proffer the Basis and \nRelevance of Such Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior \nStatements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.363037109375, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.363037109375, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.7017211914062, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.7017211914062, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A \"Prevailing Party\" in Civil Litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 264.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833235" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a790e934a8d14b6047bcde6d3611a38b0adba12 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Site 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@mac.com + +October 29, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United Stales v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Ghislaine Maxwell requests that the Court issue an order requiring delivery of her legal mail within one business day of receipt by the post office. (See Dkt. 350.) The problems encountered by legal mail delays continue. I have attempted to address this with MDC Legal via email (but at times receive no response) and have conferred with government counsel. Only after two emails were sent today, the latter informing MDC Legal that failure to respond would result in the filing of an order to show cause, did I receive a response: "There was mail picked up today," but no indication when Ms. Maxwell will receive the mail. + +Legal mail sent by counsel through the United States Postal Service for "next day delivery" remains at the post office for pick up by the MDC. The mail is not picked up daily, as evidenced by tracking information (most recently obtained this morning) and often remains at the Post Office for days before retrieved by the MDC. (See Exhibit A.) The Court invited the defense to bring this issue to the Court's attention if Ms. Maxwell does not receive mail within one business day of receipt. We are requesting that the Court direct the MDC to retrieve the mail within one business day of receipt by the post office so that legal mail sent "next day delivery" does not languish in the post office for days on end. The government suggests this may be due to resource issues at the MDC and reminds us that Ms. Maxwell's mail is handled the same as that of other inmates. But unlike other inmates, Ms. Maxwell is + +now a month away from trial and any delay receiving her legal mail impedes her ability to adequately prepare for trial. + +Further, Ms. Maxwell is not receiving disclosures sent via Federal Express by the government in a timely manner. We have requested that within a month of commencement of trial, government disclosures be hand delivered to the MDC to alleviate delivery delays. The government has declined this request, again claiming resource issues. There is no assurance that Ms. Maxwell will receive legal mail — critical to trial preparation — in a timely manner. This is yet another example of how pretrial detention is encumbering Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and interfering with her ability to effectively communicate with counsel. This should undermine the Court's confidence that Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys will be fully able to prepare for trial. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record + +## EXHIBIT A + +Tracking Number: EJG99•136 MOUS + +Scheduled Delivery by + +SATURDAY + +16 + +Status + +Available for Pickup + +by October 19, 2021 at 6:51 am + +6:00pm 0 BROOKLYN, NY 11232 + +Tracking Number: EJ699436435US + +Scheduled Delivery by + +THURSDAY + +14 OCTOJQER + +2021 LO + +by + +6:00pm 0 + +Get Updates \/ + +Available for Pickup + +See More \./ + +Status + +Available for Pickup + +October 15, 2021 at 7:55 am BROOKLYN, NY 11232 + +Get Updates \./ + +Available for Pickup + +Tracking Number. EJ699436427US + +Scheduled Delivery by Status + +THURSDAY + +28 OCTOBER + +by + +6:00pm + +Available for Pickup + +October 28, 2021 at 10:59 am BROOKLYN. NY 11232 + +Get Updates N,./ + +Available for Pickup + +Text & Email Updates \./ + +Proof of Delivery \./ + +Tracking History \./ + +Product Information \./ + +Tracking Number. EJ699436413US + +Scheduled Delivery by + +SATURDAY + +OCTOBER 2021 (0 + +by + +6:00pm 40 + +See Less /\ + +Status + +Available for Pickup + +October 12. 2021 at 9:07 am BROOKLYN, NY 11232 + +Get Updates •./ + +Available for Pickup + +See More N., \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02f75e82edb0ebd52ff597f98c40930f0805269a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289/EFTA02833289.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833289.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 3809, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 686.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 686.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 716.7339630126953 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 716.7339630126953 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833289" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9927594176d8aef3a43f73c0a536ba842aed9c6c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294/EFTA02833294.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833294.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833294" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c079970ad77524a1e5d2842f2a99c7b498e8d08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295/EFTA02833295.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833295.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833295" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a616684c1a6583020bf7a0d831e22e182f0e8b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296/EFTA02833296.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833296.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833296" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f0c98540ab075c36fea3e2a9907d82b91b1aecc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297/EFTA02833297.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833297.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 308.32501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 308.32501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833297" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26a2fbce41fb964c3927f9fe02428996a7e8b4c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.md @@ -0,0 +1,240 @@ +# EXHIBIT E + +**COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A** + +**NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND +ADDENDUM** + +### IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +# NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstcin's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(t), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(6) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 159I(cXl); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of It Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the conrlition(s) of the Agreement that be has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages I and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Ray investigation will be instituted in this Distict, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +# Terms of the Agreement + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in end for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495A)OCCMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of FL Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation ofFlorida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the I 5th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The terms contained in paragraphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +- 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's coimsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +- 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person end/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +- 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. +- 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +- 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +1. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +2. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Lesley Groff, or [REDACTED]. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, involate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +By: + +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 9/24/07 + +![]()Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED] ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Datod: By: + +Dated: + +Dated: 7/9-itio7 + +Dated: + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ESQ. OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this agreement, Epstein assats and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Au',..Int.at and agrees to comply with than. + +> R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UN/TED STATES ATTORNEY + +Date& + +Dated: + +Date& + +Dated: + +Br A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +A. ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN N RE: + +## INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +# ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +rr APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: + +- 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +- 711. The parties win jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epsteln's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, If after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costa of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: + +*(initials)* + +*Jeffrey H. Homan* FAUSA + +A. [REDACTED] VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: 1/29/07 + +*[Handwritten signature]* +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN [REDACTED], ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: /0 /30/07 + +Dated: + +Dated: + +A. a /-74 v SA LAFARA U.S. ATTORNEY + +RALD LEFCO ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: 10/30/07 + +By: + +A. [REDACTED] VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dated: 10-29-07 + +\_\_\_\_\_ +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dec-07-07 04:55pm From FBI Burnett + +3057800201 + +T-066 P.003/004 F-078 + +Affirmation + +I, Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to name dated October 30, 2007. + +![]()![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25a8251f98a082991c2127c5684824b7deea524c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298/EFTA02833298.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,784 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833298.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 19306, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.1, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 316.71000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 371.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN RE: \nINVESTIGATION OF \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 210.951904296875, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 210.951904296875, + 190.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 190.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 228.09405517578125 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 228.09405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 145.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 145.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVESTIGATION OF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 205.22640991210938, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 205.22640991210938, + 148.715087890625 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 148.715087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 369.10430908203125, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 369.10430908203125, + 211.715087890625 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 211.715087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Affirmation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 151.47 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833298" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12374dee8482a97db697e59459277e9a041342d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1907a0594c257044d71c767a6e9c3eba97e8a9c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314/EFTA02833314.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833314.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT F \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833314" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8389bf83f6378f4cce0e46d9b0f778d189bdd08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +February 11, 2021 Call with Amanda Kramer + +Present on Conference Call: + +- AUSAs Lara Pomerantz & Maurene Comey +- FBI Special Agent Amanda Young +- Amanda Kramer +- Covington & Burling LLP General Counsel, Steve Anthony + +AK's recollections regarding February 29, 2016 Meeting: + +- AK confirmed the handwritten notes sent to AK by LP were AK's own notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- In advance of the meeting, AK remembers Pete Skinner reaching out to AK and asking if he could come in to present on a potential case with some other attorneys. AK doesn't recall how Skinner contacted AK. Skinner was at Boies Schiller at the time, Skinner and AK are friends and were in the SDNY USAO together. At this time, AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and believes she was also the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- Meeting took lace in a conference room at 1 St. Andrews Plaza USA() SDNY. Pete Skinner, Brad , Stan Pottinger, and AK were at the meeting. o AK doesn't recall what each attorney's role was, but her notes say that they represented AK also understood that was involved in representing multiple individuals in a civil litigation involving the CVRA, but AK is not certain of that. o AK understood that Skinner or his colleagues at Boies were representin AK doesn't know if Skinner was involved in representing o Brad did most of the talking during the meeting. o AK recalls that Pete Skinner spoke a little bit, but AK doesn't recall what, if anything, he said on substance. AK doesn't remember what he said. +- AK understood the purpose of the meeting to be the attorneys presenting information that they believed or suggested should be the subject of a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. o AK understood that the attorneys were advocating that the Jeffrey Epstein case should be investigated by SDNY. +- LP directed AK to references to lawsuits on pages 4 and 7 of AK's notes from the meeting, and asked what AK recalls about what civil lawsuits she learned of during the meeting. o AK remembers there was a CVRA lawsuit that was mentioned. o AK remembers that there were other civil lawsuits mentioned. Aside from what is in AK's notes, AK has no memory of what those lawsuits were about or the nature of those lawsuits. o AK does not have an independent memory of the Gabe v. Maxwell lawsuit being mentioned, and her memory is not refreshed from looking at the notes. + +## EXHIBIT G + +- LP directed AK to "they will send me affidavits and depositions" on page 8 of AK's notes and asked if AK recalls what that line refers to and whether the attorneys sent AK any such materials. o AK does not recall what that line refers to. o AK does not recall if the attorneys sent her any such materials after the meeting. o AK does not believe the attorneys provided her any materials during the meeting. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys sent her something by email, but does not recall what it was. + - **One of the emails LP sent to AK was an email from Skinner to AK the evening of February 29, 2016 after the meeting sending AK documents. AK does not remember the particular documents she received. AK does not recall receiving any additional documents.** +- **AK remembers the mention of several people, including Ghislaine Maxwell as either in the context of who had benefited from the Florida NPA or who the people were that had worked for or helped Epstein. AK doesn't recall much specifics about Maxwell. Maxwell was not a focus of the meeting.** +- **AK does not recall the attorneys saying anything about what charges the office could bring. Related to that, AK recalls asking questions to understand what kind of charges they were proposing because it was not clear. The attorneys did not present particular statutes that might be pursued.** +- **AK recalls trying to understand what prior statements of existed in the context of assessing how much of a record there already was. AK recalls that the information about civil lawsuits came up when AK asked the attorneys what record there was of statements about Epstein, either in the context of the Florida case or otherwise. o AK's notes don't jog AK's memory of what she learned about prior statements. o AK does remember that there was some civil litigation, including CVRA litigation and some other civil case, and not just involving Virginia, but also civil litigation involving other potential witness or witnesses. AK's takeaway was that there was a large and potentially complicated record of civil litigation that would have to be at some point parsed through in assessing what any potential witness had said. It wasn't only that there was civil litigation involving Virginia, but there was also some person in Europe involved in litigation. AK felt this was a situation where there would be a lot of material to gather and read before talking to witnesses.** +- **AK doesn't remember being told any specific allegations victims had made against Maxwell. AK generally remembers Maxwell being mentioned as someone who had worked for Epstein. o Notes reflect that Maxwell was "head recruiter," but AK does not recall that description being attributed to any particular witness** + +- AK's recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. +- Discussion of Epstein's conduct expanded beyond . Attorneys described the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided about experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein's conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after Virginia was no longer involved. +- AK's understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information. +- AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the office would do about the information that was provided. o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened. + +Events after February 29, 2016 meeting: + +- After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Chief of Criminal Division at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with what the lawyers had shared, AK's thoughts, and thoughts. Decided on an action plan. o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case. AK mentioned that to M. o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn't clear there was any ongoing conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK's assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed. o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents in this area usually, in AK's experience, make collaborative decisions with the USAO. o AK & decided (don't recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach out to Sean (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like justice had not been served. +- After the meeting with AK called Sean and relayed the summary of this and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked + +Sean to call AK back and let her know if the Florida agents had concerns. Sean never called AK back. AK doesn't recall ever affirmatively following up with Sean, but she took the radio silence to mean that the FBI agents in Florida did not express dissatisfaction. + +- No investigation was opened as a result of the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- No investigation into Epstein was opened while AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood coordinator. +- AK never met with any other Boies Schiller attorneys. AK does not recall ever speaking with David Boies at any point +- AK never met with the attorneys from the February 29, 2016 meeting again. +- When asked what, if any, communications AK had with the attorneys, AK noted that she sees an email from May 2016 with Stan Pottenger. AK believes it's possible Stan called AK, but she does not remember that. +- AK does not recall any further conversations re Epstein in SDNY until much later when the Miami Herald series was published. + +AK confirmed she has read the Daily News Article LP sent + +- AK indicated that the article did not accurately describe AK's interactions with attorneys for +- AK's recollection is not that attorneys urged SDNY to open an investigation into "the duo." They were focused on Epstein. Maxwell was mentioned in passing, not as a target. +- AK did not participate in a second meeting with anyone. Had there been a meeting on this subject in the summer of 2016 in SDNY, AK would have known about it in her capacity as Human Trafficking Coordinator. o AK had been in that role since approximately 2010, and if someone came in to meet with a unit chief about a potential human trafficking matter, AK would get contacted about the meeting. AK met with chiefs to gather information about any cases they had that touched on human trafficking so that AK could coordinate. So if a second meeting had taken with a supervisor in the office, AK would have known about it. Dan also would have brought AK in if he learned of a second meeting. o AK would have made a record if there had ever been a second meeting. AK would remember if there were a second meeting. She has no record and no memory of any second meeting. +- AK does not recall ever speaking with or meeting David Boies in her life, so to her knowledge, Boies was not making any effort to persuade SDNY to investigate Epstein. AK noted it is possible Boies could have been on the phone if Stan Pottinger called AK in or around May of 2016, but AK has no recollection of such a call. +- AK does not recall the attorney presentation being framed on highlighting Maxwell's assistance with Epstein's sexual abuse. It was not presented as a "duo." AK recalls the mention of a pilot and the mention of someone having an address book, so other people were mentioned as part of telling the story of Epstein. + +- AK did not express any concerns about anything to the attorneys. AK may have asked something like whether the attorneys are asking SDNY to re-do the Florida investigation because AK was trying to understand what the attorneys were proposing: was it looking at the same conduct that was investigated in Florida and mishandled, or was it looking at different conduct and possibly ongoing conduct? AK recalls asking questions to clarify that point. +- AK is sure one of the things she asked would have been venue oriented to understand what the attorneys were describing and what the conduct was. AK would not have responded to a question asking about why AK wouldn't just open an investigation. Purpose of the meeting was for AK to understand what the attorneys were trying to convey, not for AK to make any representation about her thoughts or what she was going to do. +- Brad book suggesting that the AUSA seemed "confident that a case would be brought" does not seem accurate to AK. AK did not intend to give such an impression during the meeting. That decision is not one for AK to make alone, in any event. +- AK does not recall any mention that the number of victims in NY far exceeded the number in Florida. +- Brad description of wanting a case against Epstein is consistent with AK's recollection that the focus was on Epstein. +- If anyone called AK, she does not remember that, and she would not have mentioned the comity shown to other USAOs around the country. +- AK does not recall anyone ever approaching her to ask if SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys called or emailed AK at some point and told her that there had been depositions, presumably by contact from one of these lawyers, but AK cannot recall the specifics. AK does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury. o AK recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have the same challenges. AK recalls thinking in her mind that if the depositions were about the underlying conduct that had all of the issues that gave AK pause after the meeting (length of time that had passed, sense there must have been a reason SDFL resolved the case the way they did) were not alleviated by a perjury-based prosecution. o AK does not recall ever knowing anything about the substance of the depositions and does not remember anyone sending her a deposition transcript. o AK does not remember who had been deposed or who might have been the subject of a possible perjury investigation. o No investigation into perjury was ever opened. +- AK took no further action re Epstein after calling Sean o Though there may be emails or calls AK cannot remember, she knows that she took no action after the call to Sean . Part of the reason AK felt horrible when readin the Herald article was because AK took no action after calling Sean + +When the Topic of Epstein Caine Back up with the Miami Herald Article + +- Arose when AK was in Securities. AK was no longer the Human Trafficking Coordinator or the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- AK may have told someone that there had been a presentation for SDNY to prosecute Epstein. AK read the article and was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with AK's assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016. +- AK remembers speaking with someone in Public Corruption about the February 29, 2016 meeting and shared her notes and emails with Public Corruption. +- AK remembers that someone from the original case team (thinks Alison Moe) came by her office and they chatted. AK may have also spoken with Alex Rossmiller or Ted Diskant, but is not sure. o When speaking with members of the Public Corruption team: AK remembers telling them that she felt terrible reading the Miami Herald series. AK remembers telling them that she had the impression that the lawyers who came in to meet with AK were disorganized, and AK's impression was that they thought it would help the CVRA case if SDNY opened a criminal case. o AK is sure that she gave Alison whatever she had, including the notes that LP emailed AK. AK handed to Alison whatever was in AK's folder. o AK does not remember having any documents or receiving any documents from the attorneys. o AK remembers understanding that Public Corruption had opened an investigation into Epstein. +- AK did not play any role in opening the SDNY investigation into Epstein. +- To AK's knowledge, AK has not received any discovery materials from any civil case. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4d3b4bf4ac5bd51b551e86b165ca22fa425d628 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315/EFTA02833315.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833315.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 15665, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.09, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT G", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833315" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28a8bff83606ec38dfca53acf5a4a2cae5e4ca58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT H FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..800f7c3d6b0c88a2bc96afb839a89a4a36f134bc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322/EFTA02833322.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833322.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT H \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833322" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0c097281e7754065dd60086c468f09842873e67 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT I FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..18c39085120a7c8e128ef8480480320de1cb56f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323/EFTA02833323.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833323.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT I \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 312.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 312.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833323" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd047e85e9474d5d5c47882025e8621fa382ec15 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.md @@ -0,0 +1,727 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +# GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here Cross Examination I. AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE A. | 1 1 2 4 4 5 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| +| 1. | 5 | +| 2. | 10 | +| 3. | 12 | +| Use Fake Names c. | 15 | +| 2. | 18 | +| D. | 19 | +| E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present | 19 | +| Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names F. | 17 | +| Artifice G. | 20 | +| Serves No Legitimate Purpose | 20 | +| H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell | 20 | +| 1. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED | | +| SECOND CIRCUIT LAW | 23 | +| H. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE 23 | | +| Statements May Be Admitted | 24 | +| B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements | 25 | + +## III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE 28 + +- A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of 29 + +- B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation 32 + +- 1. Applicable Law 32 +- 2. Discussion 32 + +- C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to 36 + +- 1. Applicable Law 36 +- 2. Discussion 37 + +- D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible 40 + +- E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted 41 + +## IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS 42 + +- V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY 43 + +## VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE 46 + +## VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED 49 + +- A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence 50 + +- B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation — May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives. 51 + +## VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME 54 + +## IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT 55 + +# X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED 56 + +| XI. | MS. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING | +|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| +| TRIAL. WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE | 57 | +| CONCLUSION | 59 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +## Cases + +| Alford v. United States, | 282 U.S. 687 (1931) | 20, 29 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| +| Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., | 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) | 23 | +| Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., | 1998 WL 665138 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998) | 2 | +| Bowen v. Maynard, | 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986) | 32, 35, 41, 42 | +| Boyce v. ffi | , 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) | 53 | +| Campanella v. O'Flynn, | No. 10-CV-6236L, 2012 WL 2194556 (W.D.N.Y. June 14, 2012) | 19 | +| Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, | 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) | 3 | +| v. Mississippi, | 410 U.S. 284 (1973). | 28 | +| CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., | 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir.I995) | 19 | +| Crane v. Kentucky, | 476 U.S. 683 (1986) | 36 | +| Crowe v. Bolduc, | 334 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2003) | 30 | +| Curto v. Med. World Commc'ns, Inc., | 783 F. Supp. 2d 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) | 19 | +| Delaware v. Van Arsdall, | 475 U.S. 673 (1986) | 21 | +| Doe v. | Cty., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL 2258313 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2021) | 16 | +| Doe v. Shaba-, | 164 F.R.D. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) | 16 | +| Doe v. Weinstein, | 484 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 16 | +| Esquival-Quintana v. Sessions, | 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). | 46 | +| Ferrier v. Duckworth, | 902 F.2d 545 (7th Cir.) | 54 | +| In re Bonanno, | 344 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1965) | 16 | +| In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., | | No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 | +| WL 4962985 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008) | | 3 | +| Knaust v. City of Kingston, | 157 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1998) | 19 | +| Kyles v. Whitley, | 514 U.S. 419 (1995) | passim | +| Lindsey v. | , 769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1985) | 32, 35, 41, 43 | +| Luce v. United States, | 469 U.S. 38 (1984) | 1 | +| M.K. ex reL Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 | F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Conn. 2008) | 3 | + +| Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LE. Myers Co. Group et at, 937 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) | 2 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1996) | 1 | +| Palocioz v. Hannigan, 962 F.2d 17 (10th Cir. 1992) | 19 | +| People v. Harvey Weinstein, 02335/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) | 16 | +| People v. Harvey Weinstein, 2673/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) | 16 | +| Rapp v. , No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021) | 16 | +| Seymour v. Bathe & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) | 3 | +| 2011) | 31 | +| State v. Ryan Odom 201ICF012120AMB | 18 | +| Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) | 25, 26, 27 | +| TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Musk Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) | 2 | +| (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019) | 2 | +| United States ex rel. Annunziato v. Manson, 425 F. Supp. 1272 (D. Conn. 1977) | 29 | +| United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) | 36 | +| United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 42 | +| United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) | 37, | +| United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) | 37 | +| United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | +| United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30 (24 Cir. 2010) | 27 | +| United States v. 553 F.24 300 (2d Cir. 1977) | 17 | +| United States v. 800 F. App'x 43 (2d. Cir. 2020) | 52 | +| United States v. Corley, No. 13-CR-48 (MN), 2016 WL 9022508 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) | 17 | +| United States v. Crisona, 416 F.24 107 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | +| United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.24 559 (2d Cir. 1991) | 42 | +| 2018) | 17 | +| United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d (2d Cir. 2021) | 52 | +| United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 1994) | 30 | +| United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.24 950 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | + +| United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) | 42 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| United States v. Flores, 945 F.34 687 (2d. Cir. 2019) | 25 | +| United States v. Fratello, 44 F.R.D. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) | 4 | +| United States v. Gangi, I F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) | 19 | +| United States v. Gardner, No. 16-cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) | 56 | +| United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (24 Cir. 2001) | 23 | +| United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-CR-490 (RMB) | 11 | +| 4, 2016) | 26 | +| United States v. Lester, 248 F.24 329 (2d Cir. 1957) | 30 | +| United States v.~, 175 F. App'x 370 (2d Cir. 2006) | 41 | +| United States v. Marti, 421 F.24 1263 (2d Cir. 1970) | 17 | +| United States v. No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890 (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 2005) | 31 | +| United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) | 2 | +| United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2020) | 41 | +| United States v. Overton, No. I5-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017) | 2 | +| United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4'" 158 (2d Cir. 2021) | 28 | +| United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986) | 24, 25, 26 | +| United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997) | 42 | +| United States v. ffi , No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015) 53, | | +| United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000) | 41 | +| United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000) | 42 | +| United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d. Cir. 1990) | 52 | +| United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) | 17 | +| United States v. 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012) | 36 | +| 2010) | 54 | +| v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) | 4 | + +Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Intl PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) 3 + +## Statutes + +| Fla Stat. § 796.07 | 47, 48 | +|-----------------------------------|--------| +| Ha. Stat. § 794.05(1) | 46 | +| New York State Penal Law § 130.55 | 47 | +| NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(AX1) | 46 | +| NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a) | 46 | + +# Other Authorities + +| I McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.) | 26 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) | 51 | +| France Penal Code, Article 227-25 | 46 | +| 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid.(2021 ed.) | 26, 27 | + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 27, 36 | +|----------------------|--------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 35, 36 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | 50, 51 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 803 | 54 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell herby submits her response to the Government's Omnibus Motions in Limine. + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The government's self-described "Motions in Limine" are an ill-founded attempt to: (1) improperly obtain advisory rulings from the Court on an undeveloped factual record; (2) prematurely, and unconstitutionally, force Ms. Maxwell to reveal defense theories, strategies, and cross-examination; (3) improperly limit Ms. Maxwell's defenses; and (4) inappropriately enlist the Court in vouching for the credibility of the accusers by the use of pseudonyms and other artifices. + +For the most part, the issues raised by the government cannot, and should not, be addressed pretrial because the Court lacks the necessary facts to make intelligent rulings. The issues raised under headings H-XI should be denied on this basis alone. The arguments related to the use of pseudonyms and other artifices fails because the limitations suggested by the government will: (1) unconstitutionally restrict Ms. Maxwell's confrontation rights; (2) run afoul of both her right to a public trial and the First Amendment right to public access, and (3) are simply unworkable as a practical matter inviting a mistrial. + +## A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine + +The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984) (explaining that the motion in limine is used to "to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered"); see also Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) ("The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as + +to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LE. Myers Co. Group et at, 937 F. Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F. Supp. at 287. + +The way the government has raised its purported "in limine" motions is disfavored. Like the government's motions here, where a party "endeavor[s] to strike in shotgun fashion at whole topics and sources of prospective evidence, out of context and before any specific objection against its proper backdrop is raised...," the strategy is "impermissible" and the motions should be denied. 7VT Recs. v. Island Del Jain Musk Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). + +Where the in limine motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument regarding various defenses it "is plainly improper." United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903 (JGK), 2019 WL 5285043, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019); see also United States v. Overton. No. 15-CR-95, 2017 WL 6347084, at \*2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423, 427-28 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). + +## B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here + +Out of context, the government attempts to preclude whole categories of potential defenses, argument, and cross examination before one witness has testified. See Sections III, IV, IX ("The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument"), V (The Court Should Preclude Challenges), VII ("the Court Should Require the Defense"), VIII ("The Court should not Permit"), X ("The Court Should Preclude the Defense"), and XI ("The Defendant Should be Precluded"). + +These arguments am about things that have not occurred and Maxwell's counsel understand the rules of evidence and the law. Much of what may or may not happen in this trial will depend on the evidence produced by the government. Ms. Maxwell has no burden of proof and is not required to respond to hypothetical demands or provide previews about how she intends to cross examine witnesses. Consistent with prudent judicial practices, the Court should decline to rule on these hypothetical complaints. See Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ("In light of the uncertainties surrounding these legal issues, a potentially unnecessary, and thus merely advisory, ruling should be avoided."); In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 WL 4962985, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008), affd sub nom. Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) ("However, this request amounts to a demand for an advisory ruling as to the effect of an entirely hypothetical future pleading that might be asserted given the occurrence of contingent future events."); M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233, 242 (D. Conn. 2008) ("The Court again declines to provide an advisory ruling on a matter that is not yet ripe."); and Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Intl PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010- CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955, at \*2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) ("The Court will not issue an advisory ruling on a theoretical affirmative defense that may not actually be asserted."). + +The government's overreaching extends to areas that cannot be anticipated prior to witness testimony, and the trial court's power to limit (or not limit) cross-examination is often best exercised after hearing the direct testimony of the witnesses. United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Crisona, 416 F.2d 107, 117 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 961 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1969). + +**C. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination** + +Unless and until the prosecution has established its prima facie case, the defendant “is not called upon to determine whether to produce documents and material normally privileged. It imposes a price on the exercise of a constitutional right to require a pre-trial decision of the trial tactics which are normally determined by a defense lawyer following the completion of the prima facie case.” *United States v. Fratello*, 44 F.R.D. 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Moreover, the decision to prosecute someone criminally carries with it certain consequences: + +Under our constitutional system, a criminal defendant—need not do anything at all to defend himself, and certainly he cannot be required to help convict himself. Rather he has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to: “Prove it!” + +*United States v. Wilkerson*, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 972 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (quoting [REDACTED] v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 112 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting)). + +Much of the government’s argument is directed at causing the defense to provide a preview of its strategy and the substance of defense cross examination which should be rejected by the Court. + +**I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE** + +The government proposes various false or partial names for some of the accusers and witnesses. The request is not supported by any factual declaration. No evidence exists suggesting that any witness has been or would be threatened by Ms. Maxwell. None of the witnesses are minors. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +![](_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names + +The government's motion to use false names and suppress evidence from the public falls short in both evidence and analysis. Other than conclusory arguments by lawyers, the motion contains no facts supporting any of the claims related to future reputational harm or embarrassment. As the proponent of this extraordinary measure, the government cannot simply hypothesize that, as to adult women the use of false names here will "protect [their] well-being, prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences. including loss of employment, and prevent the victims from being harassed by the press and others." Mot. at 10. It is the government's burden to establish that, + +![](_page_22_Picture_4.jpeg) + +mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions, for any such rule would foreclose meaningful inquiry" into the issue. In re BINICIMIO, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965). + +![](_page_22_Picture_6.jpeg) + +The movant bears the burden of proof to show factors that outweigh the ordinary presumption of judicial openness. Doe v. Cty., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at ■3 **(N.D. III. June 3, 2021). And, in the context of maintaining an alleged victim's anonymity for the types of reasons proffered by the government, "conclusory statements are of limited utility." Rapp v. No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WI., 1738349, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021). Even if the government's motion was supported by any evidence, "claims of public humiliation and embarrassment" due to "significant media attention... are not sufficient grounds for allowing" an accuser to proceed anonymously. "Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, 361-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying motion to proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who alleged that rapper Tupac Shakur assaulted her despite the media attention the case likely was to attract); see also Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying motion to proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who alleged that movie producer Harvey Weinstein assaulted her despite that Weinstein's infamy was likely to cause significant media attention); see also People v. Harvey Weinstein. Indictment Nos. 02335/2018 and 2673/19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)** + +**With no analysis relating to the facts of this case, the government has cobbled together a variety of cases holding that under certain limited circumstances the identity of alleged sex assault victims may be publicly suppressed. Generally, these cases fall into a few overlapping categories:** + +[REDACTED] 17 (2) alleged minor victims who are truly minors at the time of their testimony18; and (3) alleged victims who demonstrated legitimate safety concerns.19 + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +18 Mot. at 7 *United States v. Corley*, No. 13-CR-48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016)(minor victim after trial). + +19 Mot. at 5, *United States v. Marti*, 421 F.2d 1263, 1265 (2d Cir. 1970)(The government claims this case involved the identity of the witness, which is not true. The only issue was the address of the witness, "Pelletier" identified in the opinion: "Since counsel could not insure that Pelletier or his family would not be harassed, it was perhaps not unreasonable for them to view as too costly the court's condition on allowing Pelletier to answer." *Id.*); *United States v. Urena*, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(allegations of racketeering, murder, and narcotics trafficking identity of officers suppressed); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977)(kidnapping, witness was threatened and was in witness protection program-only address of witness, not identity was restricted); Mot. at 7, *United States v. Dan Zhong*, No. 16-CR-614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)(victims of the alleged forced labor conspiracy-concerns for safety) + +![](_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg) + +2. + +![](_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg) + +![](_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg) + +D. + +The events that are the subject matter of the S2 Indictment are alleged to have occurred decades ago. Thus, the witnesses are adults with established lives and careers. + +![](_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Accordingly, cases involving actual minors and the reasons for shielding their names in sex assault cases are not present here. + +# E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present + +Another reason that some courts have agreed to allow the use of false names is where the witness has a legitimate safety concern. None has been articulated here. Ms. Maxwell has never interacted with these witnesses, nor has she threatened them. + +F. Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded — Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice and + +Apparently, the government contends that perform sexual acts by was induced to who has never met, spoken to, or identified Ms. Maxwell. Because this potential witness was only recently disclosed, investigation into her background is ongoing and Ms. Maxwell will need to supplement this response. However, the government has not made any compelling factual showing about why secrecy is necessary here. + +G. Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose + +The government also requests that the identities of various witnesses, , also be shielded form the public because, according to the government, revealing the identity of the witness will reveal the identity of the accuser. As noted supra, Given these facts, pseudonyms for the witnesses is a futile gesture. + +## H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell + +"Cross-examination of a witness is a matter of right." Permissible purposes of crossexamination are that the witness may be identified in her community so that independent testimony may be sought and offered of her reputation for veracity in her own neighborhood, that the jury may interpret the testimony by knowledge of the witness's environment, and that facts may be brought out tending to discredit the witness by showing that her testimony was untrue or biased. Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). The Confrontation Clause of the + +Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against her. The right to confront means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically. The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. *Delaware v. Van Arsdall*, 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986). + +Here, the government seeks to strip Ms. Maxwell of her right to confront the witnesses. The identity, occupations, and backgrounds of the accusers is material and relevant to the defense of this case for many reasons. First, [REDACTED]. A jury should be able to evaluate the testimony knowing that [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] including when the allegations may or may not have occurred, whether any action attributed to Ms. Maxwell could be considered “grooming,” and the resources available to the accusers at any point in time. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Each of these items of cross-examination will further expose the identities of the witness. + +[REDACTED] background and circumstances are also relevant. [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Being part of the government’s case here obviated any need for actual proof to the fund. + +The identity of the lawyers for the accusers may also be the subject of cross examination. The lawyers for the accusers have cooperated and shared information with each other and the government for years. + +Substantial impeachment evidence exists as to under her real name, not a pseudonym. Ms. Maxwell should not be forced to compromise the full effect of this evidence by use of a first name only. + +The government's proposal also creates substantial possibility for confusion. + +Given the age of the allegations and the potential for confusion by the witnesses the use of first names or fake names is untenable. + +Should the Court grant the government's request it will also be confusing, and impossible to neutrally explain to the jury why some accusers are publicly identified by their real names while others are not. Any explanation will be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. + +here is no legitimate reason for fake names. The request by the government is tactical. Having the court instruct the jury that, as a result of "privacy" or "safety" concerns, certain accusers or witnesses are being shielded affords the witness Court-sanctioned sympathy and credibility at Ms. Maxwell's expense. To be clear, any accuser who testifies that Ms. Maxwell participated in sex abuse or sex trafficking is not telling the truth. Anonymizing false statements allows additional freedom to fabricate and impede potential witnesses from coming forward with countervailing testimony. + +## I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW + +At this point, everyone associated with this litigation knows the definition of a "judicial document." In this Circuit, "them is a presumption in favor of public inspection and copying of any item entered into evidence at a public session of a trial." Application of Nat'l Broad. Co.. inc., 635 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir. 1980). Moreover, after "the evidence has become known to the members of the public, including representatives of the press, through their attendance at a public session of court, it would take the most extraordinary circumstances to justify restrictions on the opportunity of those not physically in attendance at the courtroom to see and hear the evidence, when it is in a form that readily permits sight and sound reproduction." Id. Where the requested documents were introduced at trial, the strong weight to be accorded the public right of access to judicial documents was largely derived from the role those documents played in determining litigants' substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III -- and from the need for public monitoring of that conduct. United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 2001). + +Suppression of any exhibit that contains an accuser's name in this case is doubly problematic -- many of the anticipated exhibits are "judicial documents" from other proceedings that have previously been made public or documents already accessible by the public. There is nothing confidential about the exhibits and neither the exhibits nor the names of the witnesses should be redacted or suppressed. + +## II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE + +The government seeks a pre-trial ruling that certain unspecified "prior consistent statements" of the accusers will be admissible at trial if the defense "challenges the credibility of the testimony" of the accusers in some unspecified way. Mot. at 17. Under the government's apparent view, any credibility challenge will permit any prior statement of the government's + +choosing to be admitted, in any quantity or as to any topic. That's not the law. Because a number of foundational prerequisites must be satisfied prior to determining that any given "prior statement" is admissible, the government's request for a pre-trial ruling on prior consistent statements calls for an inappropriate advisory opinion. Not one of the cases cited by the government in its Motion concerned a pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of a prior consistent statement, and with good reason. If the government had wanted the Court to rule pretrial on the admissibility of prior consistent statements, it could have told the Court exactly which statements they will seek to admit, the circumstances of those prior statements, whether they are in fact consistent with specific anticipated trial testimony, and whether the other foundational prerequisites, including Rule 403, will be satisfied and how. Having failed to provide the Court with these particulars, the government's motion in limine should be denied. + +## A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted + +First, the 2014 Amendments were not nearly as ground-breaking as the Motion suggests. The Amendments did not, contrary to the government's implication, change the grounds for admissibility of prior consistent statements. See Mot. at 17-18. According to the Advisory Committee Notes: + +"The [2014] amendment does not change the traditional and well-accepted limits on bringing prior consistent statements before the factfinder for credibility purposes. It does not allow impermissible bolstering of a witness.... The amendment does not make any consistent statement admissible that was not admissible previously — the only difference is that prior consistent statements otherwise admissible for rehabilitation are now admissible substantively as well." + +As the government correctly notes, prior to 2014 the Second Circuit, like many other circuits, admitted prior consistent statements "outside of the context of Rule 80I(d)(1)(B) in order to rehabilitate a witness after certain attacks on credibility." Mot. at 18 (citing United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d Cir. 1986)). The effect of the 2014 Amendment then, as the Second Court explained, was to allow for such statements to be admitted "substantively as well," rather than as non-substantive rehabilitation. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 705-06 (2d. Cir. 2019) (amendment "extend( s) substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness — such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory") (emphasis in original). Thus, consistent with Pierre and other pre-2014 cases, prior consistent statements may be admissible to rehabilitate a witness or to explain a faulty memory, and any such evidence will now be admitted substantively, but the limits on those prior methods of admitting prior consistent statements for rehabilitation remain applicable post-2014. + +# B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements + +The question at trial will be which of the supposedly prior consistent statements are admissible and for what purpose. On that question, the government is silent. See Mot. at 19 (government "intends to call a number of witnesses to introduce certain of the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein") (emphasis added). By not specifying in their Motion which statements they seek to introduce or the specific purposes for which they will move for admission, the government has deprived the defense of an opportunity to challenge the statements' admissibility or for the Court to rule on the admissibility pre-trial. Rule 801(d)(1)(B)'s amendment in 2014 did not alter the landscape so much that any attack on the accusers' credibility will allow any prior consistent statement. Important limits remain on the admissibility of prior consistent statements. + +If the government moves to admit particular statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive under Rule 801(d)(1)(3)(i), as the Motion suggests they will, the evidentiary hurdles established by Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995), still apply. In particular, the government must show proof that the motive for fabrication or improper purpose arose after the purported statement. In Tome, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the + +motive to fabricate arose immediately after the supposed child-abuse, and thus statements made to others, months or years later, were inadmissible under now-Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i). The same is true here. The improper influence and motive to fabricate occurred, in several instances, many years ago, shortly after the purported abuse occurred, and before the recently-disclosed "consistent" statements. 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6753 Consistent Premotive Statements (2021 ed.) ("As in Tome, prior consistent statements will frequently be tainted by the same alleged motive to lie that is claimed to impugn the witness' trial testimony. If so, Rule 801(d)(I)(B)(i) does not permit their introduction. This result has favorable policy implications. As Tome stresses, the general exclusion of prior consistent statements ensures that 'the whole emphasis of the trial' does not "shift to the out-of-court statements" as opposed to 'the in-court ones."). + +If the government instead offers prior consistent statements to rehabilitate their accusers or explain their faulty memory under Rule 80I(d)(1)(B)(ii), the "offered prior consistent statement must serve to rehabilitate the witness's credibility on the same ground upon which the witness's credibility was attacked." United States. v. Karl Roye, Crim. No. 3:15-cr-29 (JBA), 2016 WL 4147133 at \*1 (D. Conn. Aug. 4, 2016) (citing 1 McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.) ("The general test of admissibility is whether evidence of the witness's ... consistent statements is logically relevant to explain the impeaching fact. The rehabilitating facts must meet the impeachment with relative directness. The wall, attacked at one point, may not be fortified at another, distinct point.")). As was the case prior to the 2014 Amendments, "a prior consistent statement may only be used for rehabilitation "when the statement has a probative force bearing on credibility beyond merely showing repetition." United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d. Cir. 1986). + +Finally, admissibility of the number and type of prior consistent statements still is guided by Rules 401 and 403, including whether the prior consistent statements are reliable, cumulative, or unfairly prejudicial; the Court may choose to exclude prior consistent statements when the quantity and type of prior consistent statements form the bulk of the government's case rather than the trial testimony of the witnesses. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 165 (1995) ("If the Rule were to permit the introduction of prior statements as substantive evidence to rebut every implicit charge that a witness' in-court testimony results from recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, the whole emphasis of the trial could shift to the out-of-court statements, not the in-court ones."); supra. § 6754 ("The danger of substantive use of the prior statement remains on the unfair prejudice side of the ledger."). "One thing the courts all agree on is that there is 'no rule admitting all prior consistent statements simply to bolster the credibility of a witness." Id. (emphasis supplied). + +As to introduction of these prior consistent statements through other witnesses, the Second Circuit is clear that "where the declarant has already testified and the prior consistent statement is proffered through the testimony of another witness, the Rule's 'subject to crossexamination' requirement is satisfied if the opposing party is not denied the opportunity to recall the declarant to the stand for cross-examination concerning the statement." United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, if the government elicits prior consistent statements from third-party witnesses, then they will be obliged to make the declarant-Accuser available for recall to be subjected to cross examination concerning those statements. + +In sum, the Court's rulings regarding admissibility of prior consistent statements can only come at the time the government proffers them, explains the purpose for which they are offered (whether under subpart (i) or (ii) of Rule 80I(d)(1)(B)) and clears the other evidentiary hurdles + +for admissibility. To the extent the government seeks a pretrial ruling that all prior consistent statements may be admitted after any attack on the accusers' credibility, this Court should deny such a request. + +## III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE + +"The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). + +The government seeks to cripple Ms. Maxwell's ability to present a meaningful defense to the charges by trying to preclude evidence and argument that is relevant and admissible and central to Ms. Maxwell's defense. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from offering evidence and argument concerning the following facts: (1) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Jeffrey Epstein, which resolved the USAO-SDFUPalm Beach FBI investigation into Epstein (the "Florida Investigation") in 2008; (2) the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell in its proposed indictment and did not immunize her by name in the NPA; and (3) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") charged only Epstein in the first indictment in this case, and did + +not charge Ms. Maxwell until later in its investigation (the “New York Investigation”). *See Mot.* at 24. Contrary to the government’s assertion, this evidence is directly relevant to, and probative of, issues of consequence in this case and is therefore admissible on several grounds. Indeed, the government’s motion seems more calculated to preclude evidence that may be embarrassing or reflect badly on the government, rather than evidence that may be inadmissible. + +**A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of [REDACTED]** + +The government has missed a straightforward reason why the NPA is itself admissible: the terms of the NPA apply to [REDACTED] —and it may therefore be used to show their bias and interest. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Like any witness subject to a cooperation agreement or immunity agreement, the defense is entitled to cross-examine [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The NPA also applies to [REDACTED] and can be used to show her financial interest. Under the terms of the NPA, Epstein was required to pay for a lawyer for all the individuals + +whom the government identified as a victim of his offenses so that they could sue him for damages in civil lawsuits. See NPA at 4 was one of those individuals. The NPA further stipulated that Epstein could not contest his liability in those lawsuits and could not contest the amount of money damages as long as it was agreed upon by the parties. See id + +.ued Epstein under this provision of the NPA and eventually settled with him for Accordingly, the NPA is relevant and admissible, and the defense is entitled to use it to cross-examin bout her financial interest. See United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 1957) ("it is permissible to show (on cross-examination] that the witness is financially interested in the outcome of the litigation); Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidence that a trial witness has a financial incentive in the outcome of the trial is "classic evidence of bias, which is routinely permitted on cross-examination"); United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (the question of whether witness had financial interest in outcome of trial is "critical" to the jury's determination of credibility). + +There is also little risk that the jury will be confused by the introduction of the NPA. The Florida Investigation, which the NPA concluded, will already be a significant part of the government's case-in-chief. It is clear from the government's witness list and exhibit list that it intends to call at least two members of the Palm Beach Police Department, to introduce various items of evidence that were recovered from the search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October 2005. These include numerous message pad slips as well as photographs and video of the exterior and interior of the Palm Beach residence. See GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A through GX-4-K.; GX-201 through GX-296. + +Accordingly, the Florida Investigation will already be a central part of the case presented to the jury. It will not be confusing or distracting to elicit evidence of how that investigation concluded, as the government contends. See Mot. at 27. In fact, the opposite is true. Without that evidence, the jury will be left to speculate how and when the Florida Investigation ended, and whether Ms. Maxwell was charged in connection with that investigation. Accordingly, eliciting evidence of how the Florida Investigation ended, including who was (and was not) charged in the proposed indictment, and who was (and was not) immunized in the NPA, will be necessary to avoid jury confusion and speculation, as well as prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +The government also suggests that introducing the NPA would require an extended "trial within a trial" concerning the history of its creation, which was the subject of the 290-page report from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (the "OPR Report"). Mot. at 27-28. Not so. The defense has no interest in probing the minutiae of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the NPA. It seems even less likely that the government would do so, given that the OPR Report found that the NPA was "flawed" and was extremely critical of how the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, handled the resolution of the investigation. OPR Report at 284. The risk of delay or juror confusion by putting the NPA at issue in the trial is therefore illusory. It should not be excluded under Rule 403." + +20 The NPA is also not hearsay. It is an agreement that has independent legal significance and is a "verbal act" "containing legally operative language affecting the rights of the parties" that does not qualify as hearsay. Spencer v. City of Al=to4c, No. 06 Civ. 2852 (KMW), 2011 WL 13257640, at \*I (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 5, 2011); United States v.M, No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890, at \*5 (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 2005); Fed. R. Evid. 80I(c), committee notes, subdivision (c). + +### B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation + +## 1. Applicable Law + +The Supreme Court has recognized that it is entirely proper for the defense to explore and challenge "the thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995). For example, the defense may elicit evidence and argue that the government's disregard for inconsistencies in the evidence shows a willingness to accept allegations against the defendant without carefully and critically evaluating their veracity or seeking other corroborating evidence, which calls into question the integrity of the investigation. Id. at 445, 448 (the police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which "undermine[d] the ... integrity of the investigation"). Similarly, the defense may attack the government's investigation for its poor quality and lack of thoroughness, including its failure to corroborate key witness testimony. See Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 613 (10th Cir. 1986). For all of these reasons and others, the defense may "attack[] the reliability of the investigation" and even "the decision to charge the defendant." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446; see also id. (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.]") and Lindsey v. 769 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir. 1985) (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential... for the ... discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")). + +# 2. Discussion + +Here, the NPA, the government's prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein are all relevant and admissible to allow Ms. Maxwell to challenge the "thoroughness" and "good faith" of the New York investigation leading to the charges against her. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445. + +It is clear from the documents produced by the government that the NPA was the mason why the New York Investigation was opened in late 2018. On a telephone call with the prosecutors on February 11, 2021, former AUSA confirmed that she met with attorneys for some of Epstein's accusers on February 29, 2016, when she was the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator at the USAO-SDNY, but ultimately did not open an investigation at that time. See Ex. Gat SDNY\_GM\_02742887-91. In late November 2018, however, Julie K. published a series of articles in the Miami Herald entitled "Perversion of Justice," which were sharply critical of the NPA and the perceived leniency that Epstein received to resolve the Florida Investigation. confirmed that she read the Miami Herald articles when they came out and "was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with [her] assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016." Id. at SDNY\_GM\_02742892. further stated that soon afterwards, she spoke to prosecutors in the Public Corruption Unit, including some of the prosecutors on this case, and discussed the Miami Herald articles and her February 29, 2016 meeting with the attorneys. See id. Shortly after that, the New York Investigation was opened. + +It is also clear from the documents produced by the government, that the government initially focused its investigation on Epstein and did not begin to investigate Ms. Maxwell until after Epstein died on August 10, 2019, roughly one month after he was arrested. To give just one example, the New York FBI did not speak to a single one of the four accusers in this case until after Epstein's death. + +With Epstein dead, the media focus shifted immediately to Ms. Maxwell who was vilified as Epstein's principal accomplice. In addition, Epstein's accusers were extremely upset, having been denied the opportunity to see Epstein face the allegations against him in open court. Then-Attorney General William Barr publicly vowed that "[a]ny co-conspirators should not rest easy. The victims deserve justice, and we will ensure they get it."21 Thereafter, in announcing the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell at a choreographed press conference on July 2, 2020, Acting United States Attorney Audrey Strauss boldly announced: "This case against Ghislaine Maxwell is the prequel to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein." See https://youtu.be/hGAsZthBKCE. + +The defense is entitled to elicit this evidence, as well as evidence of the public outcry and media scrutiny that followed the Miami Herald articles and Epstein's death, to argue that the government initially focused the New York investigation on Epstein and charged only him in the initial July 2, 2019 indictment in order to rectify the perceived injustice that the NPA was a "sweetheart deal" for Epstein. When Epstein died, however, the government had to scramble to quickly build a case against his purported co-conspirators, including Ms. Maxwell. The defense is further entitled to argue that the public pressure to charge Epstein's co-conspirators and the attendant focus on Ms. Maxwell caused the government to engage in a hasty and sloppy investigation in which they ignored inconsistencies in the evidence, accepted the witness' statements at face value without testing them or verifying them with corroborating evidence, and generally exhibited a "remarkably uncritical attitude" to the evidence against Ms. Maxwell. Kyles at 445, 448 (police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with + +21 8/12/2019 Remarks of Attorney General William Ban to the Fraternal Order of Police (New Orleans, LA, Aug. 12, 2019) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-william-pbarr-delivers-remarks-grand-lodge-fraternal-order-polices-64th. + +inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which "undermined the ... integrity of the investigation"). + +Ms. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of the NPA, the government's decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a dim view of the average juror's intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27- 28. That is not hard to follow.22 Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23 + +22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations would create an "extensive side-show" because the investigations "reach[] back 20 years." Mot. at 27. If the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is simple: don't charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old. + +23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial. + +## C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO•SDFL Is Relevant to Credibility + +## 1. Applicable Law + +The Second Circuit has rejected the position that evidence of government charging decisions is never admissible by a criminal defendant. United States v. M, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) ("We hold ... that the government's charging decisions may be proper subjects for cross-examination and argument if otherwise admissible."). "Such an all or nothing approach undermines the longstanding principle that 'the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.' Id. (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly true when the evidence "is central to the defendant's claim of innocence." Id. (categorical exclusion of government charging decisions "infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused" and threatens "the right of the accused to require the prosecution's case to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing" (internal citations omitted)). + +In determining the admissibility of such evidence, a court must evaluate its "relevance and probative value." Id. A court may not exclude evidence of government charging decisions if it is relevant, admissible, and its probative value satisfies Rule 403. Id. at 246-48. The standard for relevance is "very low." Id. (quoting United States v. AI-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 176 (2d Cir. 2008)). Evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Moreover, Rule 403 "favors admissibility." M, 692 F.3d at 247. + +"[E]vidence is only excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudice of jury confusion." Id. (emphasis in original).24 + +# 2. Discussion + +After a roughly two-year investigation during which the Palm Beach FBI interviewed dozens of alleged victims of Epstein—none of whom implicated Ms. Maxwell, including e USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell. Instead, the USAO-SDFL charged Epstein whorn ad accused of facilitating Epstein's alleged sex trafficking. The fact tha first implicated and only later implicated Ms. Maxwell is directly relevant to the credibility of and the government's acceptance of her later testimony against Ms. Maxwell in 2020, which forms the basis of the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (government's decision to charge two different people for the same crime on two different occasions based on the testimony of the same cooperating witness is relevant "to the witness's credibility" and "the government's view of the [witness's] credibility"). + +Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge Ms. Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and a substantive sex trafficking offense for allegedly recruiting or obtaining" o engage in commercial sex acts with Epstein. See S2 Ind. (Dkt. 187)11 22-27. But in her first and only interview with the Palm Beach FBI on August 7, 2007, + +24 The government relegates its discussion of to a footnote in its Applicable Law section. even though it is the controlling Second Circuit precedent on t ue. See Gov't Mot.at 23 n.8. Instead, the government cites several cases that were decided before rejected the categorical approach to precluding evidence of prior charging decisions. See id. at 22-23 (citing United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. Supp. 2d 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); and United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (1BW), 2009 WL 185725 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009). The Court should give these cases little or no weight. + +Agent ;ever once mentioned Ms. Maxwell? See 3505-005. Instead, she told Special that (1) would call her on the phone from New York to schedule the massages, (2) led her upstairs to the massage room and prepared the massage table, (3) called her on one occasion to tell her that Epstein had bought her concert tickets, and (4) took nude photographs of her for Epstein when she was 16 years old. See 3505-005 at 2-4. On the basis of testimony and other related documentary evidence, the USAO-SDFL charged Epstein , and not Ms. Maxwell, with a substantive count of sex trafficking in a proposed indictment that Special Agent presented to the grand jury on March 18, 2008. See 3505-018 at 28 (Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment alleged that "Jeffrey Epstein procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18"). + +2007 testimony stands in stark contrast to her first interview with the New York FBI almost thirteen years later, on July 17, 2020, when she specifically recalled that on her first visit to the residence she was greeted at the door by "Ghislaine Maxwell" and recounted what Ms. Maxwell said to her. See 3505-068 at 1-2. further described seeing Ms. Maxwell multiple times at the residence and having "multiple conversations" with her about sexual topics, and claimed, among other things, that Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massages, paid her for the massages on a few occasions, sent her gifts, and offered to help her get a passport so that she could travel with Epstein. See id. at 2-4. In subsequent + +25made a passing reference to "an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent" whom she saw at the Palm Beach residence the first time she went. 3505-005 at 1. But even assuming, arguendo, that Accuser-4 was referring to Ms. Maxwell (which we do not concede), she did not implicate Ms. Maxwell in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking in any way. + +interviews, went even further, claiming that Ms. Maxwell saw her naked several times and even fondled breasts on one occasion. See 3505-074 at 3. + +Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment is the same as Count Six of the S2 Indictment and it is based on the exact same evidence that the government proposes to introduce to support Count Six; namely, the testimony of and related documentary evidence. See GX-I-A through GX- I-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A through GX-4-K (message pad slips); GX-55 1 phone records); GX-801-803 (FedEx records). The only difference is that changed her story and accused Ms. Maxwell thirteen years later when she was interviewed by the New York FBI. The fact that testimony led to two different charging decisions on two different occasions is relevant to her credibility and the government's acceptance of her differing testimony. The decision by the USAO-SDFL not to charge Ms. Maxwell in 2008 is therefore relevant and admissible. See Borrero, 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2. + +This evidence could be elicited without hearsay. Special Agent had firsthand knowledge that Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the proposed SDFL indictment because she presented the indictment to the grand jury. See 3505-018 at 28:5-8. And it should not be excluded under Rule 403. The viability of Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment rise and fall on the credibility of-. Moreover, the government's decision to credit 2020 testimony, despite its obvious inconsistencies with her 2007 testimony, goes to the thoroughness and good faith of the New York investigation. The fact that Ms. Maxwell was not charged in 2008 is highly probative of both issues and is not substantially outweighed by the risk of juror confusion or speculation. It is therefore admissible. + +## D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible + +The government's motion to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence about the investigative steps taken in the Florida Investigation and the New York Investigation, and the duration of those investigations (see Mot. at 29-32), is entirely off base and breathtaking in the scope of what it seeks to restrict. It is as if the government will not tolerate any questioning about its investigations at all. That is certainly not the law. For example, the decision to interview a witness is an investigative step. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about who they spoke to and when they spoke to them is irrelevant? Similarly, the decision to issue a subpoena for documents is an investigative step. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about which documents they subpoenaed and when they subpoenaed them is irrelevant? Furthermore, the government will seek to offer numerous items of evidence collected in both the Florida and New York Investigations. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about when those investigations began and ended is irrelevant? Surely not. Such questions are entirely appropriate and will yield relevant, admissible evidence. The government cannot possibly try to prevent the defense from asking these types of valid questions or from calling the case agents as witnesses to answer them. + +The government seems to be conflating "investigative steps" with "investigative techniques," even though the defense's Touhy letter does not request testimony from the case agents about "investigative techniques." See Mot., Ex. A (requesting testimony "concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents"). The defense is aware of the rulc that it may comment on the absence of proof in the record, but it is not permitted to argue that the government should have used any + +particular "investigative technique" to prepare its case. See United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19, 24 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order); United States v. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order); United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). We do not intend to violate that rule. + +Nevertheless, conducting a shoddy investigation is not an "investigative technique." As previously discussed, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence and argument challenging the "thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445; see also id. at 446 (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.]") and Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042 (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential... for the ... discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")). + +As the people with the most knowledge of the scope and progress of the investigations, the case agents are the most appropriate witnesses for the defense to call to explore these topics. And because the government has assiduously avoided calling them in its case-in-chief, the defense must call them in its own case. It is meritless for the government, at this stage of the case, to try to preclude entire topics or areas of questioning, or to preclude the defense from calling the case agents at all. The Court should not permit this. If particular questions to the case agents are objectionable, those objections can be addressed at trial. + +## FL A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted + +The government asserts that the defense should be precluded from calling the case agents as witnesses unless and until it provides a proffer identifying a "proper basis for their testimony." Gov't Mot. at 32-33. The defense already did so in its Touhy letter and the government has cited + +no authority indicating that more is required. Indeed, the government's demand for a proffer is nothing more than an attempt to force the defense to spell out exactly what it plans to ask the case agents and reveal its defense strategy. The Court should reject this demand. + +## IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS + +The government moves to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence and argument "regarding the government's supposed motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant." Mot. at 34. Once again, the government's motion reaches too far and should be denied. + +First, as the government points out, challenges to the prosecutors' motives are typically brought by raising claims of "vindictive prosecution," "selective prosecution," or "outrageous government conduct," which must be resolved by the court, not the jury. See United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir. 2011). But the defense is not raising any of those claims. Simply arguing to the jury that the government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein after his death does not imply that the prosecution was the result of the government's "animus toward the defendant" (vindictive prosecution), or was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (selective prosecution), or was so outrageous that "due process considerations" must bar the prosecution (outrageous government conduct). See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 562-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716-17 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559, 565 (2d Cir. 1991). + +Second, for the reasons set forth above, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence of Epstein's death and the timing of the charges against Ms. Maxwell to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 44546; Bowen, 799 F.2d at + +612-13; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. Accordingly, this evidence does not impermissibly question the government's motives and should not be precluded. + +## V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY + +The government again refrains from telling the Court exactly what evidence it expects at trial, yet asks the defense to preview its possible cross-examination or defense-case evidence, in order both to circumvent the Rules of Criminal Procedure's guidelines and this Court's orders as to when the defense must disclose certain evidence. What's more, the government gives only summary suggestions of what the evidence "might" be and then asks the Court to rule definitively that the defense is precluded from challenging that evidence via cross-examination or otherwise. Because this Court cannot rule on the admissibility of impeachment evidence of a non-testifying witness unless and until the government actually elicits testimony concerning such a witness, this motion should be denied or deferred until the appropriate time at trial. + +The government does a poor job of previewing exactly what statements it anticipates offering from others related to It says that "other witnesses are expected to testify about the activities" of those two non-testifying witnesses, "including [unspecified) statements by them," which statements according to the government "will not include any statements ... offered for the truth of the matter asserted or under one of the other exceptions listed under Rule 806." Mot. at 37-38. The government then gives two non-exclusive examples26 but fails to elucidate what exactly the pertinent statements will be, to wit: + +26The government does not give any examples pertaining to therefore it is wholly unclear what statements the government intends to elicit about her or for what purpose. See Mot. at 37-38. and + +(Accuser 4) will testify that (Accuser 5) "recruited" her. Mot. at 38. How? What will Isay that said to her? Is it, "I am here to 'recruit you' to a sex abuse ring founded by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and Ghislaine Maxwell told me what to do, and I first went over there when I was under 18." Or will it simply be, "go over to Jeffrey Epstein's house and he will pay you \$200 to give a massage." The answer to whether or not the "recruitment" statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or is simply offered for the effect on the listener, can only be determined at the time the statement is offered and depends very much on the content of the purported statement. At that time, the government either will or will not be successful in overcoming a hearsay objection and the grounds for the objection; if it is subsequently admitted under one of the exceptions listed under Rule 806, the credibility of the accuser-declarant will become an issue. + +2. will testify that she "personally observed the sexual abuse of" Mot. at 38. According to the government, this testimony will not include any "hearsay statements" from But that assertion is suspect: "Sexual abuse" is a legal phrase. In this case, it is asserted that the sexual contact was "sexual abuse" because the participant ( ) was underage at the time; indeed says that she saw engage in seemingly consensual intercourse with Jeffrey Epstein and outside the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell. So mere observation would not tellwhat she saw was "sexual abuse" unless also said something about her age, and any statement by about her age at the time would be offered for the truth. was both below and above the age of consent during the period of the charged conspiracy; the dates on which supposedly observed anything will be hotly contested at trial.) The government has provided "notice" tha vas a "victim" in this case, and has disclosed a number of exhibits related to her — school records (GX 781-783); employment records (GX 821-22), photo (GX 332)." It is apparent that the government hopes to prove thatwas a "victim" in the sense that she was underage when she had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, without calling her as a witness in this case. Again, if the government offers evidence that the sexual contact observed by abuse" because betweeril kd Mr. Epstein amounts to "sexual was underage, then such testimony would open the door to the mountains of evidence that tends to impeach that assertion. + +Given the failure to specify the statements that will be elicited, the purposes for which those statements qualify as non-hearsay, depriving the defense of an opportunity to brief whether such statements open the door to credibility challenges of the accuser-declarantsand , this Court should deny the motion. + +27 Tellingly, the government failed to provide an exhibit for birth certificate. but did for= See GX 11-15. + +## VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE. + +The government seeks blanket preclusion of evidence or argument that the accusers "consented to sexual abuse." It bears noting that the Indictment does not charge sexual abuse. The charged offenses allege "sexual activity" (Counts One through Four) and "sex trafficking" (Counts Five and Six). + +The age of consent for sexual contact purposes varies by jurisdiction. The offenses charged in the S2 Indictment allege sexual activity with minors and focus on age, rather than mental or physical incapacity. Accordingly, to qualify as sexual activity with a minor, the statute must prohibit sexual acts based at least on age of the purported victim. See Esquival-Quintana trn. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). As the Supreme Court noted, "state criminal codes aid our interpretation of `sexual abuse of a minor' by offering useful context." Id. at 1577 n.3. For purposes of sexual activity alleged in this case, the definition of "minor" varies among states and nations: New York defines "minor" as a person under the age of 1728; Florida: under the age of 1829; United Kingdom: under the age of 1630; France: under the age of 15.31 New Mexico does not have a specific age of consent statute but criminalizes all sexual contact of a minor under the age of 13 when no coercion or force is involved.32 In the context of the charged offense focusing + +28 NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a). + +29 Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1). At the time of the charged offenses in Counts Five and Six, individuals under the age of 18 could be charges with prostitution. In 2016, the law was changed, decriminalizing prostitution of by individuals under the age of 18. + +J0 Sexual Offences Act, Chap. 44. + +Penal Code, Article 227-25. + +12 NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(A)(1). New Mexico criminalizes sexual contact of minor on a child 13 to 18 years old when coercion is involved. § 30-9-12(A)(2). + +solely on the age of the participant, the generic federal definition of minor requires that the age of the alleged victim be the then-current age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual activity was intended or did occur. + +Where the ability or incapacity to consent to sexual activity is age-dependent, the proof must satisfy the elements governed by the statute in effect at time and place where the alleged sexual activity may occur. For each count in the Indictment, age is a predicate element which the government must prove to bar the defense of consent. Counts Two and Four specify violations of New York State Penal Law § 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with a person less than 17 years old.33 For Count Two, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that vas less than 17 years old.34 For Count Four, the government must prove that was less than 17 years old during purported sexual activity.35 For Count Six, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that was under age 18.36 + +Counts One and Three charged conspiracies alleging conduct involving all four accusers identified in the Indictment and multi jurisdictional locations with varying local state laws. Depending on the age of the accusers during the time frame of the conspiracy, consent may be an + +A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when her or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent, except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity by reason of being less that seventeen years old. + +33Section 130.55 — Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree — states in pertinent part: + +Designated a B misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is "shall not exceed three months," (§70.15(2)), far less than the16 months Maxwell has served in pretrial detention. + +m See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +33See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +36 See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +appropriate and viable defense. While the age of consent for Counts Five and Six is 18, at the time of the alleged offense, individuals under the age of 18 could be charged with commission of the crime of prostitution.17 At the time of the charged offenses vas a coconspirator who committed crimes of prostitution chargeable under Florida law. See Fla Stat. § 796.07 ("Prohibiting prostitution and related acts").38 In connection with Counts Five and Six, it is appropriate to raise the defense of consent to engage in prosecution. + +An additional problem with the government's in limine request is that it conflates two very distinct and significant concepts: consent by an accuser as an affirmative defense to alleged unlawful sexual activity and consent to voluntary acts by an accuser. As noted above, the age of the alleged victim and the state in which any alleged act took place may implicate a consent defense. Separately, however, the voluntary acts of an accuser are relevant evidence that is + +- a. To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution. +- b. To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act. +- c. To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. or to permit any person to remain there for such purpose. +- d. To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- e. To offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- f. To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- g. To reside in, enter, or remain in. any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- h. To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection. +- i. To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution. + +J7 In October 2016, the Florida State Senate enacted House Bill 545, which decriminalized prosecution of minors found to be engaging in prostitution. Since 2016, Florida considers minors involved in prostitution victims rather than culprits. + +18 Fla. Stat.§ 796.07(2) sets out all unlawful acts chargeable as prostitution: + +admissible to demonstrate the lack of any intent or knowledge on the part of Ms. Maxwell. As with the other in limine requests, this evidence will need to be evaluated on a question by question basis and it is premature to issue blanket rulings as requested by the government. + +This case poses multi jurisdictional issues that invite various defenses. The government has elected to prosecute, federally, conduct that is quintessentially state-based, and it is bound by its choice. It has charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence, when such conduct did not occur in this case. It has alleged violation of a statute enacted to combat human trafficking, conduct that does not exist in this case. The government has manipulated federal statutes to fit alleged conduct that is not normally prosecuted federally and seeks to preclude defenses responsive to the allegations in the Indictment. It is premature to constrain Ms. Maxwell's defense before trial. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to present evidence and make argument on the issue of consent when and where appropriate. + +## VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED + +The government asks this Court to require that, before Ms. Maxwell refers to or offers evidence of her "absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief, . . . [she] explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible." Mot. at 44. According to the government, evidence that Ms. Maxwell was "absent" when Mr. Epstein allegedly abused certain individuals is actually inadmissible "good acts" evidence because the jury could use it only to conclude that Ms. Maxwell acted in conformity with the prior good acts. Id. The government's argument imagines a duty to provide notice where none exists, and it misunderstands what constitutes prior-act evidence and basic concepts of relevance in the context of a conspiracy where one actor denies knowledge of an illegal + +purpose or agreement with any co-conspirator to facilitate an illegal objective. The ill-founded motion should be denied. + +## A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence. + +At the outset, this Court can deny the government's motion for a simple reason: There is no authority requiring Ms. Maxwell to provide the government with notice of the evidence she intends to offer at trial. To the contrary, when such notice is required, the Rules of Evidence or Procedure make the requirement express. Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), for example, imposes a duty on Ms. Maxwell to make certain disclosures, particularly as they regard expert witnesses and opinions. But the Rule does not require her to identify evidence of her "absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief' and then "explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible." + +Nor does Rule of Evidence 404(b) require notice from the defendant. In fact, the government's invocation of Rule 404(b) actually undermines its motion. In a criminal case, that Rule imposes on the government a duty to provide advance notice of any other-acts evidence it desires to admit at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3).39 The Rule does not impose a similar obligation on a defendant. + +In a criminal case, the prosecutor must: + +- (A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it; +- (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and +- (C) do so in writing before trial or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice. + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3) (emphasis added). + +39 The Rule says: + +Because nothing requires Ms. Maxwell to advise the government in advance of the evidence she intends to admit at trial or why that evidence is relevant, this Court should deny the government's motion. If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement. ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) Opening Statement at Trial ("Defense counsel's opening statement at trial should be confined to a fair statement of the case from defense counsel's perspective, and discussion of evidence that defense counsel reasonably believes in good faith will be available, offered, and admitted."). When the defense offers evidence, the government can make any objections it thinks are appropriate, and this Court can rule on the objections in context. See United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL 5918372, at \*1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) ("Without hearing the evidence in context, this Court cannot enter a blanket pretrial ruling. The government's motion in litnine is therefore denied as premature, without prejudice to the government raising this issue at an appropriate time during trial."). + +## B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation — May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives. + +The government seeks to exclude evidence that "many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein...did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy." Mot. at 42. The government characterizes this evidence as "good acts" of Ms. Maxwell (id. at 41-42); they are neither "good," nor Ms. Maxwell's "acts." Rather, relying on inapposite cases, the government seeks to exclude as "propensity" evidence the fact that Mr. Epstein sexually abused minors (other than the specified Accusers) without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and involvement. The government conveniently overlooks that: + +- the Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a discrete time period; +- the charged conspiracy encompasses females other than the four specified Accusers; +- the government's burden at trial will be to show both an agreement between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to accomplish the specified illegal objectives; +- the government's burden at trial will also encompass proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell had knowledge of the conspiracies' illegal objectives. + +Thus, evidence that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone, or with other co-conspirators, without the knowledge or participation of be admissible as direct evidence of Ms. Maxwell's lack of awareness of or participation in the charged conspiracies. For example, if the government attempts to prove up the conspiratorial agreement or the knowledge of the illegal objective based on a pattern and practice, then evidence that Epstein acted alone or without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge or participation may become relevant. + +Each of the cases cited by the government is readily distinguishable. First, all but one of the cases dealt with specific "good" propensity evidence of the defendant, not the absence of a co-conspirator during "bad" acts by the defendant. See United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2021) (defendant — not a co-conspirator — proffered evidence that on other occasions he did not bribe other potential targets); United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1011 (2d. Cir. 1990) (absence of defendants' discussions about drugs on single occasion not admissible to "disprove government's theory that the defendants congregated ... to discuss the marijuana business"); United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d. Cir. 2020) (summary order) (fact that defendant also ran a legitimate law practice not admissible to disprove he committed bad acts through illegal practice); Boyce v. , 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (defendant's access to other potential victims without engaging in abuse not admissible to establish innocence). Moreover, each of these cases had to do with tendering + +evidence during trial; none stands for the specific relief requested by the government: that "before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence." For the reasons discussed supra in subsection (A), there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that require the defense to disclose its argument or evidence pre-trial in the manner suggested by the government. + +Indeed, the only case cited by the government which dealt with a motion in limine, Judge Matusumoto's decision in United States v. , No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015), actually undercuts the government's position. See Mot. at 43. Although the Court excluded pre-trial evidence of "unrelated prior good conduct, i.e., charitable giving or cooperation with law enforcement," it held: + +To the extent that evidence of good conduct is relevant to the charged conduct (i.e., to establish an alibi) or may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury, the court will consider its introduction at trial. The defendants are cautioned, however, that evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged will not be admitted. + +Id. at ■2. **Thus, the court properly excluded evidence — unrelated to the charged conspiracy — of the defendant's "good" propensity, and it also properly reserved for trial the admissibility of "evidence of good conduct ... relevant to the charged conduct" or as "may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury." Here, too, evidence that the purported conspiracies operated without the knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell during the period charged amounts to direct evidence that the conspiratorial agreement or knowledge of the objectives likewise did not exist. Only after the government has made its opening statements and put on its evidence will the defense even know, much less be in a position to argue, what contrary evidence will be offered. As with the Court in =, this Court should defer ruling on the admissibility of any such evidence until the time it is offered into evidence by the defense.** + +### VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME + +Hearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802. "The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay." Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990). + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. It Evid. 803(1) through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the parties to follow the Rules of Evidence. + +The failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Phanns. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the "'motion to exclude hearsay'... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions...." Denying the motion, the court directed the following solution: "If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule." Id. + +The parties should follow the Rules. Ms. Maxwell intends to do so and will object to evidence she believes is inadmissible at trial. + +## IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT + +This motion in limine, like most of the preceding ones, is another request that the parties, and the Court, abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence or that the Court offer an advisory opinion as to which types of evidence fall within the Rules. As described previously, supra at Preliminary Statement, these are inappropriate motions in limine. It is unclear if the government's real intent in filing the motion is to entice defense counsel to share her intended evidence or arguments for trial in advance of the deadlines set by this Court. In any event, Ms. Maxwell's defense and her evidence depends very much on what evidence the government elicits or argues at trial and in opening statements. + +There are certain longstanding and easily understood rules of evidence which apply to this case. Rule 404(a)(2) permits introduction at trial of a defendant's "pertinent trait," which, if offered, the government may rebut. Rule 405(a) permits evidence of a person's character or character trait by reputation or opinion, which, if offered, the opposing party may then inquire as to relevant specific instances of conduct. Rule 608(a) permits a witness's credibility to be attacked or supported by reputation testimony for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel do not dispute that these rules of evidence apply nor that they all understand the prohibitions on encouraging jury nullification. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel will not argue to the jury that they may acquit if they do not like that law. See United States v. Gardner, No. 16 cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207, at \*6-\*7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) (denying motion in limine regarding jury nullification. because, "[alt this point, it is unclear exactly what is included in the category of "evidence or argument that relates only to jury nullification. Although some + +examples were given, the Court finds that this is too vague a category to grant the relief requested."). + +The government has not explained why they believe that counsel does not understand these rules or what evidence (beyond "charitable works" or "evidence of her family history") that they expect to be offered at trial. If the topic of "charitable works" comes up in the government's case, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's "charitable works" may become relevant. If the topic of Ms. Maxwell's family history is elicited or argued by the government, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's family history may become relevant. One wonders if the government is suggesting these topics because it intends to try to elicit some testimony on these topics and then preclude Ms. Maxwell from responding. If that were the case, then the government should have said so in their Motion. Regardless. there is no reason for the Court to enter any orders on this topic. Ms. Maxwell will tender evidence on cross examination and in her defense case that is relevant. The government is free to make any objections it deems appropriate at that time, with reference to any evidence the government has already elicited from the witnesses and in opening statements. + +# X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED + +The government would like nothing better than for the Court to require defense counsel to have their hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped while the accusers, and related witnesses, testify under anonymity, If the government wants to preclude the interposing of defenses, it should dismiss the case. + +The government is not and should not be privy to the defenses irate ''se at trial + +![](_page_64_Picture_65.jpeg) + +The government has the burden of proving the charges in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense bears no burden and is not obligated to disclose defense theory or strategy unless required by statute. The government seems overly concerned that the jury will be confused, a reference it uses 24 times throughout its Motions *in Limine*, and that the government will be highly prejudiced. Any confusion will be the result of its own presentation of evidence, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the prejudice inflicted upon Ms. Maxwell. + +**XI. [REDACTED] MS. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN CIVIL LITIGATION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AS THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE** + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] "did not agree that" Ms. Maxwell was the prevailing party. Mot. at 51-52. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] There is nothing "inaccurate" or "confusing" about [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]. [REDACTED] + +![](_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg) + +[REDACTED] + +The same is true for [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The bias and motive for these witnesses to testify against Ms. Maxwell at the criminal trial must be explored on cross-examination and [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's various motions *in limine*. + +Dated: October 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Response to Government's Omnibus Motions In Limine with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a99177b41ba8ef0f085ee16c736145bc3e969f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/EFTA02833324.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3752 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 69, + "chars": 105092, + "elapsed_seconds": 15.03, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg", + "_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_64_Picture_65.jpeg", + "_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S \nOMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 491.5395202636719, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 491.5395202636719, + 334.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 334.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE \nCOURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE 28", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1734008789062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1734008789062, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT \nABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND \nMERITLESS 42", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 542.677001953125, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 542.677001953125, + 408.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 408.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO \nSEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE 46", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 542.790771484375, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 542.790771484375, + 476.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 476.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD \nACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED 49", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 542.9225463867188, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 542.9225463867188, + 509.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 509.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. \nMAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS \nTIME 54", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 542.6821899414062, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 542.6821899414062, + 623.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 623.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF \nEVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY \nNULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT 55", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 542.7451782226562, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 542.7451782226562, + 671.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 671.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED 56", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 542.7481079101562, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 542.7481079101562, + 691.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 691.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.96761322021484, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.96761322021484, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 119.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 119.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 238.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 238.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 337.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 337.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 399.2694091796875, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 399.2694091796875, + 142.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 142.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 540.6789093017578 + ], + [ + 339.7509765625, + 540.6789093017578 + ], + [ + 339.7509765625, + 554.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 554.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 358.7391662597656, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 358.7391662597656, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 536.22 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary \nNeed to Use Fake Names", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 542.5488891601562, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 542.5488891601562, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 353.4990234375, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 353.4990234375, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 452.2310791015625, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 452.2310791015625, + 551.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 551.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-\nESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 472.464, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 472.464, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON \"PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS\" \nINAPPROPRIATE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.62, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 468.77154541015625, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 468.77154541015625, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 82.62, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior \nConsistent Statements May Be Admitted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 489.7862548828125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 489.7862548828125, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 517.1699829101562, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 517.1699829101562, + 307.1835632324219 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 307.1835632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND \nTHE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 533.7068481445312, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 533.7068481445312, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 238.14 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 238.14 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the \nDeath of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and \nGood Faith of the New York Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.5423583984375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.5423583984375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 235.67062377929688, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 235.67062377929688, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 207.9501953125, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 207.9501953125, + 635.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 635.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by \nthe USAO\u2022SDFL Is Relevant to Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 235.67062377929688, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 235.67062377929688, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 213.564453125, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 213.564453125, + 142.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 142.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of \nPrior Investigations Is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 533.75146484375, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 533.75146484375, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FL A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary \nand Unwarranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 624.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 624.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR \nARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS \nMISGUIDED AND MERITLESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 535.8578491210938, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 535.8578491210938, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-\nTESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.844, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 525.000732421875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 525.000732421875, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 83.844, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS \nCONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 466.8361511230469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 466.8361511230469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S \nGOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 525.6884765625, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 525.6884765625, + 431.60302734375 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 431.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such \nEvidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 517.8497314453125, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 517.8497314453125, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of \nAbuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation \u2014 May Be \nRelevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 499.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 499.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. \nMAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT \nTHIS TIME", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.007568359375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.007568359375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE \nRULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR \nJURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 513.89208984375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 513.89208984375, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 506.0325622558594, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 506.0325622558594, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XI. [REDACTED] MS. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN CIVIL LITIGATION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AS THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 428.49 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.264, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.264, + 417.15000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.65679931640625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.65679931640625, + 89.13043212890625 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 89.13043212890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833324" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9543ef2e44e15a6be1ce97c20b1c36484d1480bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2f380661cbd1c5733873357900eb9c8a78501acb92e75d6c9446dc3648280637 +size 56376 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91e57496538d6081603eeac4aded90c0d8a2c8e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:520da9bb9c00501e415505b832692c77355c82493c95f48ec51b3f393f7c1795 +size 58620 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..813262e299bb3938517fc095366680942bc51eaa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fb3a2c40f26d8c3fe73ca241d1a2b20505061371b9c43f534a24eebd116ebaa7 +size 56468 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97b2d084158ea048dba6aba62eb8842fc9fec7d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:07e71c4d390a33c73e797e657fb5c1fb220977f293cf8e8c2d341c3916f78eb4 +size 56120 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd03c6fd6eb37c36580cad8a7f4da7518b6e4ae8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:654be117e1c020b75a19766f65345a96e1e2bbbc8052124a2a4cc740bcd5c6b7 +size 57445 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44200c52b9e9b281dbb82734ca6f2d4843020469 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b96d100207c485cac4fd35c7d377b702d397e314c0aa5d0c56b1b2885a45b22b +size 57111 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e328d627f3a2faba942bdf6f11c953bed3caa567 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bdfb3da0eeb75a884014f9cd6ee72391f9dc522206b6afbbd22ceecb56264eda +size 59251 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2576b8699472b0cddc8e201941e1e130815b6790 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d6906d1621fa2ae69a17e18c00efceeb0094b50008d97a844459702502e6ad87 +size 57875 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94beb16d8d11508d28f9d6970b645e04f6d03249 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b43bdb397c890c787e67ea2537e60805365278af2b92f9db95cf1c06c74fa588 +size 54316 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bbc8e1b5f5728c6fc8d79a7ec9da3bf0c01fd58a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cd12eb3d864f527c3d0406107256a637d8398ce1756f2a247c8ced2769c83083 +size 58556 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb27c1dfc5f02a1844258c010969e66e949a496c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:424539543e32d5ecddd43deae6f8f89510bf62755f613676773571f466071e26 +size 13724 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7776129e94482631e3ba23c624887cf07d5ce180 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f83b7f169474413e8c07fe82cb803b81e828716520077793fc4a00536cb4eae2 +size 14816 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..583739dd3c666d9cec10a541e827d399a4ea5365 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_22_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:20f1828bf95767f8e5913f82f96615121ebcf4181ea794ae415bb3ce3f4e79c8 +size 9589 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d20d284cd696440b162928f95b0ce4f918f9c54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:403e97afe4530205031c6628fa209ba3c4c4b9311dc17465d56ebf2488dce6f0 +size 16458 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad76f58fe8fbb15ef7ad3b839fd57f408cfc8f34 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4268a8122e90ae6ebf88c81e637df39efd556de33e8327f3136209a6a212433b +size 4393 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b16f873cc9eba52673eec53d36a55f6216b1c21f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9b645bda05fb647c09e37dcf974b8043d6edbe9803cb007bf78039b8a2df4019 +size 38794 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..934d67e83f85836b8bc00ad4ebfa5bf8f944390f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8e23bf35beea098913f483eb172c5ab470638a41c4f682dfa7b17a52cc3812a1 +size 30131 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c43589cdf6c2c4acc786454922d64f6777ddeacc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5ecd4d59ff62cb5351465f76730e32e2c443f69fccc409b72ffd3cfb9c45b6db +size 3097 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_64_Picture_65.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_64_Picture_65.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b005e429eb325c874cb8797c5cc7c974388f16a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_64_Picture_65.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:be592323bc0735e1ad21ef9b5ec5f2a55631b2d8d0483107a00e00ba8acc4ad2 +size 11198 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52704401bde22b37171c55094a0bde18c4cc02a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f1e0d3e2129402462339a421578e93f813d6be7d0fc264c47aabcc37b587d163 +size 54184 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..360f0bbd2697251f983fc1a94506d5ea8a0470b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833324/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2489dae30f132ac79b1f3dff7a445028308919f88ed6a16878bc0a02dbd81bb6 +size 947 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4f77462ab127d158afda4e8ba41af1c9bb66934 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.md @@ -0,0 +1,477 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ARGUMENT Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits A. Applicable Law | 1 First 3 4 7 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| 1. Minor Victim-1 | 7 | +| 2. Minor Victim-3 | 10 | +| 3. Minor Victim-4 | 12 | +| 4. Minor Victim-6 | 13 | +| C. The Government's Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests | 14 | +| Need for Disclosure. | 16 | +| E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate | 19 | +| Appropriate Time | 21 | +| Proffering Irrelevant Evidence | 22 | +| Defendant | 24 | +| Purpose | 29 | +| Minor Victim-4's Credibility | 31 | +| Matters | 33 | +| E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant | 34 | +| Witnesses at Trial | 35 | + +| Inadmissible | 35 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| Motions | 37 | +| I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury That The Defendant | | +| Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation | 38 | +| CONCLUSION | 38 | + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in further support of its October 18, 2021 motions in limine. + +# ARGUMENT + +## I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits + +The Government seeks limited, narrowly tailored relief to protect the victims in this case. Certain of the Minor Victims have not publicly identified themselves as victims of child sexual abuse by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, or have not done so in the same level of detail as they are expected to provide at trial. Consistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8), and the regular practice in this District and the Eastern District, (see Gov't Mot. at 6- 8 (citing twelve cases)), the Government asks the Court to permit those Minor Victims to testify using either pseudonyms or first names, and for related relief regarding other witnesses and exhibits to protect the identities of the same Minor Victims. To the extent this request presents logistical concerns, they are readily solvable in this case, as they were in United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.), United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.), and numerous other recent sex trafficking trials, including high-profile sex trafficking trials and ones in which victims had made prior public statements. The Government has not sought to withhold the identities of the Minor Victims from the defense or the jury, so this request has no effect whatsoever on the defendant's right to a fair trial. + +The defendant's primary response is to + +. That misses the point entirely. The Court must decide whether to protect the privacy of four victims who will testify in a criminal trial, for the first time in their lives, about the painful details of the sexual abuse they were subjected to as children. The answer to that question is emphatically yes. + +The defense has failed to articulate any particularized need to publicize the full names of the Minor Victims. Nor could they, since the full names are known to the defense and the Court, and will be known to the jurors in this case. And the Government's narrowly tailored proposal balances the public interest in access to information with the Minor Victims' right to privacy and dignity. The Court should grant the motion. + +# A. Applicable Law + +As the Government explained in its motions (Gov't Mot. at 4-9), if the Government provides a reason to "limit disclosure of identifying information in open court," the defendant must "demonstrate a `particularized need' for disclosure . . . which the court weighs against the risks to the witness." United States v. Marcus, No. 05 Cr. 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at '1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 901 (2d Cir. 1969)), ard, 628 F.3d 36, 45 n.12 (2d Cir. 2010)); see United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568, 572-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting an undercover law enforcement officer to testify under a pseudonym, after balancing the relevant interests); cf. United States v. M., 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977) ("[W]here the government voices a legitimate concern for a witness' safety, the trial court must balance the potential danger to the witness against the need of the defense for the information."). + +As noted in the Government's motion, an order imposing privacy safeguards at trial for victims of sex crimes is commonplace. See Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 32:1-36:6, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198 (permitting use of real first names and fake last names); Order at 10-11, United States v. Kidd, No. 18 Cr. 872 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019), Dkt. No. 60 ("The Court is persuaded that, to protect the minor victims, they should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms and that such anonymous testimony does not violate Kidd's Sixth Amendment rights."); May 8, 2019 Tr. at 6:20-21, United States v. No. 18 Cr. 874 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 53; Order at 29-35, United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622; United States v. Zhong, No. 16 Cr. 614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018) (granting government's motion to have victim witnesses testify using pseudonyms); Order at 2-3, United States v. No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("Jane Doe will be permitted to testify as `Jane Doe' at trial, and will not be required to disclose her address, names of family members or exact place of employment (if any)."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 6-10, United States v. Quraishi, No. 15 Cr. 598 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 46 (permitting a witness to testify using only her first name); United States v. Corley, No. 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (noting that "Judge Patterson . . . permitted the minor victims to testify under a pseudonym at trial" and denying the pro se defendant's request for the surnames of the minor victims for his appeal); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (ER), 2015 WL 6161292, at '10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (permitting victims to testify using their first names only); Order at 2, United States v. =, No. 09 Cr. 619 (JMA) + +(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011), Dkt. No. 231; United States v. Paris, No. 06 Cr. 64 (CFD), 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007). + +The defense largely ignores the overwhelming precedent for the Government's motion, including the recent high profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District, see United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019). Instead, the defendant points the Court to the law in civil cases governing motions by plaintiffs seeking to proceed by pseudonyms. (See Def. Opp. at 16 (citing, e.g., Doe v. Cty., Illinois, No. 20 Civ. 5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at \*3 (N.D. III. June 3, 2021))). This is not a civil case filed by the minor victims, and a civil plaintiff is not similarly situated to a crime victim in a federal criminal case. Civil plaintiffs are generally forced to identify themselves by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188 (2d Cir. 2008). By contrast, crime victims are entitled to the statutory protection of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). They have been asked to testify by the Government, and they do not decide whether this case proceeds. There is no reason to look to civil law when a body of criminal cases provides direct guidance on this question.2 + +The defense brief takes pains to distinguish cases the Government cited in its discussion of how courts approach balancing witness and defendant interests in this area, and fails to address nearly all of the cases applying that analysis in the specific context of sex abuse cases like this one. (Compare Def. Opp. at 16-17 & n.19, with Gov't Mot. at 5-7) + +2 In discussing the Government's burden to justify privacy safeguards, the defense cites to In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorneyclient relationship. (Def. Opp. at 15). + +**B. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests** + +The bulk of the defense's brief focuses on publicity surrounding this case [REDACTED] +[REDACTED]. As explained in greater detail below, that is irrelevant. But in any event, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**1. Minor Victim-1** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +**2. Minor Victim-3** + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] | [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +[Redacted text block consisting of several lines of blacked-out content] + +[Redacted text block consisting of several lines of blacked-out content] + +--- + +5 Indeed, in entering the Government's requested protective order in this case, the Court noted that "[a]s a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities." (Dkt. No. 37 at 2). + +[REDACTED] + +**3. Minor Victim-4** + +Regarding Minor Victim-4, the defense motion largely focuses on disparaging her credibility. (*See* Def. Opp. at 12-15). Without relitigating the issue here (*see* Gov't Opp. to Def. Supp. Mots. at 21, Dkt. No. 295 ("[T]he Government notes that the defense motion overstates the significance of the particular statements Minor Victim-4 made during the USAO-SDFL's investigation."), that issue is entirely orthogonal to her privacy interests at stake in her testimony. + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +Absent protection from the Court, her testimony will entail a further loss of privacy and dignity. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8).7 Accordingly, the Government requests relief narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances and privacy interests of Minor Victim-4—namely, that Minor Victim-4 be permitted to testify using her first name only. + +**4. Minor Victim-6** + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +--- + +[Redacted line of text] + +[Redacted line of text] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**C. The Government’s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests** + +The Government has proposed permitting Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and two witnesses related to Minor Victim-1 to testify under pseudonyms, and limiting reference to them at trial to those pseudonyms. The Government has also proposed permitting Minor Victim-4 and certain witnesses related to her to testify under their first names, and limiting reference to those witnesses and Minor Victim-6 to their first names. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +. + +This proposal would successfully protect the victim privacy interests identified above. The question is not whether the victims’ testimony—that is, the intimate details of their childhood sexual abuse at the hands of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein—will become public. They will, and in light of the publicity surrounding this case, those details are likely to be highly publicized. The question is whether those details will be linked to the names of the Minor Victims. Under the + +--- + +8 Although the defense also says it needs to investigate Minor Victim-6 as a “potential witness” (Def. Opp. at 20), as the Government has said before, Minor Victim-6 will not be a witness or hearsay declarant at this trial. + +Government's proposal, the Minor Victims' names will not be said in open court. A person in the gallery, or a person reading the transcript, cannot simply write down the Minor Victims' names and put them on the internet. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] There is + +every reason to believe that, if the Court orders that Minor Victims be permitted to testify under pseudonyms, many major publications will honor that request and not rebroadcast the Minor Victims' names should they surface elsewhere. The Government does not assume that the mainstream press would reveal the identity of a victim against her wishes, particularly if the victim is testifying under Court-ordered protections to preserve her anonymity. Furthermore, the Government's understanding from conferring with prosecutors in similar cases is that the mainstream press did not, in fact, reveal the identities of victims who testified under court-ordered protections. And in any event, even marginally reduced exposure is significant to the Minor Victims.9 There is a very meaningful difference between the names of victims appearing in some dark corner of the internet, and the names of the victims appearing in the news outlets that will be viewed by the friends, families (including children), and employers of the Minor Victims. + +**D. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure.** + +In the context of the disclosure of witness identifying information, the Second Circuit has identified two primary interests of defendants: “(1) obtaining information needed for in-court and out-of-court investigation of the witness; and (2) enabling defense counsel to elicit information + +that might be relevant to the jury's deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness." Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at •1 (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266). And where the Government establishes a legitimate reason to limit disclosure of identifying information in open Court, the defendant must "demonstrate a `particularized need' for disclosure." Id. + +Here, both of those interests are satisfied. The defendant knows who the Minor Victims and other witnesses are and has conducted a fulsome investigation, as shown by the defendant's brief in opposition. And the jury, which will also know the true names of the Minor Victims, will fully understand whatever information the defense elicits on cross-examination or at trial. For instance, as the Government has said, the defense is free to elicit the fact that . (Compare Def. Opp. 21, with Gov't Mot. at 15 n.6 ("The Government has no objection to cross-examination . . . ). The only substantive limit the Government proposes on the defendant's ability to elicit information is certain detailed personally identifying information, none of which is relevant or necessary to elicit at trial. (See Gov't Mot. at 15 & n.6). + +Citing general cases about the Confrontation Clause, the defense describes a series of other lines of cross-examination they might like to elicit, including (a) (b) (c) and (d) the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims. (Def. Opp. at 21- 22). Some of these topics are objectionable for other reasons. But for purposes of this motion, the defendant must show that she requires the true names of the Minor Victims to be publicly disclosed + +to make the point. She does not. Much of this information can be elicited without using names at all, such as Minor Victim-4's past statements and the general arc of the Minor Victims' professional work.10 And the defense does not provide a *particularized* justification for any identifying information, [REDACTED]. Even the baseless defense argument that Minor Victim-4 and her lawyer are suborning perjury would not require use of either name. Notably, despite the numerous cases in which pseudonyms or first names have been used, the defense cites no case in which a court has forced victims to testify under their true names so that the defense could conduct cross-examination along these lines. + +The defendant also argues that "[s]ubstantial impeachment evidence exists as to [Minor Victim-4] under her real name," and the defendant "should not be forced to compromise the full effect of this evidence by use of a first name only." (Def. Opp. at 22). The defendant is not so compromised. The defendant is allowed to elicit this information and, where it is contained in exhibits, and show those to the jury without redaction. The jury will know the Minor Victims' full names and will understand the complete argument. The defense can even say Minor Victim-4's first name. They would only be limited from saying her last name out loud in court. The same is true with exhibits including the names of certain other Minor Victims.11 + +Finally, the defense argues that this motion is purely tactical on the part of the Government, because this motion affords sympathy to the victims. (Def. Opp. at 22). Remarkably—and unfortunately—the defense again repeats their claim that testimony is being fabricated. (Id.). The Government is responding to the real concerns of its victims, as it is duty-bound to do, and as is common in cases involving sexual abuse. It has also already agreed to a jury instruction, as is sometimes given in these cases, explaining that the use of pseudonyms and first names should not be held against the defendant. (See Gov't Mot. at 14 n.4). If any tactical gamesmanship is occurring, it is on the part of the defense, which spends a few paragraphs out of nearly twenty pages of their brief offering conclusory reasons why privacy safeguards undermine a defense interest. As the defense is well aware, such safeguards are significant to the Minor Victims and their willingness to testify. But the Court need not arbitrate issues of litigation tactics. The balance of interests on this issue is clear and weighs in favor of privacy safeguards, as it did in many other trials involving sex crimes. + +# E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate + +Just as the Government's proposal is narrowly tailored with respect to the defendant, so it is narrowly tailored with respect to the right of the public and the press to access the trial. The public and press are free to attend the entire trial. They may observe each of the Minor Victims, in person, testify in full. At no point during testimony is the Government seeking closure of the courtroom. The public and the press are also welcome to see most of the trial exhibits. + +The only narrow exception is for those exhibits that specifically contain identifying information of Minor Victims. As the Court is well aware, the right to access trial evidence is not absolute, and it can be overcome—especially by information that is "traditionally considered + +private rather than public," which avoids "catering" to "sensational" interests. (Gov't Mot. at 16 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. 366 F. Supp. 3d 612, 626-627 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). This limited sealing request is significantly protective of the interests of the Minor Victims, who were sexually abused as minors, and minimally burdensome to the public. See Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (concluding that the interest in protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because "the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does' and Minors' testimony in full"); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3509 (d)(2) (permitting any papers that disclose the name of a child to be filed under seal without the necessity of a court order).12 + +Although the defense argues that this request is "contrary to well-established Second Circuit Law" (Def. Opp. at 23), the cases it cites concern the strong presumption in favor of access associated with public dissemination of records that are already shared publicly at trial. See United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2001); Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1980). Both cases also recognize that no such presumption applies for evidence submitted under seal, "because with respect to that item of evidence, the session of court was not public." Graham, 257 F.3d at 149 (quoting Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d at 952 n.4). Here, the Government is not seeking a limitation on information shared in open court, so these cases are inapposite. + +12 To the extent the defense wishes to make arguments about particular exhibits, (see Def. Opp. at 22-23), the Government is happy to address that on a document-by-document basis at trial. + +The Government is seeking an order issued in many other cases to protect the privacy and dignity of Minor Victims who will take the stand and testify about being sexually abused. The defense has failed to carry its burden of identifying any right of the defendant that is burdened by such an order. The Court should grant the motion. + +## IL The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at the Appropriate Time + +The Government has moved in limine to admit prior consistent statements of its witnesses pursuant to Rule 801(d)(IXB) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (See Gov't Mot. Section II). The Government briefed this issue in advance in order to notify the Court that the Government intends to offer evidence of prior consistent statements, and to provide briefing on the relevant law. Because the Government cannot fully anticipate the defense's opening arguments or lines of crossexamination regarding the credibility of witnesses it will call at trial, and the defense has not elaborated on them in its brief, the Government cannot identify prior consistent statements it will offer in response. Accordingly, the Government does not seek a decision on prior consistent statements at this time. + +In their brief, the defense recites the applicable law, largely in agreement with the Government's view. The Government notes two points with respect to that discussion. First, it is plainly proper to offer prior consistent statements to rebut a purported inconsistency between the witness's trial testimony and an earlier statement. See United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196- 97 (2d Cir. 2020). Second, it is also plainly proper for the Government to begin offering prior consistent statements if the defense attacks witness credibility in its opening statement, and the + +Government need not wait until the witness is cross-examined. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 706 (2d Cir. 2019). + +Following defense attacks on the Minor Victims' credibility, the Government anticipates offering prior consistent statements it expects to elicit from its witnesses. Specifically, while the Government expects that some of its prior consistent statements will be offered to rebut the charge that the declarant "recently fabricated [their testimony] or acted from a recent improper influence or motive," Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(BXi), many other statements will be offered to "rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness," including from charges that the declarant has given inconsistent statements or has a faulty memory, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1XB)(ii). Because the grounds for admission will depend on the defense's precise challenge to the witness, the Government will raise this issue with the Court before eliciting prior consistent statements from its witnesses. + +# III. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence + +At trial, the jury will be asked to determine whether the defendant conspired with others to arrange for the sexual abuse of six specific minors. Several of the Government's motions are aimed at preventing the defense from surprising the Court and the Government with irrelevant, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial arguments. + +The defense response makes clear that they intend to put before the jury the history of the various Epstein investigations in other jurisdictions and the outcomes of those matters. Although that evidence is entirely improper and irrelevant, the defense plainly intends to make this central to the trial. (See Def. Opp. at 28-29). The breadth of the conspiracy theories the defense intends + +to put before this jury illustrates the side show the defense hopes to create. Those conspiracy theories include, among other things, as the defense would describe: (1) the Government's alleged motives for prosecuting the defendant (*id.* at 42-43); (2) the credibility of individuals who are not testifying at this trial and are not hearsay declarants (*id.* at 43-45); (3) supposed evidence relating to the Minor Victims' consent (*id.* at 46-49); (4) evidence of other abuse which did not involve the defendant (*id.* at 51-53); (5) the defendant's statements offered by the defendant (*id.* at 54-55); (6) arguments sounding in nullification (*id.* at 55-56); (7) [REDACTED]; and (8) evidence that the defendant was the prevailing party in civil litigation (*id.* at 57-59). The defense also now suggests that they may argue that attorneys for the Minor Victims are conspiring with their clients to manufacture evidence. (*Id.* at 21-22). + +These topics are far afield—a galaxy away—from the questions of fact to be resolved by the jury. The Government is concerned that the defense plans to exceed its limits and, therefore, has moved to preclude the defense from arguing them or offering evidence of them. The defense urges the Court not to rule on these *in limine*, instead providing the empty assurance that the defense understands the Federal Rules of Evidence and will only offer evidence the defense deems proper. But is for the Court—not the defense—to decide what is admissible at this trial. + +More troubling still, the defense brief makes clear that they plan to put these theories before the jury before the Court has an opportunity to rule on these issues, including in their opening statement. (Def. Opp. at 51 ("If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement.")). The Court should not + +permit this. As the Government has explained, for many of the subjects of the Government's motions, any evidence or argument is irrelevant, inadmissible, lacks a good faith basis, and is highly prejudicial. The Court should preclude the defense from discussing these issues in its opening statement or attempting to offer evidence relating to these issues at trial unless and until the defense makes an offer of proof so that the Court can make evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Randle, 745 F. App'x 422, 424 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) ("'The making and timing of opening statements can be left constitutionally to the informed discretion of the trial judge." (quoting United States v. Salovitz, 701 F.2d 17, 21 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration omitted)); United States v. Ahaiwe, No. 20 Cr. 179 (DLC), 2021 WL 2134922, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2021) ("The Government's motions to preclude defense counsel from making certain statements in its opening statement or in its questioning of witnesses is granted with the following exceptions."). To proceed otherwise would risk an improper defense opening statement or attempts to elicit other improper evidence that could cause a mistrial. + +# A. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the Defendant + +A defendant has a "right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense." (Def. Opp. at 28) (quoting United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021)). "The right is not, of course, unlimited; the defendant must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability." Percoco, 13 F.4th at 177 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For instance, "[a] federal court may preclude a defendant from presenting a defense when the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient." United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485, 489 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +It is elementary that "the Government is not on trial in this case, and the jury will not be asked to pass on the adequacy of its investigation." United States v. Carton, No. 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018). The issue before the jury is simply whether, "in light of [the] evidence or lack of evidence, the jury [is] convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crimes with which [she is] charged." United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, there is no basis to offer evidence about why the Government or the USAO-SDFL opened their respective investigations, how they resolved those investigations, or the death of Jeffrey Epstein. These issues simply do not relate to the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charged crimes. See United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) ("The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that [the defendant] was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to this principle."); United States v. Aleynikov, 785 F. Supp. 2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("As a general matter, the quality and scope of the Government's investigation are not appropriate lines of examination . . . ."), rev d on other grounds, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). + +The defense argues that they are free to offer whatever evidence they like in order to challenge the "thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." (Def. Opp. at 32 (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995)). In support, the defense cites three decades-old cases, none from this Circuit or any district in this Circuit. All arise under very + +particular set of circumstances, and none address evidentiary rulings. Instead, these cases concern Brady errors involving the withholding of exculpatory information, such as a statement in which a witness at trial stated that he "did not see the perpetrator's face," Lindsey v.M, 769 F.2d 1034, 1036 (5th Cir. 1985), or evidence pointing toward an alternative perpetrator, Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 44546 (confidential informant "essential to [the Government's] investigation" made statements "replete with inconsistencies"). In addition to the obvious exculpatory value of this information, the courts explained that it would be used to "attack[] the reliability of the investigation." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446. + +The defense would rest a pile of irrelevant evidence on this slender M. In their view, from the principle that the defense can attack the "thoroughness" of an investigation, they may elicit any information aimed at explaining—and attacking—the decisionmaking of the agents and prosecutors involved in a case. Kyles, the case chiefly cited by the defense, is about whether the "prosecution improperly withheld evidence that, had it been disclosed, would have 'raised opportunities to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.' Kyles provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses," v. =, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added, alteration in original, citation omitted), nor do the other cases. + +Even if the cases cited by the defense spoke directly to this context, and not the limits of Brady material, they still would not reach so far. For instance, in Bowen, the Tenth Circuit found that if the defense had been provided information about the alternative perpetrator, they could have + +"cross-examined the detectives" about the identification procedure and "pointed out that [the defendant] was charged even though he had a confirmed alibi and [the alternative perpetrator] did not." 799 F.2d at 613. The court said in addition that "[a] common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant, and we may consider such use in assessing a possible Brady violation." Id. But the Court did not say that any and all evidence that went to the diligence of the Government's investigators or prosecutors is admissible. + +The reason is that litigating whether the investigators were sufficiently thorough is not a defense. The rule is that the Government is not on trial—the law does not permit the defense to offer evidence solely to attack the Government's motives or thoroughness. To the extent the defense may do so, they may do so in closing argument, see United States v. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (explaining that "a defendant may comment on the failure of proof in the record"), through relevant cross-examination, see =, 640 F.3d at 511, and through evidence that is otherwise relevant, see Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445, 453 (defense could have called informant whose "behavior raised suspicions that he had planted both the murder weapon and the victim's purse in the places they were found"). See also United States v. Mickens, Nos. 20-258 (L), 20-462, 20-630, 2021 WL 3136083, at •9 (2d Cir. July 26, 2021) (summary order) (describing a defense that "emphatically and repeatedly" attacked the thoroughness of the Government's investigation in "cross-examinations and closing statements"). But that is all. Indeed, if such a line of defense were permissible, it would be used routinely, and the defense would not have to stretch for cases about Brady disclosures from other circuits. See Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 (referring simply to a "common trial tactic of defense lawyers"). + +This case exemplifies the point. The defense would like to (inaccurately) argue that the New York investigation was opened in response to the non-prosecution agreement entered between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein (the "NPA"), that the Government "scramble[d]" to investigate the defendant after Epstein's death, and that "public pressure" led to a sloppy investigation. (Def. Opp. at 34). To do this, the defense would like to elicit information about the process by which the Government opened the New York investigation, media coverage, statements by the former Attorney General, Epstein's death, and a variety of other topics. (Id. at 33-35). Presumably, under its view, the defense could introduce other categories of evidence that relate in any way to the thoroughness or good faith of the investigation. None of that has anything to do with the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +With respect to Rule 403, it is not enough for the defense to say that jurors can understand that there were two separate investigations. (See id. at 35). The defense, as the proponent of this alleged evidence, has the burden to establish that the probative weight outweighs any prejudice. They cannot do so. It is the defense's plan to introduce information about the internal case opening and charging decisions of the USAO-SDFL and this Office, a summary of media coverage, and a host of other irrelevant topics." The circus this would create at trial vastly outweighs any + +13 In any event, if any investigation can be attacked, it is only the New York investigation. The New York investigation led to the charging decision in this case, and law enforcement officers from Florida are being called as limited fact witnesses. The Government does not expect to elicit the NPA except perhaps to draw the sting if the Court permits cross-examination on the subject. + +theoretical relevance this could have. That problem is only compounded by the fact that, if the defense wishes to try to show that the Government's investigations were sloppy, the Government is entitled to rebut that argument with evidence of its thoroughness and care—creating a mini-trial that is immaterial to the jury's function. + +**B. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose** + +The defense argues that evidence of the NPA is nonetheless admissible for impeachment, specifically to show the bias and interest of [REDACTED] (Def. Opp. at 29). The Court should reject that baseless argument as mere pretext to put the NPA before the jury, in an attempt to confuse and mislead the jury and argue for jury nullification. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing the defense's wish list of arguments about the New York and Florida investigations. The NPA is an agreement between Epstein and a different U.S. Attorney's Office that resolved a different investigation, with provisions that—the defense argues—are useful impeachment for two witnesses. Conducting that impeachment does not require the defense to offer evidence about why the New York investigation started, or the timing of charges against the defendant, or various investigators' views of the quantum of evidence generated against the defendant at any time.14 + +# C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4's Credibility + +The defense argues that the fact that the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after the Florida investigation is probative of Minor Victim-4's credibility, because Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI at the time and did not implicate the defendant (according to the defendant). The defense brief again recites at length its view of her statements to law enforcement. (Def. Opp. at 36-39). That argument is incorrect. The defense is free to cross-examine Minor + +14 The defense suggests that telling the jury that the defendant was not charged in the NPA is necessary because the jury might otherwise speculate on how the Florida investigation ended and whether the defendant was charged in that investigation. (Def. Opp. at 31). That point highlights that the defense intends to use the NPA, even if elicited on cross, as a proxy for the argument that the defendant was not charged in the Florida investigation. There is no reason to think the jury will so speculate if they do not learn how the Florida investigation terminated. But if they do so learn, they might incorrectly assume that the defendant was not charged solely because that investigation could not have generated inculpatory evidence against the defendant, which the Government is permitted to rebut. Although the defense argues that the Government would not discuss the circumstances of the NPA (Id. at 31), the Government might have to do so if the NPA becomes central to the defense case and is used to invite the jury to think that no evidence inculpating the defendant existed in 2007. + +Victim-4 on the substance of her earlier statements to the FBI. Whether those statements translated into a charging decision is irrelevant, among other reasons, because the decision relied on other factors and was based on different evidence than will be presented at this trial. (See Gov't Mot. at 24-28). Even at best, it is cumulative of cross-examination of the substance of Minor Victim-4's statements. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (excluding evidence of charging different people for the same crime because "the point will be made and can be duly `hammered home' on cross-examination" without using the charging decision, which "implicate[s] a variety of additional considerations"). + +In any event, introducing that charging decision would invite the jury to speculate falsely—that the Florida investigation generated no other inculpatory evidence against the defendant. It would therefore open the door to testimony rebutting that speculation. For instance, the defense proposes to call a special agent to testify that the defendant was not named in a draft indictment that was never presented to a Florida grand jury. (Def. Opp. at 39). On cross, the Government would be entitled to elicit inculpatory information from the Florida investigation that it currently is not planning to offer. In combination, an examination along these lines would create a bizarre spectacle, largely based on discussions of hearsay and prosecutorial discretion. The Court should preclude this distracting and irrelevant line of questioning. The jury should decide this case based on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial, not the evidence or lack of evidence evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction in 2007. As much as the defendant hopes to ask the jury to evaluate the prosecutorial discretion of multiple sets of prosecutors in different jurisdictions, it is the defendant—and only the defendant—who will be on trial. + +## D. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant Matters + +The defense claims it needs to call case agents to talk about investigative steps, but fails to identify any question about an investigative step that would yield relevant information. + +The defense does not identify a single relevant topic in their brief. (Def. Opp. at 40-41). They have made clear, however, that they intend to put before the jury numerous irrelevant topics: (1) the thoroughness of the Government's investigation, untethered from any other defense theory (id. at 41); (2) the scope and timeline of the Florida and New York investigations (id. at 40 (discussing "when those investigations began and ended")); see United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) (concluding that the length of the investigation is irrelevant); and (3) the charging decisions of those investigations (id. at 39 (stating that a special agent "had first-hand knowledge that [the defendant] was not charged in the proposed SDFL indictment because she presented the indictment to the grand jury."). The defense has also remained entirely silent as to whether they intend to call the case agents to testify as "summary witnesses . . . to place before the jury sweeping conclusions about the Florida Investigations or this one." (Gov't Mot. at 33). + +The Government's position is simply that, before the defense calls the case agents and "explore[s]" the "scope and progress of the investigations" (Def. Opp. at 41), the defense should have to identify for the Court the evidence relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence that they plan to elicit. Moreover, the defense should be precluded from previewing in their opening statement any argument or evidence along these lines, unless and until they make an offer of proof and seek a ruling from the Court. + +# E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant + +The defense claims it is proper to cast aspersions on the Government's alleged motives for prosecuting the defendant, and they claim they should be permitted to advance theories that Epstein's death motivated the "timing of the charges" in this case. (Def. Opp. at 42). The defense concedes that they have not established a vindictive or selective prosecution claim. (Id.). That is because they have no legitimate theory based on the Government's supposed motives. But the defense is not permitted to direct this argument to the jury simply because they lack a basis to make that argument to the Court. (See Gov't Mot. at 34-35 ("The Second Circuit has explained that claims of purported government misconduct must be `directed to the court rather than jury.' (quoting United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997)))). + +As the Government said in its motions, the defense is free to argue that Epstein is guilty and the defendant is innocent. (Id. at 35-36). They are not free, however, to argue that irrespective of guilt or innocence—the defendant is being prosecuted because Epstein is dead. Certainly, the defense could not make that argument absent any evidence, and no agent—including the Florida and New York case agents—can offer hearsay testimony about why they think prosecutors charged or did not charge certain individuals at certain times. And to be clear, the agents would testify that this case was charged promptly after the Government was in a position to prove the defendant's guilt. + +## F. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at Trial + +The defendant does not appear to dispute the Government's statement of the law: the credibility of individuals who are neither witnesses nor hearsay declarants is not at issue and cannot be challenged. (Def. Opp. at 43-45). The motion should therefore be granted. + +The defense's primary response is that they are not sure what statements will be elicited and the non-hearsay bases for such statements. Of course, the defense has had the Government's witness list and Jencks Act material for more than two weeks. Those materials make clear that the Government does not intend to elicit hearsay statements from Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6. And the defense has failed to point to any such evidence. To give one example, to the extent the Government offers a school record related to Minor Victim-5 as a business record (see id. at 45 (citing GX 781-83)), that record would not constitute a statement by Minor Victim-5 offered for the truth of the matter asserted. + +Insofar as the defense's point is that the Government might open the door to challenging the credibility of an individual by offering that individual's hearsay statement for the truth of the matter asserted, the Government agrees. But if the Government does not open the door, the credibility of Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 are not at issue. And the defense cannot challenge the credibility of these individuals—in opening statements or otherwise—unless and until the defense seeks a ruling from the Court that the Government has opened the door. + +# G. Evidence or Argument About the Minor Victims' Consent is Categorically Inadmissible + +The defendant is charged with enticement of a minor, transporting a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, and conspiracy to commit those offenses. (See Indictment¶¶ 11-27). None of those + +offenses arc negated by a consent defense. (See Gov't Mot. at 39-40). Accordingly, there is no basis to offer evidence or make argument related to the Minor Victims' consent. + +In Counts Two and Four, the defendant is charged under the Act with transporting a minor with intent to violate New York Penal Law § 130.55, and enticing a minor to do the same. That crime does not relate to prostitution. In Counts One and Three, the defendant is charged with conspiracy to violate the same statute—not "varying local state laws" in "multi-jurisdictional locations," (Def. Opp. at 47), and not violating the Act with intent to commit prostitution. In Count Six, the defendant is charged with sex trafficking of a person less than eighteen. In Count Five, the defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit the same. + +Because these offenses all involve crimes with victims below specified age cutoffs for which consent is not a defense, consent is not at issue in this case. The defense is therefore wrong when it argues that the Government has "charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence." (Id. at 49). The charges in the Indictment concern sexual activity with a minor, simpliciter. The Government has not, for instance, charged sex trafficking through force, fraud, or coercion, and those elements are not at issue in this case. + +This misunderstanding by the defense underlies its response to this point. For instance, the defense suggests that Minor Victim-4 was engaged in prostitution at the time of the charged offenses, which might give her criminal exposure under Florida law. (See id. at 48). That is irrelevant, because all that matters for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1591—and therefore this case is that she was a minor. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x I, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) ("Further, the victims could not consent because they were minors."). + +The defense also argues that they should be permitted to elicit information that the Minor Victims engaged in voluntary acts, because that may go to the defendant's knowledge. The Government agrees that, if the defense asks questions along those lines, the Court will need to evaluate it on a question-by-question basis. But questions that are relevant to consent but not the defendant's mens., and any argument to the jury about the Minor Victims' consent, is irrelevant and should be precluded. + +## H. The Court Should Be Wary of the Defense Refusal to Address the Government's Motions + +The defendant has largely refused to respond to the Government's motion to preclude evidence of the defendant's other acts, offering the defendant's own statements, arguments sounding in nullification, . (Def. Opp. at 49-57). The Court should accordingly preclude the defendant from opening on these subjects or attempting to elicit evidence along these lines unless and until she explains to the Court how this evidence could possibly be admissible. + +As explained above and in the Government's motion, however, there is significant risk that the defense theories will contravene the Federal Rules of Evidence and the law of the Circuit to put irrelevant matters, such as the Florida investigation, before the jury. The Court should not permit the defense to open on these points without first providing notice so they can be litigated. In particular, the Government does not believe there is a good-faith basis to argue that + +The Court should allow these issues to be litigated in advance, and not at sidebar after the jury has already heard the + +inflammatory and prejudicial statement or questions by the defense. The Court should not indulge the defense's effort to get these inflammatory arguments in front of the jury before the Court can rule on this issue. + +# I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury I hat The Defendant Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation + +The fact that the defendant "prevailed" in litigation, for purposes of awarding a small amount of costs, is irrelevant. That litigation resolved through a voluntary dismissal in connection with a settlement. To be sure, the defendant is a prevailing party as part of the cost-shifting statute, and so her current counsel sought a total ofM, presumably in part for the purpose of making this improper argument at trial. (See Def. Opp. at 57-59). But any suggestion that the defendant "prevailed" can only confuse the jury into thinking that the Court adjudicated the substance of claims in the defendant's favor. That never occurred. If the defense is permitted to elicit this testimony, the Government will need to explain the relevant legal principles to the jury, showing them that—contrary to the defendant's position—to a lay person, this is a technicality, and the litigation terminated with a settlement. (See id. at 58). Even if there were marginal probative value in a civil case, it would deeply confuse the jury to suggest that the defendant prevailed substantively, and would require a mini-trial on the meaning of a prevailing party in civil litigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +# CONCLUSION + +The defense would make this trial about many things it is not: the Florida investigation, various civil lawsuits, the media, and the Government's alleged motives, among others. None of this bears on the factual question that the jury must decide. The Government asks the Court to + +ensure that only relevant evidence and arguments are presented at trial, and that the defense be precluded from offering inflammatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial material. + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government's motions in limine. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79515502db20f7c14b9a35176cb0fb3c722a18b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393/EFTA02833393.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2090 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833393.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 40, + "chars": 54955, + "elapsed_seconds": 103.27, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT \nOF THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.312, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 474.1670837402344, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 474.1670837402344, + 362.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 138.312, + 362.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or \nUsing First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 206.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 206.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 87.48 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Minor Victim-1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 250.28999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Minor Victim-3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Minor Victim-4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 140.13 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Minor Victim-6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 332.90999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Government\u2019s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 455.32800000000003, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 455.32800000000003, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 196.82999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 359.87939453125, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 359.87939453125, + 445.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 445.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IL The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at \nthe Appropriate Time", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and \nProffering Irrelevant Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 542.7213134765625, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 542.7213134765625, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the \nDefendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 545.292, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 545.292, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 211.41 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to \nMinor Victim-4's Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant \nMatters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 369.6788330078125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 369.6788330078125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not \nWitnesses at Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Evidence or Argument About the Minor Victims' Consent is Categorically \nInadmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Court Should Be Wary of the Defense Refusal to Address the Government's \nMotions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 265.863037109375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 265.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury I hat The Defendant \nPrevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8585815429688, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.8585815429688, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 567.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 567.3630218505859 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 69 + ], + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833393" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fe3b7ce02b915dda402c4cd85621d09ff7c3b02 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +## EXHIBIT 1 + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +75e SIMol. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +October 11, 2021 + +## BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +& Gresser LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. + +Jeffrey liuca Esq. + +Haddon, and M, P.C. + +150 East Tenth Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. + +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +Pursuant to Judge Nathan's Order of September 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 335), the Government writes to inform you that it may refer at trial to the following individuals as co-conspirators of the defendant, including for the purpose of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2XE): + +- Jeffrey Epstein + +The Government has produced all co-conspirator statements which it intends to offer at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2XE) in the Government's production today or in its previous productions. To the extent the Government learns of additional co-conspirator statements as it continues to prepare for trial, it will produce those statements in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material. + +Please be advised that the above list is limited to the individuals the Government may refer to as co-conspirators at trial. While the Government makes no representations as to whether it views other individuals as potential or actual co-conspirators of the defendant, it does not intend to refer to any other individuals as co-conspirators at trial. The above list is also not intended to reflect a complete list of individuals who may be referenced at trial. That information is contained in the Government's Jencks Act production(s). + +Please note that this letter and the information contained herein is governed by the July 31, 2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. + +Very truly yours, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lan Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2ce910fabb1e24c9a834e84e09ebc091f52443b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/EFTA02833433.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 2182, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.21, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833433" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a134f786c48ea0bd58705cb7a88e6457c373f63c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833433/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7bfb89ee2324dafa761bae8aa27592b58f1afdc14ffef51b264be8bc2197d96b +size 3423 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..137611df7e2398527d2531506843566b7b4f634f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021, ORDER + +> Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Table of Contents | ii | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Table of Authorities | iii | +| RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY | 1 | +| I. The Government has Failed to Identify any Purported Co-Conspirator Statements | 2 | +| II. | Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Does Not Satisfy the | +| Court's Order to Disclose | 2 | +| III. | The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and Facilitates the | +| Presentation of False Testimony | 4 | +| IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the only Appropriate Remedy | 5 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) | 5 | +|------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979) | 6 | +| United States v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 1999) | 6 | +| United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 1996) | 2 | +| United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir.1993) | 2 | +| United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir.1988) | 5, 6 | + +#### Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | 4, 5 | +|---------------------|---------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 104 | 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 1, 2, 4 | + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, requests that the Court enter an order precluding the government from introducing any alleged co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because the government failed to comply with the Court's Order of September 3, 2021 (Dkt. 335). In support of this request, Ms. Maxwell states: + +# RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY + +On multiple occasions Ms. Maxwell requested disclosure of the identity of any alleged co-conspirators in this case along with any statements made by those individuals that the government intends to offer into evidence at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The Court, on September 3, 2021, dismissed the government's arguments against disclosure noting that the concern raised by the government about disclosure "does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay" Dkt. 335 at 3. The Order was explicit regarding what the government was required to do: First, no later than October 11, 2021, the government was required to "disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed coconspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the government will refer at trial." Id. Second, the Court, unambiguously and emphatically, directed: "The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1." (emphasis in original.) + +On October I I, 2021, the government identified three purported co-conspirators for purposes of trial: Jeffrey Epstein, The government, however, failed and refused to disclose "all (or any) co-conspirator statements it intends to introduce at trial...." Instead, the government, circumventing the plain meaning of the Court's Order, offered that "[t]he Government has produced all co-conspirator statements which + +it intends to offer at trial ... in the Government's production today or in its previous productions." And, circumnavigating this Court's Order with Magellan-like skill, promised that, as the government "continues to prepare for trial" it will produce any additional co-conspirator statements "in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material." See, Ex. + +## I. The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator Statements + +For a statement to fall within the definition of Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), "a court must find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 11% (2d Cir. 1993). These conditions precedent are "[p]reliminary questions concerning ... the admissibility of evidence" as referenced in Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir. 1988). + +The Court may consider the coconspirator statements themselves in determining whether the 801(d)(2)(E) prerequisites have been met. However, because "these hearsay statements are presumptively unreliable," United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 580 (2d Cir. 1996), there must be independent corroborating evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the defendant. Id. + +## II. Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not Satisfy the Court's Order to Disclose + +The government neither objected to Ms. Maxwell's request for disclosure nor the Court's Order requiring disclosure at the same time. See Dkt. 317 at 12, n.1 (citing Dkt. 291 and Dkt. 293). The government's reason for not wanting to disclose the statements was considered and + +rejected by the Court which ordered disclosure at the same time as the government's witness list, Rule 404(b) notice, exhibits, and 3500 materials no later than October 11, 2021, so that the Defense would not be surprised at trial and because of "the need for the parties to litigate coconspirator issues in advance of trial...." Dkt. 335 at 3. + +The government seized multiple electronic devices, including computers and servers from alleged co-conspirator Epstein. These devices contain hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades. The emails on the devices are to and from many other individuals. Many of the emails are cryptic, subject to interpretation, and appear to be outside of the scope of either conspiracy alleged in the S2 Indictment. It is impossible for Ms. Maxwell to identify any statement that she may need to litigate in advance of trial and, even if she wanted to do so, any attempt would be futile because the government could avoid any issue by simply picking some other statement. Absent pre-trial identification of any alleged co-conspirator statement, Ms. Maxwell will be forced to, during trial, object to any proffered statement, request a recess, identify whether the purported statement was actually produced in discovery, and at some point, litigate the admissibility of the statement. Of course, this is precisely what the Court's Order was intended to avoid. + +Given the amount of discourse over this topic, the government must understand what the Court ordered it to disclose. It has chosen, however, to avoid and violate the Court's Order by attempting to overstuff an already full sandbag by ignoring both the plain language and spirit of the Order mandating disclosure. Instead of simply disclosing the purported statements the government has directed Ms. Maxwell back to the hundreds of thousands of "statements" produced or to be produced in the case. + +#### III. The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and Facilitates the Presentation of False Testimony + +None of the identified purported coconspirators are available to testify at trial. Jeffrey Epstein is dead, and neither have been granted immunity for their trial testimony. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell cannot cross-examine any identified coconspirator about whether he or she made any yet-to-be attributed statement. The government's failure to disclose creates a real danger that during trial one or more of the alleged accusers will, for the first time, offer some alleged 801(d)(2)(E) statement attempting to inculpate Ms. Maxwell. Thus, it is entirely possible that any one of the accusers could be asked, for example, + +Government Lawyer: Why did you go to the house? + +Witness/Accuser: Because [insert coconspirator] said that Maxwell said [insert expedient non-disclosed [statement)]. + +This is an invitation to manufacture evidence which Ms. Maxwell cannot cross examine. + +In addition, the failure to disclose implicates many of the issues raised in Ms. Maxwell's previously filed motions. The allegations are decades old, and Ms. Maxwell raised concerns about lack of memory and available witnesses in her Motion to Dismiss for Pre-Indictment Delay, Dkt. 138. It has been difficult to track down and interview relevant percipient witnesses to the alleged events. The failure of disclosure of critical alleged coconspirator statements makes it impossible to prepare a defense. + +# IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the Only Appropriate Remedy + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(dX2)(C) provides that if a party fails to comply with the Court's orders regulating discovery the Court may prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence as a sanction. + +A district court's decision to impose a Rule 16(d)(2) sanction for the violation of a discovery order, and thus its choice of sanction, is a matter committed to the Court's sound discretion. In exercising its discretion, the district court must weigh several factors, including the reasons for the government's delay in affording the required discovery, the extent of prejudice, if any, the defendant has suffered because of the delay, and the feasibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance. United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059,1060 (10th Cir. 1988). + +The Supreme Court's decision in Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) is instructive. Taylor involved the exclusion of a witness of whom the defense had known but failed to disclose. The defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of the witness as a sanction for the discovery violation, alleging that it violated his right to present witnesses under the Sixth Amendment's compulsory process clause. In determining whether a preclusion sanction is appropriate, the Court mandated that a trial court exercise its discretion by balancing a defendant's fundamental right "to offer the testimony of witnesses in his favor" against countervailing public interests. Id. at 414. These interests include "Nile integrity of the adversary process, which depends both on the presentation of reliable evidence and the rejection of unreliable evidence, the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process." Id. at 414-15. The trial court may also consider the willfulness of the violation, the simplicity of compliance with the discovery obligation, and whether some unfair tactical advantage has been sought. See id. at 415-17. Considering these factors, the Court upheld the exclusion of the defendant's witness. + +The Court emphasized that the defendant had acted willfully and in bad faith in not disclosing the witness until the second day of trial after the prosecution's primary witness had testified. See id. at 416-17. Accordingly, "[r]egardless of whether prejudice to the prosecution could have been avoided [by a less severe sanction] ..., it [was] plain that the case fit[ ] into the category of willful misconduct in which the severest sanction [was] appropriate." Id. at 417; see also United States v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368,371-72 (5th Cir. 1999) (government's failure to disclose the "photographs" to the defendant in the identical form it intended to produce them at trial was either an attempt to "sandbag" the defense or highly unprofessional conduct and therefore limited the government to the use of black and images); United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852,858 (5th Cir. 1979) (no abuse of discretion where, as here, a district judge for prophylactic purposes suppresses evidence that, under a valid discovery order, the government should have disclosed earlier, even if the nondisclosure did not prejudice the defendants); United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059,1062 (10th Cir. 1988) (in view of the district court's pressing schedule, the status of the present case, and the failure of a prior continuance and deadlines to ensure timely discovery; a second continuance would not compensate for the prejudice imposed upon the defendant and the district court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing the government's evidence). + +Here, the Court issued its disclosure order months ago. The government did not agree with the Order and sought reconsideration. The Court considered the government's belated request and rejected the government's "concern" that somehow its evidence would be limited at trial. Of course, the government could have made a good faith effort to comply with the Order and, if some other statement came to the government's attention before or during trial it could have, in good faith, requested permission to supplement its proof. Instead, the government has + +willfully violated the Order and has refused to produce statements that it obviously (1) is aware of and (2) could be easily identified by referring to a discovery page number or simply providing the statement. + +Ms. Maxwell had a very narrow window of time to review and consider any alleged coconspirator statements which has expired. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell are concurrently preparing multiple motions in limine, reviewing thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material, addressing other pretrial deadlines, and preparing for trial. At this stage the failure of the government to address a very simple disclosure requirement has prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and impacts her statutory and constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial, due process, and effective assistance of counsel. The appropriate remedy is preclusion of the purported statements. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October IS, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements as a Sanction for Failing to Comply with This Court's September 3, 2021 Order with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b99b8e61a391b77add3429ffecf960f221bc478 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/EFTA02833436.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,724 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 16752, + "elapsed_seconds": 25.68, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.5417175292969, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.5417175292969, + 102.62200927734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.62200927734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 312.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 312.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 424.0888366699219, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 424.0888366699219, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator \nStatements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 483.2264709472656, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 483.2264709472656, + 239.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 239.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not \nSatisfy the Court's Order to Disclose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 512.1389770507812, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 512.1389770507812, + 613.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 613.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and \nFacilitates the Presentation of False Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 515.9976196289062, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 515.9976196289062, + 130.10302734375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 130.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the Only Appropriate Remedy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.8637084960938, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.8637084960938, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.625732421875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.625732421875, + 89.00091552734375 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 89.00091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833436" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..873e5427b9455348bfaffffed8eea565a8936732 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833436/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3ebd26e16f1c3e387e27297aefe5da508015cbfcc516079e199255c4368d716e +size 1266 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fccd6b2a85032bd40b04c304adf3814983dedeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SifnoJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrea s Plaza New York Net York 10007 + +October 11. 2021 + +## BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +& Gresser LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. + +Jeffrey Pt a. Esq. + +Haddon, and P.C. + +150 East Tenth Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. + +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +We write to notify you that the Government may seek to introduce certain evidence at trial. In r articular the Government ma offer certain exhibits at trial that demonstrate that. + +We are pr zing t ese prop° e its t y, rs: GX 401 through 404, GX 409 through 410, and GX 413. e o owing e + +In addition, please be advised that the Government may call as a witness at trial. Today, we are producing Jencks Act materials relating to , w o was e lo ed by Jeffrey Epstein from The Government anticipates that will testify about, among other things, certain ocument evidence relating to e c g crimes. The Government further anticipates that will testify about her role in scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein wit un erage girls. + +This evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and/or absence of mistake of accident with respect to the charges in the above-referenced case. Because this evidence is admissible as direct evidence, the Government is not planning to affirmatively move in limine to seek its admission. + +Please note that this letter and the information contained herein is governed by the July 31, 2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. + +Very truly yours, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +by: /s + +Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b72e47100747594c2bdb6c723ff8b40663cfe8a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/EFTA02833448.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 2102, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.24, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833448" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a020690fd52a5e70a818085a8ccf8e8acb2ee56 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833448/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e10dedf14bc3b2bf157f9bef7118909e7960d6fb9632115653e8871e19d58f71 +size 3183 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba7c943972abd6ce0902acfd7bb19bc556719de0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.md @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| BACKGROUND | 1 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) | 1 | +| II. Rule 404(6) Notice in This Case | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 4 | +| I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has | | +| Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule | 4 | +| II. | Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to | +| Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis | 5 | +| Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case | 6 | +| CONCLUSION | 7 | + +### TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +## Cases + +# Other Authorities + +## Rules + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (the "Rule"). That Rule, as amended in December 2020, expressly requires particularized notice to the defense of the exact evidence to be offered, an articulated non-propensity purpose for its admission, and the reasoning supporting that purpose. Despite notice of the rule change and an opportunity to comply with the Rule by this Court's deadline of October 11, the Government opted not to follow the requirements of the Rule and should now be foreclosed from offering any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b). + +# BACKGROUND + +# I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) + +Rule 404 sets forth the requirements for "Notice in a Criminal Case" of an intent to introduce evidence under the rule: + +"In a criminal case, the prosecutor must: + +- (A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it; +- (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and +- (C) do so in writing before trial or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice." + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3). In December 2020, the Rule was "amended principally to impose additional notice requirements in a criminal case." Fed. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Committee Notes, 2020 Amendments. Prior to the rule change, the prosecution needed only to give notice of the "general nature" of the anticipated evidence; thus, "some courts...pennit[ted) the government to satisfy the notice obligation without describing the specific act that the evidence would tend to prove, and without explaining the relevance of the evidence for a nonpropensity purpose" (id.). + +After December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B) requires that: + +The prosecution must not only identify the evidence that it intends to offer pursuant to the rule but also articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose. + +Id. (emphasis added). The Rule's requirement that the prosecution must "identify the evidence," "articulate a non-propensity purpose" and a "basis for concluding the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose" replaced the previous notice requirement only of the "general nature" of anticipated evidence. The "advance notice" is "important so that the parties and the court have adequate opportunity to assess the evidence, the purpose for which it is offered, and whether the requirements of Rule 403 have been satisfied ...." Id. + +The new rule also required that the pre-trial notice be done in writing, "sufficiently ahead of trial to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence." Rule 404(b)(3XA). "The `air opportunity' must include sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light. Prosecutors who cut the disclosure too close to the trial date risk a judge either excluding the evidence so that the trial can proceed as scheduled or delaying the trial so the defense can "meet" the other act proof. Easy to overlook is that the judge too needs time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence." See 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021). + +# II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case + +The Government advised this Court that it could provide notice of any Rule 404(b) evidence by 45 days prior to trial, which would afford it "adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to" the Rule. See Dkt. 229 at 3. This Court then ordered the Government to provide disclosure of any "Rule 404(6) evidence and notice" by October 11. Dkt. 297. + +On October 11, 2021, the Government served on defense counsel a short letter entitled the "Maxwell Rule 404(b) letter" (the "Rule 404(b) Letter" or the "Letter"), attached as Exhibit A. In it, the Government referenced two sets of evidence: (a) + +(b) a witness and who worked for Epstein between (after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy) whom the Government said it "may call" at trial. The Government asserted in the Letter that the evidence collectively was, in its opinion, "direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and/or absence of mistake of (sic) accident." Id. at 2. The Government stated it would not be moving in limine to seek the evidence's admission "[b]ecause this evidence is admissible as direct evidence." Id. The Letter lacked identification of any particular purpose for these two categories of evidence and lacked any "basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose." + +Also on October I I, the Government provided its anticipated trial exhibits. Even a quick review of those exhibits reflects the Government's apparent intent to offer numerous documents and other evidence that purportedly occurred after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy. See, e.g., GX-4-D through GX-4-K (message pads dated beginning in 2005); GX-423 (an Amazon shipment to Jeffrey Epstein of an iPhone USB lightning cable in 2013); GX-50 I & 502 (financial statements from June 2007); GX-661 & 662 (flight logs from 2005-13). None of these items of evidence were mentioned in the Maxwell Rule 404(b) Letter. The Government's theory of admissibility concerning this post-2004 evidence remains unclear. + +### ARGUMENT + +### I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule + +Under the version of Rule 404(b) in effect for this trial, the Government was required to specifically "identify" any evidence it intends to offer under the Rule, to "articulate...the permitted purpose for which" the identified evidence will be offered, and to state the "reasoning that supports the purpose." The Government did not timely comply with these requirements and should therefore be precluded from offering any evidence under Rule 404(b). + +To be sure, the Rule 404(b) Letter did "identify" But even though the Government claimed may be admissible "in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b)," there is nothing in the Letter which states the permitted purpose for which they might be offered, nor the "reasoning that supports that purpose." Ms. Maxwell is unable to guess which of the laundry list of potential purposes contained in Rule 404(b) might serve as the grounds, and she certainly is not able to guess the Government's "reasoning." Without the required notice, both defense counsel and the Court cannot undertake the required analysis to determine whether the evidence is being offered for a proper non-propensity purpose, is relevant to a disputed issue, can satisfy a Rule 403 analysis, or needs a limiting instruction. United States v. Bui, 859 F. App'x 610 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 196 (2d Cir. 2006)). + +The Government likewise did "identify" as a potential witness and offered two, non-exclusive potential topics of her testimony. The Government advised that she will testify about, "among other things, [i] certain [unspecified] documentary evidence relating to the charged crimes [and (ii)] her [unspecified] role in scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls," apparently in\_. This is hardly the type of "identiflied]" evidence the Rule contemplates. What "documentary evidence" will she testify about? What "role" did she play in scheduling massages after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy? For what purpose will she testify to it? Are there other topics covered by the language "among other things" that the Government submits is admissible under Rule 404(b)? What is it? What is the purpose of it? Will it be offered to prove Ms. Maxwell's "intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity and/or absence of mistake of [sic] accident" or something else? How is it permissible non-propensity evidence? + +Finally, by failing to identify the numerous exhibits that fall after the period of the conspiracy in the Rule 404(b) Letter, the Government has also waived any right to argue that those documents should be admitted under the rule as well. + +The entire point of the change to Rule 404(b), and this Court's scheduling Order, is to permit Ms. Maxwell to investigate, analyze, dispute, move in limine if appropriate, or rebut the proffered Rule 404(6) evidence. There is nothing in Rule 404(b) that excuses the required Notice in the event the Government only offers the evidence "in the alternative" under the rule. By disregarding the requirements of Rule 404(b), the Government has chosen to deprive Ms. Maxwell of her right to dispute the admissibility of this evidence. + +## II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis + +Because the Government has not identified the non-propensity purpose nor reasoning underlying the admission of any Rule 404(b) evidence, the defense is left without "sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light," and the Court will not have sufficient "time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence." , supra. Should the Government request a "good-cause" exemption for their failure to timely provide Rule 404(b) notice, this Court should analyze their excuse with skepticism. "Prosecutors should be prepared to explain their change of heart and to rebut allegations of sandbagging. Unforeseen turns of testimony at trial are one thing. Reasonably anticipated proof problems are another. For example, when intent is an element of a charged offense, a prosecutor will be hard pressed to explain why he did not foresee before trial that the other act proof may be important in a jury's determination of intent." & supra. Here, the government has been on notice of the elements it needs to prove since July 2020. It advised the Court it would be able to provide Rule 404(b) notice back in May 2021. Dkt. 229 at 3. With the trial continuance, it gained an additional five months. See Dkt. 297. + +There is no acceptable excuse for failure to follow the requirements of the Rule. Given the significant number of other pre-trial filing deadlines, briefing the admissibility of the proffered Rule 404(b) evidence in the midst of her other obligations will be exceptionally difficult. If the Court is inclined to grant the government additional time to satisfy the Rule, Ms. Maxwell requests ample time to investigate the materials and to respond. + +### III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the Materials Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case + +The Rule 404(b) Letter also repeated the Government's opinion that the newly-disclosed materials qualify as "direct evidence" of the conspiracy. At first blush, it is hard to see how they could so qualify. + +They do not reference or have anything to do with (a) the persons mentioned in the Indictment or any other testifying witness, nor (b) any of the legal allegations contained in the + +Indictment. It is hard to imagine how [REDACTED] is "direct evidence" of a conspiracy to transport, entice or traffic minors for sexual abuse. + +As to the witness referenced in the Letter, the Letter makes clear that the witness worked for Mr. Epstein from [REDACTED], *after* the conclusion of the charged conspiracy in 2004. Given the timing of her stated employment, it also begs the question how her testimony, reference to unspecified documents or scheduling of unspecified massages, "among other things," could be direct evidence of a conspiracy that ended a year earlier. + +But because Ms. Maxwell has had insufficient time to investigate these newly-disclosed materials, she is unable to file a motion challenging their admissibility at this time. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] As to the newly disclosed witness, the Government produced on October 12, 2021 approximately 400 pages of interview reports, notes, documents, and other materials related to that witness. Ms. Maxwell is unable to review, investigate, or rebut the admissibility of all of the referenced materials by the October 18, 2021 due date for motions *in limine*, and requests an additional two weeks to file her brief addressing the proffered 404(b) evidence. + +### CONCLUSION + +The Government has been on notice of the amendments to Rule 404(b) since at least January 25, 2021. *See* Dkt. 146 at 10.1 The Government was prepared to disclose their Rule + +--- + +1 Indeed, the Government argued in their response to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions that certain evidence pertaining to Accuser-3 would be admissible under Rule 404(b); yet the deadline to provide Notice of an intent to offer that evidence at trial under the rule has come and gone. *See* Dkt. 204 at 165-169. Ms. Maxwell today moves separately to exclude the evidence pertaining to Accuser-3. + +404(b) Notice by May 28, a date that was extended to October 11 after the continuance of the trial. Dkt. 229 at 3. The failure to comply with the requirements of the Rule has deprived Ms. Maxwell of the opportunity to litigate the issues on the timetable set by the Court. There is thus no "good cause" for extending the Government's ability to do so. This Court should exclude any evidence the government seeks belatedly to offer pursuant to Rule 404(b), or, alternatively should the Court find good cause for the failure of notice, grant Ms. Maxwell additional time to respond. As far as admissibility of the evidence referenced in the Letter as "direct evidence" of the charged crimes, Ms. Maxwell seeks leave to file such a Motion within two weeks. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd43de9ddd94db66b92ac2dbffe4ad901abc5cc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451/EFTA02833451.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,853 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833451.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 17856, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY \nTHE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO \nCOMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 340.863037109375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 340.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 98.60302734375 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 98.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 404.952392578125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 404.952392578125, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 120.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 120.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 209.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 209.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 297.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 297.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 254.59199999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 357.10205078125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 357.10205078125, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 254.59199999999998, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.5903015136719, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.5903015136719, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 286.54534912109375, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 286.54534912109375, + 623.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 623.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the \nGovernment Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the \nRule", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 518.0145874023438, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 518.0145874023438, + 144.363037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 144.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an \nOpportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 511.6602783203125, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 511.6602783203125, + 599.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 599.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the \nMaterials Qualify as \"Direct Evidence\" in the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 533.3845825195312, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 533.3845825195312, + 544.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 544.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 350.676, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 350.676, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 582.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833451" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d75df89952333bd222ca8bf94f7d30d784d38056 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +# EXHIBIT 1 + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SilvioJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 23, 2021 + +#### BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +Mark Esq. & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Ptrca Esq. Haddon, and P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Stemheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Chislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +Pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government hereby provides notice that it may call as an expert witness at trial Dr. Lisa Rocchio, a clinical instructor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Alpert Medical School of University. The Government reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses and will promptly provide notice if the Government elects to do so. + +## I. Disclosure by the Government + +Dr. Lisa Rocchio is the President-Elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology of the American Psychological Association ("APA"). Dr. Rocchio has practiced psychology since eamisier Ph.D. in 1995, and she is currently a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of University, where she trains psychiatric residents in treating trauma survivors. Since she entered private practice in 1998, Dr. Rocchio has specialized in treating patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence. In the last twenty-three years, Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds of victims of trauma, many of whom were minor victims of sexual abuse. Dr. Rocchio has also received specialized training in traumatic stress, sexual abuse, and clinical and forensic psychology. She has written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma, among other topics. Since 2014, Dr. Rocchio has been on the editorial review board of the APA journal Trauma Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, and she is a member of the APA Ethics Committee. A copy of Dr. Rocchio's curriculum vitae is being produced to you today bearing number 3502-006.' + +Dr. Rocchio is expected to testify, based on her relevant education, training, experience, and research to the following: Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any specific victim in this case, and the Government does not presently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. + +Dr. Rocchio's expected testimony relies on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse. It also relies on Dr. Rocchio's extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, as well as Dr. Rocchio's experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma. The Government is producing notes from the Government's interviews with Dr. Rocchio today as well. + +# II. Request for Reciprocal Discovery and Expert Notice + +In light of your request for the foregoing notice, the Government hereby requests reciprocal notice under Rule 16(b)(1XC) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding any expert witness that the defendant intends to rely upon, including a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the witness's qualifications. + +Dr. Rocchio has previously testified in state court and has been deposed in the course of federal and statilation. As a courtesy, a list of that testimony is also being produced to you today bearing number 3502-002. + +Additionally, the Government reiterates its August 5, 2020 request for reciprocal discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b). Specifically, we request that you allow inspection and copying of: (1) any books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are in the defendant's possession, custody or control, and which the defendant intends to introduce as evidence or otherwise rely on at trial; and (2) any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with this case, or copies thereof, which are in the defendant's possession or control, and which the defendant intends to introduce as evidence or otherwise rely on at trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at trial. + +The Government also reiterates its August 5, 2020 request that the defendant disclose prior statements of witnesses she will call to testify, including expert witnesses. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2; United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975). The Government requests that such material be provided on the same basis upon which the Government agrees to supply the defendant with 3500 material relating to Government witnesses. + +Very truly yours, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Alison Moe Maurene Comey Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66db7f0e6c51c2afa0087c70a92db7ef1c7f68ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/EFTA02833463.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,294 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6654, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.27, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 370.411865234375 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.411865234375 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.3377990722656, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 212.09527587890625, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 212.09527587890625, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Disclosure by the Government", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 285.2380065917969, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 285.2380065917969, + 582.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 582.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Request for Reciprocal Discovery and Expert Notice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 397.1398620605469, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 397.1398620605469, + 547.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 547.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833463" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8edd055b3b7f8f1fcdb73163e8354ad46861cab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833463/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1fd91e5b6f54c7e681ebe0ae956b092716394c52c9af44afc74168e6cf4ae34c +size 3492 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83b21e32f3d2002a39ded74f81a45f31f460d8fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.md @@ -0,0 +1,358 @@ +# EXHIBIT 2 + +## Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D. + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +#### EDUCATION + +1995 Ph.D. Clinical Psychology University of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI + +1992 • Clinical Psychology University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +1989 BA Psychology and English Emory University. Atlanta. Georgia + +1988 Visiting Student Westfield College, London. England + +#### ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT + +2020 - present Clinical Instructor Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Alpert Medical School of University Providence, RI + +#### LICENSURE + +11/14 — present 02/12 - present 12/97 - present Licensed Psychologist() #10025 Licensed Psychologist (NY) #019490 Licensed Psychologist (RI) #00631 + +#### CLINICAL EXPERIENCE + +7/98 - present Clinical Director and Owner, Inter-Disciplinary Independent Group Practice Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc. Johnston, RI Psychotherapy. Assessment. Consultation. Education and Training. Forensic Assessment. Forensic Consultation. Expert Testimony + +12197-098 Independent Practice Associates in Psychotherapy. North Kingstown. RI Psychotherapy, Assessment, Education and Training + +7/96 - 11/97 Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology Ann Begin, Ph.D., Associates in Piatherapy, North Kingstown, RI Women's Day Hospital Program. Hospital. Providence, RI + +#### 7/94 - 7/95 Pre-Doctoral Intern In Psychology + +Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT New Haven Hospital and Yale Psychiatric Institute + +9/93 - 5/94 + +5/91 - 5/94 + +9/92 - 5/93 + +6/90 - 8/90 7/91 - 8/91 + +#### Clinical Psychology Extern + +Counseling Center. University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +#### Clinical Psychology Trainee + +Psychological Consultation Center, University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +#### Clinical Psychology Extern + +Psychological Services. University. Providence. RI + +#### Family Service Student Counselor + +Pm-Natal Clinic. St. Hospital Department of Family Service. Providence. RI + +#### TRAINING AND CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE + +#### 2000 - 2002 Psychological Consultant + +North Providence School Department + +Performed comprehensive psychological evaluations of elementary school students to determine the impact of psychological difficulties on school performance and functioning. Evaluations involved clinical diagnostic interviews, psychological testing, classroom observations and collateral interviews. + +#### 2000 - 2001 Psychological Consultant + +Diagnostic Assessment Services, Middletown, RI + +Performed comprehensive psychological evaluations of adolescents who had been court ordered for outpatient psychological, cognitive and educational testing. + +#### 1999 - 2002 Consultant: Professional Development, Education and Training + +Department of Children. Youth, and Families. Providence. RI + +Developed and presented workshops to DCYF employees in the areas of trauma, vicarious traumatization. and stress management. + +#### 1994 Mock Trial Expert Witness + +Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven. CT + +#### 1992 - 1994 Workshop Leader + +College Counseling Center. University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +Eating Disorders Workshops presented across campus to various student groups and organizations + +#### 1992 Mock Trial Expert Witness + +Travelers Worker's Compensation Trial Advocacy Program. Hartford, CT + +#### RESEARCH EXPERIENCE + +#### 1999 - 2003 Research Group Member + +Trauma Science Research Group. Providence, RI + +## 6/93 - 9/93 Research Assistant + +Lisa Elficchict, Ph.D. 3 Outpatient Eating Disorders Research Group. Hospital, Providence, RI + +#### 10/89 - 8/91 Research Project Coordinator + +The Social Behavior of Developmentally Disabled Children. Hospital. East Providence, RI + +#### TEACHING EXPERIENCE + +#### 9/96 - 12/96 Adjunct Assistant Professor + +University of Rhode Island. College of Continuing Education, Providence. RI Introduction to Women's Studies (2 sections) + +#### 1/96 - 5/96 Special Instructor in Psychology + +Providence College. Providence. RI Psychology of Women (2 sections) + +#### 9/92 - 5/94 Instructor + +Counseling Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI Workshop Training for Eating Disorders Prevention + +#### 5/92 and 5/93 Teaching Assistant + +University of Rhode Island, Continuing College of Education, Providence, RI Psychology of Sexual Equality + +#### 9/91 - 5/92 Teaching Assistant + +University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI Towards Self Understanding + +#### SELECTED SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING + +#### 2011 —2012 Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology + +Sponsored by the American Psychological Association. Committee on Women in Psychology + +Selected (through a competitive selection process) to participate in a leadership training program for women in psychology, the mission of which "is to prepare, support, and empower women psychologists as leaden to promote positive changes in institutional and organizational life and increase the diversity, number, and effectiveness of women psychologists as leaders". + +#### 2011 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (14 hours) + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Comprehensive Assessment of Feigning in Forensic Settings + +Forensic & Correctional Applications of the Personality Assessment Inventory + +#### 2006 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (28 hours) + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Stalking: The Stare of the Science + +Assessment of Response Style in Forensic Contexts + +Excusing and the New Excuses + +Psychological Evaluation and Testimony in Cases of Clergy or Teacher Sexual Abuse + +#### 2005 - 2006 Psychotherapy Training Course for Dissociative Disorders (223 hours) + +International Society for the Study and Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) + +#### 2004 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (21 hours) + +#### 2001 Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Levels I & 11 (34 hours) + +#### 1999 - 20(X) Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Intensive Training, Parts I & II (72 hours) + +### PUBLICATIONS + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Advanced Topics in Criminal Forensic Assessment + +Forensic Consultation. Expertise & Testimony + +Forensic Mental Health Assessment: Principles and Cases + +Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing International Association (EMDRIA) + +Behavioral Technology Transfer Group + +T.D. & Rocchio. L.M. (2020). Evaluating the effects of repeated psychological injury: Introduction to the Special Issue. Psychological Injury and the Law. NY: Springer + +Rocchio. L.M. (2020). Ethical and professional considerations in the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation. Psychological Injury and the Law. NY: Springer + +Rocchio, L.M. (Fall, 2015). Ethics corner: Psychologists Coping with Serious Health Concerns: Ethical, Professional, and Risk Management Issues. The Newsletter of the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Rocchio, L.M. (Spring 2011). Ethics corner: Ethical Considerations in Trauma Psychology: Vicarious Traumatization and Self-Care. The Newsletter of the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Rocchio. L.M. (Spring 2009). Ethics corner: How should I respond to a subpoena? The Newsletter of the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Lou, B. & Rocchio, L. M. (1998). Standing up, talking back, and taking charge: Strategies and outcome in collective action against sexual harassment. In L.H.=, J. Chryslers, and K. Quina (Eds.) Career strategies for women academics: Arming Athena. NY: Sage. + +Lott, B. & Rocchio, L. M. (1997). Individual and collective action: Social approaches and remedies for sexist discrimination. In H. Landrinc and E. A. Klonoff (Eds.) Sexist discrimination: Prevalence. correlates, and remedies. CA: Sage. + +Rocchio. L. M.. Feinstein. C.. & Appareddy. V. (1997). The sibling of the psychiatrically disturbed child. In J. Nashpitz (Ed), Handbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. + +Baker's Dozen (1997). Feminist student voices. In J. Worell and N. (Eds.) Feminist visions: New directions for education and practice. American Psychological Association. + +#### PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS + +Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2020). Ethical and professional considerations in the forensic assessment of trauma and PTSD. In J. Scroppo (Chair). Ethics and Risk Management in Forensic Evaluations and Settings. Symposium conducted virtually at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. + +Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2020). Ethical challenges when a client is engaged in a lawsuit: Dr. Helpful wants to help. In APA Ethics Committee, Ethics Hot Topics. Panel presentation conducted visually at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington. DC. Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2015). Ethical dilemmas in the treatment of trauma in independent practice settings. In Rocchio (Chair). Trauma treatment in independent practice settings: Ethical and relational issues. Skill Building session conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington. DC Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2014). Trauma psychologists with serious health concerns: Ethical issues. In L. Rocchio (Chair). Trauma psychologists with serious health concerns: Ethical, clinical and professional issues. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington. DC. Hughes. D.M. & Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2014). Essentials of forensic assessment of trauma in civil and criminal litigation. Skill building session presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2013). Trauma in the treatment room: What the independent practitioner needs to know. Skill building session presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu. HI Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2012). The forensic evaluation of traumatic stress and dissociation in civil litigation. In L. Rocchio (Chair). The forensic evaluation of traumatic stress and dissociation: Malpractice and personal injury cases. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Orlando. FL. Rocchio, L.M. (April, 2012). Trauma psychology: Legal considerations and ethical dilemmas in treatment. Workshop presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Arlington. VA. Counois, C.A. & Rocchio. L.M. (April. 2012). Relationship dimensions and ethical factors in the treatment of complex trauma. Workshop presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Arlington, VA. Anthony, J., Feil, L.. Rocchio, L.M., Plante, W.. Sabo. R.. and Spencer. M. (March 2012). Mental health professionals in transition: Clinical, ethical. and practical considerations when life changes. Professional Continuing Education Workshop sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association. Providence. RI. Rocchio. L.M. (November 2011). Conceptualization and assessment of sexual harassment in civil litigation. In D. Hughes (Chair), The conceptualization of trauma in a forensic context. Symposium conducted at the 27th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Baltimore. MD Rocchio. L.M. (August 2011). Assessment of complex trauma in a clinical setting. In L. Rocchio (Chair), Assessment of complex trauma and dissociation in clinical. forensic and research settings. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Rocchio. L.M. (March 2011). Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of trauma and dissociation: Translating research into practice. In K... (Chair). Advancing the applications and boundaries of traumatic stress research: Translation between empirical inquiry and clinical case findings. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. New Orleans, LA. + +Rocchio, L.M. (March, 2011). The effects of trauma on the therapist. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. New Orleans. LA. Hughes. D.M. & Rocchio, L.M. (November 2010). Forensic assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD. Workshop presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Montreal. Canada. Rocchio, L.M. (August 2010). Professional and ethical considerations in trauma psychology: Psychotherapy. In L. Rocchio (Chair). Professional and ethical considerations in trauma psychology: Psychotherapy. forensics, research. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. San Diego. CA. Rocchio, L.M. (March 2010). Trauma psychology: What the anxiety disorders specialist needs to know. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. Baltimore. MD. Ethics Committee of the Rhode Island Psychological Association (June 2008). From In Treatment to our treatment: Ethical considerations raised in the television program In Treatment. Continuing education salon presentation sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association, Providence, RI. Ethics Committee of the Rhode Island Psychological Association (January 2007). Sex. lies & confidentiality: A discussion of the top ten ethical issues posed to the RIPA Ethics Committee. Professional Continuing Education Workshop sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association. Providence, RI. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1999). The effects of trauma on the professional. Workshop presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the RI Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Providence. RI. Rocchio, L.M. (April 1999). Discussant. In J.C. Christer (Chair), Addressing fat oppression: Research and practice. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association. Providence, RI. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1997). Discussant. In J.C. Christer (Chair). Current issues in feminist therapy. loposium conducted at the National Meeting of the New England Psychological Association, Easton, Johnston-Robledo, I., Rocchio, L. M., & Christer, J. C. (March 1997). A WP program content 1981 - 1996: Where we've been, where we're heading. Discussion facilitated at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Pittsburgh. PA. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1996). Discussant. In J.C. Christer (Chair). Women and weight: Gendered messages from the media. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the New England Psychological Association, New London, CT. Rocchio. L. M. (August 1996). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. In C. (Chair). Empirical investigations of women's pursuit of beauty. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Toronto. Canada. Cogan. J. & Rocchio. L. M. (March 1995). Fat oppression and body hatred: Strategies for change. One-half day training workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Indianapolis, IN. + +Cogan. J. & Rocchio. L. M. (March 1994). Celebrating and redefining our diverse beauty: Rejecting body hatred. Workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Oakland. CA. Rocchio, L. M. (March 1993). Battered women who kill, psychology, and the law. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Atlanta. GA. Gregory. C.J., Minugh, P. A., Riedford, M.. Rocchio, L. M., & Saris, R. (March 1993). Women Against Sexual Harassment (WASH): Working to eliminate sexual harassment from the academic community. Workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Atlanta. GA. Silver. B.. Rocchio. L. M.. & Gregory. C.J.. (November 1992). A model for gender role assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the New England Psychological Association. Fairfield, CT. Rocchio-Giordano. L. M. (February 1992). Moral reasoning related to gender and dilemma content. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Long Beach. CA. + +#### INVITED ADDRESSES + +Rocchio, L.M. (January, 2021). Trauma psychologythVhat the trauma psychotherapist needs to know. Invited presentation to the PGY 3 Residency Seminar at l= Alpert School of Medicine. Providence, RI. Rocchio, L.M. (March. 2016, 2017, 2018). Vicarious traumatization: The effect of trauma exposure on the helping professional. invited continuing education presentation to the New England Society for the Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation workshop: Fundamentals of Complex Trauma and Dissociation. Cambridge, M. Rocchio. & Mills. M.A.M. (May. 2017). The anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders: Overview and treatment strategies. Invited continuing education presentation to the members of the Behavioral Health Pod of the Rhode Island Primary Care Physician's Corporation, Cranston, RI. Hughes, D.M. & Rocchio, L.M. (August. 2016). Forensic work with trauma populations. Invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Denver. CO. Rocchio, L.M. (2016). Trauma psychology: What the therapist needs to know. Invited continuing education presentation to the members of the Behavioral Health Pod of the Rhode Island Primal), Care Physician's Corporation, Cranston. RI Rocchio. L.M. (2016. 2015. 2013. 2012. 2011. 2010, 2009. 2038). Ethical considerations in the practice of clinical and forensic psychology: Business and forensic issues. Invited presentation to the participants of the Fellows Ethics Workshop, University, Providence, Ri. Rocchio, L.M. (2015, 2014). Ethical considerations in the practice of clinical and forensic psychologi. Multiple Relationships. Invited presentation to the participants of the Fellows Ethics Workshop, University. Providence. RI. LS., Gold, S., & Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2014). The forensic assessment of trauma. Invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC LS.. Gold. S.. & Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2013). The forensic assessment of trauma. invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. + +Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu, HI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (August 2011). Development of a successful independent group practice in psychology. Hospitality suite conversation hour sponsored by Division 42 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. + +Rocchio. L.M. (April 2009). Practical, legal and ethical considerations in establishing an independent practice in psychology. Invited salon presentation to Early Career Psychologists sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association. Providence, RI. + +Rocchio, L.M. (April 1996). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. Invited colloquium presented to the Providence College Department of Psychology, Providence RI. + +Rocchio, L.M.. Gregory. C.J.. & Minugh. P.A. (1993). Women Against Sexual Harassment (WASH): Dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace. Invited presentation to the participants of the Feminist Lecture Series• Hospital, Providence, RI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (April 1993). Women and weight. Panel discussion participant, University, Providence, RI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (May 1991). Images of women in the media, the pursuit of beauty. and eating disorders. Invited presentation to Psychology of Sexual Equality class, University of RI, Kingston, RI. + +### DISSERTATION AND THESIS + +Rocchio, L. M. (1995). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. Doctoral dissertation. University of RI. Kingston. RI. + +Roochio, L. M. (1993). Moral reasoning related to gender and dilemma content. thesis, University of RI. Kingston. RI. + +## PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES + +#### American Psychological Association + +2021 - present 2020- present 2014 - present 2019 - 2020 2013 -2019 2009 - 2019 2015 - 2016 2014 - 2015 2013 -2015 2012 - 2013 2010-2013 1996 - 2000 1992 - 1995 Division 56 (Trauma Psychology) President-Elect APA Ethics Committee Member: Forensic Slate Division 56 Journal. Trauma Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy. Editorial Review Board Member Division 56 Member at Large Division 56 Treasurer Division 56 Representative to the Committee on Women in Psychology (CWP) APA Committee for State Leaders, Past-Chair State Leadership Convention (SLC) 2020 Initiative Task Force. CSL Representative APA Committee for State Leaders, Chair APA Committee for State Leaders. Member-at-large Division 56 Membership Chair; Program Review Committee Member Division 35 Student Research Prize Reviewer Division 35 Student Committee Member + +#### Association for Women in Psychology + +| 2011. 1992 - 2000 | Program Review Committee Member | +|-------------------|------------------------------------------------| +| 1996 - 2000 | Student Research Prize Review Committee Member | +| 1999 | Conference Planning Committee Member | +| 1991 - 1995 | Co-Coordinator. RI Chapter | +| 1992 - 1995 | Student Caucus Coordinator | + +#### Blue Cross Blue Shield of RI + +| 2020 - present | Grant Recipient for Behavioral Health Provider Quality Support Grant Pilot Program | +|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 2015 - present | Quality Measures Workgroup Member | + +#### Coalition of Mental Health Providers in RI + +#### Healthsource RI + +#### New England Psychological Association + +#### Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation Behavioral Health Network + +| 2014 – present | Vision Committee Member | +|----------------|---------------------------------| +| 2013 – present | Communications Committee Member | + +#### Rhode Island Psychological Association + +| 2020 - present | Social Justice Committee Member | +|----------------|--------------------------------------------------| +| 2016 - present | APA Council Representative | +| 2013 - present | Healthcare Task Force/Comminee Member | +| 2011 - present | Legislative Affairs Committee Member | +| 1996 - present | Ethics Committee Member | +| 2015 - 2016 | Secretary | +| 2010 — 2014 | Colleague Assistance Task Force/Committee Member | +| 2014 - 2015 | Past-President | +| 2012 —2014 | President | +| 2011 —2012 | President-Elect | +| 2006 - 2008 | Ethics Committee Chair | + +#### Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts Trauma Study Group + +#### PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY + +#### Congressional Visits + +Visits organized by the American Psychological Association: + +| March, 2016 | Medicare and Mental Health Reform. Senators Jack | and Sheldon Whitehouse | +|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| +| March. 2016 | Medicare and Mental Health Reform. Representatives David Cicilline and James | | +| March. 2015 | Medicare. Senators Jack | and Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) | +| March, 2015 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicilline and James Langevin (Rhode Island) | | +| March, 2014 | Medicare. Senators Jack | and Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) | +| March, 2014 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicilline and James Langcvin (Rhode island) | | +| Feb., 2012 | Medicare and Healthcare Reform. Senators Jack | and Sheldon Whitehouse | +| Feb., 2012 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicilline and James Langevin (Rhode Island) | | + +#### Rhode Island Legislative Advocacy + +| 09/2013 —02/2014 | Special Joint Commission to Study the Into | of Primary Care and Behavioral | +|------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| +| | Health, Co-Chaired by Senator Joshua | and Representative David Bennett, | +| 2004 - present | Advocacy regarding legislation: | | + +#### PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS + +American Psychological Association (APA). Fellow Divisions 42 and 56 + +American Psychological Association (APA), Member Divisions 12, 29. 31, 35, 4I, + +Association for Women in Psychology (AWP) + +Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing International Association (EMDRIA) + +International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) + +International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) + +Massachusetts Psychological Association + +New England Society for the Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation (Nesrm) + +Rhode Island Psychological Association (RIPA) + +#### COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES + +2019 — present + +2011 — 2019 + +2013 — 2017 + +2013 -2017 + +2011 — 2017 + +2008 — 2015 + +2002 — 2006 + +Governance Committee Member. Moses + +Nominating Committee Member, Moses + +Clerk. Nominating Committee. Moses + +Executive Committee Member, Moses + +Board of Trustees, Moses School, Providence RI + +Trustee Committee Member, Moses School, Providence, RI + +Founding Director. Board of Directors. Quest Montessori School. Exeter. + +School, Providence. RI School, Providence, RI School. Providence. RI School. Providence. RI \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b954d18fedead948881a435c66f592f0bbb1fd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/EFTA02833467.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1760 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 25957, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.52, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 417.3389587402344, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 417.3389587402344, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 391.6085205078125, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 391.6085205078125, + 102.2713623046875 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 102.2713623046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 143.8750762939453, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 143.8750762939453, + 196.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 196.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 213.00198364257812, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 213.00198364257812, + 350.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 350.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LICENSURE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 140.95172119140625, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 140.95172119140625, + 438.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 438.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLINICAL EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 198.32908630371094, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 198.32908630371094, + 515.4811401367188 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 515.4811401367188 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7/94 - 7/95 Pre-Doctoral Intern In Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.72000122070312, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 327.95916748046875, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 327.95916748046875, + 90.98114013671875 + ], + [ + 81.72000122070312, + 90.98114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Extern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 299.0460205078125, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 299.0460205078125, + 134.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 134.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Trainee", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 302.7525634765625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 302.7525634765625, + 168.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 168.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Extern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 298.9921875, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 298.9921875, + 200.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 200.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Family Service Student Counselor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 327.48944091796875, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 327.48944091796875, + 233.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 233.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TRAINING AND CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.1917724609375, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.1917724609375, + 289.3511657714844 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 289.3511657714844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2000 - 2002 Psychological Consultant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.82000732421875, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 290.88592529296875, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 290.88592529296875, + 311.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.82000732421875, + 311.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2000 - 2001 Psychological Consultant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.82000732421875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 290.88592529296875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 290.88592529296875, + 388.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.82000732421875, + 388.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 2002 Consultant: Professional Development, Education and Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 448.2552185058594, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 448.2552185058594, + 443.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 443.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1994 Mock Trial Expert Witness", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 299.9923400878906, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 299.9923400878906, + 497.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 497.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1992 - 1994 Workshop Leader", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37999725341797, + 517.59 + ], + [ + 263.07769775390625, + 517.59 + ], + [ + 263.07769775390625, + 531.2211303710938 + ], + [ + 82.37999725341797, + 531.2211303710938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1992 Mock Trial Expert Witness", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 300.0058898925781, + 572.67 + ], + [ + 300.0058898925781, + 586.3511199951172 + ], + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 586.3511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESEARCH EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 616.41 + ], + [ + 203.57907104492188, + 616.41 + ], + [ + 203.57907104492188, + 629.8511199951172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 629.8511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 2003 Research Group Member", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 293.1217041015625, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 293.1217041015625, + 652.3511199951172 + ], + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 652.3511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6/93 - 9/93 Research Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.73999786376953, + 670.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 670.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 685.3511199951172 + ], + [ + 81.73999786376953, + 685.3511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "10/89 - 8/91 Research Project Coordinator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 311.5146484375, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 311.5146484375, + 113.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 113.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 202.45907592773438, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 202.45907592773438, + 168.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 168.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "9/96 - 12/96 Adjunct Assistant Professor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 302.3628234863281, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 302.3628234863281, + 190.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 190.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1/96 - 5/96 Special Instructor in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.36000061035156, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 320.0828552246094, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 320.0828552246094, + 234.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 82.36000061035156, + 234.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "9/92 - 5/94 Instructor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.7800064086914, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 230.2486572265625, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 230.2486572265625, + 278.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.7800064086914, + 278.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5/92 and 5/93 Teaching Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 322.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 322.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "9/91 - 5/92 Teaching Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.968994140625, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.968994140625, + 366.2211608886719 + ], + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 366.2211608886719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SELECTED SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 407.43 + ], + [ + 331.3562927246094, + 407.43 + ], + [ + 331.3562927246094, + 421.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 421.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2011 \u20142012 Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999206542969, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 378.5828552246094, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 378.5828552246094, + 443.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.81999206542969, + 443.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2011 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (14 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 542.1011352539062 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 542.1011352539062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2006 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (28 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 584.8199999999999 + ], + [ + 418.931640625, + 584.8199999999999 + ], + [ + 418.931640625, + 597.6011199951172 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 597.6011199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2005 - 2006 Psychotherapy Training Course for Dissociative Disorders (223 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.83000183105469, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 478.236572265625, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 478.236572265625, + 685.3511199951172 + ], + [ + 81.83000183105469, + 685.3511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2004 \nContinuing Education in Forensic Psychology (21 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 124.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 124.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2001 \nEye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Levels I & 11 (34 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 489.486572265625, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 489.486572265625, + 190.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 190.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 20(X) \nDialectical Behavior Therapy, Intensive Training, Parts I & II (72 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.1065673828125, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.1065673828125, + 233.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 233.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 157.79718017578125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 157.79718017578125, + 278.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 278.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 242.4352264404297, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 242.4352264404297, + 641.1011199951172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 641.1011199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVITED ADDRESSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 184.55836486816406, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 184.55836486816406, + 299.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 299.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DISSERTATION AND THESIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 217.43435668945312, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 217.43435668945312, + 377.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 377.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 218.17645263671875, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 218.17645263671875, + 476.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 476.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "American Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 225.9872283935547, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 225.9872283935547, + 497.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 497.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Association for Women in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 79.38 + ], + [ + 233.0718231201172, + 79.38 + ], + [ + 233.0718231201172, + 91.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 91.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Blue Cross Blue Shield of RI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 176.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 198.1974639892578, + 176.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 198.1974639892578, + 190.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 190.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Coalition of Mental Health Providers in RI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.42979431152344, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.42979431152344, + 266.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 266.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Healthsource RI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 147.25718688964844, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 147.25718688964844, + 310.72113037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 310.72113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "New England Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 241.36978149414062, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 241.36978149414062, + 356.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 356.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation Behavioral Health Network", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 388.8523864746094, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 388.8523864746094, + 398.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 398.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 239.11721801757812, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 239.11721801757812, + 464.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 464.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts Trauma Study Group", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 344.9193420410156, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 344.9193420410156, + 629.8511199951172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 629.8511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 217.20172119140625, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 217.20172119140625, + 113.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 113.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Congressional Visits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 168.1095428466797, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 168.1095428466797, + 134.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 134.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Legislative Advocacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 227.8291015625, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 227.8291015625, + 432.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 432.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 230.90208435058594, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 230.90208435058594, + 663.4556121826172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 663.4556121826172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 206.90740966796875, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 206.90740966796875, + 201.08563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 201.08563232421875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 119 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "Table", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833467" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a04b7482fe234ebf702567a15777779484247bf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833467/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:964e126de6c912b541294a43d3bb9975ccfe1e288d6a76e9fed7f0a4a250c0f8 +size 6480 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0aaf5449658a522883e9c43855a8573cfa5e59a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.md @@ -0,0 +1,322 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND REQUEST FOR DAUBERT HEARING + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New York, + +NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS..... | ii..... | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..... | iii..... | +| TABLE OF EXHIBITS ..... | v..... | +| INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..... | 1..... | +| FACTUAL BACKGROUND..... | 2..... | +| ARGUMENT..... | 3..... | +| I.     Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. .... | 3..... | +| A.     Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. .... | 5..... | +| 1.     Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable..... | 5..... | +| 2.     Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis. .... | 9..... | +| 3.     Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact..... | 10..... | +| 4.     Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than probative. .... | 11..... | +| B.     Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. .... | 12..... | +| C.     Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma..... | 13..... | +| D.     Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. 14. | | +| E.     Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma ..... | 15..... | +| II.    At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing..... | 17..... | +| CONCLUSION..... | 17..... | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| Amorgianos v. Nat'! R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) | 3, 4 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| +| Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R. Co., 882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989) | 14 | +| v. Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2011) | 6 | +| Celebrity Cruises Inc. v. Essef Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) | 9 | +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | passim | +| 31, 2010) | 7, 12 | +| Electra v. 59 Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2021) | 4 | +| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1999) | 7 | +| Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) | 4 | +| Nimely v. City of N.Y., 414 F.3d. 381 (2d Cir. 2005) | 4 | +| Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) | 6 | +| United States v. , No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) | 11 | +| United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) | 16 | +| United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909 (2d Cir. 1993) | 14 | +| United States v. 618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980) | 14 | +| United States v. , 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) | 13 | +| 2012) | passim | +| United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) | 14 | +| 22, 2019) | 9 | +| United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010) | 7, 8, 10, 11 | +| 2010) | passim | + +#### Other Authorities + +#### Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 3, 13 | +|-------------------|--------------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 3, 13 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404 | 1, 4, 5 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 | 4, 5, 13, 16 | + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT 1: Government's Apr. 23, 2021 Notice of Expert Witness Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio + +EXHIBIT 2: Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio's Curriculum Vitae + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude the proposed testimony of Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D., under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, 704, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +### INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT + +The case against Ms. Maxwell is rife with problems. Recognizing them, the government retreats to a familiar tactic: The use of a "blind" expert to fill in the gaps, to explain away the inconsistencies, and to vouch of the truthfulness of the accusers. + +The foundation of Lisa M. Rocchio's proposed expert testimony is so-called "grooming" behavior. But grooming is not a widely recognized or highly predictable and verifiable phenomena. To the contrary, "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring."' What's more, there is nothing—not a journal article, and not a study—to validate Rocchio's opinions on "grooming-by-proxy"—Le., that Ms. Maxwell groomed victims not for her own benefit but for that of Jeffrey Epstein. + +Rocchio's opinions about "grooming" are entirely subjective—they are based on her personal experience treating a self-selected group of people who claim to have been sexually abused and who Rocchio assumes are telling the truth. There are no studies or data to back up her conclusions; they have no associated error rate; they cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced; and they "virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination."2 Since "expert + +Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +2 United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2 (D. Me. July 24, 2012). + +evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it,"3 and for all the other masons given below, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying. + +#### FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The government has endorsed Rocchio as an expert witness. EXHIBIT I. Although the government says that Rocchio is a "clinical instructor of psychiatry and human behavior," the government's notice does not say in what specialty it proposes this Court endorse her. Id. at 1-3. + +Instead, the government broadly asserts that Rocchio has "treated patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence," has "received specialized training in traumatic stress, sexual abuse, and clinical and forensic psychology," and has "written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma, among other topics." Id. at 1-2. + +According to the government, Rocchio intends to testify on the following topics: + +Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any specific victim in this case, and the + +3 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phar., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993). + +Government does not presently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. + +Id. at 2. + +The government elaborates that Rocchio will offer this testimony based + +on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse [and her] extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, as well as [her] experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma. + +Id. at 2. + +### ARGUMENT + +### I. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. + +Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of Rocchio's proposed testimony. + +That rule says: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +Rule 702 charges district courts "with 'the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.' Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597); see Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 402. A court must ensure that an expert "employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant t mid " tme/' v. City of N.Y., 414 F.3d. 381, 396 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Kuniho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). "To decide `whether a step in an expert's analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand.'" Electra v. 59 Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 233, 254 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267). If an expert's opinions rest "on data, a methodology, or studies that are simply inadequate to support the conclusions reached, Daubert and Rule 702 mandate the exclusion of that unreliable opinion testimony." Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266. + +The Supreme Court in Daubert set forth several factors for the court to consider in determining reliability: "(1) whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) a technique's known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether a particular technique or theory has gained 'general acceptance' in the relevant scientific community" Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266 (cleaned up). "Rule [702] applies its reliability standard to all 'scientific,' technical,' or 'other specialized' matters within its scope." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 147-48. + +Assuming an expert's opinions clear the relevancy and reliability hurdles of Dauber: and Rule 702, the court must nevertheless exclude the evidence if it violates Rule 704, Rule 403, or Rule 404. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. + +Rule 704 provides that "[l]n a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an + +element of the crime charged or of a defense" because those "matters are for the trier of fact alone." Fed R. Evid. 704(b). + +Rule 403 demands exclusion when the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +And Rule 404 prohibits any witness, witness or lay, from offering evidence "of a person's character or character trait ... to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait." Fed. R. Evid. 4O4(a)(1). + +Applying these provisions, and as elaborated below, each of Rocchio's opinions is inadmissible. + +#### A. Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. + +## 1. Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable. + +Rocchio's first and most prominent proposed area of testimony concerns "grooming," which she characterizes as "a strategic pattern of behavior[] . .. that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser." Ex. I, p 2. Rocchio continues that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse" and that "[s]exual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape." id. + +These opinions on grooming are not based "on scientific research or data." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2 (granting defendant's motion to preclude evidence from the government's "expert on sexual predator grooming techniques in its case-in-chief in a jury trial on charges of + +sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography"). To be sure, the government's notice and Rocchio's CV do not point to a single study, report, or article (peerreviewed or otherwise) establishing the reliability of her opinions on grooming. To the contrary, a review of grooming literature shows that grooming does not have a consistent definition and "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +Rocchio's opinions appear to be based on her personal experience as a treatment provider of individuals who claim to have suffered trauma. But an expert basing her opinion solely on experience "must do more than aver conclusorily that [her] experience led to [her] opinion," and she must do more than "propound a particular interpretation of [a party's] conduct." Primavera Familiensttfung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).4 An expert relies "solely or primarily on experience, the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts." Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee's Note to the 2000 Amendments. Rocchio cannot provide that required explanation here. + +First, nothing beyond Rocchio's personal opinion corroborates the allegations by her patients. Rocchio simply assumes her patients are telling the truth when they claim they were abused. This assumption fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion because "Itihere is also no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio's] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding [Rocchio's] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating [her] abuse." United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. + +&#x27; Abrogated on other grounds by v. Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2011). + +Sept. 22, 2010) (finding expert's opinion unreliable because the expert testified "that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them"). Rocchio's testimony thus runs the significant "risk of being the ipse dixit of the expert against which the Supreme Court has warned." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3 (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1999)). And because of her "inability to cite an error rate for false positives," her "testimony [is] virtually impregnable for purposes of crossexamination." Id. at \*2 (citing United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010) (excluding testimony about grooming in prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity)). + +But even if Rocchio's personal opinion about the veracity of her patients were sufficient to render her testimony reliable, her patients are a self-selected group of individuals. Rocchio has not and cannot point to a single study, controlled or otherwise, establishing the representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior. Ex. I; E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at \*14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes "no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative"). Again, Rocchio's opinions "cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way." See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4. + +There are other problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony. She opines, for example, that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse," Ex. 1, p.2, but she doesn't explain how often. Half the time? Twothirds of the time? Nor does she explain how "frequently" the "sexual abuse of minors ... occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time." Id. Rocchio's generic conclusions that grooming "often" happens or + +"frequently occurs" are not reliable, because she does not explain how these conclusions were reached, what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified. + +This is exactly why the Court in United States v. Raymond excluded grooming testimony in a prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity. In that case, the expert (Ken Lanning) proposed to testify that "offenders who prefer younger child victims are more likely to first 'seduce' the victim's parents to gain their trust and obtain increased access to the potential victim" and that "[fin my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by compliant child victims, involve the delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations." 700 F. Supp. 2d. at 148. The Court excluded this testimony as unreliable, explaining: + +Nowhere does Lanning cite an objective benchmark for these frequencies or comparisons. What is "more likely"? Fifty-one percent? How many is "many"? How few is "some"? What is the error rate for Lanning's behavioral generalizations? Can Lanning's opinions be tested or challenged in any objective sense? Nowhere do I see any discussion of false positives. How many cases has Lanning found where people who possess all the characteristics he describes nevertheless turn out to be innocent or where victims who behave as he describes turns out to be lying? Has he even looked for such examples? For all I can tell, that number may be more, fewer, or the same as, the thousands of cases he says that he has investigated where a defendant turned out to be guilty or where a victim turned out to be telling the truth. And are these rules of exclusion, or only of inclusion? For example, Lanning describes what the "grooming or seduction process usually consists of." But what if a defendant fails to do one of the things that Lanning's child molester would usually do? Can the defendant then argue to the jury that he must therefore not have been grooming a child? + +Id. at 148-49 (citations and footnote omitted). This Court should apply the teachings of Raymond to this case. + +Finally, Rocchio is a treatment provider of alleged victims of trauma, including victims of sexual assault. But she has no experience treating or evaluating alleged perpetrators of sexual + +assault. See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*2-3 (precluding "grooming" testimony from psychologist in prosecution for traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in sex with a minor because psychologist's "experience in the field of child sexual abusers and their victims is one-sided, as it is limited to therapeutic sessions with victims of sexual abuse," and because she did "not treat or diagnose adult abusers of children"). Any opinion Rocchio might offer about the psychology of alleged perpetrator and their so-called "grooming" techniques is outside her expertise and therefore unreliable. United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); see also Celebrity Cruises Inc. v. Essef Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 169, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (expert not "permitted to testify regarding" subjects "outside the expertise of the witness"). + +### 2. Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis. + +Rocchio's generalized grooming opinions are unreliable for all the reasons given above. But there is another reason this Court should exclude her grooming opinions under Rule 702 and Daubers: Nothing establishes the reliability of her opinions on "grooming-by-proxy." + +Recall that Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself. Instead, the government claims that Ms. Maxwell recruited minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein. Part of this recruiting, the government alleges, involved grooming behavior by Ms. Maxwell. + +There is no authority—no journal articles, no studies, no tests, nothing—to support Rocchio's opinions on grooming-by-proxy. These opinions fail under any application of the Dauber: test, because the theory has not gained any acceptance (let alone general acceptance) in the relevant community; it has not been peer-reviewed; it has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error. See Daubers, 509 U.S. at 594. Rocchio's opinions are grooming-by-proxy are nothing but prejudicial speculation. See Wehling v. Sandoz Pharms. + +Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at \*5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) ("An `expert' opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Dauber: where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method." (cleaned up)). + +## 3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact. + +None of Rocchio's opinions about grooming will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 ("Fit' is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes."). As in Raymond and United States v. Gonyer, the government here "does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3. Expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it "describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12; Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3. But even Rocchio does not contend that "grooming" is a "widely and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena." See Ex. 1. + +Still, without any elucidation, Rocchio claims grooming "often" or "frequently occurs," without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case. The government thus wants Rocchio to describe her conception of grooming and then leave it to "a lay jury without guidance ... to apply [her] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150. That is not how Rule 702 works. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 143 (grooming testimony "about the behavioral patterns of child molesters and their victims—as it might be used in this case to suggest the defendant's criminal + +intent or the truthfulness of the victim's testimony—does not satisfy the fit or reliability requirements" of Rule 702); Bennett & O'Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974 ("[1]t appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard."). + +#### 4. Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than probative. + +Rocchio's proposed testimony is also inadmissible under Rule 403. For one thing, it will "radically simplify" an otherwise complex case. See United States v. No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. M. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the "grooming theory" in in the context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). As the Court explained in United States v. Rocchio's "grooming theory" can "foist a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all... radically simplifying] the mess of ... competing feelings, urges, and needs over the course of [a] relationship into the neat dichotomy of victim and predator." Id. See Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \* 3 (to describe the so-called "attributes of a sexual predator" is to "invite the jury to so label a defendant" a sexual predator). + +For another thing, her testimony "runs the risk of creating a false sense of expert infallibility in an area of testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \* 3 (citing Raymond, 700 F.Supp.2d at 150 ("a toxic mixture of purported expertise and common sense")). This is particularly true given the Supreme Court's recognition that "[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it." Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 595. + +Were there any doubt about the reliability or relevance of Rocchio's grooming opinions, which there isn't, the Court should still exclude her testimony under Rule 403. + +#### B. Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. + +Rocchio's second opinion—that the relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure—has several flaws that render it inadmissible. + +First, the opinion is unreliable, because it is, in reality, an opinion about grooming disguised as an opinion about delayed disclosure. In Rocchio's view, alleged victims delay or fail to disclose alleged abuse because they were groomed. But because Rocchio's proposed grooming testimony is unreliable, not helpful to the trier of fact, and unfairly prejudicial (for all the reasons given above, supra Part La- 1.c), so too is this opinion unreliable, not helpful to the trier of fact, and unfairly prejudicial. + +To reiterate, Rocchio's opinions are based on her personal experience as a treatment provider. She assumes her clients are telling the truth, and her clients are a self-selected group of alleged victims. Rocchio cannot cite an error rate for her conclusions, nor can she say how representative her patients are of those who suffer sexual abuse. See E.E.O.C., 2010 WL 3466370, at \*14 (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes "no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative"). Her conclusions cannot be tested or verified, and they are "virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2. + +Second, Rocchio apparently has no experience treating alleged perpetrators. So her view of the "relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim" is entirely one-sided. See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*2-3. The second opinion Rocchio proposes to offer is outside her expertise. + +Finally, Rocchio's second opinion is inadmissible under Rules 704 and 403. It's inadmissible under Rule 704 because it amounts to an opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully. The credibility of the accusers, however, is a question for the jury to decide. It is not properly the subject of an expert opinion. + +Rocchio's proposed testimony also violates Rule 403, because it risks jurors accepting her "expert" opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence and to come to their own independent judgment. And because expert opinion testimony can be both "powerful" and "misleading," Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 595, the balance weighs in favor of exclusion when the predicate for the opinion—grooming—is itself unreliable and not helpful to the jury. + +#### C. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. + +Rocchio's third opinion—that repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma—has nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. + +This case is about one thing: Whether the government can prove each of the elements of the indicted offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.=, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[T]he jury's singular responsibility to decide from the evidence admitted at trial whether the government has carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."). That is the only thing the jury will be asked to decide, and it's a decision that has nothing to do with the "long-term traumatic and psychological consequences" of alleged abuse. Rocchio's opinions on those consequences are irrelevant under Rule 401 and 402, they will not assist the trier of fact in deciding the case, Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +Rather, Rocchio's testimony will serve only to inflame and passions and emotions of the jury, prejudicing Ms. Maxwell, and to distract and mislead the jury from its constitutional obligation of holding the government to its burden of proof. See United States v. 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980) (evidence is unfairly prejudicial "when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence. The prejudicial effect may be created by the tendency of the evidence to prove some adverse fact not properly in issue or unfairly to excite emotions against the defendant"). This court should exclude Rocchio's third proffered opinion. + +### D. Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. + +Rocchio's fourth opinion—that the presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors—is not properly admitted as expert opinion. Such an opinion is not based on "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge." Fed. R. Evid. 702. It is "basically ... [a] general pronouncement[]" that "coincide[s] with common sense." United States v. Serna, 799 F.24 842, 850 (2d Cir.1986), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909, 914 n. 5 (2d Cir. 1993). Expert testimony like this is not admissible because it concerns "lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1989). See also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he district court should not admit testimony that is directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (quotation omitted)). + +#### E. Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma + +There are several problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma." + +The first half of this opinion—regarding nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, or late disclosure—is unreliable because the alleged connection "between child sexual abuse and a failure to report . . . is not a testable hypothesis." Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4. Rocchio offers no data or analyses to support her conclusion, Ex. 1, and she formed her subjective opinion based entirely on her treatment of a self-selected group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 ("Indeed, Edelman testifies that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them."). "There is also no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio's] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding [Rocchio's] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating [her] abuse or has simply delayed reporting such abuse." See id. And because Rocchio's experience is apparently "limited to providing therapy for those child victims who have reported their abuse," Rocchio is in no position "reliably opine as to the characteristics or psychology of victims who maintain their silence." See id. Rocchio's testimony, therefore, "cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way." Id. Her opinions are unreliable and inadmissible. + +Rocchio's testimony also "will [not] help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). Rocchio's opinions on disclosure are so generic + +as to explain whatever a victim might do. Rocchio says that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are "common" and therefore consistent with being sexually abused. + +But since Rocchio does not contend that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are the inevitable consequence of sexual abuse, then it's necessarily also true that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are inconsistent with being sexually abused. Rocchio's testimony, therefore, adds nothing to the case, because the jury has no means to apply her opinions to the evidence and to determine whether + +Rocchio's opinions about disclosure are not helpful to the jury, and they will serve only to prejudice Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 403. While the government will surely contend that Rocchio will not opine as to the truthfulness of any of the alleged victims in this case, the practical effect of Rocchio's opinion that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse" is to suggest to the jury that those who delayed disclosure are telling the truth about the abuse they suffered. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*6.5 Because a witness's credibility is solely within the province of the jury to determine, however, Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) bars testimony that a witness is testifying truthfully. Moreover, Rocchio's testimony serves to bolster the credibility of the victims, and such bolstering is impermissible. See United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999) ("In general, expert testimony which does nothing but vouch for the credibility of another + +5 Of course, the court should not expect Rocchio to disavow the converse of this proposition that those who immediately disclose alleged abuse are lying. After all,I + +witness encroaches upon the jury's vital and exclusive function to make credibility determinations and therefore does not 'assist the trier of fact' as required by Rule 702.") (citations omitted). Rocchio's opinions on disclosure also contravene Rule 403 because they suggest that delayed reporting of child sexual abuse is more consistent with truthfulness than with fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*6. + +That leaves the second half of Rocchio's disclosure opinion: that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. This opinion is so generic as to be meaningless. It is also a matter of common sense—how could anyone dispute that memory is "impacted by a number of factors"? Moreover, Rocchio is not an expert in the human brain or memory generally. And her opinion about when, why, and how alleged victims of sexual assault remember being assaulted suffers from all the same flaws discussed above: Rocchio doesn't point to any data or studies validating her opinion; her opinions cannot be tested, reproduced, or meaningfully challenged; and her opinion is based on the self-reports of her own clients, who she assumes are telling the truth. + +### II. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing + +For all these reasons, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying in this case. At the very least, this Court should hold a Daubert to evaluate each of her proposed opinions. + +## CONCLUSION + +This Court should exclude Rocchio's proposed testimony or, in the alternative, hold a Daubert hearing. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubers v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Request for Daubers Hearing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..416806f6f83130e38713e7df9571eaf074a6a699 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479/EFTA02833479.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1439 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833479.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 24, + "chars": 44822, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.73, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 137.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 137.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 203.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 203.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 87.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 87.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 479.54205322265625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 479.54205322265625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 290.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 290.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 365.8974914550781, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 365.8974914550781, + 317.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 317.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of \nbehaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and \nfunction to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature \nof the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 533.9039306640625, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 533.9039306640625, + 380.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 380.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 400.49993896484375, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 400.49993896484375, + 407.60302734375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 407.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 481.7493896484375, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 481.7493896484375, + 363.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 363.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.57696533203125, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.57696533203125, + 253.10302734375 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 253.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than \nprobative.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 528.3424682617188, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 528.3424682617188, + 212.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 212.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged \nperpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that \nwhat they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.8660278320312, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.8660278320312, + 117.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 117.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of \nvictimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and \npsychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of \ncomplex trauma.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 380.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 380.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual \nabuse of minors.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 512.940185546875, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 512.940185546875, + 323.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 323.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are \ncommon among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that \nmemory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a \nnumber of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 132.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 132.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 426.63299560546875, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 426.63299560546875, + 501.363037109375 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 501.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 583.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 583.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833479" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35b7ac2ac963ff1be6776856b7e5af7da96d7255 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503/EFTA02833503.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833503.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833503" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6db82711ce428f21c61b83130ede4cf6cf5b5b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504/EFTA02833504.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833504.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833504" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bde401e3ef2aa741cc72e20cfaa279bc81549c06 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.md @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| BACKGROUND | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. Applicable Law | 5 | +| II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Charged Conspiracies | 7 | +| III. | Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be | +| Excluded Under Rule 403 | 10 | +| IV. | In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from | +| by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction | 14 | +| CONCLUSION | 16 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,
509 U.S. 579 (1993)..... | 12 | +| Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions ,
137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017)..... | 14 | +| Grunewald v. United States ,
353 U.S. 391 (1957)..... | 8 | +| Huddleston v. United States ,
485 U.S. 681 (1988)..... | 5, 6 | +| Salinas v. United States ,
522 U.S. 52 (1997)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Bagaric ,
706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)..... | 6, 7, 8 | +| United States v. Benussi ,
216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese , 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) ..... | 8 | +| United States v. Carboni ,
204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000)..... | 6 | +| United States v. [REDACTED],
983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992)..... | 6 | +| United States v. Cummings ,
60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763
(2d Cir. 2017)..... | 6, 7, 8, 9 | +| United States v. Curley ,
639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011)..... | 5, 6, 11, 13 | +| United States v. Dolney ,
No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005) ..... | 10, 15 | +| United States v. [REDACTED],
618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980)..... | 13 | + +| United States v. [REDACTED] ,
291 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002)..... | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| +| United States v. Mahaffy,
477 F. Supp. 2d 560 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) vacated in part on other grounds 285
Fed. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008)..... | | +| United States v. McCallum,
584 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009)..... | 5, 6, 11 | +| United States v. Mills,
895 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1990)..... | 12 | +| United States v. Nektalov,
325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..... | 6, 8, 9, 10 | +| United States v. Pascarella,
84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996)..... | 11 | +| United States v. Sliker,
751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984)..... | 12 | +| United States v. Townsend,
No. S1 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007)..... | 6, 9, 10 | +| United States v. Walia,
No. 14-CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)..... | 12 | + +## Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) | 7 | +|---------------------|--------| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 7 | +| Act | passim | + +# Other Authorities + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 12 | +|----------------------|--------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | II, 12 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 702 | 12 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 | 12 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully moves in limine to exclude evidence related to Accuser-31 because it is not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) for an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony. + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The government and the defense agree on at least this much about Accuser-3: + +- I. She was not a minor in the United Kingdom when she alleges that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 1994-1995; +- 2. She cannot establish that Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein ever caused, or sought to cause, her to travel while she was a minor; and +- 3. She cannot establish that she was a minor in the United States when she alleges that she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein at his various residences. + +Even if we assume for the sake of argument that everything Accuser-3 alleges is true (which it is not), she has not alleged any illegal conduct whatsoever, much less conduct "in furtherance of a conspiracy to entice or cause minor girls to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity with Epstein. + +It seems evident that the government originally included Accuser-3's allegations in the indictment as evidence of the charged conspiracies because it did not know that she was above the age of consent in the U.K. The government presented Accuser-3's allegations to the grand jury incorrectly assuming that she was a minor and that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and + +I This individual is described in the S2 Superseding Indictment as Minor Victim-3. Similarly, we refer to the individuals identified in the indictment as Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 as Accuser-I and Accuser-2, respectively. + +Accuser-3 were illegal. Indeed, referring to Accuser-3 in the indictment as "Minor Victim-3" is entirely misleading — there is no evidence that she was a "minor" when any of the alleged sex acts took place. + +Nevertheless, even after the defense pointed out in our pretrial motions that Accuser-3 was not a minor and had not alleged any illegal conduct, the government repeated her allegations verbatim to the grand jury and in the S2 Superseding Indictment. This was not only misleading, it was also an end-run around Rule 404(b). Simply including the conduct alleged by Accuser-3 in the indictment does not mean that it is evidence of the charged conspiracies. The conduct alleged by Accuser-3 is not within the scope of the charged conspiracies and the Court should not admit this evidence as proof of those charges. Nor should the Court admit this evidence as "other act" evidence under Rule 404(b). This evidence would only be offered to show criminal propensity, despite the alleged conduct being entirely legal, and would mislead the jury and unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, the Court should exclude evidence related to Accuser-3. + +# BACKGROUND + +The original indictment against Ms. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020, and the first superseding indictment, filed on July 8, 2020, included the following allegations related to Accuser-3: + +> MAXWELL groomed and befriended [Accuser-3] in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed [Accuser-3's] life and family with [Accuser-3]. MAXWELL introduced [Accuser-3] to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between [Accuser-3] and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged [Accuser-3] to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with [Accuser-3j during those massages. [Accuser-3] provided Epstein + +with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused [Accuser-3]. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with [Accuser-3] on multiple occasions, including at times when [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +See Indictment (Dkt. 001)1 7(c); SI Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 017) ¶ 7(c). Both indictments also alleged the following as an overt act of the charged conspiracies: "Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged [Accuser-3] to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages." See Indictment (Dkt. 001)1n 11(d), I 7(d); S I Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 017)¶¶ 11(d), 17(d). + +Ms. Maxwell filed a pretrial motion to strike the allegations related to Accuser-3 as surplusage on the grounds that they could not support the charged conspiracies and were unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 146) at 1-3, 6-9. Ms. Maxwell noted that (1) according to Accuser-3's own allegations, she was above the legal age of consent in the United Kingdom (16 years old) when the sex acts supposedly took place and therefore any sex acts that occurred were lawful and could not be considered "sexual abuse"; and (2) the indictment did not allege any travel by Accuser-3, in interstate or foreign commerce or otherwise, let alone as a result of any action taken by Ms. Maxwell or Epstein, which was a critical element of both charged conspiracies. Id. at 4-5. + +In its opposition, the government scrambled to paper over these problems by providing a much fuller proffer of Accuser-3's expected testimony. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158-59 & n.56. The government attempted to defend its use of the phrase "sexual abuse" by asserting that the description was "factually accurate" because + +Accuser-3 was expected to testify at trial that “her *subjective experience* of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive.” *Id.* at 162 n.57 (emphasis added). The government also represented for the first time that Accuser-3 is expected to testify that [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] *Id.* at 159. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] ” + +*Id.* Accordingly, Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was a minor when she traveled or when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in the United States. + +Despite having been alerted to the problems with Accuser-3’s evidence, the government repeated the same allegations related to Accuser-3 in the second superseding indictment filed after the pretrial motions were fully briefed. *See* S2 Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 187) (“S2 Indictment”) ¶¶ 9(c), 13(d), 19(d). These included the misleading allegations that Accuser-3 was a “minor” and that Epstein had “sexually abused” her. *Id.* + +In its opinion and order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to strike, the Court agreed that the indictment did not allege that Accuser-3 traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. 4/16/2021 Opinion and Order (Dkt. 207) at 27. + +Nevertheless, the Court stated that it could not “rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell’s state of mind.” *Id.* The Court further stated that it would reserve the issue for trial and allow Ms. Maxwell to renew her motion then. *Id.* + +For the reasons stated below, the Court should not admit evidence related to Accuser-3 at trial as evidence of the charged conspiracies or as "other act" evidence under Rule 404(b). In the alternative, the Court should preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that Accuser-3 was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts. The Court should also preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that Epstein "sexually abused" her and give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction that the alleged conduct was lawful and that the sexual activity cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for the purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment.2 + +## ARGUMENT + +# I. Applicable Lass + +Rule 404(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of evidence of "crimes, wrongs, or acts" other than those charged in the indictment. United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). The rule provides, in relevant part: + +- (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. +- (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1)-(2). For other act evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b), (1) it must be offered for a proper purpose, (2) it must be relevant to a disputed issue, and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair + += For the same reasons, Ms. Maxwell also renews her motion to strike the allegations related to Accuser-3 from the S2 Indictment. + +prejudice pursuant to Rule 403; in addition, (4) at defendant's request, the district court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction. United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)). "'Other act' evidence serves a proper purpose so long as it is not offered to show the defendant's propensity to commit the offense." Curley, 639 F.3d at 57 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). + +When the government must prove a conspiracy charge, evidence of other acts committed "in furtherance of the conspiracy" is not "other act" evidence under Rule 404(6), but rather, it is direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment. United States v. Townsend, No. SI 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992)). However, "other acts" are only admissible as evidence of a conspiracy "as long as they are within the scope of the conspiracy." United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 1983)). + +Evidence of uncharged conduct is not considered other act evidence under Rule 404(b) "if it [1] arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, [2] if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or [3] if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000)). However, "where it is not manifestly clear that the evidence in question is intrinsic proof of the charged crime, the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)." Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (citing Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372). + +#### II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Chatted Conspiracies + +Accuser-3's allegations, which pertain only to the Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment, are irrelevant to the charged conspiracies and do not offer any proof supporting those charges. The S2 Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to (i) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), with the objective of enticing one or more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 11-12); and (ii) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), with the objective of transporting an individual under age 18 with the intent that the individual engage in unlawful sexual activity 17-18). As an overt act in furtherance of these conspiracies, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell "encouraged [Accuser-3] to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages." Id. re 13(d), 19(d) (emphasis added). The Indictment further alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3. Id. ¶ 9c. + +There is no cogent basis for the government to assert that Accuser-3's allegations are direct evidence of the charged conspiracies. The object of the alleged conspiracies was to entice or cause one or more minors to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in order to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The government concedes that Accuser-3 (1) was not a minor under U.K. law when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London, (2) cannot establish that she was invited to travel to the United States when she was under the age of 18, and (3) cannot establish that she was a minor when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in the United States. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Del's Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158-59, 162-163 & nn.57-58. Accuser-3 will therefore not provide any proof that Ms. Maxwell "furthered" an alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. Accordingly, the conduct she alleges is not "within the scope of the conspiracy" and + +should not be admitted as evidence of the conspiracies. See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to deterrnining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy" (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 397 (1957)). + +In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell's motion to strike, the government argued that because a conspiracy "does not require a completed substantive crime," Accuser-3's allegations could still be admitted as direct proof of the charged conspiracies even though she did not travel as a minor or engage in illegal sex acts because Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" her to engage in those sex acts. Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 161-163 (citing Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997)). That argument misses the mark. While it is true that a conspiracy does not require a completed substantive crime, Salinas itself states that "[a] conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense." Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. As to Accuser-3, the completed endeavor—i.e., her alleged sex acts with Epstein—was not a substantive criminal offense. Even if we accept her allegations as true (which we do not), there is nothing unlawful about encouraging an adult to engage in entirely lawful sex acts. Hence, Accuser-3's allegations are not direct proof of the charged conspiracies regardless of whether Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" her (which she did not). + +The Court should not admit Accuser-3's allegations as intrinsic proof of the charged conspiracies either. See Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 370 (listing three categories of "intrinsic" proof not considered Rule 404(b) evidence). The Act conspiracies in the S2 Indictment + +allege three distinct episodes of alleged sexual abuse, in three different locations, involving three separate accusers. The allegations of Accuser-3 stand on their own and are not "inextricably intertwined" with the allegations of Accuser-I or Accuser-2, nor do they stem from "the same series of transactions." In fact, they have no bearing on or connection to those allegations whatsoever. Because Accuser-3's allegations are conceptually distinct, they are also not "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracies. See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (defendant's prior crack arrests and firearms conviction not sufficiently connected to underlying conspiracy to distribute crack and possessing firearms to be admissible); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at •2 (defendant's prior narcotics and firearm transactions with the same confidential informant not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged narcotics conspiracy, even though the conduct was "generally similar to the conduct underlying the offenses charged in the indictment"); United States v. Mahal)", 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) vacated in pan on other grounds 285 Fed. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008) (similar prior financial crime not inextricably linked to the charged crime where prior act "was a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment"); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 369-70 (prior similar money laundering transactions between defendant and cooperating witness not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged money laundering offense or "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracy (emphasis in original)). + +The fact that the government included Accuser-3's allegations in the S2 Indictment is of no consequence. Although Rule 404(b) typically governs the admissibility of "other acts" that are not charged in the indictment, in this case, the government evidently charged the conduct under the mistaken belief that Accuser-3 was a minor when she engaged in sex acts with Epstein: • The government's error in including Accuser-3's + +allegations in the indictment does not somehow convert this evidence into proof of the charged conspiracies. Such a rule would allow the government to entirely circumvent Rule 404(6) simply by charging other act conduct in the indictment. + +Moreover, without a proper limiting instruction, there is a serious risk that the jury will view this lawful conduct as evidence of criminal propensity. See United States v. Dolney, No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005) (benefit of applying Rule 404(6) is "the value that a limiting instmction will have in ensuring that the jury does not view the defendants' alleged prior conduct as evidence of the defendants' propensity to engage in criminal activity"). At the very least, it is not "manifestly clear" that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is proof of the charged Act conspiracies. Accordingly, "the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)." Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (citing Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372). + +### III. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be Excluded Under Rule 403 + +The Court should also not admit evidence related to Accuser-3 as Rule 404(b) evidence because it will be offered solely to show Ms. Maxwell's criminal propensity and will be unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell and will mislead the jury into believing that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and Accuser-3 were unlawful.3 + +The Second Circuit takes an "inclusionary approach" to Rule 404(b) evidence, which admits "other act" evidence "that does not serve the sole purpose of showing the defendant's bad character and that is neither overly prejudicial under Rule 403 nor irrelevant under Rule 402. Curley, 639 F.3d at 56 (citing United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996)). The inclusionary approach, however, does not permit the government "to offer, carte blanche, any prior act of the defendant in the same category of [activity]." McCallum, 584 F.3d at 475 (quoting United States v. 291 F.3d 127, 137 (2d Cir. 2002)). If other act evidence is offered for the purpose of establishing the defendant's knowledge or intent, the government must "identify a similarity or connection between the two acts that makes the prior act relevant to establishing knowledge of the current act." Id. (quoting NM, 291 F.3d at 137). + +The government has argued that the conduct alleged by Accuser-3 is admissible under Rule 404(-. Maxwell's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 167. This argument is unavailing. Accuser-3's evidence could not possibly be proof that Ms. Maxwell knew of Epstein's "attraction to minor girls" and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact "with minor girls" because Accuser-3 was not a minor when the alleged sex acts took place. Id. For the same reason, Accuser-3's evidence could not possibly be proof that Ms. Maxwell "intended for minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein." Id. + +3 As noted in Ms. Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Government's Rule 404(b) Evidence, the government did not give proper 404(b) notice with respect to any of its proposed 404(b) evidence, which includes Accuser-3's evidence. Nevertheless, we respond on the merits to the admissibility of Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 404(b) in the event the Court determines that the government's additional disclosures concerning Accuser-3 in its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Pretrial Motions arc sufficient to satisfy its notice obligations under Rule 404(b). See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 157-169. + +The government's modus operandi argument appears to rest on the premise that "grooming," however broadly that may be defined, constitutes a distinctive pattern of criminal activity. See id.° As the government itself pointed out, the characteristics of the modus operandi must be "sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also United States v. Walia, No. 14—CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014) ("Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar acts to prove a `signature crime,' i.e., a modus operandi where the crimes are `so nearly identical in method as to ear-mark them as the handiwork of the accused."' (quoting United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897, 907 (2d Cir. 1990)). Here, Accuser-3 alleges that ■ **as she is alleged to have done with the other accusers. Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158. But engaging in social pleasantries and polite conversation does not in any way establish a unique or "signature" pattern of behavior. See Walia, 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (prior acts that share similarities with the charged offenses do not establish a modus operandi without a "signature" pattern of conduct) (collecting cases). In sum, Accuser-3's evidence will not be offered for any permissible purpose under Rule 404(b) and will just serve as evidence of criminal propensity. The Court should therefore exclude it.** + +**The Court should also exclude Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 403 because it will unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell and mislead the jury as to the legality of the alleged conduct and the purpose of its admission. Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the** + +Ms. Maxwell has moved separately to exclude the testimony of the government's proposed expert witness concerning "grooming" under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, 704, and Daubers v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, [or] waste of time." Fed. R. Evid. 403. According to the government, Accuser-3 is expected to testify that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, not because she was underage and incapable of consent by law, but because her "subjective experience" of these incidents was that they were "traumatic, exploitative, and abusive." Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 162 n.57. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she felt she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, the jury will naturally assume that the alleged sex acts were illegal, when they were not. Indeed, even if she is not allowed to use the phrase "sexual abuse," the mere fact that Accuser-3 will be testifying about alleged sex acts that she participated in with a much older man when she was 17 years old will likely lead the jury to assume that the conduct was illegal, especially after they have heard the expected testimony of the other accusers in this case. + +Hence, there is a strong likelihood that the jury will be misled by Accuser-3's evidence and will misapply it in evaluating Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence to the charged Act conspiracies, both of which require that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the accusers would engage in illegal or criminal sexual activity. This risk substantially outweighs the limited probative effect of Accuser-3's evidence. Even if the Court were to give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction, there is a substantial risk that it would not be sufficient to ensure that the jury did not misinterpret or misapply this evidence. See Curley, 639 F.3d at 60 (quoting United States v. , 618 F.2d 934, 946 (2d Cir. 1980) ("limiting instructions cannot be regarded as a guaranty against prejudice")). Accordingly, the Court should exclude Accuser-3's evidence. + +#### IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from Representing that Accuser-3 Was a "Minor," or that She Was "Sexually Abused" by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction + +If the Court determines that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is admissible, either as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies or as 404(b) evidence, the Court should (1) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction related to Accuser-3's testimony. + +The government concedes that Accuser-3 alleges that she was 17 years old and above the age of consent in the U.K. when she purportedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London. The government further concedes that Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was under the age of 18 when she alleges that she first traveled to the United States and engaged in sex acts with Epstein at his residences. Accuser-3 was therefore not a minor under the laws of the relevant jurisdictions when the alleged sex acts and the alleged international travel took place. It follows that the Court should not permit the government or Accuser-3 to refer to herself as a "minor" or claim that she was a minor when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. + +Similarly, the Court should not permit the government and Accuser-3 to assert that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein. The phrase "sexual abuse" connotes criminal activity, even though the alleged conduct was lawful. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017) ("'Sexual abuse of a minor,' the Government accordingly contends, 'most naturally connotes conduct that (I) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old.") (quoting government's brief) (emphases added). Notwithstanding Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of these incidents, the use of the phrase "sexual abuse" should not be allowed because it will mislead the jury into thinking that Accuser-3 engaged in "criminal sexual activity" with Epstein. That, in turn, may cause the jury to improperly convict Ms. Maxwell based on a false assumption. + +Finally, the Court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction to ensure that the jury understands that the alleged conduct was not unlawful and does not consider it as improper propensity evidence. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London when she was 17, as the government has proffered, the jury will almost certainly assume that the alleged conduct was unlawful, as it would be in certain U.S. states, and that the testimony is being offered to prove that Epstein and Accuser-3 engaged in "illegal sexual activity" in London. Accordingly, if Accuser-3 is allowed to testify, we request that the Court give the jury a limiting instruction containing the following points: + +- The legal age of consent for sexual activity in the United Kingdom is 16 years old. That was also the legal age of consent from 1994- 1995, when Accuser-3 alleges she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein in London when she was 17 years old. +- The alleged conduct that Accuser-3 has described in her testimony was therefore not illegal. If you find that these incidents took place, I instruct you that this sexual activity cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment. + +If the Court determines that Accuser-3's testimony may be admitted as 404( + +M. Maxwell further requests that the Court also give the jury an appropriate propensity instruction. See Dolney, 2005 WL 2129169, at •2 ("In the absence of such a limiting instruction, there exists a legitimate concern that the jury might misapply [the] evidence to conclude that if the defendants engaged in criminal conduct prior to the charged conspiracy, then the conduct at issue in these charges must also be criminal."). + +#### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude evidence related to Accuser-3 because it is not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court (1) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony that includes the points discussed above. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57daad504d08606bfed38f137af2399bca6242f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505/EFTA02833505.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1172 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833505.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 38840, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE \nTO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.4354553222656, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 458.4354553222656, + 306.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 306.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 456.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 456.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 559.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 559.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 291.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 291.3630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 484.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 484.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 318.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 318.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Lass", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 344.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Chatted Conspiracies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 481.8560791015625, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 481.8560791015625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be \nExcluded Under Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 535.8690185546875, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 535.8690185546875, + 632.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 632.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from \nRepresenting that Accuser-3 Was a \"Minor,\" or that She Was \"Sexually Abused\" \nby Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 536.7239999999999, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 536.7239999999999, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833505" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..541a46097b67fc2facdad71467c23ef646f4c3d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FLIGHT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| BACKGROUD | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. Applicable Law | 5 | +| II. The Government Should Not Be Permitted to Introduce Evidence of Alleged | | +| Consciousness of Guilt | 6 | +| CONCLUSION | 10 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases United States v. AI-Sadawi, | Page(s) | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 432 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2005) United States v. Amuso, | passim | +| 21 F.3d 1251 (2d Cir. 1994) United States v. Glenn, | 5 | +| 312 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2002) United States v. | 8, 9 | +| No. 12-Cr-838, 2017 WL 4803957 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2017) United States v. Myers, | 8, 9 | +| 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977) | 5, 6 | +| United States v. | | +| 475 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1973) United States v. Salameb, | 5 | +| 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) United States v. | 7, 8 | +| 790 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1986) Other Authorities | 6, 8, 9 | +| Federal Rule of Evidence 403 | I, 2, 9 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully moves in limine, pursuant to United States v. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2005) and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to exclude evidence of Ms. Maxwell's supposed "flight" following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein and to preclude the government from arguing to the jury that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from or evading law enforcement authorities prior to, or at the time of, her arrest, or that her conduct during this time period is proof of consciousness of guilt. + +# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +As Ms. Maxwell explained in her bail applications, her decision to remove herself from public view after Epstein's arrest was emphatically not for the purpose of evading detection by law enforcement, but instead was an effort to protect herself and her family members from an onslaught of intrusive media attention and threats of physical violence. Ms. Maxwell's position was extensively supported by letters from her spouse and other family members, who personally attested to relentless harassment from the media, as well as an affidavit submitted by Ms. Maxwell's security guard who explained the circumstances of her arrest. Furthermore, Ms. Maxwell remained in the United States continuously after Epstein's arrest, was in regular contact with the prosecutors through her attorneys, and never once demonstrated an intent to flee the country. The government has not established, and will not be able to establish at trial, a sufficient factual predicate of flight from which the jury can infer consciousness of guilt under controlling precedent. See AI-Sadawi, 432 F.3d at 424-25. Allowing the government to introduce evidence of Ms. Maxwell's actions prior to, and at the time of, her arrest to prove consciousness of guilt would mislead the jury and would invite them to draw speculative and unsupported inferences in the face of contrary factual evidence. Such evidence and argument would be unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell and would lead to a mini trial on the issue of flight + +that would confuse the issues in the case and cause undue delay. It should therefore be precluded under Rule 403. + +#### BACKCROUD + +The government repeatedly and erroneously argued in the context of Ms. Maxwell's bail applications that Ms. Maxwell went into "hiding" following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein to avoid detection by law enforcement. See 7/2/2020 Gov't Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 004) at 8 ("[Ms. Maxwell] made intentional efforts to avoid detection"); 7/13/2020 Gov't Reply Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 022) at 8 (measures that Ms. Maxwell took "to conceal herself' after Epstein's indictment "are at least equally consistent with the notion that the defendant also sought to evade detection by law enforcement"); 12/18/2020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to De's Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 21 ("[T]here is still reason to believe that the defendant was hiding not just from the press, but also from law enforcement."). The government also repeatedly and erroneously argued that Ms. Maxwell's conduct at the time of her arrest evidenced an intent to evade law enforcement. See 7/13/2020 Gov't Reply Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 022) at 7-8; 7/14/2020 Tr. of Bail Hrg. at 31:20-34:5; 12/18/2020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Del's Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 21-22. + +The government's assertion rests on groundless speculation concerning actions which Ms. Maxwell was forced to take in the days after Epstein's arrest to protect herself and her family and friends from unrelenting harassment by the media and the very real danger of physical threats against them. In particular, the government has noted the following in its prior submissions: + +- Ms. Maxwell moved residences and switched her primary phone number (which she registered under the name "G Max") and email address. +- At the time of her arrest, Ms. Maxwell allegedly ignored the direction of FBI agents to open the front door of her residence and instead moved into an interior room of the house.2 +- During a security sweep of the house, FBI agents found a cell phone wrapped in tin foil on top of a desk.' + +Ms. Maxwell thoroughly rebutted each of these points in her second bail motion. See 12/14/2020 Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for Bail (Dkt. 97) at 18-25. Ms. Maxwell offered not just argument in response, but independent factual corroboration of her position that stands in direct opposition to the government's incorrect and improper inferences. For example, Ms. Maxwell provided a letter from her spouse, who confirmed that Ms. Maxwell's decision to leave her family, move residences, and eventually settle in New Hampshire—where she remained continuously for over seven months until her arrest—was a difficult choice that was motivated by the pressing need to protect herself and her family from media intrusion and potential violent threats, not by a desire to evade law enforcement. See id., Ex. A ¶¶ 8-12; see also id., Ex. B at 2-4. Letters provided by other friends and family members attested to the relentless media harassment they themselves received and the severe consequences they endured simply for being associated with Ms. Maxwell. See, e.g., id., Exs. B at 3 & D at 2. + +Ms. Maxwell also provided an affidavit from the head of the security company providing security to Ms. Maxwell, who explained the circumstances surrounding her actions on the + +&#x27; 7/2/2020 Gov't Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 004) at 8; 12/18/2020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Defs Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 20. + +2 7/13/2020 Gov't Reply Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 022) at 7; 7/14/2020 Tr. of Bail Hrg. at 33:22-25; 12/18/2020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Defs Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 21-22. + +7/13/2020 Gov't Reply Mem. in Supp. of Detention (Dkt. 022) at 7; 7/14/2020 Tr. of Bail Hrg. at 34:1-5; 12/1812020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Defs Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 22. + +morning of her arrest, which had nothing to do with evading capture by law enforcement. See id., Ex. S ¶¶ 4-13. This individual stated that he had spoken to the security guard who was on duty with Ms. Maxwell that morning. Id. ¶ 7. The security guard reported that he had seen a helicopter flying above the property in the early morning hours and assumed it was the press. Id. Believing that the press had discovered the property, the head of the security company instructed the security guard to prepare Ms. Maxwell to move to a safe room in the event that the perimeter of the property were breached. Id. Roughly two hours later, the security guard saw vehicles approaching the residence and again assumed they were members of the press, not FBI agents. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. He radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that members of the press were on the grounds and approaching the house. /di 9. Ms. Maxwell then followed a pre-established safety protocol that she had been instructed to follow in the event that her security was threatened while she was inside the residence. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Pursuant to the protocol, Ms. Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. Id. Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest; she was simply following the established security protocols to protect herself from what she had been informed was an ambush by the press. + +Regarding the cellphone wrapped in tin foil, we explained at the initial bail hearing and in Ms. Maxwell's second bail application that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone after the Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed certain court records with the phone number unredacted. See 12/14/2020 Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for Bail (Dkt. 97) at 24. Moreover, the cell phone was subscribed in the name of Ms. Maxwell's charity and was therefore easily traceable to Ms. Maxwell. See id. at 24-25. + +In sum, the government cannot establish a suff►cient **factual predicate to argue that Ms. Maxwell's actions were evidence of flight, much less evidence of consciousness of guilt. Ms.** + +Maxwell did not leave the country, or make plans to leave the country, at any point in the year that elapsed between Epstein's arrest and her own arrest. Moreover, the government can offer no proof to counter the evidence proffered by Ms. Maxwell in her bail submission and instead relies on its vague and unsubstantiated "belief' that these actions reveal Ms. Maxwell's intent to evade law enforcement. See 12/18/2020 Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Defs Renewed Mot. for Release (Dkt. 100) at 21 ("[T]here is still reason to believe that the defendant was hiding not just from the press, but also from law enforcement."). Any evidence or argument regarding Ms. Maxwell's purported "flight" or consciousness of guilt lacks any factual foundation and would be highly prejudicial. It should therefore be excluded.° + +## ARGUMENT + +# I. Applicable Law + +"[I]t is widely acknowledged that evidence of flight or related conduct is 'only marginally probative as to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.' United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1049 (5'h Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. , 475 F.2d 376, 384 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). While flight can, in some circumstances, evidence consciousness of guilt, "a satisfactory factual predicate must exist from which the jury can infer consciousness of guilt from flight" before such evidence may properly be admitted. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d at 424 (citations omitted). "Since flight evidence can be powerful, the requirement of a sufficient factual predicate 'ensures that the evidence is probative in a legal sense and protects the defendant against the possibility of the jury drawing unsupported inferences from otherwise innocuous behavior.' Id. (quoting United States v. Amuso, 21 F.3d 1251, 1260 (2d Cir. 1994)). + +In its Opinion and Order denying Ms. Maxwell's second bail application, the Court did not resolve whether Ms. Maxwell's conduct after the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein was designed to protect herself from the press or evade law enforcement. See 12/28/2020 Op. and Order (Dkt. 106) at 19. We submit that it was clearly the former. At the very least, there is no foundation for the government to assert the latter. + +Flight is, at most, circumstantial evidence of guilt and its probative value "depends upon the degree of confidence with which four inferences can be drawn: (1) from the defendant's behavior to flight; (2) from flight to consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged; and (4) from consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged." Al-Sadmvi, 432 F.3d at 424 (quoting Myers, 550 F.2d at 1049). "Because of the inherent unreliability of evidence of flight, and the danger of prejudice its use may entail, a flight instruction is improper unless the evidence is sufficient to furnish reasonable support for all four of the necessary inferences." Myers, 550 F.2d at 1050 (internal citations omitted). An adequate evidentiary predicate "must include some evidence surrounding the failure to appear ... and must thereby provide the jury with more than an opportunity for mere conjecture and speculation." United States v.M, 790 F.2d 245, 252 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). + +#### II. The Government Should Not Be Permitted to Introduce Evidence of Alleged "Flight" or Argue that Ms. Maxwell's Conduct After Epstein's Death Is Proof of Consciousness of Guilt + +The government cannot establish a satisfactory factual predicate for the jury to infer that Ms. Maxwell was, in fact, fleeing or evading law enforcement authorities after the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, or that her conduct is proof of consciousness of guilt. The reason is simple those inferences are entirely speculative and demonstrably false. Ms. Maxwell never once left the country after Epstein's arrest, nor has the government produced any evidence that she was planning to flee, despite having received a grand jury subpoena and knowing that she was considered a subject of the ongoing FBI investigation. Instead, she found a permanent residence close to New York where she stayed continuously for seven months before her arrest and remained in regular contact with the prosecutors through her attorneys. As previously discussed, Ms. Maxwell also addressed and rebutted each point that the government referenced in its bail + +submissions as evidence of flight. Ms. Maxwell supported her position with letters from her spouse and other friends and family members, as well as an affidavit from a witness to the circumstances of her arrest, all of which corroborated Ms. Maxwell's explanation that she took these measures to protect herself and her family from the press and others who would seek to harm them. These facts categorically do not support an inference that Ms. Maxwell intended to flee. + +The Second Circuit's analysis in Al-Sadawi is instructive. In Al-Sadawi, the defendant's wife attempted to obtain expedited U.S. passports for herself and the defendant and purchased airline tickets for the two of them (but not their four children) to fly to Egypt two-and-a-half months after the defendant's co-conspirator was arrested. 432 F.3d at 423. The trial court allowed the government to introduce this evidence to show the defendant's intent to flee and to argue that it was proof of consciousness of guilt. Id. at 424. The Second Circuit disagreed and highlighted several flaws in the government's theory. First, Al-Sadawi had a valid Egyptian passport and could have traveled at any point up to the time of his arrest. Id. Second, "he had known for at least six months" that he was under government surveillance and that he had been directly implicated in the subject of the government's investigation, but "did nothing consistent with an intention to flee." Id. at 424-25. Third, when Al-Sadawi was arrested an hour before the flight was scheduled to depart, there was no evidence that he intended to board the flight — he had not packed his bags, he did not have the tickets in his possession, and he had not left for the airport. Id. at 425. The circuit court noted that the facts "differ[ed] sharply" from those of United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam), where the court found the jury could properly infer consciousness of guilt from evidence that the defendant fled the country one day after the crime was committed. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d at 425 (citing Salameh, 152 F.3d at + +157). By contrast, the Second Circuit found that the government's evidence in Al-Sadawi was "too attenuated" to establish that the defendant intended to flee to avoid prosecution or apprehension and the government should not have been permitted to argue consciousness of guilt on the basis of that evidence. Id. + +Here, the purported "flight" evidence is even more attenuated than in Al-Sadawi. Like Al-Sadawi, Ms. Maxwell knew she was a subject of the government's investigation after the arrest of Jeffery Epstein and could have left the country at any point in the one-year period leading up to her arrest (nine-and-a-half months longer than Al-Sadawi). But she did not. Unlike Al-Sadawi, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Maxwell was preparing to flee. Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her spouse had purchased a plane ticket, nor was Ms. Maxwell planning to move locations. On the contrary, Ms. Maxwell had been living in the same residence in New Hampshire for seven months — a location she chose because it was close to her family and close to the prosecutors in New York in case she needed to meet with them. Moreover, when Ms. Maxwell was arrested, the arresting agents found nothing suggesting that she planned to abscond. Finally, unlike Al-Sadawi, Ms. Maxwell proffered independent evidence supporting an alternative explanation for her actions that rebuts any inference that she intended to flee. + +Hence, if it was improper for the trial court to allow the introduction of flight evidence in Al-Sadawi, it would be even more improper for the Court to do so here. See id.; see also 790 F.2d at 252-53 (precluding evidence that defendant failed to appear at the initial date and a continuance date scheduled for his own trial); United States v. , No. 12-Cr-835, 2017 WL 4803957, at •4-\*5 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2017) (precluding evidence that defendant jumped from a third-floor window after being arrested and interviewed by the police); United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2002) (evidence that defendant flagged down a car + +and requested a ride away from the murder scene shortly after the crime took place did not support an inference of guilt). + +The government therefore cannot establish, with any degree of confidence, sufficient facts to satisfy even the first of the Sadawi inferences. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d at 424 (probative value of flight evidence as proof of consciousness of guilt "depends upon the degree of confidence with which four inferences can be drawn: (1) from the defendant's behavior to flight...."). Allowing the government to present this evidence to the jury as evidence of "flight" would invite the jury to infer consciousness of guilt based on nothing more than unfounded speculation. That is patently improper and must be precluded. Id. (citing , 790 F.2d at 252 (flight evidence "must ... provide the jury with more than an opportunity for mere conjecture and speculation." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))). + +Furthermore, admitting evidence of flight would be misleading to the jury and unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. It would also require the defense to call witnesses to counter the government's evidence and lead to a distracting mini trial on the issue of flight. The prejudice, confusion, and delay caused by admitting this evidence would substantially outweigh any limited probative value it may have. It must therefore be excluded under Rule 403. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also 2017 WL 4803957, at \*4-415 (precluding flight evidence pursuant to AI-Sadawi and Rule 403). + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude evidence of Ms. Maxwell's supposed "flight" following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein and preclude the government from arguing that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from or evading law enforcement authorities prior to, or at the time of, her arrest, or that her conduct during this time period is proof of consciousness of guilt. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I served by email, pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey®usdoj.gov Alison.moo@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz®usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ec545308475a0d89b3745dfcf4eb3139aeb7c55 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526/EFTA02833526.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,806 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833526.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 21947, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE \nTO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FLIGHT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 447.4619140625, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 447.4619140625, + 306.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 306.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 98.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 98.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 248.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 248.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 263.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 263.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKCROUD", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 348.9549560546875, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 348.9549560546875, + 153.363037109375 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 153.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 344.936767578125, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 344.936767578125, + 346.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 346.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.6498565673828, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.6498565673828, + 372.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 372.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Government Should Not Be Permitted to Introduce Evidence of Alleged \n\"Flight\" or Argue that Ms. Maxwell's Conduct After Epstein's Death Is Proof of \nConsciousness of Guilt", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 524.663818359375, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 524.663818359375, + 444.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 444.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833526" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0026083e2fbc9cff35e1307296fb60a9d878faf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +-x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. qt + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS AND TO REDACT ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE PERJURY COUNTS FROM THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| BACKGROUND | 1 | +| ARGUMENT | 3 | +| I. The Court Should Exclude Evidence Related to the Perjury Counts and Redact | | +| Those Allegations from the Superseding Indictment | 3 | +| CONCLUSION | 6 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases Grunewald v. United States, | Page(s) | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| 353 U.S. 391 (1957) United States v. Halper, | 5, 6 | +| 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) United States v. Marcus Schloss & Ca, Inc., | I, 2 | +| 710 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) Statutes | 5, 6 | +| Act Other Authorities | 2, 5 | +| Federal Rule of Evidence 403 | I, 2, 4, 5 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully moves in limine to exclude evidence of any alleged false statements by Ms. Maxwell in her 2016 civil depositions, as well as any other evidence related to the severed perjury counts, to prove a purported attempt by Ms. Maxwell to "conceal" her involvement in the other offenses charged in the superseding indictment. Ms. Maxwell also respectfully moves the Court to redact from the superseding indictment the perjury counts and any allegations that Ms. Maxwell made false statements to "conceal" her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. Ms. Maxwell requests this relief pursuant to the Court's prior ruling and Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See 4/16/2021 Op. and Order (Dkt. 207) at 23-26; Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +## BACKGROUND + +The Court has already ruled that the perjury counts must be severed because trying the perjury counts with the other counts in the indictment would risk admitting evidence that would be "unduly prejudicial" to Ms. Maxwell, would "compromise [Ms.] Maxwell's right to the counsel of her choice," and would "risk an unfair trial." 4/16/2021 Op. and Order (Dkt. 207) at 23-24. In particular, the Court recognized that introducing evidence related to the perjury charges would expose the jury to other acts of alleged sexual abuse that are not charged in the indictment, as well as evidence of an unrelated civil lawsuit by a separate accuser, that could significantly sway the jury's verdict on the other counts in the indictment. + +> [Trying the perjury counts with the other counts] would introduce unrelated allegations of sexual abuse, which would potentially expose the jury to evidence that might otherwise not be admissible. In particular, a joint trial would potentially expose the jury to a wider swath of information regarding civil litigation against Epstein that is remote from Maxwell's charged conduct. This presents a significant risk that the jury will cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if considered separately, it would not do so. + +Id. at 24 (citing United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978). The Court did not believe that a limiting instruction would be adequate to mitigate the risk of prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. Id. + +The Court further found that any consideration of the perjury charges would likely require disqualification of at least one of her attorneys in the criminal case, two of whom had represented her at the civil depositions, which would significantly prejudice Ms. Maxwell. + +> Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf.... Maxwell's counsel in the civil action and the deposition may be important fact witnesses on the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not required to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell to choose between having her counsel testify on her behalf on the perj harges and having them assist her in defending the Act charges.... Disqualification of counsel also implicates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. + +Id. at 24-25 (internal citations omitted). Finally, the Court noted that much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts was beyond the scope of the "narrower issues" presented by the other charges, that the perjury counts involved legal and factual questions were "unlikely to bear on the other charges," and that addressing the perjury counts would involve a "significant investment of time and resources" that would impair the efficiency of the trial. Id. at 25-26. For these reasons, the Court found that Ms. Maxwell had shown "significant unfairness" that outweighed the burden of conducting separate trials and severed the perjury counts. Id. at 23, 26. + +Accordingly, the government will not be allowed to introduce at trial evidence of any alleged false deposition statements by Ms. Maxwell as evidence of the perjury counts. The superseding indictment, however, attempts to link the purportedly false statements to the other charges, alleging that the statements are proof of an effort by Ms. Maxwell to "conceal" her involvement in facilitating the sexual abuse of Jeffrey Epstein. See S2 Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 187) ¶¶ 2 (second sentence), 10. For these same reasons discussed in the Court's ruling, and for the reasons set forth below, the government should not be allowed to introduce at trial the deposition statements or any evidence related to the severed perjury counts for this purpose or for any other purpose. Furthermore, the Court should redact from the superseding indictment the two perjury counts and the allegations concerning Ms. Maxwell's alleged effort to "conceal" her conduct. See 2 (second sentence), 10, 28-31. + +# ARGUMENT + +## I. The Court Should Exclude Evidence Related to the Perjury Counts and Redact Those Allegations from the Superseding Indictment + +Consistent with its prior ruling, the Court should exclude any evidence related to the severed perjury counts to prove a purported attempt by Ms. Maxwell to "conceal" her involvement in the other offenses charged in the superseding indictment. First, the alleged false deposition statements would have no probative value as evidence of concealment unless the government could establish that the statements were, in fact, false — an allegation that Ms. Maxwell vigorously disputes. As the Court noted in its opinion, the issue of whether the deposition statements were false or truthful, as Ms. Maxwell maintains, is "a critical element of the perjury counts" that would need to be resolved by the jury. 4/16/2021 Op. and Order (Dkt. 207) at 24. The government therefore could not introduce Ms. Maxwell's deposition statements as evidence of concealment without litigating the core factual and legal issues at the heart of the perjury counts. Allowing the government to do so would entirely defeat the purpose of severing the perjury counts in the first place. + +Second, any evidence of alleged false statements, whether it is introduced as direct evidence of the perjury counts or as evidence of a purported effort to "conceal" the other crimes charged in the superseding indictment, would substantially prejudice Ms. Maxwell and would jeopardize her right to a fair trial for the same reasons the Court identified in its ruling. Allowing the jury to consider evidence related to the perjury counts "would introduce unrelated allegations of sexual abuse, which would potentially expose the jury to evidence that might otherwise not be admissible ... [and] to a wider swath of information regarding civil litigation against Epstein that is remote from Maxwell's charged conduct." Id. at 24. This would present "a significant risk that the jury will cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if considered separately, it would not do so." Id. Further, allowing the introduction of this evidence would "likely to require disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf," which would "implicate[] [Ms.] Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice" and would significantly prejudice her right to a fair trial. Id. at 24-25. Introducing evidence related to the perjury counts as evidence of alleged concealment, or for any purpose, would present these same problems and should not be allowed. + +Third, as the Court recognized in its prior ruling, fully litigating the perjury charges which would be necessary if the government were allowed to introduce the allegedly false deposition statements to show concealment—would result in a distracting and time-intensive side-show at trial that will confuse the jury with legal and factual issues that are far afield from the "narrower issues" that pertain to the other charged offenses. Id. at 25-26. This would frustrate the goal of a fair and efficient trial on the remaining charges. Id. at 26. For the same reasons, whatever probative value (if any) this evidence may have related to the other charged + +offenses is significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, juror confusion, and undue delay and should be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +Separate and apart from the Court's prior ruling, the government has not established a sufficient connection between the alleged false statements and the alleged sex abuse offenses to introduce the statements as evidence of concealment of the latter. The alleged false statements were made at unrelated civil depositions in 2016, over 20 years after the conduct underlying the + +Act offenses supposedly took place, at a time when Ms. Maxwell was not under investigation. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell was never a subject of the Palm Beach FBI investigation that concluded in 2008 and was not named as a co-conspirator in Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement that resolved that investigation. Hence, there is no sound basis to assert that Ms. Maxwell made false statements to conceal her involvement in Epstein's crimes. + +Furthermore, the superseding indictment does not allege that Ms. Maxwell's purported false statements were the result of an agreement with Epstein to conceal their alleged conduct or were otherwise part of, or an object of, the conspiracies charged in the non-perjury counts. Instead, the superseding indictment alleges that the purported false statements were part of a separate and independent effort by Ms. Maxwell to conceal her alleged involvement in Epstein's sex abuse offenses long after those offenses had already been completed. Accordingly, the statements are not sufficiently connected to the non-perjury counts to allow this evidence to be introduced as proof of concealment of those offenses. See United States v. Marcus Schloss & Co., Inc., 710 F. Supp. 944, 946-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (precluding evidence of defendants' alleged attempts to obstruct SEC investigation as proof of the underlying insider trading conspiracy when conspiracy was already over and there was no evidence of an "express original agreement" + +among the co-conspirators to cover up their crime after its commission) (discussing Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 401-02, 404 & n.16 (1957)). + +# CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, and consistent with its prior ruling on , the Court should exclude from evidence any statements made by Ms. Maxwell at her 2016 civil depositions and any other evidence related to the severed perjury counts. The Court should further redact from the superseding indictment the perjury counts (11 28-31) and the allegations that Ms. Maxwell provided false statements at her depositions to "conceal" her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes (11 2 (second sentence), 10). See Marcia Schloss, 710 F. Supp. 944 at 950 (redacting portions of indictment referring to precluded allegations of obstruction). + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz®usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f95d66e41444956f21e602ab48f8735d154b81d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540/EFTA02833540.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,634 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833540.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 14058, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.18, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE \nEVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS \nAND TO REDACT ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE PERJURY \nCOUNTS FROM THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 116.892, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 496.8015441894531, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 496.8015441894531, + 334.10302734375 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 334.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 334.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 334.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 344.92144775390625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 344.92144775390625, + 306.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 306.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Exclude Evidence Related to the Perjury Counts and Redact \nThose Allegations from the Superseding Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 515.4758911132812, + 317.52 + ], + [ + 515.4758911132812, + 346.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 346.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 349.8291320800781, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 349.8291320800781, + 153.363037109375 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 153.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.5911560058594, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833540" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..238e99685a4dadade78d27709dc7daa23aa8c83d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd3cf08bbe7564a28c3915072a35a16b7583b3f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551/EFTA02833551.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833551.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1 \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 309.661865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 309.661865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833551" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b770ad23b096cee1cc2ffe7bafb5944a56fcad6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT 2 FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..325caf9f5faa3085ccab4d92064a29e6b746c7ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552/EFTA02833552.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833552.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2 \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833552" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c983a25a07be922434d4043edfb4f9b7e51d02c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.md @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 52, AN UNAUTHENTICATED HEARSAY DOCUMENT FROM SUSPECT SOURCES + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Tird Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +|-------------------------------------------|---| +| I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated | 3 | +| II. The Document is Not a Business Record | 4 | + +#### Cases + +### TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +| v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 1 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| Palmer v. Hoffinan, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) | 5 | +| Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342 (10th Cir.1995) | 5 | +| United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 911, n.I0 (3d Cir.1991) | 5 | +| United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) | 3 | +| United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 200 (3d Cir.1992) | 5 | +| United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ, | 2, 3 | +| United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir. 1991) | 3 | + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 2 | +|-------------------|------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 803 | 4, 5 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 901 | 3 | + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT I: Government Exhibit 52 + +EXHIBIT 2: Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez Vol. II August 7, 2009 + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Motion in Limine to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an unauthenticated hearsay document from suspect sources, and states as follows: + +## INTRODUCTION + +The Government has identified, as Exhibit 52, A-F, pages of an often photocopied and altered exhibit that has no identified author, date of creation, or custodian. These pages are from a 97-page exhibit provide to the Government from lawyers who represent multiple Epstein accusers. The document, as produced to the Government, is attached as Exhibit 1. As produced, the document appears to be a compilation of material that was copied from more than one source, arranged, and paginated after the fact. There are unexplained faded marks that may have, at one time, been staples or evidence of staple holes. The top of page one of Exhibit 1 to this motion has six faded dots that look like a photocopy of a page that had three staples removed. Page four has shadows that resemble a page that was photocopied with staples in the page. It is impossible to tell whether pages have been added, omitted, cut or pasted. There are several examples of what appear to be photocopies of tabs, which suggest that pages have been added, omitted or altered because of the inconsistency from page to page. For example, tab-like shadows appear at page 20, but not on page 21-23; reappear on page 24; and disappear; and reappear within the remainder of the exhibit. At certain points -- pages 78 and 79, for example - the tab-like shadows appear to be covered by something. The Government's compilation has been cleaned up from what was produced from the civil litigation. However, no one can clean up the unsavory story of this purported exhibit. + +The document was not produced pursuant to any subpoena from a legitimate third-party custodian. Rather, the document appeared as part of discovery in the v. Maxwell civil litigation case with no explanation about its origin. + +The provenance of the exhibit is particularly troubling. The document compilation allegedly surfaced in connection with a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, now deceased. Mr. Rodriguez was attempting to sell the compilation to Brad , one of the lawyers who was involved in suing Mr. Epstein in 2009. + +According to the Criminal Complaint filed against Mr. Rodriguez in 2009. Mr. Rodriguez approached one of the lawyers and offered to sell the lawyer evidence against Mr. Epstein. United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ (S.D. Ha), ECF No. 3,113-7. A sting operation was set up by the FBI during which the 97 pages were provided to an undercover officer in exchange for \$50,000. Id. at 11 8-11. + +It is unclear what the Government claims these documents are — what is clear, however, is that they are neither authentic nor relevant. It is also obvious that the documents are hearsay, an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 801. There is no witness who could identify or attest that these documents qualify for any exception to the hearsay rule. + +Given their unknown date of creation, the lack of any authenticating witness, and the fact that the documents do not appear until 2009 — five years after the end of the conspiracies charged in the indictment -- there is no relevance that can be attached to the information. Moreover, any arguable relevance is outweighed by the prejudicial considerations under Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is unclear, and unknown, who created the documents, when they were created, or how they were created. The documents cannot be authenticated and no evidentiary foundation exists that would allow for the admission of the documents. Thus, who may or may not be the author of whatever ended up as these photocopies is not evidence that can or should be considered by any July in this matter. + +**I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated** + +In order to satisfy the requirement of authentication, a party must provide “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Rule 901 “is satisfied ‘if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.’” *United States v. Dhinsa*, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting *United States v. Ruggiero*, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir. 1991)). Here, the putatively proffered documents were at the heart of Mr. Rodriguez’s bribery and obstruction scheme. The documents apparently did not surface until 2009, decades after the claims here, years after the alleged conspiracy, and five years after Mr. Rodriguez was no longer working for Mr. Epstein. The documents contain an unexplained notation, “P.B., 2004-2005” the only potential (hearsay) date referenced in the documents. There is no evidence to suggest that these documents were created or maintained by Ms. Maxwell. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that these documents were created or maintained by anyone. It is entirely probable that whatever the documents are they were manipulated or manufactured by Mr. Rodriguez in an effort to get a \$50,000 payday. *United States v. Rodriguez*, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ, ECF No. 3, ¶6 (Mr. Rodriguez “explained that he had compiled lists of additional victims in the case and their contact information”). + +Mr. Rodriguez’s statement, albeit inadmissible, on this issue is that he did not possess any document, list, books, journals or anything else taken from Mr. Epstein’s home. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] To be clear, the 97-page exhibit is not a document that was given to Detective Recarey. + +**II. The Document is Not a Business Record** + +In addition to there being no witness to authenticate the document it is clear that the pages of Putative Exhibit 52 were not a business record and there is no record custodian who can establish a foundation for the admission of the document under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). + +Mr. Rodriguez apparently gave something to Federal Agents in 2009. Someone, perhaps Mr. Rodriguez, created the document. Mr. Rodriguez was convicted of trying to extort money + +from lawyers representing plaintiffs against Epstein. This one-off document is far from a reliable business record. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this document was created in the course of any business. Rather, the exhibit was specifically "prepared" in anticipation of litigation against Mr. Epstein and therefore is not a business record. Records prepared in anticipation of litigation are not made in the ordinary course of business. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (reports prepared for the purpose of litigation do not fall within business records exception to hearsay rule because they are not kept in the course of regularly conducted business); Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342 (10th Cir.1995) ("It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business."); United States v. Casoni, 950 F.24 893, 911, n.10 (3d Cir.I991). + +Setting aside the fact that the document was prepared for a criminal purpose, to be admissible as a business record the proponent of the document must establish the source of the contested information, that is, (I) the author of the document had personal knowledge of the matters reported; (2) the information he reported was transmitted by another person who had personal knowledge, acting in the course of a regularly conducted activity; or (3) it was the author's regular practice to record information transmitted by persons who had personal knowledge. See Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04-3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at \*2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 28, 2005). In addition, the proponent must establish the information was kept in the regular course of the author's business, and it was the author's regular practice to prepare such reports. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.241 193, 200 (3d Cir.I992) (for business record exception to apply, proponent must establish "(1) the declarant in the records had personal knowledge to make accurate statements; (2) the declarant recorded the statements + +contemporaneously with the actions that were the subject of the reports; (3) the declarant made the record in the regular course of the business activity; and (4) such records were regularly kept by the business"). + +There is no evidence on any of these issues and, accordingly, the document is hearsay for which no exception applies. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from Suspect Sources with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5aa0a4737a11b2b7877f0484a6cae2ce235b5761 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553/EFTA02833553.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,684 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833553.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 11902, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.16, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE \nGOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 52, AN UNAUTHENTICATED HEARSAY \nDOCUMENT FROM SUSPECT SOURCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 509.1158447265625, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 509.1158447265625, + 349.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 349.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.0969543457031, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.0969543457031, + 99.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 99.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.2747497558594, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.2747497558594, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 394.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 394.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 87.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 87.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.54, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.54, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Document is Not a Business Record", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 563.76 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 563.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 12 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833553" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8af85d11f53cbcaa8883b2a59193316b4658b51d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564/EFTA02833564.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833564.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833564" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..406c6078534e95fa87e8ecad37d020342cde3920 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.md @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ITEMS PURPORTEDLY SEIZED DURING SEARCH OF 358 EL BRILLO WAY ON OCTOBER 20, 2005 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. The Palm Beach Investigation | 1 | +| A. Message Pads | 4 | +| B. "CPU's," "Zip CD's," "CD's," and "Flash Cards" | 4 | +| C. Photos | 4 | +| II. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity and Personal | | +| Knowledge | 4 | +| III. | Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and Cross | +| Examine Witnesses | 5 | +| IV. Conclusion | 6 | + +## TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988) | 5 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---| +| Melendez-Mv. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) | 6 | +| United States v. Al—Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) | 4 | +| United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133 (2d Cir. 1995) | 5 | +| United States v. Muhanad Malunoud Al-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2020) | 5 | +| United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160 (2d Cir.1975) | 5 | +| United States v. Netschi, 511 F. App'x 58 (2d Cir. 2013) | 5 | + +## Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 602 | 5 | +|-------------------|---| +| Fed. R. Evid. 901 | 5 | + +### INTRODUCTION + +The S2 Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell committed the charged crimes between 1994 and 2004. Accusers -1, -2 and -3 purportedly were abused between 1994 and 1997. Accuser 3 is alleged, in the Indictment, to have had contact with Jeffrey Epstein between 2001 and 2004, + +The Government has listed a series of exhibits allegedly obtained during an October 2005 search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence, 358 El Brillo Way. The Court should prohibit the introduction of any item seized during the search because of serious questions about how and where the evidence was maintained, the lack of any authenticating witness, and the lack of relevance to the charges against Ms. Maxwell. + +## I. The Palm Beach Investigation + +Ms. Maxwell was never a target or focus of any investigation undertaken by the Palm Beach Police Department, ever. Not one of the witnesses contacted during the investigation identified Ms. Maxwell as a person who recruited them, had contact with them, or instructed them to do anything with Epstein. + +The reports from the Palm Beach Police Department reflect that Officerreceived an anonymous complaint about an unidentified male on March 14, 2005. Officer began an investigation that, six months later, was turned over to officer Recarey. Officer investigative efforts centered on an alleged victim , according to the police reports, was contacted at her school as a result of a concern by her stepmother. When questioned at the school, denied any sexual contact with any adult male. Later she acknowledged having sexual contact with Epstein and also told the police that she told Epstein that she was 18 years old. She indicated that she met Epstein through an individual named and also + +identified a blonde woman as being at the residence. (Ms. Maxwell is not blonde and has never had blonde hair.) + +Officer, according to the police reports, then conducted various investigative measures including subpoenas for phone records and trash collection at Epstein's home. Officer 's involvement appears to have ended on September 21, 2005. + +Officer Recarey contacted = on October 3, 2005. According to the police reports,M was introduced to Epstein by her friend, At Epstein's home she met his assistant, introduced= to Epstein and performed a massage on Epstein. According to Epstein asked her to recruit other girls, which she did. according to=, was her contact person. = was advised by the police that they considered her actions criminal. = agreed to cooperate to receive a lesser charge. + +Officer Recarey, according to the police reports, continued to investigate the allegations and interviewed a number of individuals that purportedly had contact with Epstein. None of the purported victims had ever met Ms. Maxwell. None of the purported victims claimed to have been recruited by Ms. Maxwell. None of the purported victims claimed to have any contact with Ms. Maxwell, sexual or otherwise. + +The investigation continued. On October 20, 2005, a search warrant was executed at Epstein's residence. Ms. Maxwell was not present and nothing belonging to Ms. Maxwell was identified or seized during the execution of the warrant. Through trash searches and the search warrant, the Palm Beach Police purportedly recovered items that it viewed as being relevant to the investigation. The agency allegedly turned over all of the seized material to the United States Attorney pursuant to a subpoena. + +In approximately April 2006 the investigation was concluded. According to the police reports, the investigating detectives believed that they had probable cause to charge Jeffrey Epstein, and= Ms. Maxwell's name is absent from any charging document or probable cause statement. + +The police reports reflect that a disagreement arose between the police and the state attorney as to how the case was being handled. Essentially, the police believed that Mr. Epstein was not being treated harshly enough and that here had been an excessive amount of delay in the prosecution because of the inaction by the prosecuting attorneys. The disagreements over how the case was being prosecuted became significant and public. The Chief of Police, Mr. Reiter, wrote several letters to the prosecuting attorneys including a letter suggesting that the prosecutors had a conflict of interest. In a letter to one of the alleged victims Chief Reiter wrote: "I do not feel that justice has been sufficiently served by the indictment that has been issued. Therefore please know that his (sic) matter has been referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine if violations of federal law have occurred." + +The reports and seized documents are a mash-up of a various hearsay sources. More often than not, it is difficult to determine how many multiple layers of hearsay exist with regard to a particular piece of alleged evidence. Significantly, the Palm Beach Police Department Property Receipt/Search Warrant Return (Government Exhibit 295), attached as Exhibit A, is cursory, and reflects items moved in and out of the property department. Detective Recarey is dead, and no record custodian exists that can identify what was (1) seized; (2) what was maintained by the Palm Beach Police Department and by whom; (3) what was returned and (4) what was purportedly transferred to the FBI. Other documents provided to the defense suggest that when the FBI opened packages that were alleged to have contained evidence nothing was inside and + +the package did not match the item. Simply stated, the evidence collection and retention in this matter is an unreliable mess. + +### A. Message Pads + +The Government contends that various message pads were seized from different locations by the Palm Beach Police Department and appears to intend to offer hundreds of the messages as evidence at trial. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1 through 4-K. Many of the alleged messages are undated, un-signed, contain various hearsay statements that do not appear to be relevant to this case, are outside the applicable time frame alleged in the indictment. + +# B. "CPU's," "Zip CD's," "CD's," and "Flash Cards" + +The search warrant inventory identifies numerous electronic storage devices as having been seized. However, no actual inventory of the alleged contents of these drives appears to have been prepared by anyone in the Palm Beach Police Department. The items were not identified by hard drive name or number or photo. Accordingly, there exists no way for anyone to accurately identify what content may have been on any particular device and how that device may or may not relate to any issue in this case. + +# C. Photos + +The inventory also lists the seizure of "Photos." Many of the photos are not identified with any particularity. + +## H. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity and Personal Knowledge + +Evidence may be authenticated through direct or circumstantial proof. United States v. Al—Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008)). "The chain of custody is ordinarily a method of authentication for physical evidence." United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1140 (2d Cir. + +1995). To be admitted, there must be substantial evidence from which it could be inferred that the evidence is authentic. United States v. Narale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1173 (2d Cir.1975). + +Here, the original custodian of the evidence is dead and unavailable to testify at trial. The handwritten notes contained in the inventory are confusing and hearsay. The evidence was apparently transferred to case agents who will not be testifying in this trial. Accordingly, no witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits to satisfy either Fed. R. Evid. 901 or 602. See United States v. Netschi, 511 F. ANA 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (no foundation existed to establish that the emails were what the defendant asserted, and the proposed method of introducing them through an investigator with no personal connection—beyond seeing them in an inbox—was insufficient). + +### III. Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses + +The Confrontation Clause protects a criminal defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses. Limitation on cross-examination may violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if it prevents the defendant from, among other things, exposing a witness's biases, motivation, or incentives for lying, or eliciting testimony that is relevant and material to the defense. United States v. Muhanad Mahmoud AI-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99, 114 (2d Cir. 2020). The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause entitles a criminal defendant to encounter witnesses "face-to-face." Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988). As the Supreme Court has noted, this right "traces back to the beginnings of Western legal culture" and has, throughout generations, ensured fairness in criminal proceedings—both actual and apparent. Id. at 1016-18. + +The admission of the seized evidence is based on Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit of Detective Recarey. Only Detective Recarey was familiar with the items seized, the content of the items seized, how the items were stored, and the disposition of those items. "The Sixth + +Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex pane out-of-court affidavits, and the admission of such evidence" is error. Melendez-Mv. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 329 (2009). + +#### IV. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court exclude from trial all items purportedly seized during search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005 and Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell 's Motion In Limine to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brill° Way on October 20, 2005 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6e47d9d88af1ec313a37706dd40a72e9f26a43f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/EFTA02833565.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,782 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 14055, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ITEMS \nPURPORTEDLY SEIZED DURING SEARCH OF 358 EL BRILLO WAY ON \nOCTOBER 20, 2005", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 529.0370483398438, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 529.0370483398438, + 348.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 348.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 99.363037109375 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 99.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 411.66925048828125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 411.66925048828125, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 328.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 328.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Palm Beach Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 277.33984375, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 277.33984375, + 390.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 390.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Message Pads", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 210.47396850585938, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 210.47396850585938, + 142.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 142.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. \"CPU's,\" \"Zip CD's,\" \"CD's,\" and \"Flash Cards\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 412.087646484375, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 412.087646484375, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Photos", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 170.9223175048828, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 170.9223175048828, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity \nand Personal Knowledge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 519.441162109375, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 519.441162109375, + 597.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 597.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and \nCross-Examine Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 542.4341430664062, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 542.4341430664062, + 378.363037109375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 378.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 174.3193359375, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 174.3193359375, + 169.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 169.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833565" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48612d0e8d4ea4fdf0b6407b74e93b5441385643 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833565/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2c7b791cdbd2b078be15cf49b81fbe35cd14ecdb4c40d4f4bc7a7383ec9112ca +size 973 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92bc82ae1b12ef8ae09135c890303b8d0ee99718 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576/EFTA02833576.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833576.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.25, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833576" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1d3115257dcd33a868f2da6a3e6da3fed19f640 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.md @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| BACKGROUND | 1 | +|-------------------|---| +| ARGUMENT | 2 | + +## TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +[REDACTED] + +*Manson v. Brathwaite*, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) ..... 2, 3 + +*Neil v. Biggers*, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)..... 2, 3 + +*Raheem v. Kelly*, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) ..... 3 + +[REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) ..... 2, 3 + +*Stovall v. Denno*, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) ..... 2 + +*United States v. [REDACTED]*, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) ..... 3 + +*United States v. Hemmings*, 482 F. App'x 640 (2d Cir. 2012)..... 3 + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, moves to prohibit the Government from offering testimony from Accuser 4 identifying Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any crime. Any in-court identification is tainted by unduly suggestive photo array procedures employed by the Government that violate Ms. Maxwell's right to due process under the United States Constitution for the following masons: + +#### BACKGROUND + +Accuser 4, was first contacted by the FBI in 2007. was interviewed on August 7, 2007 by Agents and asked about any abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. + +did not identify Ms. Maxwell as someone who recruited her, groomed her, or otherwise interacted with her in Palm Beach, Florida, or any other location. She identified as someone she interacted with and who took nude photographs of her at Mr. Epstein's direction. + +After her FBI interview, represented by counsel, filed IM lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein . Neither of those lawsuits mentions Ms. Maxwell. + +During her deposition in connection with the lawsuit. + +She did not identify Ms. Maxwell as having had any role in any alleged sexual abuse or trafficking. + +[REDACTED] + +On June 23, 2021, almost twenty years after the alleged events, and 14 years after [REDACTED] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as the perpetrator of any crime, the Government presented [REDACTED] with a series of [REDACTED] photographs, attached as Exhibit A. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The photographic identification procedure used was the functional equivalent of a one-on-one show-up. Any identification is tainted and should therefore be suppressed by the Court. + +### ARGUMENT + +A defendant's right to due process includes the right not to be the object of suggestive police identification procedures that create "a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." [REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968); *accord Neil v. Biggers*, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972); *see also Manson v. Brathwaite*, 432 U.S. 98, 106 n.9, 114 (1977). This principle applies both to show-ups, *see, e.g., Stovall v. Denno*, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), and to photographic identifications. [REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). + +When a defendant challenges the admissibility of identification testimony given by a witness who made a pretrial identification, the Court is required to conduct a two-part inquiry, asking first whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is nonetheless independently reliable. Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). + +A Government arranged photo array is unduly suggestive when a procedure "give[s] rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." v. United States at 384 (1968); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640, 646 (2d Cir. 2012). In the context of a photo array, familiar examples of a suggestive presentation include the "use of a very small number of photographs," "the use of suggestive comments," or the display of the accused's photograph in a way that "so stood out from all of the other photographs as to suggest to an identifying witness that that person was more likely to be the culprit." United States v. a, 983 F.2d 369, 377 (2d Cir. 1992). + +The photo looks like a mug shot, is different than the others, and the manner in which it was presented was unduly suggestive. + +Where, as here, pretrial procedures have been unduly suggestive, the court must determine whether an in-court identification will be the product of the suggestive procedures or whether instead it is independently reliable. The factors to be considered include "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200; accord Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114. The factors must be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances, and the linchpin of admissibility is reliability. + +Here, the factors weigh heavily in favor of suppression. in interviews, court filings, and under oath, never identified Ms. Maxwell as anyone who abused her in any fashion. There was no "opportunity" for to "view the criminal at the time of the crime" because Ms. Maxwell did not participate in any crime. There was no prior description of Ms. Maxwell by and the length of time between the alleged event and the suggestive identification procedure was extraordinarily long. + +Accordingly, any identification, both out of court and in court, should be suppressed. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Suppress Identification with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd424fa2a5985196d190aa7c384164b7adf8cf98 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/EFTA02833577.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,511 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 6831, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.57, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 520.0234985351562, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 520.0234985351562, + 318.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 318.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.948, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1162109375, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1162109375, + 99.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 99.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 408.20400000000006, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 408.20400000000006, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 86.67 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 103.428, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 103.428, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 121.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 353.03448486328125, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 526.5 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 526.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833577" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b89781bcb49250e864910b7360f2968cb129e13a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833577/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cd6ac889b9969eb5273115f24be05f38e48f9f8337f6c7dc52959cf4f431466c +size 878 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..731e999c5322b6b93459b937ddeb3488576912f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.md @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +# GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES FROM OFFERING EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. M nnin r + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New + +York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Table of Contents | ii | +|----------------------|-----| +| Table of Authorities | iii | +| Introduction | 1 | +| Argument | 2 | +| Conclusion | 5 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| United States v. M, 837 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1988) | 4 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| United States v. Borrone-Iglar, 468 F.24 419 (24 Cir. 1972) | 4 | +| United States v. , 736 F.34 921 (10th Cir. 2013) | | +| United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) | 4 | +| United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 659 (2d Cir. 1992) | 4 | +| United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380 (2d Cir. 1988) | 4 | +| United States v. , 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) | 2, 4 | +| United States v. Haynes, 729 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2013) | 4 | +| United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1987) | 4 | +| United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) | 1, 4, 5 | + +#### Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | passim | +|---------------------|---------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 701 | 1, 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 702 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 | 1, 2, 4 | + +#### Constitutional Provisions + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rules of Evidence 701, 702, and 704, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, to preclude any expert opinion testimony from law enforcement witnesses. + +## INTRODUCTION + +Beginning in the 1980s, "a new type of 'skilled witness' began emerging: the law enforcement officer." United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit has recognized that this phenomenon has led to significant problems. Id. at 188-93. "[W]hen those officer experts come to court and simply disgorge their factual knowledge to the jury, the experts are no longer aiding the jury in its factfinding; they are instructing the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense." Id. at 191. + +But "[t]he Government cannot satisfy its burden of proof by taking the easy route of calling an 'expert' whose expertise happens to be the defendant." Id.; see U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Nor can the government circumvent the disclosure and discovery requirements of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and bypass this Court's gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by offering what is, in fact, expert opinion from law enforcement officers who are purportedly only testifying as lay witnesses. + +Ms. Maxwell files this motion to limit the government's expert witnesses to those who were properly disclosed and endorsed as experts, and to prevent the government from lessening its burden of proof by relying on the supposed expert opinions of undisclosed and unqualified law enforcement officers. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The government has endorsed and disclosed only two witnesses who may offer expert opinion testimony under Rule of Evidence 702—Dr. Lisa Rocchio and Steven Flately. + +At the same time, three of the government's other witnesses ) are law enforcement officers. Because the government frequently attempts to elicit expert opinion testimony from law enforcement officers without disclosing them as experts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 or qualifying them as experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and because law enforcement witnesses often offer opinion testimony about the defendant's mental state and vouch for the o uthfulness or bolster the credibility of alleged victims in contravention of Federal Rule of Evidence 704, this Court should grant this motion in limine. + +# ARGUMENT + +Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert opinion testimony at trial. It says: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +If a law enforcement officer gives testimony that "depend[s), in whole or in part, on his specialized training and experience," the testimony is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and not lay opinion testimony subject to Rule 701. United States v. 413 F.3d 201, 216 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We hold that the foundation requirements of Rule 701 do not permit a law enforcement agent to testify to an opinion ... if the agent's reasoning process depended, in whole or in part, on his specialized training and experience."). + +In turn, if a prosecution witness offers expert opinion testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G) requires the government to make significant and substantive pretrial disclosures. The government must disclose "a written summary of any testimony that the government intends to use ... during its case-in-chief at trial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(1)(G). The summary "must [also] describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications." Id. + +The government has not endorsed as expert witnesses under Rule 702 or made any pretrial disclosures for these witnesses under Rule 16(1)(g). Accordingly, none of these witnesses can offer expert opinion testimony at trial. That means these witnesses should not be permitted to offer testimony on any of the following subjects: + +- Any expert "overview" testimony about the case, its origins, and the investigation. E.g., United States v. , 736 F.3d 921, 930-31 (10th Cir. 2013) (overview testimony can include improper expert opinion testimony)! + +into matters that are reserved for the jury, such as opinions about a defendant's guilt or a witness's credibility. An overview witness, for example, might express opinions about the defendant's truthfulness at certain times or [her] likelihood of being involved in a scheme or crime, thus usurping the jury's role in making fact findings based on the credibility and demeanor of witnesses with personal knowledge. Other potential problems include the government's ability (1) to spin the evidence in its favor before it is admitted (assuming it is ever admitted), (2) to give its official imprimatur to certain evidence, and (3) to allow its witnesses (usually law enforcement) to testify on matters about which they have no personal knowledge or that are based on hearsay. + +[S]uch testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments in the overview but not in evidence. There is also the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed; objections could be sustained or the witness could change his or her story. Overview testimony by government agents is + +Overview testimony is susceptible to abuse because it strays + +736 F.3d at 930. + +- Any testimony about the nature and structure of alleged conspiracies, or the nature and structure of alleged sex trafficking operations. See United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380 (2d Cir. 1988) (testimony about the nature and structure of organized crime is expert opinion testimony); see also Mejia, 545 F.3d at 189-92. +- Any testimony purporting to interpret the communications of others or "codes." See United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1987) (testimony about the meaning of messages written in code is expert opinion testimony); United States v. Borrone-Iglar, 468 F.2d 419, 421 (2d Cir. 1972) (testimony "concerning the narcotics vernacular used in [recorded] telephone conversations" is expert opinion testimony). +- Any testimony vouching for or bolstering the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 659, 662-63 (2d Cir. 1992) (improper for an expert to bolster government fact-witness' credibility because such bolstering is irrelevant and prejudicial). +- Any "opinion about whether [Ms. Maxwell) did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone." Fed. R. Evid. 704(b); see United States v. Haynes, 729 F.3d 178, 1% (2d Cir. 2013) ("Testimony regarding whether the defendant 'realized' that there were drugs in the car was erroneously admitted because it is expert testimony about the defendant's state of mind."). + +The above list is merely an example of the types of expert opinions law enforcement officers often try to offer at trial. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, though, any opinion testimony that is based on 's specialized "training and experience" is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and Rule 16(1)(G) and is inadmissible at trial. =, 413 F.3d at 216. + +If the testimony of the government's law enforcement officers is not properly limited, it is "likely to give [their] factual testimony an 'unmerited credibility' before the jury." Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192 (2d Cir. 2008). See also United States v. , 837 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1988) ("When the expert is a government laic enforcement agent testifying on behalf of the + +especially problematic because juries may place greater weight on evidence perceived to have the imprimatur of the government. + +prosecution about participation in prior and similar cases, the possibility that the jury will give undue weight to the expert's testimony is greatly increased.").2 + +# CONCLUSION + +For these reasons, this Court should preclude any law enforcement witness from offering expert opinion testimony.3 The officers have not been disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1XG), and therefore any opinions they might offer at trial would violate Rule 702. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +2 Law enforcement witnesses, particularly case agents, are "vulnerable to making 'sweeping conclusions' about the defendants' activities," which is impermissible. Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192. Their testimony also often relies on testimonial hearsay, depriving the defendant of her constitutional right to confrontation. U.S. Const. amend. VI; see United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2007). + +3 The Court should preclude expert opinion testimony not only from the law enforcement witnesses the government calls in its case-in-chief, but also any law enforcement witnesses Ms. Maxwell calls in her defense. Ms. Maxwell has not disclosed or endorsed these law enforcement officers as expert witnesses, so the government cannot use cross-examination of these officers to elicit expert opinion testimony that would be inadmissible if offered on direct examination. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Preclude Law Enforcement Witnesses from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +5/ Nicole + +![](_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e3202ee163fbcfdc189d85d5f55e01fe99ba0bf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/EFTA02833585.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,707 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 12504, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.19, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \nx", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 305.13592529296875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 305.13592529296875, + 116.16650390625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 116.16650390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE LAW ENFORCEMENT \nWITNESSES FROM OFFERING EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 536.5729370117188, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 536.5729370117188, + 294.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 294.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 87.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 422.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 422.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 566.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 566.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 638.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 638.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 308.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 308.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833585" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b7bd32543cc5f72fbbf6a7947293abb61519ac7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833585/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:02bf4743a22299569619266046e38bff35f94423d3b55ec428416f66759d7599 +size 1045 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..695536b03e5f772902468b9220edac9fef98f0eb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +> Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New York, + +NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +P.C. + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Table of Contents | ii | +|-----------------------|-----| +| "Fable of Authorities | iii | +| Factual Background | 1 | +| Argument | 1 | +| Conclusion | 4 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Old Chief v. United States, | 519 U.S. 172 (1997) | 2 | +|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---| +| United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 | F.34 102 (2d Cir. 2010) | 3 | +| United States v. | , 130 F.3d 523 (24 Cir. 1997) | 1 | +| United States v. Livoti, | 196 F.3d 322 (24 Cir. 1999) | 3 | +| United States v. Midyett, | 603 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) | 3 | +| United States v. Moccia, | 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982) | 3 | +| United States v. Roldan-Zapata, | 916 F.24 795 (2d Cir. 1990) | 3 | +| United States v.M, | 521 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) | 3 | + +## Constitutional Provisions + +| U.S. Const. amend. V. | 1 | +|------------------------|---| +| | | +| U.S. Const. amend. VI. | 1 | + +#### Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 2 | +|-------------------|---------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 1, 2, 3 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude any testimony or reference to an alleged "rape" by Jeffrey Epstein. + +## FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +Accuser-1's allegations against Mr. Epstein have been inconsistent. Sometimes she has claimed that Mr. Epstein raped her. At other times, however, Accuser-1 has not made any allegation about being raped. + +All the same, Accuser-1 has never accused Ms. Maxwell of knowing that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped her or of facilitating or participating in an alleged rape. And the indictment in this case does not charge any such conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Rather, the indictment charges enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide "sexualized massages" to Mr. Epstein and conspiracy to do the same. + +It is not clear whether any other witness will allege having been raped by Mr. Epstein. But what is clear is that the indictment does not allege that any rape occurred. Nor does it allege that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in an alleged rape. + +# ARGUMENT + +The United States Constitution guarantees due process of law and fair trials by impartial juries. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Essential to that guarantee is a promise that the jury will not be misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that will district jurors from their one and only duty—to decide whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. , 130 F.3d 523, 538-39 (2d Cir. 1997). A jury that has been misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence cannot be considered impartial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, Advisory Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules (evidence must be excluded when it risks inducing a decision based on a purely emotional basis). + +Under the Federal Rules, relevant evidence is generally admissible while irrelevant evidence is categorically inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence to the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. In turn, relevant evidence must be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +Here, testimony that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) is irrelevant to the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped anyone. And Accuser-I has never alleged that Ms. Maxwell knew about or participated in an alleged rape. Because the conspiracy charged in the indictment is limited to enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide Mr. Epstein with sexualized massages, there is no argument that Accuser-I's rape allegation is relevant to the charged conspiracy. It (and any other allegation of rape by anyone else) therefore must be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 402. + +Even if a rape allegation had some relevance, Rule 403 would still require its exclusion because the minimal probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997). + +Here, any allegation that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-I (or anyone else) will suggest to the jury that it should convict Ms. Maxwell based on Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct and not the offenses with which she has been charged. Admission of this evidence poses a serious risk that + +the "jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment." See id. at 181 (quoting United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.)) (discussing propensity evidence). + +A rape allegation is also highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the actual conduct charged in this case (sexualized massages). "Evidence shall be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is `more inflammatory than the charged crime!" United States v. Midyett, 603 F. Supp. 2d 450, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322, 326 (2d Cir. 1999)); cf. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of evidence under Rule 403 when it was "no more inflammatory than the charges alleged in the indictment"); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990) (affirming admission of evidence that "did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged"). + +The allegation that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will also confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-I. And Ms. Maxwell is not accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors across state lines so Mr. Epstein could allegedly rape them. Again, the alleged conspiracy in this case is limited to securing "sexualized massages" for Mr. Epstein. If jurors hear an allegation about an alleged rape by Mr. Epstein, that evidence will confuse and mislead them, in addition to suggesting that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United States v.M, 521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the "risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose"). + +# CONCLUSION + +For these reasons, this Court should enter an order precluding any testimony or reference to any alleged rape by Jeffrey Epstein. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021,1 electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion Preclude Testimony About Any Alleged "Rape" by Jeffrey Epstein with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lan Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69ffd84e580230e7870b1d98df277efc8cbebb27 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/EFTA02833595.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,556 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 8723, + "elapsed_seconds": 34.06, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 87.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 205.08717346191406, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 205.08717346191406, + 368.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 368.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 447.93 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 447.93 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 462.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 462.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 347.9120178222656, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 347.9120178222656, + 473.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 473.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.264, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 258.264, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 372.625732421875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 372.625732421875, + 89.00091552734375 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 89.00091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833595" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea2f1db203840931eb2c67ac30d930eb13bd790c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833595/_page_8_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:963ba707291e75e131f3caa5f9147e9d3de5e4684dc760e7e6f785573adb795b +size 1266 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..405efcd9d4aaa29264a3000e988fb9957ce1ece2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.md @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO THE ACCUSERS AS "VICTIMS" OR "MINOR VICTIMS" + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New York, + +NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Table of Contents | ii | +|----------------------|-----| +| Table of Authorities | iii | +| Argument | 1 | +| Conclusion | 5 | + +#### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| v. State, 644 A.2d 982 n.1 (Del. 1994) | 3 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) | 3 | +| Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) | 1 | +| Fritzinger v. State, 10 A.3d 603 (Del. 2010) | 4 | +| In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) | 1 | +| v. State, 600 A.2d 21 (Del. 1991) | 1, 2, 3 | +| State v. Albino, 24 A.3d 602 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) | 3 | +| State v. Devey, 138 P.3d 90 (Utah App. Ct. 2006) | 2, 4 | +| State v. Nomura, 903 P.2d 718 (Haw. App. Ct. 1995) | 3 | +| State v. Philpot, 66 N.W. 730 (Iowa 18%) | 4 | +| State v. Sperou, 442 P.3d 581 (Or. 2019) | 2 | +| State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233 (Vt. 2005) | 3 | +| State v.=, 2003 WL 21509033, at *2 (Ohio App. Ct. July 2, 2003) | 3 | +| Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App. Q. 2000) | 2 | +| Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) | 3, 4 | + +## Constitutional Provisions + +| U.S. Const. amend. V. | 1,5 | +|------------------------|-----| +| U.S. Const. amend. VI. | 5 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to preclude reference to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims." Ms. Maxwell moves for an order precluding all trial participants from referring to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims." Instead, all trial participants, including the Court, should refer to all persons by their individual names. + +### ARGUMENT + +Under the United States Constitution, Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent unless the government proves all elements of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. Const. amend. V; hi re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). The presumption of innocence has deep historical roots and is a core tenet of criminal law. "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895) (looking to Deuteronomy and the law of Athens, Sparta, and Rome for early versions of the presumption of innocence). + +In some criminal cases, the parties agree that an accuser was the victim of a crime. When, for example, a person is stabbed or shot, there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something. E.g., v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 24 (Del. 1991) (stating, on appeal from a rape conviction, that "[t]he term `victim' is used appropriately during trial when there is no doubt that a crime was committed and simply the identity of the perpetrator is in issue."). + +This is not one of those cases. Rather, Ms. Maxwell denies that she victimized anyone. And there is ample evidence to support her defense. The jury ultimately will have to decide whether the government has proven that these accusers are in fact "victims" or "minor victims." In advance of the jury's verdict, any reference to the accusers by those terms necessarily conveys the speaker's opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible. Conveying such a personal belief biases the jury against Ms. Maxwell, implies a belief in the truthfulness of + +the accusers, violates the presumption of innocence, and lessens the government's burden of proof. E.g., 600 A.2d at 24 ("We agree with defendant that the word 'victim' should not be used in a case where the commission of a crime is in dispute."). + +In State v. Sperou, for example, the Court reversed the defendant's sexual abuse conviction after the trial court declined to prohibit the government's witnesses from referring to the accuser and six other women as the defendant's "victims." 442 P.3d 581, 585 (Or. 2019). The Court explained that "where defendant's theory of the case was that no abuse had occurred and that SC and the other women were either lying or mistaken, the use of the word 'victim' by the state's witnesses amounted to impermissible vouching." Id. Use of the word "victim," elaborated the Court, "undermine[s] the presumption of defendant's innocence because it assumes defendant's guilt, a fact that is necessarily not proved until the jury finds the defendant guilty." Id. at 590. Held the Court: There was no "legitimate, nonvouching purpose" for use of the term "victim" by the government's witnesses. Id. at 594. + +The Court reached the same conclusion in State v. Devey, 138 P.3d 90, 95 (Utah App. Ct. 2006). As in Sperou, the Devey Court held that "where a defendant claims that the charged crime did not actually occur, and the allegations against that defendant are based almost exclusively on the complaining witness's testimony, ... the trial court, the State, and all witnesses should be prohibited from referring to the complaining witness as 'the victim."' Id. Use of the term "victim," agreed the Court, "lends credence to [the accuser's] testimony that the assaults occurred and that she was, indeed, a victim." Id. (quoting Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 816-17 (Tex. App. Ct. 2000)). This can undermine "the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence." Id. + +Courts across the country agree. E.g., v. State, 644 A.2d 982, 983 n.1 (Del. 1994) ("We recognize . .. that when, as here, consent is the sole defense in a rape case, the use of the term `victim' by a prosecutor at trial is improper and to be avoided."); 600 Aid at 24 ("We agree with defendant that the word `victim' should not be used in a case where the commission of a crime is in dispute."); State v. Nomura, 903 P.2d 718, 721 (Haw. App. Ct. 1995) ("[T]he term `victim' is conclusive in nature and connotes a predetermination that the person referred to had in fact been wronged."); State v. 2003 WL 21509033, at \*2 (Ohio App. Ct. July 2, 2003) ("[T]he trial court should refrain from using the term `victim,' as it suggests a bias against the defendant before the State has proven a `victim' truly exists."); State v. Wigg, 889 A.24 233, 236 (Vt. 2005) ("[W]here the commission of a crime is in dispute and the core issue is one of the complainant's credibility, it is error for a trial court to permit a police detective to refer to the complainant as the `victim.'"); see also State v. Albino, 24 A.3d 602, 617 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) ("When there is no doubt that a homicide occurred and that the defendant was the person who caused it to occur, and the only question for the jury is whether the homicide was justified, . . repeated reference to the `victim,' ... amounts to an opinion on the ultimate issue of the case."). + +Prohibiting the government from referring to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims" is particularly appropriate given the special role prosecutors play. "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). "The responsibility of a public prosecutor [thus] differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). + +In view of this special role, "The prosecutor should not argue in terms of counsel's personal opinion, and should not imply special or secret knowledge of the truth or of witness credibility." ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-6.8, Closing Arguments to the Trier of Fact (4th ed. 2017). To do otherwise poses two distinct dangers: + +such comments can convey the impression that evidence not present to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant's right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor's opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government's judgment rather than its own view of the evidence. + +United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1985). When the government uses the term "victim," however, it improperly vouches for the credibility of the accusers. E.g., Devey, 138 P.3d at 95. + +It is even more important for the Court to refrain from referring to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims." This Court serves as the neutral arbiter of the law. And + +it is a matter of common knowledge that jurors hang tenaciously upon remarks made by the court during the progress of the trial, and if, perchance, they are enabled to discover the views of the court regarding the effect of a witness' testimony or the merits of the case, they almost invariably follow them. + +State v. Philpot, 66 N.W. 730, 732 (Iowa 1896). Thus, + +A judicial reference to the jury that a complaining witness is a 'victim' implicitly tells the jury that the judge believes that a crime has been committed. For a judge to communicate to the jury that witnesses were victimized, in a case where the defense is that the conduct about which the complaining witness testifies never occurred, prejudices that defendant unfairly. + +Fritzinger v. State, 10 A.3d 603, 610 (Del. 2010). + +There is a final reason no trial participant should refer to the accusers as "minor victims." Several charges in this case require proof that Ms. Maxwell knew the accusers were less than eighteen years old at the time of the alleged conduct. Referring to the accusers as "minor victims" not only supposes the accusers were victims at all, but it also conveys the speaker's belief that Ms. Maxwell knew they were "minors." In this other way, referring to the accusers as + +"minor victims" deprives Ms. Maxwell of the presumption of innocence and lessens the government's burden of proof. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. + +# CONCLUSION + +This Court should enter an order precluding all trial participants from referring to the accusers as "victims" or "minor victims." At trial, all persons should be referred to by their individual names. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Chas!crane Maxwell's Motion In Limine to Preclude Reference to the Accusers as "Victims" or "Minor Victims" with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fc8cca66c0d1460d7ae8184d880c1e2f2a52ae8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604/EFTA02833604.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,539 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833604.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 12057, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.88, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \nx", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 305.13592529296875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 305.13592529296875, + 116.16650390625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 116.16650390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 87.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5904235839844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5904235839844, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 112.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 112.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 205.04339599609375, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 205.04339599609375, + 560.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 560.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833604" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f5c82564bc388e46a992132dc1a20979ad367ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613/EFTA02833613.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833613.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.25, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833613" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d7f94bdace7e93196786c645a71b918e798225b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 251, 288, 294, 313 AND 606 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| I. The Exhibits | 1 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------|---| +| II. The Items are Not Relevant | 2 | +| III. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial | 2 | +| CONCLUSION | 4 | + +### TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 1, 2 | +|-------------------|------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 1, 3 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404 | 1 | + +The Government has proffered a number of exhibits that it apparently intends to introduce at trial. It is difficult to assess the admissibility of some of the exhibits pretrial. Others, however, such as the ones described below, are not relevant in the context of this case, have no probative value, and are extremely prejudicial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell objects to the following exhibits pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403 and 404(6): + +#### I. The Exhibits + +Government Exhibit 251 and 288 are framed photographs The photographs have no probative value to any allegation in this case and appear to be offered to demonstrate some character flaw in Mr. Epstein and, by association, Ms. Maxwell. + +Government Exhibit 294 is a box containing an item described as "Twin Torpedos." This box was apparently seized during the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, on October 20, 2005. These items are inadmissible for the reasons discussed in Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. In addition to problems related to the evidentiary foundation of these items, they are not relevant to any issue in this case. The unopened boxes were purportedly seized in 2005, after the end of any conspiracy alleged here. No witness will identify these items as having been in Ms. Maxwell's possession or used in connection with any crime alleged in the indictment. + +Government Exhibit 313 purports to be a photograph of Ms. Maxwell, purportedly seized from a DVD disk in a binder found on a shelf in Jeffrey Epstein's house when it was searched in 2019. There is no nexus between any allegation in this case and the photograph. + +Government Exhibit 606 is a document titled "Household Manual" which was apparently printed from an unidentified computer or other electronic storage device. There is no evidentiary foundation for this document, it is hearsay, and the one date on the document, "2/14/2005," suggests that it was created after the events alleged in the indictment. Ms. Maxwell did not create the document and no evidence exists suggesting that she did. + +## H. The Items are Not Relevant + +Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as that which "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence," so long as "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 178 (1997). + +There is no evidence that any accuser in this case saw, was aware of, or impacted by any of the above listed items. + +Similarly, the apparent seizure of the "Twin Torpedo?' in 2005 is not probative of anything. + +Photographs of Ms. Maxwell found in a NY closet in 2019 prove no material fact in this case not otherwise established by less prejudicial evidence as discussed below. + +Finally, the unauthenticated 2005 "Household Manual" is outside the time frame alleged in the indictment and plays no role in any allegation contained in the indictment. + +### HI. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial + +"The term `unfair prejudice,' as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfmder into declaring guilt on a ground different + +from proof specific to the offense charged." Old Chief v. United States, at 180. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that "[ajithough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 define "undue prejudice" as an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." See United States v. Salina, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). + +Here, any probative value of the items is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and confusion of the issues. Introduction of Exhibits 251 and 288 will likely necessitate Defense production of evidence surrounding the + +There is no Government witness who claims that they ever saw or used the "Twin Torpedos" allegedly seized in 2005. To the extent the Government claims the items are relevant to establish that Epstein used sex toys, any probative value of this "fact" is outweighed by prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +The 2019 photograph of Ms. Maxwell have no role in any allegation here. To the extent that the Government claims that they intend to establish an intimate relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, that fact is provable by other photographs and testimony. + +The Manual contains multiple hearsay statements and reflects a lifestyle that many jurors may find offensive. Given the lack of foundation related to the anonymous, unsigned and unauthenticated document any marginal relevance is outweighed by issues of confusion, speculation and prejudice. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the above reasons Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order prohibiting the introduction of these proffered exhibits. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Chislaine Maxwell Motion to Preclude Introduction of Government Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..055b9088988fefecf0e3c23f349b899ce7389a4e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614/EFTA02833614.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,578 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833614.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 7244, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.63, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF \nGOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 251, 288, 294, 313 AND 606", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.62, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 530.2408447265625, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 530.2408447265625, + 333.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 82.62, + 333.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.66925048828125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.66925048828125, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 200.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 200.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 182.9657745361328, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 182.9657745361328, + 225.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 225.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Items are Not Relevant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 264.0282897949219, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 264.0282897949219, + 308.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 308.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 431.67474365234375, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 431.67474365234375, + 665.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 665.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833614" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6eaaec365357669c424e93f87a453ffb31054056 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.md @@ -0,0 +1,532 @@ +# Exhibit A + +# The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues + +NATALIE BENNETT and WILLIAM O'DONOHUE + +Unittosity of Netruk., Reno, Reno, Atmda, USA + +There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a "seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as "grooming," are understood as methods child molesters use to gain access to and prepare figure victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what this process entails and bow it is clearly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions. It is important to devise an accurate definition ofgroomingfor scientific, clinical, and forensic purposes. We critically evaluate the various definitions and reveal problematic heterogeneity. Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. We review the empirical literature regarding the occurrence of grooming and propose future directions for research. + +KEYWORDS grooming, child sexual abuse, measurement + +Understanding the process of child sexual abuse (CSA) is important for both fik evention and treatment. Some clinicians and researchers (e.,j3udin & , 1989; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1980; Conte, M, & 1989; Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995) agree that a type of seduction stage, commonly called "grooming" but also variously known as "entrapment," "engagement," or "subjection" often precedes the actual sexual abuse. Offenders have admitted that they use techniques such as identifying a particularly vulnerable child, gift giving, and sexual desensitization to prepare the child for the abuse (Seto, 2008). + +Understanding grooming has both important clinical and legal implications. First, it is possible that if professionals were able to identify grooming + +Received 23 May 2013; revised 28 January 2014; accepted 10 April 2014. + +Address correspondence to William O'Donohue. Depanment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno. Mail Stop 298. Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: uloaunnedu + +before abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second, in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For example, a recently convicted sex offender in Las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012). His defense attorney claimed that "[Grooming] is not a proven science. It's a behavioral thing. . . . How can you tell that this was in the mind of this guy?" + +There have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries. In the United States, a federal law (18 USC § 2252A(a)(6)) has made it illegal and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal activity such as adult-child sexual contact (18 USC § 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered "the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342). However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is "a transient feature that is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and ends" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize grooming in the UK: + +Sections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours, including the 'grooming' of children. . . . This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming, but only after an individual had been identified as posing a risk to children. (p. 342) + +O'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pled guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook. In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in online "indecent communication with anyone under 16." This law is aimed at sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites to find victims. + +It is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually + +capture the notion of grooming because these already involve illegal and abusive contract with a child. Grooming is generally regarded as prior activities intended to prepare the child for abuse, not actual illegal or abusive activities themselves. Thus, legitimate questions can be raised about whether showing a child pornography ought not to be regarded as grooming because it constitutes abuse itself. Clarifying a definition of grooming can thus make these laws applicable to many more behaviors that are used by offenders intending to sexually abuse children. + +It is important to note that clarifying key constructs is a difficult yet important process. The prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan (1977) suggested that science has both empirical and conceptual problems and that scientific progress is made when either type of problem is addressed. Conceptual analysis is particularly difficult as it is traditionally not included as a part of the research method in the social sciences and also because it involves the inherent complexity of language (O'Donohue, 2013). Here, conceptual analysis of the grooming construct is necessary in the research process, as it is a salient example where the complexity of language contributes to definitional confusion and leads to problematic implications in clinical and forensic [REDACTED]. + +The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for a clearer definition of the grooming construct that may be applied to both clinical and forensic work. The courts are currently unable to take much legal action against grooming as it is not well understood and clearly demarcated. Furthermore, psychologists are currently using clinical judgment to determine whether an alleged perpetrator's behaviors are considered grooming. The reliability and validity of these judgments are largely unknown, leaving concerns of unacceptable rates of false positives and false negatives. An additional aim is to review the empirical literature regarding what is known about the occurrence of grooming so that a clear definition can be constructed. With a clearer definition of grooming, a more scientific assessment of such behavior can be established. This article proposes future directions for research, including validation of the proposed definition and development of an assessment device. + +## CURRENT DEFINITIONS + +The three tables presented here list various definitions of the construct of "grooming" currently found in the literature. Table 1 provides various general definitions of the term, Table 2 provides subcategories of grooming that some authors have proposed, and Table 3 provides stages of grooming that several authors have suggested. + +Thus there is a wide variability that exists in defining sexual grooming as well as possible subtypes or stages of grooming. Although many of the + +**TABLE 1** General Definitions of Grooming + +| Author(s) | Definition of Grooming (taken directly from reference) | +|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Sgroi (1982) | "How does [the perpetrator] get the child to participate in some type of sexual behavior? Usually in a low-key, nonforcible fashion, possibly by presenting the activity as a game or something that is 'special' and fun. This always entails misrepresentation of moral standards, either verbally or implicitly. . . . Perhaps rewards or bribes will be offered." | +| Salter (1995) | "The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust occupies a central role in the child molester's interactions with children. The grooming process itself often seems similar from offender to offender, largely because it takes little to discover that emotional seduction is the most effective way to manipulate children." | +| Howitt (1995) | "The steps taken by paedophiles to 'entrap' their victims and is in some ways analogous to adult courtship." | +| Leberg (1997) | "The offender plans to make the victim less likely to resist, to make others unaware of what he is doing, or even to make them likely to help him, without their knowledge, to molest a child." | +| Gallagher (1999) | "Entrapment involves the use of an array of material, illicit and emotional 'inducements' to draw children into abusive situations and increases their difficulty in disclosing." | +| Brackenridge (2001) | "The process by which a perpetrator isolates and prepares an intended victim." | +| Gillespie (2002) | "The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child." | +| Berson (2003) | "Grooming involves a clever process of manipulation, typically initiated through a nonsexual approach, which is designed to entice a victim into a sexual encounter (██████████, 2001). The inhibitions of a child are lowered through active engagement, desensitization, power and control. It is often characterized as a seduction, involving a slow and gradual process of learning about a child and building trust. This also contributes to the difficulty in detecting the activity. Grooming is also a deceptive process in which a child is unprepared to interpret cues which signal danger of risk. Predators are skilled at gaining the trust of a child before luring them into interactions. The process of grooming through the formation of a close bond creates a victim who is more likely to comply with sexual advances." | +| O'Connell (2003) | "A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes." | +| Spiegel (2003) | "Subjection is the process of predisposing a boy to sexual abuse by means of subtle or blatant interactions that lead to boundary diffusion and role confusion." | +| Craven, ██████████ and Gilchrist (2006) | "A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions." | +| Knoll (2010) | "The process by which sex offenders carefully initiate and maintain sexually abusive relationships with children. Grooming is a conscious, deliberate, and carefully orchestrated approach used by the offender. The goal of grooming is to permit a sexual encounter and keep it a secret." | + +TABLE 2 Proposed Subtypes of Grooming + +| Author | Types of Grooming | +|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| +| Leberg (1997) | 1. Physically grooming the victim | +| Craven, and Gilchrist (2006) | 1. Self-grooming | +| McAlinden (2006) | 1. Personal | +| Wyre (1987) as discussed in Howitt | 1. Extrafamilial | +| (1995) | 2. Intrafamilial | + +definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may be classified as grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these similarities in definition include the criterion of preparing a child for abuse (Brackenridge, 2001; Craven, , & Gilchrist, 2006; Gallagher, 1999), gaining a child's trust (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gillespie, 2002; Salter, 1995), making it more difficult to the child to resist or disclose the abuse (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gallagher, 1999; Gillespie, 2002; Knoll, 2010; Leberg, 1997), and the enumeration of specific tactics used to groom the child (Berson, 2003; Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982). + +Furthermore, a variety of different kinds of definitional features are proposed. For example, one definition mentions "betrayal" (Salter, 1995) while another references "courtship" (Howitt, 1995). Some proposed definitions give concrete examples of grooming (Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982), while others try to give abstract properties to capture what the authors take to be the essential properties of grooming (O'Connell, 2003; Spiegel, 2003). Some definitions are fairly brief and more vague (Brackenridge, 2001; Howitt, 1995; Spiegel, 2003), whereas others are much longer and more detailed about what grooming looks like (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Sgroi, 1982). Obviously this heterogeneity presents serious challenges for forensic and clinical work. + +Some of these definitions involve additional difficulties in that the terms used to define grooming present additional serious definitional problems themselves. For example, Salter (1995) used the phrase "emotional seduction" in her grooming definition. This requires further delineation of what exactly emotional seduction entails as well as a measurement strategy to validly capture this alleged dimension. As another example, Spiegel's (2003) definition involves constructs such as "boundary diffusion" and "role confusion." These constructs are not part of the standard scientific lexicon and thus create further impediments to enhancing our scientific understanding of the grooming process. Finally, some definitions propose stages of grooming, + +**TABLE 3** Proposed Stages of Grooming + +| Author | Stages of Grooming | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| van Dam (2001) |
  1. 1. Identify vulnerable child
  2. 2. Engage that child in peerlike environment
  3. 3. Desensitize the child to touch
  4. 4. Isolate the child
  5. 5. Make the child feel responsible
| +| Brackenridge (2001)
Applies to grooming in sport. |
  1. 1. Targeting a potential victim
  2. 2. Building trust and friendship
  3. 3. Developing isolation and control, building loyalty
  4. 4. Initiation of sexual abuse and securing secrecy
| +| Wyre (1987) as discussed in
Howitt (1995) |

Applies to extrafamilial grooming:

  1. 1. The offender masturbates and fantasizes about future contacts, a boy is befriended while an effort is made to earn his parents' trust, outings are common to achieve intimacy
  2. 2. The offender finds out about the boy's home/school problems—a "counseling" role is created
  3. 3. Physical contact of a nonsexual sort begins, offender's masturbation and fantasy continue, sexual touches begin and gradually increase in severity

Applies to intrafamilial grooming:

  1. 1. Tickling the child
  2. 2. Bathing
  3. 3. The offender's sexual arousal and fantasy
  4. 4. The child going to the offender's bed
  5. 5. The offender knows the child likes being tickled
  6. 6. "Sex education"
  7. 7. Tickling reaches child's sexual parts
  8. 8. Offender masturbates the child's genitals
  9. 9. The child is trapped into silence
  10. 10. Sexual contact is increased
  11. 11. Offenders cognitive distortions increase
  12. 12. Becomes difficult to end sexual contact
  13. 13. Offending behavior reinforced through masturbation to fantasies
| +| ██████████ and Blake (1990)
Applies to father-daughter grooming. |
  1. 1. Trust
  2. 2. Favoritism
  3. 3. Alienation
  4. 4. Secrecy
  5. 5. Boundary violations
| +| O'Connell (2003)
Applies to online grooming. |
  1. 1. Friendship-forming
  2. 2. Relationship-forming
  3. 3. Risk assessment
  4. 4. Exclusivity
  5. 5. Sexual
| + +which makes the definitional and measurement process even more complex as each of these stages must be delineated and validly measured, and this must be done with the proposed sequencing as well. For example, Wyre's (1987) proposed stages for intrafamilial abuse involved 13 separate steps, the first 10 of which according to the author can be identified as grooming behaviors. As Howitt (1995) pointed out, this account of the abuse cycle makes it "appear a relatively short-term and repetitive process" (p. 85), which certainly is not representative of all cases of child sexual abuse. + +### GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS + +Part of the difficulty in identifying and clarifying a useful definition of grooming is the fact that many behaviors used by perpetrators appear quite similar to behaviors seen in normal adult–child relationships. Buying gifts for children or taking them on private outings obviously are not always precursors to sexual abuse. Using the male sports world as an example, Hartill (2009) wrote that "in preparing for the abuse, the perpetrator is able to use such 'disinhibiting' techniques through drawing on practices and discourses that are, to varying degrees, a normative feature within many, if not all, male sports contexts" (p. 239). Obviously part of the reason for this similarity to normative behavior is that the potential abuser does not want to be detected and thus wants to disguise what he is setting out to accomplish. In addition, it must be recognized that not all sexual offenders use grooming techniques. Groth, Hobson, and Gary (1982) differentiated between "child molesters" and "child rapists." Part of this distinction for these authors stems from their observation that child molesters use a grooming process on their victims, whereas child rapists do not, as their assaults occur suddenly. These authors also pointed out that child molesters are much more common than child rapists. Alternatively, some authors seem to construe grooming behaviors as mirroring behaviors seen in dating relationships between two consenting adults. For example, Herman (1981) wrote that sexually abusive fathers make an attempt to "court" their daughters by giving them flowers or presents (e.g., expensive jewelry or lingerie). + +### THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING + +Because the definition of grooming varies from study to study, currently there is no way to know precisely how prevalent grooming is because each study employs some variant of the definition. Nevertheless, there have been several empirical studies conducted with child molesters to determine what specific methods they frequently use to choose their victims, initiate the abuse, and keep their victims from disclosing. Other researchers have chosen to focus + +on the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature reviewed discussed male offenders. + +### Identifying Potential Victims + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33% of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other children and then gave bribes to the recruits. + +Conte, █, and █ (1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was “needy” and seemed “quiet.” For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to “look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was someone they could confide in and talk to” (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298). + +In her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers, Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is “influenced by the compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy” (p. 32). Teachers usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must be remembered that nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and needs cannot be a sufficient condition for defining grooming. + +### The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in exchange for sexual favors. + +The offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included “play, + +talking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me" (p. 297). + +In his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010) found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, "the power of such rewards to affect the student should not be underestimated. Rewards from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and cognitions" (p. 376). + +Budin and [REDACTED] (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child. + +In his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or "entrapment," which he defined as "the process by which perpetrators draw children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose" (p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39% of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9% provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games or toys. + +In their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Conte (1990) found that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39% indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser treated them "meaner" than other children. + +Shakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually "coerce" their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot lead to much disciplinary action. + +[REDACTED] and Blake (1990) discussed that in father-daughter incest, most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters + +prior to beginning any sexual abuse. However, this is a somewhat flawed analysis, as there ought to be a trusting relationship in all father-daughter relationships, at least prior to any abuse. Seventy-three percent of perpetrating fathers viewed this trust as crucial to the sexual relationship to reduce the risk of the daughter disclosing the abuse (Warner-Kearney, 1987, as cited in [REDACTED] & Blake, 1990). Many fathers also show clear signs of favoritism toward their victimized daughter relative to their other children. Burgess and Holmstrom (1980) wrote that molesters tend to use three types of pressure to make their victims compliant: material goods, misrepresentation of moral standards, and the need for human contact. They noted that material goods are the most frequent tool that offenders use. + +One difference has been found between genders of the victim in this emotional coercion type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that in male victims, emotional coercion can take on a negative tone. For example, perpetrators may use name-calling words such as "fag" or "whore" to put the male child down and make him feel ashamed and thus less likely to disclose the abuse. + +### Sexual Desensitization + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that of those offenders who used babysitting as a strategy to gain access to their victims, 27% started talking to the child about sex, 21% misrepresented the abuse as educational or loving (which again may not be part of grooming because some of this would be postabuse), and 20% offered to bathe or clothe the child. Furthermore, these authors found that 40% of all offenders said the first move they made was sexual touching or genital kissing. Thirty-two percent of the offenders asked the child for help with undressing or lying down. Forty-four percent of the offenders used coercion and persuasion, 49% talked about sex with the child, and 47% used "accidental" touch. Sixty-one percent of the offenders would stop the abuse if the child became resistant and then persuaded the child to let them begin again. Many offenders committed the abusive acts in their own homes, where 33% used pornographic videos and magazines to desensitize the child. + +Conte and colleagues (1989) found that sexual desensitization was commonly used among the offenders in their sample. For example, one offender stated, + +Most of the time I would start by giving them a rub down. When I got them aroused, I would take the chance and place my hand on their penis to masturbate them. If they would not object, I would take this to mean it was OK. I would isolate them. I might spend the night with them. Physical isolation, closeness, contact are more important than verbal seduction. (p. 297) + +Knoll (2010) found that while a teacher is using bribery to gain the trust of a victim, typically conversation about sexual matters with the student is also starting to emerge. Physical contact is then gradually increased. Furthermore, Gallagher (2000) found that in cases where “entrapment” behaviors were reported, 43% of perpetrators initiated physical contact with the child and 17% behaved in a sexual manner with the child. + +Furthermore, differences between genders of the victim have also been noted in the sexual desensitization type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that the use of pornography to sexually desensitize children is more common with male victims than with female victims. + +### Boundary Violations + +Berliner and Conte (1990) found that 70% of children reported that their abusers “accidentally” came into their bedroom or bathroom while they were undressing; 61% indicated that their abusers “accidentally” touched their private parts; 61% said that their abusers did not respect their privacy or let them close doors; 61% reported that their abusers “accidentally” showed their naked body to them; 57% indicated that their abusers would purposely do things with the child that involved physical contact; 48% said that their abusers made sexual comments about the child’s body or clothing; 44% reported that their abusers asked them to do things that involved physical contact; 30% said that their abusers would inspect the child’s body “to see how it was developing”; 30% indicated that their abusers “taught sex education” by showing pornographic pictures and touching the child’s body; 26% reported that their abusers told the child about sexual things he had previously done; and 22% indicated that their abusers put lotion or ointment on the child when they were alone but said he was doing nothing wrong. + +According to [REDACTED] and Blake’s (1990) stages of grooming in father–daughter incest, the last step involves the father violating his daughter’s boundaries. In particular, fathers may insist on bathing their daughters and do not allow other family members to do this. These baths frequently involve inappropriate sexual behavior. Fathers also insist on dressing their daughters or on watching them get dressed. In addition, fathers will tend to watch the child use the bathroom. Finally, perpetrating fathers will have sexually explicit conversations with the daughter to further desensitize them. + +### Grooming the Child’s Environment + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 20% of the offenders in their [REDACTED]-ple admitted they gained the trust of the child’s family with the purpose of abusing the child. Forty-eight percent isolated their victims through babysitting. Furthermore, Knoll (2010) found that a teacher can also manipulate the + +relationship with her victim's parents to gain their approval of spending time with their child. + +Van Dam (2001) pointed out that many child molesters spend years gaining the trust of members in the community before actually sexually abusing any children. She hypothesized that these offenders use several social psychological techniques to groom the community effectively. As an example, they may use "foot-in-the-door technique" by showing up uninvited to a child's birthday party and spending time playing games with the children. The parents would feel uncomfortable asking this person to leave and have thus subtly cooperated with the offender. From then on it would be easier for the offender to gain cooperation from the parents on spending time with the children. Offenders can also use conformity against these parents—it would go against social norms and be rude to ask a person to leave a party when the children are enjoying spending time with an offender. In addition, cognitive dissonance can play a role as the parents will try to make their beliefs about the offender consistent with their actions of letting their children around him or her (they will believe that they think he or she is a good person). Finally, confirmation bias can also play a role as the parents will tend to only accept information that is confirming their existing beliefs about the offender. + +### Commonalities + +The two major commonalities in the definitions reviewed as well as the empirical studies of grooming are (a) some sort of inappropriate behavior on the part of the prospective abuser (whether it is a bribe, boundary violation, invasion of privacy, misstatement of morality, mischaracterizing an interaction as a "game," isolation, emotional manipulation, etc.) and (b) the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood that the adult can sexually abuse the child (by, for example, gaining access to them, gaining their trust, silencing them, isolating them, desensitizing them to nudity or sex, etc.). Each component of the definition may have different topographies in individual cases (e.g., sometimes the inappropriate behavior is removing a door to the child's bedroom, or sometimes it may be buying the child a bikini), but the function of the behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact. + +## A PROPOSED DEFINITION + +Any definition ought to use the empirical findings reviewed previously about common strategies used by sexual molesters. In addition, we believe that the most useful definition of grooming would attempt to instantiate the following definitional meta-criteria: + +1. 1. Minimize false negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to be sensitive to all occurrences of grooming. +2. 2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same time to be specific and not overinclusive (including perfectly appropriate behaviors as invalid examples of grooming). +3. 3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure. +4. 4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about further definitional problems. +5. 5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex judgments regarding appropriateness. +6. 6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters). +7. 7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably grooming, uncertain, or not grooming. +8. 8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments. + +We propose that grooming be defined as "antecedent inappropriate behavior that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse." There are no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore, there are two individual criteria that must be met to consider a behavior to be "grooming:" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must be made, and (b) a sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by providing a number of exemplars of grooming: + +1. 1. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g., it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies (showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and therefore not grooming). +2. 2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher). +3. 3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her "I love you" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate the child to do something (e.g., "I love you and people who love each other touch each other"). + +1. 4. Inappropriate touching of the child (e.g., excessive tickling, hugging, wrestling, sitting on lap). +2. 5. Bribes for inappropriate contact (e.g., bribes for nonsexual or sexual touching or bribes to meet the adult secretly). +3. 6. Threats related to not participating in inappropriate contact. +4. 7. Inappropriate isolation of the child (e.g., trips where the offender and victim are alone that are not part of the normal adult–child relationship. It is permissible for a father to drive a child to school), or inappropriately discouraging the child to play with friends or be with family. For parents or other caretakers, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate behavior is higher than for other adults. +5. 8. Favoritism directed toward the child (e.g., the child is treated much better than siblings or classmates, particularly when this is intimate or isolating). +6. 9. Boundary violations such as inappropriately bathing the child, clothing the child, sleeping with the child, the adult being in underwear around the child, the adult acting like a child, or the adult sharing private information with the child, particularly sexual or relationship information (e.g., “my wife and I are not having sex”). Again, for parents, family members or caregivers the threshold is much higher for defining a boundary violation than for others. +7. 10. Asking the child to keep secrets, particularly about their contact (e.g., the mother’s Christmas present would not be regarded as a problematic secret, whereas asking the child to not tell that she was with the offender would be). +8. 11. Providing the child drugs or alcohol (note: although this behavior is already abusive, it is not *sexually* abusive; thus, it can be considered a grooming behavior as it is inappropriate and serves to facilitate compliance with the intended sexual abuse). +9. 12. Misstating moral standards regarding touching, contact, or sex, particularly when these relate to adult–child sexual contact or sexualizing a situation. +10. 13. Repeated violations of the child’s privacy (e.g., walking into bathroom when child is in there, watching her get dressed, etc.). + +The more of these features present, the more likelihood the individual’s behavior represents grooming. To further clarify the grooming definition, it may be helpful to also look at a few specific exemplars of nongrooming behaviors that may be misinterpreted: + +1. 1. Purchasing appropriate gifts for the child (e.g., for birthdays). +2. 2. Engaging in appropriate hand-holding (e.g., to cross the street). +3. 3. Bathing a young child by a legitimate caregiver without any inappropriate touching. + +1. 4. Having age-appropriate and relationship-appropriate discussions of body parts. +2. 5. A care-giving figure saying "I love you" without the goal of manipulation (not using the phrase to get the child to do something inappropriate). + +### THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING + +Because grooming is a set of common behaviors seen in child sexual offenders (as the previous reviewed literature seems to support this conclusion), it should be possible to assess behaviors to determine whether they are indicative that sexual abuse is likely to occur. We have reviewed the published literature and have not been able to find any measures that validly assess grooming behaviors (by any definition of grooming). This greatly reduces the value of any definition as the practical usefulness of a definition is seen in its ability to be operationalized in valid measurement processes. It is important to develop valid measures as it is not ideal for the detection of grooming to be an entirely post hoc process—that is, only after the abuse occurs are the gifts seen as inappropriate and thus as part of a grooming process. The grooming acts should seem at least somewhat inappropriate at the time they are occurring and thus ideally adults can intervene to stop future abuse. To resolve this problem, grooming requires a valid definition and a psychometrically adequate assessment procedure to reduce both the number of false positives and false negatives. + +We are currently developing an assessment device that would aid a clinician in coming to a valid conclusion as to whether an individual's behaviors can be considered grooming. As mentioned, an assessment of grooming in our proposed definition would involve a two-step process: (a) determining that the adult's behavior is inappropriate in and of itself, such as if the tickling is excessive or the bikini gift is not justified by the nature of the relationship; and (b) reasonably arguing that the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact. + +What is "inappropriate" admittedly is somewhat of a vague term that requires judgment because we need to clearly differentiate the behavior from normal adult-child relationships. However, this judgment requirement currently exists for other psychological constructs as well. For example, the diagnosis of a major depressive episode might require that a clinician judges the client's guilt as "excessive." In addition, under our criteria these judgments of inappropriateness should be explicit (there must be a clear argument as to *why* the behavior is inappropriate). Since the argument must be explicated, others would be able to evaluate it and decide whether it is a nonproblematic judgment of the behavior. + +To illustrate, a male coach buying an eight-year-old girl a bikini would generally be considered inappropriate, but the act of buying her a pair of + +gym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this definition is that "appropriate" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can be entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming—an adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to increasing the probability of sexual contact. + +It is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming. For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this behavior is an indeterminate case and that it is unclear whether it should be considered grooming. + +Arguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior include: + +1. 1. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These facts do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur. +2. 2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis can be thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought + +appropriate (perhaps a one piece) is a better way to allow the child to engage in the healthy activity of swimming. In addition, the child's guardian should always be present when the child is swimming in the pool or changing into her bathing suit. This pathway does not increase the probability that abuse will occur in the future. + +In this case, clearly the second alternative explanation is superior due to the fact that it respects the guardian's control, enhances the guardian's ability to supervise the child, does not isolate the child, might involve a less revealing swimsuit, and allows the guardian to exercise his or her discretion regarding what is appropriate swimwear. In addition, because the first alternative contains false assertions and can set the occasion for abuse, while the second alternative contains true assertions and is consistent with decreasing the likelihood of abuse, it is concluded that the behavior under question meets the second criterion of our definition of grooming as it is functioning to increase the likelihood of future abuse. + +Again, the advantage of this approach is that it explicates the arguments for a person's behavior as meeting or not meeting the definitional criteria. The situation is complex because often grooming is meant to be disguised or ambiguous by the would-be abuser. However, this approach does allow the generation of alternatives that would be more prudent and reasonable and thus both the inappropriateness and function of the behavior can be rationally identified. + +Finally, before this assessment method is accepted it must be evaluated with respect to its interrater reliability, predictive validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Currently, it is unfortunate that the field has no assessment methods to properly identify grooming and thus understanding the psychometrics of this definitional approach (as well as others) ought to be a priority. + +Obviously the proposal of this definition is just a first step, and it generates a large research agenda. Validity studies need to be run on a sample of what experts clearly identify as instances of grooming and instances of normal behavior to see the extent to which professionals trained in this definition can correctly identify these two kinds of behaviors. The rates of false positives and false negatives need to be identified in these sorts of studies and modifications in the definition, assessment, or training need to occur in attempts to minimize these. Randomly controlled studies can be used to compare the accuracy of this method as compared to other proposed methods and definitions. Studies need to be conducted investigating different types of abuse (e.g., familial versus nonfamilial, boys versus girls, young children versus teenagers, majority versus minority culture) to see the extent to which this definition is robust across these varying dimensions. Again, modifications would need to be made when problems or limitations are found. It would also be useful to conduct some longitudinal research with high-risk samples to determine the likelihood of accurate detection of + +grooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed assessment methods. + +### CONCLUSIONS + +Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interr,tter reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court an expert witness may only testify if (a) "the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the (-Ice" (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods" to define and detect grooming. + +We propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inappropriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior. Future research on grooming would be more useful to the field if data were collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed. This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psychometric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming according to this standard. + +### REFERENCES + +18 USC § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. (n.d.). In legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from http://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A + +- Berliner. L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29-40. Berson, I. R. (2003). Grooming cybervictims: The psychosocial effects of online exploitation for youth. puma/ of School Violence, 2(1), 5-18. Brackenridge, C. H. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual rrleaitation in sport. London, England: Routledge. +- D. (2001). Developing strategies for collecting and presenting grooming evidence in a high tech world. National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update, 14(11). Retrieved from http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/ newslettersi.\_volume\_14\_number 11\_2001.html Budin, i. E., & , C. F. (1989). Sexual abuse prevention: Offenders' attitudes about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87. Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1980). Sexual trauma of children and adolescents: Pressure, sex, secrecy. In L. G. (Ed.), The sexual victimology of uth ( p. 67-82). Springfield, iL: Charles C. +- J. R., & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father-daughter incest. In A. L Horton (Ed.), The incest perpetrator. A family member no one wants to treat (pp. 88-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conte, J. R., M, S., & =, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect. /3(2), 293-301. Craven, S., , S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287-299. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(5), 579-594. Gallagher, B. (1999). The abuse of children in public care. Child Abuse Review, 8, 357-365. Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795-817. Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the internet: Challenges for criminal law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 74(4), 411-425. Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": Definitions and the law. New law Journal, 154(7124), 586-587. Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. E, & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. In J. R. Conic & D. A. Shore (Eds.), Social work and child sexual abuse (pp. 129-144). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Hartill, M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men and Masculinities, 12, 225-249. Herman, J. L. (1981). Father-daughter incest. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Knoll, J. (2010). Teacher sexual misconduct: Grooming patterns and female offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 371-386. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding child molester& Taking charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. + +McAlinden, A. (2006). "Setting 'em up\*: Personal, familial and institutional grooming in the sexual abuse of children. Social & Legal Studies, 15(3), 339-362. Mower, L (2012, July 22). Sex assault conviction may be test case for testimony standards. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/news/sexassault-conviction-may-be-test-case-for-testimony-standards-163325306.html O'Callaghan, D. (2011, November 7). Jailed after grooming teen online: Facebook groomer is jailed. South Wales Evening Post. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis. com/hottopics/Inacademic O'Connell, R. (2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Retrieved September 2012 from Imp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded\_ documents/lis\_PaperJPrice.pdf O'Donohue, W. (2013). Clinical psychology and the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Springer. Rule 702. Testimony by expert witness. (n.d.). In Legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from http://www.law.comelLedu/rules/fre/rule\_702 Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Seto, M. (2008). Pedophilia. In D.R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance Theory, assessment, and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford. Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical intermition in child sexual abuse. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books. Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator serual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature (U.S. Department of Education Document No. 2004-09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Spiegel, J. (2003). Sexual abuse of males: 7heMmodel of theory and practice. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Van Dam, C. (2001). Identifying child molesters: Preventing child sexual abuse by recognizing the patterns of the offenders. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Vance, A. (2012, August 29). Prison for online grooming proposed. The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/honopics/ Inacademic Wyre, R. (1987). Working with sex offenders. Oxford, England: MI Publications. + +### AUTHOR NOTES + +Natalie Bennett, BS, is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her current research interests focus on child sexual abuse and assessment of psychological constructs. + +William O'Donohue, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno. He is also the clinical director of the Victims of Crime Treatment Center, a treatment clinic for victims of sexual abuse or assault, in Reno, Nevada. He received his El and PhD from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in Stony Brook, New York. + +![](_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg) + +## Grooming and Seduction + +Park Dietz' + +Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2016i Vol 33(1) 213-36 C The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and porrnosions Lappet) comdcornalsPerrniipont nay COI 10 1177/C836260S17742060 icornalaaapepub cern/home/pa + +![](_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg) + +#### Abstract + +Ken Lanning's recollections of the origins of the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques used by acquaintances to gain sexual access to and control over children is an important contribution to the history of the significant recognition that many cases of child sexual abuse occur at the hands of offenders who are acquaintances of the child and who do not need to use force, threats, or violence to gain the compliance of their victims. That this recognition was slow in coming is obvious in retrospect. as is true of any social problem that remains hidden for centuries only to burst into public consciousness over the course of a few years. In this article. 1 report the results of searches using Google Scholar to look at the introduction of this use of the term "grooming" to the peer-reviewed literature in 1984 and its increasing use through 2016. Since 2008. the usage has been adopted in hundreds of articles in the professional literature each year. suggesting that this usage of the term "grooming" will remain common in the decades ahead. I also examine the history of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse, particularly two archaic uses of the term: as a euphemism for any sexual or sexually stimulating encounter between child and adult and in the context of suggestions that it was the child who seduced the adult. To avoid resurrecting any confusion over these issues, it would be a mistake to abandon "grooming" in favor of "seduction." I conclude that the best strategy may be that adopted by limning of using the terms grooming and seduction in tandem, explaining the parallels between the seduction of one adult by another and the grooming or seduction of a child by an adult. + +#### Corresponding Author: + +Park Dietz. Park Dieu & Associates. Newport Beach, CA 92663. USA. Email expert@parkdletzaisoclates corn + +&#x27;Park Dietz & Associates. Newport Beach. CA. USA + +#### Keywords + +grooming. seduction, child sexual abuse, acquaintance molestation, litigation + +### Grooming and Seduction + +In the development of knowledge of child sexual abuse, few discoveries could outweigh the importance of recognizing that a large proportion of offenses are committed by acquaintances of the child using techniques other than force or threat of force. No individual has done more to share this insight with the international law enforcement community than Ken Lanning, whose writings and teachings have also reached mental health professionals, those who work in the criminal justice and social service systems, those who care for the nation's children, and countless concerned citizens and parents. + +The application of the terms "seduction" or "grooming" to these nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent techniques has been in the service of disseminating this important insight, which first burst into public consciousness as a real possibility in the mid-1980s as a result of partially untrue media reports about the McMartin School case and the case of Father Gilbert Gaudie, both of which stories first broke in 1984. Yet even today, far too many people, including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent. + +### Grooming + +Lanning (2018) is precisely correct in dating to the 1980s the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques for gaining sexual access to children and in his observation that during the 1980s, this usage gradually increased. Using the search capabilities of Google Scholar, l found no use of the word "grooming" to mean such techniques in conjunction with the terms "child sexual abuse," "child molestation," or "child molester" in the professional literature from 1850 through 1983. The first publication identified by Google Scholar as using the term "grooming" in this way was an article by Conte (1984) citing Groth and Birnbaum (1979) for the proposition that "[i]n most cases, except those involving abuse by a stranger, the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are + +![](_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg) + +Figure I. Use of the term "grooming" in association with "child sexual abuse" in the professional literature accessed by Google scholar. 1984-2016. as of 25 August. 2017. + +expertly applied" (p. 558). Groth and Birnbaum accurately describe the process (at p. 142-143), but do not use the term "grooming." + +Figure 1 shows how the maximum number of publications in the database using the term "grooming" for this meaning' has increased since 1984. For the remainder of the 1980s, zero to nine publications per year used "grooming" for this meaning. From 1990-1999, the annual frequency from eight to 63, and from 2000 to 2009, from 64 to 227. From 2010 to 2016, the annual frequency from 282 to 533. + +My own recollection of the growing use of the term "grooming" in this context during the 1980s and 1990s is that it spread not only through peerreviewed literature and books, but also though the teaching and training being conducted by Ken Lanning, Ann Burgess, and other thought leaders of the era, and that it was gradually adopted by journalists and the general public as well. As the term came to be widely applied, it became increasingly obvious that offenders who groom children often groom the parents of those children, the organizations through which they work or volunteer with children, and the communities in which they function. The success of these offenders in doing so makes it all the more difficult for observers to overcome the false belief that such a "nice guy" could not be harming children (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). + +Lanning (2018) points to some of the ways in which the term "grooming" has been misapplied (e.g., to refer to the use of "lures" in stranger cases or what might be expected parental behaviors in intrafamilial cases) but does + +not mention the misuse of the term in civil litigation. Where a victim is suing an employer or organization in connection with the sexual abuse of a minor by an employee or volunteer, it has become commonplace for the victim's advocate to argue that the failure to detect "grooming" was negligent on the part of the employer or organization. If their use of the term "grooming" always encompassed excessive focus on a particular child, time alone with the child, or inappropriate touching, this usage might not be problematic, but when "grooming" is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well-established predictors of child sexual abuse when there is no evidence whatsoever that they can help discriminate between good employees and volunteers, on the one hand, and risky employees and volunteers, on the other hand. In the litigation context, efforts to expand the concept of "grooming" to encompass desirable behaviors that are not associated with elevated risk is misleading, particularly when coupled with the presumption or suggestion that "grooming" always reflects an intent or plan to offend or, worse, that an offense can be proved by the fact that the accused engaged in "grooming." + +## **Seduction** + +Although I agree with Lanning (2018) that the term "seduction" is preferable to the term "grooming," at least when there is an opportunity to explain how similar the seduction of a child is to the seduction of an age-appropriate partner, there is ample historical reason to be cautious about the use of the term "seduction" in this context without further explanation. This is because of two archaic usages of "seduction" in the older literature. + +### *Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense* + +One of the archaic usages of "seduction," found often in the older scientific literature, is as a vague euphemism for any occurrence of child sexual abuse or an event that may have been sexually simulating to the child, as in these passages: + +- • "[A] shock of some kind is held responsible for the neurosis—an attack by an animal, a threat of castration, a seduction, an actual viewing of parental coitus . . ." (Isaacs, 1928, p. 193). +- • ". . . I wondered whether the precocity of these fantasies and their frequency might not be due to actual seduction that the child had experienced . . ." (Rank, 1942, p. 56). + +- • “. . . It was expected that a connection would be found between the child’s symptom and the seduction, which was assumed to be the traumatic factor . . .” (Bornstein, 1946, p. 230). +- • “. . . [W]here father or mother, either consciously or unconsciously, elevate the child into a substitute sexual partner or commit real acts of seduction with him . . .” (A. Freud, 1968, p. 45). +- • “If we assume that the term ‘seduction’ refers to any kind of sexual encounter, it can range from milder types, such as exposing oneself and enticing the child to follow suit, all the way to forcible rape” (Finch, 1974, p. 34). +- • “She was then able to use the dolls to reveal the drama of her own seduction and the ensuing family chaos . . .” (Mrazek, 1980, p. 279). + +Here “seduction” is not referring to the process by which a child is groomed or seduced but to the offensive event itself. Freud’s seduction hypothesis “. . . generalized that the roots of all adult neuroses lay in childhood sexual contacts with adults” (Gagnon, 1965, p. 177). The vagueness of this use of “seduction” makes it impossible to determine which child sexual abuse behaviors are and are not encompassed by the term and suggests that “seduction” may mean different specific things to different authors. + +Authors sometimes imply that “seduction” does not include violence, as when they distinguish it from rape or other violent assaults, as in these examples: + +- • “Klein has stated that an experience of seduction or rape by a grown-up person may have serious effects upon the child’s psychic development . . .” (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 500). +- • “[T]he possible . . . event of seduction, incest, or rape . . .” (█████ & Sarrel, 1969, p. 606). +- • “Violence is rarely found to accompany the incestuous act, possibly because seduction, passive compliance, or sexual curiosity or exploration promote such relationships” (█████, 1979, p. 8). +- • “Children can be broken much more easily than adults, and the effect on them of torture, hatred, seduction, and rape—or even of indifference, of deprivation of love and care—is the devastating one of developmental arrest . . .” (Shengold, 1979, p. 537). + +Although this usage comports with the modern idea of seduction or grooming insofar as it is to be distinguished from the use of force, threats, or violence, we would not today distinguish seduction from rape but rather would view seduction (or grooming) as a means of completing a rape or other sexual offense with minimal resistance or risk of disclosure. + +Cioffi (1976) interpreted Freud as using the concept of seduction to refer only to nonviolent sexual assaults, writing ". . . he duly reported that he had discovered the specific cause of psychoneurotic disorder: A passive sexual experience before puberty. In other words, a seduction" (p. 275). Cioffi's (1976) quotations of Freud in the same article support this interpretation: "Freud later assigned to his patients in phrases like: 'hysterics trace back their symptoms to fictitious traumas'—or patients 'ascribe their symptoms to passive sexual experiences in early childhood"' (p. 277). Even here, however, what constitutes a "passive sexual experience" is unclear, as it could mean the offender did not use violence, that the child did not resist, or that the child was not an active participant. + +### Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer + +A second archaic usage of "seduction" is to refer to the child's tempting of the offender. This is diametrically opposed to our current thinking about child sexual abuse in its suggestion that it is the child who is at fault, as in these examples: follows: + +- ". . [A] most striking feature was that these children were distinguished as unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities. Thus, it is not remarkable that frequently we considered the possibility that the child might have been the actual seducer rather than the one innocently seduced" (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 514). +- "The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals and their victims are usually known to be aggressive and seductive children" (Revitch & Weiss, 1962, p. 78). +- "In many [cases] it was highly probable that the child had used his charm in the role of seducer rather than that he had been the innocent one who had been seduced ..." (Bender & Grugett, 1952, p. 826). +- (1907) and Bender and Blau (1937) have commented on how charming and seductive these children can be" (Rosenfeld, Nadelson, Krieger, & Backman, 1977, p. 332). + +Three examples of authors attempting to remedy this archaic view are as + +- "... Although there may be a different quality to a seduction than to an attack, it must be remembered that even a seductive child cannot have kit adult comprehension of the act she is courting and cannot be viewed as responsible in this area" (Lipton & Roth, 1969, p. 859). + +"Because the affectional needs of the child are not adequately met by the parents, the child may indiscriminately relate to adults in an affection-seeking manner in an effort to ensure her emotional survival. + +Numerous other investigators have characterized this behavior of the child as 'seductive'. However, our study indicates that this behavior is instead the child's often desperate attempt to meet her needs for care and attention . The child's behavior may often appear sexualized to an adult .. . As a result. it is more appropriate to describe this behavior as affection-seeking rather than seductive" (Johnston, 1979, pp. 948-949). + +- "'Everybody knows' that adults must protect themselves from groundless accusations of seductive or vindictive young people. . . . What everybody does not know, and would not want to know, is that the vast majority of investigated accusations prove valid and that most of the young people were less than eight years old at the time of initiation" (Summit, 1983, p. 178). + +### Conclusion + +Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term "grooming" has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come. We can and should clarify the meaning of the term wherever possible to avoid misuse or misleading of our audiences. We could benefit from prospective studies of the frequency of grooming-like behaviors among adults in target-rich environments such as schools, youth sports, and youth groups, which could help distinguish behaviors portending risk from those that do not, though it would require a large sample and a long time to reveal at least some of the offenders in the sample. + +The two archaic uses of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse identified here are too recent and too widely known to justify completely abandoning the term "grooming" in favor of"seduction," even if it were possible to do so. Perhaps the best strategy is that adopted by Lanning (2018) of explaining the parallel between the courtship and mating rituals that adults use with one another and the courtship and mating rituals that some use with children. + +#### Declaration of Conflicting Interests + +The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research. authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +#### Funding + +The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, andfor publication of this article. + +#### Note + +- I. The data on which Figure I is based arc derived from year-by-year searches of Goo& Scholar for the combination of the terns "child sexual abuse" and "grooming," excluding citations and patents. One should not assume that the underlying database is complete or that all the publications included in the count use "grooming" in this way or represent peer-reviewed literature, as newsletters, government reports, books, and other documents also make their way into such searches. Nonetheless, the graph gives an adequate representation of the growing use of the term "grooming" for this purpose. + +#### References + +- K. (PS:17). The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of sexual activity. In E. (Ed.), Selected papers on pscho-analysis (pp. 47.63). London, England: Hoganh Press. Bender, L., & Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7, 500-518. Bender, L., & Grugett, Jr., A. E. (1952). A follow-up study of children who had atypical sexual experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 22. 825-837. Bornstein, B. (1946). Hysterical twilight states in an eight-year-old child. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 2.229.240. Cioffi, F. (1976). Was Freud a liar? Orthomolecular Psychiatry. 5, 275-280. Conte, J. R. (1984). The justice system and sexual abuse of children. Social Service Review, 58, 556-568. Finch, S. M. (1974). Effects of adult sexual seduction on children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 3, 33-35. Freud, A. (1968). Indications and contraindications for child analysis. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 23. 37-46. Gagnon, J. H. (1965). Female child victims of sex offenses. Social Problems, 13, 176.192. Grath, A. N., & Bimbaum, H. J. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Isaacs, S. S. (1928). The mental hygiene of the pre-school child. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 8. 186-193. Johnston, M. S. K. (1979). The sexually mistreated child: Diagnostic evaluation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 3, 943-951. Kris, E. (1950). The significance of Freud's earliest discoveries. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 31, 108-116. Laming, K. V. (2018). The evolution of grooming: Concept and term. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 33, 5-16. + +- Laming, K. V., & Dietz, P. (2014). Acquaintance molestation and youth-serving organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2815-2838. doi: 10.117710886260514532360 M., & Sarrel, P. M. (1969). Some psychological aspects of seduction, incest, and rape in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 606-619. Lipton. G. L.. & Roth. E. 1. (1969). Rape: A complex management problem in the pediatric emergency room. The Journal of Pediatrics, 75, 859-866. Mrazek, D. A. (1980). The child psychiatric examination of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect, 4, 275-284. Rank, B. (1942). Where child-analysis stands today. American Imago; A Psychoanalytic Journal for the Arts and Sciences. 3(3). 41.60. Revitch. E., & Weiss. It. G. (1962). The pedophiliac offender. Diseases of the Nervous System, 23, 73-78. Rosenfeld, A. A., Nadelson, C. C., Krieger. M.. & Backman, J. H. (1977). Incest and sexual abuse of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 16, 327-339. Shengold. L. L. (1979). Child abuse and deprivation: Soul murder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 27, 533-559. +- M. (1979). Perspective on incest as child abuse. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 12. 3-16. Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177-193. + +#### Author Biography + +Park Dietz, MD, MPH, PhD, was educated at Cornell, Johns and the University of Pennsylvania. and taught for 10 years at Harvard Medical School and the University of Virginia School of Law and School of Medicine. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at University of Cal ifomia, Los Angeles (UCLA). As president of Park Dietz & Associates. Inc.. he regularly oversees forensic evaluations of psychological damages and expert assessments of liability in child sexual abuse litigation, and as president of Threat Assessment Group, Inc., he regularly participates in the development and implementation of programs to prevent and respond to misconduct in organizations and institutions. + +# Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations + +Samantha Craven,l'\* Sarah Brown' & Elizabeth Gilchrist2 + +'Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, and 2Depamnent of Psychology, University ofe Canterbury, UK + +Abstract The current review aims to outline the existing understanding of sexual grooming. Issues of poor definition, the adoption of the term "grooming" and the prevalence of sexual grooming will be discussed. Consideration will be given to how prominent theories of child sexual abuse often neglect sexual grooming. This will be followed by a detailed account of the existing knowledge within the literature. Three types of sexual grooming were thus identified. self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings, a new definition of sexual grooming is suggested. Furthermore, the findings correspond well with current models of the sexual offence process. A more comprehensive understanding of sexual grooming is required to facilitate a preventative approach to child protection. + +Keywords Sexual grooming; theory of child sexual abuse + +#### Introduction + +The complex nature of the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse children is increasingly evident in the accounts of the people affected by this predatory behaviour. Sexual grooming is a pertinent Sue evident in society, but there is still little understanding about this phenomenon. This is reflected in problems relating to definition, which will be discussed in addition to the evolution of the term "grooming". This review will consider whether present aetiological theories of child sexual abuse can account for "sexual grooming" behaviour, and further determines what knowledge has already been established about the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Based on these findings, a new definition is presented and consideration is given to how current knowledge of sexual grooming relate to models of the sexual offence process. + +#### Definition + +Professionals are yet to agree on a definition of sexual grooming of children (Gillespie, 2004). Previous literature has provided three specific definitions of grooming. The strengths and + +•Con..spunding author: Samantha Craven, Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK. Tel: 02476 887 048. Fax: 02476 888300. E-mail: s.craverienoventry.ac.uk + +weaknesses of these definitions are discussed in turn below. First, O'Connell defines sexual grooming as: + +A count of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes. (O'Connell, 2003, p. 6) + +Second, Howitt suggests that: + +Grooming... is the steps taken by paedophiles to "entrap" their victims and is in someways analogous to adult courtship. (Howitt, 1995, p. 176) + +These two definitions are problematic, because they both refer to the term paedophile. Most sexual offenders who target child victims use sexual grooming, not just those classified as paedophiles. The term "paedophile" is a very specific clinical diagnosis, clearly not applicable to all offenders, and the association of grooming behaviour with paedophilia may prevent some offenders from acknowledging their own grooming behaviours. In addition, people known to the offender may not identify the grooming behaviour because they do not consider the individual to fit their image of a "paedophile". The public perception of a paedophile is littered with stereotypes that they are "dirty old men" or strangers; these perceptions may affect an individual's judgement of whether the behaviour they have observed is grooming. These misperceptions distract from the truth that most victims know their abuser. It is important that the wording of a definition does not thwart the identification of sexual grooming and the subsequent prevention or ending of abuse. + +Furthermore, the phrase "a course of conduct" requires subsequent definition. Additional problems include reference to "a reasonable person" and "cause for concern". Although legal precedent defines these phrases, they are ambiguous to the lay reader and hence they are open to misinterpretation and confusion. These definitions are confusing, at best, and at worst they reinforce the myth that strangers are the biggest risk to children. Consequently, this ambiguity may hinder the identification of the full range of sexual grooming behaviours. + +Gillespie (2002) provides the third definition: + +The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child. (Gillespie, 2002, p. 411; based on van Dam, 2001) + +This definition avoids the use of the term paedophile. It also provides some clarity about the purpose of sexual grooming behaviour and identifies some of the stages that it involves. This appears to be the most appropriate published definition to date. Further evaluation of this definition will follow consideration of previous literature and current understanding about sexual grooming. + +#### Prevalence + +Canter, Hughes and Kirby (1998) provide evidence for the prevalence of the sexual grooming phenomenon. They used Small Space Analysis on a behaviour matrix of the interaction between 97 incarcerated child sex offenders and their victims. They identified three distinct behaviour repertoires of offender-victim interaction. The different types of offender-victim interaction acknowledged were aggressive, which was identifiable by the use of extreme violence, threat and force; criminal-opportunist, which tended to be one-off offences on strangers; and intimate, which was categorized by the identified use of sexual grooming behaviours. + +Forty-five per cent of Canter et al.'s (1998) sample were classified as being intimate offenders. Thus, 45% of the child sex offenders employed an intimate behaviour repertoire and sexual grooming behaviours. This figure is likely to be unrepresentative of the child sex offender population as a whole. Intimate offenders tend to cause less physical harm to their victims than the other categories of offenders and the very nature of the behaviour used to categorize the intimate offenders implies that they would be less likely to be reported, identified and convicted, because these grooming behaviours are used to avoid disclosure and conviction. Hence, it is likely that intimate offenders were under-represented in this prison sample. + +Figures show that eight of 10 sex abuse victims know their abuser (Stop it Now, 2003). In such cases, offenders have substantial interest in preventing disclosure, because in the event of disclosure the victim would be able to easily identify them as their abuser. This is supported by offenders' accounts about the strategies they employed to victimize the children they sexually abused; fear of disclosure affected how and when they victimized their victims (Conte, & =, 1989). + +### Aetiology of a motivation to abuse + +Before an individual begins to groom a child, some level of motivation to abuse a child needs to be present. Furthermore, adequate theories of sexual offending should be able to account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Until recently there have been three dominant theories of child sexual abuse, namely Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984); Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory (1990); and and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model (1992). In 2002, and Siegert proposed a more comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse by "knitting together" the strengths of each of the above theories. They propose that there are five pathways to sexual offending against children; hence, the theory is called The Pathways Model. This review shall consider each of these only briefly, because and colleagues have already provided in-depth reviews (sees 2001, 2002; & Hudson, 2001). Herein, more emphasis will be placed on how these theories relate to the phenomenon of sexual grooming. + +#### Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory + +Marshall and Barbaree's (1990) Integrated Theory of the aetiology of sexual offending proposes that the presence of vulnerabilities, which develop as a result of adverse early developmental experiences, leave offenders unprepared to deal with the surge of hormones at puberty, and unable to understand the emotional world. As a resultant, offenders satisfy their emotional and sexual needs inappropriately in deviant ways. This theory suggests that sexual offending occurs as a consequence of an individual's sex and aggression drives becoming fused, as these functions share the same structure in the brain. and Siegert (2002) state that this need not be the case, as there arc many functions that are close in proximity but that do not affect each other. Furthermore, this theory suggests that sexual offending would be aggressive. Therefore, it would seem that it does not account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming, because the process of sexual grooming is generally not aggressive in nature. + +However, this criticism may be countered if a definition of aggression were to include indirect aggression, which sexual grooming could be considered to be. + +### and Hirschman 's Quadripartite Model + +and Hirschman's (1992) Quadripartite Model was first developed as a theory of rape, but it was applied subsequently to child sexual abuse. This model suggests that someone commits an act of child sexual abuse because of four vulnerability factors and the presence of opportunity. The vulnerability factors are physiological sexual arousal, distorted cognitions that act to justify sexual aggression, affective dyscontrol, and personality problems. It is suggested that offending will occur when the presence of these vulnerability factors exceed a threshold, this could include one or all of these vulnerabilities. There arc several problems with this model; first, it does not explain why someone chooses to offend against a child rather than an adult. Second, sexual grooming is not an impulsive act and the threshold would need to be maintained over a long period of time in order to explain sexual grooming, because it can occur over weeks, months or even years. Hence, this theory can account for sexual grooming if it is accepted that, for example, sexual arousal persists over long periods of time, so once sexually aroused to children/child the offender would be continually aroused to them. A further problem with this theory relates to the presence of opportunity; offenders often create their own opportunities to offend. + +### Finkdhor's Pre-condition Model + +Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984) suggests that there are four pre-conditions to sexual offending. The first is the motivation to sexually abuse; it is suggested that this develops as a result of emotional congruence (a fit between the offender's emotional needs and the child's ability to meet them), deviant sexual arousal and blockage (the sexual needs of the offender not being met by appropriate adults). The second is to be able to overcome internal inhibitors; the third is to be able to overcome external inhibitors; and the fourth is to overcome the child's resistance. Before an incidence of abuse would take place, these pre-conditions need to be satisfied. Although Finkelhor does not use the term sexual grooming, others (e.g. Erooga & Beckett, 1994; Sampson, 1994) have reviewed his work using this term. They referred to overcoming the child's resistance as grooming. + +#### 'Wand Siegen's Pathways Model + +IM and Siegert's (2002) model is based on the dysfunction of one or more psychological mechanisms—emotional regulation, intimacy deficits, cognitive distortions and sexual arousal (deviant sexual scripts). All the aforementioned psychological mechanisms are involved to some degree. There is evidence of these dysfunctional mechanisms being present typically in child molesters, although to different degrees and for different functions. The five possible pathways are specified by whichever dysfunctional psychological mechanism is the most dominant; in turn this will affect the others. In the case of the fifth pathway, all the psychological mechanisms would be similarly dysfunctional. A sexual offence occurs when the above is present in conjunction with sexual need. In addition, and Siegert still emphasize the importance of there being an opportunity to offend; however, the nature of sexual grooming is to create an opportunity to offend. Successful theory would need to account for this. + +Despite and Siegcrt presenting their Pathways Model as a comprehensive theory of sexual offending, it still only considers aetiology and no consideration is given to the offence process. In a comprehensive theory it is necessary to consider the whole journey from initial onset to the offence and beyond. In a similar way that the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982) of change considers not only the action stage, where the overt behaviour is changed, but also the precontemplation, contemplation, preparation and maintenance stages, a theory of sexual offending against children needs to consider the whole journey. As demonstrated above, it is necessary that theories of aetiology are coherent with the phenomenon they are attempting to explain. While endeavouring to explain sexual offending it is important that sexual grooming is also factored into the equation, because it is part of the sexual offending phenomenon. Of the above theories, only Finkelhor's (1984) Pre-condition Model has taken this approach. + +### Offence process + +In addition to the Pre-condition Model (Finkelhor, 1984) there is one other model that considers the offence process of sexual offending. This is the Descriptive Model of the Offence Chain MI, Louden, Hudson & Marshall, 1995). MI et al.'s model provides a much more detailed account of the offence process than the Pre-condition Model. While little evidence has been found to support Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model, et al. used a grounded theory approach and developed their model directly from offenders' experiences. They identified nine stages of the offence chain. Stage one relates to the offender's background factors, including their perception of themselves and their life at the beginning of the offence chain and whether these factors caused positive or negative affect. Stage two describes distal planning of access to their victim; this could take the form of implicit, or explicit planning or chance. Contact with the victim takes place in stage three. Stage four involves cognitive restructuring, which will result in either positive or negative affect. Stage five entails proximal planning, which would either be self-focused, victim-focused or a mutual-focus. This leads to stage six and the sexual offence, which is followed by further cognitive restructuring at stage seven. This results in negative or positive evaluation and future resolutions regarding continued offending at stage eight. This resolution will be to either avoid future offending or to persist in an abusive pattern. Stage nine depicts the impact of these resolutions on the offender's life. + +It is important to consider how sexual grooming fits into, and facilitates, the offence process, as this understanding is likely to aid the management of offenders and potential offenders by identifying the offence process prior to an sexual offence taking place. In addition, it is reasonable to suggest that motivation is not static but could be affected by later stages of the grooming and offence process, e.g. cognitive distortions developed later in the process could serve to reinforce prior motivation resulting in an entrenched deviant sexual interest. This may prove valuable to treatment programmes efforts of reducing motivation to offend. + +#### The grooming process + +The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming present in the literature self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Each of these will be discussed to explore current understanding of sexual grooming. Understanding of the grooming process and an ability to identify sexual grooming behaviour is crucial in order to prevent child sexual abuse. However, retrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence. Nevertheless, the latter is necessary in order to prevent the sexual abuse from taking place. The reason for this is because the behaviours used to groom a child for sexual abuse are not dissimilar to innocent behaviour intended to broaden a young person's experiences. The only difference may be the motivation underlying the behaviour. + +### Self-grooming + +van Dam (2001) reports that during treatment, offenders' talk about "grooming themselves". They were referring to the justification or denial of their offending behaviour. It therefore seems important to consider this as part of the grooming process. However, it may be more agreeable to refer to this phenomenon by another name, avoiding the use of the term "grooming". Nevertheless, self-grooming is likely to play a pan in the move from being motivated to sexually abuse a child to the subsequent targeting of a child, through the justification or denial of the steps child sexual offenders take towards abusing a child. Furthermore, self-grooming is likely to be affected by the response from the community and the child, and the success or failure of the efforts to victimize the child. "Success" is likely to result in further justification or denial of their actions and more entrenched sexual interest in children and motivation to offend. "Failure", on the other hand, is likely to result in the desistence of offending or the offender developing/enahancing his skills/strategies to ensure success. + +Justification and denial of offenders' behaviour manifests in cognitive distortions. and Keenan (1999) propose that child sex offenders have cognitive distortions in the form of implicit theories, which relate to themselves, the victim and the world. Implicit theories help individuals to understand the world around them. Problems arise because offenders' implicit theories are maladaptive and supportive of sex with children. These implicit theories subsequently affect encoding and interpretation of future behaviours and events. and Keenan have identified five implicit theories that account for most of the cognitive distortions held by child sex offenders: children as sexual objects; entitlement; dangerous world; uncontrollability; and nature of harm. + +Of course, it is not only offenders who have maladaptive implicit theories. For example, many people have an implicit theory that children are at most risk from strangers, which is not consistent with research findings. However, it is easier to believe that strangers sexually abuse children than accept that friends and family do; hence, this implicit theory helps to shelter people from the harsh nature of reality. Offenders' implicit theories work in a similar way, because it is easier for offenders to believe that the child seduced them than to accept that they sexually abused a child. + +#### Grooming the environment and ninificatu others + +Grooming the child begins with identifying a vulnerable child (van Dam, 2001). Child sex offenders seem to have a special ability in recognizing vulnerable children (Conte et al., 1989). These vulnerabilities may be that the children have a poor relationship with their parents, do not have many friends (Berliner & Come, 1990), or have already been victimized (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, offenders may target women who were sexually abused as children, because the offender considers them easier to re-victimize. + +In order to gain access to their victim(s), offenders groom the environment and their potential victim's significant others (e.g. parents, carers, teachers, etc). This may mean the offender integrating themselves into society and places where they are likely to meet children. This will often be a position of trust. Offenders then begin grooming the adults in this community, specifically those who are significant to their potential victim, with the aim of creating an opportunity to access and abuse a child or children. van Dam (2001) reports that offenders are frequently charming, very helpful, and have insider status. This is often an important factor in gaining access to potential victim(s). As offenders help out in the community, they are considering how their efforts will be rewarded later when they can then abuse the children in that community. Offenders arc often able to "read the community like a book" in that they assess what they "need" and fulfil these needs accordingly (Hare & Hart, 1993). They can make themselves indispensable, too good to be true and will freely undertake jobs that others do not want to do (Leberg, 1997). + +A desire on the part of parents to avoid cognitive dissonance may assist offenders' grooming efforts. A parent may suffer cognitive dissonance as a result of concerns about the trustworthiness of the offender alongside their hospitality and acceptance of the offender. When thoughts do not match behaviour, cognitive dissonance manifests, and often thoughts are changed to be consistent with behaviour (van Dam, 2001). Thus, offenders gain insider status long before they start abusing a victim (van Dam, 2001). Grooming is therefore a wellorganized long-term activity (Sanford, 1982). Offenders groom the community so well that if a victim discloses their abuse, the community may support the offender rather than the victim, because they deem the offender to be more believable than the child. + +In the case of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, offenders are already in a position of trust and integrated in an environment where they can access potential victims. Some offenders groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain this status (Elliott, Browne & Kilcoyne, 1995). Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent parents, and hence have less protection. In this incidence there is no need for the offender to groom the parents. They can become the child's friend and more easily arrange to have time alone with the child. + +Intrafamilial offenders often isolate the victim from their non-abusing parent, siblings and the outside world by developing an exclusive relationship with the child. For instance, they may encourage mothers to have more of a life outside the home, which then gives themselves increased opportunities to abuse their victims. Alternatively, they may isolate nonabusing parents from the outside world in order to prevent them from having people in whom to confide about any concerns (Leberg, 1997). Some offenders encourage mothers to develop an alcohol dependency, in part so that any future disclosures made lack credibility (Leberg, 1997). Other similar strategies employed to limit credibility include questioning the mother's parenting ability in front of friends and other family members. This may constitute part of their strategy for grooming the environment and significant others. + +Grooming the environment and significant others can occur as a result of implicit or explicit planning; alternatively, access to a child may occur by chance. and Hudson (2000) have developed a conceptual model of how child sex offenders' implicit planning or seemingly unimportant decisions (SUDs) implicate their offending behaviour by leading them to high-risk situations, i.e. contact with children. This appears to be automatic, because although offenders are conscious of their specific behaviours, they are often unconscious of the effect of implicit goals on these behaviours. + +Gollwitzer and Schaal (1998, cited in & Hudson, 2000)scst that it is through automatic goal-dependent action plans that these SUDs manifest. and Hudson (2000) propose that there are two such action plans: offence scripts and mental simulations. Offence scripts manifest as a result of associations that have developed between situations and behaviours; subsequently, in the presence of certain cues, offence scripts may be activated without any conscious awareness. This is a possible explanation of continued offending and relapse following treatment. + +Automatic goal-dependent action plans can be activated regardless of whether an individual has committed any previous sexual crimes. This alternative involves mental simulation. Mental simulation is where an individual plans out in detail how he would commit an offence. As with offence scripts, the presence of certain cues may activate this implicit planning, resulting in the enactment of the individual's fantasies. The notion of implicit planning may provide a possible explanation why the majority of victims know their abuser, because the cues that activate the implicit planning are more likely to be present within the family or in relation to children in the immediate locality (i.e. the places where an individual spends the majority of his time). + +It is reasonable to suggest that the fundamental human need to belong may present one possibility to further understand offenders' ability to identify a victim and groom the environment and significant others. Research has shown that a need to belong can affect very basic cognitive functions, e.g. attention and encoding of social information (Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004). Pickett et al. found a positive relationship between a need to belong and sensitivity to social cues. Sexual offenders often come from neglectful, violent and dysfunctional backgrounds (Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002). This environment is unlikely to provide an abundance of opportunities for emotional closeness and thus offenders are likely to have a need to belong. In addition, a need to belong is related to low self-esteem (Pickett et al., 2004) and research to date suggests that child sex offenders typically have low self-esteem (Marshall, & Champagne, 1997). This is supportive of the idea that a need to belong facilitates offenders' identification and access to a victim, because of the associated increased sensitivity to social cues. Children may be approached because the offender perceives them to be less threatening than peers. Alternatively, offenders may be able to identify vulnerabilities in other people because they themselves are vulnerable and thus recognize these signs in others. This explanation would relate to offenders that commit offences following implicit planning. Offenders using explicit planning may also have a need to belong and the associated increased sensitivity to social cues, as a result of a need to belong to the family of community in order to groom and subsequently abuse a child. It is therefore suggested that, in the presence of a motivation to sexually abuse a child, a need to belong often facilitates the identification of a victim and grooming of the environment and significant others. + +#### Grooming the child + +Grooming the child is the most commonly recognized form of sexual grooming. In addition to a desire for sexual gratification, there may or may not be a relational aspect to the grooming process, depending on the offender's motivation to abuse. Sexual grooming has been considered by some to be analo ous to adult courtship (e.g. Howitt, 1995). In addition, Herman (1981) and and Blake (1990) talk about sexually abusive fathers adopting the role of suitor towards their daughter. In the case of intrafamilial abuse, the offender promotes the child in place of the mother (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, the offender may interact with the child on the child's wavelength (van Dam, 2001). Wilson (1999) found that offenders who abused boys showed a preference for interacting at the child's level, and incest offenders tended to raise the victim's status to that of an adult, while offenders who abused girls were more concerned with sexual gratification. The types of behaviour that constitute grooming the child take two different forms—physical and psychological. + +Physical grooming involves the gradual sexualization of the relationship between the offender and the victim (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Psychological grooming is used to achieve this increased sexualization. At first, the offender may justify the sexual behaviour through providing the child with his version of sex education, which states that sex between children and adults is acceptable and that the offender has a responsibility to train the child for later life (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Leberg, 1997). The abuser builds the child's trust & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; Wyre, 1987, cited in Howitt, 1995; van Dam, 2001), makes him or her feel good (Warner, 2000) and then starts to violate boundaries i & Blake, 1990; van Dam, 2001). This may involve intentionally entering the bedroom while the child or young person is undressed, or getting dressed together and exposing himself to the child. + +Offenders often desensitize a child to touch by beginning with non-sexual touching such as tickling or stroking the child's head. Conversation may also become more sexual. Alternatively, offenders may confuse victims by continuing to talk to the child about a positive unrelated issue while they begin touching the child sexually (Leberg, 1997). The child may have no idea that something inappropriate is happening. The aim is to progress to sexual touching, first on top of clothes and later under or without clothes (Berliner & Conte, 1990; & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001). Thus, the intention is to make the child compliant with the offender's sexual demands and overcome the child's resistance (Finkelhor, 1984; Leberg, 1997; Warner, 2000). + +In addition to using psychological grooming to increase compliance, it is also used to avoid disclosure. Children are groomed to want to be around the adult who is grooming them nr, 1985). Offenders need to maintain the child's cooperation and secrecy to achieve this. One way that the offender does this is by isolating the child and alienating them from others (Warner, 2000). Leberg (1997) refers to this factor as something separate from grooming, others (e.g. van Dam, 2001) consider it to be part of the grooming process. Isolating the child creates a barrier which prevents the child from having a confidant in whom to disclose (Warner, 2000). In addition, the keeping of secrets acts as a source of further isolation (Lerner, 1993, cited in van Dam, 2001). Children are very good at keeping secrets when asked to. Peters (1991, cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993) found that 82% of children in his study delayed or did not report an event that they had witnessed, because the thief in the scenario asked them not to tell anyone. The thief in this scenario was a stranger, to whom the children had no loyalty, and so it is likely that children would be even more likely to protect a known and loved adult. + +Further strategies used by offenders to maintain the child's compliance include issuing threats and bribes (Berliner & Conte, 1990; & Blake, 1990). Bribes may take the form of material gifts or extra privileges & Blake, 1990). In addition, offenders are skilled at using children's natural vulnerabilities against them. For instance, children very often have a strong desire to protect their parents. When the offender informs them that their parents would be very hurt if they found out what they had been doing, children may remain silent (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Offenders may also demonstrate their potential for violence through violence towards others, e.g. other family members. Thereby offenders reinforce the message that they will enact their threats about hurting the child and/or the child's family. + +Offenders frequently make the child feel responsible for the abuse (Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001; Warner, 2000). They convince the child that they are to blame for letting the abuse happen and that they should have stopped it (Leberg, 1997). This is reinforced by stereotypes in society, which emphasize that men cannot control their sex drive (Warner, 2000). Additional guilt may be felt if the child has been made to perform sexual acts on the abuser or another child (Warner, 2000). However, this feeling of responsibility and guilt is overshadowed by the self-betrayal the child feels as their body reacts to sexual stimulation against their will (Warner, 2000) which children may interpret as evidence that they are enjoying themselves. This is internalized and resultantly may have an impact on the child's developing identity. Disclosure is avoided because the child feels that it is "all their fault", that he/she is bad and that no one will believe them (Warner, 2000). + +Each victim's experience of grooming is different, because offenders adapt their strategies dependent on the child, whose response during the grooming process is important. It seems reasonable to suggest that offenders require some level of "empathy" during the grooming process to recognize reactions in the child, so that they can adapt their strategy accordingly. For example, during the desensitization process an offender would need to recognize the limits of the victim and to strategically increase those limits. It is proposed that empathy involves four components: (1) emotion recognition; (2) perspective-taking; (3) emotion replication; and (4) response decision (Marshall, Hudson, IM & Fernandez, 1995). Continuing with the previous example, offenders recognize the distress in their victim and make a decision based on this, because they choose to stop temporarily as a strategic part of the desensitization process. Thus, offenders appear to have ability in components (I) and (4), which are the cognitive components, but not in the affective components (2) and (3). While early research on empathy in sex offenders concluded that they have empathy deficits, more recent research has found that this empathy deficit to be victim-specific (Fernandez, Marshall, Lightbody & 1999; Marshall, & Fernandez, 2001; Marshall et al., 1995). This is inconsistent with the suggestion that the grooming process requires some level of empathy. However, Fernandez et al. (1999; Marshall et al., 2001) provide a possible explanation for this. They suggest that victim-specific empathy deficits manifest as cognitive distortions, which protect the offenders from negatively evaluating themselves, thus allowing them to continue abusing a child. Based on this suggestion, victim-specific empathy deficits arise as a consequence rather than a cause of the abuse. These cognitive distortions therefore facilitate self-grooming. + +The manifestation of a cognitive distortion relating to a victim-specific empathy deficit may be facilitated by cognitive deconstruction. Cognitive deconstruction (see M, Hudson & Marshall, 1995) is a state entered into to escape negative experiences and negative selfevaluation. Cognitive deconstruction involves processing at a lower, more concrete, level, i.e. muscular movements, and rewards of behaviour, rather than social action. Resultantly, the individual has much more focus on feelings of pleasure and less awareness of the consequences of his behaviour. This concrete-level focus may reinforce cognitive distortions such as victims enjoyed the abuse because they became physically aroused, which justifies the offender's lack of empathy toward their victim. + +Self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others, and grooming the child are relevant to situational and preferential offenders, extra-familial and intrafamilial offences. It is important that the different types of sexual grooming apply to these different typologies and classifications of offenders because sexual grooming is not used solely by one group of offenders and, furthermore, these categories are not mutually exclusive (Itzin, 2001). + +### Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children + +The definitions of sexual grooming presented at the start of this review do not reflect the complexity of the sexual grooming of children, which is demonstrated in the previous discussion of the different types of sexual grooming. Based on the above findings it seems necessary to provide a new definition that attempts to encapsulate the complexity of sexual grooming, while still being easy to understand. We propose the following: + +A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions. + +### Conclusion + +Despite the wide acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not understood clearly, particularly in the public domain. Testimonies from both victims and perpetrators highlight the pertinence of the problem. Furthermore, the government in England and Wales has introduced legislation in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 regarding "meeting a child following sexual grooming" (see Part I: section 152003). A greater understanding of the meaning, elements and process of sexual grooming is required to effectively utilize this legislation (for review see Craven, & Gilchrist, in press). + +Regardless of the prevalence and pertinence of sexual grooming, most aetiological theories of child sexual abuse neglect the phenomenon. The main reason for this is likely to be because prominent theories of child sexual abuse were devised more than 10 years ago, at a time when sexual grooming was not recognized as it is today. Therefore, it is necessary that theories be reconsidered based on this recent awareness. (2001, 2002; & Hudson, While■ 2001; && Siegert, 2002) has begun the process of theory knitting and development. and Siegert's Pathways Model is able to account for sexual grooming, it still focuses on the presence of opportunity rather than explicitly recognizing that offenders often create their own opportunities to offend. + +The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming discussed in the literature: self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings an alternative definition has been suggested, which includes details about offenders' objectives, e.g. gaining access to a child, gaining the child's compliance, maintaining secrecy and avoiding disclosure. + +A fuller understanding of sexual grooming is required. Consideration needs to be given to offender-victim interaction (before, during and after the offence), micro behaviours that may indicate to significant adults that a child is being sexually groomed, or indeed that they themselves are being groomed by an offender, and the seemingly impossible task of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the ambiguous behaviour of sexual grooming is sexually motivated. This would provide many benefits to child protection and the policing and treatment of child sex offenders with a specific focus on prevention of child sexual abuse rather than reactive responses to it. To optimize the impact of acquired knowledge and understanding, it is necessary to consider how these fmdings are disseminated to the relevant groups involved with children, e.g. parents, police, and social workers. + +### References + +- Berliner, L. & Conte, J. IL (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29 40. Canter, D., Hughes, D. & Kirby, S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a melamine model of offence behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532 555. Ceti, S. J. & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 403 439. +- J. IL & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father daughter incest. In A. L Horton (lid.), The Incest Perpetrator: A Family Member No One lean to That (pp. 88 98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Come, J. It. S S. & T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 293 301. Creamed, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who have been sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 225 239. Craven, S., =, S. & Gilchrist, E. (in press). Current responses to sexual grooming: Implication for prevention. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46. Elliott, M., Browne, K. & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 579 594. Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L, Lightbody, S. & C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure: Description and examination of its reliability and validity. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 17 +- 32. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research. New York: Free PressfLondon: Collier Macmillan. Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the interne challenges for criminal law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14, 411 425. Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": definitions and the law. New Law Journal. `G. C. N. & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective of etiology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 8 23. Hare, IL D. & Han, S. D. (1993). Psychopathy, mental disorder, and crime. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental Disorder and Crime (pp. 104 115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Herman, J. (1981). Father daughter incest. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 12, 76 80. Home Office (2003). Sexual Offences Act 2003. Available at: http://www.hmso.gov.ukfacts/acts2003/20030042.htm (accessed November 2003). Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons. lain, C. (2001). Incest, paedophilia, pornography and prostitution: Making familial males more visible as the abusers. Child Abuse Review, 10, 35 48. Laws, D. IL & Marshall, W. L. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual preference and behavior. In W. L. Marshall, D. IL Laws & H. E. Harbert< (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treanneru of the Offender (pp. 209 230). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Isberg, E. (1997). Understanding Child Molesters. Taking Charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Marshall, W. L & Barbara, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, +- D. It Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press. Marshall, W. L, s D. & Champagne, F. (1997). Self-esteem and its relationship to sexual offending. Psychology. Crime and Law, 3, 161 186. Marshall, W. L, S K. & Fernandez, Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 123 130. Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., MI, R & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 99 113. 'MI T., Erooga, M. & Beckett, IL C. (1994). Sexual Offending Against Charm: Assessment and Treatment of Males. London: Routledge. O'Connell, IL (2003). A Typology of Child Cybersexploitation and Online Grooming Practices. Available at: http:// wwwsafer-internet.net/downloadsfUCLAN report rekase.pdf (accessed September 2003). Pickets, C. L, Gardner, W. L & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Po:choler? Bulletin, 30, 1095 1107. Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 19, 276 288. Sampson, A. (1994). Acts of Abuse: Sex Offender and the Criminal Justice System. London: Routledge. Sanford, L T. (1982). The Silent Children: A Parent's Guide to the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: McGraw. + +- Stop it Now (2003). Whoa we off need to know to puma our children. Available at: http://ww•w.stopimow.org.ukt Stop%2002.pdf (accessed December 2003). van Dam, C. (2001). identifying Child Molesters: Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by Recognizing the Pasterns of the Offenders. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Pressrfhe Haworth Press, Inc. M T (2001). A critique of • and Hirschman's quadripartite model of child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public Polity, and Late, 7, 333 350. In T. (2002). Marshall and Barbaree's integrated theory of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 209 228. + - T. & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Sexual offenders' implicit planning: A conceptual model. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 189 202. +- T. & Hudson, S. M. (2001). Finkelhor's precondition model of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 291 307. T., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L (1995). Cognitive distortions and affective deficits in sex offenders: A cognitive deconstructionist interpretation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 67 83. I +- T. & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters' implicit theories. Journal of interpersonal Violence, 14, 821 838. T., Louden, K., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L (1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal VielltMe, 10, 452 472. T & Siegert, R. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psydwlogy, Crime and tow, 8, 319 351. Warner, S. (2000). Understanding Child Sexual Abuse: Making the Tarim Possible. Gloucester: Handsel]. Wilson, R. J. (1999). Emotional congruence in sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 33 48. + - S. (1985). A multi-factor model of deviant sexuality. Vicrimology: An International Journal, 10, 359 374. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4ea764232b5b14c66d91adbf3a5cc5ad124e0e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/EFTA02833622.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2691 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 43, + "chars": 138641, + "elapsed_seconds": 22.94, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.348, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 201.348, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual \nAbuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 129.115, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 467.22265625, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 467.22265625, + 186.3798828125 + ], + [ + 129.115, + 186.3798828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRENT DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.85999999999999, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 361.76, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 361.76, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 230.85999999999999, + 564.5699999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.96999999999997, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 398.65, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 398.65, + 239.76 + ], + [ + 193.96999999999997, + 239.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.705, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 390.32000000000005, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 390.32000000000005, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 201.705, + 577.53 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identifying Potential Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 263.58500000000004, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 263.58500000000004, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 222.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 346.88499999999993, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 346.88499999999993, + 547.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 547.5600000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sexual Desensitization", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 114.24, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 233.24, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 233.24, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 114.24, + 353.15999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Boundary Violations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 267.3 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 267.3 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the Child\u2019s Environment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 596.16 + ], + [ + 298.69, + 596.16 + ], + [ + 298.69, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 611.55 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Commonalities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 194.56500000000003, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 194.56500000000003, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 390.41999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A PROPOSED DEFINITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.125, + 590.49 + ], + [ + 369.495, + 590.49 + ], + [ + 369.495, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 603.45 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.3, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 389.725, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 389.725, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 202.3, + 188.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 254.66, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.88702392578125, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.88702392578125, + 203.103515625 + ], + [ + 254.66, + 203.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REFERENCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.23, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 333.33563232421875, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 333.33563232421875, + 609.6035461425781 + ], + [ + 258.23, + 609.6035461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AUTHOR NOTES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.51999999999998, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 343.5674133300781, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 343.5674133300781, + 521.4651031494141 + ], + [ + 247.51999999999998, + 521.4651031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and \nSeduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 253.72567749023438, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 253.72567749023438, + 181.13238525390625 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 181.13238525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abstract", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.39305114746094, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.39305114746094, + 278.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 278.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Corresponding Author:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.21603393554688, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.21603393554688, + 609.8829574584961 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 609.8829574584961 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keywords", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 158.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 158.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 209.96762084960938 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 209.96762084960938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.49758911132812, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.49758911132812, + 475.8376159667969 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 475.8376159667969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 392.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 428.3999999999999, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 428.3999999999999, + 500.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 500.5799999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 309.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 309.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 367.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 367.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 563.76 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 563.76 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 577.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 577.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.68697357177734, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.68697357177734, + 158.732421875 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 158.732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Note", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.85710906982422, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.85710906982422, + 208.98236083984375 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 208.98236083984375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 202.111328125, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 202.111328125, + 324.8623962402344 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 324.8623962402344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Author Biography", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 424.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 424.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sexual grooming of children: Review of \nliterature and theoretical considerations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 456.119873046875, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 456.119873046875, + 176.40533447265625 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 176.40533447265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 159.56617736816406, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 159.56617736816406, + 452.71063232421875 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 452.71063232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Definition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 148.6082763671875, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 148.6082763671875, + 624.4606170654297 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 624.4606170654297 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prevalence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 152.31220245361328, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 152.31220245361328, + 620.5925979614258 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 620.5925979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Aetiology of a motivation to abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 259.45042419433594, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 259.45042419433594, + 362.4600830078125 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 362.4600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 270.5872802734375, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 270.5872802734375, + 548.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 548.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "and Hirschman 's Quadripartite Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 144.17999999999998 + ], + [ + 272.0451202392578, + 144.17999999999998 + ], + [ + 272.0451202392578, + 158.4600830078125 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 158.4600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Finkdhor's Pre-condition Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 225.91513061523438, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 225.91513061523438, + 377.840087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 377.840087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Wand Siegen's Pathways Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 242.7951202392578, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 242.7951202392578, + 536.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 536.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Offence process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 174.83387756347656, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 174.83387756347656, + 279.9601135253906 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 279.9601135253906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The grooming process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 204.49559020996094, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 204.49559020996094, + 632.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 632.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Self-grooming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 155.14955139160156, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 155.14955139160156, + 220.340087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 220.340087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the environment and ninificatu others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 290.24468994140625, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 290.24468994140625, + 608.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 608.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the child", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 571.8599999999999 + ], + [ + 176.71308135986328, + 571.8599999999999 + ], + [ + 176.71308135986328, + 584.5926055908203 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 584.5926055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 361.67486572265625, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 361.67486572265625, + 112.340087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 112.340087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 153.08592224121094, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 153.08592224121094, + 288.590087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 288.590087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 151.95101165771484, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 151.95101165771484, + 112.728515625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 112.728515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "FigureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 122 + ], + [ + "Line", + 61 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833622" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bcb2307d50feab3bfb2b0434f7c7c5453b9bf53 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:679d7286f0f715b681908e2fc4c01523f689fc2393d68d6162064bb878e187db +size 1055 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0786034ed52bb1ead7ec4080513ecc083f59774 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2b06a754f17cc3f52c7d87023cb0aaaf1065315068d4990666e01b25c6c12015 +size 1776 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f161aea579214c38e427d73aeb56e9a532ef7166 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833622/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ce2312513bc46f3d1aa7fcc25d43763815f9db302672a7b499f0d21caa82d733 +size 18691 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e75dfc1dd5a346c3bb449ee50e638b323426d01c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.md @@ -0,0 +1,744 @@ +# Exhibit B + +# Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016) + +Ramona Alaggia l , Delphine Collin-Vezina2, and Rusan Lateefl + +TRAUMA. VIOLENCE. II ABUSE + +2019. Vol. 20(2) 260.283 + +C The Author(s) 2017 + +![](_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg) + +Article reuse gueleknet: + +sasepub conViounolepenernicot + +DOI 10117711524830017697312 purnals uteixst, con)Nomeeva + +![](_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg) + +### Abstract + +Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures has the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and prevent further sexual victimization. Timely access to therapeutic services can mitigate risk to the mental health of survivors of all ages. This review of the research focuses on CA disclosures with children, youth, and adults across the life course. Using Kiteley and Stogdon's literature review framework, 33 studies since 2000 were identified and analyzed to extrapolate the most convincing findings to be considered for practice and future research. The centering question asked: What is the state of CA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to practice and future research? Using Braun and Clarke's guidelines for thematic analysis, five themes emerged: (I) Disclosure is an iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event best done within a relational context; (2) contemporary disclosure models reflect a social—ecological. person-in-environment orientation for understanding the complex interplay of individual. familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; (3) age and gender significantly influence disclosure; (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective: and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Although solid strides have been made in understanding CSA disclosures, the current state of knowledge does not fully capture a cohesive picture of disclosure processes and pathways over the life course. More research is needed on environmental, contextual, and cultural factors. Barriers continue to be identified more frequently than facilitators, although dialogical forums are emerging as important facilitators of CSA disclosure. Implications for practice in facilitating CSA disclosures are discussed with recommendations for future research. + +# Keywords + +sexual abuse, child abuse. cultural contexts + +# Introduction + +Timely access to supportive and therapeutic resources for child sexual abuse (CSA) survivors can mitigate risk to the health and mental health well-being of children, youth, and adults. Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit CSA disclosures have the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and potentially prevent further sexual victimization. Increased knowledge on both the factors and the processes involved in CSA disclosures is timely when research continues to show high rates of delayed disclosures (Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, & Milne, 2015; Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004; Easton, 2013; Goodman-=, Edelstein, Goodman, 2003; Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb; 2007; Jonzon & Lindblad, 2004; McElvaney, 2015; et al., 2000). + +Incidence studies in the United States and Canada report decreasing CSA rates (=I et al., 2015; Finkelhor, Shattuck, Tumer, & Hamby, 2014; Trocme et al., 2005, 2008), while at + +the same time global trends from systematic reviews and metaanalyses have found concerning rates of CSA, with averages of 18-20% for females and of 8-10% for males (Percda, Guilera, Foms, & Gomez-Benito, 2009). The highest rates found for girls is in Australia (21.5%) and for boys in Africa (19.3%), with the lowest rates for both girls (11.3%) and boys (4.1%) reported in Asia (Stoltenborgh, van Uzendoom, Euser, & Balcerrnans-Kranenburg, 2011). These findings point to the incongruence between the low number of official reports of + +### Corresponding Author. + +Ramona Naga. Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children's Mental Heakh. Factorlmventash Faculty of Social Work. University of Toronto. 246 Bloor St. West. Toronto. Ontario. Canada M4KIW I. + +Email: rarrionaalaggiaautororeo.ca + +Factor-Inwentesh Faculty of Social Work. University of Toronto. Toronto. Ontario. Canada + +&#x27;Centre for Research on Children and Families. School of Social Work. McGill University. Montreal. Qubec. Canada + +CSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than 30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000) than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jillian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In other words, while 1 out of 8 people retrospectively report having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate only 1 per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) further found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding CSA disclosure. + +It is our view that incidence statistics are likely an underestimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures with research showing a large number of survivors only disclosing in adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015; ■■■ et al., 2000), these issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious negative effects and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiving necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facilitate earlier disclosures. + +Previous literature reviews examining factors influencing CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include Paine and Hansen's (2002) original review covering the literature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman's (2005) subsequent review, which may not have captured publications affected by "lag to print" delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews are now dated and therefore do not take into account the plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past 15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinct contributions on the *dialogical relational processes* of disclosure (Reitsema & Grietens, 2015), CSA disclosures in *adulthood* (Tener & ■■■, 2015), and delayed disclosures in *childhood* (McElvaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and into adulthood—over the life course. + +## Method + +Kiteley and Stogdon's (2014) systematic review framework was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA + +disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to highlight the most convincing findings that should be considered for future research, practice, and program planning. This review centered on the question: *What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to future research and practice?* By way of clarification, the term systematic refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching literature on studies for *knowledge construction*, in this case the CSA disclosure literature, rather than *intervention* studies. The years spanned for searching the literature were 2000–2016, building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap. Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching international electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Educational Resources Information Center, Canadian Research Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peer-reviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished literature such as internal agency documents, government reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process. Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling. + +A search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publications, 1 ■■■ study, and 1 Portuguese review. The search was further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic investigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves, exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied, the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were subjected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors; (2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used, sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was generated and was continuously revised as the selection of studies was refined (see Table 1). + +## Key Findings + +First-level analysis of the studies identified key study characteristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure, study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to definitions, the term "telling" is most frequently used in place of the term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term more readily understood by study participants. Several + +Table I. Ch d Sexua Abuse (CSA) D sc osure Stud es: 2000-2016. + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Gagn er and Co n-Véz na (2016) | To exp ore d sc osure processes for █ e v ct ms of CSA | Phenomeno og ca methodo ogy used to nterv ew █ e CSA surv vors. The Long Interv ew Method (LIM) gu ded data co ect on and ana yses. | 17 men ranged n age from 19 to 67—average age 47. Purpos ve samp ng strategy was used | The major ty of the men n the study wa ted unt adu thood to d sc ose the r abuse, w th negat ve stereotypes contr but ng to the r de ayed d sc osures. Negat ve stereotypes contr buted to de ayed d sc osure w th try ng to forget. Break ng so at on was c ted as a mot vator to d sc osure a ong w th the a d of var ous forms of med a on d sc osure. Important contextua ssues such as negat ve stereotyp ng of █ es, sexua ty, and v ct ms were noted. Soc a med a was seen as a fac tator of d sc osures | A part c pants had d sc osed and rece ved serv ces before part c pat ng n the study. Member check ng cou d not be done w th the part c pants to check themes. Sma but suff c ent s ze for a qua tat ve nqu ry. Otherw se, h gh eve of r gor n estab sh ng trustworth ness of the data and ana ys s. Retrospect ve study cou d mp y reca ssues | +| Braze ton (2015) | To exp ore the mean ng Afr can Amer can women make of the r traumat c exper ences w th CSA and how they d sc osed across the fe course | Co ect ve case study des gn w th us ng narrat ve trad t on (storyboard) for data co ect on and ana ys s. Qua tat ve nterv ew ng | 17 Afr can Amer can women n m d- fe between 40 and 63 who exper enced ntrafam a CSA. Purpos ve, snowba ng strategy | CSA onset was arge y between the ages 5 and 9. No one ever ta ked to them about sex, so they d dn't have anguage to d sc ose. Barr ers: fear of fam y breakdown and remova, not want ng to tarn sh the fam y's name, and fear of retr but on by fam y members f they d sc osed. Pattern of st f ed and d sm ssed d sc osures dent f ed over the fe course. A 17 part c pants dent f ed sp r tua ty as a pr mary source of strength throughout the fe course | One of few stud es to focus exc us ve y on Afr can Amer can women. Sma but suff c ent s ze for a qua tat ve nqu ry. Important cu tura and contextua ssues were brought forward. Retrospect ve study that may have been affected by reca ssues. Use of a fe-course perspect ve as a theoret ca ens for understand ng CSA n the m dd e to ater years of fe that shou d be cons dered n further nvest gat ons | +| Co n-Véz na, Sab onn, Pa mer, and M ne (2015) | To prov de a mapp ng of factors that prevent CSA d sc osures through an eco og ca ens from a samp e of CSA adu t surv vors. | Qua tat ve des gn us ng LIM. | 67 █ e and fema e CSA adu t surv vors (76% dent f ed as fema e and 24% as █ e). Age ranges from 19 to 69 years (M = 44.9). Purpos ve samp ng strategy | Three broad categor es were dent f ed as barr ers to CSA d sc osure. Barr ers from w th n-nterna zed v ct m b ann ng, mechan sms to protect onese f, and mmature deve opment at t me of abuse; barr ers n re at on to others—v o ence and dysfunct on n the fam y', power dynam cs, awareness of the mpact of te ng, and frag e soc a network; barr ers n re at on to the soc a wor d abe ng, taboo of sexua ty, ack of serv ces ava ab e, and cu ture or t me per od. | Ha f of the part c pants had not d sc osed the r CSA exper ences before the age of 19. Retrospect ve aspect of the study cou d mp y reca ssues. A part c pants had d sc osed and rece ved counse ng at some before part c pat ng n the study. H gh eve of r gor n estab sh ng trustworth ness of the data and ana ys s | +| Lec erc and Wort ey (2015) | Study object ves nvest gated the factors that fac tate CSA d sc osures | Adu t █ e ch d sexua offenders were nterv ewed to exam ne pred ctors of CSA d sc osures | 369 adu t █ es who had been conv cted of a sexua offense aga nst a ch d aged between 1 | D sc osure ncreased w th the age of the v ct m: f penetrat on had occurred, f the v ct m was re ated to the offender, f the v ct m was not v ng w th the offender at per od. | Offender generated data through se f-reports cou d be subject to cogn t ve d stort ons—m n m zat on or exaggerat ons. | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | | +|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| McEvaney and Cuhane (2015) | To investigate the feasibility of using child assessments as data sources of information | Feer reports of children seen for assessments a child sexual abuse until na children's hospital were revewed | Content analysis was completed on 39 fes (32 females and 7 █ es) based on a coding framework. Parents were asked to consent to have their child's feer evened for the study. Victims assessed were 12–18 years of age | Majority of children to dither mothers (43%) and peers (33%) first. Three major themes were dentified as influencing the discipline process: (1) feeing distressed, (2) opportunity to tell, and (3) fears for self. Additional themes of being beleved, shame/self-blame, and peer influence were also dentified | The sample size is small but within contribute to a large multistate study in line and. Serves as an important exploratory pilot bringing forward discipline themes for consideration | Perspectives of offenders on vulnerability of victims in relation to discipline could be important information to inform interventions | | +| Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila, Bohu, and Rey-Salmon (2014) | This study allemed to explore how the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, especially whether these relations are intrafamilial or extrafamilial, impact CSA discipline | Feer reports of children seen for assessments a child sexual abuse until na children's hospital were revewed | 220 million victims—78.2% female victims, 41.8% aged between 14 and 18 (most prevalent age range), and 48.2% were abused by a family member | Discipline processes were more complex when this concerned sexual abuse committed by intrafamilial perpetrator: 60% of the victims reveal the facts several years after, and most often to individuals outside the family (78.6% of the disciplines done at school); on the contrary, extrafamilial disciplines take place more spontaneously and quickly: 80% of the victims reveal the facts a few days after, most often to the remother or peers | The relationship with the perpetrator has a significant impact on both timing and recipient of discipline, with intrafamilial abuses essentially to be disciplined promptly and within the family system | The relationship with the perpetrator has a significant perception of discipline, with recipient of discipline, with intrafamilial abuses essentially to be disciplined promptly and within the family system | Perspectives of offenders on vulnerability of victims in relation to discipline could be important information to inform interventions | +| Easton, Saltzman, and Wilson (2014) | Study focus was on dentification of barriers to CSA discipline with █ e survivors | Using qualitative content analysis, researchers conducted a secondary analysis of online survey data, the 2010 Health and Well-Being Survey, that included men with self-reported CSA histories within open-ended temporal discipline barriers | 460 men with CSA histories completed an anonymous, Internet-based survey, Recruited from survivors' organizations. Age range of 18–84 years. Two thirds of respondents reported clergy-related abuse. Majority of respondents were White | Vast majority of participants (94.6%) were sexually abused by another █ e. Duration of sexual abuse broke down into: 30.2% essentially monthly, 32.3% 6 months to 3 years, and 34.3% more than 3 years. Ten years old was average age of CSA onset. Ten categories of barriers were classified into three domains: (1) sociopolitical: masculinity, mited resources; (2) interpersonal: mistrust of others, fear of being able to "gay," safety and protection issues, past responses; and (3) personal: internal emotions, seeing the experience as sexual abuse, and sexual or entitled only. | At time of the study, this was the largest qualitative data set to have been analyzed within an explicit focus on adult █ e survivors' perceptions of barriers to CSA discipline. Because the sample was mited in terms of the own percentage of racial minorities (9.3%), discipline differences based on race or ethnicity were not discerned. The majority of abuse reported was by clergy which might present a unique set of barriers to discipline | | | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | F nd ngs | Summary | +|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Easton (2013) | Study purpose was to descr be █ e CSA d sc osure processes us ng a fe span approach exam n ng d flerences based on age. A so, to exp ore re at onsh ps between d sc osure attr butes and men's menta hea th | Cross-sect ona survey des gn. E g b e part c pants were screened and comp eted an anonymous, Internet-based survey dur ng 2010. Measures used: Genera Menta Hea th D stress Sca e and Genera Assessment of Ind v dua Needs. Quest ons re ated to CSA d sc osure and supports were nc uded | Purpos ve samp ng of 487 men from three nat ona organ zat ons devoted to ra s ng awareness of CSA among men. Age range: 19–84 years. Mean age for onset of CSA was 10.3 years | O der age and be ng abused by a fam y member were both re ated to de ays n d sc osure. Most part c pants who to d someone dur ng ch dhood d d not rece ve emot ona y support ve or protect ve responses and the he pfu ness of responses across the fe span was m xed. De ays n te ng were s gn f cant per ods of t me (over 20 years). Approx mate y one ha f of the part c pants f rst to d about the sexua abuse to a spouse/partner (27%) or a menta hea th profess ona (20%); 42% of part c pants reported that the r most he pfu d scuss on was w th a menta hea th profess ona. . However, unhe pfu responses caused most menta d stress. C n ca recommendat ons nc uded more of a fe-course perspect ve be adopted, understand ng mpact of unhe pfu responses and the mportance of expand ng networks for █ e surv vors | Purpos ve samp ng of men from awareness ra s ng organ zat ons may have attracted part cu ar part c pants who had a ready d sc osed and rece ved he p. Part c pants needed to have access to Internet wh ch wou d have e m nated men n ower SEs groups and requ red prof c ency n Eng sh wh ch wou d e m nate certa n cu tura groups. However, the samp ng strategy ga ned access to a predom nant y h dden popu at on. Important c n ca recommendat ons are made w th an emphas s on a fe-course focus | +| McE vaney, █ and Hogan (2012) | Qua tat ve study asked the centra research quest on: "How do ch dren te ?" Object ve was to deve op theory of how ch dren te of the r CSA d sc osure exper ences. Parents were nterv ewed. | Grounded theory method study. Interv ews were conducted. L ne-by-ne open and ax a cod ng was conducted on verbat m transcr pts transcr pts | Samp e of 22 young peop e; 16 g r s and 6 boys; age range: 8–18 years; 22 nterv ewed n tota between the ages of 8 and 18. M xed samp e of some endur ng ntrafam a CSA, some extrafam a CSA, and two endured both forms | A theoret ca mode was deve oped that conceptua zes the process of CSA d sc osure as one of conta n ng the secret: (1) the act ve w thho d ng of the secret on the part of the ch d; (2) the exper ence of a "pressure cooker effect" ref ect ng a conf ct between the w sh to te and the w sh to keep the secret; and (3) the conf d ng tse f wh ch often occurs n the context of a trusted re at onsh p. These were der ved from e even categor es that were deve oped through open and ax a cod ng | Modest but suff c ent samp e for an exp oratory qua tat ve nqu ry. H gh eve of trustworth ness r gor. A subsamp e of random y se ected transcr pts was ndependent y coded. Very young ch dren and young adu ts were not captured n th s samp e. Transferab ty of f nd ngs can on y be made to the age range samp ed n the context of fre and | +| Schonbucher, █ er, Moh er-Kuo, Schnyder, and Lando t (2012) | To nvest gate the process of CSA d sc osure w th ado escents from the genera popu at on who had exper enced CSA. How many d sc osed, who d d soc odemograph c | Data co ect on was through face-to-face qua tat ve nterv ews. Standard zed quest ons and measures were adm n stered on fam y s tuat on, soc odemograph c | Conven ence samp e of 26 sexua y v ct m zed ado escents. 23 g r s and 3 boys. Age range: 15–18 years. On ne advert sements and f yers were used to recru t youth from | Less than one th rd of part c pants mmed ate y d sc osed CSA to another person. In most cases, rec p ents of both mmed ate and de ayed d sc osure were to peers. More than one th rd of part c pants had never d sc osed the abuse to a parent. Part c pants reported re uctance to d sc ose to parents so as | Two th rds of the samp e d d not d sc ose r ght away. Strengthen ng parent-ch d re at onsh ps may be one of the most important ways to increase d sc osure to parents. D sc osure to peers has been found a common trend n other | + +Table I. (tont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hunter (2011) | they disclose to, and what were the remotes for disclosing | data, sexual victimization, generalization and mental health. | community and counseling services | not to burden them. Earlier disclosures were related to extrafamilial CSA, single occurrence CSA, age of victim at abuse onset, and parents who were ving together. Higher events of reported guilt and shame were related to delayed disclosures. Peers were viewed by this sample as more reliable confidants | research and bears more examination | +| | Almost this study was to develop a fuller understanding of CSA disclosures | Narrative nquiry methodology. Face-to-face n-depth interviews were conducted with participants. Data were analyzed using Rosenthal and Fischer-Rosenthal's (2004) method. | Purposive sampling was employed. Sample consisted of 22 participants aged 25–70 years; 13 women and 9 men. Participants were sexually abused at 15 years or under with someone over the age of 18. | Only 5 out of 22 participants to dianyone about their early sexual experiences as children. Fear, shame, and self-blame were the main inhibitors to disclosure. These factors are further detailed through subthemes. Thing as a child and as an adult was further expanded upon using Alaga's (2004) framework verifying behavioral nd rectittempts to tell and purposeful disclosure as categories. Thematic analysis supported that CSA disclosure should be conceptualized and viewed as a complex and felong process | Delayed disclosure was common in this qualitative sample. Most participants did not make a selective disclosure until adulthood. These findings support Alaga's (2004) model of disclosure but also highlights the importance of felistage. Modest but sufficient sample size for a qualitative nquiry. Well-designed study with detailed analysis for transferability of findings | +| | This study almost to develop a fuller understanding of CSA disclosures | This study almost to develop a fuller understanding of CSA disclosures | Study sought to find out filling process issues of disclosure could be dentified in the context of forensic interviews. Forensic interviewers were asked to incorporate questions about "telling" into an existing forensic interview protocol. Interview content related to the children's reasons for telling or waiting was extracted, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory method of analysis | 191 interviews of CSA victims aged 3–18 over a 1-year period were used for the study. Inclusion criteria included children who made a statement about CSA prior to referral, reasons for telling or waiting to tell, and those who spoke English. Participants were children who were interviewed at a child sexual abuse clinic. 74% were female and 51% were Caucasian | Reasons the children dentified for telling were classified into three domains: (1) disclosure as a result of internal stimuli (e.g., the child had inglithmares); (2) disclosure facilitated by outside influences (e.g., the child was questioned); and (3) disclosure due to direct evidence of abuse (e.g., the child's abuse was witnessed). The barriers to disclosure dentified felinto five groups: (1) threats made by the perpetrator (e.g., the child was to dishorle would get in trouble if she or he toold), (2) fears (e.g., the child was afraid something bad would happen if she or he toold), (3) acklof opportunity (e.g., the child felt the opportunity to disclose never presented), (4) acklof understanding (e.g., the child failed to recognize abuse behavior as unacceptable), and (5) relationship with the perpetrator (e.g., the child thought the perpetrator was a friend) | + +r-' Table I. (cont nued) P + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | | | +|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Agg a (2010) | The study a med to dent fy factors mped ng or promot ng CSA d sc osures. Overarch ng research quest on: What nd v dua , nterpersona , env ronmenta , and contextua nf uences mpede or promote CSA d sc osures. | A qua tat ve phenomeno og ca des gn, LIM, was used to nterv ew adu t CSA surv vors about the r d sc osure exper ences to prov de retrospect ve accounts of CSA d sc osure and mean ng-mak ng of these exper ences. Themat c ana ys s was done through a soc a - eco og ca ens. | Purpos ve samp ng was emp oyed. Snowba samp ng was a so used to recru t more █ e surv vors. 40 adu t surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed: 36% men and 64% women. Age range of 18-65 w th a mean age of 40.1 years. Average age of abuse onset was 5.3 years o d. 36% of the samp e was non-Wh te. D verse soc oeconom c backgrounds | Themes fe nto four doma ns: (1) nd v dua and deve opmenta factors, deve opmenta factors as to whether they comprehended what was happen ng, persona ty tra ts a so had some bear ng on the r ab ty to te , and ant c pat ng not be ng be eved; (2) d sc osure nh b ted by fam y character st cs such as r g d y f xed gender ro es w th dom nat ng fathers, chaos and aggress on, other forms of ch d abuse, domest c v o ence, dysfunct ona commun cat on, and soc a so at on; (3) ne ghborhood and commun ty context, that s, ack of nterest from ne ghbors and teachers not pursu ng troub ng behav or; and (4) cu tura and soc eta att tudes, med a messages and soc eta att tudes, fee ng unheard as k ds, gender soc a zat on for █ es, and cu tura att tudes nf uenc ng parent's react ons. Purposefu d sc osure s h gher than reported n other stud es because of the samp ng attempts to purposefu y ocate d sc osers | The study presents a comprehens ve soc a -eco og ca ana ys s to CSA d sc osure h gh ght ng the mu t facted nf uences. Of note, 42% had d sc osed the abuse dur ng ch dhood; 26% had not d sc osed because they had repressed the memory, or the abuse had occurred n preschoo years and they had d ff cu ty w th reca . The rema nder had attempted some form of d sc osure n nd rect ways dur ng ch dhood. A retrospect ve approach that cou d be affected by reca ssues | The study presents a comprehens ve soc a -eco og ca ana ys s to CSA d sc osure h gh ght ng the mu t facted nf uences. Of note, 42% had d sc osed the abuse dur ng ch dhood; 26% had not d sc osed because they had repressed the memory, or the abuse had occurred n preschoo years and they had d ff cu ty w th reca . The rema nder had attempted some form of d sc osure n nd rect ways dur ng ch dhood. A retrospect ve approach that cou d be affected by reca ssues | The study h gh ghts that d sc osure s an nteract ve ongo ng process. Fnd ngs end support to stud es that have dent f ed s m ar y | +| Fontes and P ummer (2010) | Th s exam nat on of CSA d sc osure exp ored the ways cu ture affects processes of CSA d sc osure and report ng, both n the Un ted States and nternat ona y | Us ng pub shed terature w th c n ca data, th s art c e conducted an ana ys s to prov de a cu tura y competent framework for CSA d sc osure quest on ng nternat ona y | Data cons sted of pub shed terature on d sc osure and cu ture that was tr angu ated w th c n ca case mater a | Cu tura and structura factors affect ng CSA d sc osure are dent f ed n n-depth deta . Recommendat ons made nc ude (1) d sc osure nterv ew ng shou d be ta ored to the ch d's cu tura context, (2) quest on ng shou d a so take nto cons derat on age and gender factors, and (3) cu ture stands as an mportant factor n a cases n wh ch ch dren are cons der ng d sc os ng or be ng asked to d sc ose, and not so e y n cases n wh ch ch dren are from not ceab e m nor ty groups. Presents a comprehens ve nterv ew framework ntegrat ng cu tura cons derat ons | One of the few works that adds know edge to cu tura y contextua d sc osure nterv ew ng. Un que comb nat on of terature f nd ngs w th c n ca mater a. Anecdota accounts may prec ude transferab ty of f nd ngs. Overa adds to an mpover shed area of CSA d sc osure nformat on | Th s study h gh ghts that d sc osure s an nteract ve ongo ng process. Fnd ngs end support to stud es that have dent f ed s m ar y | | + +**Table 1. (continued)** + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Ungar, Tutty, McConne, Barter, and Farhom (2009b) | This study explored abuse disclosure strategies with a national sample of Canadian youth who participated in or enclosed prevention programming. One of the goals of the study was to document not previously dentified experiences of abuse and youth attitudes toward disclosure of abuse experiences | Exploratory design with a nonrepresentative sample. Qualitative analysis of logger evaluation forms completed by Red Cross RespectED programming devired between 2000 and 2003 programming devired between 2000 and 2003 programming devired between 2000 and 2003 of anonymous abuse disclosures by youth participants of neglect, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Twenty-seven interviews and focus groups were also done to understand contextual issues and engage youth and program facilitators in the interpretation of findings. A coding structure was deviloped for analysis to synthesize themes across data sources | Purposeful sample of logger evaluation forms completed following Red Cross RespectED violence prevention programming devired between 2000 and 2003 | Findings suggest high rates of hidden abuse, with less than one quarter of youth reporting a disclosure. 244 of the logger youth who disclosed abuse on the revival uation forms dentified specific individuals they today about their abuse. Disclosure patterns vary with boys, youth aged 14-15, victims of physical abuse, and those abused by a family member being most likely to disclose to professionals or the police. One third of disclosures were directed toward professionals and the east, 5% percent each, were directed toward friends, parents, and others. Participants were most likely to disclose sexual abuse to parents/family, professionals, and the police/courts, with fewer choosing friends. | Innovative design of this study provides insight into young people's perceptions of disclosure experiences. High level of rigor with trustworthiness of the data analysis ensured through use of youth focus groups, interviews, and observational data. The study results are somewhat mitted in the thickness of the descriptions that offer because most of the data are survey based. Regional differences may not have been picked up. Scope of the study is broad and approach is creative | +| | | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| | | | | | | + +Table I . (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | | +|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e ado escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | Part c pants comp eted 65- tem quest onna re that nc uded quest ons about background, consensua sex, sexua abuse exper ences (noncontact, contact or penetrat ng abuse, nc ud ng peer abuse), d sc osure of CSA, own sexua abus ve behav or, sexua att tudes, and exper ences w th pornography and sexua exp o tat on. The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | The samp e cons sted of 4,339 h gh schoo students n Sweden (2,324 g r s and 2,015 boys). The mean age of the part c pants was 18.15 years. Th s study used a subsamp e of 1,962 part c pants who reported CSA and who answered d sc osure quest ons | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | The samp e cons sted of surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | | +| Sorso , K a-Keat ng, and Grossman (2008) | Study focused on d sc osure cha enges for █ e surv vors of CSA to understand three ssues: (1) To | Study focused on d sc osure cha enges for █ e surv vors of CSA to understand three ssues: (1) To | Ma e surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure exper ences. Ana yt c techn ques nc uded | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | The samp e cons sted of operant n three nterre ated doma ns: (1) persona (e.g., ack of cogn t ve awareness, ntent ona avo dance, emot ona read ness, and shame); (2) | S nce the vast major ty of men n the samp e had not d sc osed n ch dhood, they may have been pred sposed to dent fy ng barr ers to d sc osure more | +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e ado escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | Part c pants comp eted 65- tem quest onna re that nc uded quest ons about background, consensua sex, sexua abuse exper ences (noncontact, contact or penetrat ng abuse, nc ud ng peer abuse), d sc osure of CSA, own sexua abus ve behav or, sexua att tudes, and exper ences w th pornography and sexua exp o tat on. The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | The samp e cons sted of surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | The samp e had not d sc osed n ch dhood, they may have been pred sposed to dent fy ng barr ers to d sc osure more | +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e ado escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | Part c pants comp eted 65- tem quest onna re that nc uded quest ons about background, consensua sex, sexua abuse exper ences (noncontact, contact or penetrat ng abuse, nc ud ng peer abuse), d sc osure of CSA, own sexua abus ve behav or, sexua att tudes, and exper ences w th pornography and sexua exp o tat on. The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; II Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anmer can, I | The samp e had not d sc osed n ch dhood, they may have been pred sposed to dent fy ng barr ers to d sc osure more | | +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e ado escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | Part c pan | | | | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hershkow tz, Lanes, and Lamb (2007) | The goa of the present study was to examine how ch d v ct ms of extrafam a sexua abuse d sc osed the abuse exper ence | grounded theory method of ana ys s for cod ng and deve opment of conceptua y c ustered matr ces. Part c pants comp eted two n-depth, sem -structured nterv ews, ast ng between 2 and 3 hr each tak ng p ace approx mate y a week apart | Puerto R can, 1 part Nat ve Amer can, 1 Afr can Cuban; age range of 24-61 years; 9 dent f ed themse ves as heterosexua , 5 as homosexua , and 2 as b sexua | Puerto R can, 1 part repercuss ons, so at on); and (3) soc ocu tura (e.g., ack of acceptance for men to exper ence or acknow edge v ct m zat on).
On y 1 of the 16 men n th s samp e d sc osed the fu extent of h s sexua abuse exper ences wh e he was st a ch d. The other men reported that they had not d sc osed, a though some reported attempts to te that were nd rect or ncomp ete. Severa other men d sc osed certa n exper ences or e ements of the r abuse, but concea ed others. By the t me of the study, many of these men had d sc osed the r past exper ences n a var ety of re at onsh ps, nc ud ng those w th fam y members, partners, therap sts, and nfrequent y fr ends. Severa had on y m ted d scuss ons of the r sexua abuse | read y. Retrospect ve accounts are subject to reca ssues. Invest gators made s gn f cant efforts to gather a d verse samp e. H gh eve of r gor was executed n the dependab ty of the data and terat ve process of the nterpretat on of f nd ngs was conducted | +| Hershkow tz, Lanes, and Lamb (2007) | The goa of the present study was to examine how ch d v ct ms of extrafam a sexua abuse d sc osed the abuse exper ence | A ged v ct ms of sexua abuse and the r parents were nterv ewed. Ch dren were nterv ewed us ng the NICHD Invest gat ve Interv ew Protoco by exper enced youth nvest gators. Informat on on d sc osure processes was obta ned n the f rst forma nterv ew, before any po ce nvest gat on or ch d we fare ntervent on | Th try a eged v ct ms of CSA; 18 boys and 12 g r s. Ch d samp e was 7- to 12-year-o ds w th an average age of 9.2 years. Twenty mothers and 10 fathers were a so nterv ewed for a tota of 30 parent nterv ews. A content ana ys s was conducted on ch d and parent nterv ews | D sc osure categor es were dent f ed as fo ows: (1) de ayed 53% of the ch dren de ayed d sc osure for between 1 week and 2 years; (2) rec p ent of d sc osure: 47% of ch dren f rst d sc osed to s b ngs or fr ends, 43% f rst d sc osed to the r parents, and 10% f rst d sc osed to another adu t. 57% of the ch dren spontaneous y d sc osed abuse, but 43% d sc osed on y after they were prompted. 50% of the ch dren reported fee ng afra d or ashamed of the r parents' responses. Parents' react ons: support ve (37%) and unsupport ve (63%). There was a strong corre at on between pred cted and actua parenta react ons suggest ng ch dren ant c pated the r parents' ke y react ons accurate y. D sc osure processes var ed depend ng on the ch dren's ages (e.g., younger ch dren d sc osed to parents), sever ty and frequency of abuse, parents' expected react ons, suspects' dent t es, and strateg es used to | Innovat ve des gn to gather d sc osure data from young ch dren. Focus s on extrafam a CSA wh ch may d ffer than d sc osure patterns of ntrafam a CSA. Two th rds of the parents reg stered unsupport ve responses wh ch s h gh | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| A agg a and K rshenbaum (2005) | The object ves of the current study were to dent fy a broad range of factors, nc ud ng fam y dynam cs that contr bute to or h nder a ch d's ab ty to d sc ose CSA. | A qua tat ve phenomeno og ca des gn—LIM—was used to e c t d sc osure exper ences; fac tators and barr ers; and re evant c rcumstances. | Purpos ve samp ng was emp oyed to recru t 20 adu t surv vors between the ages of 18 and 65 who were sexua y abused by a fam y member. Average age of part c pants was 40.1 years; 60% of part c pants were fema e and 40% █ e. Average age of onset of abuse was 6.7 years. M xed c n ca and nonc n ca samp e. The major ty had rece ved treatment for CSA at some po nt n the r ves | Four major themes emerged suggest ng that CSA d sc osure can be s gn f cant y comprom sed when certa n fam y cond t ons ex st: (1) r g d y f xed, gender ro es based on a patr archy-based fam y structure; (2) presence of fam y v o ence; (3) c osed, nd rect fam y commun cat on patterns; and (4) soc a so at on of the fam y as a who e, or spec f c members, p ayed a part n CSA v ct ms fee ng they had no one safe to te. Fam y systems formu at ons through a fem n st ens are mportant n understand ng ch dren and fam es at r sk of d sc osure barr ers | Over ha f the part c pants had not d sc osed the abuse dur ng ch dhood. Of the nond sc os ng part c pants, s x d d not d sc ose because they had repressed or forgotten the memory. A most one th rd w thhe d d sc osure ntent ona y. More data are needed on ear y d sc osures to garner more nformat on on fac tators of d sc osure. Retrospect ve approach mp es reca ssues. H gh eve of trustworth ness of the data and nterpretat ons were ach eved through cred b ty, dependab ty, and conf rmab ty through d rect quotes | +| A agg a (2005) | The study purpose was to qua tat ve y exp ore dynam cs that mpede or promote d sc osure by exam n ng a range of factors nc ud ng gender as a dynam c—how d sc osures of fema es and █ es are s m ar and d fferent, and n what ways gender affects CSA d sc osure | Surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure exper ences us ng LIM. Ana ys s of 30 part c pant narrat ves was used for theme deve opment regard ng mpact of gender on d sc osure. Interv ews were transcr bed verbat m for open, ax a , and se ect ve cod ng. Categor es and subcategor es were co apsed and ref n ng nto theme areas | Purpos ve samp ng of women and men, a ong w th those who d sc osed dur ng the abuse and those who d d not. 19 fema es and 11 █ es; 18–65 (mean 40.1) years who were sexua y abused by a fam y member or a trusted adu t. Average age of abuse onset was 5.3 years, 36% were nonwh te, and 58% had not d sc osed dur ng ch dhood | Three themes emerged for men that nh b ted or prec p tated d sc osure for reasons re ated to gender: (1) fear of be ng v ewed as homosexua ; (2) profound fee ngs of st gmat zat on or so at on because of the be ef that boys are rare y v ct m zed; and (3) fear of becom ng an abuser, wh ch acted as a prec p tant for d sc osure. Two predom nant themes w th fema e part c pants re ated to d ff cu t es d sc os ng: (1) they fe t more conf cted about who was respons b e for the abuse and (2) they more strong y ant c pated be ng b amed and/or not be eved | One n a dearth of stud es that conduct gender ana ys . Comparat ve ana ys s draws out mportant pract ce mp cat ons. Retrospect ve des gn of the study wh ch mp es poss b e reca ssues. H gh eve of trustworth ness of the data and nterpretat ons were ach eved through cred b ty, dependab ty, and conf rmab ty through d rect quotes | +| Co ngs, Gr ff ths, and Kuma o (2005). | Study exam ned patterns of d sc osure n a arge representat ve samp e of South Afr can CSA v ct ms. Two study object ves to: (1) exam ne how and | F e rev ews of a soc a work and med ca case f es for CSA v ct ms seen at the cr s s center where a cases of CSA reported to the North Durban | 1,737 cases of CSA reported n the North Durban area of KwaZu u-Nata , South Afr ca, dur ng January 2001 to December 2003. 1,614 g r s and nto theme areas | Content ana ys s dent f ed two broad d mens ons of d sc osure: (1) agency: ch d- n tated d sc osure versus detect on by a th rd party and (2) tempora durat on: an event versus a process. These d sc osure d mens ons def nd four d screte categor es of | These resu ts f nto A agg a's (2004) d sc osure framework. Through data ana ys s two raters coded d sc osure categor es us ng author's d sc osure framework, wh ch proved to be both exhaust ve and mutua y exc us ve | + +Table I. (coot nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Lamb (2005). | This study allowed to dental characteristics of suspected child abuse victims that are associated with disclosure and formal nevestigations | Large database of suspected cases of physician and sexual abuse investigated in Israel between 1998 and 2002 was analyzed. Interviews were also conducted using standardized NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Archival data were analyzed | The sample was comprised of 26,446 children made 3- to 14-year-old aged victims of sexual and physical abuse interviewed in Israel in the 5-year period from 1998 to 2002. 140 experienced trained youth investigators conducted interviews | Overall, 65% of the 26,446 children made a legal ons when interviewed. Rates of disclosure were greater for sexual abuse (71%) over physical abuse (61%). Children of a legal were less likely to disclose/allege abuse when a parent was the suspected perpetrator. Disclosure rates increased as children grew older: 50% with 3- to 6-year-olds, 67% of the 7- to 10-year-olds, and 74% of the 11- to 14-year-olds disclosed abuse when questioned | Overall findings indicated that rates of disclosure varied systematically depending on the nature of the alleged offences, the relationship between alleged victims and suspected perpetrators, and the age of the suspected victims. Analyses only involved cases that had come to the attention of official agencies, making it difficult to determine how many of abuse take place without ever triggering any kind of official investigation. Evidence for delayed disclosures. | +| Jensen, Guibrandsen, ██████████, and Tjers and (2005). | This study investigated the context in which children were able to report their child sexual abuse experiences; their views as to what made it difficult to talk about abuse; what he ped them in the disclosing process; and their parent's perceptions of their disclosure processes | Qualitative approach to data collection and analysis was used. Therapeutic interviews of the children and mostly their mothers were analyzed through a qualitative approach. Follow-up interviews were held 1 year after the study investigated | 20 families with a total of 22 children participated. A children had to diabout children had to diabout experiences that created concerns for care-givers about CSA. Children's ages ranged between 3 and 16 years (average age 7.5 years); 15 girls and 7 boys. Sexual abused by someone in the family or a close person | None of the children to diabouse immediately after it occurred. Children exposed to repetitive abuse kept this as a secret for up to several years; 17 to ditheir mothers first, 3 first to diafriend, 1 to ditheir father, and 1 their uncle. Majority of remarks that led to the suspiction of CSA were made in stuations where someone engaged the child in a diagnose about what was bothering them, resulting in a referral. The children felition was difficult to find stuations containing enough privacy and prompts that they could share their experiences. When the children died | The results indicate that disclosure is a fundamentally diagnostic process that becomes less difficult if children perceive that there is an opportunity to talk, a purpose for speaking and a connection has been established to what they are talking about. Strengthening parent-child relationships is an important practice implication | + +Table 1. (continued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | F nd ngs | Summary | +|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Sta er and Ne son-Garde (2005) | The purpose of th s study was to understand the fu process of CSA d sc osure and how th s unfo ded for preado escent and ado escent g r s. Exam ned what fac tated and h ndered d sc osure and subsequent consequences | Secondary ana ys s of qua tat ve focus group data. Or g na project cons sted of four focus groups conducted w th n the context of ongo ng therapy for g r s who had exper enced CSA. Secondary ana ys s cons sted of wr tten narrat ve summar es of each sess on group ng these conceptua y, and exam n ng the r nterconnectedness | Samp e cons sted of 34 part c pants from four groups. Sess ons ana yzed were between 60 and 90 m n ong; aud otaped and ater transcr bed for content ana ys s | F nd ngs are reported n three major doma ns: (1) se f-phase; where ch dren come to understand v ct m zat on nterna y; (2) conf dant se ect on-react on phase; where they se ect a t me, p ace, and person to te and then whether that person's react on was support ve or host e; and (3) consequences phase: good and bad that cont nued to nform the r ongo ng strateg es of te ng. The act ons and react ons of adu ts were s gn f cant and nformed the g r s' dec s ons. The consequences phase was further subd v ded nto four aspects: (1) goss p ng and news networks, (2) chang ng re at onsh ps, (3) nst tut ona responses and the after fe of te ng, and (4) ns der and outs der commun t es | Th s study prov ded a contextua exam nat on of the ent re d sc osure process, c oser to the po nt n t me when the abuse and d sc osure occurred. Sma groups of preado escent and ado escent g r s who had surv ved sexua abuse a so served as consu tants and were encouraged to share the r know edge for the benef t of profess ona pract t oners | +| A agg a (2004) | The study sought to exam ne nf uences that nh b t or promote ch dren's d sc osure of CSA to address gaps n know edge about how, when, and under what c rcumstances v ct ms of CSA d sc ose | The study emp oyed LIM—a phenomeno og ca des gn. Intens ve nterv ew ng that were 2 hr ong on average generated data for a themat c ana ys s. The nterv ew gu de was | Us ng purpos ve samp ng 24 adu t surv vors of ntrafam a abuse between ages of 18 and 65 (average age 41.2) were recru ted from agenc es and one un vers ty; 57% █ e and 43% fema e; | Through ana ys s of the nterv ew new categor es of d sc osure were dent f ed to add to ex st ng types. Three prev ous y dent f ed were conf rmed n these data: acc denta , purposefu , and prompted/e c ted accounted for 42% of d sc osure patterns n the study samp e. Over ha f the d sc osure patterns descr bed by the study samp e d not f these | Th s study expanded types of CSA d sc osures to more fu y understand how ch dren and adu ts d sc ose. And under what c rcumstances. Ask ng peop e to recount events that occurred n ch dhood s suscept b e to memory fa ure, espec a y when memor es were forgotten, | + +**Table I.** (cont. nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | F nd ngs | Summary | | | +|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Cr sma, Basce , Pac., and Rom to (2004) | The ██ n goa s of th s study were to understand mped ments that prevent ado escents from d sc os ng CSA, and seek ng he p from the r soc a network and/or the serv ces | In-depth te ephone (anonymous) nterv ews were conducted after informed consent was exp a ned and obta ned. Three nvest gators exper enced n counse ng CSA counse ng conducted the nterv ews wh ch were recorded w th perm ss on. Three researchers ndependent y scored the nterv ews accord ng to a cod ng framework | The samp e was compr sed of 36 young peop e who exper enced sexua abuse n ado escence; 35 fema es and 1 ██ e; aged 1-2-17. Some of the samp e exper enced sexua v o ence n a dat ng re at onsh p | prev ous y estab shed categor es. Three add t ona d sc osure categor es emerged: behav ora and nd rect verba attempts, d sc osures ntent ona y w thhe d, and d sc osures tr ggered by recovered memor es | The ██ n mped ments to d sc ose to a fam y member were: fear of not be ng be eved, shame, and fear of caus ng troub e to the fam y. The ██ n mped ments for not seek ng serv ces were: unaware of appropr ate serv ces, w sh to keep the secret, ack of awareness of be ng abused, m strust of adu ts and profess ona s, and fear of the consequences of d sc os ng sexua abuse. When they d d sc ose to profess ona s, teens rece ved very m ted support as many profess ona s were not tra ned on sexua abuse and cou d not offer appropr ate ntervent ons to v ct ms | Th s study represented the f nd ngs of a m xed samp e of surv vors of ch d sexua abuse and nt mate partner v o ence. The study was conducted n lta y and t s not c ear what sexua abuse response tra n ng s ava ab e. There may have been a se ect on b as the most d ssat sf ed surv vors responded to the research ca categor es | de ayed, or repressed and ater recovered. D stort on and rev s on of events are a so potent a prob ems n reca . H gh degree of trustworth ness of the data was ach eved and quotes prov ded supported the categor es | +| Jonzon and L ndb ad (2004) | Study purpose was to exp ore how abuse tra ts, openness, react ons to CSA, d sc osure, and soc a support were re ated. D fferences based on sever ty of abuse, t m ng and outcomes of d sc osure, soc a support, and pred ct ng factors of pos t ve and negat ve react ons were probed | Adu t women report ng CSA by someone c ose were nterv ewed us ng sem -structured gu des together w th quest onna res. Data on v ct m zat on and current soc a support were retr eved through the quest onna res, and data on d sc osure and react ons were gathered through the nterv ews w th part c pants | 122 adu t women between 20 and 60 years o d (average age of 41 years) report ng exposure to ch d sexua abuse by someone c ose before the age of 18 and had to d someone about at east one abuse event. 90% were Swed sh subjects. Purpos ve samp ng strategy was used | Abuse character st cs: abuse by mu t p e perpetrators was more common than by a s ng e perpetrator. Age of onset was often before age of 7, w th an average durat on of 7 years. Severe y abused women had ta ked to more of the r soc a network, espec a y to profess ona s. D sc osures: 32% d sc osed dur ng ch dhood (before the age of 18) w th an average of 21 years de ay. Women who had d sc osed n ch dhood reported more nstances of phys ca abuse, mu t p e perpetrators, use of v o ence, and were more ke y to have confronted a perpetrator, and had rece ved a negat ve f rst react on. Factors | 68% de ayed d sc osure unt adu thood. At the t me of the study, t was one of the f rst stud es to focus on the nterp ay between soc a support networks and d sc osure of ch d sexua abuse. The study resu ts are somewhat m ted by an overrepresentat on of severe y abused women. Retrospect ve study and se f-report of nformat on cou d mp y reca ssues and thus m ts the accuracy of the nformat on obta ned on abuse and d sc osure character st cs. Cross-sect ona | | | + +**Table 1. (continued)** + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | +|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Kogan (2004) | The purpose of this study was to dentify factors that influence the disclosures made by female survivors of USE in childhood and adolescence. The predictors of both the timing of disclosure and the recipient of the disclosure were investigated | Data were gathered from a subsample of female adolescents that participated in the NSA, which consisted of structured phone interviews. USEs reported in the NSA were assessed using a modified version of the Incident Cass factor interview. They were then asked a series of questions about each episode of unwanted sexual contact, including event characteristics and perpetrator characteristics | A subsample of 263 adolescent females between 12 and 17 years old, mean age of 15.2 years old, who reported at least one experience of unwanted sexual contact in the NSA. Participant characteristics, USE characteristics, and family contextual attributes were explored | Children under the age of 7 were at a higher risk for delayed disclosures. Participants whose USE occurred between the ages of 7 and 13 were most key to the analysis. Adolescents (14–17) were more key to the only peers than children aged 7–10 years. Children under 11 were more key to the analysis, but were at risk for delaying disclosure beyond a month. Children aged 11–13 tended to disclose within a month. Closer relationship to the perpetrator or a family member was associated with delayed disclosure. Immediate disclosure was more key to stranger perpetration. Fear for one's fellduring and penetration were associated with disclosure to adults. Family factors inked to disclosure were (1) drug abusing household member, which made survivors more key to disclosure promptly and (2) never ing with both parents was associated with nondisclosure | This study examined factors including disclosures of USEs in childhood and adolescence in a nationally representative sample of female adolescents who participated in the NSA. Surveys for investigations of victimization experiences may be based due to underreporting. Adolescents who refused to report or discuss an USE may represent a source of systematic bias and would make the results generalizable only to adolescents who are willing to disclose USE via survey. A thoughtful data may be retrospective, recallible may have been minimized in this study since participants were adolescents, and so the time age between the USE and the interview were presumably shorter than a study of adult participants recalling CSA experiences | design does not allow for definite conclusions of cause and effect on the relationships found | +| Goodman-Ede stein, Goodman, and (2003) | The purpose of this study was to investigate variables associated with delay of disclosure of CSA and test a mode for factors that influence how quickly children disclose sexual abuse | Case flier reviews of data obtained from prosecution files, as well as from structured interviews with the children's caretaker and observations of children interviews. Trained graduate students and one victim advocate completed the Sexual Assault Profile | Sample consisted of 218 children referred to prosecutors' offices for a leged CSA. A children in the sample had disclosed their abuse in some manner. Children ranged in age from 2 to 16 years at the beginning of abuse; 3–16 years at the end of the abuse, and 4–16 years at the time of the investigation | 64% disclosed within a month and 29% within 6 months. Five variables for the mode were tested. (1) age: children who were older took ongor to disclose and older children feared more negative consequences to others than younger children; (2) type of abuse: victims of nitrafamilia families took ongor to disclose—victims of nitrafamilia abuse feared greater negative consequences to others compared to victims of nitrafamilia abuse; (3) fear of negative consequences: children who feared | This study represents a higher rate of disclosures within a month. These cases had been reported to authorities and were in process of prosecution which may explain higher rate of early disclosures. Legal sample with higher rate of extrafamilia abuse (52%) may also account for earlier disclosures. Mode suggests that older children, victims of nitrafamilia abuse; fell greater responsibility for the abuse, and perceiving | (continued) | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | | | | | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Smith, Letourneau, Saunders, K. patrick, Resnick, and Best (2000) | The study focus was to gather data from a large sample of women about the length of time women who were raped before age 18 deayed discossure who they discossed to, and variables that predicted discossure within 1 month | Structured telephone interviews that asted approximately 35 min were used to collect data using a computer-assisted telephone interview system. A telephone interviews were conducted with each question on a computer screen. The survey consisted of several measures designed to elicit demographic information, psychological symptoms, substance use, and victim zation history. The present study reports on data from the demographic and child rape victim zation | Two probability samples. Wave I was a random sample of 2,009 respondents selected from stratified samples of defined jurisdictions. Random digital dialog was used to solicit households for sted and united telephone numbers. Second random sample of 2,000 women between the ages of 18 and 34 was selected. Both Wave I and Wave 2 data were weighted to conform to the 1989 Census statistics | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that the risk discossure would bring harm to others took onger to discosse, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discossure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: children who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discosse and older children felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discossure | negative consequences of discossure took onger to discosse, children who believed that | + +quest ons + +Note. SCL-90 = Symptom Check List-90. SES — socioeconomic status: L M — ong interview method: CA = chi d seam abuse: N CHD = Nationa nstitute of Chi d Heath and Human Dive opment USE = unwanted sexua experiences; NSA = Nationa Survey of Ado swans: NWS = Nationa Women's Study; Q DS = Questionnaire informattse sur es de inqtants sexeu s. + +examples of this usage were found in the research questions, interview guides, and surveys examined: "How and when do people decide to tell others about their early sexual experiences with adults?" (Hunter, 2011, p. 161); "Some men take many years to tell someone that they were sexually abused. Please describe why it may be difficult for men to tell about/discuss the sexual abuse" (Easton, Saltzman, & Willis, 2014, p. 462). "Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit a narrative regarding their experiences of telling..." (McElvaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2012, p. 1160). "Who was the first person you told?" (Schaeffer, Leventhal, & Anes, 2011, p. 346). + +There was sound consistency between studies, defining disclosure in multifaceted ways with uniform use of categories of prompted, purposeful, withheld, accidental, direct, and indirect. However, defining the period of time that would delineate a disclosure as delayed varied widely across studies, wherein some studies viewed 1 week or 1 month as a delayed disclosure (i.e., Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher, Maier, Moher-Kuo, Schnyder, & Lamdolt, 2012). Other studies simply reported average years of delay sometimes as long as from 20 to 46 years (Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000). + +Second, the number of qualitative studies has increased significantly over the last 15 years. This rise is in response to a previous dearth of qualitative studies. Based on [REDACTED] (2000) observation that disclosure factors and outcomes had been well documented through quantitative methods; in a widely read editorial, he recommended "Qualitative studies which are able to track the individual experiences of children and their perception of the influences upon them which led to their disclosure of information are needed to complement..." (p. 270). + +Third, although a few studies strived to obtain representative samples in quantitative investigations (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005; Kogan, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000), sampling was for the most part convenience based, relying on voluntary participation in surveys and consent-based participation in file reviews (Collings, [REDACTED], & Kumalo, 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, & Fairholm, 2009a). Therefore, generalizability of findings is understandably limited. The qualitative studies used purposive sampling as is deemed appropriate for transferability of findings to similar populations. Some of those samples contained unique characteristics, since they were sought through counseling centers or sexual advocacy groups. These would be considered clinical samples producing results based on disclosures that may have been delayed or problematic. This might presumably produce data skewed toward barriers and bring forward less information on disclosure facilitators. + +Through an in-depth, second-level analysis, this review identified five distinct themes and subthemes beyond the general trends as noted earlier. + +**Theme 1:** Disclosure is viewed as an ongoing process as opposed to a discrete event—iterative and interactive in nature. A subtheme was identified regarding disclosure as + +being facilitated within a dialogical and relational context is being more clearly delineated. + +**Theme 2:** Contemporary disclosure models reflect a social-ecological, person-in-environment perspective to understand the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure. Subthemes include new categories of disclosure and a growing focus on previously missing cultural and contextual factors. + +**Theme 3:** Age and gender are strong predictors for delaying disclosure or withholding disclosure with trends showing fewer disclosures by younger children and boys. One subtheme emerged that intrafamilial abuse/family-like relationship of perpetrator has a bearing on disclosure delays or withholding. + +**Theme 4:** There is a lack of a cohesive life-course perspective. One subtheme includes the lack of data within the 18-to 24-year-old emerging adult population. + +**Theme 5:** Significantly more information is available on barriers than on facilitators of CSA disclosure. Subthemes of shame, self-blame, and fear are uniformly identified as disclosure deterrents. + +*Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature.* + +Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong process, with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are too often delayed until adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011). Knowledge building about CSA disclosure has moved in the direction of understanding this as an iterative and interactive process rather than a discrete, one-time event. Since the new millennium, disclosure is being viewed as a dynamic, rather than static, process and described "not as a single event but rather a carefully measured process" (Alaggia, 2005, p. 455). The catalyst for this view originates from Summit (1983) who initially conceptualized CSA disclosures as process based, although this notion was not fully explored until several years later. Examinations of Summit's (1983) groundbreaking proposition of the CSA accommodation (CSAA) model produced varying results as to whether his five stages of secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosures, and retraction or recantation, hold validity (for a review, see London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005). However, the idea of disclosure as a process has been carried over into contemporary thinking. + +Recently, McElvaney, [REDACTED], and Hogan (2012) detailed a process model of disclosure wherein they describe an interaction of internal factors with external motivators which they liken to a "pressure cooker" effect, preceded by a period of containment of the secret. Moreover, this and other studies strongly suggest disclosures are more likely to occur within a dialogical context—activated by discussions of abuse or prevention forums providing information about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, & Tjersland, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). The term + +dialogical simply means to participate in dialogue. Key dialogical vehicles identified in these studies were providing sexual abuse information through prevention programs, being asked about sexual abuse, and being prompted to tell (McElvaney et al.. 2012; Ungar et al., 2009a). + +Contemporary mode\* of CSA disclosure reflect a socialecological puistketi,... Knowledge on CSA disclosure has been steadily advancing toward a holistic understanding of the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Where at one time factors examined and identified were predominantly of intrapersonal factors of child victims, knowledge construction has shifted to fuller social ecological, person-in-environment explanations (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Easton et al., 2014; Hunter, 2011; Ungar, Tutty, McConnell, Barter, & Fairholm, 2009b). Social—ecological explanations open up more opportunities to intervene in facilitating earlier disclosures. Alaggia (2010) proposes an ecological mapping of what individual, interpersonal, environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote CSA disclosures based on analysis of in-depth interview data of 40 adult survivors. Subsequently, based on a sample of 67 adult survivors, Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, and Milne (2015) identified three broad categories, closely aligned with an ecological framework that impede CSA disclosure: (I) barriers from within, (2) bathers in relation to others, and (3) barriers in relation to the social world which can be aligned to intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors. + +A summary of knowledge building using a social—ecological framework follows. Knowledge gained in the intrapersonal domain includes expanded conceptualization of disclosure by building on previous categories of accidental, purposeful, and prompted disclosure to also include behavioral and indirect attempts to tell, intentionally withheld disclosure, and triggered and recovered memories (Alaggia, 2004). Categories of indirect behavioral disclosure patterns have been further verified in follow-up research by Hunter (2011), and through an extensive file review that used Alaggia's (2004) disclosure framework to analyze their data (Collings et al., 2005) for verification. + +Interpersonal factors have also emerged in regard to certain family characteristics as disclosure barriers. Families with rigidly fixed gender roles, patriarchal attitudes, power imbalances, other forms of child abuse and domestic violence, chaotic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In addition, relationship with perpetrator is a factor whereby research indicates that disclosure is made more difficult when the perpetrator is a family member or close to the family (Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila. Bohu, & Rey-Salmon, 2014;Easton, 2013; Goodman-MN et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schonbucher et al., 2012). This is especially a barrier when the perpetrator lives with the victim (LeClerc & Wortley, 2015). + +In terms of environmental factors, one study revealed that neighborhood/community conditions can hinder disclosure when there is lack of school involvement in providing a supportive environment, such as in following up on troubling student behavior (Alaggia, 2010). Additionally, a child victim's anticipation of a negative response to disclosure, especially that they may not be believed by others outside their family such as neighbors or other community members, has shown to deter disclosure (Collin-Vezina et al., 2015). + +Cultural factors influencing CSA disclosure have been studied to a much lesser degree. Despite this, a few important studies examining critical sociocultural factors now exist for better understanding CSA disclosure within a cultural context (Brazelton, 2015; Fontcs & Plummer, 2010). Among these important contributions, Brazelton's (2015) research has delineated CSA disclosure processes as "shaped by relational, racial, sociocultural, historical, and developmental factors" (p. 182). In a unique study using culturally focused research literature as data triangulated with clinical case material, cultural) based belief systems in many cultures have been found to I= family climates that can silence children from disclosing abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Taboos about sexuality, patriarchal attitudes, and devaluation of women are among some of the cultural barriers that inhibit disclosure (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). + +Clearly, disclosure conceptualizations are being integrated into a social—ecological model of individual and developmental factors, family dynamics, neighborhood, and community context as well as cultural and societal attitudes toward better understanding disclosure barriers and facilitators (Alaggia, 2010), although more data are needed on cultural and contextual factors. + +# Age and gender as predictors of enclosure + +Age. Age is consistently found to be an influential factor in CSA disclosure, making the life stage of the victim/survivor a critical consideration. Studies draw distinctions in age-groups falling into either under or over 18 years of age. Eighteen years of age was the common age cutoff point that investigators chose in order to distinguish child/youth populations from adult pies. Sixteen of the studies drew on samples of children and youth, while the other 15 studies sampled adults over the age of 18, and a further two studies used mixed age-groups (refer to Table I). Among the child and youth samples, the age ranges spanned from preschool to late adolescence (3-17 years of age), with varying methodological approaches implemented across age cohorts. For younger cohorts, file reviews and secondary data analyses of CSA reports were typically undertaken. Adolescents were most often given surveys. Sometimes children and youth were interviewed as part of administering a survey or as a follow-up (Crisma et al., 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar et al., 200%). In the majority of child and adolescent samples, sexual abuse concerns were already flagged to investigative authorities. However, the work of Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, and Fairholm (2009a, 2009b) is one exception, whereby their survey elicited new disclosures. + +Adult studies typically had a mean age between 40 and 50 years. Interviews were the main data collection method with a few exceptions using survey designs (i.e., Easton, 2013; Kogan, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000) and case file reviews (i.e., Collings et al., 2005; Goodman-[REDACTED] et al., 2003). Results show a clear trend toward increased likelihood of disclosure in older youth, and findings from adult samples showing a preponderance of disclosures in adulthood, with the large majority of participants of adults reporting never having had a sexual abuse complaint filed with investigative authorities as a child or an adolescent (i.e., Hunter, 2011; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Sorsoli, Kia-Keating, & Grossman, 2008; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +With children and youth under the ages of 18 distinct patterns emerged. First, accidental detection, rather than purposeful disclosure, is more likely to occur with younger children. For example, in one large-scale study of over 1,737 file reviews, over half of the CSA-related cases were identified through accidental and eyewitness detection (61%), while less than one third were purposeful disclosures initiated by the child victim (Collings et al., 2005). A second pattern which emerged is that rates of disclosure increase with age, especially into adulthood, which is supported by persistent findings of high rates of delayed disclosure reported later in the life course by adult survivors (Collings et al., 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Sorsoli et al., 2008). While gender and relationship with the perpetrator are considerable factors in CSA disclosure, age is consistently a stronger predictor of disclosure (or nondisclosure) (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). Third, younger children who disclose are more likely to do so in an interview situation or other environment that provides prompts or questions about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; McElvaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011), but this trend can also be seen in older youth (Ungar et al., 2009a, 2009b). + +**Gender.** A number of studies have recently focused on CSA disclosures with male victims, since males have been an understudied population (Alaggia, 2005; Easton, 2013; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). Most investigations that sampled both sexes show females outweighing male participants. Although women are at double the risk of being subjected to CSA, the ratio of women to men in most disclosure studies has not been representative. This finding may be indicative of male victims more likely delaying disclosing their CSA experiences, leaving male disclosure in child and youth samples underrepresented (Hébert, Tourigny, Cyr, McDuff, & Joly, 2009; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +Easton, Saltzman, and Willis (2014) have been developing gender-specific modeling of disclosure examining male disclosures. Their proposed model groups male disclosures into barrier categories as determined by individual factors, interpersonal issues, and factors that are sociopolitical in nature. These authors suggest that predominant gender norms around masculinity reinforce the tendency for male victims of CSA to blame themselves + +for the abuse, resulting in no disclosure. Male participants in a subsequent study also relayed that gender norms and stereotypes contributed to them concealing the abuse because they were abused by a woman (Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). In the one study that compared male and female disclosures, investigator found that men's fears of being viewed as homosexual; profound feelings of stigmatization or isolation because of the belief that boys are rarely victimized; and fear of becoming an abuser acted as disclosure barriers. Whereas females felt more conflicted about who was responsible for the abuse and more strongly anticipated being blamed and not believed (Alaggia, 2005). + +**Lack of a life-course perspective.** Given that the study of CSA disclosure draws on age-groups ranging from samples of very young children to retrospective studies of adult survivors, with significant developmental considerations, this area of study lacks an intentional cohesive life-course perspective. Most data are derived from either cross-sectional or retrospective designs, with few longitudinal studies. There are a series of sound, yet disconnected, studies focusing on specific age-groups of children and adolescents, along with adult retrospective studies. Thus, the available knowledge base does not allow for a cohesive picture of CSA disclosure processes and pathways over the life course to emerge. + +The life-course perspective has long been recommended as a critical lens for the study of child abuse (Browning & Lau-[REDACTED], 1997; [REDACTED], 2003). For example, a life-course perspective has been utilized to understand the immediate- and long-term effects of CSA on the developing child victim (Browning & Laumann, 1997). Further, a life-course perspective is important in terms of examining age of onset of CSA to explain the differential effects of sexual victimization and developmental impacts in terms of understanding their ability to disclose—effects that need to be understood within a developmental context, especially for designing appropriate interventions for disclosure at critical transitions from early childhood through to adolescence and into adulthood. In addition, important “turning points” in life may facilitate disclosures. For example, entry into adulthood given that delayed disclosure occurs more often in adulthood. Alaggia (2004, 2005) found that being in a committed relationship or the birth of children acted as facilitators for some survivors to disclose, especially to their spouses. These significant life events, as contributing to disclosures, bear further examination. + +**Summary of barriers and facilitators.** Research over the past 15 years continues to uncover barriers to CSA disclosure at a higher frequency than that of facilitators. As stated previously, this might be the result of sampling methods whereby participants who volunteer for disclosure research may have had more negative disclosure experiences, especially since many report delays in disclosure. The following section outlines the major trends in both barriers and facilitators (see Table 2). + +**Barriers.** Age and gender were found to contribute to barriers as covered in Theme 3. Disclosures generally increase with age + +**Table 2.** Factors Influencing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures. + +| Barriers | Facilitators | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Age: The younger the child victim, the less likely they will purposefully disclose. | Age: Disclosures increase with age, especially in adulthood. | +| Gender: Males may be less likely to disclose in childhood/adolescence, fear of being seen as homosexual and as a victim, females experience more self blame and anticipation of being blamed and/or not believed | Gender: Slight trend toward females who are older (adolescent) to disclose before adulthood | +| Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is a family member or in a family like role, disclosure is less likely to happen | Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is not living with the victim, disclosure rates increase | +| Internal: Shame, self blame, and fear are psychological barriers. In addition, fear of negative consequences on the family and for self safety inhibits disclosure | Dialogical context: Opportunities to disclose through discussion, therapeutic relationship, information sessions on sexuality, and sexual abuse prevention programs | +| Family relations: Families with a patriarchal structure, rigidly fixed gender roles, dysfunctional communication, other forms of abuse (i.e., domestic violence), and isolation inhibit disclosure | Family relations: Supportive parent-child relationship. | +| Environmental and cultural context: Lack of discussion about sexuality; passive acceptance that unwanted sexual experiences are inevitable; not wanting to bring shame to the family by admitting sexual abuse; lack of involvement from neighbors, school personnel; and stigma perpetuated by societal perceptions | Involvement of others: Eyewitnesses coming forward and reporting; detection through community members, professionals | +| | Environmental and cultural context: Promotion of open discussion of sexuality; community member involvement | + +as children gain more developmental capacity, understanding of sexual abuse as victimization, and increased independence. Males are somewhat less likely to disclose, but this is often in interaction with other factors in the environment such as societal attitudes that promote hypermasculinity as desirable, attitudes that perpetuate negative views of boys and men who are victims, and homophobic attitudes (Alaggia, 2010; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). + +Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent, caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a family-like role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in childhood/adolescence because of obvious power differentials and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al., 2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schaeffer et al., 2011). + +Further, the perpetrator residing with their victim(s) increases the likelihood of no disclosure (Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). + +Internalized victim-blaming, mechanisms to protect oneself (such as minimizing the impact of the abuse), and developmental immaturity at the onset of abuse constituted internal barriers. Further, shame, self-blame, and fear have been identified as significant factors deterring disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Goodman-██████ et al., 2003; Hunter, 2011; Kogan, 2004; McElvaney & Culhane, 2015; McElvaney et al., 2014). However, aspects of shame, self-blame and fear, and have not been fully explored in research. Since these are strong predictors of disclosure suppression, they bear further examination in future research to understand more fully how they operate in disclosure processes. + +In terms of interpersonal and environmental factors, family dynamics can play a part in deterring disclosure. As previously mentioned, families characterized by rigidly defined gender roles, patriarchal attitudes that perpetuate power imbalances + +between men and women, parents and children, presence of other forms of child abuse and/or domestic violence, chaotic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In regard to broader environmental factors, disclosure can be hindered when involved and supportive community members are not available, or not trained in sensitive responses, or when child victims anticipate not being believed by neighbors and other people outside the family (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Further, barriers in relation to the social world were identified as stigmatization, the negative labeling of sexual abuse victims, and taboos surrounding sexuality and talking about sex as driven by cultural norms (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). + +Identification of cultural barriers is important recent contribution to understanding disclosure processes—and in particular to the obstacles. Findings related to cultural barriers included themes of children's voices not being heard leading to silencing, the normalization of the sexualization and objectification of girls and women, and the perpetuation of hypermasculinity in men—all acting as barriers in terms of stigma to disclosure (Alaggia, 2005, 2010; Easton et al., 2014). Brazelton (2015) similarly found that lack of discussions about sex, young age at the onset of sexual abuse, therefore not having the language to express what was happening to them, and preserving the family good name by not talking about abuse in the family were also barriers to disclosure. + +Finally, it may be the case that more barriers continue to be identified over facilitators of CSA disclosure perhaps because of the methods employed in studies—particularly those drawing on adult populations who delayed disclosure. These ██████-ples may not be representative of the overall population of CSA victims, since they may have had more negative disclosure + +experiences, consequently more readily identifying barriers. On the other hand, these findings may speak to the actual imbalance between facilitating factors and barriers for disclosure, the latter carrying more weight in the victims/survivors' experiences, thus, explaining the high rates of disclosures delayed until adulthood. + +**Facilitators.** Although fewer disclosure facilitators are identified in this review, very important facilitators were nonetheless uncovered—ones that should be noted for professionals in this field of practice. Internal factors that facilitate disclosures include symptoms that become unbearable, getting older with increased developmental efficacy, and realizing that an offence was committed (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Easton, 2013; Hershkowitz et al. 2007; McElavaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Circumstantial facilitators are those where the child discloses because there has been evidence provided, eye-witnessing has occurred, and a report has been made. Environmental factors include settings that provide opportunities such as counseling, interviews, information sessions and educational forums/workshops, and prevention programs for children and youth to disclose. + +To elaborate, dialogical contexts about CSA for children and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may facilitate disclosures (Jensen et al., 2005). The research shows creating open dialogue in relationship contexts, to offset the power and influence of the perpetrator, can facilitate earlier disclosure. Among disclosure facilitators is being asked about abuse and given the opportunity to “tell” (McElavaney et al., 2014); workshops on abuse and sexual abuse, in particular, can facilitate disclosures (Ungar et al., 2009b); and using culturally sensitive probes and questions (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In Gagnier and Collin-Vézina's (2016) study, positive disclosure experiences were described by participants as those where they felt that they had been listened to, were safe, were believed, and were not judged by the person they disclosed to. Further, family members and friends (peers) of the child victim can act as key supports to creating an open relational context and fostering positive responses (Jensen et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). In particular, as children grow older, they are more likely to disclose to a peer, as shown in a number of studies, and this is an important reality for counselors and educators to be aware of (Dumont et al., 2014; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +## Discussion + +Through examination of 33 studies published since the year 2000, this review identified five distinct themes regarding CSA disclosure: (1) Disclosure is best viewed as an iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event done within a relational context; (2) contemporary models reflect a social–ecological, person-in-environment framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; + +(3) age and gender are significant disclosure factors; (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Based on these themes, a number of conclusions are drawn from this review. First, disclosure as a process is emphasized throughout contemporary research. Advances have been made in understanding these complex processes. However, the disclosure process over time—for example, how the first detection of CSA or attempts to disclose in childhood impact later disclosures—are not well understood. This is the result of the absence of a cohesive life-course perspective in investigations, although age consistently surfaces as significantly influencing CSA disclosure. Using a life-course perspective through the use of longitudinal studies is recommended. + +The use of varied methodological designs, depending on the developmental stage of the victims/survivors, influences the data generated and subsequent findings. For example, most studies on children and youth are based on file reviews of cases that have been brought to the attention of authorities, or surveys, with only a few studies using interviewing of younger children. Therefore, there is less information available on process issues with children and youth. In contrast, research on adult populations largely favors the use of qualitative interview methods for retrospective inquiry producing important process findings. In addition, investigations have not yet captured the disclosure experiences of adults in the “emerging adult” stage given that adult studies have failed to recognize that the age range of 18–24, which is now considered a developmental phase defined by neurobiological developmental uniqueness. As well, late adulthood has not been given attention as shown by the absence of participants representing this age-group in current research (70+). With a swelling geriatric population in North America, issues of historic CSA can be expected to surface and, with that, new disclosures. This trend is also anticipated due to attitudinal shifts that have presumably occurred over the last two generations about revealing such traumas and changing views about discussing sexual victimization. + +Interview guides used in a number of studies intentionally probed for facilitators, producing notable findings. For example, one such finding focuses on the importance of creating a contextually supportive environment to promote disclosure across the life course. These include developing therapeutic relational contexts for disclosure by providing information about sexuality, sexual abuse, prevention programming, and by asking directly. Disclosures to professionals are positive outcomes of how therapeutic contexts work; however, for forensic purposes prompting such disclosures would be viewed as problematic in legal settings, seriously compromising testimonies for trial proceedings. This is one example that speaks to the structural barriers victims and survivors run up against time and time again. Facilitators that show evidence to promote disclosure in one domain (therapeutic) are seen to work against CSA survivors in another domain—such as legal settings when perpetrators face prosecution. Defense attorneys will use this as evidence that the disclosure was prompted, and therefore the disclosure is potentially seen as not credible. Broadcasting of + +the frequency of acquitted cases or rulings in favor of the perpetrator through media outlets, often sensationalized, become a further compounding barrier. Given the review findings, we conclude that barriers and facilitators to CSA disclosures are nuanced and clearly embedded within intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental, contextual, and cultural domains—often interlocked in complex ways. + +### Limitations + +Although comprehensive in nature with its life-course coverage, this review may be limited by its qualitative, thematic focus rather than providing an evaluative, quantitative accounting of CSA disclosures. However, because of the recent focus on disclosure processes, the authors chose a suitably compatible approach—qualitative in nature. As well, a traditional checklist approach in rating the studies was not employed for interrater reliability, since two of the authors hold expertise in CSA disclosure research and are well versed with the literature. This expertise, and through closely following a systematic review framework (Kiteley & Stogdon, 2014), assures that a thorough adjudication of the research literature was completed. + +### Implications for Research and Practice + +These review findings have implications that can be useful in guiding future research and practice: + +- • Solid strides are being made in the use of a social–ecological framework to underpin investigations in the CSA disclosure investigations. Research efforts and practice considerations should continue in this vein. Investigating environmental factors and contextual and cultural forces is understudied, necessitating more research in these areas to more fully fill out understanding of CSA disclosure from a social–ecological perspective. +- • There is good evidence that CSA disclosures are more likely to occur in a dialogical context—formal helping relationships but as well as other relationships such as peers and trusted adults. Providing information and education on topics of sexuality in general, and sexual abuse specifically, can help children and youth to disclose. Raising awareness and prevention programs can promote disclosures of sexual violence committed against children and youth. +- • Goals of therapeutically supported disclosures (i.e., through therapy) may need to take precedence over forensic approaches, if well-being of child victims and adult survivors is to be made paramount. Legal processes may act to facilitate disclosures but can also act as barriers because of the negative outcomes experienced in the court process. +- • Practitioners need to keep in mind that the legal system is lagging far behind in knowledge uptake of recent evidence on CSA disclosures so that victims and + +survivors continue to be systemically and structurally disadvantaged in legal proceedings. + +- • Health-care practitioners (i.e., child abuse pediatricians, family practice doctors, clinical nurse specialists, and public health nurses) should be made aware of the evidence in the CSA disclosure literature to create environments for facilitating therapeutic disclosures. +- • Given that age is a stable predictor of disclosure of CSA, more studies are needed that make use of a life-course perspective. More longitudinal studies are needed to better identify trends over different life stages. +- • The emerging young adult as a developmental age group needs specific investigation. Neuroscience research has established that ages 18–24 is a distinct developmental phase. Late adulthood is another life stage that deserves to be researched. +- • Gender needs to be more fully investigated in relation to impact on disclosure. Awareness that boys and girls have unique challenges and barriers in disclosing CSA should be paramount for practitioners. +- • Intervention planning should take note that disclosures increase when perpetrators no longer reside with victims, and this finding should be heeded by policy and law makers. +- • Shame, self-blame, and fear are intrapersonal factors that persistently emerge as barriers to CSA disclosures and warrant more research to understand how to redress these barriers for earlier disclosures. + +### Conclusion + +There are still a substantial number of children and youth who are subjected to sexual abuse, despite preventative efforts. Just as concerning is the fact that many victims continue to suffer in silence as evidenced by the high numbers of delayed disclosure. These hidden cases should not be overlooked, and these victims should not be forgotten. Despite significant progress in bringing the issue of CSA to the forefront, improving facilitation of disclosure and increasing positive influences on disclosure processes are still critical in order to protect current and future generations of children and youth from the grave effects of sexual violence. Further, the focus should not be simply on strengthening and shoring up intrapersonal resources of victims to disclose but rather to change environmental conditions to create a more supportive and safer context for CSA victims and survivors to disclose. + +### Declaration of Conflicting Interests + +The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +### Funding + +The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +- References Alaggia. R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conecptualiza lions of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28. 1213 1227. Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 453 470. Alaggia, R. (2010). An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse dis closure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy chiatry Journal De lAcadonie Canadienne De Psychiatric. De 1'£nfant Et Lk !Adolescent, 19, 32 39. Alaggia, R., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2005). Speaking the unspeakable: Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse disclosures. Families in Society, 86, 227 234. Braun. V., & Clarke. V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3. 93. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa Brazelton, J. F. (2015). The secret storm: Exploring the disclosure process of African American women survivors of child sexual abuse across the life course. Traumatology: An International Jour nal, 21, 181 187. Browning, C. R., & Laumann, E. O. (1997). Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective. American Socio logical Review, 62, 540 560. Collings, S. J., MI, S., & Kumalo, M. (2005). Patterns of disclo sure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology, 35, 270 285. Collin Vezina, D., Sablonni, D. L., Palmer, A. M., & Milne, L. (2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect. 43. 123 134. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.010 Crisma. M.. Bascelli, E., Paci, D.. & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28. 1035 1048. Dumont, M., Messcrsehmitt, P., Vila, G., Bohu, D., & Rey Salmon. C. (2014). Le processus de revelation dans les agressions sexuelles intrafamiliales et extmfamilialcs sur mincurs. Annaks Medico Psychologiques, 172, 426 431. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2012.06.024 Easton. S. D. (2013). Disclosure of child sexual abuse among adult male survivors. Clinical Social Work Journal,41, 344 355. doi:10. 1007/s10615 012 0420 3 Easton, S. D., Saltzman, L. Y., & Willis, D.G. (2014). "Would you tell under circumstances like that?": Bathers to disclosure of child sexual abuse for men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 460 469. M . B.. Van Wert. M.. Trocme. N.. Maclaurin. B., Shiba, V., Lefebvre. R.. ... Goel, S. (2015). Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2013 (OIS 2013). Toronto, ON: Child Welfare Research Portal. Finkelhor. D.. Shattuck. A.. Turner. H. A.. & Hamby. S. L. (2014). Trends in children's exposure to violence, 2003 to 2011. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 540 546. doi:10.1001/jarnapediatrics.2013.5296 Fontes, L. A., & Plummer. C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 491 518. Gagnier. C.. & Collin Vezina. D. (2016). The disclosure experiences of male child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25, 221 241. Goodman T. B., Edelstein. R. S.. Goodman. G. S.. D., & D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525 540. Hebert, M., Tourigny, M., Cyr, M., McDutT, P., & Joly, J. (2009). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a representative sample of adults from Quebec. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 631 636. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/222860811?accountid=14771 Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1203 1214. Hershkowitz, 1., Lanes, O., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect. 31. III 123. Hunter, S. V. (2011). Disclosure of child sexual abuse as a life long process: Implications for health professionals. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy. 32, 159 172. Jensen, T. K.. Gulbrandscn, W.. Mossige, S.. Reichelt. S.. & Tjersland. + - O. A. (2005). Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1395 1413. Jillian, B., Cotter, A., & Perreault, S. (2014). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, 2013 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. M D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Disclosure of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 269 271. Jonzon, E., & Lindbald, F. (2004). Disclosure, reactions, and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 9, 190 200. Kitcicy. R.. & Stogdon. C. (2014). Literature reviews in social tn6rk. London. England: Sage. Kogan. S. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28, 147 165. Leclerc, B., & Wortley, R. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incar canted adult sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 104 III. London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclo sure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology. Public Policy. and Law, 11, 194 226. McElvaney, R. (2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays, non disclosure and partial Disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24, 159 169. McElvancy. R.. & Cullum. M. (2015). A retrospective analysis of children's assessment reports: What helps children tell? Child Abuse Review. doi:10.1002/car.2390. McElvaney, R.. M. S.. & Hogan. D. (2012). Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 27. 1155 1175. + +- McElvaney, R., M. S.. & Hogan. D. (2014). To tell or not to tell? Factors influencing young people's informal disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 928 947. Maier, T.. Mohler Kuo, M., Landholt, M. A.. Schnyder. U.. & Jud. A. (2013). The tip of the iceberg. Incidence of disclosed cases of child sexual abuse in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide Agency Survey. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 875 883. Paine. M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to self disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 271 295. doi:10.1016/S0272 7358(01)00091 5 Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Fonts, M., & Gomez Benito, J. (2009). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse: A continuation of Finkelhor ( I 994). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 331. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230158315? accountid= 14771 Priebe. G.. & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of ado lescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect. 32. 1095 1108. Rcitscma, A. M., & Grictens, H. (2015). Is anybody listening? The literature on the dialogical process of child sexual abuse disclosure reviewed. Trauma Violence Abuse. doi:10.1177/152483801 5584368 Rosenthal. G., & Fisher Rosenthal. W. (2004). The analysis of nana tive biographical interviews in U Rick. In E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 259 265). London, UK: Sage. Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J. M., & Asnes, A. G. (2011). Children's disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 343 352. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.014 Schonbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Land olt, M. A. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3486 3513. doi:10.1177/0886260512445380 M . D. W.. Letoumcau. E. J.. Saunders. B. E.. Kilpatrick. D. G., Resnick. H. S.. & Best. C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of child hood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect. +- 24. 273 287. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doeview/ 70933344?accountid= 14771 Sorsoli, L.. Kia Keating. M.. & Grossman. F. K. (2008). "I keep that hush hush": Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55. 333 345. doi: 10.1037/0022 0167.55.3.333 Scalier, K. M., & Nelson Gardell, D. (2005). "A burden in your heart": Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1415 1432. Statistics Canada. (2013). Police reported crime statistics in Canada. 2012 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Retrieved from the Statistics Canada website http://www.statean.gc.ca/pub/85 002 x/2013001/ anicle/11854 eng.htmlIn2 Stoltenborgh, M.. van LIzendoom. M. FL. Euser. E. M.. & Bakennans Kranenburg, M. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Mal treatment, 16, 79 101. doi:10.1177/1077559511403920 Summit, R. C. (1983). The sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect. 7, 177 193. Tener, D., & S. (2015). Adult disclosure of child sexual abuse. Trauma. Violence & Abuse, 16,391 400. Trocmi, N., M, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., ... Cloutier, R. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect 2003: Major findings. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Trocmi, N., M, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast, E., ... Holroyd, J. (2008). Characteristics of substantiated maltreatment. Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect: Major findings (Chapter 4). Retrieved from http:// www.phac aspc.gc.ca/cm vee/public eng.php Ungar. M.. Barter. K.. McConnell. S. M.. Tufty. L. M., & Fairholm, J. (2009a). Patterns of abuse disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work, 8, 341 356. Ungar. M.. Tutty, L. M.. McConnell. S.. Barter. K.. & Fairholm. J. (2009b). What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 699 708. + - L. M. (2003). Understanding child abuse and violence against women: A life course perspective. Jaunted of Interpersonal Violence, 18,441 451. Author Biographies Ramona Alaggia, MSW. PhD. is an associate professor in social work and the Factor Inwentash Chair in Children's Mental Health at the University of Toronto. Her teaching and research focuses on gender and violence, sexual abuse disclosures, domestic violence exposure. and resilience processes. Delphine Collin-Vizins. PhD. is an associate professor for School of Social Work, McGill University and director for Centre for Research on Children and Families. She holds the Nicolas Steinmetz and Julien Chair in Social Pediatrics in Community and the Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Child Welfare. Her work focuses on research and clinical topics related to child maltreatment, child sexual abuse, and trauma. Rusan Lateef, MSW, is a social worker employed in the criminal justice system with adult male offenders in Ontario. Canada. She specializes in the intersection of health and mental health, child sexual abuse disclosures, and she is a researcher on the "Make Resilience Matter" project examining childhood exposure to domestic violence with Dr. Alaggia at the Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. + +Child Abuse Review Vol. 24: 159-169 (2015) + +Published online 9 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library + +(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2280 + +# Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure and Partial Disclosure. What the Research Tells Us and Implications for Practice + +This paper reviews the research on disclosure of child sexual abuse with specific reference to delays in disclosing, non-disclosure and partial disclosure of experiences of child sexual abuse. Findings from large-scale national probability studies highlight the prevalence of both nondisclosure and delays in disclosure, while findings from small-scale qualitative studies portray the complexity, diversity and individuality of experiences. The possible explanations regarding why children are reluctant to disclose such experiences have significant implications for addressing the issue of child sexual abuse from the perspectives of child protection, legal and therapeutic professionals. The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure, in particular the needs of young people to maintain control over the disclosure process, the important role that peers play in this process, the responses of adults in both informal and formal networks, and the opportunities to tell, is key to helping young people speak more promptly about their experiences of sexual abuse. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. + +### KEY PRACTITONER MESSAGES: + +- Children typically delay disclosing experiences of abuse. +- Asking children questions about their wellbeing gives them the opportunity to tell when they are ready. +- The challenge is to find the right questions at the right time. +- Peers can be the right people to ask these questions. +- Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells. + +KEY WORDS: child sex abuse: disclosure: research to practice + +A n issue of increasing concern in recent years is the phenomenon of ndelayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse and the need to understand the process of how children and adults disclose their experiences of child sexual abuse, given the implications for child protection, social justice and + +°Correspondence to: Rosaleen McElvaney, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University. Glasncvin. Dublin 9. Ireland. E-mail: rosalcen.meebaux-y@deu.ie + +Rosaleen McElvaney + +School of Nursing and Human Scfences. Dublin City University. Dublin. Ireland + +`The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure' + +`Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells' + +# 'This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns of childhood sexual abuse' + +'Most people who experience sexual + +abuse in childhood do + +not disclose this + +abuse until adulthood' + +mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns of childhood sexual abuse, specifically delays in disclosure, non-disclosure (as evident through adult retrospective studies) and partial disclosures, and discusses implications for practice. Literature searches of the online databases PSYCINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index, in addition to manual searches of texts published since 2000, were conducted using the search terms 'child sexual abuse', 'sex abuse' and 'disclosure'. + +The research to date on disclosure patterns is based on two sampling methodologies — studies of adults reporting retrospective experiences and studies of children. The former group of studies has the benefit of drawing on large-scale national probability samples which can be considered to be representative of the general population. The latter group with some small exceptions (predominantly adolescent studies) uses samples of young people who have disclosed sexual abuse but would not be considered as representative of all children who have been abused: + +'children who decide to tell someone about being sexually abused and whose cases therefore come to court are not representative of sexually abused children in general' (Olafson and Lederman. 2006. p. 29). + +# Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure + +There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common. Table 1 summarises two large-scale studies to highlight the extent of delays in disclosure and the percentage of those who did not disclose to anyone prior to the study. + +Kogan (2004) examined the timing of disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences in childhood or adolescence in a sub-sample (n = 263 adolescent women, aged 12 to 17) of the National Survey of Adolescents (Kilpatrick and Saunders, 1995) in the USA — a nationally representative study. Kogan's results can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within 1 month) 43 per cent, delayed disclosure (less than 1 year) 3iri cent and non-disclosure (disclosed only during the survey) 26 per cent. and colleagues (2000) examined a sub-sample (n = 288) of the National Women's Study in the USA (Resnick et al., 1993, cited in et at, 2000) who had reported a childhood rape prior to the age of 18. et al.'s findings can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within I month) 27 per cent, delayed disclosure (more than a year) 58 per cent and non-disclosure (survey only) 28 per cent. Those who had never disclosed prior to the survey constitute comparable proportions in these two studies while the rates for immediate + +Table I. Patterns of disclosure delay and non-disclosure + +| | (n) | Kogan (2004) | (n) | et al. (2000) | +|----------------------------------|-----|-----------------|-----|---------------| +| | | 263 adolescents | | 288 adults | +| Told within 24 hours | | 24% | | 18% | +| Told within 1 month | | 19% | | 9% | +| Told within 1 year | | 12% | | 11% | +| Delayed telling more than 1 year | | 19% | | 47% | +| Never told before survey | | 26% | | 28% | + +disclosure are higher in the adolescent study than in the adult study, a reassuring finding given the increased awareness of sexual abuse in society during the past 20 years. + +Goodman-[REDACTED] and colleagues (2003) examined USA district attorney files of 218 children. Their categories were slightly different from the previous two studies but in summary, immediate disclosers (within 1 month) constituted 64 per cent of the sample while 29 per cent disclosed within six months. This study is unusual insofar as the sample studied had reported their experience of abuse to the authorities and a prosecution was in progress. Goodman-[REDACTED] *et al.* also pointed out that families who participated in this study were more likely to represent those children who experienced abuse by someone outside the family. Research has found that delays in disclosure are longer for those abused within the family ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002; Goodman-[REDACTED] *et al.*, 2003; Kogan, 2004; Hershkowitz *et al.*, 2005). Therefore, children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples. + +In Sweden, Priebe and Svedin (2008) conducted a national survey of 4339 adolescents, of whom 1962 reported some form of sexual abuse (65% of girls and 23% of boys). Details of the time lapse in disclosing were not available from this study. However, of those who had disclosed and answered the questions on disclosure ( $n = 1493$ ), 59.5 per cent had told no-one of their experiences prior to the survey. Of those who did disclose, 80.5 per cent mentioned a 'friend of my own age' as the only person who they had told. In this study, 6.8 per cent had reported their experiences to the social authorities or police. A further Swedish study of 122 women who had experienced childhood sexual abuse (Jonson and Lindblad, 2004) found that 32 per cent disclosed during childhood (before the age of 18) while the majority told in adulthood (68%). The delay was up to 49 years, with an average of 21 years ( $SD = 12.9$ ). Of those who told in childhood, 59 per cent told only one person. In Ireland, the SAVI study ( $n = 3118$ , [REDACTED] *et al.*, 2002) found that 47 per cent of those respondents who had experienced some form of sexual assault prior to age 17 had told no-one of this experience until the survey. McElvaney (2002) investigated delay in a legal sample of ten adults who had made formal complaints of childhood sexual abuse in Ireland and found delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years. + +Studies of children in the context of forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused also point to high non-disclosure rates, particularly striking in cases where there is corroborative evidence that abuse has occurred – medical evidence (Lyon, 2007), or confessions from the abuser or videotaped evidence/witness reports ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002). Lyon (2007) reported his findings from a review of studies published between 1965 and 1993 of children diagnosed with gonorrhoea where the average disclosure rate among 579 children was 43 per cent ( $n = 250$ ). In a study where the evidence for the abuse was available on videotape, children have denied abuse when interviewed by the police ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002). + +In summary, significant numbers of children do not disclose experiences of sexual abuse until adulthood and adult survey results suggest that significant + +**'The rates for immediate disclosure are lower in the adolescent study than in the adult study'** + +**'Children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples'** + +**'Delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years'** + +# 'High numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time' + +'They found that interviewers behaved differently with the two groups' + +'A parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days' + +proportions of adults have never disclosed such abuse, as evidenced by the high numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time. + +# Patterns of Disclosure — Partial Disclosure + +Information on how children disclose over time can be obtained from studies of children who participated in forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused. The issue of partial disclosures was highlighted by earlier studies such as those by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year olds (i.e. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to 15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external evidence that led to more complete disclosures). + +More recently, investigators have examined the role of the interviewer and questioning styles in the forensic interview and how this impacts on children's disclosures and the level of detail provided in interview. Hershkowitz et at (2006) compared tapes of interviews with children who disclosed sexual abuse and those who did not (but about whom there was `substantial' reason to believe that they had been abused). They found that interviewers behaved differently with the two groups, using different types of prompts with children who presented as somewhat uncooperative, offered fewer details and gave more uninformative responses at the beginning of the interview. It would appear that interviewers responded to less communicative children by increasing the proportion of closed questions which in turn led to children being less forthcoming. Lamb et at (2002) have found that the use of a protocol that emphasises the use of prompts that elicit free narrative (e.g. 'tell me about that') as compared with closed questions (those requiring a yes/no response) has resulted in more detail and more accuracy in children's accounts. + +Although few studies exist that examine the phenomenon of disclosure in informal settings (when disclosure is made to a friend or family member), some qualitative studies have described this process. McElvaney (2008) quoted one teenage girl who described hinting to her mother prior to disclosing the experience: 'I didn't tell her what happened but I was saying things that made her think it made her think that it happened but I didn't tell her' (p. 127). A parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days, keeping the most difficult parts of the story until last: + +'Hc came out with like it came out over two or three days so you know.. -bed say well I've something else to tell you... the bad stuff last... what hurt him most and what he's saying what hurt him most' (p. 92) + +And finally, one young person described how she told her social worker + +'I couldn't tell her most things but I just gave things to her to read... I told her at first I told her bits of it and cm then just the others. I finished writing and then I gave them to her... later I told her that it was the father as well' (p. 93) + +This young person had been abused by both a father and son in a family with whom she was staying. + +In reviewing the literature on this subject, London and colleagues (2005) noted, 'when children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so' (p. 204). + +# Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure + +There are many influences on disclosure that have been identified in the research literature to help explain why it is that children delay disclosure, are reluctant to disclose, provide details of their experiences over time or do not disclose at all. Age has been identified as a significant predictor of disclosure in that younger children are less likely to disclose than older children. Children who are abused by a family member are less likely to disclose and more likely delay disclosure than those abused by someone outside the family et al., 2000; Goodman= et at, 2003; Kogan, 2004). Children who do disclose during forensic interviews compared to children who do not disclose in such contexts (yet concerns remain that they have been abused) are more likely to have parents (particularly mothers) who are more supportive (Lawson and Chaffin, 1992). In Priebe and Svedin's (2008) study of young people, parental bonding (positive relationship with parent who was not overprotective) was identified as the most significant predictor of disclosure for both boys and girls. However, close relationships can also act as an inhibitor to disclosure. McElvaney (2008) found that many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents while others were concerned about the consequences for others of their disclosure. One 13-year-old girl described her concern that if she told, her uncle would go to jail and her small cousins would be left without a father: + +'I didn't want them to grow up with no Dad and just looking at ... their other little friends having their Dad holding their hand I felt like I was taking their Dad away from them' (p. 130) + +Gender has been found to influence disclosure in that appear to be more reluctant to disclose than girls (Goodman- et at, 2003; Hershkowitz et at, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). Mental health difficulties on the part of the child have also been found to be relevant, particularly when children experience dissociative symptoms or other post-traumatic stress symptomatology (Priebe and Svedin, 2008). + +Some studies have found that the severity of abuse (e.g. penetrative abuse) predicts earlier disclosure while other studies have found no relationship between different types of abuse and disclosure timing. Similarly, the relationship between the duration of abuse — one-off incidents of abuse compared with abuse that takes place over a significant period of time — and timely disclosure has been investigated with mixed findings. Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure and this in turn is associated with the age of the child (Goodman- et at, 2003). Older children are more cognitively competent in terms of being able to reflect on and anticipate possible reactions to their disclosure. This can act then as an inhibitor to disclosure, although as noted above, most studies have found that older children are more likely to disclose than younger children. Fears of not being believed have been described by young people as inhibiting their disclosure and these fears are often "When children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so" + +'Younger children are less likely to disclose than older children' + +'Many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents' + +'Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure' + +# 'Investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children' + +# 'Significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others' + +# 'The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts' + +justified. Hershkowitz et at (2007) interviewed children about their initial disclosures prior to formal interview and 50 per cent of the sample (n = 30) reported feeling afraid or ashamed of their parents' reaction. The authors reported that parents did show a tendency to blame their children and react angrily to the disclosure. + +Recent research has highlighted the need for children to be asked direct questions to facilitate their disclosure. Of those children who did disclose, significant proportions disclosed following prompts rather than it being initiated by the child (Kogan, 2004). Qualitative studies drawing on interviews with children that focus on the disclosure process are important in investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children. McElvaney (2008) found that parents' questioning of children was prompted by their concern about the young person's emotional distress. On occasion, young people were communicating that something was not right in their world but were not able to articulate this verbally. Signs of psychological distress were, however, evident and questions targeted at the reasons for this distress were identified by McElvaney as a factor that helped young people to tell. Thus, many children may not have told about their experiences of abuse because they were not asked. et al. (2002) followed up a sample of their respondents who had disclosed childhood abuse for the first time in their survey. When asked why they had not disclosed prior to the survey, many respondents noted that it was because they had not been asked. Increasingly, research studies are finding that significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others in the child's educational and social milieu that in themselves provide an opportunity for the young person to tell (Jensen et at, 2005; Hershkowitz et at, 2007; McElvaney et at, 2012). + +Finally, some children need time to tell. Mudaly and Goddard (2006) quote a 13-year-old girl: 'she (mother) helped by not making me, not rushing me to get it out, which, urn, I think it's a really stupid idea to make kids get it out A.S.A.P.' (p. 91). + +# Implications for Practice + +The consensus in the research literature at the present time is that disclosure is multi-determined, influenced by a complex range of factors that may influence each child in a different way. Large-scale national probability studies confirm that non-disclosure and delays in disclosure are significant problems facing society and in particular for those professionals tasked with safeguarding the wellbeing of children. Children's fears and anxieties in relation to telling need to be understood and contained by those in their environment so that early disclosure can be encouraged and facilitated. + +The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts: the legal context where action can only be taken if the child is able to give a clear, credible account of his/her experiences; child protection and therapeutic contexts where a comprehensive account is required to enable child protection professionals to intervene and where the psychological sequelae can be addressed to minimise the long-term impact of the experiences; and family and community contexts where early disclosure needs to be encouraged, and other family issues addressed in the aftermath of disclosure and where peen; play an important role. + +Studies have confirmed the importance of professionals asking children and young people in a sensitive, open manner about possible experiences of abuse using non-leading questioning styles to minimise inaccurate accounts or contaminate children's narratives. It is clearly important for professionals to remain open to the possibility of abuse and further disclosure. It is equally important for professionals to be able to avoid persisting with questioning those children who are 'reluctant disclosers'. Similarly, professionals engaged with children in therapeutic work need to be open to the possibility of both initial and further disclosures. + +Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements and giving additional detail to original formal statements can be interpreted within child protection, therapeutic and legal contexts as a contradiction of an earlier account. Listening to children's accounts of their experiences of disclosure helps us understand why it is that disclosure can be delayed and that when they do feel ready to tell this is not an 'all or nothing' decision. As one young person in Staller and Nelson-Gardell's (2005) study noted, 'it's never finished, never' p. 1426. This understanding in turn helps us identify those circumstances and reactions that may encourage the child to disclose. + +The importance of asking children questions, thus giving them an opportunity to tell, has been identified. While parents, teachers and those in daily contact with children are often reluctant to question children, it is clear that many children do not disclose unless given this opportunity. Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner. McElvaney (2008) noted that questions did not need to be about sexual abuse per se, but rather questions prompted by the young person's psychological distress, asking after the young people's wellbeing. This questioning in effect acted as an external pressure for the young person to tell his/her secret (McElvancy etal., 2012). In Ungar et al.'s (2009a) study of Canadian youth, they found that young people used a range of disclosure strategies ranging from less direct strategies (such as risk-taking behaviours, not talking about the abuse) to direct strategies (such as seeking support from peers, turning to non-professional adult supports, disclosing to formal service roviders), representing a process that relied heavily on others to 'build the between the youth and formal care providers' (p. 352). + +The tendency to delay disclosing and the partial nature of many disclosures are not conducive to successful legal investigations and prosecutions. In addition, the knowledge base that exists within the legal sphere is limited if only a percentage of the children who experience sexual abuse engage with this system. The disproportionately high 'immediate disclosure' rate found in Goodman et al.'s (2003) legal sample compared to Kogan's (2004) community sample raises the question of the representation of delayed disclosers in the legal system. Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system? Are delays in disclosing contributing to decisions not to prosecute child sexual abuse crimes? In Ireland, the 1990s saw a significant increase in the numbers of complainants coming before the courts reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Many of these cases were referred to the higher courts for judicial review proceedings to establish whether the cases could proceed without prejudicing the accused given the + +# `Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements' + +# 'Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner' + +# 'Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system?' + +'Concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered' + +'Many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend' + +'An adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience' + +delay in the complaint being made and giving due regard to the accused's right to a speedy trial. Psychological expert testimony was sought as part of these proceedings to explain the delay in disclosure in each individual case to enable the courts to adjudicate on whether the delay in reporting was reasonable (see McElvaney, 2002). This legal mechanism provided an opportunity to enhance the knowledge base within the legal profession as to the complexities involved in disclosing and formally reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse for adults. While one might expect that the legal system would be more sympathetic to children's difficulties in making disclosures, it may also be the case that the belief that 'if the child was really sexually abused, why would they not tell?', as articulated by Summit (1983), still prevails. + +In addition, concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered. A prospective longitudinal study conducted by Quas et at (2005) indicated that the consequences of legal involvement change over the course of development and as a function of the child's reactions to and experiences during the legal case. The associations between legal involvement and outcomes varied with age. The authors suggested that although younger children may be at increased risk for some adverse outcomes such as mental health problems, older children may be at increased risk for other undesirable sequelae such as the negative attitudes of others toward them. Quas and Goodman's (2011) recent review notes that older children are more at risk in developing poor mental health outcomes. Thus, as noted earlier, young people's fears of the consequences of disclosure may well be justified. Raised awareness of both the prevalence of non-disclosure of sexual abuse and the importance of supporting children to disclose may go some way to addressing children's fears. + +One interesting finding in recent studies is that many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend. McElvaney (2008) and Ungar et at (2009b) identified peer influence as significant in encouraging disclosure among adolescents. There is some suggestion from the research that regardless of the age at the time of abuse, adolescence may be a 'critical period' for disclosure. It may be that targeting adolescents in general (rather than those at risk of abuse) may be a powerful prevention tool in encouraging early disclosure. Evaluations of child abuse prevention programmes have shown significant improvements in the levels of awareness of child abuse in children and young people (Rispers a at, 1997; Zwi et at, 2007). It may be that the increasing trend towards peer disclosure is a by-product of such educational and awareness-raising programmes. There is evidence that public awareness campaigns when implemented as part of a multi-dimensional strategy that involves targeting children, parents and communities (see Lalor and McElvaney, 2010, for a review of child abuse prevention programmes) are an effective tool in the prevention of child abuse. + +McElvaney a at (2012) describe the importance for young people of containing the secret of abuse and their need for confidentiality following disclosure as representing an adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience and his/her emotional reaction to it. The conflict between wanting/needing to keep the secret and wanting/needing to tell is mediated by what they term the 'pressure cooker effect'. Young people in their study described influences from within and without that led to a build up of pressure, ultimately leading to disclosure. They suggest that building up the + +pressure for young people by providing opportunities to tell may be needed to help young people tell more promptly. However, the lack of control that young people experience following disclosure remains an issue (Ungar et al., 2009b: Quayle et at, 2012). This highlights the need for dissemination of information directly to young people about the legal process, the possible consequences of disclosure, as well as ongoing developments in legal proceedings when young people and their families interface with the legal system. + +The more recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures rather than solely on identifying barriers to disclosure is perhaps more helpful in informing awareness-raising campaigns and professional interventions. The author is involved in a large-scale review of children's files in an assessment service to ascertain those factors that helped children tell about their experiences of sexual abuse. A pilot study has suggested that this is an appropriate methodology for gathering data on children's experiences of informal disclosure, acknowledging the limitations of such an approach. Ungar et at (2009a) describe the optimal conditions for disclosure as follows: being directly asked about experiences of abuse; having access to someone who will listen, believe and respond appropriately; having knowledge and language about what constitutes abuse and how to access help; having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity (not being identified until they are ready for this) and confidentiality (the right to control who knows); and effective responses by adults both in informal and formal contexts. + +Ungar et at (2009b) support recent developments in prevention programmes that target supportive formal and informal caregivers in being better able to detect the possibility of abuse and support disclosures rather than focusing on empowering children themselves in making disclosures. Their findings in relation to the importance of bridge building for young people to access formal supports are supported by Jensen et at's (2005) emphasis on the dialogical nature of disclosure, and the important role that trusted adults and peers play in the disclosure process through noticing signs of psychological distress and asking young people about their psychological wellbeing (Collings et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2005; McElvancy et at, 2012). More emphasis is therefore needed on providing opportunities for children and young people to disclose. The challenge for professionals and those who care for children is how to do this in a way that protects children and promotes their wellbeing. + +# References + +Collings SJ. S. Kumalo M. 2005. Patterns of disclosure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology 35(2): 270 285. DeVoe ER, Faller KC. I999.The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment 4: 217 227. Elliott DM, Briere J. 1994. Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomalol Behavioral Sciences & the Law 12: 261 277. Goodman TB. Edelstein RS, Goodman GS.-DPH, \_ DS. 2003. Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 27: 525 540. Hershkowitz 1, Horowitz D, Lamb ME. 2005. Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(1 I): 1203 1214. Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Horowitz D. 2006. Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose. Child Abuse & Neglect 30: 753 769. + +`More recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures' + +`Having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity and confidentiality' + +- Hershkowitz 1. Lanes O. Lamb ME. 2007. Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect 31: III 123. Jensen TK, Gulbrandsen W, Mossige S, Reichelt S, Tjersland OA. 2005. Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(12): 1395 1413. Jonson E, Lindblad F. 2004. Disclosure, reactions and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment 9(2): 190 200. Kilpatrick DC. Saunders BE. 1995. The National Survey of Adolescents in the United States [Computer File]. Medical University of South Carolina [producer], 1999. Inter university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2000: Ann Arbor, MI. Kogan SM. 2004. Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect 28: 147 165. Lalor K. McElvancy R. 2010. Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk sexual behavior, and prevention/treatment programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 11(4): 159 177. DOI: 10.1177/1524838010378299 Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Hcrshkowitz I. 2002.The effects of forensic interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In Children's Testimony: A Ilandbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice. Westcott GM. Bull R (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester. England; 131 145. Lawson L. Chaffin, M. 1992. False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews: Incidence and influence of caretaker's belief in abuse in cases of accidental abuse discovery by diagnosis of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(4): 532 542. London K, Bruck M, Ceci SJ, Shuman D. 2005. Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology Public Policy and Law 11(1): 194 226. Lyon TD. 2007. False denials: Overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research. In Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial. M Pipe, M Lamb, Y Orbach. AC Cederborg (eds). Erlbaum Associates: London; 41 62. McElvaney R. 2002. Delays in reporting childhood sexual abuse and implications for legal proceedings. In Sex and Violence: The Psychology of Crime and Risk Assessment. Farrington DP, Hollin CR, McMurran M (eds). Routledge: London; 138 153. McElvaney R. 2008. How children tell: containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Trinity College, Dublin. McElvancy R. S. Hogan D. 2012. Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(6):1155 1175. DOI: 10.1177/0886260511424503 +- H. Garavan R. &Barra M. Byrne J. Conroy R. 2002. The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland. The Liffey Press: Dublin. Mudaly N. Goddard C. 2006. The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and professional interventions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London. Olafson E, Lederman CS. 2006. The state of the debate about children's disclosure patterns in child sexual abuse cases. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 57(1): 27 40. Priebe G. Svcdin CG. 2008. Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of adolescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect 32: 1095 1108. Quas JA. Goodman GS. 2011. Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology Public Policy and Law 18. 392 414 10.1037/80026146 Quas JA, Goodman GS, Ghetti SA, Kristen W, Edelstein RR, Allison D, Cordon IM, DPH. 2005. Childhood sexual assault victims: Long tam outcomes after testifying in criminal court: VII. General discussion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 70(2): 104 Ill. Quayle E. Jonsson L. Loof L. 2012. Online Behaviour related to Child Sexual Abuse: Preliminary Version. ROBERT Project. Available: http://www.innocenceindangendefilcadmin/user upload/ Downbads/ROBERTfinterview analysis PRELIMINARY.pdf [18 June 2012]. Resnick HS.. Kilpatrick DG.. Dansky BS. Saunders BE. & Best CL. 1993. Prevalence of civilian trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in representative national sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 984 991. Rispers J. Aleman A. Goudena PP. 1997. Prevention of child sexual abuse victimization: A meta analysis of school programs. Child Abuse & Neglect 21: 975 987. RL, Lindblad F. 2002.Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. The American Journal of Psychiatry 159: 312 314. + +DW, Letoumeau EJ, Saunders BE. Kilpatrick DG, Resnick, HS, Best CL. 2000. Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect 24: 273 287. Steller KM, Nelson Gardell D. 2005. "A burden in your heart": Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 29: 1415 1432. Summit R. 1983. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect 7(2): 177 193 Ungar M, Barter K. McConnell S, Tutty L, Fairholm J. 2009a. Patterns of disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 341 356. DOI: 10.1177/1473325009337842. Ungar M, Tutty LM, McConnell S, Barter K, Fairholm J. 200911 What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse &Ilict, 33: 699 708. Zwi KJ. Woolfenden SR. Wheeler DM. TA. Tait P. KW. 2007. School based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 3: CD004380. + +## CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE + +# Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults + +Iva A. E. Bicanic", Lieve M. Hehenkampl , Elise M. van de Puttee, Arjen J. van Wijk3 and Ad de Jongh3.4 + +'National Psychotraumacenter for Children and Youth. University Medical Center Utrecht. Utrecht The Netherlands; 2Department of Paediatrics. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 3Department of Behavioral Sciences, ACTA, University of Amsterdam aid VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 4School of Health Sciences, Salford University, Manchester, United Kngdom + +Backgroumt Delayed disclosure of rape has been associated with impaired mental health; it is, therefore, important to understand which factors are associated with disclosure latency. The purpose of this study was to compare various demographics. post rape characteristics, and psychological functioning of early and delayed disclosers (i.e., more than I week post rape) among rape victims, and to determine predictors for delayed disclosure. + +Methods: Data were collected using a structured interview and validated questionnaires in a sample of 323 help seeking female adolescents and young adults (12 25 years). who were victimized by rape, but had no reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. + +Resit: In 59% of the cases. disclosure occurred within I week. Delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. No significant differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek professional help. The combination of age category 12 17 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.05. confidence intervals (CI) 1.13 3.73]. penetration (OR 2.36. CI 1.25 4.46). and closeness to assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52 4.60) contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure. + +Conclusion: The results point to the need of targeted interventions that specifically encourage rape victims to disclose early, thereby increasing options for access to health and police services. + +Keywords: Adolescents; young adults; rape: sexual assault; disclosure: latency to disclosure: posuraumatic stress disorder + +Responsible Editor: Rita Rosner. KU Eichstaett Ingolstadt. Germany. + +'Correspondence to: Iva A. E. Bicanic, National Psychotrauma Center for Children and Youth, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85090, NL 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands, Email: i.a.e.bicanicQumcutrecht.nl + +For the abstract or full text in other languages. please see Supplementary files under Article Tools + +Received: 31 August 2014: Revised: 30 March 2015: Accepted: 13 April 2015: Published: 11 May 2015 + +p revious studies have shown that disclosure of rape to formal agencies, such as police or mental health services, is uncommon (Fisher. Cullen. & Turner. 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), especially when the rape has been committed on a date or by an acquaintance and involves the victim's use of drugs and/or alcohol (Resnick et al., 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). There is evidence to suggest that victims believe that professionals will not be helpful to them because their rape experience does not match stereotypical conceptions of rape, such as involving a stranger. a weer n, and severe injury (Patterson, Grceson, & iiiiiiiiiiii 2009; Resnick et al., 2000). Accordingly, adolescents and young adults, who are more at risk to be victimized by rape than other age + +groups (De Haas. Van Berk). Bakker. & Vanwesenbeeck. 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), may not receive targeted mental health care and may not report the crime to the police (Ruch, Coyne, & Perrone, 2000). + +For reasons of mental health and public safety, it is important to understand the potential factors that arc related to disclosure. Timing of disclosure may be a crucial factor, as early disclosers are more likely to utilize appropriate medical care and report to the police than delayed disclosers (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010; Ullman & Filipas. 2001). In contrast, adults who wait longer than 1 month to disclose the rape are more likely to suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression compared to early disclosers (Ruggiero et al., 2004). + +EuropeanJoni or PeYdoOtreurnekeogi 2015. C 2015 ho A E. Doyle al S. This is en Open Access anido doIrtutod under the leans of the Croalme Gunman Aanbution 4.0 rdarnancrielLleeneeetpx//ereaUrecumtne.criyecareewby/4.04. slowing eit0 pertosto coo/ and reostroute thernateroi n any meclumalanwd. wx1 lo ran\*. Women\* trxItuklupontliefnaloiel. ex any purpose. ovencurancacialy. undortheccnciton that xi:cognate (roan esgven. teat ulna lotheaconsoisgatAkled. lhat you indebted changes were made. You may ce) so in any reascatio roamer. tan not in any way that mgests to 'censor endorses you or your use. + +In addition, adolescents who disclose their rape experience at least I month after the incident took place are found to be at higher risk for major depressive disorder and delinquency (Broman-Fulks et al.. 2007) compared to those who disclosed within 1 month. + +Victim-assailant relationship is crucial in disclosure latency, with victims being at higher risk for delayed disclosure if there is a close relation with the assailant (Kogan, 2004; Koss, 1988; Rickert, Wiemann, & Vaughan, 2005). In contrast, delayed disclosure is less common in victims of a stereotypical rape. i.e., rape by a stranger including a weapon and injury ( et al., 2000). Victims of prior sexual trauma arc more likely to postpone disclosure of a su uent assault than those without prior victimization et al., 2000; Ullman, 1996). This is in contrast with the findings of Ahrens et al. (2010), who report no difference in rates of prior sexual trauma between early and delayed disclosers. In addition, the victim's age appears to be an important variable in predicting disclosure. Evidence suggests that young children are at higher risk for delayed disclosure than adolescents (Kogan. 2004; Scheinbucher, Maier. Mohler-Kuo, Schnyder, & Landolt, 2012). Thus, various rape and victim-related characteristics have been found to be associated with timing of disclosure. + +The majority of the aforementioned studies included college and adult female rape victims. It is important to examine rape disclosure latency in an age and sex group that is most at risk for rape victimization. There is only one prior quantitative study in adolescents (those aged 12-17 years) that identified factors that might influence disclosure latency (Kogan, 2004). He found that identity of the assailant, a familial relationship with the assailant, and a history of drug abuse in the household were related to the timing of disclosure. The results suggested that a familial relationship with the assailant will postpone disclosure, whereas a history of drug abuse in the household, albeit this seems counterintuitive, makes prompt disclosure more likely. This study had some limitations, including the fact that the interviews were conducted by telephone and that the description of the relationship with the assailant was limited. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated a sample of female adolescent and young adult victims of rape who were admitted to a specialized mental health centre for victims of sexual assault. The first aim of this study was to compare demographics, post-rape characteristics, and psychological functioning between early and delayed disclosers in this group. The second aim. based on the exploratory findings of Kogan (2004), was to determine the predictors for delayed disclosure in adolescents and young adults, including age. prior trauma, and victim-assailant relationship using logistic regression analyses. Insight into the predictors for delayed disclosure for adolescents and young adults may reveal not only potential causal mechanisms but also possible targets for interventions that increase victims' opportunities to receive timely post-rape services. + +### Methods + +### Subjects and data collection + +Rape was defined as "an event that occurred without the victim's consent that involved the use or threat of force in vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse" (Tjaden & Thoennes. 2006). The definition includes both attempted and completed rape; the term "completed" referring to vaginal, oral, anal, or multiple penetrations. Victims who disclosed within I week were defined as "early disclosers," whereas those who disclosed at least after I week were defined as "delayed disclosers." This dichotomization of the variable "disclosure latency" was based on the study of Ahrens et al. (2010) and the national standard criteria for admission to a Rape Centre in the Netherlands, i.e., a maximum of 7 days post-rape. + +The study was conducted in the Dutch National Psychotrauma Centre, which provides psychological services for rape victims aged 12-25 years and their parents. Between May 2005 and December 2011. the centre received 621 phone calls concerning alleged rape victims from police authorities, mental health services, and selfreferrals. In 178 cases, the phone call did not result in admission at the centre because of age limitations, or motivational reasons. In 108 cases, referrals were made to other institutions because the index trauma was chronic childhood sexual abuse rather than rape in adolescence/ young adulthood. Of the 335 cases admitted to the centre, 12 were not included in this study because of male gender, resulting in a final sample of 323 females with the index trauma being single rape. Referral sources for this final sample included the police (33.7%), mental health services (40.7%). and self-referrals, i.e., victims or parents (25.6%). + +### Procedure + +During admission, all patients underwent a psychological assessment, consisting of I) a structured interview for obtaining demographic and post-rape characteristics and 2) self-report questionnaires to obtain information about mental health functioning. Information from the interview was transcribed onto a form designed for this purpose. The following variables were obtained and dichotomized or categorized for the purpose of the study: + +### Demographic and victim characteristics + +We asked patients about their current age, educational level (lower, middle, or higher), and whether they were of Dutch origin (i.e., in case of having parents born in the Netherlands). Those between 12 and 17 years of age were defined as adolescents and those between 18 and 25 years of age as young adults. We also asked whether the patient was living with their parent(s) (yes/no), and whether the + +family structure was complete. i.e., whether the biological parents were living together (yes/no). Patients were then asked to confirm the presence of prior negative sexual experiences (yes/no), and whether they had a current sexual relationship (yes/no). + +# Rape characteristics + +Information about date and time of the rape was obtained to calculate the time since rape at admission. Next, patients were requested to describe the rape. Their response was categorized into use of penetration (yes/no), group rape (yes/no), use of physical violence (yes/no), and use of threats verbally and/or with a weapon (yes/no). Also, information regarding the victim's relationship to the assailant was obtained. The assailant was defined as a stranger when the victim had never been in contact with the assailant before the rape. Responses were used to form a closeness category (yes in case of family. (boy) friend, or mentor). Patients were also asked about the (estimated) age of the assailant (categorized into 12-17 years or >18 years), and whether the victim had used alcohol prior to the rape (yes/no). + +# Post-rape characteristics + +Patients were asked when they first talked about the rape. The response was used to calculate the disclosure time and the help-seeking time. At the end of the interview, patients were asked whether they had reported to the police after the incident (yes/no), and whether they had received any medical care after the incident (yes/no). + +The study was performed in accordance with the precepts and regulations for research as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Dutch Medical Research involving Humans Subjects Act concerning scientific research. According to the Ethical Medical Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, this act was not applicable to the present study. Written informed consent was obtained from both patients and parents. + +# Measures + +### Posttraumatic stress + +The Children's Responses to Trauma Inventory (CRTI; Alisic, Eland, & Kleber, 2006) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This is a 34-item questionnaire assessing severity of PTSI3 symptoms according to DSM-IV. Patients are asked to indicate to what extent a reaction to a traumatic event was present during the past week. Scores range from I to 5, with higher scores indicating more symptomatology. The four subscales: Intrusion, Avoidance, Arousal, and Other Child-Specific Reactions consist of 7. I I, 6, and 10 items, respectively. The reliability of this instrument is good to excellent (Cronbach's a 0.92 for total score, 0.79 for Intrusion, 0.77 for Avoidance, 0.71 for Arousal:. Alisic & Kleber. 2010). For the purpose of the study, only the total score was analysed. + +# Depression + +Children Depression Inventory (CDI: Kovacs, 1992: Timbremont & Braet, 2002) was used for participants aged 12-17 years of age. The CDI is a 27-item questionnaire, assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioural symptoms of depression. The Dutch CDI has a satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach's a ranging between 0.71 and 0.89 (Timbremont & Braet, 2002). + +# Behavioural problems + +The Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This questionnaire evaluates the teenager's perception of behavioural and emotional problems. YSR has shown to be internally reliable (Cronbach's a's ranging from 0.71 to 0.95), and convergent and discriminant validity is reported to be satisfactory (Berub6 & Achenbach, 2006). The YSR includes four broadband scales and nine narrow-band scales to asstss behaviour problems. For the purpose of the study, only the total score on behaviour problems was included in the analyses. + +# General psychopathology + +The Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R: Arrindell & Ettema, 1986) was used for participants aged 12-25 years. This is a 90-item self-report inventory to assess psychosocial distress. Patients were instructed to indicate the amount they were bothered by each of the distress symptoms during the preceding week. Patients rated 90 distress symptoms on a five-point Likert scale with I being "not at all" and 5 being "extremely." The statements are assigned to eight dimensions reflecting various types of psychopathology: anxiety. agoraphobia. depression, somatization. insufficiency, sensitivity. hostility, and insomnia. The Global Severity Index (GSI) can be used as a summary of the test and reflects the severity of all answered statements as a global measure of distress. Cronbach's a has been found to range from 0.73 to 0.97. For the purpose of the study, only the GSI was analysed. + +# Data analyses + +To compare demographic and post-rape characteristics between the early and delayed disclosers, chi-square tests were used. To compare multiple continuous psychological scores. MANCOVA was used with "time since trauma" as a covariate to correct for the potential influence of time since trauma. + +Delayed disclosure was used as a dependent variable. The strength of the univariate associations between each potential risk factor and delayed disclosure was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). To determine the strongest risk factors for delayed disclosure, each potential risk + +factor identified in the univariatc analyses with a significant OR (p <0.05) was entered as a predictor variable into the multivariable model, using a stepwise forward logistic regression (LR) analysis with delayed disclosure as the outcome variable. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodnessof-fit chi-square was used to calculate how well the data fit the model. For all statistical analyses, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. + +All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0, IBM Corp.. Armonk, NY). + +# Results + +# Socio-demographic characteristics + +Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table I. Victims' age ranged from 12 to 25 years, with a mean age of 16.7 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 16.1 years. Victims' mean age at time of rape was 14.3 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 13.9 years. Penetration occurred in 79.6% of the cases. None of the victims reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. Data about victim—assailant relationship are presented in Table 2. Victims first disclosed after a mean 20.8 weeks (SD =56.8. range 1-624 weeks), although 58.5% of the cases told within I week. First disclosure was to a friend (45.8%), parcnt(s) (17.1%), (ex) boy-friend (9.4%), family member (6.8%), professional (5.8%), or other adult (15.2%). With regard to post-rape services, 53.8% of all victims consulted a doctor for medical care and 51.4% reported to the police. On average. victims were admitted to the centre 59.8 weeks post-rape (SD =93.7. range 1-676). The mean GM of the rape victims on the SCL-90- R (M =209.7, SD =61.8) was comparable with previously reported data of psychiatric populations (M=203.55. SD =61.60; 8269) =1.629. p=0.104] and was substantially + +Table I. Demographic characteristics of rape victims (N =323) in valid percentages + +| | N | 16 | +|--------------------------------|-----|------| +| Dutch origin° Education level° | 274 | 84.8 | +| Low | 182 | 58.0 | +| Medium | 76 | 24.2 | +| High | 56 | 17.8 | +| Parents divorced | 102 | 31.9 | +| Lives at parental home | 273 | 85.3 | +| Current relationship | 81 | 28.5 | +| Prior negative sex | 46 | 14.8 | + +'Dutch origin was defined as being a child from parents born In the Netherlands; °after 6 years of general primary school, at the age of 12 years, students enter low (4 years). medium (5 years), or high (6 years) secondary education level. + +labh 2 Victim assailant relationship (N =323) in valid percentages + +| | N | | +|-----------------------------|----|------| +| Stranger | 94 | 29.5 | +| (Ex-)Boyfriend | 32 | 10.0 | +| Friend | 33 | 10.3 | +| Acquaintance | 61 | 19.1 | +| Person met during nightlife | 30 | 9.4 | +| Second-degree relative | 15 | 4.7 | +| Person seen only once | 15 | 4.7 | +| Person from school | 14 | 4.4 | +| Person met on the intemet | 12 | 3.8 | +| Colleague | 10 | 3.1 | +| Mentor | 3 | 1.0 | + +higher [t(269) =24.297. p <0.001] compared to the general population (M=118.28, SD =32.38; Arrindell & Ettema, 1986). For the CDI, mean scores were in the clinical range (M=17.2, SD =4.6) and rape victims had significantly higher mean scores ((230)=15.923. p <0.001). in comparison to previously reported data of the general population of adolescent girls (Timbremont. Bract, & Roelofs, 2008: M=9.01, SD =6.45). + +## Differences between early and delayed disclosers + +Fifty-nine percent of the sample consisted of early disclosers (disclosure within I week). No significant differences in demographic characteristics were found between early and delayed disclosers except that there were more delayed disclosers in the age category 12-17 years compared to the early disclosers group (x2 (0=6.96; p =0.008). For rape characteristics, significant differences between groups were found for the use of penetration, with more victims of penetration in the delayed disclosers group compared to the early disclosers group (x2 (I ) = 5.37: p =0.02). Also, the delayed disclosers group presented more victims of verbal and/or weapon threats than the early disclosers group (x2 (I) = 5.35; p=0.02). Furthermore, among the delayed disclosers more victims identified the assailant as a close person compared to the early disclosers (x2 (1)=10.84; p =0.001). Alcohol was used more often in the early disclosers group compared to the delayed disclosers group (x2 ( I ) = 20.24; p <0.001). + +With respect to post-rape characteristics, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (15.9%) utilized medical services following the rape compared to the early disclosers (30.3%; z2 (I) = 5.32; p=0.02). Similarly, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (14.6%) compared to the early disclosers (34.3%) reported the rape to the police (z2 (I) =16.15; p <0.001). The time since trauma at admission was significantly lower for early disclosers (M =41.1 weeks. SD =79.4) than for delayed disclosers (M =82.9 weeks. + +SD =103.3; 4314) =4.06, p <0.001). Mean and median time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups (x(309)=2.54, p <0.48). Excluding outliers (M±3 SD, N =11) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level of psychological distress when compared to previously reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts, Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbremont et al., 2008; YSR, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that when comparing multiple continuous psychological scores the overall psychological functioning (posttraumatic stress depression. behavioural problems, and general psychopathology) did not differ significantly between early and delayed disclosers (116.198) =0.88. p =0.51). + +Table 3 shows the ORs with 95% Cls for the associations between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers, were significantly more likely to be in the age category of 12-17 years (OR =2.10), to have experienced rape by a close person (OR =2.35), to have been threatened verbally and/or with a weapon (OR = 1.75), and to have experienced penetration (OR =1.99). Delayed disclosers were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to the rape (OR =0.22). None of the other factors were found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure. + +## Predicting delayed disclosure + +A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict delayed disclosure, using "age category," "close assailant," "use of threats?" and "penetration" as predictors. Victims' alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of missing values for 33.4% of the cases. The use of threats was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e., age category 12-17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (x2 (3) =23.09. p <0.000). There were no significant interactions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predictors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer-Lemeshow z2 (4) = 2.77, p <0.60). In total, 6rA of the respondents were categorized correctly, when using the three predictors that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years (OR 2.05. CI 1.13- 3.73), penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25-4.46). and closeness to the assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52-4.60). + +### Discussion + +The results of this study show that, although no differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek help. + +delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that delayed disclosers represented significantly more adolescents than young adults, significantly more victims of penetration than assault, significantly more victims who were threatened than not threatened, and significantly more victims who were close with the assailant. + +The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to utilize medical services and report to the police than early disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not only impede reception of proper medical care, such as treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden. 2011). but also impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013). + +Three variables were identified that successfully predicted delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years, penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The finding that the victim's age significantly predicts disclosure latency is in line with previous research showing that adolescents arc at a greater risk for delayed disclosure when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan. 2004; et al.. 2000). Adolescents may be less able to overcome the barriers to disclose, including factors such as assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood, they may possess more information about their rights and options after victimization, and have more possibilities for whom to disclose. In our study, most adolescents disclosed the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma et al., 2004; Priebe & Svedin, 2008). + +The use of penetration was found to make victims more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results from Priebe and Svedin (2008), but in line with an older study by Arata (1998). who found that more severe forms of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure. Penetration may influence disclosure latency through a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of tactics to maintain the victim's silence, with fear of reprisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed disclosure (Kogan. 2004). Also, adolescents may think that social reactions in response to disclosure arc more negative in case of completed rape compared to assault. + +Another factor that seems to make immediate disclosure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant, as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family + +1.O1)1e 3 Demographic and (post )rape characteristics by disclosure time (early vs delayed disclosers) and odds ratios for delayed disclosure + +| Demographic and (post-)rape characteristics Age category (years) | Early disclosure (N =185) | | (i.e., >1-week post-rape), N = 131 | Delayed disclosure | OR | 95% CI | +|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------|------------------------------------|--------------------|------|------------| +| 18 25 | 55 | 17.4 | 22 | 7.0 | | | +| 12 17 Dutch origin | 130 | 41.1 | 109 | 34.5 | 2.10 | 1.20 3.65' | +| No | 27 | 8.5 | 22 | 7.0 | | | +| Yes Living with parent(s) | 158 | 50.0 | 109 | 34.5 | 0.85 | 0.46 1.56 | +| No | 29 | 9.2 | 16 | 5.1 | | | +| Yes Complete family structure | 155 | 49.2 | 115 | 36.5 | 1.35 | 0.70 2.59 | +| No | 58 | 18.4 | 42 | 13.3 | | | +| Yes Current sexual relationship | 127 | 40.3 | 88 | 27.9 | 0.96 | 0.59 1.55 | +| No | 127 | 41.8 | 97 | 31.9 | | | +| Yes Prior negative sexual experience(s) | 53 | 17.4 | 27 | 8.9 | 0.67 | 0.39 1.14 | +| No | 152 | 49.4 | 110 | 35.7 | | | +| Yes Known assailant | 32 | 10.4 | 14 | 4.5 | 0.61 | 0.31 1.19 | +| No | 56 | 17/ | 36 | 11.4 | | | +| Yes Close to assailant | 129 | 40.8 | 95 | 30.1 | 1.15 | 0.70 1.88 | +| No | 150 | 47.6 | 84 | 26.7 | | | +| Yes Group rape | 35 | 11.1 | 46 | 14.6 | 2.35 | 1.40 3.93' | +| No | 160 | 50.8 | 116 | 36.8 | | | +| Yes Age of assailant (years) | 24 | 7.6 | 15 | 4.8 | 0.86 | 0.43 1.71 | +| 12 17 | 63 | 20.6 | 54 | 17.6 | | | +| >18 Use of penetration | 117 | 38.2 | 72 | 23.5 | 0.72 | 0.45 1.14 | +| No | 46 | 14.7 | 19 | 6.1 | | | +| Yes Use of threats | 138 | 43.5 | 112 | 35.8 | 1.99 | 1.10 160' | +| No | 90 | 31.6 | 48 | 16.8 | | | +| Yes Use of physical violence | 76 | 26.7 | 71 | 24.9 | 1.75 | 1.09 2.82' | +| No | 130 | 42.6 | 82 | 26.9 | | | +| Yes Victim's alcohol use | 51 | 16.7 | 42 | 13.8 | 1.31 | 0.80 2.14 | +| No | 72 | 33.5 | 69 | 32.1 | | | +| Yes | 61 | 28.4 | 13 | 6.0 | 0.22 | 0.11 0.44' | + +'p <0.05. + +Seven participants were dropped from analyses due to missing disclosure time data. + +member, or mentor. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that the closer the relationship between the victim and assailant. the less likely the young woman was to report this victimization to anyone (Koss, 1988: Rickert et al.. 2005: Wolitzky-Taylor ct al.. 2011). The dynamics of intrafamilial abuse is often proposed as + +the ex lanation for delayed or non-disclosure (Kogan. 2004: et al., 2000). In the present study, however. only 5% of the assailants were identified as a family member. Most close relationships referred to (boy)friends, suggesting that a significant percentage of the sample experienced peer-to-peer victimization. This type of victimization is most likely to occur during adolescence, as compared to childhood or young adulthood, and Si increases the risk of revictimization (Humphrey & 2000). Hence, victims of rape by peers may be a target group for interventions promoting early disclosure. + +Clearly. there arc many variables working in tandem to affect the timing of victim's disclosure. A closer look at the final model, which identified three unique variables that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure, can help us to better understand the phenomenon of initial disclosure in adolescents and young adults. Younger adolescent victims who are raped by a close person are more likely to delay disclosure than older victims of attempted rape by a stranger or acquaintance. Perhaps, they struggle with the notion that someone close to them performed such a violent act against them, which confuses them about what might happen in terms of safety if they would disclose (or not). This finding is especially important in the light of the fact that approximately 80% of victims had some sort of relationship with their perpetrator prior to the assault (Basile. Chen. Black. & Saltzman. 2007). With regard to rape types, it would intuitively seem that less severe forms of sexual assault arc associated with delayed disclosure and that completed rape would be easier to identify as clearly inappropriate and wrong. Victims of completed rape, however, may be more likely to experience negative psychological reactions, e.g., self-blame and avoidance coping. It is conceivable that they delay their disclosure as a result of rape-induced psychological distress (Starzynski, Ullman, Filipas, & Townsend, 2005), not necessarily the severity of the assault. + +Although the final model showed acceptable goodness of fit, the percentage of explained variance of delayed disclosure was modest. Thus, there must be other variables predictive of delayed disclosure, such as the assailant's use of alcohol or weaker support systems, that we did not assess in this study. Besides this limitation, there are other drawbacks of this study that should be mentioned. First. a clinical sample was used with patients reporting high mean levels of psychological distress. This ceiling effect may explain why no differences were found between early and delayed disclosers on psychological functioning. contrary to prior studies (Broman-Fulks et al.. 2007; Ruggiero et al., 2004). Second, posttraumatic stress was only assessed for children up to 18 years. and for young adults additional suitable measures were not used. Third, information could have been lost due to dichotomizing the variable disclosure latency. Fourth, results may not be + +generalizable to all rape victims, because the percentage of mums that consulted a medical professional and reported to the police was higher in our sample than in most studies (Hanson et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 2000; Zinzow, Resnick, Barr, Danielson, & Kilpatrick, 2012). Perhaps, these differences could, at least partially, be explained by the fact that stranger rape, representing 30% of our sample, leads to higher likelihood of help-seeking and police reporting because of its association with higher acknowledgment of victim status (Resnick et al., 2000; et al., 2000). The fact that this is a help-seeking sample is critical for the reasons cited in the discussion, but also because the generalizability of these data to rape victims who never tell anyone—perhaps the group most at risk—simply cannot be known. Besides these limitations, several strengths of the current study need to be noted. One strength is the unique set of adolescents and young adults who presented at a mental health care centre after a single rape event, but who reported no prior chronic sexual abuse in childhood. For 85% of the sample. the index trauma was a first time rape. Moreover. data were collected at a designated referral centre for victims of rape and, therefore, the sample is likely to represent the clinical population of Dutch victims in the age group of 12-25 years. + +The findings of the current study. suggesting that delayed disclosers are less able to benefit from emergency medical care and evidence collection, have a number of practical implications. One of the strategies to enhance victims' willingness to disclose within the first week postrape may be sexual education campaigns in school and media, as being uninformed is one of the reasons for them not to disclose (Crisma et al., 2004). Education may include medical information on rape-related pregnancy and STDs, as well as the need for timely emergency contraception and prophylaxis, given that these concerns appear to be facilitators of seeking medical help (Zinzow et al., 2012). Also, practical information about DNA evidence and how to best protect it, e.g., related to showering. clothing. eating. and drinking. may increase the awareness of opportunities in the early-phase post-rape. Moreover, facts about the potential psychological impact of rape. such as PTSD and revictimization, but also information about evidence-based treatments (Elwood et al.. 2011; Littleton & Ullman, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2013), may increase help-seeking behaviour in an early stage. Furthermore, efforts to encourage early disclosure must consider peer-to-peer victimization as a primary factor, as most participants in this study experienced this type of victimization, and may initially not have defined or acknowledged the incident as rape because they rationalize such experiences as normal (Hlavka. 2014), leading to the finding of delayed disclosure. + +In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that adolescent victims of rape with penetration by + +someone close are at increased risk for delayed disclosure. and that delayed disclosers are less likely to use medical services and to report to the police. These findings may assist clinicians and policymakers in understanding rape and help to develop interventions (Unterhitzenberger & Rosner, 2014), specifically targeted to support adolescents and young adults to disclose in an early-phase postrape. Although the vast majority of the participants was living at their parental home, many of the sample did not first disclose to their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that in prevention programs specific attention should be given to the strengthening of the child-parent relationship, to facilitate disclosure to parents (Schonbucher et al., 2012). Next, as victims tend to disclose mostly to peers. prevention programmes may need to aim at teaching adolescents how they can help a peer victim if they become a recipient of disclosure (SchOnbucher et al., 2012). In addition, education may increase victims' willingness to disclose early, thereby increasing opportunities for access to health and police services. It is more likely to reach adolescents with direct, active, and online outreach programs via communication channels that are frequently used by adolescents and young adults particularly social media (i.e.. Facebook. Twitter. YouTube. etc.), forums, and mobile apps. Such programmes, wherein adolescents and young adults are being treated as agents and decision makers (Hlavka, 2014), should focus on information concerning what rape actually is—not only the stereotypical idea of rape and what (not) to do in the aftermath of rape especially in the first week postrape. Another way to help improve the support of victims of rape is the implementation of multidisciplinary sexual assault centres (Bicanic, Snetselaar, De Jongh, & Van de Putte, 2014; Bramsen, Elklit, & Nielsen, 2009), as these may be the most suitable places to organize education campaigns and offer integrated post-rape services in one location. Future research should investigate whether the availability of such centres increases the prevalence of police reporting and use of medical care. Moreover, as discussed. previous research concerning the topic of disclosure has focused on the disclosure process. mainly the effect of negative social reactions, and not the latency. In future research, social reactions in relation to disclosure (latency) should be assessed by using the Social Reactions Questionnaire. as well as the victim's perception of their own experience being defined as rape, as many girls and young women do not report or seek help because they regard sexual violence against them as normal (Hlavka, 2014). + +# Conflict of interest and funding + +There is no conflict of interest in the present study for any of the authors. + +# References + +Achenbach, T. M.. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school age forms & profiles. Burlington. VT: University of Vermont. Research Centre for Children. Youth, and Families. Ahrens. C. E.. Stansell. J.. & Jennings. A. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors' recovery. Violence and Victims. 25(5). 631 648. Alisic, E., Eland, J., Huijbregts, R. A. D., & Kleber, R. L (2012). SchokreTwerkingslijst mar kinderen (Children's responses to trauma inventory revised version). Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers. Alisic, E.. Eland, J., & Kleber, R. 1 (2006). Schokverwerkingslijst roor Kinderen herziene reale (Children's responses to trauma inventory revised version). Utrecht: Institute for Psychotrauma in collaboration with Clinical Psychology (University of Utrecht) and Psychotrauma Centre for Children and Youth (University Medical Centre Utrecht). Alisic, E.. & Kleber. It. 1 (2010). Measuring posttraumatic stress reactions in children: A preliminary validation of the children's responses to trauma inventory. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. 3(3). 192 204. Arata. C. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of child sexual abuse survivors who disclosed their victimization. Child Alahreaiment. 30).63 71. Arrindell. W. A.. & Enema. J. H. M. (1986). SCL 90: Handleiding bij een muhidimensionek psychopathologic indicator (SCL 90: manual for a multidimensional measure of psychopathology). Lisse: Swets Test. Basile. K. C., Chen. J.. Black, M. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults Violence & Victims. 22, 437 448. &rube. R. L.. & Achenbach. T. M. (2006). Bibliography of published studies using ASEBA: 2006 edition. Burlington. VT: University of Vermont. Research Centre for Children. Youth and Families. Bicanic, I.. Snetselaar, H.. De Jongh, A., & Van de Puce, E. (2014). Victims' use of professional services in a Dutch sexual assault centre. European Journal of Psychotrauntatology. 5. 23645. doi: http://dx.dolorg/10.3402Jejpt.v5.23645 Bramsen. R. H.. Elklit. A., & Nielsen, L. H. (2009). A Danish model for treating victims of rape and sexual assault: The multidisciplinary public approach. Journal of Aggression. Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8), 886 905. Hinman Fulks, J. J.. Ruggiero. K. J.. Hanson, R. F., M. D. W, Resnick. H. S.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. et al. (2007). Sexual assault disclosure in relation to adolescent mental health: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 260 266. Crisma. M.. Bascelli. E., Paci, D., & Romito P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(10), 1035 1048. De Haas. S.. Van Berlo. W. Bakker. F.. & Vanwesenbeeck. I. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence in the Netherlands. the risk of rcvictimization and pregnancy: Results from a national population survey. Violence and Victims. 27(4). 592 608. Elwood. L. S.. `D. W.. Resnick. H. S.. Gudmundsdottir. B.. Amstadter. A. a. Hanson. R. F., et al. (2011). Predictors of rape: Findings from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(2), 166 173. Fisher. B. S.. Cullen. F. T.. & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual rktimkation of college women. Washington. DC: U.S. Depart ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Bureau of Justice Statistics. + +- Hanson. R. F.. Kievit. L. W.. Saunders. B. E.. M. D. W.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Resnick. H. S. et al. (2003). Correlates of adolescent reports of sexual assault: Findings from the national survey of adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 261 272. !Uinta. H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society. doi: 10.1177/0891243214526468. Ilumphrey. I A.. & M. J. W. (2000). Women's vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health. 27(6), 419 424. Kogan. S. M. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 147 165. Koss. M. P. (1988). Criminal victimi:ation among hymen: Impact on health status and medical service usage (Grant No. 85 1.1 CX 0038). Washington. DC: National Institute of Justice. Kovacs. M. (1992). Children depression inventor• CDI: Manual. New York: Multi Health Systems. Lacy, J. W. & Stark. C E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory. Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, /4(9). 649 658. Linden. ). A. (2011). Care of the adult patient after sexual assault. New England Journal of Medicine. 365(9). 834 841. Littleton, H.. & Ullman, S. E. (2013). PTSD symptomatology and hazardous drinking as risk factors for sexual assault revicti mization: Examination in European American and African American women. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 26(3). 345 353. McLaughlin. K. A.. Koenen, K. C., a E. D.. Petukhova, M.. Sampson. N. A.. Zaslaysky, A. M.. et al. (2013). Trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychitm52(8). 815 830. Patterson. D.. Cresson. M.. & R. (2009). Understanding rape survivors' decisions not to seek help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 34(2). 127 136. Priebe. G.. & Svedin, C G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society. An epidemiological study of adolescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095 1108. Resnick, H. S.. =. M. M., Kilpatrick. D. G.. Clum, G.. Acierno. R.. Best. C. L.. et al. (2000). Predictors of post rape medical cam in a national sample of women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4). 214 219. Rickert. V. I.. Wiemann, C. M.. & Vaughan. R. D. (2005). Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: Who reports and when. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18(1). 17 24. Ruch. L. R., Coyne, B. J.. & Perrone, P. A. (2000). Reporting sexual assault to the police in Hawaii (NC) 188264. National Criminal Justice Reference Service). Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ruggiero. K. J.. M, D. W.. Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Saunders. B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G.. et al. (2004). Is disclosure of childhood rape associated with mental health outcome? Results from the National Women's Study. Child Maltreatment. 9(1),62 77. Schonbucher, V., Maier, T.. Mohler Kuo M.. Schnyder. U., & Landoll. M. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interper sonal Viokne•, 27, 3486 3513. doi: 10.1177/0886260512445380. + - M. D. W. Letourneau. E. 1. Saunders. B. E.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Resnick. H. S.. & Best. C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect. 24(2), 273 287. Starzynski. L. L.. Ullman. S. E.. Filipas. II. II.. & Townsend. S. M. (2005). Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims, 20, 417 432. Timbremont, B.. & Brad, C. (2002). Children's depression inventory: Nederlandstalige verse (Children's Depression Inventory: Dutch version]. Lisse: Swets & Zeittinger. Timbremont. B.. Brad. C.. & Roelof\*. J. (2008). lIandleiding Children's Depression Inventory [Children's Depression Inven tory: Dutch version]. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V. Tjaden, P G.. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent. nature. and consequences of rape victimi:ation: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice. Ullman. S. E. (1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 11(4), 554 571. Ullman. S. E.. & Filipas H. II. (2001). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. /6(10), 1028 1047. Unterhitzenberger. 1. & Rosner. R. (2014). Lessons from writing sessions: A school based randomized trial with adolescent orphans in Rwanda. European Journal of Psychotratanatology. + - 3. 24917. doi: Intp://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpi.v5.24917 Wolitzky Taylor. K. B.. Resnick. H. S.. Amstadter. A. B.. McCauley. 1 L.. Ruggiero, K. 1. & Kilpatrick. D. G. (2011). Reporting rape in a national sample of college women. Journal of American College Health. 59(7). 582 587. Zinzow, H. M.. Resnick. II. S. Barr. S. C. Danielson, C K.. & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2012). Receipt of post rape medical care in a national sample of female victims. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(2). 183 187. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d03c439583e449f119331206ea11adfd356c0e85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/EFTA02833665.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3110 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 45, + "chars": 294595, + "elapsed_seconds": 151.71, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 419.46490478515625, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 419.46490478515625, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual \nAbuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research \nUpdate (2000-2016)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 391.8167419433594, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 391.8167419433594, + 127.11407470703125 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 127.11407470703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abstract", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 92.61121368408203, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 92.61121368408203, + 223.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 223.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keywords", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 97.75318145751953, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 97.75318145751953, + 444.965087890625 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 444.965087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 121.76795959472656, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 121.76795959472656, + 504.5850830078125 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 504.5850830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Corresponding Author.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 673.92 + ], + [ + 401.9483642578125, + 673.92 + ], + [ + 401.9483642578125, + 684.9994430541992 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 684.9994430541992 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Method", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 693.36 + ], + [ + 93.024, + 693.36 + ], + [ + 93.024, + 707.13 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 707.13 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Key Findings", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.836, + 634.23 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 634.23 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 307.836, + 648.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.836, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 564.876, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 564.876, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 307.836, + 373.40999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Age and gender as predictors of enclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 310.284, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 473.7064514160156, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 473.7064514160156, + 474.965087890625 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 474.965087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 635.04 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 635.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 187.92000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Implications for Research and Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 375.84000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 373.93199999999996, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 373.93199999999996, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 428.49 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 650.4300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 711.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 711.1800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 78.57000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 309.06, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 403.9200000000001, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 403.9200000000001, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 309.06, + 419.58000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure of Child \nSexual Abuse: Delays, \nNon-disclosure and \nPartial Disclosure. What \nthe Research Tells Us and \nImplications for Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 102.1629638671875 + ], + [ + 413.1003723144531, + 102.1629638671875 + ], + [ + 413.1003723144531, + 284.42742919921875 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 284.42742919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KEY PRACTITONER MESSAGES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 172.18312072753906, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 172.18312072753906, + 468.60614013671875 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 468.60614013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'This paper reviews \nthe research on \ndisclosure patterns of \nchildhood sexual \nabuse'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 176.57899475097656, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 176.57899475097656, + 170.0755615234375 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 170.0755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 185.356, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 426.1267395019531, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 426.1267395019531, + 349.695556640625 + ], + [ + 185.356, + 349.695556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.7, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 403.49199999999996, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 403.49199999999996, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 193.7, + 55.89000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'High numbers of \nrespondents \ndisclosing to \nresearchers for the \nfirst time'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 158.17784118652344, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 158.17784118652344, + 170.0755615234375 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 170.0755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Patterns of Disclosure \u2014 Partial Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 185.356, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.5011291503906, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.5011291503906, + 123.95556640625 + ], + [ + 185.356, + 123.95556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 58.407999999999994, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 385.9967346191406, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 385.9967346191406, + 156.95556640625 + ], + [ + 58.407999999999994, + 156.95556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Investigating the \nprecise \ncircumstances that \nled to disclosures for \nchildren'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 171.83287048339844, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 171.83287048339844, + 285.195556640625 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 285.195556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Significant \nproportions of \ndisclosure have been \nprompted by \nquestions by \ncaregivers, friends or \nothers'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 172.64541625976562, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 172.64541625976562, + 473.8255615234375 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 473.8255615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'The implications of \nthese findings can be \nconsidered in \ninterrelated contexts'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 630.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 173.40122985839844, + 630.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 173.40122985839844, + 697.6955642700195 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 697.6955642700195 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Implications for Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 185.952, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 309.1315612792969, + 503.82 + ], + [ + 309.1315612792969, + 518.45556640625 + ], + [ + 185.952, + 518.45556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "`Contradiction in \nwitness statements is \na well-known feature \nof false statements'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 217.89000000000004 + ], + [ + 560.237060546875, + 217.89000000000004 + ], + [ + 560.237060546875, + 284.0755920410156 + ], + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 284.0755920410156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Education and \nincreased awareness \nare needed on how to \nquestion children in \nan appropriate \nmanner'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 560.08642578125, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 560.08642578125, + 473.45556640625 + ], + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 473.45556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Are children who \ndelay in disclosing \nless likely to engage \nwith the legal system?'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 632.61 + ], + [ + 562.146728515625, + 632.61 + ], + [ + 562.146728515625, + 699.5755615234375 + ], + [ + 418.39199999999994, + 699.5755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 115.95771789550781, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 115.95771789550781, + 578.8255615234375 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 578.8255615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse 169", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.7, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 569.3387451171875, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 569.3387451171875, + 58.55859375 + ], + [ + 193.7, + 58.55859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 95.81599999999999 + ], + [ + 187.72946166992188, + 95.81599999999999 + ], + [ + 187.72946166992188, + 109.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 109.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female \nadolescents and young adults", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 110.432 + ], + [ + 431.26251220703125, + 110.432 + ], + [ + 431.26251220703125, + 147.9989013671875 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 147.9989013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Methods", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 107.184 + ], + [ + 354.9275207519531, + 107.184 + ], + [ + 354.9275207519531, + 120.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 120.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Subjects and data collection", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 131.54399999999998 + ], + [ + 438.6012878417969, + 131.54399999999998 + ], + [ + 438.6012878417969, + 145.21759033203125 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 145.21759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Procedure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 514.808 + ], + [ + 358.36688232421875, + 514.808 + ], + [ + 358.36688232421875, + 528.0975952148438 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 528.0975952148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Demographic and victim characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 634.9839999999999 + ], + [ + 474.15875244140625, + 634.9839999999999 + ], + [ + 474.15875244140625, + 648.0976104736328 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 648.0976104736328 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rape characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 141.28799999999998 + ], + [ + 141.90875244140625, + 141.28799999999998 + ], + [ + 141.90875244140625, + 155.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 155.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Post-rape characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 345.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 160.27919006347656, + 345.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 160.27919006347656, + 359.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 359.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Measures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 538.356 + ], + [ + 101.4263916015625, + 538.356 + ], + [ + 101.4263916015625, + 552.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 552.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Posttraumatic stress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 562.7159999999999 + ], + [ + 142.26512145996094, + 562.7159999999999 + ], + [ + 142.26512145996094, + 576.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 576.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Depression", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 101.5 + ], + [ + 358.1573486328125, + 101.5 + ], + [ + 358.1573486328125, + 115.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 115.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Behavioural problems", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 207.06 + ], + [ + 400.6528015136719, + 207.06 + ], + [ + 400.6528015136719, + 221.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 221.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "General psychopathology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 360.52799999999996 + ], + [ + 416.23040771484375, + 360.52799999999996 + ], + [ + 416.23040771484375, + 375.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 375.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Data analyses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 574.084 + ], + [ + 374.0442810058594, + 574.084 + ], + [ + 374.0442810058594, + 588.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 588.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Results", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 215.992 + ], + [ + 94.65312194824219, + 215.992 + ], + [ + 94.65312194824219, + 230.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 230.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Socio-demographic characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 239.54 + ], + [ + 212.51312255859375, + 239.54 + ], + [ + 212.51312255859375, + 254.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 254.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Differences between early and delayed disclosers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 379.204 + ], + [ + 532.0204467773438, + 379.204 + ], + [ + 532.0204467773438, + 393.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 393.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Predicting delayed disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 403.56399999999996 + ], + [ + 189.24533081054688, + 403.56399999999996 + ], + [ + 189.24533081054688, + 417.46759033203125 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 417.46759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 682.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 111.48582458496094, + 682.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 111.48582458496094, + 695.7175979614258 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 695.7175979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conflict of interest and funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 683.704 + ], + [ + 210.15628051757812, + 683.704 + ], + [ + 210.15628051757812, + 698.7175979614258 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 698.7175979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.94, + 68.208 + ], + [ + 367.2291564941406, + 68.208 + ], + [ + 367.2291564941406, + 82.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.94, + 82.59759521484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 147 + ], + [ + "Line", + 73 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 165 + ], + [ + "Line", + 161 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 181 + ], + [ + "Line", + 178 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 187 + ], + [ + "Line", + 183 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 167 + ], + [ + "Line", + 164 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 167 + ], + [ + "Line", + 161 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 153 + ], + [ + "Line", + 145 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 159 + ], + [ + "Line", + 142 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 208 + ], + [ + "Line", + 201 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 84 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 163 + ], + [ + "Line", + 159 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 206 + ], + [ + "Line", + 112 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 231 + ], + [ + "Line", + 113 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 197 + ], + [ + "Line", + 98 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 141 + ], + [ + "Line", + 71 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 125 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 141 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 139 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 137 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 140 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 131 + ], + [ + "Line", + 65 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 127 + ], + [ + "Line", + 64 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 157 + ], + [ + "Line", + 71 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 213 + ], + [ + "Line", + 112 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 207 + ], + [ + "Line", + 108 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 220 + ], + [ + "Line", + 105 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 214 + ], + [ + "Line", + 112 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 123 + ], + [ + "Line", + 62 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 221 + ], + [ + "Line", + 115 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 232 + ], + [ + "Line", + 119 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 202 + ], + [ + "Line", + 101 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833665" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0538e88033febf557f4fb8b32e7d352dd775de2b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c45329f2b3550dc6eb81865d61cab30a233875f7eae5da50f6f4aee87537c3fc +size 1344 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef3b8a15641dadd986eb4aec7290fd099ef56ad5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833665/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3ce9949cabea7f83db6822890a394cf98b92d2fba47b6e6c8a3ae9f42046c13c +size 1692 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..997186fb7188a422e9df30d4da381048464e6cdc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.md @@ -0,0 +1,683 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +# Table of Contents + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 3 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| ARGUMENT | 4 | +| I. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio | 4 | +| A. Applicable Law | 5 | +| B. Discussion | 9 | +| I. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible | 10 | +| Abuse is Admissible | 22 | +| 3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible | 23 | +| 5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible | 27 | +| II. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11,2021 Letter is Admissible | 32 | +| A. Applicable Law | 33 | +| B. Discussion | 35 | +| 2. The Government I las Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations | 39 | +| III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible | 41 | +| A. Background | 41 | +| B. Applicable Law | 44 | +| C. Discussion | 45 | +| IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial | 54 | +| A. Background | 55 | +| B. Discussion | 58 | + +| | V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Victim-4's Identification of the Defendant | 63 | +|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| A. | Background | 63 | +| B. | Applicable Law | 65 | +| C. | Discussion | 67 | +| | VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits | 71 | +| A. | Applicable Law | 71 | +| B. | Discussion | 72 | +| | VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of "Victims" or Rape | 76 | +| A. | References to Victims | 76 | +| B. | Evidence of Rape | 79 | +| VIII. | The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit | | +| | CONCLUSION | 83 | + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's thirteen motions in limine, dated October 18, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motions should be denied. + +First, the Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See Def. Mot. 4). Third, the Government has provided adequate notice pursuant to Rule 404(b), and in any event, all evidence for which it has provided such notice is also admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes. (See Def. Mot. 2). Fourth, there is no basis to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2XE). (See Def. Mot. 1). Filth, Minor Victim-4's confirmatory identification of the defendant was not unduly suggestive, and it should not be suppressed. (See Def. Mot. 9). Sixth, the Government's various exhibits are relevant, and the Government will authenticate them at trial. (See Def. Mots. 7, 8, 13). Seventh, it is entirely proper for the word "victim" and for discussion of rape to be used in a trial about the sexual exploitation of minor victims. (See Def. Mots. 11, 12). Eighth, and finally, the Government does not intend to offer evidence of the defendant's flight, her false exculpatory statements, or law enforcement expert testimony in its case in chief, unless the defendant opens the door or otherwise puts this evidence in issue. (See Def. Mots. 5, 6, 10). + +#### ARGUMENT + +### I. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio + +The Government intends to call Dr. Lisa Rocchio as an expert witness. Dr. Rocchio is the President-Elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology at the American Psychological Association. She is currently a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of University, and she has practiced psychology for approximately 25 years, specializing in treating patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence. Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds of victims of trauma, including many victims of child sexual abuse, and she has written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma. She has also received continuing education on trauma and the treatment of trauma in a clinical setting. (See generally Curriculum Vitae, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 2). + +On April 23, 2021, the Government timely notified the defendant of its intent to call Dr. Rocchio in its case-in-chief. As the notice explains, Dr. Rocchio is expected to testify, based on her relevant education, training, experience, and research, and offer the following opinions: + +> Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term + +traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. + +(Expert Notice, Del. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). As the notice also explained, Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any of the victims in this case, and the Government does not currently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. (See id.). + +There is nothing controversial about this testimony. It is well supported by established scientific principles, and it is the kind of testimony frequently admitted in cases involving sexual abuse. This Court should do the same. + +## A. Applicable Law + +District courts have a "gatekeeper function" in analyzing the admissibility of expert testimony. Phelps v. CBS Corp., No. 17 Civ. 8361 (AJN), 2020 WL 7028954, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020) (quoting Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017)). Although the proponent of the evidence carries a burden of proof to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence, see, e.g., United States v. M, 965 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 2020), courts apply a "presumption of admissibility of evidence." Felix v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 5845 (MN), 2020 WL 6048153, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020) (quoting Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, the relevant rule of evidence, Rule 702, reflects "the `liberal thrust' of the Federal Rules and their `general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to `opinion' testimony."' Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. + +579, 588 (1993) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988)). + +Under Dauber!, a district court must first determine whether an expert is qualified. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 ("A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise ...."); United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("At the first step of the Daubert inquiry, courts are instructed to consider the expert's qualifications."). Courts then must determine whether the testimony "will be not only relevant, but reliable." United Stales v. 794 F.3d 317, 330 (2d Cir. 2015); see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 (explaining that courts must ensure "that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand"). On reliability, Rule 702 identifies three "indicia of reliability": (1) "that the testimony is grounded on sufficient facts or data; (2) that the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) that the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." United States v. 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002)). "[T]hese criteria," however, "are not exhaustive." Id. Daubert itself, which "dealt with a scientific theory," offered additional factors, such as whether the theory "'has been subjected to peer review and publication," and the "'known or potential rate of error."' M, 794 F.3d at 330 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94). And "there are many different kinds of experts, and many different kinds of expertise." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). "[W]hether the specific expert testimony focuses upon specialized observations, the specialized translation of those observations into theory, a specialized theory itself, or the application of such a theory in a + +particular case, the expert's testimony will often rest upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to the jury's own." Id. at 149 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2021) ("Such specialized knowledge can be grounded in scientific or other particularized training, but it can also derive from personal observations or experience, see id., so long as those observations or experience are outside the ken of the average person." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee's Note (2000) (explaining that expert testimony may be based on "experience alone—or experience in conjunction with other knowledge, skill, training or education"). + +The key question is whether "an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152; see 506 F.3d at 160 (explaining that the Daubert test is "flexible"). In particular, if an expert's testimony is within "the range where the experts might reasonably differ," the jury, not the trial court, should be the one to decide among the conflicting views of different experts. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 153. So long as the testimony is not "speculative or conjectural or based on assumptions that are so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith or to be in essence an apples and oranges comparison . . . any other contentions that the assumptions are unfounded go to the weight, not the admissibility of the testimony." Phelps, 2020 WL 7028954, at \*3 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "'the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule."' Floyd v. City of New York, 861 F. Supp. 2d 274, 287 + +(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee's Notes (2000 Amendments)). + +"[T]he law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 142 (emphasis in original); see United States v. Requena, 980 F.3d 30, 47 (2d Cir. 2020). Thus a district court may properly exercise its gatekeeping function without the "formality of a separate hearing[.]" 506 F.3d at 161; see also United States v. Barnes, 411 F. App'x 365, 370 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order). "This is particularly true if, at the time that the expert testimony is presented to the jury, a sufficient basis for allowing the testimony is on the record." 506 F.3d at 161 (citing 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.02 [2] (2d ed. 2006)). + +Finally, even if the expert testimony is reliable, it must also be relevant. See, e.g., United States v. No. 20 Cr. 608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). In this context, the testimony must "concern matters that the average juror is not capable of understanding on his or her own." United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 194 (2d Cir. 2008); see Faulkner v. Arista Records LLC, 46 F. Sup. 3d 365, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Weighing whether the expert testimony assists the trier of fact goes primarily to relevance."). + +Courts have frequently admitted expert testimony on the psychological relationship between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes. For instance, in United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the Government gave notice of expert testimony on "the psychology of the pimp-prostitute relationship," including concepts such as "trauma bonding." Id. at 263. The defendant interposed a Daubert challenge, arguing that the expert's testimony was not based on "studies or empirical data" and so could not "be assessed for reliability." Id. (internal + +quotation marks omitted). The district court rejected that argument, explaining that "case law quite commonly upholds this type of testimony against Daubers challenges," and that the expert's experience writing about, treating, and speaking to prostitutes was sufficiently reliable. Id. at 263- 64; see also, e.g., Letter, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021) (Dkt. No. 134); United States v.=, No. 20 Cr. 608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021) (permitting expert testimony on "domestic abuse and coercive control"); Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (permitting expert testimony on "[t]rauma and coercive control in the context of sex trafficking, including the psychological relationship between pimps and the women prostituted by them"); Notice and Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-1, 198 (permitting expert testimony on "the psychological relationship between a pimp and the woman prostituted by him" and "why prostituted women do not leave their pimp"). + +## B. Discussion + +The defendant does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Nor could she: Dr. Rocchio is a leader in her field, teaching others as a professor at University, and she has approximately twenty-five years of clinical experience. She is testifying in general about core concepts in her field, based on her "extensive study of the relevant data and literature and her clinical experience treating hundreds of trauma and abuse patients over the past twenty years." United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). + +Instead, the defendant suggests that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable, irrelevant, or prejudicial. To the contrary, and as explained in greater detail below, each of the Dr. Rocchio's five challenged opinions is well supported and would aid the jury in understanding the evidence at trial. The Court should permit Dr. Rocchio to testify. + +#### 1. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible a. Reliability + +As described in the expert notice, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the role that trust and attachment play in relationships between a victim and an abuser: + +> Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. + +(Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). Dr. Rocchio will opine that victims are often abused in the context of a coercive and manipulative relationship which develops over time through the building of victims' trust and attachment. One aspect of this relationship is "often called grooming." (Dee Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). However, the concepts of attachment and coercion go beyond grooming, and encompass both the trust-building aspect of the relationship and the ways in which + +that bonds victims to their abusers and prevents victims from disclosing that they have been abused.' + +These opinions stem in part from Dr. Rocchio's personal familiarity and experience treating victims of sexual abuse for decades. She is trained in trauma psychology, she has expertise in treating victims of sexual abuse who have been subject to this pattern of behavior, and she teaches residents about trauma psychology. CI Bosco v. United States, No. 14 Civ. 3525 (JFK), 2016 WL 5376205, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) (expert testimony about "common knowledge among urologists" require the expert to "draw upon the defining characteristics that make him a member of that community: his training as a urological surgeon, his practical experience performing several hundred ureteroscopies, and his knowledge as a clinical instructor of surgery"). + +These opinions also stem from the relevant literature. This pattern of coercive attachment is not a novel or outlier concept in the literature of trauma psychology. For instance, attached as Exhibit A are some of the articles that have been provided by Dr. Rocchio and inform her testimony. See Dietz, "Grooming and Seduction," 33 J. of Interpersonal Violence 28, 34 (2018) + +The concepts of attachment and grooming encompass a variety of established techniques, including: (1) the use of attention, love, and affection; (2) using bribery and gift giving; (3) sexual desensitization—that is, talking to children about sex and engaging in touching; (4) isolating the victim; and (5) engaging in emotional manipulation. Grooming efforts can also extend to "grooming the environment." Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations," 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) ("Some offenders groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain [a position of trust].] Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent parents, and hence have less protection." (citation omitted)). + +("Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term 'grooming' has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come."); Bennett & O'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964-68 (2014) (reviewing the literature on the prevalence of various grooming techniques); Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations," 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) ("[R]etrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence"). To be clear, however, her review of the literature—and therefore the basis of her testimony—extends beyond these articles. + +Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio came to her opinions through her clinical experience on this specific issue, as informed by her education and study of the relevant literature. That is a sufficient demonstration of "how the expert came to [her] conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion." Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006); see Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting the notion that "the many studies that have validated trauma bonding and coercive controls as established phenomena are unreliable for want of laboratory-like statistical vetting"); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-I, 198 (explaining that "the basis for the testimony—namely, the witness's training and experience—is not such that it would be subject to exclusion on the grounds that it's not based on some sort of empirical scientific testing," and that "those arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility, of her proposed testimony"). + +As noted above, courts have frequently admitted testimony about the psychological relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators. See supra pp. 7-8. Courts have also specifically authorized expert testimony on the subject of grooming. See, e.g., United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-1098 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that admission of expert testimony on grooming did not violate Federal Rules of Evidence 702 or 403 nor violate due process and finding that the expert 'merely gave a straightforward account of relevant background information based on [the expert's] own knowledge and experience' (quoting United States v. MEI, 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017)); United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that expert testimony on grooming was "relevant, reliable, and properly admitted"); United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 833 n.15 (10th Cir. 2019) ("Grooming can be established by use of an expert witness who testifies about psychological tactics that are common in cases of child sex abuse."); United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming expert testimony on the "grooming process"); Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649, 656-69 (Tx. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (collecting cases showing that "grooming evidence has been received by courts from numerous types of experts"); see also United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Cabrera, 13 F.4th 140 (2d Cir. 2021) (noting that evidence of grooming supported the jury's verdict). + +Against this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government gave notice of expert testimony about the "behavior of child molesters" from a veteran FBI agent who had reviewed case studies of child abuse and had written one book and one article. Id. at 143, 145, 147. The purported expert's book, in turn, merely made assertions about the "profile" of child molesters, with no information about how his experiences reliably led to his conclusions. Id. at 147-48. In the same breath, however, the book "disavow[ed] [its] reliability ... for legal use," and his article similarly offered generalized views on what "many" offenders were "more likely or less likely to do." Id. at 148 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, at bottom, the purported expert's testimony was based only on his subjective conclusions after reviewing case studies. See id. at 147 n.5 (explaining that the expert "troubling[ly]" wrote that "data is not the plural of anecdote," but "the information and opinions are based primarily on the totality of my acquired knowledge and expertise"). + +The situation here is quite different. Dr. Rocchio's conclusions are not anecdotal; they are grounded in the academic literature and her formal and informal education. Moreover, she will be testifying about concepts she regularly employs as a practicing clinician. Again, the defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert on this subject. And Dr. Rocchio's opinions are not an attempt to offer a "profile" of perpetrators of child sexual abuse or their activities. Instead, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the psychological underpinnings of an + +established pattern of victimization—attachment and coercion—experienced by victims of sexual abuse. + +The defense would read Raymond to stand for the proposition that expert testimony is unreliable if it does not explain "what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified." (Del. Mot. 3 at 8). For instance, the defense criticizes Dr. Rocchio for opining that sexual abuse of minors occurs "frequently," without specifying whether it occurs "half the time" or "two-thirds of the time." (Id. at 7; see id. at 8 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 148-49)). That is not what is required by Daubert in the context of qualitative social science, and it is not what many courts have held in the context of precisely this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v.=, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011) (recognizing that social science research "cannot have the exactness of hard science methodologies, and expert testimony need not be based on statistical analysis in order to be probative" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).2 + +The defendant's remaining critiques of Dr. Rocchio's opinion miss the mark. First, the defendant asserts that Dr. Rocchio's patients are uncorroborated, and she "simply assumes her + +2 Even in Raymond, the Court left open the possibility that the Government could call the expert in rebuttal to "counter a defense case that victim testimony in this case should not be believed because the victim delayed in reporting the abuse or did not report it consistently." 700 F. Supp. 2d at 156. Even were the Court inclined to follow Raymond rather than the cases in this District, it should similarly revisit permitting Dr. Rocchio to testify about the opinion at issue if the defense attacks victim credibility. + +patients are telling the truth." (Def. Mot. 3 at 6). The defendant claims that this "fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion" because her conclusion has "no known or identified rate of error ... nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding Rocchio's conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating her abuse." (Id. (alterations and quotation marks omitted)). Clinical psychologists are not so credulous. As part of Dr. Rocchio's work as a practicing clinician, she examines consistencies and inconsistencies in the information provided by patients and assesses patient self-reporting in the context of literature and knowledge that she has developed in her years of practice. As the Government's expert notice makes clear, Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds and hundreds of patients in her decades of experience, and her opinions are based in part on the significant patterns she has observed among the patients she has treated. The Court should reject the defendant's speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur. + +In any event, the defendant's argument about error rates misunderstands the nature of a Dauber! inquiry. An error rate is but one of the Dauber! factors that may or may not be applicable in every case. See M, 794 F.3d at 330. And in cases such as this, where a social science expert is testifying based on qualitative methodology, that factor is inapplicable. See M, 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 n.8. As the Second Circuit has explained, "Peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc. . . . are not applicable to this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it. In such cases, the place to quibble with [an expert's] academic training is on cross-examination . . . + +, 542 F.3d at 21-22 (first and second alterations in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). + +That point is particularly true in sex trafficking cases. As Judge Engelmayer explained when evaluating the testimony of a similar expert in a sex trafficking case, analyzing error rates is an "unusually poor fit" in this area: + +> [Sjtudying the circumstances and psychological drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory animals. . . . Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of error rates ... is an unusually poor fit.. . . The testing that has been done as to trauma bonding and coercive control, instead, necessarily uses more qualitative research methodologies. These involve interviews and case studies and clinical examinations conducted over time." + +Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 29:4-30:20, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335. Because statistical rigor is not a useful method for evaluating the reliability of qualitative research like Dr. Rocchio's, statistical tools like error rates are irrelevant to the Daubert analysis. + +Contrary to the defendant's next claim, these opinions are not "impregnable for purposes of cross examination." (Def. Mot. 3 at 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The defendant is free to cross Dr. Rocchio on how frequently she sees grooming in her patients and how she evaluates whether they are telling the truth. The defendant is also free to explore, in cross examination, the difficulties in assessing whether a patient has been groomed. The defense can also make arguments—in cross examination and in jury addresses—about the lack of quantitative rigor in this qualitative area of science. That is the point: it is for the jury, after hearing the + +evidence, to evaluate what weight to give it. But that does not change whether Dr. Rocchio's opinions are squarely within the mainstream of psychological practice. + +The defendant next argues that Dr. Rocchio's patients are "self-selected," and she has not established the "representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior." (Del Mot. 3 at 7). But the defendant makes no argument that the minor victims in this case are distinctive in some way such that general principles of psychology may diverge as to them. And in any event, that argument is for the jury to evaluate, and not a basis to preclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 36:13-37:5, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting a defense attempt to distinguish between native-born and domestic-born women because, "while a court is to be a gatekeeper as to reliability so as to keep `junk science' away from juries, the Court must not overstep that role. Whether or not the Court would be persuaded that adult native-born women can be subject to trauma bonding, the Court is not to arrogate to itself that judgment.") + +Finally, the defendant argues that Dr. Rocchio has no experience treating perpetrators of sexual assault, so she cannot testify as to the psychology of perpetrators and their "so-called `grooming' techniques." (Def. Mot. 3 at 7-8). Many of the opinions the defendant challenges concern the experiences of victims, not perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio will testify about the pattern to which "minor victims are often subject," which makes "victims vulnerable to abuse," and builds their "trust and attachment with their abuser." (Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2 (emphasis added)). Grooming creates in the victims "a relationship of trust and attachment" that "can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. (Id. + +(emphasis added)). Dr. Rocchio's testimony will also include discussion of techniques used by perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding such techniques is supported by Dr. Rocchio's review of the relevant literature, see Exhibit A, and through her clinical work. By virtue of her experience treating victims, Dr. Rocchio is necessarily informed about perpetrators' actions. See Halamek, 5 F.4th at 1088 ("Extensive experience interviewing victims can qualify a person to testify about the relationships those victims tend to have with their abusers."). Dr. Rocchio will testify squarely within her expertise and experience! + +## b. Relevance and Rule 403 + +Dr. Rocchio's opinions will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence at trial. This case concerns an "unusual area of human interaction." See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 39:8-9, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335. The Minor Victims in this case were trafficked over many years, and none were physically restrained. An average juror, with no experience with sexual abuse victims, may not understand why the Minor Victims continued to + +3 In United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), 2019 WL 2212639 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019), Judge Garaufis questioned whether an expert on grooming with experience focused on victims may have been able to testify reliably about how "perpetrators often use 'grooming' techniques on adult and child victims . ." Id. at \*7. Even then, he did not exclude the testimony—he simply ordered a Daubert hearing. Id. at \*8. The Government ultimately declined to proceed with that testimony rather than conduct a mid-trial Daubers hearing. Here, and as noted above, Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony concerns the experience of manipulated and coerced victims, rather than the intentions of perpetrators. + +return to Epstein's home for sexual abuse, or why some occasionally expressed affection for the defendant and Epstein. + +Although Dr. Rocchio will not testify about these specific Minor Victims, her testimony will help the jurors understand the "psychological dynamic often seen in abusive relationships that leads an abuse victim to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as by declining to take opportunities to leave an abusive situation or by expressing gratitude to an abuser." =, 2021 WL 1947503, at •7. This psychological dynamic between a victim of child sexual abuse and her abusers is "beyond the knowledge of the average juror and would or could plainly be helpful in understanding the psychological dynamics at play." Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:3-7, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198; cif. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 38:13-20, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 ("[B]y and large the relationship between prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common knowledge. Jurors are not apt to intuitively understand the mechanisms that may lead a woman who is not physically restrained or confined to heed the demands of a pimp to traffic herself."). Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio's testimony will help the jury understand and contextualize the other testimony it will he,ar.4 + +The defendant expresses concern that a lay jury will be unable to apply Dr. Rocchio's analyses to the facts of this case, stating "[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works." (Def. Mot. at 10). + +Relying again on Raymond, the District of Maine case, the defendant argues that expert testimony about "general principles is helpful only when it 'describes widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena."' (Def. Mot. 10 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (alterations omitted)). That proposition comes from footnote 12 of Raymond, which attempted to distinguish that expert's "profile" testimony from the Federal Rules Advisory Committee's observation that the 2000 amendment "does not alter the venerable practice of using + +That is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note ("[I]t might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case."). Dr. Rocchio will provide reliable opinions about principles of coercion and attachment in abusive relationships that ''' ill help the jury understand the psychological factors underlying the relationships that the jury '' ill learn about at trial. + +Finally, the defendant argues that the Court should preclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony under Rule 403. In so arguing, she expresses concern that Dr. Rocchio's testimony will "'radically simplify' an otherwise complex case" by "loist[ing] a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all."' (Def. Mot. at II (quoting United States v.M,No. 07 Cr. 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009)).5 There is nothing prejudicial or simple about Dr. Rocchio's testimony. The jury will not conclude that the defendant is guilty because Dr. Rocchio explains that acts which "might have been motivated by a variety of ends" are sometimes part of the process of sexual abuse. Whether + +expert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note). The defendant cites no place containing this limitation in the text of the Rule, its advisory committee notes, Daubert, or the law of this Circuit or District. Nor does it make sense on its own terms: "how financial markets respond to corporate reports" or the "principles of thermodynamics" are sometimes highly predictable, but not always, depending on the context. + +a case about a district court's application at sentencing of a Guidelines enhancement, says nothing about whether the jury would be confused by learning about grooming. + +they were in this case will depend on the other evidence. That is not a prejudicial simplification that is the trial. + +There is nothing unreliable, irrelevant, or unusual about Dr. Rocchio's opinion on coercion and attachment. Drawing on her decades of clinical experience and her familiarity with the relevant literature, Dr. Rocchio will give opinion testimony that will help the jury understand witness testimony. That is all Rule 702's gatekeeping requirements demand. + +### 2. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Relationship Between Trust and Victim Awareness of Their Abuse is Admissible + +At trial, the Government intends to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony about how victims process their abuse and how that can prevent or delay disclosure. As the Government set forth in its expert notice, Dr. Rocchio will testify that: + +> The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. + +(Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). This opinion is part and parcel of Dr. Rocchio's other opinions about the relationship between attachment and coercion. Specifically, and as noted above, victims develop relationships of trust and attachment with their abusers that leave victims vulnerable to coercion. This opinion adds that, as part of this relationship, victims may not recognize that they are experiencing abuse and may not see themselves as victims while they are in this relationship, and therefore may not disclose their abuse or recognize the consequences of their abuse until later in life. As the defense correctly observes, this opinion is intertwined with Dr. Rocchio's opinions about coercion and attachment. (Def. Mo. 3 at 12). Just as those are reliable, so is this one. + +The defense argues that this opinion is outside Dr. Rocchio's expertise because she has "no experience treating alleged perpetrators," so "her view ... is entirely one-sided." (Id.). As is clear from the above excerpt, her testimony is about largely about trust and attachment built in victims, and the resultant ways in which victims process abuse. But she is also an expert in the actions and techniques of perpetrators through her review of the literature and the lens of what she has learned through victims. This opinion is therefore squarely within Dr. Rocchio's expertise. + +Finally, the defendant argues that this testimony violates Rule 704, because it is an "opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully," and 403, because it "risks jurors accepting her `expert' opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence." (Def. Mot. 3 at 13). Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated the victims in this case and will not express an opinion as to whether they are testifying truthfully. And the defense motion is entirely unclear on the features of this expert opinion that create risk that the jurors would abdicate their responsibilities. To the contrary, the defense concerns underscore how relevant this opinion will be in aiding the jurors in understanding the testimony at trial. + +## 3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible + +Dr. Rocchio will also testify that "friepeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). As Dr. Rocchio will explain, and as is detailed in her Jencks Act material', experiencing child + +The Government produced Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material to the defense at the time of the expert notice. (See Del Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2 ("The Government is producing notes from the Government's interviews with Dr. Rocchio today as well.")). + +sexual abuse can lead to a variety of psychological difficulties, including substance use and participation in risky sexual behavior. Complex trauma—trauma involving repetitive or prolonged exposure to or experiences of multiple traumatic stressors, involving harm or abandonment by trusted adults, and occurring at developmentally vulnerable times—can lead to various psychological consequences, including dysregulation in emotional control, difficulties in relationships or with behavioral control, and distorted perceptions of the self and others. + +This opinion is highly relevant. It is likely that jurors will not be intimately familiar with the consequences of child sexual abuse. Accordingly, the causal connection between these psychological problems and child sexual abuse is outside the experience of the average juror. Yet that information will aid the jury in two respects: First, it will help jurors assess the credibility of Minor Victims, to the extent they have had some of these psychological symptoms or had other difficulties described by Dr. Rocchio in the years since their abuse. For instance, the Government expects the defense to attack the credibility of a Minor Victim by cross0-examining her about her substance abuse. Dr. Rocchio's testimony will provide the jury with a fuller picture by showing that substance abuse can be a consequence of sexual trauma. Second, experiencing certain psychological difficulties is consistent with past child sexual abuse and complex trauma. It is evidence that Minor Victims in fact experienced child sexual abuse that they suffered known consequences of such abuse. See Raniere, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*3, \*7 (admitting expert + +testimony that "sexual assault can result in severe, long-lasting and wide-ranging psychological consequences and related difficulties"). + +The defendant argues that this evidence is nonetheless prejudicial because it will inflame the passions and emotions of the jury. (Def. Mot. 3 at 14). The Minor Victims, however, will be the ones testifying about the abuse they experienced and observed, and—whether on direct or cross—about the psychological consequences of their experiences. The question is only whether the jury will hear from an expert about the causal connection between those two concepts testimony about concepts not specifically applied to any victim, and testimony about a causal connection whose reliability the defense does not challenge. There is nothing inflammatory about this expert testimony, much less something sufficiently prejudicial to substantially outweigh the probative value of the testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +### 4. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion About the Significance of the Presence of Third Parties is Admissible + +As noted above, Dr. Rocchio will opine that "[t]he presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). For instance, and as Dr. Rocchio will explain, the presence of a third party can disarm an intended victim and make perpetrators appear safe and trustworthy, or can create a false sense of security on the part of a minor victim that sexualized situations are normal and acceptable. Based on her experience as a clinician, Dr. Rocchio will testify that young children in particular often feel more comfortable in the presence of a woman. + +The defendant objects to this testimony on the grounds that it concerns a lay matter "which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (Def. Mot. 3 at 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Dr. Rocchio, however, is not testifying about common experience or from common experience. Her testimony stems from her clinical experience, and it concerns the psychological experiences of victims when a third person is present during parts of their sexual abuse, as part of her broader opinion on attachment and coercion. The average juror will not have knowledge of or experience in the psychology of abuse victims, and Dr. Rocchio's testimony will aid their understanding. + +The defendant relatedly seeks to preclude Dr. Rocchio from testifying about "groomingby-proxy," a term which appears nowhere in the Government's expert notice. (Def. Mot. 3 at 9). By that term, the defendant appears to argue that Dr. Rocchio will opine that an individual can groom a victim for abuse by another perpetrator, and that such an opinion is unreliable and "prejudicial speculation." (Id.). This argument misses the mark in three respects. First, Dr. Rocchio's testimony primarily concerns the experience of victims, not perpetrators, as explained above. If the victim experienced attachment and grooming, it makes no analytical difference whether the perpetrator intends to engage in sexual contact with the victim or, instead, is preparing the victim for abuse by a third party. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 31:1-34:12, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (explaining that, where there is a "reliable basis for . . . testi[mony) about trauma bonding and coercive control as phenomena that exist more broadly," the expert may testify, and defendants "are at liberty to vigorously cross-examine [the expert) to attempt to cabin or limit trauma bonding and coercive control to populations predominately outside of the alleged victims in this case"). Indeed, expert testimony is commonly offered in sex trafficking cases on the pimp-prostitute relationship, which is specifically designed to permit the + +pimp to arrange sex acts for third parties. See, e.g., Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263; Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198. Second, in any event, the Government did not provide expert notice on "grooming by proxy." Dr. Rocchio will give an opinion on grooming, and she will discuss how "[t]he presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors." (Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). The former is a reliable opinion, as explained above, and the defendant does not challenge the reliability of the latter opinion. (See Def. Mot. 3 at 14). Third, trial testimony will show that the defendant (I) in fact participated in sexual abuse of minors, (2) facilitated that abuse through her presence, and (3) conspired with a predator who groomed and sexually abused minors. None of that involves "grooming by proxy." + +## 5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible + +Finally, Dr. Rocchio will offer the opinion that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). + +Much of the basis for this opinion is set forth in Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material. For instance, extensive psychological literature supports the idea that individuals who are harmed as children may come to disclose their experiences incrementally or not until much later, as they may only realize that their experiences were abusive later in life, among other reasons. Selected articles from that literature are attached as Exhibit B. See Alaggia et al., "Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016)," 20 Trauma, Violence & Abuse 260, 276 (2016) ("Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong process, + +with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are too often delayed until adulthood"); McElvaney, "Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure, and Partial Disclosure," 24 Child Abuse Rev. 159, 160 (2015) (There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common."); Bicanic et al., "Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults," 6 Euro. J. of Psychotraumatology 25883 (2015) (listing among the predictors of delayed disclosure "age category 12-17 years"). Children who do disclose may choose to share information with a peer, but are less likely to go to an adult. Especially where a child has been groomed, the perpetrator has become a trusted adult for a child, reducing the likelihood of the child's disclosure. Incremental disclosure depends on a variety of factors, including how safe the victim feels with the recipient of the disclosure, how voluntary the disclosure is, and psychological factors that may prevent the victim from accessing their full memories. Victims may also experience significant shame or self-blame that prevents them from sharing certain information, and they may still be attached to the perpetrators, such that they fly to protect the perpetrators. + +Sexual abuse also impacts the way memory is encoded. In traumatic circumstances, often only the most salient details are encoded, and over time, specific details may be lost. With traumatic memory in particular, adrenaline and cortisol responses in the context of fear and trauma cause people to narrow their focus to the most salient and relevant details. If someone is abused multiple times or by multiple people, it is very common for memories of similar occurrences to jumble together, although the victim can remember the perpetrator and maybe some of the locations where the abuse occurred. + +Taken together, Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony explains why victims of child sexual abuse—and especially repeated sexual abuse—may disclose their abuse in a delayed and incremental fashion, and why their memories may lack some level of detail when the disclosure finally occurs. + +The defendant argues that testimony about delayed disclosure is unreliable, repeating some of the defendant's earlier arguments about whether the testimony is "based entirely on her treatment of a self-selected group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth" and how the opinion lacks an error rate. (Del. Mot. 3 at 15). Here, as with her opinions on attachment and coercion, Dr. Rocchio is testifying based on her training, clinical experience, and the academic literature. See Exhibit B. That victims of childhood sexual abuse delay disclosure is a wellestablished phenomenon the fact of which—though not the underlying psychological explanation—is readily visible in the news. See also 2 Mod. Sci. Evid. § 19:15 (explaining that "a large literature over the years has demonstrated that individuals frequently fail to disclose autobiographical information in numerous different settings," including disclosure of "episodes of sexual abuse"). + +Courts have specifically authorized experts to provide testimony on delayed disclosure. See, e.g., United States v. Gaudet, 933 F.3d 11, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2019) ("Moreover, the government provided expert testimony from Dr. Ann Burgess ... in which she testified that delayed disclosures are `[v]ery common' in abuse victims and stem from the way the brain processes, stores, and recalls traumatic experiences" (second alteration in original)); Raniere, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*3, \*7 (admitting expert testimony that "disclosure by sexual assault victims often unfolds over time, and the process of disclosure is influenced by multiple and changing factors including, but not limited to, the specific characteristics of the experience, the victim's psychological vulnerabilities, the victim's relationship to her perpetrator and her pattern of recover), and coping"); United States v. Young, 623 F. App'x 863, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[The expert] testified that . . . delayed disclosures, piecemeal disclosures and/or even recanted disclosures are coping mechanisms. . . . [The expert]'s testimony was helpful and probative because [the defendant] had attacked the victims' credibility based on their delayed and incomplete reports of abuse." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 826 (8th Cir. 2008) ("In this case, Dr. Levitt's testimony as to delayed disclosure helped the jury understand why the girls did not reveal they had been photographed until they were confronted with the images."). + +The defendant suggests that Dr. Rocchio's opinions on delayed disclosure are not helpful to the jury because they are too generic. As set forth here and more fully in Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material, Dr. Rocchio has elaborated on her opinions about the relationship between child sexual abuse and traumatic memory.' The defendant adds that, because Dr. Rocchio's opinion is that delayed disclosure is consistent with sexual abuse but not a necessary consequence of sexual abuse, jurors have no means to determine whether a Minor Victim is lying or telling the truth. + +The defendant also argues that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert in "the human brain or memory generally." (Del. Mot. 3 at 17). The Government agrees. But Dr. Rocchio is an expert in trauma psychology, which includes related issues of memory. + +(Def. Mot. 3 at 16). This argument misunderstands the role of the jury. Jurors are not tasked merely with applying Dr. Rocchio's expertise to facts. The jury will hear testimony that some Minor Victims did not immediately disclose their sexual abuse. When evaluating the credibility of those delayed disclosures, they will have the benefit of observing the Minor Victims' testimony, including their cross-examination which is sure to address their delayed disclosure, and the Minor Victims' explanation for those delays. The jury will also hear general testimony from Dr. Rocchio about various circumstances that may lead victims of sexual abuse to delay disclosure. In the totality of the circumstances, the jury can then decide who it finds credible. + +The defendant also argues it is prejudicial to her that Dr. Rocchio suggests "that delayed reporting is more consistent with truthfulness than fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself." (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). It is unclear how the defendant can simultaneously argue that (1) Dr. Rocchio's testimony improperly assumes the role of the jury by suggesting that delayed reporting is "more consistent" with child sexual abuse (id.); and (2) Dr. Rocchio's testimony would only help the jury if she resolved any ambiguity by saying that delayed reporting is a necessary consequence of child sexual abuse (id. at 15-16). + +Finally, according to the defendant, Dr. Rocchio's arguments will only prejudice the defendant, because it will serve to bolster the witnesses' credibility. As the defense acknowledges, however, Dr. Rocchio will not offer an opinion regarding any specific victim, and she has not evaluated any victims in this case. (Cf Def. Mot. 3 at 16 (citing United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1999), in which the expert opined that the victims were in fact abused based "largely on crediting the girls' account," thereby "vouching for their truthfulness"). + +Instead, the Government will seek to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony as background in this case. "Daubert instructs that vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence are the central tools available to an adversary who wishes to debunk an expert's testimony." Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE), Dkt. No. 335 at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595). Thus, to the extent the defendant wishes to cast doubt on the applicability of Dr. Rocchio's background testimony, she is free to do so through cross-examination or by offering contrary evidence. As discussed above, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is relevant to helping the jury understand key issues in the case, like why the Minor Victims may have returned to the defendant and Epstein without being physically forced to do so, and why they delayed disclosure. + +t \* t + +The parties agree that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Her opinions are well within the range of reasonable expert opinions, and so are sufficiently reliable to go to the jury. And they will aid the jury in evaluating other testimony in this case. That is enough for the Court to admit Dr. Rocchio's testimony. + +### II. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11, 2021 Letter is Admissible + +On October 11, 2021, the Government nonlied the defense of certain evidence it may offer at trial. In particular, the letter addressed and the expected testimony of one potential witness. (See October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A). As the Government explained in its letter to the defense, the evidence constitutes direct evidence of the charged offenses, but the Government provided notice under Rule 404(b) in the alternative. That same day, the Government provided the defense with , along with copies of all other marked Government + +exhibits, all of which were in the Government's discovery productions. The Government also provided the defense with Jencks Act materials for all trial witnesses that same day, including detailed notes and reports of the Government's interviews of the witness referenced in the letter. + +The defendant now moves to exclude this evidence, arguing, among other things, that the Government has not provided sufficient notice of the evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion lacks merit, and should be denied. The Government has provided detailed notice, well in advance of trial. This evidence is admissible on multiple grounds, and the jury should be permitted to consider it. + +## A. Applicable Law + +Relevant evidence is "not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime." United States v. 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, "[go be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency." Id.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are "not considered other crimes evidence under" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(6), if (a) they "arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense," (b) they are "inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense," or (c) they are "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is "appropriately treated as part of the very act charged, or, at least, proof of that act." Quinones, 511 F.3d at 309 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). + +Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows for the admission of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving criminal propensity, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit "has long adopted an `inclusionary' approach to the admission of uncharged crime evidence, under which evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity." United States v. Paulin, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant claims her conduct has an innocent explanation, the admission of such evidence of other acts is particularly appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged."). Where evidence is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b), it may only be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is "substantially outweighed" by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 1182; see Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +Until December 1, 2020, the Government was required to provide "reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2)(A) (2011). On December 1, 2020, the rule was amended (the "2020 Amendments") to require the Government to also "articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(B) (2020). The 2020 Amendments also removed language pennitting notice of the "general nature" of the evidence. + +These amendments are "relatively modest." , "2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b)," 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5242.1 (2d ed.). They simply require the prosecutor to "articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) Advisory Committee note). The other act evidence should also be "described with helpful specificity." Id. + +# B. Discussion + +To be clear, in the Government's view, the exhibits and testimony discussed in the Government's October 11, 2021 letter are direct evidence of the offenses charged, such that they do not need to be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b). And although notice was not required under Rule 404(b), the Government has provided the defense with notice substantially in advance of trial. The Court should admit this evidence, regardless of whether Rule 404(b) applies. + +## 1. The Evidence is Admissible As Direct Evidence, or in the Alternative, Under Rule 404(b) + +The Government's October 11 letter identified seven exhibits and one witness whose statements are admissible as direct evidence, or in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See October II, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at I). More specifically, the letter explained that the Government may offer at trial marked as Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413. In addition, the Government notified the defense that it may call as a witness an individual ("Employee-1") who worked for Jeffrey Epstein immediately + +following the charged conduct. Both categories of evidence are admissible as direct evidence of the charged conduct, or in the alternative under Rule 404(b). + +**a. Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413** + +Turning first to the exhibits, the Government has notified the defense that it intends to offer + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] (October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at 1). + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Accordingly, these exhibits are probative of the issues the jury will be asked to resolve at trial and should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged crimes.9 In the alternative, this evidence is probative of the defendant's motive, intent, plan, and knowledge, and should be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2). [REDACTED] + +--- + +8 The remaining exhibits identified in the Government's October 11, 2021 letter are necessary to identify the parties to the emails. + +9 This evidence would also be admissible to rebut defense arguments concerning similar topics, and in cross-examination of the defendant. + +[REDACTED] only highlights that this evidence does “not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged,” which weighs in favor of admitting these exhibits under Rule 404(b)(2). *United States v. Roldan-Zapata*, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). + +**b. Testimony of Employee-1** + +Employee-1 worked as a personal assistant for Epstein for approximately [REDACTED]. (October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at 1). During that time, Employee-1 reported directly to another employee (“Employee-2”), who worked for Epstein during the timeframe of the charged conspiracy, and who is referenced in the Second Superseding Indictment (the Indictment”). (ECF No. 187, ¶¶ 6, 7(b)). The Government expects that Employee-1 will testify about Employee-1’s observations of the close relationship between the defendant and Epstein. Indeed, Employee-1 will testify that Employee-1 worked out of the defendant’s townhouse in Manhattan during the weeks that Employee-1 worked in New York City. The Government also expects Employee-1 to testify about her observations at Epstein’s properties, including observations of minor girls at the properties, as well as her knowledge of Epstein’s practice to arrange multiple sexualized massages per day. In addition, although Employee-1’s employment post-dates the defendant’s conduct with the victims in this case, Employee-1 became familiar with certain items in Epstein’s residences during her tenure there, and thus Employee-1 will authenticate certain exhibits relating to the Minor Victims. Finally, the Government expects + +--- + +[REDACTED] + +Employee-1 to testify that in or about October 2005, Epstein and her supervisor directed her to gather the computers and contact books in the house and hand them over to a specified individual. + +Employee-I's testimony is admissible for multiple permissible purposes. Her testimony shows the relationship between Epstein and the defendant shortly after the end of the conspiracy period, including the defendant's role in Epstein's affairs. Similarly, it provides background information about the operation of Epstein's homes and lifestyle. Employee-I's testimony will also show the defendant and Epstein's plan and preparation, because it will describe the process and frequency of obtaining masseuses, including the fact that the masseuses were often underage girls, and that some of the massages developed into sexual abuse. And Employee-1 's testimony tends to show the defendant's knowledge, because it describes the visibility of Epstein's abuse to individuals at his properties. Finally, Employee-l's testimony will authenticate exhibits that are direct evidence of the charged crimes. Accordingly, Employee- 1 's testimony is direct evidence of the crimes charged. Moreover, this evidence is admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(6), for substantially the same reasons. + +# 2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations + +Even if Rule 404(b) applies here, the Government's October 11, 2021 letter—and the corresponding Jencks Act disclosures—have satisfied any notice obligations that apply here. + +The defense claims that the Government's October 11, 2021 notice was inadequate in light of the 2020 amendments to Rule 404(b). The Government provided the defense with a letter, and corresponding disclosures, seven weeks before trial. In fact, the defense has had the seven exhibits for much longer, since they were part of the Government's Rule 16 discovery productions. The defense now also has this briefing, five weeks before trial. Thus, any alleged gap in the + +Government's notice is remediated by this brief. This is ample notice of the possible Rule 404(b) evidence in this case. Indeed, the Rule only requires that the defense receive notice "before trial," or even "during trial... for good cause." Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3XC). + +The defense claims, without supporting authority, that Rule 404(b) requires heightened notice that cannot be satisfied here without, essentially, a script of all of the proposed testimony at trial accompanied by detailed expositions of the Government's case-in-chief. (Def. Mot. 2 at 4- 5). But the Government has provided the defense with marked exhibits and comprehensive Jencks Act materials of the single witness subject to this motion (approximately 400 pages) "unusually early" (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353), along with a letter specifically highlighting the proffered evidence at trial. That is all that is required, and the defendant cannot leverage the notice requirements of Rule 404(b) to preclude this evidence at trial. Indeed, the "Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds." Hart v. BHH. LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4804 (WHP), 2019 WL 1494027, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) (citing Rodriguez v. Vill. Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the only judge in this District to consider a similar situation concluded that the Government's Rule 404(b) notice was sufficient in combination with the Government's motion papers. See United States v. No. 19 Cr. 867 (PKC), 2021 WL 1851996, at n n.2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021). + +The defense vaguely asserts that it cannot perform an independent investigation into the Rule 404(b) evidence due to the inadequacy of the Government's notice. (Def. Mot. 2 at 5-6). That conclusory assertion cannot support a motion to preclude the jury from hearing evidence of the defendant's guilt. The defense has not identified any specific way that they have been hampered + +in their ability to investigate or move in litnine. The Government's Rule 404(b) notice—and this brief—have been provided far in advance of trial. In many cases, the Government gives Rule 404(b) notice two weeks before trial, and here the Government's notice concerns a small number of exhibits and only one witness. See, e.g., United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("The Government has indicated that it will make the required disclosure two weeks prior to trial, a practice that typically comports with Rule 404(b)."); United States v. Fennel!, 496 F. Supp. 2d 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("The government has in good faith noted its obligations under Rule 404(b), and indicated that it intends to provide notice of the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce two weeks before the beginning of trial. There is therefore no need to issue the order Defendant seeks."). The Government has identified the specific evidence it will seek to admit not just the types of evidence—and has explained the connection between that evidence and nonpropensity purposes for which it will be offered. That is all Rule 404(b) requires. + +## III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible + +The defendant has moved to exclude evidence related to Minor Victim-3. This is nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Minor Victim-3. And in any event, her testimony would easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 404(b). + +# A. Background + +Both the first and second superseding indictments described the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3. As set forth in the Indictment, the defendant "groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which [the defendant] knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18." (Indictment 1 9(c)). The defendant "introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein," during which the defendant "encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages." (Id.) Minor Victim-3 provided those massages, during which Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. (Id.) Two overt acts in those Indictments concerned the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3 in London. (Id. ¶9 13(d), 19(d)). + +The defendant moved to strike the portions of the S I Indictment involving Minor Victim-3, arguing that the events involving Minor Victim-3 were unrelated to the conspiracies charged in Count One and Count Three. (See generally Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 146). In response, the Government explained that the defendant and Epstein's "interactions with Minor Victim-3 were part of a broader scheme and agreement to entice and transport minor victims with the intent to commit illegal sex acts," and in any event, admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. (Gov't Opp. at 157-169, Dkt. No. 204). The Government expects Minor Victim-3 to testify, in substance and in part, that she met the defendant when she was . The defendant befriended Minor Victim-3 by, among other things, discussing Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The Court denied the defendant's prior motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3 (Op. & Order at 33, Dkt. No. 207), explaining that it was premature to strike any language from the Indictment, because Minor Victim-3's allegations "may reflect conduct + +undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind." (id. at 26-27). + +### B. Applicable Law + +It is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Those are the very acts the Government seeks to prove at trial. See United States v. Dugue, 763 F. App'x 93, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (la act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged." (alterations and citation omitted)); Quinones, 511 F.3d at 308 ("While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales ... for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime." (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)). + +As discussed above, see supra Section II, direct evidence is "not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime." 110 F.3d at 942, see id. at 942 (rejecting a claim that the evidence fell under Rule 404(b)). It also includes actions or statements that (a) "arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense," (b) are "inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense," or (c) are "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44. + +In addition, in a conspiracy case, "the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, "where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is ... direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment." United States v. Townsend, No. Si 06 Cr. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992)); United Slates v. Van Putten, No. 04 Cr. 803 (PKL), 2005 WL 612723, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2005) (similar). + +As also discussed in Section II, supra, evidence of "other acts" is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it is (1) advanced for a proper purpose, such as to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident"; (2) relevant to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial; and (3) has probative value which is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect. See Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182. If requested, such evidence must be admitted with limiting instructions to the jury. See United States v. 342 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit "ha[s] adopted an inclusionary approach to evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence, which allows evidence to be received at trial for any purpose other than to attempt to demonstrate the defendant's criminal propensity." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). + +# C. Discussion + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is direct evidence of the charged criminal conduct specifically, the conspiracies in Counts One and Three of the Indictment. + +The Government expects that Minor Victim-3's testimony, which concerns a period of time overlapping with or in close proximity to other Minor Victims' experiences with the defendant and Epstein and concerns teenagers of similar ages, will significantly overlap with the testimony of those other Minor Victims. Put simply, Minor Victim-3's account is corroborative of the accounts of the other Minor Victims. It is also direct evidence of the operation of the conspiracy that is probative of the defendant's intent at the time of the offense. See Op. & Order at 10, Dkt. No. 106 ("[I]t is anticipated that the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant's alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts."); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining in an interstate stalking case that evidence of earlier abuse that was "similar in nature and severity" demonstrated a "pattern of activity that was probative of [the defendant's] intent"). + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is also direct evidence of the offense because it concerns acts taken by the defendant in furtherance of the conspiracies. In particular, + +Indeed, at a minimum, the defense motion should be denied because the Government's proffered evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 contained in the Indictment. (Indictment ¶¶ 13(d), I 9(d)). Evidence proving overt acts in the Indictment is direct evidence of the offense, and not other-acts evidence. See United States v. James, 520 F. App'x 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) ("James's possession of five pounds of marijuana on December 22, 2005, and December 2, 2010, were charged as overt acts in the indictment. Accordingly, evidence of James's possession of marijuana on these occasions was not subject to the structures of Rule 404(b)."). The Court previously denied the defense's motion to strike the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 as surplusage, explaining that it may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as + +Maxwell's state of mind." (Op. & Order at 26-27, Dkt. No. 207 ("Courts in this district generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how specific allegations relate to the overall charges.")). Having concluded that it should delay striking these overt acts until after presentation of the Government's evidence, the Court should not now effectively reverse its decision by precluding that very evidence. If the Government's proof at trial does not establish the relevance of Minor Victim-3's testimony, if anything, the proper course is for the defense to move to strike the relevant overt acts and Minor Victim-3's testimony at that time. + +Even if evidence of Minor Victim-3 were uncharged criminal activity, it would still be necessary to understand the other aspects of the charged conspiracies. Minor Victim-3 experienced the pattern of abuse in close temporal proximity to the other Minor Victims: the conduct involving Minor Victim-1 spans 1994 to 1997, the conduct involving Minor Victim-3 spans 1994 to 1995, and the conduct involving Minor Victim-2 occurred in 1996. The defendant's acts toward Minor Victim-3 show (1) the defendant's relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages, (2) the defendant's knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims, and (3) her willingness to transport minors to further their abuse. This evidence is therefore direct proof of the defendant's state of mind and agreement to participate in a conspiracy with Epstein. Moreover, her relationship with Minor Victim-3 was "part of [her] continued effort" to commit the offenses charged in Counts One and Three. Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see United States v. Romero-Padilla, 583 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) ("We reject Romero-Padilla's contention that evidence of his + +previous plans with Ferro to import narcotics . .. was evidence of 'other crimes' . . . . [lit corroborated the charge that Ferro and Romero-Padilla were partners during the charged conspiracy and established that Romero-Padilla's participation in the charged conspiracy was at least in part motivated by his desire to acquire [certain] funds ...")." + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is also necessary to complete the story of the offense conduct in light of expected defenses at trial. To the extent that the defense argues, for instance, that the defendant played no role in obtaining girls to massage Epstein or was unaware that Epstein's + +I I The cases the defendant cites (Def. Mot. 4 at 8-9) conclude that the admission of evidence about distinct criminal incidents are not direct evidence of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (evidence of prior narcotics arrest and firearms conviction in narcotics and firearms case "could be . . . connected to the charged conspiracy, but the Government has not provided enough detail"); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at •2 (stating that the Government did not show that uncharged firearm and drug transactions involving the same confidential informant outside the time period of the charged conspiracy, described "rather generically" as a sale of firearms and "narcotics transactions," are "part and parcel of the charged conduct or sufficiently similar to them); United States v. Mahafiji, 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that, although the facts between two fraud schemes were "quite similar," the other acts were "a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment"), vacated in part on other grounds 285 F. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("[T]he transactions took place as early as three years prior to the charged conspiracy and appear to involve a series of distinct cash for gold transactions . . . ."). That is not the case here, where the abuse of Minor Victim-3 occurred during the charged conspiracy period, overlaps temporally with the testimony of other Minor Victims, whose admissibility the defendant does not contest, and is direct proof of the operation of the conspiracy. But in any event, in each case, the Court admitted at least some evidence under Rule 404(b). See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*5-6 (some evidence admissible under Rule 404(6), some evidence "far too vague" for the Court to resolve, evidence of later marijuana possession irrelevant); Mahaffr, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(6)); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(6)). + +massages were sexualized, evidence that she did so in the case of Minor Victim-3—at roughly the same time as Epstein was abusing Minor Victim-I and Minor Victim-2—is "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) a argued at trial that Jane Doe was his 'girlfriend' and that he had no control over her prostitution activities. Evidence that was in the prostitution business and controlled prostitutes other than Jane Doe was therefore 'necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.'"). + +The defense focuses on allegations involving Minor Victim-3 in isolation. In its attempt to confuse the issues, the defense argues that the defendant's conduct with Minor Victim-3 was lawful in the United Kingdom, and that Minor Victim-3 was an adult when she ultimately traveled to the United States and was abused by Epstein. The defense states that "[a]s to [Minor Victim-3], the completed endeavor—i.e., her alleged sex acts with Epstein—was not a substantive criminal offense." (Def. Mot. 4 at 8 (emphasis in original)). The defense then claims—without any basis that the allegations relating to Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment are "of no consequence," because "the government evidently charged the conduct under the mistaken belief that [Minor Victim-3] was a minor when she engaged in sex acts with Epstein." (Id. at 9-10). According to the defense, the government "did not know that [Minor Victim-3] was above the [age] of consent in the U.K. The government presented [Minor Victim-3]'s allegations to the grand jury incorrectly assuming that she was a minor and that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and [Minor Victim-3] were illegal." (Id. at 1-2) + +Not so. The defendant's argument entirely misunderstands the charges in the Indictment and the jury's task at trial. The defendant is charged with conspiring to transport and entice minors for the purpose of sexual abuse. The question at trial will be whether the defendant took steps to provide Jeffrey Epstein with access to girls under the age of 18, knowing that Epstein intended to have sexual contact with those girls. The defendant's acts involving Minor Victim-3 were part of that scheme and are highly relevant to demonstrating the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant's role in the scheme. That is all that is required for evidence relating to the defendant's exploitation of Minor Victim-3 to be direct evidence of the charged offenses. The defendant is not charged with an offense under United Kingdom law, and the age of consent in the United Kingdom is irrelevant. The defendant is also not charged with any substantive offenses with respect to Minor Victim-3, and thus it makes no difference whether the defendant could have, attempted to, or did successfully transport Minor Victim-3 in violation of those statutes." + +In any event, this evidence is all admissible under Rule 404(b).13 Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to recruit and encourage Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts with Epstein in the context of massages establishes that the defendant knew of Epstein's attraction to minor girls + +12Indeed, there is no risk at trial that the jury will convict the defendant based on the testimony of Minor Victim-3 alone. As the Government has made clear, the jury may not convict the defendant of the conspiracy offense solely based on Minor Victim-3 due to the statute of limitations. (Gov't Opp. at 157-58, 163, Dkt. No. 204). The jury should be appropriately instructed at the conclusion of the trial. + +13To the extent this evidence is properly admissible under Rule 404(6) rather than as direct evidence, the Government's detailed memorandum in opposition to the defense pretrial motions, which described theories of 404(b) admissibility (Gov't Opp. at 165-69, Dkt. No. 204), and this memorandum, filed five weeks before trial, is more than sufficient notice for the defense. + +and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact with minor girls. Minor Victim-3's testimony shows the defendant's intent, through her acts befriending Minor Victim-3, encouraging Minor Victim-3 to provide Epstein massages, and asking Minor Victim-3 to find other girls. And it shows the defendant's specific modus operandi of the conspiracies in the Indictment. For these and the other reasons described above, Minor Victim-3's testimony easily satisfies Rule 404(b)'s requirements. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g., United States v. =, 708 F. App'x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) ("As to the testimony concerning `grooming' of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under Rule 404(b), because it was probative of MI knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys' trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under Rule 403."); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant's "e-mail responses to the Craigslist advertisements" for erotic services because the e-mails "were relevant to his knowledge and intent, because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual conduct"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting "evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the intemet in the period leading up to the charged conduct" under Rule 404(b) + +because evidence was "pertinent to whether he used the internet in an attempt to engage in sexual conduct with" putative victim). + +The defense argues that this testimony will be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. According to the defense, if Minor Victim-3 testifies that she had sex with a "much older man when she was 17 years old" or that she was sexually abused, the jury will assume that Epstein engaged in illegal conduct, which will somehow prejudice the defendant. (Def. Mot. 4 at 13). The Court should not assume that the jury will speculate about principles of United Kingdom law and apply them to this case. The Court will properly instruct the jury on the elements of the offenses charged in the Indictment and the evidence that the jury can—and cannot consider. Those instructions will not ask the jury to consider or pass upon any aspect of United Kingdom law, which will not be in evidence at trial. And in any event, as discussed in the Government's opposition to the defendant's pretrial motion to strike references to Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experiences with the defendant and Epstein are no more inflammatory or upsetting than those of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. The risk of unfair prejudice is therefore minimal. + +In the alternative, the defense seeks three rulings: (1) precluding the Government from referring to Minor Victim-3 as a "minor," (2) precluding the Government and Minor Victim-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, and (3) giving a limiting instruction about United Kingdom law. The defense's requested rulings are not grounded in law or reason. + +First, the defense claims that Minor Victim-3 should not be referred to as a "minor" because she was above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions at the times she had sexual contact with Epstein. When Minor Victim-3 began having sexual contact with Epstein, she was 17. The issue at trial will be the defendant's knowledge of Epstein's preference for girls under the age of IS. Under federal law, there is a term for individuals under the age of 18: minors. There is nothing inappropriate about using that term at trial. + +Similarly, the phrase "sexual abuse" is accurate, and the Government should be permitted to use it. Minor Victim-3 is expected to testify about her experiences with the defendant and Epstein, including that she was sexually abused by Epstein numerous times. Regardless of whether she uses the term "sexual abuse," her testimony will capture her experience—that she was exploited sexually. And it is fair for the Government to argue that those acts were sexual abuse. The defense argues that the phrase "sexual abuse" is misleading because it suggests to the jury that Epstein engaged in "criminal sexual activity" with Minor Victim-3. (Def. Mot. 4 at 14-15). To justify that proposition, the defense cites a single Supreme Court case in which ( I) the parties were engaged in the task of statutory interpretation, not argument in a jury address or description of a victim's lived experience, and (2) the Court rejected that proposed definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" as "flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in th[at] very dictionary." Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017). Again, the Government is confident that the Court will properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crimes in the Indictment. + +Finally, there is no basis for an instruction about United Kingdom law. The defense has demonstrated no unfair prejudice that might warrant a limiting instruction, and the defense's proposed instructions would only confuse the jury. The jury will be instructed to consider only + +the elements of the crimes the Court provides them, so any assumptions the jury might make about United Kingdom law are irrelevant.14 See United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir. 1996) (appropriate to reject defense request for an instruction if it does not "represent[] a theory of the defense with a basis in the record that would lead to acquittal"). And the proposed jury instruction that the sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 "cannot be considered 'illegal' or 'criminal' or 'unlawful' for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment" (Def. Mot. 4 at 15), is wrong on the law. The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case. It is not irrelevant: it is direct evidence of the crimes charged, and it should be put before the jury. + +# IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial + +On October 11, the Government provided the defense with comprehensive Jencks Act material for trial witnesses and its exhibits, along with a letter telling the defense, consistent with the Court's order, the identities of the individuals the Government intends to argue are coconspirators at trial. The defense nonetheless asks the Court to enter an order precluding the Government from introducing any co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence + +&quot; In the event the Court instructs the jury on the age of consent in the United Kingdom, the Government requests that the Court also instruct the jury that the United Kingdom's age of consent is irrelevant and they should not consider it. + +802(dX2)(E) because it claims the Government failed to comply with the Court's September 3, 2021 Order. (Del. Mot. 1 at I). The defense misreads this Court's September 3, 2021 Order to require the Government to do something unprecedented: identify and itemize for the defense each and every co-conspirator statement it plans to use at trial, seven weeks in advance of trial. Then, complaining that the Government has not complied with the defense's peculiar reading, the defense seeks an extraordinary remedy: precluding the Government from offering any coconspirator statements at trial. Each step of this analysis is erroneous, and the Court should deny the motion. + +## A. Background + +The defendant first sought to compel the Government to identify the co-conspirator statements it plans to use at trial in its initial round of pretrial motions. There, the defendant argued that the Second Circuit's practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements at trial would prejudice her because "any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility." (Mem. of Law at 13, Dkt. No. 148). She therefore asked the Court to order a "proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible." (Id. at 13-14). + +In response, the Government observed that the practice of conditional admission of coconspirator statements is the law of the Circuit, notwithstanding the defense's preference to the contrary. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Government also explained that "the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act." (Id.). See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court's order directing the Government to "produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a defendant" under Fed. R. Evid. 801). Accordingly, the Government argued that "the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" in its Jencks Act production. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). + +The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial disclosure of non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements. (Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207). The Court also explained that the "Mo-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis," and to the extent that "can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to allow Maxwell to raise any objections." (Id. at 30-31). + +The defendant's second bite at the apple came in the parties' joint scheduling letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 291). There, the defense requested that the Government "identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or documentary evidence) at the same time as it discloses []3500 material," so it could "litigate their admissibility before trial." (Id. at 11-12). The Government responded that it is "entirely appropriate for defense counsel to receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits," because any coconspirator statements will be contained therein. (Id. at 5). The Government also noted that the defendant cited no cases "directing separate notice of coconspirator statements that the Government may introduce at trial." (Id.) + +On June 2, 2021, the Cowl adopted the "Government's proposal" and set a deadline of October 11, 2021, for the "disclosure ofJencks Act and Giglio material, Rule 404(6) evidence and + +notice, co-conspirator statements, and Government witness list," as well as the "Defendant's proposal" that the Government disclose its proposed exhibit list that same day. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). This order did not expressly require the Government to specifically identify coconspirator statements within its other productions. + +In the defendant's second round of pretrial motions, she asked the Court to order the Government to disclose a series of information about the Indictment. That list contained a renewed request for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators, but it did not contain a new request for the Government to separately identify co-conspirator statements within its discovery production. (Mem. of Law at 23-24, Dkt. No. 293). On August 13, 2021, the Court denied the defense's motion, but in a footnote, explained that it "presume[d] the Government intends to disclose" the "identi[ties of] the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment," since the Government had not previously opposed that request. (Op. & Order, Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1). The order said nothing about identifying coconspirator's statements. (Id.). + +The Government filed a letter opposing the request for the Government to "identify [the defendant]'s unnamed co-conspirators." (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 320). The defendant filed a new letter in response, raising "two issues." (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 331). First, the defendant sought the identities of co-conspirators. (Id. at 1-2). Second, the defendant took a third bite at the apple, once again seeking "disclosure of the purported co-conspirator statements [the Government] intends to offer at trial." (Id. at 3). The defendant also argued that the Court's scheduling order had already required the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements. (Id. at 3-4). + +On September 3, 2021, the Court ordered the Government to "disclose to the Defendant the identities of all unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment to whom it will refer at trial." (Order at I, Dkt. No. 335). The Court further ordered the Government to "disclose all coconspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October II, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order." (Id. at 2). + +Accordingly, on October 11, 2021, the Government produced its exhibit list and Jencks Act material to the defendant. The Jencks Act materials and exhibits contained the only coconspirator statements in the Government's possession that will be offered at trial. It also disclosed the identities of the individuals to whom it may refer at trial as co-conspirators and informed the defendant that it "has produced all co-conspirator statements which it intends to offer at trial . in the Government's production [that day] or in its previous productions." (Del. Mot. 1 Ex. 1 at I). The Government further noted that "[t]o the extent the Government learns of additional coconspirator statements as it continues to prepare for trial, it will produce those statements in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material." (Id.). + +# B. Discussion + +The Government has complied with its pre-trial disclosure obligations, consistent with the Court's orders and on a schedule with deadlines well in advance of trial. As of October 11, the Government produced all co-conspirator statements in its possession that it intends to offer at trial. To the extent that the Government learns of additional co-conspirator statements as it prepares for trial—such as in a session preparing a witness for trial—it will produce those statements as part of its ongoing Jencks Act obligations. + +The defense errs when it suggests that the Court ordered the Government to specifically itemize any co-conspirator statements contained in its disclosures. When the Court first set a disclosure schedule for Jencks Act material, it adopted the "Government's proposal," which opposed any requirement that the Government isolate co-conspirator statements from other witness statements. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). When the Court ordered the Government to produce the identities of co-conspirators, it again ordered the Government to "disclose" all co-conspirator statements, citing the Court's earlier order. (Order at 2, Dkt. No. 335). Neither order expressly directed the Government to produce a set of co-conspirator statements it would offer at trial separately from the other evidence it would offer at trial. + +A requirement to "disclose statements" is not a requirement to isolate statements. For one, the Court denied the defense request for effectively that relief in the first round of pretrial motions. (Op. & Order at 30-31, Dkt. No. 207). For another, in the defense's many rounds of briefing on this issue, it has cited no case—not from this District, nor any other—in which a Court ordered the Government to segregate and itemize co-conspirator statements from other statements for the convenience of the defense. The Government is aware of no such case—likely because such an order would be in considerable tension with Circuit precedent, see In re U.S., 834 F.2d at 286. For a third, the guiding principle of the defense's justification for its request is to facilitate litigation of those statements' admissibility pre-trial. But the law of the Second Circuit is that such statements can be conditionally admitted during the trial, and their admissibility litigated thereafter. See, e.g., United States v. . 676 F.3d 260, 273 n.8 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)); Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207. As much + +as the defense might like the Government to create such an index, that is simply not how the litigation of co-conspirator statements is handled. And it is not what the Court's order, requiring "disclos[ur]e" of co-conspirator statements, required. + +The Government's obligation is to make disclosures. The Government is not obligated to serve as members of the defense team, reviewing Jencks Act materials for the defense and itemizing and indexing disclosures for them. The Government is no more obligated to itemize Jencks Act materials containing co-conspirator statements than it is obligated to exhaustively detail for the defense the basis for offering any other type of witness statement contained in the Jencks Act material it has produced. Such an obligation would extremely burdensome and is both without precedent and entirely unnecessary. The defense team has ample resources to review the Government's disclosures and file any motions they wish to make regarding the admission of certain testimony. And there is ample time before trial for the defense to do so, and no basis in the record to believe the defense will be unable to raise these issues and seek a ruling before trial. + +The defense argues that the Court did order the Government to itemize co-conspirator statements contained in its Jencks Act production. In support, however, the defense cites to orders relating to the disclosure of the identities of co-conspirators. (Compare Def. Mot. I at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1) and Def. Mot. 1 at 3 (citing Dkt. No. 335 at 3) (stating that the Court rejected the defendant's arguments "because of 'the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of friar (emphasis in Def. Mot. 1)), with Op. & Order at 12 n. I, Dkt. No. 317 ("Additionally, Maxwell includes in her motion for a bill of particulars a request to require the government to identify the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies + +charged in the S2 indictment."), and Order at 3, Dkt. No. 335 (following the above sentence with "In light of the interests discussed above ... the Court will require the Government to disclose the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators . ."). + +The defense also argues that failure to provide an index of co-conspirator statements permits "the presentation of false testimony" and is "an invitation to manufacture evidence," because a witness will offer a co-conspirator statement for the first time. (Def. Mot. 1 at 4). This argument is nonsensical and offensive. It is deeply unfortunate that defense counsel would so casually resort to baseless allegations that the Government would manufacture evidence and present false testimony at trial. And in any event, the Government produced to the defense Jencks Act material containing co-conspirator statements in its possession on October 11 and will continue to make Jencks Act productions as it prepares for trial. To the extent the defense is concerned that a witness will say something on the stand for the first time, the Government cannot disclose that in advance because no lawyer can know a witness's verbatim answer in advance. But were that to occur, the defense would be well positioned to cross-examine the witness.15 + +1S The defendant's motion also makes the puzzling argument that co-conspirator statements are problematic in this case because the defense is limited in its ability to call co-conspirators to testify as defense witnesses. (Def. Mot. I at 4). That is true in essentially every criminal case, as the Court has previously noted. (See Op. & Order at 17-18, Dkt. No. 207 ("There are also serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf.")). In any event, to the extent the defense takes issue with the rule that co-conspirator statements can be admitted without requiring the declarant to testify, that complaint is properly directed to the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence. + +Even if the Government has misread the Court's order, the defense's claims of prejudice are exaggerated. Although the defense complains that the Government seized "multiple electronic devices" containing "hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades" (Del. Mot. 1 at 3), any statements contained in emails or other documents that the Government plans to use at trial have been marked as Government exhibits and produced to the defense. The defense need look no further than the Government's exhibit list to discover what documents will be offered at trial. Similarly, although the defense complains of "document dumps" (id. at 2) and the need to review "thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material" (id. at 7), any witness testimony containing co-conspirator statements is contained in the Government's Jencks Act production and specifically, the Government's production of material for testifying witnesses. Although the Government produced as a courtesy prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, by definition the Government does not plan to call those individuals at trial. And the Government has informed the defense of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom it may refer at trial, so the defense knows exactly which declarants' statements are possibly subject to the co-conspirator exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2XE).16 + +Finally, and in any event, suppression is not a proper remedy. The defense relies principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order + +16 To be clear, the defendant's motion concerns the admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The majority of the statements made by co-conspirators that will be offered at trial have other bases for admissibility. For example, witnesses will testify regarding promises, offers, instructions, and directions they received from Epstein. Those statements are not factual assertions subject to hearsay rules. Rather, they are offered for the effect on the listener, among other reasons. + +excluding the testimony of a defense witness as a sanction for counsel's (i) noncompliance with a discovery rule that required notice of intention to call the witness, and (ii) misleading the court concerning his knowledge of the witness's whereabouts. The Supreme Court found the discovery violation was "both willful and blatant." Id. at 416. Taylor does not support the defense's position. The defense, citing Taylor, accuses the Government of willfully violating the Court's September 3, 2021 Order. (See Def. Mot. 1 at 6-7; see id. at 3 (accusing the Government of "attempting to overstuff an already full sandbag")). The Government did no such thing. The Government has simply read the word "disclose" to mean "disclose," consistent with the uniform practice in this District. The defense's accusations are baseless and offensive. + +The defense has all of the co-conspirator statements the Government plans to use at trial. They have these records "unusually early"—seven weeks before trial. (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353). The defense also knows the identities of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom the Government may refer at trial, a highly unusual circumstance that makes the defense's task even easier. And they are free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial. The Government has complied with its obligations, and the defense is fully equipped to prepare for trial. The Court should deny the motion. + +# V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Vicdm-4's Identification of the Defendant + +The defendant claims that Minor Victim-4's identification of her was unduly suggestive and should be suppressed. (Def. Mot. 9). That argument finds support in neither fact nor law. Minor Victim-4 knew the defendant personally, and she has consistently described the defendant for decades. The identification was not suggestive, and the motion should be denied. + +## A. Background + +As set forth in Counts Five and Six of the Indictment, Minor Victim-4 was trafficked by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein from approximately 2001 to 2004. (Indictment ¶¶ 22-27). During that time, Minor Victim-4 personally interacted with the defendant—for instance, the defendant paid Minor Victim-4 following Minor Victim-4's sexual encounters with Epstein. (Id. 25(a)). + +In 2007, Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In that interview, she described meeting "an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent"—a description that is consistent with the defendant's appearance—at her first meeting with Epstein. In Minor Victim-4 was deposed, during which she explained that she sometimes called the house to get work, and she would talk to an employee or "Maxwell." Later in the deposition, she added that the same employee or "Maxwell" would contact her when Epstein wanted her to come. + +This Office first interviewed Minor Victim-4 in July 2020. During that meeting, Minor Victim-4 spoke about her many interactions with the defendant. She did so again at the Government's meetings with her in August 2020, and at multiple meetings in January 2021. + +The Government met Minor Victim-4 again in June 2021 for several meetings. During one of those meetings, the Government showed Minor Victim-4 a photo book containing 20 photos. The Government asked Minor Victim-4 to review each photograph in the book and to indicate whether she recognized anyone in the book. The Government explained that just because someone is in the book, it does not mean that Minor Victim-4 knowns that person or that the person is in trouble. The Government instructed Minor Victim-4 just to let the Government know if she recognized anyone. + +Minor Victim-4 identified photaas possibly depicting the defendant, but indicated that she was not sure. When she reached photo ■ **Minor Victim-4 said it depicted the defendant. After completing her review of the book, Minor Victim-4 returned to compare photos and she confirmed that she believed photo** ■was **a photo of the defendant, and she was not sum whether she knew the person in photc..** + +### **B. Applicable Law** + +**As a general matter, the Constitution "protects a defendant against a conviction based on evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy of credit." v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 237 (2012). Eyewitness identifications should therefore be excluded only where "improper police conduct" occurred that was "so unnecessarily suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. at 238-39;** see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 112-14 (1977): v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). + +Federal courts follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. M, 565 U.S. at 238-40; Brisco v. Ercole, 565 F.3d 80, 88 (2d Cir. 2009). First, the defendant must show that the identification was "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [the defendant] was denied due process of law." United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 213 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 134 (2d Cir. 2001). This is a high threshold to meet, as the defendant must show that, under the totality of the circumstances, there is "a very substantial + +likelihood of irreparable misidentification." United States v. Maldonado-IM, 922 F.2d 934, 973 (2d Cir. 1990). If the defendant cannot make such a showing, "the trial identification testimony is generally admissible without further inquiry into the reliability of the pretrial identification. In that circumstance, any question as to the reliability of the witness's identifications goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility." Id. + +Second, an unduly suggestive identification procedure does not alone require suppression of the identification evidence. See Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 110-14. Instead, the court must then determine whether the identification evidence is nevertheless "independently reliable" based on the totality of the circumstances. Brisco, 565 F.3d at 89; United States v. . 923 F.2d 934, 950 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[E]ven a suggestive out-of-court identification will be admissible if, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, it possesses sufficient indicia of reliability."). Among the factors to be considered are: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). No single factor is dispositive. See Kelly, 257 F.3d at 135. + +#### C. Discussion + +There was nothing unduly suggestive about the identification procedure used here. Accordingly, there is no basis to suppress Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant, and Minor Victim-4 should be permitted to identify the defendant at trial." + +First, the identification procedure was not suggestive because it was merely a "confirmatory identification" of a person Minor Victim-4 had known and identified by name over the years. There is no "improper police conduct" creating a "substantial likelihood of identification" by showing a person in that position even a single photograph, much less a photo array or photo book. See, e.g., United States v. Hardy, No. 10 Cr. 1123 (JSR), 2011 WL 7782582 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011) ("Displaying a confirmatory photograph of a person the witness has indicated that he already knows is perfectly acceptable."); Gilbert v. Supt of Corr. Fac., No. 03 Civ. 3866 (LBS), 2004 WL 287683, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2004) (upholding confirmatory identification following street canvass on the grounds that 'police suggestiveness does not require suppression of an identification if the witness was not thereby influenced, as, for example, when the witness's identification was already positive." (quoting Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 41-42 (2d Cir. 1986))); see also, e.g., Franco v. Lee, No. 12 Civ. 1210 (SJF), 2013 WL 704655, at \*10 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) ("In cases in which the defendant's identity is not in issue, or those in which the protagonists are known to one another, suggestiveness is not a concern + +&quot; Even if the Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant were suppressed, that would not preclude Minor Victim-4 from testifying about her abuse and the name and physical description of the person involved. + +and the identification is merely confirmatory." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stallings v. M, No. 04 Civ. 4714 (RLM), 2006 WL 842380, at \*11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006) (collecting cases). + +Minor Victim-4's personal knowledge of the defendant is well established. The defendant and Minor Victim-4 met in person and interacted multiple times between 2001 and 2004. Minor Victim-4 then mentioned the defendant by description or by name in 2007, 2009, 2020, and 2021, all prior to being shown the photo book. And the circumstances of the identification were not suggestive. Minor Victim-4 was shown 20 photos, She was not asked to locate the defendant, or asked whether a particular photo depicted the defendant, but just whether she recognized anyone, although she was told that she was not expected to recognize someone just because their photo was in the book. And, indeed, Minor Victim-4 said she did not recognize some photos in the book. Regarding the defendant specifically, Minor Victim-4 carefully considered whether a different photo depicted the person she believed to be the defendant before seeing and selecting a photo of the defendant. This procedure was cautious and not suggestive—much less unduly suggestive. + +The reality is straightforward: Minor Victim-4 knows exactly who the defendant is and confirmed that the person in the photograph was the defendant. In response, the defense argues that the photo "looks like a mug shot" and "is different than the others." (Def. Mot. 9 at 3). Of course, as is often the case with photo arrays or photo books, all of the photos generally resemble mug shots, so there is nothing suggestive about the fact that the defendant's photo does. And it is not in fact different from the others: While the defendant's photo is lower resolution than some, + +there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos ). In any event, these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination and attorney argument. See Maldonado--, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, "any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility"). + +Even if the "confirmatory identification" procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4's identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed question about a confirmatory identification's suggestiveness because the independent basis for the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App'x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005) (witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under "streetlight illumination" but was familiar with defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers' in-court identifications reliable where officers had unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at •2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. II, 2018) (collecting cases finding that "in-court identification is [] admissible, despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant + +prior to the incident," or alternatively, if "if a witness gets a good look at the defendant during the course of a crime"); United States v. M, No. II Cr. 487 (RJS), 2012 WL 2053758, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012) (noting that a "witness's familiarity with a suspect may establish that the identification . . . is independently reliable"). + +This is not a crime in which a victim captures a fleeting glance of the perpetrator. Minor Victim-4 interacted with the defendant personally on multiple occasions between 2001 and 2004. She knew the defendant by name and gave a description. In the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant is sufficiently independently reliable to permit the jury to decide its persuasiveness. + +The defense merely replies, again in conclusory fashion, that Minor Victim-4 (1) never identified the defendant as an abuser, (2) did not have an opportunity to view her during the crime because the defendant was not involved in a crime, (3) never described the defendant, and (4) the time between the abuse and the identification was extraordinarily long. (Def. Mot. 9 at 4). The first three of these points are inaccurate, as set forth above. And the delay in time is untroubling given Minor Victim-4's contacts with the defendant and consistent references in the intervening time. The defense is free to attempt to argue these points to the jury, but none of these arguments supports a motion to suppress Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant. + +Minor Victim-4 knows who participated in the sexual abuse she experienced, as she has for the decades since it happened. This Court should deny the motion. + +#### VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits + +The defense has filed several motions to preclude certain Government exhibits. (Def. Mots. 7, 8, and 13). The Court should deny the defense authentication arguments without prejudice because the Government expects its witnesses will be able to authenticate the exhibits at trial before it offers them. The defendant's arguments regarding relevance and Rule 403, however, are meritless, and the Court should deny them. + +### A. Applicable Law + +In general, "[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Second Circuit has made clear that "the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high." United States v. El Gamma!, 831 F. App'x 539, 542 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting United States v. . 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)). Rule 901 is "satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification," El Gamma!, 831 F. App'x at 542 (quoting United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004)), and such "proof of authentication may be direct or circumstantial," United States v. A!-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). + +For instance, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant challenged the authenticity of "handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan." Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. "Although the Government did not present + +evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(3)(4) permits authentication based on `[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid 901(b)(4)). Witness testimony about the content of the letters was "sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence," and "any remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility." Id. at 24-25. + +Similarly, although physical evidence may be authenticated through a chain of custody, "any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility." United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at •7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x MO, 643 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (similar). "Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." United States v. Cilins, No. 13 CR. 315 (WHP), 2014 WL 173414, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +### B. Discussion + +The defense's challenges to the Government's exhibits largely turn on the Government's ability to authenticate them. Those arguments are premature. At trial, the Government expects that witnesses familiar with the exhibits will testify that the items are what the Government claims they are. The defendant is not entitled to a preview of the Government's case-in-chief at this juncture. + +First, the defendant moves to exclude Government Exhibit 52, which it says was obtained by the Government "as part of discovery in Guiffre v. Maxwell civil litigation . . . with no explanation about its origin." (Def. Mot. 7 at 1). The defendant misidentifies the exhibit. Government Exhibit 52 is a physical contact book belonging to the defendant. The records attached by the defense as Exhibit 1 appear to be a scan of Government Exhibit 52 that was produced in discovery in v. Maxwell. But the Government will not offer that scan at trial. It will offer the physical book itself, along with scans taken by the Government of the physical book. A witness with personal knowledge of the physical book is expected to testify to its authenticity. + +The defendant takes issue with the history of the Government's acquisition of Government Exhibit 52. The defendant is correct that the Government came into custody of this exhibit after a former employee of Jeffrey Epstein attempted to sell it to a civil lawyer suing Epstein. (Id.). The defense calls this "particularly troubling" (Def. Mot. 7 at 2), but that argument is misplaced. How the Government acquired the exhibit goes, if anything, to its weight and not its admissibility. If a witness can identify the exhibit based on its contents, that is sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence." See Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x at 24-25. + +Finally, the defendant argues that the contents of Government Exhibit 52 are hearsay because they are not a business record. (Def. Mot. 7 at 4-6). The exhibit is separately admissible not for the truth of the matters asserted therein (such as the accuracy of the contact information for victims), but to establish that the defendant kept contact information for relevant individuals at trial, including victims. The exhibit has evidentiary value in showing that the defendant maintained a contact book containing what purports to be this list of names and associated contact information. + +Second, the defendant moves to preclude any items seized during the 2005 search of Epstein's home in Palm Beach, Florida. The defense claims, in a conclusory fashion, that "no witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits" to demonstrate authenticity, because "the evidence collection and retention in this matter is an unreliable mess." (Def. Mot. 8 at 3-5). The defense further speculates that the Government intends to offer these exhibits without any testimony about their authenticity, in part because the original custodian— Detective Recarey—is dead. (Id. at 4-5). The defense is mistaken. The Government intends to call live witnesses to establish the authenticity of the evidence at trial.' + +Third, the defendant argues that Government Exhibit 251 and 288 are + +irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2). + +IS As to Government Exhibit 295 specifically, that exhibit was written by both Detective Recarey and another witness who is expected to testify at trial. The exhibit is primarily marked for identification, although portions of that document may be offered as a past recollection recorded by that other witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(5). The Government will not offer statements from Detective Recarey. + +Fourth, the defendant argues that Government Exhibit 294 is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2-3). Government Exhibit 294 displays a box containing "Twin Torpedos"—sex toys—seized during the search of Epstein's Palm Beach house. This photograph is corroborative of witness testimony, which is expected to describe the presence of sex toys and that the defendant and Epstein used sex toys during their abuse. + +Fifth, the defendant argues that Government Exhibit 313 is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2- 3). Government Exhibit 313 is a photograph of the defendant and Epstein swimming together while nude. This evidence corroborates witness testimony expected at trial, which will describe topless swimming in the pool at Epstein's Palm Beach House. It is also relevant to the relationship between the defendant and Epstein. For instance, to the extent the defense at trial argues that the defendant was merely an employee of Epstein's, this photograph is evidence to the contrary. + +Sixth, the defense argues that Government Exhibit 606 lacks evidentiary foundation, is hearsay, and is irrelevant because it was created after the events alleged in the Indictment. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2-3). Government Exhibit 606 is a manual governing the operations of the Palm Beach house. A witness at trial is expected to authenticate this document and explain that it was the version in effect at the house in 2005. Another witness is expected to testify about the rules in effect in the Palm Beach household during the time period of the charged conduct; those rules are consistent with the rules in this exhibit.19 The relevance of the document is self-evident: among other things, it directs employees to "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing." (GX 606 at 4). It is not prejudicial as to her "lifestyle" (Def. Mot. 13 at 3), because the jury will already hear testimony about her and Epstein's various properties, private jet, and employees. And the document is not hearsay, because the statements are being offered as instructions to staff, not for the truth of the matter asserted. + +As described above, each of these exhibits is highly relevant, not hearsay or subject to a hearsay exception, and can be authenticated at trial. The Court should deny the defense's motion regarding relevance and Rule 403, and deny the motion regarding authentication with leave to renew it at trial. + +## VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of "Victims" or Rape + +Citing no case in the federal system, the defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from referring to the Minor Victims as Victims. The defendant also moves to preclude testimony concerning a rape committed by Jeffrey Epstein against one of the Minor Victims. Both of these motions lack merit, and they should be denied. + +# A. References to Victims + +19 Here and elsewhere (see, e.g. Def. Mot. 2 at 3-4), the defense argues that evidence that postdates the time period of the conspiracy is irrelevant. That is incorrect. What matters is whether the evidence tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. If, for instance, there is evidence showing that Epstein and the defendant were extremely close partners in 2005, that tends to make it more probable that they had such a relationship in 2004, during the time period of the conspiracy. It is therefore highly relevant. + +The defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from using the word "victim" to refer to any of the Minor Victims. The Government expects that it will use the word "victim," particularly in jury addresses, but such use is not improper vouching or prejudicial to the defense. The Government also expects its expert to use the word "victim," but she will testify about victims generally and not any victims in this case specifically. The Government does not otherwise expect its witnesses to use the word "victim." To the extent they do, however, it is not prejudicial to the defense.2° + +The defendant cites no federal case that has accepted its argument. Nor does this argument make sense. The erroneous premise in the defense argument is that referring to someone as a "victim" "necessarily conveys the speaker's opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible." (Def. Mot. 12 at 1). That is incorrect. The Government's references to "victims" are part of its theory of the case. Use of that term in a jury address is not an expression of counsel's opinion; it is the Government's litigating position, just like referencing someone as the "shooter" in a shooting case or the "dealer" in a narcotics case. See United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App'x 896, 898 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness's + +2° Notably, the defense motion is entirely premised on the notion that the parties disagree about whether the Minor Victims are in fact victims of any crime. If the defense concedes at any point that the Minor Victims are victims of any crime—for example, if the defendant concedes the victims were abused by Epstein but disclaims knowledge or involvement—their argument in support of this motion collapses entirely. (Del. Mot. 12 at 1 (contrasting this case with cases in which "there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something")). + +credibility."). Prosecutors are simply using a term that is consistent with the Government's theory of the case. See United States v. No. CR 16-103-BLG-SPW-1, 2017 WL 4159365, at \*1 (D. Mont. Sept. 19, 2017) (explaining that "use of the term 'victim' is not prejudicial to the defendant's rights when the presentation of evidence taken as a whole clarifies the government's burden of proving all of the elements of the crime" and finding that the "jury will not be unduly prejudiced against [the defendant] if the government refers to certain witnesses as victims"); (citing United States v. Washburn, 444 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006) ("[A] number of courts have determined that the use of the term "victim" in jury instructions is not prejudicial to a defendant's rights when, as is the case here, the instructions taken as a whole clarify the government's burden of proving all elements of the crime")); Server v. Mizell, 902 F.2d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 1990) ("No logical argument can be made that the mere use of the term 'victim' [in jury instructions] somehow shifted the burden of proof."). In addition, "[t]he term 'victim' is not inherently prejudicial. It is a term commonly used in the English language that does not by its nature connote guilt." United States v. Lussier, No. 18-CR-281 (NEB), 2019 WL 2489906, at \*5 (D. Minn. June 15, 2019).21 And just as the defense may make arguments attacking the credibility of victims, the Government is free to argue that these witnesses are, in fact, victims of a crime. CI United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that prosecutors may also "respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity of its case"). + +21 The same is true with references by the Government to "minor victims." (Cf. Def. Mot. 12 at 4- 5). The Government does not expect any other trial participant to use the phrase "minor victims." + +Witnesses may also reference "victims." But the only witness the Government expects to use the term "victim" is its expert, Dr. Rocchio. And Dr. Rocchio will not be testifying about the defendant or the Minor Victims in this case, but about victims of sexual abuse generally. Accordingly, she is not vouching for the credibility of anyone in this case, or presuming anything about the truth or falsity of any accusations. + +To the extent other Government witnesses use the term "victim," however, it would not be prejudicial to the defense. The limitation on improper vouching applies to the prosecutor, not to Govenunent witnesses, as even one of the defendant's cases acknowledges. See v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 25 (De. 1991) ("The opinion does not state, nor does it imply, that the use of the term 'victim' by witnesses, as a term of art or in common parlance, is a basis for objection."). In particular, some of the witnesses who may use the word "victim" are the Minor Victims themselves, who are testifying about their subjective experiences. It is not prejudicial to the defense for someone who considers herself a victim to testify as much.22 + +Here, as with other motions, the defendant requests an extraordinary order not seen in other cases in this District. That request lacks merit, and the Court should deny it. + +### B. Evidence of Rape + +The Government expects that at least one minor victim may describe being raped by Jeffrey Epstein. If that testimony is offered, it is directly relevant to issues before the jury. The defendant and Epstein are charged with transporting minors, enticing minors, or trafficking minors with the + +22 The Government defers to the Court on how it would like to refer to the Minor Victims. It notes, however, that "Accuse?' is an alternative that is prejudicial to the Government. + +intention that they would engage in illegal or commercial sex acts, and conspiring to do, and aiding and abetting, the same. These events occurred during an ongoing course of conduct, in some instances during multi-year relationships. The ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims is directly relevant, and the victims' accounts of these events are necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. Indeed, given the complex relationships between victims and their abusers, these events are integral to the relationships that will be at the heart of the trial. The defendant repeatedly claims that there is no evidence she participated in or was aware of a rape specifically (Def. Mot. 11 at 1-2), but defense arguments about her knowledge and involvement are for the jury. + +The defense argues that the Indictment does not allege that Epstein raped anyone, and so the rape is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 11 at 2). That is a non sequitur. Indictments are not documents that contain all of the Government's evidence, and the defense cites no authority for the puzzling argument that witnesses cannot testifying using words that are not contained in an indictment. To the extent the defense understands the Indictment to allege only conspiracies to arrange for sexualized massages for Epstein (id. at 3), the defense is mistaken. The Indictment charges the defendant with conspiracies to arrange for "sexual activity" (Indictment?! 12, 18) and "a commercial sex act" (Id. ¶ 24). + +The defense also argues that evidence of a rape does not satisfy Rule 403 balancing, because evidence of a rape is "highly emotional and inflammatory." (Def. Mot. II at 3). This conclusory claim is insufficient to show prejudice to the defense. Testimony from victims in sex crimes trials can be very emotional when describing their abuse and the perpetrator. But that + +evidence—including evidence of rape, where it occurs—is the core conduct in the case. See, e.g., United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG), 2020 WL 7773606, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020) (describing evidence of rape in a trial for sex trafficking of minors); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (concluding, in response to the argument that "rape" is a legal term, "there is a "critical distinction between a patient telling a physician that she `had intercourse with three men' and a patient telling the physician that she was 'raped' by three men."). Its probative value is certainly not outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Nor is it the case that evidence of a rape—especially at the level of abstraction described by the defense—is significantly more inflammatory than the charged crime: the sexual abuse of minors. + +In the event that a Minor Victim testifies that Epstein raped them, it is part of the charged conspiracy in this case, and it should be admitted. + +### VIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit + +Three of the defense motions are aimed at precluding the Government from offering evidence it does not intend to offer at trial. + +First, the defense seeks to preclude the Government from arguing that the defendant was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein's arrest and her own. (Def. Mot. 5 at 1). The Government's view remains that such conduct reflects the defendant's consciousness of her guilt (see id. at 2 (citing multiple Government filings)), and the Government does not agree that such evidence lacks an adequate factual basis or is inadmissible under Rule 403. (See id. at 6-9). However, the Government does not intend—and so will agree not to offersuch evidence in its case-in-chief, unless the defendant opens the door to this evidence or otherwise puts it at issue at trial. Furthermore, if the defendant testifies, the Government may cross-examine the defendant about this conduct, depending on the scope of her direct examination. But the Government will not affirmatively offer this evidence in its case-in-chief. + +The same is true for the defense motion to exclude evidence of the defendant's false statements in her 2016 depositions. (Def. Mot. 6 at I). Although false exculpatory statements are admissible as proof of a defendant's consciousness of guilt (see Gov't Opp. at 142-43, Dkt. No. 204 (citing, e.g., United States v. 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014)), the Government does not intend—and so will agree—not to offer this information as part of its case-in-chief, unless the defense opens the door or otherwise puts these statements at issue. However, the Government may offer these statements in rebuttal to defense arguments. Moreover, the defendant's prior statements are of course appropriate material for cross-examination of the defendant. The Government also consents to the defense request to redact the perjury counts from the Indictment. (Def. Mot. 6 at 6). + +Finally, the defense seeks to preclude the Government's law enforcement witnesses from offering expert testimony. (Def. Mot. 10 at 5). The defense appears to take an improperly broad view of the scope of expert testimony.23 However, the Government has not noticed the three law + +23 For instance, the defense, citing United States v. 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005), makes the sweeping claim that "any opinion testimony" based on those three law enforcement witnesses' "specialized 'training and experience' is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and Rule 16(1)(G) and is inadmissible at trial." (Def. Mot. 10 at 4 (emphasis in original)). But in =, the Second Circuit simply held that an undercover law enforcement agent could not testify as lay opinion that, based on his knowledge from other drug interdiction cases, the defendant was a 82 + +enforcement officers identified by the defense as experts and will not elicit expert testimony from them. Those witnesses are being called as fact witnesses to describe, for instance, the execution of a search and evidence seized during that search.24 + +### CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant's motions in limine. + +Dated: October 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys + +partner in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. =, 413 F.3d at 216. That is distinguishable from cases where, as expected here, witnesses testify based on their personal involvement in certain investigative steps. + +24 It bears noting that the defense's motion is expressly concerned about testimony from case agents (Def. Mot. 10 at 5 n.2), and testimony about "the case, its origins, and the investigation" (id. at 3), which it considers to be improper expert testimony. The Government has moved to preclude the defense from offering such evidence, including by calling the case agents identified in its Touhy notice. (See Gov't Motions in Limine Section 1I1). Accordingly, if the defense plans to call case agents for such testimony—which the Court should preclude—the defense must provide expert notice of such testimony. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..632fd4079ad6fd41f52be8d226f17014d956d6a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710/EFTA02833710.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,4013 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833710.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 84, + "chars": 152469, + "elapsed_seconds": 141.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION \nTO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.384, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 500.65545654296875, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 500.65545654296875, + 362.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 111.384, + 362.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Contents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 96.38999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.3164978027344, + 96.38999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.3164978027344, + 112.8714599609375 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 112.8714599609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 435.8539733886719, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 435.8539733886719, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 376.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 376.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 165.36294555664062, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 165.36294555664062, + 444.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 444.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible \na. Reliability", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.0862121582031, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.0862121582031, + 265.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 265.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Relevance and Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 264.5865173339844, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 264.5865173339844, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Relationship Between Trust and Victim Awareness \nof Their Abuse is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.4120483398438, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.4120483398438, + 265.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 265.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 536.1120000000001, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion About the Significance of the Presence of Third Parties is \nAdmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.4157104492188, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.4157104492188, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 431.2958984375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 431.2958984375, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11, 2021 Letter is \nAdmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 543.456, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 192.7152862548828, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 192.7152862548828, + 306.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 306.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence is Admissible As Direct Evidence, or in the Alternative, Under Rule \n404(b)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 426.87000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.5306396484375, + 426.87000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.5306396484375, + 457.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 457.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 142.56 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 142.56 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Testimony of Employee-1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 196.02 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 452.2801818847656, + 456.03 + ], + [ + 452.2801818847656, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 373.2098083496094, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 373.2098083496094, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 465.21832275390625, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 465.21832275390625, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 307.1029968261719 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 307.1029968261719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 164.8201904296875, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 164.8201904296875, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Vicdm-4's Identification of the Defendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 534.2760000000001, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 534.2760000000001, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 175.0624542236328, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 175.0624542236328, + 663.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 663.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 192.19552612304688, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 192.19552612304688, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 67, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 164.3853302001953, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 164.3853302001953, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's \nExhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.49267578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.49267578125, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 189.17062377929688, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 189.17062377929688, + 263.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 263.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 167.0701904296875, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 167.0701904296875, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of \"Victims\" or Rape", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 448.2955627441406, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 448.2955627441406, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. References to Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 222.65467834472656, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 222.65467834472656, + 498.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 498.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence of Rape", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.79554748535156, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.79554748535156, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does \nNot Plan to Elicit", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 81, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 83, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 350.1827392578125, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 350.1827392578125, + 169.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 169.23248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833710" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a7a17fe791b4f2b823d5d9ff0f155b2141fb8b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794/EFTA02833794.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833794.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833794" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2c19bdcc479fa6a0741ac238756ea2467420428 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795/EFTA02833795.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833795.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833795" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4370ef47807993006cc0ab1a2b0e66c7c22d6403 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796/EFTA02833796.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833796.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833796" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d57dd68bf9bb227c27c218c49b585fa15f111f5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797/EFTA02833797.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833797.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 308.32501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 308.32501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833797" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78e6ea4f9977c9bdd73f67c677583ed053c945ed --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +# EXHIBIT E + +ORIGINAL + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +INDICTMENT + +18 Cr. + +CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," + +Defendant. + +X + +9 9 2 + +#### COUNT ONE + +#### (Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking of Minors) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +1. In or about 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, and others known and unknown, conspired and agreed with each other to knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit by any means persons who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (collectively, the "Minor Victims"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that the Minor Victims had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that the Minor Victims would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c), 1591(a) (1), (b) (1), and (b) (2) .) + +## COUNT TWO (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-1) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +2. Between at least in or about March 2013 and at least in or about April 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-1"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-1 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-1 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-1, a seventeen-year-old girl, to travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-1, posted such photographs on an internet advertisement website, and harbored and transported Minor Victim-1 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2.) + +### COUNT THREE (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-2) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +3. Between at least in or about March 2013 and at least in or about April 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-2"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-2 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-1 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-2, a seventeen-year-old girl, to travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-2, posted such photographs on an internet advertisement website, and harbored and transported Minor Victim-2 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a) (1) and (b) (2), and 2.) + +## COUNT FOUR (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-3) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +4. At least in or about November 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-3"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-3 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-3 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-3, a sixteen-year-old girl, to travel to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-3, intending such photographs to be posted on an internet advertisement website, and harbored Minor Victim-3 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b) (2), and 2.) + +#### COUNT FIVE + +## (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-4) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +5. At least in or about September 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-4"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-4 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-4 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-4, an eleven-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +### COUNT SIX + +# (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-5) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +6. At least in or about October 2013, in the Southern of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting District Barnes," + +interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-5"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-5 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-5 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-5, an eight-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +# COUNT SEVEN (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-6) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +7. At least in or about October 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-6"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of + +the fact that Minor Victim-6 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-6 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-6, an thirteen-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +# COUNT EIGHT (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-7) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +8. At least in or about October and November 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-7"), and attempted to do the same, knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-7 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-7 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-7, a fourteen-year-old girl, to travel to the Bronx, New + +York, where ENGLISH attempted to take photographs of her, harbor her, and cause her to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2.) + +# COUNT NINE (Kidnapping of Minor Victim-7) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +9. On or about November 16, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," having attained the age of eighteen years, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, and carried away and held for ransom and reward and otherwise Minor Victim-7, who had not attained the age of eighteen years and who was not a familial relation of ENGLISH's or under ENGLISH's legal custody, and in so doing, ENGLISH willfully caused Minor Victim-7 to be transported in interstate commerce, and used a mean, facility, and instrumentality of interstate commerce in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, to wit, ENGLISH used a cellphone to cause Minor Victim-7, a fourteen-year-old girl, to + +travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where he held her against her will inside his apartment. + +(Title 18, United States Code, +Section 1201(a)(1) and (g)(1).) + +COUNT TEN + +**(Firearms Offense Related to Kidnapping)** + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +10. On or about November 16, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, knowingly, during and in relation to a crime of violence for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, namely, the kidnapping offense charged in Count Nine of this Indictment, did use and carry a firearm, and, in furtherance of such crime, did possess a firearm, which was brandished, to wit, ENGLISH brandished a firearm at Minor Victim-7 in the course of kidnapping her, as charged in Count Nine. + +(Title 18, United States Code, +Section 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).) + +![]()![]() + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," + +Defendant. + +## INDICTMENT + +18 Cr. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2.) + +> GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney. + +A TRUE BILL Foreperson. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b44abeae49f5b9f96c370caa7656982ece7c4f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798/EFTA02833798.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,876 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833798.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 11450, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.03, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 287.7366638183594, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 287.7366638183594, + 98.58416748046875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.58416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 269.892, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 344.7268371582031, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 344.7268371582031, + 292.46417236328125 + ], + [ + 269.892, + 292.46417236328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking of Minors)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.91999816894531, + 293.21999999999997 + ], + [ + 495.4685363769531, + 293.21999999999997 + ], + [ + 495.4685363769531, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 121.91999816894531, + 306.18 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-1)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.704, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 440.7398986816406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 440.7398986816406, + 100.5831298828125 + ], + [ + 178.704, + 100.5831298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-2)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.704, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 441.4939880371094, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 441.4939880371094, + 101.20416259765625 + ], + [ + 178.704, + 101.20416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-3)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 442.09918212890625, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 442.09918212890625, + 101.95416259765625 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 101.95416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 349.9941711425781, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 349.9941711425781, + 86.20416259765625 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 86.20416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-4)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.432, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 475.45916748046875, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 475.45916748046875, + 100.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 144.432, + 100.08416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 347.2991943359375, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 347.2991943359375, + 575.9641723632812 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 575.9641723632812 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-5)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 146.268, + 575.0999999999999 + ], + [ + 476.95916748046875, + 575.0999999999999 + ], + [ + 476.95916748046875, + 589.8341674804688 + ], + [ + 146.268, + 589.8341674804688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVEN \n(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-6)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 478.4679260253906, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 478.4679260253906, + 441.8331298828125 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 441.8331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHT \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-7)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 442.3233337402344, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 442.3233337402344, + 305.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 305.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINE \n(Kidnapping of Minor Victim-7)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.676, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 423.7179260253906, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 423.7179260253906, + 251.703125 + ], + [ + 197.676, + 251.703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TEN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 180.63 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Firearms Offense Related to Kidnapping)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 449.20799999999997, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 449.20799999999997, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 194.39999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 199.512, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 419.73944091796875, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 419.73944091796875, + 144.5751953125 + ], + [ + 199.512, + 144.5751953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 217.26, + 174.96 + ], + [ + 401.53497314453125, + 174.96 + ], + [ + 401.53497314453125, + 188.4552001953125 + ], + [ + 217.26, + 188.4552001953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.668, + 341.01 + ], + [ + 351.28533935546875, + 341.01 + ], + [ + 351.28533935546875, + 355.3251953125 + ], + [ + 268.668, + 355.3251953125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 191 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833798" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d022b44157fd562000e7a2cd393438a9b6d6c293 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.md @@ -0,0 +1,658 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +- I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER 1 + - A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense 1 + - B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure 2 + - C. There Should Be a Sanction 4 + - D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government's Anticipated Position 5 +- II. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE BASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY404(B) EVIDENCE 6 + - A. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved Third-Party Adults. 7 + - B. 11 + - I. 12 + - 2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence 13 + - 3. constitutes an impermissible constructive amendment and variance to the Indictment. 13 + - C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the admissibility for two weeks 15 +- III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEU77CALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT HEARING 15 + - A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are based on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to produce six months ago. 15 + - B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible 17 + - C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Dauber! hearing. 23 +- IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED -24 +- V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED "FLIGHT' 32 + +- VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS AND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS32 +- VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION. 32 +- VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINION TESTIMONY 35 +- IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN 36 +- XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS "VICTIMS" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING 38 +- XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY 41 + - A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits 41 + - B. Government Exhibit 52 42 + - C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way 42 + - D. 43 + - E. The Twin Torpedoes 43 + - F. Government Exhibit 313 44 + - G. Government Exhibit 606 44 + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Cf. State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233 (Vt. 2005) | 40 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | passim | +| 2018) | 41 | +| Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) | 30 | +| Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) | 41 | +| Lott v. United States, 218 F.24 675 (5th Cir. 1955) | 5 | +| Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) | 38 | +| People v. M, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) | 39 | +| Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) | 34 | +| Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.34 1397 (2d Cir.1996) | 41 | +| v. M, 645 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 1981) | 34 | +| State v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 1230 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) | 39 | +| State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121, 131, 442 P.3d 581 (2019) | 40 | +| Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App. 1984) | 39 | +| United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1981) | 8 | +| United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. Apply( 11 (2d Cir. 2015) | 7 | +| United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983) | 26 | +| United States v. Bocio, 103 F. Supp. 2d 531 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) | 2 | +| Bozeman, No. 3:11-CR-129, 2012 WL 1071207 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2012) United States v. United States v 2018) | 3 | +| , No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) United States v. | 20, 21 | +| Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) United States v. | 26 | +| Curley, 639 F.34 50 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. United States v. | 26 | +| D'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2012) United States v. | 14 | +| United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2006) | 14 | +| United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) | 39 | + +| United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 37 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) | 4 | +| United States v. Gross, 15-cr-769 (MN), 2017 WL 4685111 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) | 14 | +| United States v. 650 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Conn. 2009) | 2 | +| United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.34 153 (2d Cir. 2004) | 7 | +| United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145 (24 Cir. 2016) | 4 | +| United States v. M, 818 F. App'x 74 (2d Cir. 2020) | 15 | +| United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982) | 38 | +| United States v. Monica, 849 F.24 723 (2d Cir. 1988) | 14 | +| United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) | 29, 37 | +| United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1976) | 4 | +| 2019) | 20, 23 | +| Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010) | 20, 21, 22 | +| Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d. Cir. 2007) | 14 | +| Salmonese, 352 F.34 608 (2d Cir. 2003) | 14 | +| Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021) | 39, 40 | +| Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (24 Cir.I984) | 41 | +| Smalls, No. CR 06-2403 RB, 2008 WL 11361098 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2008) | 3 | +| 521 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) | 38 | +| Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir.I993) | 5 | +| Velez, No. 3: I0CRI47 JBA, 2010 WL 4929266 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2010) | 3 | +| 708 F. App'x 732 (24 Cir. 2017) | 28, 31 | +| Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 1998) | 26 | +| ~, 506 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007) | 22 | + +# Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 1591 | 37 | +|-------------------------|----| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | 28 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 28 | +| N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55 | 28 | + +# Other Authorities + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. 16 | 17 | +|----------------------|----------------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 104 | 41 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 22, 43 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 10, 16, 43, 44 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 412 | 14, 18, 22 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 702 | 17, 21, 22 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 2, 3, 5 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell hereby submits her Reply In Support of Her Motions in Limine. + +#### I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER + +The government offers several excuses for its failure to comply with this Court's September 3, 2021 Order. These excuses are insufficient and should be rejected. + +# A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense + +First, the government suggests that Ms. Maxwell has misread the Order. We disagree. The Court unambiguously rejected the government's position and ruled that the government's expressed concern about disclosure "does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay." Dkt. 335 at 3. To both "avoid the risk of surprise" and "litigate coconspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay, " the Court identified two things that were necessary from the government: First, no later than October 11, 2021, the government was required to "disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed coconspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the government will refer at trial." Id. Second, the Court, unambiguously and emphatically, directed: "The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October I I, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1." (emphasis in original.) + +The Court used the word "disclose" both as to the identity of the co-conspirators "to whom the government will refer to at trial" and "all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial...." The government, in an attempt to blunt the Order, decided to interpret the same word, "disclose" in materially distinct fashions. As to the identity of the co-conspirators, the government disclosed (i.e., identified) three names. When it was parsing the second part of + +the Order, however, the government defined the word "disclose" differently. Disclose, as to the actual statements, according to the government, means "produced" at some time in the past or to be produced in the future, perhaps as an oral statement during trial. + +Of course, the Court will tell the parties whether it meant two completely different things when it used the same word, as argued by the government, or whether it intended for the government to disclose the statements it intends to offer as co-conspirator statements. To avoid delay over this issue during trial, Ms. Maxwell suggests that she cannot litigate this issue in advance of trial without knowing what statements are being offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(e). + +What is clear from the government's response is not that it misunderstood the Order, but rather, it continues to disagree with the Order. + +# B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure + +Second, doubling down on its disagreement with the Court, the government claims "it is aware of no such case" in which a court ordered the identification of anticipated co-conspirator statements prior to trial. While the government may not be "aware" of such cases, they certainly, and abundantly, exist. + +In United States v. Bocio, 103 F. Supp. 2d 531, 534 (N.D.N.Y. 2000), the court ordered pretrial disclosure of statements of co-conspirators (Government "must disclose to the defendant and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing: any relevant written or recorded statements ..., or copies thereof, within the possession, custody, or control of the government."). + +In United States v.=, 650 F. Supp. 2d 160, 171 (D. Conn. 2009), the court ordered co-conspirator statements be produced in advance of trial ("In the case of a co-conspirator who the government plans to call as a witness at trial, that time is now, and the government is directed to produce any relevant statement to defense counsel forthwith.") + +In United States v. Velez, No. 3: 10CR147 JBA, 2010 WL 4929266, at \*7 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2010), the defendant moved for disclosure of any co-conspirator statements in advance of trial. In response, the government agreed to disclose "well in advance of trial, exactly which of the intercepted telephone calls will be offered as full exhibits at trial and transcripts of those calls will be provided in advance of trial." Based on that representation the court denied the motion to produce as moot, "without prejudice to renew if the Government fails to comply with its ongoing disclosure obligations." Id. + +In United States v. Smalls, No. CR 06-2403 RB, 2008 WL 11361098, at \*8-9 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2008), the court's order was very detailed: + +The United States is hereby instructed to: + +file a supplemental brief identifying the summary witness; specifically identifying each and every coconspirator statement it intends to offer at trial as evidence against Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); and stating how each proffered statement satisfies the requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Specifically, with respect to each alleged coconspirator statement, the United States must indicate: a) the identity of the coconspirator who made the alleged statement; b) the identity of the person or persons to whom the coconspirator statement was made; c) the identity of the witness who will testify at trial about the coconspirator statement; d) the content of the coconspirator statement; e) when the statement was made; f) how the statement is in the course of the alleged conspiracy; and g) how the statement is in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Additionally, the United States must identify the independent evidence it intends to offer in support of admission of the alleged coconspirator statements. + +See also United States v. Brewington, No. 15-CR-00073-PAB, 2018 WL 1411274, at \*3 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2018) (court required the government to identify and produce all its purported 801(dX2)(e) statements, in the hundreds; held an evidentiary pre-trial hearing about the admissibility of those statements; and made detailed, statement by statement rulings about admissibility, excluding some and conditionally admitting others); United States v. Bozeman, No. 3:11-CR-129, 2012 WL 1071207, at \*14 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2012), affd, No. 3:11-CR- + +129-1, 2012 WL 1565099 (ED. Tenn. May 1, 2012) (government must disclose any statements of co-conspirators that it intends to use at trial three weeks prior to the trial). + +There is ample legal authority for the Court to enter the Order to avoid delays and arguments during trial about what statements are or are not within the 10-year conspiracy alleged here and to prevent surprise and prejudice to the Defendant. + +# C. There Should Be a Sanction + +Hedging its bets, the government acknowledges that it "may have misread the court's order" but offers no solution other than the defense is "free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial." This was the government's losing argument before the Order. + +District courts have broad discretion to sanction a party who violates discovery orders. United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002). In considering a particular remedy for a violation, the factors considered are "the reasons why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant circumstances." United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir. 1976)). The appropriate remedy is exclusion. Ms. Maxwell has been in jail for approximately 18 months. She is trying not to request a continuance of the trial and her lawyers are making every effort to review massive amounts of discovery, interview potential witness, prepare for trial, and juggle a myriad of other responsibilities. The government offers no legitimate excuse for noncompliance. It clearly knows what statements it will try to introduce, it just does not want to tell anyone to avoid challenges to the statements. This is willful, not negligent or inadvertent conduct which should not be sanctioned by the Court. + +**D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government’s Anticipated Position** + +For a statement to fall within the definition of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), “a court must find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy.” *United States v. Tracy*, 12 F.3d 1186, 1196 (2d Cir. 1993). A cursory review of the discovery produced related to one purported co-conspirator demonstrates the folly of proceeding as the government persists. + +The government failed to follow the Court’s Order and fails to explain why it did not disclose the statements as ordered. Accordingly, the Court should prohibit introduction of any alleged co-conspirator statements at trial. + +## H. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE BASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY 404(B) EVIDENCE + +The government concedes that (i) it was aware of the December 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (Resp. at 34), (ii) those Amendments required it to give notice of the "permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the [404(b)] evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose" (id.) ("Notice"), and (iii) the October 11'" "Maxwell Rule 404 Letter" ("Letter") did not identify the "permitted purpose" under Rule 404(b) for which the government seeks (alternative) admission of the two categories of evidence, nor the "reasoning that supports that evidence."' The government wholly fails to explain why it could not comply with these "relatively modest" new Notice requirements on the timeline ordered by this Court. Nowhere in response does the government seek leave for an extension to provide the appropriate Notice out of time nor justify its "good cause" for failure to timely comply with both the Court's Order and the Rule. Instead, they assert that "any alleged gap in the Government's notice is remediated by this brief." Resp. at 39-40. To quote the government's response to Ms. Maxwell's motion in limine, "to the extent the [government] takes issue with the rule" requiring specific pre-trial Notice under Rule 404(6), "that complaint is properly directed to the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Resp. at 61 n.15. + +Having failed to comply with the Notice requirements of the Rule by the (extended) Court ordered deadline of October 11, the government belatedly argues that the tendered evidence is either direct evidence or admissible under Rule 404(b). They are wrong on both fronts. + +Under the misleading and disingenuous sub-heading (2) ("The Government has Met and Exceeded its Notice Obligations"), the government points only to its (i) October 11 disclosure of certain of the evidence (which gives neither a a proper "purpose" or "reasoning"), and (ii) its Response (the required "notice is remediated by this brief"). + +"In assessing whether a district court properly admitted other act evidence, we consider whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant." United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). are offered for improper purposes, i.e., propensity, are not relevant to any material issue in dispute and their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. + +#### A. Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial + +The government's argument for admissibility of. is breathtaking in its claims and unsupported by admissible evidence. Without expert testimony or even bothering to interview the government contends represent "direct evidence" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that + +Resp. at 36. + +2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401.404, 409-410 and 413 + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The government contends that [REDACTED] reveal "defendant's intent and motive," but their argument is defies logic. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] This is exactly the type of evidence forbidden by Rule 404(b). *See United States v. Angelilli*, 660 F.2d 23, 40-41 (2d Cir. 1981) ("While we conclude that the custom and practice evidence was admissible for the purposes we have discussed, we agree with the defendants that Rule 404(b) barred its use to prove that the individual defendants acted in conformity with the custom and practice. ..."). + +Even if the Court overlooks the government's failure to provide notice, [REDACTED] absence of relevance to the charged conspiracy, and the government's failure to set forth a non-propensity ground for admissibility, [REDACTED] should also be excluded under Rules 401 and 403, as they do not tend to make any fact of consequence more or less probable, and their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Ms. + +Maxwell strongly disputes that suggestion. Notably, as the Court can tell, the government did not offer any evidence (or any offer of proof in their Response) that this document was in fact + +--- + +drafted by Ms. Maxwell. *Compare* GX 417-B, 418-B, 420-B, 420-B (all purporting to represent metadata of other emails with the author identified). [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Such arguments are based on outdated stereotypes and reveal a reliance on character evidence that the Rules of Evidence specifically disallow. + +This Court should reject the belated, insufficient, improper argument that [REDACTED] are direct evidence of the charged conspiracy, should find they are propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(b) and should also exclude them under Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative. + +**B.** [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +1. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Mot. at 7. Defense counsel had insufficient time to review, investigate or rebut the admissibility of the materials as direct evidence less than one week later on October 18th. For that reason, the Motion did not move to exclude the evidence as direct evidence but rather sought additional time in which to do so. Given the drafting of hundreds of pages of pleadings in the last week, counsel is still unprepared to make the required showing on the direct evidence point and seeks additional time in which to do so. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +5 Bear in mind that the government also moved to *exclude* evidence that these same "abused" individuals reported to the police that they had no interactions or dealings with Ms. Maxwell. Gov't Motion in Limine at 42 ("The defendant is not charged with committing crimes against [the] victims [who reported that they had no interactions or dealings with Ms. Maxwell].") The fact that the government clearly intends to rely on how open the alleged abuse was, the relevance of evidence that even the people who claim they were abused by Epstein during the same time frame but without any knowledge or participation by Ms. Maxwell becomes highly relevant to rebut such testimony. + +#### 2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence. + +In their response, the government still fails to comply with the new Rule 404(b) notice requirements. First, they do not actually identify the evidence with any specificity, especially with respect to the "exhibits" that they hope to introduce through her. Second, while they use the words "plan and preparation" or "knowledge," they fail to explain how those uses of the testimony are independent of the character / propensity inference banned by Rule 404(b). How are the process and frequency of massages or the sexual nature of massages after the period of the conspiracy proof of a plan or preparation, apart from the propensity inference? A plan or preparation usually comes before an event. Planning or preparing for something after it has occurred can only be based on an assumption that because you are the kind of person who solicits underage massages later, you must have been the kind of person to do so earlier. Similarly, knowledge after the end of the conspiracy is not the same as knowledge at the time of or before the purported charged acts occurred, except by way of propensity. Finally, unspecified exhibits, many of which appear to have been written after the conspiracy (e.g., GX 505 — dated Feb. 14, 2005) cannot likewise be proof of the charged crimes which were allegedly completed before showed up. + +Because the government makes no effort to argue the non-propensity purpose for these uses via Rule 404(b), and failed to give notice of the purposes or reason in advance in any event, this Court should exclude the evidence on this ground. + +#### 3. constitutes an impermissible constructive amendment and variance to the Indictment. + +Finally, what is clear from the government's proffer in their Response, the anticipated testimony 0 , will serve as an improper constructive + +amendment to, and an impermissible variance of, the Indictment. As this Court previously has ruled: + +"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that 'the terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment." United States v. D 'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412.416 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Mollica. 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988)). Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a "per se violation" of the defendant's constitutional rights—i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice. Id. at 417. In contrast to a constructive amendment, "[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment." Id. (quoting United States v. Saltnonese, 352 F.3d 608.621 (2d Cir. 2003)). + +United States v. Gross, 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at \*20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017). + +As this Court then recognized, the Second Circuit has consistently relied on the same start and end dates of a conspiracy to find that differing trial proof did not affect a constructive amendment or variance. See id. ("The indictment and the evidence at trial contained the same starting and ending dates of the conspiracy...") (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 229 (2d. Cir. 2007)); see also United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The starting and ending dates of the conspiracy noted in the indictment correspond to the conspiracy proven at trial..."). Conversely, the substantial quantity of testimony — for the post-conspiracy time period o , who never met any of the four accusers as far as can be gleaned, and the documents she intends to authenticate, run a substantial risk that the government's proof at trial will not be the same core evidence charged in the Indictment because it will be based on evidence that postdates the events charged in the Indictment. + +## C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the admissibility of and exhibits for two weeks. + +For the reasons already detailed, the complexity of the issues and the fact that recently disclosed testimony appears to be of utmost centrality to the government's case, Ms. Maxwell repeats and reiterates her request that she be afforded additional time to submit a comprehensive motion in limine concerning the introduction of this testimony and exhibits as supposed direct evidence of the charged conspiracy. In that there remains a full month before opening statements, Ms. Maxwell's fundamental rights to present a defense, to have the effective assistance of counsel, and to a right to confront witnesses and subpoena witnesses to testify in her defense a►l **will be preserved by a small delay on this issue.** + +#### **III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 US. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT HEARING** + +#### **A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are based on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to produce six months ago.** + +**Recognizing that Rocchio's proposed testimony is on shaky ground (to say the least), the government belatedly tries to shore up its case and hoist up its expert witness. Two days ago, and** six months after the court-imposed deadline for expert disclosures, the government first disclosed to defense counsel about 300 pages of material on which Rocchio apparently relied in reaching her conclusions. This Court should reject the government's untimely effort to save Rocchio's testimony from exclusion. See United States v.M, 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (affirming exclusion of defendant's proffered expert evidence "that did not adhere to the discovery schedule"). + +In any case, the newly discovered material doesn't help the government's cause. Exhibit A (literally) to the government's response is a journal article describing "grooming" as a "construct." Resp, Ex. A, Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). (In fact, Ms. Maxwell cited this article in her motion.) Far from supporting Rocchio's conclusions, the article proves their unreliability: + +There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a "seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as "grooming," are understood as methods child molesters use to gain access to and prepare future victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what this process entails and how it is clearly distinguished from normal adult—child interactions. . . . Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. + +Gov't Resp., Ex. A, p 2 (emphasis added). The article concludes: + +Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods" to define and detect grooming. + +Id. at 19 (emphasis added). + +Because the government cannot justify admission of Rocchio's testimony based on its prejudicially late disclosures, and because those disclosures don't support Rocchio's views, and underscore that "grooming" is not a scientific principle based on psychometric testing, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying. And as explained below, the government's other defenses of Rocchio fall far short of what is required by Rules 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, and 704. + +#### B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. + +According to the government, Ms. Maxwell "does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert." Resp. at 9. To the degree that Dr. Rocchio has the credentials of a potential expert, the government is right. + +But saying that Rocchio is a "qualified expert" is not enough. The government must identify what Rocchio is an expert in. Fed. R. Evid. 702; Fed. R. Crim. 16. As Ms. Maxwell pointed out in her motion, the government hasn't done that. Mot. at 2. + +What's more, even if Rocchio is a "qualified expert" in something, she is not a "qualified expert" in everything. (For example, the government agrees that she is not an expert in the human brain or memory generally. Resp. at 30 n.7.) And as even the government admits, Rocchio has no experience or expertise in diagnosing, evaluating, or treating alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse. Resp. at 19, 23, 26. She cannot therefore speak to the psychology of alleged perpetrators and their so-called "grooming techniques." + +The government attempts a two-step to get around this problem. "By virtue of experience treating victims," says the government, "Dr. Rocchio is necessarily informed about perpetrators' actions." Resp. at 19. + +But how does Rocchio know her patients were victims of sexual abuse? Because her patients told her so, and Rocchio assumes they are telling the truth. Again, Rocchio's opinions are based on her treatment of a self-selected, unrepresentative group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth and are therapeutic consumers in a financial relationship with her. + +The government has no response to this, other than to say that Rocchio and other Icilinical psychologists are not so credulous." Resp. at 16. If this were right, though, one would expect the government to explain how clinical psychologists ensure their patients are telling the truth — in other words, how clinical psychologists like Rocchio test and verify their opinions. + +But that's not what the government does. Instead, right after claiming that "[c]linical psychologists are not so credulous," the government essentially says to Ms. Maxwell, "How dare you?" In the government's words, "The Court should reject the defendant's speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur." Resp. at 16. + +In this way, and in one breath, the government attests that Rocchio is "not so credulous." But in the next breath, the government asks this Court to assume that Rocchio "has [not] been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur." In other words, the government asks this Court to assume Rocchio's patients are telling the truth, just as Rocchio does. Apparently Rocchio is "so credulous." But there is no reason this Court should be. + +The government next notes that the term "grooming-by-proxy" "appears nowhere in the Government's expert notice." Resp. at 26. That's hardly surprising, though, because there is no reliable way to assess or analyze if one individual "grooming" a minor to facilitate abuse by someone else, even though that is exactly what the government says Ms. Maxwell did. + +As detailed today is Ms. Maxwell's Rule 412 motion, the Indictment alleges "grooming" or "normalization" of sexual behavior by Ms. Maxwell over a dozen times. The government does not, however, contend that Ms. Maxwell "groomed" anyone for her own benefit; instead, the government contends that she "groomed" them for Epstein's benefit. But as the government does not dispute, there is nothing—not a journal article, and not a study, nothing—to validate Rocchio's opinions on grooming-by-proxy (even if she doesn't use that phrase).6 + +6The articles and cases the government cites involve alleged grooming behavior by the preparator of the abuse, not alleged grooming behavior by a third party. + +Recognizing that Rocchio's opinions are thus unreliable, the government says: "If the victim experienced attachment and grooming, it makes no analytical difference whether the perpetrator intends to engage in sexual contact with the victim or, instead, is preparing the victim for abuse by a third party." Resp. at 26. + +Hardly. It makes all the difference in the world because Ms. Maxwell is on trial, not Mr. Epstein. The logic (such as it is) of grooming evidence is that the perpetrator normalizes sexual behavior to facilitate his later abuse of the victim. But because Ms. Maxwell did not abuse anyone, there is no basis to conclude that anything she did was "grooming." The government thus intends to have Rocchio characterize innocent conduct by Ms. Maxwell as something more nefarious, thereby further blurring the line that experts are already unable to draw reliably. Resp. Ex. A, p 2 ("There is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what [the grooming] process entails and how it is clearly distinguished from normal adult—child interactions."). + +The government's additional arguments fail. + +- A psychologist who treats alleged victims of abuse but does not treat alleged perpetrators is nothing like a urologist who treats urology patients. Resp. at 11 (citing Bosco v. United States, No. 14 CIV. 3525 (JFK), 2016 WL 5376205 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016)). Rocchio assumes her patients are telling the truth, and she never hears or credits the other side of the story. The urologist, by contrast, has scientific means to verify what her patients tell her, and there isn't another person whose side of the story she needs to hear. +- The government repeatedly says that "courts have frequently admitted testimony about the psychological relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators." Resp. at 13. See also id. at 7-8. But those cases do not address the + +situation here, in which the alleged "groomer" was not the person who perpetrated the alleged abuse. + +- Even where the "groomer" and "perpetrator" are the same person, courts have recognized the unreliability of grooming testimony. United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2-3 (D. Me. July 24, 2012); United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010); United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2010); see also United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); United States v. M, No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the "grooming theory" in the context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). +- The government tries to distinguish United States v. Raymond by saying that the expert's own book in that case "disavow[ed] [its] reliability . . . for legal use." Resp. at 14. But that is exactly the situation here, because the primary article on which the government relies—Exhibit A to its response—flatly says "that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard." Resp., Ex. A, p 19. +- The government says Rocchio's opinions are not "anecdotal." But that's not right either, as her endorsement makes clear: Rocchio's opinions are based "on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse (and her] extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, + +as well as (herJ experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma." Mot. Ex. I, p 2. + +- The government tries to disclaim the importance of error rates. Resp. at 15-17. But it's not just that Rocchio cannot identify an error rate, it's that her implicit conclusion is that she doesn't have an error rate. That is, all her patients are telling the truth when they say they were groomed, so any evidence that matches what her patients have told her is therefore evidence of grooming. +- But even if the error-rate discussion were misplaced, that doesn't mean Rocchio's opinions are reliable. As a "qualitative" matter, and as the government's own Exhibit A concedes, there are no "'reliable principles and methods' to define and detect grooming." Govt. Resp., Ex. A, p 19 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). +- The government apparently expects that, "somehow, a lay jury without guidance [will] apply [Rocchio's] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt." See Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 (rejecting argument that a jury could do just that). This Court should not, as the government request, simply punt the matter to the jury. Resp. at 17-18. The Court is the gatekeeper. It must ensure the evidence is reliable and relevant. If it's not both, it has no place in a criminal jury trial, because it will "radically simplify" an otherwise complex case, -, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5, and it will, as the United States Supreme Court has cautioned, prejudicially mislead the jury, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phanns., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) ("Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it."). + +- The government denies Ms. Maxwell's argument that "a lay jury will be unable to apply Dr. Rocchio's analyses to the facts of this case" because "[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works." Resp. at 20. Responds the government: "That is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates." Id. at 21. Surely that is not right when, as here, the "general principles" are unreliable. Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Note (if expert testifies to general principles but not apply them, "the testimony [must] be reliable"). See also Mot. at 10; Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it "describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena"). +- The government attempts to fault Ms. Maxwell for making "no argument that the minor victims in this case are distinctive in some way such that general principles of psychology may diverge as to them." Resp. at 18. This argument flips the proper analysis on its head. It's the government's burden to prove reliability. E.g., United States v. . 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007). It's not Ms. Maxwell's burden to prove unreliability (though if it were her burden, she would have met it). +- The government says that "the causal connection between ... psychological problems and child sexual abuse is outside the experience of the average juror" and is relevant to the alleged victims' credibility. Resp. at 24. It's not, and any minor probative value the evidence has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. And as explained in the Rule 412 motion today, if Rocchio offers testimony and the government presents argument + +along these lines, that will open the door to other sexual behavior evidence. That door can remain at least partially closed if Rocchio is not permitted to offer her irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony. + +- The government still hasn't explained how it helps the jury to be told that a victim of sexual abuse might make an immediate disclosure, or she might make an incremental disclosure, or she might make a delayed disclosure. Resp. at 27-30. And when the government says, "[s]exual abuse also impacts the way memory is encoded," that opinion is far outside Rocchio's expertise because the parties agree that she is not an expert in "the human brain or memory generally." Resp. at 30 n.7. + +# C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Dauber: hearing. + +There is ample reason for this Court to exclude Rocchio's testimony outright. At the very least, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a Dauber: hearing. The government implicitly concedes as much. In a footnote, the government acknowledges the decision in United States v. Raniere, in which Judge Garaufis ordered a Dauber: hearing on the government's proposed expert testimony on grooming. 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7-8. In that case, however, the government withdrew its endorsement rather than submit to an Dauber: hearing. Resp. at 19 n.3. + +Judge Garaufis reasoned that even if other courts in other cases had admitted testimony about grooming, "that [did] not make Dr. Hughes's opinion about grooming techniques reliable under the Dauber: standard," if only because "her extensive academic and clinical experience appears focused on victims of sexual abuse, not perpetrators." See id. at \*7. The same is true here, particularly because Rocchio has no experience in, and there is no authority supporting her opinions on, grooming-by-proxy. Quite the contrary. The government's late-breaking disclosure states: + +Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods" to define and detect grooming. + +Id. at 19 (emphasis added). + +At a minimum, therefore, this Court should hold a Dauber: hearing. + +# IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED■ + +**The government's arguments in favor of admitting evidence relatedas direct evidence of the charged conspiracies all but concede that the evidence is more appropriately considered under Rule 404(b). In an effort to bolster their position, the government makes the sweeping assertion that as long as was under the age of 18, her evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy. That is a fundamentally incorrect statement of the law and should be rejected. The government's arguments for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) and for denying the defense's requested limiting instruction are similarly baseless. The Court should therefore exclude evidence related to or, if it is admitted, give the jury the requested limiting instruction.7** + +**The government advances four principal arguments for why evidence related to should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies: (1) her testimony allegedly shows a "pattern" of how Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sexually abused young women and establishes Ms. Maxwell's "intent" to participate in the charged conspiracies (Resp. at 45-46), (2) her allegations are included in the S2 Indictment and are therefore not covered by Rule** + +**7 As it pertains to and the other accusers, the defense will be submitting proposed jury instructions and special verdict findings.** + +404(b) (id. at 4.6-47), (3) her evidence is "intrinsic" proof of the charged conspiracies and necessary to "complete the story" of the charged offenses (id. at 47-49), and (4) was under the age of 18, the age of consent under federal law, when the alleged sexual abuse took place, and that is "all that is required for evidence relating to the defendant's exploitation of Minor Victim-3 to be direct evidence of the charged offenses" (id. at 50). The first is an argument for admission of this evidence under Rule 404(b), not as direct evidence of the conspiracy. The second simply begs the question and assumes that the government can circumvent Rule 404(b) by alleging "other act" evidence in the indictment. The third overlooks the numerous precedents in this Circuit finding that evidence of criminal offenses that are separate and distinct from the charged offenses are not admissible as direct evidence of a conspiracy. And the fourth completely misstates the law. These arguments should be rejected. + +First, the government argues that evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies because it is relevant to show the "pattern" of abuse including "grooming" the accusers, encouraging them to give massages to Epstein, and asking them to recruit others—and her "intent" to participate in the charged conspiracies. (Id. at 45-46). But "pattern" is just another word for "modus operandi," which along with "intent" are bases for admission under Rule 404(b), not as direct evidence of the conspiracies. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) ("other act" evidence may be admissible to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident) (emphasis added); United States v. Walla, No. 14-CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2014) (Rule 404(b) permits "other act" evidence to be admitted to prove "modus operand?'). + +The very case the government cites in support of their position, United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011), affirmed the district court's decision to admit "other act" evidence of prior spousal abuse to prove "intent" and "pattern" under Rule 404(b) "with an appropriate instruction on this evidence's limited purpose," not as direct evidence of the conspiracy. See Curley, 639 F.3d at 59 (citing United States v. Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339, 340-41 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (affirming district court's decision to admit evidence of prior domestic violence to prove defendant's intent under Rule 404(b)). Indeed, the evidence could not have been admitted as direct evidence of a conspiracy because Curley was not charged with a conspiracy. See United States v. Curley, No. S 108 Cr. 404 (SCR), 2009 WL 10688209, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 15, 2009) (defendant was convicted of two counts of stalking and one count of interstate violation of a protection order). Curley therefore supports the defense's position that the admissibility ofM evidence must be evaluated under Rule 404(b). + +Second the government does not confront the defense's point that simply including "other act" evidence in the indictment does not necessarily mean it is direct evidence of the conspiracy. See Mot. at 9-10. Instead, the government engages in circular reasoning by effectively arguing that (i) allegations in an indictment are not 404(b) evidence, (ii) allegations are in the indictment, (iii) therefore they are not 404(b) evidence. See Resp. at 46-47. But as the defense pointed out in its Motion, "other acts" are only admissible as evidence of a conspiracy "as long as they are within the scope of the conspiracy. " United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 1983)). The government has not explained why evidence provides any proof that Ms. Maxwell "furthered" an alleged conspiracy to cause minors (she did not) to travel (she did not) + +for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity (it was not). Moreover, allowing the government to circumvent Rule 404(b) by charging "other act" evidence in the Indictment would swallow the rule and allow the jury to broadly consider evidence that should only be considered for a limited purpose and with an appropriate limiting instruction regarding propensity. The Court should not allow this. + +Third the government claims that evidence can be admitted as intrinsic proof of the charged conspiracies to show Ms. Maxwell's (1) "relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages," (2) "knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims," and (3) "willingness to transport minors to further their abuse." Resp. at 47. The government further argues that evidence is necessary to "complete the story" of the charged offenses. Id. at 48-49. In its Motion, the defense cited numerous cases in this Circuit holding that evidence of other conduct involving alleged co-conspirators—even conduct that was similar to the charged offenses—was not admissible as intrinsic proof of the conspiracies if the other conduct was separate and distinct from the charged offenses. See Mot. at 9 (citing cases). The government concedes that these cases so hold and points out that these cases admitted some of the proffered evidence under Rule 404(b). Resp. at 48 n. I I. This just proves the point; the admissibility o evidence should be evaluated under Rule 404(b). + +Fourth, the government asserts that the defense "misunderstands" the law and that the government simply needs to prove that Ms. Maxwell "took steps to provide Jeffrey Epstein with access to girls under the age of 18, knowing that Epstein intended to have sexual contact with those girls." Id. at 50 (emphasis added). In the government's view, it is totally irrelevant that + +See id. at 49-50. According to the government, "all that is required" for evidence to be admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies is that she was under the age of 18, the age of consent under U.S. federal law, and that Ms. Maxwell knew that Epstein intended to engage in sexual contact with her. See id. + +It is the government. not the defense, that apparently does not understand the law. The Act conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment each require proof that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the alleged victim would "engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." S2 Ind. yy 12 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2422), 18 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)). That element incorporates offenses under state law. See United States v. Lincoln, No. I9-CR-6047 (CJS), 2019 WL 719822, at •4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2019) (collecting § 2422 cases); United States v. MI, 708 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (criminal sexual activity under § 2423 includes crimes "under federal, state, or foreign law"). Indeed, the Act conspiracies in the S2 Indictment charge a violation of a New York State misdemeanor as the "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." S2 Ind. ¶¶ 13b, 19b (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55). Section 130.55 prohibits "subject[ing] another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent." N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. To be guilty of Section 130.55 based on the victim's incapacity to consent due to age, the victim must be under the age of 17. Id. § 130.05(3)(a). The government itself acknowledged this in its draft proposed jury instructions, as well as the fact that Ms. Maxwell cannot be convicted of the Act conspiracies unless she knew that the alleged victim was under 17. See Gov't Proposed Jury Instructions ("[I]n order to find that the intended acts were nonconsensual solely because of the + +victim's age, you must find that the defendant knew that the victim was less than seventeen years old.") (emphasis added). + +It is unclear whether the government is now claiming that to admi evidence as proof of the Act conspiracies, it only needs to prove thatwas under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged abuse and that Ms. Maxwell did not need to know anything about age, or that Ms. Maxwell only needed to know that was under the age of 18. Either one is a misstatement of the law. For "sexual activity" to be "criminal," it must be illegal under the laws of the jurisdiction where the sex acts allegedly took place. If those crimes are based on lack of consent due to age, it is only illegal if the alleged victim is under the age of consent in that jurisdiction. And according to the government's own proposed jury instructions, Ms. Maxwell can only be found guilty of the Act conspiracies if she knew (and the other alleged victims) were under the age of consent in the particular jurisdictions where the sex acts allegedly took place. Because was, at all times, over the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions, her evidence is not within the scope of the charged conspiracies and is therefore not admissible as direct evidence. At the very least, because it is not "manifestly clear" that evidence is proof of the charged conspiracies, "the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)." United States v. Townsend, No. Si 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May I, 2007) (citing United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). + +evidence should also be excluded under Rule 404(6) and Rule 403. As argued in our initial Motion, evidence that Ms. Maxwell allegedly encouraged an adult to engage in legal sexual activity is not, in any way, evidence of her intent to facilitate Epstein's + +alleged scheme to cause minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, or her knowledge of the same. See Mot. at 11. Nor is the evidence of alleged "grooming" sufficiently unique to qualify as proof of "modus operandi." See id. at 12. Furthermore, there is a strong likelihood that the jury will assume that Epstein's alleged sex acts with were illegal and will misapply that evidence in evaluating Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence to the charged Act conspiracies. Her evidence should therefore be excluded under Rule 403. See id. at 12-13. + +If the Court decides to admi evidence, it should preclude the government and from referring to her as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government andfrom representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury the appropriate limiting instruction the defense has requested. See Mot. at 14-15. + +The government argues that the term "minor" is appropriate because was, for a brief time, below the age of 18, which is the age of consent under federal law. Resp. at 52-53. Although the government would like to believe that U.S. federal law is the only law that matters, even as to acts that allegedly took place in a foreign country, that is not the case. The Court should not permit to be referred to as a "minor" because she was not a "minor" under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction when any of the alleged sex acts took place. It would not only be inaccurate to call her a "minor," but it would also mislead the jury to believe that the acts that allegedly took place in the U.K. were "criminal sexual activity" when they were not. The same is true for the phrase "sexual abuse," which connotes criminal activity. See Mot. at 14-15 (citing Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017)). + +Finally, the government opposes the defense's requested jury instruction regarding the age of consent under U.K. law on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" and would "confuse the + +jury." Resp. at 53-54. Apparently, the government believes the jury would be "confused" if the Court told the jurors what the law actually is so that they do not improperly assume that' testimony is being offered as proof of "criminal sexual activity" and apply it incorrectly to convict Ms. Maxwell of the Act conspiracies. The jurors would not be "confused"; they would be educated on how to properly evaluate evidence. The government's objection is non-sensical. But not as non-sensical as the government's final proclamation: + +The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case. + +Id. at 54. A better example of circular reasoning you could not find — sex acts with Epstein are "criminal" because they are "proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes"? No. And the "risk that the jury will think that ... the conduct is lawful? It was lawful. Whatever misgivings may now have about those alleged sex acts, and whether she now views those incidents as "sexual abuse," there was nothing illegal about them. + +And that is precisely the point. If she is permitted will testify about feeling sexually abused by Epstein and the jury will assume that the sex acts were illegal. Unless the Court instructs the jury that the sex acts were not illegal under U.K. law, and they cannot be considered as "criminal sexual conduct" in evaluating the elements of the Act conspiracies, there is a substantial risk that the jury will misapply her evidence and improperly convict Ms. Maxwell of those counts. The government has agreed to do this in similar cases and it is appropriate to do so here. See =, 708 F. App'x at 735-36 (government sought and received jury instructions explaining the applicable criminal laws of the relevant jurisdictions and jury returned a special verdict form finding "that the defendant intended to engage in sexual + +activity for which the defendant could be charged with specific New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Canadian criminal offenses" (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the Court should give the jury the defense's requested limiting instruction.8 + +#### V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED "FLIGHT" + +The government has conceded that it will not elicit any evidence or argue to the jury that Ms. Maxwell "was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein's arrest and her own." Resp. at 81-82. + +## VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS AND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS + +The government has also conceded that it will not elicit any evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's alleged false statements in her 2016 depositions and agrees to the defense's request to redact the perjury counts and related allegations from the S2 Indictment. Resp. at 82. + +# VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION. + +From approximately + +8 The defense also agrees with the government that the Court should instruct the jury that it cannot convict Ms. Maxwell of the charged conspiracies based solely on evidence. See Resp. at 50 n.12. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +It was not until 2020, after making a multi-million dollar claim to the Epstein Victim Compensation fund, that the SDNY interviewed [REDACTED] and then in 2021 showed her photos -- the majority of which were men or women much younger than Ms. Maxwell. Only two of the photos look anything like Ms. Maxwell and [REDACTED] thought one was Ms. Maxwell and the other might be Ms. Maxwell. Of course, no one thought to ask [REDACTED] if her lawyers had shown her photos of Ms. Maxwell as part of her multi-million-dollar request or if she had seen any of the many photographs displayed on the internet of Ms. Maxwell, including those published in relation to the first indictment by Acting U.S. Attorney Strauss’s Rule 23.1-violative press conference, or any of the millions of photographs published in the wake of the Indictment. The photo array process was not recorded, and we do not know why certain photos in the array were selected or by whom. No one documented how long the photo array was viewed or any other relevant indicia of reliability. + +The claim that the show-up was merely a “confirmatory identification” of someone that [REDACTED] had “known and identified by name over the years” is completely unsupported by the evidence. Tellingly, the government appends no supporting exhibit or declaration in support of this conclusory statement because it cannot. The truth of the matter is that [REDACTED] had never identified Ms. Maxwell as someone who abused her and never claimed to have seen Ms. Maxwell prior to 2020 when it became economically prudent for her to do so. + +The facts about interaction with Ms. Maxwell are hotly disputed. Ms. Maxwell rejects the government's unsupported conclusory statements about when and if she interacted with Ms. Maxwell and her ability to do so absent suggestion. + +When the prosecution offers testimony from an eyewitness to identify the defendant as a perpetrator of the offense, fundamental fairness requires that that identification testimony be reliable. Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). The court must first determine whether the pretrial identification procedures unduly and unnecessarily suggested that the defendant was the perpetrator. If the court finds, however, that the procedures were suggestive, it must then determine whether the identification was nonetheless independently reliable. Id. + +The critical question here, ignored by the government, is not whether knew that she was accusing Ms. Maxwell in 2020 (she undoubtably was) but whether she could identify Ms. Maxwell as the person she was now claiming abused her. Of the pictures selected here, had a high probability of picking Ms. Maxwell -- even then, she was tentative about one person who was not Ms. Maxwell. The show up was neither confirmatory nor fair. + +The protection against unduly suggestive procedures encompass not only the right to avoid improper police methods that suggest the initial identification, but as well the right to avoid having suggestive methods transform a selection that was only tentative into one that is positively certain. 645 F.2d 1179, 1185 (2d Cir. 1981). + +Ms. Maxwell has met her burden of demonstrating the show up was unduly suggestive. Under these circumstances the Court should next consider the well know "five factors": (I) the witness's opportunity to observe the criminal at the time of the crime, (2) the degree of the witness's attention at that time, (3) the accuracy of the witness's initial description of the + +criminal, (4) the certainty with which the witness first identified the suspect, and (5) the time lapse between the crime and the identification. Id. at 1186. Each of these factors weighs heavily in Ms. Maxwell's favor: as to 1-3, until 2020 had never claimed Ms. Maxwell participated in any abuse and never identified Ms. Maxwell -- indeed, she had never before been asked to identify Ms. Maxwell. Concerning number 4 was less than certain, as demonstrated by her selection of someone else who Maxwell." Factor 5 also weighs in Ms. Maxwell's favor, as the delay was 17 years. + +Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on this motion and fmd that the show up was unduly suggestive and suppress any identification of Ms. Maxwell, before or during trial. + +# VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINION TESTIMONY + +The government agrees that it has not noticed any law enforcement officers as experts and, as to their fact police officers, "will not elicit expert testimony from them." Resp. at 82-83. Overlooking the long list of potential law enforcement opinion testimony that has been disallowed by Courts in the past (see Mot. at 2-5), the government then goes on to make the confusing claim that the defense should have to "provide expert" testimony from the government's own case agents if it wants to call them as witnesses. Resp. at 83 n.24. + +The defense has no intention of eliciting opinion testimony from the agents when they testify. As the motion makes clear, the defense fully understands the contours of lay versus opinion testimony from law enforcement officers. The case agents are first hand percipient witnesses to a number of facts in the investigation and prosecution of this case, including as the impeachment witness for the many changed stories of the accusers. + +As evidenced by their recently disclosed interviews, the government lawyers, despite its protests about the defense's ability to call percipient fact witnesses, have been preparing the case agents for months to testify in the defense's case. The risk highlighted by the defense it its footnote is that, even though they are not asked a question that calls for opinion testimony, the agents are likely to try to offer their opinions either during the defense's questioning or when the government attempts to rehabilitate them. Because neither side has noticed any opinion testimony from the case agents, they should be prohibited from offering any, especially because it will be non-responsive to any questions that should be asked of them. + +#### IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +The government argues that the expected testimony of that she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein is admissible to show the "ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims" and is necessary "to complete the story of the crime on trial." Resp. at 79-80. The government offers no explanation, however, for why testimony of an alleged rape would prove the relationship "between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims" whenhas never claimed in her prior statements to the FBI or anywhere else that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in the alleged rape in any way. Nor does the government explain why this testimony is somehow necessary "to complete the story of the crime on trial" when the rape allegation is an outlier and does not fit the "story" of alleged sexual abuse that the government has described in the S2 Indictment—namely, "grooming" the alleged victims to gradually break down their inhibitions so that forcible rape is not required to engage in sexual activity with them. Because the rape allegation is the only one of its kind and has no connection to the other incidents of alleged sexual abuse, it should not be admitted as intrinsic proof of the charged crimes. See United States v. Townsend, No. Si 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*2 + +(S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (defendant's prior narcotics and firearm transactions with the same confidential informant not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged narcotics conspiracy, even though the conduct was "generally similar to the conduct underlying the offenses charged in the indictment"); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 369-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (prior similar money laundering transactions between defendant and cooperating witness not "inextricably interm mad" with the charged money laundering offense or "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracy (emphasis in original)). + +Testimony concerning the alleged rape should also be excluded because the S2 Indictment contains no allegations of rape and such testimony is therefore irrelevant to the charged crimes. The government dismisses this point arguing that indictments do not need to include all of the government's evidence, and the terms "sexual activity" and "commercial sex act" are broad enough to cover rape. See Resp. at 80. But this misses the point. The rape allegations are irrelevant to the charges because the charges are based on sexual activity that was illegal because the alleged victims were under the age of consent. The indictment does not charge any crimes that are premised on sex acts that involve the use of force, like rape. For example, Counts Five and Six charge sex trafficking offenses. See S2 Ind. II 22-27. But they do not charge the section of the statute that criminalizes sex trafficking that "was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). The government is therefore off base when its states that "evidence of rape, where it occurs ... is the core conduct in the case." Resp. at 81. It is only the "core conduct" of the case when the indictment alleges forcible sex acts. Indeed, the cases cited by the government prove this point. See Ex. E, Indictment, United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (defendant charged with sex trafficking conspiracy "effected by means of force" under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(6)(1)); + +United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (same). + +Finally, whatever minimal probative value the rape allegation might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. As we previously argued in our initial Motion, rape is highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the "sexualized massages" alleged in the S2 Indictment. See Mot. at 2-3. Admitting testimony of an alleged rape would pose a serious risk that the "jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 181 (1997) (quoting United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, I.)) (discussing propensity evidence). Such evidence would also confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. It will cause the jurors to focus on conduct that is not relevant to the charged offense and suggests that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United States v. In 521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the "risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose"). The Court should therefore preclude any testimony or evidence about an alleged rape. + +# XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS "VICTIMS" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING + +Without explaining its logic, and by way of cases concerning jury instructions, the government disagrees that use of the term "victim" by witnesses and the prosecution during trial amounts to improper vouching. Yet, the government offers that the only times it expects the word will be used at trial are (a) by the prosecutors during their jury addresses, and (b) in Dr. Rocchio's testimony concerning her patients. Resp. at 77. The government's legal analysis and + +argument are flawed, and the Court should enter the order proposed by Ms. Maxwell that all parties, witnesses, and the Court should refer to the individuals by their proper names. + +First, overlooking the frequency with which state courts must grapple with fair trials inherent in sex crimes, the government complains that the defendant cited no federal authority for the proposition that the Court, witnesses, and parties should use the individuals' names rather than the word "victim." To remedy that perceived problem, counsel refers the Court to United States v. Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247, at \*1-2 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021), and the other cases cited therein: + +"[Defendant] is correct that the term (victim) is prejudicial when the core issue at trial is whether a crime has been committed—and, therefore, whether there is a victim. See State v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 1230, 1239-40 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004), affd, 885 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2005) (holding that jury charges using the term "victim" instead of "alleged victim" violated a defendant's due process right to a fair trial); Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674, 674 (Tex. App. 1984) (use of the term "victim" in court's rape charge was reversible error when the issue at trial was whether complainant consented to sexual intercourse); People v. , 423 N.Y.S.2d 229, 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) ("By referring in its charge to the complainant as the `victim' and to the defendant as the `perpetrator', the court impermissibly insinuated to the jury that the complainant was the victim of injuries resulting from acts committed by the defendant."). + +At [the] upcoming trial, the jury has the responsibility of deciding whether a crime occurred and whether that crime resulted in harm to [the accuser]. Thus, to label [the accuser] as a victim at the outset of trial carries the risk of improperly influencing the jury's decision. Moreover, there is virtually no probative value in allowing the government to use the term "victim" to describe [the accuser]. See United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544, at \*2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) (considering a similar motion and finding that there was "no need by any party to refer to [the alleged victim] by any particular descriptor other than her name"). Restricting the use of the term "victim" does not prevent the government from describing (the accuser's] injuries, or from presenting any of its other evidence. The government and its witnesses remain free to refer to (the accuser) by name or by other descriptive terms (e.g., "the mail carrier'). + +Id. (emphasis added). + +As argued in the motion, when the government, the Court, or another witness uses the term "victim" at the outset of the trial, it risks the jury pre-judging the merits, improperly + +speculating that the accusers have already been found credible by someone, or that their decision is a foregone conclusion. On the other side of the probative-prejudicial scale, the government simultaneously fails to articulate any probative value in use of the term "victim," either in its jury address or otherwise. Cf State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233, 236 (Vt. 2005) ("the use of the term 'victim' had no inherent probative value"). + +Second, the government improperly suggests in response that the stricture on vouching should not apply to the witnesses themselves. Resp. at 79. As explained by numerous cases, having any witness refer to themselves or another witness as a "victim" is the very height of improper vouching. Sena. supra; State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121, 131, 442 P.3d 581, 590 (2019) ("another witness's description of the complaining witness as a 'victim' conveys an opinion that the complaining witness is telling the truth. That is what the vouching rule is intended to prevent."); Wigg, supra. + +Finally, the government contends that Dr. Rocchio can use the word "victim" in reference to "victims of sexual abuse generally," but her use of the term is even more problematic. For the reasons articulated in our Daubers motion and reply, Dr. Rocchio bases her expertise on her therapeutic number of individuals who have self-identified as sexual abuse victims, without any research or investigation as to whether the individuals' self-reports are true. She then intends to draw from her anecdotal and experiential treatment to generalize about all "victims" without their ever having been a finding that any of the persons she has provided treatment to were, in fact, "victims." If she is permitted to testify, there is no reason for her to vouch for the credibility of her patients, unless she clarifies each time that she is taking the individual at their word that they were in fact a victim. The danger of confusion to a jury is that anyone treated by Dr. Rochio must have been a victim. As the Wigg court recognized, there will be a "danger of unfair + +prejudice because the [witness's] choice of language implied that he and the prosecution believed the complainant's testimony." Id. + +For these and the previously stated reasons, Ms. Maxwell asks the Court to order that the parties, the witnesses, and the Court use individuals' names in the presence of the jury. + +#### XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY + +# A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits + +Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." See also Ricketts v. City of Hanford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1409 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496-500 (2d Cir.1984) (discussing the interaction between Fed.R.Evid. 104 and 901). "In order for a piece of evidence to be of probative value, there must be proof that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 (2d Cir. 1984). A motion in limine to preclude evidence calls on the "[C]ourt to make a preliminary determination on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Highland Capita! Myra., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence." Dougherty v. County of Suffolk, No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). + +Ms. Maxwell has filed in limine motions challenging the admissibility of discrete items of evidence that the government intends to offer at trial. As discussed below, the Court should hold + +a pre-trial hearing at which the government must demonstrate that the proposed evidence is both authentic, admissible, relevant and not unduly prejudicial. + +## B. Government Exhibit 52 + +Government Exhibit (GX) 52 was acquired by the government as part of a sting operation from Alfredo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriquez worked for Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from late 2004 to early 2005. In 2009, he was deposed and then ultimately arrested in an undercover sting operation in which the government claims exhibit 52 was seized from Mr. Rodriguez, apparently on or about November 3, 2009, by one who is not listed as a testifying witness. No one knows where or when the exhibit was acquired by Mr. Rodriguez, what he did with it for as long as he had it, who may have created the exhibit, and where it came from. In its Response, the government does not identify what it claims this exhibit to be, who might authenticate the exhibit, only that a "witness with personal knowledge of the physical book is expected to testify to its authenticity." Resp. at 73. Given that Mr. Rodriguez is dead, and be. is not a witness, we are left to wonder who this foundational witness may + +The government further claims that even if the exhibit is hearsay, it is admissible, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show "the defendant kept contact information for relevant individuals at trial, including victims." Id. These are bold, unexplained claims that Ms. Maxwell disputes. The proffers here are inadequate to meet any burden of admissibility. The government should not be allowed to refer to the exhibit prior to the establishment of an adequate foundation; and Ms. Maxwell requests a pretrial evidentiary hearing on this issue. + +# C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way + +Again, the government claims that it will have live witnesses "to establish the authenticity of the evidence at trial." It does not identify the witness or the basis of that person's + +knowledge. The government does not provide any clues about who may have touched the evidence after it was seized in October 2005, ten months after the end of the conspiracy alleged and it does not address how these items seized are relevant to acts allegedly seized 10 years after the start of the alleged conspiracy or even 10 months after it ended. + +GX 295 is not a “past recollection recorded” by some other witness. It is a testimonial hearsay statement by a dead witness and admission of any part of GX 295 would violate Ms. Maxwell’s rights to confront the declarant and the rules of evidence. The government offers no explanation about how the affidavit of Detective Recarey could possibly be the recorded recollection of someone else; and a pretrial evidentiary hearing is warranted. + +**D. [REDACTED]** + +The supposed relevance for [REDACTED], again seized almost one year after the alleged conspiracy ended, is that they “help to establish that *it was apparent* from [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] *Id.* at 74-75. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The [REDACTED] then, establish no material fact in this case and their admission should be prohibited under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +**E. The Twin Torpedoes** + +Seized in 2005, and still in the box, unopened, no witness will testify that Ms. Maxwell used these devices. The items were not and could not have been used in connection with any alleged act in this case, assuming a foundation can be established. Accordingly, the exhibit, whether it be the photograph or the actual boxed items, should not be admitted under FRE 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +#### F. Government Exhibit 313 + +GX 313 was seized in 2019. It was not seized from Ms. Maxwell. No one will testify about where it was taken, who took it, or where it was kept. Because the government cannot establish the location of the photograph, it is not corroborative, as the government claims, of "topless swimming" at the Palm Beach pool, which is also not relevant to the allegations here. Ms. Maxwell has not challenged other photographs showing a close relationship between Ms. Maxell and Epstein, and we expect there to be evidence of their relationship at trial. Accordingly, any probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the picture. Again, this exhibit should be excluded under FRE 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +#### G. Government Exhibit 606 + +GX 606 comes from an unknown author, created at an unknown time, and for an unknown purpose. The government's proffer is speculative and does not supply any evidentiary foundation, authenticity, or relevance. The exhibit should be excluded under FRE 901, 802, 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). As with the other exhibits discussed herein, Ms. Maxwell requests a pretrial evidentiary hearing. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 27, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Chas!crane Maxwell's Reply In Support of Her Motions In Limine with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1bed2b866c9e3c7da7136faed75b0d5c1c740b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/EFTA02833809.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2833 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 52, + "chars": 88445, + "elapsed_seconds": 133.58, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.3348083496094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.3348083496094, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF \nHER MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 463.947021484375, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 463.947021484375, + 333.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 333.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 121.9334716796875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 121.9334716796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 185.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 185.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 224.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-\nCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S \nFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 529.8933715820312, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 529.8933715820312, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 533.1458740234375, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 533.1458740234375, + 223.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 223.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 418.00701904296875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 418.00701904296875, + 391.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 391.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. There Should Be a Sanction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 287.4973449707031, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 287.4973449707031, + 225.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 225.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government\u2019s Anticipated Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 538.5600000000001, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 87.48 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE \nBASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY 404(B) EVIDENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.5321655273438, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.5321655273438, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure \nPropensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 515.398681640625, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 515.398681640625, + 320.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 320.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 127.98000000000002 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 127.98000000000002 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 141.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her \ntestimony as Rule 404(b) evidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 499.34930419921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 499.34930419921875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. constitutes an impermissible \nconstructive amendment and variance to the Indictment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 484.5899658203125, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 484.5899658203125, + 636.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 636.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the \nadmissibility of and exhibits for two \nweeks.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 532.5728759765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 532.5728759765625, + 117.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 117.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER \nFEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW \nPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 US. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT \nHEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 526.0922241210938, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 526.0922241210938, + 405.363037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 405.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are \nbased on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to \nproduce six months ago.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.7009887695312, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 542.7009887695312, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.3883056640625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.3883056640625, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Dauber: hearing.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 427.3959045410156, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 427.3959045410156, + 362.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 362.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED\u25a0", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 222.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE \nOF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED \"FLIGHT\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.844, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 525.836181640625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 525.836181640625, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 83.844, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER \nEVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS \nAND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 516.9876098632812, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 516.9876098632812, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING \nON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.60400000000001, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 536.9425048828125, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 536.9425048828125, + 446.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 71.60400000000001, + 446.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT \nOPINION TESTIMONY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.096, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 506.58831787109375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 506.58831787109375, + 378.363037109375 + ], + [ + 66.096, + 378.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED \n\"RAPE\" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 518.533447265625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 518.533447265625, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS \"VICTIMS\" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 513.3831787109375, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 513.3831787109375, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT \nEXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 535.0867309570312, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 535.0867309570312, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 463.5096435546875, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 463.5096435546875, + 236.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Government Exhibit 52", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.9805450439453, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.9805450439453, + 141.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 341.87420654296875, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 341.87420654296875, + 663.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 663.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Twin Torpedoes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 246.63600000000002, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 246.63600000000002, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 554.85 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Government Exhibit 313", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 271.114501953125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 271.114501953125, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Government Exhibit 606", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.67181396484375, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.67181396484375, + 334.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 334.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4869689941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4869689941406, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 49 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833809" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b775891a56f5e70598fd9ed10be96baca305b94c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833809/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4798d8d1ab6ebba3239fad6f3e8c73c6fc9ea978bfa1e26f249ee3371eb8ba3c +size 711 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76515caf54c40c6a8ce69f7e3b4faf444d42bcf6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andmr's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +October 28, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter concerning the parties' motions in limine. Consistent with the Court's order (Dkt. No. 368), the parties today have filed their motions in limine and responsive briefs, containing all redactions sought by both parties. The following are the parties' justifications for their proposed redactions: + +## Government's Justification + +The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's motions in limine are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims (including victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case), witnesses, and third parties. The Government also seeks sealing of trial exhibits, which are not public, and certain other exhibits which are not themselves confidential, but which would risk identifying the victims if publicly filed on the docket in this case. + +## Defense Justification + +The defense proposes a more limited set of redactions than the government. To the extent that the government and the defense agree on proposed redactions and sealing requests, the Court should consider them joint requests by both parties. However, the defense objects to the government's proposed redactions and sealing requests that are broader than those of the defense. + +The defense respectfully submits that the following redactions and sealing requests are appropriate under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) because they are narrowly tailored to protect the interests articulated below. + +- I. The defense's proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Rule 404(6), and Exhibit A to that motion, are necessary to protect privacy interests of third parties who are not currently parties or witnesses to the case and because the defense has objected to the admission of this evidence. If the evidence is made public before the Court determines its admissibility, it would be extremely prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal). +- 2. The defense's proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 are necessary because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e) (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal). +- 3. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibits A and Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 should he filed under seal because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e). + - 4. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibit 1 to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to + +Exclude GX-52 should be filed under seal because it contains phone numbers, addresses, email addresses and other personally identifying information that must be sealed. + +5. The defense's proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Preclude Government Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606 are necessary to protect privacy interests of third parties who are not currently parties or witnesses to the case and because the defense has objected to the admission of this evidence. If the evidence is made public before the Court determines its admissibility, it would be extremely prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal). + +6. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibit A to Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Preclude Government Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606 should be filed under seal for the same reasons. + +7. The defense's proposed redactions to the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition are necessary for the same reasons (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal). + +8. The defense's proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell's Reply are necessary for the same reasons (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal). + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b31754fd0b0dad5a441fe15b3bf5ffa4a230041 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/EFTA02833861.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4960, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government's Justification", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 241.27392578125, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 241.27392578125, + 467.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 467.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Justification", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 90.298828125 + ], + [ + 212.23806762695312, + 90.298828125 + ], + [ + 212.23806762695312, + 104.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 104.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833861" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56c1e0fa2a874e44ec492b961dd16cf2ba3d7702 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833861/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5555a4e01e7bd3ac270802509a135bd2f237c52e7eb771822d3d08cdd1ff9512 +size 3464 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a87bfc35440cece636be297a1b9f52c5c2e0af1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, and the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386. The issues raised in the two motions overlap significantly. The Court is required under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 to conduct an in camera hearing. Fed. R. Evid. 412 ("Before admitting evidence under this rule, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials, and the record of the hearing must remain under seal.). In addition, the Court has determined it will conduct a Daubert hearing with respect to the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Because of the overlap in the substance of the motions, the Court will conduct the two proceedings back to back. + +The Court previously set a tentative date for the Rule 412 Motion hearing as November 5, 2021. Dkt. No. 354. The Court is prepared to proceed with both hearings on that date. Alternatively, the proceedings could be held on either the afternoon of November 9 or the afternoon of November 10. The Government shall confer with its proposed expert regarding availability for the Daubert hearing as well as with alleged victims who wish to attend and be + +heard at the Rule 412 Motion hearing. After doing so, the parties shall confer with each other as to availability. On or before November 2, 2021, the parties shall jointly file a letter with the Court indicating whether the parties request that the hearings be held on November 5, 9, or 10. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 31, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8747fc5e82508159d115a49b5530be78bb134a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/EFTA02833865.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2047, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 73.4815673828125 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 73.4815673828125 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833865" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5b17d4258396c71fce38cd61d139a3e33c69619 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833865/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ab52f0a5ea2da418522c2dd80fc5512df26fc97cbbb9f2ad623ddfa819bb7455 +size 11340 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..281a30c353215cea14e4a4d0ebc68d98da7147db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to the parties' motions in limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court denies the Government's request to redact section ten of the Government's motion in limine. See Dkt. No. 380. The Court will also not permit redactions pertaining to the general description of evidence or anticipated testimony as such redactions are unnecessary to protect the privacy interests of the individuals implicated. Accordingly, the parties must propose more tailored redactions consistent with the Court's discussion at today's conference. + +The parties are ORDERED to submit the proposals to the Court via email by November 4, 2021. In order to facilitate the Court's review of the requests, the Court requires the parties to submit the proposed redactions as a single document and with the proposed redactions highlighted. The Defendant's proposed redactions should be highlighted in one color, and the Government's a different color. + +The Court will rule on the proposed redactions expeditiously. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 1, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d82ecb5a45b83301b118a534dd4b217228c055c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/EFTA02833867.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1712, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.95, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833867" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4555127868cce0bcb2d440557ac652965245d523 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833867/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0092644d301502e08c0af8a55ee67a3982e83e84d66cf8b3b455147daa117ef6 +size 11459 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15d7fd88276bc165cd5ab7ebbf207616aea3bc0b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|-----------------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 10/29/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter regarding delivery of Defendant's legal mail at MDC. Dkt. No. 381. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 29, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e5b3874a4b414ce18b11ea978a0ac3abbbda580 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869/EFTA02833869.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833869.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 690, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 98.82 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833869" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea7a266fb7316353a6cbfb34aa17a49c2fc38c79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Mao Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 2, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated October 29, 2021 (Dkt. No. 420) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October 29, 2021 letter regarding delivery of the defendant's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") (Dkt. No. 381). The Government also writes in response to questions raised by the defense at the November I, 2021 conference about materials sent to the defendant last week. + +The Government has conferred with legal counsel at the MDC, and was informed of the following: Legal mail from a defendant's counsel sent through the United States Postal Service ("USPS") has a different delivery process than that outlined in the Government's October 15, 2021 letter as to electronic discovery provided by the Government (Dkt. No. 350). MDC's Legal Department is not involved in the delivery of legal mail sent by a defendant's counsel. Instead, MDC mail room staff must pick up such mail from the post office once every business day. The mail room staff picks up the mail in the morning. After picking up the mail, the mail room staff must log the mail. Once the mail is logged, the respective unit managers retrieve the mail from the mail room and deliver the mail to the inmates. If, for example, mail is delivered to the post + +office at 12 p.m. on Monday, but the mail room staff already picked up the mail for the day, the mail would not be retrieved by MDC mail room staff until Tuesday, at which point mail room staff would log the mail so it could then be delivered to the inmate by the unit manager. + +In connection with the questions raised at the November 1, 2021 conference about the delivery of materials sent by the Government to the defendant, the Government notes the following: The Government sent materials to the defendant on disks on October 27 and October 29, 2021. The Government sent those materials by disk directly to the defendant via certified mail in accordance with BOP policy. According to the USPS website, those disks were delivered on November 1 and November 2. Legal counsel at the MDC is following up on the status of the delivery of those disks. In any event, the Government also sent those materials via FedEx to legal counsel at the MDC on a hard drive on October 29, 2021, the same day the defense provided the drive to the Government.' That same day, the Government informed legal counsel at the MDC that it had sent the hard drive.2 According to the FedEx website, the Government understands that the hard drive was received by the MDC on November 1, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC has informed the Government that it will hand deliver that hard drive to the defendant today. + +Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government that it was not involved in the delivery of the legal mail sent to the defendant by her counsel as set forth in Exhibit A of the defendant's October 29, 2021 letter. Legal counsel at the MDC looked into the tracking numbers provided by defense counsel in Exhibit A. According to legal counsel at the MDC, the package scheduled for delivery on Saturday, October 9, 2021 was delivered to the defendant on October 12, 2021 + +The Government has asked defense counsel to provide it with hard drives so it can produce additional materials on hard drives via FedEx rather than on disks via certified mail. + +2 According to legal counsel at the MDC, MDC staff picks up mail for delivery to inmates Monday through Friday. + +(Monday, October 11 was a federal holiday); the package scheduled for delivery on October 14, 2021 was delivered to the defendant on October 15, 2021; the package scheduled for delivery on Saturday, October 16, 2021 was delivered to the defendant on Monday, October 18, 2021; and the package scheduled for delivery on October 28, 2021 was delivered on October 29, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC has explained to the Government that defense counsel's request that the MDC be directed to retrieve the mail within one business day of receipt by the post office is burdensome and is not practicable in light of the procedures outlined above, which apply to the 1,700 inmates at the MDC. The MDC mail staff will continue to follow its standard procedures and retrieve mail from the post office every morning of the business week. + +As to the issues raised at the November 1, 2021 conference regarding the transportation of the defendant to the Southern District of New York courthouse for proceedings in this matter, according to legal counsel at the MDC, the procedures are similar to those used for other inmates, but the timing varies slightly. To the extent the Court requires specific details on the timing of transportation of the defendant as compared to other inmates, legal counsel at the MDC has expressed security concerns about putting such details in a publicly filed letter. To extent the Court needs that information, the Government would request permission to confer further with legal counsel at the MDC and authorization from the Court to provide such information under seal. The Government understands from the United States Marshals Service that the clothing and lunches provided to the defendant are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, and that the lunch does not usually require the use of utensils. This is the same for all defendants. + +Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic, the Government will confer with legal counsel at the MDC and provide additional information. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb8dbbf4460678deca26302ab71879bd261bd514 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/EFTA02833870.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6133, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833870" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f92edcd25b8beb6f5c2039d0e8017551886d0011 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833870/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:07cac102a96e969c87dfde345bc2e9b8704170dc944580e02af68f05006a120f +size 3393 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54028938708f57f5b30804386f8e14381bed2bb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 11/2/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As discussed at yesterday's conference, attached is the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each voir dire session. The parties may suggest any proposed edits or additions by letter on or before November 8, 2021, or they shall indicate by that date that they have no objections or suggestions. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 2, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +I United States v. Maxwell, 20cr330 Preliminary Remarks Prior to Voir Dire To be recorded and played on 11/16-11/19 + +## 4 Introduction + +5 Welcome back to the Southern District. Thank you again for your time and service. As I mentioned in my remarks to you when you filled out the questionnaire, I'm Judge Nathan and I am the judge who will preside over this case. The questionnaire you previously filled out was the first step in the jury selection process. Today will be the second step. Some of you will be excused today and will not have to return for this case, although you may be directed to go 10 through a similar process in another case. Others may be directed to return tomorrow if necessary. And ultimately, some of you will return for the third and final step in the process. That will take place on November 29. In any event, after you complete this step of the process today, you will receive instructions on next steps that are particular to you. + +As you know from my prior remarks to you and from the questionnaire, we're here today IS to select a jury to serve in a criminal case, called the United States against Ghislaine Maxwell. As 16 you read in the questionnaire, the Indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minor females to travel to engage in criminal sex activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +Thank you for participating in this process. The process of selecting a jury in a criminal case is a critical part of our justice system. The purpose of this process is to select those jurors who can be fair and impartial to both sides in this case. Some people find that they can be fair and + +impartial in one kind of case, but for various reasons, related to their own life experiences or views, 2 can't be fair in another kind of case. The process that we use is designed to help us figure out 3 whether you can be fair and impartial to both sides in this case. + +4 If during the course of this process you come to believe that because of something that 5 you have experienced or because of something you've heard or read that you cannot be fair and 6 impartial—that is that you would favor either the Government or the Defendant regardless of 7 what the evidence shows—then you must tell me. It's not unusual, and there's no reason to be 8 embarrassed about it. + +9 But the system only works if all of our citizens are willing and prepared to serve as jurors io when they can do so fairly and impartially. I do not expect that anybody would seek to avoid this i 1 important duty for any but the most compelling reasons. + +12 As I mentioned in my prior remarks, the Court has taken a number of steps to help ensure 13 the process for selected jurors is as safe and easy as possible. We have masking and distancing 14 protocols. We have reconfigured courtrooms to enhance safety measures. The Court will is provide transportation for selected jurors to and from the courthouse each day. Breakfast, 16 snacks, and lunch will be provided for you. + +To conduct the next phase of the process, I will ask each of you some questions 18 individually. We'll do that in a separate courtroom where I and the lawyers and the Defendant are sitting now. You all will be brought in the courtroom one at a time. Bear in mind that this is a public courtroom. To protect your privacy, I will only refer to you by your juror number. Please do not state any identifying information. For example, if we talk about your job you could say that you are a sales clerk at a large retail store, without stating the specific name of your employer. This is to protect your privacy. Even with those privacy protections in place, if + +there is something that would be too difficult or embarrassing for you to say on the public record, please let me know. And please keep in mind that if you are selected as a juror, we will continue to refer to you only by your juror number throughout the process. + +Now, if you are selected as a juror, your job is going to be to listen to the evidence and to my instructions on the law and to make a determination that's based only on the law. So I want to speak to you generally about some things to keep in mind. + +The first thing is, as Ms. Maxwell sits here now, she's presumed to be innocent. She is 8 presumed innocent until and only if the jury finds that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As I just explained to you, she's been indicted for a number of crimes, but an indictment is just io an accusation. It is not evidence and it doesn't mean that Ms. Maxwell is guilty of anything. You i t can't assume that she is guilty or more likely to be guilty just because she's been charged with committing these crimes. That's the reason we have trials, to determine whether the Government 13 can prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal case does not have to prove that she is not guilty. That means a defendant does not have to testify, or to put on any evidence and a juror can't hold that against a defendant if she makes that choice. + +The next thing is that as jurors you must follow the law as I give it to you, even if you don't agree with it or if you think the law should be different. + +18 You also have to base your verdict on the evidence, not on something that you've read in the newspapers or the intemet or seen on television or heard about on social media or in discussions with friends, family, or colleagues. And you can't base your decision in this case on something that you might have read or heard about another case. + +22 As I said before, there is significant media interest in this case. As jurors you are not permitted to read any news about this case. You cannot read or watch or listen to any accounts + +of this case at all. If you see something in the paper or online, you're just going to have to turn 2 the page or close the browser. You can't read it. + +3 Equally important, you're not permitted to discuss this case with anyone else while the 4 case is going on. Even with your fellow jurors, you can't discuss the case until you've heard all 5 the evidence and I've given my instructions on the law. Again, that's because you can only 6 consider the evidence that you hear in the courtroom, not anything outside of the courtroom. You 7 have to keep an open mind. Nor may you discuss the case with friends or family until after your 8 jury service is complete. You can tell them that you are a juror in a criminal case in federal court 9 and that the judge has told you that you are not permitted to say anything further. + +10 Similarly, until you are excused from jury service, you cannot post anything about your i I experience as a juror on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or any kind of social media. 12 Another instruction, you can't look up or google or do any other kind of search about anything 13 related to the case or anyone involved in the case. + +14 The reason for these rules, as I am sure you understand, is they protect the integrity of the I 5 trial and assure that both sides receive a fair trial. + +16 Jurors in criminal cases base their verdicts on the evidence that they hear in the 17 courtroom, not on something that somebody else tells you, not on something that you see on TV IS or on social media. That's why if you're selected as a juror, I'll be reminding you of these rules 19 regularly. You can't watch news accounts, look anything up or speak to anybody else about the 20 case. You would be violating the oath you have taken as jurors and you would be violating my 21 orders if you were to do that. + +22 Finally, you must report to me through my court deputy any effort by any person to speak 23 with you about the case or to influence you about the case or to get information about the case. + +i I do want to thank all of you for the time you've invested already in this process. Our 2 system cannot function unless we have good people like you who are willing to give up their 3 time and to serve as jurors. + +4 Please sit quietly until your number is called and you are brought into the courtroom for 5 questioning by me. Although you may use your electronic devices while you are waiting 6 (bearing in mind of course all of my instructions that forbid you to do any research or engage in 7 any communications about the case through any means), you must turn off and hand over any 8 electronic devices to the Jury Department staff before you are brought into the courtroom. I look 9 forward to meeting each of you in person soon. Thank you. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d244663928bb3c34ad10b970b0d1156cb9d068e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874/EFTA02833874.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833874.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 9622, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4 Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 341.2853088378906, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 341.2853088378906, + 148.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 148.61248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833874" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7f638c92d0a21b70cb197ec7c0cec9caf0dd9d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 2, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The parties have conferred about the estimate of the trial length as directed by the Court on November I, 2021. The parties' estimates of the length of their cases remain the same (see Dkt. No. 340), and accordingly, the parties continue to estimate a six-week trial. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: /s Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5488f62f78f8a7a3d772f4e29c242a4b74f3e81 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/EFTA02833880.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 889, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 182.9815673828125 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833880" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fd90a308c76095795cacd534fe29baedc1845a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833880/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0042c2f22d28b46ded0c0f2b88791b590e753e9fc1578007b63769f8d0bb152a +size 3516 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9bcde258931a5d1bc2ef5dec285f9dead03cbac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New• York New• York 10007 + +November 2, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's order dated October 31, 2021, the parties write regarding the date for the hearing on the defendant's Rule 412 motion and the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, hic., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +## Government's Position + +Last night, defense counsel emailed the Government expert notice for eight individuals. See Ex. A.' One of the individuals, Dr. Park Dietz, appears to offer opinions in direct response to Dr. Rocchio's, and another, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, appears to offer opinions that relate to Dr. Rocchio's. + +&#x27; The Government is submitting Exhibit A temporarily under seal with proposed redactions to give the defense an opportunity to seek any additional redactions. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter and its attached exhibit are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims (including victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case). + +It is not clear whether the defendant intends to call one or both of these experts at the Daubers hearing on Dr. Rocchio's testimony. In addition, the Government is only beginning to evaluate whether it will interpose Daubers or other objections to these experts. If so, and given that trial is less than one month away, it may be efficient for any Dauber! hearing involving Dr. Rocchio, Dr. Dietz, and possibly Dr. Loftus to occur together. + +Accordingly, while the Government is prepared to proceed with a Dauber: hearing for Dr. Rocchio on November 10, 2021, the Government respectfully proposes that the Court set the Rule 412 hearing and Dauber: hearing for Dr. Rocchio on November 15. To the extent that either Dr. Dietz and/or Dr. Loftus either testify at the hearing or require Dauber: hearings of their own, such hearings can occur that same week.2 The Government also proposes to submit any Daubers briefing with regard to Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus by November 12, 2021, with defense responses due November 15. + +With respect to the remaining six defense experts, the Government believes more time for briefing is merited for two reasons. First, with the exception of Dr. M, the defense's remaining experts appear to relate to a possible defense case, which likely would not begin until mid-to-late December. Second, the defendant's expert notice belies the arguments made by defense in seeking a late November disclosure deadline. Specifically, the defendant requested yesterday as her expert notice deadline, over the Government's objection and even though the Government provided expert notice in April 2021, because she "cannot be expected to hire experts and divine what would be relevant to this case before she is provided the statements by [the Minor Victims], whose + +2 Dr. Rocchio is out of the country from November 17 to November 27, so her testimony at any Dauber: hearing would have to occur before those dates. + +credibility will be the central question for the jury in this case." (Dkt. No. 291 at 12). From the face of the expert notice, it appears that few if any of the defendant's eight experts would offer testimony whose relevance only became apparent after the Government's production of Jencks Act material and its exhibit list, and it is unlikely that these eight experts were all retained in the last two weeks. The Government should not now be prejudiced by the defendant's apparent gamesmanship in seeking an unnecessarily cramped disclosure schedule. Accordingly, for these six experts, the Government proposes to submit any Daubert briefing on November 23, with defense responses due November 30. + +## Defense Position + +Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court hold the hearing on November 10, 2021. + +The Court gave the parties a simple directive which was to confer and pick a date for the Daubert and Rule 412 hearing, the options being November 5, 9, or 10. Defense counsel attempted this conferral and sent an email to the government stating, in relevant part: + +[W]e are free for the Rule 412/Daubert hearing on Nov. 9 or 10 but have a preference for Nov. 10. Please advise what the government's preference is. + +I believe the Court requested that we give our preference about the date of the Rule 412/Daubert hearing in a joint letter to the Court filed on ECF. I think we could include our positions on the trial length in that letter as well. Please let me know if you will draft the letter or if you would like the defense to draft it. + +The government's non-response to this straightforward conferral was: "On the timing of the 412/Daubert hearing, we're preparing a draft letter which we'll send you shortly." Instead of conferring with defense counsel the government at, 7:07 p.m., sent its two sentence non-conferral: + +On the other issue, scheduling the Daubert/412 hearing, attached is a draft letter, along with our proposed redactions to your expert notice. Please feel free to insert your position, which we ask that you do by 9:00. + +The government makes many unfounded accusations including that the timely disclosure of potential experts is "gamesmanship." The simple truth here is that avoiding a direct conferral about a straightforward task such as selecting one of three dates while drafting a three-page rant a few hours before the filing deadline is not mere gamesmanship, it is unprofessional gamesmanship. A few observations are in order: + +First, the reason we are required to hold a Dauber: hearing in this case is that the government endorsed an expert to talk about subjects that are not widely accepted by qualified experts in the field. She has no methodology or studies that support her theories, and most of her opinions will be confusing, not help the jury, and do not fit the facts of this case. + +Second, at the government's request and over the objection of the defense, the Court accelerated the Rule 412 notice requirement. The defense did not attempt to game this deadline by, for example, complaining about various deficiencies in the delayed roll out of 3500 material, but instead complied with the Order. + +Third, the government, while casting unfounded criticism at defense counsel about the need for the 3500 materials to adequately determine the scope and type of expert testimony, fails to advise the Court that Exhibits C and F to the expert disclosures (the list of materials reviewed by Drs. Dietz and respectively), include hundreds of pages of 3500 material. + +Fourth, no Dauber: hearing would be appropriate for Dr. Dietz. Dr. Loftus or Dr... Each is well qualified, have been accepted by hundreds of courts as experts, and their opinions are based on science, not "trauma clinical" pseudoscience. + +Fifth, should the Court limit or exclude Dr. Roccio's opinions, rebuttal opinions will most likely be unnecessary. + +Sixth, the testimony of two of the identified experts, Gerald LaPorte and Jennifer Naso, is anticipatory. These forensic document examiners have not yet seen the document that may or may not be produced at trial. They were endorsed out of a spirit of nongamesmanship and in an abundance of caution. Similarly, Robert Kelso will primarily be testifying regarding exhibits that the government recently disclosed and, while likely not even an expert opinion, he too was disclosed in an abundance of caution. + +Seventh, the government's proposed schedule is unworkable and will impact selection of the jury and the examination of witnesses. One reason to have Dr. Rocchio's opinions litigated before jury selection is that the court may want to inquire of the prospective jurors about "grooming" and, absent a decision, won't know if that term is going to be used at trial. If Dr. Rocchio's grooming opinions are disallowed, the issues regarding Rule 412 will likely be narrowed. + +Eighth, the defense needs to know in advance of trial, including opening statements, who is or is not testifying. It would be prejudicial to delay any challenge from the government, which may or may not come, until after November 23, to be resolved per the government, after opening statements. This is the epitome of gamesmanship because Ms. Maxwell will then not be allowed to discuss the testimony in opening. + +And, finally, the problem here was created by the government. Had the government disclosed the 3500 materials sooner, an earlier expert disclosure date would have been scheduled, resolving the government's alleged compressed timing problem. It is the government that has driven this schedule, not Ms. Maxwell? + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +sl Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 + +By: /s + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz P.C. Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..764137e47661cd963a4f1203ffd45a584e15c4e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/EFTA02833881.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,343 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 9819, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.12, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government's Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 186.11598205566406, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 186.11598205566406, + 467.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 467.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 156.10887145996094, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 156.10887145996094, + 339.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 339.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833881" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1832f170a1306e6e4d6253dbc057f7a3b82b0d0f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833881/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2b2f1113f677193e88707cc96418735a0c3588e9a0f0acc53bff94f4ddf47e5d +size 3372 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49b31d526d30f9a25088cadfb303a316bddf5f42 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +November 3, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell renew our request that the Court release the names of potential jurors, for attorneys' eyes only, as soon as the written questionnaires are distributed. Based on the Court's statement during the October 21 teleconference, it was counsel's understanding that juror names would be provided to counsel on the Juror Sheet to be inserted in the questionnaire. In responding to the Court's order regarding approval of the video to be played to prospective jurors, the government importuned the Court to deny counsel the opportunity to properly vet jurors at this critical state of the proceeding. Not knowing the names of the potential jurors will prevent the parties from conducting necessary background research on the jurors in advance of voir dire so that they may evaluate potential challenges and strikes. Due to the large number of potential jurors (600), waiting until voir dire to release the names of the jurors will make it virtually impossible for the parties to conduct any meaningful research to uncover issues that may require follow-up questions, lead to additional cause challenges, or enable the parties to exercise their peremptory challenges in an informed manner. + +Recently, in Sines, et at v. Kessler, et al., 17-CV-72 (KNM) (W.D. Va.), the civil case brought against the organizers of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia ordered a semi-anonymous jury (jurors were publicly referred to by number only) and released the names of all potential jurors to counsel, plus all pro se defendants (including Richard Spencer and Cantwell), who are allegedly prominent supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the leaders of hate groups that planned, promoted, and executed the violent acts in Charlottesville. (See Exhibit A, annexed.) The defendants in Sines included factions of the Ku Klux Klan. The concerns for juror privacy in Sines dwarf any conceivable concerns in this case and Sines is also the subject of extensive ongoing publicity. We submit that withholding the names of 600 jurors until the day of jury selection will deprive Ms. Maxwell of her right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury and is a procedure that would violate due process in this particular case.' + +"An impartial jury is one in which all of its members, not just most of them, are free of interest and bias." United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83, 111 (2d Cir. 2015). In Parse, a case before Judge Pauley sub non United States v. Daugerdas, a jury convicted defendant Parse and three of his co-defendants of numerous financial fraud and tax evasion charges. 789 F.3d at 86. After trial, all defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(a) for a new trial on the ground that one of the jurors, Juror No. 1 (Catherine M. Conrad), "had lied and withheld material information during voir dire and was biased against defendants. Judge Pauley appointed Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. to represent the juror and conducted an evidentiary hearing in which the juror was examined, and in a detailed thorough opinion (see United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F.Supp.2d 445 (S.D.N.Y.20I2) found it "undisputed that Conrad lied extensively during voir dire and concealed important information about her background" (id. at 451), her level of education, place of residence, criminal history, and other matters. Parse, 789 F.33 at 87-90. + +&#x27; We are unaware of any other recent high-profile case in which a written juror questionnaire was used and the Court withheld the names of the jurors from counsel following the completion of the questionnaires. + +Judge Pauley granted a motion for a new trial as to Parse's three co-defendants but held that Parse had waived his right to an impartial jury because his attorneys had sat on background research collected before and during trial that suggested Conrad's voir dire answers were false. Id. at 101. On appeal, the Second Circuit "had no difficulty with the ruling of the district court in the present case that the jury empaneled to hear the case against these defendants was not an impartial jury." Id. at III. Moreover, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Pauley's ruling that Parse had waived his right to an impartial jury, and vacated Parse's conviction. Id. at 118. + +The result in Parse was that a three-month trial, with 41 witnesses and some 1,300 exhibits, was undone by the falsehoods of one juror during voir dire—falsehoods that could have been uncovered by thorough background research and prompt action by the parties. Numerous bar associations have recognized that trial counsel is expected to conduct intemet research on potential jurors. Some bar associations have opined that professional standards of competence and diligence may require such research. For example, just weeks after Judge Pauley conducted a post-conviction evidentiary hearing in Parse, the New York City Bar Association stated the following in Formal Opinion 2012-2: + +Just as the internet and social media appear to facilitate juror misconduct, the same tools have expanded an attorney's ability to conduct research on potential and sitting jurors, and clients now often expect that attorneys will conduct such research. Indeed, standards of competence and diligence may require doing everything reasonably possible to learn about the jurors who will sit in judgment on a case. + +Similarly, in 2014, the American Bar Association recognized the "strong public interest in identifying jurors who might be tainted by improper bias or prejudice," and therefore opined that it was proper for counsel to research "a juror's or potential juror's Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial...." See Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 466 at 1-2, Am. Bar + +Assn. (2014); see also New York State Bar Association, Dec. 8, 2015 Report of the Social Media Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, at 15 ("[I]t is not only permissible for trial counsel to conduct Internet research on prospective jurors, but [] it may even be expected."). + +Other courts have acknowledged that using the intemet to conduct background research on prospective jurors is a "rudimentary practice" during jury selection. United States v. M, No. 19-0018 (ABJ), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67359, at \*93 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2020); see also Carino v. Muenzen, No. A-5491-0811, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2154, at \*27 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 30, 2010) (trial judge erred in preventing counsel from using the intemet during jury selection). It is so routine that a party who fails to uncover disqualifying information about a potential juror, despite a reasonable opportunity to do so, risks waiving the right to use that information in post-conviction proceedings. at \*90 (denying motion to vacate conviction and for a new trial because, inter alia, "the defense could have discovered the [foreperson's social media] posts as early as September 12, 2019, the day counsel received access to the completed juror questionnaires, including the foreperson's, which had her name printed legibly on the signature page."). + +Having additional time to conduct background research on each of the venirepersons is the best way to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Balancing the need to protect juror privacy against Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury weighs in favor of releasing the names of potential jurors to counsel upon the completion of their written questionnaires, not at voir dire. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +Enc. + +cc: All counsel of record + +## EXHIBIT A + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION + +ELIZABETH SINES, et at, + +v. + +JASON KESSLER, et al., + +Defendants. + +CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00072 + +ORDER + +JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON + +Upon this Court's own motion, upon notice that Plaintiffs' counsel may seek to designate certain non-lawyers within their list of six (6) persons to be provided electronic access to the jury questionnaires, and otherwise finding good cause shown, the Court hereby AMENDS Pretrial Order ¶ 3, (Dkt. 1172) as follows: + +Plaintiffs, and Defendants represented by counsel collectively, may each designate no more than six (6) persons, which may be comprised of (I) current counsel of record or (2) third parties working under their direction, who are formally engaged and supervised by the attorneys of record. and for whom such attorneys of record will be responsible. and who will have signed the Court's protective order Dkt. 167, so long as such persons include at least one attorney admitted to practice in the Western District of Virginia, to be provided electronic access by the Clerk to receive and review copies of the jury questionnaires, on a rolling basis. A list including names and occupations of prospective jurors, and information matching such prospective jurors with the questionnaires pursuant to Dkt. 1204 ¶ 2, will also be provided to such specifically designated persons by Plaintiffs and represented Defendants, no more than five (5) days before trial. Jury questionnaires and such occupation list, and any information contained therein, are + +subject to the Court's orders regarding confidentiality in Dkt. 1172 and 1204, and shall not be disclosed to any other person without prior authorization of Court. + +Any pro se Defendant-upon completing a declaration stating, under penalty of perjury, they will not disclose the contents of such questionnaires or the jury occupation list provided to such pro se Defendant to any other person—may review the questionnaires and jury occupation list onsite in the Clerk's Office. A paper copy of the completed questionnaires and the jury occupation list customarily made available to pro se litigants will be maintained in the Clerk's Office. + +If any party requests specific access to the confidential juror questionnaires in excess of the provisions outlined above and in Dkts. 1172 and 1204, they shall file a motion to that effect. In all other respects, this Court's Orders of Dkt. 1172 and 1204 shall remain unchanged and in force. + +It is so ORDERED. + +The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the parties. + +Entered this 19th day of October, 2021. + +W 011.4 Olt AN K. NIOO. SENIOR uNrrEn grATEs nimucriuncE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffc322aceeb232862db15a582a030d34107807ea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887/EFTA02833887.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,344 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833887.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 10741, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 686.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 686.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 387.2923278808594, + 716.7339630126953 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 716.7339630126953 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nWESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA \nCHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 428.5440979003906, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 428.5440979003906, + 120.363037109375 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 120.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833887" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4747d0b8d5eab8a8c6db86a881a04ec2b5da160 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bestemheim@maccom + +November 3, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write to once again ask the Court to release Ghislaine Maxwell prior to trial on the conditions set forth in her previous bail applications. My weekly in-person legal visits with Ms. Maxwell are conducted under the most humiliating circumstances that I have ever experienced in many decades of federal criminal practice. As disturbing and invasive as they are for no justifiable reason, I get to leave; Ms. Maxwell does not. The surveillance rivals scenes of Dr. Hannibal Lecter's incarceration as portrayed in the movie, "Silence of the Lambs," despite the absence of the cage and plastic face guard. Ms. Maxwell's conditions of detention for the past 16 months continue to be reprehensible and utterly inappropriate for woman on the cusp of turning 60 with no criminal record or history of violence. It is unwarranted, unrelenting, and utterly inappropriate. + +Ms. Maxwell has been subject to physical and emotional abuse by the correction officers, poor and unsanitary living conditions, insufficient nutrition, difficulties reviewing the millions of legal discovery documents in the case against her, and sleep deprivation. She has been consistently housed in segregation from all other inmates, with rotating teams of multiple corrections officers per daily shift which rotate on a bi-weekly basis. Many of the officers are + +openly hostile toward her and have mentioned having read the press and seen various television shows which amplify their hostility. There are cameras on her constantly, most are stationary, but one camera follows her as she moves throughout the facility, and is constantly surveilling her, even during confidential attorney-client conferences. Ms. Maxwell has reported to counsel and the BOP that she has been threatened by corrections officers that she will be subject to discipline if she is ever out of, or anything interferes with, the camera's view. + +Ms. Maxwell is subject to numerous pat searches per day, despite being completely isolated, during which she alleges to have been touched in a sexually inappropriate manner by corrections officers on multiple occasions. She declines recreation time to avoid being searched, which has negatively impacted her physical health. She was denied an extra blanket in the winter, and, on more than one occasion, an officer took one of her blankets from her after her request for an extra blanket was granted. She was not provided a proper food regimen for the first few months she was incarcerated, wherein she was provided with small, inadequate portions or rotten food. She has lost at least 15 pounds since her incarceration and has experienced hair loss. Currently, she suffers from headaches and back pain and general physical weakness. + +Ms. Maxwell's guards shine flashlights on the ceiling of her cell in 15-minute intervals and have done so every night since she has been incarcerated. As reported by the government, "MDC staff conduct flashlight checks every fifteen minutes because the defendant, while not on suicide watch, is on an enhanced security schedule because MDC has identified a number of factors that raise heightened safety and security concerns with respect to this defendant." (Dkt. 270.) This response provides further support that Ms. Maxwell is overmanaged because of the intense criticism sustained by the Department of Justice over the Bureau of Prison's blunders that resulted in the death of Jeffrey Epstein, an event that preceded the arrest and prosecution of Ms. + +Maxwell. At that time, Attorney General William Barr said he initially had his own suspicions about Epstein's death while detained at the MCC but came to conclude that Epstein's death, an apparent suicide, was the result of "a perfect storm of screw-ups."I + +During an interview with ABC News, Barr stated he was "livid" when he learned that Jeffrey Epstein had committed suicide and "happy that they had gotten Ms. Maxwell." 2 When asked if the government had Maxwell's security "locked in" to ensure she would neither be able to kill herself or be harmed, Barr answered, with a mixture of laughter and a smile on his face: "Yes. We have asked them to tell us specifically the protocols they're following, and we have a number of redundant systems to monitor the situation." Id. (emphasis added.) + +Ms. Maxwell has consistently described, and complained formally, of being subject to unfair and inconsistent treatment and threatening and intimidating behavior by corrections officers and ongoing sleep deprivation throughout her incarceration. The flashlight checks every 15 minutes have significantly hindered her ability to sleep, as she frequently wakes up every time the guards shine the flashlight into her cell. When she has been transported from the detention facility to court, she is awakened between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., transported to the courthouse, and held in a cold cell on an approximately 12-inch metal bench for hours prior to her scheduled court appearance. + +The experience of unfairness, disrespect, and a lack of safety significantly contributes to psychological distress in incarcerated individuals.3 Furthermore, according to recent research on + +huns://annews.com/anicle/ap-top-news-politics-new-vork-business-suicides-4f127(28(32d446795b65ac7dd8cc4ac. + +2 https://abcnews.go.corn/Politics/video/barr-livid-jeffrey-epstein-case-71681411. + +3 Liebling, A., Dune, L., Stiles, A., & Tait, S. (2013). Revisiting prison suicide: The role of fairness and distress. In The effects of imprisonment (pp. 229-251). + +the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive functioning, "sleep deprivation result[s] in a loss of cognitive flexibility through feedback...sleep deprivation causes a fundamental problem with dynamic attentional control." + +Ms. Maxwell's ability to cope with the stress of her legal proceedings and to participate meaningfully in her defense have been gradually eroded over time due to the conditions of her confinement and are further exacerbated by ongoing sleep deprivation. The conditions of her confinement are seriously impacting her overall mental and physical health which will continue to worsen over time if she remains incarcerated under the current conditions and subject to the regiment on trial — sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, exposure to cold temperature, daily humiliation. If she were released, her ongoing symptoms which will be exacerbated during trial would likely resolve completely, and she would be afforded the opportunity to properly prepare her defense for trial and endure the rigor of each trial day. + +Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk. The government concedes she poses no risk to the community. She is a mature adult with no prior history of criminal or violent behavior. She has steadfastly proclaimed her innocence, has maintained a strong desire to fight the case against her and is determined to fight her charges at trial and clear her name. There is no indication that she would attempt to flee given her personality profile and determination to be exonerated. + +The bi-weekly teams of guards rotated in from high-security BOP facilities have reported to Ms. Maxwell that they are informed that she is a security and suicide risk, which heightens their vigilance and contempt. Like the assertion that she is a flight risk, alleging she is a suicide risk is a total fiction. Recently, a senior staff person at the MDC stated, in substance: "The problem we have with Ms. Maxwell is simple: she's not a criminal." + +Honn, K. A., Hinson, J. M., Whitney, P., & Van Dongen, H. P. A. (2019). Cognitive flexibility: a distinct element of performance impairment due to sleep deprivation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 126, 191-197. + +Little has been done to improve Ms. Maxwell's situation, despite repeated disclosures by counsel. Neither the Court nor the government welcomes these issues but there is no recourse except to raise and expose Ms. Maxwell's inappropriate conditions of confinement and the daily problems that counsel must navigate as the sole advocates for Ms. Maxwell .5 + +As the trial draws near, we urge the Court to release Ms. Maxwell on the extremely restrictive conditions previously proposed and any additional conditions that the Court deems necessary. There is no factual or legal basis to conclude that no conditions exist to ensure Ms. Maxwell's appearance at trial. + +If Ms. Maxwell is subject to the situation she was forced to endure on April 23, 2021, the day of her arraignment on the superseding indictment, and again yesterday, there is serious concern that she will be further diminished physically, rendering her unable to withstand the rigors of trial might render her incapable of attending her own trial. On April 23, she was awakened at approximately 3:00 a.m., transported to the courthouse, kept in the cellblock from approximately 5:00 am to approximately 2:00 p.m., when she was brought to the courtroom holding cell. For the entire day she was provided inadequate food and liquid, was not permitted to retain and review her legal materials and was kept shackled on a metal bench in an excessively cold cell. This past Monday, she was awakened at 3:45 a.m. and given a bag with two small apples, two small containers of milk and a cup of cereal but no utensils. She was not permitted to bring a sweatshirt for warmth. She was transported to the courthouse by two marshals. Her leg shackles and arm restraints prevented her from raising her feet to enter the van upright, requiring her to climb into the van on hands and knees. She arrived at the courthouse at + +5 Regarding the ongoing issue concerning receipt of legal mail and disclosures from the government, yesterday afternoon — November 2 — Ms. Maxwell received two discs and a hard drive containing many hundreds of pages of witness materials, exhibits and other discovery mailed by the government with cover letters dated October 26 and October 29, corresponding to the same disclosure made to counsel on October 25 and October 28. + +approximately 5:30 a.m. and was placed in a cold cellblock without the opportunity to retain and review her legal file. Nor was she provided any soap or any disinfectant to wash her hands, in disregard of CDC pandemic protocols. When she caught a few minutes of sleep in the holding cell, a marshal jabbed her in the leg to get her attention.6 She is already sleep deprived. Should she be subjected to these conditions throughout the trial, it is highly likely that she will not have the stamina to assist in her defense and endure the physical demands of a five-day per week, multi-week court proceedings under the current onerous conditions of her detention. + +The Court and the defense are now in possession of Jencks Act and Giglio material regarding the four accusers which contradict the purported "strength" of the government's case. Contrary to the government's claim — which the Court relied on to repeatedly deny Ms. Maxwell's robust bail applications — there is no independent corroboration for the accusers' respective allegations of abuse. Their respective statements do not corroborate one another and further demonstrate contamination and collusion from various sources. These disclosures substantially undermine the strength of the government's case and underscore the fact that Ms. Maxwell should not be detained. + +6 The male marshal assigned to Ms. Maxwell's detail on Monday was inappropriately rough with and threatening to her. After returning Ms. Maxwell to the 4th floor cell block at 500 Pearl following the court appearance at 40 Foley Square, a round trip that required Ms. Maxwell to navigate stairs while in leg shackles, the marshal was verbally threatening. His brusque manner was evident in the courtroom. When alone with Ms. Maxwell, he stated, in substance: "You think you are special You are not special Remember you are in custody and the judge doesn't care about you" Ms. Maxwell was placed in a holding cell where she remained, unaware whether she would be brought to the U.S. Attorney's Office on the 5i° Floor of 500 Pearl Street for a scheduled evidence review of which the marshal was aware. Ms. Maxwell does not need to be reminded that she is in custody and that she is being treated worse than most other pretrial detainees. It is especially concerning when a pretrial detainee is treated more abusively in court than in the MDC. The marshal's vitriol runs counter to the presumption of innocence and reflects poorly on the district's Marshal Service. I made a complaint to the U.S. Marshal and have requested that this particular marshal not be assigned to Ms. Maxwell's detail in the future. Marshal Ralph Sozio promptly responded and informed me that the issue is under investigation. + +It is incumbent on the Court to address these concerns and ensure that Ms. Maxwell's health and well-being are not further degraded by the punitive conditions of her confinement in the MDC and in the courthouse. Release is the appropriate and just remedy. + +Very truly yours, + +gotit C. Steaaes 13O8BI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6098738977c4f60c4582db87c01e244248bb728 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894/EFTA02833894.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,333 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833894.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 13416, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.16, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 349.452, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7569580078125, + 32.400000000000006 + ], + [ + 573.7569580078125, + 48.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 349.452, + 48.06353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833894" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d66ea034ed1c754cf5e54885cf84e536408f84c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 11/3/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter in response to this Court's order dated October 31, 2021. Dkt. No. 406. The Court will hold a hearing on November 10, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. on the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in !/nine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubers v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November I, 2021 conference. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 110 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Court will provide information on public access (for the portion of the Daubert hearing that does not overlap with the Rule 412 issues) as soon as it is available. + +Otherwise, the Court will order the following briefing schedule if the Government seeks to exclude any of the Defendant's anticipated witness testimony as disclosed in her November 1, 2021 notice. See Dkt. No. 406: + +- Government brief to be filed on ECF: November 8, 2021 +- Defense response brief to be filed on ECF: November 11, 2021 + +The parties are further ORDERED to docket Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 406 with any proposed redactions on or before November 8, 2021. In order to facilitate the Court's review of any proposed redactions, the parties must also submit via email a highlighted copy. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 3, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46aa0a23484fdcbe3348da140d94362138b1ccca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901/EFTA02833901.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833901.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2022, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.13, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833901" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c219ddd048156b73ef3645c575dfe1adb5f7e27 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.md @@ -0,0 +1,1094 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL. + +Defendant. + +# JOINT REQUESTS TO CHARGE + +# INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS + +# Rote of the Court + +You have now heard all of the evidence in the case, as well as the final arguments of the lawyers for the parties. My duty at this point is to instruct you as to the law. It is your duty to accept these instructions of law and apply them to the facts as you determine them. + +On these legal matters, you must take the law as I give it to you. Regardless of any opinion that you may have as to what the law may be—or ought to be—it would violate your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any other view of the law than that which I give you. If an attorney or anyone else at trial has stated a legal principle different from any that I state to you in my instructions, it is my instructions that you must follow. + +You should not single out any instruction alone stating the law, but you should consider my instructions as a whole when you retire to deliberate in the jury room. You may take a copy of these instructions with you into the jury room. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. M, 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +## Role of the Jury + +Your role is to pass upon and decide the fact issues that arc in the case. You, the members of the jury, are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You pass upon the weight of the evidence or lack of evidence: you determine the credibility of the witnesses; you resolve such conflicts as there may be in the testimony; and you draw whatever reasonable inferences you decide to draw solely based on the evidence and from the facts as you have determined them. You must determine the facts based solely on the evidence received in this trial. + +In determining the facts, you must rely upon your own recollections of the evidence. What the lawyers have said—for instance, in opening statements, in closing arguments. in objections. or in questions—is not evidence. You should bear in mind particularly that questions put to witnesses, although they can provide the context to answers. arc not themselves evidence. It is only the answers that arc evidence. + +I remind you also that nothing I have said during the trial or will say during these instructions is evidence. Similarly, the rulings I have made during the trial are not any indication of my views of what your decision should be. + +The evidence before you consists of the answers given by witnesses and the exhibits and stipulations that were received into evidence. If I have sustained an objection to a question or told you to disregard testimony, the answers given by a witness are no longer pan of the evidence and may not be considered by you. I will instruct you at the end of these charges about your ability to request to have testimony read back and your access to other evidence admitted during the trial. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v.M. 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +## Contact with Others/Social Media + +During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic devices or media, such as a telephone, cell phone, smart phone, iPhone. Blackberry or computer, the Internet, or any Internet service, or any text or instant messaging service; or any intemet chat room, blog. or website. such as Facebook. Instagram, Linkedln, YouTube. Twitter, or Snapchat, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict. In other words, you cannot talk to anyone on the phone or in person. correspond with anyone, or electronically communicate with anyone about this case. You can only discuss the case in the jury room with your fellow jurors during deliberations. + +Along the same lines, you should not try to access any information about the case or do research on any issue that arose during the trial from any outside source. including dictionaries. reference books, or anything on the Internet. In our judicial system, it is important that you are not influenced by anything or anyone outside of this courtroom. Your sworn duty is to decide this case solely and wholly on the evidence that was presented to you in this courtroom. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +### Statements of Counsel and Court Not Evidence; Jury's Recollection Controls + +You must determine the facts by relying upon your own recollection of the evidence. This case is not to be decided on the rhetoric of either the attorneys for the Government or the attorneys for the Defendants. The lawyers' arguments are intended to convince you to draw certain conclusions from the evidence or lack of evidence. Those arguments are important. You should weigh and evaluate them carefully. But you must not confuse them with the evidence. If your recollection of the evidence differs from the statements of the lawyers, follow your recollection. + +You should draw no inference or conclusion for or against any party by reason of lawyers making objections or my rulings on such objections. Counsel have not only the right but the duty to make legal objections that they think are appropriate. You should not be swayed against the Government or the Defendant simply because counsel for either side has chosen to make an objection. Similarly, statements made by counsel when arguing the admissibility of evidence arc not to be considered as evidence. + +If I comment on the evidence during my instructions, do not accept my statements in place of your recollection. Again, it is your recollection that governs. + +Do not concern yourself with what was said at side bar conferences or during my discussions with counsel. Those discussions related to rulings of law, which are my duty, and not to matters of fact, which are your duty to determine. + +At times I may have admonished a witness or directed a witness to be responsive to questions. to keep his or her voice up. or to repeat an answer. My instructions were intended only to clarify the presentation of evidence. You should draw no inference or conclusion of any kind. favorable or unfavorable, with respect to any witness or party in the casc, by reason of any + +comment, question, or instruction of mine. Nor should you infer that I have any views as to the credibility of any witness, as to the weight of the evidence, or as to how you should decide any issue that is before you. That is entirely your role. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v.M. 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +## Improper Considerations + +YO11/ verdict must be based solely upon the evidence or the lack of evidence. It ''ould be improper for you to consider any personal feelings you Lt. I , race. ethnicity. religion. national origin. sex. age. or any other such factor. Similarly. it would be improper for you to consider any personal feelings you may have about the race. ethnicity. religion. national origin. sex. age. or any other similar factor of any other witness or anyone else involved in this case. It also would be improper for you to allow any feelings you might have about the nature of the crimes charged to interfere with your decision-making process. Ms. MaxwelA is entitled to a trial free from p±ejudice and ourjudicial system cannot work unless you reach your verdict through a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. M. 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). + +Commented IRA(11: GOtERNMENT RESPONSE The defendant is the ckfendmt and should be refereed to as such bat and ehevehete the defeme has swat tors eat See, e Livid Stoic Prarro 110 ICI (AJN) (relearn, to the defend= in tins gestuctsec) Dural Stares b Lebedes 15 Cr 769 (A)N) (same). L4uted States 16 Cr 533 (MN) (a) + +Cammied IRAak See above resreme + +**Sympathy: Oath As Jurors** + +Under your oath as jurors you are not to be swayed by sympathy or prejudice. **You are to be guided solely by the evidence in this case. It is for you alone to decide whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell is guilty of the crimes charged based solely on the evidence and subject to the law as I have charged you.** + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 2-12; and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). + +**Commented [CE3]:** Adapted from Sand, Instr 2-12 + +**Commented [RA(4R3): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This instruction appears redundant with the Court's Concluding Instructions** + +## All Parties Are Equal Before the Law + +You are to perform the duty of finding the facts without bias or prejudice as to any party. You arc to perform your final duty in an attitude of complete fairness and impartiality. + +The fact that the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America entitles the Government to no greater consideration than that given to any other party to this litigation. By the same token, the Government is entitled to no less consideration. All panics stand as equals at the bar of justice. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Lebedev. 15 Cr. 769 (AJN). + +## implicit Bias + +it is important that sou discharge your duties without discrimination. meaning that you should not he influenced by anv yerson's race color religious beliefs national ancestry. sexual orientation. gender identity gender or economic circumstances as you exercise vote judgment throughout the trial. Also. do not allow yourself to be influenced by personal likes or dislikes. sympathy. prejudice, fear, public opinion, or biases. including unconscious biases. Unconscious biases arc stereotypes, attitudes, or preferences that people may consciously reject but may be expressed without conscious awareness, control, or intention. Like conscious bias, unconscious Dias can affect how we evaluate infonnation a + +> Adapted from the charge of the Honorable Alison 3. Nathan in United States v Bern, 20 CR S4 (A.INt + +Commented ICES]: The defense behests tins rarranchon is apireopane to adders on parental p1101 bus aroma Ms Masson due to the ranee of the ebnas pubhe opinion against het and or ba bandy beckgrood + +Commented IltA(SRSI: GOVERNNIDif RESPONSE: While the Crcrornament Aces not object to the impb:il be =annual used rn &my dm tormartwo se MIMS ktfey reducdant of the Improper Caradnahoos tOINCOOMabne. and the Cease:vent swab couture the two + +**Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof** + +The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of all charges against her. She-Ms. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to the charges in the Indictment. As a result, the burden is on the Government to prove Ms. Maxwell's the-defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each charge. This burden never shifts to the defendant for the simple reason that the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of testifying, or calling any witness, or locating or producing any evidence. In other words, she-Ms. Maxwell does not have to prove her innocence. + +This presumption of innocence was with the-defendant-Ms. Maxwell when the trial began and remains with the-defendant-Ms. Maxwell unless and until you are convinced that the Government has proven the-defendant's her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each charge. Indeed, the presumption of innocence alone requires you to acquit Ms. Maxwell of a charge unless you are unanimously convinced that the government has proven that she is guilty of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Government fails to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find her not guilty. + +[If necessary: Even though the-defendant-Ms. Maxwell has presented evidence in her defense, the presumption of innocence remains with her and it is not her burden to prove that she is innocent. It is always the Government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.] + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 533 (AJN) and in *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [CE7]:** The proposed additional language tracks the language used by the Court in recent cases *See United States v. Berry*, 20 CR 84 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(8R7):** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This language is redundant of the paragraph in the reasonable doubt instruction, which specifies that it is the jury's duty to acquit if they do not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt + +**Commented [RA(9):** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There is no need to recite both the presumption of innocence and the defendant's lack of burden in this sentence. One or the other is sufficient to make the point + +### **Reasonable Doubt** + +The question that naturally arises is: "What is a reasonable doubt?" What does that phrase mean? The words almost define themselves. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based in reason and arising out of the evidence in the case, or the lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person has after carefully weighing all of the evidence in the case. + +Reasonable doubt is a doubt that appeals to your reason, your judgment, your experience, and your common sense. If, after a fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you can candidly and honestly say that you do have an abiding belief of [Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's guilt](#) as to any crime charged in this case, such a belief as a prudent person would be willing to act upon in important matters in the personal affairs of his or her own life, then you have no reasonable doubt, and under such circumstances it is your duty to convict [the defendant Ms. Maxwell](#) of the particular crime in question. + +On the other hand, if after a fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you can candidly and honestly say that you are not satisfied with [Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's guilt](#) as to any charge, that you do not have an abiding belief of her guilt as to that charge—in other words, if you have such a doubt as would reasonably cause a prudent person to hesitate in acting in matters of importance in his or her own affairs—then you have a reasonable doubt, and in that circumstances it is your duty to acquit [the defendant Ms. Maxwell](#) of that charge. + +[One final word on this subject: Reasonable doubt is not whim or speculation. It is not an excuse to avoid an unpleasant duty. Nor is it sympathy for the defendant. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean mathematical certainty, or proof beyond all possible doubt. The law in a criminal case is that it is sufficient if the guilt of the defendant is established beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all possible doubt, and, therefore, if after a fair and impartial consideration of](#) + +all of the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt with respect to a particular charge against her, you should find the defendant guilty of that charge. + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 533 (AJN) and in *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [CE10]:** The defense objects to this language. It creates an unbalanced charge in which language favorable to the government is stated twice (and last) whereas language favorable to the defendant is stated only once. This language is also not found in Sand or in the Court's recent jury instructions on reasonable doubt. See Sand, Instr 4-1; *United States v. Berry*, 20 CR 84 (AJN); *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [RA(11R10)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court used a version of this language in *United States v. Lebedev*, 17 Cr 769 (AJN); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr 553 (AJN); and *United States v. Le*, 15 Cr 38 (AKN). The full instruction is also used in this district. *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr 81 (DLC). And much of this language also appears in Sand. See Sand, Instr 4-1 ("A reasonable doubt is not caprice or whim. It is not speculation or suspicion. It is not an excuse to avoid the performance of an unpleasant duty."). + +This language is necessary to provide the jury with additional information about what counts as a reasonable doubt. It does not create an unbalanced charge in light of the lengthy charge on the presumption of innocence that immediately precedes this charge, but the Government would not oppose including this language in the second paragraph of the charge to eliminate the defense's concern. + +## The Indictment + +The defendant, GRIShAINE-MAMAL14,1Ghis.laine Maxwell, has been formally charged in what is called an "Indictment." As I instructed you at the outset of this trial, the Indictment is simply a charge or accusation. It is not evidence. It is not proof of the-defewlengsMs.\_ Maxwell's guilt. It creates no presumption and it permits no inference that the defendant is guilty. Ms. Maxwell begins trial with an absolutely clean slate and without any evidence against her. You must give no weight to the fact that an Indictment has been returned against the tlesfeoelamMs. Maxwell. + +I will not read the entire Indictment to you at this time. Rather, I will first summarize the offenses charged in the Indictment and then explain in detail the elements of each of the offenses. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United Stales r. M. 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United Stases v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). + +### C I IA RGE + +## Summary of Indictment + +The Indictment contains six counts. or 'charges." against the defendant. Each count constitutes a separate offense or crime. You must consider each count of the Indictment separately, and you must return a separate verdict on each count. I am briefly going to stumnarize each count, and then will give you the law in greater detail. + +Count One of the Indictment charges Ghislaine Maxwell. the defendant, with conspiring—that is. agreeing—with others to entice an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense: Count One relates to multiple victims and the time period 1994 to 2004. + +Count Two of the Indictment charges i. with enticing . ' Vane Doc-1 to travel in interstate .4.3 t t...r t. commerce to engage in sexual activity v. for which a perm ca be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two relates to lime Doc-I Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison I Nathan in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (MN) and in United States v. Le. 15 Cr. 38 (AJN). + +\_------iesiingand PAMSte inPralt oa Par 6 + +**Count Two: Enticement to Engage in an Illegal Sexual Activity – The Statute** + +The relevant statute for Count Two is Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, which provides that “[w]hoever knowingly persuades, induces, or entices or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in . . . in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense,” is guilty of a federal crime. + +**Commented [CE17]:** The defense objects to beginning out of order with the substantive counts and grouping the conspiracy counts later. The defense submits that the instructions for the counts should proceed in order, as they are charged in the Indictment, and each count should be separately addressed. + +**Commented [RA(18R17)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government submits that it will be clearer for the jury and avoid repetition to explain the substantive crimes, and then incorporate that explanation for the conspiracy offenses. + +**Commented [CE19]:** The defense objects to the inclusion of the term “coerces” if the proof at trial does not include evidence of the use of force of other coercion. + +**Commented [RA(20R19)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The term “coerce” carries its ordinary meaning, see *United States v. Wagar*, 997 F 3d 481, 485 (2d Cir. 2021) (regarding § 2422(b)), and the ordinary meaning of “coerce” need not involve force. See “Coerce,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary (defining “coerce” as “to compel to an act or choice”). The Government expects that its proof will include evidence of coercion, and in any event, this verb is in the statutory language. + +**Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity- The Elements** + +To prove the defendant guilty of Count Two, the Government must prove each of the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: + +First. that the defendant knowingly persuaded or induced or enticed or coerced him individual-[Jane Doe-1] pseudonym] to travel in interstate commerce namely from Florida to New York, as alleged in the Indictment + +Second. that the individual-[Jane Doe-1] pseudonym] traveled in interstate or foreign commerce from Florida to New York; and + +Third. that the defendant acted with the intent that the individual-[Jane Doe-1] pseudonym] would engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense under New York law. + +Count Two relates to Minor-Victim-H-[Jane Doe-1] pseudonym] during the time period 1994 to 1997. + +Adapted from Sand et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 64-6. + +**Commented [CE21]:** The defense objects to the inclusion of the term "coerced" if the proof at trial does not include evidence of the use of force or other coercion + +**Commented [RA(22R21)]:** See comment on page 17 + +**Commented [CE23]:** Count Two refers only to Jane Doe-1. The charge should identify Jane Doe-1's pseudonym in the elements of the crime, as opposed to "an individual," to avoid juror confusion and to make clear that Count Two does not involve the other alleged victims. See *United States v. Robert Sylvester Kelly*, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.), Jury Instructions at 72-73 (hereinafter "R. Kelly Jury Instructions," attached as Exhibit A) (including first name of alleged victim in description of elements of enticement). The defense accepts the Court's decision regarding the use of pseudonyms but reiterates its objection to the use of pseudonyms to address Jane Doe-1 or any of the other witnesses at trial. See Def's Resp to Gov't's Omnibus Mot in *Limine* (Dkt 382) at 4-15 + +**Commented [RA(24R23)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Consistent with the Court's order, the Government agrees that the appropriate pseudonyms should be used in the jury instructions + +These instructions state the generic elements of the offense, which the conspiracy counts later incorporate. Counts Two, Four, and Six are then narrowed to their facts with a sentence at the end of the charge. A jury will not be confused into convicting on conduct relating to a Minor Victim when the instructions say that Count Two relates only to Minor Victim-1 + +**Commented [CE25]:** Count Two alleges only travel "from Florida to New York, New York" as the basis for the charge. See S2 Ind ¶ 15. The defense anticipates that Jane Doe-1 will testify about traveling to, among other places, Epstein's ranch in New Mexico and California. The elements should make clear that the relevant travel for purposes of Count Two is travel from Florida to New York, as alleged in the S2 Indictment + +**Commented [RA(26R25)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The jury instructions are intended to specify the elements of the offense and not a particular means of committing the offense. The Court should not limit the elements to a particular means, as the defense suggests + +**Commented [CE27]:** Count Two charges that Ms Maxwell acted with the intention "that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein" in violation of New York law S2 Ind ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Should Jane Doe-1 testify that Ms Maxwell also engaged in illegal sex acts with her, that is not a basis to convict Ms Maxwell on Count Two, as it is charged in the S2 Indictment. Accordingly, the elements of the charge should specify that the relevant sexual activity was with + +**Commented [RA(28R27)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The jury instructions are intended to specify the elements of the offense and not a particular means of committing the offense. The Court should not limit the elements to a particular means, as the defense suggests + +## Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity —First Element + +The first clement of Count Two which the government must prove beyond a reasonable Joni)! k that the-defendantMs. Maxwell knowingly persuaded or induced or enticed tr toot.\* L Doe-1 nseudonvinl to travel in interstate or-fmeiptcommerce: namely front Florida to New York, as alleged in the Indictment. The terms "persuaded," "induced," and "enticed:" tindeoeree\*Phave their ordinary, everyday meanings. + +The term "interstate commerce" simply means movement from one state to another. The term "State" includes a State of the United States and the District of Columbia. + +# "Know Mob" Defined + +lite tleiendufftNIN N ,tell must have acted knowingly. An act is done knowingly when it is done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of accident, mistakc, or some other innocent reason. + +Now, knowledge is a matter of inference from the proven facts. Science has not yet devised a manner of looking into a person's mind and knowing what that person is thinking. + +Whether tite-tiefeedniuMs. Maxwell acted knowingly may be proven by the-de.fentimulsMs. Maxwell's conduct and by all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. + +> Adapted from Sand et al.. Modem Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 64-7; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Pizzaro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN) and in United States v. Le, 15 Cr. 38 (MN); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. in United States v. Almonte. 16 Cr. 670 (KMW): and the charge of the Hon. Sidney H. in United States v. Watiar. 18 Cr. 342 (SHS). See United States v. Wacar. 997 F.3d 481, 484-85 (2d Cir. 2021) (stating that the "statutory verbs" in § 2422(6) "'attempt. persuade. induce, entice, [and] coerce, though not defined in the statute. arc words of common usage that have plain and ordinary meanings— (citation omitted)). + +# Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity -Second Element + +The second clement of Count Two which the government must prove beyond a + +reasonable doubt is that the4oiliv-itlitidllane Doe-I pseudonym] traveled in interstate commerce from Florida to Kew York, as alleged in the Indictment. + +As I just stated, "interstate commerce- simply means movement between one state and another. + +> Adapted from Sand et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 64-8. + +## Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Third Element + +The third clement of Count Two which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that :.- I. 4\ \I v ellacted with the intent that ti.\* i Vane Doe-I\_ :I. I would engage in sexual activity w ith left-rev 1:1,,tcm for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense nide]. New Volt law. + +# "Intentionally" DeOned + +A person acts intentionally when the act is the product of her conscious objective. that is. when she acts deliberately and purposefully and not because of a mistake or accident. Direct proof of a person's intent is almost never available. It would be a rare case where it could be shown that a person wrote or stated that, as of a given time, she committed an act with a particular intent. Such direct proof is not required. The ultimate fact of intent. though subjective. may be established by circumstantial evidence, based upon the defendant's outward manifestations. her words. her conduct, her acts and all the surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical inferences that may be drawn from them. + +# Significant or Motivating Purpose + +In order to establish this element. it is not necessary for the govenunent to prove that the illegal sexual activity was s. Maxwellis sole purpose for encouragingnum Doe-I pseudonym) to travel across state lines. A person may have several different purposes or motives for such conduct. and each may prompt in varying degrees the person's actions. The govenunent must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. however. that a kjgracant lanai Motivating purpose of encouraging (Jane Doe-li pseudonym' to travel across state lines was that she would engage in illegal sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must not have been merely incidental to the trip. + +# Violation of New York Criminal Law + +Commerited ICE291: The defense metros siding this unnucten which is adapted from Sand and Dined Votes v l'argas,Cordon. 733F 3c1 366 (26 Cu 2013) See Sad Iron 644. 6418. Vargas,Cordon. 733 F Id at 375,76. R Kelly lurs Instructions at 43. see also Said. Insu 644. Comment (The outman of =Mole manes for the mama trash has nor amen in my prosecute° Miff 16210•12422(a) Rader:dm wee to ague 0111 the nal acmes was not the remanent reason for remake mfr iedvneaul to travel then the last paagrapb of hatomon 614 above 'Muhl he zreceporated rob the Adapted from Sand et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions.Instr. 64-18: New York State Penal Law s5# 15.20(3). 130.00. 130.05. 130.55: New York State Pattern Jury Instructions § 130.55: the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell. IS Cr. 081 (DLC). + +### Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Third Element + +The third element of Count Four which the government must prove beyond a reasonable + +doubt is that ,Ms Maxwell knew that ike-itidisidoalgane Doe-1 Pseudonsm l was less than seventeen years old at the time of the acts alleged in Count Four of the Indictment. Although the text of the law says the individual must be less than eighteen. because the New York criminal law provides that a person can consent to sexual activity if she is seventeen, this element requires that !14/.I. >Iasu cll kuc.v that [Jane Doe Inc I •r• -ini.4fre-m4.4.4.44 was less th seventeen at the time of the offense. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al.. Modern Federal Jury Insmtenons, Instr. 64-19 ("Although section 2423(a) requires that the person transported be less than eighteen ... (i]f the defendant is charged with transporting for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity, and that tmdcrlying activity requires that the victim be less than some other age. then it can only confuse the jury to charge that the victim must be less than eighteen in this instruction and less than that other age elsewhere in the instructions."). See New York State Penal Law §§ 15.20(3). 130.55 + +Connented MANN: GOVERNMENT RESPCINSE As stied so par 25. tbn tranctiort is apart is the sat law =trances + +Counts Two and Four Failure to Accomplish Intended Activity is Immaterial + +Now, with respect to Counts Two and Four, it is not a defense that the sexual activity which may have been intended by the defendant was not accomplished. + +In other words, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that anyone, in fact, engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense with the individual after she was enticed, for Count Two, or transported, for Count Four, across state lines. It is enough if defendant has the requisite intent at the time of the enticement or transportation. + +Adapted from Edward J. Devitt, et al., *Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Instr. 60-06, See United States v. Bronxmeyer*, 616-F.3d 120, 129-30 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2010) ("The plain wording of the statute requires that the mens real of intent coincide with the actual reals of crossing state lines."); *Cleveland v. United States*, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("[G]uilt under the Mann Act turns on the purpose which motivates the transportation, not on its accomplishment."); + +**Commented [CE47]:** If the government's witnesses testify as expected – *i.e.*, that they engaged in repeated sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein when they were underage – this instruction is unnecessary + +**Commented [RA(48R47)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Insofar as the conspiracy counts incorporate Counts Two and Four, this instruction is likely necessary. The defense does not object on the ground that it is an incorrect statement of the law + +In any event, the defense is presumably planning to attack the credibility of these witnesses, so the premise that the jury will accept any particular part of their testimony cannot be assumed + +# Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Statute + +The relevant statute for Count Six is Title IS. United States Code. Section 1591, which provides, in pertinent part, that "Whoever knowingly in or affecting interstate commerce, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains, by any means a person ... knowing that ... the person has not attained the age of eighteen years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act" is guilty of a crime. + +# Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Elements + +To find the-defeinktinNIs. Maxwell guilty of Count Six the Government must prove each of the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: + +First The-tielemlitinN1,. Maxwell knowingly recruited, enticed. harbored, transported, provided, or obtained !lane Doe-4 p.seudonvm In-person; + +Second: Theik4entkin(Ms. Maxwell knew that [Jane Doe-4 pseudonym' the-persim was under the age of eighteen years; + +Third: 'The-delendaiHNIs. Maxwell knew the-personthat [lane Doe-4 pseudonym] would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act: and + +Founh: :lhedelemlancsMs. Maxwell's acts were in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. + +This Count relates to thelitleted-shose-i4-blane Doc-4 nseudonvm1Mirier-Vie6m-4 during the time period 2001 to 2004. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 47A-18; and the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. in United States v. Abnonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). + +# Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor — First Element + +The lint clement of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the-defeadantMs. Maxwell knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained !Jane Doe-4 nwudont inla-peiNon. The terms "recruited," "enticed," "harbored," "transported," "provided," and "obtained" have their ordinary, everyday meanings. + +> Adapted from the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. MI in United States v. Abnonte. 16 Cr. 670 (KMW): United States v. Wedd. 993 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2021) ("In interpreting a statute, this Court gives the statutory terms their ordinary or natural meaning." (internal quotation marks omitted)). See. e.g.. Noble v. Weinstein. 335 F. Supp. 3d 504. 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (explaining that, because the verb "entices" is "not defined by Congress," it bears its ordinary meaning). + +# Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor — Second Element + +The second clement of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Ms. Maxwell the -defendant knew that Pane Doc-4 pseudonym Ithe-persn-was under eighteen years of age. + +In considering whether Ms. Maxwell Me-defendant knew that Pane Doe-4\_pseutionvm1 the-pemon had not attained the age of eighteen, please apply the definition of "knowingly" previously provided to you. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 47A-20: and the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. in United States v. Abnonte. 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). See United States v. Thompson. 896 F.3d 155. 169-70 (2d Cir. 2018). + +**Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor – Third Element** + +The third element of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Ms. Maxwell the defendant knew that [Jane Doe-4 pseudonym] the person would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. + +The term “commercial sex act” means “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” The thing of value may be money or any other tangible or intangible thing of value that may be given to or received by any person, regardless of whether the person who receives it is the person performing the commercial sex act. + +It is not relevant whether or not [Jane Doe-4 pseudonym] the person was a willing participant in performing commercial sex acts when she was under the age of 18 years old. Consent by [Jane Doe-4 pseudonym] the person is not a defense to the charge in Count Six of the Indictment if [Jane Doe-4 pseudonym] was under the age of 18 at the time the commercial sex acts took place. It is also not required that the person actually performed a commercial sex act so long as the Government has proved that the defendant recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained the person for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 47A-22; 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1) (2000) (defining “commercial sex act”); and the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). See *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 847 F. App’x 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (affirming the use of an instruction drawn from the statute and the Sand treatise); *United States v. Corley*, 679 F. App’x 1, 7 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (“[T]he statute does not require that an actual commercial sex act have occurred.”); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 529 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Even if the minor had factually consented, that consent would not have been legally valid. In all events, factual consent would not eliminate the potential risks that confronted the child.” (citations omitted)). + +**Commented [CE49]:** If Jane Doe-4 testifies as expected – *i.e.*, that she engaged in repeated sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein when she was underage – this instruction is unnecessary + +**Commented [RA(50R49)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: + +As above, although Jane Doe-4 may testify as much, the defense is expected to attack her credibility. The jury should not be instructed on the assumption that she will be fully believed. This instruction is also a correct statement of the law that may be relevant to the conspiracy instruction, which incorporates these instructions. + +**Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor – Fourth Element** + +The fourth and final element of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant's Ms. Maxwell's conduct was in interstate or foreign commerce or affected interstate commerce. + +Interstate commerce simply means the movement of goods, services, money and individuals between any two or more states. + +I instruct you that acts and transactions that cross state lines, or which affect the flow of money in the stream of commerce to any degree, however minimal, are acts and transactions affecting interstate commerce. For instance, it affects interstate commerce to use products that traveled in interstate commerce. + +It is not necessary for the Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell the defendant specifically knew or intended that her conduct would affect interstate commerce; it is only necessary that the natural consequences of such conduct would affect interstate commerce in some way, even if minor. + +If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the recruitment, enticement, harboring, transportation, providing, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts was economic in nature and involved the crossing of state lines, or was economic in nature and otherwise affected the flow of money to any degree, however minimal, you may find that the interstate commerce requirement of the offense of sex trafficking of a minor has been satisfied. I further instruct you that to find that this element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not necessary for you to find that any interstate or foreign travel occurred. Proof of heterosexual travel is not required. + +Adapted from the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). See *United States v. Graham*, 707 F. App'x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) + +**Commented [CE51]:** The plural "or foreign" is not necessary as there is no allegation that Ms Maxwell's conduct as to Count Six affected foreign commerce. +**Commented [RA(52R51)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is part of the indictment and should not be removed + +**Commented [CE53]:** The defense objects to these instructions as redundant and/or unnecessary. +**Commented [RA(54R53)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This charge was given in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr 670 (KMW). "Affecting interstate commerce" is not an intuitive concept for law jurors, so additional instruction would be helpful. The defense does not argue that this is an incorrect statement of the law. + +![]()**Counts Two, Four, and Six: Aiding and Abetting** + +In connection with the crimes charged in Counts Two, Four, and Six, the defendant is also charged with aiding and abetting the commission of those crimes. Aiding and abetting liability is its own theory of criminal liability. In effect, it is a theory of liability that permits a defendant to be convicted of a specified crime if the defendant, while not herself committing the crime, assisted another person or persons in committing the crime. As to Counts Two, Four, and Six, therefore, the defendant can be convicted either if she committed the crime herself, or if another person committed the crime and the defendant aided and abetted that person to commit that crime. + +Under the federal aiding and abetting statute, whoever "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures" the commission of an offense is punishable as a principal. You should give those words their ordinary meaning. A person aids or abets a crime if she knowingly does some act for the purpose of aiding or encouraging the commission of that crime, with the intention of causing the crime charged to be committed. To "counsel" means to give advice or recommend. To "induce" means to lead or move by persuasion or influence as to some action or state of mind. To "procure" means to bring about by unscrupulous or indirect means. To "cause" means to bring something about, to effect something. + +In other words, it is not necessary for the Government to show that Ms. Maxwell the defendant herself physically committed the crime charged in order for you to find her guilty. This is because a person who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of a crime is just as guilty of that offense as if she committed it herself. Accordingly, you Maxwell the defendant guilty of the offenses charged in Counts Two, Four, and Six if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Government has proven that another person actually committed the offense with which Ms. Maxwell the defendant is + +**Commented [CE55]:** This language is unnecessary and redundant. Moreover, it is not included in the Court's most recent instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Berry*, 20 CR 84 (AJN); *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [RA(56R55)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has given this instruction previously. See *United States v. Lebadev*, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr 553 (AJN). It is clarifying for the jury before the Court gives a more fulsome description of accomplice liability. + +**Commented [CE57]:** The additional language is consistent with the Court's earlier instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Berry*, 20 CR 84 (AJN); *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [RA(58R57)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Because the instructions do not elsewhere define terms that carry their ordinary meaning (e.g. the verbs in the [REDACTED] Act and sex trafficking counts), there is no reason to do so here. + +charged, and that Ms. Maxwellihtl-defendant aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person to commit the crime. + +As you can see, the first requirement is that another person has committed the crime charged. Obviously, no one can be convicted of aiding and abetting the criminal acts of another if no crime was committed by the other person. But if you do find that a crime was committed. then you must consider whether M. Maxwell Me-defendant-aided or abetted the commission of the crime. + +To aid or abet another to commit a crime, it is necessary that the Government prove that the defendant willfully and knowingly associated herself in some way with the crime committed by the other person and willfully and knowingly sought by some act to help the crime succeed. + +However, let me caution you that the mere presence of the defendant where a crime is being committed, even when coupled with knowledge by the defendant that a crime is being committed, or the mere acquiescence by a defendant in the criminal conduct of others, even with guilty knowledge, is not sufficient to make the defendant guilty under this approach of aiding and abetting. Such a defendant would be guilty under this approach of aiding and abetting only if, in addition to knowing of the criminal activity, she actually took actions intended to help it succeed. + +An alder and abettor must know that the crime is being committed and act in a way that is intended to bring about the success of the criminal venture. + +To determine whether Ms. Alaxwell addendum-aided or abetted the commission of the crime with which she is charged. ask yourself these questions: + +- 1. Did M.. Maxwell the-defendant-participate in the crime charged as something she wished to bring about? + +- 2. Did Ms. Maxwell 0e-defendant-knowingly and willfully associate herself with the criminal venture? +- 3. Did Ms. Maxwell the-defendant-seek by her actions to make the criminal venture succeed? + +If she did, then Ms. Maxwell the-defendant-is an aider and abettor, and therefore guilty of the offense. If, on the other hand, your answer to any of these questions is "no," then Ms. Maxwell thedefendant is not an aider and abettor, and you must find her not guilty under that theory. + +> Adapted from Sand et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions.Instr. 11-2: 18 U.S.C. the charge given by the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v.=, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (MN): and the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. in United States v. Almonte. 16 Cr. 670 (1(14W). + +# Counts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws— The Statute + +The relevant statute for Counts One, Three, and Five is Title 18. United States Code. Section 371, which provides that "if two or more people conspire [J to commit any offense against the United States ... and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy." each person is guilty of a federal crime. + +### Counts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Lows- Conspiracy dad Substantive Counts{ + +Counts One. Three, and Five of the Indictment each charge di- .\*N.I Nhawell with participating in a -conspiracy." As I will explain. a conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more people to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. The crime of conspiracy to violate federal law is an independent offense. It is separate and distinct from the actual violation of any specific federal laws. which the law refers to as "substantive crimes." Indeed, you may fond'' I.; ' ' I c guilty of conspiring to violate federal law even if you find that the crime which was the object of the conspiracy was never actually conunitted. + +As I will explain, the three different conspiracy counts arc separate offenses and each conspiracy alleges a different purpose. which I will describe to you shortly. theritpose-ofaersow-tinekon-#I-mtnop a-l-dv.....14eth#frcOMMI-PNI\*,0044 4.4-1.1. 40114ptt.wy- + +> Adapted from Sand. et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions. Instr. 19-2: the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev. 15 Cr. 769 (AM): the charge of the Hon. Kimba NI. in United States v. Almonte. 16 Cr. 670 (ICNIN); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell. 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). See also United States v. Labat. 905 F.2d 18.21 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Since the essence of conspiracy is the agreement and not the commission of the substantive offense that is its objective. the offense of conspiracy may be established even if the collaborators do not reach their goal."). + +C Cannoned KESS': The defense onsets to groopng the conspiracy counts tordr See pa ot,ernoo + +Goennwented MAKORS91: See poor Government response + +- - " OXIIIINIlled =Mlles contain \*address die pagan of the One conspiraner bee Its dews\* Synth= Shack indavdsal oyes + +\ + +Caneneried (ItMaltitlk See poor Gormand reapers tepid\* die olden &anis + +**Counts One, Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law – The Elements** + +To prove the defendant Ms. Maxwell guilty of the crime of conspiracy, the Government must prove each of the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: + +First, that two or more persons entered the unlawful agreement charged in the particular count of the Indictment; + +Second, that the defendant Ms. Maxwell knowingly and willfully became a member of that conspiracy; + +Third, that one of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in the particular count of the Indictment; and- + +Fourth, that the overt act which you find to have been committed was committed to further some objective of the that conspiracy. + +Each of these elements must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. + +Now let us separately consider each of these elements. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 19-3; the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). + +**Commented [CE63]:** The modified language and the additional element are consistent with Sand and the Court's recent instructions on this issue See Sand, Instr 19-3; *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(64R63): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:** The Government needs to prove that a member of the conspiracy committed an overt act, but it need not be an overt act charged in the Indictment See, e.g., *United States v. Salonese*, 352 F 3d 609, 619 (2d Cir 2003) (describing "the well-established rule of this and other circuits that the overt act element of a conspiracy charge may be satisfied by an overt act that is not specified in the indictment, at least so long there is no prejudice to the defendant") Accordingly, it is not an element of the offense that the defendant knowingly committed "at least one of the overt acts charged in the particular count of the Indictment" + +## Counts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law — First Element + +Stoning with the first clement, what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is an agreement or an understanding, between two or more persons, to accomplish by joint action a criminal or unlawful purpose. + +The essence of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement between two or more people to violate the law. As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate success of the conspiracy, meaning the actual commission of the crime that is the object of the conspiracy. is not an element of the crime of conspiracy. + +In order to show that a conspiracy existed, the evidence must show that two or more people. in some way or manner, through any contrivance, explicitly or implicitly (that is. spoken or unspoken). came to a mutual understanding to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan. Express language or specific words arc not required to indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan, then the Government will have sustained its burden of proof as to this element. + +To satisirthiselemem-oca-eonspiraey—namelyrto-show Mat Me,: conspiracy esisied the Government is not required to show that two or more people sat around a tableand entered into a solemn pact. orally or in writing, stating that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law and spelling out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans. + +In determining whether such an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as + +circumstantial evidence. The old adage, "Actions speak louder than words," applies here. Often, the only evidence that is available with respect to the existence of a conspiracy is that of disconnected acts and conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators. When taken altogether and considered as whole, however, these acts and conduct may warrant the inference that a conspiracy existed as conclusively as would direct proof, such as evidence of an express agreement. On this question, you should refer back to my earlier instructions on direct and circumstantial evidence and inferences. + +So, in considering the first element of the crime of conspiracy as charged in Counts One, Three, and Five—whether the conspiracy actually existed—you should consider all the evidence that has been admitted with respect to the acts, conduct, and statements of each alleged co-conspirator, and any inferences that may be reasonably drawn from them. It is sufficient to establish the existence of the conspiracy, as Five [REDACTED] ady said, if, from the proof of all the relevant facts and circumstances, you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the minds of at least two alleged co-conspirators met in an understanding to accomplish, by the means alleged, the object of the conspiracy. + +In short, as far as the first element of the conspiracy is concerned, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two alleged conspirators came to a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, to violate the law in the manner charged in Counts One, Three, and Five of the Indictment. + +Liability for Acts and Declarations of Co-Conspirators + +You will recall that I have admitted into evidence against the defendant the acts and statements of others because these acts and statements were committed or made by persons who, the Government charges, were also confederates or co-conspirators of the defendant. + +**Commented [CE65]:** This language seems redundant + +**Commented [RA(66R65)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This language was used in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr 570 (KMW). It is a summary of the preceding three paragraphs, each of which is describes a different aspect of the law of conspiracy. + +The reason for allowing this evidence to be received against the defendant has to do in part with the nature of the crime of conspiracy. A conspiracy is often referred to as a partnership in crime as in other types of partnerships, when people enter into a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful end, each and every member becomes an agent for the other conspirators in carrying out the conspiracy. + +Therefore, the reasonably foreseeable acts, statements, and omissions of any member of the conspiracy, committed in furtherance of the common purpose of the conspiracy, are deemed under the law to be the acts of all of the members, and all of the members are responsible for such acts, statements, or omissions. + +If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant was a member of the conspiracy charged in the Indictment, then any acts done or statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy by a person also found by you to have been a member of the same conspiracy may be considered against that defendant. This is so even if such acts were committed or such statements were made in that defendant's absence, and without the defendant's knowledge. + +However, before you may consider the acts or statements of a co-conspirator in deciding the guilt of the defendant, you must first determine that the acts were committed or statements were made during the existence, and in furtherance, of the unlawful scheme. If the acts were done or the statements were made by someone whom you do not find to have been a member of the conspiracy, or if they were not in furtherance of the conspiracy, they may not be considered by you in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instrs. 19-4, 19-9; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN) and in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 533 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 + +**Commented [CE67]:** This instruction should be shortened and moved after the elements of conspiracy. This is consistent with the Court recent instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(68R67)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: + +The Government does not object to moving this to after the elements of the conspiracy. However, this is the Sand instruction, which offers a more fulsome description of (1) a defendant's liability for "reasonably foreseeable acts" committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (2) the predicates for the jury to rely on statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). The Government notes that the Court has previously given more detailed instructions than the streamlined *Pizarro* instruction suggested by the defendant. See *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) + +(DLC). See also United States v. 958 F.2d 1206, 1214 (2d Cir. 1992) ("In order to prove conspiracy, the government need not present evidence of an explicit agreement; proof of a tacit understanding will suffice. The coconspirators need not have agreed on the details of the conspiracy. so long as they have agreed on the essential nature of the plan. and their goals need not be congruent. so long as they are not at cross-purposes." (citations omitted)). + +### Counts One, Three, and Fire: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - First Element: Object of the Conspiracy + +Count One charges the-4eleadtietNI'. Maxwell with participating in a conspiracy; from at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. The object of the conspiracy charged in Count One of the Indictment is to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. I have already reviewed the elements of that offense in connection with Count Two. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant agreed with at least one other person that those elements be done, then the enticement of minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense objective would be proved. + +Count Three charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 2004. to transport minors with the intent to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. The object of the conspiracy charged in Count Three of the Indictment is to transport minors with the intent to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. I have already reviewed the elements of that offense in connection with Count Four. If you find a reasonable doubt that the defendant agreed with at least one other person that those elements be done. then the transportation of minors with the intent to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense objective would be proved. + +To prove Counts One and Three. the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the minors would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. For the sexual activity alleged in + +Counts One and Three to be illegal criminal, the victim individual must have been under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sex acts took place. I instruct you that, at times, relevant to the charges in the Indictment: + +1. 1. The age of consent in Florida was 18 years old; +2. 2. The age of consent in New York was 17 years old; +3. 3. The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 16 years old; and +4. 4. The age of consent in New Mexico for the conduct alleged by Jane Doe-2 was 13 years old. + +If the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal – in other words, it was not "sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." + +Count Five charges Ms. Maxwell the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, from at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004, to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The object of the conspiracy charged in Count Five of the Indictment is to commit sex trafficking of a minor. I have already reviewed the elements of that offense in connection with Count Six. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell the defendant agreed with at least one other person that those elements be done, then the sex trafficking of minors objective would be proved. + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. ██████ in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). + +**Commented [CE69]:** The defense submits that this language is necessary to avoid juror confusion on the issue of what qualifies as illegal sexual activity for the purposes of Counts One and Three and is consistent with the Court's rulings on the motions *in limine* + +**Commented [RA(70R69)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government's proposed instructions only permit the jury to convict on a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130 55. Accordingly, there is no need to inform the jury about the ages of consent in other jurisdictions. The problem identified by the defense only arises if, per the defense's proposed instructions, the conspiracy counts are de-coupled from the substantive counts. + +**Commented [RA(71)]:** GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to this language, which risks confusing the jury. Sexual activity occurred that was above the agent of consent could not be a basis for conviction on its own, but it can still be evidence of the offense. Informing the jury that such activity is "not illegal" improperly suggests that the jury should not consider such evidence. + +There is also no risk that the jury will convict solely based on sexual activity that occurred after the Minor Victims were above the age of consent, because the jury is instructed that the defendant must have conspired to violate N Y Penal Law Section 130 55, and that section is violated when the victim is below the age of consent. + +### Counts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law — Second Element: Membership in the Conspiracy + +With respect to each of Counts One. Three and Five, if you conclude that the + +Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the relevant conspiracy existed, and that the conspiracy had the object I just mentioned, then you must next consider the second element: namely, whether the-defendamMs. Maxwell knowingly and willfully participated in the conspiracy knowing its unlawful purpose and intending to further its unlawful objectives. + +In order to satisfy the second element of Counts One, Three, or Five, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that thetlefendomM.. Maxwell knowingly and willfully entered into the conspiracy charged in the particular count with a criminal intent—that is, with a purpose to violate the law—and that she agreed to take part in the conspiracy to further promote and cooperate in its unlawful objective. + +# - Willfully" and - Knowingly" + +An act is done "knowingly" and "willfully" if it is done deliberately and purposely—that is, the-defendanA-Ms. Maxwell's actions must have been her conscious objective rather than a product of a mistake or accident, mere negligence, or some other innocent reason. + +To satisfy its burden of proof that thedetenilumMs. Maxwell willfully and knowingly became a member of a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful purpose, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.. Maxwell Meth-tendon' knew that she was a member of an operation or conspiracy to accomplish that unlawful purpose. and that her action of joining such an operation or conspiracy was not due to carelessness, negligence, or mistake. + +Now, as I have said, knowledge is a matter of inference from the proven facts. Science has not yet devised a manner of looking into a person's mind and knowing what that person is thinking. However, you do have before you the evidence of certain acts and conversations + +alleged to have taken place involving Ms Maxwell tl.• Lf n' • or in her presence. You may consider this evidence in determining whether the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt \Is M at% d I theeielettekt+-rknowledge of the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. + +is for you to determine whether the (jos eminent has established bevond a reasonable doubt that such knowledge and intent on the part of Ms. Maxwell existed. It is important for you to know that Ms. Maxwell's participation in the conspiracy must be established by independent evidence of her own acts or statements. as well as those of the other alleged co-conspirators. and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidencel + +It is not necessary for the Government to show that Ms Maxwell -\*-tilefertiost-was fully informed as to all the details of the conspiracy in order for you to infer knowledge on her part To have guilty knowledge. Ms Maxwells -need not have known the full extent of the conspiracy or all of the activities of all of' its participants. It is not even necessary for a defendant to know every other member of the conspiracy. + +In addition. the duration and extent of NI. Max' II I .- participation has no bearing on the issue of her guilt. She need not have joined the conspiracy at the outset. Mattw cll Tl ' f • lo may have joined it for any purpose at any time in its progress. and she will be held responsible for all that was done before she joined and all that was done during the conspiracy's existence while she was a member. Each member of a conspiracy may perform separate and distinct acts and may perform them at different times. Indeed. a single act may be enough to bring one within the membership of the conspiracy. provided that \Is Mare ell tire- • was aware of the conspiracy and knowingly associated herself with its criminal aims. It does not matter whether \ 1'..' ell'. ;J. role in the conspiracy may have been more limited than or different in nature or in length of time from the roles of her co-conspirators. + +COMPIIIInted (CET\* The natant Synge is cthatont wtlb Sad ad to Cases fumeearmonsat int See Sand. ham 19-6. CMS Slot v Ptsro.17 ia 151 (MN) + +Cathatheited GOVEIMEIT RESPCINSE The Carrot has not used the language an other comptracy chars Ss. es . Liwittsjigto v Labakv. IS CI 769 (AN). tamed Series v =. 16 Cc 554 (AN) The fina SCSIMICC Is a IXIDEvessay tepennon of t o snanxtras on at role of the pay and the burden of .00f That sentence also dos od athra in Sad The second lenience is canteen&because a suggests that the Crneninasi oust estate, me defendant's parbathmon through be own acts ad sutethentsyttach ts a principle that seance is mead to repudiate Sat Seal liar 19-6 (-Membershtpm me conspiracy mans be proved by codependent evidence of the defendant's own acts and Watenaints Until levendy. it was stapled pracbce to char the pay ma a defeating' s ambush, mar conspiracy could eery be paves by the defendant's words and actions This new was repudiated by dr Supreme Court= Bomar!). v third Siam 1 + +provided she was herself a participant. + +I want to caution you, however, that Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's mere presence at the scene of the alleged crime does not, by itself, make her a member of the conspiracy. Similarly, a person may know, assemble with, or be friendly with, one or more members of a conspiracy, without being a conspirator herself. I also want to caution you that mere knowledge or acquiescence, without participation, in the unlawful plan is not sufficient. In other words, knowledge without agreement and participation is not sufficient. What is necessary is that Ms. Maxwell's defendant participate in the conspiracy with knowledge of its unlawful purposes, and with an intent to aid in the accomplishment of its unlawful objectives. + +It is also not necessary that Ms. Maxwell the defendant receive or even anticipate any financial benefit from participating in the conspiracy as long as she participated in it in the way I have explained. That said, while proof of a financial interest in the outcome of a scheme is not essential, if you find that Ms. Maxwell the defendant had such an interest, that is a factor which you may properly consider in determining whether or not she was a member of a conspiracy charged in the Indictment. + +Once a conspiracy is formed, it is presumed to continue until either its objective is accomplished or there is some affirmative act of termination by the members. So too, once a person is found to be a member of a conspiracy, she is presumed to continue as a member in the conspiracy until the conspiracy is terminated, unless it is shown by some affirmative proof that the person withdrew and disassociated herself from it. + +In sum, the defendant, with an understanding of the unlawful nature of the conspiracy, may have intentionally engaged, advised, or assisted in the conspiracy for the purpose of furthering an illegal undertaking. The defendant thereby becomes a knowing and willing participant in the + +**Commented [CE74]:** This language is in tension with the language of Count Five, which alleges a sex trafficking offense if Ms Maxwell "benefit[ted] financially" or "received anything of value" from her participation in the conspiracy Ind ¶ 24 + +**Commented [RA(75R74)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The language the defendant identifies relates to sex trafficking liability through arising when the defendant participated in a sex trafficking "venture," *see* 18 U S C § 1591(a)(2), a theory on which the Government is not seeking jury instructions + +As instructed above, in order to convict on Count Five, the jury must find that someone gave or received something of value, as required by the definition of "commercial sex act" But the jury need not find that the defendant is the giver or recipient + +unlawful agreement—that is to say, she becomes a conspirator. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions. Instr. 19-6: the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. 16 Cr. 533 (MN) and in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (MN); and the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. MI in United States v. Atmonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). + +## Counts One, Three, and Five Two: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - Third Element + +The third clement that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the offense of conspiracy is that at least one overt act Charged m the litchi:num was knowingly .....---i CannisedDa See \*rain pipe 45 committed by at least one of the c nspirat + +The overt act element requires the Government to show something more than mere agreement: sonic overt step or action must have been taken by at least one of the conspirators in furtherance of that conspiracy. In other words. the Govenunent must show that the agreement went beyond the mere talking stage. It must show that at least one of the conspirators actually did something in furtherance of the conspiracy. + +With respect to the oven acts for Count One, the Indictment reads as follows: [The Court is respectfully requested to read the oven acts listed under Count One of the Indictment]. + +With respect to the oven acts for Count Three, the Indictment reads as follows: [The Court is respectfully requested to read the overt acts listed under Count Three of the Indictment]. + +With respect to the oven acts for Count Five. the Indictment reads as follows: [The Court is respectfully requested to read the oven acts listed under Count Five of the Indictment]. + +In order for the Government to satisfy this element. it is not necessary for the Govenunent to prove that Us. NI cc.% ' ' committed the oven act. It is sufficient for the Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly conunined some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further. the oven act need not be one that is alleged in the Indictment. Rather. it can be any oven act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in the Indictment. if you arc convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In addition. you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It + +\_ Cassornail frit The Sparta sectisiollylis Maori' Sat noon beam te Sincere owes Ns pit Saadi is oats\* lo plat Ebert tint whets h barmy arberan aft anal is set seamy alder to dares impost beamSam ap is waned im Stint dean + +is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. + +You should bear in mind that the overt act, standing alone, may be an innocent, lawful act. However, an apparently innocent act sheds its harmless character if it is a step in carrying out, promoting, aiding, or assisting the conspiratorial scheme. You are therefore instructed that the overt act does not have to be an act which in and of itself is criminal or constitutes an objective of the conspiracy. + +Instruct you, however, that any overt acts related to Minor Victim-1, who at trial was identified as [Jane Doe-3 pseudonym], are not direct evidence of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three of the Indictment and they cannot satisfy the overt act element of these offenses. + +You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instrs. 19-7, 19-8; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). + +**Commented [CE78]:** This language is covered in the proposed fourth element *See United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(79R78)]:** See below response + +**Commented [CE80]:** The defense maintains that the allegations of Jane Doe-3 are not direct evidence of the charged [REDACTED] Act conspiracies and should be redacted from the Indictment If they are not, the defense requests this instruction + +**Commented [RA(81R80)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This language is unnecessary because the jury cannot convict on Minor Victim-3 alone due to the statute of limitations instruction. In any event, this language may or may not be accurate depending on the Court's ruling as to Minor Victim-3. Finally, the Government notes that the defendant's proposed language erroneously refers to Minor Victim-1, rather than Minor Victim-3 + +Counts One, Three, and Five Two: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law – Fourth Element + +The fourth, and final, element which the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the overt act was committed for the purpose of carrying out the unlawful agreement. + +In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one overt act was knowingly and willfully done, by at least one conspirator, in furtherance of some object or purpose of the conspiracy, as charged in the Indictment. In this regard, you should bear in mind that the overt act, standing alone, may be an innocent, lawful act. Frequently, however, an apparently innocent act sheds its harmless character if it is a step in carrying out, promoting, aiding or assisting the conspiratorial scheme. You are therefore instructed that the overt act does not have to be an act which, in and of itself is criminal or constitutes an objective of the conspiracy. + +**Commented [CE82]:** The fourth element is consistent with Sand and the Court's recent instructions on this issue. See Sand, Instr 19-8; *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(83R82)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has also combined this element with the third element. See *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr 769 (AJN). The Government defers to the Court's preference. + +Counts One, Three, and Five – Liability for Acts and Declarations of Co-Conspirators + +When people enter into a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful end, they become agents or partners of one another in carrying out the conspiracy. + +In determining the factual issues before you, you [REDACTED] Maxwell any acts or statements made by any of the people that you find, under the standards I have already described, to have been her co-conspirators, even though such acts or statements were not made in her presence, or were made without her knowledge. + +You will recall that I have admitted into evidence against the defendant the acts and statements of others because these acts and statements were committed or made by persons who, the Government charges, were also confederates or co-conspirators of the defendant. + +The reason for allowing this evidence to be received against the defendant has to do in part with the nature of the crime of conspiracy. A conspiracy is often referred to as a partnership in crime, as in other types of partnerships, when people enter into a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful end, each and every member becomes an agent for the other conspirators in carrying out the conspiracy. + +Therefore, the reasonably foreseeable acts, statements, and omissions of any member of the conspiracy, committed in furtherance of the common purpose of the conspiracy, are deemed under the law to be the acts of all of the members, and all of the members are responsible for such acts, statements, or omissions. + +If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant was a member of the conspiracy charged in the Indictment, then any acts done or statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy by a person also found by you to have been a member of the same conspiracy may be considered against that defendant. This is so even if such acts were committed or such + +**Commented [CE84]:** The defense proposes this more streamlined and more balanced instruction on liability for acts and declarations of co-conspirators, which is consistent with the Court's prior instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) + +**Commented [RA(85R84)]:** See response on page 47 + +statements were made in that defendant's absence, and without the defendant's knowledge; + +However, before you may consider the acts or statements of a co-conspirator in deciding- +the guilt of the defendant, you must first determine that the acts were committed or statements- +were made during the existence, and in furtherance, of the unlawful scheme. If the acts were- +done or the statements were made by someone whom you do not find to have been a member of- +the conspiracy, or if they were not in furtherance of the conspiracy, they may not be considered- +by you in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty; + +## Statute of limitations + +There is a limit on how much time the Government has to obtain an indictment. Counts Two, Four, Five, and Six are timely—that is, they are not barred by any statute of limitations. As to Counts One and Three, in order to prove that this prosecution is timely, the Government has to prove that least one of the oven acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a victim other than Maor-Vietho—Vane Doe-3\_pseudonyml. Put simply: you may not convict the defendant on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Pane Doe-3 pseudonvml ?MAIN-Vietim-a-or an oven act involving 'Jane Doe-3 pseudonym Ilvlitioratietim--3. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions. Instr. I9-7. + +# OTHER INSTRUCTIONS + +# Direct and Circumstantial Evidence + +There are two types of evidence that you may use in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is direct evidence. One kind of direct evidence is a witness's testimony about something that the witness knows by virtue of his or her own senses—something that the witness has seen, smelled, touched, or heard. Direct evidence may also be in the form of an exhibit. + +The other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove one fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple example of circumstantial evidence that is often used in this courthouse. + +Assume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and it was a nice day. Assume that there arc blinds on the courtroom windows that are drawn and that you cannot look outside. As you arc sitting here, someone walks in with an umbrella that is dripping wet. Someone else then walks in with a raincoat that is also dripping wet. + +Now, you cannot look outside the courtroom and you cannot sec whether or not it is mining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of the facts that I have asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that between the time you arrived at the courthouse and the time these people walked in. it had started to rain. + +That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer based on reason, experience, and common sense from an established fact the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact. + +Many facts, such as a person's state of mind, can only rarely be proved by direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a general rule that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. but simply requires that, before convicting each-defendant%. Maxwell. you. the jury. must be satisfied ofeuelidelendarnIs her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case. + +Ada ted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. NE. I6 Cr. 553 (AIN) and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN3 + +### Inferences + +During the trial, and as I give you these instructions, you have heard and will hear the term "inference." For instance, in their closing arguments, the attorneys have asked you to infer. based on your reason, experience, and common sense, from one or more established facts, the existence of some other fact. I have instructed you on circumstantial evidence and that it involves inferring a fact based on other facts, your reason, and common sense. + +What is an "inference"? What does it mean to "infer" something? An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists based on another fact that you arc satisfied exists. + +There are times when different inferences may be drawn from facts, whether proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. The Government asks you to draw one set of inferences, while the defense asks you to draw another. It is for you, and you alone, to decide what inferences you will draw. + +The process of drawing inferences from facts in evidence is not a matter of guesswork or speculation. An inference is a deduction or conclusion that you, the jury, are permitted but not required to draw from the facts that have been established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences, you should exercise your common sense. + +Therefore, while you are considering the evidence presented to you. you may draw, from the facts that you find to be proven, such reasonable inferences as would be justified in light of your experience. + +Some inferences, however. arc impermissible. You may not infer that thedefendantMs. Maxwell is guilty of participating in criminal conduct if you find merely that she was present at the time the crime was being committed and had knowledge that it was being committed. Nor + +may you use evidence that I have instructed you was admitted for a limited purpose for any inference beyond that limited purpose. + +In addition, you may not infer that thedefeudentNI.. Maxwell is guilty of participating in criminal conduct merely from the fact that she associated with other people who were guilty of wrongdoing or merely because he has or had knowledge of the wrongdoing of others. + +Here again, let me remind you that, whether based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. or upon the logical, reasonable inferences drawn from such evidence, you must be satisfied of the guilt of the-defeutlamMs. Maxwell as to each count charged before you may convict her as to that count. + +> Adibd from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States r. 16 Cr. 553 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +## Credibility of Witnesses + +You have had the opportunity to observe the witnesses. It is your job to decide how believable each witness was in his or her testimony. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. How do you evaluate the credibility or believability of the witnesses? The answer is that you use your common sense, judgment. and experience. Common sense is your greatest asset as a juror. You should ask yourselves, did the witness impress you as honest, open. and candid? Or did the witness appear evasive, as though the witness was trying to hide something? How responsive was the witness to the questions asked on direct examination and on crossexamination? Consider the witness's demeanor, manner of testifying. and accuracy of the witness's recollection. In addition, consider how well the witness recounted what was heard or observed, as the witness may be honest but mistaken. + +If you find that a witness is intentionally telling a falsehood that is always a matter of importance that you should weigh carefully. If you find that any witness has lied under oath at this trial, you should view the testimony of such a witness cautiously and weigh it with great care. You may reject the entirety of the witness testimony, part of it or none of it. It is for you to decide how much of any witness's testimony, if any, you wish to credit. A witness may be inaccurate, contradictory. or even untruthful in some respects and yet entirely believable and truthful in other respects. It is for you to determine whether such untruths or inconsistencies are significant or inconsequential, and whether to accept or reject all or to accept some and reject the balance of the testimony of any witness. + +In evaluating credibility of the witnesses, you should take into account any evidence that the witness who testified may benefit in some way from the outcome of this case. If you find that any witness whose testimony you arc considering may have an interest in the outcome of + +this trial, then you should bear that factor in mind when evaluating the credibility of his or her testimony and accept it with great care. This is not to suggest that any witness who has an interest in the outcome of a case would testify falsely. It is for you to decide to what extent, if at all, the witness's interest has affected or colored his or her testimony. + +You are not required to accept testimony even though the testimony is not contradicted and the witness's testimony is not challenged. You may decide because of the witness's bearing or demeanor, or because of the inherent improbability of the testimony, or for other reasons sufficient to yourselves that the testimony is not worthy of belief. On the other hand, you may find, because of a witness's bearing and demeanor and based upon your consideration of all the other evidence in the case, that the witness is truthful. + +Thus, there is no magic formula by which you can evaluate testimony. You bring to this courtroom all your experience and common sense. You determine for yourselves in many circumstances the reliability of statements that arc made by others to you and upon which you are asked to rely and act. You may use the same tests here that you use in your everyday lives. You may consider the interest of any witness in the outcome of this case and any bias or prejudice of any such witness, and this is true regardless of who called or questioned the witness. + +> A ed from the charge of the lion. Alison J. Nathan in United States v.=, 16 Cr. 553 (A.1N) and in United Stares v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (A.161). + +# Credibility of Witnesses — Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement + +I If applicable! + +You have heard evidence that a witness made a statement on an earlier occasion which counsel argues is inconsistent with the witness's trial testimony. Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is not to be considered by you as affirmative evidence bearing on the-tiefendwrWsMs \_ Maxwell's guilt. Evidence of the prior inconsistent statement was placed before you for the more limited purpose of helping you decide whether to believe the trial testimony of the witness who contradicted him or herself. If you find that the witness made an earlier statement that conflicts with his or her trial testimony, you may consider that fact in deciding how much of the trial testimony, if any. to believe. + +In making this determination, you may consider whether the witness purposely made a false statement or whether it was an innocent mistake; whether the inconsistency concerns an important fact or whether it had to do with a small detail: whether the witness had an explanation for the inconsistency; and whether that explanation appealed to your common sense. + +It is exclusively your duty, based on all of the evidence and your own good judgment, to determine whether the prior statement was inconsistent, and if so how much, if any, weight to be given to the inconsistent statement in determining whether to believe all or part of the witness's testimony. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison .I. Nathan in United States v. Lebeder, 15 Cr. 769 (MN). + +Conscious-Avoidance + +*{{Happlieable}}* + +As I have explained, each of the counts charged in the Indictment requires the Government to prove that the defendant acted knowingly, as I have already defined that term. + +If a person is actually aware of a fact, then she knows that fact. But, in determining whether the defendant acted knowingly, you may also consider whether the defendant deliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious. + +To be clear, the necessary knowledge on the part of the defendant with respect to any particular charge cannot be established by showing that that defendant was careless, negligent, or foolish. However, one may not willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact material and important to her conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. The law calls this "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness." + +Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that there was a high probability a crime was being committed, but that the defendant deliberately and consciously avoided confirming this fact, such as by purposely closing her eyes to it or intentionally failing to investigate it, then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the equivalent of knowledge, unless you find that the defendant actually believed that she was not engaged in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal responsibility for her own conduct by "deliberately closing her eyes," or remaining purposefully ignorant of facts which would confirm to her that she was engaged in unlawful conduct. + +With respect to the conspiracy counts, you must also keep in mind that there is an important difference between knowingly and intentionally participating in a conspiracy—which I just explained to you—and knowing the specific objective of the conspiracy on the other. You + +**Commented [CE86]:** The defense objects to this instruction in its entirety. It is confusing, it lessens the government's constitutional burden of proving knowledge or intent as the case may be; and it unfairly highlights the government's theory of the case. + +**Commented [RA(87R86)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: If the defense's arguments and the Government's proof at trial establish the predicates for conscious avoidance, it is well settled that the Government may proceed on this theory as an alternative way to show the defendant's knowledge, and therefore the Government requests the appropriate charge. See, e.g., *United States v. Khalupsky*, 5 F 4th 279, 296 (2d Cir 2021). The Government proposes this language so it is available to the Court in the event such an instruction becomes applicable. + +may consider conscious avoidance in deciding whether the defendant knew the objective of a conspiracy, that is, whether she reasonably believed that there was a high probability that a goal of the conspiracy was to commit the crime charged as objects of the conspiracy and took deliberate and conscious action to avoid confirming that fact but participated in the conspiracy anyway. But conscious avoidance cannot be used as a substitute for finding that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy in the first place. It is logically impossible for a defendant to intend and agree to join a conspiracy if she does not actually know it exists. However, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly chose to participate in such a joint undertaking, you may consider whether the defendant took deliberate and conscious action to avoid confirming otherwise obvious facts about the purpose of that undertaking. + +In sum, if you find that a defendant believed there was a high probability that a fact was so and that the defendant took deliberate and conscious action to avoid learning the truth of that fact, you may find that the defendant acted knowingly with respect to that fact. However, if you find that the defendant actually believed the fact was not so, then you may not find that she acted knowingly with respect to that fact. + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in *United States v. William Walters*, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC); and Sand et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 3A-2, *See United States v. Lange*, 834 F.3d 58, 76 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Conscious avoidance may not be used to support a finding as to ... intent to participate in a conspiracy, but it may be used to support a finding with respect to ... knowledge of the conspiracy's unlawful goals." (internal quotation marks omitted)). + +**Venue** + +*[If requested by defense]* + +With respect to each of the counts in the indictment, you must also consider the issue of venue, namely, whether any act in furtherance of the unlawful activity charged in that count occurred within the Southern District of New York. The Southern District of New York encompasses the following counties: New York County (i.e., Manhattan), Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, Orange and [REDACTED] Counties. Anything that occurs in any of those places occurs in the Southern District of New York. + +Venue must be examined separately for each count in the Indictment. Venue on one count does not establish venue on another count, though if applicable, you may rely on the same evidence to establish venue on multiple counts. + +As to the conspiracy charges, the Government need not prove that any crime was completed in this District or that the defendant Ms. Maxwell or any of her co-conspirators were physically present here. Rather, venue is proper in this District if the defendant Ms. Maxwell or any of her co-conspirators caused any act or event to occur in this District in furtherance of the offense, and it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant Ms. Maxwell that the act would take place in the Southern District of New York. + +As to the substantive counts—that is, the non-conspiracy counts—the Government again need not prove that any crime was completed in this District or that the defendant Ms. Maxwell was physically present here. Rather, venue is proper in this District provided that any act in furtherance of the essential conduct of the crime took place in the Southern District of New York. Again, Ms. Maxwell the defendant need not have specifically intended to cause an act or event to happen in this District, or even known that he was causing an act or event to happen here, as long as it was reasonably foreseeable to Ms. Maxwell the defendant that such act would + +**Commented [CE88]:** This language is unnecessary and unfairly highlights the government's theory of the case. It is also not consistent with the Court's prior instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) + +because in this District and it is fact occurred. + +On the issue of venue—and this alone—the Government need not prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a mere preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” means more likely than not. Thus, the Government, which does bear the burden of proving venue, has satisfied that burden as to venue if you conclude that it is more likely than not that some act or communication in furtherance of each charged offense occurred in the Southern District of New York, and it was reasonably foreseeable to Ms. Maxwellen the Defendant that the act would so occur. If, on the other hand, you find that the Government has failed to prove the venue requirement as to a particular offense, then you must acquit Ms. Maxwellen the Defendant of that offense, even if all the other elements of the offense are proven. + +**Commented [RA(89R88): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has used this language in *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN). It will help the jury understand what “any act in furtherance of the unlawful activity” means in the context of the conspiracy and substantive counts.** + +**Commented [CE90]: Same objection as above** + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 3-11; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in *United States v. William Walters*, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). See also *United States v. Khalupsky*, 5 F.4th 279 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The government bears the burden of proving appropriate venue on each count, as to each defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence.”). + +**Time of Offense** + +You will note that the indictment charges that the crimes were committed on or about certain dates. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes reasonably near those dates. + +The Indictment alleges that certain conduct occurred on or about various dates or during various time periods. It is not necessary, however, for the Government to prove that any conduct alleged occurred exactly on such dates or throughout any such time periods. As long as the conduct occurred around any dates or within any time periods the Indictment alleges it occurred, that is sufficient: + +This is also a good opportunity to instruct you that it does not matter if a specific event or transaction is alleged to have occurred on or about a certain date, and the evidence indicates that in fact it occurred on another date. The law only requires a substantial similarity between the dates alleged in the Indictment and the dates established by the testimony and other evidence: + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. Lebedov*, 15 Cr. 769 (ADV); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in *United States v. William Walters*, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). + +**Commented [CE91]:** This language is simpler and more to the point Adapted from the Tenth Circuit's pattern criminal jury instructions, 1:18 + +**Commented [RA(92R91)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: + +This language from out of circuit refers to the dates the "crimes" were committed, while the Government's proposal makes clear that the Government is not strictly bound to the date of any act in the Indictment *See, e.g., United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) ("It does not matter if the evidence you heard at trial indicates that a particular act occurred on a different date") It also removes the law of the Circuit – that the dates must be "substantially similar" – and replaces it with a "reasonably near" standard *See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz*, 666 F Supp 2d 399, 404 (S D NY 2009) (Chin, J) ("In the Second Circuit, in general, an indictment date only needs to be substantially similar to the date established at trial" (internal quotation marks omitted)) A jury might understand those differently, and so the instruction is improper + +# Law Enforcement and Government Employee Witnesses + +You have heard testimony from law enforcement officials and employees of the Government. The fact that a witness may be employed by the Federal Government as a law enforcement official or employee does not mean that his or her testimony is necessarily deserving of more or less consideration or greater or lesser weight than that of an ordinary witness. + +In this context, defense counsel is allowed to try to attack the credibility of such a witness on the ground that his or her testimony may be colored by a personal or professional interest in the outcome of the case. + +It is your decision. after reviewing all the evidence, whether to accept the testimony of the law enforcement or Government employee witness and to give to that testimony the weight you find it deserves. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al.. Modern Federal Jury Instructions,Insir. nm16• and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nadutn in United Stases v. =, 16 Cr. 553 (MN) and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +**Formal / Informal Immunity of Government Witnesses** + +*[If applicable]* + +You have heard the testimony of an accomplice witness, [witnesses], who was a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, but who was not charged as a defendant in this case. [redacted] have testified under a grant of immunity from this Court. What this means is that the testimony of the witness may not be used against him or her in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the immunity order of this court. + +Because of the interest an accomplice may have in testifying [redacted] testimony should be scrutinized with great care and viewed with particular caution when you decide how much of that testimony to believe. Such testimony should be scrutinized by you with great care and you should act upon it with caution. You should consider whether [redacted] has a motive to testify falsely. You should examine her testimony if closely to determine whether or not it is colored in such a way as to place guilt upon the defendant. Ms. Maxwell in order to further the witnesses her own interests. If you believe the testimony to be true and determine to accept it, you may give it such weight, if any, as you believe it deserves. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 7-8; and the charge of the Hon. Loran G. Schofield in *United States v. Calk*, 19 Cr. 366 (LGS). + +**Commented [CE931]:** The defense submits that these edits are appropriate given [redacted] status as an unindicted co-conspirator. See Sand, Instr 7-5, 7-7, 7-8 + +**Commented [RA(94R93)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: + +- (1)The defense's proposed changes include language typically used when the witness is testifying pursuant to an agreement with the Government. Employee-1 has no such agreement and is merely testifying under a grant of immunity. +- (2)The defense will likely argue that Employee-1 is not a co-conspirator of the defendant's. The defense should not be permitted to argue that Employee-1 was not a co-conspirator and that her testimony should be taken with particular caution because she was a co-conspirator. + +## Expert Testimony + +Ill applicable) + +You have heard testimony from a witnessicenain witnesses who wasJwcre proffered as (an) expen(s) in different areas. An expert is allowed to express his or her opinion on those matters about which he or she has special knowledge and training. Expert testimony is presented to you on the theory that someone who is experienced in the field can assist you in understanding the evidence or in reaching an independent decision on the facts. + +In weighing an expert's testimony, you may consider the expert's qualifications. opinions, reasons for testifying, as well as all of the other considerations that ordinarily apply when you are deciding whether or not to believe a witness's testimony. You may give the expert testimony whatever weight, if any. you find it deserves in light of all the evidence in this case. + +You should not, however, accept a witness's testimony merely because he or she is an expert Nor should you substitute it for your own reason, judgment, and common sense. The determination of the facts in this case rests solely with you. + +> Adapted from Sand. et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 7-21; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +**Limiting Instruction – Similar Act Evidence** + +*[If Applicable]* + +**Commented [CE95]:** The defense renews its objection to admission of any 404(b) or other act evidence against Ms Maxwell + +The Government has offered evidence which it argues shows tending to show that on different occasions, the defendant Ms. Maxwell engaged in conduct similar to the charges in the Indictment. It is for you to decide whether Ms. Maxwell engaged in the other conduct. + +**Commented [RA(96)]:** The Government objects to this text as repetitive + +Let me remind you that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is on trial only for committing acts alleged in the Indictment. Accordingly, you may not consider this evidence of similar acts as a substitute for proof that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes charged. Nor may you consider this evidence as proof that a defendant Ms. Maxwell has a criminal personality or bad character. The evidence of the other, similar acts was admitted for a much more limited purpose and you may consider it only for that limited purpose. + +If you determine that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the acts charged in the Indictment and the similar acts as well, then you may, but you need not draw an inference that in doing the acts charged in the Indictment, that a defendant Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly and intentionally and not because of some mistake, accident, or other innocent reasons. You may also consider this evidence in determining whether the defendant Ms. Maxwell utilized a common scheme or plan in committing both the crimes charged in the Indictment and the similar acts introduced by the Government. + +Evidence of similar acts may not be considered by you for any other purpose. Specifically, you may not consider it as evidence that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is of bad character or has the propensity to commit crimes. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 5-25; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN). + +# Defendant's Testimony + +(Requested only if the defendant testifies) + +[The Government respectfully requests that the Court include the following instruction in its general instruction on witness credibility, rather than as a separate instruction:I + +The-defemlamMs. Maxwell testified at trial and was subject to crass-examination. + +You should examine and evaluate this testimony just as you would the testimony of any witness. + +> See United States v. Gaines. 457 F.3d 238.249 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2006). + +## Defendant's Right Not to Testify + +requested by defense) + +The-defendaritMs. Maxwell did not testify in this case. Under our Constitution, a defendant has no obligation to testify or to present any evidence, because it is the Government's burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden remains with the Government throughout the entire trial and never shifts to a defendant. A defendant is never required to prove that she is innocent. + +You may not attach any significance to the fact that the deientlaraMs. Maxwell did not testify. + +No adverse inference against the-defendatuMs. Maxwell may be drawn by you because the-defendentshe did not take the witness stand. You may not consider this against the Maxwell in any way in your deliberations in the jury room. + +> Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 5.21 and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United Stares v. =, 16 Cr. 553 (AIN) and in United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +**Uncalled Witnesses – Equally Available to Both Sides** + +There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but did not appear to testify. [If applicable: One or more of the attorneys has referred to their absence from the trial.] I instruct you that each party had an equal opportunity or lack of opportunity to call any of these witnesses. Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions as to what they would have testified to had they been called Their absence should not affect your judgment in any way. + +You should remember my instruction, however, that the law does not impose on the defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. + +Adapted from Sand, et al., *Modern Federal Jury Instructions*, Instr. 6-7; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in *United States v. Le*, 15 Cr. 38 (AJN). + +**Commented [CE97]:** The defense submits that this sentence is not accurate and should be removed. If the government could have but did not call a particular witness or admit certain evidence, it is entirely proper for Ms Maxwell to argue the government has accordingly not met its burden of proof. + +**Commented [RA(98R97)]:** GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This sentence is the norm in the standard uncalled witness instruction. See *United States v. Barry*, 20 Cr 84 (AJN); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr 533 (AJN); *United States v. Lebedev*, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr 151 (AJN); *United States v. Le*, 15 Cr 38 (AJN); Sand Instr 6-7. + +The defense is free to argue that the Government has not met its burden of proof. This sentence, however, is simply making the point of the prior paragraph: the jury should not draw an inference or conclusion against either side by the fact that a witness did not testify. + +**Particular Investigative Techniques Not Required** + +*[If applicable]* + +You have heard reference, in the arguments of defense counsel in this case, to the fact that certain investigative techniques were used or not used by the Government. There is no legal requirement, however, that the Government prove its case through any particular means. *[While you are to carefully consider the evidence adduced by the Government, you are not to speculate as to why they used the techniques they did or why they did not use other techniques. The Government is not on trial. Law enforcement techniques are not your concern.]* + +Your concern is to determine whether or not, on the evidence or lack of evidence, the defendant's guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in *United States v. William Walters*, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). + +**Commented [CE99]:** The defense maintains its position that it is entitled to challenge the thoroughness and good faith of the government's investigation. See *Kyles v. Whitley*, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995). The government is free to argue in response that its investigation was thorough and proper. This instruction is argumentative and highlights the government's arguments at the expense of Ms. Maxwell's. + +**Commented [RA(100R99): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:** As the Court has concluded, the principle captured by this instruction is settled law in this circuit. + +**Commented [CE101]:** At the very least, this language should be omitted. It is repetitive and favors the government. Furthermore, the Court has omitted this language from its recent instructions on this issue. See *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). + +**Commented [RA(102R101): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:** The Court has already ruled that the Government's motivations and use of investigative techniques are not relevant or admissible. The Second Circuit has affirmed nearly this instruction, *United States v. Preldajah*, 456 F. App'x 56, 60 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) and held that an instruction that "the government is not on trial" is "appropriate." *United States v. Knox*, 687 F. App'x 51, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order). This Court has also previously given this instruction. See *United States v. Le*, 15 Cr. 38 (AJN). + +Because the defense has repeatedly signaled their intent to place the Government's motivations and conduct at issue, the Government submits that a clear instruction like this is necessary. + +## Use of Evidence front Searches + +You have heard testimony about evidence seized in connection with certain searches conducted by law enforcement officers. Evidence obtained from these searches was properly admitted in this case, and may be properly considered by you. Such searches were appropriate law enforcement actions. Whether you approve or disapprove of how the evidence was obtained should not enter into your deliberations, because I instruct you that the Government's use of the evidence is entirely lawful. You must, therefore, regardless of your personal opinions, give this evidence full consideration along with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether the Government has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As with all evidence, it is for you to determine what weight, if any. to give such evidence. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, IS Cr. 769 (MN). + +## Use of Electronic Communications + +Some of the evidence in this cast has consisted of electronic communications seized from computers or electronic accounts. There is nothing illegal about the Government's use of such electronic communications in this case and you may consider them along with all the other evidence in the case. Whether you approve or disapprove of the seizure of these communications may not enter your deliberations. + +You may. therefore, regardless of any personal opinions, consider this evidence along with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether the Government has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However. as with the other evidence, it is for you to determine what weight. if any. to give such evidence. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States r. Lebedev. IS Cr. 769 (AJN). + +**Persons Not on Trial** + +You may not draw any inference, favorable or unfavorable, towards the Government or the defendant on trial from the fact that any person in addition to the defendant is not on trial here. You also may not speculate as to the reasons why other persons are not on trial. Those matters are wholly outside your concern and have no bearing on your function as juror. + +Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in *United States v. Pizarro*, 17 Cr. 151 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. [REDACTED] in *United States v. Almonte*, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in *United States v. Purcell*, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in *United States v. William Walters*, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). + +**Commented [CE103]:** For all the reasons given in Ms Maxwell's response to the government's motion in limine, this instruction is improper. Without making a selective or vindictive prosecution argument, Ms Maxwell is entitled to challenge the thoroughness and competence of the government's investigation; this argument would unfairly blunt the force of that right, which Ms Maxwell has a constitutional right to present. + +**Commented [RA(104R103): GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:** As noted, this is also a standard instruction. See also *United States v. Berry*, 20 Cr 84 (AJN). And as the Court has found, the Government's motivations are not at issue. The presence or absence of other individuals from this trial has no relationship to the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charged crimes. + +## Preparation of Witnesses + +You have heard evidence during the trial that witnesses have discussed the facts of the case and their testimony with the Government lawyers, the defense lawyers, or their own lawyers before the witnesses appeared in court. + +Although you may consider that fact when you are evaluating a witness's credibility, I should tell you that there is nothing either unusual or improper about a witness meeting with lawyers before testifying so that the witness can be aware of the subjects he or she will be questioned about, focus on those subjects. and have the opportunity to review relevant exhibits before being questioned about them. Such consultation helps conserve your time and the Coun's time. In fact, it would be unusual for a lawyer to call a witness without such consultation. + +Again. the weight you give to the fact or the nature of the witness's preparation for his or her testimony and what inferences you draw from such preparation arc matters completely within your discretion. + +> Aess.1 from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v.=, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in United Stares v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (AN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. MI in United Slates v. Almonie, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). + +# Redaction Of Evidentiary Items + +[If Applicable! + +We have, among the exhibits received in evidence, some documents that arc redacted. "Redacted" means that part of the document has been taken out. Material may be redacted for any number of reasons. including that it is not relevant to the issues you must decide in this case, among other reasons. You are to concern yourself only with the part of the item that has been admitted into evidence, and you should not consider any possible reason for the redactions. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. 16 Cr. 553 (MN): and the charge of the Hon. Richard J. Jury Charge. United States v. Adony Nina. a at. 13 Cr. 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). + +# Charts and Summaries — Admitted as Evidence + +IIIApplicableJ + +Now, some of the exhibits that were admitted into evidence were in the form of charts and summaries. For these charts and summaries that were admitted into evidence, you should consider them as you would any other evidence, which includes assessing the accuracy of the information contained in those charts or summaries. + +> Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. I2. and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States p. =, 16 Cr. 553 (MN). See also Fed. R. Evid. 1006. + +A stipulation of testimony is an agreement among the parties that, if called, a witness would have given certain testimony. You must accept as true the fact that the witness would have given the testimony. However, it is for you to determine the effect or weight to give that testimony. + +You also heard evidence in the form of stipulations that contain facts that were agreed to be true. In such cases, you must accept those facts as true. + +## Punishment Not to be Considered by the Jury + +Under your oath as jurors. you cannot allow a consideration of possible punishment that may be imposed upon Maxwell if convicted. to influence you in any way or in any sense to enter into your deliberations. Jf you unanimously conclude that the goVC111111C111 has pro'. cd \I, \ 21111, as In air; charES 1)C\_Vond a IC:0.0113NC doubj54\_he duty of uupd.duft\_\_\_\_- sentence is mine and mine alone. Your function is to weigh the evidence in the case and to determine whether 44.-.1.4"\*.ilsoiMs Max.' clI is or is not guilty based upon the evidence and the law. + +Therefore. I instinct you not to consider punishment or possible punishment in any way in your deliberations in this case. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in Dated States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr. 151 (AIN); from the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell. 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters. 16 Cr. 338 (Pcc). + +CansindlltA(ItnGOVERNMEWRESPONSE Ibischoseisaccesoriantlredntint inhidalit oiler lootarbas + +### Right to Hear Testimony; Election of Foreperson; Communications with the Court; Juror Note-Taking + +You arc about to go into the jury room and begin your deliberations. The documentary evidence will be sent back with you. If you want any of the testimony read to you, that can be arranged. But please remember that it is not always easy to locate what you might want, so be as specific as you possibly can in requesting portions of the testimony that you might want. + +Your first task as a jury will be to choose your foreperson. The foreperson has no greater voice or authority than any other juror, but is the person who will communicate with the Court through written note when questions arise and to indicate when you have reached your verdict. + +Your requests for testimony—in fact, any communications with the Court— should be made to me in writing, signed by your foreperson, and given to one of the Marshals. I will respond to any questions or requests you have as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you return to the courtroom so I can speak with you in person. In any communication. please do not tell me or anyone else how the jury stands on the issue of the jury's verdict until after a unanimous verdict is reached. + +For those of you who took notes during the course of the trial, you should not show your notes to or discuss your notes with any other juror during your deliberations. Any notes you have taken are to assist you and you alone. The fact that a particular juror has taken notes entitles that juror's views to no greater weight than those of any other juror. + +Finally, your notes are not to substitute for your recollection of the evidence in this case. If you have any doubt as to any testimony. you may request that the official trial transcript that has been made of these proceedings be read or otherwise provided to you. + +> Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN), in United States v..' 16 Cr. 553 (MN). and in United States v. Pizarro. 17 Cr. 151 (MN). + +## CONCLUDING REMARKS + +Members of the jury, that about concludes my instructions to you. The most important part of this case, members of the jury, is the part that you as jurors are now about to play as you deliberate on the issues of fact. It is for you, and you alone, to weigh the evidence in this case and determine whether the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime with which eacit Defendon4Ms. Maxwell is charged. If the Government has succeeded, your verdict should be guilty as to that-DefendamMs. Maxwell and that charge: if it has failed, your verdict should be not guilty as to that-DefendemMs. Maxwell and that charge. + +You must base your verdict solely on the evidence or lack of evidence and these instructions as to the law, and you arc obliged under your oath as jurors to follow the law as I have instructed you, whether you agree or disagree with the particular law in question. + +Under your oath as jurors, you arc not to be swayed by sympathy. You should be guided solely be the evidence presented during the trial and the law as I gave it to you, without regard to the consequences of your decision. You have been chosen to try the issues of fact and reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence or lack of evidence. If you let sympathy interfere with your clear thinking, there is a risk that you will not arrive at a just verdict. + +As you deliberate, please listen to the opinions of your fellow jurors. and ask for an opportunity to express your own views. Every juror should be heard. No one juror should hold center stage in the jury room and no one juror should control or monopolize the deliberations. If. after listening to your fellow jurors and if. after stating your own view, you become convinced that your view is wrong, do not hesitate because of stubbornness or pride to change your view. On the other hand, do not surrender your honest convictions and beliefs solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors or because you are outnumbered. Your final vote must reflect your conscientious belief as to how the issues should be decided. + +Thus, the verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree to it. Your verdict must be unanimous. + +If at any time you are divided, do not report how the vote stands, and if you have reached a verdict, do not report what it is until you are asked in open court. + +A verdict form has been prepared for your convenience. After you have reached your decision, your foreperson will fill in the form. At that point the foreperson should advise the marshal outside your door that you are ready to return to the courtroom. + +Finally. I say this not because I think it is necessary, but because it is the custom in this courthouse to say this: You should treat each other with courtesy and respect during your deliberations. + +In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that if you listen to the views of your fellow jurors, and if you apply your own common sense, you will deliberate fairly. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a2378c81a0f9f006d1f124949ff295b1c1c6043 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903/EFTA02833903.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,5076 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833903.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 93, + "chars": 146811, + "elapsed_seconds": 32.87, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 213.22714233398438, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 213.22714233398438, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 172.53 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT REQUESTS TO CHARGE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.344, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.607421875, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 302.607421875, + 307.95562744140625 + ], + [ + 160.344, + 307.95562744140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 155.448, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 308.62786865234375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 308.62786865234375, + 160.982421875 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 160.982421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rote of the Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 195.228, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 268.8150329589844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 268.8150329589844, + 180.482421875 + ], + [ + 195.228, + 180.482421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Role of the Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 266.221923828125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 266.221923828125, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Contact with Others/Social Media", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 300.4231872558594, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 300.4231872558594, + 160.232421875 + ], + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 160.232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statements of Counsel and Court Not Evidence; \nJury's Recollection Controls", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 135.864, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 327.74346923828125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 327.74346923828125, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 135.864, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Improper Considerations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.316, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 284.039306640625, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 284.039306640625, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 179.316, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sympathy: Oath As Jurors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 285.804, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 285.804, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 162.81 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "All Parties Are Equal Before the Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.06, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 307.25640869140625, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 307.25640869140625, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 156.06, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "implicit Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 259.30633544921875, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 259.30633544921875, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.088, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 325.584, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 325.584, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 137.088, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasonable Doubt", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 268.668, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 268.668, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 264.9565124511719, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 264.9565124511719, + 178.232421875 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 178.232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C I IA RGE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 253.82827758789062, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 253.82827758789062, + 160.11590576171875 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 160.11590576171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Summary of Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 281.43109130859375, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 281.43109130859375, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 179.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Multiple Counts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 196.452, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 266.4421691894531, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 266.4421691894531, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 196.452, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Two: Enticement to Engage in an Illegal Sexual Activity \u2013 The Statute", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 79.56, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 162.0 + ], + [ + 79.56, + 162.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity- The Elements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.828, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 378.828, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity \u2014First Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 381.8125915527344, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 381.8125915527344, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\"Know Mob\" Defined", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 314.28000000000003 + ], + [ + 168.3541259765625, + 314.28000000000003 + ], + [ + 168.3541259765625, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 326.43 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity -Second Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 386.2870178222656, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 386.2870178222656, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Third Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 383.3477783203125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 383.3477783203125, + 160.45367431640625 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 160.45367431640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\"Intentionally\" DeOned", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.20172119140625, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 176.20172119140625, + 264.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 264.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Significant or Motivating Purpose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 216.80848693847656, + 439.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 216.80848693847656, + 452.2036437988281 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 452.2036437988281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Violation of New York Criminal Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 628.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 229.13491821289062, + 628.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 229.13491821289062, + 640.8236389160156 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 640.8236389160156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity -The Statute", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 54.467999999999996, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 408.63116455078125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 408.63116455078125, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 54.467999999999996, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity \u2013 The Elements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 411.26400000000007, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 411.26400000000007, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity \u2013 First Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 411.26400000000007, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 411.26400000000007, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 171.71999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity\u2014First Element \u2014Consent Irrelevant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 410.65200000000004, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 410.65200000000004, + 170.91 + ], + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 170.91 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Second \nElement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 399.7029113769531, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 399.7029113769531, + 170.732421875 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 170.732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Second \nElement - Illegal Sexual Activity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 399.8768310546875, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 399.8768310546875, + 171.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 171.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Third \nElement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.708, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 397.5314025878906, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 397.5314025878906, + 170.61590576171875 + ], + [ + 66.708, + 170.61590576171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts Two and Four Failure to Accomplish Intended Activity is Immaterial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 384.948, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 384.948, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Statute", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 136.476, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 327.2101745605469, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 327.2101745605469, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Elements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 331.29705810546875, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 331.29705810546875, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor \u2014 First Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 340.2181701660156, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 340.2181701660156, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor \u2014 Second Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 344.46490478515625, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 344.46490478515625, + 160.72113037109375 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 160.72113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor \u2013 Third Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor \u2013 Fourth Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 342.72, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 342.72, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts Two, Four, and Six: Aiding and Abetting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 328.03200000000004, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws\u2014 The Statute", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 395.9190979003906, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 395.9190979003906, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Lows- Conspiracy dad \nSubstantive Counts{", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.976, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 404.4534912109375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 404.4534912109375, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 59.976, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law \u2013 The Elements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 389.84400000000005, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 389.84400000000005, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law \u2014 First Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 392.2870178222656, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 392.2870178222656, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Liability for Acts and Declarations of Co-Conspirators", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 339.048, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 339.048, + 558.0899999999999 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 558.0899999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Fire: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - First Element: Object \nof the Conspiracy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 56.304, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 408.50042724609375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 408.50042724609375, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 56.304, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law \u2014 Second Element: \nMembership in the Conspiracy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 398.7204284667969, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 398.7204284667969, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "- Willfully\" and - Knowingly\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 171.972, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 291.8840026855469, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 291.8840026855469, + 399.8623962402344 + ], + [ + 171.972, + 399.8623962402344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Five Two: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - Third Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 60.58800000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 403.9677734375, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 403.9677734375, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 60.58800000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Five Two: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law \u2013 Fourth Element", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 56.916000000000004, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 405.75600000000003, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 405.75600000000003, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 56.916000000000004, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Counts One, Three, and Five \u2013 Liability for Acts and Declarations of Co-Conspirators", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 62.424, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 400.248, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 400.248, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 62.424, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statute of limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.048, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 277.35284423828125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 277.35284423828125, + 160.232421875 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 160.232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OTHER INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 287.24786376953125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 287.24786376953125, + 160.982421875 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 160.982421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Direct and Circumstantial Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 305.0681457519531, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 305.0681457519531, + 180.482421875 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 180.482421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Inferences", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 254.79559326171875, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 254.79559326171875, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Credibility of Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.988, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 281.4097595214844, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 281.4097595214844, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 182.988, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Credibility of Witnesses \u2014 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 375.0244445800781, + 166.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 375.0244445800781, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 178.2 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conscious-Avoidance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 69, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Venue", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 216.64799999999997, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 245.412, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 245.412, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 216.64799999999997, + 159.57000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Time of Offense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.676, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 197.676, + 159.57000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Law Enforcement and Government Employee Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 74, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 344.78936767578125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 344.78936767578125, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Formal / Informal Immunity of Government Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 75, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 340.27200000000005, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Expert Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 269.6622619628906, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 269.6622619628906, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Limiting Instruction \u2013 Similar Act Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 77, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.20800000000003, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 143.20800000000003, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant's Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 78, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 279.7928466796875, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 279.7928466796875, + 160.58563232421875 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 160.58563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant's Right Not to Testify", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 297.8661193847656, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 297.8661193847656, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Uncalled Witnesses \u2013 Equally Available to Both Sides", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 80, + "polygon": [ + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 336.6, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 336.6, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Particular Investigative Techniques Not Required", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 81, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.192, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 132.192, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Use of Evidence front Searches", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 82, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.912, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 294.53070068359375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 294.53070068359375, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 168.912, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Use of Electronic Communications", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 83, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.18, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 302.44970703125, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 302.44970703125, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Persons Not on Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 84, + "polygon": [ + [ + 188.496, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 188.496, + 161.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Preparation of Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.152, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 283.6597595214844, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 283.6597595214844, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 181.152, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Redaction Of Evidentiary Items", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 86, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 296.8183288574219, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 296.8183288574219, + 160.82366943359375 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 160.82366943359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Charts and Summaries \u2014 Admitted as Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 87, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.088, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 326.8159484863281, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 326.8159484863281, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 137.088, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 88, + "polygon": [ + [ + 205.63200000000003, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 205.63200000000003, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Punishment Not to be Considered by the Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 89, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 323.9027099609375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 323.9027099609375, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 160.38 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Right to Hear Testimony; Election of Foreperson; Communications with the Court; Juror \nNote-Taking", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 90, + "polygon": [ + [ + 55.692, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 409.34149169921875, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 409.34149169921875, + 171.1024169921875 + ], + [ + 55.692, + 171.1024169921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUDING REMARKS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 91, + "polygon": [ + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 290.6849365234375, + 149.04 + ], + [ + 290.6849365234375, + 160.6024169921875 + ], + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 160.6024169921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 131 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 120 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 120 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 14 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833903" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e022f70b1802b6f8131fc067b7321b3ac8ff51c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +-v.- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN: + +S2 20 CR 330 (AJN) + +# VERDICT SHEET + +Please indicate your verdict with a check mark V). + +COUNT ONE: Conspiracy to Entice an Individual to Travel in Interstate Commerce with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity + +(1) NT TWO: Enticement of Mi-i41414% idualpane Doe-I 1m:tido:iv mil to Travel from I lorida to Noy York with Intent to Engage In Illegal Sexual Activity pith Jeffrey Epstein in Violation of New York Penal Law, Section I 30.554Mifter-Vietim-1) + +Guilty Not Guilty + +Guilty Not Guilty + +COUNT THREE: Conspiracy to Transport a Minor to Travel in Interstate Commerce with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity + +Guilty Not Guilty + +Comntersted CRA(11: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The rim ernment objects to the defense's remaining edits. These facts arc not elements of the olTensc and unnecessary for the waiter form. The Jun Will be prom's unsuuned ehenfiere. + +&#x27; The defense has informed the Government that they continue to object to the use of pseudonyms. The parties have agreed to use neutral identifiers here to avoid the need for redactions. + +**COUNT FOUR:** Transportation of Jane Doe-1 pseudonym from Florida to New York a-Minor with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity with Jeffrey Epstein in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55 (Minor Vietim-1) + +Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ Not Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ + +**COUNT FIVE:** Sex Trafficking Conspiracy + +Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ Not Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ + +**COUNT SIX:** Sex Trafficking of a-Minor (Minor-Vietim-4) Jane Doe-4 pseudonym + +Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ Not Guilty \_\_\_\_\_ + +\_\_\_\_\_ +Foreperson + +\_\_\_\_\_ +Date and Time \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80a47ad88d0475f1b4626eabbb16f163027f9d00 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996/EFTA02833996.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833996.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1757, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.35, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 211.8018341064453, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 211.8018341064453, + 174.482421875 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 174.482421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VERDICT SHEET", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 269.3193664550781, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 269.3193664550781, + 320.3623962402344 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 320.3623962402344 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833996" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..427f6e6076c29718ebb926a2398a7af1b56253cd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 3, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Attached please find the parties' joint request to charge and proposed verdict sheet. The Government is docketing a redacted version today and submitting the unredacted versions to the Court. The redline text in the documents reflect the objections of the defense. Further detail of the parties' objections are contained in comment bubbles. + +The Government has proposed the only redactions in the Request to Charge. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's request to charge is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of a third party. + +The Government is also providing under seal Exhibit A, which pertains to a defense comment. The defense informs the Government that this exhibit is a document from another case that was not itself publicly docketed and therefore is submitting Exhibit A under seal. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14055db7b5f621502619fca23105fc386322dd18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/EFTA02833998.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1684, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of .lustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.560546875, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.560546875, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02833998" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63d8c0c7ed50d2ce09a56a8586ebc3d5787bad50 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02833998/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8ed79a4779b33491ff7e22ffe4679bb7d13caa14e224fef8a55b3ae7361619ee +size 3515 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c23404ec4686b405ae903311b480f0439c826aca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 4, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully moves for reconsideration of the portions of the Court's order dated November 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 409), directing the Government to file by November 8, 2021, any briefing to exclude any defense witness testimony disclosed on November I, 2021, with defense responses due November 11, 2021. + +This schedule provides the Government seven days—or six, if timed from the Court's order—to respond to the defense's expert notice, in which they gave notice for the first time of eight potential experts. By contrast, the Government notes that it provided the defense with notice of its expert on April 23, 2021, and the defense filed its motion to preclude on October 18, 202O + +Moreover, during that time, the Government will be (1) preparing for the November 10, 2021 Daubert hearing; (2) responding to the defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407); (3) providing the defense with categories of its coconspirator statements and exemplars; (4) briefing the admissibility of Minor Victim-3's testimony + +The Government also provided expert notice of a witness who it does not believe requires admission through Rule 702 on September 15, 2021. The defense has not moved to preclude that witness. + +under Rule 404(b) or as direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts; (5) reviewing 400 juror questionnaires, conferring with the defense, and filing lists of for-cause strikes with the Court; (6) responding to the defendant's fourth bail motion (see Dkt. No. 408); and (7) conferring with the MDC regarding the defendant's legal mail and transportation to the courthouse.2 By November 10, the Government will also (8) respond to defense objections to the admissibility of coconspirator statements, including a discussion of statements that postdate the charged period of the conspiracy; (9) propose procedures for the use of pseudonyms following conferral with defense counsel; and (10) provide a letter regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 52. This is in addition to the ordinary press of preparing for trial, which in this case involves, among other things, extensive travel to meet with victim witnesses. + +The Government is grateful for the care and attention that the Court has devoted to this case and the speed and efficiency with which the Court has resolved pretrial matters. In the Government's view, however, the foregoing confluence of deadlines seriously taxes the Government's ability to provide the Court with the thorough, careful briefing and advocacy that the Court rightly expects. It is not practicable to further require the Government to brief in six days the admissibility of testimony from several defense expert witnesses, particularly when (a) the defense had six months to brief the admissibility of a single expert witness; (b) the defense has clearly known the identity of these eight experts for some time; and (c) there is additional time between now and the start of trial in which to brief and resolve the issues surrounding these experts. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set a deadline for any + +2 In addition, on November 3, 2021, the Government provided the Court with the joint request to charge and verdict form, for which the Government received full comments from the defense late last night. + +Government briefing of November 15, 2021, with defense responses due thereafter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: 5/ + +Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55b309e5e6331778eb9efd97f44d7005ade2078a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/EFTA02834000.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4057, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.97271728515625, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834000" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f06a673194984b7a7e2de7644ee94f1e355880b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834000/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ed298b016714859c2abb4230fc10d292c1a114870c4594577d53043719be920d +size 3372 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..955d3d478f61d472f61f3d2509cb4cabc5b940b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter dated November 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 403. The Government is hereby ORDERED to confer further with MDC legal counsel and file a letter regarding Defendant's transportation to the courthouse for proceedings in this matter on or before November 8, 2021. The Court hereby authorizes the letter to be filed under seal because such information may implicate security concerns. The Court will also confer with the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York and with the District Executive regarding transportation of the Defendant for upcoming in court proceedings and trial. + +With respect to legal mail, the Court requires MDC Legal Counsel to consider what additional steps can be taken (including what steps by counsel for the Government or the Defendant) to ensure that within the weeks leading up to trial, Ms. Maxwell promptly receives her legal mail. The Government shall docket a letter with MDC Legal Counsel's proposal on or before November 8, 2021. + +The Court will also transmit this Order to Chief Judge Brodie, who is overseeing the litigation and mediation in Case No. 19-cv-660 (E.D.N.Y.) regarding access to counsel for pretrial detainees being held at the MDC so that the issue can be discussed as to all MDC pre-trial detainees who require prompt access to legal mail in the weeks leading up to their trials. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 3, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d26d60b61e5dec5371820c913fe90101201353f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/EFTA02834003.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1718, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.96, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834003" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6bffcd979ea2532ebcdf20d09d76088fab16685 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834003/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:644b67c2878c8bd2522ded3eea3c2daf84827b4600b240d46af6908d50c7089e +size 11422 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d54701481508df2d5cdd908cd32858129891852d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's motions for reconsideration. See Dkt. Nos. 407, 408. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendant's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 408, on or before November 8, 2021. + +As to the motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names, the Court reminds counsel of the following. First, as the Court previously indicated, the lawyers will be provided the names of jurors on November 16, prior to the commencement of the voir dire process. Second, the Court has now resolved the logistical issues regarding the ability to conduct peremptory challenges on November 29 and the Court can now confirm that peremptory strikes will not be exercised until November 29. Finally, as previously indicated, although only 40 qualified jurors are needed for the exercise of peremptory strikes, the Court will seek to qualify approximately 50 to 60 prospective jurors to return on November 29 for the exercise of peremptory strikes. If counsel for either side learns of any additional information that would be a basis for a strike for cause prior to November 29, they shall immediately raise the issue with the Court. + +Bearing in mind this information, the Government is ORDERED to respond to Defendant's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 407, on or before November 4, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 3, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0159933a450ac94ee345466bc9623ae5f68b3f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/EFTA02834005.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1669, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.96, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834005" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53b02c88ca2f35c9425b89720ac6b2252c1f7059 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834005/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6bd9c18773b485328bdabcdbc3c21e18ff351bed308e14b37a0f87abe8e82a0f +size 11637 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..621f08efb96d2d96163186a07ec53ea8af49b4b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/4/21 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 4, 2021 + +The Court hereby DENIES the Government's request as to Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Pursuant to this Court's Order, if the Government seeks to exclude these anticipated witnesses, briefing must be submitted by November 8, 2021. Dkt. No. 409. As to the remaining individuals disclosed in Defendant's notice, the Court GRANTS the Government's request. If the Government seeks to exclude those anticipated witnesses, briefing must be submitted by November 15, 2021, with a response by Defendant due November 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +GAIL 14 kr + +11/4/21 + +The Government respectfully moves for reconsideration of the portions of the Court's order dated November 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 409), directing the Government to file by November 8, 2021, any briefing to exclude any defense witness testimony disclosed on November 1, 2021, with defense responses due November II, 2021. + +This schedule provides the Government seven days—or six, if timed from the Court's order—to respond to the defense's expert notice, in which they gave notice for the first time of eight potential experts. By contrast, the Government notes that it provided the defense with notice of its expert on April 23, 2021, and the defense filed its motion to preclude on October 18, 2021.' + +Moreover, during that time, the Government will be (1) preparing for the November 10, 2021 Daubert hearing; (2) responding to the defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407); (3) providing the defense with categories of its coconspirator statements and exemplars; (4) briefing the admissibility of Minor Victim-3's testimony + +The Government also provided expert notice of a witness who it does not believe requires admission through Rule 702 on September 15, 2021. The defense has not moved to preclude that witness. + +under Rule 404(b) or as direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts; (5) reviewing 400 juror questionnaires, conferring with the defense, and filing lists of for-cause strikes with the Court; (6) responding to the defendant's fourth bail motion (see Dkt. No. 408); and (7) conferring with the MDC regarding the defendant's legal mail and transportation to the courthouse.2 By November 10, the Government will also (8) respond to defense objections to the admissibility of coconspirator statements, including a discussion of statements that postdate the charged period of the conspiracy; (9) propose procedures for the use of pseudonyms following conferral with defense counsel; and (10) provide a letter regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 52. This is in addition to the ordinary press of preparing for trial, which in this case involves, among other things, extensive travel to meet with victim witnesses. + +The Government is grateful for the care and attention that the Court has devoted to this case and the speed and efficiency with which the Court has resolved pretrial matters. In the Government's view, however, the foregoing confluence of deadlines seriously taxes the Government's ability to provide the Court with the thorough, careful briefing and advocacy that the Court rightly expects. It is not practicable to further require the Government to brief in six days the admissibility of testimony from several defense expert witnesses, particularly when (a) the defense had six months to brief the admissibility of a single expert witness; (b) the defense has clearly known the identity of these eight experts for some time; and (c) there is additional time between now and the start of trial in which to brief and resolve the issues surrounding these experts. + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set a deadline for any + +2 In addition, on November 3, 2021, the Government provided the Court with the joint request to charge and verdict form, for which the Government received full comments from the defense late last night. + +Government briefing of November 15, 2021, with defense responses due thereafter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2be967cb899d6e6abd173967170e0bda14407281 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/EFTA02834007.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4688, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.03, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.46344757080078, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.46344757080078, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834007" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8894785c45aadbca9cb06c05b7d66d3cc126a82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834007/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6814c6bf810d16846a93c7602cb776003116eb579859f3011322c1a23e0b757f +size 3370 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1de9159550c32174a3e0b2bb55e3bbe8f3567175 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Ito New York New York 10007 + +November 4, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021 (the "Order," Dkt. No. 413), directing the Government to respond to the defendant's November 3, 2021 motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407). The Government respectfully submits that the defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied. + +The standard for granting reconsideration "is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 474 (JSR), 2015 WL 1345809, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." United States v. No. 08 Cr. 789 (RJS), 2020 WL 4742915, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +The defendant cannot meet this strict standard. On October 27, 2021, after receiving the parties' proposed joint questionnaire discussing the parties' respective positions on the issue of juror names (Dkt. No. 367) and letters from the parties (Dkt. Nos. 372, 373, and 375), the Court ordered that it will provide counsel with the "corresponding list of juror names and assigned juror numbers on November 16 at the commencement of voir dire." (Dkt. No. 376). The Court has since ordered that peremptory strikes will not be exercised until November 29. (Dkt. 413). The defendant asks this Court to release the names of prospective jurors as soon as the written questionnaires are distributed. (Dkt. No. 407). In essence, the defendant is asking for extra time on top of the nearly two weeks it will have with prospective juror names—to conduct additional research on the prospective jurors, but the defendant offers no good reason for the Court to reconsider its position and grant this extended period of time. + +As the Government submitted in its October 26, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 372), the purpose of the jury questionnaire process is to streamline challenges for cause. Prospective jurors' names are not necessary for that process.' "Mhe purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case." United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). + +The defendant cites two cases in support of her motion for reconsideration, but those cases are inapposite. In Sines v. Kessler, 17 Civ. 72 (KNM) (W.D. Va.), the Court ordered the provision + +The defendant writes that it is "unaware of any other recent high-profile case in which a written juror questionnaire was used and the Court withheld the names of the jurors from counsel following the completion of the questionnaires." (Dkt. No. 407 at 2 n.1). The Government cited such cases in its October 26, 2021 letter. See Dkt. No. 372 at 1-2 (citing United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); United States v. Kaloyeros, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); United States v. Percoco, et al., 16 Cr. 776 (VEC)). + +of the names and occupations of prospective jurors no more than five days before trial. (Dkt. No. 407, Def. Ex. A). In United States v. Daugerdas, 450 prospective jurors completed a basic hardship questionnaire; the court excused a number of prospective jurors who had claimed hardships on their questionnaires; the court conducted three-day voir dire; the parties exercised peremptory challenges; and trial commenced. 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 449-51 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Through the jury selection process, one juror "lied extensively during your dire and concealed important information about her background." Id. at 451. That one juror "lied extensively" during voir dire in Daugerdas does not provide a basis for the relief sought here. Neither Kessler nor Daugerdas stands for the proposition that a defendant has a constitutional right to conduct outside research on jurors, much less that a certain amount of time is required to do so. + +The Court has indicated that it would ensure a fair jury is selected, and the Court has carefully crafted a juror questionnaire and voir dire process with input from the parties on the questions asked of prospective jurors. This process will ensure that a fair jury is empaneled. The defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7e0877c04fc699a66de2b8be8fad800340fa701 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/EFTA02834010.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5351, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.92, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834010" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08aecb67dc0f62a43e92cb7726cb16da097acdfc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834010/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a96e76b00db51bfa7cba189b647d0c0be7629e3a13d83ded9f1bb8317a38754a +size 3369 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9091858a64cacfe2555ff6f8263a32d77d863701 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +## BY ECF + +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio .1 Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 4, 2021 + +For the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 407, is DENIED. SO ORDERED. + +(eAbir + +11/5/21 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021 (the "Order," Dkt. No. 413), directing the Government to respond to the defendant's November 3, 2021 motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407). The Government respectfully submits that the defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied. + +The standard for granting reconsideration "is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 474 (JSR), 2015 WL 1345809, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." United States v. No. 08 Cr. 789 (RJS), 2020 WL 4742915, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +The defendant cannot meet this strict standard. On October 27, 2021, after receiving the parties' proposed joint questionnaire discussing the parties' respective positions on the issue of juror names (Dkt. No. 367) and letters from the parties (Dkt. Nos. 372, 373, and 375), the Court ordered that it will provide counsel with the "corresponding list of juror names and assigned juror numbers on November 16 at the commencement of voir dire." (Dkt. No. 376). The Court has since ordered that peremptory strikes will not be exercised until November 29. (Dkt. 413). The defendant asks this Court to release the names of prospective jurors as soon as the written questionnaires are distributed. (Dkt. No. 407). In essence, the defendant is asking for extra time on top of the nearly two weeks it will have with prospective juror names—to conduct additional research on the prospective jurors, but the defendant offers no good reason for the Court to reconsider its position and grant this extended period of time. + +As the Government submitted in its October 26, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 372), the purpose of the jury questionnaire process is to streamline challenges for cause. Prospective jurors' names are not necessary for that process.' "[T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case." United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). + +The defendant cites two cases in support of her motion for reconsideration, but those cases are inapposite. In Sines v. Kessler, 17 Civ. 72 (KNM) (W.D. Va.), the Court ordered the provision + +The defendant writes that it is "unaware of any other recent high-profile case in which a written juror questionnaire was used and the Court withheld the names of the jurors from counsel following the completion of the questionnaires." (Dkt. No. 407 at 2 n.1). The Government cited such cases in its October 26, 2021 letter. See Dkt. No. 372 at 1-2 (citing United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); United States v. Kaloyeros, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); United States v. Percoco, et al., 16 Cr. 776 (VEC)). + +of the names and occupations of prospective jurors no more than five days before trial. (Dkt. No. 407, Def. Ex. A). In United States v. Daugerdas, 450 prospective jurors completed a basic hardship questionnaire; the court excused a number of prospective jurors who had claimed hardships on their questionnaires; the court conducted three-day voir dire; the parties exercised peremptory challenges; and trial commenced. 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 449-51 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Through the jury selection process, one juror "lied extensively during your dire and concealed important information about her background." Id. at 451. That one juror "lied extensively" during voir dire in Daugerdas does not provide a basis for the relief sought here. Neither Kessler nor Daugerdas stands for the proposition that a defendant has a constitutional right to conduct outside research on jurors, much less that a certain amount of time is required to do so. + +The Court has indicated that it would ensure a fair jury is selected, and the Court has carefully crafted a juror questionnaire and voir dire process with input from the parties on the questions asked of prospective jurors. This process will ensure that a fair jury is empaneled. The defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3f42c1cecd39f15f0ad1a6fe961407303889804 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/EFTA02834013.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5525, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.04, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834013" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7592edd77e0223bb77173d31790ff28f9ea9b9e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f27407ff0d6b226e445b6fea3f426bb00f8ddfa1a9b2d802b3412a443a02e0d0 +size 3318 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2367e465881c2a21deaa9b106f7db4cb9036f26e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834013/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:36d2613030e799dd8ad8028a5413135b0d8759e52c60ba2d997e10b2650acf7b +size 11447 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f17430b4e26c87048ec0f5bb4f2f69b7f818aa60 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's supplemental letter regarding its opposition to the defense motion to exclude evidence of Minor Victim-3. See Dkt. No. 387. The letter is submitted temporarily under seal to allow defense counsel the opportunity to propose any additional redactions beyond what the Government proposes. + +At the November I, 2021 conference, the Court asked the Government to provide its position as to whether Alleged "Victim-3" could be considered a "victim" of the crimes charged in the indictment for any legal purpose, including for purposes of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2). See Transcript at 71-72. The Government's supplemental letter does not address this issue. While acknowledging that the Court's request may have been unclear, the Government is now ORDERED to file a supplemental letter responsive to the Court's question on or before 12:00 p.m. on November 7, 2021. For the sake of clarity, the Government is directed to state its position as to whether this anticipated witness could be deemed a victim of any of the crimes charged in the indictment for any legal purpose, including for purposes of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 6, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f61b0a4934b7687c4318a089f330ec893b2888b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/EFTA02834016.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1526, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 282.5284118652344, + 101.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 101.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834016" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42b0f6da0c62fbacc4f5d7001276fbc483ea7460 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834016/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bb27ca19ab9c4ee0a08f836238a3ee5ef80f03311a50324659a1c347b0d318f8 +size 11524 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5de16f3c36f25c9f9deaf5eb256bcaff4fc63d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.md @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +November 1, 2021 + +VIA EMAIL + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 EX 303.832.2628 www.hrnflaw.corn JPognucaOhnillaw.com + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell through counsel, submit the following summary pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1XC). + +### I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE + +A. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus + +Dr. Loftus is the Distinguished Professor of Psychological Science and Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Dr. Loftus is one of the nation's leading experts on the science of memory. In addition to her experience as an academic and clinical researcher, she has been an expert witness or consultant in hundreds of cases. Her extensive experience and credentials are recited in her curriculum vitae. Exhibit A. + +It is expected that Dr. Loftus, a psychologist who specializes in the study of memory, will focus on the memory aspects of this case. Based on her education, training, experience, and research, her testimony will concern the workings of human memory, the effects of suggestion on memory, the mechanism of creation of false memories, the characteristics of false memories, how memory fades and weakens over time, and how memory becomes more vulnerable to contamination. She will describe scientific research showing that false memories can be + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 2 + +described with confidence, detail, and emotion, just like true memories. This can occur when people come to believe in these experiences and are not deliberately lying. Dr. Loftus would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case. + +Suggestive activities can explain how it is that a person might go from having no memory of sexual abuse, and even denying sexual abuse, to later having "memories" for numerous abusive acts, if the memories are false. She will explain the mechanism by which false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence or the like. She will also testify about the characteristics of false and/or distorted memories. In particular "memories" can be described with confidence, detail and emotion, even when they are false. She will point out some of the suggestive activities that occurred in this case. She will explain how media coverage and other publications (including but not limited to newspaper and magazine articles, news reports, television shows, documentaries, books, podcasts, websites, etc.) and discussions/ conversations with others, can be sources of suggestion. She will explain how, in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories. + +# B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D. + +Dr. Park Dietz is a psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry with over 40 years of experience. He has been previously qualified as an expert in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. + +Dr. Dietz received a bachelor's degree in psychology and biology from the Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences (01)) 1 M.D. degree from the Johns University School of Medicine (1975), a degree in Public Health from the Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health (1975), and a Ph.D. in sociologfiSe Johns University (1984). He completed psychiatric residency at the Johns Hospital (1975-77) and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (1977-78), where he was Chief Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry. He has been board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology since 1979. + +He is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the UCLA School of Medicine. From 1986 to 1989, he was a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law and a Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. From 1982 to 1986, he was an Associate Professor of Law and of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia Schools of Law and Medicine. From 1978 to 1982, he was an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In those positions he taught and lectured on forensic psychiatry for diverse audiences, including law students, practicing attorneys, law enforcement officers, psychiatry residents, forensic psychiatry fellows, and practicing forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. + +He is a Past President of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He has served on the editorial boards of the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, and other + +November I, 2021 + +Page 3 + +professional publications. He has authored more than 100 articles and book chapters, primarily on forensic psychiatry. + +He has conducted more than 1,000 evaluations of persons charged with crime and, in his role as President of Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., has evaluated or supervised over 1,000 evaluations of allegations of sexual victimization. He has testified as an expert witness in forensic psychiatry on hundreds of occasions, including testimony in criminal matters in federal courts throughout the U.S. and the trial courts of nearly every state. + +Dr. Dietz will be qualified as an expert in the areas of psychiatry and behavioral science. Dr. Dietz's curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit B. Attached as Exhibit C is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz. + +His testimony may include, but will not be limited to, the following: + +### a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions + +The first use of the word "grooming" to refer to strategies that sometimes enable nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent sexual victimization of minors was the proposition that "the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are expertly applied" (Conte, 1984, p. 558). Since then, this usage has been widely adopted by social scientists, clinicians, journalists, and others. But this usage has some unintended consequences that threaten the integrity of the adjudicative process, including these: + +- (1) Because use of the term "grooming" commonly assumes that the grooming party is intentionally using these strategies to gain sexual access to children, to abuse them, and to prevent them from disclosing the abuse, the word "grooming" has acquired meaning beyond an objective description of behaviors; it imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either. +- (2) In the litigation context, "when 'grooming' is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well established predictors of child sexual abuse," when they are not. Park Dietz, Grooming and Seduction, 33 J. Interpersonal Violence, 28, 31 (2018). Dr. Rocchio characterizes "grooming" as "a strategic pattern of behavior(] ... that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser." This vague opinion about "grooming" carries the risk of imputing motive and intent to the Defendant, when the determination of motive and intent is a task for the fact finder charged with determining the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the ultimate issues. Moreover, this opinion carries the risk of implying that innocuous and even desirable behaviors are associated with nefarious or criminal conduct. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 4 + +Moreover, grooming has no consistent definition, and concerns have been raised that "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +In any particular population of alleged victims, patients, or plaintiffs—including those whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—the determination of whether grooming has occurred is a subjective judgment hinging largely on the credibility of the individuals. Such judgments have no known error rate and cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced. + +Although the Government's Expert Notice regarding Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of "grooming-by-proxy" to the Defendant, it is important to note that there is no generally accepted theory of grooming bad parties or empirical evidence regarding the prevalence, characteristics, or mechanisms of . Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself. Instead, the claim appears to be that Ms. Maxwell recruited and groomed minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein, which would amount to grooming-by-proxy. + +Dr. Dietz is aware of no authority—no journal articles, no studies, no tests, nothing—to support a theory of grooming-by-proxy. Such a theory has not gained any acceptance (let alone general acceptance) in the relevant community; it has not been peer-reviewed; it has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error. + +Dr. Rocchio's opinion that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse" is a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore derived from the frequent observation of highly vulnerable children among those children who allege sexual abuse, but it is not based on empirical data regarding the likelihood of abuse among children with varying degrees of vulnerability. To the extent that less vulnerable children, such as those with intact families, attentive parents, good social support, little psychopathology, less prior trauma, no substance use, and higher resilience are less likely to allege abuse than the more vulnerable, the generalization could be proved weak or false, if only there were such empirical data. And even if there were such data, it would be important to devise a means of verifying that abuse did occur to those who allege it, which is a difficult task at best because of the pains so many abusers take to avoid confession, witnesses, or physical evidence. The clinical, criminal justice, and forensic populations from which the observation of prevalent vulnerabilities is derived—including those clients whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—rarely represent groups in which all allegations of abuse have been verified by confession, witnesses, physical evidence, or other means. + +Other opinions put forth in the disclosure of Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony also rest on assertions that are untestable, cannot be reproduced, and have no known error rate. + +# b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias + +Hindsight bias must be considered when evaluating sex abuse allegations and or "grooming behavior." Many claims of sexual abuse of minors involve behaviors that are, in Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach November 1, 2021 Page 5 + +hindsight, labeled "grooming" or otherwise imputed as knowledge to onlookers. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable or foreseeable an event is after being informed about the outcome of an event. Simply put, knowledge of the outcome of the event, i.e. Epstein pleaded guilty to having sexual contact with post-pubescent minors, makes the importance of pm-conviction behaviors obvious. Retrospective judgments about the predictability or foreseeability of the outcome are systemically inflated or biased compared to judgments made without information about the outcome. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable an event is after learning the outcome of the event (Fischhoff, 1975). For example, after a political election, people believe their pm-election estimates of the outcome were closer to the outcome than they actually were (Blank, Fischer, & Erdfelder, 2003). Hindsight bias has been discussed in over 800 scholarly articles across a variety of different domains including medicine, financial decision making, consumer satisfaction, and within the legal domain (see Roese & Vohs, 2012; Arkes, 2013; Strohmaier et al., 2021) and using a variety of different experimental designs (Pohl & Erdfelder, 2016) and a variety of different stimuli such as written vignettes, visual stimuli (e.g., Bernstein & Harley, 2007), and auditory stimuli (e.g., Bernstein, Wilson, Pernat, & Meilleur, 2012). Even individuals with specialized training and expertise succumb to hindsight bias (Musch & Wagner, 2007). One notable study detected hindsight bias among actual judges making civil liability decisions, in which judges with outcome knowledge perceived the harm to be significantly more foreseeable than judges who did not receive outcome information and were thus more likely to render a finding of negligence (Oeberst & Goeckenjan, 2016). Another notable study detected hindsight bias in a sample of mental health professionals who gauged the dangerousness of a psychiatric patient; again, outcome knowledge affected the reported dangerousness and predictably of harm posed by the patient (Beltrani et al., 2018). + +Hindsight bias affects legal judgments. Civil or criminal prosecutions related to events occurring decades ago may be compromised by this bias in many ways, from the investigation either ignoring evidence or attributing significance in hindsight—through the presentation of evidence, to the deliberation of any factfinder. Awareness of the impact of the hindsight bias should temper any claims that so called "grooming" behaviors should have been noticed and either reported or avoided and that failing to do so constitutes knowledge or intent. + +#### c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect + +The term "Halo effect" was coined by Thorndike (1920) a century ago. The Halo effect is a cognitive bias in impression formation whereby the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated. For example, one classic study found that physical attractiveness influenced evaluations of the target's personality, life satisfaction, and expected future personal and occupational success despite the fact that no information about any of these attributes was provided (Dion et al., 1972). Physical attractiveness has also been found to influence culpability judgments, with attractive individuals being held less-responsible than unattractive individuals (Dion, 1972; Efran, 1974). Halo effects have been found to be cued by factors other than attractiveness, such as the described status of the target (Wilson, 1968), the name of the target (Harari & McDavid, 1973), and even one's mood when evaluating the target (Forgas, 2011). Studies have documented + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 6 + +halo effects when making diagnoses of psychopathology, such that symptoms of one mental disorder influence the interpretation of other symptoms indicative of other mental disorders and vice versa (see e.g., DeVries, Hartung, & Golden, 2017). + +Halo effects are a means to achieving cognitive consistency, which roughly refers to a state in which attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, predictions, and thouikare aligned. Cognitive consistency serves many important goals. As noted by Read and (2012), cognitive consistency is "essential for reasons of parsimony and economy of effort, as well as to allow for the predictabili and hence adaptability to, subsequent encounters" (p. 67). Indeed, the noted psychologist MI Festinger "was convinced that the psychological need for cognitive consistency is as basic as hunger and thirst" (Gawronski, 2012, p. 652). But because the world is often not so neat, orderly, or unequivocal, humans engage in complicated reasoning processes to impose consistency. These processes involve bi-directional reasoning in which "decisions follow from evidence, and evaluations of the evidence shift toward coherence with the emerging decision" Snow, & Read, 2004, p. 814; Greenspan & Scurich, 2016). As a result, perceptions and decisions become highly skewed toward one interpretation while alternatives are neglected or dismissed, hence consistency is achieved. This reasoning process occurs unconsciously, i.e., outside conscious awareness, and is not intentional self-deception. + +Halo effects can have serious practical consequences. As noted by Forgas and Laham (2016): + +Once unjustified initial expectations are formed about a person, they can easily become self-perpetuating with serious implications for how a target is treated. If we expect a person to have positive characteristics, we may selectively look for and find such features from the rich array of information available (a self-fulfilling prophecy), and positive impressions may in turn lead to preferential treatment in a range of domains: + +interpersonal relations, the work place, the health and legal systems, and even for decision making and consumer choices. (p. 286) + +Like many people who achieve great power and wealth, Jeffery Epstein exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs. At the most primitive level, his wealth attracted those seeking for themselves some of what he had. At the most sophisticated level, others with halos of their own—through any combination of power, influence, fame, brilliance, attractiveness, social standing, or other positive characteristics—mingled with Epstein for reasons of their own, and being seen in their company empowered him and made him look above suspicion. In a videotaped interview with Steve Bannon, Epstein differentiated between different kinds of power—such as Bill Clinton's political power, wrestlers' and weight lifters' physical power, and Gerry Edelman's intellectual power—and acknowledged that he gravitated to people of power. [CONFIDENTIAL] SDNY\_GM\_SUPP\_00219000.mov. + +The materials reviewed reflect that Jeffrey Epstein was a brilliant man who was flawed by enduring personality traits familiar to psychiatrists as "Cluster B personality traits," found among those with antisocial, narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 7 + +American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 659-672. These flaws allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities. These were not his only flaws, and Dr. Dietz is also prepared to address Jeffrey Epstein's sexual behavior should it prove relevant. + +#### d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault Allegations + +Studies concerning the accurate reporting of alleged sexual assaults undermine the assertions made by Dr. Rocchio to the extent they are based on uncorroborated allegations and are also otherwise relevant here. False allegations of sexual assault do occur, and there are multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault. + +Not all allegations of sexual assault are true. Unfortunately, there has been little work on understanding the prevalence of false allegations or pathways to these, particularly in a sample most relevant to a jury—currently adjudicated cases. A peer reviewed journal article has proposed 11 pathways to false allegations of sexual assault: (a) lying, (b) implied consent, (c) false memories, (d) intoxication, (e) antisocial personality disorder, (f) borderline personality disorder, (g) histrionic personality disorder. (h) delirium, (i) psychotic disorders, (j) dissociation, and (k) intellectual disability. Jessica and William O'Donohue, Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault, 12 J. Forensic Psychology Practice, 97. These pathways originate in the psychological proclivities or state of the individual making these false allegations. The descriptions of these pathways that follow include material drawn nearly verbatim from the article by and O'Donohue (2012), which was published before the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but nonetheless remains accurate in characterizing certain personality disorders. + +Lying: Lying involves the alleged victim knowingly making a false claim of sexual assault. Humans do lie, and their lies can be difficult to detect. Often, humans lie because of what they perceive as the favorable consequences for lying; for sexual assault these consequences could be: + +- **I. the severe negative consequences that the alleged perpetrator experiences,** +- **2. secondary gain from victim status,** +- **3. excusing behaviors or characteristics of the alleged victim (e.g., sexual activity, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases)** +- **4. financial gain.** + +**Implied Consent: A fact finder's determination of whether consent was competently given is often problematic, and some allegations are regarded as unfounded or false based on determinations regarding consent before cases reach the stage of adjudication. A false allegation** + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 8 + +can arise when it was reasonable to believe consent was given but the alleged victim falsely believes that it was not. + +False Memory: The existence and prevalence of repressed memories is a source of controversy, and yet research does exist demonstrating the successful implantation of fabricated memories. In one of the first studies on the implantation of false memories, participants were given short narratives of childhood experiences, purportedly obtained from relatives, and asked to try to remember these experiences. Research by Elizabeth Loftus has revealed how subtle information introduced after an event may alter the memory of that event. Loftus and her students have conducted more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 participants demonstrating how misinformation introduced after an event can induce people into creating false memories. + +Intoxication: Intoxication can substantially increase the likelihood of a false allegation of sexual assault. Alcohol and other intoxicants pose a significant problem in sorting out the validity of a sexual assault allegation. The information-processing errors induced by intoxicating substances may cause confusion surrounding events that occurred while a person was intoxicated. A person who does not accurately recall events that occurred while he or she was under the influence or while experiencing the side effects of withdrawal from a substance may attempt to make sense out of the disjointed and seemingly incoherent memories of events that occurred while intoxicated. In an effort to make sense of and organize what memories are intact, a person may confabulate or fill in the memory lapses with events that seem probable or which for some reason they come to believe "must have" taken place. + +Antisocial Personality Disorder: The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of behavior that disregards and violates of the rights of others. It often begins in early childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. If an individual with antisocial personality disorder is likely to lie to achieve power and pleasure, a false allegation of sexual assault might be the means by which he or she attempts to achieve power over the falsely accused. Falsely claiming someone sexually assaulted you can be an aggressive act and a lack of remorse could allow the individual to file an allegation of sexual assault and maintain this allegation with few, if any, conflicts of conscience. Thus, a pathway to a false allegation of sexual assault can occur when an individual with antisocial personality disorder makes a false claim of assault. + +Borderline Personality Disorder: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental condition characterized by affective dysregulation, impulsiveness, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and difficulties with self-image. Of particular note is the rapid switching from idealization to devaluation, impulsivity, and manipulative features of borderline personality disorder. The instability of relationships experienced by an individual with BPD may be rooted in the tendency to quickly switch from idealizing significant others or lovers to devaluing them. This sudden change in conceptualization of a partner is often caused by feeling that the partner is not caring enough or giving enough or by suspicion of abandonment. The rapid shifting between idealizing and demonization may bring about a change in perspective such that a relationship that was viewed idealistically in the past is now seen through the devalued lens of abuse or mistreatment. Past events then may become construed as "abuse" and may lead a person + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach +November 1, 2021 +Page 9 + +with BPD to believe he or she is a victim of sexual assault. Previous research has found that two of the three major motivations to file a false allegation of rape were attention-seeking and revenge. The switch from idealization to devaluation of the relationship and/or relationship partner may spur a desire for revenge for any past behaviors that are, in the devaluation phase, newly construed as mistreatment. Also, there is some evidence that individuals with BPD engage in behaviors that are viewed as “manipulative.” Manipulative behaviors are often outside the conscious awareness of the individual and are learned through positive reinforcement, as manipulation frequently results in positive outcomes for the manipulator. Thus, an individual with BPD may use a sexual assault allegation as a way of impacting a third party for some desired outcome. + +Histrionic Personality Disorder: Diagnostic criteria for histrionic personality disorder include: 1) feeling uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention; 2) interactions with others are often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; 3) displaying rapidly shifting and shallow expressions; 4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to the self; 5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; 6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion; 7) is suggestible (i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances), and 8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. Other relevant behaviors include the tendency to play out stereotyped roles in their relationships with others; an intense desire for novelty and excitement; and the upset and depression that may follow periods in which they received little attention. Filing a false allegation of sexual assault may serve to benefit individuals with histrionic personality disorder in several important ways. The sexualized behavior of individuals with histrionic personality disorder can lead to sexual relationships that may be used to seek attention (e.g., having sex with a person and telling all of their friends about it). Filing a false sexual assault claim may regain lost attention, either from the desired partner or from other individuals, providing a novel and exciting environment that may be stimulating to a person who is histrionic. They may enjoy the large amounts of attention received for filing a sexual assault charge and for the “victim” role that can be played out in other relationships (a dynamic also common in false allegations by those with borderline personality disorder). In times when attention is not being received to the desired level, a false allegation of sexual assault may help to pull individuals with histrionic personality disorder out of their depressed state. + +Delirium: Delirium is a disturbance of consciousness that is accompanied by a change in cognition that cannot be better accounted for by a preexisting or evolving dementia. Relevant to this pathway are the perceptual disturbances that may be present, including misinterpretations, illusions, or even hallucinations. Many substances induce delirium, particularly in excessive doses. + +Psychotic Disorders: The term psychotic generally refers to conditions that are marked by delusions, hallucinations, or markedly illogical thinking. Such conditions cause gross impairments in functioning. Studies investigating the content of delusions have found delusions that are sexual in nature are not uncommon and occur more often in women than in men. Some cases of sexual delusions have been documented. These delusions may lead a person to claim adamantly that sexual relations or events occurred that may be impossible or highly improbable. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 10 + +Dissociation: Dissociation is `the lack of the normal integration of thoughts, feelings, and experiences into the stream of consciousness and memory. Dissociation involves a disruption or splitting off of memory, personality, identity, consciousness, or general perceptions of the self and surroundings; it can be recurring, gradual, or transient. It is likely associated with memory distortions. Thus, it is possible that in the event of a sexual assault, dissociation may cause a person to fill in the parts of the experience that are not clearly remembered with events that for them feasibly could have occurred. Of course, memory lapses will not necessarily be filled in with a confabulated event, let alone a sexual one. However, individuals who dissociate at a high frequency may seek to make their stories more coherent by adding details to an incomplete memory that would make sense to them when considered in the context of the event. Thus, these confabulations may lead to erroneous claims that have forensic relevance, including who the perpetrator was, what happened, where, and how many times. + +Intellectual Disability: Intellectual disability, is characterized by below average IQ and adaptive functioning. Limitations in functioning include deficits in the acquisition of social, occupational, academic, and general self-care skills. Intellectual disability has several etiologies that often are related to biological or pathological processes affecting the central nervous system. Many of the specific vulnerabilities that arise from intellectual disability overlap to some extent with other disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome) and individuals with other developmental disabilities may also have intellectual disability. Intellectually disabled individuals, compared to individuals without ID, have vulnerabilities related to memory and communication that the legal system may not be equipped to handle adequately. Individuals with moderate-to-profound ID may have significant difficulty communicating about the events that occurred because of language skills deficits or other communication-interfering conditions (e.g., related neurological conditions). Research findings indicate that communications skills are essential in filing a sexual assault charge; alleged victims with mild ID were more likely than individuals with moderate or severe ID not only to file sexual assault charges but to have their allegations confirmed. Difficulties with memory may also complicate the investigation process for individuals with ID. + +Changes in the core details of the allegation are often used by professionals as indices in determining the credibility of a victim's claims. Peace and colleagues (2015) conducted a narrative analysis of 147 sets of allegations of sexual assault across short (3 month) and long (6 month) intervals since the alleged event took place. In reviewing the existing literature, Peace and colleagues found that genuine traumatic experiences have a demonstrable resiliency to drastic impairments in recall. However, some inconsistencies especially in less core matters are to be expected due to some less important details fading or varying over time. In examining their sample of 147 allegations, the researchers discovered that truthful allegations contained more detail relative to false allegations at each of the assessment intervals. Specifically, the researchers found that fabricated allegations of traumatic experiences contained more inconsistent details both at 3 months and 6 months. The total amount of detail for each type of allegation (true or false) does tend to decrease over time. Additionally, as these figures suggest, the researchers found that the number of details present in genuine reports continued to decrease over time whereas fabricated stories 'levelled off in detail. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 11 + +Hunt and Bull (2012) reviewed signs that can be used to differentiate true allegations of sexual assault from false ones and concluded that the literature did not support the hypothesis that emotional distress was predictive of the truthfulness of the allegation. This is consistent across the literature, and emotional distress (e.g., crying) is not regarded as a reliable predictor of the accuracy or truthfulness of an allegation. Additional research is needed, but at this point there is little empirical support to indicate that being emotionally upset, distressed, or crying while reporting an assault indicates that the report is more likely to be true. This is likely due to the fact that such reactions can also occur in false allegations for various reasons, including a false memory or an attempt to mislead by those who know this sort of reaction would be expected of a true allegation. + +Individuals who have been sexually assaulted have higher rates of mental disorders than individuals who have not been sexually assaulted, and this includes significantly higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, drug use disorders, and alcohol use disorders. Emily R. Dworkin, Risk for Mental Disorders Associated with Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis, 21 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2020), pp. 1011-1028. Any of these mental disorders that occur more frequently among those who have been sexually assaulted can affect memory and recall, requiring assessment on a case-by-case basis. + +Varying degrees of post-traumatic stress symptomatology occur in significant proportions of victims following sexual assault and last for varying durations. Emily R. Dworkin, Anna E. Jaffe, Michele Bedard-Gilligan, and Skye Fitzpatrick, PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2021) https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211032213. A substantial number of people never fully remit from their PTSD even after many years, and variables associated with a longer time to remit from an episode of chronic PTSD include a history of alcohol abuse and a history of childhood trauma. Caron Zlotnick, Meredith Warshaw, et al., Chronicity in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Predictors of Course of Comorbid PTSD in Patients with Anxiety Disorders, l2 J. Traumatic Stress (1999), 89-100. + +Symptoms of PTSD include distressing memories of the event; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s); and avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s). American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 271-272. Individuals with any of these symptoms are particularly unlikely to engage in continued communication or friendly gestures with an alleged perpetrator, to wear clothing provided by an alleged perpetrator, or to unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event, any of which would be expected to elicit intense distress. + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach November I, 2021 Page 12 + +C. Dr. Ryan + +Dr. curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit D. His report is attached as Exhibit E. Attached as Exhibit F is a list of material reviewed by Dr... + +Dr.. is an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry and will offer opinions as such. He will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report, the bases for those opinions, and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions. + +D. Bennett Gershman + +Professor Gershman is a Distinguished Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law of Pace University since its founding as the Pace Law School in 1976. He has also taught as a visiting professor at Cornell Law School and Syracuse Law School. Prior to coming to Pace, he was a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the New York State Anti-Corruption Office. Professor Gershman's extensive scholarship has had an essential role in establishing the study of prosecutorial misconduct, a subject at the intersection of criminal procedure and professional ethics. He is a leading authority on prosecutorial misconduct and the author of the treatise, Prosecutorial Misconduct, a preeminent resource for scholars and practitioners. + +We expect Professor Gershman to provide testimony on best practices to ensure the integrity of any prosecution, focusing on investigation, witness preparation, media contact, neutrality, obligations to provide accurate information, and relationship with crime victims, their counsel, and case-related civil litigation. His extensive experience and credentials are recited in his curriculum vitae, annexed as Exhibit G. + +E. Robert Kelso + +Mr. Kelso is CEO of Forensic Pursuit. He has over 25 years of experience in computer forensics, engineering and software technology. He holds Bachelor's and degrees from University of Colorado at Boulder in aerospace engineering and astrodynamics, respectively. He is currently an adjunct professor at University of Denver teaching computer forensics at the level. He holds multiple computer forensics certifications including EnCE, CHFI, ACE and AME. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit H. Mr. Kelso has previously testified in federal and state courts as an expert witness in computer forensics and has been appointed a "special =" by the court on multiple occasions. + +We anticipate that Mr. Kelso will testify about the user data associated with certain devices seized and searched by the government's team in this case, documents and photographs extracted from certain of those devices, and the metadata associated with certain documents and photographs. He may also testify generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of documents, storage and retrieval of digital documents and photographs, including + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 13 + +the limits to the information that can be gleaned from the metadata. Mr. Kelso may testify in rebuttal to any testimony offered by the government through Stephen Flatley. As trial preparation proceeds, the defense will update the topics for Mr. Kelso if any arise. + +F. John + +Mr. was a Special Agent with the United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation ("IRS-Cl") for over twenty-five years. During his tenure at IRS-CI, Mr. led the New York Asset Forfeiture Task Force and participated in numerous criminal investigations involving complex fraud, corruption, bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. Since retiring from the IRS in 2013, Mr. has worked as a financial investigator and consultant for several private investigation companies and government enforcement agencies. He currently runs his own private financial investigation and consulting company called JDL Services, Inc. Mr. holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Accounting and Finance from Pace University. His curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit I. + +It is expected that Mr. will testify about his review of certain financial records provided by the government in discovery. Specifically, Mr. will discuss various transfers of funds that are reflected in the financial records and explain the information contained in the financial records regarding those transfers.' + +G. Gerald LaPorte + +Mr. LaPorte is a Forensic Chemist and Document Dating Specialist with the firm Welch LaPorte &Associates Forensic Laboratories. He currently is the Director of Research Innovation for Florida International University, Global Forensic and Justice Center. Prior to that, he was the Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous cases and has multiple professional honors in this field. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit J + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and documents received pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited to These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of creation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +The defense does not believe that the Court needs to qualify Mr. as an expert to offer the proposed testimony. Nevertheless, we hereby notice Mr. as a potential expert witness in an abundance of caution. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 14 + +H. Jennifer Naso + +Ms. Naso is a Forensic Document Examiner who worked for and received specialized training from the United States Secret Service as a Document Analyst. Ms. Naso has a of Science in Forensic Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She has over 15 years of experience examining and determining authorship and authentication of documents. Her curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit K. + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited t These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of citation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +### H. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS + +The defense reserves the right to amplify the disclosures contained herein based on testimony and other evidence presented during the government's case-in-chief. The defense also reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses and will promptly provide additional disclosure notice. + +### III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT + +Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement these opinions depending on the evidence produced at trial. To the extent that any accuser claims to have been "groomed" or otherwise testifies to the challenged opinions of Dr. Rocchio or other opinions properly rebutted by expert testimony Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to identify and rebut this testimony after the close of the government's case in chief. + +Very Truly Yours, + +![](_page_13_Picture_12.jpeg) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Enclosures \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..191cc41ad486345a5bb29d777a0df4e6366521e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/EFTA02834018.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,744 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 14, + "chars": 43720, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.34, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_13_Picture_12.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 342.3206481933594, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 342.3206481933594, + 518.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 518.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 315.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 315.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 684.3630142211914 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 684.3630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 346.9503479003906, + 537.84 + ], + [ + 346.9503479003906, + 553.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 553.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault \nAllegations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.50555419921875, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.50555419921875, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 303.3630065917969 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 303.3630065917969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 396.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 396.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834018" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ed19875db79fe1cde69d0cccec219e4ca0eb607 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:17d03ad1c126f80b23cbac6ea0141867044671c6ff0f2520ce1924bbf7c32122 +size 6369 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_13_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_13_Picture_12.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74740c7b8e32076006eb696be1a10426b3e3c768 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834018/_page_13_Picture_12.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:46b6e7fdb459c725d8f4758acab3246b3d9da0ea95c50a5e4961271c77616dcf +size 3272 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a74282eec6fd32845f0c178d3ea59b1926bb779 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 8, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's order (Dkt. No. 409), attached is Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 406 with the proposed redactions implemented. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..427ed14fb2651399eb500a6658c3422faa51ce79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/EFTA02834032.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 762, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834032" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f5d3d1d8a39ae20c98b5e9c0d274c887693686b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834032/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:592fb589db4b54c2a4f9efec00456bdd4b542bc09418e83fd025dd0adbc2cf6a +size 3518 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c27e64721704c68556395169ead1e8b8b0b69c7b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +November 8, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +In response to the Court's order (Dkt. 404), the defense proposes the following suggestions in bold to the preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each voir dire session: + +## Page 3. Lines 11-12: + +You can't assume that she is guilty or more likely to be guilty just because she's been charged in an indictment and alleged to have committed the crimes charged. with eilimmitting-these-ecitnes: + +### Page 4. Lines 12-13: + +Another instruction, from today until you are excused from jury service, you can't look up or google or do any kind of research or search in any manner about anything related to the case or anyone involved in the case. + +### Page 4. Following Line 23: + +The attorneys and their assistants have been instructed be me not to speak to you or othenvise engage with you. They are not being rude or indifferent. They are merely following my instructions. + +#### Page 5. Line 7: + +any communications about the case through any means or using any recording or photography features on your phone) + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b79d6ead6baec514079e0e18cf2a346550eb847 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033/EFTA02834033.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834033.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1425, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Page 3. Lines 11-12:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 367.74 + ], + [ + 174.5946807861328, + 367.74 + ], + [ + 174.5946807861328, + 383.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 383.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Page 4. Lines 12-13:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 174.5946807861328, + 478.71 + ], + [ + 174.5946807861328, + 494.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 494.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Page 4. Following Line 23:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 206.66578674316406, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 206.66578674316406, + 604.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 604.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Page 5. Line 7:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 148.0557403564453, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 148.0557403564453, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 114.20999999999998 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834033" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c215b6d28ef6760d33ab5b0c927bac06c8fdf6c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The 5111404 Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10097 + +November 8, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 2, 2021, attaching the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each voir dire session and directing the parties to suggest any proposed edits or additions by letter. (Dkt. No. 404). The Government has no objections or suggestions to the Court's proposed remarks. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7eba6018d4e65b6968c2e29a90bbee139f2f742 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/EFTA02834035.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1021, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834035" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2411c01db91b074a733f0c9a671cea24f1f912c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834035/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a587722bbb73d7b86b6e3590634d68f6971a7c787c7e510e7c1de9e41f4306f6 +size 3398 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e9d949f74dd5eaa505f3f0db78cd4bfbdf731f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|---------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 11/8/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +A conference is scheduled for November 10, 2021 to address the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 conference. Dkt. No. 409. + +The parties are ORDERED to confirm by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, November 9, 2021, that the alleged victims referenced in the Defendant's Rule 412 Motion have been notified of the November 10 hearing and of their right to attend. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 8, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67a6a53b62e5becf7d76efcbca337a2332937a48 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036/EFTA02834036.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834036.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1153, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.2, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834036" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ebc5ffdd7ee6d719506b45933d599ece8ed04e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 8, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021, ordering the Government to docket a letter with a proposal from legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") regarding what additional steps can be taken to ensure that the defendant promptly receives her legal mail within the weeks leading up to trial (Dkt. No. 412). + +Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government of the following: MDC mail room staff will continue to pick up legal mail from the post office once every business day and follow the processes outlined in the Government's November I, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 403). As to electronic discovery sent to legal counsel at the MDC, staff at the MDC's warehouse will continue to process and log the mail and the legal department will deliver the mail to the inmate. Legal counsel at the MDC has indicated that they call or stop by the warehouse every day or every other day to check for packages that have been delivered for the Legal Department.' Legal counsel at + +The Government will continue to inform legal counsel at the MDC when it sends a hard drive to the attention of legal counsel, which goes to the MDC's warehouse as outlined in the Government's October 15, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 350). + +the MDC also noted that defense counsel can deposit legal mail in the MDC's legal mailbox during visiting hours (between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.); MDC's mail room staff picks up such mail between approximately 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. once every business day and logs the mail, which is then delivered to an inmate by the unit manager. According to legal counsel at the MDC, any additional steps would be extremely burdensome and not practicable in light of the various responsibilities of the MDC's legal department and staff, which are responsible for issues relating to the approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61a2f7e589b5e47531b44a0e2cfc8a73ae77f08b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/EFTA02834037.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2517, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40464782714844, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834037" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..755f2a86857e30aca9695f8b09aef50654df345d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834037/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cdaffdef2ebe12c081f4fd548d483ff2ffbf585db21e054e432584255af06c88 +size 3364 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bbcfd602f5abed3079980cb8ebb5eb41fcd9f744 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.md @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio I. Moth Building One Saint Andrew New York New York 10007 + +November 8, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's motion to reconsider this Court's prior bail determinations. (Dkt. 408 ("Def. Mot.")). This Court has repeatedly found that there are no conditions of release that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance (Dkt. 93, 106, 169), and the Second Circuit has twice rejected the defendant's appeals (see United States v. Maxwell, No. 21-58, Dkt. 86, 96 (2d Cir.)). The defendant's latest motion largely repeats arguments that have been made and rejected before. There is no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior rulings. + +## A. Procedural History + +## I. The Court's First Detention Order + +After the defendant's arrest, this Court received multiple written submissions and held a lengthy oral argument on the question of bail. (See Dkt. 93 ("First Order")). On July 14, 2020, in a detailed oral ruling, the Court ordered the defendant detained on the basis of risk of flight. (Id. at 79-91). First, the Court found that "the nature and circumstances of the offense here weigh in favor of detention," given the statutory presumption of detention triggered by charges involving minor victims and the potential penalties those charges carry. (Id. at 82). Second, the Court determined that "[t]he government's evidence at this early juncture of the case appears strong" based on the "multiple victims who provided detailed accounts of Ms. Maxwell's involvement in serious crimes," as well as corroboration in the form of "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Id.). Third, the Court found that the defendant's history and characteristics demonstrate that she poses a risk of flight. (Id. at 83). In addressing that third factor, the Court emphasized the defendant's "substantial international ties," which "could facilitate living abroad," including "multiple foreign citizenships," "familial and personal connections abroad," and "at least one foreign property of significant value." (Id.). The Court noted that Maxwell "is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens," and found that Maxwell "possesses extraordinary financial resources," yet "the representations made to Pretrial Services regarding the defendant's finances likely do not provide a complete and candid picture of the resources available." (Id. at 83-84). + +Accordingly, the Court found that the Government had carried its burden of demonstrating that the defendant "poses a substantial actual risk of flight" and that "even the most restrictive conditions of release would be insufficient" to ensure her appearance. (Id. at 86). The Court found that although Maxwell "apparently failed to submit a full accounting or even a close to full accounting of her financial situation," leiven if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be appropriate." (Id. at 86-87). That conclusion was informed by the defendant's "significant financial resources" and "demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself." (Id. at 87). The Court emphasized that the defendant's "recent conduct underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her." (Id.). The Court + +concluded that electronic monitoring and private security guards "would be insufficient" because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade private guards. (Id. at 87-88). + +Finally, the Court rejected the defendant's arguments about the risks of CON/JD-19 and the difficulty of preparing a defense with an incarcerated client, noting that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Id. at 89-90). The Court found that measures in place were sufficient to ensure the defendant's access to her counsel, but also directed the Government to work with the defense "to provide adequate communication between counsel and client" and stated that the defense may make specific applications to the Court for further relief if the process was "inadequate in any way." (Id. at 90-91). + +# 2. The Court's Second Detention Order + +The defendant renewed her bail application in December 2020, presenting a revised bail package with additional financial restrictions. (Dkt. 97). After receiving further written submissions (Dkt. 100, 103), the Court denied the defendant's application in a written opinion issued on December 28, 2020. (Dkt. 106 ("Second Order")). The Court found that the arguments presented "either were made at the initial bail hearing or could have been made then" and the new information "only solidifies the Court's view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance." (Id. at 1-2). The Court explained: + +> the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation. + +(Id. at 2). The Court rejected the defendant's claim that the Government overstated the strength of its case at the bail hearing, finding that the defendant "too easily discredits the witness testimony." + +(Id. at 9-10). The Court credited the Government's proffer that "additional evidence, including flight records and other witnesses' corroborating testimony, will further support the main witnesses' testimony and link the Defendant to Epstein's conduct." (Id. at 10). + +The Court found that the defendant "continues to have substantial international ties and multiple foreign citizenships, and she continues to have familial and personal connections abroad." (Id. at 11). The Court was unpersuaded by the defendant's offer to consent to extradition, noting that the "legal weight of the waivers is, at best, contested" and therefore the risk of flight remained "fundamentally unchanged." (Id. at 11-13). The Court further explained that the defendant's - extraordinary financial resources also continue to provide her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected." (Id. at 13). + +The Court emphasized that the defendant's "pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly" on its assessment of her history and characteristics. (Id. at 15). In so doing, the Court highlighted that in July 2020 the defendant represented to Pretrial Services that she possessed around \$3.5 million in assets, but in connection with her renewed request for bail presented a report on her finances that estimated the net worth of the defendant and her spouse to be approximately \$22.5 million as of October 2020. (Id.). The Court found that the difference "makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation was the result of the Defendant's misestimation rather than misdirection." (Id. at 15-16). The Court explained: + +> In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant's representations to Pretrial Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. + +(Id. at 16). The Court again concluded that the defendant presented a risk of flight and that the proposed bail package "cannot reasonably assure her appearance," as it "would leave unrestrained millions of dollars and other assets that she could sell in order to support herself" and the "proposed bond is only partially secured." (Id. at 16-18). + +Finally, the Court was "unpersuaded" by the defendant's argument "that the conditions of her confinement are uniquely onerous, interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and thus justify release." (Id. at 20). The Court noted that the defendant did not "meaningfully dispute" that she has received more time than other inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") to review discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her lawyers. (Id.). And the Court reiterated that it would continue to ensure that the defendant is able to speak and meet regularly with her attorneys and review discovery to prepare her defense. (Id. at 20 n.3). + +### 3. The Court's Third Detention Order + +On February 23, 2021, the defendant filed a third bail application, proposing two additional bail conditions: (1) renunciation of her and British citizenship; and (2) placement of a portion of her and her spouse's assets in a new account to be overseen by a monitor. (Dkt. 160). After considering multiple written submissions (Dkt. 160, 165, 171), the Court denied the defendant's request in another written opinion. (Dkt. 169 ("Third Order)). + +The Court concluded that the defendant's new application did not disturb its prior conclusions. (Id. at 2). The Court reiterated that detention was warranted in light of the proffered strength and nature of the Government's case, the defendant's "substantial international ties, familial and personal connections abroad, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection," and the defendant's "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. (Id. at 7). + +The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the strength of the evidence was diminished by her then-pending pre-trial motions (which have since been denied). (Id. at 5-6). The Court also rejected the two additional conditions proposed by the defendant, noting the "[c]onsiderable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the [foreign citizenship] renunciations," and finding that, despite the proposed monitorship, the defendant "would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution." (Id. at 10-11). The Court concluded, "If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances." (Id. at 11). + +## 4. The Second Circuit's Orders + +The defendant filed appeals from the Court's second and third detention orders. After hearing oral argument, the Circuit denied the defendant's motion for bail in a written order. (See United States v. Maxwell, No. 21-58, Dkt. 86 (2d Cir. Apr. 27, 2021)). + +Following that decision, the defendant submitted a letter to this Court asking it "to address Ms. Maxwell's sleeping conditions by directing MDC to cease 15-minute light surveillance of Ms. Maxwell or justify the need for the disruptive flashlight surveillance." (Dkt. 256 at 2). The Court promptly ordered the Government to confer with MDC counsel and provide the Court with an explanation regarding the use of flashlights and the basis for it, which the Government then did. (Dkt. 257, 270). On May 14, 2021, this Court issued an order denying the defendant's request for an order directing the MDC to modify its nighttime monitoring schedule. (Dkt. 282). In reaching this decision, the Court noted that the defendant's claim that MDC staff were shining the light directly into her eyes and disrupting her sleep was "unsupported by affidavit or other factual + +showing." (Id. at I). The Court also found that "nothing in the record plausibly establishes that current protocols interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for her trial and communicate with her lawyers." (Id. at 2). + +The defendant then filed another motion in the Second Circuit, seeking bail or, in the alternative, an evidentiary hearing regarding the conditions of her confinement. (See United States v. Maxwell, No. 21-58, Dkt. 89 (24 Cir. May 17, 2021)). In the motion, she renewed her claims that the "horrific conditions [at MDC] make it impossible to prepare for trial." (Id. at 2; see also id. at 2-3 (listing alleged horrific conditions, such as sleep deprivation, water, surveillance of attorney-client meetings, overflowing sewage, computer without sufficient capacity to review discovery)). The Second Circuit denied her motion in a written order. (See United States v. Maxwell, No. 21-58, Dkt. 96 (2d Cir. June 2, 2021)). + +### B. Applicable Law + +In seeking pretrial detention, the Government bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant poses a risk of flight, and that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure her presence in court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007). + +However, where, as here, the defendant is charged with certain offenses, including offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422 or 2423, a statutory presumption arises "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required . .. ." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In such a case, the defendant "bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [s]he does not pose a ... risk of flight." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). Even where a defendant produces sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of detention, the presumption does not disappear; instead, it becomes a factor to be weighed and considered in deciding whether release is warranted. Id. + +Where the Government seeks detention based on flight risk, the court must consider: (1) "the nature and circumstances of the offense charged"; (2) "the weight of the evidence against the person"; and (3) the "history and characteristics of the person." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). + +A detention hearing may be reopened "at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); see also United States v. Bush, No. 18 Cr. 907 (PAC), 2021 WL 371782, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2021) (motion for reconsideration of bail requires defendant to show "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court" (internal citation and quotations omitted)). + +### C. Discussion + +On three occasions, this Court has correctly found that them are no conditions of release that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, given the grave risk of flight that she presents. In three carefully reasoned decisions issued after lengthy briefing and argument, this Court has concluded that detention is appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, which carry a presumption of detention; the strength of the Government's proffered evidence; and the defendant's history and characteristics, particularly her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships, familial and personal connections abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor about her finances, and "extraordinary capacity to evade detection." (First Order at 79-91; Second Order at 7-20; Third Order at 6-11). + +The defendant's latest bail application does not meaningfully engage with the Court's previous findings and reasoning. Nor does it identify any intervening change in law or factual circumstance. Instead, the defense turns to rhetoric and anecdotes better suited to tabloids than briefs. Where legal arguments can be found, they are cursory and unpersuasive. + +With respect to risk of flight, the defendant's argument consists of a single paragraph, in which she asserts that she "is not a flight risk" because she "is a mature adult" who has "proclaimed her innocence" and therefore "Where is no indication that she would attempt to flee given her personality profile and determination to be exonerated." (Def. Mot. 4). These conclusory assertions were also made in her prior bail applications, which have been rejected. (See, e.g., Dkt. 18 at 1, 3; Dkt. 97 at 1; Dkt. 160 at 2). And they completely fail to address the Court's detailed findings about the defendant's substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships, familial and personal connections abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor about her finances, and extraordinary capacity to evade detection. + +The defendant's primary argument consists of allegations and complaints about the conditions of her confinement, which are loosely tied to the claim that such conditions impair her ability to prepare for trial. But these same complaints have been a part of each of the defendant's bail applications (see, e.g., Dkt. 18 at 7-9; Dkt. 97 at 35-38; Dkt. 171 at 9-10), as well as numerous other submissions to the Court. Throughout this case, the Court has maintained close oversight of those conditions,' and ensured that the defendant has ample time to review her discovery and prepare for trial—more time, in fact, than any other inmate at the MDC. (Second Order at 20). And the Court has repeatedly found that the defendant's ability to prepare for trial has not been + +For example, in response to the defendant's most recent complaint—regarding the timing of her transportation to Court—the Court directed the Government to confer with the BOP and United States Marshals Service, and the Government is providing a letter addressing the issue today. + +compromised. (See, e.g., Dkt. 282 at 2 (finding "nothing in the record plausibly establishes that current protocols interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for her trial and communicate with her lawyers")). + +Finally, in a single paragraph, the defendant argues that the Jencks Act and Giglio material she has received "contradict the purported `strength' of the government's case." (Def. Mot. 6). But that claim is supported by only the most conclusory of assertions that "there is no independent corroboration" for the victims' statements and that they "demonstrate contamination and collusion from various sources." (Id.). The defendant has made such arguments about the strength of the Government's case before (see, e.g., Dkt. 18 at 19; Dkt. 97 at 30-33; Dkt. 171 at 7-8), and each time the Court has rejected the defendant's bail application. (See, e.g., Second Order at 9-10 (rejecting the defendant's claim that the Government overstated the strength of its case at the bail hearing, finding that the defendant "too easily discredits the witness testimony")). Moreover, since the Court's third detention order, the Court has also rejected the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss the charges (Dkt. 207, 317), the pendency of which the defendant had also claimed undermined the strength of the case (see, e.g., Dkt. 171 at 7-8), and a grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging additional counts based on an additional victim, and the Government intends to prove the existence of two additional victims at trial. Thus, the defendant's latest ipse dixit about the victims does not in fact "undermine the strength of the government's case." (Def. Mot. 6). Quite the contrary, that the defendant is this close to trial and still cannot make a more compelling argument about the strength of the case underscores what has been apparent from the Government's first proffer: the case is strong. + +The defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78d258befc502350403e23a66d0781691b8121a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/EFTA02834039.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,640 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 20559, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.66, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 118.87138366699219, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 118.87138366699219, + 182.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 224.76486206054688, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 224.76486206054688, + 550.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 550.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court's First Detention Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 305.2803039550781, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 305.2803039550781, + 577.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 577.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Court's Second Detention Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 318.8360900878906, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 318.8360900878906, + 352.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 352.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. The Court's Third Detention Order", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 393.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 310.2160949707031, + 393.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 310.2160949707031, + 408.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 408.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. The Second Circuit's Orders", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 279.0320739746094, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 279.0320739746094, + 380.6835632324219 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 380.6835632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 206.14987182617188, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 206.14987182617188, + 408.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 408.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 179.4501953125, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 179.4501953125, + 463.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 463.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834039" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f26592ad987c431fd00baf6c0974dcc3da2bf0aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834039/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4e24ccd06bf3cc4e9cb412fcea72475ab3d22362727028e0e10d93300a1ecb39 +size 3395 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d43c058be855a5a8072ca6fd21fe9d7eaf3d234 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.md @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +# Exhibit A + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +November 1, 2021 + +VIA EMAIL + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Counsel: + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 EX 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com JPagliucaghmnaw.com + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell through counsel, submit the following summary pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1XC). + +# I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE + +A. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus + +Dr. Loftus is the Distinguished Professor of Psychological Science and Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Dr. Loftus is one of the nation's leading experts on the science of memory. In addition to her experience as an academic and clinical researcher, she has been an expert witness or consultant in hundreds of cases. Her extensive experience and credentials are recited in her curriculum vitae. Exhibit A. + +It is expected that Dr. Loftus, a psychologist who specializes in the study of memory, will focus on the memory aspects of this case. Based on her education, training, experience, and research, her testimony will concern the workings of human memory, the effects of suggestion on memory, the mechanism of creation of false memories, the characteristics of false memories, how memory fades and weakens over time, and how memory becomes more vulnerable to contamination. She will describe scientific research showing that false memories can be + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 2 + +described with confidence, detail, and emotion, just like true memories. This can occur when people come to believe in these experiences and are not deliberately lying. Dr. Loftus would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case. + +Suggestive activities can explain how it is that a person might go from having no memory of sexual abuse, and even denying sexual abuse, to later having "memories" for numerous abusive acts, if the memories are false. She will explain the mechanism by which false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence or the like. She will also testify about the characteristics of false and/or distorted memories. In particular "memories" can be described with confidence, detail and emotion, even when they are false. She will point out some of the suggestive activities that occurred in this case. She will explain how media coverage and other publications (including but not limited to newspaper and magazine articles, news reports, television shows, documentaries, books, podcasts, websites, etc.) and discussions/ conversations with others, can be sources of suggestion. She will explain how, in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories. + +# B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D. + +Dr. Park Dietz is a psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry with over 40 years of experience. He has been previously qualified as an expert in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. + +Dr. Dietz received a bachelor's degree in psychology and biology from the Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences (01) .rt M.D. degree from the Johns University School of Medicine (1975), a degree in Public Health from the Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health (1975), and a Ph.D. in sociologfrySe Johns University (1984). He completed psychiatric residency at the Johns Hospital (1975-77) and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (1977-78), where he was Chief Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry. He has been board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology since 1979. + +He is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the UCLA School of Medicine. From 1986 to 1989, he was a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law and a Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. From 1982 to 1986, he was an Associate Professor of Law and of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia Schools of Law and Medicine. From 1978 to 1982, he was an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In those positions he taught and lectured on forensic psychiatry for diverse audiences, including law students, practicing attorneys, law enforcement officers, psychiatry residents, forensic psychiatry fellows, and practicing forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. + +He is a Past President of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He has served on the editorial boards of the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, and other + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 3 + +professional publications. He has authored more than 100 articles and book chapters, primarily on forensic psychiatry. + +He has conducted more than 1,000 evaluations of persons charged with crime and, in his role as President of Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., has evaluated or supervised over 1,000 evaluations of allegations of sexual victimization. He has testified as an expert witness in forensic psychiatry on hundreds of occasions, including testimony in criminal matters in federal courts throughout the U.S. and the trial courts of nearly every state. + +Dr. Dietz will be qualified as an expert in the areas of psychiatry and behavioral science. Dr. Dietz's curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit B. Attached as Exhibit C is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz. + +His testimony may include, but will not be limited to, the following: + +# a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions + +The first use of the word "grooming" to refer to strategies that sometimes enable nonforcefid, nonthreatening, and nonviolent sexual victimization of minors was the proposition that "the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are expertly applied" (Conte, 1984, p. 558). Since then, this usage has been widely adopted by social scientists, clinicians, journalists, and others. But this usage has some unintended consequences that threaten the integrity of the adjudicative process, including these: + +- (1) Because use of the term "grooming" commonly assumes that the grooming party is intentionally using these strategies to gain sexual access to children, to abuse them, and to prevent them from disclosing the abuse, the word "grooming" has acquired meaning beyond an objective description of behaviors; it imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either. +- (2) In the litigation context, "when 'grooming' is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well established predictors of child sexual abuse," when they are not. Park Dietz, Grooming and Seduction, 33 J. Interpersonal Violence, 28, 31 (2018). Dr. Rocchio characterizes "grooming" as "a strategic pattern of behavior(] ... that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser." This vague opinion about "grooming" carries the risk of imputing motive and intent to the Defendant, when the determination of motive and intent is a task for the fact finder charged with determining the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the ultimate issues. Moreover, this opinion carries the risk of implying that innocuous and even desirable behaviors are associated with nefarious or criminal conduct. + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach November 1, 2021 Page 4 + +Moreover, grooming has no consistent definition, and concerns have been raised that "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +In any particular population of alleged victims, patients, or plaintiffs—including those whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—the determination of whether grooming has occurred is a subjective judgment hinging largely on the credibility of the individuals. Such judgments have no known error rate and cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced. + +Although the Government's Expert Notice regarding Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of "grooming-by-proxy" to the Defendant, it is important to note that there is no generally accepted theory of grooming b. parties or empirical evidence regarding the prevalence, characteristics, or mechanisms of . Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself. Instead, the claim appears to be that Ms. Maxwell recruited and groomed minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein, which would amount to grooming-by-proxy. + +Dr. Dietz is aware of no authority—no journal articles, no studies, no tests, nothing—to support a theory of grooming-by-proxy. Such a theory has not gained any acceptance (let alone general acceptance) in the relevant community; it has not been peer-reviewed; it has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error. + +Dr. Rocchio's opinion that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse" is a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore derived from the frequent observation of highly vulnerable children among those children who allege sexual abuse, but it is not based on empirical data regarding the likelihood of abuse among children with varying degrees of vulnerability. To the extent that less vulnerable children, such as those with intact families, attentive parents, good social support, little psychopathology, less prior trauma, no substance use, and higher resilience are less likely to allege abuse than the more vulnerable, the generalization could be proved weak or false, if only there were such empirical data. And even if there were such data, it would be important to devise a means of verifying that abuse did occur to those who allege it, which is a difficult task at best because of the pains so many abusers take to avoid confession, witnesses, or physical evidence. The clinical, criminal justice, and forensic populations from which the observation of prevalent vulnerabilities is derived—including those clients whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—rarely represent groups in which all allegations of abuse have been verified by confession, witnesses, physical evidence, or other means. + +Other opinions put forth in the disclosure of Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony also rest on assertions that are untestable, cannot be reproduced, and have no known error rate. + +# b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias + +Hindsight bias must be considered when evaluating sex abuse allegations and or "grooming behavior." Many claims of sexual abuse of minors involve behaviors that are, in + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach +November 1, 2021 +Page 5 + +hindsight, labeled “grooming” or otherwise imputed as knowledge to onlookers. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable or foreseeable an event is after being informed about the outcome of an event. Simply put, knowledge of the outcome of the event, i.e. Epstein pleaded guilty to having sexual contact with post-pubescent minors, makes the importance of pre-conviction behaviors obvious. Retrospective judgments about the predictability or foreseeability of the outcome are systemically inflated or biased compared to judgments made without information about the outcome. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable an event is after learning the outcome of the event (Fischhoff, 1975). For example, after a political election, people believe their pre-election estimates of the outcome were closer to the outcome than they actually were (Blank, Fischer, & Erdfelder, 2003). Hindsight bias has been discussed in over 800 scholarly articles across a variety of different domains including medicine, financial decision making, consumer satisfaction, and within the legal domain (see Roese & Vohs, 2012; Arkes, 2013; Strohmaier et al., 2021) and using a variety of different experimental designs (Pohl & Erdfelder, 2016) and a variety of different stimuli such as written vignettes, visual stimuli (e.g., Bernstein & Harley, 2007), and auditory stimuli (e.g., Bernstein, Wilson, Pernat, & Meilleur, 2012). Even individuals with specialized training and expertise succumb to hindsight bias (Musch & Wagner, 2007). One notable study detected hindsight bias among actual judges making civil liability decisions, in which judges with outcome knowledge perceived the harm to be significantly more foreseeable than judges who did not receive outcome information and were thus more likely to render a finding of negligence (Oeberst & Goeckenjan, 2016). Another notable study detected hindsight bias in a sample of mental health professionals who gauged the dangerousness of a psychiatric patient; again, outcome knowledge affected the reported dangerousness and predictably of harm posed by the patient (Beltrani et al., 2018). + +Hindsight bias affects legal judgments. Civil or criminal prosecutions related to events occurring decades ago may be compromised by this bias in many ways, from the investigation—either ignoring evidence or attributing significance in hindsight—through the presentation of evidence, to the deliberation of any factfinder. Awareness of the impact of the hindsight bias should temper any claims that so called “grooming” behaviors should have been noticed and either reported or avoided and that failing to do so constitutes knowledge or intent. + +#### **c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect** + +The term “Halo effect” was coined by Thorndike (1920) a century ago. The Halo effect is a cognitive bias in impression formation whereby the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated. For example, one classic study found that physical attractiveness influenced evaluations of the target’s personality, life satisfaction, and expected future personal and occupational success — despite the fact that no information about any of these attributes was provided (Dion et al., 1972). Physical attractiveness has also been found to influence culpability judgments, with attractive individuals being held less-responsible than unattractive individuals (Dion, 1972; Efran, 1974). Halo effects have been found to be cued by factors other than attractiveness, such as the described status of the target (Wilson, 1968), the name of the target (Harari & McDavid, 1973), and even one’s mood when evaluating the target (Forgas, 2011). Studies have documented + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 6 + +halo effects when making diagnoses of psychopathology, such that symptoms of one mental disorder influence the interpretation of other symptoms indicative of other mental disorders and vice versa (see e.g., DeVries, Hartung, & Golden, 2017). + +Halo effects are a means to achieving cognitive consistency, which roughly refers to a state in which attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, predictions, and thoul.sare aligned. Cognitive consistency serves many important goals. As noted by Read and (2012), cognitive consistency is "essential for reasons of parsimony and economy of effort, as well as to allow for the predictabili and hence adaptability to, subsequent encounters" (p. 67). Indeed, the noted psychologist I= Festinger "was convinced that the psychological need for cognitive consistency is as basic as hunger and thirst" (Gawronski, 2012, p. 652). But because the world is often not so neat, orderly, or unequivocal, humans engage in complicated reasoning processes to impose consistency. These processes involve bi-directional reasoning in which "decisions follow from evidence, and evaluations of the evidence shift toward coherence with the emerging decision" Snow, & Read, 2004, p. 814; Greenspan & Scurich, 2016). As a result, perceptions and decisions become highly skewed toward one interpretation while alternatives are neglected or dismissed, hence consistency is achieved. This reasoning process occurs unconsciously, i.e., outside conscious awareness, and is not intentional self-deception. + +Halo effects can have serious practical consequences. As noted by Forgas and Laham (2016): + +Once unjustified initial expectations are formed about a person, they can easily become self-perpetuating with serious implications for how a target is treated. If we expect a person to have positive characteristics, we may selectively look for and find such features from the rich array of information available (a self-fulfilling prophecy), and positive impressions may in turn lead to preferential treatment in a range of domains: + +interpersonal relations, the work place, the health and legal systems, and even for decision making and consumer choices. (p. 286) + +Like many people who achieve great power and wealth, Jeffery Epstein exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs. At the most primitive level, his wealth attracted those seeking for themselves some of what he had. At the most sophisticated level, others with halos of their own—through any combination of power, influence, fame, brilliance, attractiveness, social standing, or other positive characteristics—mingled with Epstein for reasons of their own, and being seen in their company empowered him and made him look above suspicion. In a videotaped interview with Steve Bannon, Epstein differentiated between different kinds of power—such as Bill Clinton's political power, wrestlers' and weight lifters' physical power, and Gerry Edelman's intellectual power—and acknowledged that he gravitated to people of power. [CONFIDENTIAL] SDNY\_GM\_SUPP\_00219000.mov. + +The materials reviewed reflect that Jeffrey Epstein was a brilliant man who was flawed by enduring personality traits familiar to psychiatrists as "Cluster B personality traits," found among those with antisocial, narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 7 + +American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 659-672. These flaws allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities. These were not his only flaws, and Dr. Dietz is also prepared to address Jeffrey Epstein's sexual behavior should it prove relevant. + +#### d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault Allegations + +Studies concerning the accurate reporting of alleged sexual assaults undermine the assertions made by Dr. Rocchio to the extent they are based on uncorroborated allegations and are also otherwise relevant here. False allegations of sexual assault do occur, and there are multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault. + +Not all allegations of sexual assault are true. Unfortunately, there has been little work on understanding the prevalence of false allegations or pathways to these, particularly in a sample most relevant to a jury—currently adjudicated cases. A peer reviewed journal article has proposed 11 pathways to false allegations of sexual assault: (a) lying, (b) implied consent, (c) false memories, (d) intoxication, (e) antisocial personality disorder, (f) borderline personality disorder, (g) histrionic personality disorder. (h) delirium, (i) psychotic disorders, (j) dissociation, and (k) intellectual disability. Jessica and William O'Donohue, Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault, 12 J. Forensic Psychology Practice, 97. These pathways originate in the psychological proclivities or state of the individual making these false allegations. The descriptions of these pathways that follow include material drawn nearly verbatim from the article by and O'Donohue (2012), which was published before the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but nonetheless remains accurate in characterizing certain personality disorders. + +Lying: Lying involves the alleged victim knowingly making a false claim of sexual assault. Humans do lie, and their lies can be difficult to detect. Often, humans lie because of what they perceive as the favorable consequences for lying; for sexual assault these consequences could be: + +- **1. the severe negative consequences that the alleged perpetrator experiences,** +- **2. secondary gain from victim status,** +- **3. excusing behaviors or characteristics of the alleged victim (e.g., sexual activity, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases)** +- **4. financial gain.** + +**Implied Consent: A fact finder's determination of whether consent was competently given is often problematic, and some allegations are regarded as unfounded or false based on determinations regarding consent before cases reach the stage of adjudication. A false allegation** + +November I, 2021 + +Page 8 + +can arise when it was reasonable to believe consent was given but the alleged victim falsely believes that it was not. + +False Memory: The existence and prevalence of repressed memories is a source of controversy, and yet research does exist demonstrating the successful implantation of fabricated memories. In one of the first studies on the implantation of false memories, participants were given short narratives of childhood experiences, purportedly obtained from relatives, and asked to try to remember these experiences. Research by Elizabeth Loftus has revealed how subtle information introduced after an event may alter the memory of that event. Loftus and her students have conducted more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 participants demonstrating how misinformation introduced after an event can induce people into creating false memories. + +Intoxication: Intoxication can substantially increase the likelihood of a false allegation of sexual assault. Alcohol and other intoxicants pose a significant problem in sorting out the validity of a sexual assault allegation. The information-processing errors induced by intoxicating substances may cause confusion surrounding events that occurred while a person was intoxicated. A person who does not accurately recall events that occurred while he or she was under the influence or while experiencing the side effects of withdrawal from a substance may attempt to make sense out of the disjointed and seemingly incoherent memories of events that occurred while intoxicated. In an effort to make sense of and organize what memories are intact, a person may confabulate or fill in the memory lapses with events that seem probable or which for some reason they come to believe "must have" taken place. + +Antisocial Personality Disorder: The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of behavior that disregards and violates of the rights of others. It often begins in early childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. If an individual with antisocial personality disorder is likely to lie to achieve power and pleasure, a false allegation of sexual assault might be the means by which he or she attempts to achieve power over the falsely accused. Falsely claiming someone sexually assaulted you can be an aggressive act and a lack of remorse could allow the individual to file an allegation of sexual assault and maintain this allegation with few, if any, conflicts of conscience. Thus, a pathway to a false allegation of sexual assault can occur when an individual with antisocial personality disorder makes a false claim of assault. + +Borderline Personality Disorder: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental condition characterized by affective dysregulation, impulsiveness, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and difficulties with self-image. Of particular note is the rapid switching from idealization to devaluation, impulsivity, and manipulative features of borderline personality disorder. The instability of relationships experienced by an individual with BPD may be rooted in the tendency to quickly switch from idealizing significant others or lovers to devaluing them. This sudden change in conceptualization of a partner is often caused by feeling that the partner is not caring enough or giving enough or by suspicion of abandonment. The rapid shifting between idealizing and demonization may bring about a change in perspective such that a relationship that was viewed idealistically in the past is now seen through the devalued lens of abuse or mistreatment. Past events then may become construed as "abuse" and may lead a person + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach +November 1, 2021 +Page 9 + +with BPD to believe he or she is a victim of sexual assault. Previous research has found that two of the three major motivations to file a false allegation of rape were attention-seeking and revenge. The switch from idealization to devaluation of the relationship and/or relationship partner may spur a desire for revenge for any past behaviors that are, in the devaluation phase, newly construed as mistreatment. Also, there is some evidence that individuals with BPD engage in behaviors that are viewed as “manipulative.” Manipulative behaviors are often outside the conscious awareness of the individual and are learned through positive reinforcement, as manipulation frequently results in positive outcomes for the manipulator. Thus, an individual with BPD may use a sexual assault allegation as a way of impacting a third party for some desired outcome. + +Histrionic Personality Disorder: Diagnostic criteria for histrionic personality disorder include: 1) feeling uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention; 2) interactions with others are often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; 3) displaying rapidly shifting and shallow expressions; 4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to the self; 5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; 6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion; 7) is suggestible (i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances), and 8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. Other relevant behaviors include the tendency to play out stereotyped roles in their relationships with others; an intense desire for novelty and excitement; and the upset and depression that may follow periods in which they received little attention. Filing a false allegation of sexual assault may serve to benefit individuals with histrionic personality disorder in several important ways. The sexualized behavior of individuals with histrionic personality disorder can lead to sexual relationships that may be used to seek attention (e.g., having sex with a person and telling all of their friends about it). Filing a false sexual assault claim may regain lost attention, either from the desired partner or from other individuals, providing a novel and exciting environment that may be stimulating to a person who is histrionic. They may enjoy the large amounts of attention received for filing a sexual assault charge and for the “victim” role that can be played out in other relationships (a dynamic also common in false allegations by those with borderline personality disorder). In times when attention is not being received to the desired level, a false allegation of sexual assault may help to pull individuals with histrionic personality disorder out of their depressed state. + +Delirium: Delirium is a disturbance of consciousness that is accompanied by a change in cognition that cannot be better accounted for by a preexisting or evolving dementia. Relevant to this pathway are the perceptual disturbances that may be present, including misinterpretations, illusions, or even hallucinations. Many substances induce delirium, particularly in excessive doses. + +Psychotic Disorders: The term psychotic generally refers to conditions that are marked by delusions, hallucinations, or markedly illogical thinking. Such conditions cause gross impairments in functioning. Studies investigating the content of delusions have found delusions that are sexual in nature are not uncommon and occur more often in women than in men. Some cases of sexual delusions have been documented. These delusions may lead a person to claim adamantly that sexual relations or events occurred that may be impossible or highly improbable. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 10 + +Dissociation: Dissociation is `the lack of the normal integration of thoughts, feelings, and experiences into the stream of consciousness and memory. Dissociation involves a disruption or splitting off of memory, personality, identity, consciousness, or general perceptions of the self and surroundings; it can be recurring, gradual, or transient. It is likely associated with memory distortions. Thus, it is possible that in the event of a sexual assault, dissociation may cause a person to fill in the parts of the experience that are not clearly remembered with events that for them feasibly could have occurred. Of course, memory lapses will not necessarily be filled in with a confabulated event, let alone a sexual one. However, individuals who dissociate at a high frequency may seek to make their stories more coherent by adding details to an incomplete memory that would make sense to them when considered in the context of the event. Thus, these confabulations may lead to erroneous claims that have forensic relevance, including who the perpetrator was, what happened, where, and how many times. + +Intellectual Disability: Intellectual disability, is characterized by below average IQ and adaptive functioning. Limitations in functioning include deficits in the acquisition of social, occupational, academic, and general self-care skills. Intellectual disability has several etiologies that often are related to biological or pathological processes affecting the central nervous system. Many of the specific vulnerabilities that arise from intellectual disability overlap to some extent with other disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome) and individuals with other developmental disabilities may also have intellectual disability. Intellectually disabled individuals, compared to individuals without ID, have vulnerabilities related to memory and communication that the legal system may not be equipped to handle adequately. Individuals with moderate-to-profound ID may have significant difficulty communicating about the events that occurred because of language skills deficits or other communication-interfering conditions (e.g., related neurological conditions). Research findings indicate that communications skills are essential in filing a sexual assault charge; alleged victims with mild ID were more likely than individuals with moderate or severe ID not only to file sexual assault charges but to have their allegations confirmed. Difficulties with memory may also complicate the investigation process for individuals with ID. + +Changes in the core details of the allegation are often used by professionals as indices in determining the credibility of a victim's claims. Peace and colleagues (2015) conducted a narrative analysis of 147 sets of allegations of sexual assault across short (3 month) and long (6 month) intervals since the alleged event took place. In reviewing the existing literature, Peace and colleagues found that genuine traumatic experiences have a demonstrable resiliency to drastic impairments in recall. However, some inconsistencies especially in less core matters are to be expected due to some less important details fading or varying over time. In examining their sample of 147 allegations, the researchers discovered that truthful allegations contained more detail relative to false allegations at each of the assessment intervals. Specifically, the researchers found that fabricated allegations of traumatic experiences contained more inconsistent details both at 3 months and 6 months. The total amount of detail for each type of allegation (true or false) does tend to decrease over time. Additionally, as these figures suggest, the researchers found that the number of details present in genuine reports continued to decrease over time whereas fabricated stories 'levelled off in detail. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 11 + +Hunt and Bull (2012) reviewed signs that can be used to differentiate true allegations of sexual assault from false ones and concluded that the literature did not support the hypothesis that emotional distress was predictive of the truthfulness of the allegation. This is consistent across the literature, and emotional distress (e.g., crying) is not regarded as a reliable predictor of the accuracy or truthfulness of an allegation. Additional research is needed, but at this point there is little empirical support to indicate that being emotionally upset, distressed, or crying while reporting an assault indicates that the report is more likely to be true. This is likely due to the fact that such reactions can also occur in false allegations for various reasons, including a false memory or an attempt to mislead by those who know this sort of reaction would be expected of a true allegation. + +Individuals who have been sexually assaulted have higher rates of mental disorders than individuals who have not been sexually assaulted, and this includes significantly higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, drug use disorders, and alcohol use disorders. Emily R. Dworkin, Risk for Mental Disorders Associated with Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis, 21 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2020), pp. 1011-1028. Any of these mental disorders that occur more frequently among those who have been sexually assaulted can affect memory and recall, requiring assessment on a case-by-case basis. + +Varying degrees of post-traumatic stress symptomatology occur in significant proportions of victims following sexual assault and last for varying durations. Emily R. Dworkin, Anna E. Jaffe, Michele Bedard-Gilligan, and Skye Fitzpatrick, PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2021) https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211032213. A substantial number of people never fully remit from their PTSD even after many years, and variables associated with a longer time to remit from an episode of chronic PTSD include a history of alcohol abuse and a history of childhood trauma. Caron Zlotnick, Meredith Warshaw, et al., Chronicity in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Predictors of Course of Comorbid PTSD in Patients with Anxiety Disorders, l2 J. Traumatic Stress (1999), 89-100. + +Symptoms of PTSD include distressing memories of the event; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s); and avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s). American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 271-272. Individuals with any of these symptoms are particularly unlikely to engage in continued communication or friendly gestures with an alleged perpetrator, to wear clothing provided by an alleged perpetrator, or to unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event, any of which would be expected to elicit intense distress. + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach November I. 2021 Page 12 + +C. Dr. Ryan + +Dr. curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit D. His report is attached as Exhibit E. Attached as Exhibit F is a list of material reviewed by Dr... + +Dr.. is an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry and will offer opinions as such. He will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report, the bases for those opinions, and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions. + +D. Bennett Gershman + +Professor Gershman is a Distinguished Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law of Pace University since its founding as the Pace Law School in 1976. He has also taught as a visiting professor at Cornell Law School and Syracuse Law School. Prior to coming to Pace, he was a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the New York State Anti-Corruption Office. Professor Gerslunan's extensive scholarship has had an essential role in establishing the study of prosecutorial misconduct, a subject at the intersection of criminal procedure and professional ethics. He is a leading authority on prosecutorial misconduct and the author of the treatise, Prosecutorial Misconduct, a preeminent resource for scholars and practitioners. + +We expect Professor Gershman to provide testimony on best practices to ensure the integrity of any prosecution, focusing on investigation, witness preparation, media contact, neutrality, obligations to provide accurate information, and relationship with crime victims, their counsel, and case-related civil litigation. His extensive experience and credentials are recited in his curriculum vitae, annexed as Exhibit G. + +E. Robert Kelso + +Mr. Kelso is CEO of Forensic Pursuit. He has over 25 years of experience in computer forensics, engineering and software technology. He holds Bachelor's and degrees from University of Colorado at Boulder in aerospace engineering and astrodynamics, respectively. He is currently an adjunct professor at University of Denver teaching computer forensics at the level. He holds multiple computer forensics certifications including EnCE, CHA, ACE and AME. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit H. Mr. Kelso has previously testified in federal and state courts as an expert witness in computer forensics and has been appointed a "special =" by the court on multiple occasions. + +We anticipate that Mr. Kelso will testify about the user data associated with certain devices seized and searched by the government's team in this case, documents and photographs extracted from certain of those devices, and the metadata associated with certain documents and photographs. He may also testify generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of documents, storage and retrieval of digital documents and photographs, including + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 13 + +the limits to the information that can be gleaned from the metadata. Mr. Kelso may testify in rebuttal to any testimony offered by the government through Stephen Flatley. As trial preparation proceeds, the defense will update the topics for Mr. Kelso if any arise. + +F. John + +Mr. was a Special Agent with the United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation ("IRS-Cl") for over twenty-five years. During his tenure at IRS-CI, Mr. led the New York Asset Forfeiture Task Force and participated in numerous criminal investigations involving complex fraud, corruption, bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. Since retiring from the IRS in 2013, Mr. has worked as a financial investigator and consultant for several private investigation companies and government enforcement agencies. He currently runs his own private financial investigation and consulting company called JDL Services, Inc. Mr. holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Accounting and Finance from Pace University. His curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit I. + +It is expected that Mr. will testify about his review of certain financial records provided by the government in discovery. Specifically, Mr. will discuss various transfers of funds that are reflected in the financial records and explain the information contained in the financial records regarding those transfers.' + +G. Gerald LaPorte + +Mr. LaPorte is a Forensic Chemist and Document Dating Specialist with the firm Welch LaPorte &Associates Forensic Laboratories. He currently is the Director of Research Innovation for Florida International University, Global Forensic and Justice Center. Prior to that, he was the Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous cases and has multiple professional honors in this field. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit J + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and documents received pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited to These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of creation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +The defense does not believe that the Court needs to (pal, as an expert to offer the proposed testimony. Nevertheless, we hereby notice Mr. as a potential expert witness in an abundance of caution. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 14 + +H. Jennifer Naso + +Ms. Naso is a Forensic Document Examiner who worked for and received specialized training from the United States Secret Service as a Document Analyst. Ms. Naso has a of Science in Forensic Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She has over 15 years of experience examining and determining authorship and authentication of documents. Her curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit K. + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited t These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of citation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +# H. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS + +The defense reserves the right to amplify the disclosures contained herein based on testimony and other evidence presented during the government's case-in-chief. The defense also reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses and will promptly provide additional disclosure notice. + +# III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT + +Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement these opinions depending on the evidence produced at trial. To the extent that any accuser claims to have been "groomed" or otherwise testifies to the challenged opinions of Dr. Rocchio or other opinions properly rebutted by expert testimony Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to identify and rebut this testimony after the close of the government's case in chief. + +Very Truly Yours, + +![](_page_14_Picture_12.jpeg) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Enclosures \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa7aa9db3826b7a8d7418e19e5245e1889fc41ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/EFTA02834050.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,793 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 15, + "chars": 43765, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.45, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_14_Picture_12.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 342.7207946777344, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 342.7207946777344, + 518.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 518.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 315.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 315.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 684.3630142211914 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 684.3630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 345.78, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 345.78, + 551.61 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 551.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault \nAllegations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.46673583984375, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.46673583984375, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 303.3630065917969 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 303.3630065917969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 396.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 396.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "PictureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834050" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_14_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_14_Picture_12.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b8d36d961c27269492b87f9fc0e9c7849fb9bd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_14_Picture_12.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ef2b4957f2bc3c8940566d97298cf3bb0a7f27f7401ca92c7bd9fc0aff382ef8 +size 3275 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c45a2787fb5ff78dc7924e05ee1684649639a4a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834050/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2ecfc28d08a4583027af712ffe38772a5e40b586b96945085872521198f0b822 +size 6358 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcd33f73ba4726c0d0279782cc3924dae6e2414e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## Exhibit B (Under Seal) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d68760b7c97adef697a80d64d7c4659221a923f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065/EFTA02834065.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834065.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 25, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B \n(Under Seal)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 448.9640808105469, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 448.9640808105469, + 263.9027099609375 + ], + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 263.9027099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834065" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bb755d3c824fe8c89f75cd735232029085f015a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.md @@ -0,0 +1,277 @@ +# Exhibit C + +![](_page_1_Picture_22.jpeg) + +ISSN: 1522-8932 (Print) 1522-9092 (Online) Journal homepage: + +## Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault + +Jessica [REDACTED] BA & William O'Donohue PhD + +To cite this article: Jessica [REDACTED] BA & William O'Donohue PhD (2012) Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12:2, 97-123, DOI: [10.1080/15228932.2012.650071](https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.650071) + +To link to this article: + +![](_page_1_Picture_30.jpeg) + +Published online: 22 Mar 2012. + +![](_page_1_Picture_32.jpeg) + +Submit your article to this journal + +![](_page_1_Picture_34.jpeg) + +Article views: 2099 + +![](_page_1_Picture_36.jpeg) + +View related articles + +![](_page_1_Picture_38.jpeg) + +Citing articles: 5 View citing articles + +### AREA REVIEWS + +## Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault + +JESSICA , BA + +Department of Clinical Psychology, Univessity of Neruda, Reno, Nevada + +WILLIAM O'DONOHUE, PhD + +Department of Psobology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada + +Not all allegations of sexual assault are true. Unfortunately, there bas been little work on understanding the prevalence of false allegations or pathways to these. This paper proposes 11 pathways to false allegations of sexual assault: (a) lying, (b) implied consent, (c)false memories, (d) intoxication, (e) antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, (g) histrionic personality disorder, (h) delirium, (t) psychotic disorders, (I) dissociation, and (k) intellectual disability. These pathways originate in the psychological diatheses of the individual. Further research is needed into the frequency of these pathways, ways to accurately detect these, and whether other pathways exist. + +KEYWORDS false allegations, sexual assault, psychological pathways, rape, lying, mental disorders + +In many sexual assault cases, there is little, if any, unequivocal physical evidence of a crime and no third-party eyewitnesses to bring decisive testimony to the event in question (Binder & McNeil, 2007), complicating the task of discerning the truth of a claim. Without clear physical evidence, the decisions of the legal system are based merely on the relative credibility of the narratives of the persons involved. In addition, physical evidence can be ambiguous: Medical evidence may allow a determination of whether intercourse occurred, and perhaps whether the intercourse was -rough," but not whether that sexual contact was consensual. Thus, in cases such as these + +Address correspondence to William O'Donohue, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada Reno, Mail Stop 298. Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: wtoeunr.edu + +that lack clear corroborating evidence, an understanding of pathways to false allegations may be useful to help determine the accuracy of the claims. + +Binder and McNeil (2007) presented several civil cases in which the alleged perpetrator of sexual assault and/or boundary violations completely denied all wrongdoing, and there was no corroborating evidence to help verify the claims of either party. The authors contended that in cases such as these, carefully administered and interpreted psychological evaluations may provide a context for allegations by allowing the court to understand personality traits, personality disorders, cognitive disability, and psychotic symptoms that may affect the alleged victim's allegations. Certain psychological processes have in past cases explained the lack of corroborating accounts between a plaintiff and a defendant. Some relevant psychological processes that have been suggested are psychosis, hypersensitivity when interacting with others, tendency toward exaggeration, and serious cognitive problems (Binder & McNeil). The authors also suggested that there may be several additional psychological markers to consider when determining the credibility of a complaint. We believe that a more thorough identification of these pathways is important and can be partly achieved by understanding the role of psychological disorders, as currently specified by the *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), in explicating specific motivations and cognitive distortions that may be associated with false allegations and malingering behaviors. Some of these variables may interact in a complex manner. For instance, an individual with borderline personality may place herself in riskier situations and may, therefore, have an increased risk of actual sexual assault. Conversely, as we discuss below, the individual with borderline personality disorder may also suffer from certain key cognitive distortions that lead to false reports. We caution against a simplistic reading of this analysis in that it never is the case that because a person suffers from a certain diagnosis that her allegations are, therefore, false. In addition, it can be useful for the forensic mental health professional to understand these pathways in context with the alleged perpetrator's mental health status. Again, no diagnosis would mean that the perpetrator is guilty of the accusations; however, mental health professionals can offer expertise in helping to understand the pathways to false allegations and false denials. Part of the focus of the present paper, then, is to bring attention to the dearth of psychological literature investigating correlates and causal mechanisms of false allegations of sexual assault and to propose a model specifying the major causal pathways to false allegations. These pathways are intended as a model for further empirical investigation. + +Therefore, a legitimate concern about enumerating such pathways is the misuse of psychological diagnoses in determining the accuracy of specific accusations. It is important to recognize that a model that comprehensively and accurately identifies pathways provides information regarding necessary + +but not sufficient conditions for false allegations. There is no psychological diagnosis that alone could preclude the possibility that a sexual assault occurred. Rather, these generate rival plausible hypotheses that need to be evaluated to thoroughly evaluate all the possible candidates for explaining the allegation. That is, an investigation into a contested sexual assault charge is more complete and accurate when two overarching hypotheses are considered: (a) This individual with psychological condition *x* was indeed sexually assaulted or (b) this individual with psychological condition *x* is making a false allegation due to condition *x* (*x* can be equal to 0). This is more complete than considering only one of these possibilities. Of course, when no relevant psychological condition is present, the second need not be considered. In addition, where there is overwhelming evidence (witnesses) that make condition (b) obviously false, then again, this condition need not be evaluated. Other methodologies such as lie detection (Gruben & Madsen, 2005) may be used to make assessments, but a review of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper. + +A person falsely convicted (or even accused) of an alleged crime will experience significant psychological, financial, and social consequences. Prevention of both false convictions and false acquittals should be the utmost priority in any sexual assault case. Considering the dearth of forensic research on causal mechanisms of false allegations by claimants, it appears that this work is needed to offset the bulk of forensic practice that is not guided by a model to understand how false allegations may be generated. We make no claim regarding the moral equivalency of a true allegation that is not believed versus a false allegation that is believed. Rather, we do suggest that minimizing both of these kinds of errors is a worthy goal. + +## LEGAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE UNITED STATES + +It is no surprise that merely raising the issue of false allegations may evoke tension and unease in some; for some, this question is not politically correct. To be sure, historically claims of sexual assault were handled relatively unfairly for the victims both legally and socially. In early America, many people looked upon rape perpetration as little more than a sexual misdeed on the level of premarital sex and as an unfortunate consequence of sexual desire (Block, 2006). Women's claims of sexual assault were often unfairly doubted. In fact, *psuedologia pbantastica* was the legally and scientifically acknowledged term used to describe a delusional state in which a woman falsely believed that she had been raped (Bessmer, 1984). + +Beginning in the 1960s, a public counteraction to the prevailing treatment of rape victims gained prominence, largely spurred by the feminist + +movement (Spohn & Horney, 1992). As a result, the nation underwent significant changes in the legal handling of sexual assault cases. Sweeping new laws were adopted in all 50 states aimed at decreasing complainant attrition, increasing rates of reporting, and improving the overall treatment of victims filing complaints. Despite these efforts, recent studies on the outcome of rape reform laws have shown mixed results about their impact, indicating partial effectiveness at best (see Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Spohn and Horney, 1992). Furthermore, studies on the number of unreported sexual assaults reveal consistently low rates of reporting to the police, from 15% of all rapes (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011; Tjaden & Theonnes, 2006) down to 5% in some samples (see Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). + +Study findings have identified several reasons for the low rates of reporting. In a national sample of U.S. women, the most commonly endorsed reason for choosing not to report was fear of reprisal by the perpetrator (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), indicating an endemic distrust of case processing and protection services for the victim. Among victims who reported the rape and those who did not, the most frequently endorsed concern about reporting was the belief that others would blame the victim for the rape. Indeed, the acceptance of *rape myths*, or widely held and generally false beliefs about rape that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994), is associated with a higher tendency to ascribe responsibility for sexual assault to the victim (Burt, 1980). Examples of rape myths include the incorrect beliefs that women routinely lie about being raped, that most rapes are perpetrated by strangers, and that only women who have certain characteristics (e.g., poor moral character, promiscuous, unsafe) are victims of rape (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). + +Given the mixed performance of rape reform laws and the persistence of rape myths, it is no surprise that empirical investigations of false rape allegations would be subject to heated contention. Past studies of false allegations have been carefully inspected for methodological, definitional, and ideological mistakes, and many have been found (Lisak, Gardiner, Nicksa, & Cote, 2010). The significant variability in estimates of false rape allegations has reflected these methodological weaknesses, with study estimates ranging from 1% to 90% of all reported cases (Gross, 2009; Kelly, 2010; Lonsway, 2010; Lisak et al., 2010). These differences were generally related to discrepancies between researchers about definitions of terms and methodology of data collection (Lisak et al., 2010). One predominant criticism of the literature has been the inaccurate categorization of rape investigation results by the police. It has been suggested that law enforcement agencies have been known to incorrectly categorize "unfounded" cases, among other cases, as "false allegations" (Lisak et al., 2010). As articulated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), during police investigations a false allegation may be determined only using the following process: + +The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. *This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation.* This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case, the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. *The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assault did not happen.* (IACP, 2005, pp. 12–13; emphasis in original) + +“Evidence that the assault did not happen” must consist of the existence of physical or eyewitness evidence as opposed to the mere absence of evidence (IACP, 2005). Lisak et al (2005) compiled findings from studies that addressed the aforementioned issues of categorization, terminology, and methodology and placed a narrower estimate of the frequency of false rape allegations between 2% and 10%. Thus, the most recent, more methodologically adequate studies have indicated that false allegations are somewhat rare. However, it is important to note that law enforcement agencies cannot always identify false allegations during the investigation process, as it is often the case that little or no physical or eyewitness evidence exists to substantiate that sex was consensual or that the rape never occurred. However uncommon, false accusations of sexual assault, indeed, occur, and falsely alleged perpetrators are thus subject to besmirched reputations, interruptions in important life functions and, in some cases, incarceration. In the event that an investigation fails to identify a false allegation and the case proceeds to prosecution, a psychologically informed conceptualization of the etiology of false allegations could bolster existing evidence that supports the falsehood of a claim. + +A brief description of one infamous and controversial legal case may help to elucidate the potential contribution of psychological pathways of false allegations of sexual assault and the initial and lingering consequences for accused persons. In the following case, the alleged victim never recanted her claim, and her allegations were never determined to be false. However, an understanding of the psychological functioning of the alleged victim as considered in the context of available evidence could have informed the investigators about potential motives or cognitive distortions that could lead the accuser to file a false rape allegation. On March 13, 2006, the lacrosse team at [REDACTED] University hired two exotic dancers, Crystal Magnum and [REDACTED] to perform at a house party (Hemmens, 2008). While at the house, Magnum fell unconscious for a short while after which an exchange of insults occurred between the lacrosse team and the two strippers. [REDACTED] then drove Magnum to a store where she was dropped off. After being arrested for public drunkenness, Magnum accused three of the [REDACTED] lacrosse teammates of rape. The allegations were pursued over the + +course of 1 year in which all three men were charged with rape and publicly vilified. The lacrosse season was cancelled, and the coach was fired. According to some, a large amount of evidence was withheld from the public that may have cast suspicion on the accusation, all while the reputations of the three accused men were continually besmirched (Hemmens, 2008; Setrakian, 2007). DNA evidence revealed no physical evidence that any of the three men had raped her. Magnum also came under the suspicion of the authorities by telling conflicting versions of the sexual assault. In one instance, Magnum reported that she was gang raped by five men in the bathroom; at another time, she reported that she was not forced to have intercourse with anyone, although the men did pull her from her car and groped her (Taylor & [REDACTED], 2007). + +The discrepancies in Magnum's account are considered "core" discrepancies in that they are central details of the case and, thereby, any variation in these details is considered a strong indication of a false account of events. Research on the accuracy of emotional memories indicates that in an emotional event, individuals are more likely to remember core features of the event (e.g., forced intercourse occurred, whether the event occurred inside or outside) than peripheral features (e.g., which street the rape occurred on, what perpetrators were wearing) and, in fact, memory for core features of the event is actually enhanced by the emotionality of the situation whereas memory of peripheral features tends to be poorer (Kensinger, 2007). + +It is noteworthy that Magnum's initial claim that she was raped occurred when she was being admitted to an inpatient [REDACTED] for psychiatric observation and treatment—a fact that did not receive much attention by the prosecution or others (Taylor & [REDACTED], 2007). Knowing the details of the mental health report could have helped investigators determine whether there were (a) motives for knowingly filing a false allegation or (b) reasons why Magnum would have unknowingly misinterpreted the events that took place. + +Later, the men were exonerated in what the judge called, "a tragic result of a rush to accuse." This rush to accuse should have been mediated by a fair consideration of the possibility of a false accusation and an examination of pathways to false accusations. Despite this ruling, the case could still be labeled "unfounded," as the term *false allegation* is often reserved for cases in which a claimant knowingly filed allegations that were false; either the claimant knowingly identified the wrong perpetrator, or she fabricated the entire event (Gross, 2009). In this case, Magnum never recanted her claims, and it cannot be determined whether she actually believed the events occurred or whether she knew that she had fabricated her story. However, an increased understanding of possible psychological pathways could have helped explain core inconsistencies in her statement and potential motivations to file a false allegation. + +For the purposes of our paper, we will define the term *false allegations* as either knowingly fabricated *or* claims based on abnormal information processing, because in some cases, the claimant may actually believe that a coerced sexual experience occurred in ways that it did not occur. In this paper, we suggest that some psychological disorders may increase the likelihood of believing a sexual assault occurred when it did not. Additionally, some psychological disorders may be related to an increase in motivation to fabricate an allegation of sexual assault in an effort to achieve what may be believed are the positive consequences of a false report. + +### PATHWAYS TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT + +The pathways introduced in this section require further empirical investigation and validation. These may not be an exhaustive list of possible pathways, although many pathways worth careful consideration have been included. + +#### Lying for Conscious and Unconscious Secondary Gain + +That the alleged victim is knowingly making a false claim of sexual assault is a pathway that is usually considered, and sometimes this is the only pathway considered by key individuals in the case. Humans do lie, and their lies can be difficult to detect. Often, humans lie because of what they perceive as the favorable consequences for lying; for sexual assault these consequences could be + +1. 1. the severe negative consequences that the alleged perpetrator experiences, +2. 2. secondary gain from victim status, +3. 3. excusing behaviors or characteristics of the alleged victim (e.g., sexual activity, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases), and +4. 4. financial gain. + +In sections below, we consider lying that comes out of other psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., the chronic lying associated with an individual with antisocial personality disorder). In this pathway, we acknowledge that lying also occurs with "normal" individuals (i.e., individuals who have no psychiatric diagnosis, who seek certain consequences through their lying). Thus, the victim knowingly lying about the assault is a rather obvious pathway to false allegations. Deception is difficult to detect, but the alleged victim's history of truthfulness, current motivations, and gain from the allegations need to be considered. + +### Denial of Consent + +A key issue in sexual assault is whether consent was given for the sexual contact. Consent is complex and, in real-world situations, may have significant variability and may be rather subtle and, in general, an intricate process. Rarely do sexual interactions begin with individuals explicitly stating "I give you permission to do x, y, and z" ([REDACTED], 1998). Consent in sexual situations is often implied, sometimes by the absence of a negative ("She didn't say no or move away") or inferred ("She seems to be enjoying this" or "We did this in the past so I assumed she was ok with it"). Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) found that nonverbal tactics were used more often than verbal consent. Consent is thought to involve both knowledge of what is being consented to and a belief that the person is free to either assent or not. Thus, a claim of lack of consent can also come from the person's "feeling trapped" or "coerced," which, again, the two parties may interpret differently. However, mistakes can be made in these situations and given the motivations of the parties, these mistakes can be motivated ("I want this, so I interpret her silence as consent" or "She was free to leave at anytime; I was on top of her because I thought she wanted that"). + +Understanding whether consent was given is made more complex by the fact that consent early in the interaction for a certain kind of sexual contact is not consent for any and all further sexual contact in that episode. In addition, consent for the same act (consent last week) is not consent for all future contact. This complexity led to the infamous Antioch College consent policy that stated that there were multiple levels of sexual intimacy and every time someone wants to proceed to another level, they must explicitly ask and receive explicit verbal permission to proceed to this level (Francis, 1996): + +If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction (i.e., if two people move from kissing while fully clothed—which is one level—to undressing for direct physical contact, which is another level), the people involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to that new level. If one person wants to *initiate* moving to a higher level of sexual intimacy in an interaction, *that person is responsible for getting the verbal consent of the other person(s) involved before moving to that level.* (p. 137) + +This policy was critiqued on the grounds of its impracticality, but it raises the question how explicit and how often does consent need to be conveyed? This ambiguity creates a pathway for a false allegation in which the alleged victim engaged in behaviors that can plausibly be interpreted as providing consent, but the victim herself may not understand or realize this. Thus, a false allegation can arise when it was reasonable to believe consent was given but the alleged victim falsely believes that it was not. + +In this situation, the controversy is not whether sexual content occurred but whether consent for this sexual content occurred. + +The final level of complexity regarding this pathway occurs in the attempt of professionals involved in the case to accurately understand after the fact the details of whatever consent process did or did not take place. By its nature, this will generally be a "he said, she said" matter in which it is very difficult to resolve conflicting claims. However, much can ride on the heuristics individuals use to resolve this indeterminate matter. + +### A False Memory + +The theory of *repression*, according to Freud (1910), posits that traumatic memories can be pushed out of conscious awareness and essentially forgotten for long periods of time. Though some psychologists argue there is a lack of empirical support for the theory of repression (Loftus, 1993), many psychologists do believe that repression is a real process by which memories can be forgotten and later remembered (Boag, 2010). One psychological process that may resemble repression is false memory. + +The existence and prevalence of repressed memories is a source of controversy (McNally & Geraerts, 2009), and yet research does exist demonstrating the successful implantation of fabricated memories. In one of the first studies on the implantation of false memories, participants were given short narratives of childhood experiences, purportedly obtained from relatives, and asked to try to remember these experiences (Loftus, Coan, & Pickrell, 1996). Participants' relatives were contacted and asked to provide childhood stories about the participants. However, researchers created one fabricated narrative: The participant, at age 5 or 6, had been lost in a public place (e.g. a shopping mall) for an extended period of time and eventually rescued. Participants were encouraged to try to remember both true and fabricated events over the course of several weeks. When participants were asked later whether they recalled the events, nearly one-fourth of them reported having memories of the fabricated event. Though some individuals reported remembering being lost only vaguely, others reported remembering vivid visual details and emotional experiences. Since this study, several researchers have successfully replicated these results using different suggestive techniques and scenarios (e.g. Mazzoni, Loftus, Seitz, & [REDACTED], 1999; Hyman & Billings, 1998; Hyman & Pentland, 1996; Garry, [REDACTED], Loftus, & Sherman, 1998). Many of the suggestive methods used in these experiments are similar to those employed by some therapists during psychotherapy (Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Pesant & Zadra, 2004). + +It has been argued that suggestive therapeutic techniques could cause a client to create a false traumatic memory (Loftus, 1993). An example of this type of suggestion would be for a therapist to conclude that the client shows signs of abuse despite no memory of abuse, and thus the client should try + +harder to remember whether any abuse may have occurred (as cited in Loftus, 2003). + +Indeed, there have been several legal cases in which therapy clients or their relatives successfully sued or received settlements from their therapists for using therapy techniques that may have induced patients into creating false memories of past abuse (Loftus, 1997). In one such case in 1986, Nadeen Cool sued her therapist who used hypnosis and other suggestive therapeutic techniques to uncover "lost memories" of abuse (Loftus, 1997). Through therapy, Cool remembered being in a satanic cult, eating babies, and being raped, among other horrific events. She came to believe she had more than 120 different personalities and even underwent an exorcism led by her therapist who sprinkled holy water and demanded Satan to leave her body. Later, Cool realized that her memories were not real and were planted by her therapist. The therapist settled out of court for \$2.4 million. + +Though the false memories discussed thus far have all been entirely fabricated, some false memories are created surrounding real events. Memories of an event can be tampered by exposure to subtle misinformation after the event has occurred (Loftus & Palmer, 1974; Loftus, 1975; Loftus, [REDACTED], 1978). In one famous study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), researchers showed participants short clips of traffic accidents and were asked to rate the speed at which the accident happened. However, when questioning the participants, researchers cleverly manipulated the use of verbs. For instance, some participants were asked the speed at which vehicles *smashed* into each other. Other participants were asked to report the speed at which vehicles *bit, collided with, bumped,* or *contacted* each other. Participants responding to the word *smashed* not only reported a higher speed at which the cars were travelling but weeks later were more likely to recall having seen broken [REDACTED] at the scene. These findings in addition to Loftus's later work on the nature of leading questions (Loftus, 1975; Loftus et al., 1978) revealed how subtle information introduced after an event may alter the memory of that event. Loftus and her students have since conducted more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 participants demonstrating how misinformation introduced after an event can induce people into creating false memories (Loftus, 1997). + +Repressed memories have not been disproved. However, scientific studies have demonstrated that significant errors in memory and the creation of false memories of traumatic events are possible. When the claimant suddenly recovers a memory of a past sexual assault, investigation of the events surrounding the recovery of the memory, including suggestive therapy and investigative techniques (e.g. events surrounding police lineups and questioning), must be examined and may shed light on the validity of the recovered memory. + +### Intoxication + +As a prerequisite for this pathway, the consumption of intoxicating substances must have led to distortions in information processing. There are currently many drugs that are used by sexual assault perpetrators to incapacitate victims (Horvath & [REDACTED], 2005). These drugs may include Rohypnol (e.g., "roofies") and amphetamines, muscle relaxants, alcohol, or antihistamines. Other drugs, such as gamma hydroxybutyrate, cocaine, and ketamine have also been indicated in drug-assisted sexual assault cases (see Horvath & [REDACTED], 2005; Hindmarch & Brinkmann, 1999). In a forensic case, it is important to determine whether the accuser voluntarily or involuntarily consumed drugs. If the drugs were not voluntarily consumed, it is likely that the individual who drugged the claimant had premeditated plans to control the claimant (Welner, 2001), regardless of whether the perpetrator assaulted the claimant. + +Though consent issues are clearly important considerations when determining the nature of sexual behaviors while intoxicated, they are superfluous considerations in this pathway. Under most state laws, a person cannot legally consent to sexual activity while intoxicated ([REDACTED] & Loftus, 2008). In fact, even if consent to engage in sexual activity is *ex ante* (before the first dose of the intoxicating substance), the act of engaging in sexual activity while intoxicated can later be determined to be non-consensual sexual activity and is often sufficient evidence to convict someone of rape. Therefore, issues of consent, for these reasons, will not be discussed in the context of this pathway. + +A key issue in this pathway is whether the claimant believes that he or she was sexually assaulted while under the influence of intoxicating substances, when in reality no sexual activity took place or activity occurred very different from what she is now claiming (e.g., she claimed penetration when no penetration occurred). Some drugs, when consumed at sufficient levels, may cause impairments in information processing—sensation, perception, storage, or retrieval. Substances known to cause these effects are alcohol, sedatives/hypnotics (e.g., benzodiazepines, soporifics), and anxiolytics (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). High doses of alcohol have been shown to inhibit memory in humans and animals (Bisby, Leitz, [REDACTED], 2010; Crego et al., 2009; Spinetta et al., 2008). Moreover, upon ceasing to use these drugs, withdrawal symptoms may include delirium and psychotic disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Lin, Heacock, & Fogel, in press)—two additional pathways to false allegations that will be discussed later in this paper. + +The information-processing errors of the intoxicating substances mentioned above may cause confusion surrounding events that occurred while a person was intoxicated. A person who does not accurately recall events + +that occurred while he or she was under the influence or while experiencing the side effects of withdrawal from a substance may attempt to make sense out of the disjointed and seemingly incoherent memories of events that occurred while intoxicated. In an effort to make sense of and organize what memories are intact, a person may confabulate or fill in the memory lapses with events that seem probable or which for some reason they come to believe "must have" taken place. For example, waking up naked but not remembering how his or her clothes were removed, a person may conclude that someone else removed the clothes without his or her consent, even if the individual had, while intoxicated, actually removed his or her own clothes without remembering having done so. In addition, some drugs can artificially affect sexual interest (e.g., ecstasy, cocaine) or modify the individual's normal disinhibitions regarding sexuality that can affect the analysis of sexual consent. Thus, an individual may not normally have been sexually interested or may typically have been more sexually inhibited and not given consent. She may come to be puzzled after a sexual interaction and conclude that she was sexually assaulted because her behavior did not fit with her expectations. + +#### Antisocial Personality Disorder (or Conduct Disorder in Adolescents) + +The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) explains the essential feature of antisocial personality disorder as "a pervasive pattern or disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in early childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." Diagnostic criteria consist of the following: + +1. 1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; +2. 2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; +3. 3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; +4. 4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; +5. 5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others; +6. 6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; and +7. 7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. + +Diagnostic criteria 1, 2, 4, and 7 are of particular importance in this pathway. If an individual with antisocial personality disorder is likely to lie + +to achieve power and pleasure, a false allegation of sexual assault might be the means by which he or she attempts to achieve power over the falsely accused. Falsely claiming someone sexually assaulted you can be an aggressive act fitting diagnostic criterion 4. Furthermore, a lack of remorse could allow the individual to file an allegation of sexual assault and maintain this allegation with few, if any, conflicts of conscience. Thus, a pathway to a false allegation of sexual assault can occur when an individual with antisocial personality disorder makes a false claim of assault. + +Antisocial personality disorder occurs more in men than women (Lamont & Brunero, 2009; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), with prevalence rates of 3% and 1%, respectively, based on data from community samples (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Though women are the most frequent reporters of being victims of sexual assault, men may also report sexual assault. It is important to note that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are more likely than individuals without antisocial personality disorder to report having experienced sexual assault during their lifetime and are believed to be at a higher risk for sexual victimization (Burnam et al., 1988). + +#### Borderline Personality Disorder + +Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental condition characterized by affective dysregulation, impulsiveness, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and difficulties with self-image (Lieb, Zanarini, Schmahl, Linehan, & Bohus, 2004). Prevalence estimates for BPD from community and clinical samples have ranged from .6% to 3.9% of the general population (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; van Asselt, Dirksen, Arntz, & Severen, 2007; as cited in Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007), and the majority diagnosed with BPD—an estimated 75% of people—are women (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). + +The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) includes nine diagnostic criteria for this disorder, which for simplicity can be narrowed down to four domains (Lieb et al., 2004). The first domain is affective disturbance that includes intense emotions, rapidly shifting emotions, and mood reactivity. The second domain is disturbed cognition that includes three levels of symptomatology: troubling but non-psychotic problems including dissociation (discussed above) and intense feelings of being bad (relevant to this pathway); quasi-psychotic and psychotic-like symptoms of delusions and hallucinations (further discussed below) that are somewhat reality-based; and psychotic symptoms of delusions and hallucinations. The third domain is impulsivity, either physically destructive to the self or generalized impulsivity. The fourth domain involves the existence of unstable and erratic relationships, in which the borderline individual struggles to avoid either real or imagined abandonment. + +When parsing these domains, it can be more clearly seen how BPD may serve as a pathway for false allegations of sexual assault. The first domain (Leib et al., 2004) includes the diagnostic criterion of quickly switching from idealization to devaluation of relationship (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The instability of relationships experienced by an individual with BPD may be rooted in the tendency to quickly switch from idealizing significant others or lovers to devaluing them (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This sudden change in conceptualization of a partner is often caused by feeling that the partner is not caring enough or giving enough or by suspicion of abandonment. The rapid shifting between idealizing and demonization may bring about a change in perspective such that a relationship that was viewed idealistically in the past is now seen through the devalued lens of abuse or mistreatment. Past events then may become construed as "abuse" and may lead a person with BPD to believe he or she is a victim of sexual assault. + +As Kanin (1994) found in his longitudinal study, two of the three major motivations to file a false allegation of rape were attention-seeking and revenge. The switch from idealization to devaluation of the relationship and/or relationship partner (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) may spur a desire for revenge for any past behaviors that are, in the devaluation phase, newly construed as mistreatment. In addition an individual with BPD who is feeling fear of abandonment may seek frantically to achieve the attention that is craved from the partner who is perceived to be neglectful (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The impulsive nature of a person with BPD may also lead them to act on these motivations for attention or revenge by filing a false allegation of sexual assault before carefully considering the consequences. Also, there is some evidence that individuals with BPD engage in behaviors that are viewed as "manipulative" (Linehan, 1993). Manipulative behaviors are often outside the conscious awareness of the individual and are learned through positive reinforcement, as manipulation frequently results in positive outcomes for the manipulator. Thus, an individual with BPD may use a sexual assault allegation as a way of impacting a third party for some desired outcome. + +The second domain Web et al., 2004), consisting of symptoms of reality-based delusions and hallucinations, may lead to false beliefs of sexual assault, and clinical experience suggests that sexuality is a common theme in delusions and hallucinations. The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association 2000, p. 299) defines delusions as "erroneous beliefs that usually involve misinterpretations of perceptions or experiences." Hallucinations involve sensory experiences that do not appear to be externally caused. + +Thus, individuals with BPD may represent a "perfect storm" of symptoms in which an impulsive, emotionally dysregulated individual who is demonizing someone and has loose contact with reality and who is seeking + +attention and revenge makes a false allegation of sexual assault. However, when considering this pathway, it is important to keep in mind that individuals with BPD are more likely to have experienced sexual or physical assault (Lieb, et al., 2004) due to the same characteristics of the disorder. Thus, it is important to fairly and adequately weigh the evidence presented in an allegation of sexual assault. + +### Histrionic Personality Disorder + +The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) defines histrionic personality disorder as "pervasive and excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior" (p. 711). Prevalence estimates range from .6% to 2.9% of the general population (as cited in Lenzenweger et al., 2007; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Diagnosis is indicated by the presence of five or more of the following diagnostic criteria: + +1. 1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention; +2. 2) interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; +3. 3) displays rapidly shifting and shallow expressions; +4. 4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to the self; +5. 5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; +6. 6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion; +7. 7) is suggestible (i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances), and +8. 8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are (p. 714). + +The primary diagnostic criteria of interest in this pathway are diagnostic criteria 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8. Other relevant behaviors include the tendency to play out stereotyped roles in their relationships with others; an intense desire for novelty and excitement; and the upset and depression that may follow periods in which they received little attention (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). + +Filing a false allegation of sexual assault may serve to benefit individuals with histrionic personality disorder in several important ways. The sexualized behavior of individuals with histrionic personality disorder can lead to sexual relationships that may be used to seek attention (e.g., having sex with a person and telling all of their friends about it). Filing a false sexual assault claim may regain lost attention, either from the desired partner or from other + +individuals, providing a novel and exciting environment that may be stimulating to a person who is histrionic. They may enjoy the large amounts of attention received for filing a sexual assault charge and for the "victim" role that can be played out in other relationships. In times when attention is not being received to the desired level, a false allegation of sexual assault may help to pull individuals with histrionic personality disorder out of their depressed state. + +The misperception that relationships are more intimate than they actually are may lead a person with histrionic personality disorder to misconstrue nonsexual interactions as events that are sexual in nature. For example, a person who is histrionic may, after a co-worker complements her clothing and accidentally bumps into her during the day, construe these actions as intentional communications of sexual interest. This misperception can lead her to feel that if the individual had touched her chest while bumping into her, it was an intentional action of unwanted assault. Thus, a pathway to false allegations of sexual assault may be through individuals with a diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder who for reasons of attention and misinterpretation may knowingly or unknowingly make a false allegation of sexual assault. + +### Delirium + +According to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 136), delirium is a "disturbance of consciousness that is accompanied by a change in cognition that cannot be better accounted for by a preexisting or evolving dementia." Relevant to this pathway are the perceptual disturbances that may be present, including misinterpretations, illusions, or even hallucinations. + +Delirium may be caused by medical conditions, substance use, or withdrawal or may have multiple etiologies (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). An individual suffering from delirium is out of contact with reality and thus may make statements or allegations that are not veridical, including false allegations of sexual assault. In these circumstances, an individual with delirium may be under the care and protection of hospital staff, family members, friends, or even law enforcement. In such situations, caregivers may be in close physical proximity to the patient. The care provided could be construed as sexual, even though the care may have been nonsexual. + +### Psychotic Disorders + +The term *psychotic* generally refers to conditions that are marked by delusions and hallucinations (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Psychotic disorders include the following: schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, brief psychotic disorder, shared + +psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, substance-induced psychotic disorder, and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. Each of these disorders is known to cause gross impairment in functioning. + +The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) details common delusions that may be pervasive in individuals with delusional disorder. Other psychotic disorders may be associated with these delusional themes as well. *Erotomatic* delusions involve irrational, unsubstantiated, or impossible claims that some person is in love with the delusional individual. The individual may claim that a movie star or superior at work is secretly in love with him or her and that there is a spiritual tie between them. Another delusional theme of interest is the *persecutory* type. This delusional theme is characterized by irrational, unsubstantiated, or impossible claims that the individual has been wronged and that some injustice has taken place. Frequent appeals to the court system are common in which the individual attempts to persecute the central person in the delusion. *Mixed* types of delusions involve delusions in which no one type predominates. A mixed erotomatic and persecutory type might be the type of delusion that would lead to a false allegation of sexual assault. However, delusions can be complex and difficult to categorize, even when they are sexual in nature. + +Studies investigating the content of delusions have found delusions that are sexual in nature are not uncommon and are occur more often in women than in men (Galdos & van Os, 1995; Meloy, 1989). Some cases of sexual delusions have been documented. In one case, Rosenthal and McGuinness (1986), two psychiatric nurses, wrote about a client with delusions centered on sex. "When her hydrotherapist offered her a backrub one day, she exclaimed, 'Don't touch me! I am not your homosexual lover'" (p. 149). These delusions may lead a person to claim adamantly that sexual relations or events occurred that may be impossible or highly improbable. + +### Dissociation + +Dissociation is "the lack of the normal integration of thoughts, feelings, and experiences into the stream of consciousness and memory" (Berstein & Putnam, 1986). According to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), dissociation involves a disruption or splitting off of memory, personality, identity, consciousness, or general perceptions of the self and surroundings; it can be recurring, gradual, or transient. Currently, there is some controversy concerning the function, antecedents and etiology of dissociation (Candel, Merckelbach, & Kuijpers, 2003). + +Dissociative tendencies have been thought to exist as a stable trait in some individuals (Waller, Putnam, & Carlson, 1996), though most research has looked only at dissociation in relation to traumatic experiences. Much of the focus on the relationship between trauma and dissociation may be the result of earlier studies that found a relationship + +between reports of childhood trauma and high levels of dissociation (e.g. Sanders & Giolas, 1991). Dissociation can occur either during the traumatic experience (*peritraumatic dissociation*) or afterward (*posttraumatic dissociation*). *Peritraumatic dissociation* is characterized by numbness, detachment, derealization, depersonalization, and reduced responsiveness during the traumatic event (Tichenor, Marmar, Weiss, Metzler, & Ronfeldt, 1996). A meta-analysis comparing the results of 35 empirical studies on the relationship between levels of peritraumatic dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) found that peritraumatic dissociation was a moderate predictor of PTSD (Breh & Seidler, 2009). + +Some psychologists have conceptualized dissociation as a coping mechanism in response to trauma-related stress (Gershuny & Thayer, 1999). However, others have argued that dissociation is a trait that precedes a traumatic experience and may contribute to psychological responses in trauma survivors (Tichenor et al., 1996). Whatever the case may be, dissociation has been shown in multiple studies to be related to memory fragmentation (Kindt, Van den Hout, & Buck, 2005; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1995) and to two prominent correlates: fantasy proneness (Merckelbach, Campo, Hardy, & Geisbrecht, 2005) and absentmindedness (Merckelbach, Muris, Rassin, & Horselenberg, 2000). + +In one study (Candel et al., 2003), low and high dissociators were read stories of a traumatic nature and asked to freely recall the story. Even after controlling for fantasy proneness, high dissociators provided more errors of commission—that is, added false content—than low dissociators, though the two groups did not differ on errors of omission. In another study by Merckelbach and colleagues (Merckelbach, Horselenberg, & █, 2002), participants were read a story and asked to recall the content of the story. They were then asked several misleading questions meant to test suggestibility. As hypothesized, participants who were high dissociators were more likely to endorse story elements that were fabricated than low dissociators. Also, participants who were high dissociators were also more likely to have trait absentmindedness but were not more likely to have fantasy proneness. Similar studies have shown a small trend toward a relationship between fantasy proneness and memory commissions (Giesbrecht, Geraerts, & Merckelbach, 2007). The results of these studies indicate that dissociators are capable of “remembering” events that did not happen and that absentmindedness may be a mediator in the relationship between traumatic events and commission errors of memory. The results of these studies suggest that it may be important to consider the possibility that the memory of the event may include false details if the claimant has high levels of dissociation. + +A review of the literature on dissociation and memory (Giesbrecht, █, Lillienfield, & Merckelbach, 2008) cited evidence that trait dissociation is likely to be associated with memory distortions. In an effort to align + +fragmented memories with an individual's self-concept and worldview, the likelihood of altering memories of events, either consciously or unconsciously, increases (Eisen & [REDACTED], 2001). Thus, it is possible that in the event of a sexual assault, dissociation may cause a person to fill in the parts of the experience that are not clearly remembered with events that for them feasibly could have occurred. Of course, memory lapses will not necessarily be filled in with a confabulated event, let alone a sexual one. However, high dissociators may seek to make their stories more coherent by adding details to an incomplete memory that would make sense to them when considered in the context of the event. Thus, these confabulations may lead to erroneous claims that have forensic relevance, including who the perpetrator was, what happened, where, and how many times. + +### Intellectual Disability + +Intellectual disability (ID; Schalock, 2007), also known as mental retardation (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), is characterized by below-average IQ and adaptive functioning (Schalock, 2007; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Limitations in functioning include deficits in the acquisition of social, occupational, academic, and general self-care skills. ID has several etiologies that often are related to biological or pathological processes affecting the central nervous system. Many of the specific vulnerabilities that arise from ID overlap to some extent with other disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome) and thus, in many cases, individuals with other developmental disabilities may also have ID. + +Rates of sexual assault are higher in intellectually disabled populations than populations without ID (Mitra, Mouradian, & Diamond, 2011). It is hypothesized that the true rate of sexual assault among individuals with ID is higher than indicated in studies (Joyce, 2003). There are many [REDACTED]-sons to believe that study findings are an underrepresentation of the actual amount of sexual assaults that occur against intellectually disabled people. Difficulties with communication and comprehension of language faced by individuals with ID may interfere with the ability to report a sexual assault (Ahlgrim-Delzell & Dudley, 2001). Fear of repercussions for reporting—as caregivers are often the perpetrators—may also discourage reporting (Joyce, 2003). Another reason why individuals with ID may not report a sexual assault is because of a misunderstanding of the legal process. For instance, Joyce (2003) briefly mentioned one alleged victim with ID who was reluctant to continue with an allegation because she was afraid she would get into trouble if the alleged perpetrator was found "not guilty." Finally, it can be assumed that individuals with ID may choose not to report a sexual assault for the same reasons that individuals without ID choose not to report: + +because the legal process can be daunting and there may be repercussions from filing the allegation. + +Studies have indicated that sexual assaults among populations with ID are most likely to be perpetrated by peer service users ([REDACTED], [REDACTED], & Turk, 1995). Abuse by family members and care providers is also common, whereas perpetration by strangers is the least common. In cases where peer service users are the alleged perpetrators, issues of consent are often the focus of the investigation. Establishing the capacity to consent can be challenging in this population as it may be unclear whether individuals have sufficient knowledge and understanding to provide fully informed consent (Joyce, 2003). For instance, in some sexual assault cases, individuals with ID do not have the ability to name the body parts that were involved in the assault. Clear protocols for determining informed consent in this population would be useful, as adults with ID have specific challenges that increase their potential for coercion and exploitation. + +Intellectually disabled individuals, compared to individuals without ID, have vulnerabilities related to memory and communication that the legal system may not be equipped to handle adequately. Individuals with moderate-to-profound ID may have significant difficulty communicating about the events that occurred because of language skills deficits or other communication-interfering conditions (e.g., related neurological conditions). Ahgrim-Delzell and Dudley's (2001) findings indicate that communications skills are essential in filing a sexual assault charge; alleged victims with mild ID were more likely than individuals with moderate or severe ID not only to file sexual assault charges but to have their allegations confirmed. Difficulties with memory may also complicate the investigation process for individuals with ID (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003) who have been shown to have poorer memory than control groups and are more likely than control participants to fill in memory gaps with confabulated material (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993). However, memories of individuals with ID are not necessarily unreliable; rather, when information is gathered in a non-leading way, they are likely to provide accurate, although usually more limited, information about the event (Ternes & Yuille, 2008). In other words, individuals with ID are less likely to remember the details of the event (Kebbel & Hatton, 1999). + +Specific vulnerabilities in individuals with ID, in addition to poorer memory, may account for inaccurate reporting of events (Gudjonsson & Joyce, 2011). Individuals with ID have been shown to be significantly more suggestible to leading questions (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Everington & Fulero, 1999) and significantly more likely to acquiesce (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993) compared to individuals without ID, although there is variability among individuals with ID on these traits. Suggestibility refers to a tendency toward accepting information communicated by others and incorporating this information into beliefs and memories. Acquiescence refers to the predisposition to passively accept or actively agree with information that is presented (Chronbach, 1946). Thus, investigative procedures that involve + +focused and suggestive questions may elicit both agreement with interviewer assumptions and confabulations, thereby decreasing the accuracy of responses (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993; Joyce, 2003; Kebbel & Hatton, 1999; Kebbel, Hatton, & [REDACTED], 2004). Partly because of these vulnerabilities, there is a disproportionately high rate of false confessions in ID populations compared to the average population, and this is believed to be associated with (a) misunderstanding the potential consequences of a false confession and (b) the use of interrogative techniques that elicit compliance with the interrogator (Kassin et al., 2010). It is, therefore, a concern that individuals with ID may be prone to providing positive response sets, changing their account of events in response to leading questions, and having misunderstandings about the legal process. + +Therefore, a heightened potential for suggestibility and acquiescence in individuals with ID may be relevant in cases of false allegations of sexual assault in which (a) the alleged victim did not initiate the complaint and is consequently questioned in a manner that elicits positive responses and confabulation or (b) suspicion of sexual abuse was conveyed to the victim in a suggestive way by an individual or group that would potentially benefit from an allegation by proxy. In the first case, the individual who initiates the false complaint may have suspicions about sexual abuse related to perceived indications that a sexual assault occurred (e.g., a change in the disabled person's sexual behavior, signs that a sexual relationship may be occurring). In the second case, care providers who serve to benefit from filing a false allegation—perhaps traceable to another psychological pathway for filing a false allegation—might take advantage of the suggestible and acquiescent nature of an individual with ID. In either case, the individual with ID is at a higher risk of submitting a false allegation in these situations than individuals without ID because of this population's greater tendency toward suggestibility and acquiescence. + +In a false allegation of sexual assault, shifts in the reporting of core features of the sexual assault (e.g., the general location, features of the assault) may indicate that the methods of questioning were suggestive or that the alleged victim is confabulating. Furthermore, the involvement of a litigation-minded advocate of the alleged victim who has the potential to gain from his or her association with the case might warrant a further investigation into the motives and actions of this individual. If evidence suggests that the origin of the false allegation is related to high suggestibility or acquiescence and thus a false belief that a sexual assault occurred, suggestibility may be assessed by examining the alleged victim's response sets for significantly high levels of agreement with the interviewer and patterns of inconsistent responses emerging after suggestive questioning. Additionally, the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS; Gudjonsson, 1984) has shown to be a reliable and valid (Merckelbach et al., 1998) measure of suggestibility and may be employed as an adjunctive measure of susceptibility to suggestive questioning. + +SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThese 11 pathways merit further investigation and supplementation if additional pathways are identified. Ascertaining the psychological processes and functioning of a claimant may help explain possible motivations and information processing errors that could lead to an untruthful claim. Binder and McNeil (2007) underline the utility of psychological evaluation as a tool in the assessment of accusers and the accused, though they also stress the importance of examining these in the context of the presence or absence of corroborating evidence. Without corroborating evidence, forensic evaluators must acknowledge that "he said, she said" sexual assault cases are inherently difficult to assess for truth and that truth is unlikely to be found in its entirety within the results of psychological evaluation. Nevertheless, psychological evaluations may inform forensic evaluators of psychological processes by which a person may either intentionally or unintentionally file a false allegation of sexual assault. The results of a psychological evaluation are not intended merely as a useful tool for the defense; evaluation may also help establish the veracity of a claimant's account of events and may be relevant for a prosecutor's decisions to pursue an indictment. + +In proposing these pathways, it is important to acknowledge that psychological evaluations should serve only as corroborating evidence and should not be construed as sufficient evidence upon which to determine truth. All evidence must be weighed appropriately to assess the veracity of a claim. Forensic evaluators must also be aware that some psychological disorders are more likely to be associated with experiences of sexual assault and abuse. For example, certain populations such as the intellectually disabled and other populations with cognitive difficulties may be at an increased risk of sexual assault. These risks should be assessed and weighed appropriately in conjunction with all of the evidence in cases where the claimant may have difficulty communicating or recalling the entire event. + +The legal system has an obligation to be mindful of discrimination faced by victims and biases faced by the accused. Further investigation of pathways and other possible causal mechanisms of false allegations may help elucidate more evidence that can be utilized in the determination of truth in a sexual assault case. + +REFERENCESAhlgrim-Delzell, L., & Dudley, J.R. (2001). Confirmed, unconfirmed, and false allegations of abuse made by adults with mental retardation who are members of a class action lawsuit. *Child Abuse and Neglect*, 25, 1121–1132. + +American Psychiatric Association. (1994). *Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders* (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. + +American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Bernstein, E., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal orlervous & Mental Disease, 174, 318-323. Bessmer, S. (1984). The laws of rape. New York, NY: Praeger. Binder, R. L., & McNiel, D. E. (2007). 'He said-She said": The role of the forensic evaluator in determining credibility of plaintiffs who allege sexual exploitation and boundary violations. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 5 -218. Bishy, J., Leitz, J., , C., & , V. (2010). Decreases in recollective experiences following acute alcohol: A dose-response study. Psychopbarmacology, 208, 67-74. Block, S. (2006). Rape and sexual power in early America. Chapel •, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Boag, S. (2010). Repression, suppression, and conscious awareness. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 27, 164-181. Breh, D. C., & Seidler, G. H. (2009). is peritraumatic dissociation a risk factor for PTSD? Journal of Trauma and Div :aviation, 8, 53-69. H., J., & Turk V. (1995). The sexual abuse of adults with learning disabilities: Report of a second two-year incidence survey. Mental Handicap Research, 8, 3-23. Burnam, M. A, MI, J. A., Golding, J. M., Siegel, J. M. Sorenson, S. B., Forsythe, A. B., ... Telles, C. A. (1988). Sexual assault and mental disorders in a community population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 843-850. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., & Kuijpers, M. (2003). Dissociative experiences are related to commissions in emotional memory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 71-725. Cederborg, & Lamb, M. (2008). Interviewing alleged victims with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 49-58. Chronback, L.J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475-494. Clare, I. C. H., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1993). Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation and acquiescence in people with mild learning difficulties (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogation. British Journal of Clinical Ps)rhology, 32, 295-301. Clay-Warner, J., & Burt, C. H. (2005). Rape reporting after reforms: Have times really changed? Violence Against Women, 11, 150-176. Grego, A., Holguin, S. R., Panda, M., Mota, N., Corral, M., & Cadaveira, E (2009). Binge drinking affects attentional and visual working memory processing in \_young university students. Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 1870-1879. =, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). What's good for the goose cooks the gander: Inconsistencies between the law and psychology of voluntary intoxication and sexual assault. In W. O'Donohue & E. Levensky (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology. London, UK: Elsevier. + +Eisen, M. L., & S. J. (2001). Dissociation, memory and suggestibility in adults and children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, S49-S73. Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212-220. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, E T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. Francis, L (1996). Appendix 1. In L Francis (Ed.), Date rape: Feminism, philosophy, and the law. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Freud, S. (1910). The origin and development of psychoanalysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 21, 181-218. Galdos, P., & van Os, J. (1995). Gender, psychopathology, and development: from pubertrt ail adulthood. Schizophrenia Research, 14, 105-112. Garry, M., , C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1998). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 208-214. Gershuny, B. S., & Thayer, J. F. (1999). Relations among psychological trauma, dissociative phenomena, and trauma-related distress: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 631-657. Giesbrecht, T., Geraerts, E., & Merckelbach, H. (2007). Dissociation, memory commission errors, and heightened autonomic reactivity, Psychiatry Research, 150, 277-285. Giesbrecht, T., S. J., Lillienfild, S. O., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). Cognitive processes in dissociation: An analysis of core theoretical assumptions. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 617-647. Gross, B. (2009). False rape allegations: An assault on justice. Forensic Examiner, 18, 66-70. Groben, D., & Madsen, L. (2005). lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 357-369. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5,303-314. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Henry, L. (2003). Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability: The importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 241-252. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Joyce, T. (2011). Interviewing adults with intellectual disabilities. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 16-21. MI, D. S. (1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electron! clournal of Human Sexuality, 1. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/ tocvl.htm Hemmens, C. (2008). American skin: The lacrosse scandal and the intersection of race, class, gender, and injustice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 297-306. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258-272. Hindmarch, I., & Brinkmann, R. (1999). Trends in the use of alcohol and other drugs in cases of sexual assault. Human Psychopharmacology, 14, 225-231. + +- Horvath, M., & J. (2005). Drug-assisted rape and sexual assault: Definitional, conceptual and methodological developments. Journal of Investigative and Offender Profiling, 2, 203-210. Hyman, I. E. J., & Billings, F. J. (1998). Individual differences and the creation of false childhood memories, Memory, 6, 1-20. Hyman, I. F. J., & Pentland, J. (19%). The role of mental imagery in the creation of false childhood memories, Journal of Memory and language, 35, 101-117. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2005). investigating sexual assaults: Concepts and issues paper. Alexandria, VA: Author. Joyce, T. A. (2003). An audit of investigations into allegations of abuse involving adults with intellectual disability. Journal of intellectual Disability Research, 47, 606-616. Kanin, E. J. (1994). False allegations of rape. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 81-92. Kassin, M. K., Drisin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, +- A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38. Kebbel, M.vR., & Hatton, C. (1999). People with mental retardation as witnesses in court: A review. Mental Retardation, 37, 179-187. Kebbel, M. R., Hatton, C., & , S. D. (2004). Witnesses with intellectual disabilities in court: What questions are asked and what influence do they have? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 23-35. Kelly, L., (2010). The (In)credible words of women: False allegations in European rape research. Violence Against Women, 76, 1345-1355. Kensinger, E. A. (2007). Negative emotion enhances memory accuracy: Behavioral and neuroscience evidence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 213-218. Kindt, M., Van den Hout, M., & Buck, N. (2005). Dissociation related to subjective memory fragmentation and intrusions but not to objective memory disturbances. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 36, 43-59. Lamont, S., & Brunero, S. (2009). Personality disorder prevalence and treatment outcomes: A literature review. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 631-637. Lenzenweger, M. F., Lane, M. C., Loranger, A. W., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). DSM-IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, Biological Psychiatry, a 553-564. Lieb, K., Zanarini, M. C., Schmahl, C., Linehan, M. M., & Bohus, M. (2004). Borderline personality disorder. Lancet, 364, 453-461. Lin, R. Y., Heacock, L. C., & Fogel, J. E (in press). Drug-induced, dememtiaassociated and non-dememtia, non-drug delirium hospitalizations in the United States, 1998-2005: An analysis of the national inpatient sample. PubMed. Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lisak, D., Gardiner, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases, Violence Against Women, 16, 1318-1334. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572. + +Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518-537. Loftus, E. F. (1997). Creating false memories. Scientific American, 27,70-75. Loftus, E. F., Coan, J. A., & Pickrell, J. E. (1996). Manufacturing false memories using bits of reality. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognitionl (pp. 195-220). Mahwah, N : Erlbaum Associates,. Loftus, E. F., , D. G., & , H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into visual memory. Journal of aperimental Psychology, Human Learning, and Memory, 4, 19-31. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13,585-589. Lonsway, K. A. (2010). Trying to move the elephant in the living room: Responding to the challenge of false rape reports. Violence Against Women, 16, 1356-1371. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. Mazzoni, G. A. L., Loftus, E. F., Seitz, A., & S. J. (1999). Changing beliefs and memories through dream interpretation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 125-144. McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). A new solution to the recovered memory debate. Pe:spectates on Psychological Science, 2, 126-134. Meloy, J. R. (1989). Unrequited love and the wish to kill: Diagnosis and treatment of borderline eratomania. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 477-492. Merckelbach, H., Campo, J., Hardy, S., & Geisbrecht, T. (2005). Dissociation and fantasy proneness in psychiatric patients: A preliminary study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46, 181-185. Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & M., H. (2002). Modeling the connection between self-reported trauma and dissociation in a student population. Personality and Individual litlferences, 32, 695-705. Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Rassin, E., & Horselenberg, R. (2000). Dissociative experiences and interrogative suggestibility in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1133-1140. Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Wessel, i., & van Koppen, P. J. (1998). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scare (GSS): Further data on its reliability, validity, and metacognition correlates. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 203-210. Mitra, M., Mouradian, V. E., & Diamond, M. (2011). Sexual violence and victimization against men with disabilities. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 41, 494-497. Ofshe, R., & Walters, E. (1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and se.rual boteria. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons/MacMillan Publishing Co. Pesant, N. & Zadra, A. (2004). Working with dreams in therapy: What do we know and what should we do? Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 489-512. Rosenthal, T. T., & McGuinness, T. M. (1986). Dealing with delusional patients: Discovering the distorted truth. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 8, 143-154. Sanders, B., & Giolas, M. H. (1991). Dissociation and childhood trauma in psychologically disturbed adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 50-54. + +- Setrakian, L. (2007, April 1). Charges dropped in lacrosse case; North Carolina Attorney General describes Nifong's case as driven by -bravado." ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com Shalock, R. L. (2007). The renaming of -Mental Retardation": Understanding the change to the term -Intellectual Disability." Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 116-124. Spinetta, M., Woodlee, M., Feinberg, L., Stroud, C., Schallert, K., Cormack, L., ... Schallen, T. (2008). Alcohol-induced retrograde memory impairment in rats: prevention by caffeine. Psychophartnacology, 201, 361-371. Spohn, C., & Homey, J. (1992). Rape law reform: A grassroots revolution and its impact. New York, NY: Plenum. Taylor, S., & K. C. (2007). Until protrn innocent: Political correctness and the shameful injustices of the lacrosse case. New York, NY: St. Press. Ternes, M., & Yuille, J. C. (2008). Eyewitness memory and eyewitness identification performance in adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research In Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 519-531. Tichenor, V., Mannar, C. R., Weiss, D. S., Metzler, T. J., & Ronfeldt, H. M. (1996). The relationship of peritraumatic dissociation and posttraumatic stress: Findings in female Vietnam theater veterans.Jortmai ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1054-1059. 'Haden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). &tent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Surrey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. van Asselt, A. D. I., Dirksen, C. D., Amtz, A., & Severens, J. L. (2007). The cost of borderline personality disorder. Societal cost of illness in BPD-patients, European Psychiatry, 22, 354-361. van der Kolk, B. A. (1998). Trauma and memory. Psychiatry & Clinical Neumsciences, 52, 97-109. van der Kolk, B. A., & Fisler, R. (1995). Dissociation and the fragmentary nature of traumatic memories: Overview and exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 505-525. Waller, N. G., Putnam, F. W., & Carlson, E. B. (1996). Types of dissociation and dissociative types: A taxometric analysis of dissociative experiences. Psychological Methods, 7,300-321. Weiner, M. (2001). The perpetrators and their modus operandi. In M. LeBeau & +- A. l'iolozayani (Eds.), Drug-facilitated sexual assault: A forensic handbook. London, UK: Academic Press. Wolitzky-Taylor, K. 13., Resnick, H. S., McCauley, J. L., Amstader, A. B., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Ruggiero, K. J. (2011). Is reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with reported versus unreported rape experiences in the National Women's Study-Replication. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 807-832. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78d613829b345dd9005a07385e1d621ea925d5cf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/EFTA02834066.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1410 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 29, + "chars": 79142, + "elapsed_seconds": 23.08, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_22.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_30.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_32.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_34.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_36.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_38.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 417.0029296875, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 417.0029296875, + 196.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 196.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.19, + 40.896 + ], + [ + 409.575, + 40.896 + ], + [ + 409.575, + 59.64 + ], + [ + 123.19, + 59.64 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 93.98, + 167.844 + ], + [ + 506.0950000000001, + 167.844 + ], + [ + 506.0950000000001, + 189.996 + ], + [ + 93.98, + 189.996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AREA REVIEWS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.76000000000002, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 350.56317138671875, + 150.66 + ], + [ + 350.56317138671875, + 165.47406005859375 + ], + [ + 242.76000000000002, + 165.47406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Pathways to False Allegations \nof Sexual Assault", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.07000000000002, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 412.31170654296875, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 412.31170654296875, + 220.5098876953125 + ], + [ + 182.07000000000002, + 220.5098876953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LEGAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE UNITED STATES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.775, + 473.03999999999996 + ], + [ + 445.06, + 473.03999999999996 + ], + [ + 445.06, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 145.775, + 498.96 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PATHWAYS TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 136.85, + 240.57 + ], + [ + 453.985, + 240.57 + ], + [ + 453.985, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 136.85, + 253.53000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Lying for Conscious and Unconscious Secondary Gain", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 398.055, + 344.25 + ], + [ + 398.055, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 358.02 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Denial of Consent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 116.025, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 213.60499999999996, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 213.60499999999996, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 116.025, + 110.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A False Memory", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 201.11, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 201.11, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 236.51999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Intoxication", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 179.095, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 179.095, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 110.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Antisocial Personality Disorder (or Conduct Disorder in Adolescents)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 392.7, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 392.7, + 383.13 + ], + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 383.13 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Borderline Personality Disorder", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 280.84, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 280.84, + 365.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 365.31000000000006 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Histrionic Personality Disorder", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 276.08, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 276.08, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 223.56000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Delirium", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 164.81500000000003, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 164.81500000000003, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 379.08000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Psychotic Disorders", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 221.34, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 221.34, + 615.5999999999999 + ], + [ + 115.42999999999999, + 615.5999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Dissociation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 180.285, + 490.86 + ], + [ + 180.285, + 504.63 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 504.63 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Intellectual Disability", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.05000000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 226.10000000000002, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 226.10000000000002, + 300.51 + ], + [ + 113.05000000000001, + 300.51 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 210.63, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 383.18, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 383.18, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 210.63, + 110.16000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REFERENCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 260.61, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 333.20000000000005, + 576.7199999999999 + ], + [ + 333.20000000000005, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 260.61, + 588.87 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 134 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 133 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 127 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 129 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834066" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_22.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_22.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff22686e842ef79f79313b8b6313474917232fef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_22.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:10daef0e9a751593ba1175a39f7f04aa39165d1e735eae6cf149d3a54c955cd4 +size 9368 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_30.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_30.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f938d3d95accdf26e31e49bf4c6763d63b9b2ba8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_30.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:77b84fcc5869039b6638ec8e86eddcdc2a6a4ff304f8e527864b9e9f399e2a11 +size 1276 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_32.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_32.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97983b1c4b05b39eae22fa5a0387a2ce66b8da4a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_32.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e25ffede55a093c02ffaa1cec04c5197de96ef50c76e5a6e7e2da047852d300d +size 1116 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_34.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_34.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d39d0ff377e0afd58e53e4c91bc8b024e45dda88 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_34.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9bfbe90a897b6ecd2cf39d1bec3e337cde95b864bab8f580065082d6c2fab6f3 +size 1087 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_36.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_36.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aca014fa3833da4ec385d79fcb44ba492fd8bbc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_36.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a5a3283276a67c7dcb5b5a4d4345c794be956397e75a426d1f24f23031d0c604 +size 1241 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_38.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_38.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..667a239d2e9f35968909339180fc5394bc19276e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834066/_page_1_Picture_38.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1532decca09394c7ee26ecbeb4594511295d5f1c72ce77ac3de9ecdb910bde39 +size 1137 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97e3a3eeee232c47178b8057bfd31a76faf1e7f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.md @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +# Exhibit D + +![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg) + +# Grooming and Seduction + +Park Dietz I + +Journal of Interpersonal Valence + +2018. Vol. 33(1) 28-36 + +The Autharls) 2017 + +Reprints and permission,: + +sagopub.contrournalsPemlissions.nav + +DOt 10.1177/0886260517742060 + +jourroh.sasopub.corrilhomery + +![](_page_1_Picture_12.jpeg) + +# Abstract + +Ken Lanning's recollections of the origins of the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques used by acquaintances to gain sexual access to and control over children is an important contribution to the history of the significant recognition that many cases of child sexual abuse occur at the hands of offenders who are acquaintances of the child and who do not need to use force, threats, or violence to gain the compliance of their victims. That this recognition was slow in coming is obvious in retrospect, as is true of any social problem that remains hidden for centuries only to burst into public consciousness over the course of a few years. In this article, I report the results of searches using Google Scholar to look at the introduction of this use of the term "grooming" to the peer-reviewed literature in 1984 and its increasing use through 2016. Since 2008, the usage has been adopted in hundreds of articles in the professional literature each year, suggesting that this usage of the term "grooming" will remain common in the decades ahead. I also examine the history of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse, particularly two archaic uses of the term: as a euphemism for any sexual or sexually stimulating encounter between child and adult and in the context of suggestions that it was the child who seduced the adult. To avoid resurrecting any confusion over these issues, it would be a mistake to abandon "grooming" in favor of "seduction." I conclude that the best strategy may be that adopted by Lanning of using the terms grooming and seduction in tandem, explaining the parallels between the seduction of one adult by another and the grooming or seduction of a child by an adult. + +### Corresponding Author: + +Park Dieu. Park Dietz & Associates. Newport Beach. CA 92663. USA. + +Email: expert@parkdteaassoctates.com + +&#x27;Park Diea & Associates. Newport Beach. CA. USA + +### Keywords + +grooming. seduction, child sexual abuse, acquaintance molestation. litigation + +# Grooming and Seduction + +In the development of knowledge of child sexual abuse, few discoveries could outweigh the importance of recognizing that a large proportion of offenses are committed by acquaintances of the child using techniques other than force or threat of force. No individual has done more to share this insight with the international law enforcement community than Ken Lanning, whose writings and teachings have also reached mental health professionals, those who work in the criminal justice and social service systems, those who care for the nation's children, and countless concerned citizens and parents. + +The application of the terms "seduction" or "grooming" to these nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent techniques has been in the service of disseminating this important insight, which first burst into public consciousness as a real possibility in the mid-I 980s as a result of partially untrue media reports about the McMartin School case and the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe, both of which stories first broke in 1984. Yet even today, far too many people, including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters arc too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent. + +# Grooming + +Lanning (2018) is precisely correct in dating to the 1980s the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques for gaining sexual access to children and in his observation that during the 1980s, this usage gradually increased. Using the search capabilities of Google Scholar, l found no use of the word "grooming" to mean such techniques in conjunction with the terms "child sexual abuse," "child molestation," or "child molester" in the professional literature from 1850 through 1983. The first publication identified by Google Scholar as using the term "grooming" in this way was an article by Conte (1984) citing Groth and Birnbaum (1979) for the proposition that "[On most cases, except those involving abuse by a stranger, the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are + +![](_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg) + +Figure I. Use of the term "grooming" in association with "child sexual abuse" in the professional literature accessed by Google scholar. 1984-2016. as of 25 August. 2017. + +expertly applied" (p. 558). troth and Birnbaum accurately describe the process (at p. 142-143), but do not use the term "grooming." + +Figure I shows how the maximum number of publications in the database using the teen "grooming" for this meaning' has increased since 1984. For the remainder of the 1980s, zero to nine publications per year used "grooming" for this meaning. From 1990-1999, the annual frequency from eight to 63, and from 2000 to 2009, from 64 to 227. From 2010 to 2016, the annual frequency from 282 to 533. + +My own recollection of the growing use of the term "grooming" in this context during the 1980s and 1990s is that it spread not only through peerreviewed literature and books, but also though the teaching and training being conducted by Ken Lanning, Ann Burgess, and other thought leaders of the era, and that it was gradually adopted by journalists and the general public as well. As the term came to be widely applied, it became increasingly obvious that offenders who groom children often groom the parents of those children, the organizations through which they work or volunteer with children, and the communities in which they function. The success of these offenders in doing so makes it all the more difficult for observers to overcome the false belief that such a "nice guy" could not be harming children (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). + +Lanning (2018) points to some of the ways in which the term "grooming" has been misapplied (e.g., to refer to the use of "lures" in stranger cases or what might be expected parental behaviors in intrafamilial cases) but does + +not mention the misuse of the term in civil litigation. Where a victim is suing an employer or organization in connection with the sexual abuse of a minor by an employee or volunteer, it has become commonplace for the victim's advocate to argue that the failure to detect "grooming" was negligent on the part of the employer or organization. If their use of the term "grooming" always encompassed excessive focus on a particular child, time alone with the child, or inappropriate touching, this usage might not be problematic, but when "grooming" is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well-established predictors of child sexual abuse when there is no evidence whatsoever that they can help discriminate between good employees and volunteers, on the one hand, and risky employees and volunteers, on the other hand. In the litigation context, efforts to expand the concept of "grooming" to encompass desirable behaviors that are not associated with elevated risk is misleading, particularly when coupled with the presumption or suggestion that "grooming" always reflects an intent or plan to offend or, worse, that an offense can be proved by the fact that the accused engaged in "grooming." + +## **Seduction** + +Although I agree with Lanning (2018) that the term "seduction" is preferable to the term "grooming," at least when there is an opportunity to explain how similar the seduction of a child is to the seduction of an age-appropriate partner, there is ample historical reason to be cautious about the use of the term "seduction" in this context without further explanation. This is because of two archaic usages of "seduction" in the older literature. + +### *Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense* + +One of the archaic usages of "seduction," found often in the older scientific literature, is as a vague euphemism for any occurrence of child sexual abuse or an event that may have been sexually simulating to the child, as in these passages: + +- • "[A] shock of some kind is held responsible for the neurosis—an attack by an animal, a threat of castration, a seduction, an actual viewing of parental coitus . . ." (Isaacs, 1928, p. 193). +- • ". . . I wondered whether the precocity of these fantasies and their frequency might not be due to actual seduction that the child had experienced . . ." (Rank, 1942, p. 56). + +- • “. . . It was expected that a connection would be found between the child’s symptom and the seduction, which was assumed to be the traumatic factor . . .” (Bornstein, 1946, p. 230). +- • “. . . [W]here father or mother, either consciously or unconsciously, elevate the child into a substitute sexual partner or commit real acts of seduction with him . . .” (A. Freud, 1968, p. 45). +- • “If we assume that the term ‘seduction’ refers to any kind of sexual encounter, it can range from milder types, such as exposing oneself and enticing the child to follow suit, all the way to forcible rape” (Finch, 1974, p. 34). +- • “She was then able to use the dolls to reveal the drama of her own seduction and the ensuing family chaos . . .” (Mrazek, 1980, p. 279). + +Here “seduction” is not referring to the process by which a child is groomed or seduced but to the offensive event itself. Freud’s seduction hypothesis “. . . generalized that the roots of all adult neuroses lay in childhood sexual contacts with adults” (Gagnon, 1965, p. 177). The vagueness of this use of “seduction” makes it impossible to determine which child sexual abuse behaviors are and are not encompassed by the term and suggests that “seduction” may mean different specific things to different authors. + +Authors sometimes imply that “seduction” does not include violence, as when they distinguish it from rape or other violent assaults, as in these examples: + +- • “Klein has stated that an experience of seduction or rape by a grown-up person may have serious effects upon the child’s psychic development . . .” (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 500). +- • “[T]he possible . . . event of seduction, incest, or rape . . .” (█████ & Sarrel, 1969, p. 606). +- • “Violence is rarely found to accompany the incestuous act, possibly because seduction, passive compliance, or sexual curiosity or exploration promote such relationships” (█████, 1979, p. 8). +- • “Children can be broken much more easily than adults, and the effect on them of torture, hatred, seduction, and rape—or even of indifference, of deprivation of love and care—is the devastating one of developmental arrest . . .” (Shengold, 1979, p. 537). + +Although this usage comports with the modern idea of seduction or grooming insofar as it is to be distinguished from the use of force, threats, or violence, we would not today distinguish seduction from rape but rather would view seduction (or grooming) as a means of completing a rape or other sexual offense with minimal resistance or risk of disclosure. + +Cioffi (1976) interpreted Freud as using the concept of seduction to refer only to nonviolent sexual assaults, writing ". . . he duly reported that he had discovered the specific cause of psychoneurotic disorder: A passive sexual experience before puberty. In other words, a seduction" (p. 275). Cioffi's (1976) quotations of Freud in the same article support this interpretation: "Freud later assigned to his patients in phrases like: 'hysterics trace back their symptoms to fictitious traumas'—or patients 'ascribe their symptoms to passive sexual experiences in early childhood"' (p. 277). Even here, however, what constitutes a "passive sexual experience" is unclear, as it could mean the offender did not use violence, that the child did not resist, or that the child was not an active participant. + +# Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer + +A second archaic usage of "seduction" is to refer to the child's tempting of the offender. This is diametrically opposed to our current thinking about child sexual abuse in its suggestion that it is the child who is at fault, as in these examples: + +- ". . [A] most striking feature was that these children were distinguished as unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities. Thus, it is not remarkable that frequently we considered the possibility that the child might have been the actual seducer rather than the one innocently seduced" (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 514). +- "The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals and their victims are usually known to be aggressive and seductive children" (Revitch & Weiss, 1962, p. 78). +- "In many [cases] it was highly probable that the child had used his charm in the role of seducer rather than that he had been the innocent one who had been seduced ..." (Bender & Grugett, 1952, p. 826). +- (1907) and Bender and Blau (1937) have commented on how charming and seductive these children can be" (Rosenfeld, Nadelson, Krieger, & Backman, 1977, p. 332). + +Three examples of authors attempting to remedy this archaic view are as follows: + +- "... Although there may be a different quality to a seduction than to an attack, it must be remembered that even a seductive child cannot have %II adult comprehension of the act she is courting and cannot be viewed as responsible in this area" (Lipton & Roth, 1969, p. 859). + +"Because the affectional needs of the child are not adequately met by the parents, the child may indiscriminately relate to adults in an affection-seeking manner in an effort to ensure her emotional survival. + +Numerous other investigators have characterized this behavior of the child as 'seductive'. However, our study indicates that this behavior is instead the child's often desperate attempt to meet her needs for care and attention . The child's behavior may often appear sexualized to an adult .. . As a result, it is more appropriate to describe this behavior as affection-seeking rather than seductive" (Johnston, 1979, pp. 948-949). + +- "'Everybody knows' that adults must protect themselves from groundless accusations of seductive or vindictive young people. . . . What everybody does not know, and would not want to know, is that the vast majority of investigated accusations prove valid and that most of the young people were less than eight years old at the time of initiation" (Summit, 1983, p. 178). + +# Conclusion + +Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term "grooming" has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come. We can and should clarify the meaning of the term wherever possible to avoid misuse or misleading of our audiences. We could benefit from prospective studies of the frequency of grooming-like behaviors among adults in target-rich environments such as schools, youth sports, and youth groups, which could help distinguish behaviors portending risk from those that do not, though it would require a large sample and a long time to reveal at least some of the offenders in the sample. + +The two archaic uses of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse identified here are too recent and too widely known to justify completely abandoning the term "grooming" in favor of "seduction," even if it were possible to do so. Perhaps the best strategy is that adopted by Lanning (2018) of explaining the parallel between the courtship and mating rituals that adults use with one another and the courtship and mating rituals that some use with children. + +# Declaration of Conflicting Interests + +The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research. authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +### Funding + +The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +# Note + +- I. The data on which Figure I is based arc derived from year-by-year searches of Goo& Scholar for the combination of the terms "child sexual abuse" and "grooming," excluding citations and patents. One should not assume that the underlying database is complete or that all the publications included in the count use "grooming" in this way or represent peer-reviewed literature, as newsletters. government reports, books, and other documents also make their way into such searches. Nonetheless. the graph gives an adequate representation of the growing use of the term "grooming" for this purpose. + +# References + +- K. (1907). The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of sexual activity. In E. MI (Ed.), Selected papers on ps;rho-analysis (pp. 47.63). London, England: Hoganh Press. Bender. L., & Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults. American Journal of Orthopsychially, 7, 500-518. Bender, L., & Grugett, Jr., A. E. (1952). A follow-up study of children who had atypical sexual experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 22. 825-837. Bornstein, B. (1946). Hysterical twilight states in an eight-year-old child. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 2.229.240. Cioffi, F. (1976). Was Freud a liar? Orthomolecular Psychiatry. 5.275-280. Conte, 1. R. (1984). The justice system and sexual abuse of children. Social Service Review, 58, 556-568. Finch, S. M. (1974). Effects of adult sexual seduction on children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 3, 33-35. Freud, A. (1968). Indications and contraindications for child analysis. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 23. 37-46. Gagnon, J. H. (1965). Female child victims of sex offenses. Social Problems, 13, 176-192. Grath, A. N., & Bimbaum, H. J. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Isaacs, S. S. (1928). The mental hygiene of the pre-school child. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 8. 186-193. Johnston, M. S. K. (1979). The sexually mistreated child: Diagnostic evaluation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 3, 943-951. Kris, E. (1950). The significance of Freud's earliest discoveries. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 31, 108-116. Laming, K. V. (2018). The evolution of grooming: Concept and term. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 33, 5-16. + +- Lanning, K. V., & Dietz. P. (2014). Acquaintance molestation and youth-serving organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2815-2838. doi: 10.1177/0886260514532360 M , M., & Sarrel, P. M. (1969). Some psychological aspects of seduction, incest, and rape in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 606.619. Lipton. G. L., & Roth. E. I. (1969). Rape: A complex management problem in the pediatric emergency room. The Journal of Pediatrics, 75, 859-866. Mrazek, D. A. (1980). The child psychiatric examination of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect, 4, 275-284. Rank, B. (1942). Where child-analysis stands today. American Imago; A Psychoanalytic Journal for the Arts and Sciences. 3(3). 41.60. Revitch, E., & Weiss. R. G. (1962). The pedophiliac offender. Diseases of the Nervous System, 23, 73-78. Rosenfeld. A. A., Nadelson, C. C., Krieger. M., & Backman, J. H. (1977). Incest and sexual abuse of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, +- 16. 327-339. Shengold. L. L. (1979). Child abuse and deprivation: Soul murder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 27, 533-559. +- M. (1979). Perspective on incest as child abuse. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 12. 3-16. Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177-193. + +### Author Biography + +Park Dietz, MD, MPH, PhD, was educated at Cornell, Johns and the University of Pennsylvania. and taught for 10 years at Harvard Medical School and the University of Virginia School of law and School of Medicine. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at University of Cal ifomia, Los Angeles (UCLA). As president of Park Dietz & Associates. Inc.. he regularly oversees forensic evaluations of psychological damages and expert assessments of liability in child sexual abuse litigation, and as president of Threat Assessment Group, Inc., he regularly participates in the development and implementation of programs to prevent and respond to misconduct in organizations and institutions. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3a5b890036b477b1a0063296e5a87145ace2619 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/EFTA02834095.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,809 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 20765, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.37, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_12.jpeg", + "_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 417.143310546875, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 417.143310546875, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and \nSeduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 144.98907470703125 + ], + [ + 254.2675018310547, + 144.98907470703125 + ], + [ + 254.2675018310547, + 181.2489013671875 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 181.2489013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abstract", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.3874969482422, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.3874969482422, + 278.21759033203125 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 278.21759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Corresponding Author:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.63160705566406, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.63160705566406, + 610.3694458007812 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 610.3694458007812 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keywords", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 158.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 158.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 209.96762084960938 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 209.96762084960938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.2688217163086, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.2688217163086, + 476.46510314941406 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 476.46510314941406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 392.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 427.80499999999995, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 427.80499999999995, + 500.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 500.5799999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.39499999999998, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 309.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 143.39499999999998, + 309.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 367.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 367.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 563.76 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 563.76 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 577.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 577.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.68697357177734, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.68697357177734, + 158.732421875 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 158.732421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Note", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.85710906982422, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.85710906982422, + 208.98236083984375 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 208.98236083984375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 201.71580505371094, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 201.71580505371094, + 324.8623962402344 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 324.8623962402344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Author Biography", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 424.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 424.2323913574219 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "FigureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834095" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93644028220c1fc361dd9feb0639e0f57d53a9ff --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:177653089a54e64dd28adbdae6fec2443d0d8dce399d1f72333642c7c0fe0cc4 +size 1104 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_12.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d4532a3fbaa3695f848c428e6539b1ed5df2a77 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_1_Picture_12.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ca9d96149e68096dd4a28152c05d283eca63083d03e9d38d5a4537e0360b968c +size 1763 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..817ba34df6199aa14628b5a877207b619d64bdb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834095/_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fb0b5ce9f1ce08556b7d1b7c0ae67e5b6a66a4744441454dc9b5b0694de1e565 +size 18984 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23397f83ae70acf6d540eefd2adf04e00ba1a93e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.md @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +### THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DR. PARK DIETZ AND DR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| I. A. B. C. I. | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS FROM DR. DIETZ Background Legal Standard Discussion Response to the Opinions of Dr. Rocchio | 1 6 9 9 | +|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| 2. | Opinions as to Hindsight Bias | 12 | +| 3. | Opinions as to the "Halo Effect" | 15 | +| 4. | Opinions as to "Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault" | 18 | +| 5. | Opinions Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses | 22 | +| 6. | Opinions Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms | 23 | +| II. | CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY' | OF DR. | +| | ELIZABETH LOFTUS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED | 25 | +| A. | Background | 25 | +| B. | Applicable Law | 26 | +| C. | Discussion | 30 | +| I. | Opinions as to False Memory Formation | 30 | +| 2. | Commonsense Principles Within the Ken of the Jury | 33 | +| 3. | Opinions Bearing on Witness Credibility and Demeanor | 34 | +| 4. | Factual Narratives About the Case | 35 | +| III. | IF DEFENSE CHALLENGES TO DR. ROCCHIO ARE ACCEPTED, THE DEFENSE | | +| | EXPERTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED | lg | +| CONCLUSION | | 17 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 760 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2014) | 14 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| +| Amorgianos v. Nat'! R.R. Pass. Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) | 8 | +| Barnette v. United Slates, No. 12 Civ. 327, 2021 WL 949848 (W.D.N.C. March 12, 2021) | 19 | +| Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1996) | 10, 26 | +| Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) | 6 | +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | passim | +| Doe by and through Pike v. Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d 243 (D. Mass. 2019) | 15, 16 | +| Doe by and through Pike v. Pike, No. 17 Civ. 40021 (D. Mass.) | 16 | +| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) | 7 | +| HighlandS2a1 Mgmt. v. Schneider, 551 F. Supp. 2d 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) | 9 | +| Hygh v. M, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992) | passim | +| (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) | 8, 20, 39 | +| Kumho Tire Co., Inc. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) | 7, 10 | +| Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14 Civ. 877 (PSG), 2015 WL | 6954967 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015)32 | +| (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) | 9 | +| Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) | 1 | +| Marx & Co. v. Diners Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1977) | 9 | +| Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) | 7, 22 | +| P.S. ex rel. Nelson v. The Farm, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D. Kan. 2009) | 27 | +| R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 16 Civ. 01056, 2019 WL 6053223 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) | 32, 33, 38 | +| United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973) | 31 | +| United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991) | 21 | +| United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2005) | 29 | +| United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1992) | 30, 31 | +| United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 1994) | 9 | +| United States v.=, 975 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1992) | 31 | +| United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1996) | 29, 37 | +| United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2006) | passim | +| United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1999) | 23, 24, 25, 38 | +| Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2001) | 33 | +| Moore, 798 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1986) | 31 | +| Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) | 14, 22 | +| Mustaga, 753 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) | 18 | +| Randall, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.) | 10 | +| Redwood, 216 F. Supp. 3d 890 (N.D. III. 2016) | 30 | +| Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1986) | 32 | + +| United States v. Shiraishi, | No. 17 Cr. 582 (JMS) (RLP), 2019 WL 1386365 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, | | +|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| 2019) | | 30, 31, 32 | +| United States v. | 148 F. App'x 867 (11th Cir. 2005) | 29 | +| United States v. Stroting, | 838 F. App'x 624 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) | 18 | +| United States v. | 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) | 18 | +| United States v. Valle, | No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) | 3 | +| United States v. Washington, | 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) | 18 | +| United States v. Welch, 368 | F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2004) | 37 | +| United States v. Yousef,327 | F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) | | +| v. State, | 171 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App. 2005) | | + +## Other Authorities + +| Bennett & 0'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming | in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| +| Abuse 957 (2014) | 11 | +| Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children," 12 J. Sexual Aggression 287 (2006) | 11 | +| Park Dietz, "Grooming and Seduction", 33 J. Interpersonal Violence 28 (2018) | 24 | +| R. Schmechel, T. O'Toole, C. Easterly, & E. Loftus, | Beyond the Ken? Testing Jurors' | +| Understanding of Eyewitness Reliability Evidence, | 46 Jurimetrics J. 177-214 (2006) 31 | + +# Rules + +| Fed R. Evid. 70 | passim | +|--------------------------------|------------| +| Fed R. Evid. 704(a) | 8 | +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 | 25 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 7 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 703 | 30, 33, 35 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 adv. comm. n | 8 | + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully moves to preclude certain opinions from Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Rather than focus narrowly on reliable opinions that would be relevant to issues in this case, the defendant proposes to have Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus testify broadly about a wide variety of topics, from testimony about various psychological disorders to testimony regarding the generation of false memories in laboratory settings, that are not helpful to the jury. Many of those opinions are also unreliable, squarely within the ken of the average juror, or would invade the province of the Court and the jury if offered. + +To the extent Dr. Rocchio is permitted to testify on her opinions, the Court should admit reliable opinions on the same topics by defense experts. But the defense's expert notice for Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus is far more expansive, and some of the defense's responsive opinions are not reliable. The Court should preclude many of their opinions. + +# I. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS FROM DR. DIETZ + +# A. Background + +As described in the defense expert notice, attached as Exhibit AI, the defense offers the opinions of Dr. Dietz, an expert psychiatrist, both in response to the Government's expert Dr. Lisa Rocchio and on several other subjects. + +The Government moves to file a redacted version of Exhibit A and to seal Exhibit B. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims, including victims who have not been publicly identified, and who are a subject of the Court's order granting the motion to let certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms, and third parties. Because the Government has already moved to file a redacted version of Exhibit A (see Dkt. No. 418), the same version is attached to this motion. + +As to Dr. Rocchio's opinions, Dr. Dietz offers the following responsive opinions: + +- The word "grooming" "imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either," including to the defendant. (Ex. A at 3). +- "[G]rooming has no consistent definition, and concerns have been raised that there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." (Id. at 4 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). +- "In any particular population of alleged victims, patients, or plaintiffs—including those whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—the determination of whether grooming has occurred is a subjective judgment hinging largely on the credibility of individuals. Such judgments have no known error rate and cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced." +- "There is no generally accepted theory of grooming by third parties," and it is not accepted in the relevant community. "[I]t has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error." +- The notion that "individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse" is "a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore" that is "not based on empirical data." + +As explained below, the Government agrees that Dr. Dietz may offer an opinion on the difficulty of accurately determining whether an act constitutes grooming, in response to Dr. Rocchio. Although his remaining opinions purport to respond to Dr. Rocchio, however, they are themselves unreliable or invade the province of the jury, and should be precluded. + +Beyond his response to Dr. Rocchio's opinions, Dr. Dietz offers several additional opinions, to which the Government objects as discussed herein. As to "hindsight bias," Dr. Dietz opines: + +- Hindsight bias, or "the tendency to overestimate how predictable or foreseeable an event is after being informed about the outcome of an event," exists and has been found in various experiments. (Ex. A at 4-5). +- Hindsight bias "affects legal judgments." (Id. at 5). + +- Awareness of the impact of hindsight bias "should temper any claims that so called 'grooming' behaviors should have been noticed and either reported or avoided and that failing to do so constitutes knowledge or intent." (Id.). + +As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions are within the ken of the jury and invade the province of the jury and the Court. + +Dr. Dietz also offers the following opinions as to the "Halo effect": + +- The "Halo effect" is "a cognitive bias in impression formation whereby the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated." (Id.). +- "Like many people who achieve great power and wealth, Jeffirely Epstein exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs." (Id. at 6). +- Epstein's personality flaws "allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities." (Id. at 7).2 + +As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions are an irrelevant invitation to jury nullification and an improper vehicle for introducing a factual narrative. + +Dr. Dietz offers a lengthy series of objectionable opinions as to "Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault Allegations." (Id. at 7). In relevant part, Dr. Dietz opines: + +- "False allegations of sexual assault do occur, and there are multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault." (Id. at 7). + +2 The disclosure also notes that "Dr. Dietz is also prepared to address Jeffrey Epstein's sexual behavior should it prove relevant" (id. at 7), but as he has not disclosed what opinions he may have about Epstein's sexual behavior, he has not provided adequate notice as to them and the Government does not address them further herein except to note that it will object if he attempts to offer them. See, e.g., United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the summary must reveal the expert's actual opinions."). + +He also lists these "pathways," in terms at times "drawn nearly verbatim" from a 2012 article in a forensic psychology journal, along with conjectures of ways in which these mental conditions or circumstances could hypothetically lead to false claims of sexual assault, including the following examples: + +- "Lying": "Often, humans lie because of what they perceive as the favorable consequences for lying; for sexual assault these consequences could be . . . the severe negative consequences that the alleged perpetrator experiences ... secondary gain from victim status ... excusing behaviors or characteristics of the alleged victim (e.g., sexual activity, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases) [or] financial gain." (Ex. A at 7). +- "Implied Consent": "A false allegation can arise when it was reasonable to believe consent was given but the alleged victim falsely believes that it was not." (Id. at 7-8). +- "False Memory": Dr. Dietz cites principally to the work of Dr. Loftus in describing the existence of false memories. (Id. at 8). +- "Intoxication": "A person who does not accurately recall events that occurred while he or she was under the influence or while experiencing the side effects of withdrawal . . . may confabulate or fill in the memory lapses with events that seem probable or which for some reason they come to believe 'must have' taken place." (Id.). +- "Antisocial Personality Disorder": "If an individual with antisocial personality disorder is likely to lie to achieve power and pleasure, a false allegation of sexual assault might be the means by which he or she attempts to achieve power over the falsely accused." (Id.). +- "Borderline Personality Disorder": "[A]n individual with BPD may use a sexual assault allegation as a way of impacting a third party for some desired outcome." (Id. at 8-9). +- "Histrionic Personality Disorder": "In times when attention is not being received to the desired level, a false allegation of sexual assault may help to pull individuals with histrionic personality disorder out of their depressed state." (Id. at 9). +- "Delirium": "Relevant to this pathway are the perceptual disturbances that may be present, including misinterpretations, illusions, or even hallucinations." (Id.). +- "Psychotic Disorders": "[D]elusions may lead a person to claim adamantly that sexual relations or events occurred that may be impossible or highly improbable." (Id. at 9). + +- "Dissociation": "[I]t is possible that in the event of a sexual assault, dissociation may cause a person to fill in the parts of the experience that are not clearly remembered with events that for them feasibly could have occurred." (Id. at 10). +- "Intellectual disability": "Intellectually disabled individuals, compared to individuals without ID, have vulnerabilities related to memory and communication that the legal system may not be equipped to handle adequately." (Id.). + +As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions invade the province of the jury, are within the ken of the jury, are unhelpful and prejudicial, are unreliable, and lack fit to any issue to be tried in this case. + +Dr. Dietz also offers several opinions generally related to the evaluation of witness credibility: + +- "Changes in the core details of the allegation are often used by professionals as indices in determining the credibility of a victim's claims." (Ex. A at 10). +- "Additional research is needed, but at this point there is little empirical support to indicate that being emotionally upset, distressed, or crying while reporting an assault indicates that the report is more likely to be true." (Id. at I I). +- "Individuals who have been sexually assaulted have higher rates of mental disorders than individuals who have not been sexually assaulted," and such disorders "can affect memory and recall, requiring assessment on a case-by-case basis." (Id. at 1I). + +As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions invade the province of the jury and are prejudicial. + +Finally, Dr. Dietz offers the following opinions regarding post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"): + +- Significant portions of victims following sexual assault exhibit "[v]arying degrees of post-traumatic stress symptomatology." (Ex. A at II). +- Post-traumatic stress symptoms include (but are not limited to) "distressing memories of the event; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with + +the traumatic event(s); and avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic events(s)." (Id.) + +- Individuals with this subset of post-traumatic stress symptoms "are particularly unlikely to engage in continued communication or friendly gestures with an alleged perpetrator, to wear clothing provided by an alleged perpetrator, or to unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event, any of which would be expected to elicit intense distress." (Id.). + +As discussed below, the Government objects that these opinions are either irrelevant or—to the extent intended to be applied to the context of this case—unreliable. + +## B. Legal Standard + +Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +The party that proffers the testimony bears the burden of showing that it is admissible by a preponderance of the evidence. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 & n.10 (1993) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987)). A district court's exclusion of expert testimony will be affirmed unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142 (1997). + +A threshold issue is, of course, whether the witness "is qualified to be an `expert' in the subject matter at issue. See Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). Testimony from a qualified expert is admissible only if the trial court determines that it is both relevant and reliable. Daubers, 509 U.S. at 589-90; see Kumho Tire Co., Inc. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Specifically, in Dauber!, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence "assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.- 509 U.S. at 597. "Dauber: applies to both defense and government experts." United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 148 (2d Cir. 2003). + +Applying Rule 702, the Court must determine whether the expert's reasoning and methodology underlying his testimony is valid, and whether that reasoning or methodology was applied reliably to the facts, so as to be relevant and helpful to the jury. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137. The reliability inquiry is flexible and "must be tied to the facts of a particular case." Id. at 150 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit has emphasized that "it is critical that an expert's analysis be reliable at every step." Amorgianos v. Nat R.R. Pass. Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2002). "In deciding whether a step in an expert's analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand." Id. Minor flaws with an otherwise reliable expert opinion will not bar admission of that evidence; however, the Court should exclude the expert evidence "if the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks 'good grounds' for his or her conclusions." Id. (quotation marks omitted). + +Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence state that relevant evidence is admissible when it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, but it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by, among other things, the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. "Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 . . . exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses." Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 595 (quoting authority omitted). + +Among other things, the Court "must consider whether an expert's proposed testimony would usurp the province of the judge to instruct on the law, or of the jury to make factual determinations." Island Intel!. Prop. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 09 Civ. 2675 (KBF), 2012 WL 526722, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) (citations omitted). While Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) provides that "[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue," the Second Circuit has admonished courts to take care "lest [the expert] be allowed to usurp the function of the judge." Marx & Co. v. Diners Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 511 (2d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, courts must not admit "opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach." Hygh v. , 961 F.2d 359, 363-64 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 704 advisory committee's note); see also United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994) ("When an expert undertakes to tell the jury what result to reach, this does not aid the jury in making a decision, but rather attempts to substitute the expert's judgment for the jury's." (emphasis in original)). Nor may an expert opine as to a party's state of mind, credibility, intent, or motive. See LaSalle Bank Nat'! Ass 'n v. CIBC Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8426 (WHP) (HBP), 2012 WL 466785, at \*7 + +(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) (collecting cases); see, e.g., Highland Capital Mgmt. v. Schneider, 551 F. Supp. 2d 173, 182-183, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). + +Finally, expert opinion should not be offered where it does not fit the facts of the case. "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, nonhelpful." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1996) ("expert testimony should be excluded if it is ... [inter alia] in essence an 'apples and oranges comparison"' (quoting Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir.1984))); see also LVL XIII Brands. Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., 209 F. Supp. 3d 612, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (expert opinion inadmissible where it is "a mismatch for the facts" of the case). + +# C. Discussion + +# 1. Response to the Opinions of Dr. Rocchio + +Although some opinions by Dr. Dietz respond to Dr. Rocchio, each opinion must itself be reliable and relevant, as required by Rule 702. See Yousef, 327 F.3d at 148. The Government agrees that at least one of these opinions can meet this test: it is "within the range where experts might reasonably differ," Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 153, and can be tested through "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof." Daubed, 509 U.S. at 596. Specifically, the Government agrees that Dr. Dietz can respond to Dr. Rocchio's testimony about grooming behaviors by suggesting that grooming does not have one settled definition. See 2/25/20 Tr. at 36:13-37:14, United States v. Randall, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.) (explaining that, in such a case, "the jury, not the trial court, should be the one to decide among conflicting experts"). + +That opinion is only one of those noticed by the defense, however. The defense expert notice includes four other sets of opinions that supposedly respond to Dr. Rocchio but do not satisfy the Daubert standard. First, the expert notice—which closely parallels the defense's Daubert motion—improperly discusses the facts of this particular case and comments on various legal documents, even though it offers no basis whatsoever to conclude that Dr. Dietz has any legal expertise or has reliably applied any expertise to the facts of this case. In particular, the notice states that Dr. Dietz will opine that Dr. Rocchio's opinion on grooming "carries the risk of imputing motive and intent to the Defendant" (Ex. A at 3), that "Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of 'grooming-by-proxy' to the defendant," and that "Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself," but instead that she "recruited and groomed minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein" (id. at 4). These opinions, while potentially relevant to the Court's consideration of a Daubert motion, are not properly put before a jury. + +Second, certain of Dr. Dietz's opinions about grooming are not themselves reliable or invade the province of the jury. In particular, it is circular to say that "grooming" "imputes motive and intent," because grooming is defined to be a strategic pattern of behavior used to develop relationships of attachment and coercion between perpetrators and victims. (Ex. A at 3). That is, if the behaviors lack the requisite motive and intent, they are not grooming behaviors. If Dr. Dietz's point is that determining motive and intent is for the factfinder (id.), the Government agrees—and Dr. Dietz should not be permitted to testify that grooming behaviors "impute[] motive and intent without adequate evidence." (Id.) The adequacy of the evidence is a question for the jury. Dr. Rocchio's testimony will inform the jury about the existence of grooming behaviors, but + +leave to the jury whether such behaviors occurred in this case. Dr. Dietz is free to tell the jury that, in his view, assessing whether grooming occurred is difficult and subjective. (Id. at 4). But it invades the province of the jury to go a further step and tell the jury that it lacks evidence to impute motive or intent. This is, in the most direct way possible, simply telling the jury "what result to reach." Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364 (internal quotation marks omitted). + +Third, Dr. Dietz proposes to opine that the notion that perpetrators target vulnerable victims is "a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore" that is unsupported by any empirical data and cannot be verified. (Ex. A at 4). This claim is itself unsupported by any evidence. It is also wrong. For instance, an article cited by Dr. Dietz describes a literature review of sexual abuse involving teachers, which identified "factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior." (See Bennett & O'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964 (2014), Dkt. No. 397 Ex. A; Ex A at 4 (citing the same)). Other scholars have recognized that "[g]rooming the child begins with recognizing a vulnerable child," such as children with "a poor relationship with their parents," who "do not have many friends," or who "have already been victimized." (Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children," 12 J. Sexual Aggression 287, 292 (2006), Dkt. No. 397 Ex. A (citations omitted)). Dr. Rocchio's clinical experience is supported by the academic literature, in which perpetrators' targeting of vulnerable victims is well established. Dr. Dietz must do more to show the reliability of his view than simply call this literature "clinical lore" and complain about the lack of data. + +Fourth, Dr. Dietz states that "no authority . . . support[s] a theory of grooming-by-proxy." (Ex. A at 4). To the extent that Dr. Dietz is pointing to the fact that the term "grooming-byproxy"—a term that Dr. Rocchio does not employ and that the defense has attempted to inject into the case—is not supported by the literature, that terminological claim is of course irrelevant to any issue. To the extent that Dr. Dietz purports to claim that there is no authority supporting the notion that a perpetrator can groom a victim for the purpose of making the victim engage in sexual activities with others, this claim is patently unreliable, as Dr. Rocchio will explain at the Daubert hearing: there is in fact ample literature on the pimp-prostitute relationship and other instances in which third parties groom an individual for the benefit of someone else. And if the Court excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion on this issue, Dr. Dietz's opinion is irrelevant. + +The Government acknowledges that Dr. Dietz can offer reliable, relevant opinions in response to Dr. Rocchio. But Dr. Dietz's proposed opinions include legal argument, opinions that invade the province of the jury, and opinions that are themselves unreliable. Those should be excluded. + +# 2. Opinions as to Hindsight Bias + +Dr. Dietz's opinions that hindsight bias exists and should "temper" conclusions about whether to impute knowledge to an individual (Ex. A at 5) do not convey any relevant information beyond the ken of the average juror and are not helpful to the jury. Instead, they are a virtually unprecedented attempt to psychoanalyze the jurors and to supplant both their role as judges of the facts and the Court's role in instructing them. + +The only possible relevance of hindsight bias in this case is the supposed bias of the jurors themselves. This is not a case where it matters whether the opinion of a witness or a party at some point suffered from hindsight bias. The primary purpose of the testimony is to convince the jurors to "temper" any conclusion that the defendant formed the requisite intent because the jurors might be suffering from hindsight bias. (Ex. A at 5). Of course a factfinder should not confuse the 12 + +benefit of hindsight with what was known at the time. But this commonplace truth does not need testimony from a psychiatric expert. + +The concept of hindsight bias is well within the ken of the average juror. "Hindsight bias is a common-sense concept—everyone knows that 'hindsight is 20/20.' v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 760 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014). The prevalence of this common saying shows that jurors plainly understand the ways in which hindsight can bias one's perspective. As such, expert testimony on it is unnecessary and inappropriate. See id. ("[C]ommon-sense concepts are especially appropriate for consideration by a jury."); see also, e.g., United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he district court should not admit testimony that is directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). To whatever extent the Court believes further emphasis on this point is helpful, it can give the jury appropriate and neutral instructions to guide its deliberations. What the defense cannot do is skew the jury's deliberations by putting an expert imprimatur on testimony that states, in effect, that the jurors should second-guess their assessments of the evidence because they are subject to hindsight bias. This inversion of the courtroom roles in which a party's witness sits in judgment of the jurors—is prejudicial and usurps the function both of the jurors and of the Court in instructing the jury. See, e.g., Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364 ("Whereas an expert may be uniquely qualified by experience to assist the trier of fact, he is not qualified to compete with the judge in the function of instructing the jury."). + +If Dr. Dietz's testimony on hindsight bias is helpful to the jury in this case, testimony of this sort would become central to the court system. Every single trial involves a retrospective adjudication. The bulk of trials—civil and criminal—involve an assessment of a party's + +knowledge at some point in time before the trial. If a psychiatrist can testify as an expert that the jurors should second-guess their assessments of what was known to a party because the jurors suffer from hindsight bias, surely many litigants—at least those with the resources—would rush to offer such evidence. + +Instead of being routine, as it would be if accepted here, expert testimony regarding the hindsight bias of jurors is vanishingly rare. The Government has not been able to find a single reported decision in a federal criminal case in which it was admitted. Indeed, the only instance the Government has located of such evidence being arguably admitted in any federal case was in Doe by and through Pike v. Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d 243, 250 (D. Mass. 2019). In that civil case, however, the issue was scarcely even before the court—the initial motion did not even mention hindsight bias at all, and the movant mentioned the concept in passing only in reply but devoted virtually no substantive argument to it. See Doe by and through Pike v. Pike, No. 17 Civ. 40021 (D. Mass.) (ECF Nos. 47 & 50) (memorandum of law and reply). And even in that case the Court did not actually admit the testimony, but "reserve[d] making a final ruling until trial," Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d at 250, before which the case settled. There is thus scant authority countenancing the introduction of opinions such as this. + +Indeed, even in the somewhat less prejudicial context of evaluating a witness's hindsight bias (instead of the jurors'), expert testimony on hindsight bias has been rejected. In DeWit v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., the court found that an expert opinion on hindsight bias "merely takes a commonsense concept and applies it to a specific field," and thus did not "concern matters that are beyond the understanding of the average lay person," and ultimately excluded it, reasoning that it "therefore would not be helpful to the jury and offers nothing more than what lawyers for the + +parties can argue in closing arguments." deWit v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 36, 2017 WL 5905575, at •2 (N.D. Fl. Jul. 25, 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). So too here.3 + +The defense's offer of Dr. Dietz's opinions on hindsight bias to "temper" the jurors' assessment of the evidence is thus virtually unprecedented. If this Court allowed such testimony in this case, however, it would likely become much more common. This Court should decline to open the door to the routine psychoanalysis of the jury in this way. + +# 3. Opinions as to the "Halo Effect" + +Dr. Dietz's opinions concerning the "Halo effect"—i.e., that "the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated" (Ex. A at 5)—are irrelevant to any issue to be considered by the jury and appear to be offered in an effort to encourage jury nullification by engendering sympathy for the defendant, as well as to offer a factual narrative based on no reliable evidence through a witness plainly incompetent to do so. + +None of the charges in this case relate in any way to the defendant's appraisal of Jeffrey Epstein's character or whether the defendant did or did not view him in the manner suggested by the Halo effect. Simply put, if every word that Dr. Dietz said regarding the "Halo effect" and Epstein's "brilliance" in exploiting it were taken as true, the defendant would be guilty if she met the elements of the charged offenses—exactly as she would be if every word Dr. Dietz said on this + +3 Accordingly, even if the defense somehow put at issue whether a witness's opinion on some matter was affected by hindsight bias—and the Government cannot currently envision how this is likely—the proper way of litigating an issue so squarely within the ken of the jury is through lay evidence and argument, not expert testimony. See de Wit, 2017 WL 5905575, at \*2. + +subject were disbelieved. Her knowledge and intent are no different if she participated in the conspiracy due to the Halo effect or for some other reason.' Dr. Dietz's opinions on this topic simply do not tend to negate any element or establish any defense. + +Instead of serving any proper purpose, the apparent intent behind offering Dr. Dietz's opinion on the "Halo effect" is to engender sympathy for the defendant. But juries are not "to act based on their . . . sympathy." United States v. Stroming, 838 F. App'x 624, 627 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order); see, e.g., United States v. Mustaga, 753 F. App'x 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) ("The district court correctly recognized that evidence of solitary confinement could be used for the improper purpose of provoking juror sympathy."). Any attempt to encourage such sympathy is therefore an attempt at nullification, which is itself plainly improper. See, e.g., United States v. M, 116 F.3d 606, 615 (2d Cir. 1997) (Jury nullification is "by no means a right or something that a judge should encourage or permit if it is within his authority to prevent."); id. at 614 ("We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent."); see also United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam) ("A jury has no more `right' to find a `guilty' defendant `not guilty' than it has to find a `not guilty' defendant `guilty,' and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power." (emphasis in original)). + +&#x27; Evidence of the defendant's motive may be relevant evidence proving the offense, but evidence that a "Halo effect" gave the defendant a motive to commit the crime has no relevance as defense evidence at trial. + +Compounding the improper nature of this testimony, the defense appears to seek to use Dr. Dietz to opine as to a complex factual narrative that no reliable process of psychiatric evaluation could produce. Dr. Dietz is not remotely competent to opine that Epstein would "surround himself with people who would serve his needs" (Ex. A at 6), or that he was able to "use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding" or "compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities" (id. at 7-8). Dr. Dietz has absolutely no basis to make such broad and sweeping factual claims about Epstein or his relationships with anyone, much less anyone in this case. It appears that Dr. Dietz has reached his conclusions based solely on one interview of Epstein with Steve Bannon in which Epstein "acknowledged that he gravitated to people of power" (Ex. A at 6) and some case documents exchanged in discovery (Def. Expert Notice Ex. C, attached as Exhibit B). This "evidence" does not even support the point—it suggests that Epstein looked to the halos of others, not that he generated one himself. And it is no basis, at all, for Dr. Dietz to suggest to the jury that anyone involved in this case did anything because of Epstein's "halo."5 + +This factual narration of Epstein's life and apparently the lives of other people who interacted with him, a defense summation based on a nullification defense masquerading as an expert witness opinion, is not based on any competent evidence, and in any event is patently not the product of reliable psychiatric methods reliably applied to this case. See. e.g., Island Intel!. + +5 This would not be the first unreliable factual claim made by Dr. Dietz, who testified in a previous criminal case that a defendant got the idea of drowning her children in the bathtub from an episode of Law & Order in which a defendant did so and was acquitted on an insanity defense, when in fact no such episode existed. See generally e.g., Barnette v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 327, 2021 WL 949848, \*9-10 (W.D.N.C. March 12, 2021). This led to the reversal of the trial conviction of the defendant in that case. See v. State, 171 S.W.3d 215, 222 (Tex. App. 2005). + +Prop., 2012 WL 526722, at •2 ("It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . .. vehicles for factual narrative"). This "opinion" should be precluded. + +## 4. Opinions as to "Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault" + +The defense's offer of Dr. Dietz's opinions regarding the existence of false allegations of sexual assault and the "multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault" (Ex. A at 7) is a remarkable departure from permissible practice in a criminal trial. The very form and nature of all of these opinions is highly prejudicial and seeks to invade the province of the jury and displace the Court; the offer of these opinions, which are largely lifted "nearly verbatim" from a single journal article (attached as Exhibit C), is not the product of reliable methods applied to the case; the opinions are well within the ken of the jury; and there is no showing whatsoever of any "fit" between these opinions and the evidence to be presented at trial. + +The form of Dr. Dietz's opinions-listing a number of disparate circumstances and personality traits, with no showing of any connection to the evidence of this case, and conjecturing various ways in which they could lead to false allegations of sexual assault—is a breathtaking inversion of proper expert opinion. To appreciate the audacity of the defense approach, consider if the Government attempted to do something similar. If the defense put on witnesses at trial, and the Government then called in rebuttal an expert psychiatrist to offer opinions on "Pathways to False Exculpatory Testimony" who opined that a variety of circumstances or mental conditions could hypothetically lead individuals to testify in ways that falsely exculpated a defendant, it is safe to assume that the defense would object. What the defense offers here is no less inappropriate. + +Beyond the obvious problems with the form of the opinions, the opinions themselves are plainly not admissible under Rule 702. Dr. Dietz's opinion that It-false allegations of sexual assault do occur" (Ex. A at 7), is not helpful to the jury. There will be no dispute that allegations can be either true or false, and offering an "expert" opinion that allegations can be false is simply prejudicial, not only inviting the jury to speculate about the frequency of false allegations but giving the incorrect impression that they are common. Indeed, if Dr. Dietz seeks to offer such testimony that false accusations "do occur," it will open the door for the Government to elicit on cross-examination that Dr. Dietz's principal source, which he relies on "nearly verbatim" (Ex. A at 7), concludes that "the most recent more methodologically adequate studies have indicated that false allegations are somewhat rare" (Ex. Cat 101 (citing study estimating the frequency of false rape allegations between 2% and 10%)).6 Of course, the Government's view is that this entire topic can serve only to distract the jury from its task of determining whether these specific allegations are in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus Dr. Dietz should be precluded from offering this opinion. + +Many of the "pathways" Dr. Dietz describes are not just within the ken of the jury, they are at the core of the jury's role. It is not helpful to the jury or permissible under Rule 702 for an expert to testify that "lying," a mistake of "implied consent," or "intoxication" could lead to a false accusation of a crime. Sorting out witness credibility, mistake, or other such circumstances is squarely the function of the jury, which will be instructed by the Court and which does not need the help of a psychiatrist to assess such possibilities. See, e.g., United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d + +6 The Government typically cannot introduce evidence of the statistical infrequency of false accusations, but if Dr. Dietz is allowed to create a false impression of their frequency, it is only fair to allow the Government to correct the record. United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1296 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The weighing of relevance under Rule 403 may be altered when a false impression is created by earlier testimony. That is, evidence whose probative value might not ordinarily outweigh its prejudicial effect if offered on direct examination is admiss[i]ble to rebut testimony elicited on cross examination that created a false impression." (citations omitted)). + +91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he district court should not admit testimony that is directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (internal quotation marks omitted)). + +Even as to the opinions that involve psychological conditions, Dr. Dietz's opinions are not helpful to the jury. While Dr. Dietz's descriptions of antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, psychotic disorders, delirium, dissociation, and intellectual disability at least involve Dr. Dietz's psychiatric training in some way (unlike pathways such as "lying"), it is hardly beyond the ken of juries to know that mental disorders or altered mental states may at times motivate people to dissemble or to believe things that are not true. Attempting to put the imprimatur of an expert on a variety of ways in which mental disorders can lead to unreliable testimony is simply an attempt to invade the province of the jury by putting a thumb on the scale in their assessment of witness credibility.7 See, e.g., Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398 ("[E]xpert opinions that constitute evaluations of witness credibility, even when such evaluations are rooted in scientific or technical expertise, are inadmissible under Rule 702"); United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 289 (2d Cir. 1999) (barring expert from testifying as to scientific principle related to the assessment of witness credibility as impinging on jury's role). + +To the extent Dr. Dietz's opinions include something outside the ken of the average jury specifically, that these "pathways" purportedly occur frequently in sexual assault cases—they are + +7 Dr. Dietz should in any event not offer his opinions on false memory, which are apparently derivative of Dr. Loftus's. Given that the defense has noticed Dr. Loftus as a witness, if any false memory testimony is appropriate, it should come from Dr. Loftus, whose research it is based on, not from Dr. Dietz summarizing Dr. Loftus's research. The admissibility of Dr. Loftus's testimony on false memory is discussed in Section II, infra. + +not reliable. The article that Dr. Dietz relies on—in fact "nearly verbatim" (Ex. A at 7)—was intended as a research agenda to explain the (undoubted) instances of false accusations, not to provide a roadmap for establishing the falsity of any allegation. (See Ex. C at 98 ("Part of the focus of the present paper, then, is to bring attention to the dearth of psychological literature investigating correlates and causal mechanisms of false allegations of sexual assault and to propose a model specifying the major causal pathways to false allegations. These pathways are intended as a model for further empirical investigation." (emphasis added))). Indeed, the authors were emphatic that their article not be misused as a simplistic means of "determining the accuracy of specific accusations." (Ex. C at 98 ("[A] legitimate concern about enumerating such pathways is the misuse of psychological diagnoses in determining the accuracy of specific accusations.")). + +Finally, even to the extent that Dr. Dietz's opinions on any of these "pathways" offers any expertise that is truly beyond the ken of the jury, there is no justification for allowing him to offer these opinions in the abstract without any fit to the facts of the case. At a minimum, unless and until there is any evidence creating a predicate for the relevance of any of these mental disorders, it is simply irrelevant—and highly prejudicial—for a psychiatric expert to enumerate a number of mental disorders and conjecture that they could cause unreliable testimony. See, e.g., LVL XIII Brands, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d at 642 (finding testimony fails Daubert's "fit" requirement where there is a lack of "record foundation").8 Thus even if, contrary to the arguments above, the Court believed some of the opinions on these "pathways" could under some circumstances be helpful to the jury, the Court should defer on the admissibility of such opinions until the evidence at trial + +8 Of course, to the extent a witness's mental condition is relevant, it should not be simply the subject of lay diagnosis by the jury, as Dr. Dietz's notice seems to suggest. + +creates a predicate that a witness has a condition creating such a "pathway." And even then, as described above, it is likely that such an opinion, based on one article, would be unreliable, only marginally helpful to a jury that can understand the relationship between mental illness and truthtelling, and highly prejudicial by having an expert witness testify to the credibility of other witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.. + +### 5. Opinions Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses + +Dr. Dietz also offers several different opinions regarding the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. These are also not helpful to the jury. + +Dr. Dietz's opinion that emotional distress is not predictive of the truthfulness of an allegation invades the core of a jury's competency—the evaluation of a witness's demeanor. Indeed, in very similar circumstances, the Second Circuit has affirmed the exclusion of scientific expert testimony instructing the jury in how to assess a witness's demeanor. See Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289 (barring expert from testifying that "confidence bears little or no relationship to accuracy in identifications," reasoning that "Fundamental to the role of juror as trier of fact is the task of assessing witness credibility. And, a witness's demeanor on the stand, including his or her confidence, impacts the assessment of credibility."). The same result should apply here. + +Similarly, Dr. Dietz's opinion that "professionals" evaluate "[c]hanges in the core details of the allegations" to determine credibility (Ex. A at 10), also invades the province of the jury. How to reconcile inconsistencies in witness accounts, as part of assessing the credibility of witnesses, is at the core of the jury's function. See, e.g., Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289. The Government expects that the Court will instruct the jury on how to assess the credibility of witnesses, and having one party's witness lay down a set of expert-endorsed rules can only make it more difficult for the jurors to follow the Court's instructions. See, e.g., Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364. + +Dr. Dietz's opinion that individuals who have been sexually assaulted have higher rates of mental disorders than individuals who have not been sexually assaulted, and that these disorders can affect memory and recall, is prejudicial and unhelpful. Offering this opinion in this form can only serve to prejudice the jury into making generalizations that certain witnesses, as a category, are more likely to be less worthy of belief by reason of mental illness. Given that Dr. Dietz acknowledges that witness credibility should be assessed on a "case-by-case basis" (Ex. A at 11), that case-by-case assessment is best made by precluding him from offering this prejudicial and stereotyping opinion before the jury. + +# 6. Opinions Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms + +Finally, Dr. Dietz opines that "significant proportions" of victims exhibit post-traumatic stress symptomology for "varying durations" and that victims with certain symptoms are "particularly unlikely to engage in continued communication or friendly gestures with an alleged perpetrator, to wear clothing provided by an alleged perpetrator, or to unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event." (Ex. A at 11). + +This opinion is confusing and appears not to be relevant to the facts of the case. First, Dr. Dietz's conclusion that victims with certain post-traumatic stress symptoms are unlikely to "unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event" is illogical given that it appears to place the responsibility on the victim for experiencing repeated assaults, and at a minimum he should be required to disclose comprehensibly exactly what behavior he is referring to as unlikely. + +Second, a critical distinction in this case involves the difference between victims of sexual assaults who are involved an ongoing relationship of attachment and coercion with their abusers including the power imbalance arising from the age differential between them and the abusers and those who are not. To the extent Dr. Dietz's testimony primarily addresses the latter category, such an opinion is irrelevant and should be precluded for lack of fit with the facts of the case. See, e.g., LVL XIII Brands, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d at 642; Boucher, 73 F.3d at 21 ("expert testimony should be excluded if it is [inter alio] in essence an apples and oranges comparison" (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)). + +To the extent Dr. Dietz intends instead to opine on the former category, that opinion is not reliable. Such an opinion—essentially that it is highly unlikely for abuse victims to continue relationships with their abusers after the first act of sexual assault—is patently implausible and inconsistent with the extensive literature on grooming, the pimp-prostitute relationship, delayed disclosure of sexual assaults, and delayed onset of PTSD, all of which recognize the relative frequency with which victims of sexual assaults continue contact with their abusers. Indeed, such opinions would seem in great tension even with Dr. Dietz's own writings on grooming; if he truly believes that abused children are unlikely to continue contact with their abusers or wear clothing provided by their abusers, it would be hard to see how he could express surprise that "even today, far too many people, including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent." (See Park Dietz, "Grooming and Seduction", 33 J. Interpersonal Violence 28, 29 (2018), Ex. D; see also Ex. A at 3 (citing id.)). . + +To the extent Dr. Dietz's opinion is intended to apply to the context of this case, the defense has clearly not to date carried the burden of establishing that the methods that led Dr. Dietz to offer this uncited and implausible opinion are subject to peer review and publication, have attained + +widespread or general acceptance, or are otherwise reliable. See Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 593-95, 592 & n.10. Accordingly, unless the defense meets its burden of affirmatively establishing that this opinion, as applied to the context of this case, meets the Daubers reliability standard, it should be precluded. See, e.g., P.S. a reL Nelson v. The Farm, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1288 (D. Kan. 2009) (excluding as unreliable an expert's opinion that children typically report abuse in response to direct questioning without holding hearing). Should the defense come forward with some evidence of reliability in its response papers, the Government would respectfully request an opportunity to reply or, in the alternative, a Daubers hearing to probe the issue. + +To the extent Dr. Dietz seeks to apply his opinions to the context of this case, the defendant has not established the reliability of these opinions, which should be precluded or, at a minimum, explored at a hearing. And to the extent Dr. Dietz seeks to apply his opinions to other contexts, they are irrelevant.9 + +## IL CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED + +# A. Background + +The defense seeks to offer expert opinions of Dr. Loftus on "the workings of human memory." (Ex. A at 1). Specifically, the defense seeks to offer testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding: + +- I. "[H]ow memory fades and weakens over time." + +9 The Government understands that Dr. Dietz is not planning on attending the November 10, 2021 Dauber: hearing of Dr. Rocchio, and the Government has not to date received any Rule 26.2 disclosures from Dr. Dietz, or even a complete bibliography of the sources cited in his disclosure. The Government respectfully requests that, should a hearing be scheduled on the reliability of Dr. Dietz's opinions, that hearing be held after the defense's response to this motion and after all necessary Rule 26.2 disclosures are made. + +2. "[H]ow memory becomes more vulnerable to contamination." + +3. "[T]he mechanism by which false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence or the like." + +4. "[T]he effects of suggestion on memory," including how "[s]uggestive activities can explain how it is that a person might go from having no memory of sexual abuse, and even denying sexual abuse, to later having [memories] for numerous abusive acts, if the memories are false." + +5. "[T] he characteristics of false and/or distorted memories" .. . "[i]n particular." that: + +a. Such memories "can be described with confidence, detail and emotion. even when they are false"; and + +b. "[P]eople come to believe in these experiences and are not deliberately lying." + +6. "[Identification of] some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case," including "media coverage and other publications (including but not limited to newspaper and magazine articles, news reports, television shows, documentaries, books, podcasts, websites, etc.) and discussions/conversations with others, can be sources of suggestion." + +7. "[H]ow, in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories." + +(Ex. A at 1-2 (emphasis added)). As set forth below, the Government objects that some of these opinions (paragraphs I, 2, 5(b), and 6) are commonsense principles within the ken of the jury; some (paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b)) invade the province of the jury in assessing witness credibility and demeanor; some (paragraphs 6 and 7) are vehicles to insert factual narrative about the case; and some (paragraph 3) are unreliable and lack fit with the case. + +# B. Applicable Law + +As a general matter, memory, perception, and the fallibility of human recall—that is, how people may remember, misremember, or forget past events—are within the ken of the jury. See United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2005) ("In general. .. jurors understand that memory can be less than perfect."); United States v. M, 148 F. App'x 867, 872 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court's exclusion of expert testimony on memory and perception, including the impact of stress on memory, in context of eyewitness reliability because proposed testimony would not assist the jury); United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1996) ("It is common knowledge that memory fades with time."); United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042, 1050-53 (7th Cir. 1992) ("[S]uch testimony may be properly excluded where the testimony addresses an issue of which the jury is generally aware."); United States v. Shiraishi, No. 17 Cr. 582 (JMS) (RLP), 2019 WL 1386365, at '5 n.7 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2019) (where testimony "falls within the common knowledge of the average layman, [it] is improper testimony under Rule 702"); United States v. Heine, No. 15 Cr. 238 (SI), 2017 WL 5260784, at '3 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2017) (finding expert testimony concluding that memories are fallible and may deteriorate over time to be "within the ken of the ordinary juror"); United States v. Redwood, 216 F. Supp. 3d 890, 897-99 (N.D. III. 2016) (excluding memory expert under Rules 702 and 403, and noting that "[w]hile in unique circumstances expert testimony regarding memory and perception may be warranted, this is not one of those cases"); United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d 3, 12 (D.D.C. 2006) ("[J]urors inevitably encounter the frailties of memory as a commonplace matter of course."). + +Federal courts—typically in the context of proposed expert testimony regarding witness identifications—have historically evinced skepticism of so-called memory expert testimony and have routinely excluded such testimony as unhelpful and because it invades the province of the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308, 1311-13 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Until recently, courts were uniformly skeptical about admitting expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications," discussing United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973), which affirmed the district court's exclusion of expert testimony and finding that witness crossexamination was adequate to "reveal any faults in the identification"). + +With respect to Dr. Loftus specifically, several federal courts have excluded Dr. Loftus's testimony on memory as either unhelpful to the jury or as irrelevant given the facts of the case. See, e.g., Curry, 977 F.2d at 1050-52 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in the context of witness identifications, including the fading of memories, witness confidence in memories, distortion of memories); United States v. I'M, 975 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's denial of funds to defendant to hire Dr. Loftus to testify regarding eyewitness identification); Moore, 798 F.2d at 1311-13 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in context of eyewitness identifications, including testimony about diminished memory and the incorporation of inaccurate post-event information); Shiraishi, 2019 WL 1386365, at \*5-6 (excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony regarding the corruption of memory and related topics); Heine, 2017 WL 5260784, at \*2 (excluding memory expert and discussing Dr. Loftus and Libby); Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 14 (excluding expert testimony of one expert in a case where the defendant also offered Dr. Loftus's research and testimony that the "principles which [the expert] would testify to are not commonly understood by jurors"); see also R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 16 Civ. 01056, 2019 WL 6053223, at \*10-13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (in civil case, excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony because it "simply restates matters within the common understanding of lay jurors" and because her opinions were speculative). 10 + +1°It appears that Dr. Loftus has also testified as an expert in federal cases. See, e.g., United States v. Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114, 1118 (6th Cir. 1986) (discussing defense expert testimony of Dr. Loftus that it is not unusual for individuals to forget events); Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14 Civ. 877 (PSG), 2015 WL 6954967, at \*2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (denying motion to preclude Dr. + +More recently, federal courts have been more receptive to allowing expert testimony beyond general principles of human recall on a case-by-case basis, depending on the special circumstances or particular facts of a case and only when such opinions are based on reliable science and fit the facts of the case. See, e.g., Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 9-10 ("There is no clear case authority, or absolute rule, on when an expert should be permitted to testify on issues regarding memory and perception. ... [T]here is no per se rule for or against the admissibility of such testimony [on memory and perception]. And a court presented with a proffer of expert testimony must determine its admissibility on a case-by-case basis." (citing cases)); Shiraishi, 2019 WL 1386365, at \*3 (discussing the need for the expert testimony to "fit" the evidence or facts of the particular case); Shohola, 2019 WL 6053223, at \*10-13 ("First, courts have recognized that expert testimony concerning the vagaries of human recollection that is stated with sufficient certainty, is grounded upon reliable science, and fits the facts of the case satisfies the Daubert standard and should be admitted at trial. In contrast, expert opinions regarding the science of human recollection that are not presented with certainty, lack scientific rigor, or possess only a tenuous factual fit are often excluded from evidence." (citing United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321, 336 (3d Cir. 2001))). + +Courts, however, must exercise "judicial oversight" in this area. See Shohola, 2019 WL 6053223, at \*10-B. "Left unregulated, memory expert testimony can invade the fundamental province of the jury—determining witness credibility," and must be excluded as unduly prejudicial + +Loftus's testimony and noting that the issues identified were more appropriate to explore during cross-examination). + +under Rule 403. Id. at •6 (citing cases); see also Heine, 2017 WL 5260784, at •2 (excluding expert testimony under Rules 702 and 403 under the same principles as Libby because it would not be helpful to the jury and would "invad[e] the jury's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses," and because the trial did "not involve issues of repressed or recovered memories," among other things); Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 14 (excluding memory expert's testimony because it would not be helpful to the jury, invaded the province of the jury, and was likely to confuse, mislead, or unduly influence the jury, among other things). + +# C. Discussion + +As set forth herein, although the Government acknowledges that testimony about memory may be proper in response to Dr. Rocchio, Dr. Loftus's proposed testimony does not satisfy the Daubert standard. Specifically, the Government objects to any attempt by the defense to offer her testimony as to (a) opinions as to false memory formation that are unreliable or do not fit the facts of the case, (b) commonsense principles within the ken of the jury, (c) opinions bearing on witness credibility and demeanor, and (d) factual narratives about the case. + +# 1. Opinions as to False Memory Formation + +Dr. Loftus offers the following opinion on false memory formation that is unreliable and lacks fit to the case: + +- How false memories may be created through post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, and influence, as described in Paragraph 3 above. + +This opinion on false memory formation is central to Dr. Loftus's testimony, but the defense has not carried its burden of establishing its reliability. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. As an initial matter, the defense expert notice provides no information + +about the bases or details of Dr. Loftus's opinion—it simply states that she is testifying "[biased on her education, training, experience, and research." (Ex. A at 1)." + +Moreover, there is specific reason to doubt the reliability of Dr. Loftus's opinions as to false memory formation. A number of Dr. Loftus's opinions were tested and rejected in United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 8-18. There, the defendant relied on Dr. Loftus's research regarding alleged juror misperceptions of the reliability of eyewitness identifications, presented in a 2006 article. See id. at 10-11 (citing, e.g., R. Schmechel, T. O'Toole, C. Easterly, & E. Loftus, Beyond the Ken? Testing Jurors' Understanding of Eyewitness Reliability Evidence, 46 Jurimetrics J. 177-214 (2006)). The district court rejected such research, concluding that "the design of these surveys demonstrates their limited value." Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at II. The court found that the survey design used in Loftus's article was "based primarily on hypothetical situations involving eyewitness identification and the credibility of eyewitnesses." Id. The court also found—and Dr. Loftus "reluctantly agreed in part"—that the some of the studies were in part "structurally flawed" because certain questions asked of respondents were "unclear." Id. at 16. The Government, moreover, understands that much of Dr. Loftus's research involves controlled laboratory experiments rather than clinical work because studies about, for instance, the creation of false memories, may be unethical in the clinical context. See, e.g. Elizabeth F. Loftus, UCI + +&quot; While the Government's expert notice for Dr. Rocchio contained similar language, it also explained that Dr. Rocchio was testifying based on her "extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, as well as Dr. Rocchio's experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. A at 2). The Government also produced its notes from its interviews with Dr. Rocchio simultaneously with its expert notice. The defense expert notice identifies no particular form of training, experience, or research on which Dr. Loftus is relying, nor has the defense produced any notes of its conversations with Dr. Loftus. + +School of Social Ecology, https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/eloftus/ ("[Dr. Loftus's] experiments reveal how memories can be changed by things that we are told."). Such research may thus be inapplicable to the facts of this case. + +To the extent that the Court believes that the defense may have carried its burden of establishing the reliability of Dr. Loftus's opinions on false memory formation, the Government respectfully requests a Daubers hearing to test the reliability of these opinions.12 + +Even if any such opinions are reliable, however, they should not be admitted absent an affirmative showing of "fit" for this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee n. (stating that "generalized" expert testimony must "'fit' the facts of the case"). For example, testimony about the ways in which "false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like" is irrelevant to this case. At that level of generality, it has no obvious "fit" to the facts of this case. There is no evidence that whatever "occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like" about which Dr. Loftus intends to testify happened to any witness in this case, much less in a manner that reliably affects memory or would be probative to the jury. Thus, as with Dr. Dietz, any reliable opinions Dr. Loftus seeks to offer on false memory formation should be limited to those as to which there is a clear evidentiary predicate establishing their "fit" to the case. + +12 As with Dr. Dietz, see footnote 9, supra, if a hearing is necessary, the Government similarly requests that it be conducted after receiving the defense response and after all necessary Rule 26.2 disclosures have been made. + +### 2. Commonsense Principles Within the Ken of the Jury + +The following opinions by Dr. Loftus are commonsense opinions within the ken of the jwy: + +- How memory fades and weakens over time, as described in Paragraph 1 above. +- How memory may become vulnerable to contamination, as described in Paragraph 2 above. +- How an individual with a false memory may believe that their memory is accurate, as described in Paragraph 5(b) above. +- Examples of suggestive activities, such as news and media reports and discussions/conversations with others, as listed in Paragraph 6 above. + +Any testimony from Dr. Loftus with respect to these commonsense principles of memory and perception should be excluded under Rules 703 and 403 because such testimony would not aid the jury. "It is common knowledge that memory fades with time." Labansat, 94 F.3d at 530 (affirming district court denial of defendant's motion to retain an eyewitness expert). An expert is simply not needed to "point out that memory decreases over time." United States v. Welch, 368 F.3d 970, 973-75 (7th Cir. 2004) (excluding eyewitness memory and perception expert). In excluding a memory and perception expert in Libby, the court explained: + +> [O]n a daily basis the average juror is personally faced with innumerable questions of memory and cognition, as everyone in their daily lives is called upon to store, encode, and retrieve information he or she has been subjected to. Although the average juror may not understand the scientific basis and labels attached to causes for memory errors, jurors inevitably encounter the frailties of memory as a commonplace matter of course. + +Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 12-13. It is similarly common knowledge that memories can be contaminated, including through exposure to news media. Jurors, like all individuals, may be asked to remember something, and may become confused as to the source of the memory. And it + +is a tautology that someone who has a false memory—that is, unknowingly misremembers something—believes it to be accurate. Otherwise it would not be a memory. + +### 3. Opinions Bearing on Witness Credibility and Demeanor + +The following opinions by Dr. Loftus invade the province of the jury by attempting to instruct it on how to assess witness credibility and demeanor: + +- How an individual with a false memory can describe that memory "with confidence, detail and emotion," as described in Paragraph 5(a) above. +- How an individual with a false memory is "not deliberately lying," as described in Paragraph 5(b) above. + +Dr. Loftus should be precluded from opining on victim or witness credibility, including by opining as to how a victim with an alleged false memory may testify (e.g., confidently) and describing a victim with an alleged false memory as a "liar" or "not a deliberate liar." Such opinions would be highly prejudicial and inflammatory, would confuse and mislead the jury, and would invade the fundamental province of the jury in determining witness credibility. See Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 288-89 (affirming district court's exclusion of expert testimony that a witness's confidence does not correlate to the witness's factual accuracy in the context of an identification because such testimony "might confuse or mislead the jury"); Shohola, 2019 WL 6053223, at •I0-13 (discussing jury's province of determining witness credibility); Fed. R. Evid. 403. Such opinions, moreover, are effectively defense arguments to be appropriately made during defense summations. To allow Dr. Loftus to testify that a victim is essentially a liar (but may not realize she is a liar) or that a witness may testify confidently even when testifying untruthfully would effectively allow the defense to cloak its arguments under the imprimatur of a purported expert. The Court will instruct the jury on witness credibility. A defense expert should not provide a dueling instruction. See, e.g., Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364 ("Even if a jury were not misled into + +adopting outright a legal conclusion proffered by an expert witness, the testimony would remain objectionable by communicating a legal standard—explicit or implicit—to the jury."). + +## 4. Factual Narratives About the Case + +The following opinions are objectionable vehicles for factual narrative about the case: + +- Identification of "some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case," as described in Paragraph 6 above. +- How, "in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories," as described in Paragraph 7 above. + +Dr. Loftus should be precluded from embedding a factual narrative about the case in her opinions. Dr. Loftus has not evaluated any of the victims in this case. Unlike Dr. Dietz, Dr. Loftus does not even describe what case-specific materials she has reviewed. (Cf. Ex. A at 3 ("Attached as Exhibit C [and Exhibit B to this motion] is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz.")). Dr. Loftus thus has no basis to comment on whether or not certain "suggestive activities" may have influenced any of the victims before the jury, much less a basis to show that she has "reliably applied [her] principles and methods of the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702. Any such opinions from Dr. Loftus regarding the facts of this particular case would thus lack any scientific basis, would be extremely prejudicial, and would mislead the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 403; see also, e.g., Island Intel!. Prop., 2012 WL 526722, at 4'2 ("It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . . . vehicles for factual narrative ...."). + +## III. IF DEFENSE CHALLENGES TO DR. ROCCHIO ARE ACCEPTED, THE DEFENSE EXPERTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED + +It bears noting that neither Dr. Dietz nor Dr. Loftus's proposed testimony can survive the defense's own understanding of the reliability requirements of Dauber/. While the Government does not share the defense's view of the law, to the extent the Court accepts that view, Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz should be excluded as well. + +This point is valid in a number of respects, but three in particular bear noting. First, the defense criticizes Dr. Rocchio in the strongest terms for opining about principles that "have no associated error rate." (Def. Mot. 3 at I, 7, 8, 12, 15; see Ex. A at 3-4). Neither Dr. Loftus nor Dr. Dietz identify an error rate for a single one of their opinions, much less all of them. Second, the defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's opinions cannot be reliably applied by a jury because she describes phenomena that occur reliably in her practice and the literature, but she does not specify how often. (Def. Mot. 3 at 7-8, 10, 16 ("Rocchio claims grooming 'often' or `frequently occurs' without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case.")). The same could be said for Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz. (See Ex. A at 1 ("[Dr. Loftus] will describe scientific research showing that false memories can be described with confidence, detail, and emotion, just like true memories." (emphasis added)); id. at 7 ("False allegations of sexual assault do occur ... .")). Third, the defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's opinion that "memory and disclosure of traumatic and abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma," is "so generic as to be meaningless." (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). That opinion is no more generic than the opinion that false memories can be "created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like." (Ex. A at 2). + +In the Government's view, the defense's view in its Daubert motion is unnecessarily cramped, and each expert opinion's reliability can be tested individually. But given the defense's view of Dauber: and its progeny, if Dr. Rocchio's opinions are excluded based on the defense's arguments, Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz should be excluded as well. + +### CONCLUSION + +Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that: + +- Dr. Dietz be permitted to testify in response to Dr. Rocchio, limited to the opinion that grooming does not have one settled definition; +- Dr. Dietz be precluded from offering opinions regarding hindsight bias, the Halo effect, pathways to false allegations of sexual assault, factors bearing on witness credibility, and post-traumatic stress symptoms, or in the alternative that a hearing be held; +- Dr. Loftus be precluded from offering opinions regarding commonsense principles of memory, factors bearing on witness credibility, factual narratives, or false memory formation. + +Dated: November 8, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be4c016edd8db02cde13cf23c775716278f37e43 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105/EFTA02834105.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2275 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834105.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 41, + "chars": 86057, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.0, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW \nIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY \nOF DR. PARK DIETZ AND DR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 533.68115234375, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 533.68115234375, + 377.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 377.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 374.5400085449219, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 374.5400085449219, + 113.853515625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 113.853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.59761047363281, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.59761047363281, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 348.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 348.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.32, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS FROM DR. DIETZ", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 415.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 415.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 441.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 441.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 191.18695068359375, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 191.18695068359375, + 276.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 276.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Response to the Opinions of Dr. Rocchio", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 336.1039733886719, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 336.1039733886719, + 388.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 388.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opinions as to Hindsight Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 281.4978332519531, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 281.4978332519531, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Opinions as to the \"Halo Effect\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 295.5883483886719, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 295.5883483886719, + 279.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Opinions as to \"Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 461.7027587890625, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 461.7027587890625, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. Opinions Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 377.5233459472656, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 377.5233459472656, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6. Opinions Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 407.6187438964844, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 407.6187438964844, + 306.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 306.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IL CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY OF \nDR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 174.34512329101562, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 174.34512329101562, + 457.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 457.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 192.27987670898438, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 192.27987670898438, + 582.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 582.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Opinions as to False Memory Formation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 336.7657775878906, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 336.7657775878906, + 470.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 470.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Commonsense Principles Within the Ken of the Jury", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 399.51763916015625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 399.51763916015625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Opinions Bearing on Witness Credibility and Demeanor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 416.39593505859375, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 416.39593505859375, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Factual Narratives About the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 307.3327331542969, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 307.3327331542969, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. IF DEFENSE CHALLENGES TO DR. ROCCHIO ARE ACCEPTED, THE \nDEFENSE EXPERTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 593.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 593.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834105" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f17e5c09466f7b166b6387fe1b4e201af7c2ae57 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio .1 Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 8, 2021 + +![](_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg) + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021, ordering the Government to docket a letter with a proposal from legal counsel at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") regarding what additional steps can be taken to ensure that the defendant promptly receives her legal mail within the weeks leading up to trial (Dkt. No. 412). + +Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government of the following: MDC mail room staff will continue to pick up legal mail from the post office once every business day and follow the processes outlined in the Government's November I, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 403). As to electronic discovery sent to legal counsel at the MDC, staff at the MDC's warehouse will continue to process and log the mail and the legal department will deliver the mail to the inmate. Legal counsel at the MDC has indicated that they call or stop by the warehouse every day or every other day to check for packages that have been delivered for the Legal Department.' Legal counsel at + +The Government will continue to inform legal counsel at the MDC when it sends a hard drive to the attention of legal counsel, which goes to the MDC's warehouse as outlined in the Government's October 15, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 350). + +A.A. 0.0000 + +the MDC also noted that defense counsel can deposit legal mail in the MDC's legal mailbox during + +visiting hours (between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.): MDC's mail room staff picks up such mail between + +approximately 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. once every business day and logs the mail, which is then delivered + +to an inmate by the unit manager. According to legal counsel at the MDC, any additional steps + +would be extremely burdensome and not practicable in light of the various responsibilities of the + +MDC's legal department and staff, which are responsible for issues relating to the approximately + +1,700 inmates at the MDC. + +DAMIAN [REDACTED] + +Respectfully submitted, + +United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurine Conney +Alison Moe +Lara Ponteranz +Andrew Rohrbach +Assistant United States Attorneys +Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2042f82b67ea669ea5c3e70c8605f9f79869421e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/EFTA02834146.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2592, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.59, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.8095397949219, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.8095397949219, + 40.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40687561035156, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 119.40687561035156, + 182.853515625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.853515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834146" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..541eb6bfca552f5c9fc6923f6ba77be071e879d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:289cb176981a810a3f093d4fe61c244538ace733ef8c4b2585102c884d342575 +size 3306 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3696f4686cebae95e4f46b716250c58e53c960e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834146/_page_0_Picture_8.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e439d222cf9f6422908eabd2d925e26d213d474059e30f4fd41e0eb30e967fff +size 11556 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..854991b69641541008be478083b1c96a3274f68b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (A..TN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding release on bond, Dkt. No. 408, and the parties' letters regarding the delivery of the Defendant's legal mail and transport to the courthouse for pretrial conferences and trial in this case, Dkt. Nos. 381, 403, 422. For the reasons stated in this Court's prior bail determinations, Dkt. Nos. 93, 106, 169, and the Government's letter in opposition, Dkt. No. 423, the renewed request for bail is denied. + +Moreover, based on the representations from MDC legal counsel regarding the delivery of the Defendant's legal mail, Dkt. No. 422, the Court concludes that the Defendant has adequate access to legal counsel and legal mail in order to prepare for trial. MDC legal counsel and the Government are ordered to take the steps outlined in the Dkt. No. 422 between now and the completion of trial. + +As to the Defendant's transport, the Court concludes that she will be transported to and from the courthouse for pretrial conferences and trial in a way that is humane, proper, and consistent with security protocols. This conclusion is based on representations from MDC legal counsel in the letter submitted under seal because it discusses BOP security protocols, see Dkt. No. 412, as well as the Court's communication with the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York. The Government, BOP, and USMS shall continue to take all available + +measures consistent with security protocols to ensure the Defendant has sufficient rest, nutrition, and comfort in order to be able to prepare for and participate in trial. + +This resolves Dkt. No. 408. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 9, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47ae730c778e1894b1f56f21392e0bb948220fe9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/EFTA02834148.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1968, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.63, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834148" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68ef98bf5df1994a60444f9b95d3800f2dcab30b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834148/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:563a8a6ac7f200c7cc4070e2d097a8caa574fb83d554751fd5615471c928c8e9 +size 11495 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c6bfc963723ac827133e1518ada228417cdf74f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.md @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Attached is the Court's revised draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played before each voir dire session. The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter approving of the remarks, Dkt. No. 420, and the Defendant's proposed additions, Dkt. No. 419. The revised remarks adopt all but one of the Defendant's proposals because the Court's subsequent revisions eliminated that portion of the script. In particular, the Court has made three additional changes in order to accurately explain the logistics of voir dire. Each of these changes is reflected in redline. + +The parties are ORDERED to indicate by letter on or before November 11, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. whether or not they have any objections or suggestions the Court's revised preliminary remarks to be played before each voir dire session. + +Attached is also the Court's revised draft voir dire in redline. The Court's revisions simplify the phrasing of questions I, 2, 3, 10, 13, 25, and 37 in an effort to maximize the time dedicated to questioning each prospective juror. The revision to question 11 reflects the Court's oral ruling on November 1, 2021 regarding the use of pseudonyms for certain witnesses. The revisions to questions 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 33 are non-substantive changes to question + +numbers in order to accurately reference the corresponding question numbers on the jury questionnaire or are grammatical changes. + +Attached is also the Court's draft instruction sheet for those jurors who are not struck for cause and will return for the exercise of peremptory strikes, as discussed at the November 1 conference. + +The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to indicate by letter on or before November 12, 2021 whether or not they have any objections or suggestions to the revised voir dire and draft instruction sheet. + +Finally, the parties are ORDERED to jointly submit the list of individuals and locations who may be mentioned at trial for questions 11 and 12 of the voir dire on or before November 14, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 9, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +I United States v. Maxwell, 20cr330 2 Preliminary Remarks Prior to Voir Dire 3 To be recorded and played on 11/16-11/19 + +### 4 Introduction + +5 Welcome back to the Southern District. Thank you again for your time and service. As I 6 mentioned in my remarks to you when you filled out the questionnaire, Pm Judge Nathan and I 7 am the judge who will preside over this case. The questionnaire you previously filled out was the 8 first step in the jury selection process. Today will be the second step. Some of you will be 9 excused today and will not have to return for this case, although you may be directed to go io through a similar process in another case. Others may be directed to return tomorrow-an I I additional day this week if necessary. And ultimately, some of you will return for the third and 12 final step in the process. That will take place on November 29. + +13 In any event, after you complete this step of the process today, you will receive 14 instructions on next steps that are particular to you. + +As you know from my prior remarks to you and from the questionnaire, we're here today 16 to select a jury to serve in a criminal case, called the United States against Ghislaine Maxwell. As 17 you read in the questionnaire, the Indictment alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minor females to travel to engage in criminal sex activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +23 Thank you for participating in this process. The process of selecting a jury in a criminal 24 case is a critical part of our justice system. The purpose of this process is to select those jurors who + +can be fair and impartial to both sides in this case. Some people find that they can be fair and 2 impartial in one kind of case, but for various reasons, related to their own life experiences or views, 3 can't be fair in another kind of case. The process that we use is designed to help us figure out 4 whether you can be fair and impartial to both sides in this case. + +5 If during the course of this process you come to believe that because of something that 6 you have experienced or because of something you've heard or read that you cannot be fair and 7 impartial—that is that you would favor either the Government or the Defendant regardless of 8 what the evidence shows—then you must tell me. It's not unusual, and there's no reason to be 9 embarrassed about it. + +to But the system only works if all of our citizens are willing and prepared to serve as jurors 11 when they can do so fairly and impartially. I do not expect that anybody would seek to avoid this 12 important duty for any but the most compelling reasons. + +13 As I mentioned in my prior remarks, the Court has taken a number of steps to help ensure 14 the process for selected jurors is as safe and easy as possible. We have masking and distancing 15 protocols. We have reconfigured courtrooms to enhance safety measures. The Court will 16 provide transportation for selected jurors to and from the courthouse each day. Breakfast, 17 snacks, and lunch will be provided for you. + +And please note that you are not required to be vaccinated to serve on the jury or required 19 to disclose your vaccination status. However, if you are selected to return for the final phase of '0 jury selection, a courthouse staff member will ask you before you leave today to fill out a form 21 regarding your COVID-19 vaccination status. If you are comfortable disclosing, the information 22 will solely be used by courthouse staff to ensure compliance with the District's COVID- 19 21 distancing protocols. The information will not be provided to the attorneys or anyone involved in + +the case, and the information will not affect whether or not you are selected to serve as a juror in 2 this case. Finally, the form will be destroyed at the conclusion of trial. + +3 To conduct the next phase of the process, I will ask each of you some questions 4 individually. We'll do that in a separate courtroom where I and the lawyers and the Defendant 5 are sitting now. You all will be brought in the courtroom one at a time. Bear in mind that this is 6 a public courtroom. To protect your privacy, I will only refer to you by your juror number. 7 Please do not state any identifying information. For example, if we talk about your job you 8 could say that you are a sales clerk at a large retail store, without stating the specific name of 9 your employer. This is to protect your privacy. Even with those privacy protections in place, if to there is something that would be too difficult or embarrassing for you to say on the public record, I please let me know. And please keep in mind that if you are selected as a juror, we will continue 12 to refer to you only by your juror number throughout the process. + +13 Now, if you are selected as a juror, your job is going to be to listen to the evidence and to 14 my instructions on the law and to make a determination that's based only on the law. So I want to 15 speak to you generally about some things to keep in mind. + +16 The first thing is, as Ms. Maxwell sits here now, she's presumed to be innocent. She is 17 presumed innocent until and only if the jury finds that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 As I just explained to you, she's been indicted for a number of crimes, but an indictment is just 19 an accusation. It is not evidence and it doesn't mean that Ms. Maxwell is guilty of anything. You 20 can't assume that she is guilty or more likely to be guilty just because she's been charged in an 21 indictment and alleged to have committed the crimes charged.-with-eeinmit4ing-these-erimes, 22 That's the reason we have trials, to determine whether the Government can prove a defendant's 23 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal case does not have to prove that she + +1 is not guilty. That means a defendant does not have to testify, or to put on any evidence and a juror can't hold that against a defendant if she makes that choice. + +The next thing is that as jurors you must follow the law as I give it to you, even if you don't agree with it or if you think the law should be different. + +You also have to base your verdict on the evidence, not on something that you've read in the newspapers or the intemet or seen on television or heard about on social media or in discussions with friends, family, or colleagues. And you can't base your decision in this case on something that you might have read or heard about another case. + +9 As I said before, there is significant media interest in this case. As jurors you are not 10 permitted to read any news about this case. You cannot read or watch or listen to any accounts 11 of this case at all. If you see something in the paper or online, you're just going to have to turn the page or close the browser. You can't read it. + +13 Equally important, you're not permitted to discuss this case with anyone else while the case is going on. Even with your fellow jurors, you can't discuss the case until you've heard all the evidence and I've given my instructions on the law. Again, that's because you can only consider the evidence that you hear in the courtroom, not anything outside of the courtroom. You have to keep an open mind. Nor may you discuss the case with friends or family until after your IS jury service is complete. You can tell them that you are a juror in a criminal case in federal court and that the judge has told you that you are not permitted to say anything further. + +Similarly, until you are excused from jury service, you cannot post anything about your experience as a juror on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or any kind of social media. + +22 Another instruction, you can't look up or google or do any other kind of research or search in any manner about anything related to the case or anyone involved in the case. + +1 The reason for these rules, as I am sure you understand, is they protect the integrity of the +2 trial and assure that both sides receive a fair trial. + +3 Jurors in criminal cases base their verdicts on the evidence that they hear in the +4 courtroom, not on something that somebody else tells you, not on something that you see on TV +5 or on social media. That's why if you're selected as a juror, I'll be reminding you of these rules +6 regularly. You can't watch news accounts, look anything up or speak to anybody else about the +7 case. You would be violating the oath you have taken as jurors and you would be violating my +8 orders if you were to do that. + +9 Finally, you must report to me through my court deputy any effort by any person to speak +10 with you about the case or to influence you about the case or to get information about the case. +11 The attorneys and their assistants have been instructed by me not to speak to you or otherwise +12 engage with you. They are not being rude or indifferent. They are merely following my +13 instructions. + +14 I do want to thank all of you for the time you've invested already in this process. Our +15 system cannot function unless we have good people like you who are willing to give up their +16 time and to serve as jurors. + +17 Please sit quietly until your number is called and you are brought into the courtroom for +18 questioning by me. Please follow all the instructions of the courtroom staff. Although you may +19 use your electronic devices while you are waiting (bearing in mind of course all of my +20 instructions that forbid you to do any research or engage in any communications about the case +21 through any means), you must turn off and hand over any electronic devices to the Jury +22 Department staff before you are brought into the courtroom. I look forward to meeting each of +23 you in person soon. Thank you. + +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GIIISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +# [DRAFT' EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS + +### Introduction + +## INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS + +### Ability to Follow Instructions + +1. 1. As I instructed you earlier, one of the important principles of criminal law is that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. Like anyone accused of a crime in this country, Ms. Maxwell is; and must be, presumed innocent of any and all charges made against her unless and until the Government proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the Government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the Government's burden of proof alone. The defendant has no burden to prove her innocence or to present any evidence. Are you able to follow these instructions? +2. 2. As I instructed you earlier I also instructed you earlier that, until you are excused from this case, you may not consume any media of any kind reports of this case of any type about of this the case of any kind time (-including social media), research the case it in any manner, or discuss the case it with anyone, read, listen to, or watch any accounts of this case reported on television, the radio, or over the Internet or social media. Jurors are also not allowed to do any research regarding this case, whether over the Internet, on social media, or in any other manner. The case must be decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the courtroom. Would you have any difficulty following these rules, which are binding on every juror? +3. 3. When Since the time you filled out your questionnaire, you were instructed that you would have to follow these rules. Have you done so anyway? - Have you failed to follow these rules in any way? Such as consuming any social media, googling the case, or discussing it you seen any reports, including on social media, googled the case, or discussed the case with any person you were told not to research, read, or watch anything + +aboat-the-ease-Ofleafn-anything-abent-the-easerkave-year even-though-yea-were instreeted-net-te-Ele4hak dene-that-anyway?-14ave-yeu-leeke44hings-up-on-the-intenteh evett-if-yea-just-Geegleil-it? If you have, now is the time to tell me. + +# General Ability to sear + +- 4. On your questionnaire, you stated that you do not have any unmovable commitments between November 29 and approximately January 15. Does that continue to be accurate? + +# Prior Knowledge of Ms. Maxwell + +- 5. [If Juror HAS HEARD of Ms. Maxwell] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had heard of Ms. Maxwell before starting this process. Have you formed an opinion or heard, read, or seen anything about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 6. [If Juror HAS NOT heard of Ms. Maxwell] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had not heard of Ms. Maxwell before starting this process. Is that accurate? + +# Prior Knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein + +- 7. [If Juror HAS HEARD of Epstein] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had heard of Jeffrey Epstein before starting this process. Have you formed an opinion or heard, read, or seen anything about Mr. Epstein that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 8. [If Juror HAS NOT heard of Epstein] In your questionnaire, you reported that you had not heard of Jeffrey Epstein before starting this process. Is that accurate? + +#### Nature of Charges + +- 9. You reported in your questionnaire that [insert question number of any YES answers for question 487, 498, or 5049]. Would that experience affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +### Knowledge of the Trial Participants + +- 10. In the-your questionnaire,-I-listed-the-nomes-ef-ell-the-mal-partieiponts-and-you indicated that you did not know any of those-the trial participants individuals-by name. I'll ask you to alse-look around now and let me know if you recognize anyone in the courtroom. +- II. 1-will-new-read-aPlease read this list of individuals who may be mentioned during the trial, or who may be witnesses in this case: + +[Names to be supplied] + +Do you know any of those people? Have-yea-had-aily-dealingsr diteeny-Or-indireetlyr with eity-ef-these-indiyitels?—T-e-yeut-lertewledger have-afty-ef--year-relativesr friendsr er assesiates-had-ansfrdealings-with-any-ef-these44ividuals? + +# Knowledge of Location + +- 12. Events in this case are alleged to have taken place at the following locations: + +[List to be supplied] + +Arc you particularly familiar with any of those locations? + +# Prior Jury Service + +- 13. [For jurors who answered YES to question IP] On your questionnaire you said that you have served as a juror. In what court did you serve and was it a civil or criminal case? + +What-type-of-ease-was44—Without telling us what the verdict was, did the jury reach a verdict? + +- 14. [For jurors who answered YES to question 198] On your questionnaire you said that you have served as a grand juror. When and where? +- 15. [For jurors who answered YES to either question] Is there anything about your prior experiences as a juror that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +# Relationship with, and View of, Government, Defense, and Others + +- 16. Have you, either through any experience you have had or anything you have seen or read, developed any bias or prejudice or other feelings for or against the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the FBI, or the NYPD? +- 17. Do you have any opinions about prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys generally that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 18. Do you have any opinion about the criminal justice system generally or the federal criminal justice system in particular that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 19. Do you have any opinion about people who are wealthy or have luxurious lifestyles that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? + +#### Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crime Victim + +- 20. [For jurors who answered YES to question 204-9] On your questionnaire you said that [you or a friend/family member] has/have participated in a state or federal court case. What kind of case? And, what was your/their role in that case? Is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? +- 21. [For jurors who answered YES to question 2524] On your questionnaire you said that [you or a friend/family member] has/have been a victim of a crime. Please describe the circumstances, including the type of crime, when it happened, and the outcome of any law enforcement action. Is there anything about that experience that could affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? + +# Au ror's Background + +- 22. How old are you? +- 23. Please state your current county of residence and list each county of residence during the past ten years. +- 24. How far did you go in school? And what did you study? +- 25. If you work, what kind of work do you do? Describe the type of your employer (for example, a private company, government entity, non-profit-erganizatien, etc). (If retired or unemployed, describe your last employment.) +- 26. How long have you been employed in your current position? What work did you previously do? +- 27. Who are the members of your household? +- 28. If the members of your household work, what kind of work do they do? +- 29. What newspapers or magazines do you typically read and how often? + +- 30. Do you typically read any websites? If so, do you post comments or information on these websites? +- 31. Do you regularly use social media? If so, what social media do you regularly use? +- 32. Do you regularly watch any television shows? If so, what shows? +- 33. Do you regularly listen to any radio programs- or podcasts? If so, which? +- 34. What are your hobbies, major interests, recreational pastimes, and leisure-time activities? +- 35. Have you ever followed a criminal case in the media? If so, what case? +- 36. Are you a member of any clubs or organizations to which you contribute time or money? + +# FINAL OUESTION + +- 37. I have tried to direct your attention in-these-qtiestietis-and-threugh4lie-questiennaife-y ett filled-eatthroughout this process to possible reasons why you might not be able to sit as a fair and impartial juror. Apart from any prior question, do you have the slightest doubt in your mind, for any reason whatsoever, that you will be able to serve conscientiously, fairly, and impartially in this case and to render a true and just verdict without fear, favor, sympathy, or prejudice, and according to the law as it will be explained? + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +Dear Juror: + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +### INSTRUCTION SHEE1 + +You have been selected to return for the next phase of jury selection. You are required to return on Monday, November 29, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. + +You are instructed to report to Courtroom of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. + +Your juror number is: . Please bring this instruction sheet with you when you return. + +Remember, you are required to follow the Judge's instructions regarding information about this case and the case participants: + +(1)You are not permitted to discuss this case with anyone. This includes friends, family, and colleagues. (2)You cannot post anything about this case or your experience during jury selection on social media. This includes Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc. (3)You cannot perform any research on this case. This includes any kind of Internet search or Google search. (4)You cannot read/watch/listen to any media, news reports, or any other discussion of this case. + +Thank you for your service. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..446a149a106d2219e9e9abd4953715be655665fd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/EFTA02834150.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1103 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 22515, + "elapsed_seconds": 8.33, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4 Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 48.46999740600586, + 134.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 341.27581787109375, + 134.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 341.27581787109375, + 148.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 48.46999740600586, + 148.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 280.98638916015625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 280.98638916015625, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.63 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "[DRAFT' EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 459.74298095703125, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 459.74298095703125, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 324.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.668, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 342.2470703125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 342.2470703125, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 268.668, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.052, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.052, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 85.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ability to Follow Instructions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 112.59 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "General Ability to sear", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 371.6757507324219, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 371.6757507324219, + 196.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 196.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Knowledge of Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 217.26, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 393.70538330078125, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 393.70538330078125, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 217.26, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 399.27459716796875, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 399.27459716796875, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 211.75199999999995, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Nature of Charges", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.6906433105469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.6906433105469, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Knowledge of the Trial Participants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 211.14, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 401.33929443359375, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 401.33929443359375, + 196.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 211.14, + 196.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Knowledge of Location", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 368.1279602050781, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 368.1279602050781, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prior Jury Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 356.29791259765625, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 356.29791259765625, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 255.81599999999997, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Relationship with, and View of, Government, Defense, and Others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 478.66400146484375, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 478.66400146484375, + 307.10302734375 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 307.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crime Victim", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 444.96044921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 444.96044921875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Au ror's Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 360.25701904296875, + 358.02 + ], + [ + 360.25701904296875, + 373.10302734375 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 373.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FINAL OUESTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 360.72918701171875, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 360.72918701171875, + 348.363037109375 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 348.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTION SHEE1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 370.87199999999996, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 504.9, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 504.9, + 215.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 370.87199999999996, + 215.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834150" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdd6b47a1a9c9aca883b00f44b2d819f5f79395c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834150/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e700443caf3f08cf249ff8d6f1f533e43772fd057b5b776781da61ee8c76bb24 +size 11462 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..208180d3475195aa28815158eaaac8878b7c14b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstemheim@maccom + +November 9, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The government's opposition to releasing Ghislaine Maxwell from pretrial detention (Dkt. 423) is a long-winded regurgitation of prior writings and rulings and underscores its determination to ignore the presumption of innocence and punish Ms. Maxwell pretrial for her association with Jeffrey Epstein. The indictment against her federalizes a New York State B misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days. Ms. Maxwell, who awaits trial, has served that five times over. Ms. Maxwell is not, and has never been, a flight risk. At every opportunity, Ms. Maxwell has vigorously asserted her innocence and her eagerness to face these unsubstantiated charges in court. She should be allowed to do so outside of the confines of the MDC, where her conditions of confinement significantly impede her ability to prepare for trial, negatively impact her health, and compromise her stamina to endure the rigors of trial. + +The Court now has the 3500 material and Giglio material which seriously undermine the strength of the government's case and underscore the lack of corroboration, facts which the government cannot and does not even attempt to refute. Rather, the government urges the Court to rely on prior rulings that were based on government conjecture that is not substantiated by recent disclosures. The Court and defense now have the witness statements, and they seriously call into question prior rulings based on the purported strength of the government's case. + +Ms. Maxwell is being treated differently than other defendants within and outside jail. Her conditions of confinement are extraordinary and "redundant" and have impeded her ability to prepare for trial. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were permitted to walk into the courthouse each day of their respective trials. Not until their verdicts were rendered, adjudging them guilty, were they detained. They were accorded dignity to defend themselves. Ms. Maxwell has not. + +The Court should release Ms. Maxwell from pretrial detention. It is the right and just thing to do, most especially for a mature woman with no criminal history, no history of violence, who poses no threat to the community, is not a flight risk, and is eager for her day in court. Ghislaine Maxwell looks forward to her trial and to walking out of the courthouse uncuffed and unshackled following her acquittal. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba73f00c7159a5182b8ce07907cc44f6cc76682b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166/EFTA02834166.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834166.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2761, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.63, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834166" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..230406e07ba009429a19f87d76e10603b090d703 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The 511vio blotto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 9, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 421). The Government has notified the attorneys for the victims regarding their right to attend the November 10, 2021 hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31f733b1dcf53e07cf821c5354fc6826eef5b72c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/EFTA02834168.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 920, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834168" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdc13f49bc6f8d1607001725f7a1288e47a1c24e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834168/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e00cf95b17bec212a1735d48a0ed11b8b1f24df3109e07620424ca4d39111032 +size 3488 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..059367022cb2eda61e5cc1168cf1704ef07e3ed7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As noted in its previous Order, the Court will hold an in-person proceeding on November 10, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Dkt. No. 409. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 110 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. + +The purpose of the proceeding is to address the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 conference. As is expressly required by Federal Rule of Evidence 412, the Court must conduct a hearing on this motion in camera and seal the record of the hearing. Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2). Accordingly, this portion of the hearing will be sealed and in camera. The Government confirmed that the attorneys for the alleged victims implicated by the Defendant's motion have been notified of their right to attend the hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Dkt. No. 430. + +For the public portions of the proceeding, the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family, in accordance with its prior Order. Dkt. No. 344. + +Space will be available in the courtroom proper for members of the media. In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the public and additional members of the media will be able to access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 506 and 905 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the proceeding. + +**The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited.** + +The Court anticipates seating capacity in the overflow rooms for 50 members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. Response to COVID-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see . + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 9, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d6ad27c32347ffcfbf84843e8046fce45664792 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/EFTA02834169.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3225, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.64, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 522.648, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 522.648, + 224.37 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 224.37 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834169" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..932f89f495281017dd088f4b211bbd522c0b1939 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834169/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7b2204aeba6591fea0a5f417519f0c203f2d6cdb7a74158c6ddf5bcfbe3b32c5 +size 11721 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c62483b3c8b03d6f410ab9b10da64a2b0024531 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +1 2 3 4 5 6 the aspects of the motion we filed, and I think it's a lot for the Court to have to deal with, quite frankly, and I know the Court is going to try and do the best it can with the situation, but I don't think it's tenable and -- I don't ask for mistrials easily, I have probably asked for four in my entire career, I don't see a way out of this problem. + +7 (Pause.) + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: All right, I'm going to deny the defendant's motion for a mistrial. Any issues caused by a witness referring to certain individuals by their first name only and by asking the Government if they may use last names of certain other individuals can be cured by a jury instruction, which I will give. Going forward, the Government shall provide the defendant and each witness, including the current witness, with a list of the individuals whose identity should be protected from the public and the press, that way each witness can refer to the list rather than asking the Government whether a particular individual's identity is protected. + +20 You don't have a proposed jury instruction. + +21 MS. PENZA: Not yet, Your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: I have one. + +23 24 25 To the jurors: You may have noticed during yesterday's testimony that the witness used first names of certain individuals. That is because the names of certain + +## Proceedings 245 + +1 2 3 4 5 alleged victims are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only; however, those full names are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +6 7 8 9 10 You may also have noticed that the witness was asking the Government whether she should say the last names of certain individuals. Going forward, the witnesses will receive a list of the individuals whose last names are to be protected to which they may refer while testifying. + +11 Anything else you want me to put in there? + +12 MS. PENZA: Not from the Government Your Honor. + +13 THE COURT: You object? + +14 MR. AGNIFILO: I do, Judge. + +15 THE COURT: Your objection is noted. + +16 17 18 Also, I'm going to direct that the parties shall not make any speaking objections. If the basis for an objection is not apparent, the parties may request a sidebar. + +19 MR. AGNIFILO: Very good. Thank you, Judge. + +20 THE COURT: Okay, what else? + +21 22 23 MS. PENZA: Nothing else from the Government, but we would just ask for five minutes to make sure that the list is correct for the current witness. + +24 25 THE COURT: All right, we'll take a five-minute break. + +## Proceedings 246 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..510fe10d36ab0a1e5441406a849f85a0daa4c0a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171/EFTA02834171.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834171.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2643, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.1, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Proceedings 245", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.912109375, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.912109375, + 65.9710693359375 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 65.9710693359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Proceedings 246", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.789794921875, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.789794921875, + 65.9710693359375 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 65.9710693359375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834171" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68be00967f051e30216e3614dae6c357d6624569 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 10, 2021 + +#### BY EMAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +At the November I, 2021 pretrial conference, the Court directed the parties to file a joint letter regarding protections for witness identities at trial. In particular, the Court directed the parties to: (1) provide nomenclature for witnesses whose identities should be protected, (2) propose procedures for voir dire related to witness identities, (3) submit a proposed instruction to the jury regarding witnesses testifying under pseudonyms or under their first name only, and (4) address the logistics of offering sealed or redacted exhibits containing personal identifying information. Below are the positions of the parties regarding these logistical considerations. Because this letter contains identifying information relating to victims, the Government respectfully requests that the Court accept the Government's proposed redactions to this letter. + +# Government position: + +## I. Nomenclature + +With respect to nomenclature for witnesses whose identities should be protected at trial, the Government respectfully submits the following chart, which provides the true names of witnesses and the proposed nomenclature for those witnesses at trial. + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +The Government submits that this nomenclature can be used when trial begins on November 29, 2021, but that the parties should be directed to continue referencing victims and witnesses on the public record according to the nomenclature in the Superseding Indictment. The Government further requests that the defense be directed to redact the true names of the witnesses in this chart from all exhibits to filings, and to avoid using the true names of victims in filings with the Court. Using the true names of victims delays public filings and creates otherwise unnecessary redaction projects that waste the Government and the Court's time. Moreover, using victim names in filings increases the risk that victim identities may become public, due to redaction errors or other issues. + +# II. Voir Dire + +Regarding voir dire, the Government proposes that prospective jurors be handed a sheet with a list of names and places that may come up at trial. That sheet, which would be filed under seal, would contain the true names of witnesses. The sheet would not be read aloud: instead, the + +Government requests that the Court direct prospective jurors to read the sheet and to raise a hand if they are familiar with the witnesses or locations. Examination of jurors on this subject would then be conducted at sidebar, with the transcript redacted to remove witness identifying information. + +[REDACTED] + +### III. Limiting Instruction + +The Government requests that the Court give the jury an instruction that is similar to the instruction Judge Garaufis gave the jury in *United States v. Raniere*, 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y.). In that case, Judge Garaufis instructed the jury: + +You may have noticed during yesterday's testimony that the witness used first names of certain individuals. That is because the names of certain alleged victims are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only; however, those full names are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +An excerpt of the relevant transcript is enclosed as Exhibit A. Here, the Government proposes that the Court instruct the jury: + +At this trial, certain witnesses will be testifying under their first name only. Other witnesses will be testifying under pseudonyms – that is, under different names. That is because the names of certain alleged victims and related witnesses are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only, or in some instances, by using a pseudonym. However, the full names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +prejudice to the defendant, as the instruction makes clear to the jury that the identities of the witnesses are being protected from the public and press only, and that the true names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the Court, and the defendant. + +### IV. Sealed and Redacted Exhibits + +The Government anticipates offering certain exhibits entirely under seal or with redactions to protect the personal identifying information of witnesses and third parties. With respect to logistics, the Government would propose submitting redacted versions of exhibits — along with an index noting which of the Government exhibits will be offered under seal — no later than November 29, 2021. To the extent the defense takes issue with the sealing requests or the proposed redactions, the Court may rule on those exhibits on case-by-case basis during the trial. + +The Government has considered how best to publish sealed exhibits to the jury while protecting the identities of witnesses and the privacy of third parties. On that score, the Government is mindful that exhibits published in electronic format on screens in the courtroom may be seen by the public, since the screens at counsel table — and potentially the jury box— are visible to the public from certain angles. For this reason, the Government requests permission to provide jurors with individual binders containing sealed exhibits. The Government expects that jurors will follow the Court's instruction to only view items in the binder when the Court instructs jurors to do so. + +### Defense position: + +In light of the Court's ruling on the government's motion in limine, the defense will accept the government's proposed nomenclature for the witnesses referenced above. The defense has no objection to the procedures proposed by the government for voir dire and for sealing and redacting exhibits on the understanding that the defense will have the opportunity to object to particular sealing and redaction requests. The defense also proposes the following limiting instruction in place of the government's proposed instruction: + +This case has received, and will continue to receive, significant attention in the media. To minimize the inconvenience and potential harassment of any witness, the Court has permitted witnesses, if they choose, to be referred to by either their first name or a pseudonym. However, the full names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court, and were shown to you during jury selection. This process should not bear in any way on your evaluation of the evidence in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d51ac20eaad4923f84fd71a2093bdddcb134683 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/EFTA02834173.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,410 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 7243, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.42, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government position:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 187.6045379638672, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 187.6045379638672, + 605.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 605.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Nomenclature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 201.494873046875, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 201.494873046875, + 632.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 632.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 604.26 + ], + [ + 178.9296417236328, + 604.26 + ], + [ + 178.9296417236328, + 619.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 619.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Limiting Instruction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 351.53999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Sealed and Redacted Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 282.2579345703125, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 282.2579345703125, + 187.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 187.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense position:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 162.88345336914062, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 162.88345336914062, + 104.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 104.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834173" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3892927590525d6e5748bd213bcd44ac1c9b998 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:90491f924c0f0cc1d718b50bc03453596dcc2ab366ba4ec43eaba998ecfcde4f +size 3421 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cca3b1e017d570b22edfa8087c33b6069899050e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834173/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8d00eeb3f91615eba42485a6f262fac1aa2f8b330e1a13fd8fcc922e9278239a +size 28058 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e059fbe7d104adda4b68ed0f3dd01ca180652301 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Ito New York. New York 10007 + +November 11, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 9, 2021, attaching the Court's draft preliminary remarks and revised voir dire. (Dkt. No. 427). The Government has no objections or suggestions to the Court's proposed remarks, the proposed voir dire, or the instruction sheet. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55d922053a446c2e2f6df92a18cca1725eadd432 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/EFTA02834178.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 961, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834178" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c37ef0619cea36a3c8ab34afcbec809531dc3bb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834178/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d6ba7329651523036d496f408fd3b11e50a7a6d302e1a4bd0fea864b8a7e545d +size 3488 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8e86cb93cc552c822606abdd652ce17af4607bc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +HADDON N + +November 11, 2021 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Haddon, and I I, r.c Laura A. Menninger + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 vAnv.hmllaw.com LMenningerahmflow.corn + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell., Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +With apologies for the delay, the defense writes to inform the Court pursuant to the Order of November 9, 2021, that we have no objections or suggestions to the Court's proposed remarks, voir dire or instruction sheet. + +Sincerely, + +C - Laura A. Menninger + +C: Counsel of Record (via EC \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01f1f7810fa2549f619db8db8b78d8d3800df058 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/EFTA02834179.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 736, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 124.60272216796875, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 124.60272216796875, + 231.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 231.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834179" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e86774f5a2527129a5c3325bca5d8f4aa6699d26 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834179/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:be38c937ada353202eb19d238633e4c8d6037b2b843564de8aff7d350ad5c3c6 +size 2927 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb769a1e1e52374363853414fbcbf50617532bbd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (MN) + +OPINION & ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Before the Court is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubers v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this opinion. + +## I. Legal standard + +Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; + +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94). + +But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg LP., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at \*13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. . 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). + +## II. Discussion + +As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Government in support of Dr. Rocchio's expertise should be excluded as failing to comply with the Court's order that the Government make all expert witness disclosures by April 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 250. But that Order, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1XG), required only that the Government provide an adequate summary of the intended topics and opinions of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, which the Government did here in a timely manner. See + +Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 262. The Defense cites only one case, United States v. which involved the distinct situation where a district court excluded expert testimony because the notice itself was untimely. 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court concludes that the Government's supplemental materials in further response to the Defense's motion are timely and may be considered in resolving the Daubert motion. + +Turning to the proffered expert opinions, as articulated in the Government's disclosure and at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Rocchio would offer five expert opinions. First, that perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors frequently use manipulation or coercion short of physical force as part of a strategic pattern, often referred to as grooming, to make the minor vulnerable to abuse. Second, that manipulation and grooming can prevent the minor from understanding their experience as abuse and so prevent disclosure. Third, that abuse can cause long-term traumatic and psychological consequences. Fourth, that the presence of another individual can facilitate sexual abuse of minors. And fifth, that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse and that memory can be affected by a variety of factors, including the effects of trauma. + +The Defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio has the qualifications to express opinions on these subjects. Dr. Rocchio has a PhD in clinical psychology and is a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of University. She has more than two decades of experience treating hundreds of victims of trauma, many of which were minor victims of sexual abuse. She has published peer-reviewed articles on trauma and sexual abuse and has given numerous talks in addition to her teaching. Given these papers, and her credible and extensive hearing testimony, the Court therefore finds Dr. Rocchio qualified as an expert. + +The Defense instead argues that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable, that it is not relevant to the jury's determination, and that its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's anticipated testimony is admissible with one exception. The Court will address first why Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible and then address the one opinion that it will exclude. + +First, Dr. Rocchio's method is reliable and well-accepted in her profession. It is for this reason that several courts in this circuit have admitted the testimony of similar experts, such as testimony on so-called trauma bonding to explain why prostitutes may not flee from their pimps even when not physically restrained. In United States v. Kidd, the court admitted the testimony, finding it to be "quite common[ ]" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18- Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). + +Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider the admission of such experts. A number of courts have admitted experts on the particular topic of grooming at issue here, a sample of which include the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576, 585 (7th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021), the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2010), the Eighth + +Circuit in United States v. , 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017), and the District of Massachusetts in Doe ex rel. Pike v. Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d 243, 249 (D. Mass. 2019). + +Here, Dr. Rocchio has extensive experience treating minors who have been sexually abused, and those decades of relevant experience, combined with her formal training, are an adequate basis for her to testify on methods that perpetrators of sexual abuse often use to build trust with their victims, whether that be grooming or other forms of manipulation and coercion. The Government has also provided several articles on the subject of grooming that convince the Court that it is a well-accepted theory in Dr. Rocchio's field. Though the Second Circuit has not ruled on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts disagree on the kinds of behaviors that define grooming. But if experts disagree on the proper interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). + +Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing, identifying points of agreement and disagreement. Based on her testimony, the parties' submission and accompanying exhibits, the Court concludes that the core concept of grooming is well-accepted in the relevant literature, even if experts continue to debate the details. + +The Defense's primary argument is that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable because it is based on her personal experience with the clients she has treated, that Dr. Rocchio did not verify whether those clients were truthful, and that Dr. Rocchio has not and cannot identify an error rate. The Court finds that these objections are misplaced in the field of clinical psychology, + +particularly when studying the causes and effects of sexual abuse of minors. The Court agrees with Judge Engelmayer's response to this argument: + +The absence of large quantity statistical studies is explained by a practical reason that should be obvious to all. Studying the circumstances and psychological drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory animals. In those studies, laboratory conditions literally can be achieved.... + +That strictly quantitative mode of inquiry is not realistic or even ethical in the context of studying sex trafficking. The causes and contributors to sex trafficking by their nature must be studied retrospectively. They cannot ethically be studied otherwise. Subjects cannot be tested to see under what circumstances they would and would not, on a going forward basis, fall prey to the predations of sex traffickers. Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of error rates and statistical significance is an unusually poor fit. + +Tr. at 29-30, United States v. Randall, 19-Cr.-131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335. + +For the reasons Judge Engelmayer gave—which Dr. Rocchio echoed in her testimony the Court finds that the error-rate factor listed by Daubert is not determinative as to the reliability of Dr. Rocchio's method. + +For similar reasons, the Court rejects the Defense's argument that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable because she relied on the reports of her clients. Given the realities of studying sensitive criminal acts like sexual abuse, a researcher can only rarely verify reports with absolute certainty. Yet that does not mean a clinical or forensic psychologist accepts all statements at face value. Rather, as the Government notes, part of Dr. Rocchio's profession is to examine and diagnose her patients consistent with her significant training and specialized knowledge. Further, on the forensic side of her practice, Dr. Rocchio regularly investigates and verifies sexual abuse. She reports "remarkable consistency" between the reports of her clinical patients + +and her forensic findings. Nov. 10 Tr. at 40. That said, the Defense is of course free to crossexamine Dr. Rocchio about how she evaluates her patients. + +The Defense also suggests that Dr. Rocchio's experience is based on an unrepresentative sample of alleged victims because her patients self-selected seeking treatment with her. Yet the Defense does not explain why Dr. Rocchio's experience with a large number of patients would not be applicable to the alleged victims in this case. To the extent the Defense wishes to argue that Dr. Rocchio's experience is under-representative, that is a topic for cross-examination. + +Further, the Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's experience treating victims of sexual abuse does not make her an expert on grooming, which would require experience with perpetrators themselves. This argument overlooks the fact that, as she testified, Dr. Rocchio also relied on literature that includes studies of sexual abusers' reported behaviors. But more importantly, the Court concludes, as other courts like the Ninth Circuit have, that extensive experience with victims can be used to study perpetrators' process of victimization. See Halamek, 5 F.4th at 1088. That is especially so here where the crux of Dr. Rocchio's expected testimony is the effect that grooming behaviors have on the minor, not the perpetrator's mental state when performing the behaviors. + +Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credibility"—that is, expert testimony is inadmissible if it "comment[s] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own `common knowledge and common sense,' no expert testimony is warranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp. + +Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should not admit testimony that is 'directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help' (quoting United States v. Castillo, 924 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d Cir. 1991))). Dr. Rocchio's first and second opinions may assist the jury in understanding how a minor may be enticed, induced, or coerced into illegal sexual activity without physical force. These opinions may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving intentional enticement or inducement. + +Dr. Rocchio's third and fifth opinions pertain to issues that will arise in the case based on anticipated cross-examination by the Defense. Specifically, the third opinion becomes relevant if the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on their substance abuse. And the fifth opinion may become relevant if the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on an ostensible delay in fully disclosing sexual abuse. At the Daubert hearing, the Defense stated that they intended to pursue both lines of impeachment at trial. Nov. 10 Tr. at 156-57. The Court therefore finds these elements of Dr. Rocchio's testimony relevant to matters the Defense intends to put in issue during anticipated cross-examination. The Court also concludes that these opinions satisfy the other relevant Daubert requirements. Namely, they would assist the jury in understanding concepts that require expert knowledge without directing the jury to reach any conclusion as to a witness's credibility. Additionally, both Dr. Rocchio's opinion about sexual abuse's connection to substance abuse and her opinion about delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the + +average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since they are relevant rebuttal to impeachment points that the Defense will put in issue. + +The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not relevant because the Government represents that she will testify only to general principles and not offer "testimony regarding any specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting similar testimony, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is appropriate because she does not testify as to any specific witness's credibility. See, e.g., , No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*7;M, 860 F.3d at 1140 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an expert may testify "regarding the general characteristics that sexually abused children exhibit" but may not usurp the July's role of assessing the credibility of any specific victim); United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2021) (same). + +This analysis is referred to in the case relied upon by the Defense, United States v. Raymond, and in portions of the Defense's briefing, as a question of "fit." 700 F. Supp. 2d at 149. But Daubert's "fir requirement is really just a specialized relevance inquiry that asks "whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute." Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant question of fact without "usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it." Id. (quoting + +United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). For the reasons already provided, the Court finds that fit is satisfied here. + +Third, the probative value of Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. The Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's testimony would not unduly "'simplify' an otherwise complex case" or mislead jurors by a supposedly infallible expert. Dkt. No. 386 at I I. Dr. Rocchio's opinions speak only to concepts and will not (and indeed may not) suggest that the jury find any alleged victim witness to be credible or to find Ms. Maxwell guilty. The more general nature of Dr. Rocchio's opinions, which the Court heard in detail at the Dauber: hearing, therefore mitigates its prejudicial effect. Telles, 6 F.4th at 1097. It is the jury's role to determine whether and how Dr. Rocchio's opinions apply to the facts of this case and the credibility of the witnesses. + +Last, as previously mentioned, the Court will grant in part the Defense's Dauber: motion. The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's opinion that grooming can be done to facilitate sexual abuse by a third party or that the presence of a third party can otherwise facilitate grooming is unreliable. The Defense calls this "grooming-by-proxy." E.g., Dkt. No. 386 at 9. Terminology aside, the Court agrees with this narrower objection to Dr. Rocchio's testimony. As discussed at the hearing, this phenomenon is not identified in the relevant literature regarding child sexual abuse and has not been subjected to peer review. Instead, the Court understands this opinion to be an extrapolation of the broader principle of how grooming functions through the development of trust. That extrapolation may be logical and follow common sense, but it is for the jury to make on the facts of this case. The Court therefore excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion that the presence of a third party can facilitate grooming. Dr. Rocchio's core opinions about grooming, however, remain admissible under the Rule 702 and Dauber: standard and remain relevant + +pursuant to Rule 401 and not unduly prejudicial. As discussed, the jury may extrapolate from the opinions that the presence of a third party creates the atmosphere of trust that can facilitate grooming. Moreover, as the Government explains, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is still relevant because the Government alleges both that Ms. Maxwell "in fact participated in sexual abuse of minors" and that she "conspired with a predator who groomed and sexually abused minors." Dkt. No. 397 at 27. + +The Court therefore denies the Defense's motion to exclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony except as to the opinion that the presence of a third party can facilitate grooming. + +This resolves docket number 386. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 11, 2021 + +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b2b5f01d75fcb0b9e83af90b9096ba3e7d7bddf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/EFTA02834180.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,502 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 20621, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 108.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 108.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Legal standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 206.84144592285156, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 206.84144592285156, + 566.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 566.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 183.74896240234375, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 183.74896240234375, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834180" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b36daf6a0b5c8215ecc0989c2ba290e7e2fb270c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834180/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6b73fc3b10f33baf8ff77fe00b3323ff70d20272bdbe33a169e6869045fe9a35 +size 11679 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11e5c1db41f02a5571c488d1c690b432a05f44d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.md @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +#### BY EMAIL + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New Yin\*. New York 10007 + +November 10, 2021 + +The parties are ORDERED to submit the lists referenced in this letter on or before November 14, 2021, in accordance with Dkt. No. 427. The parties may continue submitting proposed redactions in accordance with the procedures this Court has previously set. SO ORDERED. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +At the November I, 2021 pretrial conference, the Court directed the parties to file a joint letter regarding protections for witness identities at trial. In particular, the Court directed the parties to: (1) provide nomenclature for witnesses whose identities should be protected, (2) propose procedures for voir dire related to witness identities, (3) submit a proposed instruction to the jury regarding witnesses testifying under pseudonyms or under their first name only, and (4) address the logistics of offering sealed or redacted exhibits containing personal identifying information. Below are the positions of the parties regarding these logistical considerations. Because this letter contains identifying information relating to victims, the Government respectfully requests that the Court accept the Government's proposed redactions to this letter. + +## Government position: + +### I. Nomenclature + +With respect to nomenclature for witnesses whose identities should be protected at trial, the Government respectfully submits the following chart, which provides the true names of witnesses and the proposed nomenclature for those witnesses at trial. + +11/11/21 + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +The Government submits that this nomenclature can be used when trial begins on November 29, 2021, but that the parties should be directed to continue referencing victims and witnesses on the public record according to the nomenclature in the Superseding Indictment. The Government further requests that the defense be directed to redact the true names of the witnesses in this chart from all exhibits to filings, and to avoid using the true names of victims in filings with the Court. Using the true names of victims delays public filings and creates otherwise unnecessary redaction projects that waste the Government and the Court's time. Moreover, using victim names in filings increases the risk that victim identities may become public, due to redaction errors or other issues. + +#### II. Voir Dire + +Regarding voir dire, the Government proposes that prospective jurors be handed a sheet with a list of names and places that may come up at trial. That sheet, which would be filed under seal, would contain the true names of witnesses. The sheet would not be read aloud: instead, the + +Government requests that the Court direct prospective jurors to read the sheet and to raise a hand if they are familiar with the witnesses or locations. Examination of jurors on this subject would then be conducted at sidebar, with the transcript redacted to remove witness identifying information. + +[REDACTED] + +**III. Limiting Instruction** + +The Government requests that the Court give the jury an instruction that is similar to the instruction Judge Garaufis gave the jury in *United States v. Raniere*, 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y.). In that case, Judge Garaufis instructed the jury: + +You may have noticed during yesterday's testimony that the witness used first names of certain individuals. That is because the names of certain alleged victims are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only; however, those full names are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +An excerpt of the relevant transcript is enclosed as Exhibit A. Here, the Government proposes that the Court instruct the jury: + +At this trial, certain witnesses will be testifying under their first name only. Other witnesses will be testifying under pseudonyms – that is, under different names. That is because the names of certain alleged victims and related witnesses are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only, or in some instances, by using a pseudonym. However, the full names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +prejudice to the defendant, as the instruction makes clear to the jury that the identities of the witnesses are being protected from the public and press only, and that the true names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the Court, and the defendant. + +## IV. Sealed and Redacted Exhibits + +The Government anticipates offering certain exhibits entirely under seal or with redactions to protect the personal identifying information of witnesses and third parties. With respect to logistics, the Government would propose submitting redacted versions of exhibits — along with an index noting which of the Government exhibits will be offered under seal — no later than November 29, 2021. To the extent the defense takes issue with the sealing requests or the proposed redactions, the Court may rule on those exhibits on case-by-case basis during the trial. + +The Government has considered how best to publish sealed exhibits to the jury while protecting the identities of witnesses and the privacy of third parties. On that score, the Government is mindful that exhibits published in electronic format on screens in the courtroom may be seen by the public, since the screens at counsel table — and potentially the jury box— are visible to the public from certain angles. For this reason, the Government requests permission to provide jurors with individual binders containing sealed exhibits. The Government expects that jurors will follow the Court's instruction to only view items in the binder when the Court instructs jurors to do so. + +#### Defense position: + +In light of the Court's ruling on the government's motion in limine, the defense will accept the government's proposed nomenclature for the witnesses referenced above. The defense has no objection to the procedures proposed by the government for voir dire and for sealing and redacting exhibits on the understanding that the defense will have the opportunity to object to particular sealing and redaction requests. The defense also proposes the following limiting instruction in place of the government's proposed instruction: + +This case has received, and will continue to receive, significant attention in the media. To minimize the inconvenience and potential harassment of any witness, the Court has permitted witnesses, if they choose, to be referred to by either their first name or a pseudonym. However, the full names of the witnesses are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court, and were shown to you during jury selection. This process should not bear in any way on your evaluation of the evidence in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By email) + +1 2 3 4 5 6 the aspects of the motion we filed, and I think it's a lot for the Court to have to deal with, quite frankly, and I know the Court is going to try and do the best it can with the situation, but I don't think it's tenable and -- I don't ask for mistrials easily, I have probably asked for four in my entire career, I don't see a way out of this problem. + +7 + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: All right, I'm going to deny the defendant's motion for a mistrial. Any issues caused by a witness referring to certain individuals by their first name only and by asking the Government if they may use last names of certain other individuals can be cured by a jury instruction, which I will give. Going forward, the Government shall provide the defendant and each witness, including the current witness, with a list of the individuals whose identity should be protected from the public and the press, that way each witness can refer to the list rather than asking the Government whether a particular individual's identity is protected. + +20 + +21 MS. PENZA: Not yet, Your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: I have one. + +23 24 25 To the jurors: You may have noticed during yesterday's testimony that the witness used first names of certain individuals. That is because the names of certain + +# Proceedings 245 + +(Pause.) + +You don't have a proposed jury instruction. + +1 2 3 4 5 alleged victims are being withheld from the public and the press to protect the privacy of those individuals. I have therefore instructed the parties to refer to those individuals by their first names only; however, those full names are known to the Government, the defendant, and to the Court. + +6 7 8 9 10 You may also have noticed that the witness was asking the Government whether she should say the last names of certain individuals. Going forward, the witnesses will receive a list of the individuals whose last names are to be protected to which they may refer while testifying. + +11 Anything else you want me to put in there? + +12 MS. PENZA: Not from the Government Your Honor. + +13 THE COURT: You object? + +14 MR. AGNIFILO: I do, Judge. + +15 THE COURT: Your objection is noted. + +16 17 18 Also, I'm going to direct that the parties shall not make any speaking objections. If the basis for an objection is not apparent, the parties may request a sidebar. + +19 MR. AGNIFILO: Very good. Thank you, Judge. + +2O THE COURT: Okay, what else? + +21 22 23 MS. PENZA: Nothing else from the Government, but we would just ask for five minutes to make sure that the list is correct for the current witness. + +24 25 THE COURT: All right, we'll take a five-minute break. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d973bf604b001195fb71897ca9cea80465187d95 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/EFTA02834191.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,506 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 10182, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.53, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of .1 u 'dice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.47003173828125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.47003173828125, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government position:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 187.6045379638672, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 187.6045379638672, + 605.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 605.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Nomenclature", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 201.89169311523438, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 201.89169311523438, + 632.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 632.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Voir Dire", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 605.88 + ], + [ + 178.9296417236328, + 605.88 + ], + [ + 178.9296417236328, + 619.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 619.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Limiting Instruction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 352.35 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Sealed and Redacted Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 282.2268981933594, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 282.2268981933594, + 187.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 187.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defense position:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 89.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 162.33998107910156, + 89.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 162.33998107910156, + 103.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 103.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Proceedings 245", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.912109375, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 554.912109375, + 65.9710693359375 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 65.9710693359375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834191" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c05a6eae0974f07d9c9e81d9ce7169c5efe305a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e1f0cb1ee50e5727535d8cc176f0c55f552d875199770e553e8dfe747b731425 +size 3416 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b65511215146c7d62cfbaeb89b0cd907b613f0bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:182773c96153aa429b51dd14d3eb15446530afa5927f737887ec1fc14c8a57a6 +size 11182 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2266b48e65ba368df39fce6568a658c6346f9211 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834191/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1da6e7c6225d2ecd1d2c3543036cd76b0152bd92f6a571da84c8225f85cca2ff +size 24056 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14e26541d833887c1d081fbb90c8448b71f07bfd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCU [REDACTED] | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: _____ | +| DATE FILED: 11/10/21 | + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court hereby revises the schedule for the supplemental briefing as to Defendant's first and seventh motions *in limine*, which was previously set at the November 1, 2021 conference, as follows: + +- • Government submission due Friday, November 12, 2021 +- • Defense submission due Monday, November 15, 2021 + +At today's conference, the parties inquired about the start time for voir dire on November 16, 2021. The parties are ORDERED to appear at **8:30 a.m. on November 16, 2021** in Courtroom 518 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, for the start of voir dire. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 10, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9042b2196f0a0febed453d1ebf33dc10474d3228 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198/EFTA02834198.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834198.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1125, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.44 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834198" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c6676d18ed9b66511e8d4ae7829d6b09a8b6e77 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## Exhibit A + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +I iaa 1..v. lc a. IA len:\* • 2'29577600 phone + +Ginn= R Eretckll +1 (212) 957-7600 cevencle114cohengtessex co:. + +August 30, 2021 + +## BY FIRST CLASS MAIL + +Mr. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 + +Re: United Slates v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Assistant Attorney General Polite: + +We represent the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the above-referenced matter. This letter constitutes a request made pursuant to United States a. Rel. Touhv v. R an, 340 U.S. 462 . for the testimony of (1) FBI Special A ent , (2) FBI Special , (3) FBI Special Agent Tas c Force Officer, at the trial in this case on ovem r 2 2019 at 9:00 A.M., before the son athan, United States District Judge. + +In accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), we make the following statement setting forth a summary of the testimony we seek: + +were co-case agents in charge of an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein conducted by the Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida from approximate) July 2006 to June 2008. We request testimony from and concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as wel as e various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena, and their testimony before the grand jury. + +and are the co-case agents in charge of the current Investigation bell Mi nicted by the New York FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which resulted in the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein returned on July 2, 2019 (19 Cr. 490 (RB)) and the above-captioned superseding indictment against Ms. Maxwell (S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)), the initial indictment against Ms. Maxwell having been returned on June 29, 2020 (20 Cr. 330 U.S. Department of Justice August 30, 2021 Page 2 + +> (AJN)). We request testimony from and concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, an.re.ste various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena, their testimony before the grand jury, and the indictments returned by the grand jury. + +The testimony of these law enforcement officers is relevant and material to the issues in this case. Furthermore, it is Ms. Maxwell's position that the disclosure is appropriate under rules of procedure and that disclosure, to Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, would not violate any statute or regulations or reveal confidential sources, classified information, trade secrets, ongoing investigations, or investigatory techniques. (28 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)). + +me. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All counsel of record (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8675c3ed4a1b30dae651cba2bd8c07565acc271e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/EFTA02834199.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3231, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.03, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.348, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 201.348, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY FIRST CLASS MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 207.3186798095703, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 207.3186798095703, + 202.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 202.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834199" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d22054ff4ac4e0d8841067ae0f205612ace7115e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834199/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9818fd83367fce1f30d21087c11e265581938ec1d4fa6f4f7d363b00a23fca85 +size 1576 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60cc53caac22ae35224c97ac3efa3b64e7433eeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.md @@ -0,0 +1,453 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +#### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 2 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| ARGUMENT | 3 | +| 1. | The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First | +| Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits | 3 | +| A. Applicable Law | 4 | +| B. Discussion | 10 | +| II. | The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth If the | +| Defense Challenges Their Credibility | 17 | +| A. Applicable Law | 17 | +| B. Discussion | 19 | +| III. | The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the Defendant 20 | +| Possible Reasons for Them | 22 | +| Steps Taken During Current or Prior Investigations | 29 | +| Basis for Their Testimony | 32 | +| IV. | The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Govenunent's Alleged Motives | +| for Prosecution | 33 | +| V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not | | +| Witnesses at This Trial | 36 | +| VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is Inadmissible | 38 | +| VII. | Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit Other Bad | +| Evidence | 41 | +| VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements | 44 | +| IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification | 47 | +| X. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making the Baseless Argument that the | | +| Defendant Was a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein | 49 | +| XI. | The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A "Prevailing Party" in | +| Civil Litigation | 51 | +| CONCLUSION | 53 | + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits the following motions in limine. First, the Government respectfully requests that the Court protect the dignity and privacy of victims by permitting certain witnesses to testify under pseudonyms or using only their first names, and permitting the filing of related trial exhibits under seal. Second, the Government moves to admit prior consistent statements made by the minor victims in this case. Third, the Government moves to preclude the defense from distracting the jury with irrelevant and confusing testimony and argument relating to the investigative and prosecutive decisions of law enforcement agents and prosecutors. In particular, the Government moves to preclude the defense from calling agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), in an improper effort to put the Government on trial. Fourth, and relatedly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court preclude the defense from offering argument or evidence at trial in support of the defense's unfounded theory that the Government is prosecuting the defendant for nefarious reasons. Fifth, the Government moves to preclude the defense from attempting to impeach the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial. Sixth, consent is not a legal defense in this case, and the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury that the victims consented to their abuse. Seventh, the Government requests that the Court require the defendant to explain the relevance of any evidence she seeks to offer showing that she did not commit crimes with which she is not charged, before she offers that evidence or makes argument based on that evidence. Eighth, the Government requests that the Court preclude the defense from offering out-of-court statements by the defendant, which are hearsay. Ninth, the Government moves to preclude the defense from offering irrelevant evidence to garner sympathy for the defendant. + +relatedly, the Government moves to preclude the defendant from making the baseless claim at trial that she is a victim herself. Eleventh, and finally, the Government moves to preclude the defense from misleadingly suggesting to the jury that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation related to the facts of this case. + +For the reasons set forth below, the Court should grant the Government's motions. + +## ARGUMENT + +### I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits + +The Government requests, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, that the Court take certain measures at trial to protect the dignity and privacy of victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The Government expects the four Minor Victims named in the Indictment to testify at trial. In the course of their testimony—and the corroborating testimony of other trial witnesses—the jury will learn that two other minors (Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6) were also victims of the conspiracies charged in the Indictment. Specifically, Minor Victim-4 will testify that she was recruited by Minor Victim-5, and that she in turn recruited Minor Victim-6. Neither Minor Victim-5 nor Minor Victim-6 will testify at trial. + +In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, the Government respectfully requests that the Court take certain measures at trial, which are narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances and privacy interests of each victim and consistent with the protections victims of sex crimes have been afforded in recent federal trials. To be clear, the defense is already aware of the identities of all of these victims and witnesses, and the jury will be made aware of the identities of these victims and witnesses. The Government simply proposes measures that will + +protect against unnecessary public disclosure of their identities, in order to protect the Minor Victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment, and other adverse consequences. + +Specifically, the Government requests that (1) that Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and certain witnesses related to them be referred to at trial using only pseudonyms; (2) Minor Victim-4, Minor Victim-6, and certain witnesses related to them be referred to at trial using only their first names; (3) the Court preclude the defense from eliciting personally identifying details of those witnesses; and (4) the Court seal exhibits that contain the first and/or last names of witnesses which are not otherwise permitted to be stated at trial. Below, we address the applicable law, before turning to the specific relief the Government requests in this case.' + +# A. Applicable Law + +The Confrontation Clause guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against them. See, e.g., United States 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008). This right, however, is not absolute. A defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause must yield to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e.g., id. For instance, trial courts have "wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits . . . on . . . crossexamination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, . . . or the witness's safety." United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21, 25 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary + +Simultaneously with the filing of this motion, the Government is filing a sealed letter providing the names of the Minor Victims and witnesses identified in this section, along with certain other personal information. The Government requests that the defense omit identifying information from its response brief or permit the Government an opportunity to seek necessary redactions or sealing. + +order) (alterations in original) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986)); see Fed. R. Evid. 611(b) (imposing limits on the scope of cross-examination). + +In the context of the disclosure of witness identifying information, the Second Circuit has identified two primary interests of defendants: "(I) obtaining information needed for in-court and out-of-court investigation of the witness; and (2) enabling defense counsel to elicit information that might be relevant to the jury's deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness." United States v. Marcus, No. 05 Cr. 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at •1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970)) (finding the defendant's argument that "the district court's decision permitting two of the Government's witnesses to testify using only their first names and not to disclose their addresses or employment violated" the defendant's due process rights to be "without merit" in a sex trafficking and forced labor case), aff'd, 628 F.3d 36, 45 n.12 (2d Cir. 2010). If the Government provides a reason to "limit disclosure of identifying information in open court," the defendant must "demonstrate a `particularized need' for disclosure . . . which the court weighs against the risks to the witness." Id. (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266; United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 901 (2d Cir. 1969)); see United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568, 572-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting an undercover law enforcement officer to testify under a pseudonym, after balancing the relevant interests); cf United States v. 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977) ("[W]here the government voices a legitimate concern for a witness' safety, the trial court must balance the potential danger to the witness against the need of the defense for the information."). + +"[T]here is no absolute right of an accused to have a jury hear a witness's true name and address." Clark v. Ricketts, 958 F.2d 851, 855 (9th Cir. 1991). Strong public interests support limiting public disclosure of victim identities and other sensitive information. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, requires district courts to implement procedures to ensure that crime victims are accorded, among other rights, "[t]he right to be reasonably protected from the accused," and "[t]he right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Id. to§ (a)(I), (a)(8). Moreover, the public "has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." Doe on behalf of Doe No. I v. Nygard, No. 20 Civ. 6501 (ER), 2020 WL 4890427, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020) (quoting Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). + +These interests are particularly salient in sex abuse cases. Victims in such cases often testify or are referred to only using pseudonyms or without using their last names. See Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 32:1-36:6, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.) Dkt. No. 198 (permitting use of real first names and fake last names); Order at 10-11, United States v. Kidd, No. 18 Cr. 872 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019), Dkt. No. 60 ("The Court is persuaded that, to protect the minor victims, they should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms and that such anonymous testimony does not violate Kidd's Sixth Amendment rights."); May 8, 2019 Tr. at 6:20-21, United States v. No. 18 Cr. 874 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 53; Order at 29-35, United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622; United States v. + +Zhong, No. 16 Cr. 614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018) (granting government's motion to have victim witnesses testify using pseudonyms); Order at 2-3, United States v. No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("Jane Doe will be permitted to testify as 'Jane Doe' at trial, and will not be required to disclose her address, names of family members or exact place of employment (if any)."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 6-10, United States v. Quraishi, No. 15 Cr. 598 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 46 (permitting a witness to testify using only her first name); United States v. Corley, No. 13 Cr. 48 (MN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*34 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (noting that "Judge Patterson . . . permitted the minor victims to testify under a pseudonym at trial" and denying the pro se defendant's request for the surnames of the minor victims for his appeal); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (ER), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (permitting victims to testify using their first names only); Order at 2, United States v. =, No. 09 Cr. 619 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011), Dkt. No. 231; United States v. Paris, No. 06 Cr. 64 (CFD), 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007). Because of the explicit nature of the offense conduct, which may require victims to testify about "degrading and humiliating treatment," revealing victim identities "would likely cause . .. anxiety and risk social stigma," and "could chill the willingness of other alleged victims of sex crimes to come forward." Order at 2, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34. Additionally, victims in sex abuse cases suffer from "likely adverse personal, professional and psychological consequences of publicly linking their identities to their past" conduct. Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2. "In light of the explicit nature of the conduct" that is the subject of the case, victims have "legitimate" fears "of harassment by + +the media" and "loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity." Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at \* I. These interests significantly outweigh any defense interest, especially where the defense knows the true identities of victims and is able to mount their defense. See id.; Order at 2-3, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34.2 + +Indeed, in two recent highly publicized cases in the Eastern District of New York, the district court judges permitted victims to testify using pseudonyms or using only their first names. In United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y.), the Government moved to allow testifying victims to testify "under a nickname, first name, or pseudonym only, and to not be required to disclose uniquely identifying information," such as "addresses, names of family members, or exact places of education or employment." Order at 29, 32, Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622. The Court granted the motion, explaining that "requiring victims of sex trafficking . . . and other crimes to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to testify," and "would only cause further embarrassment and humiliation, given the inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged." Id. at 32, 35 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It also may "cause other victims to fear seeking help from law enforcement as that could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although the defendant claimed that several victims' + +2 Sex abuse cases are not unique. In other contexts, courts have permitted the Government to call witnesses using pseudonyms or using their first names only, notwithstanding a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. See, e.g., United States v. Schulte, 436 F. Supp. 3d 698, 706 2020) (permitting use of pseudonyms in national security case); United States 12 Cr. 809 (PKC), 2013 WL 3936185, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013) (permitting use of pseudonym for undercover agent in narcotics case). + +names were already public and that some victims had come forward by choice, Judge Garaufis found those facts "irrelevant": "just because some victims' names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experiences are already available," and "the choice of a victim to publicly discuss a crime is not analogous to being put on the stand about it, as, in court, the victim will not be able to choose how and to what level of detail she discusses the crime." Id. at 34 n.17. + +Judge Donnelly reached a similar result in United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD). In that case, the Government also moved in limine to permit certain victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names and prevent public disclosure of their addresses, names of family members, or exact places of employment. Mot. at 1, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 121. As the Government explained, the victims were "expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning their .. . illegal sexual abuse by the defendant, some of which occurred while most of the Victim-Witnesses were under the age of 18." Id. at 9-10. The Government also explained that two of the victims had "not spoken publicly about their experiences," and while a third had done so, "her anticipated testimony at trial will be more fulsome than her prior public disclosures and will include sensitive information that has not been previously publicly revealed." Id. at 11. The Court granted the motion. Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.). + +**B. Discussion** + +The victims are expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning sexual abuse, most of which occurred while they were under the age of 18. The limited protections requested by the Government are reasonable, necessary, and narrowly tailored to protect the victims' well-being, prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences, including loss of employment, and prevent the victims from being harassed by the press and others. + +Specifically, the Government requests that Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3—[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED]—be permitted to testify under a pseudonym. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Additionally, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The Government also requests that two witnesses (“Witness-1” and “Witness-2”), who the Government expects will testify at trial about Minor Victim-1, be permitted to testify under pseudonyms. This request is a corollary of the protection requested for Minor Victim-1: + +Witness-1 is [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +Witness-2 is [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The Government requests that Minor Victim-4 be permitted to testify using her first name only, and that two witnesses (“Witness-3” and “Witness-4”), who the Government anticipates will testify about Minor Victim-4, also be permitted to testify using their first names. Further, the Government requests that Minor Victim-6, who will not testify at trial, be referred to in open court by her first name only. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Finally, the Government asks that the Court: (1) limit references at trial for the above Minor Victims and witnesses to the manner described above, including in jury addresses and + +examination of other witnesses; (2) preclude the defense from eliciting personal identifying information for the Minor Victims, Witness-1, Witness-2, Witness-3, or Witness-4, including their addresses or the details of their current employment; and (3) seal exhibits containing the names of Minor Victim-I, Minor Victim-3, and Witness-1, or the last names of Minor Victim-4 and Minor Victim-6. + +To be clear, the Government's request is that those names not be stated in open court or read into the record. The defendant already knows the true names of these victims and witnesses. And the Government expects the jury to learn the true names of the relevant minor victims and witnesses at trial. The Government intends to offer documentary evidence that would corroborate the testimony of the Minor Victims and which contains the names of certain of the Minor Victims. While those names may remain hidden from the public, they will be revealed to the jury.3 + +Since the defendant's arrest, this case has garnered significant media attention, and the Government expects that members of the media will attend and report on the trial. Under these circumstances, it is highly likely that, if stated publicly in open court, the names of the Minor Victims will be widely publicized. + +That publicity imposes real costs on the Minor Victims and the public. First, publicizing the names of the Minor Victims will cause them significant embarrassment, anxiety, and social + +3 This can be accomplished simply. For instance, the jury can learn Minor Victim-I's name by displaying a document containing Minor Victim-I's name for the witness and the jury—but not the public—and asking Minor Victim-1 whether the name on the document is her name. + +stigma. These details are "inflammatory" in light of the "nature of the conduct alleged." Order at 32, United States v. Raniere (May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622. Minor Victims- I through -4 are expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning illegal sexual abuse by the defendant and Epstein, much of which occurred while they were under the age of 18. While Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 will not testify, similar details are expected to be elicited as to them. These details will likely appear in the news and on the Internet, but the Court can ensure that they will not be publicized side-by-side with the victim's true name. See Order at 2-3, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("This case has already received significant national and local press coverage. Revealing Jane Doe's identity would likely cause her anxiety and risk social stigma."). + +Second, the publicity increases the personal and professional consequences to the Minor Victims for testifying. One Minor Victim has expressed substantial concern to the Government about the risks that her association with this case will pose to future employment. Making that association widely public—for that victim and others—requires the Minor Victims to he associated with the graphic details of their experiences, not just in the general public consciousness, but with their friends, families, colleagues, and prospective employers. + +Third, the publicity increases the risk that the Minor Victims will be harassed by the press and public. In light of the significant media attention this case has generated, it is likely that the Minor Victims will be approached and harassed by members of the press and the public after + +their testimony. Publicizing their names will subject them to unwanted attention at the time they are testifying in a criminal sex abuse trial?' + +Taken together, requiring the Minor Victims to testify under their true and full names imposes serious costs on them. It is inconsistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's exhortation that victims are to be treated with respect for their "dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). And requiring victims of sex crimes to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to testify, for fear of having their personal histories publicized as they rebuild their lives. See Order at 2, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34. It could also cause other victims—including minors—to avoid seeking help from law enforcement because of fear that coming forward could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 412 Advisory Committee Note (explaining that, by protecting the victim "against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details," the rule "encourages victims of sexual misconduct to ... participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders"). + +4 The Government would consent to an appropriate jury instruction explaining that the reason for the precautions is "regard for the witnesses' and non-witness victims' privacy," and that no inference should be drawn against the defendant because of those precautions. Order at 33-34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 ("[T]he court is confident that any prejudice can be cured with a jury instruction explaining that the reason for the anonymity is regard for the witnesses' and non-witness victims' privacy."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 9-10, United States v. Quraishi (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016), Dkt. No. 46. As the district court in the Raniere case explained, "[Oven the potentially embarrassing nature of the allegations, and the media attention thus far, such an explanation will certainly seem plausible to the jury." Order at 34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 (footnote omitted). + +Public disclosure of victim information is unnecessary. The defendant already knows the true identity of all six Minor Victims, Witness-1, Witness-2, Witness-3, and Witness-4. The defense is therefore fully able to complete an investigation in advance of trial. Indeed, defense investigators have contacted many of the victims and witnesses at issue in this motion already. The defense will then be able to use that information on cross-examination. And, because the jury will know the Minor Victims' true names, the defense is free to make every argument, including by reference to the general occupation and living situation of the Minor Victims or witnesses. But there is no need—much less a particularized need—for the victims' true names or other personal identifying information to be stated in open court to accomplish that purpose.' + +In sum, the identifying information the Government seeks to limit in open court, including the aril names of the victims and witnesses, specific employment and family information, is largely irrelevant to their testimony.6 There is a substantial risk, however, that + +cco • y, tie otut an' parties may screen or juror 'ras wit out requumg any juror to state a protected name in open court. + +5 Public disclosure of these names is also not necessary for jury selection. At voir dire, prospective jurors can be given a sheet of paper with the true names and pseudon of the rotected witnesses and asked whether the know an individuals on the a + +The Government has no ofiection to cross-examination of Minor Victim-1 Minor Victim-3, and Witness-2 on + +eeense o prec u om e citing suc etas . + +disclosure of such information will identify the Minor Victims with particularity, and thus subject them to harassment, retaliation, and embarrassment, or additional consequences.' + +The sealing of exhibits containing the names of Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and Witness-1, or the last names of Minor Victim-4 and Minor Victim-6, is also appropriate. Although "the public has an `especially strong' right of access to evidence introduced in trials," United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995), it "is not absolute," Nixon v. Warner Commc 'ass, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); see also United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2001). For example, "subject matter [that] is traditionally considered private rather than public" will weigh "heavily against access." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. This includes certain "financial records . . . , family affairs, illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters . . . ." Id. at 1051. "[T]he `venerable' privacy-interest exception to the presumption of access exists to avert ccater[ing] `to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.'" United States v. =, 366 F. Supp. 3d 612, 626-627 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1051). The Government's sealing request is narrowly tailored to prevent public disclosure only of those exhibits which would identify by name the Minor Victims testifying in this case. Any other result would defeat the purpose of permitting the Minor Victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names, incurring all the harms described above. See Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (concluding that the interest in + +7 For the same reasons, any courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims. See May 6, 2019 Text Order, Raniere, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.) ("Sketch artists . . . may not draw exact likenesses of jurors or witnesses other than co-defendants should they testify ...."). + +protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because 'the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does' and Minors' testimony in full"). + +### H. The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth If the Defense Challenges Their Credibility + +If the defendant claims that the Minor Victims' testimony has been recently fabricated or that the Minor Victims have motives to lie, or if the defense otherwise attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, the Government will seek to introduce the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein. + +# A. Applicable Law + +Under Rule 801(d)(1XB) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a prior statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross examination about the statement, the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and the statement is offered either "(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground." Notably, "the prior consistent statement need not be proffered through the testimony of the declarant but may be proffered through any witness who has firsthand knowledge of the statement." United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of prior consistent statements to rebut defense insinuation that witness had testified from improper motive). + +Prior to 2014, a witness's prior consistent statement was only permitted to rebut a charge of recent fabrication that postdated the prior consistent statement. See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995). Many courts, however, including the Second Circuit, had developed + +rules allowing admission of prior consistent statements outside of the context of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) in order to rehabilitate a witness after certain attacks on credibility. See, e.g., United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d Cir. 1986). In 2014, the Rule 801 was amended to allow prior consistent statements that were "otherwise admissible for rehabilitation" to come in "substantively as well." Fed R. Evid. 801 (Advisory Committee's Note to 2014 Amendment) ("The intent of the amendment is to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness—such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory."). + +Thus, as amended in 2014, Rule 801(dX1XB)(ii) "expands the purposes for which prior consistent statements may be offered." United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196 (2d Cir. 2020). The Second Circuit has relied on subsection (ii) of the amended Rule 80 1(d)(1)(B) in finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior consistent statements that were introduced to rebut "defendants' attacks on [the declarant's] credibility and memory," notwithstanding that the defendants' "challenges to [the declarant's] memory were brief and were not their main challenges." United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 705-06 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801 Advisory Committee Note (2014) for the proposition that "[t]he intent of the amendment [adding subpart (B)(ii)] is to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness—such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory." (emphases in Flores)); see also Purcell, 967 F.3d at 196-98 (affirming admission of statements under Rule 801(dX1)(B)(ii) where the declarant was accused of making inconsistent statements and defense counsel never suggested "that the accuracy of [declarant's] trial testimony was marred by recent fabrication or a recently created improper motive or influence"). + +Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has found that a district court properly admitted evidence of prior consistent statements that "rebutted [the d]efendant's attack on [the declarant's] purportedly faulty memory." United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2017). + +## B. Discussion + +The Government expects the Minor Victims to testify at trial about their experiences with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, including the sexual abuse to which they were subjected, in the 1990s and early 2000s. To the extent the defendant challenges the credibility of the testimony of the Minor Victims—whether in opening statements or on cross-examination—the Government intends to call a number of witnesses to introduce certain of the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein. See. e.g., Flores, 945 F.3d at 705-06 (admitting prior consistent statement of witness after defense's opening statement called into question the witness's credibility); United States v. Burrell, 43 F. App'x 403, 406 (2d Cir. 2002) (allowing prior consistent statements of cooperating witness because the defendant "argued in her opening statement that the cooperating witnesses had a motive to lie"). + +Such testimony is admissible under both subparts (i) and (ii) of Rule 801(d)(1)(B). As to subpart (i), if the defendant claims that a Minor Victim recently fabricated her testimony, the admissibility of her prior consistent statements will depend in part on the alleged "recent improper influence or motive in so testifying." Because the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein were made well over a decade ago, they are almost certain to qualify as having been made prior to any accusation of motive to fabricate. They therefore tend to rebut any assertion that the victims or witnesses recently fabricated their allegations about the defendant. See Tome, 513 U.S. at 159, 167 (holding that the Rule "permits the introduction of a declarant's consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive" where "those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive"). + +And regardless of the timing of any alleged motive to lie, the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements will be admissible under subpart (ii), which was enacted "to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness." 2014 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 801 (emphasis added); see Flores, 945 F.3d at 705 ("As `not hearsay,' such statements are—subject to the usual prerequisites such as relevance—admissible as proof of the substance of the statement."). If the defense attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, such as inconsistency or faulty memory, the Government is entitled to rehabilitate the Minor Victims through prior consistent statements made to other witnesses. See. e.g., Purcell, 967 F.3d at 197; Flores, 945 F.3d at 705-06; Cox, 871 F.3d at 487. + +## III. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the Defendant + +In the 2000s, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, which later became part of an FBI investigation (together, the "Florida Investigations"). Those investigations culminated in a September 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), which did not name the defendant as a co-conspirator, and pursuant to which Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state offense. In or about November 2018, this Office opened its + +investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators, leading to a 2019 indictment against Epstein and a 2020 indictment against the defendant. + +The defense has indicated that it will seek to make the prior investigations and charging decisions the subject of testimony at this trial. For example, the defense has notified the Government that it seeks to call FBI case agents from these investigations to testify "concerning the scope, timeline. and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including by not limited to testimony about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, [and] documents they obtained by subpoena." (See Exhibit A). In their voir dire motion, the defense stated that they expect "Epstein's arrests and prior convictions for sexual misconduct, allegations of his sexual misconduct of minors over the course of two decades, and his untimely death awaiting his federal trial will be front and center" at this trial. (Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 342 at 2). + +The Court should preclude any evidence and argument about (1) charging decisions in criminal investigations of Epstein and his co-conspirators, and possible reasons for those decisions, and (2) the investigative steps taken during the current and prior investigations, including the length of those investigations. The Government's charging decisions are squarely within its discretion and not a probative topic on which the jury should speculate, and the Government has no obligation to use any particular investigative technique. The Court should not permit evidence on these subjects, which would create an irrelevant sideshow that would significantly delay this trial and confuse the jury. Similarly, the Court should not permit the defense to call FBI case agents in order to introduce evidence about those topics. + +#### A. The Court Should Not Permit the Defense to Elicit Evidence About Charging Decisions or Possible Reasons for Them + +### 1. Applicable Law + +Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that "[ijrrelevant evidence is not admissible." Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court may "exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Accordingly, any evidence that is likely to distract the jury from the issue of guilt or innocence should be excluded under Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984) (criticizing admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues in a criminal trial"). + +Evidence about charging decisions made by law enforcement officials is rarely admissible because such evidence typically consists of hearsay, is not relevant, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury. As such, courts in this Circuit have repeatedly precluded evidence of charging decisions for one or more of these reasons. See, e.g., United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (precluding cross examination regarding a government charging decision in part because "the limited amount of probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue confusion and an unnecessary sideshow . . ."); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) (explaining that the defendant "may offer evidence that Powell killed . He may not, however, offer evidence concerning that Powell was arrested and prosecuted for the murder."); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. Supp. 2d 486, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (to avoid confusing jurors, defendants precluded from introducing evidence about dismissals of prior charges against them in trial for the same conduct four years later); United States v. M, No. 12 Cr. 214 (KAM), 2014 WL 198813, at \*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014) (precluding evidence or cross examination of a detective regarding the Kings County District Attorney's Office decision to question but not charge the defendant for a murder that occurred in 1997 but was only indicted fifteen years later because such testimony is hearsay, irrelevant, and confusing); United States v. M, 934 F. Supp. 2d 451, 484-486 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (precluding the defendant from eliciting basis of decision not to charge a possible coconspirator); United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (JBW), 2009 WL 185725, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009) ("'[T]he government's charging decisions are not proper subjects for cross-examination and argument.' Evidence related to the government's charging decisions may be excluded at trial based on lack of relevance." (quoting United States v. Re, 401 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2005))).8 + +8 Although there is no per se bar to admission of charging decisions, the Second Circuit has permitted such evidence under narrow circumstances not present here, as discussed in greater detail below. See infra pp. 25-26 (discussing United States v. M, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012)). + +### 2. Discussion + +The defense should be precluded from offering evidence or making arguments about (1) the fact that the USAO-SDFL entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2008; or (2) the fact that the USAO-SDNY first indicted Epstein alone in 2019 before it indicted the defendant. Such evidence is irrelevant, would confuse and mislead the jury, and calls for hearsay. + +First, those facts are irrelevant. These charging decisions say nothing at all about guilt or innocence and fail to make more or less probable any fact of consequence. Such decisions are often made after consideration of multiple factors, including, for example, available prosecutorial or investigative resources and a desire not to disrupt an ongoing investigation. Even if a decision not to prosecute is based upon the prosecutor's view of the available evidence, it is irrelevant both because investigations routinely uncover additional evidence and because it is not the prosecutor's view of the evidence that matters, but rather that of the jury. + +Those points are particularly true here. It is entirely speculative to assume that the USAO-SDFL did not charge the defendant in 2008—or immunize her by name in the nonprosecution agreement—and that this Office did not charge her in 2019 solely because it lacked the evidence to do so and that such evidence could not have been developed had the investigation focused its resources on the defendant. See M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*2 ("Any connection between purported concerns about [a witness's] identification [of the defendant] and the decision not to charge in 1997 would thus be based on speculation and conjecture by government witnesses who did not decide whether to charge [the defendant] in 1997." (emphasis in original)). And because signification portions of the Government's evidence were developed after 2019, including testimony from two of the Minor Victims, any connection between the evidentiary background of the USAO-SDFL's charging decisions or this Office's 2019 indictment of Epstein and the defendant's guilt or innocence is attenuated. + +It is not the Government's view of the evidence at any one time that matters—it is the view of the jury considering the evidence before it, and past charging decisions have no bearing on that evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) ("Defendants may not invite the jury to speculate as to why [a particular] charge was not included in the indictment."), of 'd and remanded, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). At trial, the questions for the jury will be whether, based on the evidence presented, the defendant participated in the charged Act and sex trafficking offenses. Nothing about the decisions of the USAO-SDFL and this Office has any bearing on the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. M, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012), only underscores this point. In that case, the appellant challenged his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 238. "The only significant issue at trial was whether possessed a firearm, and, more specifically, whether the jury would believe the officers' claim that one was recovered from his front pocket." Id. at 247. was traveling in a vehicle with four other people on the day of his arrest, and "[t]he defense's strategy was to seek to demonstrate that the [firearm in question] was found in the vehicle and not on person." Id. at 238. All five individuals were arrested and charged that day in state court with possession of the firearm at issue. See id. at 239. Under New York law, a firearm found in an automobile is deemed to be the possession of all passengers in the automobile unless the firearm is found on the person of a particular passenger. See id. at 245, 247 (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 265.15(3)). The district attorney dropped the charges against the defendant and three other individuals, leaving only one of the individuals facing state charges for other firearms. See id. at 245. + +therefore sought to admit the initial charging decisions at his federal trial, arguing that "if the gun had actually been recovered from his person, none of the other individuals would have been charged with possession of that particular gun." Id. at 245. The district court rejected that argument, and the Second Circuit reversed, explaining that the "decision to charge all passengers traveling in the vehicle with possession . . . supports theory that none of the firearms was found on his person and discredits the officers' testimony to the contrary." Id. at 247. + +This case thus contrasts quite sharply with M. In M, the state's earlier charging decision directly contradicted a consequential fact in the case—whether the defendant was in actual possession of the gun. It was therefore highly relevant as evidence used to undermine the credibility of the officers testifying to the defendant's possession. Here, however, the Government's past charging decisions are entirely irrelevant to any factual issue in the case or the credibility of any witness. See M, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 485 (distinguishing in a conspiracy case because "a conspiracy necessarily involves agreement amongst more than one actor to engage in criminal conduct for which all members of the conspiracy may be found equally culpable"). + +Second, even if the decision of whether to charge the defendant in 2008 or 2019 had some minimal relevance, it would be substantially outweighed by the dangers of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. As courts in this Circuit have routinely held, introduction of irrelevant decisions of whom and when to charge presents a substantial risk of confusing and misleading the jury because a prosecutorial charging decision would tend to misdirect the jury's attention to a discretionary decision that is not connected to the ultimate quantum of evidence that the Government adduces at trial. See, e.g., Borrero, 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (holding that "the limited amount of probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue confusion and an unnecessary sideshow into [the] circumstances"); M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*2 ("[T]he reasons for the Kings County District Attorney's Office decision not to charge [the defendant] in 1997 are unknown and would cause confusion of and speculation by the jury."). That evidence invites the jury to abdicate its own view of the fully developed evidentiary record in favor of speculation about charging decisions by prosecutors at different times looking at different evidence and weighing different factors. + +Those risks are particularly acute here. Any discussion of the Government's prior charging decisions would require extended trials within a trial concerning the bases for those decisions. For instance, if the defense wishes to argue that the USAO-SDFL did not charge the defendant in the Florida Investigations because those investigations did not generate inculpatory evidence as to the defendant, it therefore puts at issue the non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances of its creation. As the Court is aware, those circumstances were the subject of a 290 page report from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. (See Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No 293 Ex. A). Discussion of those issues would be all the more confining to the jury because it involves decisions of a different prosecuting authority, because the USAO-SDFL resolved its investigation before significant investigative steps were completed, and because the USAO-SDFL investigation did nonetheless generate inculpatory material as to the defendant. To evaluate the evidence, jurors would also need to understand the sequencing of the various investigations into Epstein and the defendant, so they could understand which witnesses and evidence were available to which law enforcement agencies and prosecutors at what times. The history of various investigations into Epstein reaches back 20 years, and a review of that history would create an extensive sideshow. Any marginal probative value of evidence of the Government's charging decisions is substantially outweighed by the extended digression and confusion that such evidence would require. + +Third, eliciting information about past charging decisions would be hearsay. See M, 692 F.3d at 244-45 (declining to decide whether the evidence in that case was hearsay); id. at 253 (, J., dissenting) ("[A]s the majority opinion observes, hearsay problems abound in this case; yet, since neither party raised these issues on appeal, the Court has not decided whether the charging documents . . . are admissible hearsay."). Those charging decisions were made internally by prosecutors at the USAO-SDFL or at this Office. No prosecutors from either office are testifying at trial, and no witness testifying at this trial can explain the Government's past charging decisions. Any knowledge that an FBI agent has, or that a witness has, about the basis for a prior charging decision is based on statements made by prosecutors, which are themselves Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 30 of 54 + +hearsay. See id. at 246 (majority op.) (charging decisions proper subjects for cross-examination + +only "if otherwise admissible"); M, 2014 WL 198813, at \*1-2 (precluding cross examination of + +agent regarding district attorney's charging decision as inadmissible hearsay). The Government's prior charging decisions and the bases for them are irrelevant, + +hearsay, and disruptive to the trial. They should not be admitted. + +B. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Length of And + +Investigative Steps Taken During Current or Prior Investigations For similar reasons, the defense should be precluded from offering evidence or arguing to + +the jury about the investigative steps taken during the Florida Investigations or this Office's + +investigation, including the duration of those investigations. + +1. Applicable Law + +It is settled law that the jury should "base its decision on the evidence or lack of evidence + +that had been presented at trial." United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The Government's "failure to utilize some particular technique or techniques does + +not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged." Id. + +at 53; see, e.g., United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19, 24 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) + +("We have held that a district court does not commit error in instructing the jury that the + +Government has no legal obligation to use any particular investigative technique in preparing its + +case."). While a defendant "may comment on the failure of proof in the record, such as the + +absence of forensic evidence in the form of voice, handwriting, or fingerprint analysis," such comment becomes improper when it encompasses the further argument that "the government had + +failed to undertake to procure such evidence." United Stales v. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 + +29 + +(2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (affirming a district court that sustained an objection during a defense summation). Accordingly, issues like the "length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that [the defendant] was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant." United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); see United States v. Aleynikov, 785 F. Supp. 2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("As a general matter, the quality and scope of the Government's investigation are not appropriate lines of examination ...."), rev'd on other grounds by 676 F. 3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). + +# 2. Discussion + +It is not relevant or probative for the defense to elicit evidence or make argument about investigative steps taken or untaken by the Government, either in this investigation or the Florida Investigations, or about the length of those investigations. + +The issue before the jury is whether the admissible evidence before it demonstrates the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The particular investigative steps used (or not used) by the Government, and the length of the investigation, are wholly irrelevant to question. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rather, the jury's decision should be fixed on "the evidence or lack of evidence that had been presented at trial." Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d at 52. The defendant should be precluded from eliciting testimony about facts the jury cannot properly consider, and which do not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +Moreover, whatever marginal relevance a discussion of investigative steps or the length of an investigation may have is outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is routine practice in this District to give an instruction that "the government is not on trial." See. e.g., United States v. Knox, 687 F. App'x 51, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (instructing jury that the "government is not on trial" is "appropriate" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Introducing evidence about investigative decisions would only confuse the issues properly before the jury and suggest that jurors should focus on the history of investigations into Epstein and his co-conspirators rather than the evidence against the defendant. + +Judge decision in United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), is instructive. In that case, a defendant sought to call a case agent on three topics: (1) the length of the FBI's investigation, (2) the law enforcement techniques that were used and not used, and (3) contacts and communications with that defendant prior to his arrest. Letter, id., Dkt. No. 130. The Court explained that defense counsel "wanted to bring out that [the defendant] was not a target of the investigation for a long period of time." May 16, 2019 Tr. at 1168:12-23, id, Dkt. No. 159. Citing Saldarriaga, the Court explained that the argument was "absolutely irrelevant," because "[w]hat matters is whether the government has proven its case against [the defendant] here beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 1168:12-25; see Duncan, 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 ("Evidence about the length of the investigation, the techniques used, and when Locust became a target is therefore not admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401."). + +So too here. It is irrelevant what investigative steps were taken during the Florida investigations or this investigation, and it is irrelevant how long those investigations lasted. Testimony and argument on those points would not assist the jury in evaluating the defendant's guilt or innocence, but it would confuse the jury by directing them to focus on investigators' conduct. Especially where the investigative context is complicated and a topic of public interest (see generally Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No. 293 Ex. A at v-vi), evidence or argument on that point can only distract the jury from its function. + +The defense is free to offer its own evidence about the victims and instances charged in this case, and it is free to attempt to impeach the Government's witnesses through legitimate evidentiary means. But evidence about unrelated investigative steps and their outcomes would only serve to extend the trial and distract the jury with irrelevant information. This Court should preclude such evidence. + +## C. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering a Valid Basis for Their Testimony + +As explained above, the Court should preclude evidence or argument regarding either the outcomes of the prior investigations, investigative steps taken during those investigations, the length of those investigations, or the evidence developed during those investigations about unrelated events. Nevertheless, it appears the defense intends to call one or more case agents in order to elicit such improper testimony. The Court should preclude testimony from case agents unless the defense identifies a proper basis for their testimony. + +The Government has received a request from the defense pursuant to United States ex. Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) for the testimony of two FBI case agents from the Florida Investigations and two FBI case agents for the investigation that led to charges in this District against Epstein and the defendant. The notice is attached as Exhibit A. According to the Touhy request, which must summarize the testimony sought, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), the defendant seeks testimony "concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony + +about numerous witness interviews they conducted, physical evidence they reviewed, documents they obtained by subpoena," and their activities before the grand jury. (Ex. A at 1-2). + +But as set forth above, testimony about the "resolution" of a prior investigation is irrelevant hearsay that would only serve to confuse the jury. Evidence about the "scope," "timeline," or "various investigative steps taken by the agents" is similarly irrelevant and misleading. The case agents are not summary witnesses that the defense can use to place before the jury sweeping conclusions about the Florida Investigations or this one.9 The bases identified for their testimony are improper, and the Court should preclude them unless the defense identifies a specific, valid purpose for their testimony. + +### IV. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Government's Alleged Motives for Prosecution + +As the Court is aware, the defendant has claimed that she is being prosecuted as a scapegoat because Jeffrey Epstein is dead. (See, e.g., Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 142, at 1 ("[T]he government has sought to substitute our client for Jeffrey Epstein . . . .")). That claim is as false as it is offensive. But in any event, the Government's motives for prosecution are irrelevant to the question of the defendant's factual guilt that will be before the jury at trial, and any probative + +9 Furthermore, the proffered bases for the case agents' testimony will likely run afoul of numerous evidentiary rules. The Government's case agents cannot testify to the substance of "numerous witness interviews they conducted" with uncalled witnesses, which is hearsay. The agents' prior testimony before the grand jury is admissible only under the limited principles that govern prior consistent or inconsistent statements. And there is significant risk that case agent testimony will introduce additional evidentiary issues. For instance, questioning the case agents about information their investigations generated about the defendant would likely yield hearsay responses and would open the door to agents offering other information that is inculpatory to the defendant and that the Government would not otherwise offer at trial. + +value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to the Government and risk of distracting the jury or encouraging jury nullification. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. The Court should therefore preclude evidence or argument regarding the Government's supposed motives for prosecution, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant. + +The Second Circuit has explained that claims of purported government misconduct must be "directed to the court rather than jury." United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997). Allegations concerning the government's conduct are "ultimately separate from the issue of [a defendant's] factual guilt" and concern an alleged "defect in the institution of the prosecution." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, district courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising these arguments at trial. See id. ("[W]e agree with the district court's decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States v. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting motion to preclude the defendant from "presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting" the defendant), aff'd and remanded, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). + +This extends to claims challenging the motives of a prosecution. In general, "the decision as to whether to prosecute generally rests within the broad discretion of the prosecutor, and a prosecutor's pretrial charging decision is presumed legitimate." United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716 (2d Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States + +v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996) ("[S]o long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute . . . generally rests entirely in [the prosecutor's] discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendants are permitted to challenge the motives for a prosecution by seeking dismissal of an indictment due to vindictive or selective prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 558, 562-64, 576 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020) (denying vindictive and selective prosecution claims). Such challenges, however, are issues "for the court rather than for the jury." United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(bX3XAXiv) (listing, among pretrial motions, "a defect in instituting the prosecution, including . . . selective or vindictive prosecution"). Accordingly, courts have sustained objections or precluded defendants from arguing to the jury about the Government's motives. See Farhane, 634 F.3d. at 166-67 (affirming a sustained objection to a defense closing argument that "the government had targeted him for prosecution based on his religion"); United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) ("[T]o the extent Locust seeks to highlight the fact that he was not a target of the investigation to suggest that the government's true targets were the doctors and lawyers allegedly involved in the conspiracy and to draw attention to their absence from this case, the Court has already ruled that such argument is improper."). + +The defense is free to argue that the defendant is not guilty. However, offering evidence or argument to claim the Government is prosecuting the defendant because Epstein is dead, as a scapegoat for Epstein, or for any other improper motive, is impermissible—and untrue. The reasons for the prosecution have no bearing whatsoever on the jury's proper function. If the facts gave rise to a viable claim of improper motive, the proper course would have been to file a motion to dismiss the Indictment on those grounds. But the defendant did not do so, and she may not now pursue that theory before the jury. + +Evidence or argument about Epstein's death while awaiting prosecution is also irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The fact that Epstein died while awaiting prosecution more than fifteen years after the charged conduct is entirely irrelevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Introducing that evidence to the jury and arguing that it somehow relates to the Government's case would only confuse the jury about their task and unfairly prejudice the Government should the defense then imply or argue that it relates to the Government's motives for prosecution. + +## V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at This Trial + +At trial, the Government expects that witnesses will testify about individuals who are not witnesses at trial, and whose out-of-court statements will not be offered for their truth. For example, witnesses will testify about Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, who will not be witnesses at trial. The Court should preclude the defense from attempting to impeach the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial, and whose credibility is therefore irrelevant. + +An "essential safeguard" of a fair trial is the "right to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test." United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, 723 (2d Cir. 1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, + +the Federal Rules of Evidence contain extensive provisions governing the impeachment of witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 607-13. Rule 806 also authorizes attacks on the credibility of hearsay declarants, agents, and co-conspirators when those individual's statements have been admitted into evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 806. This rule "effectively treats the hearsay declarant as a witness for impeachment and rehabilitation purposes." 2 McCormick on Evid. § 324.2 (8th ed.). + +For individuals who are not witnesses and not hearsay declarants, however, none of those rules apply. Instead, those non-witnesses' "credibility is irrelevant." United States v. McGowan, 58 F.3d 8, 15-16 (2d Cir. 1995). The Second Circuit has therefore "clearly established . . . the principle that a statement not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may not be impeached under Rule 806." United States v. Paulin, 445 F.3d 211, 217 (2d Cir. 2006); see United States v. No. 02 Cr. 1237 (SWK), 2005 WL 1430483, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2005) ("It has long been the case in the Second Circuit that it is proper to preclude crossexamination of an individual whose statements are not admitted for their truth."). Even if the individual is a "'central figure" in the case, "a district court need not allow impeachment" if the individual's "out-of-court statements were not admitted for their truth." United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1083 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting McGowan, 58 F.3d at 15-16); see United States v. M, No. 05 Cr. 441 (PKL), 2005 WL 2709160, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2005) ("Because the informant's statements are not hearsay, and because the government will not call the informant as a witness at trial, it follows that defendant may not impeach the credibility of the informant."). + +In this case, the Government is not planning to call Minor Victim-5 or Minor Victim-6. To the extent other witnesses are expected to testify about the activities of Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, including statements made by them, that testimony will not include any statements by Minor Victim-5 or Minor Victim-6 offered for the truth of the matter asserted or under one of the other exceptions listed in Rule 806. See Fed. R. Evid. 806 (referencing Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2XC)-(E), which concern authorized speakers, agents or employees acting within the scope of that relationship, and co-conspirator statements). That testimony instead is expected to include discussion of acts by Minor Victim-5 and Minor Vicitm-6 and statements offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but for some other reason, such as the effect on the listener. For instance, and as noted above, Minor Victim-4 is expected to testify that she was recruited by Minor Victim-5. Those statements are not offered for their truth, but to explain Minor Victim-4's actions. Similarly, Minor Victim-4 is expected to testify that she personally observed the sexual abuse of Minor Victim-5—observations that require no hearsay statements from Minor Victim-5. Accordingly, since Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 are neither witnesses nor hearsay declarants, their credibility is not at issue, and they should not be subject to impeachment or attack on that basis.10 + +## VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is Inadmissible + +A defendant is entitled to present a defense only if it has a foundation in the evidence and it does not fail as a matter of law. See, e.g., United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485, 489 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ("A federal court may preclude a defendant from presenting a defense when + +10 This analysis is not unique to the Minor Victims. Attacks on the credibility of any individual who is neither a witness nor a hearsay declarant, including victims' counsel, is improper. (See, e.g., Reply Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 285 (arguing that the Government improperly colluded with victim's counsel)). + +the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053, 1057 (2d Cir. 1990) ("This procedure enabled [the Court], upon finding that the defense failed as a matter of law, to preclude the evidence and thereby avoid unnecessary jury confusion."). If there is a question of whether a defense is sufficient as a matter of law, the Court may conduct a hearing. See Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d at 1057. But if the Court finds a defense insufficient as a matter of law, the Court is under no duty to allow the defendant to present the evidence, or advance the defense, to the jury. See Miles, 748 F.3d at 489; United States v. Paul, 110 F.3d 869, 871 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing United States v.=, 444 U.S. 394, 416-17 (1980)). + +Consent is not a valid defense to any of the counts in the Indictment. It is not a valid defense to sex trafficking of minors. See United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x 1, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) ("Further, the victims could not consent because they were minors."); United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2009) ("Because the victims were minors and could not legally consent, the government did not need to prove the elements of fraud, force, or coercion, which are required for adult victims."); United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). It is not a defense to the Act counts. See United State v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) "makes no distinction between victims and coconspirators for purposes of imposing liability on the person who transports another; the defendant need only have transported an `individual' . . . to be guilty under the Act."); United States v. M, 529 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2008) ("[C]onsent is not a defense to a prosecution under section 2423(a)."); United States v.M, 808 F.2d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 1986) ("[C]onsent is a defense to kidnapping but not to a Act charge . . . ."); United States v. No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1886967, at \*7 n.4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2015) ("[C]onsent is not a defense to the sex trafficking of minors . . . and is also not a defense to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422."); United States v. Griffith, No. 99 Cr. 786 (HB), 2000 WL 1253265, at \*18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) ("The Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241-3) has never, since its inception, provided for a defense of consent."); see also Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 119 (1932) ("For the statute is drawn to include cases in which the woman consents to her own transportation."). And it is not a defense to the New York offense which is the object of the Act counts. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(3Xa) ("A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is ... less than seventeen years old ...."). + +The Indictment concerns only minor victims, and as a matter of law, such underage victims could not consent to engage in sexual activity. Accordingly, evidence or arguments that the victims consented to being trafficked, transported, enticed, or sexually exploited would not give rise to a valid defense, and they should be precluded. See Elbert, 561 F.3d at 777-78 (affirming exclusion of evidence of a victim's consent under Federal Rule of Evidence 412). In the absence of a consent defense, evidence about the victims' consent to sexual activity should also be excluded as irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Such evidence is not probative or relevant to any issue at the trial. It cannot support a defense, and it does not impeach the witnesses or undermine their credibility. + +And in any event, argument and evidence about victims' consent should be excluded under Rule 403. Any marginal value of such evidence would serve primarily to cast aspersions on the victims for participating in the defendant's crimes, embarrassing the victims and inviting the jury to engage in stereotyping and nullification. These are precisely the forms of harm the law elsewhere tries to mitigate. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 412 & Advisory Committee Note (restricting introduction of evidence of a victim's other sexual behavior to encourage victims to come forward and avoid "invasion of privacy, potential embossment and sexual stereotyping"); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8) (giving victims the right to be treated with "respect for the victim's dignity and privacy"). The probative value of such evidence is therefore significantly outweighed by the danger of prejudice. + +The Court should permit evidence of a minor victim's consent to engage in sexual activity only if doing so would aid the jury to evaluate a legitimate defense theory, which the defense has not yet proffered. + +### VII. Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit Other Bad Acts, the Court Should Require the Defense to Proffer the Basis and Relevance of Such Evidence + +The defense has repeatedly suggested that any witness who did not observe the defendant participating in criminal conduct is exculpatory evidence. Specific-act propensity evidence is no more admissible to refute a criminal charge than it is to establish one. Accordingly, before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence. + +"No less than evidence of a defendant's prior 'bad acts' used to show that he committed the crime charged, . . . 'good acts' evidence is only relevant if we assume that a defendant acted in conformity with those prior good acts—Le., if we make the exact propensity inference Rule 404(b)(1) is designed to prohibit." United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767, 792 (2d Cir. 2021) (upholding exclusion of "testimony regarding [defendant's] relationships with coaches whom he did not bribe"). Accordingly, "[a] defendant may not seek to establish his innocence .. . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions." United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1011 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A single occurrence of lawful conduct is `simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of unlawful conduct." United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. = 191 F.3d 326, 336 (2d Cir. 1999)); see United States v. M, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) ("We reject assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the government did argue that had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips."); Boyce v. =, No. 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (in a civil sex trafficking case, excluding evidence of witnesses who would testify that the defendant did not abuse them, because "[i]t is well established that a defendant may not seek to establish his innocence through proof of absence of criminal acts on specific occasions" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). + +The Government has produced to the defendant records of interviews of many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein, some of whom did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy. The defendant is not charged with committing crimes against these victims. In prior filings, the + +defendant has emphasized these witness statements, and claimed that they are exculpatory. (See, e.g., Mem. of Law, Dkt. 138 at 7-11; Letter, Dkt. 64 at 1; Mot., Dkt. No. 346 at 2 n.1). + +As explained above, as a general matter, "evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged" is inadmissible. United States v. =, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015). The Government will not contend at trial that the defendant personally participated in the abuse of all of Epstein's victims, and it is not a defense to claim that the defendant is not guilty of crimes with which she is not charged. This Court has already said as much. In the defendant's pretrial motions, she alleged preindictment delay on the grounds that the lead detective from the Palm Beach Police Department investigating Epstein "revealed that not one of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Ms. Maxwell's name and she was never considered a suspect." (Mem. of Law, Dkt. 138 at 10-11). The Court rejected this argument, explaining that the testimony the defendant suggested that the detective might have offered "is propensity evidence that does nothing to establish her innocence of the charged offenses." (Opinion & Order, Dkt. 207 at 18); see United States v. Raniere, 384 F. Supp. 3d 282, 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (rejecting a motion for discovery because "statements by individuals who were not allegedly directed to have sex with [the defendant] or were not threatened with the release of collateral in exchange for acts of care are not Brady material because they have no bearing on whether the alleged victims were so directed or threatened"). + +Moreover, the Government notes that evidence of these encounters is only admissible through the victims themselves. Any other method of eliciting that evidence, such as through testimony by a case agent, is inadmissible hearsay. While the defendant has no burden to put on a defense case, she can only introduce this evidence by doing so. + +Accordingly, before the defendant—in opening or during trial—argues or offers evidence about the defendant's absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the Government's case-in-chief, the Court should require the defendant to explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible. + +### VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements + +The Government has produced to the defendant many of her own statements, including primarily (1) statements contained in emails or other communications, and (2) statements from her own deposition. Some of the latter statements contain denials of portions of the offense conduct, for which the defendant is separately charged with perjury. (See Indictment ¶¶ 28-31). The Court should not permit the defense to introduce these statements. + +A defendant may not offer her own statement into evidence without subjecting herself to cross-examination. "When the defendant seeks to introduce his own prior statement for the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay, and it is not admissible." United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., United States v. ■, **958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992) (similar); United States v. Fernandez, 839 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) ("[D]efense counsel wished to place [the defendant's] statement . . . before the jury without subjecting [the defendant] to cross-examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids."); United States v. 435 F. Supp. 3d 526, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ("Finally, the Court agrees with the Government that, in the event evidence of his flight is admitted, may not** + +automatically admit his alternative explanation for his flight, insofar as he wishes to bring in his out-of-court statements to others on social media or to prison officials."). The Government is able to introduce the defendant's statements as statements of an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2XA). See Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2)(A) (defining as "not hearsay" a statement "offered against an opposing party" and "made by the party"). But the Federal Rules contain no parallel provision for the defendant. See 669 F.2d at 84. Instead, if the defendant wishes to place her own statements before the jury, she must testify so the Government may cross-examine her. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 153 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that defendant "could have testified to everything asserted in his statement, [but] he could not offer the document itself for the truth of the matter asserted"), overruled on other grounds by Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009). + +Notwithstanding the hearsay bar, a defendant may in limited circumstances invoke the so-called "rule of completeness" to require the introduction of additional portions of his or her own out-of-court statement when the Government offers excerpts of it. See Fed. R. Evid. 106 ("If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time."). "Under this principle, even though a statement may be hearsay, an `omitted portion of [the] statement must be placed in evidence if necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid misleading the jury, or to ensure fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion." United States v. M, 507 F.3d 793, 796 (2d Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting + +United States v. Castro, 813 F.2d 571, 575-76 (2d Cir. 1987)). But this doctrine "has never required the admission of portions of a statement that arc neither explanatory of nor relevant to the admitted passages." United States v. M, 930 F.3d 44, 58 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see id. at 61 ("[T]he rule of completeness does not require the admission of self-serving exculpatory statements in all circumstances." (emphasis in original)). This rule is strictly applied, leading the Second Circuit to hold, for example, that a defendant could not introduce a portion of his confession relating "to the execution of [a] robbery," where the portion introduced by the Government concerned only "plans to execute the robbery." , 507 F.3d at 796 (emphasis in original). + +The Government expects to offer certain of the defendant's written statements contained in her cmails and oral statements through witness testimony. To the extent the defendant wishes to offer her own out-of-court statements, they are hearsay, whether in emails, deposition transcripts, or elsewhere. And unless they accomplish the narrow function of the rule of completeness, the Court should preclude them. Given the limited admissibility of such statements, and to avoid mid-trial delays, the Government requests that (a) to the extent the defense seeks to admit such evidence during the Government's case-in-chief during crossexamination of witnesses, the defense preview with the Government and the Court prior to each trial day any statement of the defendant it intends to admit, so that any evidentiary issues can be addressed outside of the trial day; and (b) that the defendant be required to mark any such statements that she intends to offer during her case-in-chief at the time of her Rule 26.2 disclosures. + +#### IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification + +The defendant may attempt to offer evidence of aspects of her life that may tend to elicit the juror's sympathy, such as her charitable works or evidence of her family history. Such evidence should be excluded as irrelevant, confusing, and prejudicial. + +As discussed above, the Federal Rules of Evidence preclude the use of good acts to draw a propensity inference in favor of the defendant, just as they preclude the use of prior bad acts for the same purpose. See supra Section VII. Evidence and argument that makes the defendant appear sympathetic for reasons unrelated to the charges at issue should also be excluded as inviting the jury to acquit a defendant even where the evidence proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries are not "to act based on their ... sympathy." United States v. Stroming, 838 F. App'x 624, 627 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order); see, e.g., United States v. Mustaga, 753 F. App'x 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) ("The district court correctly recognized that evidence of solitary confinement could be used for the improper purpose of provoking juror sympathy."). Any attempt to encourage such sympathy is therefore an attempt at nullification, which is itself plainly improper. See, e.g., United States v. 116 F.3d 606, 615 (2d Cir. 1997) (Jury nullification is "by no means a right or something that a judge should encourage or permit if it is within his authority to prevent."); id. at 614 ("We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent."); see also United Stain v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per ctiriam) ("A jury has no more 'right' to find a 'guilty' defendant 'not guilty' than it has to find a `not guilty' defendant 'guilty,' and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the + +power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power." (emphasis in original)). + +Even if a defendant offers character evidence, that evidence may not include specific instances of good conduct, unless the defendant's character is an "essential element" of the offense. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a) & 405; see, e.g., United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767, 792 & n.77 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Nachamie, 28 F. App'x 13, 20-21 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order). Character evidence is only admissible "by testimony about the person's reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion." Fed. R. Evid. 405(a); see, e.g., United States v. M, 638 F. App'x 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) ("The limitations imposed by the district court followed directly from the Rules of Evidence, which permit a defendant to offer evidence of a personal opinion or his reputation for a pertinent character trait, but not to offer testimony regarding 'specific instances' of conduct in conformity with a trait that is not at issue." (citations omitted)). + +The Government is unaware of any relevant reason for the jury to consider the defendant's charitable activities, family history, or similar facts. Because those facts have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, and they are not permissible character evidence, she should be precluded from mentioning such subjects in her opening statement, during the presentation of evidence, or in closing statements, absent a ruling that a specific fact is relevant and more probative than unfairly prejudicial. + +#### X. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making the Baseless Argument that the Defendant Was a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein + +In order for counsel to ask questions or make argument about a fact, counsel must have a good faith basis for advancing that fact. See, e.g., United States v. 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Although counsel may explore certain areas of inquiry in a criminal trial without full knowledge of the answer to anticipated questions, he must, when confronted with a demand for an offer of proof, provide some good faith basis for questioning that alleges adverse facts." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Government's years-long investigation has not developed any evidence that the defendant was victimized in any way by Jeffrey Epstein. The Government has also met with the defense many times, both prior to presenting this case to a grand jury and when conferring during the pendency of this matter. During one of those meetings, defense counsel made a variety of factual assertions in order to dissuade the Government from charging the defendant. At no time has the defense represented to the Government that Epstein victimized the defendant in any manner. In preparing these motions, the Government asked the defense whether they plan to offer such evidence at trial, and defense counsel declined to answer. + +I I As set forth in the Government's cover letter, the Government seeks redaction of this section. Were this argument discussed in public filings, it would likely result in significant publicity, which would be highly prejudicial to the Government if in fact there is no good-faith basis for the argument, as the Government suspects will be the case. Accordingly, the Court should permit redaction and sealing of this section at least until the conclusion of trial. + +Accordingly, the Court should require the defense to make an offer of proof before permitting any questioning or argument alleging that the defendant is a victim of abuse by Epstein—or anyone else, for that matter. + +Even if the defendant had a good-faith basis for such evidence or argument, the Court would still need to assess its relevance and conduct the balancing required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Evidence of this sort may well be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. It is entirely possible for someone to be both a victim and co-conspirator of Epstein; indeed, it is not unusual for individuals who engage in sex trafficking to have co-conspirators who are also victims. To complete the offenses charged in the Indictment, the defendant needs to intend the transportation, enticement, or trafficking of Minor Victims, or agree to do so. Accordingly, any victimization if it occurred—would not necessarily exculpate her or negate her mens M. And only certain limited evidence would be sufficient to provide a foundation for a duress or coercion defense. See United States v. Zayac, 765 F.3d 112, 120 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The affirmative defense of duress excuses criminal conduct committed under circumstances from which a jury may infer that the defendant's hand was guided not by evil intent, but by the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm."). + +Even if such alleged victimization were probative in some way on an issue at trial, there is significant risk that such evidence would be highly prejudicial to the Government and confusing to the jury. It would primarily serve to invite the jury to feel sympathy for the defendant, providing an unlawful basis for jury nullification. At best, it would confuse the jury + +into thinking that victimization was in some way relevant to its evaluation of the defendant's mens + +Because the Government is aware of no evidence that the defendant was a victim of Epstein, and because any such evidence may well be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial in any event, the Court should preclude the defense from discussing it at trial absent a specific offer of proof in advance as to the nature and relevance of such evidence.'2 + +### Xl. The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A "Prevailing Party" in Civil Litigation + +The Court should preclude the defense from inaccurately suggesting to the jury that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation related to some of the events at issue at trial. + +By way of background, Minor Victim-2 filed a civil action in this District, bringing claims against the defendant and the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. See + +. Minor Victim-2 received a substantial settlement from the estate after participating in a compensation program for victims of Jeffrey Epstein. As part of that settlement, Minor Victim-2 moved to dismiss her civil action in its entirety. The defendant who was represented in that lawsuit by attorneys who represent her in this criminal case—asked + +12 The Government is not moving specifically to preclude a defense or evidence based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 because the defense has represented that it is not planning to offer such a defense or evidence. Specifically, if a defendant intends to (1) assert an insanity defense, or (2) introduce "expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on . . . the issue of guilt," the defendant must provide written notice to the Government "within the time provided for filing a pretrial motion or at any later time the court sets." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(a)-(b). The defense has not provided such notice, and has informed the Government that they do not intend to rely on any defense covered by the Rule. Accordingly, the Government understands that the defense has waived any Rule 12.2 defense. + +the court to declare the defendant the prevailing party in that suit, because Minor Victim-2 had dismissed the case with prejudice in connection with the settlement agreement. See Fed. IL Civ. P. 54(dX1) ("[C]osts . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party."). The defendant further filed a motion for costs, demanding that Minor Victim-2 pay the defendant in costs, because, by virtue of the dismissal, the defendant was technically the "prevailing party." See + +While Minor Victim-2 did "not agree that the Defendant is the prevailing party," she agreed to pay the costs rather than engage in motion practice that would "far exceed the above cost." + +At trial, the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury—during cross examination or otherwise—that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation. Such evidence is irrelevant and confusing and would potentially mislead the jury into believing that the civil matter was adjudicated on the merits and resolved in the defendant's favor. Although the Government has no objection to the defense cross-examining Minor Victim-2 about filing a civil lawsuit and obtaining a settlement, the defense should be precluded from claiming at trial that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation.13 + +13 + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government's in limine motions. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6a4634113ef43a3c255708d313f8b8da0adc90d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202/EFTA02834202.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2587 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834202.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 54, + "chars": 99674, + "elapsed_seconds": 15.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 176.868, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 435.3695068359375, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 435.3695068359375, + 349.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 176.868, + 349.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.143310546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.143310546875, + 85.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 85.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 346.08209228515625, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 346.08209228515625, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or \nUsing First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 263.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Minor Victims' Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their \nTruth If the Defense Challenges Their Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.54061889648438, + 291.7330017089844 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.7330017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the \nDefendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.4531860351562, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 543.4531860351562, + 458.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 458.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Not Permit the Defense to Elicit Evidence About Charging \nDecisions or Possible Reasons for Them", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.2708129882812, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.2708129882812, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 111.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 210.7152862548828, + 111.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 210.7152862548828, + 125.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 125.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 183.3549346923828, + 71.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 183.3549346923828, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 182.39990234375, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 182.39990234375, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering \na Valid Basis for Their Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 544.3671875, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 544.3671875, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About the Government's \nAlleged Motives for Prosecution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 543.4422607421875, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 543.4422607421875, + 348.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 348.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who \nAre Not Witnesses at This Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.5841064453125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 543.5841064453125, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. Evidence or Argument that Minor Victims Consented to Sexual Abuse is \nInadmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. Before Offering Evidence or Argument of the Defendant's Failure to Commit \nOther Bad Acts, the Court Should Require the Defense to Proffer the Basis and \nRelevance of Such Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior \nStatements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.363037109375, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.363037109375, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument Sounding in Nullification", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 521.0999145507812, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 521.0999145507812, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making the Baseless Argument \nthat the Defendant Was a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Xl. The Defendant Should Be Precluded from Arguing That She Was A \"Prevailing \nParty\" in Civil Litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834202" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a6bf79e1686045f2beac3e4e7ddd1014ec61625 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256/EFTA02834256.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834256.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834256" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9104c7793964d926b7ecb3c18076e365d2919b4f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257/EFTA02834257.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834257.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834257" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a095a25fb4aff0165e4d822e9ee24ad091cb9e1a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258/EFTA02834258.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834258.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834258" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca08068aef3cddc1178dde32ed3f321165df4876 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259/EFTA02834259.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834259.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 307.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 307.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834259" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df63e418fe64d4268b452b4ace36db9e074fc671 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.md @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +# EXHIBIT E + +**COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A** + +**NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND +ADDENDUM** + +IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +## NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department arid the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); + +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; + +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: + +- (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 371; +- (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females, in violation of Tide 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); +- (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +- (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and + +- (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(eX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(aX1) and 2; and + +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agora to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; + +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; + +THEREFORE, on the authority of It Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below, + +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that be has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement + +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Airy investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. + +## Terms of the Agreement + +- 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in end for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495A)DDCM33) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of FL Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation ofFlorida Statutes Section 796.03; +- 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: + - (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment and + - (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. +- 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the I 5th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. +- 4. The terms contained in paragraphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. +- 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. +- 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. + +- 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's coimsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. +- 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person end/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. +- 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. +- 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), rupra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. +- 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. + +1. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. +2. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. + +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. + +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Lesley Groff, or [REDACTED]. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, involate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. + +/// + +/// + +/// + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Dated: + +A. tilitILLAFARA AS U.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +j F + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: By: + +Dated; + +Dated: II/tit/0 7 + +Dated: + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILY ANN ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ESQ. OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this amanent, Epstein assats and ratifies that the above has been read and explained to hint Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-Prosecution At,s',..mt—it and agrees to comply with than. + +> It ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Date& + +Dated: + +Date& + +Dated: q —eA y0? - + +Br + +A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +A. ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +IN RE: + +INVESTIGATION OF + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT + +IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: + +1. 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. +2. 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. +3. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein, hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with then. + +> IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: /PhD /07 + +Dated: //2- + +Dated: + +Dated: + +By: FAUcfn + +A. AS VILLAPARA U.S. ATTORNEY + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN =1, ESQ. ATTORNEY POWI REY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +> R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +Dated: /0 /30/07 + +Dated: + +Dated: + +A. -45 /64. trAuSti LAFARA U.S. ATTORNEY + +RALD LEFCO ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY ANN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein users and certifies that the above hes been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. + +Dated: /D/3 filo'7 + +Dated: + +Dated: + +Deed: ithata - + +IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + +By: AS /Mime, maim A. Vh.LAFARA 7 US. ATTORNEY + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +LILLY CHEZ, ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +Dec-07-07 04:55pm From: [REDACTED] Burnett + +3057800201 + +T-066 P.003/004 F-076 + +Affirmation + +I, Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to name dated October 30, 2007. + +![]()![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..287a6c00419f904a5f7aeda6337c6c3285e50fb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260/EFTA02834260.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,765 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834260.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 18994, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.0, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 206.24400000000003, + 316.71000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 371.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 387.77447509765625, + 228.09405517578125 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 228.09405517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Terms of the Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 241.33648681640625, + 145.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 145.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVESTIGATION OF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 146.60999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 365.976, + 196.82999999999998 + ], + [ + 365.976, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 209.79000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Affirmation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 316.404, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 151.47 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834260" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12374dee8482a97db697e59459277e9a041342d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..982155972ac85c37a26e258c1b0a153ed0fd730a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276/EFTA02834276.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834276.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT F \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834276" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee6cc5167e24ac5f795b23376e2a015644bf157c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +February 11, 2021 Call with Amanda Kramer + +Present on Conference Call: + +- AUSAs Lara Pomerantz & Maurene Comey +- FBI Special Agent Amanda Young +- Amanda Kramer +- Covington & Burling LLP General Counsel, Steve Anthony + +AK's recollections regarding February 29, 2016 Meeting: + +- AK confirmed the handwritten notes sent to AK by LP were AK's own notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- In advance of the meeting, AK remembers Pete Skinner reaching out to AK and asking if he could come in to present on a potential case with some other attorneys. AK doesn't recall how Skinner contacted AK. Skinner was at Boies Schiller at the time, Skinner and AK are friends and were in the SDNY USAO together. At this time, AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and believes she was also the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- Meeting took lace in a conference room at 1 St. Andrews Plaza USA() SDNY. Pete Skinner, Brad , Stan Pottinger, and AK were at the meeting. o AK doesn't recall what each attorney's role was, but her notes say that they represented AK also understood that was involved in representing multiple individuals in a civil litigation involving the CVRA, but AK is not certain of that. o AK understood that Skinner or his colleagues at Boies were representin AK doesn't know if Skinner was involved in representing o Brad did most of the talking during the meeting. o AK recalls that Pete Skinner spoke a little bit, but AK doesn't recall what, if anything, he said on substance. AK doesn't remember what he said. +- AK understood the purpose of the meeting to be the attorneys presenting information that they believed or suggested should be the subject of a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. o AK understood that the attorneys were advocating that the Jeffrey Epstein case should be investigated by SDNY. +- LP directed AK to references to lawsuits on pages 4 and 7 of AK's notes from the meeting, and asked what AK recalls about what civil lawsuits she learned of during the meeting. o AK remembers there was a CVRA lawsuit that was mentioned. o AK remembers that there were other civil lawsuits mentioned. Aside from what is in AK's notes, AK has no memory of what those lawsuits were about or the nature of those lawsuits. o AK does not have an independent memory of the Guiffie v. Maxwell lawsuit being mentioned, and her memory is not refreshed from looking at the notes. + +## EXHIBIT G + +- LP directed AK to "they will send me affidavits and depositions" on page 8 of AK's notes and asked if AK recalls what that line refers to and whether the attorneys sent AK any such materials. o AK does not recall what that line refers to. o AK does not recall if the attorneys sent her any such materials after the meeting. o AK does not believe the attorneys provided her any materials during the meeting. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys sent her something by email, but does not recall what it was. + - **One of the emails LP sent to AK was an email from Skinner to AK the evening of February 29, 2016 after the meeting sending AK documents. AK does not remember the particular documents she received. AK does not recall receiving any additional documents.** +- **AK remembers the mention of several people, including Ghislaine Maxwell as either in the context of who had benefited from the Florida NPA or who the people were that had worked for or helped Epstein. AK doesn't recall much specifics about Maxwell. Maxwell was not a focus of the meeting.** +- **AK does not recall the attorneys saying anything about what charges the office could bring. Related to that, AK recalls asking questions to understand what kind of charges they were proposing because it was not clear. The attorneys did not present particular statutes that might be pursued.** +- **AK recalls trying to understand what prior statements of existed in the context of assessing how much of a record there already was. AK recalls that the information about civil lawsuits came up when AK asked the attorneys what record there was of statements about Epstein, either in the context of the Florida case or otherwise. o AK's notes don't jog AK's memory of what she learned about prior statements. o AK does remember that there was some civil litigation, including CVRA litigation and some other civil case, and not just involving Virginia, but also civil litigation involving other potential witness or witnesses. AK's takeaway was that there was a large and potentially complicated record of civil litigation that would have to be at some point parsed through in assessing what any potential witness had said. It wasn't only that there was civil litigation involving Virginia, but there was also some person in Europe involved in litigation. AK felt this was a situation where there would be a lot of material to gather and read before talking to witnesses.** +- **AK doesn't remember being told any specific allegations victims had made against Maxwell. AK generally remembers Maxwell being mentioned as someone who had worked for Epstein. o Notes reflect that Maxwell was "head recruiter," but AK does not recall that description being attributed to any particular witness** + +- AK's recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. +- Discussion of Epstein's conduct expanded beyond . Attorneys described the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided about experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein's conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after Virginia was no longer involved. +- AK's understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information. +- AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the office would do about the information that was provided. o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened. + +Events after February 29, 2016 meeting: + +- After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Chief of Criminal Division at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with what the lawyers had shared, AK's thoughts, and thoughts. Decided on an action plan. o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case. AK mentioned that to M. o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn't clear there was any ongoing conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK's assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed. o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents in this area usually, in AK's experience, make collaborative decisions with the USAO. o AK & decided (don't recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach out to Sean (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like justice had not been served. +- After the meeting with M, AK called Sean and relayed the summary of this and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked + +Sean to call AK back and let her know if the Florida agents had concerns. Sean never called AK back. AK doesn't recall ever affirmatively following up with Sean, but she took the radio silence to mean that the FBI agents in Florida did not express dissatisfaction. + +- No investigation was opened as a result of the February 29, 2016 meeting. +- No investigation into Epstein was opened while AK was the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood coordinator. +- AK never met with any other Boies Schiller attorneys. AK does not recall ever speaking with David Boies at any point. +- AK never met with the attorneys from the February 29, 2016 meeting again. +- When asked what, if any, communications AK had with the attorneys, AK noted that she sees an email from May 2016 with Stan Pottenger. AK believes it's possible Stan called AK, but she does not remember that. +- AK does not recall any further conversations re Epstein in SDNY until much later when the Miami Herald series was published. + +AK confirmed she has read the Daily News Article LP sent + +- AK indicated that the article did not accurately describe AK's interactions with attorneys for +- AK's recollection is not that attorneys urged SDNY to open an investigation into "the duo." They were focused on Epstein. Maxwell was mentioned in passing, not as a target. +- AK did not participate in a second meeting with anyone. Had there been a meeting on this subject in the summer of 2016 in SDNY, AK would have known about it in her capacity as Human Trafficking Coordinator. o AK had been in that role since approximately 2010, and if someone came in to meet with a unit chief about a potential human trafficking matter, AK would get contacted about the meeting. AK met with chiefs to gather information about any cases they had that touched on human trafficking so that AK could coordinate. So if a second meeting had taken with a supervisor in the office, AK would have known about it. Dan also would have brought AK in if he learned of a second meeting. o AK would have made a record if there had ever been a second meeting. AK would remember if there were a second meeting. She has no record and no memory of any second meeting. +- AK does not recall ever speaking with or meeting David Boies in her life, so to her knowledge, Boies was not making any effort to persuade SDNY to investigate Epstein. AK noted it is possible Boies could have been on the phone if Stan Pottinger called AK in or around May of 2016, but AK has no recollection of such a call. +- AK does not recall the attorney presentation being framed on highlighting Maxwell's assistance with Epstein's sexual abuse. It was not presented as a "duo." AK recalls the mention of a pilot and the mention of someone having an address book, so other people were mentioned as part of telling the story of Epstein. + +- AK did not express any concerns about anything to the attorneys. AK may have asked something like whether the attorneys are asking SDNY to re-do the Florida investigation because AK was trying to understand what the attorneys were proposing: was it looking at the same conduct that was investigated in Florida and mishandled, or was it looking at different conduct and possibly ongoing conduct? AK recalls asking questions to clarify that point. +- AK is sure one of the things she asked would have been venue oriented to understand what the attorneys were describing and what the conduct was. AK would not have responded to a question asking about why AK wouldn't just open an investigation. Purpose of the meeting was for AK to understand what the attorneys were trying to convey, not for AK to make any representation about her thoughts or what she was going to do. +- Brad book suggesting that the AUSA seemed "confident that a case would be brought" does not seem accurate to AK. AK did not intend to give such an impression during the meeting. That decision is not one for AK to make alone, in any event. +- AK does not recall any mention that the number of victims in NY far exceeded the number in Florida. +- Brad description of wanting a case against Epstein is consistent with AK's recollection that the focus was on Epstein. +- If anyone called AK, she does not remember that, and she would not have mentioned the comity shown to other USAOs around the country. +- AK does not recall anyone ever approaching her to ask if SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. o AK has a vague memory that the attorneys called or emailed AK at some point and told her that there had been depositions, presumably by contact from one of these lawyers, but AK cannot recall the specifics. AK does not remember one way or the other if any of the attorneys referenced the possibility of perjury. o AK recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have the same challenges. AK recalls thinking in her mind that if the depositions were about the underlying conduct that had all of the issues that gave AK pause after the meeting (length of time that had passed, sense there must have been a reason SDFL resolved the case the way they did) were not alleviated by a perjury-based prosecution. o AK does not recall ever knowing anything about the substance of the depositions and does not remember anyone sending her a deposition transcript. o AK does not remember who had been deposed or who might have been the subject of a possible perjury investigation. o No investigation into perjury was ever opened. +- AK took no further action re Epstein after calling Sean o Though there may be emails or calls AK cannot remember, she knows that she took no action after the call to Sean . Part of the reason AK felt horrible when reading the Miami Herald article was because AK took no action after calling Sean + +When the Topic of Epstein Carne Back up with the Miami Herald Article + +- Arose when AK was in Securities. AK was no longer the Human Trafficking Coordinator or the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. +- AK may have told someone that there had been a presentation for SDNY to prosecute Epstein. AK read the article and was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with AK's assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016. +- AK remembers speaking with someone in Public Corruption about the February 29, 2016 meeting and shared her notes and emails with Public Corruption. +- AK remembers that someone from the original case team (thinks Alison Moe) came by her office and they chatted. AK may have also spoken with Alex Rossmiller or Ted Diskant, but is not sure. o When speaking with members of the Public Corruption team: AK remembers telling them that she felt terrible reading the Miami Herald series. AK remembers telling them that she had the impression that the lawyers who came in to meet with AK were disorganized, and AK's impression was that they thought it would help the CVRA case if SDNY opened a criminal case. o AK is sure that she gave Alison whatever she had, including the notes that LP emailed AK. AK handed to Alison whatever was in AK's folder. o AK does not remember having any documents or receiving any documents from the attorneys. o AK remembers understanding that Public Corruption had opened an investigation into Epstein. +- AK did not play any role in opening the SDNY investigation into Epstein. +- To AK's knowledge, AK has not received any discovery materials from any civil case. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78c7e638124b06a0a56c6fd0c7932a1dc25d5ee0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277/EFTA02834277.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834277.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 15679, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT G", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 387.509765625, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834277" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28a8bff83606ec38dfca53acf5a4a2cae5e4ca58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT H FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c78541ddb36840c0a30e012235c6588754cb71e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284/EFTA02834284.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834284.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.25, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT H \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834284" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0c097281e7754065dd60086c468f09842873e67 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT I FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7337b62dc4fcefc869198cdbed1deb2ca93d9a25 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285/EFTA02834285.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834285.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT I \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 312.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 312.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834285" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a39452b0390919535ebb5125f4a325d067ac165e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.md @@ -0,0 +1,713 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +# GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here Cross Examination I. AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE A. | 1 1 2 4 4 5 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| +| 1. | 5 | +| 2. | 10 | +| 3. | 12 | +| Use Fake Names c. | 15 | +| 2. | 18 | +| D. | 19 | +| E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present | 19 | +| Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names F. | 17 | +| Artifice G. | 20 | +| Serves No Legitimate Purpose | 20 | +| H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell | 20 | +| 1. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED | | +| SECOND CIRCUIT LAW | 23 | +| II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE 23 | | +| Statements May Be Admitted | 24 | +| B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements | 25 | + +## III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE 28 + +- A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of 29 + +- B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation 32 + +- 1. Applicable Law 32 +- 2. Discussion 32 + +- C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to 36 + +- 1. Applicable Law 36 +- 2. Discussion 37 + +- D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible 40 + +- E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted 41 + +## IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS 42 + +- V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY 43 + +## VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE 46 + +## VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED 49 + +- A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence 50 + +- B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation — May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives. 51 + +## VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME 54 + +## IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT 55 + +# X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED 56 + +| XI. | MS. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING | +|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| +| TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE | 57 | +| CONCLUSION | 59 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +## Cases + +| Alford v. United States, | 282 U.S. 687 (1931) | 20, 29 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| +| Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., | 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) | 23 | +| Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., | 1998 WL 665138 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998) | 2 | +| Bowen v. Maynard, | 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986) | 32, 35, 41, 42 | +| Boyce v.=, | 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) | 53 | +| Campanella v. O'Flynn, | No. 10-CV-6236L, 2012 WL 2194556 (W.D.N.Y. June 14, 2012) | 19 | +| Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, | 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) | 3 | +| V. | Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). | 28 | +| CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., | 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir.1995) | 19 | +| Crane v. Kentucky, | 476 U.S. 683 (1986) | 36 | +| Crowe v. Bolduc, | 334 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2003) | 30 | +| Curto v. Med. World Commc'ns, Inc., | 783 F. Supp. 2d 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) | 19 | +| Delaware v. Van Arsdall, | 475 U.S. 673 (1986) | 21 | +| Doe v. | Cly., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL 2258313 (N.D. lll. June 3, 2021) | 16 | +| Doe v. Shakur, | 164 F.R.D. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) | 16 | +| Doe V. Weinstein, | 484 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 16 | +| Esquival-Quintana v. Sessions, | 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). | 46 | +| Ferrier v. Duckworth, | 902 F.2d 545 (7th Cir.) | 54 | +| In re Bonanno, | 344 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1965) | 16 | +| In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., | | No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 | +| WL 4962985 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008) | | 3 | +| Knaust v. City of Kingston, | 157 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1998) | 19 | +| Kyles v. Whitley, | 514 U.S. 419 (1995) | passim | +| Lindsey v. | 769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1985) | 32, 35, 41, 43 | +| Luce v. United States, | 469 U.S. 38 (1984) | 1 | +| M.K. ex reL Mrs. K. v. Sergi, | 554 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Conn. 2008) | 3 | + +| Nat'! Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LE. Myers Co. Group a at, 937 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) | 2 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1996) | 1 | +| Palocioz v. Hannigan, 962 F.2d 17 (10th Cir. 1992) | 19 | +| People v. Harvey Weinstein, 02335/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) | 16 | +| People v. Harvey Weinstein, 2673/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) | 16 | +| Rapp v. , No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021) | 16 | +| Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) | 3 | +| 2011) | 31 | +| State v. Ryan Odom 201ICF012120AMB | 18 | +| Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) | 25, 26, 27 | +| TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) | 2 | +| (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019) | 2 | +| United States ex rel. Annunziato v. Manson, 425 F. Supp. 1272 (D. Conn. 1977) | 29 | +| United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) | 36 | +| United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 42 | +| United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) | 37, | +| United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) | 37 | +| United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | +| United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30 (24 Cir. 2010) | 27 | +| United States v. 553 F.24 300 (2d Cir. 1977) | 17 | +| United States v. 800 F. App'x 43 (2d. Cir. 2020) | 52 | +| United States v. Corley, No. 13-CR-48 (MN), 2016 WL 9022508 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) | 17 | +| United States v. Crisona, 416 F.24 107 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | +| United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.24 559 (2d Cir. 1991) | 42 | +| 2018) | 17 | +| United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.34 (2d Cir. 2021) | 52 | +| United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 1994) | 30 | +| United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.24 950 (2d Cir. 1969) | 3 | + +| United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) | 42 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| United States v. Flores, 945 F.34 687 (2d. Cir. 2019) | 25 | +| United States v. Fratello, 44 F.R.D. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) | 4 | +| United States v. Gangi, I F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) | 19 | +| United States v. Gardner, No. 16-cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) | 56 | +| United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (24 Cir. 2001) | 23 | +| United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-CR-490 (RMB) | 11 | +| 4, 2016) | 26 | +| United States v. Lester, 248 F.24 329 (2d Cir. 1957) | 30 | +| United States v.~, 175 F. App'x 370 (2d Cir. 2006) | 41 | +| United States v. Mani, 421 F.24 1263 (2d Cir. 1970) | 17 | +| United States v. No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890 (D.N.M. Apr. II, 2005) | 31 | +| United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) | 2 | +| United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2020) | 41 | +| United States v. Overton, No. I5-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017) | 2 | +| United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4'" 158 (2d Cir. 2021) | 28 | +| United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986) | 24, 25, 26 | +| United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997) | 42 | +| United States v. ffi , No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015) 53, | | +| United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000) | 41 | +| United States v. Sanders, 211 F.34 711 (2d Cir. 2000) | 42 | +| United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d. Cir. 1990) | 52 | +| United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) | 17 | +| United States v. 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012) | 36 | +| 2010) | 54 | +| v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) | 4 | + +Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Intl PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) 3 + +## Statutes + +| Fla Stat. § 796.07 | 47, 48 | +|-----------------------------------|--------| +| Ha. Stat. § 794.05(1) | 46 | +| New York State Penal Law § 130.55 | 47 | +| NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(AX1) | 46 | +| NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a) | 46 | + +## Other Authorities + +| 1 McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.) | 26 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| +| ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) | 51 | +| France Penal Code, Article 227-25 | 46 | +| 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid.(2021 ed.) | 26, 27 | + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 27, 36 | +|----------------------|--------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 35, 36 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | 50, 51 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 803 | 54 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell herby submits her response to the Government's Omnibus Motions in Limine. + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The government's self-described "Motions in Limine" are an ill-founded attempt to: + +(1) improperly obtain advisory rulings from the Court on an undeveloped factual record; (2) prematurely, and unconstitutionally, force Ms. Maxwell to reveal defense theories, strategies, and cross-examination; (3) improperly limit Ms. Maxwell's defenses; and (4) inappropriately enlist the Court in vouching for the credibility of the accusers by the use of pseudonyms and other artifices. + +For the most part, the issues raised by the government cannot, and should not, be addressed pretrial because the Court lacks the necessary facts to make intelligent rulings. The issues raised under headings Il-XI should be denied on this basis alone. The arguments related to the use of pseudonyms and other artifices fails because + +the limitations suggested by the government will: (1) unconstitutionally restrict Ms. Maxwell's confrontation rights; (2) run afoul of both her right to a public trial and the First Amendment right to public access, and (3) are simply unworkable as a practical matter inviting a mistrial. + +# A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine + +The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984) (explaining that the motion in limine is used to "to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered"); see also Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) ("The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as + +to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. LE. Myers Co. Group et at, 937 F. Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F. Supp. at 287. + +The way the government has raised its purported "in limine" motions is disfavored. Like the government's motions here, where a party "endeavor[s] to strike in shotgun fashion at whole topics and sources of prospective evidence, out of context and before any specific objection against its proper backdrop is raised...," the strategy is "impermissible" and the motions should be denied. TVT Recs. v. Island Del fain Musk Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). + +Where the in limine motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument regarding various defenses it "is plainly improper." United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903 (JGK), 2019 WL 5285043, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019); see also United States v. Overton. No. 15-CR-95, 2017 WL 6347084, at \*2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423, 427-28 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). + +## B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here + +Out of context, the government attempts to preclude whole categories of potential defenses, argument, and cross examination before one witness has testified. See Sections III, IV, IX ("The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument"), V (The Court Should Preclude Challenges), VII ("the Court Should Require the Defense"), VIII ("The Court should not Permit"), X ("The Court Should Preclude the Defense"), and XI ("The Defendant Should be Precluded"). + +These arguments am about things that have not occurred and Maxwell's counsel understand the rules of evidence and the law. Much of what may or may not happen in this trial will depend on the evidence produced by the government. Ms. Maxwell has no burden of proof and is not required to respond to hypothetical demands or provide previews about how she intends to cross examine witnesses. Consistent with prudent judicial practices, the Court should decline to rule on these hypothetical complaints. See Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ("In light of the uncertainties surrounding these legal issues, a potentially unnecessary, and thus merely advisory, ruling should be avoided."); In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 WL 4962985, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008), affd sub nom. Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) ("However, this request amounts to a demand for an advisory ruling as to the effect of an entirely hypothetical future pleading that might be asserted given the occurrence of contingent future events."); M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233, 242 (D. Conn. 2008) ("The Court again declines to provide an advisory ruling on a matter that is not yet ripe."); and Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Intl PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010- CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955, at \*2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) ("The Court will not issue an advisory ruling on a theoretical affirmative defense that may not actually be asserted."). + +The government's overreaching extends to areas that cannot be anticipated prior to witness testimony, and the trial court's power to limit (or not limit) cross-examination is often best exercised after hearing the direct testimony of the witnesses. United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Crisona, 416 F.2d 107, 117 (2d Cir. 1969), cen. denied, 397 U.S. 961 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1969). + +**C. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination** + +Unless and until the prosecution has established its prima facie case, the defendant “is not called upon to determine whether to produce documents and material normally privileged. It imposes a price on the exercise of a constitutional right to require a pre-trial decision of the trial tactics which are normally determined by a defense lawyer following the completion of the prima facie case.” *United States v. Fratello*, 44 F.R.D. 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Moreover, the decision to prosecute someone criminally carries with it certain consequences: + +Under our constitutional system, a criminal defendant—need not do anything at all to defend himself, and certainly he cannot be required to help convict himself. Rather he has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to: “Prove it!” + +*United States v. Wilkerson*, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 972 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (quoting [REDACTED] v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 112 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting)). + +Much of the government’s argument is directed at causing the defense to provide a preview of its strategy and the substance of defense cross examination which should be rejected by the Court. + +**I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE** + +The government proposes various false or partial names for some of the accusers and witnesses. The request is not supported by any factual declaration. No evidence exists suggesting that any witness has been or would be threatened by Ms. Maxwell. None of the witnesses are minors. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +![](_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg) + +#### B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names + +The government's motion to use false names and suppress evidence from the public falls short in both evidence and analysis. Other than conclusory arguments by lawyers, the motion contains no facts supporting any of the claims related to future reputational harm or embarrassment. As the proponent of this extraordinary measure, the government cannot simply hypothesize that, as to adult women + +the use of false names here will "protect [their] well-being, prevent undue embarrassment and oilier adverse consequences, including loss of employment, and prevent the victims from being harassed by the press and others." Mot. at 10. It is the government's burden to establish that, + +![](_page_22_Picture_5.jpeg) + +mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions, for any such rule would foreclose meaningful inquiry" into the issue. In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965). + +![](_page_22_Picture_7.jpeg) + +The movant bears the burden of proof to show factors that outweigh the ordinary presumption of judicial openness. Doe v. -Cry., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at •3 (N.D. III. June 3, 2021). And, in the context of maintaining an alleged victim's anonymity for the types of reasons proffered by the government, "conclusory statements are of limited utility." Rapp v. No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021). Even if the government's motion was supported by any evidence, "claims of public humiliation and embarrassment" due to "significant media attention... are not sufficient grounds for allowing" an accuser to proceed anonymously. "Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, 361-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying motion to proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who alleged that rapper Tupac Shakur assaulted her despite the media attention the case likely was to attract); see also Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying motion to proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who alleged that movie producer Harvey Weinstein assaulted her despite that Weinstein's infamy was likely to cause significant media attention); see also People v. Harvey Weinstein, Indictment Nos. 02335/2018 and 2673/19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) + +With no analysis relating to the facts of this case, the government has cobbled together a variety of cases holding that under certain limited circumstances the identity of alleged sex assault victims may be publicly suppressed. Generally, these cases fall into a few overlapping categories: + +[REDACTED] 17 (2) alleged minor victims who are truly minors at the time of their testimony18; and (3) alleged victims who demonstrated legitimate safety concerns.19 + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +18 Mot. at 7 *United States v. Corley*, No. 13-CR-48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016)(minor victim after trial). + +19 Mot. at 5, *United States v. Marti*, 421 F.2d 1263, 1265 (2d Cir. 1970)(The government claims this case involved the identity of the witness, which is not true. The only issue was the address of the witness, "Pelletier" identified in the opinion: "Since counsel could not insure that Pelletier or his family would not be harassed, it was perhaps not unreasonable for them to view as too costly the court's condition on allowing Pelletier to answer." *Id.*); *United States v. Urena*, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(allegations of racketeering, murder, and narcotics trafficking identity of officers suppressed); *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977)(kidnapping, witness was threatened and was in witness protection program-only address of witness, not identity was restricted); Mot. at 7, *United States v. Dan Zhong*, No. 16-CR-614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)(victims of the alleged forced labor conspiracy-concerns for safety) + +![](_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg) + +2. + +![](_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg) + +![](_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg) + +D. + +The events that are the subject matter of the S2 Indictment are alleged to have occurred decades ago. Thus, the witnesses are adults with established lives and careers. + +![](_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Accordingly, cases involving actual minors and the reasons for shielding their names in sex assault cases are not present here. + +# E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present + +Another reason that some courts have agreed to allow the use of false names is where the witness has a legitimate safety concern. None has been articulated here. Ms. Maxwell has never interacted with these witnesses, nor has she threatened them. + +F. and Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice + +Apparently, the government contends that was induced to perform sexual acts by who has never met, spoken to, or identified Ms. Maxwell. Because this potential witness was only recently disclosed, investigation into her background is ongoing and Ms. Maxwell will need to supplement this response. However, the government has not made any compelling factual showing about why secrecy is necessary here. + +G. , Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose + +The government also requests that the identities of various witnesses, , also be shielded form the public because, according to the government, revealing the identity of the witness will reveal the identity of the accuser. As noted supra, Given these facts, pseudonyms for the witnesses is a futile gesture. + +# H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell + +"Cross-examination of a witness is a matter of right." Permissible purposes of crossexamination are that the witness may be identified in her community so that independent testimony may be sought and offered of her reputation for veracity in her own neighborhood, that the jury may interpret the testimony by knowledge of the witness's environment, and that facts may be brought out tending to discredit the witness by showing that her testimony was untrue or biased. Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). The Confrontation Clause of the + +Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against her. The right to confront means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically. The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986). + +Here, the government seeks to strip Ms. Maxwell of her right to confront the witnesses. The identity, occupations, and backgrounds of the accusers is material and relevant to the defense of this case for many reasons. First, . A jury should be able to evaluate the testimony knowing that + +including when the allegations may or may not have occurred, whether any action attributed to Ms. Maxwell could be considered "grooming," and the resources available to the accusers at any point in time. + +Each of these items of cross-examination will further expose the identities of the witness. + +background and circumstances are also relevant. + +Being part of the government's case here obviated any need for actual proof to the fund. + +The identity of the lawyers for the accusers may also be the subject of cross examination. The lawyers for the accusers have cooperated and shared information with each other and the government for years. + +Substantial impeachment evidence exists as to under her real name, not a pseudonym. Ms. Maxwell should not be forced to compromise the full effect of this evidence by use of a first name only. + +The government's proposal also creates substantial possibility for confusion. + +Given the age of the allegations and the potential for confusion by the witnesses the use of first names or fake names is untenable. + +Should the Court grant the government's request it will also be confusing, and impossible to neutrally explain to the jury why some accusers are publicly identified by their real names while others are not. Any explanation will be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. + +here is no legitimate reason for fake names. The request by the government is tactical. Having the court instruct the jury that, as a result of "privacy" or "safety" concerns, certain accusers or witnesses are being shielded affords the witness Court-sanctioned sympathy and credibility at Ms. Maxwell's expense. To be clear, any accuser who testifies that Ms. Maxwell participated in sex abuse or sex trafficking is not telling the truth. Anonymizing false statements allows additional freedom to fabricate and impede potential witnesses from coming forward with countervailing testimony. + +#### I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW + +At this point, everyone associated with this litigation knows the definition of a "judicial document." In this Circuit, "them is a presumption in favor of public inspection and copying of any item entered into evidence at a public session of a trial." Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., inc., 635 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir. 1980). Moreover, after "the evidence has become known to the members of the public, including representatives of the press, through their attendance at a public session of court, it would take the most extraordinary circumstances to justify restrictions on the opportunity of those not physically in attendance at the courtroom to see and hear the evidence, when it is in a form that readily permits sight and sound reproduction." Id. Where the requested documents were introduced at trial, the strong weight to be accorded the public right of access to judicial documents was largely derived from the role those documents played in determining litigants' substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III -- and from the need for public monitoring of that conduct. United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 2001). + +Suppression of any exhibit that contains an accuser's name in this case is doubly problematic -- many of the anticipated exhibits are "judicial documents" from other proceedings that have previously been made public or documents already accessible by the public. There is nothing confidential about the exhibits and neither the exhibits nor the names of the witnesses should be redacted or suppressed. + +## II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE + +The government seeks a pre-trial ruling that certain unspecified "prior consistent statements" of the accusers will be admissible at trial if the defense "challenges the credibility of the testimony" of the accusers in some unspecified way. Mot. at 17. Under the government's apparent view, any credibility challenge will permit any prior statement of the government's + +choosing to be admitted, in any quantity or as to any topic. That's not the law. Because a number of foundational prerequisites must be satisfied prior to determining that any given "prior statement" is admissible, the government's request for a pre-trial ruling on prior consistent statements calls for an inappropriate advisory opinion. Not one of the cases cited by the government in its Motion concerned a pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of a prior consistent statement, and with good reason. If the government had wanted the Court to rule pretrial on the admissibility of prior consistent statements, it could have told the Court exactly which statements they will seek to admit, the circumstances of those prior statements, whether they are in fact consistent with specific anticipated trial testimony, and whether the other foundational prerequisites, including Rule 403, will be satisfied and how. Having failed to provide the Court with these particulars, the government's motion in lirnine should be denied. + +## A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted + +First, the 2014 Amendments were not nearly as ground-breaking as the Motion suggests. The Amendments did not, contrary to the government's implication, change the grounds for admissibility of prior consistent statements. See Mot. at 17-18. According to the Advisory Committee Notes: + +"The [2014] amendment does not change the traditional and well-accepted limits on bringing prior consistent statements before the factfinder for credibility purposes. It does not allow impermissible bolstering of a witness.... The amendment does not make any consistent statement admissible that was not admissible previously — the only difference is that prior consistent statements otherwise admissible for rehabilitation are now admissible substantively as well." + +As the government correctly notes, prior to 2014 the Second Circuit, like many other circuits, admitted prior consistent statements "outside of the context of Rule 80I(d)(1)(B) in order to rehabilitate a witness after certain attacks on credibility." Mot. at 18 (citing United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d Cir. 1986)). The effect of the 2014 Amendment then, as the Second Court explained, was to allow for such statements to be admitted "substantively as well," rather than as non-substantive rehabilitation. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 705-06 (2d. Cir. 2019) (amendment "extend( s) substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness — such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory") (emphasis in original). Thus, consistent with Pierre and other pre-2014 cases, prior consistent statements may be admissible to rehabilitate a witness or to explain a faulty memory, and any such evidence will now be admitted substantively, but the limits on those prior methods of admitting prior consistent statements for rehabilitation remain applicable post-2014. + +# B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements + +The question at trial will be which of the supposedly prior consistent statements are admissible and for what purpose. On that question, the government is silent. See Mot. at 19 (government "intends to call a number of witnesses to introduce certain of the Minor Victims' prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein") (emphasis added). By not specifying in their Motion which statements they seek to introduce or the specific purposes for which they will move for admission, the government has deprived the defense of an opportunity to challenge the statements' admissibility or for the Court to rule on the admissibility pre-trial. Rule 801(d)(1)(B)'s amendment in 2014 did not alter the landscape so much that any attack on the accusers' credibility will allow any prior consistent statement. Important limits remain on the admissibility of prior consistent statements. + +If the government moves to admit particular statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive under Rule 801(d)(1XB)(i), as the Motion suggests they will, the evidentiary hurdles established by Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995), still apply. In particular, the government must show proof that the motive for fabrication or improper purpose arose after the purported statement. In Tome, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the + +motive to fabricate arose immediately after the supposed child-abuse, and thus statements made to others, months or years later, were inadmissible under now-Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i). The same is true here. The improper influence and motive to fabricate occurred, in several instances, many years ago, shortly after the purported abuse occurred, and before the recently-disclosed "consistent" statements. 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6753 Consistent Premotive Statements (2021 ed.) ("As in Tome, prior consistent statements will frequently be tainted by the same alleged motive to lie that is claimed to impugn the witness' trial testimony. If so, Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) does not permit their introduction. This result has favorable policy implications. As Tome stresses, the general exclusion of prior consistent statements ensures that 'the whole emphasis of the trial' does not "shift to the out-of-court statements" as opposed to 'the in-court ones."). + +If the government instead offers prior consistent statements to rehabilitate their accusers or explain their faulty memory under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii), the "offered prior consistent statement must serve to rehabilitate the witness's credibility on the same ground upon which the witness's credibility was attacked." United States. v. Karl Roye, Crim. No. 3:15-cr-29 (JBA), 2016 WL 4147133 at \*1 (D. Conn. Aug. 4, 2016) (citing 1 McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.) ("The general test of admissibility is whether evidence of the witness's ... consistent statements is logically relevant to explain the impeaching fact. The rehabilitating facts must meet the impeachment with relative directness. The wall, attacked at one point, may not be fortified at another, distinct point.")). As was the case prior to the 2014 Amendments, "a prior consistent statement may only be used for rehabilitation "when the statement has a probative force bearing on credibility beyond merely showing repetition." United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d. Cir. 1986). + +Finally, admissibility of the number and type of prior consistent statements still is guided by Rules 401 and 403, including whether the prior consistent statements are reliable, cumulative, or unfairly prejudicial; the Court may choose to exclude prior consistent statements when the quantity and type of prior consistent statements form the bulk of the government's case rather than the trial testimony of the witnesses. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 165 (1995) ("If the Rule were to permit the introduction of prior statements as substantive evidence to rebut every implicit charge that a witness' in-court testimony results from recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, the whole emphasis of the trial could shift to the out-of-court statements, not the in-court ones."); supra. § 6754 ("The danger of substantive use of the prior statement remains on the unfair prejudice side of the ledger."). "One thing the courts all agree on is that there is 'no rule admitting all prior consistent statements simply to bolster the credibility of a witness." Id. (emphasis supplied). + +As to introduction of these prior consistent statements through other witnesses, the Second Circuit is clear that "where the declarant has already testified and the prior consistent statement is proffered through the testimony of another witness, the Rule's 'subject to crossexamination' requirement is satisfied if the opposing party is not denied the opportunity to recall the declarant to the stand for cross-examination concerning the statement." United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, if the government elicits prior consistent statements from third-party witnesses, then they will be obliged to make the declarant-Accuser available for recall to be subjected to cross examination concerning those statements. + +In sum, the Court's rulings regarding admissibility of prior consistent statements can only come at the time the government proffers them, explains the purpose for which they are offered (whether under subpart (i) or (ii) of Rule 801(d)(1)(B)) and clears the other evidentiary hurdles + +for admissibility. To the extent the government seeks a pretrial ruling that all prior consistent statements may be admitted after any attack on the accusers' credibility, this Court should deny such a request. + +## III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE + +"The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). + +The government seeks to cripple Ms. Maxwell's ability to present a meaningful defense to the charges by trying to preclude evidence and argument that is relevant and admissible and central to Ms. Maxwell's defense. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from offering evidence and argument concerning the following facts: (1) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Jeffrey Epstein, which resolved the USAO-SDFL/Palm Beach FBI investigation into Epstein (the "Florida Investigation") in 2008; (2) the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell in its proposed indictment and did not immunize her by name in the NPA; and (3) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") charged only Epstein in the first indictment in this case, and did + +not charge Ms. Maxwell until later in its investigation (the “New York Investigation”). *See Mot.* at 24. Contrary to the government’s assertion, this evidence is directly relevant to, and probative of, issues of consequence in this case and is therefore admissible on several grounds. Indeed, the government’s motion seems more calculated to preclude evidence that may be embarrassing or reflect badly on the government, rather than evidence that may be inadmissible. + +**A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of [REDACTED]** + +The government has missed a straightforward reason why the NPA is itself admissible: the terms of the NPA apply to [REDACTED] —and it may therefore be used to show their bias and interest. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +Like any witness subject to a cooperation agreement or immunity agreement, the defense is entitled to cross-examine [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The NPA also applies to [REDACTED] and can be used to show her financial interest. Under the terms of the NPA, Epstein was required to pay for a lawyer for all the individuals + +whom the government identified as a victim of his offenses so that they could sue him for damages in civil lawsuits. See NPA at 4 was one of those individuals. The NPA further stipulated that Epstein could not contest his liability in those lawsuits and could not contest the amount of money damages as long as it was agreed upon by the parties. See id + +.ued Epstein under this provision of the NPA and eventually settled with him for Accordingly, the NPA is relevant and admissible, and the defense is entitled to use it to cross-examin bout her financial interest. See United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 1957) ("it is permissible to show [on cross-examination] that the witness is financially interested in the outcome of the litigation); Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidence that a trial witness has a financial incentive in the outcome of the trial is "classic evidence of bias, which is routinely permitted on cross-examination"); United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (the question of whether witness had financial interest in outcome of trial is "critical" to the jury's determination of credibility). + +There is also little risk that the jury will be confused by the introduction of the NPA. The Florida Investigation, which the NPA concluded, will already be a significant part of the government's case-in-chief. It is clear from the government's witness list and exhibit list that it intends to call at least two members of the Palm Beach Police Department, to introduce various items of evidence that were recovered from the search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October 2005. These include numerous message pad slips as well as photographs and video of the exterior and interior of the Palm Beach residence. See GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A through GX-4-K.; GX-201 through GX-296. + +Accordingly, the Florida Investigation will already be a central part of the case presented to the jury. It will not be confusing or distracting to elicit evidence of how that investigation concluded, as the government contends. See Mot. at 27. In fact, the opposite is true. Without that evidence, the jury will be left to speculate how and when the Florida Investigation ended, and whether Ms. Maxwell was charged in connection with that investigation. Accordingly, eliciting evidence of how the Florida Investigation ended, including who was (and was not) charged in the proposed indictment, and who was (and was not) immunized in the NPA, will be necessary to avoid jury confusion and speculation, as well as prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +The government also suggests that introducing the NPA would require an extended "trial within a trial" concerning the history of its creation, which was the subject of the 290-page report from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (the "OPR Report"). Mot. at 27-28. Not so. The defense has no interest in probing the minutiae of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the NPA. It seems even less likely that the government would do so, given that the OPR Report found that the NPA was "flawed" and was extremely critical of how the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, handled the resolution of the investigation. OPR Report at 284. The risk of delay or juror confusion by putting the NPA at issue in the trial is therefore illusory. It should not be excluded under Rule 403." + +20 The NPA is also not hearsay. It is an agreement that has independent legal significance and is a "verbal act" "containing legally operative language affecting the rights of the parties" that does not qualify as hearsay. Spencer v. City of NmioLk, No. 06 Civ. 2852 (KMW), 2011 WL 13257640, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 5, 2011); United States v. , No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890, at \*5 (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 2005); Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), committee notes, subdivision (c). + +#### B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation + +#### 1. Applicable Law + +The Supreme Court has recognized that it is entirely proper for the defense to explore and challenge "the thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995). For example, the defense may elicit evidence and argue that the government's disregard for inconsistencies in the evidence shows a willingness to accept allegations against the defendant without carefully and critically evaluating their veracity or seeking other corroborating evidence, which calls into question the integrity of the investigation. Id. at 445, 448 (the police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which "undermine[d] the ... integrity of the investigation"). Similarly, the defense may attack the government's investigation for its poor quality and lack of thoroughness, including its failure to corroborate key witness testimony. See Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 613 (10'h Cir. 1986). For all of these reasons and others, the defense may "attack[] the reliability of the investigation" and even "the decision to charge the defendant." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446; see also id. (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.]") and Lindsey v. 769 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir. 1985) (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential... for the ... discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")). + +## 2. Discussion + +Here, the NPA, the government's prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein are all relevant and admissible to allow Ms. Maxwell to challenge the "thoroughness" and "good faith" of the New York investigation leading to the charges against her. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445. + +It is clear from the documents produced by the government that the NPA was the reason why the New York Investigation was opened in late 2018. On a telephone call with the prosecutors on February 11, 2021, former AUSA confirmed that she met with attorneys for some of Epstein's accusers on February 29, 2016, when she was the Project Safe Childhood Coordinator at the USAO-SDNY, but ultimately did not open an investigation at that time. See Ex. Gat SDNY\_GM\_02742887-91. In late November 2018, however, Julie K. published a series of articles in the Miami Herald entitled "Perversion of Justice," which were sharply critical of the NPA and the perceived leniency that Epstein received to resolve the Florida Investigation. confirmed that she read the Miami Herald articles when they came out and "was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was inconsistent with [her] assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February 2016." Id. at SDNY\_GM\_02742892. further stated that soon afterwards, she spoke to prosecutors in the Public Corruption Unit, including some of the prosecutors on this case, and discussed the Miami Herald articles and her February 29, 2016 meeting with the attorneys. See id. Shortly after that, the New York Investigation was opened. + +It is also clear from the documents produced by the government, that the government initially focused its investigation on Epstein and did not begin to investigate Ms. Maxwell until after Epstein died on August 10, 2019, roughly one month after he was arrested. To give just one example, the New York FBI did not speak to a single one of the four accusers in this case until after Epstein's death. + +With Epstein dead, the media focus shifted immediately to Ms. Maxwell who was vilified as Epstein's principal accomplice. In addition, Epstein's accusers were extremely upset, having been denied the opportunity to see Epstein face the allegations against him in open court. Then-Attorney General William Barr publicly vowed that "[a]ny co-conspirators should not rest easy. The victims deserve justice, and we will ensure they get it."21 Thereafter, in announcing the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell at a choreographed press conference on July 2, 2020, Acting United States Attorney Audrey Strauss boldly announced: "This case against Ghislaine Maxwell is the prequel to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein." See https://youtu.be/hGAsZthBKCE. + +The defense is entitled to elicit this evidence, as well as evidence of the public outcry and media scrutiny that followed the Miami Herald articles and Epstein's death, to argue that the government initially focused the New York investigation on Epstein and charged only him in the initial July 2, 2019 indictment in order to rectify the perceived injustice that the NPA was a "sweetheart deal" for Epstein. When Epstein died, however, the government had to scramble to quickly build a case against his purported co-conspirators, including Ms. Maxwell. The defense is further entitled to argue that the public pressure to charge Epstein's co-conspirators and the attendant focus on Ms. Maxwell caused the government to engage in a hasty and sloppy investigation in which they ignored inconsistencies in the evidence, accepted the witness' statements at face value without testing them or verifying them with corroborating evidence, and generally exhibited a "remarkably uncritical attitude" to the evidence against Ms. Maxwell. Kyles at 445, 448 (police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with + +21 8/12/2019 Remarks of Attorney General William Barr to the Fraternal Order of Police (New Orleans, LA, Aug. 12, 2019) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-william-pbarr-delivers-remarks-grand-lodge-fraternal-order-polices-64th. + +inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which "undermined the ... integrity of the investigation"). + +Ms. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of the NM, the government's decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a dim view of the average juror's intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27- 28. That is not hard to follow.22 Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23 + +22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations would create an "extensive side-show" because the investigations "reach[] back 20 years." Mot. at 27. If the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is simple: don't charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old. + +23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial. + +#### C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO•SDFL Is Relevant to Credibility + +#### 1. Applicable Law + +The Second Circuit has rejected the position that evidence of government charging decisions is never admissible by a criminal defendant. United States v.M, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) ("We hold ... that the government's charging decisions may be proper subjects for cross-examination and argument if otherwise admissible."). "Such an all or nothing approach undermines the longstanding principle that 'the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.'" Id. (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly true when the evidence "is central to the defendant's claim of innocence." Id. (categorical exclusion of government charging decisions "infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused" and threatens "the right of the accused to require the prosecution's case to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing" (internal citations omitted)). + +In determining the admissibility of such evidence, a court must evaluate its "relevance and probative value." Id. A court may not exclude evidence of government charging decisions if it is relevant, admissible, and its probative value satisfies Rule 403. Id. at 246-48. The standard for relevance is "very low." Id. (quoting United States v. AI-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 176 (2d Cir. 2008)). Evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Moreover, Rule 403 "favors admissibility." M, 692 F.3d at 247. + +charged Epstein After a roughly two-year investigation during which the Palm Beach FBI interviewed dozens of alleged victims of Epstein—none of whom implicated Ms. Maxwell, including the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell. Instead, the USAO-SDFL whoml had accused of facilitating Epstein's alleged sex trafficking. The fact tha first implicated and only later implicated Ms. Maxwell is directly relevant to the credibility of and the government's acceptance of her later testimony against Ms. Maxwell in 2020, which forms the basis of the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (government's decision to charge two different people for the same crime on two different occasions based on the testimony of the same cooperating witness is relevant "to the witness's credibility" and "the government's view of the [witness's] credibility"). + +"[E]vidence is only excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudice of jury confusion." Id. (emphasis in original).24 + +# 2. Discussion + +Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge Ms. Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and a substantive sex trafficking offense for allegedly recruiting or obtaining o engage in commercial sex acts with Epstein. See S2 Ind. (Dkt. 187)1122-27. But in her first and only interview with the Palm Beach FBI on August 7. 2007. + +24 The government relegates its discussion of to a footnote in its Applicable Law section, even though it is the controlling Second Circuit precedent on t ue. See Gov't Mot.at 23 n.8. Instead, the government cites several cases that were decided before rejected the categorical approach to precluding evidence of prior charging decisions. See id. at 22-23 (citing United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. Supp. 2d 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); and United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (JBW), 2009 WL 185725 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009). The Court should give these cases little or no weight. + +Agent ;ever once mentioned Ms. Maxwell? See 3505-005. Instead, she told Special that (1) would call her on the phone from New York to schedule the massages, (2) led her upstairs to the massage room and prepared the massage table, (3) called her on one occasion to tell her that Epstein had bought her concert tickets, and (4) took nude photographs of her for Epstein when she was 16 years old. See 3505-005 at 2-4. On the basis of testimony and other related documentary evidence, the USAO-SDFL charged Epstein , and not Ms. Maxwell, with a substantive count of sex trafficking in a proposed indictment that Special Agent presented to the grand jury on March 18, 2008. See 3505-018 at 28 (Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment alleged that "Jeffrey Epstein procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18"). + +2007 testimony stands in stark contrast to her first interview with the New York FBI almost thirteen years later, on July 17, 2020, when she specifically recalled that on her first visit to the residence she was greeted at the door by "Ghislaine Maxwell" and recounted what Ms. Maxwell said to her. See 3505-068 at 1-2. further described seeing Ms. Maxwell multiple times at the residence and having "multiple conversations" with her about sexual topics, and claimed, among other things, that Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massages, paid her for the massages on a few occasions, sent her gifts, and offered to help her get a passport so that she could travel with Epstein. See id. at 2-4. In subsequent + +25made a passing reference to "an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent" whom she saw at the Palm Beach residence the first time she went. 3505-005 at I. But even assuming, arguendo, that Accuser-4 was referring to Ms. Maxwell (which we do not concede), she did not implicate Ms. Maxwell in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking in any way. + +interviews, went even further, claiming that Ms. Maxwell saw her naked several times and even fondled breasts on one occasion. See 3505-074 at 3. + +Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment is the same as Count Six of the S2 Indictment and it is based on the exact same evidence that the government proposes to introduce to support Count Six; namely, the testimony of and related documentary evidence. See GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A through GX-4-K (message pad slips); GX-551 phone records); GX-801-803 (FedEx records). The only difference is that changed her story and accused Ms. Maxwell thirteen years later when she was interviewed by the New York FBI. The fact that testimony led to two different charging decisions on two different occasions is relevant to her credibility and the government's acceptance of her differing testimony. The decision by the USAO-SDFL not to charge Ms. Maxwell in 2008 is therefore relevant and admissible. See Borrero, 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2. This evidence could be elicited without hearsay. Special Agent had firsthand knowledge that Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the proposed SDFL indictment because she presented the indictment to the grand jury. See 3505-018 at 28:5-8. And it should not be excluded under Rule 403. The viability of Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment rise and fall on the credibility of-. Moreover, the government's decision to credit 2020 testimony, despite its obvious inconsistencies with her 2007 testimony, goes to the thoroughness and good faith of the New York investigation. The fact that Ms. Maxwell was not charged in 2008 is highly probative of both issues and is not substantially outweighed by the risk of juror confusion or speculation. It is therefore admissible. + +#### D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible + +The government's motion to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence about the investigative steps taken in the Florida Investigation and the New York Investigation, and the duration of those investigations (see Mot. at 29-32), is entirely off base and breathtaking in the scope of what it seeks to restrict. It is as if the government will not tolerate any questioning about its investigations at all. That is certainly not the law. For example, the decision to interview a witness is an investigative step. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about who they spoke to and when they spoke to them is irrelevant? Similarly, the decision to issue a subpoena for documents is an investigative step. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about which documents they subpoenaed and when they subpoenaed them is irrelevant? Furthermore, the government will seek to offer numerous items of evidence collected in both the Florida and New York Investigations. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about when those investigations began and ended is irrelevant? Surely not. Such questions are entirely appropriate and will yield relevant, admissible evidence. The government cannot possibly try to prevent the defense from asking these types of valid questions or from calling the case agents as witnesses to answer them. + +The government seems to be conflating "investigative steps" with "investigative techniques," even though the defense's Touhy letter does not request testimony from the case agents about "investigative techniques." See Mot., Ex. A (requesting testimony "concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents"). The defense is aware of the rule that it may comment on the absence of proof in the record, but it is not permitted to argue that the government should have used any + +particular "investigative technique" to prepare its case. See United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19, 24 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order); United States v. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order); United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). We do not intend to violate that rule. + +Nevertheless, conducting a shoddy investigation is not an "investigative technique." As previously discussed, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence and argument challenging the "thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445; see also id. at 446 (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.]") and Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042 (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential... for the ... discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")). + +As the people with the most knowledge of the scope and progress of the investigations, the case agents are the most appropriate witnesses for the defense to call to explore these topics. And because the government has assiduously avoided calling them in its case-in-chief, the defense must call them in its own case. It is meritless for the government, at this stage of the case, to try to preclude entire topics or areas of questioning, or to preclude the defense from calling the case agents at all. The Court should not permit this. If particular questions to the case agents are objectionable, those objections can be addressed at trial. + +## E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted + +The government asserts that the defense should be precluded from calling the case agents as witnesses unless and until it provides a proffer identifying a "proper basis for their testimony." Gov't Mot. at 32-33. The defense already did so in its Touhy letter and the government has cited + +no authority indicating that more is required. Indeed, the government's demand for a proffer is nothing more than an attempt to force the defense to spell out exactly what it plans to ask the case agents and reveal its defense strategy. The Court should reject this demand. + +#### IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS + +The government moves to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence and argument "regarding the government's supposed motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant." Mot. at 34. Once again, the government's motion reaches too far and should be denied. + +First, as the government points out, challenges to the prosecutors' motives are typically brought by raising claims of "vindictive prosecution," "selective prosecution," or "outrageous government conduct," which must be resolved by the court, not the jury. See United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir. 2011). But the defense is not raising any of those claims. Simply arguing to the jury that the government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein after his death does not imply that the prosecution was the result of the government's "animus toward the defendant" (vindictive prosecution), or was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (selective prosecution), or was so outrageous that "due process considerations" must bar the prosecution (outrageous government conduct). See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 562-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716-17 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559, 565 (2d Cir. 1991). + +Second, for the reasons set forth above, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence of Epstein's death and the timing of the charges against Ms. Maxwell to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 44546; Bowen, 799 F.2d at + +612-13; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. Accordingly, this evidence does not impermissibly question the government's motives and should not be precluded. + +## V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY + +The government again refrains from telling the Court exactly what evidence it expects at trial, yet asks the defense to preview its possible cross-examination or defense-case evidence, in order both to circumvent the Rules of Criminal Procedure's guidelines and this Court's orders as to when the defense must disclose certain evidence. What's more, the government gives only summary suggestions of what the evidence "might" be and then asks the Court to rule definitively that the defense is precluded from challenging that evidence via cross-examination or otherwise. Because this Court cannot rule on the admissibility of impeachment evidence of a non-testifying witness unless and until the government actually elicits testimony concerning such a witness, this motion should be denied or deferred until the appropriate time at trial. + +The government does a poor job of previewing exactly what statements it anticipates offering from others related to It says that "other witnesses are expected to testify about the activities" of those two non-testifying witnesses, "including [unspecified] statements by them," which statements according to the government "will not include any statements ... offered for the truth of the matter asserted or under one of the other exceptions listed under Rule 806." Mot. at 37-38. The government then gives two non-exclusive examples26 but fails to elucidate what exactly the pertinent statements will be, to wit: + +26The government does not give any examples pertaining to therefore it is wholly unclear what statements the government intends to elicit about her or for what purpose. See Mot. at 37-38. and + +(Accuser 4) will testify that (Accuser 5) "recruited" her. Mot. at 38. How? What will Isay that said to her? Is it, "I am here to 'recruit you' to a sex abuse ring founded by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and Ghislaine Maxwell told me what to do, and I first went over there when I was under 18." Or will it simply be, "go over to Jeffrey Epstein's house and he will pay you \$200 to give a massage." The answer to whether or not the "recruitment" statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or is simply offered for the effect on the listener, can only be determined at the time the statement is offered and depends very much on the content of the purported statement. At that time, the government either will or will not be successful in overcoming a hearsay objection and the grounds for the objection; if it is subsequently admitted under one of the exceptions listed under Rule 806, the credibility of the accuser-declarant will become an issue. + +2. will testify that she "personally observed the sexual abuse of" Mot. at 38. According to the government, this testimony will not include any "hearsay statements" from But that assertion is suspect: "Sexual abuse" is a legal phrase. In this case, it is asserted that the sexual contact was "sexual abuse" because the participant ( was underage at the time; indeed says that she saw engage in seemingly consensual intercourse with Jeffrey Epstein and outside the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell. So mere observation would not tellwhat she saw was "sexual abuse" unless also said something about her age, and any statement by about her age at the time would be offered for the truth. was both below and above the age of consent during the period of the charged conspiracy; the dates on which supposedly observed anything will be hotly contested at trial.) The government has provided "notice" tha v as a "victim" in this case, and has disclosed a number of exhibits related to her — school records (GX 781-783); employment records (GX 821-22), photo (GX 332)." It is apparent that the government hopes to prove that was a "victim" in the sense that she was underage when she had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, without calling her as a witness in this case. Again, if the government offers evidence that the sexual contact observed by abuse" because betweenl rind Mr. Epstein amounts to "sexual was underage, then such testimony would open the door to the mountains of evidence that tends to impeach that assertion. + +Given the failure to specify the statements that will be elicited, the purposes for which those statements qualify as non-hearsay, depriving the defense of an opportunity to brief whether such statements open the door to credibility challenges of the accuser-declarantsMand , this Court should deny the motion. + +27 Tellingly, the government failed to provide an exhibit for birth certificate, but did forte See GX 11-15. + +#### VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE. + +The government seeks blanket preclusion of evidence or argument that the accusers "consented to sexual abuse." It bears noting that the Indictment does not charge sexual abuse. The charged offenses allege "sexual activity" (Counts One through Four) and "sex trafficking" (Counts Five and Six). + +The age of consent for sexual contact purposes varies by jurisdiction. The offenses charged in the S2 Indictment allege sexual activity with minors and focus on age, rather than mental or physical incapacity. Accordingly, to qualify as sexual activity with a minor, the statute must prohibit sexual acts based at least on age of the purported victim. See Esquival-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). As the Supreme Court noted, "state criminal codes aid our interpretation of `sexual abuse of a minor' by offering useful context." Id. at 1577 n.3. For purposes of sexual activity alleged in this case, the definition of "minor" varies among states and nations: New York defines "minor" as a person under the age of 1728; Florida: under the age of 1829; United Kingdom: under the age of 1630; France: under the age of 15.31 New Mexico does not have a specific age of consent statute but criminalizes all sexual contact of a minor under the age of 13 when no coercion or force is involved.32 In the context of the charged offense focusing + +28 NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a). + +29 Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1). At the time of the charged offenses in Counts Five and Six, individuals under the age of 18 could be charges with prostitution. In 2016, the law was changed, decriminalizing prostitution of by individuals under the age of 18. + +J0 Sexual Offences Act, Chap. 44. + +3&#x27; Penal Code, Article 227-25. + +32 NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(A)(I). New Mexico criminalizes sexual contact of minor on a child 13 to 18 years old when coercion is involved. § 30-9-12(A)(2). + +solely on the age of the participant, the generic federal definition of minor requires that the age of the alleged victim be the then-current age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual activity was intended or did occur. + +Where the ability or incapacity to consent to sexual activity is age-dependent, the proof must satisfy the elements governed by the statute in effect at time and place where the alleged sexual activity may occur. For each count in the Indictment, age is a predicate element which the government must prove to bar the defense of consent. Counts Two and Four specify violations of New York State Penal Law § 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with a person less than 17 years old.33 For Count Two, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that vas less than 17 years old? For Count Four, the government must prove that was less than 17 years old during purported sexual activity.35 For Count Six, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that was under age 18.36 + +Counts One and Three charged conspiracies alleging conduct involving all four accusers identified in the Indictment and multi jurisdictional locations with varying local state laws. Depending on the age of the accusers during the time frame of the conspiracy, consent may be an + +A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when her or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent, except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity by reason of being less that seventeen years old. + +33Section 130.55 — Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree — states in pertinent part: + +Designated a B misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is "shall not exceed three months," (§70.15(2)), far less than the16 months Maxwell has served in pretrial detention. + +m See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +33See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +36 See Government Proposed Request to Charge. + +appropriate and viable defense. While the age of consent for Counts Five and Six is 18, at the time of the alleged offense, individuals under the age of 18 could be charged with commission of the crime of prostitution.17 At the time of the charged offenses, a coconspirator who committed crimes of prostitution chargeable under Florida law. See Fla Stat. § 796.07 ("Prohibiting prostitution and related acts").38 In connection with Counts Five and Six, it is appropriate to raise the defense of consent to engage in prosecution. + +An additional problem with the government's in lintine request is that it conflates two very distinct and significant concepts: consent by an accuser as an affirmative defense to alleged unlawful sexual activity and consent to voluntary acts by an accuser. As noted above, the age of the alleged victim and the state in which any alleged act took place may implicate a consent defense. Separately, however, the voluntary acts of an accuser are relevant evidence that is + +- a. To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution. +- b. To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act. +- c. To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or to permit any person to remain there for such purpose. +- d. To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- e. To offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- f. To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- g. To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation. +- h. To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection. +- i. To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution. + +37 In October 2016, the Florida State Senate enacted House Bill 545, which decriminalized prosecution of minors found to be engaging in prostitution. Since 2016, Florida considers minors involved in prostitution victims rather than culprits. + +18 Fla. Stat.§ 796.07(2) sets out all unlawful acts chargeable as prostitution: + +admissible to demonstrate the lack of any intent or knowledge on the part of Ms. Maxwell. As with the other in limine requests, this evidence will need to be evaluated on a question by question basis and it is premature to issue blanket rulings as requested by the government. + +This case poses multi jurisdictional issues that invite various defenses. The government has elected to prosecute, federally, conduct that is quintessentially state-based, and it is bound by its choice. It has charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence, when such conduct did not occur in this case. It has alleged violation of a statute enacted to combat human trafficking, conduct that does not exist in this case. The government has manipulated federal statutes to fit alleged conduct that is not normally prosecuted federally and seeks to preclude defenses responsive to the allegations in the Indictment. It is premature to constrain Ms. Maxwell's defense before trial. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to present evidence and make argument on the issue of consent when and where appropriate. + +## VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED + +The government asks this Court to require that, before Ms. Maxwell refers to or offers evidence of her "absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief, . . . [she] explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible." Mot. at 44. According to the government, evidence that Ms. Maxwell was "absent" when Mr. Epstein allegedly abused certain individuals is actually inadmissible "good acts" evidence because the jury could use it only to conclude that Ms. Maxwell acted in conformity with the prior good acts. Id. The government's argument imagines a duty to provide notice where none exists, and it misunderstands what constitutes prior-act evidence and basic concepts of relevance in the context of a conspiracy where one actor denies knowledge of an illegal + +purpose or agreement with any co-conspirator to facilitate an illegal objective. The ill-founded motion should be denied. + +## A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pry-trial Notice of Such Evidence. + +At the outset, this Court can deny the government's motion for a simple reason: There is no authority requiring Ms. Maxwell to provide the government with notice of the evidence she intends to offer at trial. To the contrary, when such notice is required, the Rules of Evidence or Procedure make the requirement express. Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), for example, imposes a duty on Ms. Maxwell to make certain disclosures, particularly as they regard expert witnesses and opinions. But the Rule does not require her to identify evidence of her "absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief' and then "explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible." + +Nor does Rule of Evidence 404(3) require notice from the defendant. In fact, the government's invocation of Rule 404(b) actually undermines its motion. In a criminal case, that Rule imposes on the government a duty to provide advance notice of any other-acts evidence it desires to admit at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3).39 The Rule does not impose a similar obligation on a defendant. + +In a criminal case, the prosecutor must: + +- (A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it; +- (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and +- (C) do so in writing before trial or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice. + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3) (emphasis added). + +39 The Rule says: + +Because nothing requires Ms. Maxwell to advise the government in advance of the evidence she intends to admit at trial or why that evidence is relevant, this Court should deny the government's motion. If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement. ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) Opening Statement at Trial ("Defense counsel's opening statement at trial should be confined to a fair statement of the case from defense counsel's perspective, and discussion of evidence that defense counsel reasonably believes in good faith will be available, offered, and admitted."). When the defense offers evidence, the government can make any objections it thinks are appropriate, and this Court can rule on the objections in context. See United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL 5918372, at \*1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) ("Without hearing the evidence in context, this Court cannot enter a blanket pretrial ruling. The government's motion in limine is therefore denied as premature, without prejudice to the government raising this issue at an appropriate time during trial."). + +#### B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation — May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives. + +The government seeks to exclude evidence that "many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein...did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy." Mot. at 42. The government characterizes this evidence as "good acts" of Ms. Maxwell (id. at 41-42); they are neither "good," nor Ms. Maxwell's "acts." Rather, relying on inapposite cases, the government seeks to exclude as "propensity" evidence the fact that Mr. Epstein sexually abused minors (other than the specified Accusers) without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and involvement. The government conveniently overlooks that: + +- the Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a discrete time period; +- the charged conspiracy encompasses females other than the four specified Accusers; +- the government's burden at trial will be to show both an agreement between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to accomplish the specified illegal objectives; +- the government's burden at trial will also encompass proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell had knowledge of the conspiracies' illegal objectives. + +Thus, evidence that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone, or with other co-conspirators, without the knowledge or participation of be admissible as direct evidence of Ms. Maxwell's lack of awareness of or participation in the charged conspiracies. For example, if the government attempts to prove up the conspiratorial agreement or the knowledge of the illegal objective based on a pattern and practice, then evidence that Epstein acted alone or without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge or participation may become relevant. + +Each of the cases cited by the government is readily distinguishable. First, all but one of the cases dealt with specific "good" propensity evidence of the defendant, not the absence of a co-conspirator during "bad" acts by the defendant. See United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2021) (defendant — not a co-conspirator — proffered evidence that on other occasions he did not bribe other potential targets); United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1011 (2d. Cir. 1990) (absence of defendants' discussions about drugs on single occasion not admissible to "disprove government's theory that the defendants congregated ... to discuss the marijuana business"); United States v. 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d. Cir. 2020) (summary order) (fact that defendant also ran a legitimate law practice not admissible to disprove he committed bad acts through illegal practice); Boyce v. , 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (defendant's access to other potential victims without engaging in abuse not admissible to establish innocence). Moreover, each of these cases had to do with tendering + +evidence during trial; none stands for the specific relief requested by the government: that "before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence." For the reasons discussed supra in subsection (A), there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that require the defense to disclose its argument or evidence pre-trial in the manner suggested by the government. + +Indeed, the only case cited by the government which dealt with a motion in limine, Judge Matusumoto's decision in United States v. , No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015), actually undercuts the government's position. See Mot. at 43. Although the Court excluded pre-trial evidence of "unrelated prior good conduct, i.e., charitable giving or cooperation with law enforcement," it held: + +To the extent that evidence of good conduct is relevant to the charged conduct (i.e., to establish an alibi) or may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury, the court will consider its introduction at trial. The defendants are cautioned, however, that evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged will not be admitted. + +Id. at ■2. **Thus, the court properly excluded evidence — unrelated to the charged conspiracy — of the defendant's "good" propensity, and it also properly reserved for trial the admissibility of "evidence of good conduct ... relevant to the charged conduct" or as "may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury." Here, too, evidence that the purported conspiracies operated without the knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell during the period charged amounts to direct evidence that the conspiratorial agreement or knowledge of the objectives likewise did not exist. Only after the government has made its opening statements and put on its evidence will the defense even know, much less be in a position to argue, what contrary evidence will be offered. As with the Court in =, this Court should defer ruling on the admissibility of any such evidence until the time it is offered into evidence by the defense.** + +#### VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME + +Hearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802. "The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay." Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990). + +Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the parties to follow the Rules of Evidence. + +The failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Phanns. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the "'motion to exclude hearsay'... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions...." Denying the motion, the court directed the following solution: "If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule." Id. + +The parties should follow the Rules. Ms. Maxwell intends to do so and will object to evidence she believes is inadmissible at trial. + +#### IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT + +This motion in limine, like most of the preceding ones, is another request that the parties, and the Court, abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence or that the Court offer an advisory opinion as to which types of evidence fall within the Rules. As described previously, supra at Preliminary Statement, these are inappropriate motions in limine. It is unclear if the government's real intent in filing the motion is to entice defense counsel to share her intended evidence or arguments for trial in advance of the deadlines set by this Court. In any event, Ms. Maxwell's defense and her evidence depends very much on what evidence the government elicits or argues at trial and in opening statements. + +There are certain longstanding and easily understood rules of evidence which apply to this case. Rule 404(a)(2) permits introduction at trial of a defendant's "pertinent trait," which, if offered, the government may rebut. Rule 405(a) permits evidence of a person's character or character trait by reputation or opinion, which, if offered, the opposing party may then inquire as to relevant specific instances of conduct. Rule 608(a) permits a witness's credibility to be attacked or supported by reputation testimony for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel do not dispute that these rules of evidence apply nor that they all understand the prohibitions on encouraging jury nullification. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel will not argue to the jury that they may acquit if they do not like that law. See United States v. Gardner, No. 16 cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207, at \*6-\*7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) (denying motion in limine regarding jury nullification. because, "[alt this point, it is unclear exactly what is included in the category of "evidence or argument that relates only to jury nullification. Although some + +examples were given, the Court finds that this is too vague a category to grant the relief requested."). + +The government has not explained why they believe that counsel does not understand these rules or what evidence (beyond "charitable works" or "evidence of her family history") that they expect to be offered at trial. If the topic of "charitable works" comes up in the government's case, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's "charitable works" may become relevant. If the topic of Ms. Maxwell's family history is elicited or argued by the government, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's family history may become relevant. One wonders if the government is suggesting these topics because it intends to try to elicit some testimony on these topics and then preclude Ms. Maxwell from responding. If that were the case, then the government should have said so in their Motion. Regardless, there is no reason for the Court to enter any orders on this topic. Ms. Maxwell will tender evidence on cross examination and in her defense case that is relevant. The government is free to make any objections it deems appropriate at that time, with reference to any evidence the government has already elicited from the witnesses and in opening statements. + +# X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED + +The government would like nothing better than for the Court to require defense counsel to have their hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped while the accusers, and related witnesses, testify under anonymity, If the government wants to preclude the interposing of defenses, it should dismiss the case. + +The government is not and should not be privy to the defenses interpose at trial, despite the claim that the government's "years-long investigation has not developed any evidence that the defendant was victimized in any way by Jeffrey Epstein" and defense counsel made not factual assertions regarding victimization. (Mot. at 49). Perhaps the + +government should re-mad the many thousands of pages of witness statements before asserting that it would be "baseless" to claim that Ms. Maxwell was a victim of Epstein. The defense has not provided notice under Rule 12.2, as would be required to interpose a defense based on Ms. Maxwell's mental condition and its bearing on culpability. Ms. Maxwell maintains her innocence and does not intent to assert any affirmative defense. + +The government has the burden of proving the charges in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense bears no burden and is not obligated to disclose defense theory or strategy unless required by statute. The government seems overly concerned that the jury will be confused, a reference it uses 24 times throughout its Motions in Limine, and that the government will be highly prejudiced. Any confusion will be the result of its own presentation of evidence, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the prejudice inflicted upon Ms. Maxwell. + +XI. S. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN CIVIL LITIGATION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AS THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE + +prevailing party. Mot. at 51-52. "did not agree that" Ms. Maxwell was the + +There is nothing "inaccurate" or "confusing" about + +![](_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg) + +[REDACTED] + +The same is true for [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The bias and motive for these witnesses to testify against Ms. Maxwell at the criminal trial must be explored on cross-examination and [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's various motions *in limine*. + +Dated: October 25, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Response to Government's Omnibus Motions In Limine with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..163896860bc0aff8acda860184ca9f008841d1f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/EFTA02834286.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3724 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 69, + "chars": 105445, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.21, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_5.jpeg", + "_page_22_Picture_7.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg", + "_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.921142578125, + 102.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S \nOMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 491.55645751953125, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 491.55645751953125, + 334.10302734375 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 334.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE \nCOURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE 28", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1734008789062, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 543.1734008789062, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT \nABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND \nMERITLESS 42", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 542.677001953125, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 542.677001953125, + 408.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 408.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO \nSEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE 46", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 542.790771484375, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 542.790771484375, + 476.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 476.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD \nACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED 49", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 542.9225463867188, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 542.9225463867188, + 509.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 509.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. \nMAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS \nTIME 54", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 542.6821899414062, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 542.6821899414062, + 623.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 623.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF \nEVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY \nNULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT 55", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 542.7451782226562, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 542.7451782226562, + 671.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 671.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED 56", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 542.7481079101562, + 674.73 + ], + [ + 542.7481079101562, + 691.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 691.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.96761322021484, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.96761322021484, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 119.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 119.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.29054260253906, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.29054260253906, + 238.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 238.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 337.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 337.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 398.9364013671875, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 398.9364013671875, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 339.7509765625, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 339.7509765625, + 554.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 554.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 358.7391662597656, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 358.7391662597656, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Court Should Reject the Government\u2019s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 528.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 537.0300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary \nNeed to Use Fake Names", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 224.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 224.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 353.5284423828125, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 353.5284423828125, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 451.7951354980469, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 451.7951354980469, + 551.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 551.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-\nESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 472.464, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 472.464, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON \"PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS\" \nINAPPROPRIATE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 468.77154541015625, + 579.96 + ], + [ + 468.77154541015625, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 82.00800000000001, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior \nConsistent Statements May Be Admitted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 489.7862548828125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 489.7862548828125, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 517.2306518554688, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 517.2306518554688, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND \nTHE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 533.7068481445312, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 533.7068481445312, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 523.872, + 238.14 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 238.14 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the \nDeath of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and \nGood Faith of the New York Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.5423583984375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.5423583984375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 235.2310791015625, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 235.2310791015625, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 207.9501953125, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 207.9501953125, + 635.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 635.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by \nthe USAO\u2022SDFL Is Relevant to Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 235.72772216796875, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 235.72772216796875, + 125.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 127.90799999999999, + 125.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 213.564453125, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 213.564453125, + 142.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 142.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of \nPrior Investigations Is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.052, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.052, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary \nand Unwarranted", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 624.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 624.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR \nARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS \nMISGUIDED AND MERITLESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 535.8578491210938, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 535.8578491210938, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-\nTESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.844, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 525.000732421875, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 525.000732421875, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 83.844, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS \nCONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 466.8361511230469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 466.8361511230469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S \nGOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 526.0828247070312, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 526.0828247070312, + 431.60302734375 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 431.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pry-trial Notice of Such \nEvidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 517.8497314453125, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 517.8497314453125, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of \nAbuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation \u2014 May Be \nRelevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. \nMAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT \nTHIS TIME", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.007568359375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.007568359375, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE \nRULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR \nJURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 513.89208984375, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 513.89208984375, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 506.4613342285156, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 506.4613342285156, + 472.863037109375 + ], + [ + 83.23200000000001, + 472.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.264, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 351.28799999999995, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.264, + 417.15000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.6346435546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.6346435546875, + 88.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 88.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834286" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e58f23c7f9dd4a1b9010a51e04d3f227166cfc95 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:97d4cb46b92f63cb6c8523b78d0e522b51ca5b9b25341a0534bb8ae47d8b2867 +size 60171 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a57f57c681cfe1b6900bc89d0068a97445fd1802 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6f7c0abf48803ce36649e898f396d730f978784abdf4a26ff275ba64e455c3eb +size 54976 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..694b8ac4819ad9cf6b05aada156ede3c25751fd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_14_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a1a245ae4cf838021562adaa053090fadd87d67251686e9e0e5d77252d123ffe +size 59586 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b41eacb61346898a5996cbe2275f68530b32f8b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_15_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3dd4c7742e08e243feff4f71a8d6ecbcbe6595900d0b8db81a7d3ea0a94bc95e +size 57931 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21429707842ea299afbe7266d1231275bcb9be82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_16_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b470b6adb2ac1ad084c6de7bbed8582c5a7e21bd715c0aa30648b72730cbf150 +size 58724 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4ce32064189dc8b23168595f807d30d7ab63f2f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_17_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7120f05e743342c9310a8dfed210f2413771c41e2ad58991521e02e6499c5a3c +size 59255 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc51a328cf26d845500c05c6bc5c7021ec398814 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e9d60f6485de628187c5d0bf8eb9070105300b459145392465994e60a05c50b8 +size 56120 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..815e77be8da9a7ee3ba2d898b7d419079a765183 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4b85961285ae8807ee96276d66e59fa033f8e89bfa6d110b0a355ccf32e74cf9 +size 53542 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..467589000d27b0a779c4dc968e21140a733780c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_20_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:af802ccfb1ce30b88c73788746592157472bf39656635ea8c83905bf00c0e32c +size 54199 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9011f3335c48e2a039f0dad33c2a44b68d4bfe36 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b0b67d13bbacbd9d3eea81d5b0c0aebb2164b9058944d5139a8539ed4caa792e +size 55058 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3190fcd5eae362e899d5601b5ede6e63ca19c8c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f70b56fd8d8762dfdf9b0d8fcf34fb8b9d85b0bf7f86655d89f2a17178c12cec +size 13970 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a024079a7cc8143584fad6fe76cf191845482e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:76d358390af1dba3391860a568e4d76fef9197c4fbe021553c8220119c52a428 +size 15318 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90623fac7f08b127ee8b4529c498ced6c2146413 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_22_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e4eea9c41d4f4dd2a97e6c76aeb6fae027892f0420122b80e2caebf8980b1a09 +size 9394 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddb8d761cd027a992616947e5755ad833f12e357 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:56be06f89e0f75737afc44abdedd091c561a0c0ec95140b743b51db76bb0bf45 +size 16458 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a320caf47fb6c66d0ea6867f6544dd687e3e7299 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:96c260cf2aa714b282eb4da13387e997b85af1ff822ebf77ce8ee61dbed3fd25 +size 4393 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ecb3bca2cb3caec404a5cf1f62056d5df4e58f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_25_Picture_7.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b908d02f71f428b43cb25573f4b2b7c05926544017441de17e637e6bdbdb9552 +size 38790 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b73fc13356d327c3f9e75b9c5ef29cad873c4c36 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:814073b4365dbda98207212baf43be1b064c7bd8c0509d1acbc1567059939610 +size 29699 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0d4fb2e44321a0d6a6424940eead0f1f3488bcf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_26_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4a32c0c2e42d1bc54c62bf2ca9e5c159ca7ada750821af3a39ccc18014cb8751 +size 2738 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66c91cc56bbc5eedb0280fce0f016811a78e0c3a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_65_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a9649b6e05a3f770df58613c1f664da5a7cbac883b938d5073e0ca2b4a29a78d +size 54774 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f5a16faeffe1a154f779a98e51e36d5d0a9e5a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834286/_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9f3c29eabd4483be936e3d7deb5b99adbdc09b12efd0e9215fe9ea9605ae163c +size 948 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..579686ea0c50d2d26e1ff5c5c68ce1bfad45d204 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.md @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ARGUMENT Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits A. Applicable Law | 1 First 3 4 7 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------| +| 1. Minor Victim-1 | 7 | +| 2. Minor Victim-3 | 10 | +| 3. Minor Victim-4 | 12 | +| 4. Minor Victim-6 | 13 | +| C. The Government's Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests | 14 | +| D. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much | Less a Particularized | +| Need for Disclosure. | 16 | +| E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate | 19 | +| Appropriate Time | 21 | +| Proffering Irrelevant Evidence | 22 | +| Defendant | 24 | +| Purpose | 29 | +| Minor Victim-4's Credibility | 31 | +| Matters | 33 | +| E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant | 34 | +| Witnesses at Trial | 35 | + +| Inadmissible | 35 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| Motions | 37 | +| I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury That The Defendant | | +| Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation | 38 | +| CONCLUSION | 38 | + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in further support of its October 18, 2021 motions in limine. + +# ARGUMENT + +## I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits + +The Government seeks limited, narrowly tailored relief to protect the victims in this case. Certain of the Minor Victims have not publicly identified themselves as victims of child sexual abuse by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, or have not done so in the same level of detail as they are expected to provide at trial. Consistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8), and the regular practice in this District and the Eastern District, (see Gov't Mot. at 6- 8 (citing twelve cases)), the Government asks the Court to permit those Minor Victims to testify using either pseudonyms or first names, and for related relief regarding other witnesses and exhibits to protect the identities of the same Minor Victims. To the extent this request presents logistical concerns, they are readily solvable in this case, as they were in United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.), United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.), and numerous other recent sex trafficking trials, including high-profile sex trafficking trials and ones in which victims had made prior public statements. The Government has not sought to withhold the identities of the Minor Victims from the defense or the jury, so this request has no effect whatsoever on the defendant's right to a fair trial. + +The defendant's primary response is to + +. That misses the point entirely. The Court must decide whether to protect the privacy of four victims who will testify in a criminal trial, for the first time in their lives, about the painful details of the sexual abuse they were subjected to as children. The answer to that question is emphatically yes. + +The defense has failed to articulate any particularized need to publicize the full names of the Minor Victims. Nor could they, since the full names are known to the defense and the Court, and will be known to the jurors in this case. And the Government's narrowly tailored proposal balances the public interest in access to information with the Minor Victims' right to privacy and dignity. The Court should grant the motion. + +# A. Applicable Law + +As the Government explained in its motions (Gov't Mot. at 4-9), if the Government provides a reason to "limit disclosure of identifying information in open court," the defendant must "demonstrate a `particularized need' for disclosure . . . which the court weighs against the risks to the witness." United States v. Marcus, No. 05 Cr. 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at el (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 901 (2d Cir. 1969)), ard, 628 F.3d 36, 45 n.12 (2d Cir. 2010)); see United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568, 572-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting an undercover law enforcement officer to testify under a pseudonym, after balancing the relevant interests); cf. United States v. M., 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977) ("[W]here the government voices a legitimate concern for a witness' safety, the trial court must balance the potential danger to the witness against the need of the defense for the information."). + +As noted in the Government's motion, an order imposing privacy safeguards at trial for victims of sex crimes is commonplace. See Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 32:1-36:6, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198 (permitting use of real first names and fake last names); Order at 10-11, United States v. Kidd, No. 18 Cr. 872 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019), Dkt. No. 60 ("The Court is persuaded that, to protect the minor victims, they should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms and that such anonymous testimony does not violate Kidd's Sixth Amendment rights."); May 8, 2019 Tr. at 6:20-21, United States v. No. 18 Cr. 874 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 53; Order at 29-35, United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622; United States v. Zhong, No. 16 Cr. 614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018) (granting government's motion to have victim witnesses testify using pseudonyms); Order at 2-3, United States v. No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERIC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34 ("Jane Doe will be permitted to testify as `Jane Doe' at trial, and will not be required to disclose her address, names of family members or exact place of employment (if any)."); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 6-10, United States v. Quraishi, No. 15 Cr. 598 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 46 (permitting a witness to testify using only her first name); United States v. Corley, No. 13 Cr. 48 (MN), 2016 WL 9022508, at \*3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (noting that "Judge Patterson . . . permitted the minor victims to testify under a pseudonym at trial" and denying the pro se defendant's request for the surnames of the minor victims for his appeal); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (ER), 2015 WL 6161292, at '10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (permitting victims to testify using their first names only); Order at 2, United States v. =, No. 09 Cr. 619 (JMA) + +(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011), Dkt. No. 231; United States v. Paris, No. 06 Cr. 64 (CFD), 2007 WL 1484974, at \*2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007). + +The defense largely ignores the overwhelming precedent for the Government's motion, including the recent high profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District, see United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019). Instead, the defendant points the Court to the law in civil cases governing motions by plaintiffs seeking to proceed by pseudonyms. (See Def. Opp. at 16 (citing, e.g., Doe v. Cty., Illinois, No. 20 Civ. 5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at \*3 (N.D. III. June 3, 2021))). This is not a civil case filed by the minor victims, and a civil plaintiff is not similarly situated to a crime victim in a federal criminal case. Civil plaintiffs are generally forced to identify themselves by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188 (2d Cir. 2008). By contrast, crime victims are entitled to the statutory protection of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). They have been asked to testify by the Government, and they do not decide whether this case proceeds. There is no reason to look to civil law when a body of criminal cases provides direct guidance on this question.2 + +The defense brief takes pains to distinguish cases the Government cited in its discussion of how courts approach balancing witness and defendant interests in this area, and fails to address nearly all of the cases applying that analysis in the specific context of sex abuse cases like this one. (Compare Def. Opp. at 16-17 & n.19, with Gov't Mot. at 5-7) + +2 In discussing the Government's burden to justify privacy safeguards, the defense cites to In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorneyclient relationship. (Def. Opp. at 15). + +**B. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests** + +The bulk of the defense's brief focuses on publicity surrounding this case [REDACTED] +[REDACTED]. As explained in greater detail below, that is irrelevant. But in any event, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**1. Minor Victim-1** + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +**2. Minor Victim-3** + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] | [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +[Redacted text block consisting of multiple lines of blacked-out content.] + +[Redacted text block consisting of multiple lines of blacked-out content.] + +--- + +5 Indeed, in entering the Government’s requested protective order in this case, the Court noted that “[a]s a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 2). + +[REDACTED] + +**3. Minor Victim-4** + +Regarding Minor Victim-4, the defense motion largely focuses on disparaging her credibility. (*See* Def. Opp. at 12-15). Without relitigating the issue here (*see* Gov't Opp. to Def. Supp. Mots. at 21, Dkt. No. 295 ("[T]he Government notes that the defense motion overstates the significance of the particular statements Minor Victim-4 made during the USAO-SDFL's investigation."), that issue is entirely orthogonal to her privacy interests at stake in her testimony. + +[Redacted text block] + +Absent protection from the Court, her testimony will entail a further loss of privacy and dignity. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8).7 Accordingly, the Government requests relief narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances and privacy interests of Minor Victim-4—namely, that Minor Victim-4 be permitted to testify using her first name only. + +**4. Minor Victim-6** + +[Redacted text block] + +--- + +[Redacted text block] + +[Redacted text block] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**C. The Government’s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests** + +The Government has proposed permitting Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-3, and two witnesses related to Minor Victim-1 to testify under pseudonyms, and limiting reference to them at trial to those pseudonyms. The Government has also proposed permitting Minor Victim-4 and certain witnesses related to her to testify under their first names, and limiting reference to those witnesses and Minor Victim-6 to their first names. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +. + +This proposal would successfully protect the victim privacy interests identified above. The question is not whether the victims’ testimony—that is, the intimate details of their childhood sexual abuse at the hands of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein—will become public. They will, and in light of the publicity surrounding this case, those details are likely to be highly publicized. The question is whether those details will be linked to the names of the Minor Victims. Under the + +--- + +8 Although the defense also says it needs to investigate Minor Victim-6 as a “potential witness” (Def. Opp. at 20), as the Government has said before, Minor Victim-6 will not be a witness or hearsay declarant at this trial. + +Government's proposal, the Minor Victims' names will not be said in open court. A person in the gallery, or a person reading the transcript, cannot simply write down the Minor Victims' names and put them on the internet. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] There is + +every reason to believe that, if the Court orders that Minor Victims be permitted to testify under pseudonyms, many major publications will honor that request and not rebroadcast the Minor Victims' names should they surface elsewhere. The Government does not assume that the mainstream press would reveal the identity of a victim against her wishes, particularly if the victim is testifying under Court-ordered protections to preserve her anonymity. Furthermore, the Government's understanding from conferring with prosecutors in similar cases is that the mainstream press did not, in fact, reveal the identities of victims who testified under court-ordered protections. And in any event, even marginally reduced exposure is significant to the Minor Victims.9 There is a very meaningful difference between the names of victims appearing in some dark corner of the internet, and the names of the victims appearing in the news outlets that will be viewed by the friends, families (including children), and employers of the Minor Victims. + +**D. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure.** + +In the context of the disclosure of witness identifying information, the Second Circuit has identified two primary interests of defendants: "(1) obtaining information needed for in-court and out-of-court investigation of the witness; and (2) enabling defense counsel to elicit information + +that might be relevant to the jury's deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness." Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at •1 (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266). And where the Government establishes a legitimate reason to limit disclosure of identifying information in open Court, the defendant must "demonstrate a 'particularized need' for disclosure." Id. + +Here, both of those interests are satisfied. The defendant knows who the Minor Victims and other witnesses are and has conducted a fulsome investigation, as shown by the defendant's brief in opposition. And the jury, which will also know the true names of the Minor Victims, will fully understand whatever information the defense elicits on cross-examination or at trial. For instance, as the Government has said, the defense is free to elicit the fact that . (Compare Def. Opp. 21, with Gov't Mot. at 15 n.6 ("The Government has no objection to cross-examination . . . ). The only substantive limit the Government proposes on the defendant's ability to elicit information is certain detailed personally identifying information, none of which is relevant or necessary to elicit at trial. (See Gov't Mot. at 15 & n.6). + +Citing general cases about the Confrontation Clause, the defense describes a series of other lines of cross-examination they might like to elicit, including (a) (b) (c) and (d) the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims. (Def. Opp. at 21- 22). Some of these topics are objectionable for other reasons. But for purposes of this motion, the defendant must show that she requires the true names of the Minor Victims to be publicly disclosed + +to make the point. She does not. Much of this information can be elicited without using names at all, such as Minor Victim-4's past statements and the general arc of the Minor Victims' professional work.10 And the defense does not provide a *particularized* justification for any identifying information, [REDACTED]. Even the baseless defense argument that Minor Victim-4 and her lawyer are suborning perjury would not require use of either name. Notably, despite the numerous cases in which pseudonyms or first names have been used, the defense cites no case in which a court has forced victims to testify under their true names so that the defense could conduct cross-examination along these lines. + +The defendant also argues that "[s]ubstantial impeachment evidence exists as to [Minor Victim-4] under her real name," and the defendant "should not be forced to compromise the full effect of this evidence by use of a first name only." (Def. Opp. at 22). The defendant is not so compromised. The defendant is allowed to elicit this information and, where it is contained in exhibits, and show those to the jury without redaction. The jury will know the Minor Victims' full names and will understand the complete argument. The defense can even say Minor Victim-4's first name. They would only be limited from saying her last name out loud in court. The same is true with exhibits including the names of certain other Minor Victims.11 + +Finally, the defense argues that this motion is purely tactical on the part of the Government, because this motion affords sympathy to the victims. (Def. Opp. at 22). Remarkably—and unfortunately—the defense again repeats their claim that testimony is being fabricated. (Id.). The Government is responding to the real concerns of its victims, as it is duty-bound to do, and as is common in cases involving sexual abuse. It has also already agreed to a jury instruction, as is sometimes given in these cases, explaining that the use of pseudonyms and first names should not be held against the defendant. (See Gov't Mot. at 14 n.4). If any tactical gamesmanship is occurring, it is on the part of the defense, which spends a few paragraphs out of nearly twenty pages of their brief offering conclusory reasons why privacy safeguards undermine a defense interest. As the defense is well aware, such safeguards are significant to the Minor Victims and their willingness to testify. But the Court need not arbitrate issues of litigation tactics. The balance of interests on this issue is clear and weighs in favor of privacy safeguards, as it did in many other trials involving sex crimes. + +# E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate + +Just as the Government's proposal is narrowly tailored with respect to the defendant, so it is narrowly tailored with respect to the right of the public and the press to access the trial. The public and press are free to attend the entire trial. They may observe each of the Minor Victims, in person, testify in full. At no point during testimony is the Government seeking closure of the courtroom. The public and the press are also welcome to see most of the trial exhibits. + +The only narrow exception is for those exhibits that specifically contain identifying information of Minor Victims. As the Court is well aware, the right to access trial evidence is not absolute, and it can be overcome—especially by information that is "traditionally considered + +private rather than public," which avoids "catering" to "sensational" interests. (Gov't Mot. at 16 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. 366 F. Supp. 3d 612, 626-627 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). This limited sealing request is significantly protective of the interests of the Minor Victims, who were sexually abused as minors, and minimally burdensome to the public. See Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at •2 (concluding that the interest in protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because "the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does' and Minors' testimony in full"); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3509 (d)(2) (permitting any papers that disclose the name of a child to be filed under seal without the necessity of a court order).12 + +Although the defense argues that this request is "contrary to well-established Second Circuit Law" (Def. Opp. at 23), the cases it cites concern the strong presumption in favor of access associated with public dissemination of records that are already shared publicly at trial. See United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2001); Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1980). Both cases also recognize that no such presumption applies for evidence submitted under seal, "because with respect to that item of evidence, the session of court was not public." Graham, 257 F.3d at 149 (quoting Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d at 952 n.4). Here, the Government is not seeking a limitation on information shared in open court, so these cases are inapposite. + +12 To the extent the defense wishes to make arguments about particular exhibits, (see Def. Opp. at 22-23), the Government is happy to address that on a document-by-document basis at trial. + +The Government is seeking an order issued in many other cases to protect the privacy and dignity of Minor Victims who will take the stand and testify about being sexually abused. The defense has failed to carry its burden of identifying any right of the defendant that is burdened by such an order. The Court should grant the motion. + +## II. The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at the Appropriate Time + +The Government has moved in limine to admit prior consistent statements of its witnesses pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1XB) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (See Gov't Mot. Section II). The Government briefed this issue in advance in order to notify the Court that the Government intends to offer evidence of prior consistent statements, and to provide briefing on the relevant law. Because the Government cannot fully anticipate the defense's opening arguments or lines of crossexamination regarding the credibility of witnesses it will call at trial, and the defense has not elaborated on them in its brief, the Government cannot identify prior consistent statements it will offer in response. Accordingly, the Government does not seek a decision on prior consistent statements at this time. + +In their brief, the defense recites the applicable law, largely in agreement with the Government's view. The Government notes two points with respect to that discussion. First, it is plainly proper to offer prior consistent statements to rebut a purported inconsistency between the witness's trial testimony and an earlier statement. See United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196- 97 (2d Cir. 2020). Second, it is also plainly proper for the Government to begin offering prior consistent statements if the defense attacks witness credibility in its opening statement, and the + +Government need not wait until the witness is cross-examined. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 706 (2d Cir. 2019). + +Following defense attacks on the Minor Victims' credibility, the Government anticipates offering prior consistent statements it expects to elicit from its witnesses. Specifically, while the Government expects that some of its prior consistent statements will be offered to rebut the charge that the declarant "recently fabricated [their testimony] or acted from a recent improper influence or motive," Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(BXi), many other statements will be offered to "rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness," including from charges that the declarant has given inconsistent statements or has a faulty memory, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1XB)(ii). Because the grounds for admission will depend on the defense's precise challenge to the witness, the Government will raise this issue with the Court before eliciting prior consistent statements from its witnesses. + +# III. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence + +At trial, the jury will be asked to determine whether the defendant conspired with others to arrange for the sexual abuse of six specific minors. Several of the Government's motions are aimed at preventing the defense from surprising the Court and the Government with irrelevant, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial arguments. + +The defense response makes clear that they intend to put before the jury the history of the various Epstein investigations in other jurisdictions and the outcomes of those matters. Although that evidence is entirely improper and irrelevant, the defense plainly intends to make this central to the trial. (See Def. Opp. at 28-29). The breadth of the conspiracy theories the defense intends + +to put before this jury illustrates the side show the defense hopes to create. Those conspiracy theories include, among other things, as the defense would describe: (1) the Government's alleged motives for prosecuting the defendant (id. at 42-43); (2) the credibility of individuals who are not testifying at this trial and are not hearsay declarants (id. at 43-45); (3) supposed evidence relating to the Minor Victims' consent (id. at 46-49); (4) evidence of other abuse which did not involve the defendant (id. at 51-53); (5) the defendant's statements offered by the defendant (id. at 5455); (6) arguments sounding in nullification (id. at 55-56); (7) alleged evidence—of which the Government is not aware—that the defendant was a victim of Epstein (id. at 56-57); and (8) evidence that the defendant was the prevailing party in civil litigation (id. at 57-59). The defense also now suggests that they may argue that attorneys for the Minor Victims are conspiring with their clients to manufacture evidence. (Id. at 21-22). + +These topics are far afield—a galaxy away—from the questions of fact to be resolved by the jury. The Government is concerned that the defense plans to exceed its limits and, therefore, has moved to preclude the defense from arguing them or offering evidence of them. The defense urges the Court not to rule on these in limine, instead providing the empty assurance that the defense understands the Federal Rules of Evidence and will only offer evidence the defense deems proper. But is for the Court—not the defense—to decide what is admissible at this trial. + +More troubling still, the defense brief makes clear that they plan to put these theories before the jury before the Court has an opportunity to rule on these issues, including in their opening statement. (Def. Opp. at 51 ("If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement.")). The Court should not + +permit this. As the Government has explained, for many of the subjects of the Government's motions, any evidence or argument is irrelevant, inadmissible, lacks a good faith basis, and is highly prejudicial. The Court should preclude the defense from discussing these issues in its opening statement or attempting to offer evidence relating to these issues at trial unless and until the defense makes an offer of proof so that the Court can make evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Randle, 745 F. App'x 422, 424 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) ("'The making and timing of opening statements can be left constitutionally to the informed discretion of the trial judge." (quoting United States v. Salovitz, 701 F.2d 17, 21 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration omitted)); United States v. Ahaiwe, No. 20 Cr. 179 (DLC), 2021 WL 2134922, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2021) ("The Government's motions to preclude defense counsel from making certain statements in its opening statement or in its questioning of witnesses is granted with the following exceptions."). To proceed otherwise would risk an improper defense opening statement or attempts to elicit other improper evidence that could cause a mistrial. + +# A. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the Defendant + +A defendant has a "right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense." (Def. Opp. at 28) (quoting United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021)). "The right is not, of course, unlimited; the defendant must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability." Percoco, 13 F.4th at 177 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For instance, "[a] federal court may preclude a defendant from presenting a defense when the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient." United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485, 489 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +It is elementary that "the Government is not on trial in this case, and the jury will not be asked to pass on the adequacy of its investigation." United States v. Carton, No. 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018). The issue before the jury is simply whether, "in light of [the] evidence or lack of evidence, the jury [is] convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crimes with which [she is] charged." United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, there is no basis to offer evidence about why the Government or the USAO-SDFL opened their respective investigations, how they resolved those investigations, or the death of Jeffrey Epstein. These issues simply do not relate to the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charged crimes. See United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) ("The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that [the defendant] was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to this principle."); United States v. Aleynikov, 785 F. Supp. 2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("As a general matter, the quality and scope of the Government's investigation are not appropriate lines of examination . . . ."), rev d on other grounds, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). + +The defense argues that they are free to offer whatever evidence they like in order to challenge the "thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." (Def. Opp. at 32 (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995)). In support, the defense cites three decades-old cases, none from this Circuit or any district in this Circuit. All arise under very + +particular set of circumstances, and none address evidentiary rulings. Instead, these cases concern Brady errors involving the withholding of exculpatory information, such as a statement in which a witness at trial stated that he "did not see the perpetrator's face," Lindsey v.M, 769 F.2d 1034, 1036 (5th Cir. 1985), or evidence pointing toward an alternative perpetrator, Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46 (confidential informant "essential to [the Government's] investigation" made statements "replete with inconsistencies"). In addition to the obvious exculpatory value of this information, the courts explained that it would be used to "attack() the reliability of the investigation." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446. + +The defense would rest a pile of irrelevant evidence on this slender M. In their view, from the principle that the defense can attack the "thoroughness" of an investigation, they may elicit any information aimed at explaining—and attacking—the decisionmaking of the agents and prosecutors involved in a case. Kyles, the case chiefly cited by the defense, is about whether the "prosecution improperly withheld evidence that, had it been disclosed, would have `raised opportunities to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.' Kyles provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses," v. =, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added, alteration in original, citation omitted), nor do the other cases. + +Even if the cases cited by the defense spoke directly to this context, and not the limits of Brady material, they still would not reach so far. For instance, in Bowen, the Tenth Circuit found that if the defense had been provided information about the alternative perpetrator, they could have + +"cross-examined the detectives" about the identification procedure and "pointed out that [the defendant] was charged even though he had a confirmed alibi and [the alternative perpetrator] did not." 799 F.2d at 613. The court said in addition that "[a] common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant, and we may consider such use in assessing a possible Brady violation." Id. But the Court did not say that any and all evidence that went to the diligence of the Government's investigators or prosecutors is admissible. + +The reason is that litigating whether the investigators were sufficiently thorough is not a defense. The rule is that the Government is not on trial—the law does not permit the defense to offer evidence solely to attack the Government's motives or thoroughness. To the extent the defense may do so, they may do so in closing argument, see United States v. . 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (explaining that "a defendant may comment on the failure of proof in the record"), through relevant cross-examination, see =, 640 F.3d at 511, and through evidence that is otherwise relevant, see Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445, 453 (defense could have called informant whose "behavior raised suspicions that he had planted both the murder weapon and the victim's purse in the places they were found"). See also United States v. Mickens, Nos. 20-258 (L), 20-462, 20-630, 2021 WL 3136083, at \*9 (2d Cir. July 26, 2021) (summary order) (describing a defense that "emphatically and repeatedly" attacked the thoroughness of the Government's investigation in "cross-examinations and closing statements"). But that is all. Indeed, if such a line of defense were permissible, it would be used routinely, and the defense would not have to stretch for cases about Brady disclosures from other circuits. See Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 (referring simply to a "common trial tactic of defense lawyers"). + +This case exemplifies the point. The defense would like to (inaccurately) argue that the New York investigation was opened in response to the non-prosecution agreement entered between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein (the "NPA"), that the Government "scramble[d]" to investigate the defendant after Epstein's death, and that "public pressure" led to a sloppy investigation. (Def. Opp. at 34). To do this, the defense would like to elicit information about the process by which the Government opened the New York investigation, media coverage, statements by the former Attorney General, Epstein's death, and a variety of other topics. (Id. at 33-35). Presumably, under its view, the defense could introduce other categories of evidence that relate in any way to the thoroughness or good faith of the investigation. None of that has anything to do with the defendant's guilt or innocence. + +With respect to Rule 403, it is not enough for the defense to say that jurors can understand that there were two separate investigations. (See id. at 35). The defense, as the proponent of this alleged evidence, has the burden to establish that the probative weight outweighs any prejudice. They cannot do so. It is the defense's plan to introduce information about the internal case opening and charging decisions of the USAO-SDFL and this Office, a summary of media coverage, and a host of other irrelevant topics." The circus this would create at trial vastly outweighs any + +13 In any event, if any investigation can be attacked, it is only the New York investigation. The New York investigation led to the charging decision in this case, and law enforcement officers from Florida are being called as limited fact witnesses. The Government does not expect to elicit the NPA except perhaps to draw the sting if the Court permits cross-examination on the subject. + +theoretical relevance this could have. That problem is only compounded by the fact that, if the defense wishes to try to show that the Government’s investigations were sloppy, the Government is entitled to rebut that argument with evidence of its thoroughness and care—creating a mini-trial that is immaterial to the jury’s function. + +**B. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose** + +The defense argues that evidence of the NPA is nonetheless admissible for impeachment, specifically to show the bias and interest of [REDACTED] (Def. Opp. at 29). The Court should reject that baseless argument as mere pretext to put the NPA before the jury, in an attempt to confuse and mislead the jury and argue for jury nullification. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +In any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing the defense's wish list of arguments about the New York and Florida investigations. The NPA is an agreement between Epstein and a different U.S. Attorney's Office that resolved a different investigation, with provisions that—the defense argues—are useful impeachment for two witnesses. Conducting that impeachment does not require the defense to offer evidence about why the New York investigation started, or the timing of charges against the defendant, or various investigators' views of the quantum of evidence generated against the defendant at any time." + +# C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4's Credibility + +The defense argues that the fact that the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after the Florida investigation is probative of Minor Victim-4's credibility, because Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI at the time and did not implicate the defendant (according to the defendant). The defense brief again recites at length its view of her statements to law enforcement. (Def. Opp. at 36-39). That argument is incorrect. The defense is free to cross-examine Minor + +14 The defense suggests that telling the jury that the defendant was not charged in the NPA is necessary because the jury might otherwise speculate on how the Florida investigation ended and whether the defendant was charged in that investigation. (Def. Opp. at 31). That point highlights that the defense intends to use the NPA, even if elicited on cross, as a proxy for the argument that the defendant was not charged in the Florida investigation. There is no reason to think the jury will so speculate if they do not learn how the Florida investigation terminated. But if they do so learn, they might incorrectly assume that the defendant was not charged solely because that investigation could not have generated inculpatory evidence against the defendant, which the Government is permitted to rebut. Although the defense argues that the Government would not discuss the circumstances of the NPA (Id. at 31), the Government might have to do so if the NPA becomes central to the defense case and is used to invite the jury to think that no evidence inculpating the defendant existed in 2007. + +Victim-4 on the substance of her earlier statements to the FBI. Whether those statements translated into a charging decision is irrelevant, among other reasons, because the decision relied on other factors and was based on different evidence than will be presented at this trial. (See Gov't Mot. at 24-28). Even at best, it is cumulative of cross-examination of the substance of Minor Victim-4's statements. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (ICBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (excluding evidence of charging different people for the same crime because "the point will be made and can be duly `hammered home' on cross-examination" without using the charging decision, which "implicate[s] a variety of additional considerations"). + +In any event, introducing that charging decision would invite the jury to speculate falsely—that the Florida investigation generated no other inculpatory evidence against the defendant. It would therefore open the door to testimony rebutting that speculation. For instance, the defense proposes to call a special agent to testify that the defendant was not named in a draft indictment that was never presented to a Florida grand jury. (Def. Opp. at 39). On cross, the Government would be entitled to elicit inculpatory information from the Florida investigation that it currently is not planning to offer. In combination, an examination along these lines would create a bizarre spectacle, largely based on discussions of hearsay and prosecutorial discretion. The Court should preclude this distracting and irrelevant line of questioning. The jury should decide this case based on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial, not the evidence or lack of evidence evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction in 2007. As much as the defendant hopes to ask the jury to evaluate the prosecutorial discretion of multiple sets of prosecutors in different jurisdictions, it is the defendant—and only the defendant—who will be on trial. + +## D. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant Matters + +The defense claims it needs to call case agents to talk about investigative steps, but fails to identify any question about an investigative step that would yield relevant information. + +The defense does not identify a single relevant topic in their brief. (Def. Opp. at 40-41). They have made clear, however, that they intend to put before the jury numerous irrelevant topics: (1) the thoroughness of the Government's investigation, untethered from any other defense theory (id. at 41); (2) the scope and timeline of the Florida and New York investigations (id. at 40 (discussing "when those investigations began and ended")); see United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019) (concluding that the length of the investigation is irrelevant); and (3) the charging decisions of those investigations (id. at 39 (stating that a special agent "had first-hand knowledge that [the defendant] was not charged in the proposed SDFL indictment because she presented the indictment to the grand jury."). The defense has also remained entirely silent as to whether they intend to call the case agents to testify as "summary witnesses . . . to place before the jury sweeping conclusions about the Florida Investigations or this one." (Gov't Mot. at 33). + +The Government's position is simply that, before the defense calls the case agents and "explore[sj" the "scope and progress of the investigations" (Def. Opp. at 41), the defense should have to identify for the Court the evidence relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence that they plan to elicit. Moreover, the defense should be precluded from previewing in their opening statement any argument or evidence along these lines, unless and until they make an offer of proof and seek a ruling from the Court. + +## E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant + +The defense claims it is proper to cast aspersions on the Government's alleged motives for prosecuting the defendant, and they claim they should be permitted to advance theories that Epstein's death motivated the "timing of the charges" in this case. (Def. Opp. at 42). The defense concedes that they have not established a vindictive or selective prosecution claim. (Id.). That is because they have no legitimate theory based on the Government's supposed motives. But the defense is not permitted to direct this argument to the jury simply because they lack a basis to make that argument to the Court. (See Gov't Mot. at 34-35 ("The Second Circuit has explained that claims of purported government misconduct must be `directed to the court rather than jury.'" (quoting United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997)))). + +As the Government said in its motions, the defense is free to argue that Epstein is guilty and the defendant is innocent. (Id. at 35-36). They are not free, however, to argue that irrespective of guilt or innocence—the defendant is being prosecuted because Epstein is dead. Certainly, the defense could not make that argument absent any evidence, and no agent—including the Florida and New York case agents—can offer hearsay testimony about why they think prosecutors charged or did not charge certain individuals at certain times. And to be clear, the agents would testify that this case was charged promptly after the Government was in a position to prove the defendant's guilt. + +## F. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at Trial + +The defendant does not appear to dispute the Government's statement of the law: the credibility of individuals who are neither witnesses nor hearsay declarants is not at issue and cannot be challenged. (Def. Opp. at 43-45). The motion should therefore be granted. + +The defense's primary response is that they are not sure what statements will be elicited and the non-hearsay bases for such statements. Of course, the defense has had the Government's witness list and Jencks Act material for more than two weeks. Those materials make clear that the Government does not intend to elicit hearsay statements from Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6. And the defense has failed to point to any such evidence. To give one example, to the extent the Government offers a school record related to Minor Victim-5 as a business record (see id. at 45 (citing GX 781-83)), that record would not constitute a statement by Minor Victim-5 offered for the truth of the matter asserted. + +Insofar as the defense's point is that the Government might open the door to challenging the credibility of an individual by offering that individual's hearsay statement for the truth of the matter asserted, the Government agrees. But if the Government does not open the door, the credibility of Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6 are not at issue. And the defense cannot challenge the credibility of these individuals—in opening statements or otherwise—unless and until the defense seeks a ruling from the Court that the Government has opened the door. + +# G. Evidence or Argument About the Minor Victims' Consent is Categorically Inadmissible + +The defendant is charged with enticement of a minor, transporting a minor, sex trafficking of a minor, and conspiracy to commit those offenses. (See Indictment ¶¶ 11-27). None of those + +offenses are negated by a consent defense. (See Gov't Mot. at 39-40). Accordingly, there is no basis to offer evidence or make argument related to the Minor Victims' consent. + +In Counts Two and Four, the defendant is charged under the Act with transporting a minor with intent to violate New York Penal Law § 130.55, and enticing a minor to do the same. That crime does not relate to prostitution. In Counts One and Three, the defendant is charged with conspiracy to violate the same statute-not "varying local state laws" in "multi-jurisdictional locations," (Def. Opp. at 47), and not violating the Act with intent to commit prostitution. In Count Six, the defendant is charged with sex trafficking of a person less than eighteen. In Count Five, the defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit the same. + +Because these offenses all involve crimes with victims below specified age cutoffs for which consent is not a defense, consent is not at issue in this case. The defense is therefore wrong when it argues that the Government has "charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence." (Id. at 49). The charges in the Indictment concern sexual activity with a minor, simpliciter. The Government has not, for instance, charged sex trafficking through force, fraud, or coercion, and those elements are not at issue in this case. + +This misunderstanding by the defense underlies its response to this point. For instance, the defense suggests that Minor Victim-4 was engaged in prostitution at the time of the charged offenses, which might give her criminal exposure under Florida law. (See id. at 48). That is irrelevant, because all that matters for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1591—and therefore this case is that she was a minor. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x I, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) ("Further, the victims could not consent because they were minors."). + +The defense also argues that they should be permitted to elicit information that the Minor Victims engaged in voluntary acts, because that may go to the defendant's knowledge. The Government agrees that, if the defense asks questions along those lines, the Court will need to evaluate it on a question-by-question basis. But questions that are relevant to consent but not the defendant's mens., and any argument to the jury about the Minor Victims' consent, is irrelevant and should be precluded. + +# H. The Court Should Be Wary of the Defense Refusal to Address the Government's Motions + +The defendant has largely refused to respond to the Government's motion to preclude evidence of the defendant's other acts, offering the defendant's own statements, arguments sounding in nullification, or the baseless argument that the defendant was allegedly a victim of Epstein. (Def. Opp. at 49-57). The Court should accordingly preclude the defendant from opening on these subjects or attempting to elicit evidence along these lines unless and until she explains to the Court how this evidence could possibly be admissible. + +As explained above and in the Government's motion, however, there is significant risk that the defense theories will contravene the Federal Rules of Evidence and the law of the Circuit to put irrelevant matters, such as the Florida investigation, before the jury. The Court should not permit the defense to open on these points without first providing notice so they can be litigated. In particular, the Government does not believe there is a good-faith basis to argue that the defendant was a victim of Epstein, such an argument would be entirely irrelevant, and it may well contravene Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court should allow these issues to be litigated in advance, and not at sidebar after the jury has already heard the + +inflammatory and prejudicial statement or questions by the defense. The Court should not indulge the defense's effort to get these inflammatory arguments in front of the jury before the Court can rule on this issue. + +# I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury 'I hat The Defendant Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation + +The fact that the defendant "prevailed" in litigation, for purposes of awarding a small amount of costs, is irrelevant. That litigation resolved through a voluntary dismissal in connection with a settlement. To be sure, the defendant is a prevailing party as part of the cost-shifting statute, and so her current counsel sought a total ofM, presumably in part for the purpose of making this improper argument at trial. (See Def. Opp. at 57-59). But any suggestion that the defendant "prevailed" can only confuse the jury into thinking that the Court adjudicated the substance of claims in the defendant's favor. That never occurred. If the defense is permitted to elicit this testimony, the Government will need to explain the relevant legal principles to the jury, showing them that—contrary to the defendant's position—to a lay person, this is a technicality, and the litigation terminated with a settlement. (See id. at 58). Even if there were marginal probative value in a civil case, it would deeply confuse the jury to suggest that the defendant prevailed substantively, and would require a mini-trial on the meaning of a prevailing party in civil litigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +# CONCLUSION + +The defense would make this trial about many things it is not: the Florida investigation, various civil lawsuits, the media, and the Government's alleged motives, among others. None of this bears on the factual question that the jury must decide. The Government asks the Court to + +ensure that only relevant evidence and arguments are presented at trial, and that the defense be precluded from offering inflammatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial material. + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government's motions in limine. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e72d46b5fb3058d6302be807b8eb5487aac6ac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355/EFTA02834355.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2082 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834355.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 40, + "chars": 55369, + "elapsed_seconds": 99.12, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT \nOF THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.312, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 474.1670837402344, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 474.1670837402344, + 362.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 138.312, + 362.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.134521484375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.6483154296875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 345.7613525390625, + 167.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 167.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or \nUsing First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 543.3511962890625, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 543.3511962890625, + 206.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 206.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 87.48 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Minor Victim-1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 206.856, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 249.48 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Minor Victim-3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Minor Victim-4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 207.46800000000002, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 140.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Minor Victim-6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 332.90999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Government\u2019s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 455.32800000000003, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 455.32800000000003, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 196.02 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 359.87939453125, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 359.87939453125, + 445.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 445.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at \nthe Appropriate Time", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and \nProffering Irrelevant Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 543.3154296875, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 543.3154296875, + 430.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 430.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the \nDefendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.6800000000001, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 544.6800000000001, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 210.60000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to \nMinor Victim-4's Credibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.7078247070312, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 543.7078247070312, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant \nMatters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 100.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Government's Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 369.6788330078125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 369.6788330078125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not \nWitnesses at Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Evidence or Argument About the Minor Victims' Consent is Categorically \nInadmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 579.15 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Court Should Be Wary of the Defense Refusal to Address the Government's \nMotions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 265.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 265.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury 'I hat The Defendant \nPrevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 350.1861877441406, + 567.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 567.3630218505859 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834355" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3abb4c3c9ba304f5d17b4caf7d540bfa94ae51a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +## EXHIBIT 1 + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +October 11, 2021 + +## BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +& Gresser LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. + +Jeffrey Pas ica Esq. + +Haddon, and M, P.C. + +150 East Tenth Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. + +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghisiaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +Pursuant to Judge Nathan's Order of September 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 335), the Government writes to inform you that it may refer at trial to the following individuals as co-conspirators of the defendant, including for the purpose of Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2XE): + +- Jeffrey Epstein + +The Government has produced all co-conspirator statements which it intends to offer at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2XE) in the Government's production today or in its previous productions. To the extent the Government learns of additional co-conspirator statements as it continues to prepare for trial, it will produce those statements in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material. + +Please be advised that the above list is limited to the individuals the Government may refer to as co-conspirators at trial. While the Government makes no representations as to whether it views other individuals as potential or actual co-conspirators of the defendant, it does not intend to refer to any other individuals as co-conspirators at trial. The above list is also not intended to reflect a complete list of individuals who may be referenced at trial. That information is contained in the Government's Jencks Act production(s). + +Please note that this letter and the information contained herein is governed by the July 31, 2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. + +Very truly yours, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lan Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3eb19166a63ef2185ea6ad8c29d77b83560ca0fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/EFTA02834395.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 2184, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.23, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834395" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3e66517d8cebc463fef38eef43a52afd5fad325 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834395/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a5e428fcfe62944e3448bfb919e0d4467d126ff9c28ff209f3d912738b9cbab1 +size 3418 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fab7f1ac41cdbbc1129065ce172c5094d5428f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021, ORDER + +> Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Table of Contents | i i | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Table of Authorities | i i i | +| RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY | I | +| I. The Government has Failed to Identify any Purported Co-Conspirator Statements | 2 | +| II. | Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Does Not Satisfy the | +| Court's Order to Disclose | 2 | +| III. | The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and Facilitates the | +| Presentation of False Testimony | 4 | +| IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the only Appropriate Remedy | 5 | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) | 5 | +|------------------------------------------------------------|------| +| United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979) | 6 | +| United States v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 1999) | 6 | +| United States v. TeHier, 83 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 1996) | 2 | +| United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir.1993) | 2 | +| United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir.1988) | 5, 6 | + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | 4, 5 | +|---------------------|---------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 104 | 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 1, 2, 4 | + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, requests that the Court enter an order precluding the government from introducing any alleged co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because the government failed to comply with the Court's Order of September 3, 2021 (Dkt. 335). In support of this request, Ms. Maxwell states: + +# RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY + +On multiple occasions Ms. Maxwell requested disclosure of the identity of any alleged co-conspirators in this case along with any statements made by those individuals that the government intends to offer into evidence at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The Court, on September 3, 2021, dismissed the government's arguments against disclosure noting that the concern raised by the government about disclosure "does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay" Dkt. 335 at 3. The Order was explicit regarding what the government was required to do: First, no later than October 11, 2021, the government was required to "disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed coconspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the government will refer at trial." Id. Second, the Court, unambiguously and emphatically, directed: "The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1." (emphasis in original.) + +On October 11, 2021, the government identified three purported co-conspirators for purposes of trial: Jeffrey Epstein, The government, however, failed and refused to disclose "all (or any) co-conspirator statements it intends to introduce at trial...." Instead, the government, circumventing the plain meaning of the Court's Order, offered that "[t]he Government has produced all co-conspirator statements which + +it intends to offer at trial ... in the Government's production today or in its previous productions." And, circumnavigating this Court's Order with Magellan-like skill, promised that, as the government "continues to prepare for trial" it will produce any additional co-conspirator statements "in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material." See, Ex. + +# I. The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator Statements + +For a statement to fall within the definition of Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), "a court must find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 11% (2d Cir. 1993). These conditions precedent are "[p]reliminary questions concerning ... the admissibility of evidence" as referenced in Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir. 1988). + +The Court may consider the coconspirator statements themselves in determining whether the 801(d)(2)(E) prerequisites have been met. However, because "these hearsay statements are presumptively unreliable," United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 580 (2d Cir. 1996), there must be independent corroborating evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the defendant. Id. + +# II. Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not Satisfy the Court's Order to Disclose + +The government neither objected to Ms. Maxwell's request for disclosure nor the Court's Order requiring disclosure at the same time. See Dkt. 317 at 12, n.1 (citing Dkt. 291 and Dkt. 293). The government's reason for not wanting to disclose the statements was considered and + +rejected by the Court which ordered disclosure at the same time as the government's witness list, Rule 404(b) notice, exhibits, and 3500 materials no later than October II, 2021, so that the Defense would not be surprised at trial and because of "the need for the parties to litigate coconspirator issues in advance of trial...." Dkt. 335 at 3. + +The government seized multiple electronic devices, including computers and servers from alleged co-conspirator Epstein. These devices contain hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades. The emails on the devices are to and from many other individuals. Many of the emails are cryptic, subject to interpretation, and appear to be outside of the scope of either conspiracy alleged in the S2 Indictment. It is impossible for Ms. Maxwell to identify any statement that she may need to litigate in advance of trial and, even if she wanted to do so, any attempt would be futile because the government could avoid any issue by simply picking some other statement. Absent pre-trial identification of any alleged co-conspirator statement, Ms. Maxwell will be forced to, during trial, object to any proffered statement, request a recess, identify whether the purported statement was actually produced in discovery, and at some point, litigate the admissibility of the statement. Of course, this is precisely what the Court's Order was intended to avoid. + +Given the amount of discourse over this topic, the government must understand what the Court ordered it to disclose. It has chosen, however, to avoid and violate the Court's Order by attempting to overstuff an already full sandbag by ignoring both the plain language and spirit of the Order mandating disclosure. Instead of simply disclosing the purported statements the government has directed Ms. Maxwell back to the hundreds of thousands of "statements" produced or to be produced in the case. + +#### III. The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and Facilitates the Presentation of False Testimony + +None of the identified purported coconspirators are available to testify at trial. Jeffrey Epstein is dead, and neither have been granted immunity for their trial testimony. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell cannot cross-examine any identified coconspirator about whether he or she made any yet-to-be attributed statement. The government's failure to disclose creates a real danger that during trial one or more of the alleged accusers will, for the first time, offer some alleged 801(d)(2)(E) statement attempting to inculpate Ms. Maxwell. Thus, it is entirely possible that any one of the accusers could be asked, for example, + +Government Lawyer: Why did you go to the house? + +Witness/Accuser: Because [insert coconspirator] said that Maxwell said [insert expedient non-disclosed [statement)]. + +This is an invitation to manufacture evidence which Ms. Maxwell cannot cross examine. + +In addition, the failure to disclose implicates many of the issues raised in Ms. Maxwell's previously filed motions. The allegations are decades old, and Ms. Maxwell raised concerns about lack of memory and available witnesses in her Motion to Dismiss for Pre-Indictment Delay, Dkt. 138. It has been difficult to track down and interview relevant percipient witnesses to the alleged events. The failure of disclosure of critical alleged coconspirator statements makes it impossible to prepare a defense. + +# IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the Only Appropriate Remedy + +Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(dX2)(C) provides that if a party fails to comply with the Court's orders regulating discovery the Court may prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence as a sanction. + +A district court's decision to impose a Rule 16(d)(2) sanction for the violation of a discovery order, and thus its choice of sanction, is a matter committed to the Court's sound discretion. In exercising its discretion, the district court must weigh several factors, including the reasons for the government's delay in affording the required discovery, the extent of prejudice, if any, the defendant has suffered because of the delay, and the feasibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance. United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059,1060 (10th Cir. 1988). + +The Supreme Court's decision in Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) is instructive. Taylor involved the exclusion of a witness of whom the defense had known but failed to disclose. The defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of the witness as a sanction for the discovery violation, alleging that it violated his right to present witnesses under the Sixth Amendment's compulsory process clause. In determining whether a preclusion sanction is appropriate, the Court mandated that a trial court exercise its discretion by balancing a defendant's fundamental right "to offer the testimony of witnesses in his favor" against countervailing public interests. Id. at 414. These interests include "Nile integrity of the adversary process, which depends both on the presentation of reliable evidence and the rejection of unreliable evidence, the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process." Id. at 414-15. The trial court may also consider the willfulness of the violation, the simplicity of compliance with the discovery obligation, and whether some unfair tactical advantage has been sought. See id. at 415-17. Considering these factors, the Court upheld the exclusion of the defendant's witness. + +The Court emphasized that the defendant had acted willfully and in bad faith in not disclosing the witness until the second day of trial after the prosecution's primary witness had testified. See id. at 416-17. Accordingly, "[r]egardless of whether prejudice to the prosecution could have been avoided [by a less severe sanction] ..., it [was] plain that the case fit[ ] into the category of willful misconduct in which the severest sanction [was] appropriate." Id. at 417; see also United States v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368,371-72 (5th Cir. 1999) (government's failure to disclose the "photographs" to the defendant in the identical form it intended to produce them at trial was either an attempt to "sandbag" the defense or highly unprofessional conduct and therefore limited the government to the use of black and images); United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852,858 (5th Cir. 1979) (no abuse of discretion where, as here, a district judge for prophylactic purposes suppresses evidence that, under a valid discovery order, the government should have disclosed earlier, even if the nondisclosure did not prejudice the defendants); United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059,1062 (10th Cir. 1988) (in view of the district court's pressing schedule, the status of the present case, and the failure of a prior continuance and deadlines to ensure timely discovery; a second continuance would not compensate for the prejudice imposed upon the defendant and the district court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing the government's evidence). + +Here, the Court issued its disclosure order months ago. The government did not agree with the Order and sought reconsideration. The Court considered the government's belated request and rejected the government's "concern" that somehow its evidence would be limited at trial. Of course, the government could have made a good faith effort to comply with the Order and, if some other statement came to the government's attention before or during trial it could have, in good faith, requested permission to supplement its proof. Instead, the government has + +willfully violated the Order and has refused to produce statements that it obviously (1) is aware of and (2) could be easily identified by referring to a discovery page number or simply providing the statement. + +Ms. Maxwell had a very narrow window of time to review and consider any alleged coconspirator statements which has expired. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell are concurrently preparing multiple motions in limine, reviewing thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material, addressing other pretrial deadlines, and preparing for trial. At this stage the failure of the government to address a very simple disclosure requirement has prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial and impacts her statutory and constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial, due process, and effective assistance of counsel. The appropriate remedy is preclusion of the purported statements. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements as a Sanction for Failing to Comply with This Court's September 3.2021 Order with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6acae183f8796013623db17221648b2f1e1b2a7d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/EFTA02834398.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,697 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 16741, + "elapsed_seconds": 18.41, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 312.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 312.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 424.0888366699219, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 424.0888366699219, + 197.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 187.88400000000001, + 197.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator \nStatements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 483.20611572265625, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 483.20611572265625, + 239.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 239.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not \nSatisfy the Court's Order to Disclose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 512.2439999999999, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 512.2439999999999, + 613.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 613.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Failure to Disclose Prevents Defense Cross Examination at Trial and \nFacilitates the Presentation of False Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 515.9976196289062, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 515.9976196289062, + 130.10302734375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 130.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the Only Appropriate Remedy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.112, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.8637084960938, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 514.8637084960938, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 77.112, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.22003173828125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.22003173828125, + 89.00091552734375 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 89.00091552734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834398" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea2f1db203840931eb2c67ac30d930eb13bd790c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834398/_page_11_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:963ba707291e75e131f3caa5f9147e9d3de5e4684dc760e7e6f785573adb795b +size 1266 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4f7994fa87d779392ffaa33b484b1734292c879 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio 1 Mono Building One Saint Andmr's Plaza New loth. New loth 10007 + +October 11, 2021 + +## BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +& Gresser LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. + +Jeffrey Pas ica Esq. + +Haddon, and P.C. + +150 East Tenth Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. + +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +We write to notify you that the Government may seek to introduce certain evidence at trial. In particular, the Government may offer certain exhibits at trial that demonstrate that, in addition to the defendant's conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, the defendant took steps to please other influential men by rovidin them with access to women she selected for them. + +We are producing these proposed exhibits today, marked with the following exhibit numbers: GX 401 through 404, GX 409 through 410, and GX 413. + +In addition, please be advised that the Government may call at trial. Today, we are producing Jencks Act materials relating to by Jeffrey Epstein from The Government anticipates that will testify about, among other things, certain ocumenta evidence relating to t e c arg crimes. The Government further anticipates that will testify about her role in scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein wit un erage girls. ,w as a witness o was em lo ed + +This evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and/or absence of mistake of accident with respect to the charges in the above-referenced case. Because this evidence is admissible as direct evidence, the Government is not planning to affirmatively move in limine to seek its admission. + +Please note that this letter and the information contained herein is governed by the July 31, 2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. + +Very truly yours, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +by: /s + +Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cae4e8a901db8ddc6d984bffef64054a48badcda --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/EFTA02834410.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 2325, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.26, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 386.254638671875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department ofJustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0804443359375, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.0804443359375, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 212.09527587890625, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 212.09527587890625, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834410" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fbcdeb365f30effcf376fc2164870270583c375 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834410/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5d85623c2d2300817fe42a055d60b90bfc87d9d90ff4c4294983d349f31e3d41 +size 3422 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22d8dd4e8fd801f3350adf117abb315f73912f47 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.md @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| BACKGROUND | 1 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) | 1 | +| II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 4 | +| I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has | | +| Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule | 4 | +| II. | Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to | +| Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis | 5 | +| Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case | 6 | +| CONCLUSION | 7 | + +### TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +## Cases + +# Other Authorities + +## Rules + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (the "Rule"). That Rule, as amended in December 2020, expressly requires particularized notice to the defense of the exact evidence to be offered, an articulated non-propensity purpose for its admission, and the reasoning supporting that purpose. Despite notice of the rule change and an opportunity to comply with the Rule by this Court's deadline of October 11, the Government opted not to follow the requirements of the Rule and should now be foreclosed from offering any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b). + +# BACKGROUND + +# I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) + +Rule 404 sets forth the requirements for "Notice in a Criminal Case" of an intent to introduce evidence under the rule: + +"In a criminal case, the prosecutor must: + +- (A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it; +- (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and +- (C) do so in writing before trial or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice." + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3). In December 2020, the Rule was "amended principally to impose additional notice requirements in a criminal case." Fed. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Committee Notes, 2020 Amendments. Prior to the rule change, the prosecution needed only to give notice of the "general nature" of the anticipated evidence; thus, "some courts...pennit[ted] the government to satisfy the notice obligation without describing the specific act that the evidence would tend to prove, and without explaining the relevance of the evidence for a nonpropensity purpose" (id.). + +After December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B) requires that: + +The prosecution must not only identify the evidence that it intends to offer pursuant to the rule but also articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose. + +Id. (emphasis added). The Rule's requirement that the prosecution must "identify the evidence," "articulate a non-propensity purpose" and a "basis for concluding the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose" replaced the previous notice requirement only of the "general nature" of anticipated evidence. The "advance notice' is "important so that the parties and the court have adequate opportunity to assess the evidence, the purpose for which it is offered, and whether the requirements of Rule 403 have been satisfied ...." Id. + +The new rule also required that the pre-trial notice be done in writing, "sufficiently ahead of trial to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence." Rule 404(b)(3XA). "The 'air opportunity' must include sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light. Prosecutors who cut the disclosure too close to the trial date risk a judge either excluding the evidence so that the trial can proceed as scheduled or delaying the trial so the defense can "meet" the other act proof. Easy to overlook is that the judge too needs time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence." See 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021). + +# II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case + +The Government advised this Court that it could provide notice of any Rule 404(b) evidence by 45 days prior to trial, which would afford it "adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to" the Rule. See Dkt. 229 at 3. This Court then ordered the Government to provide disclosure of any "Rule 404(6) evidence and notice" by October 11. Dkt. 297. + +On October 11, 2021, the Government served on defense counsel a short letter entitled the "Maxwell Rule 404(b) letter" (the "Rule 404(b) Letter" or the "Letter"), attached as Exhibit A. In it, the Government referenced two sets of evidence: (a) certain emails purportedly between Ms. Maxwell and third-party "influential" men whom she allegedly tried to set up on dates, and (b) a witnes who worked for Epstein between (after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy) whom the Government said it "may call" at trial. The Government asserted in the Letter that the evidence collectively was, in its opinion, "direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and/or absence of mistake of (sic) accident" Id. at 2. The Government stated it would not be moving in limine to seek the evidence's admission "[b]ecause this evidence is admissible as direct evidence." Id. The Letter lacked identification of any particular purpose for these two categories of evidence and lacked any "basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose." + +Also on October II, the Government provided its anticipated trial exhibits. Even a quick review of those exhibits reflects the Government's apparent intent to offer numerous documents and other evidence that purportedly occurred after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy. See, e.g., GX-4-D through GX-4-K (message pads dated beginning in 2005); GX-423 (an Amazon shipment to Jeffrey Epstein of an iPhone USB lightning cable in 2013); GX-50 I & 502 (financial statements from June 2007); GX-661 & 662 (flight logs from 2005-13). None of these items of evidence were mentioned in the Maxwell Rule 404(b) Letter. The Government's theory of admissibility concerning this post-2004 evidence remains unclear. + +### ARGUMENT + +### I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule + +Under the version of Rule 404(b) in effect for this trial, the Government was required to specifically "identify" any evidence it intends to offer under the Rule, to "articulate...the permitted purpose for which" the identified evidence will be offered, and to state the "reasoning that supports the purpose." The Government did not timely comply with these requirements and should therefore be precluded from offering any evidence under Rule 404(b). + +To be sure, the Rule 404(b) Letter did "identify" several emails purportedly between Ms. Maxwell and two other adult men that discuss fixing them up with women on a date. But even though the Government claimed these emails may be admissible "in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b)," there is nothing in the Letter which states the permitted purpose for which they might be offered, nor the "reasoning that supports that purpose." Ms. Maxwell is unable to guess which of the laundry list of potential purposes contained in Rule 404(b) might serve as the grounds, and she certainly is not able to guess the Government's "reasoning." Without the required notice, both defense counsel and the Court cannot undertake the required analysis to determine whether the evidence is being offered for a proper non-propensity purpose, is relevant to a disputed issue, can satisfy a Rule 403 analysis, or needs a limiting instruction. United States v. Bui, 859 F. App'x 610 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 196 (2d Cir. 2006)). + +The Government likewise did "identify" as a potential witness and offered two, non-exclusive potential topics of her testimony. The Government advised that she will testify about, "among other things, [i] certain [unspecified] documentary evidence relating to the charged crimes [and (ii)] her [unspecified] role in scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls," apparently in . This is hardly the type of "identif[ied]" evidence the Rule contemplates. What "documentary evidence" will she testify about? What "role" did she play in scheduling massages after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy? For what purpose will she testify to it? Are there other topics covered by the language "among other things" that the Government submits is admissible under Rule 404(b)? What is it? What is the purpose of it? Will it be offered to prove Ms. Maxwell's "intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity and/or absence of mistake of [sic] accident" or something else? How is it permissible non-propensity evidence? + +Finally, by failing to identify the numerous exhibits that fall after the period of the conspiracy in the Rule 404(b) Letter, the Government has also waived any right to argue that those documents should be admitted under the rule as well. + +The entire point of the change to Rule 404(b), and this Court's scheduling Order, is to permit Ms. Maxwell to investigate, analyze, dispute, move in limine if appropriate, or rebut the proffered Rule 404(6) evidence. There is nothing in Rule 404(b) that excuses the required Notice in the event the Government only offers the evidence "in the alternative" under the rule. By disregarding the requirements of Rule 404(b), the Government has chosen to deprive Ms. Maxwell of her right to dispute the admissibility of this evidence. + +# II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis + +Because the Government has not identified the non-propensity purpose nor reasoning underlying the admission of any Rule 404(b) evidence, the defense is left without "sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light," and the Court will not have sufficient "time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence." , supra. Should the Government request a "good-cause" exemption for their failure to timely provide Rule 404(b) notice, this Court should analyze their excuse with skepticism. "Prosecutors should be prepared to explain their change of heart and to rebut allegations of sandbagging. Unforeseen turns of testimony at trial are one thing. Reasonably anticipated proof problems are another. For example, when intent is an element of a charged offense, a prosecutor will be hard pressed to explain why he did not foresee before trial that the other act proof may be important in a jury's determination of intent." & supra. Here, the government has been on notice of the elements it needs to prove since July 2020. It advised the Court it would be able to provide Rule 404(b) notice back in May 2021. Dkt. 229 at 3. With the trial continuance, it gained an additional five months. See Dkt. 297. + +There is no acceptable excuse for failure to follow the requirements of the Rule. Given the significant number of other pre-trial filing deadlines, briefing the admissibility of the proffered Rule 404(b) evidence in the midst of her other obligations will be exceptionally difficult. If the Court is inclined to grant the government additional time to satisfy the Rule, Ms. Maxwell requests ample time to investigate the materials and to respond. + +## III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the Materials Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case + +The Rule 404(b) Letter also repeated the Government's opinion that the newly-disclosed materials qualify as "direct evidence" of the conspiracy. At first blush, it is hard to see how they could so qualify. The emails referenced in the Letter purport to be between Ms. Maxwell and two adult men, apparently arranging dates for them, with adult women, sometime in the early 2000s. They do not reference or have anything to do with (a) the persons mentioned in the Indictment or any other testifying witness, nor (b) any of the legal allegations contained in the + +Indictment. It is hard to imagine how an adult women fixing up single adult males with adult females is "direct evidence" of a conspiracy to transport, entice or traffic minors for sexual abuse. + +As to the witness referenced in the Letter, the Letter makes clear that the witness worked for Mr. Epstein from , after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy in 2004. Given the timing of her stated employment, it also begs the question how her testimony, reference to unspecified documents or scheduling of unspecified massages, "among other things," could be direct evidence of a conspiracy that ended a year earlier. + +But because Ms. Maxwell has had insufficient time to investigate these newly-disclosed materials, she is unable to file a motion challenging their admissibility at this time. The emails involve two persons not interviewed by the Government, so there is no interview memo to corroborate their content. At least two of the potential witnesses are foreign nationals who live abroad. Ms. Maxwell will need time to contact and interview them. As to the newly disclosed witness, the Government produced on October 12, 2021 approximately 400 pages of interview reports, notes, documents, and other materials related to that witness. Ms. Maxwell is unable to review, investigate, or rebut the admissibility of all of the referenced materials by the October 18, 2021 due date for motions in limine, and requests an additional two weeks to file her brief addressing the proffered 404(b) evidence. + +# CONCLUSION + +The Government has been on notice of the amendments to Rule 404(6) since at least January 25, 2021. See Dkt. 146 at 10.' The Government was prepared to disclose their Rule + +IIndeed, the Government argued in their response to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions that certain evidence pertaining to Accuser-3 would be admissible under Rule 404(b); yet the deadline to provide Notice of an intent to offer that evidence at trial under the rule has come and gone. See Dkt. 204 at 165-169. Ms. Maxwell today moves separately to exclude the evidence pertaining to Accuser-3. + +404(b) Notice by May 28, a date that was extended to October 11 after the continuance of the trial. Dkt. 229 at 3. The failure to comply with the requirements of the Rule has deprived Ms. Maxwell of the opportunity to litigate the issues on the timetable set by the Court. Them is thus no "good cause" for extending the Government's ability to do so. This Court should exclude any evidence the government seeks belatedly to offer pursuant to Rule 404(b), or, alternatively should the Court find good cause for the failure of notice, grant Ms. Maxwell additional time to respond. As far as admissibility of the evidence referenced in the Letter as "direct evidence" of the charged crimes, Ms. Maxwell seeks leave to file such a Motion within two weeks. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bb1df674acc9e5d6451e1e0c5313d792b1a9bc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413/EFTA02834413.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,853 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834413.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 18510, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.37, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY \nTHE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO \nCOMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 340.863037109375 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 340.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 98.60302734375 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 98.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 404.9746398925781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 404.9746398925781, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 120.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 120.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 167.04595947265625, + 192.77999999999997 + ], + [ + 167.04595947265625, + 208.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 208.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 297.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 297.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 357.10205078125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 357.10205078125, + 280.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 280.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.5903015136719, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.5903015136719, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 286.54534912109375, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 286.54534912109375, + 623.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 623.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the \nGovernment Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the \nRule", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 518.0145874023438, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 518.0145874023438, + 144.363037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 144.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an \nOpportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 511.6602783203125, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 511.6602783203125, + 599.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 599.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the \nMaterials Qualify as \"Direct Evidence\" in the Case", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 533.3845825195312, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 533.3845825195312, + 543.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 543.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 584.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 584.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834413" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0f95fb77c202b131302d6230ded984a64bbe20c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# EXHIBIT 1 + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SilvioJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +April 23, 2021 + +### BY ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Christian Everdell, Esq. + +Mark Esq. & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 + +Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pialica Esq. Haddon, and P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 + +Bobbi Stemheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Chislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Counsel: + +Pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government hereby provides notice that it may call as an expert witness at trial Dr. Lisa Rocchio, a clinical instructor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Alpert Medical School of University. The Government reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses and will promptly provide notice if the Government elects to do so. + +# I. Disclosure by the Government + +Dr. Lisa Rocchio is the President-Elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology of the American Psychological Association ("APA"). Dr. Rocchio has practiced psychology since curlier Ph.D. in 1995, and she is currently a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of University, where she trains psychiatric residents in treating trauma survivors. Since she entered private practice in 1998, Dr. Rocchio has specialized in treating patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence. In the last twenty-three years, Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds of victims of trauma, many of whom were minor victims of sexual abuse. Dr. Rocchio has also received specialized training in traumatic stress, sexual abuse, and clinical + +and forensic psychology. She has written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma, among other topics. Since 2014, Dr. Rocchio has been on the editorial review board of the APA journal *Trauma Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy*, and she is a member of the APA Ethics Committee. A copy of Dr. Rocchio's curriculum vitae is being produced to you today bearing ██████ number 3502-006.1 + +Dr. Rocchio is expected to testify, based on her relevant education, training, experience, and research to the following: Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any specific victim in this case, and the Government does not presently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. + +Dr. Rocchio's expected testimony relies on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse. It also relies on Dr. Rocchio's extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, as well as Dr. Rocchio's experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma. The Government is producing notes from the Government's interviews with Dr. Rocchio today as well. + +## II. Request for Reciprocal Discovery and Expert Notice + +In light of your request for the foregoing notice, the Government hereby requests reciprocal notice under Rule 16(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding any expert witness that the defendant intends to rely upon, including a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the witness's qualifications. + +--- + +1 Dr. Rocchio has previously testified in state court and has been deposed in the course of federal and state litigation. As a courtesy, a list of that testimony is also being produced to you today bearing ██████ number 3502-002. + +Additionally, the Government reiterates its August 5, 2020 request for reciprocal discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b). Specifically, we request that you allow inspection and copying of: (1) any books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are in the defendant's possession, custody or control, and which the defendant intends to introduce as evidence or otherwise rely on at trial; and (2) any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with this case, or copies thereof, which are in the defendant's possession or control, and which the defendant intends to introduce as evidence or otherwise rely on at trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at trial. + +The Government also reiterates its August 5, 2020 request that the defendant disclose prior statements of witnesses she will call to testify, including expert witnesses. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2; United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975). The Government requests that such material be provided on the same basis upon which the Government agrees to supply the defendant with 3500 material relating to Government witnesses. + +Very truly yours, + +AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Alison Moe Maurene Comey Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2225 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73dc1dd8e6f9b90525763bd9d1ab00aa873f0811 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/EFTA02834425.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,286 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 6707, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.29, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 211.1153564453125, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Disclosure by the Government", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 284.85345458984375, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 284.85345458984375, + 583.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 583.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Request for Reciprocal Discovery and Expert Notice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 395.964, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 395.964, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 545.13 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834425" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c027dd4cba2e1bac95fa93f9758fe1c2a76286f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834425/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1047dfc42b27ff30713ccc1b5d708b33a6e9d1df8aaa76064f6031cbfc9fb5b3 +size 3486 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..436067c62996bc04a4a8b42ec69f577aa3bf0d4c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.md @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +# EXHIBIT 2 + +## Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D. + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +#### EDUCATION + +1995 Ph.D. Clinical Psychology University of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI + +1992 • Clinical Psychology University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +1989 BA Psychology and English Emory University. Atlanta. Georgia + +1988 Visiting Student Westfield College, London. England + +#### ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT + +2020 - present Clinical Instructor Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Alpert Medical School of University Providence, RI + +#### LICENSURE + +11/14 — present 02/12 - present 12/97 - present Licensed Psychologist (M) #10025 Licensed Psychologist (NY) #019490 Licensed Psychologist (RI) #00631 + +#### CLINICAL EXPERIENCE + +7/98 - present Clinical Director and Owner, Inter-Disciplinary Independent Group Practice Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc. Johnston, RI Psychotherapy. Assessment. Consultation. Education and Training. Forensic Assessment. Forensic Consultation. Expert Testimony + +12197-098 Independent Practice Associates in Psychotherapy. North Kingstown. RI Psychotherapy, Assessment, Education and Training + +7/96 - 11/97 Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology Ann Begin, Ph.D., Associates in Plytiotherapy, North Kingstown, RI Women's Day Hospital Program.= Hospital. Providence, RI + +Lisa Rocchio. Phi) + +#### 7194 - 7/95 Pre-Doctoral Intern in Psychology + +Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT New Haven Hospital and Yale Psychiatric Institute + +9/93 - 5/94 + +5/91 -5/94 + +9/92 - 5/93 + +6/9(1 - 8/90 7/91 - 8/91 + +#### Clinical Psychology Extern + +Counseling Center. University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +#### Clinical Psychology Trainee + +Psychological Consultation Center, University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +#### Clinical Psychology Extern + +Psychological Services. University. Providence. RI + +#### Family Service Student Counselor + +Pre-Natal Clinic. St. Hospital Department of Family Service. Providence. RI + +#### TRAINING AND CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE + +#### 2000 - 2002 Psychological Consultant + +North Providence School Department + +Performed comprehensive psychological evaluations of elementary school students to determine the impact of psychological difficulties on school performance and functioning. Evaluations involved clinical diagnostic interviews, psychological testing, classroom observations and collateral interviews. + +#### 2000 - 2001 Psychological Consultant + +Diagnostic Assessment Services, Middletown, RI + +Performed comprehensive psychological evaluations of adolescents who had been court ordered for outpatient psychological. cognitive and educational testing. + +#### 1999 - 2002 Consultant: Professional Development, Education and Training + +Department of Children. Youth, and Families. Providence. RI + +Developed and presented workshops to DCYF employees in the areas of trauma, vicarious traumatization, and stress management. + +#### 1994 Mock Trial Expert Witness + +Yale University School of Medicine. New Haven. CT + +#### 1992 - 1994 Workshop Leader + +College Counseling Center. University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI + +Eating Disorders Workshops presented across campus to various student groups and organizations + +#### 1992 Mock Trial Expert Witness + +Travelers Worker's Compensation Trial Advocacy Program, Hartford, CT + +#### RESEARCH EXPERIENCE + +#### 1999 - 2003 Research Group Member + +Trauma Science Research Group, Providence, RI + +#### 6/93 - 9/93 Research Assistant + +Lisa Rocchio. Ph.D. 3 Outpatient Eating Disorders Research Group. Hospital, Providence, RI + +#### 10/89 - 8/91 Research Project Coordinator + +The Social Behavior of Developmentally Disabled Children. Hospital. East Providence, RI + +#### TEACHING EXPERIENCE + +#### 9/96 - 12/96 Adjunct Assistant Professor + +University of Rhode Island. College of Continuing Education. Providence. RI Introduction to Women's Studies (2 sections) + +1/96 - 5/96 + +9/92 - 5/94 + +5/92 and 5/93 + +9/91 - 5/92 + +#### Special Instructor in Psychology + +Providence College. Providence. RI Psychology of Women(2 sections) + +#### Instructor + +Counseling Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI Workshop Training for Eating Disorders Prevention + +#### Teaching Assistant + +University of Rhode Island. Continuing College of Education, Providence, RI Psychology of Sexual Equality + +#### Teaching Assistant + +University of Rhode Island. Kingston. RI Towards Self Understanding + +#### SELECTED SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING + +#### 2011 — 2012 Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology + +Sponsored by the American Psychological Association. Committee on Women in Psychology + +Selected (through a competitive selection process) to participate in a leadership training program for women in psychology, the mission of which + +"is to prepare, support, and empower women psychologists as leaders to promote positive changes in institutional and organizational life and increase the diversity, number, and effectiveness of women psychologists as leaders". + +#### 2011 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (14 hours) + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Comprehensive Assessment of Feigning in Forensic Settings + +Forensic & Correctional Applications of the Personality Assessment Inventory + +#### 2006 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (28 hours) + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Stalking: The State of the Science + +Assessment of Response Style in Forensic Contexts + +Excusing and the New Excuses + +Psychological Evaluation and Testimony in Cases of Clergy or Teacher Sexual Abuse + +#### 2005 - 2006 Psychotherapy Training Course for Dissociative Disorders (223 hours) + +International Society for the Study and Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) + +#### 2004 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (21 hours) + +#### 2001 Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Levels I & 11 (34 hours) + +#### 1999 - 2000 Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Intensive Training, Parts I & II (72 hours) + +## PUBLICATIONS + +American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) + +Advanced Topics in Criminal Forensic Assessment + +Forensic Consultation. Expertise & Testimony + +Forensic Mental Health Assessment: Principles and Cases + +Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing International Association (EMDRIA) + +Behavioral Technology Transfer Group + +T.D. & Rocchio. L.M. (2020). Evaluating the effects of repeated psychological injury: Introduction to the Special Issue. Psychological Injury and the Law. NY: Springer + +Rocchio. L.M. (2020). Ethical and professional considerations in the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation. Psychological Injury and the Law. NY: Springer + +Rocchio, L.M. (Fall, 2015). Ethics corner: Psychologists Coping with Serious Health Concerns: Ethical, Professional, and Risk Management Issues. The Newsletter of die Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Rocchio, L.M. (Spring 2011). Ethics corner Ethical Considerations in Trauma Psychology: Vicarious Traumatization and Self-Care. The Newsletter of the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Rocchio, L.M. (Spring 2009). Ethics corner: How should I respond to a subpoena? The Newsletter of the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +Lou, B. & Rocchio, L. M. (1998). Standing up, talking back, and taking charge: Strategies and outcome in collective action against sexual harassment. In L.H.=, J. Chryslers, and K. Quina (Eds.) Career strategies for women academics: Arming Athena. NY: Sage. + +Lott, B. & Rocchio, L. M. (1997). Individual and collective action: Social approaches and remedies for sexist discrimination. In H. Landrinc and E. A. Klonoff (Eds.) Sexist discrimination: Prevalence. correlates, and remedies. CA: Sage. + +Rocchio. L. M.. Feinstein. C.. & Appareddy, V. (1997). The sibling of the psychiatrically disturbed child. In J. Nashpitz (Ed), Handbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry•. + +Baker's Dozen (1997). Feminist student voices. In J. Worell and N. (Eds.) Feminist visions: New directions for education and practice. American Psychological Association. + +#### PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS + +Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2020). Ethical and professional considerations in the forensic assessment of trauma and FTSD. In J. Scroppo (Chair)• Ethics and Risk Management in Forensic Evaluations and Settings. Symposium conducted virtually at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. + +Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2020). Ethical challenges when a client is engaged in a lawsuit: Dr. Helpful wants to help. In APA Ethics Committee, Ethics Hot Topics. Panel presentation conducted visually at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington. DC. Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2015). Ethical dilemmas in the treatment of trauma in independent practice settings. In Rocchio (Chair). Trauma treatment in independent practice settings: Ethical and relational issues. Skill Building session conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington. DC Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2014). Trauma psychologists with serious health concerns: Ethical issues. In L. Rocchio (Chair). Trauma psychologists with serious health concerns: Ethical, clinical and professional issues. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington. DC. Hughes. D.M. & Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2014). Essentials of forensic assessment of trauma in civil and criminal litigation. Skill building session presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2013). Trauma in the treatment room: What the independent practitioner needs to know. Skill building session presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu. HI Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2012). The forensic evaluation of traumatic stress and dissociation in civil litigation. In L Rocchio (Chair). The forensic evaluation of traumatic stress and dissociation: Malpractice and personal injury• cases. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Orlando. FL. Rocchio, L.M. (April, 2012). Trauma psychology: Legal considerations and ethical dilemmas in treatment. Workshop presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Anxiety Disorders Ascariation of America, Arlington, VA. Counois, C.A. & Rocchio. L.M. (April, 2012). Relationship dimensions and ethical factors in the treatment of complex trauma. Workshop presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Arlington, VA. Anthony, 3.. Feil• L.. Rocchio, L.M., Plante. W.. Sabo. R.. and Spencer. M. (March 2012). Mental health professionals in transition: Clinical, ethical, and practical considerations when life changes. Professional Continuing Education Workshop sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association. Providence. RI. Rocchio. L.M. (November 2011). Conceptualization and assessment of sexual harassment in civil litigation. In D. Hughes (Chair). The conceptualization of trauma in a forensic context. Symposium conducted at the 27th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Baltimore. MD Rocchio. L.M. (August 2011). Assessment of complex trauma in a clinical setting. In L. Rocchio (Chair). Assessment of complex trauma and dissociation in clinical. forensic and research settings. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington. D.C. Rocchio. L.M. (March 2011). Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of trauma and dissociation: Translating research into practice. In K. MI (Chair). Advancing the applications and boundaries of traumatic stress research: Translation between empirical inquiry and clinical case findings. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. New Orleans. LA. + +Rocchio, L.M. (March, 2011). The effects of trauma on the therapist. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. New Orleans. LA. Hughes. D.M. & Rocchio, L.M. (November 2010). Forensic assessment ofpsychological trauma and PTSD. Workshop presented at the 26s Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Montreal, Canada. Rocchio, L.M. (August 2010). Professional and ethical considerations in trauma psychology: Psychotherapy. In L. Rocchio (Chair). Professional and ethical considerations in trauma psychology: Psychotherapy. forensics, research. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. San Diego. CA. Rocchio, L.M. (March 2010). Trauma psychology: What the anxiety disorders specialist needs to know. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Anxiety Disorders Association. Baltimore. MD. Ethics Committee of the Rhode Island Psychological Association (June 2008). From in Treatment to our treatment: Ethical considerations raised in the television program In Treatment. Continuing education salon presentation sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association, Providence, RI. Ethics Committee of the Rhode Island Psychological Association (January 2007). Sex. lies & confidentiality: A discussion of the top ten ethical issues posed to the RIPA Ethics Committee. Professional Continuing Education Workshop sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association, Providence, RI. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1999). The effects of trauma on the professional. Workshop presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the RI Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Providence. RI. Rocchio, L.M. (April 1999). Discussant. In J.C. Christer (Chair), Addressing fat oppression: Research and practice. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Providence, RI. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1997). Discussant. In J.C. Chrisler (Chair). Current issues in feminist therapy. irosium conducted at the National Meeting of the New England Psychological Association. Easton, Johnston-Robledo, I., Rocchio, L. M., & Christer, J. C. (March 1997). A WP program content 1981 - 1996: Where we've been, where we're heading. Discussion facilitated at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Pittsburgh. PA. Rocchio. L.M. (October 1996). Discussant. In J.C. Chrisler (Chair). Women and weight: Gendered messages from the media. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the New England Psychological Association, New London, CT. Rocchio. L. M. (August 1996). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. In C. (Chair). Empirical investigations of women's pursuit of beauty. Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Toronto. Canada. Cogan. I & Rocchio. L. M. (March 1995). Fat oppression and body hatred: Strategies for change. One-half day training workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Indianapolis. IN. + +Cogan. J. & Rocchio. L. M. (March 1994). Celebrating and redefining our diverse beauty: Rejecting body hatred. Workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Oakland. CA. Rocchio, L. M. (March 1993). Battered women who kill, psychology, and the law. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Atlanta. GA. Gregory, C.J., Minugh, P. A., Riedford, M., Rocchio, L. M., & Saris, R. (March 1993). Women Against Sexual Harassment (WASH): Working to eliminate sexual harassment from the academic community. Workshop presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Atlanta, GA. Silver. B.. Rocchio. L. M.. & Gregory. C.J.. (November 1992). A model for gender role assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the New England Psychological Association. Fairfield, CT. Rocchio-Giordano. L. M. (February 1992). Moral reasoning related to gender and dilemma content. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology. Long Beach. CA. + +#### INVITED ADDRESSES + +Rocchio, L.M. (January, 2021). Trauma psychologythThat the trauma psychotherapist needs to know. Invited presentation to the PGY 3 Residency Seminar at IM Alpert School of Medicine. Providence, RI. Rocchio, L.M. (March, 2016, 2017, 2018). Vicarious traumatization: The effect of trauma exposure on the helping professional. Invited continuing education presentation to the New England Society for the Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation workshop: Fundamentals of Complex Trauma and Dissociation. Cambridge, M. Rocchio. & Mills. M.A.M. (May. 2017). The anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders: Overview and treatment strategies. Invited continuing education presentation to the members of the Behavioral Health Pod of the Rhode Island Primary Care Physician's Corporation, Cranston, RI. Hughes, D.M. & Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2016). Forensic work with trauma populations. Invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Denver. CO. Rocchio, L.M. (2016). Trauma psychology: What the therapist needs to know. Invited continuing education presentation to the members of the Behavioral Health Pod of the Rhode Island Primary Care Physician's Corporation, Cranston. RI Rocchio. L.M. (2016. 2015. 2013. 2012. 2011. 2010, 2009. 2038). Ethical considerations in the practice of clinical and forensic psychology: Business and forensic issues. Invited presentation to the participants of the Fellows Ethics Workshop, University, Providence, RI. Rocchio, L.M. (2015, 2014). Ethical considerations in the practice of clinical and forensic psychologi. Multiple Relationships. Invited presentation to the participants of the Fellows Ethics Workshop, University. Providence. RI. LS., Gold, S., & Rocchio, L.M. (August, 2014). The forensic assessment of trauma. Invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC LS.. Gold. S.. & Rocchio. L.M. (August. 2013). The forensic assessment of trauma. Invited hospitality suite presentation sponsored by Division 56 of the American Psychological Association. + +Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu, HI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (August 2011). Development of a successful independent group practice in psychology. Hospitality suite conversation hour sponsored by Division 42 of the American Psychological Association. Presented at the National Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. + +Rocchio. L.M. (April 2009). Practical, legal and ethical considerations in establishing an independent practice in psychology. Invited salon presentation to Early Career Psychologists sponsored by the Rhode Island Psychological Association. Providence. RI. + +Rocchio, L.M. (April 1996). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. Invited colloquium presented to the Providence College Department of Psychology, Providence RI. + +Rocchio, L.M.. Gregory. C.J.. & Minugh. P.A. (1993). Women Against Sexual Harassment (WASH): Dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace. Invited presentation to the participants of the Feminist Lecture Series• Hospital, Providence, RI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (April 1993). Women and weight. Panel discussion participant, University, Providence, RI. + +Rocchio. L.M. (May 1991). Images of women in the media, the pursuit of beauty. and eating disorders. Invited presentation to Psychology of Sexual Equality class, University of RI, Kingston, RI. + +## DISSERTATION AND THESIS + +Rocchio, L. M. (1995). The pursuit of beauty through thinness and the impact of advertising on college women's attitudes. Doctoral dissertation. University of RI. Kingston. RI. + +Rocchio. L. M. (1993). Moral reasoning related to gender and dilemma content. thesis, University of RI. Kingston. RI. + +## PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES + +#### American Psychological Association + +2021 - present 2020- present 2014 - present 2019 - 2020 2013 -2019 2009 - 2019 2015 - 2016 2014 - 2015 2013 -2015 2012 - 2013 2010-2013 1996 - 2000 1992 - 1995 Division 56 (Trauma Psychology) President-Elect APA Ethics Committee Member: Forensic Slate Division 56 Journal. Trauma Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, Editorial Review Board Member Division 56 Member at Large Division 56 Treasurer Division 56 Representative to the Committee on Women in Psychology (CWP) APA Committee for State Leaders, Past-Chair State Leadership Convention (SLC) 2020 Initiative Task Force. CSL Representative APA Committee for State Leaders, Chair APA Committee for State Leaders. Member-at-large Division 56 Membership Chair; Program Review Committee Member Division 35 Student Research Prize Reviewer Division 35 Student Committee Member + +#### Association for Women in Psychology + +| 2011, 1992 - 2000 | Program Review Committee Member | +|-------------------|------------------------------------------------| +| 1996 - 2000 | Student Research Prize Review Committee Member | +| 1999 | Conference Planning Committee Member | +| 1991 - 1995 | Co-Coordinator, RI Chapter | +| 1992 - 1995 | Student Caucus Coordinator | + +#### Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rj + +| 2020 - present | Grant Recipient for Behavioral Health Provider Quality Support Grant Pilot Program | +|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 2015 - present | Quality Measures Workgroup Member | + +#### Coalition of Mental Health Providers in RI + +#### Healthsource RI + +### New England Psychological Association + +#### Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation Behavioral Health Network + +| 2014 – present | Vision Committee Member | +|----------------|---------------------------------| +| 2013 – present | Communications Committee Member | + +#### Rhode Island Psychological Association + +| 2020 - present | Social Justice Committee Member | +|----------------|--------------------------------------------------| +| 2016 - present | APA Council Representative | +| 2013 - present | Healthcare Task Force/Comminee Member | +| 2011 - present | Legislative Affairs Committee Member | +| 1996 - present | Ethics Committee Member | +| 2015 - 2016 | Secretary | +| 2010 — 2014 | Colleague Assistance Task Force/Committee Member | +| 2014 - 2015 | Past-President | +| 2012 —2014 | President | +| 2011 — 2012 | President-Elect | +| 2006 - 2008 | Ethics Committee Chair | + +#### Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts Trauma Study Group + +#### PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY + +#### Congressional Visits + +Visits organized by the American Psychological Association: + +| March, 2016 | Medicare and Mental Health Reform. Senators Jack MI and Sheldon Whitehouse | +|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| March. 2016 | Medicare and Mental Health Reform. Representatives David Cicilline and James | +| March, 2015 | Medicare. Senators Jack and Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) | +| March, 2015 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicilline and James Langevin (Rhode Island) | +| March, 2014 | Medicare. Senators Jack and Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) | +| March, 2014 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicillinc and James Langevin (Rhode Island) | +| Feb., 2012 | Medicare and Healthcare Reform. Senators Jack and Sheldon Whitehouse | +| Feb.. 2012 | Medicare. Representatives David Cicilline and James Langevin (Rhode Island) | + +#### Rhode Island Legislative Advocacy + +| 09/2013 —02/2014 | Special Joint Commission to Study theairation of Primary Care and Behavioral | +|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | Health, Co-Chaired by Senator Joshua and Representative David Bennett, | +| 2004 - present | Advocacy regarding legislation: | + +#### PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS + +American Psychological Association (APA). Fellow Divisions 42 and 56 + +American Psychological Association (APA). Member Divisions 12, 29. 31, 35, 41. + +Association for Women in Psychology (AWP) + +Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing International Association (EMDRIA) + +International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) + +International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) + +Massachusetts Psychological Association + +New England Society for the Treatment of Trauma and Dissociation (NEMO) + +Rhode Island Psychological Association (RIPA) + +#### COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES + +2019 — present + +2011 — 2019 + +2013 — 2017 + +2013 -2017 + +2011 — 2017 + +2008 — 2015 + +2002 — 2006 + +Governance Committee Member. Moses + +Nominating Committee Member, Moses + +Clerk. Nominating Committee. Moses + +Executive Committee Member. Moses + +Board of Trustees, Moses School, Providence RI + +Trustee Committee Member, Moses School, Providence, RI + +Founding Director. Board of Directors. Quest Montessori School. Exeter. + +School, Providence. RI School, Providence, RI School. Providence. RI School. Providence. RI \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79b05bd6045fc0ad68192e95c74fc2ca46c31e79 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/EFTA02834429.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1760 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 25612, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.92, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 417.3389587402344, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 417.3389587402344, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 391.6085205078125, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 391.6085205078125, + 102.2713623046875 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 102.2713623046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 143.8750762939453, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 143.8750762939453, + 196.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 196.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 213.00198364257812, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 213.00198364257812, + 350.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 350.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LICENSURE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 140.95172119140625, + 425.25 + ], + [ + 140.95172119140625, + 438.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 438.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLINICAL EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 198.32908630371094, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 198.32908630371094, + 515.4811401367188 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 515.4811401367188 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7194 - 7/95 Pre-Doctoral Intern in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.77000427246094, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 328.0948486328125, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 328.0948486328125, + 91.09765625 + ], + [ + 81.77000427246094, + 91.09765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Extern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.0437316894531, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.0437316894531, + 134.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 134.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Trainee", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 302.8052978515625, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 302.8052978515625, + 168.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 168.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Clinical Psychology Extern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 299.45654296875, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 299.45654296875, + 200.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 200.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Family Service Student Counselor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 327.6275939941406, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 327.6275939941406, + 234.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 234.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TRAINING AND CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 302.18634033203125, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 302.18634033203125, + 289.46759033203125 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 289.46759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2000 - 2002 Psychological Consultant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 290.9971923828125, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 290.9971923828125, + 311.2176208496094 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 311.2176208496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2000 - 2001 Psychological Consultant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 290.9971923828125, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 290.9971923828125, + 388.46759033203125 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 388.46759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 2002 Consultant: Professional Development, Education and Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 448.2489929199219, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 448.2489929199219, + 443.21759033203125 + ], + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 443.21759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1994 Mock Trial Expert Witness", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 300.1341857910156, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 300.1341857910156, + 498.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 82.3699951171875, + 498.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1992 - 1994 Workshop Leader", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37998962402344, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 263.13519287109375, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 263.13519287109375, + 531.3375854492188 + ], + [ + 82.37998962402344, + 531.3375854492188 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1992 Mock Trial Expert Witness", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 300.1443786621094, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 300.1443786621094, + 586.4676208496094 + ], + [ + 82.37000274658203, + 586.4676208496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESEARCH EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 203.57052612304688, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 203.57052612304688, + 629.9676055908203 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 629.9676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 2003 Research Group Member", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 639.09 + ], + [ + 293.13397216796875, + 639.09 + ], + [ + 293.13397216796875, + 652.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 652.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6/93 - 9/93 Research Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.74000549316406, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 265.1105651855469, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 265.1105651855469, + 685.4675979614258 + ], + [ + 81.74000549316406, + 685.4675979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "10/89 - 8/91 Research Project Coordinator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 311.5146484375, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 311.5146484375, + 113.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 82.76000213623047, + 113.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 202.45907592773438, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 202.45907592773438, + 168.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 168.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "9/96 - 12/96 Adjunct Assistant Professor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 302.3628234863281, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 302.3628234863281, + 190.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.77999877929688, + 190.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Special Instructor in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 320.0828552246094, + 221.13000000000002 + ], + [ + 320.0828552246094, + 233.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 233.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Instructor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 230.2486572265625, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 230.2486572265625, + 278.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 278.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Teaching Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 309.42 + ], + [ + 264.9722595214844, + 322.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 322.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Teaching Assistant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.968994140625, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.968994140625, + 365.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 365.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SELECTED SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 331.3562927246094, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 331.3562927246094, + 421.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 421.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2011 \u2014 2012 Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999206542969, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 378.5828552246094, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 378.5828552246094, + 443.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 81.81999206542969, + 443.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2011 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (14 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 528.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 542.1011199951172 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 542.1011199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2006 Continuing Education in Forensic Psychology (28 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 584.8199999999999 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 584.8199999999999 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 597.6011199951172 + ], + [ + 81.81999969482422, + 597.6011199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2005 - 2006 Psychotherapy Training Course for Dissociative Disorders (223 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.83000183105469, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 478.236572265625, + 671.49 + ], + [ + 478.236572265625, + 685.3511199951172 + ], + [ + 81.83000183105469, + 685.3511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2004 \nContinuing Education in Forensic Psychology (21 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 419.3565673828125, + 124.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 124.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2001 \nEye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Levels I & 11 (34 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 489.486572265625, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 489.486572265625, + 190.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 190.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1999 - 2000 \nDialectical Behavior Therapy, Intensive Training, Parts I & II (72 hours)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.1065673828125, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 486.1065673828125, + 234.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 234.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 157.79718017578125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 157.79718017578125, + 278.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 278.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 242.4352264404297, + 626.94 + ], + [ + 242.4352264404297, + 641.1011199951172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 641.1011199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVITED ADDRESSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 184.55836486816406, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 184.55836486816406, + 299.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 299.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DISSERTATION AND THESIS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 217.43435668945312, + 362.88 + ], + [ + 217.43435668945312, + 377.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 377.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 218.17645263671875, + 461.69999999999993 + ], + [ + 218.17645263671875, + 476.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 476.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "American Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 225.9872283935547, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 225.9872283935547, + 497.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 497.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Association for Women in Psychology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 79.38 + ], + [ + 233.0718231201172, + 79.38 + ], + [ + 233.0718231201172, + 91.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 91.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rj", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 198.2137908935547, + 178.2 + ], + [ + 198.2137908935547, + 190.35113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 190.35113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Coalition of Mental Health Providers in RI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.42979431152344, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.42979431152344, + 266.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 266.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Healthsource RI", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 147.42979431152344, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 147.42979431152344, + 311.4811706542969 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 311.4811706542969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "New England Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 241.36978149414062, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 241.36978149414062, + 356.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 356.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation Behavioral Health Network", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 388.8523864746094, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 388.8523864746094, + 398.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 398.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Psychological Association", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 239.11721801757812, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 239.11721801757812, + 464.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 464.85113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts Trauma Study Group", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 344.9193420410156, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 344.9193420410156, + 629.8511199951172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 629.8511199951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 216.8077392578125, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 216.8077392578125, + 113.33563232421875 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 113.33563232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Congressional Visits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 168.1095428466797, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 168.1095428466797, + 135.22113037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 135.22113037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rhode Island Legislative Advocacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 227.8291015625, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 227.8291015625, + 432.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 432.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 230.90208435058594, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 230.90208435058594, + 663.4556121826172 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 663.4556121826172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 207.01144409179688, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 207.01144409179688, + 200.85113525390625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 200.85113525390625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 119 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "Table", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834429" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3405ab7caad78efa5ec161fde811d34481b35d5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834429/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d43ca520ce85b51e633a2b5463bd5519f05a68c7e69c503143708a53c065ced4 +size 6412 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59d21fa25eb6d4bb47b8841abc987755b2e015ef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.md @@ -0,0 +1,300 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND REQUEST FOR DAUBERT HEARING + +> Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| TABLE OF CONTENTS..... | ii..... | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..... | iii..... | +| TABLE OF EXHIBITS ..... | v..... | +| INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..... | 1..... | +| FACTUAL BACKGROUND..... | 2..... | +| ARGUMENT..... | 3..... | +| I.     Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. .... | 3..... | +| A.     Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. .... | 5..... | +| 1.     Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable..... | 5..... | +| 2.     Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis. .... | 9..... | +| 3.     Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact..... | 10..... | +| 4.     Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than probative. .... | 11..... | +| B.     Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. .... | 12..... | +| C.     Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma..... | 13..... | +| D.     Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. 14. | | +| E.     Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma ..... | 15..... | +| II.     At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing..... | 17..... | +| CONCLUSION..... | 17..... | + +# TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., | 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) | 3, 4 | +|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------| +| Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R. Co., | 882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989) | 14 | +| v. Merck & Co., | 653 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2011) | 6 | +| Celebrity Cruises Inc. v. Essef Corp., | 434 F. Supp. 2d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) | 9 | +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., | 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | passim | +| E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., | Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, | at *14 (S.D.N Y. Aug. | +| 31, 2010) | | 7, 12 | +| Electra v. 59 | Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2021) | 4 | +| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, | 522 U.S. 136 (1999) | 7 | +| Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, | 526 U.S. 137 (1999) | 4 | +| Nimely v. City of N.Y., | 414 F.3d. 381 (2d Cir. 2005) | 4 | +| Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, | 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) | 6 | +| United States v. | , No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at | *5 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) 11 | +| United States v. Charley, | 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) | 16 | +| United States v. DiNapoli, | 8 F.3d 909 (2d Cir. 1993) | 14 | +| United States v. | 618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980) | 14 | +| United States v. | , 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) | 13 | +| United States v. Gonyer, | No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at *2 (D. Me. July 24, | | +| 2012) | | passim | +| United States v. Mulder, | 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) | 14 | +| United States v. Raniere, | No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May | | +| 22, 2019) | | 9 | +| United States v. Raymond, | 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010) | 7, 8, 10, 11 | +| United States v. Schneider, | No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, | | +| 2010) | | passim | + +# Other Authorities + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 3, 13 | +|-------------------|--------------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 3, 13 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404 | 1, 4, 5 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 | 4, 5, 13, 16 | + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT 1: Government's Apr. 23, 2021 Notice of Expert Witness Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio + +EXHIBIT 2: Dr. Lisa M. Rocchio's Curriculum Vitae + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude the proposed testimony of Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D., under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, 704, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +# INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT + +The case against Ms. Maxwell is rife with problems. Recognizing them, the government retreats to a familiar tactic: The use of a "blind" expert to fill in the gaps, to explain away the inconsistencies, and to vouch of the truthfulness of the accusers. + +The foundation of Lisa M. Rocchio's proposed expert testimony is so-called "grooming" behavior. But grooming is not a widely recognized or highly predictable and verifiable phenomena. To the contrary, "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring."' What's more, there is nothing—not a journal article, and not a study—to validate Rocchio's opinions on "grooming-by-proxy"—i.e., that Ms. Maxwell groomed victims not for her own benefit but for that of Jeffrey Epstein. + +Rocchio's opinions about "grooming" are entirely subjective—they are based on her personal experience treating a self-selected group of people who claim to have been sexually abused and who Rocchio assumes are telling the truth. There are no studies or data to back up her conclusions; they have no associated error rate; they cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced; and they "virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination."2 Since "expert + +Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +2 United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at •2 (D. Me. July 24, 2012). + +evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it,"3 and for all the other masons given below, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying. + +### FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The government has endorsed Rocchio as an expert witness. EXHIBIT I. Although the government says that Rocchio is a "clinical instructor of psychiatry and human behavior," the government's notice does not say in what specialty it proposes this Court endorse her. Id. at 1-3. + +Instead, the government broadly asserts that Rocchio has "treated patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence," has "received specialized training in traumatic stress, sexual abuse, and clinical and forensic psychology," and has "written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma, among other topics." Id. at 1-2. + +According to the government, Rocchio intends to testify on the following topics: + +Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any specific victim in this case, and the + +3Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phar., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993). + +Government does not presently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. + +Id. at 2. + +The government elaborates that Rocchio will offer this testimony based + +on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse [and her] extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, as well as [her] experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma. + +Id. at 2. + +# ARGUMENT + +# I. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. + +Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of Rocchio's proposed testimony. + +That rule says: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +Rule 702 charges district courts "with 'the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.'" Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597); see Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 402. A court must ensure that an expert "employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant t ield." with v. City of N.Y., 414 F.3d. 381, 396 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). "To decide 'whether a step in an expert's analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand.' Electra v. 59 Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 233, 254 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267). If an expert's opinions rest "on data, a methodology, or studies that are simply inadequate to support the conclusions reached, Dauber: and Rule 702 mandate the exclusion of that unreliable opinion testimony." Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266. + +The Supreme Court in Daubers set forth several factors for the court to consider in determining reliability: "(I) whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) a technique's known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether a particular technique or theory has gained 'general acceptance' in the relevant scientific community" Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266 (cleaned up). "Rule [7021 applies its reliability standard to all `scientific,' technical,' or `other specialized' matters within its scope." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 147-48. + +Assuming an expert's opinions clear the relevancy and reliability hurdles of Daubers and Rule 702, the court must nevertheless exclude the evidence if it violates Rule 704, Rule 403, or Rule 404. Daubers, 509 U.S. at 595. + +Rule 704 provides that "[lin a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an + +element of the crime charged or of a defense" because those "matters are for the trier of fact alone." Fed R. Evid. 704(b). + +Rule 403 demands exclusion when the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +And Rule 404 prohibits any witness, witness or lay, from offering evidence "of a person's character or character trait ... to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait." Fed. R. Evid. 4O4(a)(1). + +Applying these provisions, and as elaborated below, each of Rocchio's opinions is inadmissible. + +### A. Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. + +# 1. Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable. + +Rocchio's first and most prominent proposed area of testimony concerns "grooming," which she characterizes as "a strategic pattern of behavior[] . . . that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser." Ex. 1, p 2. Rocchio continues that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse" and that "[s]exual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape." id. + +These opinions on grooming are not based "on scientific research or data." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2 (granting defendant's motion to preclude evidence from the government's "expert on sexual predator grooming techniques in its case-in-chief in a jury trial on charges of + +sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography"). To be sure, the government's notice and Rocchio's CV do not point to a single study, report, or article (peerreviewed or otherwise) establishing the reliability of her opinions on grooming. To the contrary, a review of grooming literature shows that grooming does not have a consistent definition and "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +Rocchio's opinions appear to be based on her personal experience as a treatment provider of individuals who claim to have suffered trauma. But an expert basing her opinion solely on experience "must do more than aver conclusorily that [her] experience led to [her] opinion," and she must do more than "propound a particular interpretation of [a party's] conduct." Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).4 An expert relies "solely or primarily on experience, the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts." Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee's Note to the 2000 Amendments. Rocchio cannot provide that required explanation here. + +First, nothing beyond Rocchio's personal opinion corroborates the allegations by her patients. Rocchio simply assumes her patients are telling the truth when they claim they were abused. This assumption fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion because "[t]here is also no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio's] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding [Rocchio's] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating [her] abuse." United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. + +4 Abrogated on other grounds by v. Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2011). + +Sept. 22, 2010) (finding expert's opinion unreliable because the expert testified "that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them"). Rocchio's testimony thus runs the significant "risk of being the ipse dixit of the expert against which the Supreme Court has warned." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3 (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1999)). And because of her "inability to cite an error rate for false positives," her "testimony [is] virtually impregnable for purposes of crossexamination." Id. at \*2 (citing United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 14647 (D. Me. 2010) (excluding testimony about grooming in prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity)). + +But even if Rocchio's personal opinion about the veracity of her patients were sufficient to render her testimony reliable, her patients are a self-selected group of individuals. Rocchio has not and cannot point to a single study, controlled or otherwise, establishing the representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior. Ex. 1; E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at \*14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes "no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative"). Again, Rocchio's opinions "cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way." See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4. + +There are other problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony. She opines, for example, that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse," Ex. 1, p.2, but she doesn't explain how often. Half the time? Twothirds of the time? Nor does she explain how "frequently" the "sexual abuse of minors ... occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time." Id. Rocchio's generic conclusions that grooming "often" happens or + +"frequently occurs" are not reliable, because she does not explain how these conclusions were reached, what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified. + +This is exactly why the Court in United States v. Raymond excluded grooming testimony in a prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity. In that case, the expert (Ken Lanning) proposed to testify that "offenders who prefer younger child victims are more likely to first 'seduce' the victim's parents to gain their trust and obtain increased access to the potential victim" and that "[fin my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by compliant child victims, involve the delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations." 700 F. Supp. 2d. at 148. The Court excluded this testimony as unreliable, explaining: + +Nowhere does Lanning cite an objective benchmark for these frequencies or comparisons. What is "more likely"? Fifty-one percent? How many is "many"? How few is "some"? What is the error rate for Lanning's behavioral generalizations? Can Lanning's opinions be tested or challenged in any objective sense? Nowhere do I see any discussion of false positives. How many cases has Lanning found where people who possess all the characteristics he describes nevertheless turn out to be innocent or where victims who behave as he describes turns out to be lying? Has he even looked for such examples? For all I can tell, that number may be more, fewer, or the same as, the thousands of cases he says that he has investigated where a defendant turned out to be guilty or where a victim turned out to be telling the truth. And are these rules of exclusion, or only of inclusion? For example, Lanning describes what the "grooming or seduction process usually consists of." But what if a defendant fails to do one of the things that Lanning's child molester would usually do? Can the defendant then argue to the jury that he must therefore not have been grooming a child? + +Id. at 148-49 (citations and footnote omitted). This Court should apply the teachings of Raymond to this case. + +Finally, Rocchio is a treatment provider of alleged victims of trauma, including victims of sexual assault. But she has no experience treating or evaluating alleged perpetrators of sexual + +assault. See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*2-3 (precluding "grooming" testimony from psychologist in prosecution for traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in sex with a minor because psychologist's "experience in the field of child sexual abusers and their victims is one-sided, as it is limited to therapeutic sessions with victims of sexual abuse," and because she did "not treat or diagnose adult abusers of children"). Any opinion Rocchio might offer about the psychology of alleged perpetrator and their so-called "grooming" techniques is outside her expertise and therefore unreliable. United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); see also Celebrity Cruises Inc. v. Essef Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 169, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (expert not "permitted to testify regarding" subjects "outside the expertise of the witness"). + +# 2. Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis. + +Rocchio's generalized grooming opinions are unreliable for all the reasons given above. But there is another reason this Court should exclude her grooming opinions under Rule 702 and Daubert: Nothing establishes the reliability of her opinions on "grooming-by-proxy." + +Recall that Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself. Instead, the government claims that Ms. Maxwell recruited minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein. Part of this recruiting, the government alleges, involved grooming behavior by Ms. Maxwell. + +There is no authority—no journal articles, no studies, no tests, nothing—to support Rocchio's opinions on grooming-by-proxy. These opinions fail under any application of the Daubert test, because the theory has not gained any acceptance (let alone general acceptance) in the relevant community; it has not been peer-reviewed; it has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594. Rocchio's opinions are grooming-by-proxy are nothing but prejudicial speculation. See Wehling v. Sandoz Pharms. + +Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at \*5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) ("An `expert' opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Dauber: where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method." (cleaned up)). + +# 3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact. + +None of Rocchio's opinions about grooming will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 ("Tit' is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes."). As in Raymond and United States v. Gonyer, the government here "does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3. Expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it "describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12; Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*3. But even Rocchio does not contend that "grooming" is a "widely and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena." See Ex. 1. + +Still, without any elucidation, Rocchio claims grooming "often" or "frequently occurs," without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case. The government thus wants Rocchio to describe her conception of grooming and then leave it to "a lay jury without guidance ... to apply [her] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150. That is not how Rule 702 works. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 143 (grooming testimony "about the behavioral patterns of child molesters and their victims—as it might be used in this case to suggest the defendant's criminal + +intent or the truthfulness of the victim's testimony—does not satisfy the fit or reliability requirements" of Rule 702); Bennett & O'Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974 ("Mt appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubers standard."). + +### 4. Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than probative. + +Rocchio's proposed testimony is also inadmissible under Rule 403. For one thing, it will "radically simplify" an otherwise complex case. See United States v. No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. M. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the "grooming theory" in in the context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). As the Court explained in United States v. Rocchio's "grooming theory" can "foist a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all... radically simplifyi[ng] the mess of ... competing feelings, urges, and needs over the course of [a] relationship into the neat dichotomy of victim and predator." Id. See Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \* 3 (to describe the so-called "attributes of a sexual predator" is to "invite the jury to so label a defendant" a sexual predator). + +For another thing, her testimony "runs the risk of creating a false sense of expert infallibility in an area of testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \* 3 (citing Raymond, 700 F.Supp.2d at 150 ("a toxic mixture of purported expertise and common sense")). This is particularly true given the Supreme Court's recognition that "[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it." Daubers, 509 U.S. at 595. + +Were there any doubt about the reliability or relevance of Rocchio's grooming opinions, which there isn't, the Court should still exclude her testimony under Rule 403. + +#### B. Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. + +Rocchio's second opinion—that the relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure—has several flaws that render it inadmissible. + +First, the opinion is unreliable, because it is, in reality, an opinion about grooming disguised as an opinion about delayed disclosure. In Rocchio's view, alleged victims delay or fail to disclose alleged abuse because they were groomed. But because Rocchio's proposed grooming testimony is unreliable, not helpful to the trier of fact, and unfairly prejudicial (for all the reasons given above, supra Part 1.a-1.c), so too is this opinion unreliable, not helpful to the trier of fact, and unfairly prejudicial. + +To reiterate, Rocchio's opinions are based on her personal experience as a treatment provider. She assumes her clients are telling the truth, and her clients are a self-selected group of alleged victims. Rocchio cannot cite an error rate for her conclusions, nor can she say how representative her patients are of those who suffer sexual abuse. See E.&O.C., 2010 WL 3466370, at \*14 (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes "no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative"). Her conclusions cannot be tested or verified, and they are "virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination." Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*2. + +Second, Rocchio apparently has no experience treating alleged perpetrators. So her view of the "relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim" is entirely one-sided. See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*2-3. The second opinion Rocchio proposes to offer is outside her expertise. + +Finally, Rocchio's second opinion is inadmissible under Rules 704 and 403. It's inadmissible under Rule 704 because it amounts to an opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully. The credibility of the accusers, however, is a question for the jury to decide. It is not properly the subject of an expert opinion. + +Rocchio's proposed testimony also violates Rule 403, because it risks jurors accepting her "expert" opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence and to come to their own independent judgment. And because expert opinion testimony can be both "powerful" and "misleading," Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 595, the balance weighs in favor of exclusion when the predicate for the opinion—grooming—is itself unreliable and not helpful to the jury. + +### C. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. + +Rocchio's third opinion—that repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma—has nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. + +This case is about one thing: Whether the government can prove each of the elements of the indicted offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.=, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[T]he jury's singular responsibility to decide from the evidence admitted at trial whether the government has carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."). That is the only thing the jury will be asked to decide, and it's a decision that has nothing to do with the "long-term traumatic and psychological consequences" of alleged abuse. Rocchio's opinions on those consequences are irrelevant under Rule 401 and 402, they will not assist the trier of fact in deciding the case, Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +Rather, Rocchio's testimony will serve only to inflame and passions and emotions of the jury, prejudicing Ms. Maxwell, and to distract and mislead the jury from its constitutional obligation of holding the government to its burden of proof. See United States v. 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980) (evidence is unfairly prejudicial "when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence. The prejudicial effect may be created by the tendency of the evidence to prove some adverse fact not properly in issue or unfairly to excite emotions against the defendant"). This court should exclude Rocchio's third proffered opinion. + +# D. Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. + +Rocchio's fourth opinion—that the presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors—is not properly admitted as expert opinion. Such an opinion is not based on "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge." Fed. R. Evid. 702. It is "basically ... [a] general pronouncement[]" that "coincide[s] with common sense." United States v. Serna, 799 F.24 842, 850 (2d Cir.1986), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909, 914 n. 5 (2d Cir. 1993). Expert testimony like this is not admissible because it concerns "lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1989). See also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he district court should not admit testimony that is directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (quotation omitted)). + +#### E. Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma + +There are several problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma." + +The first half of this opinion—regarding nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, or late disclosure—is unreliable because the alleged connection "between child sexual abuse and a failure to report ... is not a testable hypothesis." Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4. Rocchio offers no data or analyses to support her conclusion, Ex. 1, and she formed her subjective opinion based entirely on her treatment of a self-selected group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 ("Indeed, Edelman testifies that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them."). "There is also no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio's] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding [Rocchio's] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating [her] abuse or has simply delayed reporting such abuse." See id. And because Rocchio's experience is apparently "limited to providing therapy for those child victims who have reported their abuse," Rocchio is in no position "reliably opine as to the characteristics or psychology of victims who maintain their silence." See id. Rocchio's testimony, therefore, "cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way." Id. Her opinions are unreliable and inadmissible. + +Rocchio's testimony also "will [not] help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). Rocchio's opinions on disclosure are so generic + +as to explain whatever a victim might do. Rocchio says that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are "common" and therefore consistent with being sexually abused. + +But since Rocchio does not contend that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are the inevitable consequence of sexual abuse, then it's necessarily also true that nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and incremental disclosure are inconsistent with being sexually abused. Rocchio's testimony, therefore, adds nothing to the case, because the jury has no means to apply her opinions to the evidence and to determine whether + +Rocchio's opinions about disclosure are not helpful to the jury, and they will serve only to prejudice Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 403. While the government will surely contend that Rocchio will not opine as to the truthfulness of any of the alleged victims in this case, the practical effect of Rocchio's opinion that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse" is to suggest to the jury that those who delayed disclosure are telling the truth about the abuse they suffered. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*6.5 Because a witness's credibility is solely within the province of the jury to determine, however, Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) bars testimony that a witness is testifying truthfully. Moreover, Rocchio's testimony serves to bolster the credibility of the victims, and such bolstering is impermissible. See United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999) ("In general, expert testimony which does nothing but vouch for the credibility of another + +5 Of course, the court should not expect Rocchio to disavow the converse of this proposition that those who immediately disclose alleged abuse are lying. After all,I + +witness encroaches upon the jury's vital and exclusive function to make credibility determinations and therefore does not 'assist the trier of fact' as required by Rule 702.") (citations omitted). Rocchio's opinions on disclosure also contravene Rule 403 because they suggest that delayed reporting of child sexual abuse is more consistent with truthfulness than with fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*6. + +That leaves the second half of Rocchio's disclosure opinion: that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. This opinion is so generic as to be meaningless. It is also a matter of common sense—how could anyone dispute that memory is "impacted by a number of factors"? Moreover, Rocchio is not an expert in the human brain or memory generally. And her opinion about when, why, and how alleged victims of sexual assault remember being assaulted suffers from all the same flaws discussed above: Rocchio doesn't point to any data or studies validating her opinion; her opinions cannot be tested, reproduced, or meaningfully challenged; and her opinion is based on the self-reports of her own clients, who she assumes are telling the truth. + +# II. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing + +For all these reasons, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying in this case. At the very least, this Court should hold a Daubert to evaluate each of her proposed opinions. + +# CONCLUSION + +This Court should exclude Rocchio's proposed testimony or, in the alternative, hold a Daubert hearing. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubers v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Request for Daubert Hearing with the Clerk of Court using the CMIECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..037bc7c9bc233b2d75a8869cc5dedfe95f0e667e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441/EFTA02834441.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1439 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834441.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 24, + "chars": 46405, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.99, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 86.67 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 101.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 101.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 137.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 137.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 203.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 203.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 87.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 87.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 479.54205322265625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 479.54205322265625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 222.15599999999998, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 347.8951416015625, + 290.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 290.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 365.8974914550781, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 365.8974914550781, + 317.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 317.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Opinion 1: Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of \nbehaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and \nfunction to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature \nof the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 533.9039306640625, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 533.9039306640625, + 380.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 380.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Rocchio's grooming opinions are unreliable.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 400.49993896484375, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 400.49993896484375, + 407.60302734375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 407.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Rocchio's grooming-by-proxy opinions have no valid basis.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 481.7493896484375, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 481.7493896484375, + 363.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 363.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.57696533203125, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 484.57696533203125, + 253.10302734375 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 253.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Roccio's grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than \nprobative.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 528.3424682617188, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 528.3424682617188, + 212.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 212.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged \nperpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aware that \nwhat they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 529.5288696289062, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 529.5288696289062, + 117.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 117.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of \nvictimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and \npsychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of \ncomplex trauma.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 540.396, + 380.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 380.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Opinion 4: The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual \nabuse of minors.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 512.940185546875, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 512.940185546875, + 322.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 322.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Opinion 5: Nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are \ncommon among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that \nmemory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a \nnumber of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5, + 132.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 132.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 427.1961669921875, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 427.1961669921875, + 501.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 501.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 354.2242736816406, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 354.2242736816406, + 583.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 583.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.8, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.9009704589844, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.8, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834441" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2091771f8f1ba8ce7366c731437f4ad78e87d89 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465/EFTA02834465.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834465.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834465" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f074972ff3091e264f3f4df55fa49754d69d8f3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466/EFTA02834466.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834466.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 311.3249816894531 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 311.3249816894531 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834466" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ce2c0fbcb57220d133eb62d8c3f28b7a9c38a8f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMING TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | +| BACKGROUND | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 5 | +| I. Applicable Law | 5 | +| II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Charged Conspiracies | 7 | +| III. | Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be | +| Excluded Under Rule 403 | 10 | +| IV. | In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from | +| by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction | 14 | +| CONCLUSION | 16 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| | Page(s) | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| Cases | | +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,
509 U.S. 579 (1993)..... | 12 | +| Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions ,
137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017)..... | 14 | +| Grunewald v. United States ,
353 U.S. 391 (1957)..... | 8 | +| Huddleston v. United States ,
485 U.S. 681 (1988)..... | 5, 6 | +| Salinas v. United States ,
522 U.S. 52 (1997)..... | 8 | +| United States v. Bagaric ,
706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)..... | 6, 7, 8 | +| United States v. Benussi ,
216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese , 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) ..... | 8 | +| United States v. Carboni ,
204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000)..... | 6 | +| United States v. [REDACTED],
983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992)..... | 6 | +| United States v. Cummings ,
60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763
(2d Cir. 2017)..... | 6, 7, 8, 9 | +| United States v. Curley ,
639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011)..... | 5, 6, 11, 13 | +| United States v. Dolney ,
No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005) ..... | 10, 15 | +| United States v. [REDACTED],
618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980)..... | 13 | + +## Statutes + +# Other Authorities + +Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully moves in limine to exclude evidence related to Accuser-3' because it is not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) for an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony. + +# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The government and the defense agree on at least this much about Accuser-3: + +- I. She was not a minor in the United Kingdom when she alleges that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 1994-1995; +- 2. She cannot establish that Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein ever caused, or sought to cause, her to travel while she was a minor; and +- 3. She cannot establish that she was a minor in the United States when she alleges that she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein at his various residences. + +Even if we assume for the sake of argument that everything Accuser-3 alleges is true (which it is not), she has not alleged any illegal conduct whatsoever, much less conduct "in furtherance of a conspiracy to entice or cause minor girls to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity with Epstein. + +It seems evident that the government originally included Accuser-3's allegations in the indictment as evidence of the charged conspiracies because it did not know that she was above the age of consent in the U.K. The government presented Accuser-3's allegations to the grand jury incorrectly assuming that she was a minor and that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and + +This individual is described in the S2 Superseding Indictment as Minor Victim-3. Similarly, we refer to the individuals identified in the indictment as Minor Victim-I and Minor Victim-2 as Accuser- I and Accuser-2, respectively. + +Accuser-3 were illegal. Indeed, referring to Accuser-3 in the indictment as "Minor Victim-3" is entirely misleading — there is no evidence that she was a "minor" when any of the alleged sex acts took place. + +Nevertheless, even after the defense pointed out in our pretrial motions that Accuser-3 was not a minor and had not alleged any illegal conduct, the government repeated her allegations verbatim to the grand jury and in the S2 Superseding Indictment. This was not only misleading, it was also an end-run around Rule 404(b). Simply including the conduct alleged by Accuser-3 in the indictment does not mean that it is evidence of the charged conspiracies. The conduct alleged by Accuser-3 is not within the scope of the charged conspiracies and the Court should not admit this evidence as proof of those charges. Nor should the Court admit this evidence as "other act" evidence under Rule 404(b). This evidence would only be offered to show criminal propensity, despite the alleged conduct being entirely legal, and would mislead the jury and unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, the Court should exclude evidence related to Accuser-3. + +# BACKGROUND + +The original indictment against Ms. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020, and the first superseding indictment, filed on July 8, 2020, included the following allegations related to Accuser-3: + +> MAXWELL groomed and befriended [Accuser-3] in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed [Accuser-3's] life and family with [Accuser-3]. MAXWELL introduced [Accuser-3] to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between [Accuser-3] and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged [Accuser-3] to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with [Accuser-3] during those massages. [Accuser-3] provided Epstein + +with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused [Accuser-3]. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with [Accuser-3] on multiple occasions, including at times when [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +See Indictment (Dkt. 001) ¶ 7(c); SI Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 017)1 7(c). Both indictments also alleged the following as an overt act of the charged conspiracies: "Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged [Accuser-3] to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages." See Indictment (Dkt. 001)11 11(d), 17(d); SI Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 017)¶¶ 11(d), 17(d). + +Ms. Maxwell filed a pretrial motion to strike the allegations related to Accuser-3 as surplusage on the grounds that they could not support the charged conspiracies and were unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 146) at 1-3, 6-9. Ms. Maxwell noted that (1) according to Accuser-3's own allegations, she was above the legal age of consent in the United Kingdom (16 years old) when the sex acts supposedly took place and therefore any sex acts that occurred were lawful and could not be considered "sexual abuse"; and (2) the indictment did not allege any travel by Accuser-3, in interstate or foreign commerce or otherwise, let alone as a result of any action taken by Ms. Maxwell or Epstein, which was a critical element of both charged conspiracies. Id. at 4-5. + +In its opposition, the government scrambled to paper over these problems by providing a much fuller proffer of Accuser-3's expected testimony. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158-59 & n.56. The government attempted to defend its use of the phrase "sexual abuse" by asserting that the description was "factually accurate" because + +Accuser-3 was expected to testify at trial that “her *subjective experience* of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive.” *Id.* at 162 n.57 (emphasis added). The government also represented for the first time that Accuser-3 is expected to testify that [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] *Id.* at 159. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] ” + +*Id.* Accordingly, Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was a minor when she traveled or when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in the United States. + +Despite having been alerted to the problems with Accuser-3’s evidence, the government repeated the same allegations related to Accuser-3 in the second superseding indictment filed after the pretrial motions were fully briefed. *See* S2 Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 187) (“S2 Indictment”) ¶¶ 9(c), 13(d), 19(d). These included the misleading allegations that Accuser-3 was a “minor” and that Epstein had “sexually abused” her. *Id.* + +In its opinion and order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to strike, the Court agreed that the indictment did not allege that Accuser-3 traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. 4/16/2021 Opinion and Order (Dkt. 207) at 27. + +Nevertheless, the Court stated that it could not “rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell’s state of mind.” *Id.* The Court further stated that it would reserve the issue for trial and allow Ms. Maxwell to renew her motion then. *Id.* + +For the reasons stated below, the Court should not admit evidence related to Accuser-3 at trial as evidence of the charged conspiracies or as "other act" evidence under Rule 404(b). In the alternative, the Court should preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that Accuser-3 was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts. The Court should also preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that Epstein "sexually abused" her and give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction that the alleged conduct was lawful and that the sexual activity cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for the purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment.2 + +## ARGUMENT + +## 1. Applicable Law + +Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of evidence of "crimes, wrongs, or acts" other than those charged in the indictment. United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). The rule provides, in relevant part: + +- (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. +- (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. + +Fed. R. Evid. 404(6)(1)42). For other act evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b), (1) it must be offered for a proper purpose, (2) it must be relevant to a disputed issue, and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair + +2 For the same reasons, Ms. Maxwell also renews her motion to strike the allegations related to Accuser-3 from the S2 Indictment. + +prejudice pursuant to Rule 403; in addition, (4) at defendant's request, the district court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction. United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)). "'Other act' evidence serves a proper purpose so long as it is not offered to show the defendant's propensity to commit the offense." Curley, 639 F.3d at 57 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). + +When the government must prove a conspiracy charge, evidence of other acts committed "in furtherance of the conspiracy" is not "other act" evidence under Rule 404(b), but rather, it is direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment. United States v. Townsend, No. SI 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992)). However, "other acts" are only admissible as evidence of a conspiracy "as long as they are within the scope of the conspiracy." United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 1983)). + +Evidence of uncharged conduct is not considered other act evidence under Rule 404(b) "if it [1 ] arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, [2] if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or [3] if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000)). However, "where it is not manifestly clear that the evidence in question is intrinsic proof of the charged crime, the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)." Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (citing Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372). + +### II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Charged Conspiracies + +Accuser-3's allegations, which pertain only to the Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment, are irrelevant to the charged conspiracies and do not offer any proof supporting those charges. The S2 Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein to (i) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), with the objective of enticing one or more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 11-12); and (ii) violate 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), with the objective of transporting an individual under age 18 with the intent that the individual engage in unlawful sexual activity (id. ¶9 17-18). As an overt act in furtherance of these conspiracies, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell "encouraged [Accuser-3] to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Accuser-3] during those massages." M. ¶I 13(d), I9(d) (emphasis added). The Indictment further alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3. Id. ¶ 9c. + +Them is no cogent basis for the government to assert that Accuser-3's allegations are direct evidence of the charged conspiracies. The object of the alleged conspiracies was to entice or cause one or more minors to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in order to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The government concedes that Accuser-3 (1) was not a minor under U.K. law when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London, (2) cannot establish that she was invited to travel to the United States when she was under the age of 18, and (3) cannot establish that she was a minor when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in the United States. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158-59, 162-163 & nn.57-58. Accuser-3 will therefore not provide any proof that Ms. Maxwell "furthered" an alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. Accordingly, the conduct she alleges is not "within the scope of the conspiracy" and + +should not be admitted as evidence of the conspiracies. See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), gild sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy" (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 397 (1957)). + +In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell's motion to strike, the government argued that because a conspiracy "does not require a completed substantive crime," Accuser-3's allegations could still be admitted as direct proof of the charged conspiracies even though she did not travel as a minor or engage in illegal sex acts because Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" her to engage in those sex acts. Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 161-163 (citing Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997)). That argument misses the mark. While it is true that a conspiracy does not require a completed substantive crime, Salinas itself states that "[a] conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense." Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. As to Accuser-3, the completed endeavor—Le., her alleged sex acts with Epstein—was not a substantive criminal offense. Even if we accept her allegations as true (which we do not), there is nothing unlawful about encouraging an adult to engage in entirely lawful sex acts. Hence, Accuser-3's allegations are not direct proof of the charged conspiracies regardless of whether Ms. Maxwell allegedly "groomed" her (which she did not). + +The Court should not admit Accuser-3's allegations as intrinsic proof of the charged conspiracies either. See Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 370 (listing three categories of "intrinsic" proof not considered Rule 404(b) evidence). The Act conspiracies in the S2 Indictment + +allege three distinct episodes of alleged sexual abuse, in three different locations, involving three separate accusers. The allegations of Accuser-3 stand on their own and are not "inextricably intertwined" with the allegations of Accuser-I or Accuser-2, nor do they stem from "the same series of transactions." In fact, they have no bearing on or connection to those allegations whatsoever. Because Accuser-3's allegations are conceptually distinct, they are also not "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracies. See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (defendant's prior crack arrests and firearms conviction not sufficiently connected to underlying conspiracy to distribute crack and possessing firearms to be admissible); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*2 (defendant's prior narcotics and firearm transactions with the same confidential informant not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged narcotics conspiracy, even though the conduct was "generally similar to the conduct underlying the offenses charged in the indictment"); United States v. Mahal)", 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) vacated in pan on other grounds 285 Fed. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008) (similar prior financial crime not inextricably linked to the charged crime where prior act "was a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment"); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 369-70 (prior similar money laundering transactions between defendant and cooperating witness not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged money laundering offense or "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracy (emphasis in original)). + +The fact that the government included Accuser-Vs allegations in the S2 Indictment is of no consequence. Although Rule 404(b) typically governs the admissibility of "other acts" that are not charged in the indictment, in this case, the government evidently charged the conduct under the mistaken belief that Accuser-3 was a minor when she engaged in sex acts with Epstein: I • The government's error in including Accuser-3's + +allegations in the indictment does not somehow convert this evidence into proof of the charged conspiracies. Such a rule would allow the government to entirely circumvent Rule 404(b) simply by charging other act conduct in the indictment. + +Moreover, without a proper limiting instruction, there is a serious risk that the jury will view this lawful conduct as evidence of criminal propensity. See United States v. Dolttey, No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005) (benefit of applying Rule 404(b) is "the value that a limiting instruction will have in ensuring that the jury does not view the defendants' alleged prior conduct as evidence of the defendants' propensity to engage in criminal activity"). At the very least, it is not "manifestly clear" that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is proof of the charged Act conspiracies. Accordingly, "the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)" Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at •1 (citing Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372). + +## III. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be Excluded Under Rule 403 + +The Court should also not admit evidence related to Accuser-3 as Rule 404(b) evidence because it will be offered solely to show Ms. Maxwell's criminal propensity and will be unfairly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell and will mislead the jury into believing that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and Accuser-3 were unlawful.3 + +The Second Circuit takes an "inclusionary approach" to Rule 404(b) evidence, which admits "other act" evidence "that does not serve the sole purpose of showing the defendant's bad character and that is neither overly prejudicial under Rule 403 nor irrelevant under Rule 402. Curley, 639 F.3d at 56 (citing United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996)). The inclusionary approach, however, does not permit the government "to offer, carte blanche, any prior act of the defendant in the same category of [activity]." McCallum, 584 F.3d at 475 (quoting United States v.=, 291 F.3d 127, 137 (2d Cir. 2002)). If other act evidence is offered for the purpose of establishing the defendant's knowledge or intent, the government must "identify a similarity or connection between the two acts that makes the prior act relevant to establishing knowledge of the current act." Id. (quoting 291 F.3d at 137). + +The government has argued that the conduct alleged by Accuser-3 is admissible under Rule 404d . Maxwell's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 167. This argument is unavailing. Accuser-3's evidence could not possibly be proof that Ms. Maxwell knew of Epstein's "attraction to minor girls" and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact "with minor girls" because Accuser-3 was not a minor when the alleged sex acts took place. Id. For the same reason, Accuser-3's evidence could not possibly be proof that Ms. Maxwell "intended for minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein." Id. + +3 As noted in Ms. Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Government's Rule 404(b) Evidence, the government did not give proper 404(b) notice with respect to any of its proposed 404(b) evidence, which includes Accuser-3's evidence. Nevertheless, we respond on the merits to the admissibility of Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 404(b) in the event the Court determines that the government's additional disclosures concerning Accuser-3 in its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Pretrial Motions arc sufficient to satisfy its notice obligations under Rule 404(b). See Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 157-169. + +The government's modus operandi argument appears to rest on the premise that "grooming," however broadly that may be defined, constitutes a distinctive pattern of criminal activity. See id.° As the government itself pointed out, the characteristics of the modus operandi must be "sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also United States v. Walla, No. 14—CR-213 (MICE), 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014) ("Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar acts to prove a `signature crime,' i.e., a modus operandi where the crimes are 'so nearly identical in method as to ear-mark them as the handiwork of the accused."' (quoting United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897, 907 (2d Cir. 1990)). Here, Accuser-3 alleges that■ **as she is alleged to have done with the other accusers. Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 158. But engaging in social pleasantries and polite conversation does not in any way establish a unique or "signature" pattern of behavior.** See Walla, 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (prior acts that share similarities with the charged offenses do not establish a modus operandi without a "signature" pattern of conduct) (collecting cases). In sum, Accuser-3's evidence will not be offered for any permissible purpose under Rule 404(b) and will just serve as evidence of criminal propensity. The Court should therefore exclude it. + +The Court should also exclude Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 403 because it will unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell and mislead the jury as to the legality of the alleged conduct and the purpose of its admission. Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the + +Ms. Maxwell has moved separately to exclude the testimony of the government's proposed expert witness concerning "grooming" under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, 704, and Dauber: v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, [or] waste of time." Fed. R. Evid. 403. According to the government, Accuser-3 is expected to testify that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, not because she was underage and incapable of consent by law, but because her "subjective experience" of these incidents was that they were "traumatic, exploitative, and abusive." Gov't Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Pretrial Motions (Dkt. 204) at 162 n.57. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she felt she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, the jury will naturally assume that the alleged sex acts were illegal, when they were not. Indeed, even if she is not allowed to use the phrase "sexual abuse," the mere fact that Accuser-3 will be testifying about alleged sex acts that she participated in with a much older man when she was 17 years old will likely lead the jury to assume that the conduct was illegal, especially after they have heard the expected testimony of the other accusers in this case. + +Hence, there is a strong likelihood that the jury will be misled by Accuser-3's evidence and will misapply it in evaluating Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence to the charged Act conspiracies, both of which require that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the accusers would engage in illegal or criminal sexual activity. This risk substantially outweighs the limited probative effect of Accuser-3's evidence. Even if the Court were to give the July an appropriate limiting instruction, there is a substantial risk that it would not be sufficient to ensure that the jury did not misinterpret or misapply this evidence. See Curley, 639 F.3d at 60 (quoting United States v. . 618 F.2d 934, 946 (2d Cir. 1980) ("limiting instructions cannot be regarded as a guaranty against prejudice")). Accordingly, the Court should exclude Accuser-3's evidence. + +#### IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from Representing that Accuser-3 Was a \ I inor," or that She Was "Sexually Abused" by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction + +If the Court determines that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is admissible, either as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies or as 404(b) evidence, the Court should (1) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction related to Accuser-3's testimony. + +The government concedes that Accuser-3 alleges that she was 17 years old and above the age of consent in the U.K. when she purportedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London. The government further concedes that Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was under the age of 18 when she alleges that she first traveled to the United States and engaged in sex acts with Epstein at his residences. Accuser-3 was therefore not a minor under the laws of the relevant jurisdictions when the alleged sex acts and the alleged international travel took place. It follows that the Court should not permit the government or Accuser-3 to refer to herself as a "minor" or claim that she was a minor when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. + +Similarly, the Court should not permit the government and Accuser-3 to assert that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein. The phrase "sexual abuse" connotes criminal activity, even though the alleged conduct was lawful. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017) ("'Sexual abuse of a minor,' the Government accordingly contends, 'most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old."') (quoting government's brief) (emphases added). Notwithstanding Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of these incidents, the use of the phrase "sexual abuse" should not be allowed because it will mislead the jury into thinking that Accuser-3 engaged in "criminal sexual + +activity" with Epstein. That, in turn, may cause the jury to improperly convict Ms. Maxwell based on a false assumption. + +Finally, the Court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction to ensure that the jury understands that the alleged conduct was not unlawful and does not consider it as improper propensity evidence. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London when she was 17, as the government has proffered, the jury will almost certainly assume that the alleged conduct was unlawful, as it would be in certain U.S. states, and that the testimony is being offered to prove that Epstein and Accuser-3 engaged in "illegal sexual activity" in London. Accordingly, if Accuser-3 is allowed to testify, we request that the Court give the jury a limiting instruction containing the following points: + +- The legal age of consent for sexual activity in the United Kingdom is 16 years old. That was also the legal age of consent from 1994- 1995, when Accuser-3 alleges she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein in London when she was 17 years old. +- The alleged conduct that Accuser-3 has described in her testimony was therefore not illegal. If you find that these incidents took place, I instruct you that this sexual activity cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment. + +If the Court determines that Accuser-3's testimony may be admitted as 404( + +M. Maxwell further requests that the Court also give the jury an appropriate propensity instruction. See Dolney, 2005 WL 2129169, at •2 ("In the absence of such a limiting instruction, there exists a legitimate concern that the jury might misapply [the) evidence to conclude that if the defendants engaged in criminal conduct prior to the charged conspiracy, then the conduct at issue in these charges must also be criminal."). + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude evidence related to Accuser-3 because it is not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court (1) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony that includes the points discussed above. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian R. Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying exhibits upon the following: + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Maurene.comey®usdoj.gov Alison.moe®usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz®usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach®usdoj.gov + +/s/ Christian Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e295ee251002591270a975653ebbab4953d768d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467/EFTA02834467.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1172 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834467.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 36745, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.81, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMING \nTO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 458.4354553222656, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 458.4354553222656, + 306.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 306.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.952392578125, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.952392578125, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 116.73121643066406, + 456.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 456.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 166.88653564453125, + 559.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 559.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 291.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 291.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 484.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 484.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 304.56 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 304.56 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 319.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 319.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 344.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 344.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Proof of the Charged Conspiracies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 481.87188720703125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 481.87188720703125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Evidence Related to Accuser-3 Is Not Admissible Under Rule 404(b) and Should be \nExcluded Under Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 536.359619140625, + 603.45 + ], + [ + 536.359619140625, + 633.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 633.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from \nRepresenting that Accuser-3 Was a \\ I inor,\" or that She Was \"Sexually Abused\" \nby Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 536.7239999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 536.7239999999999, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834467" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..238e99685a4dadade78d27709dc7daa23aa8c83d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b453a8d40d90f0e078a69546bbaa2775ee6af72 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488/EFTA02834488.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834488.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1 \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.23 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 310.23 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834488" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b770ad23b096cee1cc2ffe7bafb5944a56fcad6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT 2 FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc0b66db3efe660cc32dde07e79521c5454e5797 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489/EFTA02834489.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834489.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2 \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 318.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 318.07501220703125 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834489" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b03a5f3e53dd7f7881663bdadcda1c5e51159b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.md @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 52, AN UNAUTHENTICATED HEARSAY DOCUMENT FROM SUSPECT SOURCES + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| INTRODUCTION | I | +|-------------------------------------------|---| +| I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated | 3 | +| II. The Document is Not a Business Record | 4 | + +#### Cases + +## TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +| v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) | 1 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| +| Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04-3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at | '2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 28, 2005) | +| Palmer v. Hoffinan, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) | 5 | +| Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342 (10th Cir.1995) | 5 | +| United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 911, n.I0 (3d Cir.1991) | 5 | +| United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) | 3 | +| United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 200 (3d Cir.1992) | 5 | +| United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ, | 2, 3 | +| United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir. 1991) | 3 | + +## Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 2 | +|-------------------|------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 803 | 4, 5 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 901 | 3 | + +# TABLE OF EXHIBITS + +EXHIBIT 1: Government Exhibit 52 + +EXHIBIT 2: Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez Vol. II August 7, 2009 + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Motion in Limine to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an unauthenticated hearsay document from suspect sources, and states as follows: + +## INTRODUCTION + +The Government has identified, as Exhibit 52, A-F, pages of an often photocopied and altered exhibit that has no identified author, date of creation, or custodian. These pages are from a 97-page exhibit provide to the Government from lawyers who represent multiple Epstein accusers. The document, as produced to the Government, is attached as Exhibit 1. As produced, the document appears to be a compilation of material that was copied from more than one source, arranged, and paginated after the fact. There are unexplained faded marks that may have, at one time, been staples or evidence of staple holes. The top of page one of Exhibit 1 to this motion has six faded dots that look like a photocopy of a page that had three staples removed. Page four has shadows that resemble a page that was photocopied with staples in the page. It is impossible to tell whether pages have been added, omitted, cut or pasted. There are several examples of what appear to be photocopies of tabs, which suggest that pages have been added, omitted or altered because of the inconsistency from page to page. For example, tab-like shadows appear at page 20, but not on page 21-23; reappear on page 24; and disappear; and reappear within the remainder of the exhibit. At certain points -- pages 78 and 79, for example - the tab-like shadows appear to be covered by something. The Government's compilation has been cleaned up from what was produced from the civil litigation. However, no one can clean up the unsavory story of this purported exhibit. + +The document was not produced pursuant to any subpoena from a legitimate third-party custodian. Rather, the document appeared as part of discovery in the v. Maxwell civil litigation case with no explanation about its origin. + +The provenance of the exhibit is particularly troubling. The document compilation allegedly surfaced in connection with a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, now deceased. Mr. Rodriguez was attempting to sell the compilation to Brad , one of the lawyers who was involved in suing Mr. Epstein in 2009. + +According to the Criminal Complaint filed against Mr. Rodriguez in 2009, Mr. Rodriguez approached one of the lawyers and offered to sell the lawyer evidence against Mr. Epstein. United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ (S.D. Fla), ECF No. 3,113-7. A sting operation was set up by the FBI during which the 97 pages were provided to an undercover officer in exchange for \$50,000. Id. at In 8-11. + +It is unclear what the Government claims these documents are — what is clear, however, is that they are neither authentic nor relevant. It is also obvious that the documents are hearsay, an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 801. There is no witness who could identify or attest that these documents qualify for any exception to the hearsay rule. + +Given their unknown date of creation, the lack of any authenticating witness, and the fact that the documents do not appear until 2009 — five years after the end of the conspiracies charged in the indictment -- there is no relevance that can be attached to the information. Moreover, any arguable relevance is outweighed by the prejudicial considerations under Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is unclear, and unknown, who created the documents, when they were created, or how they were created. The documents cannot be authenticated and no evidentiary foundation exists that would allow for the admission of the documents. Thus, who may or may not be the author of whatever ended up as these photocopies is not evidence that can or should be considered by any jury in this matter. + +## **I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated** + +In order to satisfy the requirement of authentication, a party must provide “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Rule 901 “is satisfied ‘if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.’” *United States v. Dhinsa*, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting *United States v. Ruggiero*, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir. 1991)). Here, the putatively proffered documents were at the heart of Mr. Rodriguez’s bribery and obstruction scheme. The documents apparently did not surface until 2009, decades after the claims here, years after the alleged conspiracy, and five years after Mr. Rodriguez was no longer working for Mr. Epstein. The documents contain an unexplained notation, “P.B., 2004-2005” the only potential (hearsay) date referenced in the documents. There is no evidence to suggest that these documents were created or maintained by Ms. Maxwell. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that these documents were created or maintained by anyone. It is entirely probable that whatever the documents are they were manipulated or manufactured by Mr. Rodriguez in an effort to get a \$50,000 payday. *United States v. Rodriguez*, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ, ECF No. 3, ¶6 (Mr. Rodriguez “explained that he had compiled lists of additional victims in the case and their contact information”). + +Mr. Rodriguez’s statement, albeit inadmissible, on this issue is that he did not possess any document, list, books, journals or anything else taken from Mr. Epstein’s home. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] To be clear, the 97-page exhibit is not a document that was given to Detective Recarey. + +**II. The Document is Not a Business Record** + +In addition to there being no witness to authenticate the document it is clear that the pages of Putative Exhibit 52 were not a business record and there is no record custodian who can establish a foundation for the admission of the document under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). + +Mr. Rodriguez apparently gave something to Federal Agents in 2009. Someone, perhaps Mr. Rodriguez, created the document. Mr. Rodriguez was convicted of trying to extort money + +from lawyers representing plaintiffs against Epstein. This one-off document is far from a reliable business record. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this document was created in the course of any business. Rather, the exhibit was specifically "prepared" in anticipation of litigation against Mr. Epstein and therefore is not a business record. Records prepared in anticipation of litigation are not made in the ordinary course of business. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (reports prepared for the purpose of litigation do not fall within business records exception to hearsay rule because they are not kept in the course of regularly conducted business); Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342 (10th Cir.1995) ("It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business."); United States v. Casoni, 950 F.24 893, 911, n.10 (3d Cir.I991). + +Setting aside the fact that the document was prepared for a criminal purpose, to be admissible as a business record the proponent of the document must establish the source of the contested information, that is, (I) the author of the document had personal knowledge of the matters reported; (2) the information he reported was transmitted by another person who had personal knowledge, acting in the course of a regularly conducted activity; or (3) it was the author's regular practice to record information transmitted by persons who had personal knowledge. See Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04-3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at \*2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 28, 2005). In addition, the proponent must establish the information was kept in the regular course of the author's business, and it was the author's regular practice to prepare such reports. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.24 193, 200 (3d Cir.I992) (for business record exception to apply, proponent must establish "(1) the declarant in the records had personal knowledge to make accurate statements; (2) the declarant recorded the statements + +contemporaneously with the actions that were the subject of the reports; (3) the declarant made the record in the regular course of the business activity; and (4) such records were regularly kept by the business"). + +There is no evidence on any of these issues and, accordingly, the document is hearsay for which no exception applies. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an Utzauthenticated Hearsay Document from Suspect Sources with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55435d65185f2b311471cc0bfb65519e7c25baba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490/EFTA02834490.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,684 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834490.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 12233, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.94, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE \nGOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 52, AN UNAUTHENTICATED HEARSAY \nDOCUMENT FROM SUSPECT SOURCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 509.1158447265625, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 509.1158447265625, + 349.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 104.03999999999999, + 349.23248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.948, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1046142578125, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1046142578125, + 99.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 99.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.01338958740234, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.01338958740234, + 122.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 122.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.65716552734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.65716552734375, + 87.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 87.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 104.23051452636719, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 104.23051452636719, + 394.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 394.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.232, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 375.6202087402344, + 87.99200439453125 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 87.99200439453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.54, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 333.54, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Document is Not a Business Record", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 330.48, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 562.9499999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 12 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834490" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48298da9856365bd27c9360c9cf55423c6f00768 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501/EFTA02834501.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834501.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.24, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834501" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f3c81ea60daa2bb68c869f5192ad2402fe6dc96 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.md @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +#### GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ITEMS PURPORTEDLY SEIZED DURING SEARCH OF 358 EL BRILLO WAY ON OCTOBER 20, 2005 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| INTRODUCTION | 1 | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| I. The Palm Beach Investigation | 1 | +| A. Message Pads | 4 | +| B. "CPU's," "Zip CD's," "CD's," and "Flash Cards" | 4 | +| C. Photos | 4 | +| II. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity and Personal | | +| Knowledge | 4 | +| III. | Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and Cross | +| Examine Witnesses | 5 | +| IV. Conclusion | 6 | + +# TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988) | 5 | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---| +| Melendez-Mv. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) | 6 | +| United States v. Al—Moayad, 545 F.34 139 (2d Cir. 2008) | 4 | +| United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133 (2d Cir. 1995) | 5 | +| United States v. Multanad Malunoud Al-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99 (24 Cir. 2020) | 5 | +| United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160 (2d Cir.1975) | 5 | +| United States v. Netschi, 511 F. App'x 58 (2d Cir. 2013) | 5 | + +## Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 602 | 5 | +|-------------------|---| +| Fed. R. Evid. 901 | 5 | + +### INTRODUCTION + +The S2 Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell committed the charged crimes between 1994 and 2004. Accusers -1, -2 and -3 purportedly were abused between 1994 and 1997. Accuser 3 is alleged, in the Indictment, to have had contact with Jeffrey Epstein between 2001 and 2004, + +The Government has listed a series of exhibits allegedly obtained during an October 2005 search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence, 358 El Brillo Way. The Court should prohibit the introduction of any item seized during the search because of serious questions about how and where the evidence was maintained, the lack of any authenticating witness, and the lack of relevance to the charges against Ms. Maxwell. + +## I. The Palm Beach Investigation + +Ms. Maxwell was never a target or focus of any investigation undertaken by the Palm Beach Police Department, ever. Not one of the witnesses contacted during the investigation identified Ms. Maxwell as a person who recruited them, had contact with them, or instructed them to do anything with Epstein. + +The reports from the Palm Beach Police Department reflect that Officerreceived an anonymous complaint about an unidentified male on March 14, 2005. Officer began an investigation that, six months later, was turned over to officer Recarey. Officer investigative efforts centered on an alleged victim , according to the police reports, was contacted at her school as a result of a concern by her stepmother. When questioned at the school, denied any sexual contact with any adult male. Later she acknowledged having sexual contact with Epstein and also told the police that she told Epstein that she was 18 years old. She indicated that she met Epstein through an individual named and also + +identified a blonde woman as being at the residence. (Ms. Maxwell is not blonde and has never had blonde hair.) + +Officer, according to the police reports, then conducted various investigative measures including subpoenas for phone records and trash collection at Epstein's home. Officer 's involvement appears to have ended on September 21, 2005. + +Officer Recarey contacted on October 3, 2005. According to the police reports,M was introduced to Epstein by her friend, At Epstein's home she met his assistant, introduced= to Epstein and performed a massage on Epstein. According to Epstein asked her to recruit other girls, which she did. according tom, was her contact person. = was advised by the police that they considered her actions criminal. = agreed to cooperate to receive a lesser charge. + +Officer Recarey, according to the police reports, continued to investigate the allegations and interviewed a number of individuals that purportedly had contact with Epstein. None of the purported victims had ever met Ms. Maxwell. None of the purported victims claimed to have been recruited by Ms. Maxwell. None of the purported victims claimed to have any contact with Ms. Maxwell, sexual or otherwise. + +The investigation continued. On October 20, 2005, a search warrant was executed at Epstein's residence. Ms. Maxwell was not present and nothing belonging to Ms. Maxwell was identified or seized during the execution of the warrant. Through trash searches and the search warrant, the Palm Beach Police purportedly recovered items that it viewed as being relevant to the investigation. The agency allegedly turned over all of the seized material to the United States Attorney pursuant to a subpoena. + +In approximately April 2006 the investigation was concluded. According to the police reports, the investigating detectives believed that they had probable cause to charge Jeffrey Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell's name is absent from any charging document or probable cause statement. + +The police reports reflect that a disagreement arose between the police and the state attorney as to how the case was being handled. Essentially, the police believed that Mr. Epstein was not being treated harshly enough and that here had been an excessive amount of delay in the prosecution because of the inaction by the prosecuting attorneys. The disagreements over how the case was being prosecuted became significant and public. The Chief of Police, Mr. Reiter, wrote several letters to the prosecuting attorneys including a letter suggesting that the prosecutors had a conflict of interest. In a letter to one of the alleged victims Chief Reiter wrote: "I do not feel that justice has been sufficiently served by the indictment that has been issued. Therefore please know that his (sic) matter has been referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine if violations of federal law have occurred." + +The reports and seized documents are a mash-up of a various hearsay sources. More often than not, it is difficult to determine how many multiple layers of hearsay exist with regard to a particular piece of alleged evidence. Significantly, the Palm Beach Police Department Property Receipt/Search Warrant Return (Government Exhibit 295), attached as Exhibit A, is cursory, and reflects items moved in and out of the property department. Detective Recarey is dead, and no record custodian exists that can identify what was (1) seized; (2) what was maintained by the Palm Beach Police Department and by whom; (3) what was returned and (4) what was purportedly transferred to the FBI. Other documents provided to the defense suggest that when the FBI opened packages that were alleged to have contained evidence nothing was inside and + +the package did not match the item. Simply stated, the evidence collection and retention in this matter is an unreliable mess. + +#### A. Message Pads + +The Government contends that various message pads were seized from different locations by the Palm Beach Police Department and appears to intend to offer hundreds of the messages as evidence at trial. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1 through 4-K. Many of the alleged messages are undated, un-signed, contain various hearsay statements that do not appear to be relevant to this case, are outside the applicable time frame alleged in the indictment. + +## B. "CPU's," "Zip CD's," "CD's," and "Flash Cards" + +The search warrant inventory identifies numerous electronic storage devices as having been seized. However, no actual inventory of the alleged contents of these drives appears to have been prepared by anyone in the Palm Beach Police Department. The items were not identified by hard drive name or number or photo. Accordingly, there exists no way for anyone to accurately identify what content may have been on any particular device and how that device may or may not relate to any issue in this case. + +## C. Photos + +The inventory also lists the seizure of "Photos." Many of the photos are not identified with any particularity. + +## II. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity and Personal Knowledge + +Evidence may be authenticated through direct or circumstantial proof. United States v. Al—Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008)). "The chain of custody is ordinarily a method of authentication for physical evidence." United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1140 (2d Cir. + +1995). To be admitted, there must be substantial evidence from which it could be inferred that the evidence is authentic. United States v. Narale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1173 (2d Cir.1975). + +Here, the original custodian of the evidence is dead and unavailable to testify at trial. The handwritten notes contained in the inventory are confusing and hearsay. The evidence was apparently transferred to case agents who will not be testifying in this trial. Accordingly, no witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits to satisfy either Fed. R. Evid. 901 or 602. See United States v. Netschi, 511 F. ANA 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (no foundation existed to establish that the emails were what the defendant asserted, and the proposed method of introducing them through an investigator with no personal connection—beyond seeing them in an inbox—was insufficient). + +### III. Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses + +The Confrontation Clause protects a criminal defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses. Limitation on cross-examination may violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if it prevents the defendant from, among other things, exposing a witness's biases, motivation, or incentives for lying, or eliciting testimony that is relevant and material to the defense. United States v. Muhanad Mahmoud AI-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99, 114 (2d Cir. 2020). The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause entitles a criminal defendant to encounter witnesses "face-to-face." Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988). As the Supreme Court has noted, this right "traces back to the beginnings of Western legal culture" and has, throughout generations, ensured fairness in criminal proceedings—both actual and apparent. Id. at 1016-18. + +The admission of the seized evidence is based on Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit of Detective Recarey. Only Detective Recarey was familiar with the items seized, the content of the items seized, how the items were stored, and the disposition of those items. "The Sixth + +Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex pane out-of-court affidavits, and the admission of such evidence" is error. Melendez-Mv. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 329 (2009). + +#### IV. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court exclude from trial all items purportedly seized during search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005 and Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion In Limine to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brill° Way on October 20, 2005 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6408034818740fe97e58b24ddc266de47443ff8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/EFTA02834502.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,782 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 14062, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.04, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ITEMS \nPURPORTEDLY SEIZED DURING SEARCH OF 358 EL BRILLO WAY ON \nOCTOBER 20, 2005", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.844, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 529.0370483398438, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 529.0370483398438, + 348.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 83.844, + 348.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 380.10931396484375, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 233.17200000000003, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 411.70440673828125, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 411.70440673828125, + 87.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 87.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 106.11000000000001 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 106.11000000000001 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 121.9334716796875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 121.9334716796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 104.31626892089844, + 328.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 328.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Palm Beach Investigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 277.33984375, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 277.33984375, + 390.363037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 390.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Message Pads", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 210.2111358642578, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 210.2111358642578, + 142.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 142.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. \"CPU's,\" \"Zip CD's,\" \"CD's,\" and \"Flash Cards\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 412.087646484375, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 412.087646484375, + 307.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 307.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Photos", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 170.9223175048828, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 170.9223175048828, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity \nand Personal Knowledge", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 519.441162109375, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 519.441162109375, + 597.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 597.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Detective Recarey's Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell's Right to Confront and \nCross-Examine Witnesses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 542.4341430664062, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 542.4341430664062, + 378.363037109375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 378.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 174.3193359375, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 174.3193359375, + 169.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 169.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.08050537109375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834502" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc5013093ecc8fbc2d70d8b4d640edbe38c9c2ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834502/_page_10_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a9879581c6cdc93914942eea5801aa21a85e9db26396397786c1afe033e33b44 +size 973 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b89f9d33ac9f203200ec4528cae0dd8545ac5937 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513/EFTA02834513.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834513.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834513" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9db90223145a8183b21b8b6b30f78108e49c2c7b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| BACKGROUND | 1 | +|-------------------|---| +| ARGUMENT | 2 | + +**TABLES OF AUTHORITIES** + +**Cases** + +[REDACTED] + +*Manson v. Brathwaite*, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) ..... 2, 3 + +*Neil v. Biggers*, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)..... 2, 3 + +*Raheem v. Kelly*, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) ..... 3 + +[REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) ..... 2, 3 + +*Stovall v. Denno*, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) ..... 2 + +*United States v. [REDACTED]*, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) ..... 3 + +*United States v. Hemmings*, 482 F. App'x 640 (2d Cir. 2012)..... 3 + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, moves to prohibit the Government from offering testimony from Accuser 4 identifying Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any crime. Any in-court identification is tainted by unduly suggestive photo array procedures employed by the Government that violate Ms. Maxwell's right to due process under the United States Constitution for the following masons: + +#### BACKGROUND + +Accuser 4, was first contacted by the FBI in 2007. was interviewed on August 7, 2007 by Agents and asked about any abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. + +did not identify Ms. Maxwell as someone who recruited her, groomed her, or otherwise interacted with her in Palm Beach, Florida, or any other location. She identified as someone she interacted with and who took nude photographs of her at Mr. Epstein's direction. + +After her FBI interview, represented by counsel, filed lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein . Neither of those lawsuits mentions Ms. Maxwell. + +During her deposition in connection with the lawsuit, + +She did not identify Ms. Maxwell as having had any role in any alleged sexual abuse or trafficking. + +[REDACTED] + +On June 23, 2021, almost twenty years after the alleged events, and 14 years after [REDACTED] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as the perpetrator of any crime, the Government presented [REDACTED] with a series of [REDACTED] photographs, attached as Exhibit A. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] The photographic identification procedure used was the functional equivalent of a one-on-one show-up. Any identification is tainted and should therefore be suppressed by the Court. + +### ARGUMENT + +A defendant's right to due process includes the right not to be the object of suggestive police identification procedures that create "a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." [REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968); *accord Neil v. Biggers*, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972); *see also Manson v. Brathwaite*, 432 U.S. 98, 106 n.9, 114 (1977). This principle applies both to show-ups, *see, e.g.*, *Stovall v. Denno*, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), and to photographic identifications. [REDACTED] v. *United States*, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). + +When a defendant challenges the admissibility of identification testimony given by a witness who made a pretrial identification, the Court is required to conduct a two-part inquiry, asking first whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is nonetheless independently reliable. Raheem tP. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). + +A Government arranged photo array is unduly suggestive when a procedure "give[s] rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." v. United States at 384 (1968); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640,646 (2d Cir. 2012). In the context of a photo array, familiar examples of a suggestive presentation include the "use of a very small number of photographs," "the use of suggestive comments," or the display of the accused's photograph in a way that "so stood out from all of the other photographs as to suggest to an identifying witness that that person was more likely to be the culprit." United States v. + +983 F.2d 369, 377 (2d Cir. 1992). + +The photo looks like a mug shot, is different than the others, and the manner in which it was presented was unduly suggestive. + +Where, as here, pretrial procedures have been unduly suggestive, the court must determine whether an in-court identification will be the product of the suggestive procedures or whether instead it is independently reliable. The factors to be considered include "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200; accord Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114. The factors must be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances, and the linchpin of admissibility is reliability. + +Here, the factors weigh heavily in favor of suppression. in interviews, court filings, and under oath, never identified Ms. Maxwell as anyone who abused her in any fashion. There was no "opportunity" for to "view the criminal at the time of the crime" because Ms. Maxwell did not participate in any crime. There was no prior description of Ms. Maxwell by and the length of time between the alleged event and the suggestive identification procedure was extraordinarily long. + +Accordingly, any identification, both out of court and in court, should be suppressed. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Suppress Identification with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cff2d557f5d1d7200aae7b702e26cb9df549ea2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/EFTA02834514.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,511 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 6830, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.47, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 520.0234985351562, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 520.0234985351562, + 318.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 318.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.948, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1162109375, + 82.62 + ], + [ + 380.1162109375, + 99.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 99.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 408.20400000000006, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 408.20400000000006, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 85.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 109.35000000000001 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 109.35000000000001 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 120.69 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 120.69 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 209.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 209.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 353.63116455078125, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 513.54 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 526.5 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 526.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834514" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b89781bcb49250e864910b7360f2968cb129e13a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834514/_page_7_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cd6ac889b9969eb5273115f24be05f38e48f9f8337f6c7dc52959cf4f431466c +size 878 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..283d0f3e4e1812d7d0962d356c10552bfd2c68d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.md @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES FROM OFFERING EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. M nnin + +HADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue New + +York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| Tahlc of Contents | ii | +|----------------------|-----| +| Table of Authorities | iii | +| Introduction | 1 | +| Factual Background | 1 | +| Argument | 2 | +| Conclusion | 5 | + +## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +| United States v. M, 837 F.24 1024 (11th Cir. 1988) | 4 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| United States v. Borrone-Iglar, 468 F.24 419 (24 Cir. 1972) | 4 | +| United States v. , 736 F.34 921 (10th Cir. 2013) | 3 | +| United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) | 4 | +| United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 659 (2d Cir. 1992) | 4 | +| United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380 (2d Cir. 1988) | 4 | +| United States v. , 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) | 2, 4 | +| United States v. Haynes, 729 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2013) | 4 | +| United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.24 37 (2d Cir. 1987) | 4 | +| United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) | 1, 4, 5 | + +### Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | passim | +|---------------------|---------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 701 | 1, 2 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 702 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 704 | 1, 2, 4 | + +#### Constitutional Provisions + +Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rules of Evidence 701, 702, and 704, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, to preclude any expert opinion testimony from law enforcement witnesses. + +## INTRODUCTION + +Beginning in the 1980s, "a new type of 'skilled witness' began emerging: the law enforcement officer." United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit has recognized that this phenomenon has led to significant problems. Id. at 188-93. "[W]hen those officer experts come to court and simply disgorge their factual knowledge to the jury, the experts are no longer aiding the jury in its factfinding; they are instructing the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense."Id. at 191. + +But "[t]he Government cannot satisfy its burden of proof by taking the easy route of calling an 'expert' whose expertise happens to be the defendant." Id.; see U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Nor can the government circumvent the disclosure and discovery requirements of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and bypass this Court's gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by offering what is, in fact, expert opinion from law enforcement officers who are purportedly only testifying as lay witnesses. + +Ms. Maxwell files this motion to limit the government's expert witnesses to those who were properly disclosed and endorsed as experts, and to prevent the government from lessening its burden of proof by relying on the supposed expert opinions of undisclosed and unqualified law enforcement officers. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The government has endorsed and disclosed only two witnesses who may offer expert opinion testimony under Rule of Evidence 702—Dr. Lisa Rocchio and Steven Flately. + +At the same time, three of the government's other witnesses ) are law enforcement officers. Because the government frequently attempts to elicit expert opinion testimony from law enforcement officers without disclosing them as experts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 or qualifying them as experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and because law enforcement witnesses often offer opinion testimony about the defendant's mental state and vouch for the truthfulness or bolster the credibility of alleged victims in contravention of Federal Rule of Evidence 704, this Court should grant this motion in limine. + +# ARGUMENT + +Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert opinion testimony at trial. It says: + +A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: + +- (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; +- (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; +- (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and +- (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. + +Fed. R. Evid. 702. + +If a law enforcement officer gives testimony that "dependfs), in whole or in part, on his specialized training and experience," the testimony is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and not lay opinion testimony subject to Rule 701. United States v. 413 F.3d 201, 216 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We hold that the foundation requirements of Rule 701 do not permit a law enforcement agent to testify to an opinion ... if the agent's reasoning process depended, in whole or in part, on his specialized training and experience."). + +In turn, if a prosecution witness offers expert opinion testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(1)(G) requires the government to make significant and substantive pretrial disclosures. The government must disclose "a written summary of any testimony that the government intends to use ... during its case-in-chief at trial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(1XG). The summary "must [also] describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications." Id. + +The government has not endorsed as expert witnesses under Rule 702 or made any pretrial disclosures for these witnesses under Rule 16(1)(g). Accordingly, none of these witnesses can offer expert opinion testimony at trial. That means these witnesses should not be permitted to offer testimony on any of the following subjects: + +- Any expert "overview" testimony about the case, its origins, and the investigation. E.g., United States v. , 736 F.3d 921, 930-31 (10th Cir. 2013) (overview testimony can include improper expert opinion testimony)! + +into matters that are reserved for the jury, such as opinions about a defendant's guilt or a witness's credibility. An overview witness, for example, might express opinions about the defendant's truthfulness at certain times or [her] likelihood of being involved in a scheme or crime, thus usurping the jury's role in making fact findings based on the credibility and demeanor of witnesses with personal knowledge. Other potential problems include the government's ability (1) to spin the evidence in its favor before it is admitted (assuming it is ever admitted), (2) to give its official imprimatur to certain evidence, and (3) to allow its witnesses (usually law enforcement) to testify on matters about which they have no personal knowledge or that are based on hearsay. + +[S]uch testimony raises the very real specter that the jury verdict could be influenced by statements of fact or credibility assessments in the overview but not in evidence. There is also the possibility that later testimony might be different than what the overview witness assumed; objections could be sustained or the witness could change his or her story. Overview testimony by government agents is + +Overview testimony is susceptible to abuse because it strays + +736 F.3d at 930. + +- Any testimony about the nature and structure of alleged conspiracies, or the nature and structure of alleged sex trafficking operations. See United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380 (2d Cir. 1988) (testimony about the nature and structure of organized crime is expert opinion testimony); see also Mejia, 545 F.3d at 189-92. +- Any testimony purporting to interpret the communications of others or "codes." See United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1987) (testimony about the meaning of messages written in code is expert opinion testimony); United States v. Borrone-Iglar, 468 F.2d 419, 421 (2d Cir. 1972) (testimony "concerning the narcotics vernacular used in [recorded] telephone conversations" is expert opinion testimony). +- Any testimony vouching for or bolstering the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 659, 662-63 (2d Cir. 1992) (improper for an expert to bolster government fact-witness' credibility because such bolstering is irrelevant and prejudicial). +- Any "opinion about whether [Ms. Maxwell] did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone." Fed. R. Evid. 704(b); see United States v. Haynes, 729 F.3d 178, 196 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Testimony regarding whether the defendant 'realized' that there were drugs in the car was erroneously admitted because it is expert testimony about the defendant's state of mind."). + +The above list is merely an example of the types of expert opinions law enforcement officers often try to offer at trial. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, though, any opinion testimony that is based on 's specialized "training and experience" is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and Rule 16(1)(G) and is inadmissible at trial. =, 413 F.3d at 216. + +If the testimony of the government's law enforcement officers is not properly limited, it is "likely to give [their] factual testimony an 'unmerited credibility' before the jury." Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192 (2d Cir. 2008). See also United States v. , 837 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1988) ("When the expert is a government law enforcement agent testifying on behalf of the + +especially problematic because juries may place greater weight on evidence perceived to have the imprimatur of the government. + +prosecution about participation in prior and similar cases, the possibility that the jury will give undue weight to the expert's testimony is greatly increased.").2 + +## CONCLUSION + +For these reasons, this Court should preclude any law enforcement witness from offering expert opinion testimony.3 The officers have not been disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1XG), and therefore any opinions they might offer at trial would violate Rule 702. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +2 Law enforcement witnesses, particularly case agents, are "vulnerable to making 'sweeping conclusions' about the defendants' activities," which is impermissible. Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192. Their testimony also often relies on testimonial hearsay, depriving the defendant of her constitutional right to confrontation. U.S. Const. amend. VI; see United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2007). + +3 The Court should preclude expert opinion testimony not only from the law enforcement witnesses the government calls in its case-in-chief, but also any law enforcement witnesses Ms. Maxwell calls in her defense. Ms. Maxwell has not disclosed or endorsed these law enforcement officers as expert witnesses, so the government cannot use cross-examination of these officers to elicit expert opinion testimony that would be inadmissible if offered on direct examination. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Chislaine Maxwell's Motion to Preclude Law Enforcement Witnesses from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/Nicole + +![](_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..081cc629f29c0f3d9734268af42f68e7a6d5145a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/EFTA02834522.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,657 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 12510, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.92, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 87.603515625 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 87.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.28924560546875, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 113.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 408.24 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 422.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 422.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Constitutional Provisions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 205.06527709960938, + 566.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 566.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 360.99615478515625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 250.92000000000002, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 390.08697509765625, + 638.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 638.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 348.2593688964844, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 348.2593688964844, + 307.9335021972656 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 307.9335021972656 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 353.09130859375, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834522" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b819f258dd515b0492ce920c247000c21996f61d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834522/_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7c555f4ce8b6179a9f12537539604cab904dad532afb3ffe3394d60eeefe73fb +size 1047 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bec85bcc3d3f2c5792a97972cb8ee65f2b2c3c24 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38d68e349a5cffc681c39286214fb9a44966e663 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532/EFTA02834532.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834532.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 27, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 310.57501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 310.57501220703125 + ], + [ + 509.6306457519531, + 413.5874938964844 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.5874938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834532" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7befdc704957076f77fc9fe562189482a5208e6d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +# GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 251, 288, 294, 313 AND 606 + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| I. The Exhibits | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------|---| +| II. The Items are Not Relevant | 2 | +| Ill. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial | 2 | +| CONCLUSION | 4 | + +# TABLES OF AUTHORITIES + +### Cases + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 1, 2 | +|-------------------|------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | 1, 3 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404 | 1 | + +The Government has proffered a number of exhibits that it apparently intends to introduce at trial. It is difficult to assess the admissibility of some of the exhibits pretrial. Others, however, such as the ones described below, are not relevant in the context of this case, have no probative value, and are extremely prejudicial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell objects to the following exhibits pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403 and 404(b): + +### I. The Exhibits + +Government Exhibit 251 and 288 are framed photographs The photographs have no nexus to Ms. Maxwell The photographs have no probative value to any allegation in this case and appear to be offered to demonstrate some character flaw in Mr. Epstein and, by association, Ms. Maxwell. + +Government Exhibit 294 is a box containing an item described as "Twin Torpedos." This box was apparently seized during the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, on October 20, 2005. These items are inadmissible for the reasons discussed in Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. In addition to problems related to the evidentiary foundation of these items, they are not relevant to any issue in this case. The unopened boxes were purportedly seized in 2005, after the end of any conspiracy alleged here. No witness will identify these items as having been in Ms. Maxwell's possession or used in connection with any crime alleged in the indictment. + +Government Exhibit 313 purports to be a photograph of Ms. Maxwell, purportedly seized from a DVD disk in a binder found on a shelf in Jeffrey Epstein's house when it was searched in 2019. There is no nexus between any allegation in this case and the photograph. + +Government Exhibit 606 is a document titled "Household Manual" which was apparently printed from an unidentified computer or other electronic storage device. There is no evidentiary foundation for this document, it is hearsay, and the one date on the document, "2/14/2005," suggests that it was created after the events alleged in the indictment. Ms. Maxwell did not create the document and no evidence exists suggesting that she did. + +# II. The Items are Not Relevant + +Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as that which "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence," so long as "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 178 (1997). + +There is no evidence that any accuser in this case saw, was aware of, or impacted by any of the above listed items. + +Regardless, the photographs are not probative of any material fact in this case. Similarly, the apparent seizure of the "Twin Torpedos" in 2005 is not probative of anything. + +Photographs of Ms. Maxwell found in a NY closet in 2019 prove no material fact in this case not otherwise established by less prejudicial evidence as discussed below. + +Finally, the unauthenticated 2005 "Household Manual" is outside the time frame alleged in the indictment and plays no role in any allegation contained in the indictment. + +# III. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial + +"The term 'unfair prejudice,' as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different + +from proof specific to the offense charged." Old Chief v. United States, at 180. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that "[ajlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 define "undue prejudice" as an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." See United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). + +Here, any probative value of the items is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and confusion of the issues. Introduction of Exhibits 251 and 288 will likely necessitate Defense production of evidence surrounding the photographs including testimony from + +There is no Government witness who claims that they ever saw or used the "Twin Torpedos" allegedly seized in 2005. To the extent the Government claims the items are relevant to establish that Epstein used sex toys, any probative value of this "fact" is outweighed by prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. + +The 2019 photograph of Ms. Maxwell have no role in any allegation here. To the extent that the Government claims that they intend to establish an intimate relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, that fact is provable by other photographs and testimony. + +The Manual contains multiple hearsay statements and reflects a lifestyle that many jurors may find offensive. Given the lack of foundation related to the anonymous, unsigned and unauthenticated document any marginal relevance is outweighed by issues of confusion, speculation and prejudice. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the above reasons Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order prohibiting the introduction of these proffered exhibits. + +Dated: October 18, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Chislaine Maxwell Motion to Preclude Introduction of Government Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de0cbd30c9372c18a0d568c5c4f43eb961318c1d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533/EFTA02834533.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,578 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834533.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 7394, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.66, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 298.91900634765625, + 102.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF \nGOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 251, 288, 294, 313 AND 606", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 82.62, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 530.2408447265625, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 530.2408447265625, + 333.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 82.62, + 333.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 232.56, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 379.7148742675781, + 99.2335205078125 + ], + [ + 232.56, + 99.2335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLES OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.2747497558594, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.2747497558594, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 237.45600000000002, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.0146484375, + 122.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 122.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 200.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 200.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. The Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 182.93788146972656, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 182.93788146972656, + 225.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 225.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Items are Not Relevant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.44647216796875, + 292.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 264.44647216796875, + 307.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 307.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 432.2527160644531, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 432.2527160644531, + 666.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 666.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 259.488, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 353.16925048828125, + 88.25091552734375 + ], + [ + 259.488, + 88.25091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.4483947753906, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 40 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834533" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f35c40df8b0e72c0332038e54eb49ad4183d3be1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions in accordance with Dkt. No. 401. The Court concludes that the proposed redactions and requests to seal certain exhibits are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and narrowly tailored to protect the pre-trial privacy interests of alleged victims, anticipated witnesses, and non-parties. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995). + +The parties are hereby ORDERED to file the proposed redactions and accompanying exhibits on the public docket on or before November 12, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 11, 2021 New York, New York A + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f172b7c1f73d92df2bbaae2f8df367004a21dab9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/EFTA02834541.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 977, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.87, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834541" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4b85114ea4fa216f04e0d53b7d80bfcb2e9dc6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834541/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:95814d853b0a6d046845f3043ca20218e918efbbb07116b6b76b6818661645b8 +size 11416 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d6e1d6946c6db33e996af0d01ef676ff750e746 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +## Inner City Press + +October 29, 2021 + +By E-mail to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov + +Hon. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 1000 + +Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), timely opposition to blanket requests to seal portions of motions in limine, trial exhibits, public access + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case. This concerns in the first instance the flurry of motions in limine filed earlier this evening, replete with redactions justified by the a conclusory reference to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +The Government's Justifications for redaction (Docket No. 399, docketed at 10:06 pm on Friday Oct 29) cites Lugosch then says "The Government also seeks sealing of trial exhibits, where are not public." Inner City Press immediately opposes this. + +As one example within this motions of limine, the Government has redacted the entirely of its Argument X, even the title and the page number. And as to trial exhibits, see for example Judge Jed S. Rakoffs order in US v. Weigand, 20-cr-188 (JSR) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20536946-rakofforderonmrlicp + +There, Judge Rakoff ordered the US Attorney's Office to make trial exhibit available to the public at large. While this was done, belatedly, in US v. Parnas, it was refused in the current US v. . It cannot be refused in this case. + +11/12/21 + +Also, Inner City Press understands that the listen-only call-in telephone lines available so far in the case, there may be an attempt to discontinue them. The Court should take judicial notice of continue COVID-19 issues, including people's understandable concerns about congregating even in so-called overflow moms. Be aware that the District for the District of Columbia still allows public phone access to all criminal proceedings, even those held in-person. That should happen here. + +The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for a shoraiod of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v.=, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). + +Inner City Press: In-house SDNY: Room 480, 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 E-mail: Matthew.Lee®innercitypress.com - Tel: 718-716-3540 Regular Mail: Dag Hammarskjold Center, Box 20047, New York, NY 10017 + +For further example, in Docket No. 387, all exhibits are withheld and the expected testimony of already anonymized Minor Victim-3 is redacted. + +In Docket No. 382, Exhibits A through D, F, H and I are all withheld in full, and large portions of even the table of contests are redacted. How is the public to access the basis for withholding, when even the titles / subjects are withheld? + +The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the public a right of access to court proceedings. U.S. CONST. AMEND. I; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 US. 596, 603 (1982). The public's right of access is strongest when it comes to criminal proceedings such as these, which are matters of the "high[est] concern and importance to the people." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) (plurality opinion). + +If deemed necessary, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Inner City Press and its undersigned reporter, in personal capacity, will move this Court before Honorable Alison J. Nathan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at a date and time directed by the Court, for entry of an order granting permission to the heard on unsealing the improperly redacted submission in this case, on public access to trial exhibits and to the provision of access, during COVID-19 and beyond, by listen-only audio line. + +Non-parties such as Inner City Press and myself have standing to intervene in criminal proceedings to assert the public's right of access. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008). + +Please confirm receipt and docket this timely responsive filing, making Inner City Press an Interested Party, and thank you for your attention to it as you make logistical arrangements for the trial. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Matthew Lee, Inner City Press + +cc: Alison.Moe@usdoj.gov, maurene.comey@usdoj.gov, bc@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com, ceverdell®cohengresser.com + +## Inner City Press + +November 12, 2021 + +By E-mail + +Hon. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 + +Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), second timely opposition to sealing and withholding portions of motions in limine, trial exhibits, public access, docketing + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case. This concerns today's flurry of motions in limine, still replete with redactions. + +This is a Press request that the filings be further unsealed consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and other applicable case law. This is a request that this opposition to sealing be docketed as, for example, took place in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF), Dkt 85, see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.516151/gov.uscourts.nys d.516151.85.0.pdf + +The Government's Justifications for redaction (Docket No. 399, docketed at 10:06 pm on Friday Oct 29) cites Lugosch then says "The Government also seeks sealing of trial exhibits, which are not public." Inner City Press immediately opposed this. + +While as one example within the US motions of limine, the Government has now redacted the title of its Argument X, footnote 13 and many other phrases are still redacted, as are significant portions of its Exhibit A. Dkt 438 and 438-1. + +Worse, the Defendant's response to the US motions in limine has large portions of its table of contents redacted (for example Argument I, A 1, 2 and 3; C 1 and 2, and D). + +A full sentence argument in Defendant's submission opposing Doctor Rocchio, who testified earlier this week, is still redacted, see Dkt 443, FNS. + +In Dkt 444 on Page 4, a full paragraph about what the Government has represented that a witness is expected to testify to - and the entirety of Exhibits A and B are still withheld. The same is true of Dkt 445 - both exhibits withheld, and + +Inner City Press: In-house SDNY: Room 480, 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 E-mail: Matthew.Lee®innercitypress.com - Tel: 718-716-3540 Regular Mail: Dag Hammarskjold Center, Box 20047, New York, NY 10017 + +most of Pages 3 and 4 redacted. In both Dkt 446 and 447, redactions proliferate and Exhibit A is withheld in full. This is unacceptable. + +Again, Inner City Press understands that the listen-only call-in telephone lines available so far in the case, there may be an attempt to discontinue them. The Court should take judicial notice of continuing COVID-19 issues, including people's understandable concerns about congregating even in so-called overflow moms. Be aware that the District for the District of Columbia still allows public phone access to all criminal proceedings, even those held in-person. That should happen here; we note that this Court itself continues to offer listen-only audio access in other criminal cases before it. Why not this one? + +The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for a sholaiod of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v.=, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). + +And as to trial exhibits, see for example Judge Jed S. Rakoffs order in US v. Weigand, 20-cr-188 (JSR) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20536946 rakofforderonmrlicp + +There, Judge Rakoff ordered the US Attorney's Office to make trial exhibit available to the public at large. While this was done, belatedly, in US v. Parnas, it was refused in the current US v. . It cannot be refused in this case. + +The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the public a right of access to court proceedings. U.S. CONST. AMEND. I; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). The public's right of access is strongest when it comes to criminal proceedings such as these, which are matters of the "high[est] concern and importance to the people." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) (plurality opinion). + +If deemed necessary, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Inner City Press and its undersigned reporter, in personal capacity, will move this Court before Honorable Alison J. Nathan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at a date and time directed by the Court, for entry of an order granting permission to the heard on unsealing the improperly redacted submission in this case, on public access to trial exhibits and to the provision of access, during COVID-19 and beyond, by listen-only audio line. + +Non-parties such as Inner City Press and myself have standing to intervene in criminal proceedings to assert the public's right of access. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008). + +Please confirm receipt and docket this timely responsive filing (see eg in this case, Dkt 363), making Inner City Press an Interested Party (as was done in Dkt 362), and thank you for your attention to it as you make logistical arrangements for the trial. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Matthew Lee, Inner City Press + +cc: Alison Moe, Maurene Comey at DOJ; Counsel Sternheim and Everdell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79ba2c032bbccabfcb8f0bb65e75f5b6584492ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542/EFTA02834542.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834542.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 5, + "chars": 9327, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.34, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Inner City Press", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.66, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 431.2842102050781, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 431.2842102050781, + 78.54864501953125 + ], + [ + 186.66, + 78.54864501953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Inner City Press", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 187.272, + 40.02972412109375 + ], + [ + 430.8090515136719, + 40.02972412109375 + ], + [ + 430.8090515136719, + 78.17864990234375 + ], + [ + 187.272, + 78.17864990234375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834542" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..deb3cfca5ecc76571984888acfcf28d221fbee75 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.md @@ -0,0 +1,562 @@ +# Exhibit A + +# The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues + +NATALIE BENNETT and WILLIAM O'DONOHUE + +Unitersay of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Mirada, USA + +There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a "seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as "grooming," are understood as methods child molesters use to gain access to and prepare future victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what this process entails and bow it is clearly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions. It is important to devise an accurate definition ofgroomingfor scientific, clinical, and forensic purposes. We critically evaluate the various definitions and reveal problematic heterogeneity. Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. We review the empirical literature regarding the occurrence of grooming and propose future directions for research. + +KEYWORDS grooming, child sexual abuse, measurement + +Understanding the process of child sexual abuse (CM) is important for both fik evention and treatment. Some clinicians and researchers (eii3udin & , 1989; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1980; Conte, M, & , 1989; Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995) agree that a type of seduction stage, commonly called "grooming" but also variously known as "entrapment," "engagement," or "subjection" often precedes the actual sexual abuse. Offenders have admitted that they use techniques such as identifying a particularly vulnerable child, gift giving, and sexual desensitization to prepare the child for the abuse (Seto, 2008). + +Understanding grooming has both important clinical and legal implications. First, it is possible that if professionals were able to identify grooming + +Received 23 May 2013; revised 28 January 2014; accepted 10 April 2014. + +Address correspondence to William °Donohue. Department of Psychology, University of Nevada. Reno. Mail Stop 298. Reno, NV 89557. wtolunr.edu + +before abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second, in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For example, a recently convicted sex offender in Las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012). His defense attorney claimed that "[Grooming' is not a proven science. It's a behavioral thing. ... How can you tell that this was in the mind of this guy?" + +There have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries. In the United States, a federal law (18 USC S 2252A(a)(6)) has made it illegal and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal activity such as adult—child sexual contact (18 USC S 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered "the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342). However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is "a transient feature that is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and ends" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize grooming in the UK: + +Sections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours, including the 'grooming' of children. ... This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming, but only after an individual had been identified as posing a risk to children. (p. 342) + +O'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pled guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook. In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in online "indecent communication with anyone under 16." This law is aimed at sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites to find victims. + +It is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually + +capture the notion of grooming because these already involve illegal and abusive contract with a child. Grooming is generally regarded as prior activities intended to prepare the child for abuse, not actual illegal or abusive activities themselves. Thus, legitimate questions can be raised about whether showing a child pornography ought not to be regarded as grooming because it constitutes abuse itself. Clarifying a definition of grooming can thus make these laws applicable to many more behaviors that are used by offenders intending to sexually abuse children. + +It is important to note that clarifying key constructs is a difficult yet important process. The prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan (1977) suggested that science has both empirical and conceptual problems and that scientific progress is made when either type of problem is addressed. Conceptual analysis is particularly difficult as it is traditionally not included as a part of the research method in the social sciences and also because it involves the inherent complexity of language (O'Donohue, 2013). Here, conceptual analysis of the grooming construct is necessary in the research process, as it is a salient example where the complexity of language contributes to definitional confusion and leads to problematic implications in clinical and forensic [REDACTED]. + +The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for a clearer definition of the grooming construct that may be applied to both clinical and forensic work. The courts are currently unable to take much legal action against grooming as it is not well understood and clearly demarcated. Furthermore, psychologists are currently using clinical judgment to determine whether an alleged perpetrator's behaviors are considered grooming. The reliability and validity of these judgments are largely unknown, leaving concerns of unacceptable rates of false positives and false negatives. An additional aim is to review the empirical literature regarding what is known about the occurrence of grooming so that a clear definition can be constructed. With a clearer definition of grooming, a more scientific assessment of such behavior can be established. This article proposes future directions for research, including validation of the proposed definition and development of an assessment device. + +## CURRENT DEFINITIONS + +The three tables presented here list various definitions of the construct of "grooming" currently found in the literature. Table 1 provides various general definitions of the term, Table 2 provides subcategories of grooming that some authors have proposed, and Table 3 provides stages of grooming that several authors have suggested. + +Thus there is a wide variability that exists in defining sexual grooming as well as possible subtypes or stages of grooming. Although many of the + +**TABLE 1** General Definitions of Grooming + +| Author(s) | Definition of Grooming (taken directly from reference) | +|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Sgroi (1982) | "How does [the perpetrator] get the child to participate in some type of sexual behavior? Usually in a low-key, nonforcible fashion, possibly by presenting the activity as a game or something that is 'special' and fun. This always entails misrepresentation of moral standards, either verbally or implicitly. . . . Perhaps rewards or bribes will be offered." | +| Salter (1995) | "The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust occupies a central role in the child molester's interactions with children. The grooming process itself often seems similar from offender to offender, largely because it takes little to discover that emotional seduction is the most effective way to manipulate children." | +| Howitt (1995) | "The steps taken by paedophiles to 'entrap' their victims and is in some ways analogous to adult courtship." | +| Leberg (1997) | "The offender plans to make the victim less likely to resist, to make others unaware of what he is doing, or even to make them likely to help him, without their knowledge, to molest a child." | +| Gallagher (1999) | "Entrapment involves the use of an array of material, illicit and emotional 'inducements' to draw children into abusive situations and increases their difficulty in disclosing." | +| Brackenridge (2001) | "The process by which a perpetrator isolates and prepares an intended victim." | +| Gillespie (2002) | "The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child." | +| Berson (2003) | "Grooming involves a clever process of manipulation, typically initiated through a nonsexual approach, which is designed to entice a victim into a sexual encounter (██████████, 2001). The inhibitions of a child are lowered through active engagement, desensitization, power and control. It is often characterized as a seduction, involving a slow and gradual process of learning about a child and building trust. This also contributes to the difficulty in detecting the activity. Grooming is also a deceptive process in which a child is unprepared to interpret cues which signal danger of risk. Predators are skilled at gaining the trust of a child before luring them into interactions. The process of grooming through the formation of a close bond creates a victim who is more likely to comply with sexual advances." | +| O'Connell (2003) | "A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes." | +| Spiegel (2003) | "Subjection is the process of predisposing a boy to sexual abuse by means of subtle or blatant interactions that lead to boundary diffusion and role confusion." | +| Craven, ██████████ and Gilchrist (2006) | "A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions." | +| Knoll (2010) | "The process by which sex offenders carefully initiate and maintain sexually abusive relationships with children. Grooming is a conscious, deliberate, and carefully orchestrated approach used by the offender. The goal of grooming is to permit a sexual encounter and keep it a secret." | + +TABLE 2 Proposed Subtypes of Grooming + +| Author | Types of Grooming | +|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| +| Lcherg (1997) | 1. Physically grooming the victim | +| Craven, and Gilchrist (2006) | 1. Self-grooming | +| McAlinden (2006) | 1. Personal | +| Wyre (1987) as discussed in Howin | 1. Exuafamilial | +| (1995) | 2. Intrafamilial | + +definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may be classified as grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these similarities in definition include the criterion of preparing a child for abuse (Brackenridge, 2001; Craven, , & Gilchrist, 2006; Gallagher, 1999), gaining a child's trust (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gillespie, 2002; Salter, 1995), making it more difficult to the child to resist or disclose the abuse (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gallagher, 1999; Gillespie, 2002; Knoll, 2010; Leberg, 1997), and the enumeration of specific tactics used to groom the child (Berson, 2003; Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982). + +Furthermore, a variety of different kinds of definitional features are proposed. For example, one definition mentions "betrayal" (Salter, 1995) while another references "courtship" (Howitt, 1995). Some proposed definitions give concrete examples of grooming (Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982), while others try to give abstract properties to capture what the authors take to be the essential properties of grooming (O'Connell, 2003; Spiegel, 2003). Some definitions are fairly brief and more vague (Brackenridge, 2001; Howitt, 1995; Spiegel, 2003), whereas others are much longer and more detailed about what grooming looks like (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Sgroi, 1982). Obviously this heterogeneity presents serious challenges for forensic and clinical work. + +Some of these definitions involve additional difficulties in that the terms used to define grooming present additional serious definitional problems themselves. For example, Salter (1995) used the phrase "emotional seduction" in her grooming definition. This requires further delineation of what exactly emotional seduction entails as well as a measurement strategy to validly capture this alleged dimension. As another example, Spiegel's (2003) definition involves constructs such as "boundary diffusion" and "role confusion." These constructs are not part of the standard scientific lexicon and thus create further impediments to enhancing our scientific understanding of the grooming process. Finally, some definitions propose stages of grooming, + +**TABLE 3** Proposed Stages of Grooming + +| Author | Stages of Grooming | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| van Dam (2001) |
  1. 1. Identify vulnerable child
  2. 2. Engage that child in peerlike environment
  3. 3. Desensitize the child to touch
  4. 4. Isolate the child
  5. 5. Make the child feel responsible
| +| Brackenridge (2001)
Applies to grooming in sport. |
  1. 1. Targeting a potential victim
  2. 2. Building trust and friendship
  3. 3. Developing isolation and control, building loyalty
  4. 4. Initiation of sexual abuse and securing secrecy
| +| Wyre (1987) as discussed in
Howitt (1995) |

Applies to extrafamilial grooming:

  1. 1. The offender masturbates and fantasizes about future contacts, a boy is befriended while an effort is made to earn his parents' trust, outings are common to achieve intimacy
  2. 2. The offender finds out about the boy's home/school problems—a "counseling" role is created
  3. 3. Physical contact of a nonsexual sort begins, offender's masturbation and fantasy continue, sexual touches begin and gradually increase in severity

Applies to intrafamilial grooming:

  1. 1. Tickling the child
  2. 2. Bathing
  3. 3. The offender's sexual arousal and fantasy
  4. 4. The child going to the offender's bed
  5. 5. The offender knows the child likes being tickled
  6. 6. "Sex education"
  7. 7. Tickling reaches child's sexual parts
  8. 8. Offender masturbates the child's genitals
  9. 9. The child is trapped into silence
  10. 10. Sexual contact is increased
  11. 11. Offenders cognitive distortions increase
  12. 12. Becomes difficult to end sexual contact
  13. 13. Offending behavior reinforced through masturbation to fantasies
| +| ██████████ and Blake (1990)
Applies to father-daughter grooming. |
  1. 1. Trust
  2. 2. Favoritism
  3. 3. Alienation
  4. 4. Secrecy
  5. 5. Boundary violations
| +| O'Connell (2003)
Applies to online grooming. |
  1. 1. Friendship-forming
  2. 2. Relationship-forming
  3. 3. Risk assessment
  4. 4. Exclusivity
  5. 5. Sexual
| + +which makes the definitional and measurement process even more complex as each of these stages must be delineated and validly measured, and this must be done with the proposed sequencing as well. For example, Wyre's (1987) proposed stages for intrafamilial abuse involved 13 separate steps, the first 10 of which according to the author can be identified as grooming behaviors. As Howitt (1995) pointed out, this account of the abuse cycle makes it "appear a relatively short-term and repetitive process" (p. 85), which certainly is not representative of all cases of child sexual abuse. + +### GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS + +Part of the difficulty in identifying and clarifying a useful definition of grooming is the fact that many behaviors used by perpetrators appear quite similar to behaviors seen in normal adult–child relationships. Buying gifts for children or taking them on private outings obviously are not always precursors to sexual abuse. Using the male sports world as an example, Hartill (2009) wrote that "in preparing for the abuse, the perpetrator is able to use such 'disinhibiting' techniques through drawing on practices and discourses that are, to varying degrees, a normative feature within many, if not all, male sports contexts" (p. 239). Obviously part of the reason for this similarity to normative behavior is that the potential abuser does not want to be detected and thus wants to disguise what he is setting out to accomplish. In addition, it must be recognized that not all sexual offenders use grooming techniques. Groth, Hobson, and Gary (1982) differentiated between "child molesters" and "child rapists." Part of this distinction for these authors stems from their observation that child molesters use a grooming process on their victims, whereas child rapists do not, as their assaults occur suddenly. These authors also pointed out that child molesters are much more common than child rapists. Alternatively, some authors seem to construe grooming behaviors as mirroring behaviors seen in dating relationships between two consenting adults. For example, Herman (1981) wrote that sexually abusive fathers make an attempt to "court" their daughters by giving them flowers or presents (e.g., expensive jewelry or lingerie). + +### THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING + +Because the definition of grooming varies from study to study, currently there is no way to know precisely how prevalent grooming is because each study employs some variant of the definition. Nevertheless, there have been several empirical studies conducted with child molesters to determine what specific methods they frequently use to choose their victims, initiate the abuse, and keep their victims from disclosing. Other researchers have chosen to focus + +on the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature reviewed discussed male offenders. + +### Identifying Potential Victims + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33% of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other children and then gave bribes to the recruits. + +Conte, █, and █ (1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was “needy” and seemed “quiet.” For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to “look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was someone they could confide in and talk to” (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298). + +In her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers, Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is “influenced by the compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy” (p. 32). Teachers usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse, such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must be remembered that nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and needs cannot be a sufficient condition for defining grooming. + +### The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in exchange for sexual favors. + +The offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included “play, + +talking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me" (p. 297). + +In his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010) found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, "the power of such rewards to affect the student should not be underestimated. Rewards from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and cognitions" (p. + +Budin and (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child. + +In his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or "entrapment," which he defined as "the process by which perpetrators draw children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose" (p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39% of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9% provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games or toys. + +In their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Come (1990) found that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39% indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser treated them "meaner" than other children. + +Shakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually "coerce" their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot lead to much disciplinary action. + +and Blake (1990) discussed that in father—daughter incest, most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters + +prior to beginning any sexual abuse. However, this is a somewhat flawed analysis, as there ought to be a trusting relationship in all father-daughter relationships, at least prior to any abuse. Seventy-three percent of perpetrating fathers viewed this trust as crucial to the sexual relationship to reduce the risk of the daughter disclosing the abuse (Warner-Kearney, 1987, as cited in & Blake, 1990). Many fathers also show clear signs of favoritism toward their victimized daughter relative to their other children. Burgess and Holmstrom (1980) wrote that molesters tend to use three types of pressure to make their victims compliant: material goods, misrepresentation of moral standards, and the need for human contact. They noted that material goods are the most frequent tool that offenders use. + +One difference has been found between genders of the victim in this emotional coercion type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that in male victims, emotional coercion can take on a negative tone. For example, perpetrators may use name-calling words such as "fag" or "whore" to put the male child down and make him feel ashamed and thus less likely to disclose the abuse. + +### Sexual Desensitization + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that of those offenders who used babysitting as a strategy to gain access to their victims, 27% started talking to the child about sex, 21% misrepresented the abuse as educational or loving (which again may not be part of grooming because some of this would be postabuse), and 20% offered to bathe or clothe the child. Furthermore, these authors found that 40% of all offenders said the first move they made was sexual touching or genital kissing. Thirty-two percent of the offenders asked the child for help with undressing or lying down. Forty-four percent of the offenders used coercion and persuasion, 49% talked about sex with the child, and 47% used "accidental" touch. Sixty-one percent of the offenders would stop the abuse if the child became resistant and then persuaded the child to let them begin again. Many offenders committed the abusive acts in their own homes, where 33% used pornographic videos and magazines to desensitize the child. + +Conte and colleagues (1989) found that sexual desensitization was commonly used among the offenders in their sample. For example, one offender stated, + +Most of the time I would start by giving them a rub down. When I got them aroused, I would take the chance and place my hand on their penis to masturbate them. If they would not object, I would rake this to mean it was OK. I would isolate them. I might spend the night with them. Physical isolation, closeness, contact are more important than verbal seduction. (p. 297) + +Knoll (2010) found that while a teacher is using bribery to gain the trust of a victim, typically conversation about sexual matters with the student is also starting to emerge. Physical contact is then gradually increased. Furthermore, Gallagher (2000) found that in cases where "entrapment" behaviors were reported, 43% of perpetrators initiated physical contact with the child and 17% behaved in a sexual manner with the child. + +Furthermore, differences between genders of the victim have also been noted in the sexual desensitization type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that the use of pornography to sexually desensitize children is more common with male victims than with female victims. + +### Boundary Violations + +Berliner and Conte (1990) found that 70% of children reported that their abusers "accidentally" came into their bedroom or bathroom while they were undressing; 61% indicated that their abusers "accidentally" touched their private parts; 61% said that their abusers did not respect their privacy or let them close doors; 61% reported that their abusers "accidentally" showed their naked body to them; 57% indicated that their abusers would purposely do things with the child that involved physical contact; 48% said that their abusers made sexual comments about the child's body or clothing; 44% reported that their abusers asked them to do things that involved physical contact; 30% said that their abusers would inspect the child's body "to see how it was developing"; 30% indicated that their abusers "taught sex education" by showing pornographic pictures and touching the child's body; 26% reported that their abusers told the child about sexual things he had previously done; and 22% indicated that their abusers put lotion or ointment on the child when they were alone but said he was doing nothing wrong. + +According to [REDACTED] and Blake's (1990) stages of grooming in father-daughter incest, the last step involves the father violating his daughter's boundaries. In particular, fathers may insist on bathing their daughters and do not allow other family members to do this. These baths frequently involve inappropriate sexual behavior. Fathers also insist on dressing their daughters or on watching them get dressed. In addition, fathers will tend to watch the child use the bathroom. Finally, perpetrating fathers will have sexually explicit conversations with the daughter to further desensitize them. + +### Grooming the Child's Environment + +Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 20% of the offenders in their [REDACTED]-ple admitted they gained the trust of the child's family with the purpose of abusing the child. Forty-eight percent isolated their victims through babysitting. Furthermore, Knoll (2010) found that a teacher can also manipulate the + +relationship with her victim's parents to gain their approval of spending time with their child. + +Van Dam (2001) pointed out that many child molesters spend years gaining the trust of members in the community before actually sexually abusing any children. She hypothesized that these offenders use several social psychological techniques to groom the community effectively. As an example, they may use "foot-in-the-door technique" by showing up uninvited to a child's birthday party and spending time playing games with the children. The parents would feel uncomfortable asking this person to leave and have thus subtly cooperated with the offender. From then on it would be easier for the offender to gain cooperation from the parents on spending time with the children. Offenders can also use conformity against these parents—it would go against social norms and be rude to ask a person to leave a party when the children are enjoying spending time with an offender. In addition, cognitive dissonance can play a role as the parents will try to make their beliefs about the offender consistent with their actions of letting their children around him or her (they will believe that they think he or she is a good person). Finally, confirmation bias can also play a role as the parents will tend to only accept information that is confirming their existing beliefs about the offender. + +### Commonalities + +The two major commonalities in the definitions reviewed as well as the empirical studies of grooming are (a) some sort of inappropriate behavior on the part of the prospective abuser (whether it is a bribe, boundary violation, invasion of privacy, misstatement of morality, mischaracterizing an interaction as a "game," isolation, emotional manipulation, etc.) and (b) the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood that the adult can sexually abuse the child (by, for example, gaining access to them, gaining their trust, silencing them, isolating them, desensitizing them to nudity or sex, etc.). Each component of the definition may have different topographies in individual cases (e.g., sometimes the inappropriate behavior is removing a door to the child's bedroom, or sometimes it may be buying the child a bikini), but the function of the behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact. + +### A PROPOSED DEFINITION + +Any definition ought to use the empirical findings reviewed previously about common strategies used by sexual molesters. In addition, we believe that the most useful definition of grooming would attempt to instantiate the following definitional meta-criteria: + +1. 1. Minimize false negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to be sensitive to all occurrences of grooming. +2. 2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same time to be specific and not overinclusive (including perfectly appropriate behaviors as invalid examples of grooming). +3. 3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure. +4. 4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about further definitional problems. +5. 5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex judgments regarding appropriateness. +6. 6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters). +7. 7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably grooming, uncertain, or not grooming. +8. 8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments. + +We propose that grooming be defined as "antecedent inappropriate behavior that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse." There are no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore, there are two individual criteria that must be met to consider a behavior to be "grooming:" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must be made, and (b) a sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by providing a number of exemplars of grooming: + +1. 1. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g., it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies (showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and therefore not grooming). +2. 2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher). +3. 3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her "I love you" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate the child to do something (e.g., "I love you and people who love each other touch each other"). + +1. 4. Inappropriate touching of the child (e.g., excessive tickling, hugging, wrestling, sitting on lap). +2. 5. Bribes for inappropriate contact (e.g., bribes for nonsexual or sexual touching or bribes to meet the adult secretly). +3. 6. Threats related to not participating in inappropriate contact. +4. 7. Inappropriate isolation of the child (e.g., trips where the offender and victim are alone that are not part of the normal adult–child relationship. It is permissible for a father to drive a child to school), or inappropriately discouraging the child to play with friends or be with family. For parents or other caretakers, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate behavior is higher than for other adults. +5. 8. Favoritism directed toward the child (e.g., the child is treated much better than siblings or classmates, particularly when this is intimate or isolating). +6. 9. Boundary violations such as inappropriately bathing the child, clothing the child, sleeping with the child, the adult being in underwear around the child, the adult acting like a child, or the adult sharing private information with the child, particularly sexual or relationship information (e.g., “my wife and I are not having sex”). Again, for parents, family members or caregivers the threshold is much higher for defining a boundary violation than for others. +7. 10. Asking the child to keep secrets, particularly about their contact (e.g., the mother’s Christmas present would not be regarded as a problematic secret, whereas asking the child to not tell that she was with the offender would be). +8. 11. Providing the child drugs or alcohol (note: although this behavior is already abusive, it is not *sexually* abusive; thus, it can be considered a grooming behavior as it is inappropriate and serves to facilitate compliance with the intended sexual abuse). +9. 12. Misstating moral standards regarding touching, contact, or sex, particularly when these relate to adult–child sexual contact or sexualizing a situation. +10. 13. Repeated violations of the child’s privacy (e.g., walking into bathroom when child is in there, watching her get dressed, etc.). + +The more of these features present, the more likelihood the individual’s behavior represents grooming. To further clarify the grooming definition, it may be helpful to also look at a few specific exemplars of nongrooming behaviors that may be misinterpreted: + +1. 1. Purchasing appropriate gifts for the child (e.g., for birthdays). +2. 2. Engaging in appropriate hand-holding (e.g., to cross the street). +3. 3. Bathing a young child by a legitimate caregiver without any inappropriate touching. + +1. 4. Having age-appropriate and relationship-appropriate discussions of body parts. +2. 5. A care-giving figure saying "I love you" without the goal of manipulation (not using the phrase to get the child to do something inappropriate). + +### THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING + +Because grooming is a set of common behaviors seen in child sexual offenders (as the previous reviewed literature seems to support this conclusion), it should be possible to assess behaviors to determine whether they are indicative that sexual abuse is likely to occur. We have reviewed the published literature and have not been able to find any measures that validly assess grooming behaviors (by any definition of grooming). This greatly reduces the value of any definition as the practical usefulness of a definition is seen in its ability to be operationalized in valid measurement processes. It is important to develop valid measures as it is not ideal for the detection of grooming to be an entirely post hoc process—that is, only after the abuse occurs are the gifts seen as inappropriate and thus as part of a grooming process. The grooming acts should seem at least somewhat inappropriate at the time they are occurring and thus ideally adults can intervene to stop future abuse. To resolve this problem, grooming requires a valid definition and a psychometrically adequate assessment procedure to reduce both the number of false positives and false negatives. + +We are currently developing an assessment device that would aid a clinician in coming to a valid conclusion as to whether an individual's behaviors can be considered grooming. As mentioned, an assessment of grooming in our proposed definition would involve a two-step process: (a) determining that the adult's behavior is inappropriate in and of itself, such as if the tickling is excessive or the bikini gift is not justified by the nature of the relationship; and (b) reasonably arguing that the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact. + +What is "inappropriate" admittedly is somewhat of a vague term that requires judgment because we need to clearly differentiate the behavior from normal adult-child relationships. However, this judgment requirement currently exists for other psychological constructs as well. For example, the diagnosis of a major depressive episode might require that a clinician judges the client's guilt as "excessive." In addition, under our criteria these judgments of inappropriateness should be explicit (there must be a clear argument as to *why* the behavior is inappropriate). Since the argument must be explicated, others would be able to evaluate it and decide whether it is a nonproblematic judgment of the behavior. + +To illustrate, a male coach buying an eight-year-old girl a bikini would generally be considered inappropriate, but the act of buying her a pair of + +gym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this definition is that "appropriate" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can be entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming—an adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to increasing the probability of sexual contact. + +It is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming. For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this behavior is an indeterminate case and that it is unclear whether it should be considered grooming. + +Arguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior include: + +1. 1. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These facts do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur. +2. 2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis can be thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought + +appropriate (perhaps a one piece) is a better way to allow the child to engage in the healthy activity of swimming. In addition, the child's guardian should always be present when the child is swimming in the pool or changing into her bathing suit. This pathway does not increase the probability that abuse will occur in the future. + +In this case, clearly the second alternative explanation is superior due to the fact that it respects the guardian's control, enhances the guardian's ability to supervise the child, does not isolate the child, might involve a less revealing swimsuit, and allows the guardian to exercise his or her discretion regarding what is appropriate swimwear. In addition, because the first alternative contains false assertions and can set the occasion for abuse, while the second alternative contains true assertions and is consistent with decreasing the likelihood of abuse, it is concluded that the behavior under question meets the second criterion of our definition of grooming as it is functioning to increase the likelihood of future abuse. + +Again, the advantage of this approach is that it explicates the arguments for a person's behavior as meeting or not meeting the definitional criteria. The situation is complex because often grooming is meant to be disguised or ambiguous by the would-be abuser. However, this approach does allow the generation of alternatives that would be more prudent and reasonable and thus both the inappropriateness and function of the behavior can be rationally identified. + +Finally, before this assessment method is accepted it must be evaluated with respect to its interrater reliability, predictive validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Currently, it is unfortunate that the field has no assessment methods to properly identify grooming and thus understanding the psychometrics of this definitional approach (as well as others) ought to be a priority. + +Obviously the proposal of this definition is just a first step, and it generates a large research agenda. Validity studies need to be run on a sample of what experts clearly identify as instances of grooming and instances of normal behavior to see the extent to which professionals trained in this definition can correctly identify these two kinds of behaviors. The rates of false positives and false negatives need to be identified in these sorts of studies and modifications in the definition, assessment, or training need to occur in attempts to minimize these. Randomly controlled studies can be used to compare the accuracy of this method as compared to other proposed methods and definitions. Studies need to be conducted investigating different types of abuse (e.g., familial versus nonfamilial, boys versus girls, young children versus teenagers, majority versus minority culture) to see the extent to which this definition is robust across these varying dimensions. Again, modifications would need to be made when problems or limitations are found. It would also be useful to conduct some longitudinal research with high-risk samples to determine the likelihood of accurate detection of + +Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 19 of 43 N. Bennett and W. ODonolnw + +grooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort + +of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed assessment methods. + +CONCLUSIONS + +Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to access whether grooming has occurred or + +is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false + +positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court + +an expert witness may only testify if (a) "the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on suffi- + +cient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the nice" (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right + +now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and + +methods" to define and detect grooming. + +We propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inap- + +propriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior. + +Future research on grooming would be more useful to the field if data were collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed. + +This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psycho- + +metric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming + +according to this standard. + +REFERENCES + +18 USC 5 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. (n.d.). In legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from hUp://www.law.comell.eduJuscode/text/18/2252A + +- Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29-40. Berson, I. R. (2003). Grooming cybervictims: The psychosocial effects of online exploitation for youth. Joumai of School Violence, 2(1), 5-18. Brackenridge, C. H. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual rrloitation in sport. London, England: Routledge. +- D. (2001). Developing strategies for collecting and presenting grooming evidence in a high tech world. National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update, 14(11). Retrieved from http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/ newslettersi.\_volume\_14\_number\_11\_2001.html Budin, i. E., & , C. F. (1989). Sexual abuse prevention: Offenders' attitudes about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87. Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1980). Sexual trauma of children and adolescents: Pressure, sex, secrecy. In L. G. (Ed.), The sexual victimology of uth ( p. 67-82). Springfield, iL: Charles C. +- J. R., & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father-daughter incest. In A. L Horton (Ed.), The incest perpetrator: A family member no one wants to treat (pp. 88-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Come, J. R., M, S., & =, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect. 13(2), 293-301. Craven, S., , S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287-299. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(5), 579-594. Gallagher, B. (1999). The abuse of children in public care. Child Abuse Review, 8, 357-365. Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795-817. Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the Internet: Challenges for criminal law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(4), 411-425. Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": Definitions and the law. New Law Journal, 154(7124), 586-587. Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. F, & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. In J. R. Conic & D. A. Shore (Eds.), Social work and child sexual abuse (pp. 129-144). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Harrill, M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men and Masculinities, 12, 225-249. Herman, J. L. (1981). Father-daughter incest. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. flowitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Knoll, J. (2010). Teacher sexual misconduct: Grooming patterns and female offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 371-386. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding child molesters: Taking charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. + +McAlinden, A. (2006). 'Setting 'ern up': Personal, familial and institutional grooming in the sexual abuse of children. Social & Legal Stitches, 15(3), 339-362. Mower, L (2012, July 22). Sex assault conviction may be test case for testimony standards. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/news/sexassault-conviction-may-be-test-case-for-testimony-standards-163325306.html O'Callaghan, D. (2011, November 7). Jailed after grooming teen online: Facebook groomer is jailed. South IVales Evening Post. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis. com/hottopics/Inacademic O'Connell, R. (2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Retrieved September 2012 from Intp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded\_ documents/lis\_PaperJPrice.pdf O'Donohue, W. (2013). Clinical psychology and the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Springer. Rule 702. Testimony by expert witness. (n.d.). In Legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from http://www.law.comelLedukules/fre/rule\_702 Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Seto, M. (2008). Pedophilia. in D.R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford. Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical iniertention in child sexual abuse. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books. Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature (U.S. Department of Education Document No. 2004-09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Spiegel, J. (2003). Sexual abuse of males: 7beMmodel of theory and practice. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Van Dam, C. (2001). Identifying child molesters: Preventing child sexual abuse by recognizing the patterns of the offenders. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Vance, A. (2012, August 29). Prison for online grooming proposed. The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/ Inacademic Wyre, R. (1987). Working with sex offenders. Oxford, England: Publications. + +### AUTHOR NOTES + +Natalie Bennett, BS, is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her current research interests focus on child sexual abuse and assessment of psychological constructs. + +William O'Donohue, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno. He is also the clinical director of the Victims of Crime Treatment Center, a treatment clinic for victims of sexual abuse or assault, in Reno, Nevada. He received his El and PhD from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in Stony Brook, New York. + +![](_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg) + +## Grooming and Seduction + +Park Dietz' + +Journal of Inuwporsonal Via:donne 2018, Vol 33(1) 28-36 C The Author( a) 2017 Reprints and pananssionv sarepub comdournalsPermlnlonanav DOr. 10 1177/C886260317742060 traarnaltaappub ccanrhomatIn + +![](_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg) + +#### Abstract + +Ken Lanning's recollections of the origins of the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques used by acquaintances to gain sexual access to and control over children is an important contribution to the history of the significant recognition that many cases of child sexual abuse occur at the hands of offenders who are acquaintances of the child and who do not need to use force. threats. or violence to gain the compliance of their victims. That this recognition was slow in coming is obvious in retrospect. as is true of any social problem that remains hidden for centuries only to burst into public consciousness over the course of a few years. In this article. 1 report the results of searches using Google Scholar to look at the introduction of this use of the term "grooming" to the peer-reviewed literature in 1984 and its increasing use through 2016. Since 2008. the usage has been adopted in hundreds of articles in the professional literature each year. suggesting that this usage of the term "grooming" will remain common in the decades ahead. I also examine the history of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse, particularly two archaic uses of the term: as a euphemism for any sexual or sexually stimulating encounter between child and adult and in the context of suggestions that it was the child who seduced the adult. To avoid resurrecting any confusion over these issues, it would be a mistake to abandon "grooming" in favor of "seduction." I conclude that the best strategy may be that adopted by limning of using the terms grooming and seduction in tandem, explaining the parallels between the seduction of one adult by another and the grooming or seduction of a child by an adult + +#### Corresponding Author: + +Park Dietz. Park Dieu & Associates. Newport Beach. CA 92663. USA. Email expert@parkdietzassociates corn + +&#x27;Park Dietz & Associates. Newport Beach. CA. USA + +#### Keywords + +grooming. seduction, child sexual abuse, acquaintance molestation, litigation + +### Grooming and Seduction + +In the development of knowledge of child sexual abuse, few discoveries could outweigh the importance of recognizing that a large proportion of offenses are committed by acquaintances of the child using techniques other than force or threat of force. No individual has done more to share this insight with the international law enforcement community than Ken Lanning, whose writings and teachings have also reached mental health professionals, those who work in the criminal justice and social service systems, those who care for the nation's children, and countless concerned citizens and parents. + +The application of the terms "seduction" or "grooming" to these nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent techniques has been in the service of disseminating this important insight, which first burst into public consciousness as a real possibility in the mid-1980s as a result of partially untrue media reports about the McMartin School case and the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe, both of which stories first broke in 1984. Yet even today, far too many people. including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent. + +### Grooming + +Lanning (2018) is precisely correct in dating to the 1980s the use of the term "grooming" to refer to techniques for gaining sexual access to children and in his observation that during the 1980s, this usage gradually increased. Using the search capabilities of Google Scholar, 1 found no use of the word "grooming" to mean such techniques in conjunction with the terms "child sexual abuse," "child molestation," or "child molester" in the professional literature from 1850 through 1983. The first publication identified by Google Scholar as using the term "grooming" in this way was an article by Conte (1984) citing Groth and Birnbaum (1979) for the proposition that "[On most cases, except those involving abuse by a stranger, the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are + +![](_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg) + +Figure t. Use of the term "grooming" in association with "child sexual abuse" in the professional literature accessed by Google Scholar. 1984-2016. as of 25 August. 2017. + +expertly applied" (p. 558). Groth and Birnbaum accurately describe the process (at p. 142-143), but do not use the term "grooming." + +Figure 1 shows how the maximum number of publications in the database using the term "grooming" for this meaning' has increased since 1984. For the remainder of the 1980s, zero to nine publications per year used "grooming" for this meaning. From 1990-1999, the annual frequency from eight to 63, and from 2000 to 2009, from 64 to 227. From 2010 to 2016, the annual frequency from 282 to 533. + +My own recollection of the growing use of the term "grooming" in this context during the 1980s and 1990s is that it spread not only through peerreviewed literature and books, but also though the teaching and training being conducted by Ken Lanning, Ann Burgess, and other thought leaders of the era, and that it was gradually adopted by journalists and the general public as well. As the term came to be widely applied, it became increasingly obvious that offenders who groom children often groom the parents of those children, the organizations through which they work or volunteer with children, and the communities in which they function. The success of these offenders in doing so makes it all the more difficult for observers to overcome the false belief that such a "nice guy" could not be harming children (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). + +Lanning (2018) points to some of the ways in which the term "grooming" has been misapplied (e.g., to refer to the use of "lures" in stranger cases or what might be expected parental behaviors in intrafamilial cases) but does + +not mention the misuse of the term in civil litigation. Where a victim is suing an employer or organization in connection with the sexual abuse of a minor by an employee or volunteer, it has become commonplace for the victim's advocate to argue that the failure to detect "grooming" was negligent on the part of the employer or organization. If their use of the term "grooming" always encompassed excessive focus on a particular child, time alone with the child, or inappropriate touching, this usage might not be problematic, but when "grooming" is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well-established predictors of child sexual abuse when there is no evidence whatsoever that they can help discriminate between good employees and volunteers, on the one hand, and risky employees and volunteers, on the other hand. In the litigation context, efforts to expand the concept of "grooming" to encompass desirable behaviors that are not associated with elevated risk is misleading, particularly when coupled with the presumption or suggestion that "grooming" always reflects an intent or plan to offend or, worse, that an offense can be proved by the fact that the accused engaged in "grooming." + +## **Seduction** + +Although I agree with Lanning (2018) that the term "seduction" is preferable to the term "grooming," at least when there is an opportunity to explain how similar the seduction of a child is to the seduction of an age-appropriate partner, there is ample historical reason to be cautious about the use of the term "seduction" in this context without further explanation. This is because of two archaic usages of "seduction" in the older literature. + +### *Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense* + +One of the archaic usages of "seduction," found often in the older scientific literature, is as a vague euphemism for any occurrence of child sexual abuse or an event that may have been sexually simulating to the child, as in these passages: + +- • "[A] shock of some kind is held responsible for the neurosis—an attack by an animal, a threat of castration, a seduction, an actual viewing of parental coitus . . ." (Isaacs, 1928, p. 193). +- • ". . . I wondered whether the precocity of these fantasies and their frequency might not be due to actual seduction that the child had experienced . . ." (Rank, 1942, p. 56). + +- • “. . . It was expected that a connection would be found between the child’s symptom and the seduction, which was assumed to be the traumatic factor . . .” (Bornstein, 1946, p. 230). +- • “. . . [W]here father or mother, either consciously or unconsciously, elevate the child into a substitute sexual partner or commit real acts of seduction with him . . .” (A. Freud, 1968, p. 45). +- • “If we assume that the term ‘seduction’ refers to any kind of sexual encounter, it can range from milder types, such as exposing oneself and enticing the child to follow suit, all the way to forcible rape” (Finch, 1974, p. 34). +- • “She was then able to use the dolls to reveal the drama of her own seduction and the ensuing family chaos . . .” (Mrazek, 1980, p. 279). + +Here “seduction” is not referring to the process by which a child is groomed or seduced but to the offensive event itself. Freud’s seduction hypothesis “. . . generalized that the roots of all adult neuroses lay in childhood sexual contacts with adults” (Gagnon, 1965, p. 177). The vagueness of this use of “seduction” makes it impossible to determine which child sexual abuse behaviors are and are not encompassed by the term and suggests that “seduction” may mean different specific things to different authors. + +Authors sometimes imply that “seduction” does not include violence, as when they distinguish it from rape or other violent assaults, as in these examples: + +- • “Klein has stated that an experience of seduction or rape by a grown-up person may have serious effects upon the child’s psychic development . . .” (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 500). +- • “[T]he possible . . . event of seduction, incest, or rape . . .” (█████ & Sarrel, 1969, p. 606). +- • “Violence is rarely found to accompany the incestuous act, possibly because seduction, passive compliance, or sexual curiosity or exploration promote such relationships” (█████, 1979, p. 8). +- • “Children can be broken much more easily than adults, and the effect on them of torture, hatred, seduction, and rape—or even of indifference, of deprivation of love and care—is the devastating one of developmental arrest . . .” (Shengold, 1979, p. 537). + +Although this usage comports with the modern idea of seduction or grooming insofar as it is to be distinguished from the use of force, threats, or violence, we would not today distinguish seduction from rape but rather would view seduction (or grooming) as a means of completing a rape or other sexual offense with minimal resistance or risk of disclosure. + +Cioffi (1976) interpreted Freud as using the concept of seduction to refer only to nonviolent sexual assaults, writing ". . . he duly reported that he had discovered the specific cause of psychoneurotic disorder: A passive sexual experience before puberty. In other words, a seduction" (p. 275). Cioffi's (1976) quotations of Freud in the same article support this interpretation: "Freud later assigned to his patients in phrases like: 'hysterics trace back their symptoms to fictitious traumas'—or patients 'ascribe their symptoms to passive sexual experiences in early childhood"' (p. 277). Even here, however, what constitutes a "passive sexual experience" is unclear, as it could mean the offender did not use violence, that the child did not resist, or that the child was not an active participant. + +### Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer + +A second archaic usage of "seduction" is to refer to the child's tempting of the offender. This is diametrically opposed to our current thinking about child sexual abuse in its suggestion that it is the child who is at fault, as in these examples: + +- ". . [A] most striking feature was that these children were distinguished as unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities. Thus, it is not remarkable that frequently we considered the possibility that the child might have been the actual seducer rather than the one innocently seduced" (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 514). +- "The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals and their victims are usually known to be aggressive and seductive children" (Revitch & Weiss, 1962, p. 78). +- "In many [cases] it was highly probable that the child had used his charm in the role of seducer rather than that he had been the innocent one who had been seduced ... (Bender & Grugett, 1952, p. 826). +- (1907) and Bender and Blau (1937) have commented on how charming and seductive these children can be" (Rosenfeld, Nadelson, Krieger, & Backman, 1977, p. 332). + +Three examples of authors attempting to remedy this archaic view are as follows: + +- "... Although there may be a different quality to a seduction than to an attack, it must be remembered that even a seductive child cannot have full adult comprehension of the act she is courting and cannot be viewed as responsible in this area" (Lipton & Roth, 1969, p. 859). + +"Because the affectional needs of the child are not adequately met by the parents, the child may indiscriminately relate to adults in an affection-seeking manner in an effort to ensure her emotional survival. + +Numerous other investigators have characterized this behavior of the child as 'seductive'. However, our study indicates that this behavior is instead the child's often desperate attempt to meet her needs for care and attention . The child's behavior may often appear sexualized to an adult .. . As a result, it is more appropriate to describe this behavior as affection-seeking rather than seductive" (Johnston, 1979, pp. 948-949). + +- "'Everybody knows' that adults must protect themselves from groundless accusations of seductive or vindictive young people. . . . What everybody does not know, and would not want to know, is that the vast majority of investigated accusations prove valid and that most of the young people were less than eight years old at the time of initiation" (Summit, 1983, p. 178). + +#### Conclusion + +Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term "grooming" has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come. We can and should clarify the meaning of the term wherever possible to avoid misuse or misleading of our audiences. We could benefit from prospective studies of the frequency of grooming-like behaviors among adults in target-rich environments such as schools, youth sports, and youth groups, which could help distinguish behaviors portending risk from those that do not, though it would require a large sample and a long time to reveal at least some of the offenders in the sample. + +The two archaic uses of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual abuse identified here are too recent and too widely known to justify completely abandoning the term "grooming" in favor of"seduction," even if it were possible to do so. Perhaps the best strategy is that adopted by Lanning (2018) of explaining the parallel between the courtship and mating rituals that adults use with one another and the courtship and mating rituals that some use with children. + +#### Declaration of Conflicting Interests + +The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research. authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +#### Funding + +The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +#### Note + +- 1. The data on which Figure I is based arc derived from year searches of Goo& Scholar for the combination of the terns "child sexual abuse" and "grooming," excluding citations and patents. One should not assume that the underlying database is complete or that all the publications included in the count use "grooming" in this way or represent peer-reviewed literature, as newsletters, government reports, books, and other documents also make their way into such searches. Nonetheless. the graph gives an adequate representation of the growing use of the term "grooming" for this purpose. + +#### References + +- K. (PS:17). The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of sexual activity. In E. (Ed.), Selected papers on psycho-analysis (pp. 47.63). London, England: Hoganh Press. Bender, L., & Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiarry, 7, 500-518. Bender, L., & Grugett, Jr., A. E. (1952). A follow-up study of children who had atypical sexual experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 22. 825-837. Bornstein, B. (1946). Hysterical twilight states in an eight-year-old child. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 2.229.240. Cioffi, F. (1976). Was Freud a liar? Orthomolecular Psychiatry. 5, 275-280. Conte, J. R. (1984). The justice system and sexual abuse of children. Social Service Review, 58, 556-568. Finch, S. M. (1974). Effects of adult sexual seduction on children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 3, 33-35. Freud, A. (1968). Indications and contraindications for child analysis. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 23. 37-46. Gagnon, J. H. (1965). Female child victims of sex offenses. Social Problems, 13, 176-192. Grath, A. N.. & Bimbaum, H. J. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Isaacs, S. S. (1928). The mental hygiene of the pre-school child. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 8. 186-193. Johnston, M. S. K. (1979). The sexually mistreated child: Diagnostic evaluation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 3, 943-951. Kris, E. (1950). The significance of Freud's earliest discoveries. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 31. 108-116. Laming. K. V. (2018). The evolution of grooming: Concept and term. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 33, 5-16. + +- Lanning, K. V., & Dietz. P. (2014). Acquaintance molestation and youth-serving organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2815-2838. doi: 10.1177/0886260514532360 M , M., & Sarrel, P. M. (1969). Some psychological aspects of seduction, incest, and rape in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 606.619. Lipton. G. L., & Roth. E. 1. (1969). Rape: A complex management problem in the pediatric emergency room. The Journal of Pediatrics, 75, 859-866. Mrazelc, D. A. (1980). The child psychiatric examination of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect, 4, 275-284. Rank, B. (1942). Where child-analysis stands today. American Imago; A Psychoanalytic Journal for the Arts and Sciences. 3(3). 41.60. Revitch. E., & Weiss. R. G. (1962). The pedophiliac offender. Diseases of the Nervous System, 23, 73-78. Rosenfeld. A. A., Nadelson, C. C., Krieger. M., & Backman, J. H. (1977). Incest and sexual abuse of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 16,327-339. Shengold, L. L. (1979). Child abuse and deprivation: Soul murder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 27, 533-559. +- M. (1979). Perspective on incest as child abuse. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 12. 3-16. Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177-193. + +#### Author Biography + +Park Dietz, MD, MPH, PhD, was educated at Cornell, Johns and the University of Pennsylvania. and taught for 10 years at Harvard Medical School and the University of Virginia School of Law and School of Medicine. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at University of Cal ifomia, Los Angeles (UCLA). As president of Park Dietz & Associates. Inc.. he regularly oversees forensic evaluations of psychological damages and expert assessments of liability in child sexual abuse litigation, and as president of Threat Assessment Group, Inc., he regularly participates in the development and implementation of programs to prevent and respond to misconduct in organizations and institutions. + +# Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations + +Samantha Craven,li\* Sarah Brown' & Elizabeth Gilchrist2 + +IDepamnent of Psychology, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, and 2Depamnent of Psychology, University of M, Canterbury, UK + +Abstract The current review aims to outline the existing understanding of sexual grooming. Issues of poor definition, the adoption of the term "grooming" and the prevalence of sexual grooming will be discussed Consideration will be given to how prominent theories of child sexual abuse often neglect sexual grooming. This will be followed by a detailed account of the existing knowledge within the literature. Three apes of sexual grooming were thus identified• self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings, a new definition of sexual grooming is suggested. Furthermore, the findings correspond well with current models of the sexual offence process. A more comprehensive understanding of sexual grooming is required to facilitate a preventative approach to child protection. + +Keywords Sexual grooming; theory of child sexual abuse + +#### Introduction + +The complex nature of the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse children is increasingly evident in the accounts of the people affected by this predatory behaviour. Sexual grooming is a pertinent Sue evident in society, but there is still little understanding about this phenomenon. This is reflected in problems relating to definition, which will be discussed in addition to the evolution of the term "grooming". This review will consider whether present aetiological theories of child sexual abuse can account for "sexual grooming" behaviour, and further determines what knowledge has already been established about the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Based on these findings, a new definition is presented and consideration is given to how current knowledge of sexual grooming relate to models of the sexual offence process. + +#### Definition + +Professionals are yet to agree on a definition of sexual grooming of children (Gillespie, 2004). Previous literature has provided three specific definitions of grooming. The strengths and + +•Con..spunding author: Samantha Craven, Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CVI 5FB, UK. Tel: 02476 887 048. Fax: 02476 888300. E-mail: s.craveNEcoventry•.ac.uk + +weaknesses of these definitions are discussed in turn below. First, O'Connell defines sexual grooming as: + +A count of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes. (O'Connell, 2003, p. 6) + +Second, Howitt suggests that: + +Grooming ... is the steps taken by paedophiles to "entrap" their victims and is in someways analogous to adult courtship. (Howitt, 1995, p. 176) + +These two definitions are problematic, because they both refer to the term paedophile. Most sexual offenders who target child victims use sexual grooming, not just those classified as paedophiles. The term "paedophile" is a very specific clinical diagnosis, clearly not applicable to all offenders, and the association of grooming behaviour with paedophilia may prevent some offenders from acknowledging their own grooming behaviours. In addition, people known to the offender may not identify the grooming behaviour because they do not consider the individual to fit their image of a "paedophile". The public perception of a paedophile is littered with stereotypes that they are "dirty old men" or strangers; these perceptions may affect an individual's judgement of whether the behaviour they have observed is grooming. These misperceptions distract from the truth that most victims know their abuser. It is important that the wording of a definition does not thwart the identification of sexual grooming and the subsequent prevention or ending of abuse. + +Furthermore, the phrase "a course of conduct" requires subsequent definition. Additional problems include reference to "a reasonable person" and "cause for concern". Although legal precedent defines these phrases, they are ambiguous to the lay reader and hence they are open to misinterpretation and confusion. These definitions are confusing, at best, and at worst they reinforce the myth that strangers are the biggest risk to children. Consequently, this ambiguity may hinder the identification of the full range of sexual grooming behaviours. + +Gillespie (2002) provides the third definition: + +The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child. (Gillespie, 2002, p. 411; based on van Dam, 2001) + +This definition avoids the use of the term paedophile. It also provides some clarity about the purpose of sexual grooming behaviour and identifies some of the stages that it involves. This appears to be the most appropriate published definition to date. Further evaluation of this definition will follow consideration of previous literature and current understanding about sexual grooming. + +#### Prevalence + +Canter, Hughes and Kirby (1998) provide evidence for the prevalence of the sexual grooming phenomenon. They used Small Space Analysis on a behaviour matrix of the interaction between 97 incarcerated child sex offenders and their victims. They identified three distinct behaviour repertoires of offender-victim interaction. The different types of offender-victim interaction acknowledged were aggressive, which was identifiable by the use of extreme + +violence, threat and force; criminal-opportunist, which tended to be one-off offences on strangers; and intimate, which was categorized by the identified use of sexual grooming behaviours. + +Forty-five per cent of Canter et al.'s (1998) sample were classified as being intimate offenders. Thus, 45% of the child sex offenders employed an intimate behaviour repertoire and sexual grooming behaviours. This figure is likely to be unrepresentative of the child sex offender population as a whole. Intimate offenders tend to cause less physical harm to their victims than the other categories of offenders and the very nature of the behaviour used to categorize the intimate offenders implies that they would be less likely to be reported, identified and convicted, because these grooming behaviours are used to avoid disclosure and conviction. Hence, it is likely that intimate offenders were under-represented in this prison sample. + +Figures show that eight of 10 sex abuse victims know their abuser (Stop it Now, 2003). In such cases, offenders have substantial interest in preventing disclosure, because in the event of disclosure the victim would be able to easily identify them as their abuser. This is supported by offenders' accounts about the strategies they employed to victimize the children they sexually abused; fear of disclosure affected how and when they victimized their victims (Conte, & M, 1989). + +### Aetiology of a motivation to abuse + +Before an individual begins to groom a child, some level of motivation to abuse a child needs to be present. Furthermore, adequate theories of sexual offending should be able to account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Until recently there have been three dominant theories of child sexual abuse, namely Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984); Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory (1990); and and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model (1992). In 2002, and Siegert proposed a more comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse by "knitting together" the strengths of each of the above theories. They propose that there are five pathways to sexual offending against children; hence, the theory is called The Pathways Model. This review shall consider each of these only briefly, because and colleagues have already provided in-depth reviews (see M, 2001, 2002; & Hudson, 2001). Herein, more emphasis will be placed on how these theories relate to the phenomenon of sexual grooming. + +#### Manhall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory + +Marshall and Barbaree's (1990) Integrated Theory of the aetiology of sexual offending proposes that the presence of vulnerabilities, which develop as a result of adverse early developmental experiences, leave offenders unprepared to deal with the surge of hormones at puberty, and unable to understand the emotional world. As a resultant, offenders satisfy their emotional and sexual needs inappropriately in deviant ways. This theory suggests that sexual offending occurs as a consequence of an individual's sex and aggression drives becoming fused, as these functions share the same structure in the brain. and Siegert (2002) state that this need not be the case, as there are many functions that are close in proximity but that do not affect each other. Furthermore, this theory suggests that sexual offending would be aggressive. Therefore, it would seem that it does not account for the phenomenon of sexual grooming, because the process of sexual grooming is generally not aggressive in nature. + +However, this criticism may be countered if a definition of aggression were to include indirect aggression, which sexual grooming could be considered to be. + +### -and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model + +and Hirschman's (1992) Quadripartite Model was first developed as a theory of rape, but it was applied subsequently to child sexual abuse. This model suggests that someone commits an act of child sexual abuse because of four vulnerability factors and the presence of opportunity. The vulnerability factors arc physiological sexual arousal, distorted cognitions that act to justify sexual aggression, affective dyscontrol, and personality problems. It is suggested that offending will occur when the presence of these vulnerability factors exceed a threshold, this could include one or all of these vulnerabilities. There arc several problems with this model; first, it does not explain why someone chooses to offend against a child rather than an adult. Second, sexual grooming is not an impulsive act and the threshold would need to be maintained over a long period of time in order to explain sexual grooming, because it can occur over weeks, months or even years. Hence, this theory can account for sexual grooming if it is accepted that, for example, sexual arousal persists over long periods of time, so once sexually aroused to children/child the offender would be continually aroused to them. A further problem with this theory relates to the presence of opportunity; offenders often create their own opportunities to offend. + +#### Finkdhor's Pre-condition Model + +Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984) suggests that there are four pre-conditions to sexual offending. The first is the motivation to sexually abuse; it is suggested that this develops as a result of emotional congruence (a fit between the offender's emotional needs and the child's ability to meet them), deviant sexual arousal and blockage (the sexual needs of the offender not being met by appropriate adults). The second is to be able to overcome internal inhibitors; the third is to be able to overcome external inhibitors; and the fourth is to overcome the child's resistance. Before an incidence of abuse would take place, these pre-conditions need to be satisfied. Although Finkelhor does not use the term sexual grooming, others (e.g. Erooga & Beckett, 1994; Sampson, 1994) have reviewed his work using this term. They referred to overcoming the child's resistance as grooming. + +# MI and Siegen's Pathways Model + +IM and Siegert's (2002) model is based on the dysfunction of one or more psychological mechanisms—emotional regulation, intimacy deficits, cognitive distortions and sexual arousal (deviant sexual scripts). All the aforementioned psychological mechanisms are involved to some degree. There is evidence of these dysfunctional mechanisms being present typically in child molesters, although to different degrees and for different functions. The five possible pathways are specified by whichever dysfunctional psychological mechanism is the most dominant; in turn this will affect the others. In the case of the fifth pathway, all the psychological mechanisms would be similarly dysfunctional. A sexual offence occurs when the above is present in conjunction with sexual need. In addition, and Siegert still emphasize the importance of there being an opportunity to offend; however, the nature of sexual grooming is to create an opportunity to offend. Successful theory would need to account for this. + +Despite and Siegert presenting their Pathways Model as a comprehensive theory of sexual offending, it still only considers aetiology and no consideration is given to the offence process. In a comprehensive theory it is necessary to consider the whole journey from initial onset to the offence and beyond. In a similar way that the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982) of change considers not only the action stage, where the overt behaviour is changed, but also the precontemplation, contemplation, preparation and maintenance stages, a theory of sexual offending against children needs to consider the whole journey. As demonstrated above, it is necessary that theories of aetiology are coherent with the phenomenon they are attempting to explain. While endeavouring to explain sexual offending it is important that sexual grooming is also factored into the equation, because it is part of the sexual offending phenomenon. Of the above theories, only Finkelhor's (1984) Pre-condition Model has taken this approach. + +### Offence process + +In addition to the Pre-condition Model (Finkelhor, 1984) there is one other model that considers the offence process of sexual offending. This is the Descriptive Model of the Offence Chain MI, Louden, Hudson & Marshall, 1995). MI et al.'s model provides a much more detailed account of the offence process than the Pre-condition Model. While little evidence has been found to support Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model, et al. used a grounded theory approach and developed their model directly from offenders' experiences. They identified nine stages of the offence chain. Stage one relates to the offender's background factors, including their perception of themselves and their life at the beginning of the offence chain and whether these factors caused positive or negative affect. Stage two describes distal planning of access to their victim; this could take the form of implicit, or explicit planning or chance. Contact with the victim takes place in stage three. Stage four involves cognitive restructuring, which will result in either positive or negative affect. Stage five entails proximal planning, which would either be self-focused, victim-focused or a mutual-focus. This leads to stage six and the sexual offence, which is followed by further cognitive restructuring at stage seven. This results in negative or positive evaluation and future resolutions regarding continued offending at stage eight. This resolution will be to either avoid future offending or to persist in an abusive pattern. Stage nine depicts the impact of these resolutions on the offender's life. + +It is important to consider how sexual grooming fits into, and facilitates, the offence process, as this understanding is likely to aid the management of offenders and potential offenders by identifying the offence process prior to an sexual offence taking place. In addition, it is reasonable to suggest that motivation is not static but could be affected by later stages of the grooming and offence process, e.g. cognitive distortions developed later in the process could serve to reinforce prior motivation resulting in an entrenched deviant sexual interest. This may prove valuable to treatment programmes efforts of reducing motivation to offend. + +#### The grooming process + +The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming present in the literature self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Each of these will be discussed to explore current understanding of sexual grooming. Understanding of the grooming process and an ability to identify sexual grooming behaviour is crucial in order to prevent child sexual abuse. However, retrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence. Nevertheless, the latter is necessary in order to prevent the sexual abuse from taking place. The reason for this is because the behaviours used to groom a child for sexual abuse are not dissimilar to innocent behaviour intended to broaden a young person's experiences. The only difference may be the motivation underlying the behaviour. + +#### Self-grooming + +van Dam (2001) reports that during treatment, offenders' talk about "grooming themselves". They were referring to the justification or denial of their offending behaviour. It therefore seems important to consider this as part of the grooming process. However, it may be more agreeable to refer to this phenomenon by another name, avoiding the use of the term "grooming". Nevertheless, self-grooming is likely to play a pan in the move from being motivated to sexually abuse a child to the subsequent targeting of a child, through the justification or denial of the steps child sexual offenders take towards abusing a child. Furthermore, self-grooming is likely to be affected by the response from the community and the child, and the success or failure of the efforts to victimize the child. "Success" is likely to result in further justification or denial of their actions and more entrenched sexual interest in children and motivation to offend. "Failure", on the other hand, is likely to result in the desistence of offending or the offender developing/enahancing his skills/strategies to ensure success. + +Justification and denial of offenders' behaviour manifests in cognitive distortions. and Keenan (1999) propose that child sex offenders have cognitive distortions in the form of implicit theories, which relate to themselves, the victim and the world. Implicit theories help individuals to understand the world around them. Problems arise because offenders' implicit theories are maladaptive and supportive of sex with children. These implicit theories subsequently affect encoding and interpretation of future behaviours and events. and Keenan have identified five implicit theories that account for most of the cognitive distortions held by child sex offenders: children as sexual objects; entitlement; dangerous world; uncontrollability; and nature of harm. + +Of course, it is not only offenders who have maladaptive implicit theories. For example, many people have an implicit theory that children are at most risk from strangers, which is not consistent with research findings. However, it is easier to believe that strangers sexually abuse children than accept that friends and family do; hence, this implicit theory helps to shelter people from the harsh nature of reality. Offenders' implicit theories work in a similar way, because it is easier for offenders to believe that the child seduced them than to accept that they sexually abused a child. + +#### Grooming the environment and significant others + +Grooming the child begins with identifying a vulnerable child (van Dam, 2001). Child sex offenders seem to have a special ability in recognizing vulnerable children (Conte et al., 1989). These vulnerabilities may be that the children have a poor relationship with their parents, do not have many friends (Berliner & Come, 1990), or have already been victimized (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, offenders may target women who were sexually abused as children, because the offender considers them easier to re-victimize. + +In order to gain access to their victim(s), offenders groom the environment and their potential victim's significant others (e.g. parents, carers, teachers, etc). This may mean the offender integrating themselves into society and places where they are likely to meet children. This will often be a position of trust. Offenders then begin grooming the adults in this community, specifically those who are significant to their potential victim, with the aim of creating an opportunity to access and abuse a child or children. van Dam (2001) reports that offenders are frequently charming, very helpful, and have insider status. This is often an important factor in gaining access to potential victim(s). As offenders help out in the community, they are considering how their efforts will be rewarded later when they can then abuse the children in that community. Offenders are often able to "read the community like a book" in that they assess what they "need" and fulfil these needs accordingly (Hare & Hart, 1993). They can make themselves indispensable, too good to be true and will freely undertake jobs that others do not want to do (Leberg, 1997). + +A desire on the part of parents to avoid cognitive dissonance may assist offenders' grooming efforts. A parent may suffer cognitive dissonance as a result of concerns about the trustworthiness of the offender alongside their hospitality and acceptance of the offender. When thoughts do not match behaviour, cognitive dissonance manifests, and often thoughts are changed to be consistent with behaviour (van Dam, 2001). Thus, offenders gain insider status long before they start abusing a victim (van Dam, 2001). Grooming is therefore a wellorganized long-term activity (Sanford, 1982). Offenders groom the community so well that if a victim discloses their abuse, the community may support the offender rather than the victim, because they deem the offender to be more believable than the child. + +In the case of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, offenders are already in a position of trust and integrated in an environment where they can access potential victims. Some offenders groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain this status (Elliott, Browne & Kilcoyne, 1995). Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent parents, and hence have less protection. In this incidence there is no need for the offender to groom the parents. They can become the child's friend and more easily arrange to have time alone with the child. + +Intrafamilial offenders often isolate the victim from their non-abusing parent, siblings and the outside world by developing an exclusive relationship with the child. For instance, they may encourage mothers to have more of a life outside the home, which then gives themselves increased opportunities to abuse their victims. Alternatively, they may isolate nonabusing parents from the outside world in order to prevent them from having people in whom to confide about any concerns (Leberg, 1997). Some offenders encourage mothers to develop an alcohol dependency, in part so that any future disclosures made lack credibility (Leberg, 1997). Other similar strategies employed to limit credibility include questioning the mother's parenting ability in front of friends and other family members. This may constitute part of their strategy for grooming the environment and significant others. + +Grooming the environment and significant others can occur as a result of implicit or explicit planning; alternatively, access to a child may occur by chance. and Hudson (2000) have developed a conceptual model of how child sex offenders' implicit planning or seemingly unimportant decisions (SUDs) implicate their offending behaviour by leading them to high-risk situations, i.e. contact with children. This appears to be automatic, because although offenders are conscious of their specific behaviours, they are often unconscious of the effect of implicit goals on these behaviours. + +Gollwitzer and Schaal (1998, cited in & Hudson, 2000)sest that it is through automatic goal-dependent action plans that these SUDs manifest. and Hudson (2000) propose that there are two such action plans: offence scripts and mental simulations. Offence scripts manifest as a result of associations that have developed between situations and behaviours; subsequently, in the presence of certain cues, offence scripts may be activated without any conscious awareness. This is a possible explanation of continued offending and relapse following treatment. + +Automatic goal-dependent action plans can be activated regardless of whether an individual has committed any previous sexual crimes. This alternative involves mental simulation. Mental simulation is where an individual plans out in detail how he would commit an offence. As with offence scripts, the presence of certain cues may activate this implicit planning, resulting in the enactment of the individual's fantasies. The notion of implicit planning may provide a possible explanation why the majority of victims know their abuser, because the cues that activate the implicit planning are more likely to be present within the family or in relation to children in the immediate locality (i.e. the places where an individual spends the majority of his time). + +It is reasonable to suggest that the fundamental human need to belong may present one possibility to further understand offenders' ability to identify a victim and groom the environment and significant others. Research has shown that a need to belong can affect very basic cognitive functions, e.g. attention and encoding of social information (Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004). Pickett et al. found a positive relationship between a need to belong and sensitivity to social cues. Sexual offenders often come from neglectful, violent and dysfunctional backgrounds (Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002). This environment is unlikely to provide an abundance of opportunities for emotional closeness and thus offenders are likely to have a need to belong. In addition, a need to belong is related to low self-esteem (Pickett et al., 2004) and research to date suggests that child sex offenders typically have low self-esteem (Marshall, & Champagne, 1997). This is supportive of the idea that a need to belong facilitates offenders' identification and access to a victim, because of the associated increased sensitivity to social cues. Children may be approached because the offender perceives them to be less threatening than peers. Alternatively, offenders may be able to identify vulnerabilities in other people because they themselves are vulnerable and thus recognize these signs in others. This explanation would relate to offenders that commit offences following implicit planning. Offenders using explicit planning may also have a need to belong and the associated increased sensitivity to social cues, as a result of a need to belong to the family of community in order to groom and subsequently abuse a child. It is therefore suggested that, in the presence of a motivation to sexually abuse a child, a need to belong often facilitates the identification of a victim and grooming of the environment and significant others. + +#### Grooming the child + +Grooming the child is the most commonly recognized form of sexual grooming. In addition to a desire for sexual gratification, there may or may not be a relational aspect to the grooming process, depending on the offender's motivation to abuse. Sexual grooming has been considered by some to be analo ous to adult courtship (e.g. Howitt, 1995). In addition, Herman (1981) and and Blake (1990) talk about sexually abusive fathers adopting the role of suitor towards their daughter. In the case of intrafamilial abuse, the offender promotes the child in place of the mother (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, the offender may interact with the child on the child's wavelength (van Dam, 2001). Wilson (1999) found + +that offenders who abused boys showed a preference for interacting at the child's level, and incest offenders tended to raise the victim's status to that of an adult, while offenders who abused girls were more concerned with sexual gratification. The types of behaviour that constitute grooming the child take two different forms—physical and psychological. + +Physical grooming involves the gradual sexualization of the relationship between the offender and the victim (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Psychological grooming is used to achieve this increased sexualization. At first, the offender may justify the sexual behaviour through providing the child with his version of sex education, which states that sex between children and adults is acceptable and that the offender has a responsibility to train the child for later life (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Leberg, 1997). The abuser builds the child's trust & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; Wyre, 1987, cited in Howitt, 1995; van Dam, 2001), makes him or her feel good (Warner, 2000) and then starts to violate boundaries i & Blake, 1990; van Dam, 2001). This may involve intentionally entering the bedroom while the child or young person is undressed, or getting dressed together and exposing himself to the child. + +Offenders often desensitize a child to touch by beginning with non-sexual touching such as tickling or stroking the child's head. Conversation may also become more sexual. Alternatively, offenders may confuse victims by continuing to talk to the child about a positive unrelated issue while they begin touching the child sexually (Leberg, 1997). The child may have no idea that something inappropriate is happening. The aim is to progress to sexual touching, first on top of clothes and later under or without clothes (Berliner & Conte, 1990; & Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001). Thus, the intention is to make the child compliant with the offender's sexual demands and overcome the child's resistance (Finkelhor, 1984; Leberg, 1997; Warner, 2000). + +In addition to using psychological grooming to increase compliance, it is also used to avoid disclosure. Children are groomed to want to be around the adult who is grooming them MI, 1985). Offenders need to maintain the child's cooperation and secrecy to achieve this. One way that the offender does this is by isolating the child and alienating them from others (Warner, 2000). Leberg (1997) refers to this factor as something separate from grooming, others (e.g. van Dam, 2001) consider it to be part of the grooming process. Isolating the child creates a barrier which prevents the child from having a confidant in whom to disclose (Warner, 2000). In addition, the keeping of secrets acts as a source of further isolation (Lerner, 1993, cited in van Dam, 2001). Children are very good at keeping secrets when asked to. Peters (1991, cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993) found that 82% of children in his study delayed or did not report an event that they had witnessed, because the thief in the scenario asked them not to tell anyone. The thief in this scenario was a stranger, to whom the children had no loyalty, and so it is likely that children would be even more likely to protect a known and loved adult. + +Further strategies used by offenders to maintain the child's compliance include issuing threats and bribes (Berliner & Conte, 1990; & Blake, 1990). Bribes may take the form of material gifts or extra privileges & Blake, 1990). In addition, offenders are skilled at using children's natural vulnerabilities against them. For instance, children very often have a strong desire to protect their parents. When the offender informs them that their parents would be very hurt if they found out what they had been doing, children may remain silent (Berliner & Come, 1990). Offenders may also demonstrate their potential for violence through violence towards others, e.g. other family members. Thereby offenders reinforce the message that they will enact their threats about hurting the child and/or the child's family. + +Offenders frequently make the child feel responsible for the abuse (Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001; Warner, 2000). They convince the child that they are to blame for letting the abuse happen and that they should have stopped it (Leberg, 1997). This is reinforced by stereotypes in society, which emphasize that men cannot control their sex drive (Warner, 2000). Additional guilt may be felt if the child has been made to perform sexual acts on the abuser or another child (Warner, 2000). However, this feeling of responsibility and guilt is overshadowed by the self-betrayal the child feels as their body reacts to sexual stimulation against their will (Warner, 2000) which children may interpret as evidence that they are enjoying themselves. This is internalized and resultantly may have an impact on the child's developing identity. Disclosure is avoided because the child feels that it is "all their fault", that he/she is bad and that no one will believe them (Warner, 2000). + +Each victim's experience of grooming is different, because offenders adapt their strategies dependent on the child, whose response during the grooming process is important. It seems reasonable to suggest that offenders require some level of "empathy" during the grooming process to recognize reactions in the child, so that they can adapt their strategy accordingly. For example, during the desensitization process an offender would need to recognize the limits of the victim and to strategically increase those limits. It is proposed that empathy involves four components: (1) emotion recognition; (2) perspective-taking; (3) emotion replication; and (4) response decision (Marshall, Hudson, IM & Fernandez, 1995). Continuing with the previous example, offenders recognize the distress in their victim and make a decision based on this, because they choose to stop temporarily as a strategic part of the desensitization process. Thus, offenders appear to have ability in components (I) and (4), which are the cognitive components, but not in the affective components (2) and (3). While early research on empathy in sex offenders concluded that they have empathy deficits, more recent research has found that this empathy deficit to be victim-specific (Fernandez, Marshall, Lightbody & 1999; Marshall, & Fernandez, 2001; Marshall et al., 1995). This is inconsistent with the suggestion that the grooming process requires some level of empathy. However, Fernandez et al. (1999; Marshall et al., 2001) provide a possible explanation for this. They suggest that victim-specific empathy deficits manifest as cognitive distortions, which protect the offenders from negatively evaluating themselves, thus allowing them to continue abusing a child. Based on this suggestion, victim-specific empathy deficits arise as a consequence rather than a cause of the abuse. These cognitive distortions therefore facilitate self-grooming. + +The manifestation of a cognitive distortion relating to a victim-specific empathy deficit may be facilitated by cognitive deconstruction. Cognitive deconstruction (see M, Hudson & Marshall, 1995) is a state entered into to escape negative experiences and negative selfevaluation. Cognitive deconstruction involves processing at a lower, more concrete, level, i.e. muscular movements, and rewards of behaviour, rather than social action. Resultantly, the individual has much more focus on feelings of pleasure and less awareness of the consequences of his behaviour. This concrete-level focus may reinforce cognitive distortions such as victims enjoyed the abuse because they became physically aroused, which justifies the offender's lack of empathy toward their victim. + +Self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others, and grooming the child are relevant to situational and preferential offenders, extra-familial and intrafamilial offences. It is important that the different types of sexual grooming apply to these different typologies and classifications of offenders because sexual grooming is not used solely by one group of offenders and, furthermore, these categories are not mutually exclusive (Itzin, 2001). + +### Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children + +The definitions of sexual grooming presented at the start of this review do not reflect the complexity of the sexual grooming of children, which is demonstrated in the previous discussion of the different types of sexual grooming. Based on the above findings it seems necessary to provide a new definition that attempts to encapsulate the complexity of sexual grooming, while still being easy to understand. We propose the following: + +A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or denying their actions. + +#### Conclusion + +Despite the wide acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not understood clearly, particularly in the public domain. Testimonies from both victims and perpetrators highlight the pertinence of the problem. Furthermore, the government in England and Wales has introduced legislation in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 regarding "meeting a child following sexual grooming" (see Pan 1: section 152003). A greater understanding of the meaning, elements and process of sexual grooming is required to effectively utilize this legislation (for review see Craven, & Gilchrist, in press). + +Regardless of the prevalence and pertinence of sexual grooming, most aetiological theories of child sexual abuse neglect the phenomenon. The main reason for this is likely to be because prominent theories of child sexual abuse were devised more than 10 years ago, at a time when sexual grooming was not recognized as it is today. Therefore, it is necessary that theories be reconsidered based on this recent awareness. (2001, 2002; & Hudson, While■ 2001; && Siegert, 2002) has begun the process of theory knitting and development. and Siegert's Pathways Model is able to account for sexual grooming, it still focuses on the presence of opportunity rather than explicitly recognizing that offenders often create their own opportunities to offend. + +The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming discussed in the literature: self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings an alternative definition has been suggested, which includes details about offenders' objectives, c.g. gaining access to a child, gaining the child's compliance, maintaining secrecy and avoiding disclosure. + +A fuller understanding of sexual grooming is required. Consideration needs to be given to offender-victim interaction (before, during and after the offence), micro behaviours that may indicate to significant adults that a child is being sexually groomed, or indeed that they themselves are being groomed by an offender, and the seemingly impossible task of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the ambiguous behaviour of sexual grooming is sexually motivated. This would provide many benefits to child protection and the policing and treatment of child sex offenders with a specific focus on prevention of child sexual abuse rather than reactive responses to it. To optimize the impact of acquired knowledge and understanding, it is necessary to consider how these findings are disseminated to the relevant groups involved with children, e.g. parents, police, and social workers. + +#### References + +- Berliner, L. & Conte, J. IL (1990). The process of victimization: The victims' perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29 40. Canter, D., Hughes, D. & Kirby, S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a multivariate model of offence behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532 555. Ceci, S. J. & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 403 439. +- J. IL & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father daughter incest. In A.1.. Horton (lid.), The Incest Amparawr: A Family Member No One Rims to Treat (pp. 88 98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Conte, J. It, S S. & T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 293 301. Craissati, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who have been sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 225 239. Craven, S., =, S. & Gilchrist, E. (in press). Current responses to sexual grooming: Implication for prevention. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46. Elliott, M., Browne, K. & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 579 594. Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L, Lightbody, S. & C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure: Description and examination of its reliability and validity. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 1 I , 17 +- 32. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Teory and Research. New York: Free Press/London: Collier Macmillan. Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the interne challenges for criminal law•. Child and Family to Quarterly, 14, 411 425. Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": definitions and the law. New Law Journal. M , G. C. N. & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective of etiology. Otiminal Justice and &horror, /9, 8 23. Hart, IL D. & Han, S. D. (1993). Psychopathy, mental disorder, and crime. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Memo! Disorder and Crime (pp. 104 115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Herman, J. (1981). Father daughter incest. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 12, 76 80. Home Office (2003). Sexual Offences Act 2003. Available at: hnp://www.hmso.gov.ulilacts/acts2003/20030042.htm (accessed November 2003). Howie, D. (1995). fizedoghsles and Sexual Offences Against Children. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons. +- C. (2001). Incest, paedophilia, pornography and prostitution: Making familial males more visible as the abusers. Child Abuse Review, 10, 35 48. Laws, D. IL & Marshall, W. L. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual preference and behavior. In W. L. Marshall, D. It Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 209 230). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding Child Molesters: Taking Charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Marshall, W. L & Barbara, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, +- D. R. Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assad:: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press. Marshall, W. L, s D. & Champagne, F. (1997). Self-esteem and its relationship to sexual offending. Psychology. Crime and Law, 3, 161 186. Marshall, W. L, S K. & Fernandez, Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, LI, 123 130. Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., MI, R & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 99 113. I =E, T., Erooga, M. & Beckett, R. C. (1994). Sexual Offending Against Children: Assessment and Treatment of Moles. London: Routledge. O'Connell, Ft. (2003). A Typology of Child Cybersexplohation and Online Grooming Practices. Available at: http:// www.safer•intemet.net/downloadsfUCIAN report rekase.pdf (accessed September 2003). Pickett, C. L, Gardner, W. L & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psytholosve Bulletin, 30, 1095 1107. Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 19, 276 2841. Sampson, A. (1994). Acts of Abuse: Sex Offenders and the Criminal Justice System. London: Routledge. Sanford, L T. (1982). The Silent Children: A Parent's Guide to the Promenhon of Child Sexual Abuse; McGraw-In + +- Stop it Now (2003). Whoa we off need to know to protect our children. Available at: hnp://www.stopimow.org.uW Stop%2002.pdf (accessed December 2003). van Dam, C. (2001). identifying Child Molesters: Pr.-unsung Child Sexual Abuse by Recognizing the Rutertu of the Offenders. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Pressrfhe Haworth Press, Inc. M T (2001). A critique of • and Hirschman's quadripartite model of child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public &Ay, and law, 7, 333 350. M T. (2002). Marshall and Barbaree's integrated theory of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and Lao, 8, 209 228. + - T. & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Sexual offenders' implicit planning A conceptual model. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 189 202. +- T. & Hudson, S. M. (2001). Finkelhor's precondition model of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 291 307. T., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L (1995). Cognitive distortions and affective deficits in sex offenders: A cognitive deconstructionist interpretation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 67 83. ,re( Keenan, T. (1999). Child mokstene implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, re, 821 838. T., Louden, K., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L (1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 452 472. T & Siegert, R. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psydsoloos Crime and Law, 8, 319 351. Warner, S. (2000). Understanding Child Sexual Abuse: Making the Tactics Possibk. Gloucester: Handsel]. Wilson, R. J. (1999). Emotional congruence in sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Trvannent, 11, 33 48. + - S. (1985). A multi-factor model of deviant sexuality. licrinsology: An International Journal, 10, 359 374. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6622754df2c9cdb78e1ae066cc02f11f744398dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/EFTA02834547.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2661 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 43, + "chars": 138691, + "elapsed_seconds": 35.45, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg", + "_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 418.2751159667969, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual \nAbuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 129.115, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 467.2669372558594, + 149.85000000000002 + ], + [ + 467.2669372558594, + 186.5093994140625 + ], + [ + 129.115, + 186.5093994140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRENT DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.85999999999999, + 551.61 + ], + [ + 361.76, + 551.61 + ], + [ + 361.76, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 230.85999999999999, + 564.5699999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.96999999999997, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 398.65, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 398.65, + 239.76 + ], + [ + 193.96999999999997, + 239.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.705, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 390.32000000000005, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 390.32000000000005, + 577.53 + ], + [ + 201.705, + 577.53 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Identifying Potential Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 263.58500000000004, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 263.58500000000004, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 222.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 346.88499999999993, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 346.88499999999993, + 547.5600000000001 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 547.5600000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sexual Desensitization", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.645, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 235.137451171875, + 340.2 + ], + [ + 235.137451171875, + 356.1035461425781 + ], + [ + 113.645, + 356.1035461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Boundary Violations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 267.3 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 267.3 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the Child's Environment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 596.16 + ], + [ + 298.69, + 596.16 + ], + [ + 298.69, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 113.64500000000001, + 611.55 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Commonalities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 114.24000000000001, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 196.91024780273438, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 196.91024780273438, + 392.8535461425781 + ], + [ + 114.24000000000001, + 392.8535461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A PROPOSED DEFINITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.125, + 590.49 + ], + [ + 371.0715026855469, + 590.49 + ], + [ + 371.0715026855469, + 605.8535461425781 + ], + [ + 223.125, + 605.8535461425781 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.3, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 389.725, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 389.725, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 202.3, + 188.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AUTHOR NOTES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 247.51999999999998, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 343.4684753417969, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 343.4684753417969, + 521.2176208496094 + ], + [ + 247.51999999999998, + 521.2176208496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and \nSeduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 253.72567749023438, + 144.99 + ], + [ + 253.72567749023438, + 181.13238525390625 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 181.13238525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abstract", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.39305114746094, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 185.39305114746094, + 278.10113525390625 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 278.10113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Corresponding Author:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.04, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.22048950195312, + 599.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 231.22048950195312, + 609.7664794921875 + ], + [ + 138.04, + 609.7664794921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keywords", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 196.6637420654297, + 158.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 158.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming and Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.78761291503906, + 209.96762084960938 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 209.96762084960938 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 144.585, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.49758911132812, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 209.49758911132812, + 475.8376159667969 + ], + [ + 144.585, + 475.8376159667969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Seduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 204.085, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 392.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #1: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 427.80499999999995, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 427.80499999999995, + 500.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 143.98999999999998, + 500.5799999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.39499999999998, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 331.8846130371094, + 309.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 143.39499999999998, + 309.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.63500000000002, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 207.01341247558594, + 367.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 138.63500000000002, + 367.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 138.63500000000002, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 309.2975769042969, + 577.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 138.63500000000002, + 577.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 145.9202880859375 + ], + [ + 188.9089126586914, + 145.9202880859375 + ], + [ + 188.9089126586914, + 159.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 159.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Note", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.87515258789062, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 174.87515258789062, + 209.56704711914062 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 209.56704711914062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.99, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 202.4839324951172, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 202.4839324951172, + 325.4470520019531 + ], + [ + 143.99, + 325.4470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Author Biography", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 411.48 + ], + [ + 229.0985107421875, + 424.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 137.44500000000002, + 424.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sexual grooming of children: Review of \nliterature and theoretical considerations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 456.119873046875, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 456.119873046875, + 176.40533447265625 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 176.40533447265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 159.56617736816406, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 159.56617736816406, + 452.71063232421875 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 452.71063232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Definition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 148.6082763671875, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 148.6082763671875, + 624.4606170654297 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 624.4606170654297 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prevalence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 152.31220245361328, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 152.31220245361328, + 620.5925979614258 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 620.5925979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Aetiology of a motivation to abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 259.45042419433594, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 259.45042419433594, + 362.4600830078125 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 362.4600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Manhall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 270.5872802734375, + 535.41 + ], + [ + 270.5872802734375, + 548.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 548.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "-and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 144.17999999999998 + ], + [ + 272.0451354980469, + 144.17999999999998 + ], + [ + 272.0451354980469, + 158.4600830078125 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 158.4600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Finkdhor's Pre-condition Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 225.91513061523438, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 225.91513061523438, + 377.4600830078125 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 377.4600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MI and Siegen's Pathways Model", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 521.3690643310547 + ], + [ + 242.7951202392578, + 521.3690643310547 + ], + [ + 242.7951202392578, + 541.9142761230469 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 541.9142761230469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Offence process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 174.83387756347656, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 174.83387756347656, + 279.9601135253906 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 279.9601135253906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "The grooming process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.2, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 204.49559020996094, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 204.49559020996094, + 632.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.2, + 632.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Self-grooming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 155.14955139160156, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 155.14955139160156, + 220.340087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 220.340087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the environment and significant others", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 290.24468994140625, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 290.24468994140625, + 608.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 608.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grooming the child", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 571.8599999999999 + ], + [ + 175.9412612915039, + 571.8599999999999 + ], + [ + 175.9412612915039, + 584.8401031494141 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 584.8401031494141 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 361.2763366699219, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 361.2763366699219, + 112.340087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 112.340087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 153.08592224121094, + 274.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 153.08592224121094, + 288.590087890625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 288.590087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.795, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 151.95101165771484, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 151.95101165771484, + 112.728515625 + ], + [ + 95.795, + 112.728515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Figure", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "FigureGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 184 + ], + [ + "Line", + 62 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834547" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c57a25ca577200373316d92c4e4f8ffb03374de0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d7250b398304b902a0f7335b394e80c7048366c903f4208ab08e8637e9c1fabe +size 1047 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed66755bace4337403ba5031afffb5d132213d50 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_21_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:931e5dd4282954d7e2b4e929e808ae714f13f52901fab27d2534a8c423fdc901 +size 1764 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b08cf8b05344eab7bd2f0b63df2a5ef9ef34a14 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834547/_page_23_Figure_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cb3975a85b581c3730b7f428b58f42fde9dcbe8dce64ff08026357f2ba7b1cda +size 18571 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b8c5d80b11b30826be31c428f8a6bcac2460ec0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.md @@ -0,0 +1,635 @@ +# Exhibit B + +# Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016) + +Ramona Alaggial, Delphine Collin-Vezina2, and Rusan Lateefl + +TRAUMA. VIOLENCE. 8 ABUSE + +2019. Vol 20(2) 260-283 + +The Authce(s) 2017 + +![](_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg) + +A iloCk reuse guidelines + +sagepub comipoutnals.petninsions + +D0I 10 1177/132493801 76973 I2 pour nals sagepub convNomekva + +![](_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg) + +### Abstract + +Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures has the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and prevent further sexual victimization. Timely access to therapeutic services can mitigate risk to the mental health of survivors of all ages. This review of the research focuses on CSA disclosures with children, youth, and adults across the life course. Using Kiteley and Stogdon's literature review framework. 33 studies since 2000 were identified and analyzed to extrapolate the most convincing findings to be considered for practice and future research. The centering question asked: What is the state of CA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to practice and future research? Using Braun and Clarke's guidelines for thematic analysis, five themes emerged: (I) Disclosure is an iterative. interactive process rather than a discrete event best done within a relational context; (2) contemporary disclosure models reflect a social—ecological, person-in-environment orientation for understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CA disclosure; (3) age and gender significantly influence disclosure: (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Although solid strides have been made in understanding CSA disclosures, the current state of knowledge does not fully capture a cohesive picture of disdowre processes and pathways over the life course. More research is needed on environmental. contextual, and cultural factors. Barriers continue to be identified more frequently than facilitators, although dialogical forums are emerging as important facilitators of CSA disdowre. Implications for practice in facilitating CSA disclosures are discussed with recommendations for future research. + +# Keywords + +sexual abuse, child abuse. cultural contexts + +# Introduction + +Timely access to supportive and therapeutic resources for child sexual abuse (CSA) survivors can mitigate risk to the health and mental health well-being of children, youth, and adults. Identifying and understanding factors that promote a inhibit CSA disclosures have the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and potentially prevent further sexual victimization. Increased knowledge on both the factors and the processes involved in CSA disclosures is timely when research continues to show high rates of delayed disclosures (Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, & Milne, 2015; Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004; Easton, 2013; Goodman-=, Edelstein, Goodman. & a 2003; Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb; 2007; Jonzon & Lindblad, 2004; McElvaney, 2015; et al., 2000). + +Incidence studies in the United States and Canada report decreasing CSA rates (Met al., 2015; Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2014; Troeme et al., 2005, 2008), while at + +the same time global trends from systematic reviews and metaanalyses have found concerning rates of CSA, with averages of 18-20% for females and of 8-10% for males (Pereda, Guilera, Foms, & Gomez-Benito, 2009). The highest rates found for girls is in Australia (21.5%) and for boys in Africa (19.3%), with the lowest rates for both girls (11.3%) and boys (4.1%) reported in Asia (Stoltenborgh, van Uzendoom, Buser, & Bakennans-Kranenburg, 2011). These findings point to the incongruence between the low number of official reports of + +### Corresponding Author. + +Ramona Alagga. Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children's Menial Meakh. Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work. University of Toronto. 246 Bloor Sr. West. Toronto. Ontario. Canada M4KIW I. + +ramonastaggialasnororeo.ca + +I Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Soto] Work. University of Toronto. Toronto. Ontario. Canada + +&#x27;Centre for Research on Children and Families. School of Social Work. McGill University. Montreal. Qubec. Canada + +CSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than 30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000) than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jillian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In other words, while 1 out of 8 people retrospectively report having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate only 1 per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) further found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding CSA disclosure. + +It is our view that incidence statistics are likely an underestimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures with research showing a large number of survivors only disclosing in adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015; ■■■ et al., 2000), these issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious negative effects and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiving necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facilitate earlier disclosures. + +Previous literature reviews examining factors influencing CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include Paine and Hansen's (2002) original review covering the literature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman's (2005) subsequent review, which may not have captured publications affected by "lag to print" delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews are now dated and therefore do not take into account the plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past 15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinct contributions on the *dialogical relational processes* of disclosure (Reitsema & Grietens, 2015), CSA disclosures in *adulthood* (Tener & ■■■, 2015), and delayed disclosures in *childhood* (McElvaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and into adulthood—over the life course. + +## Method + +Kiteley and Stogdon's (2014) systematic review framework was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA + +disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to highlight the most convincing findings that should be considered for future research, practice, and program planning. This review centered on the question: *What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to future research and practice?* By way of clarification, the term systematic refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching literature on studies for *knowledge construction*, in this case the CSA disclosure literature, rather than *intervention* studies. The years spanned for searching the literature were 2000–2016, building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap. Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching international electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Educational Resources Information Center, Canadian Research Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peer-reviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished literature such as internal agency documents, government reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process. Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling. + +A search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publications, 1 ■■■ study, and 1 Portuguese review. The search was further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic investigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves, exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied, the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were subjected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors; (2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used, sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was generated and was continuously revised as the selection of studies was refined (see Table 1). + +## Key Findings + +First-level analysis of the studies identified key study characteristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure, study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to definitions, the term "telling" is most frequently used in place of the term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term more readily understood by study participants. Several + +Table I. Ch d Sexua Abuse (CSA) D sc osure Stud es: 2000-2016. + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Gagn er and Co n-Véz na (2016) | To exp ore d sc osure processes for █ e v ct ms of CSA | Phenomeno og ca methodo ogy used to nterv ew █ e CSA surv vors. The Long Interv ew Method (LIM) gu ded data co ect on and ana yses. | 17 men ranged n age from 19 to 67—average age 47. Purpos ve samp ng strategy was used | The major ty of the men n the study wa ted unt adu thood to d sc ose the r abuse, w th negat ve stereotypes contr but ng to the r de ayed d sc osures. Negat ve stereotypes contr buted to de ayed d sc osure w th try ng to forget. Break ng so at on was c ted as a mot vator to d sc osure a ong w th the a d of var ous forms of med a on d sc osure. Important contextua ssues such as negat ve stereotyp ng of █ es, sexua ty, and v ct ms were noted. Soc a med a was seen as a fac tator of d sc osures | A part c pants had d sc osed and rece ved serv ces before part c pat ng n the study. Member check ng cou d not be done w th the part c pants to check themes. Sma but suff c ent s ze for a qua tat ve nqu ry. Otherw se, h gh eve of r gor n estab sh ng trustworth ness of the data and ana ys s. Retrospect ve study cou d mp y reca ssues | +| Braze ton (2015) | To exp ore the mean ng Afr can Amer can women make of the r traumat c exper ences w th CSA and how they d sc osed across the fe course | Co ect ve case study des gn w th us ng narrat ve trad t on (storyboard) for data co ect on and ana ys s. Qua tat ve nterv ew ng | 17 Afr can Amer can women n m d- fe between 40 and 63 who exper enced ntrafam a CSA. Purpos ve, snowba ng strategy | CSA onset was arge y between the ages 5 and 9. No one ever ta ked to them about sex, so they d dn't have anguage to d sc ose. Barr ers: fear of fam y breakdown and remova, not want ng to tarn sh the fam y's name, and fear of retr but on by fam y members f they d sc osed. Pattern of st f ed and d sm ssed d sc osures dent f ed over the fe course. A 17 part c pants dent f ed sp r tua ty as a pr mary source of strength throughout the fe course | One of few stud es to focus exc us ve y on Afr can Amer can women. Sma but suff c ent s ze for a qua tat ve nqu ry. Important cu tura and contextua ssues were brought forward. Retrospect ve study that may have been affected by reca ssues. Use of a fe-course perspect ve as a theoret ca ens for understand ng CSA n the m dd e to ater years of fe that shou d be cons dered n further nvest gat ons | +| Co n-Véz na, Sab onn, Pa mer, and M ne (2015) | To prov de a mapp ng of factors that prevent CSA d sc osures through an eco og ca ens from a samp e of CSA adu t surv vors. | Qua tat ve des gn us ng LIM. | 67 █ e and fema e CSA adu t surv vors (76% dent f ed as fema e and 24% as █ e). Age ranges from 19 to 69 years (M = 44.9). Purpos ve samp ng strategy | Three broad categor es were dent f ed as barr ers to CSA d sc osure. Barr ers from w th n-nterna zed v ct m b ann ng, mechan sms to protect onese f, and mmature deve opment at t me of abuse; barr ers n re at on to others—v o ence and dysfunct on n the fam y', power dynam cs, awareness of the mpact of te ng, and frag e soc a network; barr ers n re at on to the soc a wor d abe ng, taboo of sexua ty, ack of serv ces ava ab e, and cu ture or t me per od. | Ha f of the part c pants had not d sc osed the r CSA exper ences before the age of 19. Retrospect ve aspect of the study cou d mp y reca ssues. A part c pants had d sc osed and rece ved counse ng at some before part c pat ng n the study. H gh eve of r gor n estab sh ng trustworth ness of the data and ana ys s | +| Lec erc and Wort ey (2015) | Study object ves nvest gated the factors that fac tate CSA d sc osures | Adu t █ e ch d sexua offenders were nterv ewed to exam ne pred ctors of CSA d sc osures | 369 adu t █ es who had been conv cted of a sexua offense aga nst a ch d aged between 1 | D sc osure ncreased w th the age of the v ct m: f penetrat on had occurred, f the v ct m was re ated to the offender, f the v ct m was not v ng w th the offender at per od. | Offender generated data through se f-reports cou d be subject to cogn t ve d stort ons—m n m zat on or exaggerat ons. | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | | | +|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| McEvaney and Cuhane (2015) | To investigate the feasibility of using child assessments as data sources of information | Feer reports of children seen for assessments a child sexual abuse until na children's hospital were revewed | Content analysis was completed on 39 fes (32 females and 7 █ es) based on a coding framework. Parents were asked to consent to have their child's feer ewed for the study. Victims assessed were 12–18 years of age | Majority of children to dither mothers (43%) and peers (33%) first. Three major themes were dentified as influencing the discipline process: (1) feeing distressed, (2) opportunity to tell, and (3) fears for self. Additional themes of being beleved, shame/self-blame, and peer influence were also dentified | The sample size is small but within contribute to a large multistate study in line and. Serves as an important exploratory pilot bringing forward discipline themes for consideration | Perspectives of offenders on vulnerability of victims in relation to discipline could be important information to inform interventions | | | +| Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila, Bohu, and Rey-Salmon (2014) | This study allemed to explore how the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, especially whether these relations are intrafamilial or extrafamilial, impact CSA discipline | Feer reports of children seen for assessments a child sexual abuse until na children's hospital were revewed | 220 million victims—78.2% female victims, 41.8% aged between 14 and 18 (most prevalent age range), and 48.2% were abused by a family member | Discipline processes were more complex when this concerned sexual abuse committed by intrafamilial perpetrator: 60% of the victims reveal the facts several years after, and most often to individuals outside the family (78.6% of the disciplines done at school); on the contrary, extrafamilial disciplines take place more spontaneously and quickly: 80% of the victims reveal the facts a few days after, most often to the remother or peers | The relationship with the perpetrator has a significant impact on both timing and recipient of discipline, with intrafamilial abuses essentially to be disciplined promptly and within the family system | The relationship with the perpetrator has a significant preparation both timing and recipient of discipline, with nutrafamilial abuses essentially to be disciplined promptly and within the family system | The sample size is small but within contribute to a large multistate study in line and. Serves as an important exploratory pilot bringing forward discipline themes for consideration | Perspectives of offenders on vulnerability of victims in relation to discipline could be important information to inform interventions | +| Easton, Saltzman, and Wilson (2014) | Study focus was on dentification of barriers to CSA discipline with █ e survivors | Using qualitative content analysis, researchers conducted a secondary analysis of online survey data, the 2010 Health and Well-Being Survey, that included men with self-reported CSA histories within open-ended temporal discipline barriers | 460 men with CSA histories completed an anonymous, Internet-based survey, Recruited from survivors' organizations. Age range of 18–84 years. Two thirds of respondents reported clergy-related abuse. Majority of respondents were White | Vast majority of participants (94.6%) were sexually abused by another █ e. Duration of sexual abuse broke down into: 30.2% essentially monthly, 32.3% 6 months to 3 years, and 34.3% more than 3 years. Ten years old was average age of CSA onset. Ten categories of barriers were classified into three domains: (1) sociopolitical: masculinity, mited resources; (2) interpersonal: mistrust of others, fear of being able to "gay," safety and protection issues, past responses; and (3) personal: internal emotions, seeing the experience as sexual abuse, and sexual or emittion. | At time of the study, this was the largest qualitative data set to have been analyzed within an explicit focus on adult █ e survivors' perceptions of barriers to CSA discipline. Because the sample was mited in terms of the own percentage of racial minorities (9.3%), discipline differences based on race or ethnicity were not discerned. The majority of abuse reported was by clergy which might present a unique set of barriers to discipline | | | | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | F nd ngs | Summary | +|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Easton (2013) | Study purpose was to descr be █ e CSA d sc osure processes us ng a fe span approach exam n ng d flerences based on age. A so, to exp ore re at onsh ps between d sc osure attr butes and men's menta hea th | Cross-sect ona survey des gn. E g b e part c pants were screened and comp eted an anonymous, Internet-based survey dur ng 2010. Measures used: Genera Menta Hea th D stress Sca e and Genera Assessment of Ind v dua Needs. Quest ons re ated to CSA d sc osure and supports were nc uded | Purpos ve samp ng of 487 men from three nat ona organ zat ons devoted to ra s ng awareness of CSA among men. Age range: 19–84 years. Mean age for onset of CSA was 10.3 years | O der age and be ng abused by a fam y member were both re ated to de ays n d sc osure. Most part c pants who to d someone dur ng ch dhood d d not rece ve emot ona y support ve or protect ve responses and the he pfu ness of responses across the fe span was m xed. De ays n te ng were s gn f cant per ods of t me (over 20 years). Approx mate y one ha f of the part c pants f rst to d about the sexua abuse to a spouse/partner (27%) or a menta hea th profess ona (20%); 42% of part c pants reported that the r most he pfu d scuss on was w th a menta hea th profess ona. However, unhe pfu responses caused most menta d stress. C n ca recommendat ons nc uded more of a fe-course perspect ve be adopted, understand ng mpact of unhe pfu responses and the mportance of expand ng networks for █ e surv vors | Purpos ve samp ng of men from awareness ra s ng organ zat ons may have attracted part cu ar part c pants who had a ready d sc osed and rece ved he p. Part c pants needed to have access to Internet wh ch wou d have e m nated men n ower SEs groups and requ red prof c ency n Eng sh wh ch wou d e m nate certa n cu tura groups. However, the samp ng strategy ga ned access to a predom nant y h dden popu at on. Important c n ca recommendat ons are made w th an emphas s on a fe-course focus | +| McE vaney, █ and Hogan (2012) | Qua tat ve study asked the centra research quest on: "How do ch dren te ?" Object ve was to deve op theory of how ch dren te of the r CSA d sc osure exper ences. Parents were nterv ewed. | Grounded theory method study. Interv ews were conducted. L ne-by-ne open and ax a cod ng was conducted on verbat m transcr pts transcr pts | Samp e of 22 young peop e; 16 g r s and 6 boys; age range: 8–18 years; 22 nterv ewed n tota between the ages of 8 and 18. M xed samp e of some endur ng ntrafam a CSA, some extrafam a CSA, and two endured both forms | A theoret ca mode was deve oped that conceptua zes the process of CSA d sc osure as one of conta n ng the secret: (1) the act ve w thho d ng of the secret on the part of the ch d; (2) the exper ence of a "pressure cooker effect" ref ect ng a conf ct between the w sh to te and the w sh to keep the secret; and (3) the conf d ng tse f wh ch often occurs n the context of a trusted re at onsh p. These were der ved from e even categor es that were deve oped through open and ax a cod ng | Modest but suff c ent samp e for an exp oratory qua tat ve nqu ry. H gh eve of trustworth ness r gor. A subsamp e of random y se ected transcr pts was ndependent y coded. Very young ch dren and young adu ts were not captured n th s samp e. Transferab ty of f nd ngs can on y be made to the age range samp ed n the context of fre and | +| Schonbucher, █ er, Moh er-Kuo, Schnyder, and Lando t (2012) | To nvest gate the process of CSA d sc osure w th ado escents from the genera popu at on who had exper enced CSA. How many d sc osed, who d d soc odemograph c | Data co ect on was through face-to-face qua tat ve nterv ews. Standard zed quest ons and measures were adm n stered on fam y s tuat on, soc odemograph c | Conven ence samp e of 26 sexua y v ct m zed ado escents. 23 g r s and 3 boys. Age range: 15–18 years. On ne advert sements and f yers were used to recru t youth from | Less than one th rd of part c pants mmed ate y d sc osed CSA to another person. In most cases, rec p ents of both mmed ate and de ayed d sc osure were to peers. More than one th rd of part c pants had never d sc osed the abuse to a parent. Part c pants reported re uctance to d sc ose to parents so as | Two th rds of the samp e d d not d sc ose r ght away. Strengthen ng parent-ch d re at onsh ps may be one of the most important ways to increase d sc osure to parents. D sc osure to peers has been found a common trend n other | + +Table I. (tont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hunter (2011) | they disclose to, and what were the r motives for disclosing | data, sexual victimization, generalizing mental health. Sexual Assault Module of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire was used | community and counseling services | not to burden them. Earlier disclosures were related to extrafair a CSA, single occurrence CSA, age of victim at abuse onset, and parents who were ving together. Higher eveles of reported guilt and shame were related to delayed disclosures. Peers were viewed by this sample as more reliable confidants | research and bears more examination | +| | Almost this study was to develop a fuller understanding of CSA disclosures | Narrative inquiry methodology. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with participants. Data were analyzed using Rosenthal and Fischer-Rosenthal's (2004) method. | Purpose visiting was employed. Sample consisted of 22 participants aged 25–70 years; 13 women and 9 men. Participants were sexually abused at 15 years or under with someone over the age of 18. | Only 5 out of 22 participants to dialyone about their early sexual experiences as children. Fear, shame, and self-barne were the main inhibitors to disclosure. These factors are further detailed through subthemes. The ing as a child and as an adult was further expanded upon using Alagg's (2004) framework verifying behavioral indirect attempts to tell and purposeful disclosure as categories. Thematic analysis supported that CSA disclosure should be conceptualized and viewed as a complex and felong process | Delayed disclosure was common in this qualitative sample. Most participants did not make a selective disclosure until adulthood. These findings support Alagg's (2004) model of disclosure but also highlights the importance of felitizing. Modest but sufficient sample size for a qualitative inquiry. Well-designed study with detailed analysis for transferability of findings | +| Schaeffer, Leventhal, and Asnes (2011) | This study almost tooled (1) | Study sought to find out filling process issues of disclosure could be dentified in the context of forensic interviews. Forensic interviewers were asked to incorporate questions about "telling" into an existing forensic interview protocol. Interview content related to the children's reasons for telling or waiting was extracted, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory method of analysis | 191 interviews of CSA victims aged 3–18 over a 1-year period were used for the study. Inclusion criteria included children who made a statement about CSA prior to referral, reasons for telling or waiting to tell, and those who spoke English. Participants were children who were interviewed at a child sexual abuse circle. 74% were female and 51% were Caucasian | Reasons the children dentified for telling were classified into three domains: (1) disclosure as a result of internal stimulus (e.g., the child had inghtmares); (2) disclosure facilitated by outside influences (e.g., the child was questioned); and (3) disclosure due to direct evidence of abuse (e.g., the child's abuse was witnessed). The barriers to disclosure dentified felinto five groups: (1) threats made by the perpetrator (e.g., the child was to dishelp he would get in trouble if she or he toold), (2) fears (e.g., the child was afraid something bad would happen if she or he toold), (3) acklof opportunity (e.g., the child felt the opportunity to disclose never presented), (4) acklof understanding (e.g., the child fell ed to recognize abuse behavior as unacceptable), and (5) relationship with the perpetrator (e.g., the child thought the perpetrator was a friend) | An innovative study to try to assess filmata investigative interviews can facilitate disclosures of CSA. Data were based on a large number of interviews. Detailed analysis produced detailed findings supporting other study findings on CSA disclosure | + +^' Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | | +|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Aggag a (2010) | The study aimed to dental factors impeding or promoting CSA disciplines. Overarching research question: What individual interpersonal, environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote CSA disciplines. | A qualitative phenomenological design, LIM, was used to interview adult CSA survivors about the risk of discipline experiences to provide retrospective accounts of CSA discipline and meaning-making of these experiences. Thematic analysis was done through a social-ecological ens. | Purposive sampling was employed. Snowba sampling was a solid to recruit more ■ e survivors. 40 adult survivors of CSA were interviewed: 36% men and 64% women. Age range of 18–65 with a mean age of 40.1 years. Average age of abuse onset was 5.3 years old. 36% of the sample was non-White. Diverse socioeconomic backgrounds | Themes fell into four domains: (1) individual and developmental factors, developmental factors as to whether they comprehended what was happening, personality traits as solid and some bearing on the risk to tell, and clipating not being believed; (2) discipline nihilitied by family characteristics such as rigidity fixed gender roles with dominating fathers, chaos and aggression, other forms of child abuse, domestic violence, dysfunctional communication, and social attorn; (3) neighborhood and community context, that is, ackliff interest from neighbors and teachers not pursuing troubling behavior; and (4) cultural and societal attitudes, media messages and societal attitudes, feeling unheard as kilds, gender socialization for ■ es, and cultural attitudes influencing parent's reactions. Purposeful discipline studies higher than reported in other studies because of the sampling attempts to purposefully illicitate disciplines | The study presents a comprehensive social-ecological analysis to CSA discipline highlighting the multifaceted influences. Of note, 42% had disciplined the abuse during childhood; 26% had not disciplined because they had repressed the memory, or the abuse had occurred in preschool years and they had difficulty with recail. The remainder had attempted some form of discipline in indirect ways during childhood. A retrospective approach that could be affected by recail situations | The study presents a comprehensive social-ecological analysis to CSA discipline highlighting the multifaceted influences. Of note, 42% had disciplined the abuse during childhood; 26% had not disciplined because they had repressed the memory, or the abuse had occurred in preschool years and they had difficulty with recail. The remainder had attempted some form of discipline in indirect ways during childhood. A retrospective approach that could be affected by recail situations | The study presents a comprehensive social-ecological analysis to CSA discipline highlighting the multifaceted influences. Of note, 42% had disciplined the abuse during childhood; 26% had not disciplined because they had repressed the memory, or the abuse had occurred in preschool years and they had difficulty with recail. The remainder had attempted some form of discipline in indirect ways during childhood. A retrospective approach that could be affected by recail situations | +| Fontes and Plummer (2010) | This examination of CSA discipline explored the ways culture affects processes of CSA discipline and reporting, both in the United States and internationally | Using published terature with cinical data, this article conducted an analysis to provide a culturally competent framework for CSA discipline questioning | Data consisted of published terature on discipline and culture that was traininglisted with cinical case material | Cultural and structural factors affecting CSA discipline are dentified in in-depth data. Recommendations made include (1) discipline interviewing should be tailored to the child's cultural context, (2) questioning should also take into consideration age and gender factors, and (3) culture stands as an important factor in a case in which children are asked to considering discipline or being asked to discipline, and not solely in cases in which children are from not cealible mority groups. Presents a comprehensive interview framework integrating cultural considerations | One of the few works that adds knowledge to culturally contextual discipline interviewing. Unquelicable nation of terature findings with cinical material. Anecdotal accounts may preclude transferability of findings. Overall adds to an impoverished area of CSA discipline information | This study highlights that discipline survivors and interactive on | | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Ungar, Tutty, McConne, Barrer, and Fa rho m (2009b) | (1) What are the h dden exper ences of abuse among Canad an youth? (2) What mpact does part c pat on n abuse prevent on programs have on youth to express the r abuse exper ences? (3) What d sc osure barr ers do youth face? (4) What are young peop e's d sc osure patterns? and (5) Who do they te ? | programm ng by the Canad an Red Cross (RespectED). A ser es of focus groups and observat ons of the workshops were used to he p contextua ze the f nd ngs. Eva uat on forms were ana yzed from two v o ence prevent on programs: (1) It's not your fau t and (2) What's ove got to do w th It? | anonymous y d sc osed abuse exper ences. Respondent's ages: 13 and under (27%), 14–15 (37%), 16–17 (25%), 18 and o der (4%), and unknown (7%) | at a about the abuse to prevent ntrus ve ntervent ons by others; seek ng he p from peers; seek ng he p from nforma adu t supports; and seek ng he p from mandated serv ce prov ders (soc a workers and po ce). Resu ts suggest d sc osure s an nteract ve process, w th expectat ons regard ng consequences to d sc osure. Patterns of ncrementa y shar ng abuse exper ences are shaped by young peop e's nteract ons w th peers, educators, and careg vers. About three-quarters of fema es prev ous y d sc osed; s gn f cant y ess █ es d sc osed | nteract ve mode s of d sc osure such as those deta ed by A agg a (2004) and Sta er and Ne son-Garde (2005). Th s m xed samp e of youth who exper enced d fferent forms of abuse and v o ence exposure were part c pants—not m ted to CSA surv vors | +| Ungar, Tutty, McConne, Barrer, and Fa rho m (2009b) | Th s study exp ored abuse d sc osure strateg es w th a nat ona samp e of Canad an youth who part c pated n v o ence prevent on programm ng. One of the goa s of the study was to document not prev ous y dent f ed exper ences of abuse and youth att tudes toward d sc osure of abuse exper ences | Exp oratory des gn w th a nonrepresentat ve samp es. Qua tat ve ana ys s of 1,099 eva uat on forms comp eted fo ow ng Red Cross RespectED v o ence prevent on programm ng de vered between 2000 and 2003 | Purposefu samp e of 1,099 eva uat on forms comp eted fo ow ng Red Cross RespectED v o ence prevent on programm ng de vered between 2000 and 2003 | Fnd ngs suggest h gh rates of h dden abuse, w th ess than one quarter of youth report ng a d sc osure. 244 of the 1,099 youth who d sc osed abuse on the r eva uat on forms dent f ed spec f c nd v dua s they to d about the r abuse. D sc osure patterns vary w th boys, youth aged 14–15, v ct ms of phys ca abuse, and those abused by a fam y member be ng most ke y to d sc ose to profess ona s or the po ce. One th rd of d sc osures were d rected toward profess ona s and the east, 5% percent each, were d rected toward fr ends, parents, and others. Part c pants were most ke y to d sc ose sexua abuse to parents/fam y, profess ona s, and the po ce/courts, w th fewer choos ng fr ends. | Innovat ve des gn of th s study prov des ns ght nto young peop e's percept ons of d sc osure exper ences. H gh eve of r gor w th trustworth ness of the data ana ys s ensured through use of youth focus groups, nterv ews, and observat ona data. The study resu ts are somewhat m ted n the th ckness of the descr pt ons t can offer because most of the data are survey based. Reg ona d fferences may not have been p cked up. Scope of the study s broad and approach s creat ve | + +Table I . (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | | +|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e add escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | 65- tem quest onna re that nc uded quest ons about background, consensua sex, sexua abuse exper ences (noncontact, contact or penetrat ng abuse, nc ud ng peer abuse), d sc osure of CSA, own sexua abus ve behav or, sexua att tudes, and exper ences w th pornography and sexua exp o tat on. The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | The samp e cons sted of 4,339 h gh schoo students n Sweden (2,324 g r s and 2,015 boys). The mean age of the part c pants was 18.15 years. Th s study used a subsamp e of 1,962 part c pants who reported CSA and who answered d sc osure quest ons | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; I I Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anner can, 1 | Summary | | +| Sorso , K a-Keat ng, and Grossman (2008) | Study focused on d sc osure cha enges for █ e surv vors of CSA to understand three ssues: (1) To | Ma e surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure exper ences. Ana yt c techn ques nc uded | Ma e surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure abuse; I I Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anner can, 1 | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; I I Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anner can, 1 | Summary | | +| Sorso , K a-Keat ng, and Grossman (2008) | Study focused on d sc osure cha enges for █ e surv vors of CSA to understand three ssues: (1) To | Ma e surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure exper ences. Ana yt c techn ques nc uded | The samp e cons sted of 16 █ e surv vors of ch dhood sexua abuse; I I Caucas an, 2 Afr can Anner can, 1 | Summary | | | +| Pr ebe and Sved n (2008) | Th s study a med to nvest gate d sc osure rates and d sc osure patterns and exam ne pred ctors of nond sc osure n a samp e of █ e and fema e add escents w th se f-reported exper ences of sexua abuse | 65- tem quest onna re that nc uded quest ons about background, consensua sex, sexua abuse exper ences (noncontact, contact or penetrat ng abuse, nc ud ng peer abuse), d sc osure of CSA, own sexua abus ve behav or, sexua att tudes, and exper ences w th pornography and sexua exp o tat on. The quest onna re nc uded 6 mod f ed tems from the SCL-90 and 9 of 25 tems from the Parenta Bond ng Instrument. The data for g r s and boys were ana yzed separate y | The samp e cons sted of 4,339 h gh schoo students n Sweden (2,324 g r s and 2,015 boys). The mean age of the part c pants was 18.15 years. Th s study used a subsamp e of 1,962 part c pants who reported CSA and who answered d sc osure quest ons | The samp e cons sted of 4,339 h gh schoo students n Sweden (2,324 g r s and 2,015 boys). The mean age of the part c pants was 18.15 years. Th s study used a subsamp e of 1,962 part c pants who reported CSA and who answered d sc osure quest ons | Th s study h gh ghted that sexua abuse s arge y h dden from adu soc ety, espec a y from profess ona s and the ega system. However, t me apsed to d sc osure was not reported. S nce fr ends appeared to be the █ n rec p ents of sexua abuse d sc osures, pract ce mp cat ons of th s cou d be to f nd ways to g ve young peop e better nformat on and gu dance about how to support a sexua y abused peer. A qua tat ve component to the study wou d have prov ded a broader understand ng of d sc osure processes. Study m tat ons nc ude a s gn f cant amount of boys who d d not comp ete the quest ons regard ng d sc osure on; the t m ng of d sc osures (whether they were de ayed or not) was not measured; poss b ty of reca b as w th retrospect ve stud es based on se f-reports; and youth part c pants may not have understood a the quest ons | Th s study h gh ghted that sexua abuse s arge y h dden from adu soc ety, espec a y from profess ona s and the ega system. However, t me apsed to d sc osure was not reported. S nce fr ends appeared to be the █ n rec p ents of sexua abuse d sc osures, pract ce mp cat ons of th s cou d be to f nd ways to g ve young peop e better nformat on and gu dance about how to support a sexua y abused peer. A qua tat ve component to the study wou d have prov ded a broader understand ng of d sc osure processes. Study m tat ons nc ude a s gn f cant amount of boys who d d not comp ete the quest ons regard ng d sc osure on; the t m ng of d sc osures (whether they were de ayed or not) was not measured; poss b ty of reca b as w th retrospect ve stud e | + +Table I . (cant nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hershikow tz, Lanes, and Lamb (2007) | The goa of the present study was to examine how ch d v ct ms of extrafam a sexua abuse d sc osed the abuse exper ence | grounded theory method of ana ys s for cod ng and deve opment of conceptua y c ustered matr ces. Part c pants comp eted two n-depth, sem-structured nterv ews, ast ng between 2 and 3 hr each tak ng p ace approx mate y a week apart | Puerto R can, 1 part Nat ve Amer can, 1 Afr can Cuban; age range of 24-61 years; 9 dent f ed themse ves as heterosexua , 5 as homosexua , and 2 as b sexua | re at ona (e.g., fears about negat ve repercuss ons, so at on); and (3) soc ocu tura (e.g., ack of acceptance for men to exper ence or acknow edge v ct m zat on).
On y l of the 16 men n th s samp e d sc osed the fu extent of h s sexua abuse exper ences wh e he was st a ch d. The other men reported that they had not d sc osed, a though some reported attempts to te that were nd rect or ncomp ete. Severa other men d sc osed certa n exper ences or e ements of the r abuse, but concea ed others. By the t me of the study, many of these men had d sc osed the r past exper ences n a var ety of re at onsh ps, nc ud ng those w th fam y members, partners, therap sts, and nfrequent y fr ends. Severa had on y m ted d scuss ons of the r sexua abuse | read y. Retrospect ve accounts are subject to reca ssues. Invest gators made s gn f cant efforts to gather a d verse samp e. H gh eve of r gor was executed n the dependab ty of the data and terrat ve process of the nterpretat on of f nd ngs was conducted | +| Hershikow tz, Lanes, and Lamb (2007) | The goa of the present study was to examine how ch d v ct ms of extrafam a sexua abuse d sc osed the abuse exper ence | A eged v ct ms of sexua abuse and the r parents were nterv ewed. Ch dren were nterv ewed us ng the NICHD Invest gat ve Interv ew Protoco by exper enced youth nvest gators. Informat on on d sc osure processes was obta ned n the f rst forma nterv ew, before any po ce nvest gat on or ch d we fare ntervent on | Th try a eged v ct ms of CSA; 18 boys and 12 g r s. Ch d samp e was 7- to 12-year-o ds w th an average age of 9.2 years. Twenty mothers and 10 fathers were a so nterv ewed for a tota of 30 parent nterv ews. A content ana ys s was conducted on ch d and parent nterv ews | D sc osure categor es were dent f ed as fo ows: (1) de ayed 53% of the ch dren de ayed d sc osure for between 1 week and 2 years; (2) rec p ent of d sc osure: 47% of ch dren f rst d sc osed to s b ngs or fr ends, 43% f rst d sc osed to the r parents, and 10% f rst d sc osed to another adu t. 57% of the ch dren spontaneous y d sc osed abuse, but 43% d sc osed on y after they were prompted. 50% of the ch dren reported fee ng afra d or ashamed of the r parents' responses. Parents' react ons: support ve (37%) and unsupport ve (63%). There was a strong corre at on between pred cted and actua parenta react ons suggest ng ch dren ant c pated the r parents' ke y react ons accurate y. D sc osure processes var ed depend ng on the ch dren's ages (e.g., younger ch dren d sc osed to parents), sever ty and frequency of abuse, parents' expected react ons, suspects' dent t es, and strateg es used to | Innovat ve des gn to gather d sc osure data from young ch dren. Focus s on extrafam a CSA wh ch may d ffer than d sc osure patterns of ntrafam a CSA. Two th rds of the parents reg stereo unsupport ve responses wh ch s h gh | + +270 + +Table 1. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | Fnd ngs | Summary | +|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| A agg a and K rshenbaum (2005) | The object ves of the current study were to dent fy a broad range of factors, nc ud ng fam y dynam cs that contr bute to or h nder a ch d's ab ty to d sc ose CSA. | A qua tat ve phenomeno og ca des gn—LIM—was used to e c t d sc osure exper ences; fac tators and barr ers; and re evant c rcumstances. | Purpos ve samp ng was emp oyed to recru t 20 adu t surv vors between the ages of 18 and 65 who were sexua y abused by a fam y member. | Four major themes emerged suggest ng that CSA d sc osure can be s gn f cant y comprom sed when certa n fam y cond t ons ex st: (1) r g d y f xed, gender ro es based on a patr archy-based fam y structure; (2) presence of fam y v o ence; (3) c osed, nd rect fam y commun cat on patterns; and (4) soc a so at on of the fam y as a who e, or spec f c members, p ayed a part n CSA v ct ms fee ng they had no one safe to te. Fam y systems formu at ons through a fem n st ens are important n understand ng ch dren and fam es at r sk of d sc osure barr ers | Over ha f the part c pants had not d sc osed the abuse dur ng ch dhood. Of the nond sc os ng part c pants, s x d not d sc ose because they had repressed or forgotten the memory. A most one th rd w thhe d d sc osure ntent ona y. More data are needed on ear y d sc osures to garner more nformat on on fac tators of d sc osure. Retrospect ve approach mp es reca ssues. H gh eve of trustworth ness of the data and nterpretat ons were ach eved through cred b ty, dependab ty, and conf rmab ty through d rect quotes | +| A agg a (2005) | The study purpose was to qua tat ve y exp ore dynam cs that mpede or promote d sc osure by exam n ng a range of factors nc ud ng gender as a dynam c—how d sc osures of fema es and █ es are s m ar and d fferent, and n what ways gender affects CSA d sc osure | Surv vors of CSA were nterv ewed about the r d sc osure exper ences us ng LIM. Ana ys s of 30 part c pant narrat ves was used for theme deve opment regard ng mpact of gender on d sc osure. Interv ews were transcr bed verbat m ax a, and se ect ve cod ng. Categor es and subcategor es were co apsed and ref n ng nto theme areas | Purpos ve samp ng of women and men, a ong w th those who d sc osed dur ng the abuse and those who d d not. 19 fema es and 11 █ es; 18–65 (mean 40.1) years who were sexua y abused by a fam y member or a trusted adu t. Average age of abuse onset was 5.3 years, 36% were nonwh te, and 58% had not d sc osed dur ng ch dhood | Three themes emerged for men that nh b ted or prec p tated d sc osure for reasons re ated to gender: (1) fear of be ng v ewed as homosexua; (2) profound fee ngs of st gmat zat on or so at on because of the be ef that boys are rare y v ct m zed; and (3) fear of becom ng an abuser, wh ch acted as a prec p tant for d sc osure. Two predom nant themes w th fema e part c pants re ated to d ff cu t es d sc os ng: (1) they fe t more conf cted about who was respons b e for the abuse and (2) they more strong y ant c pated be ng b amed and/or not be eved | One n a dearth of stud es that conduct gender ana ys s. Comparat ve ana ys s draws out important pract ce mp cat ons. Retrospect ve des gn of the study wh ch mp es poss b e reca ssues. H gh eve of trustworth ness of the data and nterpretat ons were ach eved through cred b ty, dependab ty, and conf rmab ty through d rect quotes | +| Co ngs, Gr ff ths, and Kuma o (2005). | Study exam ned patterns of d sc osure n a arge representat ve samp e of South Afr can CSA v ct ms. Two study object ves to: (1) exam ne how and | F e rev ews of a soc a work and med ca case f es for CSA v ct ms seen at the cr s s center where a cases of CSA reported to the North Durban | 1,737 cases of CSA reported n the North Durban area of KwaZu u-Nata, South Afr ca, dur ng January 2001 to December 2003. 1,614 g r s and nto theme areas | Content ana ys s dent f ed two broad d mens ons of d sc osure: (1) agency: ch d- n tated d sc osure versus detect on by a th rd party and (2) tempora durat on: an event versus a process. These d sc osure d mens ons def ned four d screte categor es of | These resu ts f t nto A agg a's (2004) d sc osure framework. Through data ana ys s two raters coded d sc osure categor es us ng author's d sc osure framework, wh ch proved to be both exhaust ve and mutua y exc us ve (continued) | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Lamb (2005). | This study allowed to dental characteristics of suspected child abuse victims that are associated with disclosure and formal nevestigations | Large database of suspected cases of physician and sexual abuse investigated in Israel between 1998 and 2002 was analyzed. Interviews were also conducted using standardized NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Archival data were analyzed | The sample was comprised of 26,446 children made 3- to 14-year-old aged victims of sexual and physical abuse interviewed in Israel in the 5-year period from 1998 to 2002. 140 experienced trained youth investigators conducted interviews | Overall, 65% of the 26,446 children made a legal ons when interviewed. Rates of disclosure were greater for sexual abuse (71%) over physical abuse (61%). Children of a legal were less likely to disclose/allege abuse when a parent was the suspected perpetrator. Disclosure rates increased as children grew older: 50% with 3- to 6-year-olds, 67% of the 7- to 10-year-olds, and 74% of the 11- to 14-year-olds disclosed abuse when questioned | Overall findings indicated that rates of disclosure varied systematically depending on the nature of the alleged offences, the relationship between alleged victims and suspected perpetrators, and the age of the suspected victims. Analysis only involved cases that had come to the attention of official agencies, making it difficult to determine how many of abuse take place without ever triggering any kind of official investigation. Evidence for delayed disclosures. | +| Jensen, Guibrandsen, ██████████, and Tjers and (2005). | This study investigated the context in which children were able to report their child sexual abuse experiences; their views as to what made it difficult to talk about abuse; what he ped them in the disclosing process; and their parent's perceptions of their disclosure processes | Qualitative approach to data collection and analysis was used. Therapeutic interviews of the children and mostly their mothers were analyzed through a qualitative approach. Follow-up interviews were held 1 year after the study investigated | 20 families with a total of 22 children participated. A children had to diabout children had to diabout experiences that created concerns for care-givers about CSA. Children's ages ranged between 3 and 16 years (average age 7.5 years); 15 girls and 7 boys. Sexual abused by someone in the family or a close person to the family | None of the children to diabouse immediately after it occurred. Children exposed to repetitive abuse kept this as a secret for up to several years; 17 to ditheir mothers first, 3 first to diafriend, 1 to ditheir father, and 1 their uncle. Majority of remarks that led to the suspiction of CSA were made in stuations where someone engaged the child in a diagnose about what was bothering them, resulting in a referral. The children felition was difficult to find stuations containing enough privacy and prompts that they could share their experiences. When the children died | The results indicate that disclosure is a fundamentally diagnostic process that becomes less difficult if children perceive that there is an opportunity to talk, a purpose for speaking and a connection has been established to what they are talking about. Strengthening parent-child relationships is an important practice implication | + +Table 1. (continued) + +| Study | Purpose | Des gn | Samp e | F nd ngs | Summary | +|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Sta er and Ne son-Garde (2005) | The purpose of th s study was to understand the fu process of CSA d sc osure and how th s unfo ded for preado escent and ado escent g r s. Exam ned what fac tated and h ndered d sc osure and subsequences consequences | Secondary ana ys of qua tat ve focus group data. Or g na project cons sted of four focus groups conducted w th n the context of ongo ng therapy for g r s who had exper enced CSA. Secondary ana ys s cons sted of wr tten narrat ve summar es of each sess on group ng these conceptua y, and exam n ng the r nterconnectedness | Samp e cons sted of 34 part c pants from four groups. Sess ons ana yzed were between 60 and 90 m n ong; aud otaped and ater transcr bed for content ana ys s | F nd ngs are reported n three major doma ns: (1) se f-phase; where ch dren come to understand v ct m zat on nterna y; (2) conf dant se ect on-react on phase; where they se ect a t me, p ace, and person to te and then whether that person's react on was support ve or host e; and (3) consequences phase: good and bad that cont nued to nform the r ongo ng strateg es of te ng. The act ons and react ons of adu ts were s gn f cant and nformed the g r s' dec s ons. The consequences phase was further subd v ded nto four aspects: (1) goss p ng and news networks, (2) chang ng re at onsh ps, (3) nst tut ona responses and the after fe of te ng, and (4) ns der and outs der commun t es | Th s study prov ded a contextua exam nat on of the ent re d sc osure process, c oser to the po nt n t me when the abuse and d sc osure occurred. Sma groups of preado escent and ado escent g r s who had surv ved sexua abuse a so served as consu tants and were encouraged to share the r know edge for the benef t of profess ona pract t oners | +| A agg a (2004) | The study sought to exam ne nf uences that nh b t or promote ch dren's d sc osure of CSA to address gaps n know edge about how, when, and under what c rcumstances v ct ms of CSA d sc ose | The study emp oyed LIM—a phenomeno og ca des gn. Intens ve nterv ew ng that were 2 hr ong on average generated data for a themat c ana ys s. The nterv ew gu de was | Us ng purpos ve samp ng 24 adu t surv vors of ntrafam a abuse between ages of 18 and 65 (average age 41.2) were recru ted from agenc es and one un vers ty; 57% █ e and 43% fema e; | Through ana ys s of the nterv ew new categor es of d sc osure were dent f ed to add to ex st ng types. Three prev ous y dent f ed were conf rmed n these data: acc denta , purposefu , and prompted/e c ted accounted for 42% of d sc osure patterns n the study samp e. Over ha f the d sc osure patterns descr bed by the study samp e d not f these | Th s study expanded types of CSA d sc osures to more fu y understand how ch dren and adu ts d sc ose. And under what c rcumstances. Ask ng peop e to recount events that occurred n ch dhood s suscept b e to memory fa ure, espec a y when memor es were forgotten, | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Crisma, Basce, Pac, and Romito (2004) | The ██ goals of this study were to understand miped ments that prevent adolescents from disciosing CSA and seeking help from the risco a network and/or the services | In-depth telephone (anonymous) nterviews were conducted after informed consent was explained and Three nivest gators experienced n counseling CSA counseling conducted the nterviews which were recorded with permission. Three researchers independently scored the nterviews according to a coding framework | The ██ miped ments to disciose to a family member were: fear of not being believed, shame, and fear of causing trouble to the family. The ██ n miped ments for not seeking services were: unaware of appropriate services, wish to keep the secret, ack of awareness of being abused, mistrust of adults and professionals, and fear of the consequences of disciosing sexual abuse. When they did disciose to professionals, teens received very limited support as many professionals were not trained on sexual abuse and could not offer appropriate nterventions to victims | This study represented the findings of a mixed sample of survivors of child sexual abuse and ntimate partner violence. The study was conducted in litaly and till not clear what sexual abuse response training is available. There may have been a selection bias as the most dissatisfied survivors responded to the research called categories | delayed, or repressed and ater recovered. Distortion and revision of events are a so potential problems in recall. High degree of trustworthiness of the data was achieved and quotes provided supported the categories | +| Jonzon and Lindbad (2004) | Study purpose was to explore how abuse traits, openness, reactions to CSA disciosure, and social support were related. Differences based on severity of abuse, liming and outcomes of disciosure, social support, and predicting factors of positive and negative reactions were probed | Adult women reporting CSA by someone close were nterviewed using semi-structured guides together with questionnaires. Data on victim zation and current social support were retrieved through the questionnaires, and data on disciosure and reactions were gathered through the nterviews with participants | 122 adult women between 20 and 60 years old (average age of 41 years) reporting exposure to child sexual abuse by someone close before the age of 18 and had to dismemone about at least one abuse event. 90% were Swedish subjects. Purposive sampling strategy was used | Abuse characteristics: abuse by multiple perpetrators was more common than by a ling perpetrator. Age of onset was often before age of 7, with an average duration of 7 years. Severely abused women had taked to more of their social network, especially to professionals. Disciosures: 32% disciosed during childhood (before the age of 18) with an average of 21 years delay. Women who had disciosed in childhood reported more instances of physical abuse, multiple perpetrators, use of violence, and were more likely to have confronted a perpetrator, and had received a negative first reaction. Factors | 68% delayed disciosure until adulthood. At the time of the study, till was one of the first studies to focus on the nterplay between social support networks and disciosure of child sexual abuse. The study results are somewhat limited by an overrepresentation of severely abused women. Retrospective study and self-report of information could miply recall sistes and thus limits the accuracy of the information obtained on abuse and disciosure | + +**Table 1. (continued)** + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | | +|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Kogan (2004) | The purpose of this study was to dentify factors that influence the discourses made by female survivors of USE in childhood and adolescence. The predictors of both the timing of discourse and the recipient of the discourse were investigated | Data were gathered from a subsample of female adolescents that participated in the NSA, which consisted of structured phone interviews. USEs reported in the NSA were assessed using a modified version of the Incident Cassification Interview. They were then asked a series of questions about each episode of unwanted sexual contact, including event characteristics and perpetrator characteristics | A subsample of 263 adolescent females between 12 and 17 years old, mean age of 15.2 years old, who reported at least one experience of unwanted sexual contact in the NSA. Participant characteristics, USE characteristics, and family contextual attributes were explored | Children under the age of 7 were at a higher risk for delayed discourses. Participants whose USE occurred between the ages of 7 and 13 were most key to the analysis. Adolescents (14-17) were more key to the only peers than children aged 7-10 years. Children under 11 were more key to the analysis, but were at risk for delaying discourse beyond a month. Children aged 11-13 tended to discose with a month. Closer relationship to the perpetrator or a family member was associated with delayed discourse. Immediate discourse was more key with stranger perpetration. Fear for one's felluring and penetration were associated with discourse to adults. Family factors inked to discourse were (1) drug abusing household member, which made survivors more key to discose more promptly and (2) never ving with both parents was associated with nondiscourse | This study examined factors including discourses of USEs in childhood and adolescence in a nationally representative sample of female adolescents who participated in the NSA. Surveys for investigations of victimization experiences may be based due to underreporting. Adolescents who refused to report or discuss an USE may represent a source of systematic blame and would make the results generalizable only to adolescents who are wing to discose USE via survey. A thoughtful data may be retrospective, recallible may have been minimized in this study since participants were adolescents, and so the time age between the USE and the interview were presumably shorter than a study of adult participants recalling CSA experiences | design does not allow for definite conclusions of cause and effect on the relationships found | +| Goodman-Ede stein, Goodman, and (2003) | The purpose of this study was to investigate variables associated with delay of discourse of CSA and test a mode for factors that influence how quickly children discose sexual abuse | Case fleer events of data obtained from prosecution flees, as well as from structured interviews with the children's caretaker and observations of children interviews. Trained graduate students and one victim advocate completed the Sexual Assault Profile | Sample consisted of 218 children referred to prosecutors' offices for a leged CSA. A children in the sample had discosed their abuse in some manner. Children ranged in age from 2 to 16 years at the beginning of abuse; 3-16 years at the end of the abuse, and 4-16 years at the time of the investigation | 64% discosed with a month and 29% with a 6 months. Flee variables for the mode were tested. (1) age: children who were older took ongor to discose and older children feared more negative consequences to others than younger children; (2) type of abuse: victims of narafamia a family took ongor to discose—victims of narafamia a abuse feared greater negative consequences to others compared to victims of narafamia a abuse; (3) fear of negative consequences: children who feared | This study represents a higher rate of discosers with a month. These cases had been reported to authorities and were in process of prosecution which may explain higher rate of early discourses. Legal sample with higher rate of extrafamia a abuse (52%) may also account for earlier discourses. Mode suggests that older children, victims of narafamia a abuse; felt greater responsibility for the abuse, and perceiving | (continued) | + +Table I. (cont nued) + +| Study | Purpose | Design | Sample | Findings | Summary | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| +| Smith, Letourneau, Saunders, K. patrick, Resnick, and Best (2000) | The study focus was to gather data from a large sample of women about the ength of time women who were raped before age 18 delayed discosure who they discosed to, and variables that predicted discosure within 1 month | Structured telephone interviews that asted approximately 35 min were used to collect data using a computer-assisted telephone interview system. A telephone interviews were conducted with path analyses to test the hypothesized causal relations among variables | Two probability samples. Wave 1 was a random sample of 2,009 respondents selected from stratified samples of defined jurisdictions. Random digital dialog was used to solicit households for sted and united telephone numbers. Second random sample of 2,000 women between the ages of 18 and 34 was selected. Both Wave 1 and Wave 2 data were weighted to conform to the 1989 Census statistics | The time frame of this survey may have had contextual miplications. The majority of this sample occurred prior to the arge-scale child assault prevention education programs that were begun in the 1980s that teach this dren that assaults (including CSA) are wrong and should be discosed to responsible adults. This information may have nifluenced (and may currently be nifluencing) young women's discosure patterns. For Wave 1, comparison of these data with the population parameters obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that the sample cosely matched the demographic attributes of the population of U.S. women | | +| | Correlation analyses were conducted with path analyses to test the hypothesized causal relations among variables | Approximately 47% of the abuse intrafamily abuse | negative consequences of discosure took onger to discose, this dren who believed that the risk of discosure would bring harm to others took onger to discose, fear of negative consequences to the self or the perpetrator was unrelated to time of discosure, and girls more than boys feared negative consequences to others; (4) Perceived responsibility: this dren who felt greater responsibility for the abuse took onger to discose and older this dren felt more responsibility for the abuse; and (5) gender was not significantly correlated with time to discosure | The time frame of this survey may have had contextual miplications. The majority of this sample occurred prior to the arge-scale child assault prevention education programs that were begun in the 1980s that teach this dren that assaults (including CSA) are wrong and should be discosed to responsible adults. This information may have nifluenced (and may currently be nifluencing) young women's discosure patterns. For Wave 1, comparison of these data with the population parameters obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that the sample cosely matched the demographic attributes of the population of U.S. women | | + +quest ons + +Note. SCL-90 = Symptom Check List-90 SES — socioeconomic status: L M — ong interview method: CA = chi d sexua abuse: N CHD = Nations nstitute of Chid Heath and Human Dere °paint; USE = unwanted sexua experiences: NSA = National Survey of Ado °scents: NWS = Nationa Women's Study; Q DS = Questionnaire informause sur es de inqtants sexeu s. + +examples of this usage were found in the research questions, interview guides, and surveys examined: "How and when do people decide to tell others about their early sexual experiences with adults?" (Hunter, 2011, p. 161); "Some men take many years to tell someone that they were sexually abused. Please describe why it may be difficult for men to tell about/discuss the sexual abuse" (Easton, Saltzman, & Willis, 2014, p. 462). "Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit a narrative regarding their experiences of telling..." (McElvaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2012, p. 1160). "Who was the first person you told?" (Schaeffer, Leventhal, & Anes, 2011, p. 346). + +There was sound consistency between studies, defining disclosure in multifaceted ways with uniform use of categories of prompted, purposeful, withheld, accidental, direct, and indirect. However, defining the period of time that would delineate a disclosure as delayed varied widely across studies, wherein some studies viewed 1 week or 1 month as a delayed disclosure (i.e., Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher, Maier, Moher-Kuo, Schnyder, & Lamdolt, 2012). Other studies simply reported average years of delay sometimes as long as from 20 to 46 years (Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000). + +Second, the number of qualitative studies has increased significantly over the last 15 years. This rise is in response to a previous dearth of qualitative studies. Based on [REDACTED] (2000) observation that disclosure factors and outcomes had been well documented through quantitative methods; in a widely read editorial, he recommended "Qualitative studies which are able to track the individual experiences of children and their perception of the influences upon them which led to their disclosure of information are needed to complement..." (p. 270). + +Third, although a few studies strived to obtain representative samples in quantitative investigations (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005; Kogan, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000), sampling was for the most part convenience based, relying on voluntary participation in surveys and consent-based participation in file reviews (Collings, [REDACTED], & Kumalo, 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, & Fairholm, 2009a). Therefore, generalizability of findings is understandably limited. The qualitative studies used purposive sampling as is deemed appropriate for transferability of findings to similar populations. Some of those samples contained unique characteristics, since they were sought through counseling centers or sexual advocacy groups. These would be considered clinical samples producing results based on disclosures that may have been delayed or problematic. This might presumably produce data skewed toward barriers and bring forward less information on disclosure facilitators. + +Through an in-depth, second-level analysis, this review identified five distinct themes and subthemes beyond the general trends as noted earlier. + +**Theme 1:** Disclosure is viewed as an ongoing process as opposed to a discrete event—iterative and interactive in nature. A subtheme was identified regarding disclosure as + +being facilitated within a dialogical and relational context is being more clearly delineated. + +**Theme 2:** Contemporary disclosure models reflect a social-ecological, person-in-environment perspective to understand the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure. Subthemes include new categories of disclosure and a growing focus on previously missing cultural and contextual factors. + +**Theme 3:** Age and gender are strong predictors for delaying disclosure or withholding disclosure with trends showing fewer disclosures by younger children and boys. One subtheme emerged that intrafamilial abuse/family-like relationship of perpetrator has a bearing on disclosure delays or withholding. + +**Theme 4:** There is a lack of a cohesive life-course perspective. One subtheme includes the lack of data within the 18-to 24-year-old emerging adult population. + +**Theme 5:** Significantly more information is available on barriers than on facilitators of CSA disclosure. Subthemes of shame, self-blame, and fear are uniformly identified as disclosure deterrents. + +*Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature.* + +Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong process, with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are too often delayed until adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011). Knowledge building about CSA disclosure has moved in the direction of understanding this as an iterative and interactive process rather than a discrete, one-time event. Since the new millennium, disclosure is being viewed as a dynamic, rather than static, process and described "not as a single event but rather a carefully measured process" (Alaggia, 2005, p. 455). The catalyst for this view originates from Summit (1983) who initially conceptualized CSA disclosures as process based, although this notion was not fully explored until several years later. Examinations of Summit's (1983) groundbreaking proposition of the CSA accommodation (CSAA) model produced varying results as to whether his five stages of secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosures, and retraction or recantation, hold validity (for a review, see London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005). However, the idea of disclosure as a process has been carried over into contemporary thinking. + +Recently, McElvaney, [REDACTED], and Hogan (2012) detailed a process model of disclosure wherein they describe an interaction of internal factors with external motivators which they liken to a "pressure cooker" effect, preceded by a period of containment of the secret. Moreover, this and other studies strongly suggest disclosures are more likely to occur within a dialogical context—activated by discussions of abuse or prevention forums providing information about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, & Tjersland, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). The term + +dialogical simply means to participate in dialogue. Key dialogical vehicles identified in these studies were providing sexual abuse information through prevention programs, being asked about sexual abuse, and being prompted to tell (McElvaney et al.. 2012; Ungar et al., 2009a). + +Contemporary models of CSA disdosure reflect a sodakcological perspective. Knowledge on CSA disclosure has been steadily advancing toward a holistic understanding of the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors (Alaggia & Kirshcnbaum, 2005; Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Where at one time factors examined and identified were predominantly of intrapersonal factors of child victims, knowledge construction has shifted to fuller social ecological, person-in-environment explanations (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Easton et al., 2014; Hunter, 2011; Ungar, Tutty, McConnell, Barter, & Fairholm, 2009b). Social—ecological explanations open up more opportunities to intervene in facilitating earlier disclosures. Alaggia (2010) proposes an ecological mapping of what individual, interpersonal, environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote CSA disclosures based on analysis of in-depth interview data of 40 adult survivors. Subsequently, based on a sample of 67 adult survivors, Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, and Milne (2015) identified three broad categories, closely aligned with an ecological framework that impede CSA disclosure: (I) barriers from within, (2) barriers in relation to others, and (3) barriers in relation to the social world which can be aligned to intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors. + +A summary of knowledge building using a social-ecological framework follows. Knowledge gained in the intrapersonal domain includes expanded conceptualization of disclosure by building on previous categories of accidental, purposeful, and prompted disclosure to also include behavioral and indirect attempts to tell, intentionally withheld disclosure, and triggered and recovered memories (Alaggia, 2004). Categories of indirect behavioral disclosure patterns have been further verified in follow-up research by Hunter (2011), and through an extensive file review that used Alaggia's (2004) disclosure framework to analyze their data (Collings et al., 2005) for verification. + +Interpersonal factors have also emerged in regard to certain family characteristics as disclosure barriers. Families with rigidly fixed gender roles, patriarchal attitudes, power imbalances, other forms of child abuse and domestic violence, chaotic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In addition, relationship with perpetrator is a factor whereby research indicates that disclosure is made more difficult when the perpetrator is a family member or close to the family (Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila. Bohu, & Rey-Salmon, 2014;Easton, 2013; Goodman-MN et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schembucher et al., 2012). This is especially a barrier when the perpetrator lives with the victim (LeClerc & Wortley, 2015). + +In terms of environmental factors, one study revealed that neighborhood/community conditions can hinder disclosure when there is lack of school involvement in providing a supportive environment, such as in following up on troubling student behavior (Alaggia, 2010). Additionally, a child victim's anticipation of a negative response to disclosure, especially that they may not be believed by others outside their family such as neighbors or other community members, has shown to deter disclosure (Collin-Vezina et al., 2015). + +Cultural factors influencing CSA disclosure have been studied to a much lesser degree. Despite this, a few important studies examining critical sociocultural factors now exist for better understanding CSA disclosure within a cultural context (Brazelton, 2015; Fontcs & Plummer, 2010). Among these important contributions, Brazelton's (2015) research has delineated CSA disclosure processes as "shaped by relational, racial, socio-cultural, historical, and developmental factors" (p. 182). In a unique study using culturally focused research literature as data triangulated with clinical case material, culturay\_bascd belief systems in many cultures have been found to I= family climates that can silence children from disclosing abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Taboos about sexuality, patriarchal attitudes, and devaluation of women are among some of the cultural barriers that inhibit disclosure (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). + +Clearly, disclosure conceptualizations are being integrated into a social—ecological model of individual and developmental factors, family dynamics, neighborhood, and community context as well as cultural and societal attitudes toward better understanding disclosure barriers and facilitators (Alaggia, 2010), although more data are needed on cultural and contextual factors. + +# Age and gender as predictors of disclosure + +Age. Age is consistently found to be an influential factor in CSA disclosure, making the life stage of the victim/survivor a critical consideration. Studies draw distinctions in age-groups falling into either under or over 18 years of age. Eighteen years of age was the common age cutoff point that investigators chose in order to distinguish child/youth populations from adult pies. Sixteen of the studies drew on samples of children and youth, while the other 15 studies sampled adults over the age of 18, and a further two studies used mixed age-groups (refer to Table I). Among the child and youth samples, the age ranges spanned from preschool to late adolescence (3-17 years of age), with varying methodological approaches implemented across age cohorts. For younger cohorts, file reviews and secondary data analyses of CSA reports were typically undertaken. Adolescents were most often given surveys. Sometimes children and youth were interviewed as part of administering a survey or as a follow-up (Crisma et al., 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar et al., 200%). In the majority of child and adolescent samples, sexual abuse concerns were already flagged to investigative authorities. However, the work of Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, and Fairholm (2009a, 2009b) is one exception, whereby their survey elicited new disclosures. + +Adult studies typically had a mean age between 40 and 50 years. Interviews were the main data collection method with a few exceptions using survey designs (i.e., Easton, 2013; Kogan, 2004; [REDACTED] et al., 2000) and case file reviews (i.e., Collings et al., 2005; Goodman-[REDACTED] et al., 2003). Results show a clear trend toward increased likelihood of disclosure in older youth, and findings from adult samples showing a preponderance of disclosures in adulthood, with the large majority of participants of adults reporting never having had a sexual abuse complaint filed with investigative authorities as a child or an adolescent (i.e., Hunter, 2011; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Sorsoli, Kia-Keating, & Grossman, 2008; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +With children and youth under the ages of 18 distinct patterns emerged. First, accidental detection, rather than purposeful disclosure, is more likely to occur with younger children. For example, in one large-scale study of over 1,737 file reviews, over half of the CSA-related cases were identified through accidental and eyewitness detection (61%), while less than one third were purposeful disclosures initiated by the child victim (Collings et al., 2005). A second pattern which emerged is that rates of disclosure increase with age, especially into adulthood, which is supported by persistent findings of high rates of delayed disclosure reported later in the life course by adult survivors (Collings et al., 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Sorsoli et al., 2008). While gender and relationship with the perpetrator are considerable factors in CSA disclosure, age is consistently a stronger predictor of disclosure (or nondisclosure) (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). Third, younger children who disclose are more likely to do so in an interview situation or other environment that provides prompts or questions about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; McElvaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011), but this trend can also be seen in older youth (Ungar et al., 2009a, 2009b). + +**Gender.** A number of studies have recently focused on CSA disclosures with male victims, since males have been an understudied population (Alaggia, 2005; Easton, 2013; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). Most investigations that sampled both sexes show females outweighing male participants. Although women are at double the risk of being subjected to CSA, the ratio of women to men in most disclosure studies has not been representative. This finding may be indicative of male victims more likely delaying disclosing their CSA experiences, leaving male disclosure in child and youth samples underrepresented (Hébert, Tourigny, Cyr, McDuff, & Joly, 2009; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +Easton, Saltzman, and Willis (2014) have been developing gender-specific modeling of disclosure examining male disclosures. Their proposed model groups male disclosures into barrier categories as determined by individual factors, interpersonal issues, and factors that are sociopolitical in nature. These authors suggest that predominant gender norms around masculinity reinforce the tendency for male victims of CSA to blame themselves + +for the abuse, resulting in no disclosure. Male participants in a subsequent study also relayed that gender norms and stereotypes contributed to them concealing the abuse because they were abused by a woman (Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). In the one study that compared male and female disclosures, investigator found that men's fears of being viewed as homosexual; profound feelings of stigmatization or isolation because of the belief that boys are rarely victimized; and fear of becoming an abuser acted as disclosure barriers. Whereas females felt more conflicted about who was responsible for the abuse and more strongly anticipated being blamed and not believed (Alaggia, 2005). + +**Lack of a life-course perspective.** Given that the study of CSA disclosure draws on age-groups ranging from samples of very young children to retrospective studies of adult survivors, with significant developmental considerations, this area of study lacks an intentional cohesive life-course perspective. Most data are derived from either cross-sectional or retrospective designs, with few longitudinal studies. There are a series of sound, yet disconnected, studies focusing on specific age-groups of children and adolescents, along with adult retrospective studies. Thus, the available knowledge base does not allow for a cohesive picture of CSA disclosure processes and pathways over the life course to emerge. + +The life-course perspective has long been recommended as a critical lens for the study of child abuse (Browning & Lau-[REDACTED], 1997; [REDACTED], 2003). For example, a life-course perspective has been utilized to understand the immediate- and long-term effects of CSA on the developing child victim (Browning & Laumann, 1997). Further, a life-course perspective is important in terms of examining age of onset of CSA to explain the differential effects of sexual victimization and developmental impacts in terms of understanding their ability to disclose—effects that need to be understood within a developmental context, especially for designing appropriate interventions for disclosure at critical transitions from early childhood through to adolescence and into adulthood. In addition, important “turning points” in life may facilitate disclosures. For example, entry into adulthood given that delayed disclosure occurs more often in adulthood. Alaggia (2004, 2005) found that being in a committed relationship or the birth of children acted as facilitators for some survivors to disclose, especially to their spouses. These significant life events, as contributing to disclosures, bear further examination. + +**Summary of barriers and facilitators.** Research over the past 15 years continues to uncover barriers to CSA disclosure at a higher frequency than that of facilitators. As stated previously, this might be the result of sampling methods whereby participants who volunteer for disclosure research may have had more negative disclosure experiences, especially since many report delays in disclosure. The following section outlines the major trends in both barriers and facilitators (see Table 2). + +**Barriers.** Age and gender were found to contribute to barriers as covered in Theme 3. Disclosures generally increase with age + +**Table 2.** Factors Influencing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures. + +| Barriers | Facilitators | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Age: The younger the child victim, the less likely they will purposefully disclose. | Age: Disclosures increase with age, especially in adulthood. | +| Gender: Males may be less likely to disclose in childhood/adolescence, fear of being seen as homosexual and as a victim, females experience more self blame and anticipation of being blamed and/or not believed | Gender: Slight trend toward females who are older (adolescent) to disclose before adulthood | +| Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is a family member or in a family like role, disclosure is less likely to happen | Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is not living with the victim, disclosure rates increase | +| Internal: Shame, self blame, and fear are psychological barriers. In addition, fear of negative consequences on the family and for self safety inhibits disclosure | Dialogical context: Opportunities to disclose through discussion, therapeutic relationship, information sessions on sexuality, and sexual abuse prevention programs | +| Family relations: Families with a patriarchal structure, rigidly fixed gender roles, dysfunctional communication, other forms of abuse (i.e., domestic violence), and isolation inhibit disclosure | Family relations: Supportive parent-child relationship. | +| Environmental and cultural context: Lack of discussion about sexuality; passive acceptance that unwanted sexual experiences are inevitable; not wanting to bring shame to the family by admitting sexual abuse; lack of involvement from neighbors, school personnel; and stigma perpetuated by societal perceptions | Involvement of others: Eyewitnesses coming forward and reporting; detection through community members, professionals | +| | Environmental and cultural context: Promotion of open discussion of sexuality; community member involvement | + +as children gain more developmental capacity, understanding of sexual abuse as victimization, and increased independence. Males are somewhat less likely to disclose, but this is often in interaction with other factors in the environment such as societal attitudes that promote hypermasculinity as desirable, attitudes that perpetuate negative views of boys and men who are victims, and homophobic attitudes (Alaggia, 2010; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). + +Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent, caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a family-like role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in childhood/adolescence because of obvious power differentials and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al., 2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schaeffer et al., 2011). + +Further, the perpetrator residing with their victim(s) increases the likelihood of no disclosure (Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). + +Internalized victim-blaming, mechanisms to protect oneself (such as minimizing the impact of the abuse), and developmental immaturity at the onset of abuse constituted internal barriers. Further, shame, self-blame, and fear have been identified as significant factors deterring disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Goodman-██████ et al., 2003; Hunter, 2011; Kogan, 2004; McElvaney & Culhane, 2015; McElvaney et al., 2014). However, aspects of shame, self-blame and fear, and have not been fully explored in research. Since these are strong predictors of disclosure suppression, they bear further examination in future research to understand more fully how they operate in disclosure processes. + +In terms of interpersonal and environmental factors, family dynamics can play a part in deterring disclosure. As previously mentioned, families characterized by rigidly defined gender roles, patriarchal attitudes that perpetuate power imbalances + +between men and women, parents and children, presence of other forms of child abuse and/or domestic violence, chaotic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In regard to broader environmental factors, disclosure can be hindered when involved and supportive community members are not available, or not trained in sensitive responses, or when child victims anticipate not being believed by neighbors and other people outside the family (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Further, barriers in relation to the social world were identified as stigmatization, the negative labeling of sexual abuse victims, and taboos surrounding sexuality and talking about sex as driven by cultural norms (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). + +Identification of cultural barriers is important recent contribution to understanding disclosure processes—and in particular to the obstacles. Findings related to cultural barriers included themes of children's voices not being heard leading to silencing, the normalization of the sexualization and objectification of girls and women, and the perpetuation of hypermasculinity in men—all acting as barriers in terms of stigma to disclosure (Alaggia, 2005, 2010; Easton et al., 2014). Brazelton (2015) similarly found that lack of discussions about sex, young age at the onset of sexual abuse, therefore not having the language to express what was happening to them, and preserving the family good name by not talking about abuse in the family were also barriers to disclosure. + +Finally, it may be the case that more barriers continue to be identified over facilitators of CSA disclosure perhaps because of the methods employed in studies—particularly those drawing on adult populations who delayed disclosure. These ██████-ples may not be representative of the overall population of CSA victims, since they may have had more negative disclosure + +experiences, consequently more readily identifying barriers. On the other hand, these findings may speak to the actual imbalance between facilitating factors and barriers for disclosure, the latter carrying more weight in the victims/survivors' experiences, thus, explaining the high rates of disclosures delayed until adulthood. + +**Facilitators.** Although fewer disclosure facilitators are identified in this review, very important facilitators were nonetheless uncovered—ones that should be noted for professionals in this field of practice. Internal factors that facilitate disclosures include symptoms that become unbearable, getting older with increased developmental efficacy, and realizing that an offence was committed (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Easton, 2013; Hershkowitz et al. 2007; McElavaney, [REDACTED], & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Circumstantial facilitators are those where the child discloses because there has been evidence provided, eye-witnessing has occurred, and a report has been made. Environmental factors include settings that provide opportunities such as counseling, interviews, information sessions and educational forums/workshops, and prevention programs for children and youth to disclose. + +To elaborate, dialogical contexts about CSA for children and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may facilitate disclosures (Jensen et al., 2005). The research shows creating open dialogue in relationship contexts, to offset the power and influence of the perpetrator, can facilitate earlier disclosure. Among disclosure facilitators is being asked about abuse and given the opportunity to “tell” (McElavaney et al., 2014); workshops on abuse and sexual abuse, in particular, can facilitate disclosures (Ungar et al., 2009b); and using culturally sensitive probes and questions (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In Gagnier and Collin-Vézina's (2016) study, positive disclosure experiences were described by participants as those where they felt that they had been listened to, were safe, were believed, and were not judged by the person they disclosed to. Further, family members and friends (peers) of the child victim can act as key supports to creating an open relational context and fostering positive responses (Jensen et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). In particular, as children grow older, they are more likely to disclose to a peer, as shown in a number of studies, and this is an important reality for counselors and educators to be aware of (Dumont et al., 2014; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). + +## Discussion + +Through examination of 33 studies published since the year 2000, this review identified five distinct themes regarding CSA disclosure: (1) Disclosure is best viewed as an iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event done within a relational context; (2) contemporary models reflect a social–ecological, person-in-environment framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; + +(3) age and gender are significant disclosure factors; (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Based on these themes, a number of conclusions are drawn from this review. First, disclosure as a process is emphasized throughout contemporary research. Advances have been made in understanding these complex processes. However, the disclosure process over time—for example, how the first detection of CSA or attempts to disclose in childhood impact later disclosures—are not well understood. This is the result of the absence of a cohesive life-course perspective in investigations, although age consistently surfaces as significantly influencing CSA disclosure. Using a life-course perspective through the use of longitudinal studies is recommended. + +The use of varied methodological designs, depending on the developmental stage of the victims/survivors, influences the data generated and subsequent findings. For example, most studies on children and youth are based on file reviews of cases that have been brought to the attention of authorities, or surveys, with only a few studies using interviewing of younger children. Therefore, there is less information available on process issues with children and youth. In contrast, research on adult populations largely favors the use of qualitative interview methods for retrospective inquiry producing important process findings. In addition, investigations have not yet captured the disclosure experiences of adults in the “emerging adult” stage given that adult studies have failed to recognize that the age range of 18–24, which is now considered a developmental phase defined by neurobiological developmental uniqueness. As well, late adulthood has not been given attention as shown by the absence of participants representing this age-group in current research (70+). With a swelling geriatric population in North America, issues of historic CSA can be expected to surface and, with that, new disclosures. This trend is also anticipated due to attitudinal shifts that have presumably occurred over the last two generations about revealing such traumas and changing views about discussing sexual victimization. + +Interview guides used in a number of studies intentionally probed for facilitators, producing notable findings. For example, one such finding focuses on the importance of creating a contextually supportive environment to promote disclosure across the life course. These include developing therapeutic relational contexts for disclosure by providing information about sexuality, sexual abuse, prevention programming, and by asking directly. Disclosures to professionals are positive outcomes of how therapeutic contexts work; however, for forensic purposes prompting such disclosures would be viewed as problematic in legal settings, seriously compromising testimonies for trial proceedings. This is one example that speaks to the structural barriers victims and survivors run up against time and time again. Facilitators that show evidence to promote disclosure in one domain (therapeutic) are seen to work against CSA survivors in another domain—such as legal settings when perpetrators face prosecution. Defense attorneys will use this as evidence that the disclosure was prompted, and therefore the disclosure is potentially seen as not credible. Broadcasting of + +the frequency of acquitted cases or rulings in favor of the perpetrator through media outlets, often sensationalized, become a further compounding barrier. Given the review findings, we conclude that barriers and facilitators to CSA disclosures are nuanced and clearly embedded within intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental, contextual, and cultural domains—often interlocked in complex ways. + +### Limitations + +Although comprehensive in nature with its life-course coverage, this review may be limited by its qualitative, thematic focus rather than providing an evaluative, quantitative accounting of CSA disclosures. However, because of the recent focus on disclosure processes, the authors chose a suitably compatible approach—qualitative in nature. As well, a traditional checklist approach in rating the studies was not employed for interrater reliability, since two of the authors hold expertise in CSA disclosure research and are well versed with the literature. This expertise, and through closely following a systematic review framework (Kiteley & Stogdon, 2014), assures that a thorough adjudication of the research literature was completed. + +### Implications for Research and Practice + +These review findings have implications that can be useful in guiding future research and practice: + +- • Solid strides are being made in the use of a social–ecological framework to underpin investigations in the CSA disclosure investigations. Research efforts and practice considerations should continue in this vein. Investigating environmental factors and contextual and cultural forces is understudied, necessitating more research in these areas to more fully fill out understanding of CSA disclosure from a social–ecological perspective. +- • There is good evidence that CSA disclosures are more likely to occur in a dialogical context—formal helping relationships but as well as other relationships such as peers and trusted adults. Providing information and education on topics of sexuality in general, and sexual abuse specifically, can help children and youth to disclose. Raising awareness and prevention programs can promote disclosures of sexual violence committed against children and youth. +- • Goals of therapeutically supported disclosures (i.e., through therapy) may need to take precedence over forensic approaches, if well-being of child victims and adult survivors is to be made paramount. Legal processes may act to facilitate disclosures but can also act as barriers because of the negative outcomes experienced in the court process. +- • Practitioners need to keep in mind that the legal system is lagging far behind in knowledge uptake of recent evidence on CSA disclosures so that victims and + +survivors continue to be systemically and structurally disadvantaged in legal proceedings. + +- • Health-care practitioners (i.e., child abuse pediatricians, family practice doctors, clinical nurse specialists, and public health nurses) should be made aware of the evidence in the CSA disclosure literature to create environments for facilitating therapeutic disclosures. +- • Given that age is a stable predictor of disclosure of CSA, more studies are needed that make use of a life-course perspective. More longitudinal studies are needed to better identify trends over different life stages. +- • The emerging young adult as a developmental age group needs specific investigation. Neuroscience research has established that ages 18–24 is a distinct developmental phase. Late adulthood is another life stage that deserves to be researched. +- • Gender needs to be more fully investigated in relation to impact on disclosure. Awareness that boys and girls have unique challenges and barriers in disclosing CSA should be paramount for practitioners. +- • Intervention planning should take note that disclosures increase when perpetrators no longer reside with victims, and this finding should be heeded by policy and law makers. +- • Shame, self-blame, and fear are intrapersonal factors that persistently emerge as barriers to CSA disclosures and warrant more research to understand how to redress these barriers for earlier disclosures. + +### Conclusion + +There are still a substantial number of children and youth who are subjected to sexual abuse, despite preventative efforts. Just as concerning is the fact that many victims continue to suffer in silence as evidenced by the high numbers of delayed disclosure. These hidden cases should not be overlooked, and these victims should not be forgotten. Despite significant progress in bringing the issue of CSA to the forefront, improving facilitation of disclosure and increasing positive influences on disclosure processes are still critical in order to protect current and future generations of children and youth from the grave effects of sexual violence. Further, the focus should not be simply on strengthening and shoring up intrapersonal resources of victims to disclose but rather to change environmental conditions to create a more supportive and safer context for CSA victims and survivors to disclose. + +### Declaration of Conflicting Interests + +The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +### Funding + +The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. + +- References Alaggia. R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualize tions of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28. 1213 1227. Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 453 470. Alaggia, R. (2010). An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse dis closure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy chiatry Journal De !Academie Canadienne De Psychiatric De 1'£nfant Et De ! Adolescent, 19, 32 39. Alaggia, R., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2005). Speaking the unspeakable: Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse disclosures. Families in Society, 86, 227 234. Braun. V.. & Clarke. V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3. 93. doi:10.11911 1478088706qp063oa Brannon, J. F. (2015). The secret storm: Exploring the disclosure process of African American women survivors of child sexual abuse across the life course. Traumatology: An International Jour nal, 21, 181 187. Browning, C. R., & Laumann, E. O. (1997). Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective. American Socio logical Review, 62, 540 560. Collings, S. J., MI, S., & Kumalo, M. (2005). Patterns of disclo sure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology. 35, 270 285. Collin Vezina, D., Sablonni, D. L., Palmer, A. M., & Milne, L. (2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect. 43, 123 134. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.010 Crime. M.. Bascelli, E., Paci. D.. & Romito. P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28. 1035 1048. Dumont, M., Messerschmitt, P., Vila, G., Bohu, D.. & Rey Salmon. C. (2014). Le processus de revelation dans les egressions sexuelles intrafamiliales et extrafamilialcs sur mincurs. Annaks Me'dico Psychologigues, 172, 426 431. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2012.06.024 Easton, S. D. (2013). Disclosure of child sexual abuse among adult male survivors. Clinical Social Work Journal,41, 344 355. doi:10. 1007/s10615 012 0420 3 Easton, S. D., Saltzman, L. Y., & Willis, D.C. (2014). "Would you tell under circumstances like that?": Bafflers to disclosure of child sexual abuse for men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 460 469. M . B.. Van Wert. M.. Trocme. N.. MacLaurin. B., Shiba, V., Lefebvre. R.. ... Goel, S. (2015). Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2013 (OIS 2013). Toronto, ON: Child Welfare Research Portal. Finkelhor, D.. Shattuck. A.. Turner. H. A.. & Hamby. S. L. (2014). Trends in children's exposure to violence. 2003 to 2011. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 540 546. doi:10.1001/jarnapedianics.2013.5296 Fontes, L. A., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 491 518. Gagnier. C.. & Collin Vezina. D. (2016). The disclosure experiences of male child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25, 221 241. Goodman T. B., Edelstein. R. S., Goodman. G. S., D.. & D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525 540. Hebert, M., Tourigny, M., Cyr, M., McDutT, P., & Joly, J. (2009). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a representative sample of adults from Quebec. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 631 636. Retrieved from http://scarch.proquest. com/docview/222860811?accountid=14771 Hershkowitz, 1., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1203 1214. Hershkowitz, I., Lanes, O., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect. 31, 1 I I 123. Hunter. S. V. (2011). Disclosure of child sexual abuse as a life long process: Implications for health professionals. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy. 32, 159 172. Jensen. T. K.. Gulbrandscn, W., Mossige, S.. Reichclt. S.. & Tjersland. + - O. A. (2005). Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1395 1413. Jillian, B., Cotter, A., & Perryton, S. (2014). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, 2013 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. M D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Disclosure of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 269 271. Jonzon, E., & Lindbald. F. (2004). Disclosure, reactions, and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 9, 190 200. Kitcicy. R.. & Stogdon. C. (2014). Literature reviews in social nark. London. England: Sage. Kogan. S. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect. 28, 147 165. Leclerc, B., & Wortley, R. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incar canted adult sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 104 III. London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclo sure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy. and Law, 11, 194 226. McElvaney, R. (2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays, non disclosure and partial Disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24, 159 169. McElvaney, R.. & Cullum. M. (2015). A retrospective analysis of children's assessment reports: What helps children tell? Child Abuse Review. doi:10.1002/car.2390. McElvancy. R.. M. S.. & Hogan. D. (2012). Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 27. 1155 1175. + +- McElvaney. R.. S.. & Hogan. D. (2014). To tell or not to tell? Factors influencing young people's informal disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29.928 947. Maier. T., Mohler Kuo, M.. Landholt. M. A.. Schnyder. U., & Judk A. (2013). The tip of the iceberg. Incidence of disclosed cases of child sexual abuse in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide Agency Survey. International Journal of Public Health, 58. 875 883. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to self disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 271 295. doi:10.1016/S0272 7358(01)00091 5 Percda, N., Guilera, G., Foms. M.. & Gomez Benito, J. (2009). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse: A continuation of Finkelhor ( I994). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 331. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230158315? accountid= 14771 Priebe. G.. & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of ado lescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect. 32. 1095 1108. Reitsema, A. M., & Grictens, H. (2015). Is anybody listening? The literature on the dialogical process of child sexual abuse disclosure reviewed. Trauma Violence Abuse. doi:10.1177/152483801 5584368 Rosenthal. G., & Fisher Rosenthal. W. (2004). The analysis of nana tive biographical interviews in U Rick. In E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 259 265). London, UK: Sage. Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J. M., & Asnes, A. G. (2011). Children's disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 343 352. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.014 Schonbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Land olt, M. A. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 27, 3486 3513. doi:10.1177/0886260512445380 M . D. W.. Letoumeau. E. J., Saunders, B. E.. Kilpatrick. D. G., Resnick. H. S.. & Best. C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of child hood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect. +- 24. 273 287. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doeview/ 70933344?accountid= 14771 Sorsoli, L.. Kia Keating. M.. & Grossman. F. K. (2008). "I keep that hush hush": Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55. 333 345. doi: 10.1037/0022 0167.55.3.333 Staller, K. M., & Nelson Gardell, D. (2005). "A burden in your heart": Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1415 1432. Statistics Canada. (2013). Police reported crime statistics in Canada. 2012 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Retrieved from the Statistics Canada website httpi/www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85 002 x/20I3001/ anicle/11854 eng.htmlIn2 Stoltenborgh. M.. van LIzendoom. M. II.. Euscr. E. M.. & Bakennans Krancnburg, M. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Mal treatment. 16, 79 101. doi:10.1177/1077559511403920 Summit, R. C. (1983). The sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect. 7, 177 193. Tener, D., & S. (2015). Adult disclosure of child sexual abuse. Trauma. Violence & Abuse, 16,391 400. Trocmi, N.. =, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., ... Cloutier, R. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect 2003: Major findings. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Trocmi, N., =, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black. T., Fast, E., ... Holroyd, J. (2008). Characteristics of substantiated maltreatment. Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect: Major findings (Chapter 4). Retrieved from http:// www.phac aspc.gc.ca/cm vee/public eng.php Ungar. M.. Barter. K.. McConnell. S. M.. Tufty. L. M., & Fairholm, J. (2009a). Patterns of abuse disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work. 8, 341 356. Ungar. M., Tutty, L. M.. McConnell. S.. Saner. K.. & Fairholm. J. (2009b). What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 699 708. + - L. M. (2003). Understanding child abuse and violence against women: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,441 451. Author Biographies Ramona Alaggia, MSW, PhD. is an associate professor in social work and the Factor Inwentash Chair in Children's Mental Health at the University of Toronto. Her teaching and research focuses on gender and violence, sexual abuse disclosures, domestic violence exposure. and resilience processes. Delphine Collin-Vizina. PhD. is an associate professor for School of Social Work, McGill University and director for Centre for Research on Children and Families. She holds the Nicolas Steinmetz and - Julien Chair in Social Pediatrics in Community and the Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Child Welfare. Her work focuses on research and clinical topics related to child maltreatment, child sexual abuse, and trauma. Rusan Lateef, MSW, is a social worker employed in the criminal justice system with adult male offenders in Ontario. Canada. She specializes in the intersection of health and mental health, child sexual abuse disclosures, and she is a researcher on the "Make Resilience Matter" project examining childhood exposure to domestic violence with Dr. Alaggia at the Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. + +Child Abuse Review Vol. 24: 159-169 (2015) + +Published online 9 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library + +(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2280 + +# Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure and Partial Disclosure. What the Research Tells Us and Implications for Practice + +This paper reviews the research on disclosure of child sexual abuse with specific reference to delays in disclosing, non-disclosure and partial disclosure of experiences of child sexual abuse. Findings from large-scale national probability studies highlight the prevalence of both non-disclosure and delays in disclosure, while findings from small-scale qualitative studies portray the complexity, diversity and individuality of experiences. The possible explanations regarding why children are reluctant to disclose such experiences have significant implications for addressing the issue of child sexual abuse from the perspectives of child protection, legal and therapeutic professionals. The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure, in particular the needs of young people to maintain control over the disclosure process, the important role that peers play in this process, the responses of adults in both informal and formal networks, and the opportunities to tell, is key to helping young people speak more promptly about their experiences of sexual abuse. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. + +### KEY PRACTITONER MESSAGES: + +- Children typically delay disclosing experiences of abuse. +- Asking children questions about their wellbeing gives them the opportunity to tell when they are ready. +- The challenge is to find the right questions at the right time. +- Peers can be the right people to ask these questions. +- Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells. + +KEY WORDS: child sex abuse: disclosure: research to practice + +A n issue of increasing concern in recent years is the phenomenon of ndelayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse and the need to understand the process of how children and adults disclose their experiences of child sexual abuse, given the implications for child protection, social justice and + +\*Correspondence to: Rosalcen McElvaney, School of Nursing and Human Sciences. Dublin City University. Glasncvin. Dublin 9. Ireland. E-mail: rosaleen.mccIvancy(ddcu.ie + +Rosaleen McElvaney + +School of Nursing and Human ScJences. Dublin City University. Dublin. Ireland + +`The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure' + +`Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells' + +# 'This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns of childhood sexual abuse' + +'Most people who experience sexual + +abuse in childhood do + +not disclose this + +abuse until adulthood' + +mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns of childhood sexual abuse, specifically delays in disclosure, non-disclosure (as evident through adult retrospective studies) and partial disclosures, and discusses implications for practice. Literature searches of the online databases PSYCINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index, in addition to manual searches of texts published since 2000, were conducted using the search terms 'child sexual abuse', 'sex abuse' and 'disclosure'. + +The research to date on disclosure patterns is based on two sampling methodologies — studies of adults reporting retrospective experiences and studies of children. The former group of studies has the benefit of drawing on large-scale national probability samples which can be considered to be representative of the general population. The latter group with some small exceptions (predominantly adolescent studies) uses samples of young people who have disclosed sexual abuse but would not be considered as representative of all children who have been abused: + +'children who decide to tell someone about being sexually abused and whose cases therefore come to court are not representative of sexually abused children in general' (Olafson and Lederman. 2006. p. 29). + +# Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure + +There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common. Table 1 summarises two large-scale studies to highlight the extent of delays in disclosure and the percentage of those who did not disclose to anyone prior to the study. + +Kogan (2004) examined the timing of disclosure of unwanted sexual experiences in childhood or adolescence in a sub-sample (n = 263 adolescent women, aged 12 to 17) of the National Survey of Adolescents (Kilpatrick and Saunders, 1995) in the USA — a nationally representative study. Kogan's results can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within I month) 43 per cent, delayed disclosure (less than 1 year) 3iri cent and non-disclosure (disclosed only during the survey) 26 per cent. and colleagues (2000) examined a sub-sample (n = 288) of the National Women's Study in the USA (Resnick et al., 1993, cited in et at, 2000) who had reported a childhood rape prior to the age of 18. et al.'s findings can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within I month) 27 per cent, delayed disclosure (more than a year) 58 per cent and non-disclosure (survey only) 28 per cent. Those who had never disclosed prior to the survey constitute comparable proportions in these two studies while the rates for immediate + +Table I. Patterns of disclosure delay and non-disclosure + +| | (n) | Kogan (2004) | (n) | et al. (2000) | +|----------------------------------|-----|-----------------|-----|---------------| +| | | 263 adolescents | | 288 adults | +| Told within 24 hours | | 24% | | 18% | +| Told within 1 month | | 19% | | 9% | +| Told within 1 year | | 12% | | 11% | +| Delayed telling more than 1 year | | 19% | | 47% | +| Never told before survey | | 26% | | 28% | + +disclosure are higher in the adolescent study than in the adult study, a reassuring finding given the increased awareness of sexual abuse in society during the past 20 years. + +Goodman-[REDACTED] and colleagues (2003) examined USA district attorney files of 218 children. Their categories were slightly different from the previous two studies but in summary, immediate disclosers (within 1 month) constituted 64 per cent of the sample while 29 per cent disclosed within six months. This study is unusual insofar as the sample studied had reported their experience of abuse to the authorities and a prosecution was in progress. Goodman-[REDACTED] *et al.* also pointed out that families who participated in this study were more likely to represent those children who experienced abuse by someone outside the family. Research has found that delays in disclosure are longer for those abused within the family ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002; Goodman-[REDACTED] *et al.*, 2003; Kogan, 2004; Hershkowitz *et al.*, 2005). Therefore, children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples. + +In Sweden, Priebe and Svedin (2008) conducted a national survey of 4339 adolescents, of whom 1962 reported some form of sexual abuse (65% of girls and 23% of boys). Details of the time lapse in disclosing were not available from this study. However, of those who had disclosed and answered the questions on disclosure ( $n = 1493$ ), 59.5 per cent had told no-one of their experiences prior to the survey. Of those who did disclose, 80.5 per cent mentioned a 'friend of my own age' as the only person who they had told. In this study, 6.8 per cent had reported their experiences to the social authorities or police. A further Swedish study of 122 women who had experienced childhood sexual abuse (Jonson and Lindblad, 2004) found that 32 per cent disclosed during childhood (before the age of 18) while the majority told in adulthood (68%). The delay was up to 49 years, with an average of 21 years ( $SD = 12.9$ ). Of those who told in childhood, 59 per cent told only one person. In Ireland, the SAVI study ( $n = 3118$ , [REDACTED] *et al.*, 2002) found that 47 per cent of those respondents who had experienced some form of sexual assault prior to age 17 had told no-one of this experience until the survey. McElvaney (2002) investigated delay in a legal sample of ten adults who had made formal complaints of childhood sexual abuse in Ireland and found delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years. + +Studies of children in the context of forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused also point to high non-disclosure rates, particularly striking in cases where there is corroborative evidence that abuse has occurred – medical evidence (Lyon, 2007), or confessions from the abuser or videotaped evidence/witness reports ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002). Lyon (2007) reported his findings from a review of studies published between 1965 and 1993 of children diagnosed with gonorrhoea where the average disclosure rate among 579 children was 43 per cent ( $n = 250$ ). In a study where the evidence for the abuse was available on videotape, children have denied abuse when interviewed by the police ([REDACTED] and Lindblad, 2002). + +In summary, significant numbers of children do not disclose experiences of sexual abuse until adulthood and adult survey results suggest that significant + +**'The rates for immediate disclosure are lower in the adolescent study than in the adult study'** + +**'Children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples'** + +**'Delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years'** + +# 'High numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time' + +'They found that interviewers behaved differently with the two groups' + +'A parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days' + +proportions of adults have never disclosed such abuse, as evidenced by the high numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time. + +# Patterns of Disclosure — Partial Disclosure + +Information on how children disclose over time can be obtained from studies of children who participated in forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused. The issue of partial disclosures was highlighted by earlier studies such as those by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year olds (i.e. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to 15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external evidence that led to more complete disclosures). + +More recently, investigators have examined the role of the interviewer and questioning styles in the forensic interview and how this impacts on children's disclosures and the level of detail provided in interview. Hershkowitz et at (2006) compared tapes of interviews with children who disclosed sexual abuse and those who did not (but about whom there was `substantial' reason to believe that they had been abused). They found that interviewers behaved differently with the two groups, using different types of prompts with children who presented as somewhat uncooperative, offered fewer details and gave more uninformative responses at the beginning of the interview. It would appear that interviewers responded to less communicative children by increasing the proportion of closed questions which in turn led to children being less forthcoming. Lamb et at (2002) have found that the use of a protocol that emphasises the use of prompts that elicit free narrative (e.g. 'tell me about that') as compared with closed questions (those requiring a yes/no response) has resulted in more detail and more accuracy in children's accounts. + +Although few studies exist that examine the phenomenon of disclosure in informal settings (when disclosure is made to a friend or family member), some qualitative studies have described this process. McElvaney (2008) quoted one teenage girl who described hinting to her mother prior to disclosing the experience: 'I didn't tell her what happened but I was saying things that made her think it made her think that it happened but I didn't tell her' (p. 127). A parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days, keeping the most difficult parts of the story until last: + +'Hc came out with like it came out over two or three days so you know...hc'd say well I've something else to tell you... the bad stuff last... what hurt him most and what he's saying what hurt him most' (p. 92) + +And finally, one young person described how she told her social worker + +'I couldn't tell her most things but I just gave things to her to read... I told her at first I told her bits of it and cm then just the others. I finished writing and then I gave them to her... later I told her that it was the father as well' (p. 93) + +This young person had been abused by both a father and son in a family with whom she was staying. + +In reviewing the literature on this subject, London and colleagues (2005) noted, 'when children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so' (p. 204). + +# Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure + +There are many influences on disclosure that have been identified in the research literature to help explain why it is that children delay disclosure, are reluctant to disclose, provide details of their experiences over time or do not disclose at all. Age has been identified as a significant predictor of disclosure in that younger children are less likely to disclose than older children. Children who are abused by a family member are less likely to disclose and more likely to delay disclosure than those abused by someone outside the family et al., 2000; Goodman= et at, 2003; Kogan, 2004). Children who do disclose during forensic interviews compared to children who do not disclose in such contexts (yet concerns remain that they have been abused) are more likely to have parents (particularly mothers) who are more supportive (Lawson and Chaffin, 1992). In Priebe and Svedin's (2008) study of young people. parental bonding (positive relationship with parent who was not overprotective) was identified as the most significant predictor of disclosure for both boys and girls. However, close relationships can also act as an inhibitor to disclosure. McElvaney (2008) found that many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents while others were concerned about the consequences for others of their disclosure. One I3-year-old girl described her concern that if she told, her uncle would go to jail and her small cousins would be left without a father: + +'I didn't want them to grow up with no Dad and just looking at ... their other little friends having their Dad holding their handl felt like 1 was taking their Dad away from them' (p. 130) + +Gender has been found to influence disclosure in that boys appear to be more reluctant to disclose than girls (Goodman- et at, 2003; Hershkowitz et at, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). Mental health difficulties on the part of the child have also been found to be relevant, particularly when children experience dissociative symptoms or other post-traumatic stress symptomatology (Priebe and Svedin, 2008). + +Some studies have found that the severity of abuse (e.g. penetrative abuse) predicts earlier disclosure while other studies have found no relationship between different types of abuse and disclosure timing. Similarly, the relationship between the duration of abuse — one-off incidents of abuse compared with abuse that takes place over a significant period of time — and timely disclosure has been investigated with mixed findings. Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure and this in turn is associated with the age of the child (Goodman- et at, 2003). Older children are more cognitively competent in terms of being able to reflect on and anticipate possible reactions to their disclosure. This can act then as an inhibitor to disclosure, although as noted above, most studies have found that older children arc more likely to disclose than younger children. Fears of not being believed have been described by young people as inhibiting their disclosure and these fears are often "When children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so" + +`Younger children are less likely to disclose than older children' + +'Many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents' + +'Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure' + +# 'Investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children' + +# 'Significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others' + +# 'The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts' + +justified. Hershkowitz et at (2007) interviewed children about their initial disclosures prior to formal interview and 50 per cent of the sample (n = 30) reported feeling afraid or ashamed of their parents' reaction. The authors reported that parents did show a tendency to blame their children and react angrily to the disclosure. + +Recent research has highlighted the need for children to be asked direct questions to facilitate their disclosure. Of those children who did disclose, significant proportions disclosed following prompts rather than it being initiated by the child (Kogan, 2004). Qualitative studies drawing on interviews with children that focus on the disclosure process are important in investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children. McElvaney (2008) found that parents' questioning of children was prompted by their concern about the young person's emotional distress. On occasion, young people were communicating that something was not right in their world but were not able to articulate this verbally. Signs of psychological distress were, however, evident and questions targeted at the reasons for this distress were identified by McElvaney as a factor that helped young people to tell. Thus, many children may not have told about their experiences of abuse because they were not asked. et al. (2002) followed up a sample of their respondents who had disclosed childhood abuse for the first time in their survey. When asked why they had not disclosed prior to the survey, many respondents noted that it was because they had not been asked. Increasingly, research studies are finding that significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others in the child's educational and social milieu that in themselves provide an opportunity for the young person to tell (Jensen et at, 2005; Hershkowitz et at, 2007; McElvaney et at, 2012). + +Finally, some children need time to tell. Mudaly and Goddard (2006) quote a 13-year-old girl: 'she (mother) helped by not making me, not rushing me to get it out, which, urn, I think it's a really stupid idea to make kids get it out A.S.A.P.' (p. 91). + +# Implications for Practice + +The consensus in the research literature at the present time is that disclosure is multi-determined, influenced by a complex range of factors that may influence each child in a different way. Large-scale national probability studies confirm that non-disclosure and delays in disclosure are significant problems facing society and in particular for those professionals tasked with safeguarding the wellbeing of children. Children's fears and anxieties in relation to telling need to be understood and contained by those in their environment so that early disclosure can be encouraged and facilitated. + +The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts: the legal context where action can only be taken if the child is able to give a clear, credible account of his/her experiences; child protection and therapeutic contexts where a comprehensive account is required to enable child protection professionals to intervene and where the psychological sequelae can be addressed to minimise the long-term impact of the experiences; and family and community contexts where early disclosure needs to be encouraged, and other family issues addressed in the aftermath of disclosure and where peers play an important role. + +Studies have confirmed the importance of professionals asking children and young people in a sensitive, open manner about possible experiences of abuse using non-leading questioning styles to minimise inaccurate accounts or contaminate children's narratives. It is clearly important for professionals to remain open to the possibility of abuse and further disclosure. It is equally important for professionals to be able to avoid persisting with questioning those children who are 'reluctant disclosers'. Similarly, professionals engaged with children in therapeutic work need to be open to the possibility of both initial and further disclosures. + +Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements and giving additional detail to original formal statements can be interpreted within child protection, therapeutic and legal contexts as a contradiction of an earlier account. Listening to children's accounts of their experiences of disclosure helps us understand why it is that disclosure can be delayed and that when they do feel ready to tell this is not an 'all or nothing' decision. As one young person in Steller and Nelson-Gardell's (2005) study noted, 'it's never finished, never' p. 1426. This understanding in turn helps us identify those circumstances and reactions that may encourage the child to disclose. + +The importance of asking children questions, thus giving them an opportunity to tell, has been identified. While parents, teachers and those in daily contact with children are often reluctant to question children, it is clear that many children do not disclose unless given this opportunity. Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner. McElvaney (2008) noted that questions did not need to be about sexual abuse per se, but rather questions prompted by the young person's psychological distress, asking after the young people's wellbeing. This questioning in effect acted as an external pressure for the young person to tell his/her secret (McElvancy et al., 2012). In Ungar et al.'s (2009a) study of Canadian youth, they found that young people used a range of disclosure strategies ranging from less direct strategies (such as risk-taking behaviours, not talking about the abuse) to direct strategies (such as seeking support from peers, turning to non-professional adult supports, disclosing to formal service providers), representing a process that relied heavily on others to 'build the between the youth and formal care providers' (p. 352). + +The tendency to delay disclosing and the partial nature of many disclosures are not conducive to successful legal investigations and prosecutions. In addition, the knowledge base that exists within the legal sphere is limited if only a percentage of the children who experience sexual abuse engage with this system. The disproportionately high 'immediate disclosure' rate found in Goodman et al.'s (2003) legal sample compared to Kogan's (2004) community sample raises the question of the representation of delayed disclosers in the legal system. Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system? Are delays in disclosing contributing to decisions not to prosecute child sexual abuse crimes? In Ireland, the 1990s saw a significant increase in the numbers of complainants coming before the courts reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Many of these cases were referred to the higher courts for judicial review proceedings to establish whether the cases could proceed without prejudicing the accused given the + +# `Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements' + +# `Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner' + +# 'Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system?' + +'Concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered' + +'Many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend' + +'An adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience' + +delay in the complaint being made and giving due regard to the accused's right to a speedy trial. Psychological expert testimony was sought as part of these proceedings to explain the delay in disclosure in each individual case to enable the courts to adjudicate on whether the delay in reporting was reasonable (see McElvaney, 2002). This legal mechanism provided an opportunity to enhance the knowledge base within the legal profession as to the complexities involved in disclosing and formally reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse for adults. While one might expect that the legal system would be more sympathetic to children's difficulties in making disclosures, it may also be the case that the belief that 'if the child was really sexually abused, why would they not tell?', as articulated by Sununit (1983), still prevails. + +In addition, concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered. A prospective longitudinal study conducted by Quas et at (2005) indicated that the consequences of legal involvement change over the course of development and as a function of the child's reactions to and experiences during the legal case. The associations between legal involvement and outcomes varied with age. The authors suggested that although younger children may be at increased risk for some adverse outcomes such as mental health problems, older children may be at increased risk for other undesirable sequelae such as the negative attitudes of others toward them. Quas and Goodman's (2011) recent review notes that older children are more at risk in developing poor mental health outcomes. Thus, as noted earlier, young people's fears of the consequences of disclosure may well be justified. Raised awareness of both the prevalence of non-disclosure of sexual abuse and the importance of supporting children to disclose may go some way to addressing children's fears. + +One interesting finding in recent studies is that many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend. McElvaney (2008) and Ungar et at (2009b) identified peer influence as significant in encouraging disclosure among adolescents. There is some suggestion from the research that regardless of the age at the time of abuse, adolescence may be a 'critical period' for disclosure. It may be that targeting adolescents in general (rather than those at risk of abuse) may be a powerful prevention tool in encouraging early disclosure. Evaluations of child abuse prevention programmes have shown significant improvements in the levels of awareness of child abuse in children and young people (Rispers a at, 1997; Zwi et at, 2007). It may be that the increasing trend towards peer disclosure is a by-product of such educational and awareness-raising programmes. There is evidence that public awareness campaigns when implemented as part of a multi-dimensional strategy that involves targeting children, parents and communities (see Lalor and McElvaney, 2010, for a review of child abuse prevention programmes) are an effective tool in the prevention of child abuse. + +McElvaney et at (2012) describe the importance for young people of containing the secret of abuse and their need for confidentiality following disclosure as representing an adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience and his/her emotional reaction to it. The conflict between wanting/needing to keep the secret and wanting/needing to tell is mediated by what they term the 'pressure cooker effect'. Young people in their study described influences from within and without that led to a build up of pressure, ultimately leading to disclosure. They suggest that building up the + +pressure for young people by providing opportunities to tell may be needed to help young people tell more promptly. However, the lack of control that young people experience following disclosure remains an issue (Ungar et al., 2009b: Quayle et at, 2012). This highlights the need for dissemination of information directly to young people about the legal process, the possible consequences of disclosure, as well as ongoing developments in legal proceedings when young people and their families interface with the legal system. + +The more recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures rather than solely on identifying barriers to disclosure is perhaps more helpful in informing awareness-raising campaigns and professional interventions. The author is involved in a large-scale review of children's files in an assessment service to ascertain those factors that helped children tell about their experiences of sexual abuse. A pilot study has suggested that this is an appropriate methodology for gathering data on children's experiences of informal disclosure, acknowledging the limitations of such an approach. Ungar et al. (2009a) describe the optimal conditions for disclosure as follows: being directly asked about experiences of abuse; having access to someone who will listen, believe and respond appropriately; having knowledge and language about what constitutes abuse and how to access help; having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity (not being identified until they arc ready for this) and confidentiality (the right to control who knows); and effective responses by adults both in informal and formal contexts. + +Ungar et at (2009b) support recent developments in prevention programmes that target supportive formal and informal caregivers in being better able to detect the possibility of abuse and support disclosures rather than focusing on empowering children themselves in making disclosures. Their findings in relation to the importance of bridge building for young people to access formal supports are supported by Jensen et at's (2005) emphasis on the dialogical nature of disclosure, and the important role that trusted adults and peers play in the disclosure process through noticing signs of psychological distress and asking young people about their psychological wellbeing (Collings et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2005; McElvancy et at, 2012). More emphasis is therefore needed on providing opportunities for children and young people to disclose. The challenge for professionals and those who care for children is how to do this in a way that protects children and promotes their wellbeing. + +### References + +Collings SJ. S. Kumalo M. 2005. Patterns of disclosure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology 35(2): 270 285. DeVoe ER, Faller KC. 1999.The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment 4: 217 227. Elliott DM, Flricre J. 1994. Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomalol Behavioral Sciences & the Law 12: 261 277. Goodman TB. Edelstein RS. Goodman GS. MDPH, DS. 2003. Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 27: 525 540. Hershkowitz 1, Horowitz I3, Lamb ME. 2005. Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(11): 1203 1214. Hershkowitz I. Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Sternberg 1O, Horowitz D. 2006. Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose. Child Abuse & Neglect 30: 753 769. + +`More recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures' + +`Having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity and confidentiality' + +- Hershkowitz I. Lanes O. Lamb ME. 2007. Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect 31: III 123. Jensen TK, Gulbrandsen W, Mossige S, Reichelt S, Tjersland OA. 2005. Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(12): 1395 1413. Jonson E, Lindblad F. 2004. Disclosure, reactions and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment 9(2): 190 200. Kilpatrick DG. Saunders BE. 1995. The National Survey of Adolescents in the United States [Computer File]. Medical University of South Carolina [producer], 1999. Inter university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2000: Ann Arbor, MI. Kogan SM. 2004. Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect 28: 147 165. Lalor K. McElvaney R. 2010. Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk sexual behavior, and prevention/treatment programs. Trauma. Violence & Abuse 11(4): 159 177. DOI: 10.1177/1524838010378299 Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Steinberg KJ, Esplin PW Hcrshkowitz I. 2002.Tbe effects of forensic interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In Children's Testimony: A Ilandbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice. Westcott GM. Bull R (ads). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester. England; 131 145. Lawson L. Chaffin, M. 1992. False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews: Incidence and influence of caretaker's belief in abuse in cases of accidental abuse discovery by diagnosis of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(4): 532 542. London K, Bruck M, Ceci Si, Shuman D. 2005. Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology Public Policy and Law 11(1): 194 226. Lyon TD. 2007. False denials: Overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research. In Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial. M Pipe, M Lamb, Y Orbach. AC Cederborg (cds). Erlbaum Associates: London; 41 62. McElvaney R. 2002. Delays in reporting childhood sexual abuse and implications for legal proceedings. In Sex and Violence: The Psychology of Crime and Risk Asscssmcnt. Farrington DR Hollin CR, McMurran M (eds). Routicdge: London; 138 153. McElvaney R. 2008. How children tell: containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Trinity College, Dublin. MeElvancy R. S. Hogan D. 2012. Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(6):I155 1175. DOI: 10.1177/0886260511424503 +- H. Garavan R. deBana M, Byrne J. Conroy R. 2002. The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland. The Liffey Press: Dublin. Mudaly N. Goddard C. 2006. The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and professional interventions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London. Olafson E, Lederman CS. 2006. The state of the debate about children's disclosure patterns in child sexual abuse cases. .htvenile and Family Court Journal 57(1): 27 40. Priebe G. Svedin CG. 2008. Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of adolescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect 32: 1095 1108. Quas JA. Goodman GS. 2011. Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology Public Policy and Law 18. 392 414 10.1037/a0026146 Quas JA, Goodman GS, Ghetti SA, Kristen W, Edelstein RR, Allison D, Cordon IM, DPH. 2005. Childhood sexual assault victims: Long term outcomes after testifying in criminal court: VII. General discussion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 70(2): 104 Ill. Quayle E. Jonsson L. Loof L. 2012. Online Behaviour related to Child Sexual Abuse: Preliminary Version. ROBERT Project. Available: http://www.innocenccindangendeffileadmin/user upload/ Downbads/ROBERTfinterview analysis PRELIMINARY.pdf 118 June 2012]. Resnick HS.. Kilpatrick DG.. Dansky BS. Saunders BE. & Best CL. 1993. Prevalence of civilian trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in representative national sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 984 991. Rispers J. Aleman A. Goudena PP. 1997. Prevention of child sexual abuse victimization: A meta analysis of school programs. Child Abuse & Neglect 21: 975 987. RL, Lindblad F. 2002.Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. The American Journal of Psychiatry 159: 312 314. + +DW, Letoumeau EL Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, Resnick, HS, Best CL. 2000. Delay in disclosure of childhood rapc: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect 24: 273 287. Stadler KM, Nelson Gardell D. 2005. "A burden in your heart": Lessons of disclosure front female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 29: 1415 1432. Summit R. 1983. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect 7(2): 177 193 Ungar M, Barter K. McConnell S, Tutty L, Fairholm J. 2009a. Patterns of disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 341 356. DOI: 10.1177/1473325009337842. Ungar M, Tutty LM, McConnell S, Barter K, Fairholm J. 20096. What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse &ilict, 33: 699 708. Zwi KJ. Woolfcnden SR. Wheeler DM. TA. Tait P. KW. 2007. School based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 3: CD004380. + +# CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE + +# Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults + +Iva A. E. Bicanic", Lieve M. Hehenkampl , Elise M. van de Puttee, Arjen J. van Wijk3 and Ad de Jongh3.4 + +'National Psychotraumacenter for Children and Youth. University Medical Center Utrecht. Utrecht The Netherlands; 2Department of Paediatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 3Department of Behavioral Sciences, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; "School of Health Sciences, Salford University, Manchester, United Kngdom + +Background: Delayed disclosure of rape has been associated with impaired mental health; it is, therefore, important to understand which factors are associated with disclosure latency. The purpose of this study was to compare various demographics, post rape characteristics, and psychological functioning of early and delayed disclosers (i.e., more than I week post rape) among rape victims, and to determine predictors for delayed disclosure. + +Methods: Data were collected using a structured interview and validated questionnaires in a sample of 323 help seeking female adolescents and young adults (12 25 years). who were victimized by rape, but had no reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. + +Result,. In 59% of the cases. disclosure occurred within I week. Delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. No significant differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek professional help. The combination of age category 12 17 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, confidence intervals (CI) 1.13 3.73]. penetration (OR 2.36. CI 1.25 4.46). and closeness to assailant (OR 2.64. CI 1.52 4.60) contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure. + +Conclusion: The results point to the need of targeted interventions that specifically encourage rape victims to disclose early, thereby increasing options for access to health and police services. + +Keywords: Adolescents; young adults; rape: sevual assault; disclosure; latent). to disclosure: posuraumatie stress disorder + +Responsible Editor: Rita Rosner. KU Eichstaett Ingolstadt. Germany. + +'Correspondence to: Iva A. E. Bicanic, National Psychotrauma Center for Children and Youth, University Medical Center Utrecht. P.O. Box 85090, NL 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands, Email: i.a.e.bicanio@umcutrecht.n1 + +For the abstract or full text in other languages. please see Supplementary files under 'Article Tools + +Received: 31 August 2014: Revised: 30 March 2015: Accepted: 13 April 2015: Published: 11 May 2015 + +p revious studies have shown that disclosure of rape to formal agencies, such as police or mental health services, is uncommon (Fisher. Cullen. & Turner. 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), especially when the rape has been committed on a date or by an acquaintance and involves the victim's use of drugs and/or alcohol (Resnick et al., 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). There is evidence to suggest that victims believe that professionals will not be helpful to them because their rape experience does not match stereotypical conceptions of rape, such as involving a stranger. a wca n, and severe injury (Patterson, Grceson, & iiiiiiiiiiii 2009; Resnick et al., 2000). Accordingly, adolescents and young adults, who are more at risk to be victimized by rape than other age + +groups (De Haas. Van Berl& Bakker. & Vanwesenbeeck. 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), may not receive targeted mental health care and may not report the crime to the police (Ruch, Coyne, & Perrone, 2000). + +For reasons of mental health and public safety, it is important to understand the potential factors that arc related to disclosure. Timing of disclosure may be a crucial factor, as early disclosers are more likely to utilize appropriate medical care and report to the police than delayed disclosers (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010; Ullman & Filipas. 2001). In contrast, adults who wait longer than 1 month to disclose the rape are more likely to suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression compared to early disclosers (Ruggiero et al., 2004). + +afferflefeWfwal W PSYWarrforwidocri 2015. C 20151m A. E. Bloat et S. Ibis 6 w Open Access wide defamed under the loom of the Gomm CaTTCOS Atuotion 4.0 Intemaucratakerawhard/creas4econwnawlicereeatOW41.O/). allowing third perbestocoor and fecIstobute the MP4enal nervyrheidumOr !WM. end 10 wax. tandem. and tulOupenthOillafeitt axanyourwee.evencawrecitily.undertheccodeto that ocprowateueful a gvfn. that sankto tho Irmo. isproMod. arid that you odcafe 4 Changes weremade. You may Off so in Sly roast:awe tnann ce. no not in any way Ih31 suggests tho If:ensue oncicssOS you of la' use. + +In addition, adolescents who disclose their rape experience at least I month after the incident took place are found to be at higher risk for major depressive disorder and delinquency (Broman-Fulks et al.. 2007) compared to those who disclosed within 1 month. + +Victim-assailant relationship is crucial in disclosure latency, with victims being at higher risk for delayed disclosure if there is a close relation with the assailant (Kogan, 2004; Koss, 1988; Rickert, Wiemann, & Vaughan, 2005). In contrast, delayed disclosure is less common in victims of a stereotypical rape. i.e., rape by a stranger including a weapon and injury ( et al., 2000). Victims of prior sexual trauma arc more likely to postpone disclosure of a su uent assault than those without prior victimization et al., 2000; Ullman, 1996). This is in contrast with the findings of Ahrens et al. (2010), who report no difference in rates of prior sexual trauma between early and delayed disclosers. In addition, the victim's age appears to be an important variable in predicting disclosure. Evidence suggests that young children are at higher risk for delayed disclosure than adolescents (Kogan. 2004; Sch0nbucher, Maier. Mohler-Kuo. Schnyder, & Landon. 2012). Thus, various rape and victim-related characteristics have been found to be associated with timing of disclosure. + +The majority of the aforementioned studies included college and adult female rape victims. It is important to examine rape disclosure latency in an age and sex group that is most at risk for rape victimization. There is only one prior quantitative study in adolescents (those aged 12-17 years) that identified factors that might influence disclosure latency (Kogan, 2004). He found that identity of the assailant, a familial relationship with the assailant, and a history of drug abuse in the household were related to the timing of disclosure. The results suggested that a familial relationship with the assailant will postpone disclosure, whereas a history of drug abuse in the household, albeit this seems counterintuitive, makes prompt disclosure more likely. This study had some limitations, including the fact that the interviews were conducted by telephone and that the description of the relationship with the assailant was limited. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated a sample of female adolescent and young adult victims of rape who were admitted to a specialized mental health centre for victims of sexual assault. The first aim of this study was to compare demographics post-rape characteristics, and psychological functioning between early and delayed disclosers in this group. The second aim. based on the exploratory findings of Kogan (2004), was to determine the predictors for delayed disclosure in adolescents and young adults, including age. prior trauma, and victim-assailant relationship using logistic regression analyses. Insight into the predictors for delayed disclosure for adolescents and young adults may reveal not only potential causal mechanisms but also possible targets for interventions that increase victims' opportunities to receive timely post-rape services. + +# Methods + +# Subjects and data collection + +Rape was defined as "an event that occurred without the victim's consent that involved the use or threat of force in vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse" (Tjaden & Thoennes. 2006). The definition includes both attempted and completed rape; the term "completed" referring to vaginal, oral, anal, or multiple penetrations. Victims who disclosed within I week were defined as "early disclosers," whereas those who disclosed at least after I week were defined as "delayed disclosers." This dichotomization of the variable "disclosure latency" was based on the study of Ahrens et al. (2010) and the national standard criteria for admission to a Rape Centre in the Netherlands, i.e., a maximum of 7 days post-rape. + +The study was conducted in the Dutch National Psychotrauma Centre, which provides psychological services for rape victims aged 12-25 years and their parents. Between May 2005 and December 2011. the centre received 621 phone calls concerning alleged rape victims from police authorities, mental health services, and selfreferrals. In 178 cases, the phone call did not result in admission at the centre because of age limitations, or motivational reasons. In 108 cases, referrals were made to other institutions because the index trauma was chronic childhood sexual abuse rather than rape in adolescence/ young adulthood. Of the 335 cases admitted to the centre, 12 were not included in this study because of male gender, resulting in a final sample of 323 females with the index trauma being single rape. Referral sources for this final sample included the police (33.7%), mental health services (40.7%). and self-referrals, i.e., victims or parents (25.6%). + +### Procedure + +During admission, all patients underwent a psychological assessment, consisting of I) a structured interview for obtaining demographic and post-rape characteristics and 2) self-report questionnaires to obtain information about mental health functioning. Information from the interview was transcribed onto a form designed for this purpose. The following variables were obtained and dichotomized or categorized for the purpose of the study: + +# Demographic and victim characteristics + +We asked patients about their current age. educational level (lower, middle, or higher), and whether they were of Dutch origin (i.e., in case of having parents born in the Netherlands). Those between 12 and 17 years of age were defined as adolescents and those between 18 and 25 years of age as young adults. We also asked whether the patient was living with their parent(s) (yes/no), and whether the + +family structure was complete. i.e.. whether the biological parents were living together (yes/no). Patients were then asked to confirm the presence of prior negative sexual experiences (yes/no), and whether they had a current sexual relationship (yes/no). + +# Rape characteristics + +Information about date and time of the rape was obtained to calculate the time since rape at admission. Next, patients were requested to describe the rape. Their response was categorized into use of penetration (yes/no), group rape (yes/no), use of physical violence (yes/no), and use of threats verbally and/or with a weapon (yes/no). Also, information regarding the victim's relationship to the assailant was obtained. The assailant was defined as a stranger when the victim had never been in contact with the assailant before the rape. Responses were used to form a closeness category (yes in case of family. (boy) friend, or mentor). Patients were also asked about the (estimated) age of the assailant (categorized into 12-17 years or >18 years), and whether the victim had used alcohol prior to the rape (yes/no). + +# Post-rape characteristics + +Patients were asked when they first talked about the rape. The response was used to calculate the disclosure time and the help-seeking time. At the end of the interview, patients were asked whether they had reported to the police after the incident (yes/no), and whether they had received any medical care after the incident (yes/no). + +The study was performed in accordance with the precepts and regulations for research as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Dutch Medical Research involving Humans Subjects Act concerning scientific research. According to the Ethical Medical Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, this act was not applicable to the present study. Written informed consent was obtained from both patients and parents. + +# Measures + +## Posttraumatic stress + +The Children's Responses to Trauma Inventory (CRTI; Alisic, Eland, & Kleber, 2006) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This is a 34-item questionnaire assessing severity of FISD symptoms according to DSM-IV. Patients are asked to indicate to what extent a reaction to a traumatic event was present during the past week. Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more symptomatology. The four subscales: Intrusion, Avoidance, Arousal, and Other Child-Specific Reactions consist of 7. I I, 6, and 10 items, respectively. The reliability of this instrument is good to excellent (Cronbach's a 0.92 for total score, 0.79 for Intrusion, 0.77 for Avoidance, 0.71 for Arousal; Alisic & Kleber, 2010). Fur the purpose of the study, only the total score was analysed. + +# Depression + +Children Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs. 1992: Timbremont & Braet. 2002) was used for participants aged 12-17 years of age. The CDI is a 27-item questionnaire. assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioural symptoms of depression. The Dutch CDI has a satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach's a ranging between 0.71 and 0.89 (Timbremont & Braet, 2002). + +# Behavioural problems + +The Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This questionnaire evaluates the teenager's perception of behavioural and emotional problems. YSR has shown to be internally reliable (Cronbach's a's ranging from 0.71 to 0.95). and convergent and discriminant validity is reported to be satisfactory (Barub6 & Achenbach. 2006). The YSR includes four broadband scales and nine narrow-band scales to assims behaviour problems. For the purpose of the study, only the total score on behaviour problems was included in the analyses. + +# General psychopathology + +The Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R: Arrindell & Ettema, 1986) was used for participants aged 12-25 years. This is a 90-item self-report inventory to assess psychosocial distress. Patients were instructed to indicate the amount they were bothered by each of the distress symptoms during the preceding week. Patients rated 90 distress symptoms on a five-point Likert scale with I being "not at all" and 5 being "extremely." The statements are assigned to eight dimensions reflecting various types of psychopathology: anxiety. agoraphobia. depression. somatization. insufficiency, sensitivity, hostility, and insomnia. The Global Severity Index (GSI) can be used as a summary of the test and reflects the severity of all answered statements as a global measure of distress. Cronbach's a has been found to range from 0.73 to 0.97. For the purpose of the study, only the GSI was analysed. + +# Data analyses + +To compare demographic and post-rape characteristics between the early and delayed disclosers. chi-square tests were used. To compare multiple continuous psychological scores. MANCOVA was used with "time since trauma" as a covariate to correct for the potential influence of time since trauma. + +Delayed disclosure was used as a dependent variable. The strength of the univariate associations between each potential risk factor and delayed disclosure was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). To determine the strongest risk factors for delayed disclosure, each potential risk + +factor identified in the univariatc analyses with a significant OR (p <0.05) was entered as a predictor variable into the multivariable model, using a stepwise forward logistic regression (LR) analysis with delayed disclosure as the outcome variable. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodnessof-fit chi-square was used to calculate how well the data fit the model. For all statistical analyses, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. + +All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0, IBM Corp.. Armonk, NY). + +# Results + +# Socio-demographic characteristics + +Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. Victims' age ranged from 12 to 25 years. with a mean age of 16.7 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 16.1 years. Victims' mean age at time of rape was 14.3 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 13.9 years. Penetration occurred in 79.6% of the cases. None of the victims reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. Data about victim—assailant relationship are presented in Table 2. Victims first disclosed after a mean 20.8 weeks (SD =56.8. range 1-624 weeks), although 58.5% of the cases told within I week. First disclosure was to a friend (45.8%), parcnt(s) (17.1%). (ex) boy-friend (9.4%), family member (6.8%), professional (5.8%), or other adult (15.2%). With regard to post-rape services, 53.8% of all victims consulted a doctor for medical care and 51.4% reported to the police. On average. victims were admitted to the centre 59.8 weeks post-rape (SD =93.7. range 1-676). The mean GSI of the rape victims on the SCL-90- R (M=209.7, SD =61.8) was comparable with previously reported data of psychiatric populations [M=203.55, SD =61.60: t(269) =1.629. p =0.104] and was substantially + +Table 1. Demographic characteristics of rape victims (N =323) in valid percentages + +| | N | 96 | +|--------------------------------|-----|------| +| Dutch origin° Education level° | 274 | 84.8 | +| Low | 182 | 58.0 | +| Medium | 76 | 24.2 | +| High | 56 | 17.8 | +| Parents divorced | 102 | 31.9 | +| Lives at parental home | 273 | 85.3 | +| Current relationship | 81 | 28.5 | +| Prior negative sex | 46 | 14.8 | + +&#x27;Dutch origin was defined as being a child from parents born in the Netherlands; °after 6 years of general primary school, at the age of 12 years, students enter low (4 years). medium (5 years), or high (6 years) secondary education level.

1 (ii)li 2 Victim assailant relationship (N =323) in valid percentages

Stranger9429.5
(Ex-)Boyfriend3210.0
Friend3310.3
Acquaintance6119.1
Person met during nightlife309.4
Second-degree relative154.7
Person seen only once154.7
Person from school144.4
Person met on the intemet123.8
Colleague103.1
Mentor31.0

higher [t(269) =24.297. p <0.001j compared to the general population (M=118.28, SD =32.38; Arrindell & Ettema, 1986). For the CDI, mean scores were in the clinical range (M =17.2, SD =4.6) and rape victims had significantly higher mean scores (t(230)=15.923. p <0.001). in comparison to previously reported data of the general population of adolescent girls (Timbremont. Bract, & Roelofs, 2008; M=9.01, SD = 6.45).

Differences between early and delayed disclosers

Fifty-nine percent of the sample consisted of early disclosers (disclosure within I week). No significant differences in demographic characteristics were found between early and delayed disclosers, except that there were more delayed disclosers in the age category 12-17 years compared to the early disclosers group (x2 (0=6.96; p =0.008). For rape characteristics, significant differences between groups were found for the use of penetration, with more victims of penetration in the delayed disclosers group compared to the early disclosers group (12 (I ) = 5.37; p =0.02). Also, the delayed disclosers group presented more victims of verbal and/or weapon threats than the early disclosers group (x2 (I) = 5.35; p=0.02). Furthermore, among the delayed disclosers more victims identified the assailant as a close person compared to the early disclosers (x2 (1 ) = 10.84; p =0.001). Alcohol was used more often in the early disclosers group compared to the delayed disclosers group (x2 (I ) =20.24:p <0.001).

With respect to post-rape characteristics, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (15.9%) utilized medical services following the rape compared to the early disclosers (30.3%; Z2 (I)=5.32; p =0.02). Similarly, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (14.6%) compared to the early disclosers (34.3%) reported the rape to the police (x2 (I) =16.15: p <0.001). The time since trauma at admission was significantly lower for early disclosers (M =41.1 weeks. SD =79.4) than for delayed disclosers (M =82.9 weeks.

SD =103.3; :(314) =4.06, p <0.001). Mean and median time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups (x(309)=2.54, p <0.48). Excluding outliers (M±3 SD, N =I I ) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level of psychological distress when compared to previously reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts, Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbremont et al., 2008; YSR, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that when comparing multiple continuous psychological scores the overall psychological functioning (posttraumatic stress. depression, behavioural problems, and general psychopathology) did not differ significantly between early and delayed disclosers (116.198) =0.88. p =0.51).

Table 3 shows the ORs with 95% Cls for the associations between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers, were significantly more likely to be in the age category of 12-17 years (OR =2.10), to have experienced rape by a close person (OR =2.35), to have been threatened verbally and/or with a weapon (OR = 1.75), and to have experienced penetration (OR =1.99). Delayed disclosers were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to the rape (OR =0.22). None of the other factors were found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure.

Predicting delayed disclosure

A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict delayed disclosure, using "age category," "close assailant," "use of threats?" and "penetration" as predictors. Victims' alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of missing values for 33.4% of the cases. The use of threats was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e., age category 12-17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (x2 (3) =23.09, p <0.000). There were no significant interactions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predictors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer-Lemeshow z2 (4) = 2.77, p <0.60). In total, 62% of the respondents were categorized correctly, when using the three predictors that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years (OR 2.05. CI 1.13- 3.73). penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25-4.46). and closeness to the assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52-4.60).

Discussion

The results of this study show that, although no differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek help,

delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that delayed disclosers represented significantly more adolescents than young adults, significantly more victims of penetration than assault, significantly more victims who were threatened than not threatened, and significantly more victims who were close with the assailant.

The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to utilize medical services and report to the police than early disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not only impede reception of proper medical care, such as treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden, 2011). but also impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013).

Three variables were identified that successfully predicted delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years, penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The finding that the victim's age significantly predicts disclosure latency is in line with previous research showing that adolescents are at a greater risk for delayed disclosure when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan. 2004; et al., 2000). Adolescents may be less able to overcome the barriers to disclose, including factors such as assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood, they may possess more information about their rights and options after victimization, and have more possibilities for whom to disclose. In our study, most adolescents disclosed the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma et al., 2004; Priebe & Svedin, 2008).

The use of penetration was found to make victims more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results from Priebe and Svedin (2008), but in line with an older study by Arata (1998). who found that more severe forms of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure. Penetration may influence disclosure latency through a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of tactics to maintain the victim's silence, with fear of reprisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed disclosure (Kogan. 2004). Also, adolescents may think that social reactions in response to disclosure are more negative in case of completed rape compared to assault.

Another factor that seems to make immediate disclosure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant, as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family

fable 3 Demographic and (post )rape characteristics by disclosure time (early vs delayed disclosers) and odds ratios for delayed disclosure

Demographic and (post-)rape characteristics Age category (years)Early disclosure (N =185)(i.e., >1-week post-rape), N = 131Delayed disclosure 96OR95% CI
18 255517.4227.0
12 17 Dutch origin13041.110934.52.101.20 3.65'
No278.5227.0
Yes Living with parent(s)15850.010934.50.850.46 1.56
No299.2165.1
Yes Complete family structure15549.211536.51.350.70 2.59
No5818.44213.3
Yes Current sexual relationship12740.38827.90.960.59 1.55
No12741.89731.9
Yes Prior negative sexual experience(s)5317.4278.90.670.39 1.14
No15249.411035.7
Yes Known assailant3210.4144.50.610.31 1.19
No5617/3611.4
Yes Close to assailant12940.89530.11.150.70 1.88
No15047.68426.7
Yes Group rape3511.14614.62.351.40 3.93'
No16050.811636.8
Yes Age of assailant (years)247.6154.80.860.43 1.71
12 176320.65417.6
>18 Use of penetration11738.27223.50.720.45 1.14
No4614.7196.1
Yes Use of threats13643.511235.81.991.10 3.60'
No9031.64816.8
Yes Use of physical violence7626.77124.91.751.09 2.87
No13042.68226.9
Yes Victim's alcohol use5116.74213.81.310.80 2.14
No7233.56932.1
Yes6128.4136.00.220.11 0.44'

•p <0.05.

Seven participants were dropped from analyses due to missing disclosure time data.

member, or mentor. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that the closer the relationship between the victim and assailant. the less likely the young

woman was to report this victimization to anyone (Koss. 1988: Rickert et al.. 2005: Wolitzky-Taylor ct al.. 2011). The dynamics of intrafamilial abuse is often proposed as

the ex lanation for delayed or non-disclosure (Kogan. 2004: et al., 2000). In the present study, however. only 5% of the assailants were identified as a family member. Most close relationships referred to (boy)friends, suggesting that a significant percentage of the sample experienced peer-to-peer victimization. This type of victimization is most likely to occur during adolescence, as compared to childhood or young adulthood, and Si increases the risk of revictimization (Humphrey & 2000). Hence, victims of rape by peers may be a target group for interventions promoting early disclosure.

Clearly. there arc many variables working in tandem to affect the timing of victim's disclosure. A closer look at the final model, which identified three unique variables that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure, can help us to better understand the phenomenon of initial disclosure in adolescents and young adults. Younger adolescent victims who are raped by a close person are more likely to delay disclosure than older victims of attempted rape by a stranger or acquaintance. Perhaps, they struggle with the notion that someone close to them performed such a violent act against them, which confuses them about what might happen in terms of safety if they would disclose (or not). This finding is especially important in the light of the fact that approximately 80% of victims had some sort of relationship with their perpetrator prior to the assault (Basile. Chen. Black. & Saltzman. 2007). With regard to rape types, it would intuitively seem that less severe forms of sexual assault arc associated with delayed disclosure and that completed rape would be easier to identify as clearly inappropriate and wrong. Victims of completed rape, however, may be more likely to experience negative psychological reactions, e.g., self-blame and avoidance coping. It is conceivable that they delay their disclosure as a result of rape-induced psychological distress (Starzynski, Ullman, Filipas, & Townsend, 2005), not necessarily the severity of the assault.

Although the final model showed acceptable goodness of fit, the percentage of explained variance of delayed disclosure was modest. Thus, there must be other variables predictive of delayed disclosure, such as the assailant's use of alcohol or weaker support systems, that we did not assess in this study. Besides this limitation, there are other drawbacks of this study that should be mentioned. First. a clinical sample was used with patients reporting high mean levels of psychological distress. This ceiling effect may explain why no differences were found between early and delayed disclosers on psychological functioning. contrary to prior studies (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007; Ruggiero et al., 2004). Second, posttraumatic stress was only assessed for children up to 18 years. and for young adults additional suitable measures were not used. Third, information could have been lost due to dichotomizing the variable disclosure latency. Fourth, results may not be

generalizable to all rape victims, because the percentage of mums that consulted a medical professional and reported to the police was higher in our sample than in most studies (Hanson et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 2000; Zinzow, Resnick, Barr, Danielson, & Kilpatrick, 2012). Perhaps, these differences could, at least partially, be explained by the fact that stranger rape, representing 30% of our sample, leads to higher likelihood of help-seeking and police reporting because of its association with higher acknowledgment of victim status (Resnick et al., 2000; et al., 2000). The fact that this is a help-seeking sample is critical for the reasons cited in the discussion, but also because the generalizability of these data to rape victims who never tell anyone—perhaps the group most at risk—simply cannot be known. Besides these limitations, several strengths of the current study need to be noted. One strength is the unique set of adolescents and young adults who presented at a mental health care centre after a single rape event, but who reported no prior chronic sexual abuse in childhood. For 85% of the sample, the index trauma was a first time rape. Moreover. data were collected at a designated referral centre for victims of rape and, therefore, the sample is likely to represent the clinical population of Dutch victims in the age group of 12-25 years.

The findings of the current study. suggesting that delayed disclosers arc less able to benefit from emergency medical care and evidence collection, have a number of practical implications. One of the strategies to enhance victims' willingness to disclose within the first week postrape may be sexual education campaigns in school and media, as being uninformed is one of the reasons for them not to disclose (Crisma et al., 2004). Education may include medical information on rape-related pregnancy and STDs, as well as the need for timely emergency contraception and prophylaxis, given that these concerns appear to be facilitators of seeking medical help (Zinzow et al., 2012). Also, practical information about DNA evidence and how to best protect it, e.g., related to showering. clothing. eating. and drinking. may increase the awareness of opportunities in the early-phase post-rape. Moreover, facts about the potential psychological impact of rape. such as PTSD and revictimization, but also information about evidence-based treatments (Elwood et al.. 2011; Littleton & Ullman, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2013), may increase help-seeking behaviour in an early stage. Furthermore, efforts to encourage early disclosure must consider peer-to-peer victimization as a primary factor, as most participants in this study experienced this type of victimization, and may initially not have defined or acknowledged the incident as rape because they rationalize such experiences as normal (Hlavka. 2014), leading to the finding of delayed disclosure.

In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that adolescent victims of rape with penetration by

someone close are at increased risk for delayed disclosure. and that delayed disclosers are less likely to use medical services and to report to the police. These findings may assist clinicians and policymakers in understanding rape and help to develop interventions (Unterhitzenberger & Rosner, 2014), specifically targeted to support adolescents and young adults to disclose in an early-phase postrape. Although the vast majority of the participants was living at their parental home, many of the sample did not first disclose to their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that in prevention programs specific attention should be given to the strengthening of the child-parent relationship, to facilitate disclosure to parents (Schanbucher et al., 2012). Next, as victims tend to disclose mostly to peers, prevention programmes may need to aim at teaching adolescents how they can help a peer victim if they become a recipient of disclosure (Schttnbucher et al., 2012). In addition, education may increase victims' willingness to disclose early, thereby increasing opportunities for access to health and police services. It is more likely to reach adolescents with direct, active, and online outreach programs via communication channels that are frequently used by adolescents and young adults particularly social media (i.e.. Facebook. Twitter. YouTube. etc.), forums, and mobile apps. Such programmes, wherein adolescents and young adults are being treated as agents and decision makers (Hlavka, 2014), should focus on information concerning what rape actually is—not only the stereotypical idea of rape and what (not) to do in the aftermath of rape especially in thc first week postrape. Another way to help improve the support of victims of rape is the implementation of multidisciplinary sexual assault centres (Bicanic, Snetselaar, De Jongh, & Van de Putte, 2014; Bramsen, Elklit, & Nielsen, 2009), as these may be the most suitable places to organize education campaigns and offer integrated post-rape services in one location. Future research should investigate whether the availability of such centres increases the prevalence of police reporting and use of medical care. Moreover, as discussed. previous research concerning the topic of disclosure has focused on the disclosure process. mainly the effect of negative social reactions, and not the latency. In future research, social reactions in relation to disclosure (latency) should be assessed by using the Social Reactions Questionnaire, as well as the victim's perception of their own experience being defined as rape, as many girls and young women do not report or seek help because they regard sexual violence against them as normal (Hlavka, 2014).

Conflict of interest and funding

There is no conflict of interest in the present study for any of the authors.

References

Achenbach, T. M.. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school age forms & profiles. Burlington. VT: University of Vermont. Research Centre for Children. Youth, and Families. Ahrens. C. E.. Stansell. 1. & Jennings. A. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors' recovery. Violence and Victims. 25(5). 631 648. Alisic, E., Eland, J.. Huijbregts, R. A. D., & Kleber, R. J. (2012). Schokirrwerkingslijst moor kinderen [Children's responses to trauma inventory revised version). Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers. Alisic, E.. Eland. J.. & Kleber, R. 1 (2006). Schokvermentingslijst boor Kinderen heciene rersie [Children's responses to trauma inventory revised version'. Utrecht: Institute for Psychotrauma in collaboration with Clinical Psychology (University of Utrecht) and Psychotrauma Centre for Children and Youth (University Medical Centre Utrecht). Alisic, E.. & Kleber. R. 1 (2010). Measuring posttraumatic stress reactions in children: A preliminary validation of the children's responses to trauma inventory. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 3(3). 192 204. Aorta. C. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of child sexual abuse survivors who disclosed their victimization. Child Alahreaiment. 30).63 71. Arrindell. W. A.. & Enema. J. H. M. (1986). SCL 90: Handleiding hij ten multidimensionek psychopathologic indicator [SCL 90: manual for a multidimensional measure of psychopathology]. Lisse: Swets Test. Basile. K. C., Chen. J.. Black, M. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults. Violence & Victims, 22, 437 448. Strube. R. L.. & Achenbach. T. M. (2006). Bibliography of published studies using ASEBA: 2006 edition. Burlington. VT: University of Vermont. Research Centre for Children. Youth and Families. Bicanic, I.. Snetselaar. H.. De Jongh, A.. & Van de Putte, E. (2014). Victims' use of professional services in a Dutch sexual assault centre. European Journal of Psychotraimtatology. 5. 23645. doi: http://dx.dolorg/10.3402/apt.v5.23645 Bramsen. R. FL. Elklit. A., & Nielsen, L. H. (2009). A Danish model for treating victims of rape and sexual assault: The multidisciplinary public approach. Journal of Aggression. Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8). 886 905. Broman Fulks. J. 1. Ruggiero. K. 1, Hanson, R. F., S D. W, Resnick. H. S.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. et al. (2007). Sexual assault disclosure in relation to adolescent mental health: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 260 266. Crisma, M.. Baseelli. E.. Paci, D., & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(10). 1035 1048. De Haas. S., Van Berle. W. Bakker. F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence in the Netherlands, the risk of (victimization and pregnancy: Results from a national population survey. Violence and Victims. 27(4). 592 608. Elwood. L. S.. `D. W.. Resnick. H. S.. Gudmundsdottir. B.. Amstadter. A. B. Hanson. R. F., et al. (2011). Predictors of rape: Findings from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(2), 166 173. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T.. & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimisation of college women. Washington. DC: U.S. Depart matt of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Bureau of Justice Statistics.

  • Hanson. R. F.. Kievit. L. W.. Saunders, B. E.. M. D. W.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Resnick. H. S. et al. (2003). Correlates of adolescent reports of sexual assault: Findings from the national survey of adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 261 272. Manta. H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender of Society. doi: 10.1177/0891243214526468. Ilumphrey. I A.. & M. J. W. (2000). Women's vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health. 27(6), 419 424. Kogan. S. M. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 147 165. Koss. M. P. (1988). Criminal victimi:ation among marten: Impact on health status and medical service usage (Grant No. 85 IJ CX 0038). Washington. DC: National Institute of Justice. Kovacs. M. (1992). Children depression inventor• CDI: Manual. New York: Multi Health Systems. Lacy, J. W. & Stark, C E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory. Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, /4(9). 649 658. Linden. ). A. (2011). Care of the adult patient after sexual assault. New England Journal of Medicine. 365(9). 834 841. Littleton, H.. & Ullman, S. E. (2013). PTSD symptomatology and hazardous drinking as risk factors for sexual assault revicti mization: Examination in European American and African American women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(3). 345 353. McLaughlin. K. A.. Keener). K. C., a E. D.. Petukhova, M.. Sampson. N. A.. Zaslaysky, A. M.. et al. (2013). Trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academe• of Child and Adolescent Psych..AS), 815 830. Patterson. D.. Greeson. M.. & R. (2009). Understanding rape survivors decisions not to seek help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 34(2). 127 136. Priebe. G.. & Svedin, C G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society. An epidemiological study of adolescents disclosures Child Abuse & Neglect, 32. 1095 1108. Resnick. H. S.. =. M. M.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Clum, G.. Acierno. R.. Best. C. L.. et al. (2000). Predictors of post rape medical care in a national sample of women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 214 219. Rickert. V. I.. Widmann, C. M.. & Vaughan. R. D. (2005). Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: Who reports and when. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18(1). 17 24. Ruch. L. R., Coyne, B. J.. & Perrone. P A. (2000). Reporting sexual assault to the police in Hamaii (NO 188264. National Criminal Justice Reference Service). Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ruggiero. K. J.. M, D. W.. Hanson, R. F., Resnick. H. S., Saunders. B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G.. et al. (2004). Is disclosure of childhood rape associated with mental health outcome? Results from the National Women's Study. Child Maltreatment. 9( l ), 62 77. Schonbucher. V., Maier, T.. Mohler Kuo M.. Schnyder. U.. & Landoll. M. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interper sonal Violence•, 27, 3486 3513. doi: 10.1177/0886260512445380.
    • M. D. W. Letourneau. E. 1.. Saunders. B. E.. Kilpatrick. D. G.. Resnick. H. S.. & Best. C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national surrey. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2.1(2), 273 287. Starzynski. L. L.. Ullman. S. E.. Filipas II. II.. & Townsend. S. M. (2005). Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims. 20, 417 432. Timbremont. B.. & Brad, C. (2002). Children's depression inventory: Nederlandstalige versie (Children's Depression Inventory: Dutch version]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Timbremont. B.. Brad. C.. & Roelof\*. J. (2008). llandleiding Children's Depression Inventory [Children's Depression Inven tory: Dutch version]. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V. Tjaden, P G.. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent. nature and consequences of rape victimisation: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice. Ullman. S. E. (1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 11(4), 554 571. Ullman. S. E.. & Filipas, H. II. (2001). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. /6(10), 1028 1047. Unterhitzenberger. I. & Rosner. R. (2014). Lessons from writing sessions: A school based randomized trial with adolescent orphans in Rwanda. European Journal of Psychotraionatology.
    • 5. 24917, doi: latp://dx.dojorg/10.3402kjpiv5.24917 Wolitzky Taylor. K. B.. Resnick. H. S.. Amstadter. A. B.. McCauley. I L.. Ruggiero. K. I. & Kilpatrick. D. G. (2011). Reporting rape in a national sample of college women. Journal of American College Health. 59(7). 582 587. Zinzow, H. M.. Resnick. H. S. Barr. S. C. Danielson. C K.. & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2012). Receipt of post rape medical care in a national sample of female victims. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 43(2). 183 187.

+ + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..add332f2abaf4595b8865ffe741332dd06b84522 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/EFTA02834590.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,3126 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 45, + "chars": 287411, + "elapsed_seconds": 56.16, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 419.46490478515625, + 145.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 419.46490478515625, + 195.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 195.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual \nAbuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research \nUpdate (2000-2016)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 391.8167419433594, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 391.8167419433594, + 127.11407470703125 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 127.11407470703125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Abstract", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 92.61121368408203, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 92.61121368408203, + 223.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 223.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Keywords", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 97.88243103027344, + 430.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 97.88243103027344, + 444.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 444.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Introduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 122.8403091430664, + 489.23999999999995 + ], + [ + 122.8403091430664, + 504.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 504.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Corresponding Author.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 673.92 + ], + [ + 401.9483642578125, + 673.92 + ], + [ + 401.9483642578125, + 684.9994430541992 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 684.9994430541992 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Method", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 692.55 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 692.55 + ], + [ + 92.41199999999999, + 706.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 706.3199999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Key Findings", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.836, + 633.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 633.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 367.812, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 307.836, + 648.0 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.836, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 564.876, + 353.15999999999997 + ], + [ + 564.876, + 373.40999999999997 + ], + [ + 307.836, + 373.40999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Age and gender as predictors of disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 310.284, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 474.1169738769531, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 474.1169738769531, + 474.7176208496094 + ], + [ + 310.284, + 474.7176208496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 635.04 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 635.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Limitations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 97.30799999999999, + 187.92000000000002 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 187.92000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Implications for Research and Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 361.26 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 375.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 375.84000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 415.53 + ], + [ + 373.93199999999996, + 415.53 + ], + [ + 373.93199999999996, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 428.49 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Declaration of Conflicting Interests", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 477.36, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 650.4300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 698.22 + ], + [ + 350.06399999999996, + 711.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 711.1800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 78.57000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 308.448, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 403.9200000000001, + 406.62 + ], + [ + 403.9200000000001, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 308.448, + 419.58000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure of Child \nSexual Abuse: Delays, \nNon-disclosure and \nPartial Disclosure. What \nthe Research Tells Us and \nImplications for Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 102.1629638671875 + ], + [ + 413.1003723144531, + 102.1629638671875 + ], + [ + 413.1003723144531, + 284.42742919921875 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 284.42742919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KEY PRACTITONER MESSAGES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 172.18312072753906, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 172.18312072753906, + 468.60614013671875 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 468.60614013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'This paper reviews \nthe research on \ndisclosure patterns of \nchildhood sexual \nabuse'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 176.57899475097656, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 176.57899475097656, + 170.0755615234375 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 170.0755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 185.356, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 425.75958251953125, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 425.75958251953125, + 349.96905517578125 + ], + [ + 185.356, + 349.96905517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.7, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 403.49199999999996, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 403.49199999999996, + 55.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 193.7, + 55.89000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'High numbers of \nrespondents \ndisclosing to \nresearchers for the \nfirst time'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.972, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 157.71090698242188, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 157.71090698242188, + 170.54150390625 + ], + [ + 33.972, + 170.54150390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Patterns of Disclosure \u2014 Partial Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.54799999999997, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.5011291503906, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 390.5011291503906, + 123.95556640625 + ], + [ + 186.54799999999997, + 123.95556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 58.407999999999994, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 385.6396179199219, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 385.6396179199219, + 157.22906494140625 + ], + [ + 58.407999999999994, + 157.22906494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Investigating the \nprecise \ncircumstances that \nled to disclosures for \nchildren'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.376, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 171.83287048339844, + 200.88 + ], + [ + 171.83287048339844, + 285.5755920410156 + ], + [ + 33.376, + 285.5755920410156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Significant \nproportions of \ndisclosure have been \nprompted by \nquestions by \ncaregivers, friends or \nothers'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.376, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 172.64541625976562, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 172.64541625976562, + 473.8255615234375 + ], + [ + 33.376, + 473.8255615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'The implications of \nthese findings can be \nconsidered in \ninterrelated contexts'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.376, + 629.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 173.40122985839844, + 629.3700000000001 + ], + [ + 173.40122985839844, + 697.6955642700195 + ], + [ + 33.376, + 697.6955642700195 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Implications for Practice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 185.356, + 503.01 + ], + [ + 308.8472900390625, + 503.01 + ], + [ + 308.8472900390625, + 518.7290649414062 + ], + [ + 185.356, + 518.7290649414062 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "`Contradiction in \nwitness statements is \na well-known feature \nof false statements'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.988, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 560.237060546875, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 560.237060546875, + 284.0755920410156 + ], + [ + 418.988, + 284.0755920410156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "`Education and \nincreased awareness \nare needed on how to \nquestion children in \nan appropriate \nmanner'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.988, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 560.08642578125, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 560.08642578125, + 473.45556640625 + ], + [ + 418.988, + 473.45556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "'Are children who \ndelay in disclosing \nless likely to engage \nwith the legal system?'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 418.988, + 632.61 + ], + [ + 562.146728515625, + 632.61 + ], + [ + 562.146728515625, + 699.5755615234375 + ], + [ + 418.988, + 699.5755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 115.95771789550781, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 115.95771789550781, + 578.8255615234375 + ], + [ + 59.004000000000005, + 578.8255615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse 169", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.7, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 569.1952514648438, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 569.1952514648438, + 58.072021484375 + ], + [ + 193.7, + 58.072021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 95.81599999999999 + ], + [ + 187.72946166992188, + 95.81599999999999 + ], + [ + 187.72946166992188, + 109.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 109.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female \nadolescents and young adults", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 110.432 + ], + [ + 431.26251220703125, + 110.432 + ], + [ + 431.26251220703125, + 147.9989013671875 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 147.9989013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Methods", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 106.372 + ], + [ + 354.9628601074219, + 106.372 + ], + [ + 354.9628601074219, + 120.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 120.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Subjects and data collection", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 130.732 + ], + [ + 438.6012878417969, + 130.732 + ], + [ + 438.6012878417969, + 145.21759033203125 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 145.21759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Procedure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 514.808 + ], + [ + 358.36688232421875, + 514.808 + ], + [ + 358.36688232421875, + 528.0975952148438 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 528.0975952148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Demographic and victim characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 634.172 + ], + [ + 474.15875244140625, + 634.172 + ], + [ + 474.15875244140625, + 648.0976104736328 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 648.0976104736328 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rape characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 141.28799999999998 + ], + [ + 141.90875244140625, + 141.28799999999998 + ], + [ + 141.90875244140625, + 155.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 155.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Post-rape characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 345.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 160.27919006347656, + 345.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 160.27919006347656, + 359.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 359.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Measures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 538.356 + ], + [ + 101.4263916015625, + 538.356 + ], + [ + 101.4263916015625, + 552.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 552.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Posttraumatic stress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 562.7159999999999 + ], + [ + 142.26512145996094, + 562.7159999999999 + ], + [ + 142.26512145996094, + 576.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 576.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Depression", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 101.5 + ], + [ + 358.15185546875, + 101.5 + ], + [ + 358.15185546875, + 115.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 115.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Behavioural problems", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 207.872 + ], + [ + 400.6528015136719, + 207.872 + ], + [ + 400.6528015136719, + 221.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 221.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "General psychopathology", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 360.52799999999996 + ], + [ + 416.23040771484375, + 360.52799999999996 + ], + [ + 416.23040771484375, + 375.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 375.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Data analyses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 574.084 + ], + [ + 374.0442810058594, + 574.084 + ], + [ + 374.0442810058594, + 588.4676055908203 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 588.4676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Results", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 215.992 + ], + [ + 94.65312194824219, + 215.992 + ], + [ + 94.65312194824219, + 230.33758544921875 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 230.33758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Socio-demographic characteristics", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 240.35199999999998 + ], + [ + 212.51312255859375, + 240.35199999999998 + ], + [ + 212.51312255859375, + 254.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 254.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Differences between early and delayed disclosers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 379.204 + ], + [ + 532.0204467773438, + 379.204 + ], + [ + 532.0204467773438, + 393.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 393.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Predicting delayed disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 403.56399999999996 + ], + [ + 189.24533081054688, + 403.56399999999996 + ], + [ + 189.24533081054688, + 417.46759033203125 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 417.46759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 682.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 111.48582458496094, + 682.0799999999999 + ], + [ + 111.48582458496094, + 695.7175979614258 + ], + [ + 51.85199999999999, + 695.7175979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conflict of interest and funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.448, + 683.704 + ], + [ + 210.15628051757812, + 683.704 + ], + [ + 210.15628051757812, + 698.7175979614258 + ], + [ + 52.448, + 698.7175979614258 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "References", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.344, + 69.02000000000001 + ], + [ + 367.2291564941406, + 69.02000000000001 + ], + [ + 367.2291564941406, + 82.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 306.344, + 82.59759521484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 144 + ], + [ + "Line", + 72 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 172 + ], + [ + "Line", + 165 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 181 + ], + [ + "Line", + 178 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 186 + ], + [ + "Line", + 179 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 165 + ], + [ + "Line", + 162 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 172 + ], + [ + "Line", + 162 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 179 + ], + [ + "Line", + 163 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 148 + ], + [ + "Line", + 145 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 150 + ], + [ + "Line", + 143 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 87 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 179 + ], + [ + "Line", + 177 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 160 + ], + [ + "Line", + 156 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 204 + ], + [ + "Line", + 112 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 231 + ], + [ + "Line", + 113 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 197 + ], + [ + "Line", + 98 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 145 + ], + [ + "Line", + 71 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 127 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 137 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 139 + ], + [ + "Line", + 68 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 144 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 140 + ], + [ + "Line", + 69 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 131 + ], + [ + "Line", + 65 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Bibliography", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 127 + ], + [ + "Line", + 64 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 156 + ], + [ + "Line", + 71 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 210 + ], + [ + "Line", + 110 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 207 + ], + [ + "Line", + 108 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 217 + ], + [ + "Line", + 104 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 213 + ], + [ + "Line", + 112 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 138 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 217 + ], + [ + "Line", + 115 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 267 + ], + [ + "Line", + 121 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 207 + ], + [ + "Line", + 101 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834590" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c09a62406b5a27bab04b874f45161b3a956fea48 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8e3a7cdae1598b38229b4614f06e9f4dec0c8e7f6aa2e534994f26122d59464b +size 1346 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35f9b77782c82f8f0a27ec87e21815ad4599488a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834590/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1f3b653606a34e24778deac81618d370024c33b71d2810dfc7e332cac5977620 +size 1663 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86d62fcb5f28685519b37d3864bccacdaac7ecd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.md @@ -0,0 +1,657 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +## THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 + +Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Of Counsel + +# Table of Contents + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENI | 3 | +|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| ARGUMENT | 4 | +| I. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio | 4 | +| A. Applicable Law | 5 | +| B. Discussion | 9 | +| I. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible | 10 | +| Abuse is Admissible | 22 | +| 3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible | 23 | +| 5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible | 27 | +| II. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11,2021 Letter is Admissible | 32 | +| A. Applicable Law | 33 | +| B. Discussion | 35 | +| 2. The Government I las Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations | 39 | +| III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible | 41 | +| A. Background | 41 | +| B. Applicable Law | 44 | +| C. Discussion | 45 | +| IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial | 54 | +| A. Background | 55 | +| B. Discussion | 58 | + +| | V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Victim-4's Identification of the Defendant | 63 | +|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| A. | Background | 63 | +| B. | Applicable Law | 65 | +| C. | Discussion | 67 | +| | VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits | 71 | +| A. | Applicable Law | 71 | +| B. | Discussion | 72 | +| | VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of "Victims" or Rape | 76 | +| A. | References to Victims | 76 | +| B. | Evidence of Rape | 79 | +| VIII. | The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit | | +| | CONCLUSION | 83 | + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's thirteen motions in limine, dated October 18, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motions should be denied. + +First, the Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See Def. Mot. 4). Third, the Government has provided adequate notice pursuant to Rule 404(b), and in any event, all evidence for which it has provided such notice is also admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes. (See Def. Mot. 2). Fourth, there is no basis to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). (See Def. Mot. 1). Filth, Minor Victim-4's confirmatory identification of the defendant was not unduly suggestive, and it should not be suppressed. (See Def. Mot. 9). Sixth, the Government's various exhibits are relevant, and the Government will authenticate them at trial. (See Def. Mots. 7, 8, 13). Seventh, it is entirely proper for the word "victim" and for discussion of rape to be used in a trial about the sexual exploitation of minor victims. (See Def. Mots. 11, 12). Eighth, and finally, the Government does not intend to offer evidence of the defendant's flight, her false exculpatory statements, or law enforcement expert testimony in its case in chief, unless the defendant opens the door or otherwise puts this evidence in issue. (See Def. Mots. 5, 6, 10). + +#### ARGUMENT + +## 1. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio + +The Government intends to call Dr. Lisa Rocchio as an expert witness. Dr. Rocchio is the President-Elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology at the American Psychological Association. She is currently a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of University, and she has practiced psychology for approximately 25 years, specializing in treating patients with trauma, including sexual trauma in childhood and adolescence. Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds of victims of trauma, including many victims of child sexual abuse, and she has written, presented, and taught about the assessment and treatment of trauma. She has also received continuing education on trauma and the treatment of trauma in a clinical setting. (See generally Curriculum Vitae, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 2). + +On April 23, 2021, the Government timely notified the defendant of its intent to call Dr. Rocchio in its case-in-chief. As the notice explains, Dr. Rocchio is expected to testify, based on her relevant education, training, experience, and research, and offer the following opinions: + +> Individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term + +traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma. The presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Dr. Rocchio is also expected to testify that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. + +(Expert Notice, Del. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). As the notice also explained, Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated any of the victims in this case, and the Government does not currently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding any specific victim. (See id.). + +There is nothing controversial about this testimony. It is well supported by established scientific principles, and it is the kind of testimony frequently admitted in cases involving sexual abuse. This Court should do the same. + +## A. Applicable Law + +District courts have a "gatekeeper function" in analyzing the admissibility of expert testimony. Phelps v. CBS Corp., No. 17 Civ. 8361 (AJN), 2020 WL 7028954, at '3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020) (quoting Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017)). Although the proponent of the evidence carries a burden of proof to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence, see, e.g., United States v. M, 965 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 2020), courts apply a "presumption of admissibility of evidence." Felix v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 5845 (MN), 2020 WL 6048153, at '6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020) (quoting Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, the relevant rule of evidence, Rule 702, reflects "the `liberal thrust' of the Federal Rules and their `general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to `opinion' testimony."' Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993) (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988)). + +Under Dauber:, a district court must first determine whether an expert is qualified. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 ("A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise ...."); United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("At the first step of the Daubert inquiry, courts are instructed to consider the expert's qualifications."). Courts then must determine whether the testimony "will be not only relevant, but reliable." United Stales v. 794 F.3d 317, 330 (2d Cir. 2015); see Dauber:, 509 U.S. at 597 (explaining that courts must ensure "that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand"). On reliability, Rule 702 identifies three "indicia of reliability": (1) "that the testimony is grounded on sufficient facts or data; (2) that the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) that the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." United States v. 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Amorgianos v. Nat'! R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002)). "[These criteria," however, "are not exhaustive." Id. Dauber: itself, which "dealt with a scientific theory," offered additional factors, such as whether the theory "'has been subjected to peer review and publication,'" and the "'known or potential rate of error." M, 794 F.3d at 330 (quoting Daubers, 509 U.S. at 593-94). And "there are many different kinds of experts, and many different kinds of expertise." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). "[W]hether the specific expert testimony focuses upon specialized observations, the specialized translation of those observations into theory, a specialized theory itself, or the application of such a theory in a + +particular case, the expert's testimony will often rest upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to the jury's own." Id. at 149 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2021) ("Such specialized knowledge can be grounded in scientific or other particularized training, but it can also derive from personal observations or experience, see id., so long as those observations or experience are outside the ken of the average person." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee's Note (2000) (explaining that expert testimony may be based on "experience alone—or experience in conjunction with other knowledge, skill, training or education"). + +The key question is whether "an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152; see 506 F.3d at 160 (explaining that the Daubert test is "flexible"). In particular, if an expert's testimony is within "the range where the experts might reasonably differ," the jury, not the trial court, should be the one to decide among the conflicting views of different experts. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 153. So long as the testimony is not "speculative or conjectural or based on assumptions that are so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith or to be in essence an apples and oranges comparison . . . any other contentions that the assumptions are unfounded go to the weight, not the admissibility of the testimony." Phelps, 2020 WL 7028954, at \*3 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "'the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule."' Floyd v. City of New York, 861 F. Supp. 2d 274, 287 + +(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee's Notes (2000 Amendments)). + +"[T]he law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 142 (emphasis in original); see United States v. Requena, 980 F.3d 30, 47 (2d Cir. 2020). Thus a district court may properly exercise its gatekeeping function without the "formality of a separate hearing[.]" 506 F.3d at 161; see also United States v. Barnes, 411 F. App'x 365, 370 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order). "This is particularly true if, at the time that the expert testimony is presented to the jury, a sufficient basis for allowing the testimony is on the record." 506 F.3d at 161 (citing 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.02 [2] (2d ed. 2006)). + +Finally, even if the expert testimony is reliable, it must also be relevant. See, e.g., United States v. =, No. 20 Cr. 608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). In this context, the testimony must "concern matters that the average juror is not capable of understanding on his or her own." United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 194 (2d Cir. 2008); see Faulkner v. Arista Records LLC, 46 F. Sup. 3d 365, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Weighing whether the expert testimony assists the trier of fact goes primarily to relevance."). + +Courts have frequently admitted expert testimony on the psychological relationship between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes. For instance, in United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the Government gave notice of expert testimony on "the psychology of the pimp-prostitute relationship," including concepts such as "trauma bonding." Id. at 263. The defendant interposed a Dauber: challenge, arguing that the expert's testimony was not based on "studies or empirical data" and so could not "be assessed for reliability." Id. (internal + +quotation marks omitted). The district court rejected that argument, explaining that "case law quite commonly upholds this type of testimony against Daubers challenges," and that the expert's experience writing about, treating, and speaking to prostitutes was sufficiently reliable. Id. at 263- 64; see also, e.g., Letter, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AM D) (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021) (Dkt. No. 134); United States v. IM, No. 20 Cr. 608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021) (permitting expert testimony on "domestic abuse and coercive control"); Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (permitting expert testimony on "[t]rauma and coercive control in the context of sex trafficking, including the psychological relationship between pimps and the women prostituted by them"); Notice and Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-1, 198 (permitting expert testimony on "the psychological relationship between a pimp and the woman prostituted by him" and "why prostituted women do not leave their pimp"). + +# B. Discussion + +The defendant does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Nor could she: Dr. Rocchio is a leader in her field, teaching others as a professor at University, and she has approximately twenty-five years of clinical experience. She is testifying in general about core concepts in her field, based on her "extensive study of the relevant data and literature and her clinical experience treating hundreds of trauma and abuse patients over the past twenty years." United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). + +Instead, the defendant suggests that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable, irrelevant, or prejudicial. To the contrary, and as explained in greater detail below, each of the Dr. Rocchio's five challenged opinions is well supported and would aid the jury in understanding the evidence at trial. The Court should permit Dr. Rocchio to testify. + +#### 1. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible a. Reliability + +As described in the expert notice, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the role that trust and attachment play in relationships between a victim and an abuser: + +> Sexual abuse of minors frequently occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time, rather than through the use of forcible rape. Minor victims are often subject to a strategic pattern of behaviors, often called grooming, that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser. The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. + +(Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). Dr. Rocchio will opine that victims are often abused in the context of a coercive and manipulative relationship which develops over time through the building of victims' trust and attachment. One aspect of this relationship is "often called grooming." (Dee Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). However, the concepts of attachment and coercion go beyond grooming, and encompass both the trust-building aspect of the relationship and the ways in which + +that bonds victims to their abusers and prevents victims from disclosing that they have been abused.' + +These opinions stem in part from Dr. Rocchio's personal familiarity and experience treating victims of sexual abuse for decades. She is trained in trauma psychology, she has expertise in treating victims of sexual abuse who have been subject to this pattern of behavior, and she teaches residents about trauma psychology. CI Bosco v. United States, No. 14 Civ. 3525 (JFK), 2016 WL 5376205, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) (expert testimony about "common knowledge among urologists" require the expert to "draw upon the defining characteristics that make him a member of that community: his training as a urological surgeon, his practical experience performing several hundred ureteroscopies, and his knowledge as a clinical instructor of surgery"). + +These opinions also stem from the relevant literature. This pattern of coercive attachment is not a novel or outlier concept in the literature of trauma psychology. For instance, attached as Exhibit A are some of the articles that have been provided by Dr. Rocchio and inform her testimony. See Dietz, "Grooming and Seduction," 33 J. of Interpersonal Violence 28, 34 (2018) + +The concepts of attachment and grooming encompass a variety of established techniques, including: (1) the use of attention, love, and affection; (2) using bribery and gift giving; (3) sexual desensitization—that is, talking to children about sex and engaging in touching; (4) isolating the victim; and (5) engaging in emotional manipulation. Grooming efforts can also extend to "grooming the environment." Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations," 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) ("Some offenders groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain [a position of trust].] Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent parents, and hence have less protection." (citation omitted)). + +("Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term 'grooming' has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come."); Bennett & O'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964-68 (2014) (reviewing the literature on the prevalence of various grooming techniques); Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations," 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) ("[R]etrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence"). To be clear, however, her review of the literature—and therefore the basis of her testimony—extends beyond these articles. + +Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio came to her opinions through her clinical experience on this specific issue, as informed by her education and study of the relevant 1 iterature. That is a sufficient demonstration of "how the expert came to [her] conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion." Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006); see Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting the notion that "the many studies that have validated trauma bonding and coercive controls as established phenomena are unreliable for want of laboratory-like statistical vetting"); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-I, 198 (explaining that "the basis for the testimony—namely, the witness's training and experience—is not such that it would be subject to exclusion on the grounds that it's not based on some sort of empirical scientific testing," and that "those arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility, of her proposed testimony"). + +As noted above, courts have frequently admitted testimony about the psychological relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators. See supra pp. 7-8. Courts have also specifically authorized expert testimony on the subject of grooming. See, e.g., United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-1098 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that admission of expert testimony on grooming did not violate Federal Rules of Evidence 702 or 403 nor violate due process and finding that the expert 'merely gave a straightforward account of relevant background information based on [the expert's] own knowledge and experience' (quoting United States v. MEI, 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017)); United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that expert testimony on grooming was "relevant, reliable, and properly admitted"); United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 833 n.15 (10th Cir. 2019) ("Grooming can be established by use of an expert witness who testifies about psychological tactics that are common in cases of child sex abuse."); United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming expert testimony on the "grooming process"); Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649, 656-69 (Tx. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (collecting cases showing that "grooming evidence has been received by courts from numerous types of experts"); see also United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Cabrera, 13 F.4th 140 (2d Cir. 2021) (noting that evidence of grooming supported the jury's verdict). + +Against this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government gave notice of expert testimony about the "behavior of child molesters" from a veteran FBI agent who had reviewed case studies of child abuse and had written one book and one article. Id. at 143, 145, 147. The purported expert's book, in turn, merely made assertions about the "profile" of child molesters, with no information about how his experiences reliably led to his conclusions. Id. at 147-48. In the same breath, however, the book "disavow[ed] [its] reliability ... for legal use," and his article similarly offered generalized views on what "many" offenders were "more likely or less likely to do." Id. at 148 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, at bottom, the purported expert's testimony was based only on his subjective conclusions after reviewing case studies. See id. at 147 n.5 (explaining that the expert "troubling[ly]" wrote that "data is not the plural of anecdote," but "the information and opinions are based primarily on the totality of my acquired knowledge and expertise"). + +The situation here is quite different. Dr. Rocchio's conclusions are not anecdotal; they are grounded in the academic literature and her formal and informal education. Moreover, she will be testifying about concepts she regularly employs as a practicing clinician. Again, the defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is qualified to be an expert on this subject. And Dr. Rocchio's opinions are not an attempt to offer a "profile" of perpetrators of child sexual abuse or their activities. Instead, Dr. Rocchio will testify about the psychological underpinnings of an + +established pattern of victimization—attachment and coercion—experienced by victims of sexual abuse. + +The defense would read Raymond to stand for the proposition that expert testimony is unreliable if it does not explain "what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified." (Def. Mot. 3 at 8). For instance, the defense criticizes Dr. Rocchio for opining that sexual abuse of minors occurs "frequently," without specifying whether it occurs "half the time" or "two-thirds of the time." (Id. at 7; see id. at 8 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 148-49)). That is not what is required by Daubers in the context of qualitative social science, and it is not what many courts have held in the context of precisely this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v.=, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011) (recognizing that social science research "cannot have the exactness of hard science methodologies, and expert testimony need not be based on statistical analysis in order to be probative" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).2 + +The defendant's remaining critiques of Dr. Rocchio's opinion miss the mark. First, the defendant asserts that Dr. Rocchio's patients are uncorroborated, and she "simply assumes her + +2 Even in Raymond, the Court left open the possibility that the Government could call the expert in rebuttal to "counter a defense case that victim testimony in this case should not be believed because the victim delayed in reporting the abuse or did not report it consistently." 700 F. Supp. 2d at 156. Even were the Court inclined to follow Raymond rather than the cases in this District, it should similarly revisit permitting Dr. Rocchio to testify about the opinion at issue if the defense attacks victim credibility. + +patients are telling the truth." (Def. Mot. 3 at 6). The defendant claims that this "fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion" because her conclusion has "no known or identified rate of error ... nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding Rocchio's conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating her abuse." (Id. (alterations and quotation marks omitted)). Clinical psychologists are not so credulous. As part of Dr. Rocchio's work as a practicing clinician, she examines consistencies and inconsistencies in the information provided by patients and assesses patient self-reporting in the context of literature and knowledge that she has developed in her years of practice. As the Government's expert notice makes clear, Dr. Rocchio has treated hundreds and hundreds of patients in her decades of experience, and her opinions are based in part on the significant patterns she has observed among the patients she has treated. The Court should reject the defendant's speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur. + +In any event, the defendant's argument about error rates misunderstands the nature of a Dauber: inquiry. An error rate is but one of the Dauber: factors that may or may not be applicable in every case. See M, 794 F.3d at 330. And in cases such as this, where a social science expert is testifying based on qualitative methodology, that factor is inapplicable. See M, 2021 WL 1947503, at \*6 n.8. As the Second Circuit has explained, "Peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc. . . . are not applicable to this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it. In such cases, the place to quibble with [an expert's] academic training is on cross-examination . . . + +, 542 F.3d at 21-22 (first and second alterations in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). + +That point is particularly true in sex trafficking cases. As Judge Engelmayer explained when evaluating the testimony of a similar expert in a sex trafficking case, analyzing error rates is an "unusually poor fit" in this area: + +> [Sjtudying the circumstances and psychological drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory animals. . . . Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of error rates ... is an unusually poor fit. . . . The testing that has been done as to trauma bonding and coercive control, instead, necessarily uses more qualitative research methodologies. These involve interviews and case studies and clinical examinations conducted over time." + +Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 29:4-30:20, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335. Because statistical rigor is not a useful method for evaluating the reliability of qualitative research like Dr. Rocchio's, statistical tools like error rates are irrelevant to the Daubert analysis. + +Contrary to the defendant's next claim, these opinions are not "impregnable for purposes of cross examination." (Def. Mot. 3 at 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The defendant is free to cross Dr. Rocchio on how frequently she sees grooming in her patients and how she evaluates whether they are telling the truth. The defendant is also free to explore, in cross examination, the difficulties in assessing whether a patient has been groomed. The defense can also make arguments—in cross examination and in jury addresses—about the lack of quantitative rigor in this qualitative area of science. That is the point: it is for the jury, after hearing the + +evidence, to evaluate what weight to give it. But that does not change whether Dr. Rocchio's opinions are squarely within the mainstream of psychological practice. + +The defendant next argues that Dr. Rocchio's patients are "self-selected," and she has not established the "representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior." (Def. Mot. 3 at 7). But the defendant makes no argument that the minor victims in this case are distinctive in some way such that general principles of psychology may diverge as to them. And in any event, that argument is for the jury to evaluate, and not a basis to preclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 36:13-37:5, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting a defense attempt to distinguish between native-born and domestic-born women because, "while a court is to be a gatekeeper as to reliability so as to keep `junk science' away from juries, the Court must not overstep that role. Whether or not the Court would be persuaded that adult native-born women can be subject to trauma bonding, the Court is not to arrogate to itself that judgment.") + +Finally, the defendant argues that Dr. Rocchio has no experience treating perpetrators of sexual assault, so she cannot testify as to the psychology of perpetrators and their "so-called `grooming' techniques." (Def. Mot. 3 at 7-8). Many of the opinions the defendant challenges concern the experiences of victims, not perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio will testify about the pattern to which "minor victims are often subject," which makes "victims vulnerable to abuse," and builds their "trust and attachment with their abuser." (Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2 (emphasis added)). Grooming creates in the victims "a relationship of trust and attachment" that "can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. (Id. + +(emphasis added)). Dr. Rocchio's testimony will also include discussion of techniques used by perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding such techniques is supported by Dr. Rocchio's review of the relevant literature, see Exhibit A, and through her clinical work. By virtue of her experience treating victims, Dr. Rocchio is necessarily informed about perpetrators' actions. See Halamek, 5 F.4th at 1088 ("Extensive experience interviewing victims can qualify a person to testify about the relationships those victims tend to have with their abusers."). Dr. Rocchio will testify squarely within her expertise and experience.3 + +## b. Relevance and Rule 403 + +Dr. Rocchio's opinions will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence at trial. This case concerns an "unusual area of human interaction." See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 39:8-9, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335. The Minor Victims in this case were trafficked over many years, and none were physically restrained. An average juror, with no experience with sexual abuse victims, may not understand why the Minor Victims continued to + +3 In United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), 2019 WL 2212639 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019), Judge Garaufis questioned whether an expert on grooming with experience focused on victims may have been able to testify reliably about how "perpetrators often use 'grooming' techniques on adult and child victims . . .. Id. at \*7. Even then, he did not exclude the testimony—he simply ordered a Daubert hearing. Id. at \*8. The Government ultimately declined to proceed with that testimony rather than conduct a mid-trial Daubers hearing. Here, and as noted above, Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony concerns the experience of manipulated and coerced victims, rather than the intentions of perpetrators. + +return to Epstein's home for sexual abuse, or why some occasionally expressed affection for the defendant and Epstein. + +Although Dr. Rocchio will not testify about these specific Minor Victims, her testimony will help the jurors understand the "psychological dynamic often seen in abusive relationships that leads an abuse victim to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as by declining to take opportunities to leave an abusive situation or by expressing gratitude to an abuser." =, 2021 WL 1947503, at •7. This psychological dynamic between a victim of child sexual abuse and her abusers is "beyond the knowledge of the average juror and would or could plainly be helpful in understanding the psychological dynamics at play." Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:3-7, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198; cf. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 38:13-20, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 ("[B]y and large the relationship between prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common knowledge. Jurors are not apt to intuitively understand the mechanisms that may lead a woman who is not physically restrained or confined to heed the demands of a pimp to traffic herself."). Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio's testimony will help the jury understand and contextualize the other testimony it will he,ar.4 + +The defendant expresses concern that a lay jury will be unable to apply Dr. Rocchio's analyses to the facts of this case, stating "[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works." (Def. Mot. at 10). + +Relying again on Raymond, the District of Maine case, the defendant argues that expert testimony about "general principles is helpful only when it 'describes widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena."' (Def. Mot. 10 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (alterations omitted)). That proposition comes from footnote 12 of Raymond, which attempted to distinguish that expert's "profile" testimony from the Federal Rules Advisory Committee's observation that the 2000 amendment "does not alter the venerable practice of using + +That is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note ("[I]t might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case."). Dr. Rocchio will provide reliable opinions about principles of coercion and attachment in abusive relationships that will help the jury understand the psychological factors underlying the relationships that the jury will learn about at trial. + +Finally, the defendant argues that the Court should preclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony under Rule 403. In so arguing, she expresses concern that Dr. Rocchio's testimony will "'radically simplify' an otherwise complex case" by "foist[ing] a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all."' (Def. Mot. at 11 (quoting United States v. M, No. 07 Cr. 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. 111. Oct. 27, 2009)).5 There is nothing prejudicial or simple about Dr. Rocchio's testimony. The jury will not conclude that the defendant is guilty because Dr. Rocchio explains that acts which "might have been motivated by a variety of ends" are sometimes part of the process of sexual abuse. Whether + +expert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles." Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note). The defendant cites no place containing this limitation in the text of the Rule, its advisory committee notes, Daubers, or the law of this Circuit or District. Nor does it make sense on its own terms: "how financial markets respond to corporate reports" or the "principles of thermodynamics" are sometimes highly predictable, but not always, depending on the context. + +a case about a district court's application at sentencing of a Guidelines enhancement, says nothing about whether the jury would be confused by learning about grooming. + +they were in this case will depend on the other evidence. That is not a prejudicial simplification that is the trial. + +There is nothing unreliable, irrelevant, or unusual about Dr. Rocchio's opinion on coercion and attachment. Drawing on her decades of clinical experience and her familiarity with the relevant literature, Dr. Rocchio will give opinion testimony that will help the jury understand witness testimony. That is all Rule 702's gatekeeping requirements demand. + +#### 2. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Relationship Between Trust and Victim Awareness of Their Abuse is Admissible + +At trial, the Government intends to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony about how victims process their abuse and how that can prevent or delay disclosure. As the Government set forth in its expert notice, Dr. Rocchio will testify that: + +> The relationship of trust and attachment can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. Minor victims therefore may not identify themselves as victims of abuse while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood. + +(Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). This opinion is part and parcel of Dr. Rocchio's other opinions about the relationship between attachment and coercion. Specifically, and as noted above, victims develop relationships of trust and attachment with their abusers that leave victims vulnerable to coercion. This opinion adds that, as part of this relationship, victims may not recognize that they are experiencing abuse and may not see themselves as victims while they are in this relationship, and therefore may not disclose their abuse or recognize the consequences of their abuse until later in life. As the defense correctly observes, this opinion is intertwined with Dr. Rocchio's opinions about coercion and attachment. (Def. Mo. 3 at 12). Just as those are reliable, so is this one. + +The defense argues that this opinion is outside Dr. Rocchio's expertise because she has "no experience treating alleged perpetrators," so "her view ... is entirely one-sided." (Id.). As is clear from the above excerpt, her testimony is about largely about trust and attachment built in victims, and the resultant ways in which victims process abuse. But she is also an expert in the actions and techniques of perpetrators through her review of the literature and the lens of what she has learned through victims. This opinion is therefore squarely within Dr. Rocchio's expertise. + +Finally, the defendant argues that this testimony violates Rule 704, because it is an "opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully," and 403, because it "risks jurors accepting her `expert' opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence." (Def. Mot. 3 at 13). Dr. Rocchio has not evaluated the victims in this case and will not express an opinion as to whether they are testifying truthfully. And the defense motion is entirely unclear on the features of this expert opinion that create risk that the jurors would abdicate their responsibilities. To the contrary, the defense concerns underscore how relevant this opinion will be in aiding the jurors in understanding the testimony at trial. + +## 3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible + +Dr. Rocchio will also testify that "friepeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). As Dr. Rocchio will explain, and as is detailed in her Jencks Act material', experiencing child + +The Government produced Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material to the defense at the time of the expert notice. (See Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2 ("The Government is producing notes from the Government's interviews with Dr. Rocchio today as well.")). + +sexual abuse can lead to a variety of psychological difficulties, including substance use and participation in risky sexual behavior. Complex trauma—trauma involving repetitive or prolonged exposure to or experiences of multiple traumatic stressors, involving harm or abandonment by trusted adults, and occurring at developmentally vulnerable times—can lead to various psychological consequences, including dysregulation in emotional control, difficulties in relationships or with behavioral control, and distorted perceptions of the self and others. + +This opinion is highly relevant. It is likely that jurors will not be intimately familiar with the consequences of child sexual abuse. Accordingly, the causal connection between these psychological problems and child sexual abuse is outside the experience of the average juror. Yet that information will aid the jury in two respects: First, it will help jurors assess the credibility of Minor Victims, to the extent they have had some of these psychological symptoms or had other difficulties described by Dr. Rocchio in the years since their abuse. For instance, the Government expects the defense to attack the credibility of a Minor Victim by cross0-examining her about her substance abuse. Dr. Rocchio's testimony will provide the jury with a fuller picture by showing that substance abuse can be a consequence of sexual trauma. Second, experiencing certain psychological difficulties is consistent with past child sexual abuse and complex trauma. It is evidence that Minor Victims in fact experienced child sexual abuse that they suffered known consequences of such abuse. See Raniere, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*3, \*7 (admitting expert + +testimony that "sexual assault can result in severe, long-lasting and wide-ranging psychological consequences and related difficulties"). + +The defendant argues that this evidence is nonetheless prejudicial because it will inflame the passions and emotions of the jury. (Def. Mot. 3 at 14). The Minor Victims, however, will be the ones testifying about the abuse they experienced and observed, and—whether on direct or cross—about the psychological consequences of their experiences. The question is only whether the jury will hear from an expert about the causal connection between those two concepts testimony about concepts not specifically applied to any victim, and testimony about a causal connection whose reliability the defense does not challenge. There is nothing inflammatory about this expert testimony, much less something sufficiently prejudicial to substantially outweigh the probative value of the testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +## 4. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion About the Significance of the Presence of Third Parties is Admissible + +As noted above, Dr. Rocchio will opine that "Nile presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). For instance, and as Dr. Rocchio will explain, the presence of a third party can disarm an intended victim and make perpetrators appear safe and trustworthy, or can create a false sense of security on the part of a minor victim that sexualized situations are normal and acceptable. Based on her experience as a clinician, Dr. Rocchio will testify that young children in particular often feel more comfortable in the presence of a woman. + +The defendant objects to this testimony on the grounds that it concerns a lay matter "which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help." (Def. Mot. 3 at 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Dr. Rocchio, however, is not testifying about common experience or from common experience. Her testimony stems from her clinical experience, and it concerns the psychological experiences of victims when a third person is present during parts of their sexual abuse, as part of her broader opinion on attachment and coercion. The average juror will not have knowledge of or experience in the psychology of abuse victims, and Dr. Rocchio's testimony will aid their understanding. + +The defendant relatedly seeks to preclude Dr. Rocchio from testifying about "groomingby-proxy," a term which appears nowhere in the Government's expert notice. (Def. Mot. 3 at 9). By that term, the defendant appears to argue that Dr. Rocchio will opine that an individual can groom a victim for abuse by another perpetrator, and that such an opinion is unreliable and "prejudicial speculation." (Id.). This argument misses the mark in three respects. First, Dr. Rocchio's testimony primarily concerns the experience of victims, not perpetrators, as explained above. If the victim experienced attachment and grooming, it makes no analytical difference whether the perpetrator intends to engage in sexual contact with the victim or, instead, is preparing the victim for abuse by a third party. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 31:1-34:12, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (explaining that, where there is a "reliable basis for . . . testi[mony] about trauma bonding and coercive control as phenomena that exist more broadly," the expert may testify, and defendants "are at liberty to vigorously cross-examine [the expert] to attempt to cabin or limit trauma bonding and coercive control to populations predominately outside of the alleged victims in this case"). Indeed, expert testimony is commonly offered in sex trafficking cases on the pimp-prostitute relationship, which is specifically designed to permit the + +pimp to arrange sex acts for third parties. See, e.g., Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263; Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198. Second, in any event, the Government did not provide expert notice on "grooming by proxy." Dr. Rocchio will give an opinion on grooming, and she will discuss how "[t]he presence of other individuals can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors." (Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2). The former is a reliable opinion, as explained above, and the defendant does not challenge the reliability of the latter opinion. (See Def. Mot. 3 at 14). Third, trial testimony will show that the defendant (I) in fact participated in sexual abuse of minors, (2) facilitated that abuse through her presence, and (3) conspired with a predator who groomed and sexually abused minors. None of that involves "grooming by proxy." + +## 5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible + +Finally, Dr. Rocchio will offer the opinion that "nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are common among victims of sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, and that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma." (Def. Mot. 3 Ex. I at 2). + +Much of the basis for this opinion is set forth in Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material. For instance, extensive psychological literature supports the idea that individuals who are harmed as children may come to disclose their experiences incrementally or not until much later, as they may only realize that their experiences were abusive later in life, among other reasons. Selected articles from that literature are attached as Exhibit B. See Alaggia et al., "Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016)," 20 Trauma, Violence & Abuse 260, 276 (2016) ("Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong process, + +with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are too often delayed until adulthood"); McElvaney, "Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure, and Partial Disclosure," 24 Child Abuse Rev. 159, 160 (2015) (There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common."); Bicanic et al., "Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults," 6 Euro. J. of Psychotraumatology 25883 (2015) (listing among the predictors of delayed disclosure "age category 12-17 years"). Children who do disclose may choose to share information with a peer, but are less likely to go to an adult. Especially where a child has been groomed, the perpetrator has become a trusted adult for a child, reducing the likelihood of the child's disclosure. Incremental disclosure depends on a variety of factors, including how safe the victim feels with the recipient of the disclosure, how voluntary the disclosure is, and psychological factors that may prevent the victim from accessing their full memories. Victims may also experience significant shame or self-blame that prevents them from sharing certain information, and they may still be attached to the perpetrators, such that they fly to protect the perpetrators. + +Sexual abuse also impacts the way memory is encoded. In traumatic circumstances, often only the most salient details are encoded, and over time, specific details may be lost. With traumatic memory in particular, adrenaline and cortisol responses in the context of fear and trauma cause people to narrow their focus to the most salient and relevant details. If someone is abused multiple times or by multiple people, it is very common for memories of similar occurrences to jumble together, although the victim can remember the perpetrator and maybe some of the locations where the abuse occurred. + +Taken together, Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony explains why victims of child sexual abuse—and especially repeated sexual abuse—may disclose their abuse in a delayed and incremental fashion, and why their memories may lack some level of detail when the disclosure finally occurs. + +The defendant argues that testimony about delayed disclosure is unreliable, repeating some of the defendant's earlier arguments about whether the testimony is "based entirely on her treatment of a self-selected group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth" and how the opinion lacks an error rate. (Del. Mot. 3 at 15). Here, as with her opinions on attachment and coercion, Dr. Rocchio is testifying based on her training, clinical experience, and the academic literature. See Exhibit B. That victims of childhood sexual abuse delay disclosure is a wellestablished phenomenon the fact of which—though not the underlying psychological explanation—is readily visible in the news. See also 2 Mod. Sci. Evid. § 19:15 (explaining that "a large literature over the years has demonstrated that individuals frequently fail to disclose autobiographical information in numerous different settings," including disclosure of "episodes of sexual abuse"). + +Courts have specifically authorized experts to provide testimony on delayed disclosure. See, e.g., United States v. Gaudet, 933 F.3d 11, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2019) ("Moreover, the government provided expert testimony from Dr. Ann Burgess .. . in which she testified that delayed disclosures are `[v]ery common' in abuse victims and stem from the way the brain processes, stores, and recalls traumatic experiences" (second alteration in original)); Raniere, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*3, \*7 (admitting expert testimony that "disclosure by sexual assault victims often unfolds over time, and the process of disclosure is influenced by multiple and changing factors including, but not limited to, the specific characteristics of the experience, the victim's psychological vulnerabilities, the victim's relationship to her perpetrator and her pattern of recovery and coping"); United Stales v. Young, 623 F. App'x 863, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[The expert] testified that . . . delayed disclosures, piecemeal disclosures and/or even recanted disclosures are coping mechanisms. . . . [The expert]'s testimony was helpful and probative because [the defendant] had attacked the victims' credibility based on their delayed and incomplete reports of abuse." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 826 (8th Cir. 2008) ("In this case, Dr. Levitt's testimony as to delayed disclosure helped the jury understand why the girls did not reveal they had been photographed until they were confronted with the images."). + +The defendant suggests that Dr. Rocchio's opinions on delayed disclosure are not helpful to the jury because they are too generic. As set forth here and more fully in Dr. Rocchio's Jencks Act material, Dr. Rocchio has elaborated on her opinions about the relationship between child sexual abuse and traumatic memory.' The defendant adds that, because Dr. Rocchio's opinion is that delayed disclosure is consistent with sexual abuse but not a necessary consequence of sexual abuse, jurors have no means to determine whether a Minor Victim is lying or telling the truth. + +30 + +The defendant also argues that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert in "the human brain or memory generally." (Del. Mot. 3 at 17). The Government agrees. But Dr. Rocchio is an expert in trauma psychology, which includes related issues of memory. + +(Def. Mot. 3 at 16). This argument misunderstands the role of the jury. Jurors are not tasked merely with applying Dr. Rocchio's expertise to facts. The jury will hear testimony that some Minor Victims did not immediately disclose their sexual abuse. When evaluating the credibility of those delayed disclosures, they will have the benefit of observing the Minor Victims' testimony, including their cross-examination which is sure to address their delayed disclosure, and the Minor Victims' explanation for those delays. The jury will also hear general testimony from Dr. Rocchio about various circumstances that may lead victims of sexual abuse to delay disclosure. In the totality of the circumstances, the jury can then decide who it finds credible. + +The defendant also argues it is prejudicial to her that Dr. Rocchio suggests "that delayed reporting is more consistent with truthfulness than fabrication, a determination which the July must make for itself." (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). It is unclear how the defendant can simultaneously argue that (1) Dr. Rocchio's testimony improperly assumes the role of the jury by suggesting that delayed reporting is "more consistent" with child sexual abuse (id.); and (2) Dr. Rocchio's testimony would only help the jury if she resolved any ambiguity by saying that delayed reporting is a necessary consequence of child sexual abuse (id. at 15-16). + +Finally, according to the defendant, Dr. Rocchio's arguments will only prejudice the defendant, because it will serve to bolster the witnesses' credibility. As the defense acknowledges, however, Dr. Rocchio will not offer an opinion regarding any specific victim, and she has not evaluated any victims in this case. (Cf Def. Mot. 3 at 16 (citing United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1999), in which the expert opined that the victims were in fact abused based "largely on crediting the girls' account," thereby "vouching for their truthfulness"). + +Instead, the Government will seek to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony as background in this case. "Dauber: instructs that vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence are the central tools available to an adversary who wishes to debunk an expert's testimony." Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE), Dkt. No. 335 at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Daubers, 509 U.S. at 594-595). Thus, to the extent the defendant wishes to cast doubt on the applicability of Dr. Rocchio's background testimony, she is free to do so through cross-examination or by offering contrary evidence. As discussed above, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is relevant to helping the jury understand key issues in the case, like why the Minor Victims may have returned to the defendant and Epstein without being physically forced to do so, and why they delayed disclosure. + +t \* t + +The parties agree that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Her opinions are well within the range of reasonable expert opinions, and so are sufficiently reliable to go to the jury. And they will aid the jury in evaluating other testimony in this case. That is enough for the Court to admit Dr. Rocchio's testimony. + +#### H. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11, 2021 Letter is Admissible + +On October 11, 2021, the Government mitt lied the defense of certain evidence it may offer at trial. In particular, the letter addressed seven emails and the expected testimony of one potential witness. (See October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A). As the Government explained in its letter to the defense, the evidence constitutes direct evidence of the charged offenses, but the Government provided notice under Rule 404(b) in the alternative. That same day, the Government provided the defense with the relevant emails, along with copies of all other marked Government + +exhibits, all of which were in the Government's discovery productions. The Government also provided the defense with Jencks Act materials for all trial witnesses that same day, including detailed notes and reports of the Government's interviews of the witness referenced in the letter. + +The defendant now moves to exclude this evidence, arguing, among other things, that the Government has not provided sufficient notice of the evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion lacks merit, and should be denied. The Government has provided detailed notice, well in advance of trial. This evidence is admissible on multiple grounds, and the jury should be permitted to consider it. + +## A. Applicable Law + +Relevant evidence is "not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime." United States v. , 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, "[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency." Id.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are "not considered other crimes evidence under" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they "arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense," (b) they are "inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense," or (c) they are "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is "appropriately treated + +as part of the very act charged, or, at least, proof of that act." Quinones, 511 F.3d at 309 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). + +Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows for the admission of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving criminal propensity, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit "has long adopted an `inclusionary' approach to the admission of uncharged crime evidence, under which evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity." United States v. Paulin, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant claims her conduct has an innocent explanation, the admission of such evidence of other acts is particularly appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged."). Where evidence is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b), it may only be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is "substantially outweighed" by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 1182; see Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +Until December 1, 2020, the Government was required to provide "reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2)(A) (2011). On December 1, 2020, the rule was amended (the "2020 Amendments") to require the Government to also "articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(B) (2020). The 2020 Amendments also removed language pennitting notice of the "general nature" of the evidence. + +These amendments are "relatively modest." & , "2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b)," 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5242.1 (2d ed.). They simply require the prosecutor to "articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) Advisory Committee note). The other act evidence should also be "described with helpful specificity." Id. + +# B. Discussion + +To be clear, in the Government's view, the exhibits and testimony discussed in the Government's October 11, 2021 letter are direct evidence of the offenses charged, such that they do not need to be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b). And although notice was not required under Rule 404(b), the Government has provided the defense with notice substantially in advance of trial. The Court should admit this evidence, regardless of whether Rule 404(b) applies. + +## 1. The Evidence is Admissible As Direct Evidence, or in the Alternative, Under Rule 404(b) + +The Government's October 11 letter identified seven exhibits and one witness whose statements are admissible as direct evidence, or in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See October II, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at I). More specifically, the letter explained that the Government may offer at trial certain emails, marked as Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413. In addition, the Government notified the defense that it may call as a witness an individual ("Employee-1") who worked for Jeffrey Epstein immediately + +following the charged conduct. Both categories of evidence are admissible as direct evidence of the charged conduct, or in the alternative under Rule 404(b). + +**a. Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413** + +Turning first to the exhibits, the Government has notified the defense that it intends to offer several emails that show that “the defendant took steps to please other influential men by providing them access to women she selected for them.” (October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at 1). The defendant sent these emails during the timeframe of the charged conduct. In other words, during the same time the defendant was taking steps to recruit and groom minor victims for Jeffrey Epstein, she was also using her ability to provide access to women as a form of social currency with other influential men with whom she sought to ingratiate herself. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +The defendant claims that these exhibits show nothing more than the defendant arranging “dates” for adults. But the jury could easily draw different inferences from these exhibits. The exhibits go directly to the defendant’s intent and motive, because they show (1) the defendant’s willingness to facilitate encounters between powerful men and women they would like, and (2) the defendant’s understanding that providing such access is a way to ingratiate herself with powerful men. At trial, it may not be obvious to a jury that an adult woman would be willing to provide Jeffrey Epstein with access to young girls. These emails make clear that the defendant was willing to serve in such a role, and that she was eager to please wealthy and influential men by providing them with access to women. + +Accordingly, these exhibits are probative of the issues the jury will be asked to resolve at trial and should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged crimes.9 In the alternative, this evidence is probative of the defendant’s motive, intent, plan, and knowledge, and should be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2). And the defendant’s claim that these emails concern lawful + +--- + +8 The remaining exhibits identified in the Government’s October 11, 2021 letter are necessary to identify the parties to the emails. + +9 This evidence would also be admissible to rebut defense arguments concerning similar topics, and in cross-examination of the defendant. + +conduct between adults1° only highlights that this evidence does "not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged," which weighs in favor of admitting these exhibits under Rule 404(bX2). United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). b. Testimony of Employee-1 Employee-1 worked as a personal assistant for Epstein for approximately (October I I, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A at I). During that time, Employee-1 reported directly to another employee ("Employee-2"), who worked for Epstein during the timeframe of the charged conspiracy, and who is referenced in the Second Superseding Indictment (the Indictment"). (ECF No. 187, ¶9 6, 7(b)). The Government expects that Employee-1 will testify about Employee-I 's observations of the close relationship between the defendant and Epstein. Indeed, Employee-1 will testify that Employee-1 worked out of the defendant's townhouse in Manhattan during the weeks that Employee-1 worked in New York City. The Government also expects Employee-1 to testify about her observations at Epstein's properties, including observations of minor girls at the properties, as well as her knowledge of Epstein's practice to arrange multiple sexualized massages per day. In addition, although Employee-1 's employment post-dates the defendant's conduct with the victims in this case, Employee-1 became familiar with certain items in Epstein's residences during her tenure there, and thus Employee-I will authenticate certain exhibits relating to the Minor Victims. Finally, the Government expects 1° On this point, the Government notes that the exhibits do not specify the ages of the individuals involved. 38 + +Employee-1 to testify that in or about October 2005, Epstein and her supervisor directed her to gather the computers and contact books in the house and hand them over to a specified individual. + +Employee-I's testimony is admissible for multiple permissible purposes. Her testimony shows the relationship between Epstein and the defendant shortly after the end of the conspiracy period, including the defendant's role in Epstein's affairs. Similarly, it provides background information about the operation of Epstein's homes and lifestyle. Employee-I's testimony will also show the defendant and Epstein's plan and preparation, because it will describe the process and frequency of obtaining masseuses, including the fact that the masseuses were often underage girls, and that some of the massages developed into sexual abuse. And Employee-I's testimony tends to show the defendant's knowledge, because it describes the visibility of Epstein's abuse to individuals at his properties. Finally, Employee-l's testimony will authenticate exhibits that are direct evidence of the charged crimes. Accordingly, Employee- 1 's testimony is direct evidence of the crimes charged. Moreover, this evidence is admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(6), for substantially the same reasons. + +## 2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations + +Even if Rule 404(b) applies here, the Government's October 11, 2021 letter—and the corresponding Jencks Act disclosures—have satisfied any notice obligations that apply here. + +The defense claims that the Government's October 11, 2021 notice was inadequate in light of the 2020 amendments to Rule 404(b). The Government provided the defense with a letter, and corresponding disclosures, seven weeks before trial. In fact, the defense has had the seven exhibits for much longer, since they were part of the Government's Rule 16 discovery productions. The defense now also has this briefing, five weeks before trial. Thus, any alleged gap in the + +Government's notice is remediated by this brief. This is ample notice of the possible Rule 404(b) evidence in this case. Indeed, the Rule only requires that the defense receive notice "before trial," or even "during trial... for good cause." Fed. R. Evid. 404(bX3XC). + +The defense claims, without supporting authority, that Rule 404(b) requires heightened notice that cannot be satisfied here without, essentially, a script of all of the proposed testimony at trial accompanied by detailed expositions of the Government's case-in-chief. (Def. Mot. 2 at 4- 5). But the Government has provided the defense with marked exhibits and comprehensive Jencks Act materials of the single witness subject to this motion (approximately 400 pages) "unusually early" (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353), along with a letter specifically highlighting the proffered evidence at trial. That is all that is required, and the defendant cannot leverage the notice requirements of Rule 404(b) to preclude this evidence at trial. Indeed, the "Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds." Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4804 (WHP), 2019 WL 1494027, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) (citing Rodriguez v. Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the only judge in this District to consider a similar situation concluded that the Government's Rule 404(b) notice was sufficient in combination with the Government's motion papers. See United States v. No. 19 Cr. 867 (PKC), 2021 WL 1851996, at •2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021). + +The defense vaguely asserts that it cannot perform an independent investigation into the Rule 404(b) evidence due to the inadequacy of the Government's notice. (Def. Mot. 2 at 5-6). That conclusory assertion cannot support a motion to preclude the jury from hearing evidence of the defendant's guilt. The defense has not identified any specific way that they have been hampered + +in their ability to investigate or move in limine. The Government's Rule 404(b) notice—and this brief—have been provided far in advance of trial. In many cases, the Government gives Rule 404(b) notice two weeks before trial, and here the Government's notice concerns a small number of exhibits and only one witness. See, e.g., United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("The Government has indicated that it will make the required disclosure two weeks prior to trial, a practice that typically comports with Rule 404(b)."); United States v. Fennel!, 496 F. Supp. 2d 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("The government has in good faith noted its obligations under Rule 404(b), and indicated that it intends to provide notice of the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce two weeks before the beginning of trial. There is therefore no need to issue the order Defendant seeks."). The Government has identified the specific evidence it will seek to admit not just the types of evidence—and has explained the connection between that evidence and nonpropensity purposes for which it will be offered. That is all Rule 404(b) requires. + +## III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible + +The defendant has moved to exclude evidence related to Minor Victim-3. This is nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Minor Victim-3. And in any event, her testimony would easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 404(b). + +# A. Background + +Both the first and second superseding indictments described the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3. As set forth in the Indictment, the defendant "groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which [the defendant] knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18." (Indictment 1 9(c)). The defendant "introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein," during which the defendant "encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages." (Id.) Minor Victim-3 provided those massages, during which Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. (Id.) Two overt acts in those Indictments concerned the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3 in London. (Id. ¶9 13(d), 19(d)). + +The defendant moved to strike the portions of the S I Indictment involving Minor Victim-3, arguing that the events involving Minor Victim-3 were unrelated to the conspiracies charged in Count One and Count Three. (See generally Mem. of Law, Dkt. No. 146). In response, the Government explained that the defendant and Epstein's "interactions with Minor Victim-3 were part of a broader scheme and agreement to entice and transport minor victims with the intent to commit illegal sex acts," and in any event, admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi. (Gov't Opp. at 157-169, Dkt. No. 204). The Government expects Minor Victim-3 to testify, in substance and in part, that she met the defendant when she was 17 years old. The defendant befriended Minor Victim-3 by, among other things, discussing Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. The defendant also described Jeffrey Epstein as her boyfriend and indicated that she wanted Minor Victim-3 to meet Epstein. The defendant invited Minor Victim-3, who was still 17 years old, to + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The Court denied the defendant's prior motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3 (Op. & Order at 33, Dkt. No. 207), explaining that it was premature to strike any language from the Indictment, because Minor Victim-3's allegations "may reflect conduct + +undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind." (id. at 26-27). + +## B. Applicable Law + +It is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Those are the very acts the Government seeks to prove at trial. See United States v. Dugue, 763 F. App'x 93, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (la act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged." (alterations and citation omitted)); Quinones, 511 F.3d at 308 ("While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales ... for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime." (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)). + +As discussed above, see supra Section II, direct evidence is "not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime." 110 F.3d at 942, see id. at 942 (rejecting a claim that the evidence fell under Rule 404(b)). It also includes actions or statements that (a) "arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense," (b) are "inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense," or (c) are "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44. + +In addition, in a conspiracy case, "the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, "where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is ... direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment." United States v. Townsend, No. Si 06 Cr. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*I (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992)); United Slates v. Van Putten, No. 04 Cr. 803 (PKL), 2005 WL 612723, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2005) (similar). + +As also discussed in Section II, supra, evidence of "other acts" is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it is (1) advanced for a proper purpose, such as to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident"; (2) relevant to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial; and (3) has probative value which is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect. See Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182. If requested, such evidence must be admitted with limiting instructions to the jury. See United States v. 342 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit "ha[s] adopted an inclusionary approach to evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence, which allows evidence to be received at trial for any purpose other than to attempt to demonstrate the defendant's criminal propensity." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). + +# C. Discussion + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is direct evidence of the charged criminal conduct specifically, the conspiracies in Counts One and Three of the Indictment. Minor Victim-3's expected testimony describes a pattern in which the defendant and Epstein groom a young girl, ask her to massage Epstein, sexualize that massage, invite the girl to travel, and ask her to find other girls for Epstein. The Government expects that Minor Victim-3's testimony, which concerns a period of time overlapping with or in close proximity to other Minor Victims' experiences with the defendant and Epstein and concerns teenagers of similar ages, will significantly overlap with the testimony of those other Minor Victims. Put simply, Minor Victim-3's account is + +corroborative of the accounts of the other Minor Victims. It is also direct evidence of the operation of the conspiracy that is probative of the defendant's intent at the time of the offense. See Op. & Order at 10, Dkt. No. 106 ("[I]t is anticipated that the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant's alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts."); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 201 I) (explaining in an interstate stalking case that evidence of earlier abuse that was "similar in nature and severity" demonstrated a "pattern of activity that was probative of [the defendant's] intent"). + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is also direct evidence of the offense because it concerns acts taken by the defendant in furtherance of the conspiracies. In particular, + +Accordingly, the defendant attempted to recruit additional victims through Minor Victim-3. + +Indeed, at a minimum, the defense motion should be denied because the Government's proffered evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 contained in the Indictment. (Indictment 11113(d), 19(d)). Evidence proving overt acts in the Indictment is direct evidence of the offense, and not other-acts evidence. See United States v. James, 520 F. App'x 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) ("James's possession of five pounds of marijuana on December 22, 2005, and December 2, 2010, were charged as overt acts in the indictment. Accordingly, evidence of James's possession of marijuana on these occasions was not subject to the structures of Rule 404(b)."). The Court previously denied the defense's motion to strike the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 as surplusage, explaining that it "may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind." (Op. & Order at 26-27, Dkt. No. 207 ("Courts in this district generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how specific allegations relate to the overall charges.")). Having concluded that it should delay striking these overt acts until after presentation of the Government's evidence, the Court should not now effectively reverse its decision by precluding that very evidence. If the Government's proof at trial does not establish the relevance of Minor Victim-3's testimony, if anything, the proper course is for the defense to move to strike the relevant overt acts and Minor Victim-3's testimony at that time. + +Even if evidence of Minor Victim-3 were uncharged criminal activity, it would still be necessary to understand the other aspects of the charged conspiracies. Minor Victim-3 experienced the pattern of abuse in close temporal proximity to the other Minor Victims: the conduct involving Minor Victim-1 spans 1994 to 1997, the conduct involving Minor Victim-3 spans 1994 to 1995, and the conduct involving Minor Victim-2 occurred in 1996. The defendant's acts toward Minor Victim-3 show (1) the defendant's relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages, (2) the defendant's knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims, and (3) her willingness to transport minors to further their abuse. This evidence is therefore direct proof of the defendant's state of mind and agreement to participate in a conspiracy with Epstein. Moreover, her relationship with Minor Victim-3 was "part of [her] continued effort" to commit the offenses charged in Counts One and Three. Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see United States v. Romero-Padilla, 583 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) ("We reject Romero-Padilla's contention that evidence of his + +previous plans with Ferro to import narcotics . .. was evidence of 'other crimes' . . . . [1]t corroborated the charge that Ferro and Romero-Padilla were partners during the charged conspiracy and established that Romero-Padilla's participation in the charged conspiracy was at least in part motivated by his desire to acquire [certain] funds ...")." + +Minor Victim-3's testimony is also necessary to complete the story of the offense conduct in light of expected defenses at trial. To the extent that the defense argues, for instance, that the defendant played no role in obtaining girls to massage Epstein or was unaware that Epstein's + +I I The cases the defendant cites (Def. Mot. 4 at 8-9) conclude that the admission of evidence about distinct criminal incidents are not direct evidence of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (evidence of prior narcotics arrest and firearms conviction in narcotics and firearms case "could be . . . connected to the charged conspiracy, but the Government has not provided enough detail"); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at •2 (stating that the Government did not show that uncharged firearm and drug transactions involving the same confidential informant outside the time period of the charged conspiracy, described "rather generically" as a sale of firearms and "narcotics transactions," are "part and parcel of the charged conduct or sufficiently similar to them); United States v. Mahat, 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that, although the facts between two fraud schemes were "quite similar," the other acts were "a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment"), vacated in part on other grounds 285 F. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("[T]he transactions took place as early as three years prior to the charged conspiracy and appear to involve a series of distinct cash for gold transactions . . . ."). That is not the case here, where the abuse of Minor Victim-3 occurred during the charged conspiracy period, overlaps temporally with the testimony of other Minor Victims, whose admissibility the defendant does not contest, and is direct proof of the operation of the conspiracy. But in any event, in each case, the Court admitted at least some evidence under Rule 404(b). See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at \*5-6 (some evidence admissible under Rule 404(6), some evidence "far too vague" for the Court to resolve, evidence of later marijuana possession irrelevant); Mahe, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(6)). + +massages were sexualized, evidence that she did so in the case of Minor Victim-3—at roughly the same time as Epstein was abusing Minor Victim-I and Minor Victim-2—is "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) a argued at trial that Jane Doe was his 'girlfriend' and that he had no control over her prostitution activities. Evidence that was in the prostitution business and controlled prostitutes other than Jane Doe was therefore 'necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial."). + +The defense focuses on allegations involving Minor Victim-3 in isolation. In its attempt to confuse the issues, the defense argues that the defendant's conduct with Minor Victim-3 was lawful in the United Kingdom, and that Minor Victim-3 was an adult when she ultimately traveled to the United States and was abused by Epstein. The defense states that "[a]s to [Minor Victim-3], the completed endeavor—i.e., her alleged sex acts with Epstein—was not a substantive criminal offense." (Def. Mot. 4 at 8 (emphasis in original)). The defense then claims—without any basis that the allegations relating to Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment are "of no consequence," because "the government evidently charged the conduct under the mistaken belief that [Minor Victim-3] was a minor when she engaged in sex acts with Epstein." (Id. at 9-10). According to the defense, the government "did not know that [Minor Victim-3] was above the [age] of consent in the U.K. The government presented [Minor Victim-3]'s allegations to the grand jury incorrectly assuming that she was a minor and that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and [Minor Victim-3] were illegal." (Id. at 1-2). + +Not so. The defendant's argument entirely misunderstands the charges in the Indictment and the jury's task at trial. The defendant is charged with conspiring to transport and entice minors for the purpose of sexual abuse. The question at trial will be whether the defendant took steps to provide Jeffrey Epstein with access to girls under the age of 18, knowing that Epstein intended to have sexual contact with those girls. The defendant's acts involving Minor Victim-3 were part of that scheme and are highly relevant to demonstrating the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant's role in the scheme. That is all that is required for evidence relating to the defendant's exploitation of Minor Victim-3 to be direct evidence of the charged offenses. The defendant is not charged with an offense under United Kingdom law, and the age of consent in the United Kingdom is irrelevant. The defendant is also not charged with any substantive offenses with respect to Minor Victim-3, and thus it makes no difference whether the defendant could have, attempted to, or did successfully transport Minor Victim-3 in violation of those statutes.12 + +In any event, this evidence is all admissible under Rule 404(b).13 Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to recruit and encourage Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts with Epstein in the context of massages establishes that the defendant knew of Epstein's attraction to minor girls + +12Indeed, there is no risk at trial that the jury will convict the defendant based on the testimony of Minor Victim-3 alone. As the Government has made clear, the jury may not convict the defendant of the conspiracy offense solely based on Minor Victim-3 due to the statute of limitations. (Gov't Opp. at 157-58, 163, Dkt. No. 204). The jury should be appropriately instructed at the conclusion of the trial. + +13To the extent this evidence is properly admissible under Rule 404(6) rather than as direct evidence, the Government's detailed memorandum in opposition to the defense pretrial motions, which described theories of 404(b) admissibility (Gov't Opp. at 165-69, Dkt. No. 204), and this memorandum, filed five weeks before trial, is more than sufficient notice for the defense. + +and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact with minor girls. Minor Victim-3's testimony shows the defendant's intent, through her acts befriending Minor Victim-3, encouraging Minor Victim-3 to provide Epstein massages, and asking Minor Victim-3 to find other girls. And it shows the defendant's specific modus operandi of the conspiracies in the Indictment. For these and the other reasons described above, Minor Victim-3's testimony easily satisfies Rule 404(b)'s requirements. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g., United States v. =, 708 F. App'x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) ("As to the testimony concerning 'grooming' of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under Rule 404(b), because it was probative of MI knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys' trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under Rule 403."); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant's "e-mail responses to the Craigslist advertisements" for erotic services because the e-mails "were relevant to his knowledge and intent, because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual conduct"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting "evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the intemet in the period leading up to the charged conduct" under Rule 404(b) + +because evidence was "pertinent to whether he used the internet in an attempt to engage in sexual conduct with" putative victim). + +The defense argues that this testimony will be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. According to the defense, if Minor Victim-3 testifies that she had sex with a "much older man when she was 17 years old" or that she was sexually abused, the jury will assume that Epstein engaged in illegal conduct, which will somehow prejudice the defendant. (Def. Mot. 4 at 13). The Court should not assume that the jury will speculate about principles of United Kingdom law and apply them to this case. The Court will properly instruct the jury on the elements of the offenses charged in the Indictment and the evidence that the jury can—and cannot consider. Those instructions will not ask the jury to consider or pass upon any aspect of United Kingdom law, which will not be in evidence at trial. And in any event, as discussed in the Government's opposition to the defendant's pretrial motion to strike references to Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experiences with the defendant and Epstein are no more inflammatory or upsetting than those of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. The risk of unfair prejudice is therefore minimal. + +In the alternative, the defense seeks three rulings: (1) precluding the Government from referring to Minor Victim-3 as a "minor," (2) precluding the Government and Minor Victim-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein, and (3) giving a limiting instruction about United Kingdom law. The defense's requested rulings are not grounded in law or reason. + +First, the defense claims that Minor Victim-3 should not be referred to as a "minor" because she was above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions at the times she had sexual contact with Epstein. When Minor Victim-3 began having sexual contact with Epstein, she was 17. The issue at trial will be the defendant's knowledge of Epstein's preference for girls under the age of IS. Under federal law, there is a term for individuals under the age of 18: minors. There is nothing inappropriate about using that term at trial. + +Similarly, the phrase "sexual abuse" is accurate, and the Government should be permitted to use it. Minor Victim-3 is expected to testify about her experiences with the defendant and Epstein, including that she was sexually abused by Epstein numerous times. Regardless of whether she uses the term "sexual abuse," her testimony will capture her experience—that she was exploited sexually. And it is fair for the Government to argue that those acts were sexual abuse. The defense argues that the phrase "sexual abuse" is misleading because it suggests to the jury that Epstein engaged in "criminal sexual activity" with Minor Victim-3. (Def. Mot. 4 at 14-15). To justify that proposition, the defense cites a single Supreme Court case in which ( I) the parties were engaged in the task of statutory interpretation, not argument in a jury address or description of a victim's lived experience, and (2) the Court rejected that proposed definition of "sexual abuse of a minor as "flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in th[at] very dictionary." Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017). Again, the Government is confident that the Court will properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crimes in the Indictment. + +Finally, there is no basis for an instruction about United Kingdom law. The defense has demonstrated no unfair prejudice that might warrant a limiting instruction, and the defense's proposed instructions would only confuse the jury. The jury will be instructed to consider only + +the elements of the crimes the Court provides them, so any assumptions the jury might make about United Kingdom law are irrelevant.14 See United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir. 1996) (appropriate to reject defense request for an instruction if it does not "represent[] a theory of the defense with a basis in the record that would lead to acquittal"). And the proposed jury instruction that the sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 "cannot be considered 'illegal' or 'criminal' or 'unlawful' for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment" (Def. Mot. 4 at 15), is wrong on the law. The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case. It is not irrelevant: it is direct evidence of the crimes charged, and it should be put before the jury. + +# IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial + +On October 11, the Government provided the defense with comprehensive Jencks Act material for trial witnesses and its exhibits, along with a letter telling the defense, consistent with the Court's order, the identities of the individuals the Government intends to argue are coconspirators at trial. The defense nonetheless asks the Court to enter an order precluding the Government from introducing any co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence + +&quot; In the event the Court instructs the jury on the age of consent in the United Kingdom, the Government requests that the Court also instruct the jury that the United Kingdom's age of consent is irrelevant and they should not consider it. + +802(dX2)(E) because it claims the Government failed to comply with the Court's September 3, 2021 Order. (Del. Mot. 1 at 1). The defense misreads this Court's September 3, 2021 Order to require the Government to do something unprecedented: identify and itemize for the defense each and every co-conspirator statement it plans to use at trial, seven weeks in advance of trial. Then, complaining that the Government has not complied with the defense's peculiar reading, the defense seeks an extraordinary remedy: precluding the Government from offering any coconspirator statements at trial. Each step of this analysis is erroneous, and the Court should deny the motion. + +## A. Background + +The defendant first sought to compel the Government to identify the co-conspirator statements it plans to use at trial in its initial round of pretrial motions. There, the defendant argued that the Second Circuit's practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements at trial would prejudice her because "any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility." (Mem. of Law at 13, Dkt. No. 148). She therefore asked the Court to order a "proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible." (Id. at 13-14). + +In response, the Government observed that the practice of conditional admission of coconspirator statements is the law of the Circuit, notwithstanding the defense's preference to the contrary. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Government also explained that "the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act." (Id.). See It: re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court's order directing the Government to "produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the + +Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a defendant" under Fed. R. Evid. 801). Accordingly, the Government argued that "the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" in its Jencks Act production. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). + +The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial disclosure of non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements. (Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207). The Court also explained that the "Ho-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis," and to the extent that "can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to allow Maxwell to raise any objections." (Id. at 30-31). + +The defendant's second bite at the apple came in the parties' joint scheduling letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 291). There, the defense requested that the Government "identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or documentary evidence) at the same time as it discloses []3500 material," so it could "litigate their admissibility before trial." (Id. at 11-12). The Government responded that it is "entirely appropriate for defense counsel to receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits," because any coconspirator statements will be contained therein. (Id. at 5). The Government also noted that the defendant cited no cases "directing separate notice of coconspirator statements that the Government may introduce at trial." (Id.) + +On June 2, 2021, the Court adopted the "Government's proposal" and set a deadline of October 11, 2021, for the "disclosure ofJencks Act and Giglio material, Rule 404(6) evidence and + +notice, co-conspirator statements, and Government witness list," as well as the "Defendant's proposal" that the Government disclose its proposed exhibit list that same day. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). This order did not expressly require the Government to specifically identify coconspirator statements within its other productions. + +In the defendant's second round of pretrial motions, she asked the Court to order the Government to disclose a series of information about the Indictment. That list contained a renewed request for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators, but it did not contain a new request for the Government to separately identify co-conspirator statements within its discovery production. (Mem. of Law at 23-24, Dkt. No. 293). On August 13, 2021, the Court denied the defense's motion, but in a footnote, explained that it "presume[d] the Government intends to disclose" the "identi[ties of] the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment," since the Government had not previously opposed that request. (Op. & Order, Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1). The order said nothing about identifying coconspirator's statements. (Id.). + +The Government filed a letter opposing the request for the Government to "identify [the defendant]'s unnamed co-conspirators." (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 320). The defendant filed a new letter in response, raising "two issues." (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 331). First, the defendant sought the identities of co-conspirators. (Id. at 1-2). Second, the defendant took a third bite at the apple, once again seeking "disclosure of the purported co-conspirator statements [the Government] intends to offer at trial." (Id. at 3). The defendant also argued that the Court's scheduling order had already required the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements. (Id. at 3-4). + +On September 3, 2021, the Court ordered the Government to "disclose to the Defendant the identities of all unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment to whom it will refer at trial." (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 335). The Court further ordered the Government to "disclose all coconspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order." (Id. at 2). + +Accordingly, on October 11, 2021, the Government produced its exhibit list and Jencks Act material to the defendant. The Jencks Act materials and exhibits contained the only coconspirator statements in the Government's possession that will be offered at trial. It also disclosed the identities of the individuals to whom it may refer at trial as co-conspirators and informed the defendant that it "has produced all co-conspirator statements which it intends to offer at trial . in the Government's production [that day] or in its previous productions." (Del. Mot. 1 Ex. 1 at I). The Government further noted that "[t]o the extent the Government learns of additional coconspirator statements as it continues to prepare for trial, it will produce those statements in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material." (Id.). + +## B. Discussion + +The Government has complied with its pre-trial disclosure obligations, consistent with the Court's orders and on a schedule with deadlines well in advance of trial. As of October 11, the Government produced all co-conspirator statements in its possession that it intends to offer at trial. To the extent that the Government learns of additional co-conspirator statements as it prepares for trial—such as in a session preparing a witness for trial—it will produce those statements as part of its ongoing Jencks Act obligations. + +The defense errs when it suggests that the Court ordered the Government to specifically itemize any co-conspirator statements contained in its disclosures. When the Court first set a disclosure schedule for Jencks Act material, it adopted the "Government's proposal," which opposed any requirement that the Government isolate co-conspirator statements from other witness statements. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). When the Court ordered the Government to produce the identities of co-conspirators, it again ordered the Government to "disclose" all co-conspirator statements, citing the Court's earlier order. (Order at 2, Dkt. No. 335). Neither order expressly directed the Government to produce a set of co-conspirator statements it would offer at trial separately from the other evidence it would offer at trial. + +A requirement to "disclose statements" is not a requirement to isolate statements. For one, the Court denied the defense request for effectively that relief in the first round of pretrial motions. (Op. & Order at 30-31, Dkt. No. 207). For another, in the defense's many rounds of briefing on this issue, it has cited no case—not from this District, nor any other—in which a Court ordered the Government to segregate and itemize co-conspirator statements from other statements for the convenience of the defense. The Government is aware of no such case—likely because such an order would be in considerable tension with Circuit precedent, see In re U.S., 834 F.2d at 286. For a third, the guiding principle of the defense's justification for its request is to facilitate litigation of those statements' admissibility pre-trial. But the law of the Second Circuit is that such statements can be conditionally admitted during the trial, and their admissibility litigated thereafter. See, e.g., United States v. 676 F.3d 260, 273 n.8 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)); Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207. As much + +as the defense might like the Government to create such an index, that is simply not how the litigation of co-conspirator statements is handled. And it is not what the Court's order, requiring "disclos[ur]e" of co-conspirator statements, required. + +The Government's obligation is to make disclosures. The Government is not obligated to serve as members of the defense team, reviewing Jencks Act materials for the defense and itemizing and indexing disclosures for them. The Government is no more obligated to itemize Jencks Act materials containing co-conspirator statements than it is obligated to exhaustively detail for the defense the basis for offering any other type of witness statement contained in the Jencks Act material it has produced. Such an obligation would extremely burdensome and is both without precedent and entirely unnecessary. The defense team has ample resources to review the Government's disclosures and file any motions they wish to make regarding the admission of certain testimony. And there is ample time before trial for the defense to do so, and no basis in the record to believe the defense will be unable to raise these issues and seek a ruling before trial. + +The defense argues that the Court did order the Government to itemize co-conspirator statements contained in its Jencks Act production. In support, however, the defense cites to orders relating to the disclosure of the identities of co-conspirators. (Compare Def. Mot. I at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1) and Del. Mot. 1 at 3 (citing Dkt. No. 335 at 3) (stating that the Court rejected the defendant's arguments "because of 'the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of friar (emphasis in Def. Mot. I)), with Op. & Order at 12 n. I, Dkt. No. 317 ("Additionally, Maxwell includes in her motion for a bill of particulars a request to require the government to identify the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies + +charged in the S2 indictment."), and Order at 3, Dkt. No. 335 (following the above sentence with "In light of the interests discussed above ... the Court will require the Government to disclose the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators . ."). + +The defense also argues that failure to provide an index of co-conspirator statements permits "the presentation of false testimony" and is "an invitation to manufacture evidence," because a witness will offer a co-conspirator statement for the first time. (Def. Mot. 1 at 4). This argument is nonsensical and offensive. It is deeply unfortunate that defense counsel would so casually resort to baseless allegations that the Government would manufacture evidence and present false testimony at trial. And in any event, the Government produced to the defense Jencks Act material containing co-conspirator statements in its possession on October 11 and will continue to make Jencks Act productions as it prepares for trial. To the extent the defense is concerned that a witness will say something on the stand for the first time, the Government cannot disclose that in advance because no lawyer can know a witness's verbatim answer in advance. But were that to occur, the defense would be well positioned to cross-examine the witness.15 + +IS The defendant's motion also makes the puzzling argument that co-conspirator statements are problematic in this case because the defense is limited in its ability to call co-conspirators to testify as defense witnesses. (Def. Mot. I at 4). That is true in essentially every criminal case, as the Court has previously noted. (See Op. & Order at 17-18, Dkt. No. 207 ("There are also serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf.")). In any event, to the extent the defense takes issue with the rule that co-conspirator statements can be admitted without requiring the declarant to testify, that complaint is properly directed to the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence. + +Even if the Government has misread the Court's order, the defense's claims of prejudice are exaggerated. Although the defense complains that the Government seized "multiple electronic devices" containing "hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades" (Def. Mot. 1 at 3), any statements contained in emails or other documents that the Government plans to use at trial have been marked as Government exhibits and produced to the defense. The defense need look no further than the Government's exhibit list to discover what documents will be offered at trial. Similarly, although the defense complains of "document dumps" (id. at 2) and the need to review "thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material" (id. at 7), any witness testimony containing co-conspirator statements is contained in the Government's Jencks Act production and specifically, the Government's production of material for testifying witnesses. Although the Government produced as a courtesy prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, by definition the Government does not plan to call those individuals at trial. And the Government has informed the defense of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom it may refer at trial, so the defense knows exactly which declarants' statements are possibly subject to the co-conspirator exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(dX2XE).16 + +Finally, and in any event, suppression is not a proper remedy. The defense relies principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order + +16 To be clear, the defendant's motion concerns the admission of statements under Rule 80I(d)(2)(E). The majority of the statements made by co-conspirators that will be offered at trial have other bases for admissibility. For example, witnesses will testify regarding promises, offers, instructions, and directions they received from Epstein. Those statements are not factual assertions subject to hearsay rules. Rather, they are offered for the effect on the listener, among other reasons. + +excluding the testimony of a defense witness as a sanction for counsel's (i) noncompliance with a discovery rule that required notice of intention to call the witness, and (ii) misleading the court concerning his knowledge of the witness's whereabouts. The Supreme Court found the discovery violation was "both willful and blatant." Id. at 416. Taylor does not support the defense's position. The defense, citing Taylor, accuses the Government of willfully violating the Court's September 3, 2021 Order. (See Def. Mot. 1 at 6-7; see id. at 3 (accusing the Government of "attempting to overstuff an already full sandbag")). The Government did no such thing. The Government has simply read the word "disclose" to mean "disclose," consistent with the uniform practice in this District. The defense's accusations are baseless and offensive. + +The defense has all of the co-conspirator statements the Government plans to use at trial. They have these records "unusually early"—seven weeks before trial. (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353). The defense also knows the identities of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom the Government may refer at trial, a highly unusual circumstance that makes the defense's task even easier. And they are free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial. The Government has complied with its obligations, and the defense is fully equipped to prepare for trial. The Court should deny the motion. + +## V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Victim-4's Identification of the Defendant + +The defendant claims that Minor Victim-4's identification of her was unduly suggestive and should be suppressed. (Def. Mot. 9). That argument finds support in neither fact nor law. Minor Victim-4 knew the defendant personally, and she has consistently described the defendant for decades. The identification was not suggestive, and the motion should be denied. + +## A. Background + +As set forth in Counts Five and Six of the Indictment, Minor Victim-4 was trafficked by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein from approximately 2001 to 2004. (Indictment ¶¶ 22-27). During that time, Minor Victim-4 personally interacted with the defendant—for instance, the defendant paid Minor Victim-4 following Minor Victim-4's sexual encounters with Epstein. (Id. 25(a)). + +In 2007, Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In that interview, she described meeting "an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent"—a description that is consistent with the defendant's appearance—at her first meeting with Epstein. In Minor Victim-4 was deposed, during which she explained that she sometimes called the house to get work, and she would talk to an employee or "Maxwell." Later in the deposition, she added that the same employee or "Maxwell" would contact her when Epstein wanted her to come. + +This Office first interviewed Minor Victim-4 in July 2020. During that meeting, Minor Victim-4 spoke about her many interactions with the defendant. She did so again at the Government's meetings with her in August 2020, and at multiple meetings in January 2021. + +The Government met Minor Victim-4 again in June 2021 for several meetings. During one of those meetings, the Government showed Minor Victim-4 a photo book containing 20 photos. The Government asked Minor Victim-4 to review each photograph in the book and to indicate whether she recognized anyone in the book. The Government explained that just because someone is in the book, it does not mean that Minor Victim-4 knowns that person or that the person is in trouble. The Government instructed Minor Victim-4 just to let the Government know if she recognized anyone. + +Minor Victim-4 identified photo as possibly depicting the defendant, but indicated that she was not sure. When she reached photo ■ **Minor Victim-4 said it depicted the defendant. After completing her review of the book, Minor Victim-4 returned to compare photos and she confirmed that she believed photo** ■was **a photo of the defendant, and she was not sum whether she knew the person in photo'.** + +## **B. Applicable Law** + +**As a general matter, the Constitution "protects a defendant against a conviction based on evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy of credit." v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 237 (2012). Eyewitness identifications should therefore be excluded only where "improper police conduct" occurred that was "so unnecessarily suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. at 238-39;** see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 112-14 (1977); v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). + +Federal courts follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. M, 565 U.S. at 238-40; Brisco v. Ercole, 565 F.3d 80, 88 (2d Cir. 2009). First, the defendant must show that the identification was "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [the defendant] was denied due process of law." United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 213 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 134 (2d Cir. 2001). This is a high threshold to meet, as the defendant must show that, under the totality of the circumstances, there is "a very substantial + +likelihood of irreparable misidentification." United States v. Maldonado-IM, 922 F.2d 934, 973 (2d Cir. 1990). If the defendant cannot make such a showing, "the trial identification testimony is generally admissible without further inquiry into the reliability of the pretrial identification. In that circumstance, any question as to the reliability of the witness's identifications goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility." Id. + +Second, an unduly suggestive identification procedure does not alone require suppression of the identification evidence. See Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 110-14. Instead, the court must then determine whether the identification evidence is nevertheless "independently reliable" based on the totality of the circumstances. Brisco, 565 F.3d at 89; United States v. 923 F.2d 934, 950 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[E]ven a suggestive out-of-court identification will be admissible if, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, it possesses sufficient indicia of reliability."). Among the factors to be considered are: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). No single factor is dispositive. See Kelly, 257 F.3d at 135. + +#### C. Discussion + +There was nothing unduly suggestive about the identification procedure used here. Accordingly, there is no basis to suppress Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant, and Minor Victim-4 should be permitted to identify the defendant at trial." + +First, the identification procedure was not suggestive because it was merely a "confirmatory identification" of a person Minor Victim-4 had known and identified by name over the years. There is no "improper police conduct" creating a "substantial likelihood of identification" by showing a person in that position even a single photograph, much less a photo array or photo book. See, e.g., United States v. Hardy, No. 10 Cr. 1123 (JSR), 2011 WL 7782582 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011) ("Displaying a confirmatory photograph of a person the witness has indicated that he already knows is perfectly acceptable."); Gilbert v. Sup't of Corr. Fac., No. 03 Civ. 3866 (LBS), 2004 WL 287683, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2004) (upholding confirmatory identification following street canvass on the grounds that 'police suggestiveness does not require suppression of an identification if the witness was not thereby influenced, as, for example, when the witness's identification was already positive." (quoting Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 41-42 (2d Cir. 1986))); see also, e.g., Franco v. Lee, No. 12 Civ. 1210 (SJF), 2013 WL 704655, at \*10 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) ("In cases in which the defendant's identity is not in issue, or those in which the protagonists are known to one another, suggestiveness is not a concern + +&quot; Even if the Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant were suppressed, that would not preclude Minor Victim-4 from testifying about her abuse and the name and physical description of the person involved. + +and the identification is merely confirmatory." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stallings v. M, No. 04 Civ. 4714 (RLM), 2006 WL 842380, at \*11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006) (collecting cases). + +Minor Victim-4's personal knowledge of the defendant is well established. The defendant and Minor Victim-4 met in person and interacted multiple times between 2001 and 2004. Minor Victim-4 then mentioned the defendant by description or by name in 2007, 2009, 2020, and 2021, all prior to being shown the photo book. And the circumstances of the identification were not suggestive. Minor Victim-4 was shown 20 photos, She was not asked to locate the defendant, or asked whether a particular photo depicted the defendant, but just whether she recognized anyone, although she was told that she was not expected to recognize someone just because their photo was in the book. And, indeed, Minor Victim-4 said she did not recognize some photos in the book. Regarding the defendant specifically, Minor Victim-4 carefully considered whether a different photo depicted the person she believed to be the defendant before seeing and selecting a photo of the defendant. This procedure was cautious and not suggestive—much less unduly suggestive. + +The reality is straightforward: Minor Victim-4 knows exactly who the defendant is and confirmed that the person in the photograph was the defendant. In response, the defense argues that the photo "looks like a mug shot" and "is different than the others." (Def. Mot. 9 at 3). Of course, as is often the case with photo arrays or photo books, all of the photos generally resemble mug shots, so there is nothing suggestive about the fact that the defendant's photo does. And it is not in fact different from the others: While the defendant's photo is lower resolution than some, + +there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos ). In any event, these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination and attorney argument. See Maldonado, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, "any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility"). + +Even if the "confirmatory identification" procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4's identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed question about a confirmatory identification's suggestiveness because the independent basis for the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App'x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005) (witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under "streetlight illumination" but was familiar with defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers' in-court identifications reliable where officers had unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at •2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. II, 2018) (collecting cases finding that "in-court identification is admissible, despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant + +prior to the incident," or alternatively, if "if a witness gets a good look at the defendant during the course of a crime"); United States v. M, No. II Cr. 487 (RJS), 2012 WL 2053758, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012) (noting that a "witness's familiarity with a suspect may establish that the identification . . . is independently reliable"). + +This is not a crime in which a victim captures a fleeting glance of the perpetrator. Minor Victim-4 interacted with the defendant personally on multiple occasions between 2001 and 2004. She knew the defendant by name and gave a description. In the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant is sufficiently independently reliable to permit the jury to decide its persuasiveness. + +The defense merely replies, again in conclusory fashion, that Minor Victim-4 (1) never identified the defendant as an abuser, (2) did not have an opportunity to view her during the crime because the defendant was not involved in a crime, (3) never described the defendant, and (4) the time between the abuse and the identification was extraordinarily long. (Def. Mot. 9 at 4). The first three of these points are inaccurate, as set forth above. And the delay in time is untroubling given Minor Victim-4's contacts with the defendant and consistent references in the intervening time. The defense is free to attempt to argue these points to the jury, but none of these arguments supports a motion to suppress Minor Victim-4's identification of the defendant. + +Minor Victim-I knows who participated in the sexual abuse she experienced, as she has for the decades since it happened. This Court should deny the motion. + +#### VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits + +The defense has filed several motions to preclude certain Government exhibits. (Def. Mots. 7, 8, and 13). The Court should deny the defense authentication arguments without prejudice because the Government expects its witnesses will be able to authenticate the exhibits at trial before it offers them. The defendant's arguments regarding relevance and Rule 403, however, are meritless, and the Court should deny them. + +#### A. Applicable Law + +In general, "[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Second Circuit has made clear that "the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high." United States v. El Gamma!, 831 F. App'x 539, 542 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting United States v. . 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)). Rule 901 is "satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification," El Gamma!, 831 F. App'x at 542 (quoting United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004)), and such "proof of authentication may be direct or circumstantial," United States v. A!-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). + +For instance, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant challenged the authenticity of "handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan." Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. "Although the Government did not present + +evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(3)(4) permits authentication based on '[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid 901(b)(4)). Witness testimony about the content of the letters was "sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence," and "any remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility." Id. at 24-25. + +Similarly, although physical evidence may be authenticated through a chain of custody, "any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility." United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x MO, 643 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (similar). "Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." United States v. Cilins, No. 13 CR. 315 (WHP), 2014 WL 173414, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). + +## B. Discussion + +The defense's challenges to the Government's exhibits largely turn on the Government's ability to authenticate them. Those arguments are premature. At trial, the Government expects that witnesses familiar with the exhibits will testify that the items are what the Government claims they are. The defendant is not entitled to a preview of the Government's case-in-chief at this juncture. + +First, the defendant moves to exclude Government Exhibit 52, which it says was obtained by the Government "as part of discovery in Guiffre v. Maxwell civil litigation . . . with no explanation about its origin." (Def. Mot. 7 at 1). The defendant misidentifies the exhibit. Government Exhibit 52 is a physical contact book belonging to the defendant. The records attached by the defense as Exhibit 1 appear to be a scan of Government Exhibit 52 that was produced in discovery in v. Maxwell. But the Government will not offer that scan at trial. It will offer the physical book itself, along with scans taken by the Government of the physical book. A witness with personal knowledge of the physical book is expected to testify to its authenticity. + +The defendant takes issue with the history of the Government's acquisition of Government Exhibit 52. The defendant is correct that the Government came into custody of this exhibit after a former employee of Jeffrey Epstein attempted to sell it to a civil lawyer suing Epstein. (Id.). The defense calls this "particularly troubling" (Def. Mot. 7 at 2), but that argument is misplaced. How the Government acquired the exhibit goes, if anything, to its weight and not its admissibility. If a witness can identify the exhibit based on its contents, that is sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence." See Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x at 24-25. + +Finally, the defendant argues that the contents of Government Exhibit 52 are hearsay because they are not a business record. (Def. Mot. 7 at 4-6). The exhibit is separately admissible not for the truth of the matters asserted therein (such as the accuracy of the contact information for victims), but to establish that the defendant kept contact information for relevant individuals at trial, including victims. The exhibit has evidentiary value in showing that the defendant maintained a contact book containing what purports to be this list of names and associated contact information. + +Second, the defendant moves to preclude any items seized during the 2005 search of Epstein's home in Palm Beach, Florida. The defense claims, in a conclusory fashion, that "no witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits" to demonstrate authenticity, because "the evidence collection and retention in this matter is an unreliable mess." (Def. Mot. 8 at 3-5). The defense further speculates that the Government intends to offer these exhibits without any testimony about their authenticity, in part because the original custodian— Detective Recarey—is dead. (Id. at 4-5). The defense is mistaken. The Government intends to call live witnesses to establish the authenticity of the evidence at trial.' + +Third, the defendant argues that the photographs in Government Exhibit 251 and 288 are irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2). These photographs, + +■ were displayed in Epstein's home. + +IS As to Government Exhibit 295 specifically, that exhibit was written by both Detective Recarey and another witness who is expected to testify at trial. The exhibit is primarily marked for identification, although portions of that document may be offered as a past recollection recorded by that other witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(5). The Government will not offer statements from Detective Recarey. + +Fourth, the defendant argues that Government Exhibit 294 is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2-3). Government Exhibit 294 displays a box containing "Twin Torpedos"—sex toys—seized during the search of Epstein's Palm Beach house. This photograph is corroborative of witness testimony, which is expected to describe the presence of sex toys and that the defendant and Epstein used sex toys during their abuse. + +Fifth, the defendant argues that Government Exhibit 313 is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2- 3). Government Exhibit 313 is a photograph of the defendant and Epstein swimming together while nude. This evidence corroborates witness testimony expected at trial, which will describe topless swimming in the pool at Epstein's Palm Beach House. It is also relevant to the relationship between the defendant and Epstein. For instance, to the extent the defense at trial argues that the defendant was merely an employee of Epstein's, this photograph is evidence to the contrary. + +Sixth, the defense argues that Government Exhibit 606 lacks evidentiary foundation, is hearsay, and is irrelevant because it was created after the events alleged in the Indictment. (Def. Mot. 13 at 2-3). Government Exhibit 606 is a manual governing the operations of the Palm Beach house. A witness at trial is expected to authenticate this document and explain that it was the version in effect at the house in 2005. Another witness is expected to testify about the rules in effect in the Palm Beach household during the time period of the charged conduct; those rules are + +consistent with the rules in this exhibit.19 The relevance of the document is self-evident: among other things, it directs employees to "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing." (GX 606 at 4). It is not prejudicial as to her "lifestyle" (Def. Mot. 13 at 3), because the jury will already hear testimony about her and Epstein's various properties, private jet, and employees. And the document is not hearsay, because the statements are being offered as instructions to staff, not for the truth of the matter asserted. + +As described above, each of these exhibits is highly relevant, not hearsay or subject to a hearsay exception, and can be authenticated at trial. The Court should deny the defense's motion regarding relevance and Rule 403, and deny the motion regarding authentication with leave to renew it at trial. + +## VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of "Victims" or Rape + +Citing no case in the federal system, the defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from referring to the Minor Victims as Victims. The defendant also moves to preclude testimony concerning a rape committed by Jeffrey Epstein against one of the Minor Victims. Both of these motions lack merit, and they should be denied. + +# A. References to Victims + +19 Here and elsewhere (see, e.g. Def. Mot. 2 at 3-4), the defense argues that evidence that postdates the time period of the conspiracy is irrelevant. That is incorrect. What matters is whether the evidence tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. If, for instance, there is evidence showing that Epstein and the defendant were extremely close partners in 2005, that tends to make it more probable that they had such a relationship in 2004, during the time period of the conspiracy. It is therefore highly relevant. + +The defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from using the word "victim" to refer to any of the Minor Victims. The Government expects that it will use the word "victim," particularly in jury addresses, but such use is not improper vouching or prejudicial to the defense. The Government also expects its expert to use the word "victim," but she will testify about victims generally and not any victims in this case specifically. The Government does not otherwise expect its witnesses to use the word "victim." To the extent they do, however, it is not prejudicial to the defense.2° + +The defendant cites no federal case that has accepted its argument. Nor does this argument make sense. The erroneous premise in the defense argument is that referring to someone as a "victim" "necessarily conveys the speaker's opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible." (Def. Mot. 12 at 1). That is incorrect. The Government's references to "victims" are part of its theory of the case. Use of that term in a jury address is not an expression of counsel's opinion; it is the Government's litigating position, just like referencing someone as the "shooter" in a shooting case or the "dealer" in a narcotics case. See United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App'x 896, 898 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness's + +2° Notably, the defense motion is entirely premised on the notion that the parties disagree about whether the Minor Victims are in fact victims of any crime. If the defense concedes at any point that the Minor Victims are victims of any crime—for example, if the defendant concedes the victims were abused by Epstein but disclaims knowledge or involvement—their argument in support of this motion collapses entirely. (Del. Mot. 12 at 1 (contrasting this case with cases in which "there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something")). + +credibility."). Prosecutors are simply using a term that is consistent with the Government's theory of the case. See United States v. No. CR 16-103-BLG-SPW-1, 2017 WL 4159365, at \*1 (D. Mont. Sept. 19, 2017) (explaining that "use of the term `victim' is not prejudicial to the defendant's rights when the presentation of evidence taken as a whole clarifies the government's burden of proving all of the elements of the crime" and finding that the "jury will not be unduly prejudiced against [the defendant] if the government refers to certain witnesses as victims"); (citing United States v. Washburn, 444 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006) ("[A] number of courts have determined that the use of the term "victim" in jury instructions is not prejudicial to a defendant's rights when, as is the case here, the instructions taken as a whole clarify the government's burden of proving all elements of the crime")); Server v. Mizell, 902 F.2d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 1990) ("No logical argument can be made that the mere use of the term `victim' [in jury instructions] somehow shifted the burden of proof."). In addition, "[t]he term 'victim' is not inherently prejudicial. It is a term commonly used in the English language that does not by its nature connote guilt." United States v. Lussier, No. 18-CR-281 (NEB), 2019 WL 2489906, at \*5 (D. Minn. June 15, 2019).21 And just as the defense may make arguments attacking the credibility of victims, the Government is free to argue that these witnesses are, in fact, victims of a crime. Cf. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that prosecutors may also "respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity of its case"). + +21 The same is true with references by the Government to "minor victims." (Cf. Def. Mot. 12 at 4- 5). The Government does not expect any other trial participant to use the phrase "minor victims." + +Witnesses may also reference "victims." But the only witness the Government expects to use the term "victim" is its expert, Dr. Rocchio. And Dr. Rocchio will not be testifying about the defendant or the Minor Victims in this case, but about victims of sexual abuse generally. Accordingly, she is not vouching for the credibility of anyone in this case, or presuming anything about the truth or falsity of any accusations. + +To the extent other Government witnesses use the term "victim," however, it would not be prejudicial to the defense. The limitation on improper vouching applies to the prosecutor, not to Government witnesses, as even one of the defendant's cases acknowledges. See v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 25 (De. 1991) ("The opinion does not state, nor does it imply, that the use of the term `victim' by witnesses, as a term of art or in common parlance, is a basis for objection."). In particular, some of the witnesses who may use the word "victim" are the Minor Victims themselves, who are testifying about their subjective experiences. It is not prejudicial to the defense for someone who considers herself a victim to testify as much.22 + +Here, as with other motions, the defendant requests an extraordinary order not seen in other cases in this District. That request lacks merit, and the Court should deny it. + +## B. Evidence of Rape + +The Government expects that at least one minor victim may describe being raped by Jeffrey Epstein. If that testimony is offered, it is directly relevant to issues before the jury. The defendant and Epstein are charged with transporting minors, enticing minors, or trafficking minors with the + +22 The Government defers to the Court on how it would like to refer to the Minor Victims. It notes, however, that "Accuser" is an alternative that is prejudicial to the Government. + +intention that they would engage in illegal or commercial sex acts, and conspiring to do, and aiding and abetting, the same. These events occurred during an ongoing course of conduct, in some instances during multi-year relationships. The ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims is directly relevant, and the victims' accounts of these events are necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. Indeed, given the complex relationships between victims and their abusers, these events are integral to the relationships that will be at the heart of the trial. The defendant repeatedly claims that there is no evidence she participated in or was aware of a rape specifically (Def. Mot. 11 at 1-2), but defense arguments about her knowledge and involvement are for the jury. + +The defense argues that the Indictment does not allege that Epstein raped anyone, and so the rape is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 11 at 2). That is a non sequitur. Indictments are not documents that contain all of the Government's evidence, and the defense cites no authority for the puzzling argument that witnesses cannot testifying using words that are not contained in an indictment. To the extent the defense understands the Indictment to allege only conspiracies to arrange for sexualized massages for Epstein (id. at 3), the defense is mistaken. The Indictment charges the defendant with conspiracies to arrange for "sexual activity" (Indictment?! 12, 18) and "a commercial sex act" (Id. ¶ 24). + +The defense also argues that evidence of a rape does not satisfy Rule 403 balancing, because evidence of a rape is "highly emotional and inflammatory." (Def. Mot. II at 3). This conclusory claim is insufficient to show prejudice to the defense. Testimony from victims in sex crimes trials can be very emotional when describing their abuse and the perpetrator. But that + +evidence—including evidence of rape, where it occurs—is the core conduct in the case. See, e.g., United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG), 2020 WL 7773606, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020) (describing evidence of rape in a trial for sex trafficking of minors); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (concluding, in response to the argument that "rape" is a legal term, "there is a "critical distinction between a patient telling a physician that she `had intercourse with three men' and a patient telling the physician that she was 'raped' by three men."). Its probative value is certainly not outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Nor is it the case that evidence of a rape—especially at the level of abstraction described by the defense—is significantly more inflammatory than the charged crime: the sexual abuse of minors. + +In the event that a Minor Victim testifies that Epstein raped them, it is part of the charged conspiracy in this case, and it should be admitted. + +## VIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit + +Three of the defense motions are aimed at precluding the Government from offering evidence it does not intend to offer at trial. + +First, the defense seeks to preclude the Government from arguing that the defendant was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein's arrest and her own. (Def. Mot. 5 at 1). The Government's view remains that such conduct reflects the defendant's consciousness of her guilt (see id. at 2 (citing multiple Government filings)), and the Government does not agree that such evidence lacks an adequate factual basis or is inadmissible under Rule 403. (See id. at 6-9). However, the Government does not intend—and so will agree not to offersuch evidence in its case-in-chief, unless the defendant opens the door to this evidence or otherwise puts it at issue at trial. Furthermore, if the defendant testifies, the Government may cross-examine the defendant about this conduct, depending on the scope of her direct examination. But the Government will not affirmatively offer this evidence in its case-in-chief. + +The same is true for the defense motion to exclude evidence of the defendant's false statements in her 2016 depositions. (Def. Mot. 6 at I). Although false exculpatory statements are admissible as proof of a defendant's consciousness of guilt (see Gov't Opp. at 142-43, Dkt. No. 204 (citing, e.g., United States v. 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014)), the Government does not intend—and so will agree—not to offer this information as part of its case-in-chief, unless the defense opens the door or otherwise puts these statements at issue. However, the Government may offer these statements in rebuttal to defense arguments. Moreover, the defendant's prior statements are of course appropriate material for cross-examination of the defendant. The Government also consents to the defense request to redact the perjury counts from the Indictment. (Def. Mot. 6 at 6). + +Finally, the defense seeks to preclude the Government's law enforcement witnesses from offering expert testimony. (Def. Mot. 10 at 5). The defense appears to take an improperly broad view of the scope of expert testimony.23 However, the Government has not noticed the three law + +23 For instance, the defense, citing United States v. 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005), makes the sweeping claim that "any opinion testimony" based on those three law enforcement witnesses' "specialized 'training and experience' is expert opinion testimony subject to Rule 702 and Rule 16(1)(G) and is inadmissible at trial." (Def. Mot. 10 at 4 (emphasis in original)). But in =, the Second Circuit simply held that an undercover law enforcement agent could not testify as lay opinion that, based on his knowledge from other drug interdiction cases, the defendant was a 82 + +enforcement officers identified by the defense as experts and will not elicit expert testimony from them. Those witnesses are being called as fact witnesses to describe, for instance, the execution of a search and evidence seized during that search.24 + +#### CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant's motions in limine. + +Dated: October 25, 2021 New York, New York + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York + +By: /s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys + +partner in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. =, 413 F.3d at 216. That is distinguishable from cases where, as expected here, witnesses testify based on their personal involvement in certain investigative steps. + +24 It bears noting that the defense's motion is expressly concerned about testimony from case agents (Def. Mot. 10 at 5 n.2), and testimony about "the case, its origins, and the investigation" (id. at 3), which it considers to be improper expert testimony. The Government has moved to preclude the defense from offering such evidence, including by calling the case agents identified in its Touhy notice. (See Gov't Motions in Limine Section 1I1). Accordingly, if the defense plans to call case agents for such testimony—which the Court should preclude—the defense must provide expert notice of such testimony. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b24afef3a2e01fc7b85a22855762689c6bbc0e63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635/EFTA02834635.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,4017 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834635.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 84, + "chars": 154450, + "elapsed_seconds": 139.5, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION \nTO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.384, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 500.65545654296875, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 500.65545654296875, + 362.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 111.384, + 362.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Table of Contents", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 96.38999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.3164978027344, + 96.38999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.3164978027344, + 112.8714599609375 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 112.8714599609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 392.9611511230469, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 392.9611511230469, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 346.08209228515625, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 346.08209228515625, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Court Should Admit the Testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 436.2411804199219, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 436.2411804199219, + 111.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 111.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 192.59771728515625, + 376.10302734375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 376.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Dr. Rocchio's Opinions on Coercion and Attachment are Admissible \na. Reliability", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.0884704589844, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 480.0884704589844, + 265.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 265.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Relevance and Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 264.5865173339844, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 264.5865173339844, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Relationship Between Trust and Victim Awareness \nof Their Abuse is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.4120483398438, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 543.4120483398438, + 265.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 265.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on the Long-Term Consequences of Abuse is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 534.8879999999999, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 534.8879999999999, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion About the Significance of the Presence of Third Parties is \nAdmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "5. Dr. Rocchio's Opinion on Delayed Disclosure is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 431.2958984375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 431.2958984375, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. The Evidence Contained in the Government's October 11, 2021 Letter is \nAdmissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 486.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 486.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 192.7152862548828, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 192.7152862548828, + 306.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 306.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The Evidence is Admissible As Direct Evidence, or in the Alternative, Under Rule \n404(b)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 426.87000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.4775390625, + 426.87000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.4775390625, + 457.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 457.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Government Exhibits 401 through 404, 409 through 410, and 413", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 473.076, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 141.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 195.20999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 452.2801818847656, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 452.2801818847656, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 373.1759033203125, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 373.1759033203125, + 417.363037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 592.92 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 608.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 608.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 192.04397583007812, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 192.04397583007812, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 164.39990234375, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 465.6494140625, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 465.6494140625, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 174.35906982421875, + 307.1029968261719 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 307.1029968261719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 165.74896240234375, + 457.65 + ], + [ + 165.74896240234375, + 472.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 472.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Victim-4's Identification of the Defendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 533.8707885742188, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 533.8707885742188, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 175.0624542236328, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 175.0624542236328, + 663.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 663.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 192.19552612304688, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 192.19552612304688, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 67, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 164.4300537109375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's \nExhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.8899536132812, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 543.8899536132812, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 188.7310791015625, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 188.7310791015625, + 263.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 263.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 167.99896240234375, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 167.99896240234375, + 499.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 499.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of \"Victims\" or Rape", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 448.2955627441406, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 448.2955627441406, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. References to Victims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 222.65467834472656, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 222.65467834472656, + 498.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 498.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Evidence of Rape", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.79554748535156, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 200.79554748535156, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does \nNot Plan to Elicit", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 81, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 83, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 350.1827392578125, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 350.1827392578125, + 169.23248291015625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 169.23248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834635" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5e7295559eb30d5e8b035c0158410c487a9fc0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33ea5576ece6c077d96f02577f17c567412af551 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719/EFTA02834719.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834719.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 509.63031005859375, + 310.411865234375 + ], + [ + 509.63031005859375, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834719" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..780596ec8a13a82fb05b8cfd96d4a24e2f2ce940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bfa132ec703b50fc56dd40cd451af27c0b7abf9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720/EFTA02834720.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834720.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 317.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834720" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea8f405532e7249afa09dfe75692273ba09f2ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a93b278b0daa08b4eafbd0997b65e962e67f8856 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721/EFTA02834721.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834721.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT C \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 311.161865234375 + ], + [ + 510.4681701660156, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834721" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dadf4fc94240db06256f8715b7be52e14d3be49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +## EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2d5fb8e96f845a2161589ec7f2557c9438d11e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722/EFTA02834722.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834722.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 29, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.23, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT D \nFILED UNDER SEAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 510.46624755859375, + 412.8374938964844 + ], + [ + 107.71199999999999, + 412.8374938964844 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834722" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5206c6daea4e517d6b6a7114e1c75da03973d802 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +# EXHIBIT E + +ORIGINAI + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +X + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, + +a/k/a "Jay Barnes," + +a/k/a "Brent English," + +Defendant. + +X + +INDICTMENT + +18 Cr. + +S CRThil + +#### COUNT ONE + +(Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking of Minors) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +1. In or about 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, and others known and unknown, conspired and agreed with each other to knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit by any means persons who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (collectively, the "Minor Victims"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that the Minor Victims had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that the Minor Victims would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c), 1591 (a) (1), (b) (1), and (b) (2) .) + +## COUNT TWO (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-1) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +2. Between at least in or about March 2013 and at least in or about April 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-1"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-1 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-1 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-1, a seventeen-year-old girl, to travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-1, posted such photographs on an internet advertisement website, and harbored and transported Minor Victim-1 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2.) + +#### COUNT THREE (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-2) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +3. Between at least in or about March 2013 and at least in or about April 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-2"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-2 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-1 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-2, a seventeen-year-old girl, to travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-2, posted such photographs on an internet advertisement website, and harbored and transported Minor Victim-2 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a) (1) and (b) (2), and 2.) + +### COUNT FOUR (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-3) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +4. At least in or about November 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-3"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-3 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-3 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-3, a sixteen-year-old girl, to travel to the Bronx, New York, where ENGLISH took photographs of Minor Victim-3, intending such photographs to be posted on an internet advertisement website, and harbored Minor Victim-3 for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts with other men in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH kept for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b) (2), and 2.) + +#### COUNT FIVE + +### (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-4) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +5. At least in or about September 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-4"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-4 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-4 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-4, an eleven-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +#### COUNT SIX + +#### (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-5) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +6. At least in or about October 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-5"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-5 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-5 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-5, an eight-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +# COUNT SEVEN (Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-6) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +7. At least in or about October 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, attempted to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, and solicit a person who had not attained the age of 14 years at the time ("Minor Victim-6"), knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of + +the fact that Minor Victim-6 had not attained the age of 14 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-6 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH attempted to recruit, entice, transport, and obtain Minor Victim-6, an thirteen-year-old girl, to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2.) + +## COUNT EIGHT (Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-7) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +8. At least in or about October and November 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, maintained, patronized, and solicited a person who had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time ("Minor Victim-7"), and attempted to do the same, knowing, having had a reasonable opportunity to observe, and in reckless disregard of the fact that Minor Victim-7 had not attained the age of 18 years, and knowing that Minor Victim-7 would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts, to wit, ENGLISH recruited and enticed Minor Victim-7, a fourteen-year-old girl, to travel to the Bronx, New + +York, where ENGLISH attempted to take photographs of her, harbor her, and cause her to engage in sexual acts with at least one man in exchange for money, some of which ENGLISH would keep for himself. + +> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2.) + +## COUNT NINE (Kidnapping of Minor Victim-7) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +9. On or about November 16, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," having attained the age of eighteen years, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, and carried away and held for ransom and reward and otherwise Minor Victim-7, who had not attained the age of eighteen years and who was not a familial relation of ENGLISH's or under ENGLISH's legal custody, and in so doing, ENGLISH willfully caused Minor Victim-7 to be transported in interstate commerce, and used a mean, facility, and instrumentality of interstate commerce in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, to wit, ENGLISH used a cellphone to cause Minor Victim-7, a fourteen-year-old girl, to + +travel from New Jersey to the Bronx, New York, where he held her against her will inside his apartment. + +(Title 18, United States Code, +Section 1201(a)(1) and (g)(1).) + +COUNT TEN + +(Firearms Offense Related to Kidnapping) + +The Grand Jury further charges: + +10. On or about November 16, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, a/k/a "Jay Barnes," a/k/a "Brent English," the defendant, knowingly, during and in relation to a crime of violence for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, namely, the kidnapping offense charged in Count Nine of this Indictment, did use and carry a firearm, and, in furtherance of such crime, did possess a firearm, which was brandished, to wit, ENGLISH brandished a firearm at Minor Victim-7 in the course of kidnapping her, as charged in Count Nine. + +(Title 18, United States Code, +Section 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).) + +![]()![]() + +--- + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +--- + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +- v. - + +CLAUDIUS ENGLISH, +a/k/a "Jay Barnes," +a/k/a "Brent English," + +Defendant. + +--- + +INDICTMENT + +18 Cr. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections +1591(a) (1) and (b) (2), and 2.) + +--- + +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN + +United States Attorney. + +A TRUE BILL + +![]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51e1ff3587e50d630f4fb19721dee25f2bdce676 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723/EFTA02834723.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,822 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834723.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 11476, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT E", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 380.7 + ], + [ + 386.11688232421875, + 413.242919921875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 413.242919921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 287.7366638183594, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 287.7366638183594, + 98.58416748046875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 98.58416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.116, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 344.7268371582031, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 344.7268371582031, + 292.46417236328125 + ], + [ + 271.116, + 292.46417236328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-1)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.704, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 440.7398986816406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 440.7398986816406, + 100.963134765625 + ], + [ + 178.704, + 100.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-2)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 178.704, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 441.4939880371094, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 441.4939880371094, + 101.20416259765625 + ], + [ + 178.704, + 101.20416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-3)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 442.09918212890625, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 442.09918212890625, + 101.95416259765625 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 101.95416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 349.9941711425781, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 349.9941711425781, + 86.20416259765625 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 86.20416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-4)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 475.45916748046875, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 475.45916748046875, + 100.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 100.08416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 273.564, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 347.2991943359375, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 347.2991943359375, + 575.9641723632812 + ], + [ + 273.564, + 575.9641723632812 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-5)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 575.91 + ], + [ + 476.95916748046875, + 575.91 + ], + [ + 476.95916748046875, + 589.8341674804688 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 589.8341674804688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVEN \n(Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-6)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 478.4679260253906, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 478.4679260253906, + 441.8331298828125 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 441.8331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHT \n(Sex Trafficking of Minor Victim-7)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 442.3233337402344, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 442.3233337402344, + 305.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 305.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINE \n(Kidnapping of Minor Victim-7)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 198.288, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 423.7179260253906, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 423.7179260253906, + 250.963134765625 + ], + [ + 198.288, + 250.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TEN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.116, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 340.884, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 271.116, + 180.63 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(Firearms Offense Related to Kidnapping)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 449.20799999999997, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 449.20799999999997, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 194.39999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 199.512, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 412.48800000000006, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 412.48800000000006, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 199.512, + 143.37 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDICTMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 343.944, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 343.944, + 353.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 268.05600000000004, + 353.96999999999997 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834723" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08df43e73ce3f96a2fe339e3636bd15216d78dec --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.md @@ -0,0 +1,602 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +: S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +## GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +- I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER 1 + - A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense 1 + - B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure 2 + - C. There Should Be a Sanction 4 + - D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government's Anticipated Position 5 +- II. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE BASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY 404(B) EVIDENCE 6 + - A. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved Third-Party Adults. 7 + - B. 11 + - 1. 12 + - 2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence 13 + - 3. constitutes an impermissible constructive amendment and variance to the Indictment. 13 + - C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the admissibility for two weeks 15 +- III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT HEARING 15 + - A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are based on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to produce six months ago. 15 + - B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible 17 + - C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Daubers hearing. 23 +- IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED 4 +- V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED "FLIGHT" 32 + +- VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS AND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS32 +- VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION. 32 +- VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINION TESTIMONY 35 +- IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN 36 +- XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS "VICTIMS" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING 38 +- XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY 41 + - A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits 41 + - B. Government Exhibit 52 42 + - C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way 42 + - D. The Photographs 43 + - E. The Twin Torpedoes 43 + - F. Government Exhibit 313 44 + - G. Government Exhibit 606 44 + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +#### Cases + +| Cf. State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233 (Vt. 2005) | 40 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | passim | +| 2018) | 41 | +| Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) | 30 | +| Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) | 41 | +| Lou v. United States, 218 F.24 675 (5th Cir. 1955) | 5 | +| Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) | 38 | +| People v. M, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) | 39 | +| Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (24 Cir. 2001) | 34 | +| Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.34 1397 (2d Cir.1996) | 41 | +| v. M, 645 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 1981) | 34 | +| State v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 1230 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) | 39 | +| State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121, 131, 442 P.3d 581 (2019) | 40 | +| Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App. 1984) | 39 | +| United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1981) | 8 | +| United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2015) | 7 | +| United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.24 42 (2d Cir. 1983) | 26 | +| United States v. Bocio, 103 F. Supp. 2d 531 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) | 2 | +| United States v. Bozeman, No. 3:1 I-CR-129, 2012 WL 1071207 (ED. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2012) | 3 | +| 2018) | 3 | +| United States v. | , No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) 20, 21 | +| United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) | 26 | +| United States v. Curley, 639 F.34 50 (2d Cir. 2011) | 26 | +| United States v. D'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412 (24 Cir. 2012) | 14 | +| United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2006) | 14 | +| United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) | 39 | + +| United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) | 37 | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| +| United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) | 4 | +| United States v. Gross, 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) | 14 | +| United States v. 650 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Conn. 2009) | 2 | +| United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.34 153 (2d Cir. 2004) | 7 | +| United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145 (24 Cir. 2016) | 4 | +| United States v. M, 818 F. App'x 74 (2d Cir. 2020) | 15 | +| United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982) | 38 | +| United States v. Monica, 849 F.24 723 (2d Cir. 1988) | 14 | +| United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) | 29, 37 | +| United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1976) | 4 | +| 2019) | 20, 23 | +| Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010) | 20, 21, 22 | +| Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d. Cir. 2007) | 14 | +| Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) | 14 | +| Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021) | 39, 40 | +| Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir.I984) | 41 | +| Smalls, No. CR 06-2403 RB, 2008 WL 11361098 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2008) | 3 | +| 521 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) | 38 | +| Tracy, 12 F.3c1 1186 (2d Cir.I993) | 5 | +| Velez, No. 3: I0CRI47 JBA, 2010 WL 4929266 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2010) | 3 | +| a 708 F. App'x 732 (24 Cir. 2017) | 28, 31 | +| Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 1998) | 26 | +| ~, 506 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007) | 22 | + +## Statutes + +| 18 U.S.C. § 1591 | 37 | +|-------------------------|----| +| 18 U.S.C. § 2422 | 28 | +| 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | 28 | +| N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55 | 28 | + +# Other Authorities + +# Rules + +| Fed. R. Crim. 16 | 17 | +|----------------------|----------------| +| Fed. R. Evid. 104 | 41 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 401 | 22, 43 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 402 | 10, 16, 43, 44 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 403 | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | passim | +| Fed. R. Evid. 412 | 14, 18, 22 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 702 | 17, 21, 22 | +| Fed. R. Evid. 801 | 2, 3, 5 | + +Ghislaine Maxwell hereby submits her Reply In Support of Her Motions in Limine. + +#### I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER + +The government offers several excuses for its failure to comply with this Court's September 3, 2021 Order. These excuses are insufficient and should be rejected. + +# A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense + +First, the government suggests that Ms. Maxwell has misread the Order. We disagree. The Court unambiguously rejected the government's position and ruled that the government's expressed concern about disclosure "does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay." Dkt. 335 at 3. To both "avoid the risk of surprise" and "litigate coconspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay, " the Court identified two things that were necessary from the government: First, no later than October 11, 2021, the government was required to "disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed coconspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the government will refer at trial." Id. Second, the Court, unambiguously and emphatically, directed: "The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1." (emphasis in original.) + +The Court used the word "disclose" both as to the identity of the co-conspirators "to whom the government will refer to at trial" and "all co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial...." The government, in an attempt to blunt the Order, decided to interpret the same word, "disclose" in materially distinct fashions. As to the identity of the co-conspirators, the government disclosed (i.e., identified) three names. When it was parsing the second part of + +the Order, however, the government defined the word "disclose" differently. Disclose, as to the actual statements, according to the government, means "produced" at some time in the past or to be produced in the future, perhaps as an oral statement during trial. + +Of course, the Court will tell the parties whether it meant two completely different things when it used the same word, as argued by the government, or whether it intended for the government to disclose the statements it intends to offer as co-conspirator statements. To avoid delay over this issue during trial, Ms. Maxwell suggests that she cannot litigate this issue in advance of trial without knowing what statements are being offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(e). + +What is clear from the government's response is not that it misunderstood the Order, but rather, it continues to disagree with the Order. + +# B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure + +Second, doubling down on its disagreement with the Court, the government claims "it is aware of no such case" in which a court ordered the identification of anticipated co-conspirator statements prior to trial. While the government may not be "aware" of such cases, they certainly, and abundantly, exist. + +In United States v. Bocio, 103 F. Supp. 2d 531, 534 (N.D.N.Y. 2000), the court ordered pretrial disclosure of statements of co-conspirators (Government "must disclose to the defendant and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing: any relevant written or recorded statements ..., or copies thereof, within the possession, custody, or control of the government."). + +In United States v.=, 650 F. Supp. 2d 160, 171 (D. Conn. 2009), the court ordered co-conspirator statements be produced in advance of trial ("In the case of a co-conspirator who the government plans to call as a witness at trial, that time is now, and the government is directed to produce any relevant statement to defense counsel forthwith.") + +In United States v. Velez, No. 3: IOCR147 JBA, 2010 WL 4929266, at \*7 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2010), the defendant moved for disclosure of any co-conspirator statements in advance of trial. In response, the government agreed to disclose "well in advance of trial, exactly which of the intercepted telephone calls will be offered as full exhibits at trial and transcripts of those calls will be provided in advance of trial." Based on that representation the court denied the motion to produce as moot, "without prejudice to renew if the Government fails to comply with its ongoing disclosure obligations." Id. + +In United States v. Smalls, No. CR 06-2403 RB, 2008 WL 11361098, at \*8-9 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2008), the court's order was very detailed: + +The United States is hereby instructed to: + +file a supplemental brief identifying the summary witness; specifically identifying each and every coconspirator statement it intends to offer at trial as evidence against Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); and stating how each proffered statement satisfies the requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Specifically, with respect to each alleged coconspirator statement, the United States must indicate: a) the identity of the coconspirator who made the alleged statement; b) the identity of the person or persons to whom the coconspirator statement was made; c) the identity of the witness who will testify at trial about the coconspirator statement; d) the content of the coconspirator statement; e) when the statement was made; f) how the statement is in the course of the alleged conspiracy; and g) how the statement is in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Additionally, the United States must identify the independent evidence it intends to offer in support of admission of the alleged coconspirator statements. + +See also United States v. Brewington, No. 15-CR-00073-PAB, 2018 WL 1411274, at \*3 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2018) (court required the government to identify and produce all its purported 801(dX2)(e) statements, in the hundreds; held an evidentiary pre-trial hearing about the admissibility of those statements; and made detailed, statement by statement rulings about admissibility, excluding some and conditionally admitting others); United States v. Bozeman, No. 3:11-CR-129, 2012 WL 1071207, at \*14 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2012), affd, No. 3:11-CR- + +129-1, 2012 WL 1565099 (ED. Tenn. May 1, 2012) (government must disclose any statements of co-conspirators that it intends to use at trial three weeks prior to the trial). + +There is ample legal authority for the Court to enter the Order to avoid delays and arguments during trial about what statements are or are not within the 10-year conspiracy alleged here and to prevent surprise and prejudice to the Defendant. + +# C. There Should Be a Sanction + +Hedging its bets, the government acknowledges that it "may have misread the court's order" but offers no solution other than the defense is "free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial." This was the government's losing argument before the Order. + +District courts have broad discretion to sanction a party who violates discovery orders. United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002). In considering a particular remedy for a violation, the factors considered are "the reasons why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant circumstances." United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir. 1976)). The appropriate remedy is exclusion. Ms. Maxwell has been in jail for approximately 18 months. She is trying not to request a continuance of the trial and her lawyers are making every effort to review massive amounts of discovery, interview potential witness, prepare for trial, and juggle a myriad of other responsibilities. The government offers no legitimate excuse for noncompliance. It clearly knows what statements it will try to introduce, it just does not want to tell anyone to avoid challenges to the statements. This is willful, not negligent or inadvertent conduct which should not be sanctioned by the Court. + +**D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government’s Anticipated Position** + +For a statement to fall within the definition of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), “a court must find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy.” *United States v. Tracy*, 12 F.3d 1186, 1196 (2d Cir. 1993). A cursory review of the discovery produced related to one purported co-conspirator demonstrates the folly of proceeding as the government persists. + +The government failed to follow the Court’s Order and fails to explain why it did not disclose the statements as ordered. Accordingly, the Court should prohibit introduction of any alleged co-conspirator statements at trial. + +## H. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE BASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY 404(B) EVIDENCE + +The government concedes that (i) it was aware of the December 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (Resp. at 34), (ii) those Amendments required it to give notice of the "permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the [404(b)] evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose" (id.) ("Notice"), and (iii) the October 11'" "Maxwell Rule 404 Letter" ("Letter") did not identify the "permitted purpose" under Rule 404(b) for which the government seeks (alternative) admission of the two categories of evidence, nor the "reasoning that supports that evidence."' The government wholly fails to explain why it could not comply with these "relatively modest" new Notice requirements on the timeline ordered by this Court. Nowhere in response does the government seek leave for an extension to provide the appropriate Notice out of time nor justify its "good cause" for failure to timely comply with both the Court's Order and the Rule. Instead, they assert that "any alleged gap in the Government's notice is remediated by this brief." Resp. at 39-40. To quote the government's response to Ms. Maxwell's motion in limbic), "to the extent the [government] takes issue with the rule" requiring specific pre-trial Notice under Rule 404(6), "that complaint is properly directed to the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Resp. at 61 n.15. + +Having failed to comply with the Notice requirements of the Rule by the (extended) Court ordered deadline of October 11, the government belatedly argues that the tendered evidence is either direct evidence or admissible under Rule 404(b). They are wrong on both fronts. + +Under the misleading and disingenuous sub-heading (2) ("The Government has Met and Exceeded its Notice Obligations"), the government points only to its (i) October I I disclosure of certain of the evidence (which gives neither a a proper "purpose" or "reasoning"), and (ii) its Response (the required "notice is remediated by this brief"). + +"In assessing whether a district court properly admitted other act evidence, we consider whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant." United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). The Emails are offered for improper purposes, i.e., propensity, are not relevant to any material issue in dispute and their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. + +#### A. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved Third-Party Adults + +The government's argument for admissibility of the Emails2 is breathtaking in its claims and unsupported by admissible evidence. Without expert testimony or even bothering to interview the Emails' recipients, the government contends the Emails represent "direct evidence" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Ms. Maxwell offered on two isolated occasions to arrange adult female dates for adult men completely uninvolved in this case. The government further claims the Emails show she "was using her ability to provide access to women as a form of social currency with other influential men with whom she sought to ingratiate herself." Resp. at 36. + +Nothing in the Emails' content shows that Ms. Maxwell was "provid[ing] access," "using social currency," that the men were "influential," or that she was seeking to "ingratiate herself" to them. In the emails, Ms. Maxwell doesn't ask for anything in return from the men, doesn't + +2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401.404, 409-410 and 413 ("Emails"). + +reference their status positions, and the government has no evidence that she was not already well-established friends of many years with both of the men. And even if she were trying to ingratiate herself to a friend, so what? It has no bearing on the "recruitment" or "grooming" of minor females to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, as the Indictment charges. + +The government contends that these Emails reveal "defendant's intent and motive," but their argument is defies logic. If Ms. Maxwell had an intent to arrange adult dates for adult men that were her friends, then that shows a lack of intent to go find underage females to be abused by Jeffrey Epstein. If her motive is to permit adult women to date her single friends, then it is not to pick up schoolgirls off the street to give "sexual massages" to Jeffrey Epstein. And if she already had access to other powerful and influential men who were in her life, she would not need her friendship or access to Jeffrey Epstein. The only way that these emails could evidence a "motive and intent" is by drawing the improper inference that Ms. Maxwell has a propensity to "facilitate encounters between powerful men and women they would like." This is exactly the type of evidence forbidden by Rule 404(b). See United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 40-41 (2d Cir. 1981) ("While we conclude that the custom and practice evidence was admissible for the purposes we have discussed, we agree with the defendants that Rule 404(b) barred its use to prove that the individual defendants acted in conformity with the custom and practice. ..."). + +Even if the Court overlooks the government's failure to provide notice, the Emails' absence of relevance to the charged conspiracy, and the government's failure to set forth a nonpropensity ground for admissibility, the Emails should also be excluded under Rules 401 and 403, as they do not tend to make any fact of consequence more or less probable, and their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. The government carefully avoids mentioning the identities of the "men in a position of + +significant power and prestige" for good reason, because the true motive of the government in introducing the emails would become apparent. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +--- + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Finally, the government contends these emails are "similar in kind" to a "document" they claim that Ms. Maxwell drafted (GX 416) concerning descriptions of adult women. Ms. Maxwell strongly disputes that suggestion. Notably, as the Court can tell, the government did not offer any evidence (or any offer of proof in their Response) that this document *was* in fact + +--- + +drafted by Ms. Maxwell. Compare GX 417-B. 418-B. 420-B. 420-B (all purporting to represent metadata of other emails with the author identified). But even this document, which is not at issue in this Motion, speaks to a discussion of adult women. Apparently the government thinks that discussions of adult women (aged, in the document, 35, 25, 23, and 25 years old) is a "motive" or "intent" to gzoom underage females. Such arguments are based ou outdated stereotypes and reveal a reliance on character evidence that the Rules of Evidence specifically disallow. + +This Court should reject the belated, insufficient, improper argument that the Emails are direct evidence of the charged conspiracy, should fmd they are propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(b) and should also exclude them wider Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative. + +## B. + +The government's proffered evidence regarding testimony and apparent plan to lay the foundation for a broad swath of government exhibits differs dramatically from the discrete set of Emails described above. + +The government does not even seriously argue a non-propensity basis for the testimony of under Rule 404(b). See Resp. at 39 ("this evidence is admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b) for substantially the same reasons"). Rather, they hang their hat on their argument, presented for the first time in response, that they intend to offer through her + +[REDACTED] + +1. [REDACTED] + +As Ms. Maxwell detailed in her Motion regarding Rule 404(b) Notice, the government just produced on October 12th "approximately 400 pages of interview reports, notes, documents and other materials related to" [REDACTED] Mot. at 7. Defense counsel had insufficient time to review, investigate or rebut the admissibility of the materials as direct evidence less than one week later on October 18th. For that reason, the Motion did not move to exclude the evidence as direct evidence but rather sought additional time in which to do so. Given the drafting of hundreds of pages of pleadings in the last week, counsel is still unprepared to make the required showing on the direct evidence point and seeks additional time in which to do so. This case has been pending for 15 months, and the government only disclosed [REDACTED] as a co-conspirator and produced 400 pages of detailed witness statements and notes approximately 10 days ago. Moreover, as discussed in greater detail below, [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +5 Bear in mind that the government also moved to *exclude* evidence that these same "abused" individuals reported to the police that they had no interactions or dealings with Ms. Maxwell. Gov't Motion in Limine at 42 ("The defendant is not charged with committing crimes against [the] victims [who reported that they had no interactions or dealings with Ms. Maxwell].") The fact that the government clearly intends to rely on how open the alleged abuse was, the relevance of evidence that even the people who claim they were abused by Epstein during the same time frame but without any knowledge or participation by Ms. Maxwell becomes highly relevant to rebut such testimony. + +#### 2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence. + +In their response, the government still fails to comply with the new Rule 404(b) notice requirements. First, they do not actually identify the evidence with any specificity, especially with respect to the "exhibits" that they hope to introduce through her. Second, while they use the words "plan and preparation" or "knowledge," they fail to explain how those uses of the testimony are independent of the character / propensity inference banned by Rule 404(b). How are the process and frequency of massages or the sexual nature of massages after the period of the conspiracy proof of a plan or preparation, apart from the propensity inference? A plan or preparation usually comes before an event. Planning or preparing for something after it has occurred can only be based on an assumption that because you are the kind of person who solicits underage massages later, you must have been the kind of person to do so earlier. Similarly, knowledge after the end of the conspiracy is not the same as knowledge at the time of or before the purported charged acts occurred, except by way of propensity. Finally, unspecified exhibits, many of which appear to have been written after the conspiracy (e.g., GX 505 — dated Feb. 14, 2005) cannot likewise be proof of the charged crimes which were allegedly completed before showed up. + +Because the government makes no effort to argue the non-propensity purpose for these uses via Rule 404(6), and failed to give notice of the purposes or reason in advance in any event, this Court should exclude the evidence on this ground. + +#### 3. constitutes an impermissible constructive amendment and variance to the Indictment. + +Finally, what is clear from the government's proffer in their Response, the anticipated testimony o , will serve as an improper constructive + +amendment to, and an impermissible variance of, the Indictment. As this Court previously has ruled: + +"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that 'the terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment." United States v. D 'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 416 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Mollica. 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988)). Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a "per se violation" of the defendant's constitutional rights—i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice. Id. at 417. In contrast to a constructive amendment, "[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment." Id. (quoting United States v. Saltnonese, 352 F.3d 608, 621 (2d Cir. 2003)). + +United States v. Gross, 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at •20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017). + +As this Court then recognized, the Second Circuit has consistently relied on the same start and end dates of a conspiracy to find that differing trial proof did not affect a constructive amendment or variance. See id. ("The indictment and the evidence at trial contained the same starting and ending dates of the conspiracy...") (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 229 (2d. Cir. 2007)); see also United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The starting and ending dates of the conspiracy noted in the indictment correspond to the conspiracy proven at trial..."). Conversely, the substantial quantity of testimony — for the post-conspiracy time period o , who never met any of the four accusers as far as can be gleaned, and the documents she intends to authenticate, run a substantial risk that the government's proof at trial will not be the same core evidence charged in the Indictment because it will be based on evidence that postdates the events charged in the Indictment. + +## C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the admissibility of and exhibits for two weeks. + +For the reasons already detailed, the complexity of the issues and the fact that IM recently disclosed testimony appears to be of utmost centrality to the government's case, Ms. Maxwell repeats and reiterates her request that she be afforded additional time to submit a comprehensive motion in limine concerning the introduction of this testimony and exhibits as supposed direct evidence of the charged conspiracy. In that there remains a full month before opening statements, Ms. Maxwell's fundamental rights to present a defense, to have the effective assistance of counsel, and to a right to confront witnesses and subpoena witnesses to testify in her defense all will be preserved by a small delay on this issue. + +#### III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT HEARING + +#### A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are based on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to produce six months ago. + +Recognizing that Rocchio's proposed testimony is on shaky ground (to say the least), the government belatedly tries to shore up its case and hoist up its expert witness. Two days ago, and six months after the court-imposed deadline for expert disclosures, the government first disclosed to defense counsel about 300 pages of material on which Rocchio apparently relied in reaching her conclusions. This Court should reject the government's untimely effort to save Rocchio's testimony from exclusion. See United States v.M, 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (affirming exclusion of defendant's proffered expert evidence "that did not adhere to the discovery schedule"). + +In any case, the newly discovered material doesn't help the government's cause. Exhibit A (literally) to the government's response is a journal article describing "grooming" as a "construct." Resp, Ex. A, Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). (In fact, Ms. Maxwell cited this article in her motion.) Far from supporting Rocchio's conclusions, the article proves their unreliability: + +There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a "seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as "grooming," are understood as methods child molesters use to gain access to and prepare future victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what this process entails and how it is clearly distinguished from normal adult—child interactions. . . . Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. + +Gov't Resp., Ex. A, p 2 (emphasis added). The article concludes: + +Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods" to define and detect grooming. + +Id. at 19 (emphasis added). + +Because the government cannot justify admission of Rocchio's testimony based on its prejudicially late disclosures, and because those disclosures don't support Rocchio's views, and underscore that "grooming" is not a scientific principle based on psychometric testing, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying. And as explained below, the government's other defenses of Rocchio fall far short of what is required by Rules 401, 402, 403, 404, 702, and 704. + +#### B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible. + +According to the government, Ms. Maxwell "does not contest that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert." Resp. at 9. To the degree that Dr. Rocchio has the credentials of a potential expert, the government is right. + +But saying that Rocchio is a "qualified expert" is not enough. The government must identify what Rocchio is an expert in. Fed. R. Evid. 702; Fed. R. Crim. 16. As Ms. Maxwell pointed out in her motion, the government hasn't done that. Mot. at 2. + +What's more, even if Rocchio is a "qualified expert" in something, she is not a "qualified expert" in everything. (For example, the government agrees that she is not an expert in the human brain or memory generally. Resp. at 30 n.7.) And as even the government admits, Rocchio has no experience or expertise in diagnosing, evaluating, or treating alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse. Resp. at 19, 23, 26. She cannot therefore speak to the psychology of alleged perpetrators and their so-called "grooming techniques." + +The government attempts a two-step to get around this problem. "By virtue of experience treating victims," says the government, "Dr. Rocchio is necessarily informed about perpetrators' actions." Resp. at 19. + +But how does Rocchio know her patients were victims of sexual abuse? Because her patients told her so, and Rocchio assumes they are telling the truth. Again, Rocchio's opinions are based on her treatment of a self-selected, unrepresentative group of individuals she assumes are telling the truth and are therapeutic consumers in a financial relationship with her. + +The government has no response to this, other than to say that Rocchio and other Icilinical psychologists are not so credulous." Resp. at 16. If this were right, though, one would expect the government to explain how clinical psychologists ensure their patients are telling the truth — in other words, how clinical psychologists like Rocchio test and verify their opinions. + +But that's not what the government does. Instead, right after claiming that "[c]linical psychologists are not so credulous," the government essentially says to Ms. Maxwell, "How dare you?" In the government's words, "The Court should reject the defendant's speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur." Resp. at 16. + +In this way, and in one breath, the government attests that Rocchio is "not so credulous." But in the next breath, the government asks this Court to assume that Rocchio "has [not] been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur." In other words, the government asks this Court to assume Rocchio's patients are telling the truth, just as Rocchio does. Apparently Rocchio is "so credulous." But there is no reason this Court should be. + +The government next notes that the term "grooming-by-proxy" "appears nowhere in the Government's expert notice." Resp. at 26. That's hardly surprising, though, because there is no reliable way to assess or analyze if one individual "grooming" a minor to facilitate abuse by someone else, even though that is exactly what the government says Ms. Maxwell did. + +As detailed today is Ms. Maxwell's Rule 412 motion, the Indictment alleges "grooming" or "normalization" of sexual behavior by Ms. Maxwell over a dozen times. The government does not, however, contend that Ms. Maxwell "groomed" anyone for her own benefit; instead, the government contends that she "groomed" them for Epstein's benefit. But as the government does not dispute, there is nothing—not a journal article, and not a study, nothing—to validate Rocchio's opinions on grooming-by-proxy (even if she doesn't use that phrase).6 + +6The articles and cases the government cites involve alleged grooming behavior by the preparator of the abuse, not alleged grooming behavior by a third party. + +Recognizing that Rocchio's opinions are thus unreliable, the government says: "If the victim experienced attachment and grooming, it makes no analytical difference whether the perpetrator intends to engage in sexual contact with the victim or, instead, is preparing the victim for abuse by a third party." Resp. at 26. + +Hardly. It makes all the difference in the world because Ms. Maxwell is on trial, not Mr. Epstein. The logic (such as it is) of grooming evidence is that the perpetrator normalizes sexual behavior to facilitate his later abuse of the victim. But because Ms. Maxwell did not abuse anyone, there is no basis to conclude that anything she did was "grooming." The government thus intends to have Rocchio characterize innocent conduct by Ms. Maxwell as something more nefarious, thereby further blurring the line that experts are already unable to draw reliably. Resp. Ex. A, p 2 ("There is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what [the grooming] process entails and how it is clearly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions."). + +The government's additional arguments fail. + +- A psychologist who treats alleged victims of abuse but does not treat alleged perpetrators is nothing like a urologist who treats urology patients. Resp. at 11 (citing Bosco v. United States, No. 14 CIV. 3525 (JFK), 2016 WL 5376205 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016)). Rocchio assumes her patients are telling the truth, and she never hears or credits the other side of the story. The urologist, by contrast, has scientific means to verify what her patients tell her, and there isn't another person whose side of the story she needs to hear. +- The government repeatedly says that "courts have frequently admitted testimony about the psychological relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators." Resp. at 13. See also id. at 7-8. But those cases do not address the + +situation here, in which the alleged "groomer" was not the person who perpetrated the alleged abuse. + +- Even where the "groomer" and "perpetrator" are the same person, courts have recognized the unreliability of grooming testimony. United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at \*23 (D. Me. July 24, 2012); United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010); United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2010); see also United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); United States v. M, No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the "grooming theory" in the context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). +- The government tries to distinguish United States v. Raymond by saying that the expert's own book in that case "disavow[ed] [its] reliability . . . for legal use." Resp. at 14. But that is exactly the situation here, because the primary article on which the government relies—Exhibit A to its response—flatly says "that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard." Resp., Ex. A, p 19. +- The government says Rocchio's opinions are not "anecdotal." But that's not right either, as her endorsement makes clear: Rocchio's opinions are based "on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse (and her] extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence, + +as well as Merl experience conducting forensic psychological evaluations of people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma." Mot. Ex. I, p 2. + +- The government tries to disclaim the importance of error rates. Resp. at 15-17. But it's not just that Rocchio cannot identify an error rate, it's that her implicit conclusion is that she doesn't have an error rate. That is, all her patients are telling the truth when they say they were groomed, so any evidence that matches what her patients have told her is therefore evidence of grooming. +- But even if the error-rate discussion were misplaced, that doesn't mean Rocchio's opinions are reliable. As a "qualitative" matter, and as the government's own Exhibit A concedes, there are no "'reliable principles and methods' to define and detect grooming." Govt. Resp., Ex. A, p 19 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). +- The government apparently expects that, "somehow, a lay jury without guidance [will] apply [Rocchio's] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt." See Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 (rejecting argument that a jury could do just that). This Court should not, as the government request, simply punt the matter to the jury. Resp. at 17-18. The Court is the gatekeeper. It must ensure the evidence is reliable and relevant. If it's not both, it has no place in a criminal jury trial, because it will "radically simplify" an otherwise complex case, -, 2009 WL 3617448, at \*5, and it will, as the United States Supreme Court has cautioned, prejudicially mislead the jury, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phanns., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) ("Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it."). + +- The government denies Ms. Maxwell's argument that "a lay jury will be unable to apply Dr. Rocchio's analyses to the facts of this case" because "[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works." Resp. at 20. Responds the government: "That is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates." Id. at 21. Surely that is not right when, as here, the "general principles" are unreliable. Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Note (if expert testifies to general principles but not apply them, "the testimony [must] be reliable"). See also Mot. at 10; Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it "describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena"). +- The government attempts to fault Ms. Maxwell for making "no argument that the minor victims in this case are distinctive in some way such that general principles of psychology may diverge as to them." Resp. at 18. This argument flips the proper analysis on its head. It's the government's burden to prove reliability. E.g., United States v. 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007). It's not Ms. Maxwell's burden to prove unreliability (though if it were her burden, she would have met it). +- The government says that "the causal connection between ... psychological problems and child sexual abuse is outside the experience of the average juror" and is relevant to the alleged victims' credibility. Resp. at 24. It's not, and any minor probative value the evidence has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. And as explained in the Rule 412 motion today, if Rocchio offers testimony and the government presents argument + +along these lines, that will open the door to other sexual behavior evidence. That door can remain at least partially closed if Rocchio is not permitted to offer her irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony. + +- The government still hasn't explained how it helps the jury to be told that a victim of sexual abuse might make an immediate disclosure, or she might make an incremental disclosure, or she might make a delayed disclosure. Resp. at 27-30. And when the government says, "[s]exual abuse also impacts the way memory is encoded," that opinion is far outside Rocchio's expertise because the parties agree that she is not an expert in "the human brain or memory generally." Resp. at 30 n.7. + +## C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Dauber: hearing. + +There is ample reason for this Court to exclude Rocchio's testimony outright. At the very least, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a Dauber, hearing. The government implicitly concedes as much. In a footnote, the government acknowledges the decision in United States v. Raniere, in which Judge Garaufis ordered a Dauber: hearing on the government's proposed expert testimony on grooming. 2019 WL 2212639, at \*7-8. In that case, however, the government withdrew its endorsement rather than submit to an Dauber: hearing. Resp. at 19 n.3. + +Judge Garaufis reasoned that even if other courts in other cases had admitted testimony about grooming, "that [did] not make Dr. Hughes's opinion about grooming techniques reliable under the Dauber: standard," if only because "her extensive academic and clinical experience appears focused on victims of sexual abuse, not perpetrators." See id. at \*7. The same is true here, particularly because Rocchio has no experience in, and there is no authority supporting her opinions on, grooming-by-proxy. Quite the contrary. The government's late-breaking disclosure states: + +Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and methods" to define and detect grooming. + +Id. at 19 (emphasis added). + +At a minimum, therefore, this Court should hold a Daubers hearing. + +## IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED■ + +**The government's arguments in favor of admitting evidence related as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies all but concede that the evidence is more appropriately considered under Rule 404(b). In an effort to bolster their position, the government makes the sweeping assertion that as long as was under the age of 18, her evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy. That is a fundamentally incorrect statement of the law and should be rejected. The government's arguments for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) and for denying the defense's requested limiting instruction are similarly baseless. The Court should therefore exclude evidence related to or, if it is admitted, give the jury the requested limiting instruction'** + +**The government advances four principal arguments for why evidence related to should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies: (1) her testimony allegedly shows a "pattern" of how Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sexually abused young women and establishes Ms. Maxwell's "intent" to participate in the charged conspiracies (Resp. at 45-46), (2) her allegations are included in the S2 Indictment and are therefore not covered by Rule** + +**7 As it pertains to and the other accusers, the defense will be submitting proposed jury instructions and special verdict findings.** + +404(b) (id. at 4.6-47), (3) her evidence is "intrinsic" proof of the charged conspiracies and necessary to "complete the story" of the charged offenses (id. at 47-49), and (4) was under the age of 18, the age of consent under federal law, when the alleged sexual abuse took place, and that is "all that is required for evidence relating to the defendant's exploitation of Minor Victim-3 to be direct evidence of the charged offenses" (id. at 50). The first is an argument for admission of this evidence under Rule 404(b), not as direct evidence of the conspiracy. The second simply begs the question and assumes that the government can circumvent Rule 404(b) by alleging "other act" evidence in the indictment. The third overlooks the numerous precedents in this Circuit finding that evidence of criminal offenses that are separate and distinct from the charged offenses are not admissible as direct evidence of a conspiracy. And the fourth completely misstates the law. These arguments should be rejected. + +First, the government argues that evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies because it is relevant to show the "pattern" of abuse including "grooming" the accusers, encouraging them to give massages to Epstein, and asking them to recruit others—and her "intent" to participate in the charged conspiracies. (Id. at 45-46). But "pattern" is just another word for "modus operandi," which along with "intent" are bases for admission under Rule 404(b), not as direct evidence of the conspiracies. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) ("other act" evidence may be admissible to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident) (emphasis added); United States v. Walla, No. 14-CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522, at \*13 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2014) (Rule 404(b) permits "other act" evidence to be admitted to prove "modus operand?'). + +The very case the government cites in support of their position, United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011), affirmed the district court's decision to admit "other act" evidence of prior spousal abuse to prove "intent" and "pattern" under Rule 404(b) "with an appropriate instruction on this evidence's limited purpose," not as direct evidence of the conspiracy. See Curley, 639 F.3d at 59 (citing United States v. Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339, 340-41 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (affirming district court's decision to admit evidence of prior domestic violence to prove defendant's intent under Rule 404(b)). Indeed, the evidence could not have been admitted as direct evidence of a conspiracy because Curley was not charged with a conspiracy. See United States v. Curley, No. S 108 Cr. 404 (SCR), 2009 WL 10688209, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 15, 2009) (defendant was convicted of two counts of stalking and one count of interstate violation of a protection order). Curley therefore supports the defense's position that the admissibility ofM evidence must be evaluated under Rule 404(b). + +Second the government does not confront the defense's point that simply including "other act" evidence in the indictment does not necessarily mean it is direct evidence of the conspiracy. See Mot. at 9-10. Instead, the government engages in circular reasoning by effectively arguing that (i) allegations in an indictment are not 404(b) evidence, (ii) allegations are in the indictment, (iii) therefore they are not 404(b) evidence. See Resp. at 46-47. But as the defense pointed out in its Motion, "other acts" are only admissible as evidence of a conspiracy "as long as they are within the scope of the conspiracy. " United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 1983)). The government has not explained why evidence provides any proof that Ms. Maxwell "furthered" an alleged conspiracy to cause minors (she did not) to travel (she did not) + +for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity (it was not). Moreover, allowing the government to circumvent Rule 404(b) by charging "other act" evidence in the Indictment would swallow the rule and allow the jury to broadly consider evidence that should only be considered for a limited purpose and with an appropriate limiting instruction regarding propensity. The Court should not allow this. + +Third the government claims that evidence can be admitted as intrinsic proof of the charged conspiracies to show Ms. Maxwell's (1) "relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages," (2) "knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims," and (3) "willingness to transport minors to further their abuse." Resp. at 47. The government further argues that evidence is necessary to "complete the story" of the charged offenses. Id. at 48-49. In its Motion, the defense cited numerous cases in this Circuit holding that evidence of other conduct involving alleged co-conspirators—even conduct that was similar to the charged offenses—was not admissible as intrinsic proof of the conspiracies if the other conduct was separate and distinct from the charged offenses. See Mot. at 9 (citing cases). The government concedes that these cases so hold and points out that these cases admitted some of the proffered evidence under Rule 404(b). Resp. at 48 n. I I. This just proves the point; the admissibility o evidence should be evaluated under Rule 404(b). + +Fourth, the government asserts that the defense "misunderstands" the law and that the government simply needs to prove that Ms. Maxwell "took steps to provide Jeffrey Epstein with access to girls under the age of 18, knowing that Epstein intended to have sexual contact with those girls." Id. at 50 (emphasis added). In the government's view, it is totally irrelevant that was above the age of consent in both the U.K and the various locations in the + +U.S. where she claims to have engaged in sex acts with Epstein. See id. at 49-50. According to the government, "all that is required" for evidence to be admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies is that she was under the age of 18, the age of consent under U.S. federal law, and that Ms. Maxwell knew that Epstein intended to engage in sexual contact with her. See id. + +It is the government. not the defense, that apparently does not understand the law. The Act conspiracies charged i it the S2 Indictment each require proof that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the alleged victim would "engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." S2 Ind. IN 12 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2422), 18 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)). That element incorporates offenses under state law. See United States v. Lincoln, No. 19-CR-6047 (CJS), 2019 WL 719822, at •4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2019) (collecting § 2422 cases); United States v. =I, 708 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (criminal sexual activity under § 2423 includes crimes "under federal, state, or foreign law"). Indeed, the - Act conspiracies in the S2 Indictment charge a violation of a New York State misdemeanor as the "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." S2 Ind. ¶¶ 13b, 19b (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55). Section 130.55 prohibits "subject[ing] another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent." N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. To be guilty of Section 130.55 based on the victim's incapacity to consent due to age, the victim must be under the age of 17. Id. § 130.05(3)(a). The government itself acknowledged this in its draft proposed jury instructions, as well as the fact that Ms. Maxwell cannot be convicted of the Act conspiracies unless she knew that the alleged victim was under 17. See Gov't Proposed Jury Instructions ("[I]n order to find that the intended acts were nonconsensual solely because of the + +victim's age, you must find that the defendant knew that the victim was less than seventeen years old.") (emphasis added). + +It is unclear whether the government is now claiming that to admi evidence as proof of the Act conspiracies, it only needs to prove thatwas under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged abuse and that Ms. Maxwell did not need to know anything about age, or that Ms. Maxwell only needed to know thatM was under the age of 18. Either one is a misstatement of the law. For "sexual activity" to be "criminal," it must be illegal under the laws of the jurisdiction where the sex acts allegedly took place. If those crimes are based on lack of consent due to age, it is only illegal if the alleged victim is under the age of consent in that jurisdiction. And according to the government's own proposed jury instructions, Ms. Maxwell can only be found guilty of the Act conspiracies if she knew (and the other alleged victims) were under the age of consent in the particular jurisdictions where the sex acts allegedly took place. Because was, at all times, over the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions, her evidence is not within the scope of the charged conspiracies and is therefore not admissible as direct evidence. At the very least, because it is not "manifestly clear" that evidence is proof of the charged conspiracies, "the proper course is to proceed under Rule 404(b)." United States v. Townsend, No. SI 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May I, 2007) (citing United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). + +evidence should also be excluded under Rule 404(6) and Rule 403. As argued in our initial Motion, evidence that Ms. Maxwell allegedly encouraged an adult to engage in legal sexual activity is not, in any way, evidence of her intent to facilitate Epstein's + +alleged scheme to cause minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, or her knowledge of the same. See Mot. at 11. Nor is the evidence of alleged "grooming" sufficiently unique to qualify as proof of "modus operandi." See id. at 12. Furthermore, there is a strong likelihood that the jury will assume that Epstein's alleged sex acts with were illegal and will misapply that evidence in evaluating Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence to the charged Act conspiracies. Her evidence should therefore be excluded under Rule 403. See id. at 12-13. + +If the Court decides to admi evidence, it should preclude the government and from referring to her as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government andfrom representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury the appropriate limiting instruction the defense has requested. See Mot. at 14-15. + +The government argues that the term "minor" is appropriate because was, for a brief time, below the age of 18, which is the age of consent under federal law. Resp. at 52-53. Although the government would like to believe that U.S. federal law is the only law that matters, even as to acts that allegedly took place in a foreign country, that is not the case. The Court should not permit to be referred to as a "minor" because she was not a "minor" under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction when any of the alleged sex acts took place. It would not only be inaccurate to call her a "minor," but it would also mislead the jury to believe that the acts that allegedly took place in the U.K. were "criminal sexual activity" when they were not. The same is true for the phrase "sexual abuse," which connotes criminal activity. See Mot. at 14-15 (citing Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017)). + +Finally, the government opposes the defense's requested jury instruction regarding the age of consent under U.K. law on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" and would "confuse the + +jury." Resp. at 53-54. Apparently, the government believes the jury would be "confused" if the Court told the jurors what the law actually is so that they do not improperly assume that' testimony is being offered as proof of "criminal sexual activity" and apply it incorrectly to convict Ms. Maxwell of the Act conspiracies. The jurors would not be "confused"; they would be educated on how to properly evaluat evidence. The government's objection is non-sensical. But not as non-sensical as the government's final proclamation: + +The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case. + +Id. at 54. A better example of circular reasoning you could not find — sex acts with Epstein are "criminal" because they are "proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes"? No. And the "risk that the jury will think that ... the conduct is lawful? It was lawful. Whatever misgivings may now have about those alleged sex acts, and whether she now views those incidents as "sexual abuse," there was nothing illegal about them. + +And that is precisely the point. If she is permitted will testify about feeling sexually abused by Epstein and the jury will assume that the sex acts were illegal. Unless the Court instructs the jury that the sex acts were not illegal under U.K. law, and they cannot be considered as "criminal sexual conduct" in evaluating the elements of the Act conspiracies, there is a substantial risk that the jury will misapply her evidence and improperly convict Ms. Maxwell of those counts. The government has agreed to do this in similar cases and it is appropriate to do so here. See =, 708 F. App'x at 735-36 (government sought and received jury instructions explaining the applicable criminal laws of the relevant jurisdictions and jury returned a special verdict form finding "that the defendant intended to engage in sexual + +activity for which the defendant could be charged with specific New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Canadian criminal offenses" (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the Court should give the jury the defense's requested limiting instruction.8 + +#### V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED "FLIGHT" + +The government has conceded that it will not elicit any evidence or argue to the jury that Ms. Maxwell "was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein's arrest and her own." Resp. at 81-82. + +## VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS AND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS + +The government has also conceded that it will not elicit any evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's alleged false statements in her 2016 depositions and agrees to the defense's request to redact the perjury counts and related allegations from the S2 Indictment. Resp. at 82. + +## VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION. + +From approximately + +s The defense also agrees with the government that the Court should instruct the jury that it cannot convict Ms. Maxwell of the charged conspiracies based solely on evidence. See Resp. at 50 n.12. + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +It was not until 2020, after making a multi-million dollar claim to the Epstein Victim Compensation fund, that the SDNY interviewed [REDACTED] and then in 2021 showed her photos -- the majority of which were men or women much younger than Ms. Maxwell. Only two of the photos look anything like Ms. Maxwell and [REDACTED] thought one was Ms. Maxwell and the other might be Ms. Maxwell. Of course, no one thought to ask [REDACTED] if her lawyers had shown her photos of Ms. Maxwell as part of her multi-million-dollar request or if she had seen any of the many photographs displayed on the internet of Ms. Maxwell, including those published in relation to the first indictment by Acting U.S. Attorney Strauss’s Rule 23.1-violative press conference, or any of the millions of photographs published in the wake of the Indictment. The photo array process was not recorded, and we do not know why certain photos in the array were selected or by whom. No one documented how long the photo array was viewed or any other relevant indicia of reliability. + +The claim that the show-up was merely a “confirmatory identification” of someone that [REDACTED] had “known and identified by name over the years” is completely unsupported by the evidence. Tellingly, the government appends no supporting exhibit or declaration in support of this conclusory statement because it cannot. The truth of the matter is that [REDACTED] had never identified Ms. Maxwell as someone who abused her and never claimed to have seen Ms. Maxwell prior to 2020 when it became economically prudent for her to do so. + +The facts about interaction with Ms. Maxwell are hotly disputed. Ms. Maxwell rejects the government's unsupported conclusory statements about when and if she interacted with Ms. Maxwell and her ability to do so absent suggestion. + +When the prosecution offers testimony from an eyewitness to identify the defendant as a perpetrator of the offense, fundamental fairness requires that that identification testimony be reliable. Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). The court must first determine whether the pretrial identification procedures unduly and unnecessarily suggested that the defendant was the perpetrator. If the court finds, however, that the procedures were suggestive, it must then determine whether the identification was nonetheless independently reliable. Id. + +The critical question here, ignored by the government, is not whether knew that she was accusing Ms. Maxwell in 2020 (she undoubtably was) but whether she could identify Ms. Maxwell as the person she was now claiming abused her. Of the pictures selected here, had a high probability of picking Ms. Maxwell -- even then, she was tentative about one person who was not Ms. Maxwell. The show up was neither confirmatory nor fair. + +The protection against unduly suggestive procedures encompass not only the right to avoid improper police methods that suggest the initial identification, but as well the right to avoid having suggestive methods transform a selection that was only tentative into one that is positively certain. v. , 645 F.2d 1179, 1185 (2d Cir. 1981). + +Ms. Maxwell has met her burden of demonstrating the show up was unduly suggestive. Under these circumstances the Court should next consider the well know "five factors": (I) the witness's opportunity to observe the criminal at the time of the crime, (2) the degree of the witness's attention at that time, (3) the accuracy of the witness's initial description of the + +criminal, (4) the certainty with which the witness first identified the suspect, and (5) the time lapse between the crime and the identification. Id. at 1186. Each of these factors weighs heavily in Ms. Maxwell's favor: as to 1-3, until 2020 had never claimed Ms. Maxwell participated in any abuse and never identified Ms. Maxwell -- indeed, she had never before been asked to identify Ms. Maxwell. Concerning number 4 was less than certain, as demonstrated by her selection of someone else who Maxwell." Factor 5 also weighs in Ms. Maxwell's favor, as the delay was 17 years. + +Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on this motion and fmd that the show up was unduly suggestive and suppress any identification of Ms. Maxwell, before or during trial. + +## VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINION TESTIMONY + +The government agrees that it has not noticed any law enforcement officers as experts and, as to their fact police officers, "will not elicit expert testimony from them." Resp. at 82-83. Overlooking the long list of potential law enforcement opinion testimony that has been disallowed by Courts in the past (see Mot. at 2-5), the government then goes on to make the confusing claim that the defense should have to "provide expert" testimony from the government's own case agents if it wants to call them as witnesses. Resp. at 83 n.24. + +The defense has no intention of eliciting opinion testimony from the agents when they testify. As the motion makes clear, the defense fully understands the contours of lay versus opinion testimony from law enforcement officers. The case agents are first hand percipient witnesses to a number of facts in the investigation and prosecution of this case, including as the impeachment witness for the many changed stories of the accusers. + +As evidenced by their recently disclosed interviews, the government lawyers, despite its protests about the defense's ability to call percipient fact witnesses, have been preparing the case agents for months to testify in the defense's case. The risk highlighted by the defense it its footnote is that, even though they are not asked a question that calls for opinion testimony, the agents are likely to try to offer their opinions either during the defense's questioning or when the government attempts to rehabilitate them. Because neither side has noticed any opinion testimony from the case agents, they should be prohibited from offering any, especially because it will be non-responsive to any questions that should be asked of them. + +## IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +The government argues that the expected testimony of that she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein is admissible to show the "ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims" and is necessary "to complete the story of the crime on trial." Resp. at 79-80. The government offers no explanation, however, for why testimony of an alleged rape would prove the relationship "between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims" whenhas never claimed in her prior statements to the FBI or anywhere else that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in the alleged rape in any way. Nor does the government explain why this testimony is somehow necessary "to complete the story of the crime on trial" when the rape allegation is an outlier and does not fit the "story" of alleged sexual abuse that the government has described in the S2 Indictment—namely, "grooming" the alleged victims to gradually break down their inhibitions so that forcible rape is not required to engage in sexual activity with them. Because the rape allegation is the only one of its kind and has no connection to the other incidents of alleged sexual abuse, it should not be admitted as intrinsic proof of the charged crimes. See United States v. Townsend, No. Si 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at \*2 + +(S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (defendant's prior narcotics and firearm transactions with the same confidential informant not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged narcotics conspiracy, even though the conduct was "generally similar to the conduct underlying the offenses charged in the indictment"); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 369-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (prior similar money laundering transactions between defendant and cooperating witness not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged money laundering offense or "necessary to complete the story" of the charged conspiracy (emphasis in original)). + +Testimony concerning the alleged rape should also be excluded because the S2 Indictment contains no allegations of rape and such testimony is therefore irrelevant to the charged crimes. The government dismisses this point arguing that indictments do not need to include all of the government's evidence, and the terms "sexual activity" and "commercial sex act" are broad enough to cover rape. See Resp. at 80. But this misses the point. The rape allegations are irrelevant to the charges because the charges are based on sexual activity that was illegal because the alleged victims were under the age of consent. The indictment does not charge any crimes that are premised on sex acts that involve the use of force, like rape. For example, Counts Five and Six charge sex trafficking offenses. See S2 Ind. 22-27. But they do not charge the section of the statute that criminalizes sex trafficking that "was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). The government is therefore off base when its states that "evidence of rape, where it occurs ... is the core conduct in the case." Resp. at 81. It is only the "core conduct" of the case when the indictment alleges forcible sex acts. Indeed, the cases cited by the government prove this point. See Ex. E, Indictment, United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (defendant charged with sex trafficking conspiracy "effected by means of force" under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1)); + +United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (same). + +Finally, whatever minimal probative value the rape allegation might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. As we previously argued in our initial Motion, rape is highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the "sexualized massages" alleged in the S2 Indictment. See Mot. at 2-3. Admitting testimony of an alleged rape would pose a serious risk that the "jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 181 (1997) (quoting United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, I.)) (discussing propensity evidence). Such evidence would also confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. It will cause the jurors to focus on conduct that is not relevant to the charged offense and suggests that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United States v. In 521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the "risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose"). The Court should therefore preclude any testimony or evidence about an alleged rape. + +# XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS "VICTIMS" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING + +Without explaining its logic, and by way of cases concerning jury instructions, the government disagrees that use of the term "victim" by witnesses and the prosecution during trial amounts to improper vouching. Yet, the government offers that the only times it expects the word will be used at trial are (a) by the prosecutors during their jury addresses, and (b) in Dr. Rocchio's testimony concerning her patients. Resp. at 77. The government's legal analysis and + +argument are flawed, and the Court should enter the order proposed by Ms. Maxwell that all parties, witnesses, and the Court should refer to the individuals by their proper names. + +First, overlooking the frequency with which state courts must grapple with fair trials inherent in sex crimes, the government complains that the defendant cited no federal authority for the proposition that the Court, witnesses, and parties should use the individuals' names rather than the word "victim." To remedy that perceived problem, counsel refers the Court to United States v. Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247, at \*1-2 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021), and the other cases cited therein: + +"[Defendant) is correct that the term (victim] is prejudicial when the core issue at trial is whether a crime has been committed—and, therefore, whether there is a victim. See State v. Cones, 851 A.2d 1230, 1239-40 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004), affd, 885 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2005) (holding that jury charges using the term "victim" instead of "alleged victim" violated a defendant's due process right to a fair trial); Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674, 674 (Tex. App. 1984) (use of the term "victim" in court's rape charge was reversible error when the issue at trial was whether complainant consented to sexual intercourse); People v. , 423 N.Y.S.2d 229, 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) ("By referring in its charge to the complainant as the `victim' and to the defendant as the `perpetrator', the court impermissibly insinuated to the jury that the complainant was the victim of injuries resulting from acts committed by the defendant."). + +At [the] upcoming trial, the jury has the responsibility of deciding whether a crime occurred and whether that crime resulted in harm to [the accuser]. Thus, to label [the accuser] as a victim at the outset of trial carries the risk of improperly influencing the jury's decision. Moreover, there is virtually no probative value in allowing the government to use the term "victim" to describe [the accuser]. See United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544, at \*2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) (considering a similar motion and finding that there was "no need by any party to refer to [the alleged victim] by any particular descriptor other than her name"). Restricting the use of the term "victim" does not prevent the government from describing (the accuser's] injuries, or from presenting any of its other evidence. The government and its witnesses remain free to refer to (the accuser) by name or by other descriptive terms (e.g., "the mail carrier'). + +Id. (emphasis added). + +As argued in the motion, when the government, the Court, or another witness uses the term "victim" at the outset of the trial, it risks the jury pre-judging the merits, improperly + +speculating that the accusers have already been found credible by someone, or that their decision is a foregone conclusion. On the other side of the probative-prejudicial scale, the government simultaneously fails to articulate any probative value in use of the term "victim," either in its jury address or otherwise. Cf. State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233, 236 (Vt. 2005) ("the use of the term 'victim' had no inherent probative value"). + +Second, the government improperly suggests in response that the stricture on vouching should not apply to the witnesses themselves. Resp. at 79. As explained by numerous cases, having any witness refer to themselves or another witness as a "victim" is the very height of improper vouching. Sena. supra; State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121, 131, 442 P.3d 581, 590 (2019) ("another witness's description of the complaining witness as a 'victim' conveys an opinion that the complaining witness is telling the truth. That is what the vouching rule is intended to prevent."); Wigg, supra. + +Finally, the government contends that Dr. Rocchio can use the word "victim" in reference to "victims of sexual abuse generally," but her use of the term is even more problematic. For the reasons articulated in our Daubert motion and reply, Dr. Rocchio bases her expertise on her therapeutic number of individuals who have self-identified as sexual abuse victims, without any research or investigation as to whether the individuals' self-reports are true. She then intends to draw from her anecdotal and experiential treatment to generalize about all "victims" without their ever having been a finding that any of the persons she has provided treatment to were, in fact. "victims." If she is permitted to testify, there is no reason for her to vouch for the credibility of her patients, unless she clarifies each time that she is taking the individual at their word that they were in fact a victim. The danger of confusion to a jury is that anyone treated by Dr. Rochio must have been a victim. As the Wigg court recognized, there will be a "danger of unfair + +prejudice because the [witness's] choice of language implied that he and the prosecution believed the complainant's testimony." Id. + +For these and the previously stated reasons, Ms. Maxwell asks the Court to order that the parties, the witnesses, and the Court use individuals' names in the presence of the jury. + +#### XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY + +# A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits + +Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." See also Ricketts v. City of Hanford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1409 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496-500 (2d Cir.1984) (discussing the interaction between Fed.R.Evid. 104 and 901). "In order for a piece of evidence to be of probative value, there must be proof that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 (2d Cir. 1984). A motion in litnine to preclude evidence calls on the "[C]ourt to make a preliminary determination on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Highland Capita! Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence." Dougherty v. County of Suffolk, No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336, at \*1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). + +Ms. Maxwell has filed in limine motions challenging the admissibility of discrete items of evidence that the government intends to offer at trial. As discussed below, the Court should hold + +a pre-trial hearing at which the government must demonstrate that the proposed evidence is both authentic, admissible, relevant and not unduly prejudicial. + +## B. Government Exhibit 52 + +Government Exhibit (GX) 52 was acquired by the government as part of a sting operation from Alfredo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriquez worked for Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from late 2004 to early 2005. In 2009, he was deposed and then ultimately arrested in an undercover sting operation in which the government claims exhibit 52 was seized from Mr. Rodriguez, apparently on or about November 3, 2009, by one who is not listed as a testifying witness. No one knows where or when the exhibit was acquired by Mr. Rodriguez, what he did with it for as long as he had it, who may have created the exhibit, and where it came from. In its Response, the government does not identify what it claims this exhibit to be, who might authenticate the exhibit, only that a "witness with personal knowledge of the physical book is expected to testify to its authenticity." Resp. at 73. Given that Mr. Rodriguez is dead, and be. is not a witness, we are left to wonder who this foundational witness may + +The government further claims that even if the exhibit is hearsay, it is admissible, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show "the defendant kept contact information for relevant individuals at trial, including victims." Id. These are bold, unexplained claims that Ms. Maxwell disputes. The proffers here are inadequate to meet any burden of admissibility. The government should not be allowed to refer to the exhibit prior to the establishment of an adequate foundation; and Ms. Maxwell requests a pretrial evidentiary hearing on this issue. + +# C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way + +Again, the government claims that it will have live witnesses "to establish the authenticity of the evidence at trial." It does not identify the witness or the basis of that person's knowledge. The government does not provide any clues about who may have touched the evidence after it was seized in October 2005, ten months after the end of the conspiracy alleged and it does not address how these items seized are relevant to acts allegedly seized 10 years after the start of the alleged conspiracy or even 10 months after it ended. + +GX 295 is not a "past recollection recorded" by some other witness. It is a testimonial hearsay statement by a dead witness and admission of any part of GX 295 would violate Ms. Maxwell's rights to confront the declarant and the rules of evidence. The government offers no explanation about how the affidavit of Detective Recarey could possibly be the recorded recollection of someone else; and a pretrial evidentiary hearing is warranted. + +## D. The Photographs + +The supposed relevance for these photographs, again seized almost one year after the alleged conspiracy ended, is that they + +The photos, then, establish no material fact in this case and their admission should be prohibited under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +## E. The Twin Torpedoes + +Seized in 2005, and still in the box, unopened, no witness will testify that Ms. Maxwell used these devices. The items were not and could not have been used in connection with any alleged act in this case, assuming a foundation can be established. Accordingly, the exhibit, whether it be the photograph or the actual boxed items, should not be admitted under FRE 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +#### F. Government Exhibit 313 + +GX 313 was seized in 2019. It was not seized from Ms. Maxwell. No one will testify about where it was taken, who took it, or where it was kept. Because the government cannot establish the location of the photograph, it is not corroborative, as the government claims, of "topless swimming" at the Palm Beach pool, which is also not relevant to the allegations here. Ms. Maxwell has not challenged other photographs showing a close relationship between Ms. Maxell and Epstein, and we expect there to be evidence of their relationship at trial. Accordingly, any probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the picture. Again, this exhibit should be excluded under FRE 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). + +#### G. Government Exhibit 606 + +GX 606 comes from an unknown author, created at an unknown time, and for an unknown purpose. The government's proffer is speculative and does not supply any evidentiary foundation, authenticity, or relevance. The exhibit should be excluded under FRE 901, 802, 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). As with the other exhibits discussed herein, Ms. Maxwell requests a pretrial evidentiary hearing. + +Dated: October 27, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, & 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on October 27, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Reply In Support of Her Motions In Limine with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole + +![](_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfa85bb9ccdbdf916930d599212aa9dc949d2f31 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/EFTA02834734.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2891 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 52, + "chars": 93044, + "elapsed_seconds": 134.66, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.3348083496094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.3348083496094, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF \nHER MOTIONS IN LIMINE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 463.947021484375, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 463.947021484375, + 333.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 333.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 398.12921142578125, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 251.53199999999998, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 408.28924560546875, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 107.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.02013397216797, + 121.9334716796875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 121.9334716796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 117.14466857910156, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 185.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 185.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Rules", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 104.23119354248047, + 224.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 224.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO-\nCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S \nFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 533.1458740234375, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 533.1458740234375, + 223.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 223.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 418.00701904296875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 418.00701904296875, + 390.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 390.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. There Should Be a Sanction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 287.4973449707031, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 287.4973449707031, + 225.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 225.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. There are Substantial Issues with the Government\u2019s Anticipated Position", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 87.48 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE \nBASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY 404(B) EVIDENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.5321655273438, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.5321655273438, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure \nPropensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved \nThird-Party Adults", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 515.398681640625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 515.398681640625, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 124.52243041992188, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 124.52243041992188, + 362.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. [REDACTED]", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 127.98000000000002 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 127.98000000000002 + ], + [ + 489.6, + 141.75 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 141.75 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. The government has apparently abandoned efforts to introduce her \ntestimony as Rule 404(b) evidence.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 499.34930419921875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 499.34930419921875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. constitutes an impermissible \nconstructive amendment and variance to the Indictment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 484.5899658203125, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 484.5899658203125, + 636.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 636.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the \nadmissibility of and exhibits for two \nweeks.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 532.5728759765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 532.5728759765625, + 117.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 117.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER \nFEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW \nPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT \nHEARING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 526.0184326171875, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 526.0184326171875, + 405.363037109375 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 405.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. This Court should reject the government's arguments to the extent that they are \nbased on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to \nproduce six months ago.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.1256713867188, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 543.1256713867188, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Rocchio's proposed testimony is inadmissible.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.40765380859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 367.40765380859375, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. At a minimum, this Court should hold a Dauber: hearing.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 427.3959045410156, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 427.3959045410156, + 362.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 362.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED\u25a0", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 437.4908447265625, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 437.4908447265625, + 210.11480712890625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 210.11480712890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER EVIDENCE \nOF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED \"FLIGHT\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 83.844, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 525.836181640625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 525.836181640625, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 83.844, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VI. THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER \nEVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS \nAND AGREES TO MS. MAXWELL'S PROPOSED REDACTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 516.9876098632812, + 277.02 + ], + [ + 516.9876098632812, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VII. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING \nON MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 536.9425048828125, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 536.9425048828125, + 446.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 446.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIII. GOVERNMENT AGREES NOT TO ELICIT LAW ENFORCEMENT \nOPINION TESTIMONY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.096, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 506.58831787109375, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 506.58831787109375, + 378.363037109375 + ], + [ + 66.096, + 378.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IX. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED \n\"RAPE\" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 518.533447265625, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 518.533447265625, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XII. REFERENCE TO ACCUSERS AS \"VICTIMS\" IS IMPROPER VOUCHING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 73.44, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 513.3831787109375, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 513.3831787109375, + 555.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 73.44, + 555.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT \nEXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 534.6664428710938, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 534.6664428710938, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 463.5096435546875, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 463.5096435546875, + 236.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 236.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Government Exhibit 52", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.61996459960938, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 253.61996459960938, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Palm Beach Search of El Brillo Way", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 341.73944091796875, + 648.0 + ], + [ + 341.73944091796875, + 664.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 664.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Photographs", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 327.668701171875, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 327.668701171875, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Twin Torpedoes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 249.36668395996094, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 249.36668395996094, + 556.1029968261719 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 556.1029968261719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Government Exhibit 313", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 271.114501953125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 271.114501953125, + 87.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 87.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Government Exhibit 606", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.67181396484375, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.67181396484375, + 334.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 334.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4869689941406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.4869689941406, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834734" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b775891a56f5e70598fd9ed10be96baca305b94c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834734/_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4798d8d1ab6ebba3239fad6f3e8c73c6fc9ea978bfa1e26f249ee3371eb8ba3c +size 711 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3ee8de052e36eaf211f68207ad15ef63970b050 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As discussed at Wednesday's conference, the Court will hold an in-person proceeding on November 15, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 518 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. In accordance with its prior Order, the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family. Dkt. No. 344. + +In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the public will be able to access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 110 and 506 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the proceeding. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly Prohibited. + +The Court anticipates seating capacity in the overflow rooms for at least 50 members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. Response to COVID-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see https://www.nysd.uscourts.govicovid-19-coronavirus. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 12, 2021 New York, New York AYE Qik + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f50164579416ddcd2404d398b602c216b781d067 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/EFTA02834786.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2195, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.84, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834786" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0e4c1ee78068f9085ac201c67de29f10440006d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834786/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c91670f117fec3048dd730c7b503cca36ec2cedf810aa8a63d9979b2d99d6f04 +size 11933 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e840e960aa4167e02d83c0cf7fa572aed0df978 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg) + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of New York* + +*The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007* + +November 12, 2021 + +**BY ECF** + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)*** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter seeking clarification on two items from the November 1, 2021 pretrial conference. + +First, when describing the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses who will be testifying under pseudonyms, the Court explained that: + +All lines of inquiry the defense outlined in its response are available without disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically identifying information. For example, the defense can probe the genre, nature, and trajectories of witnesses' careers without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's cross-examination should not include specifically identifying information, and counsel must act responsibly doing so. + +(11/01/21 Tr. at 11:20-12:2). The Government seeks clarification before trial about the line between permissible and impermissible cross-examination [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] (11/01/21 Tr. at 10:8-11). That information has no impeachment value—[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] But it creates significant risk of identifying the relevant Minor Victims and witnesses by narrowing the field of people whose careers match the description elicited by the defense at the times elicited by the defense, and in combination with the other information about them that will be available at trial. + +Second, the Government seeks clarification that the Court’s November 1, 2021 order permitting witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names includes an order barring courtroom sketch artists from drawing the exact likeness of those individuals. (*See* Gov’t Mot. in Limine, Dkt. No. 380, at 16 n.7 (making this request)); *see* May 6, 2019 Text Order, *Raniere*, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.) (“Sketch artists . . . may not draw exact likenesses of jurors or witnesses other than co-defendants should they testify . . . .”). It would defeat the purpose of the Court’s order if the exact likeness of those witnesses could be drawn and subsequently publicized in the media. Although courtroom sketch artists might voluntarily elect not to sketch these witness’s faces, the Government seeks an order so it can provide certainty to these witnesses in advance of their testimony. + +--- + +1 The Government’s proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the witnesses whom the Court has authorized to testify using pseudonyms or their first names. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Convey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db43a338e6b072f4b5d6af6f04023c9426060434 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/EFTA02834788.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3356, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.74, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 40.5 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834788" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9eeccaf1b1b8ac52a1dc786a6de09854ff6d2e11 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834788/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8b2aaa93aa2ba9aedf4bdfe1a557303f1f9e8c83693a6050983397c587755a43 +size 3420 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..259cead3af5382ec63e669096980b1c776b4f4ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 12, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in support of the admission of certain statements by the defendant's co-conspirators at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 80I(dX2)(E). Consistent with the Court's directives at the November I, 2021 conference in this case, the Government has provided the defense with categories of co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial, as well as examples of particular statements within each category. After conferral, the defense indicated that, subject to certain clarifications, it would not object to the majority of the proffered statements. The defense further indicated that it objected to a particular subset of the Government's proffered statements. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should admit these statements at trial. + +## A. The Proffered Statements + +The Government identified four categories of statements by co-conspirators of the defendant that the Government may seek to admit at trial: (1) statements made by Epstein to friends and family of Minor Victims; (2) statements made by Epstein to his employees; (3) statements made by a co-conspirator to the Minor Victims or their families; and (4) statements made by + +Epstein to the Minor Victim., or in their presence. In addition, the Government provided specific exemplars of statements falling within each of these four categories. The Government explained that it expected many of the statements falling within the four categories to be offered without use of Rule 801(dX2)(E), but it included those statements in an abundance of caution. + +In response, defense counsel indicated that they did not object to the first, third, and fourth categories so long as those proffered statements are limited to individuals identified as "minor victims" in the Second Superseding Indictment (the "Indictment") or correspondence to defense counsel dated October 11, 2021, and so long as the statements were not made outside of the dates of the alleged conspiracies in the Indictment. The Government can confirm both that the proffered statements only relate to the victims identified either in the Indictment or in its October 11, 2021 letter to defense counsel, and that all such proffered statements occurred between in or about 1994 and in or about 2004. Accordingly, the Government understands there is no objection to the statements in those categories. + +As to the second category, the defense indicated they object to the first two exemplars provided by the Government. The defense indicated that they do not object to the third exemplar in this category, so long as it relates to the time period alleged in the Indictment. The Government can confirm that the proffered statement in that exemplar occurred during the period alleged in the Indictment. + +As a result, the parties appear to disagree about the admissibility of only two exemplars provided by the Government. In particular, those exemplars are as follows: + +- In or about 2005, Epstein told an employee witness ("Employee-1"), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government's October I I, 2021 letter to the defense, that the defendant used to find girls for him. +- In or about October 2005, Epstein and an employee ("Employee-2"), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government's October I1, 2021 letter to + +the defense, told Employee-1 to go to his Palm Beach house to help someone who was coming to take computers from Epstein's Palm Beach House. + +For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully submits that both statements are admissible at trial. + +### B. Applicable Law + +Hearsay is defined as a declarant's out-of-court statement "offer[ed] in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement," and is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). "If the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made," however, then "no issue is raised as to the truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay." Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) advisory committee's note. "Thus, a statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay." United States v. Dupree, 706 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir. 2013); see also v. Celotex Corp., 914 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 1990) ("To be sure, an out of court statement offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but merely to show that the defendant was on notice of a danger, is not hearsay."). + +Rule 801(dX2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides in relevant pan that "[a] statement . . . is not hearsay [if] . [t]he statement is offered against an opposing party and . . . was made by the party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." To admit a statement under this rule, the Court must find two facts by a preponderance of the evidence: first, that a conspiracy that included the defendant and the declarant existed, and, second, that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of that conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987); United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999). If those two prongs are satisfied, then the offered statement is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted. + +With respect to the first prong of this rule, "[t]he conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant need not be identical to any conspiracy that is specifically charged in the indictment" or that is the subject of the relevant trial. Id.; see also United States v. Russo, 302 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 2002) (explaining that this is because co-conspirator's statement exception "has its roots in" principles of agency). "In fact, the Second Circuit has held that it is not even necessary that the Government charge a conspiracy to take advantage of Rule 801(d)(2XE)." United States v. Ulbricht, 79 F. Supp. 3d 466, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing United States v. DeViHio, 983 F.2d 1185, 1193 (2d Cir. 1993)); see also United States v. Maldonado, 922 F.2d 934, 962 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Though . . . Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2XE) requires proof that both the declarant and the party against whom a declaration is offered be members of the same conspiracy, it does not require that the conspiracy be one charged in the indictment."), cert. denied sub. norn. Ramirez-Talavera v. United States, 501 U.S. 1211 (1991). To admit a co-conspirator statement made in furtherance of an uncharged conspiracy, the Government must show only that the declarant and the defendant in question were members of a conspiracy that somehow was "'factually intertwined"' with the charged offenses. See United States v. M, 779 F.2d 820, 829 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Lyles, 593 F.2d 182, 194 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied 440 U.S. 972). + +When determining whether the predicate conspiracy has been established, the Court is not bound by the rules of evidence, see Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), and "the district court may consider the hearsay statement itself" as evidence of "the existence of a conspiracy." United States v. Padilla, 203 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 181). Moreover, although Rule 801(dX2XE) "requires that both the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered be members of the conspiracy, there is no requirement that the person to whom the statement is made also be a member." In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa. 552 F.3d 93, 139 (2d Cir. 2008). + +With respect to the second prong of this rule, a statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy if it was in some way designed to promote or facilitate achievement of a goal of the conspiracy. Under this standard, a co-conspirator statement is admissible if it "reasonably [can] be interpreted as encouraging a co-conspirator or other person to advance the conspiracy, or as enhancing a coconspirator or other person's usefulness to the conspiracy." United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1412 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Thus, statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy if they: (1) inform or provide an update as to the status or progress of the conspiracy, see United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001); (2) "prompt the listener ... to respond in a way that promotes or facilitates the carrying out of a criminal activity," Maldonado-\_, 922 F.2d at 958; (3) "seek to induce a co-conspirator's assistance," Desena, 260 F.3d at 158; (4) "provide reassurance," id.; (5) "serve to trust and cohesiveness," id.; United States v. M. 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir. 1991); (6) "facilitate and protect" the conspiratorial activities, United States v. I. 176 F.3d 52, 87 (2d Cir. 1999); or (7) inform a co-conspirator of "the identity and activities of his coconspirators," United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1987). + +## B. Discussion + +Both proffered statements are admissible as non-hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The first exemplar qualifies as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(dX2)(E), and the second exemplar is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, both are admissible at trial. + +### 1. First Exemplar + +The first exemplar to which the defense objects involved a statement Epstein made to Employee-1 in order to provide background information and history about an ongoing sex trafficking conspiracy. Specifically, Epstein informed Employee-I, in sum and substance, that the defendant used to find girls for Epstein. The Government expects that Employee-1 will testify that at the time Epstein made this statement, Employee-1 was a participant in a conspiracy to sex traffic minors for Epstein. In particular, Employee-1 will testify that in 2005, Epstein was still receiving paid sexualized massages from minor girls, which his employees facilitated. As part of that conspiracy, Employee-1 made phone calls to schedule girls, whom Employee- I knew to be underage, to provide Epstein with massages, which Employee-1 knew would involve sex acts in exchange for money. Although Minor Victim-4 had already turned 18 in 2005, Employee- I will testify that Epstein and his employees continued to arrange for other minor girls to provide the paid sexualized massages. + +In other words, although the time period for the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004, the same sex trafficking conspiracy continued beyond that time. Further, the defendant cannot be presumed to have withdrawn from the conspiracy simply because the conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004. See-, 176 F.3d at 98 ("Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence of withdrawal, his participation in a conspiracy is presumed to continue until the last overt act by any of the conspirators." (quoting United States v. Greenfield, 44 F.3d 1141, 1150 (2d Cir. 1995))). The defendant therefore remained in a sex trafficking conspiracy with Epstein in 2005. And for purposes of analysis under Rule 80 1 (dX2XE), it is irrelevant that the Indictment includes a timespan that ends in 2004 because "[t]he conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant need not be identical to any conspiracy + +that is specifically charged in the indictment" or that is the subject of the relevant trial. Gigante, 166 F.3d at 82; see also Maldonado-=, 922 F.2d at 962 ("Though . . . Fed. R. Evid. 80 I (dX2)(E) requires proof that both the declarant and the party against whom a declaration is offered be members of the same conspiracy, it does not require that the conspiracy be one charged in the indictment."). Employee-I 's testimony regarding the continuing conspiracy thus satisfies Rule 801(dX2)(E)'s first prong. + +When making this statement, Epstein was attempting to induce Employee-1's cooperation to effect the conspiracy's goals. See, e.g., United States v. Gupta, 747 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2014) ("Statements designed to induce the listener's assistance with respect to the conspiracy's goals satisfy the Rule's in-furtherance requirement."). Here, Epstein's statement to Employee- I was intended to convey to Employee-1 that other employees had participated in the conspiracy to traffic minors and to encourage Employee-1 to similarly participate. See United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989) ("Coconspirator statements may be found to be `in furtherance' of the conspiracy within the meaning of Rule 801(dX2XE) if they `prompt the listener to respond in a way that facilitates the carrying out of criminal activity."' (quoting Rahme, 813 F.2d at 35)). Epstein's statement reassured Employee-1 that Employee-1 would not be alone among his employees by participating in his scheme and informed Employee-I about the history of the conspiracy. Further, Epstein's statement conveyed to Employee-1 that the defendant was someone who had participated in the scheme and accordingly could be trusted. See , 923 F.2d at 945 (statements between co-conspirators that "provide reassurance, serve to maintain trust and cohesiveness among them, or inform each other of the current status of the conspiracy," further the conspiracy); see also United States v. Handy, 668 F.2d 407, 408 (8th Cir. 1982) (statement of one coconspirator identifying another is in furtherance of conspiracy). Accordingly, this statement is admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 80I(d)(2XE). + +This statement is also directly relevant to the charges in the Indictment. Although Epstein made the statement in 2005, he was discussing a time in the past when the defendant found girls for him. In other words, this statement references conduct that took place during the period charged in the Indictment. Epstein was telling Employee- I that the defendant took precisely the actions alleged in the Indictment by recruiting girls for Epstein. + +# 2. Second Exemplar + +The second exemplar involves instructions provided to Employee-1 by Epstein and Employee-2, who was also a co-conspirator. In particular, Employee-1 was instructed to go to Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October of 2005 and help someone who was coming to remove computers from the house. + +This exemplar is a case in which the Government expects to offer the statement without use of Rule 80 1(d)(2XE). The instructions are not hearsay because the Government will not offer them for their truth. Rather, these statements are offered to demonstrate their impact on the listener—Employee- I —in order to explain why Employee-I removed computers from Epstein's Palm Beach house in October of 2005. As a result, the proffered statement is not hearsay. Dupree, 706 F.3d at 136 (IA] statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay."). + +Although this event post-dated the time period contained in the Indictment, it explains why the members of the Palm Beach Police Department found that computer hard drives appeared to be missing from Epstein's Palm Beach residence when they executed a search warrant there on October 20, 2005. In particular, the Government expects a member of the search team to testify that during the search, he observed computer monitors and keyboards without any hard drives + +attached to them, suggesting that electronic equipment had been removed in advance of the search. The absence of that electronic equipment, which resulted from Employee-1 removing the equipment at Epstein's instruction, will both corroborate that witness's testimony and will help the jury understand why they have not been presented with any electronic evidence from the 2005 search. + +Finally, while the Government does not seek to offer this statement for its truth, the Government notes that it included the statement within the Rule 801(d)(2XE) disclosure letter because that is an alternative basis of admission. Like the first exemplar, this statement was made during the sex trafficking conspiracy that continued past 2004. The statement was also in furtherance of the conspiracy because it related to efforts to protect co-conspirators from legal jeopardy so that the conspiracy might continue. CI United States v.M, 469 F. Supp. 3d 193, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("[A] 'plot to silence [a] witness[ is admissible as a coconspirator statement, because the plot "furthers the goals of the conspiracy in that the [conspiracy's objectives] would be facilitated by the acquittal of all the defendants" (quoting United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 1989)). Accordingly, although the Government does not anticipate offering this statement for its truth under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), it would also be admissible on that basis. + +## D. Conclusion + +For the forgoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the proffered statements should be admitted at trial. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9ea3408448f8068fb2764b2b69387e874403e3d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/EFTA02834791.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,587 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 17349, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.55, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Proffered Statements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 243.42921447753906, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 243.42921447753906, + 605.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 605.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 192.17062377929688, + 186.3 + ], + [ + 192.17062377929688, + 200.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 200.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 164.8651885986328, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 164.8651885986328, + 574.2324981689453 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 574.2324981689453 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. First Exemplar", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 207.2084197998047, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 207.2084197998047, + 104.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 104.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Second Exemplar", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 219.2084197998047, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 219.2084197998047, + 297.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 297.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 89.1 + ], + [ + 167.8949737548828, + 89.1 + ], + [ + 167.8949737548828, + 104.60302734375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 104.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834791" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bb3a8f68fd2bb51b0308e94b44232c94032e28e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834791/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ad23717704ff9be481a971fe6312e2423a770fbb4c85c5415fdbb7dc197437f1 +size 3491 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b95c0d9452f5b6b81c6682c0b1c1e1246461115 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.md @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Motto Bulfdlng One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York Neu• York 10007 + +November 12, 2021 + +#### BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding Government Exhibit 52, a contact book belonging to the defendant, which includes contact information for At the November 1, 2021 conference, the Court requested additional briefing regarding this evidence. The defense has moved to preclude this evidence, arguing that it cannot be authenticated. (Dkt. No. 390). For the masons set forth below, the defense is incorrect. Testimony at trial will establish that Government Exhibit 52 is in fact a contact book that belonged to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant kept contact information for is compelling evidence of her guilt. This evidence should be admitted. + +# I. Background + +Government Exhibit 52 is a printed, bound contact book, containing dozens of pages of contacts, including family and friends of the defendant. The entire book is marked for identification as Government Exhibit 52, and the Government anticipates asking a witness at trial about the book—specifically, an individual who worked for Jeffrey Epstein ("Employee-1"). However, the Government does not intend to offer the full contact book in evidence. Instead, the + +Government anticipates offering only specific excerpts from the book that relate to the conduct charged in the Superseding Indictment. Those excerpts have been marked as Government Exhibits 52A through 52F and were produced to the defense on October 11, 2021.1 Most notably, Government Exhibit 52G, which the Government intends to offer,2 contains [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Employee-1 is expected to testify that, while working for Epstein in [REDACTED], Employee-1 was aware of two sets of contact books maintained in Epstein's residences, both of which were printed and bound in a distinct format. Employee-1 will testify that multiple copies of each book were kept in various locations, including at Epstein's Palm Beach residence. The first book belonged to Epstein. The second book was a small, bound book, which was commonly referred to throughout the residence as the defendant's book. There were multiple copies of that book in the Palm Beach residence, and Employee-1 recalls seeing a copy in the defendant's office in the Palm Beach house. Employee-1's account of the two different contact books is corroborated by documentary evidence. In particular, the household manual in effect during the same year Employee-1 worked for Epstein instructs employees to make sure that "[a] copy of Mr Epstein and Ms Maxwell's telephone directories must be placed to the right of each telephone (except for the + +--- + +1 These exhibits were marked in advance of the Court's rulings *in limine*. In light of the Court's rulings regarding evidence offered under Rule 404(b), the Government does not intend to offer in its case-in-chief certain of the excerpts that it had previously marked. + +2 The Government is attaching a copy of Government Exhibit 52G. The Government respectfully requests that Government Exhibit 52G be filed under seal because the exhibit contains identifying information for various third parties, including minor victims. + +Guestrooms)." See Government Exhibit 606 at 7; see also id. at 10 ("JE and GM telephone directories [are] placed to the right of telephone" in "check off list" for "pre-arrival preparations" for the bedroom); id. at 22 ("JE and GM telephone directories" in Vehicles and Bicycles section); id. at 23 ("JE and GM telephone directories placed to the right of the telephone" for "Ms Maxwell's desk"). + +Employee-1 has examined Government Exhibit 52 in preparation for trial and recognizes it to be the defendant's contact book, copies of which were maintained in Epstein's Palm Beach residence, among other locations. Employee-I recognizes the shape, color, and binding of the book, and recognizes the formatting and style of the entries as consistent with the manner in which the defendant's book was organized and the way in which entries appeared. Employee-1 also recognizes several of the contacts listed in Government Exhibit 52 as friends of the defendant and Epstein. The entries include, among others, the defendant's family members. See GX 52E. + +## H. Discussion + +### A. Authenticity + +As a general matter, "an item of evidence must 'be authenticated through introduction of evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that the item is what the proponent says it is.' United States v. Corley, 679 F. App'x I, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (quoting Crawford v. Tribe= Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2016)). "Under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, t[t]he requirement of authentication . . . as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.' United States v. M, 345 F.3d 59, 65 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)). + +This bar for authentication "is 'not particularly high.' United States v. Bout, 651 F. App'x 62, 63-64 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (quoting United States v. I I, 506 F.3d 140, 151 + +(2d Cir. 2007)). To meet this burden, the Government need only introduce "sufficient proof. . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). For "a document attributed to the defendant, the prosecution need only provide a rational basis from which the jury could infer that the document did, in fact, belong to [her]." United States v. Osarenkhoe, 439 F. App'x 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). + +Evidence of authenticity "may be direct or circumstantial, and the latter category may include distinctive characteristics of the document itself." United States v. Maldonado, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir. 1990); Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 37. Indeed, Rule 901 contemplates multiple avenues through which a proponent may authenticate evidence. For example, the proponent may offer "[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be," or may offer evidence of "[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances." Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (4). + +Here, the testimony of Employee-1 establishes the authenticity of Government Exhibit 52. In particular, the fact that Employee-1 recognizes this exhibit and can identify it as the defendant's contact book based on its "distinctive characteristics" is all that Rule 901 requires. Indeed, the Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of evidence under similar circumstances, where, as here, the Government does not offer evidence at trial about how the exhibit came into the Government's possession. In United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant argued that the Government had failed to establish the authenticity of "handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan." Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. "Although the Government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the + +seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(bX4) permits authentication based on '[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid 901(bX4)). Witness testimony about the content of the letters was "sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence," and the Second Circuit explained that "any remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility." Id. at 24-25; see United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 67 (2d Cir. 1983), abrogated on other grounds by Nat'! Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) (letter's contents were sufficient to authenticate it under Rule 901(b)(4)). + +The same is true here. Employee-1 will identify Government Exhibit 52 as the defendant's contact book based on its appearance and contents. Moreover, Employee-1's testimony will be corroborated by the contents of the book itself, which includes (a) contact information for the defendant's family, and (b) contact information for victims who interacted with the defendant during the relevant time period. That is more than sufficient to establish the authenticity of the exhibit under Rule 901. To the extent the defense disputes Employee-l's testimony, or takes issue with the circumstances under which Government Exhibit 52 came into the Government's possession,; those arguments are for the jury. The anticipated testimony satisfies Rule 901, and the evidence should be admitted. + +3 It is a matter of public record that in 2009, an employee of Jeffrey Epstein, Alfredo Rodriguez, attempted to sell Government Exhibit 52 to a plaintiff's attorney. The attorney contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and agents seized Government Exhibit 52 from Rodriguez, who was arrested. Rodriguez has stated that he took the book from Epstein's Palm Beach residence during his employment for Epstein from 2004 to early 2005. Government Exhibit 52 has remained in the possession of the FBI since that time. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and acknowledged that he was obligated to turn this evidence over to the FBI years earlier, when he was interviewed during the course of the FBI's investigation of Epstein. See United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 80015 (KAM). Rodriguez passed away following the conclusion of the + +### B. Relevance + +Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines "relevant evidence" as evidence that "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" provided that "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Relevant evidence is "not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime." United States 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, "[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency." Id. + +Government Exhibit 52 is plainly relevant. The specific excerpts from the exhibit that the Government seeks to offer include the names and contact information of The presence of those names and phone numbers establishes that the defendant possessed contact information for which of course is of significant relevance at this trial. This evidence thus demonstrates that the defendant in fact knew . Moreover, with respect to several of the contacts listed in which support an inference that the defendant knew that at least some of these individuals were minors. + +While Employee-1 did not see the defendant's contact book until , the contents of the book make plain that it contains information gathered previously, during the course of the charged + +criminal case. Nothing about those circumstances affects the admissibility of this exhibit. Indeed, if anything, they cut in favor of authenticity: if Rodriguez had fabricated Government Exhibit 52, then he would not have been guilty of obstruction of justice. But the opposite happened. Rodriguez admitted that this evidence was genuine and that he was guilty of obstruction of justice for concealing it. + +conspiracy. By its very nature, a contact book that collects phone numbers for many people is not the sort of thing that is generated in a single day. Like the digital contact list in the ordinary modern cellphone, a directory represents a collection of information and numbers typically gathered over a period of years. Based on this alone, the jury could readily infer that Government Exhibit 52, which was seen by Employee-1 in contains information the defendant collected during the period of the conspiracy, including 2004 and earlier. But there is more. As noted, the book contains contact information for + +In any event, GX-52 is relevant even if it was created after the period of the conspiracy though, as noted, it clearly was not. Proof that the defendant, at any point in time, had contact information for is relevant to her knowledge of and participation in the crime. Take, for example, a defendant charged with a pattern of bank robberies. If police officers searched the defendant's apartment long after the crimes were committed and discovered a list of the various bank branches the defendant had robbed, there would be no question that the list was relevant, even if it were unclear when the list was made or there was some suggestion that the list was made a year after the robberies. Such a list would reflect the defendant's knowledge of relevant locations, persons, and activities involved in the alleged criminal conduct. This case is no different. No matter when the defendant had this contact information, this evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew . Thus, this evidence is directly relevant to the issues before the jury at this trial. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 132 (2d Cir. 2010) ("To be + +relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue, much less prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”). + +**III. Conclusion** + +The Government respectfully submits that this evidence should be admitted. The Government seeks leave to file this letter with redactions, [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN [REDACTED] +United States Attorney + +By: s/ +Maurene Comey +Alison Moe +Lara Pomerantz +Andrew Rohrbach +Assistant United States Attorneys +Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea9493c389b60f244d52e869c48a9635e06354d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/EFTA02834801.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,492 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 14309, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 191.94503784179688, + 562.14 + ], + [ + 191.94503784179688, + 577.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 577.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 182.4300537109375, + 436.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 436.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Authenticity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 211.2774658203125, + 449.55000000000007 + ], + [ + 211.2774658203125, + 463.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 463.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Relevance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 89.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 199.55874633789062, + 89.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 199.55874633789062, + 103.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 103.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 158.76 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 158.76 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834801" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85e853f7d47c3b941aa4e1914d7285c8858f2839 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834801/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:91eaab5477b06a1cf2e9f3351c15bfe0f7240559d9ace8cfd9a4ac2e0aff7ed5 +size 3257 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c697efc970ac611d8225a1929233126216e03de --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | | +|----------------------|----------| +| DOCUMENT | | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | | +| DOC #: | | +| DATE FILED: | 11/12/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion seeking clarification on two items from the November I, 2021 pretrial conference. Dkt. No. 455. + +As to the first item, the Government seeks clarification about the line between permissible and impermissible cross-examination for witnesses testifying under a pseudonym. The Government's suggested level of generality as to permissible cross-examination of the witnesses' careers would unduly curtail the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to meaningful cross-examination. See United States v. 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008). The line of questioning the Government identifies may be relevant to a juror's credibility determination and thus the Court will not limit the Defendant's ability to pursue such questioning on crossexamination. As the Court noted at the November I conference, the Defendant may not elicit the name of a specific employer, but the type and genre of employment may be relevant to the jury's assessment of credibilty. Nov. 1, 2021 Transcript at 11-12. + +As to the second item, the Government is ORDERED to submit a proposed order regarding sketch artist depictions of certain witnesses on or before November 18, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 12, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afa56e30284be0ec96127b836516aba36f5d4b6e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809/EFTA02834809.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834809.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1704, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.41, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834809" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3e33ccc9e0bcf85f0a17d9d349a84f9995cb3bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.md @@ -0,0 +1,1417 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +4 v. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +5 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +6 Defendant. + +7 x + +8 9 New York, N.Y. October 21, 2021 12:00 p.m. + +10 Before: + +11 HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, + +12 District Judge + +## 13 APPEARANCES + +14 15 16 17 18 DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: LARA E. POMERANTZ ALISON G. MOE ANDREW ROHRBACH MAURENE R. COMEY Assistant United States Attorneys + +19 20 BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorney for Defendant -and- + +21 22 & GRESSER LLP BY: CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL -and-HADDON, and , P.C. + +23 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA + +24 25 Also Present: Rigoberto Landers Susan III Foon Rhonda Mayers-Best Mixon + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +Telephone Conference + +(Case called; appearances noted) + +THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan. + +4 5 6 We are here for a pretrial conference in this matter. The case is scheduled to commence the jury selection process on November 4, trial to commence on November 29. + +7 8 9 10 11 The primary purpose of today's conference is to go over jury selection matters and logistics. I'll also address the request to seal the proposed questionnaire and voir dire submitted by the parties, as I indicated I would in my order docketed yesterday. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 As a preliminary matter, let me note that we are proceeding telephonically today. Counsel, my view is that, under Rule 43, we need not be in person with Ms. Maxwell present for today's proceeding. We do have Ms. Maxwell on the phone, of course. I do want to make sure counsel agree with that view and have no objection to proceeding remotely by phone conference today. + +19 Ms. Pomerantz. + +20 21 MS. POMERANTZ: The government has no objection, your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. + +23 24 you. MS. STERNHEIM: The defense has no objection. Thank + +25 THE COURT: OK. Thank you. + +All right. We will proceed. + +4 5 6 7 8 I did provide public access to this proceeding via a phone line that can accommodate up to 4,000 callers, who are in listen-only mode. I do remind anyone calling in and listening that federal law prohibits the recording or rebroadcasting of any portion of this proceeding, and violation of that rule can result in monetary or other sanctions. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Another preliminary matter, as I indicated in my order, Dkt. No. 344, I will ensure access to this proceeding and all proceedings in the case for alleged victims as well as for family members of Ms. Maxwell, and the District Executive's Office has coordinated with defense counsel to ensure access to this call by family members of Ms. Maxwell. The D.E. has also coordinated with the victim coordinator unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office to ensure access for any alleged victims who wish to be present. + +18 19 My thanks to the D.E.'S Office for facilitating those arrangements. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 On that front, I will note that I have asked representatives of the District Executive's Office and the jury department to be on the phone today in case I need their assistance in handling any logistics that may come up, although I do believe I have a firm handle on the arrangements. I've been working hard with the folks in the clerk's office, the + +A few preliminary matters. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +jury department, the D.E.'S Office to make sure we are ready for the upcoming proceeding. + +As I've noted, the primary purpose of today's conference is to go through the questionnaire and voir dire procedures for jury selection. I've received the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire. The defendant filed a motion regarding the voir dire procedures, and I've considered those submissions as well, Dkt. No. 341, and the government's response at 355. + +I've also, in coming to resolution as to how to handle these procedures, considered examples of questionnaires and voir dire used for jury selection in many high-profile matters by my colleagues in this district and other districts. I've reviewed and studied case law on the subject, including Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1984); Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010); U.S. v. 140 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1998); and ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2004). And of course, all of this must be considered in conjunction with the district's COVID-19 protocols. + +As to that, as I noted, I've worked closely and extensively with the very hardworking folks in the clerk's office, including the jury department and the D.E.'S Office, to map out plans for how to effectuate my determinations as to the best way to proceed under all of these factors and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +considerations. + +Taking all of that into account, I'll describe now how we will proceed. + +As I've indicated, we will do a screening questionnaire before jury selection. That questionnaire will prescreen for what I see as the major for-cause strike issues in the case. So, for example, the trial's length and schedule, a juror's personal knowledge of the parties, extent of a juror's awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a result of the nature of the charges. This sort of questionnaire is, of course, very common in high-profile cases. I transmitted my draft questionnaire to counsel yesterday, and we'll discuss it shortly. + +As they typically do, the clerk's office will randomly assign juror numbers and create a corresponding list of names and juror numbers for the prospective jurors. That list will go to counsel and the Court for use throughout jury selection. On the questionnaire itself, jurors will be identified only by their assigned juror number. We will refer to the jurors in court throughout the process by their juror numbers only. + +The jury department will administer the questionnaire in morning and afternoon panels on November 4th, 5th and 12th. The procedure between questionnaires and voir dire will be as follows: + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The jury department will provide the completed questionnaires to the U.S. Attorney's Office for copying. The U.S. Attorney's Office will provide copies to the defense. I've been informed by the jury department that this is the standard practice for the administrative tasks, but certainly let me know if either side has a different proposal to effectuate that administrative task of copying the completed questionnaires. + +After reviewing the completed questionnaires, counsel must then confer in good faith and jointly submit to the Court four lists: + +No. 1, prospective jurors that both sides agree should proceed to voir dire; + +Two, prospective jurors that both sides agree should ce excused; + +Three, prospective jurors that the defense but not the government believes should be excused; and + +Fourth, prospective jurors that the government but not the defense believes should be excused. + +I want to pause for a moment because I heard a chime. I just want to confirm that we have Ms. Maxwell and counsel and the court reporter still on the line. + +THE DEPUTY CLERK: Yes, Judge. That's someone coming into the room. + +4 5 6 7 For the questionnaires completed on November 4th and 5th, those lists will be due to the Court via email by November 7. For questionnaires completed on November 12, the lists will be due by email by November 13, and that's so I can let the jury department know who to call back for voir dire. + +8 9 10 11 I am setting a placeholder conference, an in-person placeholder conference for November 15 at 9:30 a.m. to resolve disputes, as needed, with respect to for-cause strikes based on the questionnaire. + +12 That's the questionnaire process. + +13 I'll turn now to voir dire. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On November 16th through 19th, if we need all of those days, I will then conduct voir dire of the individual jurors who have been brought back, asking appropriate follow-up questions based on questionnaire responses, some additional questions more appropriately asked during oral voir dire, and background information that will enable the lawyers to gather substantial information in aid of the exercise of informed peremptory challenges. And yesterday, I sent the parties my draft voir dire, which we will also discuss in a moment. + +23 24 25 I will conduct this as one-on-one voir dire with each prospective juror in the presence of the parties and with public access to the proceedings. We will do this one juror at + +THE COURT: OK. Thank you. + +Those are the four lists. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +a time, because of Covid-related space limitations, to streamline the process in light of a likelihood of high a number of sidebars which would otherwise be required, and to ensure that the comments of one juror do not infect the pool. The other jurors will be held in a different courtroom on the same floor and brought over to the courtroom we will be in one at a time. + +I am not going to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. As a general matter, neither I nor most of my colleagues permit attorney-conducted voir dire. The factors related to this case point strongly against deviation from that standard practice. That doesn't mean counsel can't have input into potential follow-up questions. As in any voir dire, if you want to propose a particular follow-up question, you can tell me and I'll decide whether or not to ask the proposed question and how best to phrase it in a neutral and appropriate way. + +As noted, I will permit public access to the voir dire questioning. Prospective jurors will be referred to only by their juror numbers. In order to comply with the district's COVID-19 protocols, the public will be able to access the voir dire questioning via overflow rooms in the courthouse. The overflow rooms will have live feeds of the proceeding. + +Two pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper. In-house press will be able to view the proceedings from press rooms, which, like the public overflow rooms, will + +4 The D.E.'S Office will facilitate these arrangements, and i am grateful in advance to them as well as for the thought that they've already put into this process. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 That's how we'll work. There are some deviations from my normal practices certainly in light of the many considerations in this case. The COVID-19 protocols make spacing tricky. The procedures I've described are the best way to screen the necessary number of jurors for this type of high-profile case in a an efficient manner considering the space and time limitations that we'll be working with. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 We're also all aware that there's been intense media and public interest in this case, as the defendant's motion highlights, and I expect certainly will continue. Moreover, this trial is dealing with sensitive and controversial issues; namely, the alleged sexual assault and sex trafficking of minors. To impanel a jury that can fairly and impartially consider these charges, I'll have to ask personal questions about the prospective jurors' experience with these issues. I've carefully taken all of these factors into account. + +21 22 23 24 25 Based on this careful consideration of all of the relevant factors, the procedures I've just described will protect the health of the parties and prospective jurors during the continuing pandemic; help protect juror privacy; help ensure juror candor and honesty; and, ultimately, help to + +have live feeds of the proceedings. + +4 At the same time, these procedures will ensure the Eirst Amendment rights to public access, as is necessary and required by law. + +5 6 I'm going to pause here and ask if counsel have any questions about what I've described so far. + +7 Ms. Pomerantz. + +8 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +9 10 11 12 13 The government, I'm happy to raise certain questions we have regarding the names and locations to be supplied in the oral voir dire, as the government has certain proposals that it would like to set forth for the Court. I'm happy to do that now or at another point if the Court would like. + +14 15 16 THE COURT: Do these proposals relate to the government's motion that was just filed but not fully briefed, or are those separate concerns? + +17 18 19 20 21 MS. POMERANTZ: It relates to the government's motion regarding privacy and dignity of certain minor victims in this case, specifically relating to the request that victims and witnesses, certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms or their first names only. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Right. I think I have to get briefing on that motion. Needless to say I'm not prepared to rule on that yet, so to the extent that the proposals you want to suggest had a resolution of that motion, I think we need to wait. But + +ensure the selection of a fair and impartial jury. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +let me say that I think we have time to resolve that because those matters I don't think need to be dealt with for purposes of the questionnaire but for purposes of the oral voir dire. + +Do you agree with that, Ms. Pomerantz? + +MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, I agree with that, your Honor. + +THE COURT: OK. Anything else you want to raise based on the process I've described so far? + +MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. + +While we appreciate the questioning of the jurors one at a time, we do have a concern with regard to very sensitive issues being raised in the presence of media and other public, other people in the public who may have access to this. I would like to know how the Court is going to handle that. + +THE COURT: Well, I think, as in any voir dire, there are sometimes instances in which something slightly different might be required, but I guess without knowing specifically what the issue is or what the specific concern is, I don't know that I can address it writ large. If you want to give an example, I'm happy to hear that. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Sure. + +With regard to personal experience that may have bearing on the subject matter of the charges, that is particularly sensitive information. I think that it has a + +chilling effect for any juror who, under oath, is going to have 4 to answer very personal questions, let alone to have to answer those questions in a public forum with press being present and other members of the public viewing this from an overflow room. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: My view is we can deal with those situations kind of one at a time, depending on what emerges from the particular questionnaire that we're looking at at the time. As an example, I have conferred with Judge Donnelly, who went through similar voir dire questioning recently in the Eastern District, and there was public access to the individual questioning, and I think all of that was managed in a way that everybody felt comfortable with. + +13 14 15 16 17 I think we start with, as the law requires, as the First Amendment requires and case law requires, the presumption of public access. I will take into account, as need be, any specific requests for deviation in a tailored and narrow way to ensure juror candor, protection of privacy, and the like. + +18 19 20 That's my overall approach. I don't think deal with it in any broader way now, but tell me if disagree. we need to you + +21 22 23 MS. STERNHEIM: I do not disagree. We do not need to deal with it now. I just wanted to express our concerns on that issue. + +24 THE COURT: OK. Anything else, Ms. Sternheim? + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. Just a moment, please? + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Yes. What I can tell you -- and again, I just want to say an enormous thanks to the jury department, who I've been working with closely on this for months, as you can imagine. The return rate in the Covid era has gone up and down on summonses, but we have estimated our ability to administer the questionnaire over the three days in a morning and afternoon panel each day; the goal was 600 jurors, if we need it. + +13 That's the answer to question one. + +14 15 Question two I was going to get to the exercise of peremptories in a moment. + +16 I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood. + +17 What was question No. 2, Ms. Sternheim? + +18 19 MS. STERNHEIM: It was how many you are going to ultimately have us select to sit. + +20 21 22 THE COURT: Yes. OK. I thought I had that in a prior order, but my intention is to sit six alternates, so we'll have a jury of 18. + +23 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +24 25 THE COURT: OK. Are there other questions on what was discussed so far, Ms. Sternheim? + +THE COURT: Go ahead. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, at this point do we know how many jurors will be summoned and how many the Court is planning to select for the final voir dire? + +MS. STERNHEIM: Does the Court know how many will be in each sitting, or are you just dividing up the 600 by the number of sittings? + +4 5 THE COURT: They've put out a certain number of summonses with -- + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Let me just back up. The need to do it over several days, the need to do it in panels and the limits on the numbers are dramatically affected by Covid, because we have six-foot spacing requirements under the district protocols. They've worked hard to maximize the number of people who can sit in what will be two rooms, two large rooms, with sufficient spacing. All of those rooms require staffing, of course, so I believe that we're talking about 100 people per panel. + +14 Let me just get confirmation of that. + +15 16 MS. MAYERS-BEST: My name is Rhonda Mayers-Best. I'm the jury administrator. + +17 18 THE COURT: Just a second, Rhonda. Thank you. I'll let you know if I need you, and I appreciate that. + +19 20 And Rhonda, you can confirm you've summoned anticipating 100 people per panel. Is that correct, Rhonda? + +21 MS. MAYERS-BEST: Correct. + +22 THE COURT: OK. + +23 24 25 Ms. Sternheim, we'll have 100 people in the morning each day, 100 people in the afternoon each day, over the course of three days. + +4 The other questions I can wait until the Court addresses other protocol. + +5 THE COURT: OK. + +6 And let me just pause. + +7 8 9 The next thing I wanted to talk to you about goes to the exercise of peremptories and the number of qualified jurors that I will, number of jurors I'll seek to qualify. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Once we get a sufficient number of qualified jurors through the practice I've just described, the parties will exercise their peremptories, of course, and what I'd like counsels' input on at this time is a timing question. I've thought a lot about this. I think we've got two potential options as to timing of the exercise of peremptories, depending on how quickly we move through the voir dire process and get a sufficient number of qualified jurors. + +18 19 20 21 If we use every day, including the 19th, then I think we only have one option, but if we're done before that, which I think there's a good chance of, then I think we have two options: either November 19 or November 29. + +22 So let me just back up. + +23 24 25 As a preliminary matter, by my count, I need to qualify 40 jurors. Consistent with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 12 primary jurors, with respect to + +MS. MAYERS-BEST: Correct. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that, the defense gets ten peremptories; the government gets six. As I said, I'll seat six alternates. Under the rule, that's three additional peremptories per side for the alternates. If my math is right, that adds up to 40. + +To have a cushion heading into peremptory challenges, it's my plan -- again, time dependent -- to try to qualify at least 50 jurors, somewhere in the 50 to 60 range. So then the question is do we have that panel of qualified jurors come back on the 19th and exercise peremptories, or do we have them come back on the 29th? + +Either way, I anticipate that once we have that panel of qualified jurors come back, I'd ask some very basic preliminary questions -- do any jurors wish to amend answers? Confirm that they've not read or researched about the case, we'd deal with any issues along those lines, and then the parties would exercise the peremptories and all the others would be excused. + +If we do that on the 19th and finish the process, I'd inform the 18 that they've been selected as jurors, remind them very clearly of all the instructions and restrictions that apply, and direct them to return on the morning of the 29th. + +On that date, I'd swear them in, give them standard preliminary instructions, and we head to openings, straight into opening statements. + +Alternatively, if we were to wait for that final + +4 5 6 process until the 29th, I'd bring that panel of 50 to 60 qualified prospective jurors back. The parties would exercise -- I'd do that initial questioning to ensure no final issues. The parties would exercise their peremptories, and then I would excuse the unused or struck jurors, swear in our 18, give the instructions, and we'd get on our way. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I will say that I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I'll also say that I believe both will be logistically possible, although the 29th is not yet totally certain, because jury selection in other cases will go forward on that day, occupying the larger spaces, and it impacts both available space and staff resources. But I believe we can work out the logistics. But before I finalize either way, I wanted to hear the parties' views. + +15 Ms. Pomerantz. + +16 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +17 18 The government appreciates the Court's thoughtfulness on this. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 The government's view would be that November 19 would be strongly preferred to -- and I would note, your Honor, that because there are witnesses traveling out of state, and in light of Covid-related issues, having a firm start date, a date when we know witnesses will start to be put on the stand, that's very helpful for planning purposes. + +25 THE COURT: Yes, we will start on the 29th. There is + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +no doubt about that. I think what we're talking about is a fairly limited process that requires, of course, checking in the individuals. But we'll lose a little bit of time, to be sure. + +Is that the government's view and the basis for that view? + +MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. + +Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. + +The defense would request that challenges be exercised on the 29th for the following reason: + +There is at least a ten-day gap from the last scheduled day of jury selection until the start of the trial on the 29th. Significantly, prospective jurors will be celebrating Thanksgiving, a holiday that most have not celebrated in more than a year. It is likely that the topic of jury service and this case may come up. Views may be espoused, especially if people know that a family member or friend has been summoned to jury service, and it is very unlikely and very uncomfortable for a prospective juror to have to remove themselves from the Thanksgiving table or the venue to avoid being involved in that conversation. + +I would say that in an abundance of caution, that the better approach would be to do it on the 29th. It will not + +take that long. We will be ready to strike, but your Honor will need to get to see whether, in that interval, there has been any impact on the ability of the panel that comes in to serve fairly and impartially. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: All right. + +Any final thoughts, Ms. Pomerantz? + +MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing further from the government. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. I will consider it. You've all articulated factors I've considered, and I will see about the logistics issue, and I'll see if those can be worked out so that we have the option for either. And then what I may do is wait and see where we are as we head into the voir dire process before coming to final resolution. But to the extent I decide to do that, I will let you know, and I thank you for your input. + +OK. I'm now ready to turn to the sealing issue, but let me give both sides an opportunity to raise anything, to ask any other questions about what I've described, or to raise any concerns or points for further consideration. + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further from the government. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing other than some preliminary + +4 5 THE COURT: OK. And I think I can answer the other logistic questions, probably. + +6 7 8 All right. As I've noted, the defense, without objection from the government, requests that the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire be sealed. + +9 10 11 12 I guess my first question, just for clarification, Ms. Sternheim, is whether that request extends to the Court's draft or what will ultimately be the final blank questionnaire and anticipated voir dire. + +13 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the answer is yes, and if you'd like me to give my reasons, I'm glad to. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yes. First I wanted to know whether you've consented to that, and I'll hear you. I assume whatever the reasons are it would apply to all. But I do want to hear, and I need to hear very specifically, are you seeking particular redactions, or what is the concern? And to the extent you have any authorities for the proposition that you seal proposed documents like this and the Court's draft in anticipation, I would certainly take that. But it's my understanding, and research indicates, that they are typically docketed. I've certainly always docketed them in the many cases I've tried. But let me hear specifically what the issue + +questions about which courtroom we will ultimately be using. But I think that getting to the issue of sealing is more important. + +4 5 6 7 8 MS. STERNHEIM: OK. The documents, all four of them -- the two questionnaires, the parties' and the Court's, as well as the voir dire questions -- contain references to this case, names of participants. Any person who is summoned for jury service, they likely connect their summons with any press coverage there may be with regards to the questionnaire and the jury voir dire questions and this case. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Until the prospective jurors complete their questionnaires, they may read coverage, search the media. They are under no obligation or requirement to refrain from that, and we're concerned that that will further have a diluting effect on our ability to seat a fair and impartial jury. We have no problem whatsoever at the moment the jury is sworn, after peremptories have been exercised, that the Court place on the public record all of those documents. This is a procedure that we think can ensure a fair trial for both parties in light of extraordinary media coverage in this case. + +19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: I need more specifics. You said references to this case, names of participants. The docket now and going forward, as more filings come in, is going to contain names related to this case, names of participants. All of that information is part of the docket in this case, to be sure. + +24 25 That's No. 1. So No. 1 is I don't see how those factors in the questionnaire are particularly different from + +is, Ms. Sternheim. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 And No. 2, I'm still failing to see what the prejudice is. If you have a grade school math test and you get the questions in advance, you surely have some sort of advantage. To the extent we have a juror who has some awareness of the questionnaires because it's reported in the media in some way, they will have to truthfully tell us that in the questionnaire and the voir dire process. We would be able to explore that in any way, and it's just unclear to me what prejudice you're seeing as a result of that. + +11 I'll hear you on those two points. + +12 13 14 15 16 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I think this is an extraordinary case, and there has been no ability for the Court or the government and certainly not the defense to control any of the vast media coverage in this case, which has significantly prejudiced our client. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 While things are placed on the public record, and rightly so, this is a situation that is somewhat different. Giving jurors the opportunity to view the questionnaire before they come to court to fill it out is like a take-home exam and they can fill out all the answers and do all the research and decide what answers they want to put on those papers. + +23 24 25 I think that there's an opportunity for people to be motivated to want to sit on this jury for a variety of reasons, some of which I have expressed in other filings that have been + +any prejudice analysis from other materials on the docket. + +4 made public. I think in this case the Court has the supervisory power and the discretion to make sure that every protocol is put in place to ensure that a jury is seated that is fair and impartial. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Perhaps I've been in too many cases where jurors have said one thing and many things they don't say, and you can ask as many questions as you want, but we have to rely on the candor of individuals who come to serve. I do not think that there is a great hardship or denial of the public's right to know when the Court has just said that the press can be present during the questioning, and that would be the day of the jurors actually being in court. But I think to place the questionnaire and the voir dire questions on the public record and have them reported in the press, a situation that the Court cannot control, will have a very negative effect on both the parties in this case, but most significantly on the party that has been most damaged, that being Ms. Maxwell. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: OK. Any authorities, any specific authorities, and I mean examples of any other -- there are lots of significant high-profile cases that have occurred in this district and others. Any examples, and I don't presume any judge in such a case could control press coverage. I don't even know what that would look like, but you have to try the case as the law requires in a public trial, and surely there are high-profile cases in this modern era, where you could name + +an example in which a judge didn't docket these materials in advance. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I would just respond that, yes, there have been high-profile cases, but in federal court, I am not aware of a high-profile case that has alleged minor victims, whose identities are sought to be protected. I think that this is an extraordinary case. It has garnered more media attention than any of the other high-profile cases, and we are urging the Court to exercise its discretion and supervisory power. We will provide to the Court any authority that we have on this topic at the close of business today. + +THE COURT: We'll see about that. + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +In conferring with the defense about the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire, the defense shared concerns with the government regarding press coverage prejudicing the jury selection process, and so the defense asked the government to file under seal, which the government, as your Honor knows, the government did. Respectfully, the government submits that because this is the defense's request, it is up to the defense to justify the sealing request, and the government defers to the Court's judgment. + +THE COURT: Do you continue to not oppose, or do you oppose? Obviously, it's their motion, so it's their burden. + +I'm asking the government's position. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we defer to the Court on this. + +4 5 6 THE COURT: I'll take that as you continue not to oppose. OK, Ms. Pomerantz? That's the last position stated, and you're not changing that view, as I hear you. Correct? + +7 MS. POMERANTZ: Correct, your Honor. + +8 THE COURT: I am prepared to rule on this. + +9 10 11 12 13 The request to file the joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire under seal as well as the Court's proposed questionnaire, which the government does not oppose, has been requested by letter and now argued here. Several news organizations have opposed the request. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I do conclude that the defendant has failed to justify sealing the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. First, there's no privacy interest in a blank questionnaire, like the kind of interest that is articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' sole rationale for sealing the submission is to at a general level avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The jurors are sworn to give true and complete answers to the questionnaire and voir dire. + +23 24 25 I will be individually, one-on-one, questioning the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be + +4 5 6 Even if a juror were somehow exposed to a specific media report on the questionnaire, the juror would be sworn to report that exposure. The questionnaire and voir dire are designed to unearth that kind of prior exposure and any resulting potential bias. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Nor is it clear what prejudice results from that possibility. As I said, I am not persuaded that in the off chance there's a juror who has the questionnaire or a media reporter has the questionnaire in advance and fails to disclose that, it's somehow prejudiced in their response to a question. If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out, and the fact of this questionnaire being publicly docketed is not going to increase or decrease any such likelihood. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moreover, as I said, the proposed exact questionnaires are in my experience regularly docketed, including in comparably high-profile cases. Again, in Judge Donnelly's case just very recently, so similar nature of charges, similar high-publicity media attention, in an age of social media and the like, she docketed the proposed her addressed questionnaire in advance of jury selection, as I understand it. And I'm not aware of counterexamples. + +23 24 25 Lastly, defense does not articulate any likely prejudice that distinguishes this from the public docketing of other pretrial materials already on the docket or that will be + +a summary voir dire; it will be probing. + +4 5 For these reasons, I deny the defendant's request to seal the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. They should be docketed by the end of the week, and my will do the same with my draft as well. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 All right. With that resolved, I would like to turn to the specifics of my draft and hear, with the background now of how we'll proceed and opportunity to have reviewed those drafts in advance, if there are issues to raise, specific objections to my draft questionnaire and voir dire, which I transmitted to the parties yesterday. + +12 Ms. Pomerantz. + +13 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +14 15 The government has no objection to the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire. + +16 THE COURT: OK. + +17 Ms. Sternheim. + +18 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge. + +19 20 21 22 Although we would have preferred a more fulsome questionnaire, containing a larger percentage of the questions that we requested, we do have a few requests that we would ask the Court to consider. + +23 THE COURT: OK. + +24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: And if you'd just give me a moment so that I can get that document? + +on the docket as litigation in advance of trial continues. + +THE COURT: Sure. + +MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. + +Judge, I apologize. There's some ringing in the 4 phone. + +5 6 7 I just would like, if the Court would permit me I'm not able to find the document, but I would ask that Mr. Everdell be able to speak on this issue. + +8 THE COURT: OK. + +9 MS. STERNHEIM: Very brief. + +10 THE COURT: OK. + +11 12 I will ask my deputy if Mr. Everdell can be unmuted, please. + +13 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I'm prepared to proceed. I've found the document. + +15 THE COURT: Thanks. + +16 MS. STERNHEIM: OK? + +17 18 19 THE COURT: I think whatever you're doing when you turn away from the phone, create that feedback. + +20 MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. I apologize. + +21 THE COURT: All right. + +22 23 24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: Very briefly, we would ask for the following inclusions in the Court's questionnaire. With regard to No. 24(b), we would ask that the Court include, and please include, the crimes that were involved. + +4 5 MS. STERNHEIM: It is, Judge, but we thought that the questionnaire might be a place where the juror would be more open and comfortable. + +6 THE COURT: I will consider that and let you know. + +7 8 9 MS. STERNHEIM: With regard to 31 and 32(c), we would ask for the inclusion "or the former acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss." + +10 THE COURT: All right. + +11 Ms. Pomerantz, any objection? + +12 13 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government isn't (Persistent feedback) + +14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: I'm not sure if it's you, and I apologize if it's not, but please, to the extent that you're muting your line or moving it in some way that's creating that feedback -- I'm not sure, again, if it's you, but that seemed to be the pattern. Let's see if we can hold still. + +19 Ms. Pomerantz, let's try again. + +20 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +21 22 The government -- (Persistent feedback) + +23 24 THE COURT: It's not working. I'm hoping that the tech folks working with can help us correct this. + +25 Everybody mute for a moment. Everybody mute their + +THE COURT: OK. That is a follow-up in the voir dire, I believe. Let me double-check. + +lines. + +4 5 , can you indicate by text whether you can hear me. + +6 7 OK. And now I'll ask, Ms. Pomerantz, are you able to speak now? + +8 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. + +9 10 11 12 THE COURT: All right. I think we've done that so I'm going to have please keep everyone muted until I call on them. That seems, hopefully, to be able to resolve the issue. + +13 Go ahead, Ms. Pomerantz. + +14 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +15 16 17 The government is not aware of any reason why Audrey Strauss's name would come up at trial, so the government doesn't understand the basis for the inclusion. + +18 THE COURT: All right. + +19 20 I'll ask for Ms. Sternheim to be unmuted, please, and then mute Ms. Pomerantz while -- + +21 Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim. + +22 23 24 MS. STERNHEIM: I am unmuted. And Judge, I just want you to know I have not moved my phone, so I do not think that I contributed to the problem before. + +25 THE COURT: OK. + +(Persistent feedback) + +THE COURT: I think we've muted everyone. + +4 MS. STERNHEIM: I appreciate that, Judge. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Previously, with regard to the document, the Court referenced the fact that there have been many documents filed on the record that the public may have seen, and up until last week, every single document filed by the government bore the name of acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss. So to the extent that people have read those documents or seen the press conference, I think it is relevant and in no way prejudices the jury at all. In fact, it provides for the smoking out of any jurors who + +14 15 II. Strauss or have negative feelings toward her, which would ce impugned to the government. + +16 THE COURT: Thank you. + +17 Ms. Pomerantz. + +18 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +19 20 That explanation was helpful for us to understand. We don't object, your Honor. + +21 22 23 THE COURT: All right. We will add a line that says something like "or the former acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss." + +24 What else, Ms. Sternheim? + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: 32(d), we would ask that Alexander + +MS. STERNHEIM: But I'm glad it's cleared up. + +THE COURT: I apologize for my own efforts at technological problem solving. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Rossmiller be included. We believe his name will come up during the course of the trial, and he is a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: The government, again, isn't aware of any reason why his name would come up at trial, and so the government submits that it's not necessary to include him in the questionnaire. + +THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm not going to resolve that now. Since his name may come up, to be decided shortly, I don't see any prejudice, so I will allow it. We will add Alexander Rossmiller to the list of past -- or with any of the assistant United States attorneys, we could say "who have been involved with prosecuting this case." + +OK, Ms. Sternheim? + +MS. STERNHEIM: And the last, your Honor, has to do with No. 44. + +THE COURT: OK. + +MS. STERNHEIM: We would ask that you include the word "protested." I can read it fully if that's more helpful. + +THE COURT: Go ahead. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Would that help? + +THE COURT: Yes, please. + +MS. STERNHEIM: OK. "Have you or a family member ever lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +for or against any laws or regulations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment generally, or supported organizations that seek to address sex abuse or sexual harassment generally?" + +THE COURT: So you've changed the question beyond inserting "protested." + +MS. STERNHEIM: That's correct. + +THE COURT: Let me ask you to give that to me again. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Of course. + +"Have you or any family member ever lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws or regulations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment generally, or supported organizations that seek to address sex abuse or sexual harassment generally?" + +THE COURT: Just a moment. + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +The government doesn't have an issue with adding the word "protested," but I would submit that the additional language proposed by the defense makes the question a bit vague, and I think the Court's question, as framed, captures sufficient information and should get, I think, several responses from prospective jurors. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, I will accept "protested"; + +4 5 6 7 8 MS. STERNHEIM: Well, one word that is lacking in that first part is "support," and we believe it's important to identify individuals who have been supporters or involved in the Me Too or Times Up movements. I don't think the question as originally stated is broad enough to do that. + +9 THE COURT: Just a moment. + +10 11 12 13 14 How about "Have you or a family member ever supported, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws or regulations or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment?" + +15 Ms. Sternheim. + +16 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. That would suffice. + +17 THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. + +18 19 MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine with the government. Thank you, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: All right. We'll make that change. + +21 Anything else, Ms. Sternheim? + +22 MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. + +23 24 25 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, if I may, in light of the issue raised by the defense on 32(d), the government would request that as to 32(e) additional names of defense attorneys + +I think that's a helpful addition. I'm not sure what is gained, other than some potential confusion, out of the additional language you're suggesting. + +who are representing or have represented the defendant be included. + +4 Ms. Sternheim. + +5 6 7 MS. STERNHEIM: I'm not sure who the government is referring to. The counsel of record are appearing at this conference. No one else has been a member of the defense team. + +8 9 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I'm happy to respond to that. + +10 11 12 Mark is on the docket in this case, and David Marcus has also represented the defendant in connection with her various appeals. + +13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Right. And I've written about the extent to which Mr. Marcus is obligated to follow the relevant rules that apply to the defense in this case. I'm inclined, Ms. Sternheim, to agree for similar reasons to the inclusion of Mr. Rossmiller and include Mr. and Mr. Marcus. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I don't mean to draw the distinction that it is correct that at some point Mark was counsel who put in a notice of appearance. Mr. Marcus has not put in a notice of appearance. He was only coupled in when the government took issue with something that he had written that we had not endorsed. + +24 THE COURT: OK. I'm going to include the names. + +25 With respect to these three names -- the two for the + +THE COURT: OK. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +defense and the one for the government -- where they have people not part of the defense team, if you prefer to have those included in the list of names that we'll deal with after voir dire instead of indicated as current members of the defense or prosecution teams, I'm fine with that. + +Ms. Sternheim, do you prefer that? + +MS. STERNHEIM: I think we would. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. We'll do that so there's clarity. What we're asking in the questionnaire are the current members of the prosecution and defense teams, and to the extent we have to draw a list, broadly anyway, of any names of people who may be mentioned at trial and to the extent there are former counsel who are not participating immediately in the case or who are participating but haven't filed a notice of appearance, it's appropriate to include their names in the list to be sure that no one has any personal knowledge. + +We will do that. + +Anything else? + +Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: OK. I am going to make the changes that I + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I'm going to leave that as it is, because we'll do that as a follow-up in the voir dire. I should say all of this, a lot of work went into balancing the questions that are included in the questionnaire and the questions that are included in the voir dire because there are timing constraints on both, and so partly, I'm seeking to achieve a balance, and we need the questionnaire to be completable in time for the afternoon panel, as an example, and I think this is an appropriate question in any event for follow-up as I anticipate in the voir dire. + +13 14 15 16 That resolves the open questions. I'll make the changes. My draft will be docketed by the end of the week and the parties' joint proposed will be docketed by the end of the week as well in light of my prior ruling. + +17 18 Let me just get to one, I think, additional issue that I have. + +19 20 21 This is a logistical question that goes to my providing some oral preliminary instructions to the panel before they fill out the questionnaire. + +22 23 24 25 Typically, many judges would make, do make, a brief appearance in the jury assembly room where questionnaires are being filled out before the jurors fill out the questionnaire in order to emphasize the basic instructions and to see the + +suggested before docketing this. The only one left open was 24(b). Let me just take a quick look. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +judge there in person. I can do that, but there are space limitations to get enough potential jurors in the room to take these that we wouldn't be able to fit counsel table and the parties in the room. I would also have to repeat it six times, since we have two panels a day over three days. + +Another option that occurs to me is to record a short video, which the jury department would simply play in advance of each panel filling out the questionnaire. Either way, I would distribute the script of what I would say before I record it to counsel so that you can weigh in or object or make any changes. + +Let me hear your views as to that question regarding the logistics of some preliminary instructions from me. + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +The government has no preference and defers to what the Court prefers. + +THE COURT: OK. + +Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: I think that's a fine idea, Judge, so you don't have to repeat it six times. But I do have a question, since you just mentioned counsel table. Is there an expectation that counsel be present on the days that the questionnaires are completed? + +THE COURT: No. I think the only reason we would even + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +need to think about that is when judges do go give those preliminary instructions, as best I can tell, sometimes counsel are present, sometimes they're not. We wouldn't be able to accommodate in-person presence for that purpose. I don't think it would be necessary, so my suggestion is not to have the parties present for the filling out of the questionnaire. + +Do you disagree with that in any way, Ms. Sternheim? + +MS. STERNHEIM: No, Judge. I just wanted a clarification, because I have attended when judges have given those preliminary instructions. But we have no objection to the Court doing it in a recorded method. + +THE COURT: OK. + +Ms. Pomerantz, do you continue to be comfortable with that? + +MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. I will docket an anticipated script soon to get your input in a letter with any requests for changes, and then I will get that recorded and work with the tech folks in the D.E.'S Office and the jury department to be able to have that played before the questionnaire is filled out. + +That's what I have, counsel. Are there other matters to raise related to jury selection or otherwise at this time? + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you, + +4 5 What courtroom will the jury be selected, and where will the trial be held? + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: OK. Questionnaires will be filled out in the jury assembly room and in a ninth floor courtroom, as the district has been doing jury selection throughout Covid. So there would typically -- to the extent it happens in those rooms, typically there's a live feed between the jury assembly room and the ninth floor courtroom that will be able to hold, and I think we might even have an additional room to get up to the 100 people per panel. That's 500 Pearl, those spaces for the filling out of the questionnaire. + +15 16 17 I believe what we will do for the voir dire practice I described, it will take place on the fifth floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in courtroom -- + +18 My deputy asked me to pause and confirm. + +19 Ms. Maxwell, are you still on the line? + +20 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. + +21 THE COURT: OK. Great. + +22 Ms. Pomerantz. + +23 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. + +24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, you're still on. + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. + +your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Briefly, Judge. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: OK. We have everyone we need. + +The courtrooms on the fifth floor where jury selection will take place are, and my clerk's just going to make sure I get this right via text, 506 and 518, I believe. + +I'm waiting for the text. + +That's correct. 506 and 518. + +We have walked through the logistics of that so that we're able to walk the next juror -- No. 1, the jurors will be able to report to those rooms using nonpublic elevators and hallway, and the like, and we'll be able to move the juror from one room to the next via nonpublic space, so that should aid the process throughout. + +Trial, we believe, will be in 318. And I'm going to get confirmation of that. + +318 in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. + +Ms. Sternheim. + +MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. + +THE COURT: OK. And I will say we will, there will be an opportunity through the D.E.'S Office, and my will reach out to counsel on both sides, an opportunity for walk-throughs of the spaces in advance of trial. + +And I think that's it. + +Ms. Sternheim, any other questions? + +MS. STERNHEIM: No, Judge, but I do recall, having tried a case before your Honor in 318, that there are + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COURT: We've spent a fair amount of time talking about that, and the acoustics won't be as good as they would be in 500 Pearl, but there are other very good reasons to be where we'll be. I can assure you that the D.E.'S Office and my will continue to work to make it as good as it can possibly be in an old courtroom. But I feel confident, based on what we've done so far and what I hope will continue to be the case, that it's going to work well. + +11 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to just raise one issue, which is that the government is aware of certain courtroom sketches of Jeffrey Epstein at, I believe, 500 Pearl, and so just wanted to raise that for the Court and understanding that such sketches would be removed before the selection process. + +18 19 THE COURT: OK. I think that's a good suggestion, and I will talk to the D.E.'S Office. + +20 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you very much, your Honor. + +21 THE COURT: Anything else? + +22 Ms. Pomerantz. + +23 MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing further. Thank you. + +24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing further. I do thank the + +acoustical issues that I would hope might be addressed by the tech department. + +government for raising that. It was something we were going to raise. The pictures, at least the last time I saw, were in the corridor right by the elevator. + +THE COURT: Yes. We'll get that down for sure. + +Our next conference is November 1, and I think that's all I have for now. + +Thank you, everyone. + +We're adjourned. + +(Adjourned) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d053756e0956f866b8da806d25e86eccc0f6a32 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811/EFTA02834811.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1514 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834811.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 43, + "chars": 54282, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.1, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "13 \nAPPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 376.75274658203125 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 376.75274658203125 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 400.83416748046875 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 400.83416748046875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 128 + ], + [ + "Line", + 65 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834811" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ada23e42cfab779eb2d4401a7543de3628a0037 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AM + +USA / Plaintiff(s) + +Case No.: 20 Cr. 330 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant(s) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT + +CONFERENCE 10/21/21 Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a held on has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter. + +ganley + +Court Reporter/Transcriber Date \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56069602811caea77df910e9bc60d19c3db7a078 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854/EFTA02834854.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834854.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1435, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 96.363037109375 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 96.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.912, + 308.6015625 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 308.6015625 + ], + [ + 448.5048828125, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 168.912, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834854" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91534e69b98a509da15d307455477e04d4e4bfc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.md @@ -0,0 +1,382 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 11/15/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Attached is a copy of the final jury questionnaire, which is the same as Dkt. No. 365, docketed on October 22, 2021, except that it incorporates the redline changes. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 15, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()\_\_\_\_\_ +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ............................ + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +-v- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +# INSTRUCTION SHEET + +X + +X + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +JURY QUESTIONNAIRE + +Dear Juror: + +Please call (212) 805 0158 on November 15, 2021 after 6:00 p.m. for further reporting instructions. Please bring this instruction sheet with you to the courthouse if you are instructed to return. + +!INSERT JUROR INFORMATION SHEET FROM JURY DEPARTMENT! + +### **PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS** + +Please read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of **each** page. **Do not write your name on the questionnaire.** Please answer each and every question fully. Some questions have more than one part. + +**YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.** This questionnaire is designed to help simplify and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury. + +Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a question then write, "I don't know." There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, only truthful answers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone. It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions. + +If you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page. + +**DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT.** You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers (except in the presence of the Court), your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail, any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet. + +**DO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE.** Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this case. + +Your name will not be disclosed or connected to this questionnaire beyond the Judge and the parties in this case. However, if you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the Judge and parties, please indicate the particular question number at the end of the questionnaire. + +## SUMMARY OF THE CASE + +The Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday, November 29, 2021. Although it is never possible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected to last approximately six weeks. + +This is a criminal case. The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged in an Indictment with various criminal offenses. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges—referred to as "counts"—that the Government intends to prove to the July at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. + +The charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the Defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor. + +The Indictment charges the Defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two charges the Defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three charges the Defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four charges the Defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges the Defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the Defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same. + +Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. + +### SCHEDULE + +Potential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required. + +The trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve). + +If you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court. + +All jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service. + +### PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: + +| | ABILITY TO SERVE | +|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 1. | Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| la. | If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names who you are): | +| 2. | Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 2a. | If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names | +| | who you are): | +| 3. | Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 4. | Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 4a. | If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience: | + +| 5. | Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get | +|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 5a. | If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or | +| 6. | Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 7. | Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you | +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 7a. | If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve | +| 8. | Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| Ra. | If yes, please explain: | + +| 9. | Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a verdict in a criminal case? | +|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | Yes No | +| 9a. | If yes, please explain: | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | + +| 10. | Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to | +|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 10a. | If no, please explain: | +| I I. | The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all serve on this jury? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 1 I a. | If no, please explain: | + +| 12. | The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify, and that a juror cannot hold it against the defendant if she chooses not to testify. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury? | Yes No | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| +| 12a. | If no, please explain: |
| +| 13. | A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented in Court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury? | Yes No | +| 13a. | If no, please explain: |
| +| 14. | Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus the issue of punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury? | Yes No | +| 14a. | If no, please explain: |
| + +| 15. | You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| I5a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 16. | You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 16a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 17. | As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | + +| 17a. | If yes, please explain: | +|------|-------------------------| +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | + +| | PRIOR JURY SERVICE | +|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 18. | Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 19. | Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | + +| EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM | | +|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 20. |

Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +| 20a. |

If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No | +| 20b. |

If yes to 20a, please explain:

| +| 21. |

Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?

Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | + +| 21a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as | +|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 2 I b. | If yes to 21a, please explain: | +| 22. | Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry | +| | ❑ Yes (self) ❑ Yes (friend or family member) ❑ No | +| 22a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as | +| | a fair and impartial juror in this case? | +| | o Yes o No | +| 22b. | If yes to 22a, please explain: | +| 23. | Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a | +| | o Yes (self) o Yes (friend or family member) o No | +| 23a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 23b. | If yes to 23a, please explain: | + +| 24. | Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any grand jury, state or federal, or any other investigation? | Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 24a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? | Yes No | +| 24b. | If yes to 24a, please explain: | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| 25. | Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime? | | +| | Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No | | +| 25a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case? | | +| | Yes No | | +| 25b. | If yes to 25a, please explain: | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| | _____ | | +| 26. | Have you, or has any member of your family or any of your close friends—either as individuals or in the course of their business affairs—ever been a party to a legal action or dispute with the United States, or with any of the officers, departments, agencies, or employees of the United States, including the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, or the NYPD? | | +| | Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) | | + +| 26a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as | +|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 26b. | If yes to 26a, please explain: | +| 27. | Have you, or has any member of your family, ever had a dispute concerning money | +| | ❑ Yes (self) ❑ Yes (friend or family member) ❑ No | +| 27a. | If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as | +| | o Yes o No | +| 27b. | If yes to 27a, please explain: | + +| | OTHERS | +|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 28. | Do you or any member of your family or a close friend work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts? | +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 28a. | If yes, please explain: | + +| 28b. | If yes to 28, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in | +|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | o Yes o No | +| 28c. | If yes to 28b, please explain: | +| 29. | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 29a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 29b. | If yes to 29, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in | +| | o Yes o No | +| 29c. | If yes to 29b, please explain: | +| 30. | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 30a. | If yes, please explain: | + +| 30b. | If yes to 30, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | o Yes o No | +| 30c. | If yes to 30b, please explain: | +| 31. | Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or | +| | o Yes o No | +| 31a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 31b. | If yes to 31, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in | +| | o Yes o No | +| 31c. | If yes to 31b, please explain: | +| 32. | Do you have any opinion of the U.S. A t i 0 r le i l 's , Office for the Southern District of | +| | New York, the U.S. Attorney Damian or the former Acting U.S. Attorney | +| | o Yes o No | + +| 32a. | If yes, please explain: | +|------|-------------------------| +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | +| | _____ | + +# PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CASE PARTICIPANTS + +| 33. | The next subset of questions asks whether you or any member of your family or a close friend personally knows or has past or present dealings with individuals involved in this case. To "personally know" means to have some direct or personal knowledge or connection to the following individuals. If you have only heard the names through media or social media, for example, that is not personal knowledge. | | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +| 33a. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with the Defendant in this case, Ghislaine Maxwell, or her family members?

Yes No | | +| 33b. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with Jeffrey Epstein?

Yes No | | +| 33c. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian [REDACTED], the former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss, or anyone else who works for or used to work for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York?

Yes No | | +| 33d. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with any of the Assistant United States Attorneys who are prosecuting this case:

Maurene Comey Yes No
Alison Moe Yes No
Lara Pomerantz Yes No
Andrew Rohrbach Yes No | | + +| 33e. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with any of the defense attorneys or law firms who are representing the Defendant:

Christian Everdell of █ & Gresser LLP Yes No
Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon, █ and █ , P.C. Yes No
Laura Menninger of Haddon, █ and █ , P.C. Yes No
Bobbi Sternheim of Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Yes No | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 33f. | Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with the United States District Court Judge who is presiding over this case, Alison J. Nathan, or anyone who works on her staff?

Yes No | +| 33g. | If you answered "yes" to any of the above sub-questions (33a, 33b, 33c, 33d, 33e, or 33f), please explain whom you know, how you know the individual(s), and whether your relationship with that person might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ | + +| KNOWLEDGE OF CASE AND PEOPLE | | +|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| |

This case has been widely reported in the national and local media. There is nothing wrong with having heard something about this case. It is important to answer all of the following questions truthfully and fully.

| +| 34. |

Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about [REDACTED]

Yes No Unsure

| +| 34a. |

If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you heard about Ms. Maxwell from a media source, please identify the media source by name:

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| 35. |

Have you personally formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of the crimes charged as a result of anything you have heard, read or seen?

Yes      No      Unsure

Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell

| +| 35a. |

If yes or unsure, please summarize your opinion:

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

| + +| 36. | Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including anything about criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell, have you formed any opinions about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes No Unsure

Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell | +|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 36a. | If yes or unsure, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____
_____
_____
_____ | +| 37. | Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein?

Yes No Unsure | +| 37a. | If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard ( e.g. , a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you heard about Mr. Epstein from a media source, please identify the media source by name:

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ | +| 38. | Have you verbally stated or posted your opinion on social media or online about Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein?

Yes No

Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein/Ms. Maxwell | +| 38a. | If yes, when and where did you state or post your opinion?

_____
_____
_____
_____ | + +| 39. |

Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Jeffrey Epstein, have you formed any opinions about Mr. Epstein that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Yes                      No                      Unsure
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein

| +|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 39a. |

If yes or unsure, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case:

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| 40. |

If you have heard about Jeffrey Epstein, do you think Ms. Maxwell's alleged association with Jeffrey Epstein will make it difficult for you to fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented at trial and render a verdict based solely on the evidence?

Yes                      No                      Unsure
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell and/or Jeffrey Epstein

| +| 40a. |

If yes or unsure, please explain:

_____

_____

_____

_____

| +| 41. |

Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including anything about criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell, would you be able to follow the Court's instruction to put that information out of your mind and decide this case based only on the evidence presented at trial?

Yes                      No                      Unsure
Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell

| + +| 41a. | If no or unsure, please explain:

_____

_____

_____ | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| + +| | NATURE OF CHARGES | +|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 42. | During the trial, you will hear evidence alleging sex crimes against underage girls. you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? | +| | o Yes o No | +| 42a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 43. | Do you have any specific views or feelings concerning laws regarding the age at | +| | o Yes o No | +| 43a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 44. | Do you have any opinion about the enforcement of the federal sex trafficking laws from being fair and impartial in this case? | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | + +| 44a. | If yes, please explain: | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 45. | Have you or a family member ever supported, lobbied, petitioned, protested, or | +| | o Yes o No | +| 45a. | If yes, please explain when and what you or your family member did: | +| 45b. | If your answer to 45 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to | +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 45c. | If yes to 45b, please explain: | +| 46. | The witnesses in this case may include law enforcement witnesses. Would you have | +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 46a. | If yes, please explain: | + +| 47. | Witnesses in this case may testify claiming sexual abuse or sexual assault. Would | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | ❑ Yes ❑ No | +| 47a. | If yes, please explain: | +| 48. | Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, | +| | ❑ Yes (self) ❑ Yes (friend or family member) ❑ No | +| 48a. | If yes, without listing names, please explain: | +| 48b. | If your answer to 48 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to | +| | ❑ Yes o No | +| 48c. | If yes to 48b. please explain: | + +| 49. | Have you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment, | +|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | o Yes (self) o Yes (friend or family member) o No | +| 49a. | If yes, without listing names, please explain: | +| 49b. | If your answer to 49 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to | +| | o Yes o No | +| 49c. | If yes to 49b, please explain: | +| 50. | Is there any other experience that you or anyone close to you has had that may | +| | o Yes o No | +| 50a. | If yes, please explain: | + +| CLOSING QUESTION | | +|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| 51. |

Do you wish for any particular answers to remain confidential and to not go beyond the Judge, counsel, and the Defendant, because the answer would embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy?

Yes No

If yes, please list which question number(s):

| + +## DECLARATION + +I, Juror Number declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers set forth in this Jury Questionnaire are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have not discussed my answers with others, or received assistance in completing the questionnaire. + +Signed this day of November, 2021 + +DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME. PLEASE SIGN USING YOUR JUROR NUMBER. + +You may use these pages to finish any answers that you could not fit in the spaces provided above. If you write anything below, please indicate the number of the relevant question. + +|

| | +|----------|--| +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | +| | | \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..163239cce445c0b98beddb1eb1310fb281f83234 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855/EFTA02834855.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1518 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834855.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 32, + "chars": 59297, + "elapsed_seconds": 35.5, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 100.44 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.44 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTION SHEET", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 373.2565612792969, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 373.2565612792969, + 377.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 377.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 397.79999999999995, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 212.36399999999998, + 88.28999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUMMARY OF THE CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 382.439453125, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 382.439453125, + 170.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 170.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SCHEDULE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 75.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 351.7061767578125, + 75.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 351.7061767578125, + 89.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 89.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 453.1233825683594, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 453.1233825683594, + 89.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 89.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 283.968, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 283.968, + 208.17000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 157.89600000000002, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 527.544, + 351.53999999999996 + ], + [ + 527.544, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 157.89600000000002, + 364.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CASE PARTICIPANTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.048, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 518.5264282226562, + 194.39999999999998 + ], + [ + 518.5264282226562, + 209.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 209.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.744, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 419.83200000000005, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 419.83200000000005, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 208.98 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 353.5515441894531, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 353.5515441894531, + 89.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 89.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Form", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834855" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20f4ddfaa2aeb5aca0da0b94d973594e4f0906cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +Voir dire for this matter is set to begin on November 16, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 518 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. In accordance with its prior Order, the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family. Dkt. No. 344. + +In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, a number of pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper as managed by the District Executive's Office. Press will also be able to access the proceeding in dedicated overflow press rooms. The public will be able to access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 110 and 906 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the proceeding. The use of all) electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited. + +the Court anticipates significant seating capacity in the overflow rooms for members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. Response to COV1D-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must + +also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see https://wwsv.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 15, 2021 New York, New York A4 P + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d31ca3cccbe0a8e11567046b5497c5154b919257 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/EFTA02834887.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2322, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834887" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ee6789b266a4583dd74577eae590b2246d4382e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834887/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e0800e0210fdd20bd376c9ac2807e79d7fbd2bf808ef563a08a3ba523725022b +size 11276 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..365c9b6d02a406090f48adfbe7c393b720262802 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 • Cell New York, NY 10007 888.587-4737 • Fax bcstentheim@maccom + +November 15, 2021 + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States Circuit Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +> Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write to inform the Court of the recurring problem regarding late delivery of mail by the government to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. Today, November 15, Ms. Maxwell received disclosures from the government under cover letter dated November 6. This is an excessively long delay, especially since trial commences in two weeks. Please direct the government to send disclosures to Ms. Maxwell via Federal Express Next Day Delivery on the same day they are provided to counsel and to provide tracking information to counsel. + +Your assistance in resolving this persistent problem is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +cc: All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a38d8fefa01dffe1b6e569aff9962fcbc8afa3c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889/EFTA02834889.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834889.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1004, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 52.6375732421875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 52.6375732421875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834889" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2af318e33408cfa339f53d2d2afe168024d7e28 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.md @@ -0,0 +1,3987 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +Before: + +x + +20 CR 330 (AJN) + +New York, N.Y. November 1, 2021 11:05 a.m. + +HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, + +District Judge + +## APPEARANCES + +DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ALISON MOE MAURENE COMEY ANDREW ROHRBACH LARA POMERANTZ Assistant United States Attorney + +& GRESSER Attorneys for Defendant CHRISTIAN EVERDELL + +HADDON Attorneys for Defendant JEFFREY PAGLIUCA LAURA MENNINGER + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorney for Defendant + +4 5 6 7 MS. MOE: Good morning, your Honor, Alison Moe for the government, joined at counsel table by Lara Pomerantz, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach and Sunny Drescher, a paralegal specialist in our office. + +8 THE COURT: Good morning. + +9 10 11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: Good morning, Judge Nathan, Bobby C. Sternheim appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Next to me at counsel table also present are part of the defense team, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger and Christian Everdell. + +13 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. + +14 Good morning, Ms. Maxwell. Please be seated. + +15 16 17 18 I am told, consistent with the protocols, that I can remove my mask while seated here at the bench, and counsel, when they're at the podium, if you wish to speak from the podium, you may remove your mask. So I will do that. + +19 20 21 22 We're here today for a pretrial conference in this matter. Trial is scheduled to commence with the jury questionnaire process beginning this Thursday, November 4. As I have indicated, we will begin trial on November 29. + +23 24 25 As I see it, the primary purpose of today's conference is largely to address the parties' motions in limine and then discuss some additional logistical issues. + +(Case called) + +DEPUTY CLERK: Counsel, please state your name for the record, starting with the government. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Counsel, I'm prepared to turn to the motions first, unless there's any reason to deviate from that. + +Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +MS. STERNHEIM: Not at this time, Judge. + +THE COURT: All right. I am in receipt of the parties' various motions in limine, responses in opposition, and replies in support. I did require the parties to file the papers on the public docket with their proposed redactions so that the public could have immediate access to the documents. + +I'll rule on the proposed redactions as quickly as I can, including some that I will discuss today, but we will use the same process going forward so as not to delay public access to the bulk of materials related to pretrial filings. And I thank counsel for that, as well as the submission to me of the unredacted versions with the color coding indicating requested redactions. + +The government filed 11 motions in limine and the defense 13, so there's a lot of ground to cover. I am prepared to discuss all the motions now with the exception of the Daubert motion. As I indicated in an order that was docketed this morning, I will hold a Daubert hearing before resolving that motion. + +As to the rest, some I want to hear further from the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +parties on issues, some I'm prepared to resolve without further discussion. For all of them, to the extent I can resolve them or give guidance today, I will. In some cases, by necessity, I will reserve. + +Of course, as with all in limine motions, those are preliminary rulings based on what I know now about the anticipated evidence and arguments. My preliminary rulings are to guide the parties in advance of trial, to guide opening statements and the like. Facts on the ground, of course, can change during trial and you must reraise issues if you think the other side has opened the door or that premises of certain pretrial holdings no longer hold. + +With that, I'm going to move slightly out of order and begin with the defendant's 12th motion in limine because it involves terminology questions that apply throughout. After that motion I will address the government's motions in order and then address the remaining defense motions in order. + +In the defendant's 12th motion in limine, the defense asked the Court to preclude use of the terms "victim" and "minor victim." The motion is denied. Government counsel can use the word "victim" if they're referring to someone alleged to be a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and they may use the word "minor" to describe individuals that were, at the relevant time period, under the age of consent. + +As my colleague, Judge Furman, has explained, + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +precluding the term "victim" is both unnecessary and impractical. United States v. Dupigny, 18 CR 528, transcript of October 17, 2019, Docket No. 198 at 50. It is appropriate for the government to use the terms as representative of its litigating position. If the government does this in any way that is atypical or unduly prejudicial, I will revisit. + +Defense only cites out-of-circuit or state court decisions for the proposition that those terms are inherently prejudicial and harm the presumption of innocence. Numerous courts of appeal disagree with that argument, particularly when the presentation of evidence and the court's instructions "taken as a whole clarify the government's burden of proving all elements of the crime." United States v. Washburn, 444 F.3d, 1007, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006); see also, Server v. Mizell, 902 F.2d 611, 615, (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Granbois, 119 F.App'x 35, 38-39 (9th Cir. 2004). + +Defendant's lone district court opinion does not tip the balance of this authority. I will, of course, instruct the jury repeatedly that the defendant is presumed innocent and that it is the government's burden and the government's burden alone to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those instructions will eliminate any potential prejudice. See again Judge Furman's decision in Dupigny, Docket No. 198 at 49 + +That matter resolved, I will turn to the government's first motion. This goes to pseudonyms. The government moves + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 USC Section 3771, to permit certain witnesses and certain non-testifying witnesses to be referred to by pseudonyms. And there is also the issue of redacting related exhibits that contain the names or specifically identifying information. Specifically, the government requests that eight individuals be referred to by pseudonyms or their first name. + +The defense is already aware of the identities of all of these individuals, and as the government proposes it, the jury will also be aware of the individuals' real identities. The request only implicates how those individuals are referred to in open court. + +This is well-tread territory, and I will grant the request for the following reasons: + +The burden to justify this type of request, of course, starts with the government. It "must provide a reason for the limitation." United States v. Marcus, which is 2007 WL 330388 at \*1, an Eastern District decision citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1283 (2d Cir. 1970). + +I agree with the government that limiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences. The Court has an obligation under the Crime Victims Rights Act to take certain measures at trial to protect the dignity and privacy of alleged victims. 18 USC + +4 5 6 7 8 It is quite common for alleged victims, both in cases that have garnered media attention and those involving allegations of sex abuse, to testify or be referred to by pseudonyms or first names. Courts have allowed this whether or not the alleged victims are minors or adults or adults testifying about abuse that allegedly occurred when they were minors. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Let me give a bit of a string cite here. See, for example, United States v. Kelly, No. 19 CR 286, which is a high publicity trial involving adults testifying about sex abuse as minors, and that's in the Eastern District of New York; United States v. Raniere, No. 18 CR 204, a high-publicity trial involving at least one adult testifying about sex abuse as minor; United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 CR 528, involving sex trafficking, United States v. Kelly, No. 7 CR 374, and that could be found at 2008 WL 5068820, which is an Eastern District case involving an adult testifying about sex abuse as a minor; United States v. Graham, No. 14 CR 500, found at 2015 WL 6161292 (S.D.N.Y., October 2015), that involved adults testifying about sex trafficking as minors; United States v. Gardner, No. 16 CR 20135, found at 2016 WL 5404207, an Eastern District case from 2016 involving adults and adults testifying about sex abuse as a minor, and collecting similar cases. + +25 + +Section 3771(a)(8). + +The practice has been widely permitted because + +4 5 6 7 8 Given the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged, such publicity may cause further harassment or embarrassment, and other alleged victims of sex crimes may be deterred from coming forward. See, , 17 CR 281, (E.D.N.Y. 2017), Docket No. 34. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 Limiting the disclosure of alleged victims' identities in this case furthers these important interests. The same is true with the identities of certain witnesses, although not alleged victims themselves, because the disclosure of their identities would necessarily reveal the identities of the alleged victims. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm not persuaded by defense counsel's arguments to the contrary. First, the defense notes that Ms. Maxwell does not pose a threat to any of the witnesses. That is plainly true, and the government does not argue or suggest or allege otherwise, but just because that reason for limiting disclosures is absent in this case does not eliminate the possibility of other justifications. And again, there is a need here to prevent undue embarrassment, harassment from the press and third parties, and any resistance of others to come forward and report alleged abuse. Cases establish that this is sufficient + +requiring alleged victims to publicly provide their names could chill their willingness to testify for fear of having their personal histories publicized. Raniere, Docket No. 622 at 32. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Moreover, any potential prejudice in this regard can be cured with an appropriate instruction explaining that the reason for the precaution is regard for the witnesses' and alleged victims' privacy, and that no inference can or should be drawn against the defendant because of these precautions + +My colleagues in this district and elsewhere have used such an instruction in similar cases. The defense's concern that this sort of instruction affords "Court-sanctioned sympathy and credibility" is unfounded. My instructions on the law will clearly and repeatedly instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and their sole role in assessing witness credibility + +Nor am I persuaded by the defense's arguments that the fact that some alleged victims have previously publicly disclosed some of their allegations obviates the need to limit disclosure. As another district court has held, "just because some victims' names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experience are already available." Raniere, Docket No. 662 at 34, n. 17 + +As I acknowledged in my protective order for this case, "Not all accusations and public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein." Docket No. 37 in this case at 2. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The government anticipates that the alleged victims will "testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning illegal sexual abuse. Thus, there's good reasons to limit public disclosure of their names and specifically identifying information during trial in this highly publicized case involving highly sensitive issues." + +Since there is a valid reason to limit disclosure in this case, the defense must proffer a particularized need for the disclosure of the relevant information, which is weighed against the risks to the witnesses. I'll cite here, for example, United States v. Marcus, again citing the Second Circuit case in United States v. Marti. + +As both parties acknowledge, the government's request potentially implicates the defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause which guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Second Circuit has identified two central interests defendants have in the public airing of identifying information about witnesses. Again referencing the Marti case, 421 F.2d 1263. + +The first is not relevant here because, as I have noted, the defense is aware of the alleged victims' and witnesses' identities. + +The defendant argues that the second interest, however, is implicated. Namely, defense may need the witness + +4 5 6 7 8 to reveal identifying information because knowledge of that information by the jury might be important to its deliberations as to the witness's credibility or knowledgability. That's quoting the Marti case again. In particular, the defense argues that revealing the alleged victims' and witnesses' identities is necessary to probe the nature of the alleged victims' occupations as relevant to the credibility and elicit certain impeachment evidence. + +9 10 11 12 I agree that such cross-examination cannot be unduly limited and the government concedes the same. The government's motions in limine 15, n. 6; government reply at 17 to 18. And I will ensure that it is not. + +13 14 15 16 17 My decision today grants the government's request to limit the public disclosure of the alleged victims and some witnesses' names and other specifically identifying information, such as the specific names of current and past employers, names of family members and addresses. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Limiting disclosure of the specifically identifying information does not limit the anticipated cross-examination that the defense described in its papers. All lines of inquiry the defense outlined in its response are available without disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically identifying information. For example, the defense can probe the genre, nature, and trajectories of witnesses' careers without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +cross-examination should not include specifically identifying information, and counsel must act responsibly doing so. If, after good faith effort in that regard is made and the defense at some point feels they have hit a wall and can articulate a specific need with respect to a particular line of questioning, they can reraise the issue with opposing counsel and with me. + +So that's my ruling on that motion. That said, I do strongly encourage the government to speak candidly with the anticipated witnesses so that they're clear eyed about what this process will entail, the fact that cross-examination will not be curtailed beyond the specific identifying information that form the basis of the government's request, and the possibility that despite these measures their identities may become known and revealed to the public. + +Should any of those witnesses or the government choose not to proceed by pseudonym, the government shall let defense counsel and the Court know. In the meantime, the government and defense counsel shall confer about names that will be used and any additional process for facilitating the clear presentation of evidence. The Court will adopt a clear and straightforward approach and the parties are admonished to come to agreement on the use of pseudonyms and/or first names. + +First assignment, there will be others, by November 10 the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court under seal explaining the nomenclature that they propose be employed with + +4 5 6 7 As I mentioned, I do agree with the government that a limiting instruction explaining the reasons for the precautions is appropriate. In light of my ruling, I expect the parties to confer and jointly propose such a limiting instruction. Homework No. 2. This shall also be filed jointly by November 10, and that can be filed on ECF. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 There are some logistics of voir dire related to this. Some of my colleagues have used the list method that the government proposes on page 15, footnote 5 of their motion, and I agree that this proposal makes sense. Once again, the parties shall confer and submit on ECF by November 10 a joint proposal for any logistical issues related to this for voir dire. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 That leaves the issue of sealing unredacted exhibits and the limited redacting of exhibits containing specific personal identifying information. The government shall manage the logistics of this process throughout trial. So think through and include in your November 10 submission on ECF the specifics of this part of the process so that the trial exhibits can be contemporaneously marked with the appropriate limited redactions, and the government will need to manage this on an ongoing basis throughout trial. + +24 25 Government's motion 2, the alleged victims' prior consistent statements. So this goes to the admissibility of + +respect to the actual identity of each witness. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +any alleged victims' prior consistent statements. As I can tell from the cross papers here, I don't think there's an issue to resolve now. The government's reply notes it's not seeking to admit any particular prior consistent statements at this time. + +Ms. Moe, let me confirm there will be no mention of any such statements in the government's openings, is that correct? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Okay. Of course, the admissibility of any prior consistent statement hinges on defense counsel's arguments and the purpose for which any statements are being offered. + +I think the parties agree on the applicable law here. If this does become an issue, as they have outlined in their papers, Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) excludes from the rule against hearsay a witness's prior consistent statement offered to rebut the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Of course, the prior consistent statement, should the government seek to have any admitted, must have been made before the motive to fabricate that's alleged arose, or else it has no relevance in rebutting the fabrication charge. Tome v. U.S., 513 U.S. 150, (1995). + +The rule's second subsection excludes prior consistent statements from the rule against hearsay when they're offered + +4 5 to rehabilitate a witness attacked on another ground. It's 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). For example, the statement could be admitted to explain what would otherwise appear to be an inconsistency in the witness's statement and rebut a charge of faulty memory. United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, (2d Cir. 2020). + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 If it becomes relevant, the government may offer prior statements before the witness testifies if the defense attacks the credibility in opening statements and it's clear that the witness will be subject to cross-examination. United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, (2d Cir. 2019). That's restating the applicable law here that the parties appear to agree to in the briefs. The government doesn't anticipate any such effort to offer such statements at this time and won't mention any in opening beyond that. + +15 16 Is there anything specific to flag or discuss here, from the government's perspective? + +17 MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you. + +18 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +19 20 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Laura Menninger. None for the defense at this time. Thank you. + +21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +22 23 24 25 The government's 3 and 4, which I'm going to group, the government seeks to preclude evidence and arguments by the defense, (1) about the investigation in Florida, including the non-prosecution agreement, (2) that Ms. Maxwell was not charged + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell. + +The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles set by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. + +First, because the government has no duty to employ, in the course of a single investigation, any particular investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the discussion here. + +Second, arguments that the government had an improper motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997); see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011). + +Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions. Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- "inquire into its relevance and probative value to the respective case." United States v. , 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also, United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020). + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Fourth, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial. United States v. , 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, (1974). + +With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will require additional facts and the context of trial to decide, but I think it's important for me to give guidance. + +Based on the papers before me, I provide the following guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. + +In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that an informant's statements to police were material for purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be + +used to "attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation." + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +That the statement suggested the holding has only limited relevance here. First, at issue in Kyles was probative because it defendant's innocence, not because it was evidence of the reasons for the charging decision or the investigation's timeline. + +Second, the Second Circuit in v. narrowly construed the holding in Kyles by clarifying that it "addresses only the prosecution's obligations to disclose Brady material" and "provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses." v. (2d Cir. 2011). 640 F.3d 501, 512, n. 11 + +Now the Second Circuit's decision in does, however, suggest that some arguments about the thoroughness of the investigation are probative of guilt in some circumstances. In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Other courts in this Circuit have described challenges Lo the thoroughness of the investigation as a "common method of undermining a prosecution" by, for example, cross-examining officers on which leads they followed and which they did not. See, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at \*7, that's the District of the Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113 F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, "The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to" the principle that the government's failure to use particular investigative techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). + +21 22 23 24 25 The other two cases the defense cites, neither of which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession was material because it suggested that another likely suspect + +the other individual. , 640 F.3d, 511-12. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +did not have an alibi and suggested that a photo lineup was unduly suggestive. 799 F.2d 593, (10th Cir. 1986). The court stated that, if disclosed, "the defense could have cross-examined the detectives about their decision to use the photographs" that they did as well about their failure to corroborate the other suspect's alibi. + +And the defense cites another Brady violation in Lindsey v. where the Fifth Circuit found that a police report was material under Brady because it showed key witnesses to a murder had changed their story, which on cross-examination would have meant the destruction of the witness's identification and the discrediting in some degree of the police methods employed in assembling the case against the defendant. Lindsey v. , 769 F.2d 1034, (5th Cir. 1985) + +These two examples of focused cross-examination to impeach a witness that testified to the defendant's guilt and thereby throw the product of the government's investigation into doubt are far afield from the specifics of what the defense proposed here. In its brief, the defense seeks to affirmatively -- and I will quote from their brief -- "call FBI case agents as witnesses" to ask who they talked to, what documents they subpoenaed, and when. See, defense's response at 40. But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga, the government's use or non-use of certain investigative techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of the charges. + +The defense also seeks to elicit evidence of the public outcry and scrutiny that preceded the decision to charge the defendant. The defense refers to public statements made by assistant United States attorneys -- not those appearing in the case -- to suggest that Ms. Maxwell was charged for improper reasons. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +The Court finds that this specific proffered evidence is irrelevant to the charged conduct and, therefore, inadmissible. + +To the extent that the defense's affirmative evidence in this regard would have some marginal probative value, it is substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice. See, for example, United States v. 12 CR 214, 2014 WL 198813 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), affirmed by the Second Circuit, 658 Fed. Appx. 600. + +Here's the reason for that 403 analysis: + +First, investigative details are likely to confuse the jury about the proper standard for determining Ms. Maxwell's guilt by suggesting that the government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to whether guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I will instruct jurors, as is standard, to the effect that the government is not on trial. And that standard charge can be found in many cases. Admitting testimony on the investigation would confuse the jury once it's received that instruction. + +Second, these lines of argument are likely to + +substantially confuse and delay the trial. The evidence 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 outlined in the defense's papers, including who was interviewed and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of investigations in two different states and different time periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial. Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question, of course. The government would likely present a contrary account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law enforcement did over the course of years. This prejudice would substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might be gained from such a far-flung endeavor. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was "hasty" and not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt. That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of credibility of the witnesses presented at trial. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from Attorney General William Barr and the like. + +25 The evidence presented by the government in this trial + +is the relevant basis for the jury's determination of guilt or 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 innocence. Why and when the government conducted the investigation is not relevant. If the defense believes the government has a legally improper motive for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell or somehow fabricating evidence or suborning perjury or the like, the Second Circuit has made clear that the proper remedy is to file a motion for the Court to consider. See, Regan, 103 F.3d 1082. Absent that, the law is clear that for purposes of the jury, "the government is not on trial." United States v. Knox, 687 F.App'x 51, (2d Cir. 2017). + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Moreover, evidence of motive would be highly prejudicial. For the reasons I explained a moment ago, it would confuse jurors as to the proper standard of guilt to be applied in the case. Indeed, the defense's outlined evidence of improper motives is strongly suggestive of jury nullification because it suggests a vindictive or political prosecution which is rightly a matter reserved to the Court. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Calling witnesses to testify to the government's motive would substantially expand the scope of trial, rely likely on hearsay and other inadmissible evidence. So what motivated a particular investigative step or charging decision of course doesn't have a black or answer, and the defense would have one story and the government another, neither of which would assist of the jury in deciding Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of the charges here based on of the government's + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him. The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged victim. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or others and related financial incentive are fair grounds. Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive. And if it were the case that any witness were to receive testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled, the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of + +ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. + +New York. + +Similarly, no matter how a witness who has a settlement or financial incentive testifies, those benefits are not received under the NPA, so I don't see any theory of bias that would be relevant that the defense has articulated with respect to the NPA. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moreover, even if there were some relevance, it would be substantially outweighed by a significant risk of 403 prejudice from introducing the NPA. The jury would need to be instructed on what the non-prosecution agreement is, and would need to have its terms explained. In particular, NPA, of course, is controversial and complicated and has a complicated background. There's a risk of undue delay, juror confusion, and improper suggestions of sympathy or nullification made to the jury on the basis of the NPA. + +16 17 18 19 I will be clear, it's not clear to me the NPA could never be admitted, but the rationale now provided by the defense in its papers does not justify admission based on the balancing of 401 and 403 factors. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth guidance: The government's charging decisions are likely not relevant and therefore inadmissible. The government didn't indict Ms. Maxwell by the end of the Florida investigation, and the government didn't indict Ms. Maxwell when it indicted Jeffrey Epstein originally in New York. As the Second Circuit stated in , charging decisions can be + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In the court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that testified at the defendant's trial. + +As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt, but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little probative value that the Court can see as to this case. + +Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require significant time to explore and because juror confusion would be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible evidence. More importantly, unlike in , those officials' assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +to the jury's decision now, which is whether there is evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the government will put its case to the jury. + +Now there is a difference between admitting a witness' prior statements for impeachment purposes, which is protected by the confrontation clause, and admitting prior charging decisions. In a case analogous to this one on this issue, United States v. Borrero, another district court judge held that a defendant could permissibly cross-examine a witness about their prior statement to law enforcement in which they accused a different individual of the crime for which the defendant was later charged. 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). That case docket is 13 CR 58. But the court there did not admit the charging decision that the early investigation had ended in a nolle, because it would confuse jurors, require extended factual disputes, and was, at best, cumulative of the witness's statement. As I have explained, the same would appear to be true here. + +Fifth piece of guidance: In contrast to what I indicated may not come in, the Court will permit relevant cross-examination of the government's witnesses. Defense seeks to impeach the credibility of some witnesses by admitting those witnesses' prior statements to the government that purportedly did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. This use of cross-examination to impeach a witness that has allegedly changed her story to + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +law enforcement is exactly the kind of attack on the thoroughness of the government's investigation that the Fifth Circuit approved in Lindsey v. . Provided that the rules for admitting prior inconsistent statements are satisfied, the Court concludes that this line of evidence is relevant and admissible. + +The defense may also cross-examine about witnesses' motives or biases for testifying, including, for example, the witnesses' motives for implicating Ms. Maxwell after Jeffrey Epstein's death. Admitting prior statements on cross-examination may require providing the jury some background information about the prior investigations so that the prior statements are understood in the proper context and the jury is provided necessary background to understand that evidence. + +(Continued on next page) + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 10 11 12 13 I also would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into issue as this, too, would be permissible impeachment and cross. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 These articulated lines of cross-examination of government witnesses would be relevant to impeach a witness by suggesting bias or otherwise implicating their credibility. Moreover, denying Ms. Maxwell these lines of questioning would have implications under the confrontation clause. The Court expects that the probative value would not be substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice if done along the lines of what I have indicated, especially if accompanied by a limiting instruction by the Court that, for example, prior inconsistent statements are to be considered for their impeachment value and the like. + +25 Similarly, the Court may instruct the jury that + +THE COURT: (Continuing) + +I imagine this can be done through cross-examination questions if the witness has personal knowledge. I would also encourage the parties to discuss stipulations in this regard to provide the jury any necessary and non-prejudicial context or background, or other proposals for permitting the jury to understand the background or context without crossing over into the 403 prejudice line. + +4 5 6 7 At base, the Court encourages the parties to confer on appropriate process for putting background information in front of the jury, as necessary, to allow the kinds of cross-examination that would be permissible and required under the relevant law. + +8 9 10 11 Let me pause and ask counsel if they have any questions with respect to the guidance I have offered at this time. Obviously there may be issues we will need to take up as we go. + +12 Ms. Moe? + +13 14 MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank you. + +15 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, Christian Everdell. + +16 Not at this time, your Honor. + +17 THE COURT: Thank you. + +18 No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 The government requests to exclude evidence or argument regarding consent. Now let me ask counsel, it seems to me the issues implicated in this motion overlap, at least potentially, to the issues raised and to be discussed in the 412 motion and I am wondering if we should at least begin by taking it up at that time, as necessary. + +25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government agrees that makes + +counsel made only a good faith -- actually, I will retract that last sentence. + +4 5 THE COURT: So we will defer on that. In light of the overlap on the 412 issues we will take that up at the 412 hearing. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 Government's 7. The government argues that before offering evidence or argument of Ms. Maxwell's failure to commit other bad acts it should require the defense to proffer the basis and the relevance of such evidence. Let me hear from the government what the specific concern is here and then I will speak to the defense. + +12 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The concern here is what the defense has flagged in its opening papers relating to statements by other victims who were interviewed during the course of the government's investigation. Evidence along those lines, if proffered in an opening statement, or if asked about in cross-examination of a law enforcement officer, would be inappropriate and hearsay. Such evidence could only come in at trial, if at all, if the defense called, as defense witnesses, victims who were not at issue in this case. And so, for that reason, your Honor, the defense should be precluded from opening on this issue unless and until they proffer which victims these statements would come through, who they would anticipate calling as defense witnesses at trial so the Court can assess whether that is + +sense to address this issue at the same time. + +MS. STERNHEIM: We agree. + +4 5 As the government set forth in its moving papers, the defendant is not charged with trafficking certain victims and so whether or not the defendant is guilty of those crimes is irrelevant before this jury. + +6 7 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, any mention on opening with respect to this line of -- + +8 9 We will ask everyone please make sure your masks are on -- counsel, fully on -- unless you are at the podium. + +10 11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I just want to say that we are honoring your one counsel rule but we have designated various topics. + +13 THE COURT: Appreciate it. + +14 MS. STERNHEIM: So if you will allow us? + +15 THE COURT: Go ahead. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I don't believe that we will be opening on these issues but I think the government is understating what is charged in the indictment. They have put forth an indictment that does not just allege the four main accusers, rather they have set forth a conspiracy that they claim involves a number of other unnamed individuals, and I believe they have proffered an intent to put other evidence about unnamed individuals in their exhibits, in their trial testimony. For example, there are a number of exhibits that they've set forth that come from a time period outside of the + +relevant at all. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 conspiracy and so forth. So it is our position that if they open the door to evidence about anyone other than these four then we would, likewise, be able to talk about the fact that those other individuals were interviewed by the government and said that Ms. Maxwell is not involved, was not there, and was not a part of the activities that they're talking about. None of the cases that the government cited had to do with a co-conspirator. The evidence was just because a defendant did not act in conformity with the charged conduct on a separate occasion, couldn't be set forth by the defense. + +11 THE COURT: Do you agree with that principle? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. If it is good character evidence, generally I understand the rules of evidence wouldn't apply, but what we have here is a 10-year charged conspiracy with an intent by the government to allude to other individuals. To the extent they try to put on evidence in the form of message pads or other types of evidence that refer to other people, then I think we have the ability to confront that evidence with the fact that Ms. Maxwell was reported by those individuals not to have been involved. + +21 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +22 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +23 24 25 The government agrees that this issue can be deferred until trial unless and until this becomes an issue, provided the defense counsel doesn't intend to open on this issue. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 However, even if this became an issue at the trial, the remedy would be to permit the defense to call these relevant witnesses to talk about whether the defendant was or was not involved in their sex trafficking. The remedy would not be to permit defense from cross-examining law enforcement agents about hearsay statements that other individuals provided to them. It would be extremely confusing for the jury to be hearing, through law enforcement agents, the statements of these individuals to assess whether or not those individuals implicated the defendant or simply said nothing about the defendant. And so, the government submits that the only way that this could come in at trial would be if the defense called those witnesses themselves and, of course, it is difficult to determine the potential relevance, if any, of testimony along those lines, and so the government respectfully submits that none of this should be offered at trial unless and until there is an offer of proof along those lines. + +18 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger? + +19 20 21 22 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, whether someone said no one else involved or didn't implicate our client is not hearsay, it is the absence of a statement. So I don't understand the government's position that if an investigator + +23 24 25 THE COURT: It is not the absence of the statement, right? If you are trying to put in an out-of-court statement from someone who said that Ms. Maxwell wasn't involved, it is + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +an out-of-court statement you are putting on for the truth, it is hearsay. + +MS. MENNINGER: Slightly different, your Honor. + +If a witness says they interviewed -- if a law enforcement says they interviewed another accuser and that accuser never said that Ms. Maxwell was involved, that's not a hearsay statement. They just didn't mention her, it is the absence of a statement. And as your Honor just ruled in terms of the thoroughness of the investigation, if there is evidence that the government puts on about these other accusers I think that's what opens the door. It is not us opening the door, it would be them submitting evidence that other people were victims without putting those people on, putting on message pads that had their names on it, and then precluding us from introducing evidence that none of those individuals implicated Ms. Maxwell. + +THE COURT: Right. So, if the government does that you are not precluded from putting other evidence on. The question is what evidence would it be and would it be admissible under the relevant rules of evidence. I am not sure I can resolve that in the abstract. It sounds like neither side intends to open with respect to this issue and I think we largely agree on the legal principles. Tell me if you need more guidance for purposes of opening or preparing your case. + +Ms. Menninger? + +4 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +5 6 7 THE COURT: It sounds like the government does need to think about its opening and whether reference to non-testifying alleged victims would open the door, potentially, to the issue. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And it remains the government's position that, to the extent the defense is offering anything along these lines, it would be for the truth and, therefore, hearsay. But given the fact that the parties don't intend to open on this issue, we don't believe our opening statements would open the door to this issue either, we are happy to raise this issue at the appropriate time. + +15 THE COURT: OK. + +16 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +17 THE COURT: OK. Thank you. + +18 19 20 21 22 Next is government 8 which are prior statements of Ms. Maxwell. I think I come away from the papers agreeing with the defense that this one may be premature but, Ms. Moe, what is the specific concern? What are prior statements that you are worried about here? + +23 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +24 25 For example, the government has produced to the defense in discovery a large volume of electronically-stored + +MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. I think it depends on the trial testimony. + +THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +information including e-mails between the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. It is difficult for the government to determine in the abstract what the defense might point to, but that night include, for example, a false exculpatory statement. And so the government's view is unless and until there is a proffer from the defense about a specific statement, that the defense should be precluded from offering a statement along those lines in opening statements or otherwise. + +THE COURT: Who is taking this one? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, good morning. Jeffrey Pagliuca for Ms. Maxwell. + +Your Honor, this is a trial time decision. It depends on what witness is testifying and whether or not there is a relevant exception to the hearsay rule. I mean, we understand the rules, we will follow the rules, and if the witness testifies and it becomes relevant, we will ask the question. If there is an objection, the Court will resolve the objection. + +THE COURT: And you understand you are going to be restrained by what one might say is an asymmetry between the government's ability to use out-of-court statements by the defendant and the defense's inability to do that, absent some other -- + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Absolutely, your Honor. + +THE COURT: OK. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: We understand the hearsay rules. + +4 THE COURT: Yes. + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. + +6 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +7 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: The next is government 9 which is to preclude evidence or argument sounding in nullification. I agree with the defense that there is no need for me to rule on this presently. I trust that defense counsel knows well the clear rules around any such arguments so it is a bit hard to think about what guidance I can offer here. + +14 15 Ms. Moe, is there a specific concern you want to raise? + +16 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +17 18 19 20 Aside from the examples we proffered in our motion, there is nothing in particular that this motion is aimed at and so I don't think anything more along those lines to address today. + +21 MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing at this time. + +22 23 24 THE COURT: OK. So nothing referenced with respect to the government's concerns about nullification would be implicated in the anticipated opening? + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: That is correct. + +THE COURT: From your perspective, anything further that could be addressed at this time or needs to be addressed? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: On this topic your Honor? + +THE COURT: Government 10. Let me say, as a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 preliminary matter, the government requests that the entirety of this motion be sealed. I have read the government's letter and the footnote 11 in the motion. In my mind they don't justify sealing. As best I can understand the argument the government is saying that the defense should be precluded from make a certain argument because there is no evidence in support of it. If the government is right about that then pretrial publicity would amount to coverage that there is no evidence of that argument. If the government is wrong about that then the evidence in argument comes in so there is no prejudice either way. Frankly, I think the theory of prejudice here runs counter to the whole project of pretrial motion in limine practice which is to litigate, for purposes of trial preparation and trial efficiency and opening statements and the like, what's in and what's out. That's going to sometimes require litigation on what's out. So I don't see a basis to seal this and I think we can discuss it today. + +19 20 21 But let me begin by simply asking the defense if it intends to make the argument that is outlined in the government's motion 10. + +22 23 24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it is too soon to say what we are going to do at trial. Certainly we have no burden of putting on a case and I know the government is well aware of that, but insofar as the government seeks to preclude us from + +raising any issues concerning Ms. Maxwell, I think it is entirely premature and it will depend upon testimony from their witnesses and they know well what their witnesses have said that could support that. I don't think we need to delve into that at this point. It is not anything that we are opening on. We need to see how the evidence plays out. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: OK. + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, if the defense is not opening on this issue we are certainly happy to raise it during the trial. We would ask that the defense be required to front this issue before asking witnesses questions about this on cross-examination because for the reasons set forth in the government's moving papers, the government submits that evidence along these lines would not be relevant. + +Briefly, your Honor, with respect to the sealing issue, the government understands the Court's concerns and would certainly not object to unseeing this portion of the motion at the conclusion of the trial but I -- + +THE COURT: I don't see why -- I just don't see how obviously some sealing on issues is appropriate in order to protect interests that are in play during the course of the trial. This just doesn't fall within that. So my inclination is, no -- and I have not had the ability to go through the complicated set of sometimes overlapping, sometimes not overlapping redaction requests contained throughout these + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +papers which is why I ordered you just get them up on the docket rather than deprive the public of seeing the bulk of what is contained in the motions, but I looked at this one and I don't see a basis for sealing it in its entirety and I don't see a basis for redaction so I'm not going to grant that request. + +MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor. + +THE COURT: I think there is nothing further on 10. No issue for opening. We will figure out a process, once I have had a chance to rule on the remainder of the sealing requests, for putting on the docket any redactions that I don't approve of and we will take this up if it arises. I think everybody understands, obviously, that I trust, again, the defense will have a basis for an argument that they're making and to the extent this issue arises, raise it, so that we can deal with it. + +MS. STERNHEIM: We will + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Government 11. The final issue in the government's motion is request to preclude the defense from arguing that the defendant was a "prevailing party in civil litigation." I will grant this motion. The fact that the defendant was deemed a prevailing party after a settlement in civil litigation seems irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The defendant, as I understand it, was deemed a prevailing party following a + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +voluntary dismissal of civil litigation pursuant to a settlement agreement, and after the dismissal the defendant sought costs as a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), and at least as described in the papers the alleged victims opted to pay the fairly minimal amount sought rather than burden the court and other resources with continued litigation. + +The fact that the defendant received costs pursuant to civil procedure 54(d) after a civil settlement just has no relevance to the charges at hand as far as I can tell and there is substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. If the defense elicited that the defendant was the prevailing party, a layjuror would almost certainly assume that that was some kind of adjudication on the merits relevant to this case but there is no evidence that there was any relevance adjudication on the merits and certainly none relevant to the case. Any probative value gained by the introduction would be substantially outweighed by juror confusion and the waste of time needed to explain the differing postures of the current case and the prior civil litigation. So on those 401/403 balancing grounds the government's motion in this regard is granted. + +you. MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank + +Any questions before I turn to the defense motions? + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, very briefly on the last issue. I assume that there won't be any argument by the government or their witnesses that they believe that they had an adjudication on the merits, in other words both the victims' compensation fund and the civil litigation, there was no right of confrontation, Ms. Maxwell wasn't a party to those settlement agreements. So, to the extent the government tries to suggest to the jury that they somehow had an adjudication, someone else found that their claims had merit, I think that would be confusing to the jury as well and I assume it would also be deemed by this Court to open the door to an explanation from the defense about what really happened in those proceedings. + +14 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 The government does not intend to elicit any testimony from the victims about being a prevailing party in any civil litigation or otherwise. To the extent the government elicits any testimony about civil litigation from the victims it would only be in order to front that issue for the jury in anticipation of cross-examination along those lines. + +21 THE COURT: Right. + +22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: The government certainly wouldn't be offering that evidence to suggest to the jury in any way that those were adjudications on the merits, nor could we, those were civil settlements. + +4 5 MS. MENNINGER: I didn't hear any reference to the victim's compensation fund but there certainly was no adjudication on the merits by a fund that Ms. Maxwell had no party to the settlement. + +6 THE COURT: Correct. + +7 Same response, Ms. Moe? + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And in fact, again, we would only be eliciting information about that on direct examination to front that issue for the jury in anticipation of cross-examination along those lines. To the extent the defense wishes not to cross-examine the victims about the victims compensation program, we certainly agree not to address that at all on direct examination. + +15 16 17 THE COURT: I imagine the defense does anticipate referring to civil settlements and the victims' compensation fund as part of its cross of anticipated witnesses, correct? + +18 MS. MENNINGER: That is correct, your Honor. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 THE COURT: So the government can front those issues to take out the sting. To the extent there is any implication -- it would not be remitted to make any implication as to what those settlements or receiving of funds would mean as to the issues relevant here. The only issue relevant here, as I see it, goes to incentive for bias and credibility issues. + +25 MS. MENNINGER: It just depends on what the witness + +THE COURT: Anything further on that, Ms. Menninger? + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 says, your Honor. I agree that these are issues that it's important for the Court to be aware of before trial but I can't predict, and I'm not really sure that the government can predict, what their witnesses will say or suggest in their actual testimony. When they open the door through fronting it, it may be that they say something that suggests that there was someone who believed them, that there was a victims' compensation fund that believed them. If those kinds of words are used by the witness, then that becomes problematic in terms of our ability to be hamstrung in cross-examination that there was no actual confrontation during that process. So, depending upon what the witnesses say we would re-raise this but I do think it's important for the Court to sort of have that in mind when the government is trying to use evidence to front an issue but then potentially opening the door to us being open to cross on the same type of language that their witnesses used. + +17 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. MOE: Your Honor, again, the government doesn't anticipate that the testimony would come out that way but, in any event, I think with respect to the specific concern defense counsel has raised, to the extent it opened the door I don't believe it would open the door to separate collateral issues about a separate civil lawsuit and resolution of that civil lawsuit. + +25 THE COURT: Yes. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 My clerk noted I inadvertently skipped over Government 5 so we will return to that. This is the government's expectation that the testimony of certain witnesses would include statements by individuals that are not testifying and the government argues that the defense can't attack the credibility of those non-testifying individuals because their statements would not be admitted for their truth but, for example, their effect on the testifying witness and the like. + +12 13 14 Again, I think without more specificity it is difficult to make a definitive ruling but I'm happy to hear examples to give some guidance. + +15 Ms. Moe? + +16 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think there will be limited testimony from a victim about her interaction with other victims. I think the statements that would come in from those other victims would be offered not for their truth but because they are instructions, they would be offered for that effect on listener and to explain the course of events that followed. We don't anticipate offering any statements from non-testifying victims for their truth and so we don't anticipate opening the door to a line of cross-examination about their credibility. And so, + +MS. MOE: But, beyond that, your Honor, we don't anticipate this would be an issue. + +THE COURT: OK. I think we are in agreement. + +for that reason, we would ask that the defense be precluded from opening on this issue or otherwise raising issues related to the credibility of individuals who would not be testifying at this trial including not only non-testifying victims but also attorneys. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, even the statement "a non-testifying victim" is very loaded because who is going to testify that that person is a victim and on what ground? That's the problem. + +THE COURT: Well, I wouldn't allow testimony by a witness about a characterization that goes to a legal issue so of course they could testify about observations involving other people. I can imagine instances in which they testify about statements of others not offered for the truth but I wouldn't anticipate the government would attempt to do any of that via any characterization of those individuals that go to legal conclusions relevant to the jury's role. + +Do I have that right, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +MS. MENNINGER: It is interesting, because in their offer of proof they actually say that one witness is going to talk about another person being a victim of sexual abuse and that second person isn't going to testify, and the question of whether that person was a victim of sexual abuse would turn on the age at which they were conducting certain activities. And + +so, just as we were arguing earlier, your Honor, if the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 government is trying to put on being victims, then that opens other person's credibility. I evidence about the door to us don't have any other people challenging that issue with the way we briefed it which was it just depends on what is said by the witness and we will certainly re-raise these issues. But, the government can't have their cake and eat it, too. If they want to put on evidence about a broad number of supposed victims then we have the obligation, ethically, to challenge whether or not those other individuals are in fact victims. + +11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: Well, I think maybe speaking in the abstract is where the fine points get lost. So if a testifying witness testifies about something that she observed involving the defendant and another individual, that doesn't open the door to attacking the credibility of that other individual. + +16 Agree to that basic premise? + +17 18 MS. MENNINGER: Correct, your Honor; an observation alone. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And if the witness testifies that another individual, using the name or pseudonym -- if that is what is appropriate in light of the Court's ruling, I don't have it firmly in mind at this point but, just as an example: Someone told me to go to somebody's home. That doesn't put the credibility of the out-of-court witness in issue, does it? Because that is not being offered for the truth. Now, if it + +4 5 MS. MENNINGER: Or what is going to happen there and why do I think it is going to happen there -- those kinds of things -- that is really getting into the circumventing the not-for-the-truth issue. + +6 7 THE COURT: I don't think those other points could come in because they would be for the truth. + +8 MS. MENNINGER: Hearsay, right. + +9 10 THE COURT: So they don't come in, obviously you can't attack credibility. + +11 Ms. Moe, do you disagree with any of that? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. The government agrees. And if this issue arises, we would certainly agree to a limiting instruction about those out-of-court statements not being offered for their truth. We don't anticipate that there would be any testimony from an out-of-court declarant who is a victim offered for its truth at this trial, and so we don't anticipate option the door. + +19 20 21 22 THE COURT: If the government thinks any of these, of what it does intend to offer, is close to the line on that question, it must raise them before inquiring or raising it in opening. + +23 MS. MOE: Certainly, your Honor. + +24 THE COURT: OK. + +25 Anything further on that? + +says go to so and so's home at the following address -- + +4 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +5 MS. STERNHEIM: No, thank you. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Defense 1 relates to the government's disclosure of co-conspirator statements. The parties spill a lot of ink about the meaning of prior orders and whether the government has fully met its disclosure obligations as set out by those orders. The government did not violate my orders and the defense motion to preclude the government from introducing any alleged co-conspirator statements is denied. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I do think the schedule, as set out in this case, has provided for certainly a vastly earlier disclosure schedule than any other trial over which I have previously presided and I do think the defense is well equipped to know what is coming and can responsibly raise issues that can be dealt with in advance of trial. Here, the defense has the names of the co-conspirators who will be mentioned by the government at trial and it has the government's marked exhibits, and although it doesn't feel like it, we still have a month to go before trial. That said, here is how we will proceed on this point - and this is another homework assignment. + +24 25 By this Thursday, November 4, the government will provide to the defense the categories of the kinds of + +MS. MENNINGER: No. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right. + +Anything else before turning to the defense motion? + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 co-conspirator statements that it intends to introduce at trial pursuant to 801(d)(2)(E) and specifically representative exemplars of each category whether by exhibit number or anticipated testimony. That is a process that I have used before, I think not infrequently used, in order to try to litigate anything that could be litigated. So the government will do that by November 4th. The defense, bearing fully in mind the well-established law regarding conditional admission of the co-conspirator statements, the defense should indicate to the government, by November 8, any good faith, non-frivolous objections to the introduction of any such statements. After conferring, if there are disputes remaining that wouldn't obviously fall into the law regarding conditional admission, the government shall file a letter, by November 10, justifying admission of exemplars and statements over which the parties disagree. So that's the 10th, and then the defense could put in an opposition, in writing, by November 12th. + +18 Any questions about that, Ms. Moe? + +19 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +20 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +21 MR. PAGLIUCA: We are clear, your Honor. Thank you. + +22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I think it is probably worth maybe just a moment, because it impacts this issue and some other ones, to just discuss one category of potential statements that's been flagged and that's alleged co-conspirator statements that date + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +after what's alleged in the indictment as of the date of the conspiracy. + +Let me ask, Ms. Moe, if are you in position to say, does the government intend to seek admission of alleged co-conspirator statements that post-date the dates of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think I would want a moment to confer with my colleagues about that and so, if possible, we would like to address that in our November 10th letter. + +In brief, as a preview, I think to the extent there were any statements that post-dated the time frame of the charged conspiracy we would be offering them only to the extent they reference the charged conduct. But, again, I would like to confer with my colleagues and think through that in detail before making a representation to the Court, and so we ask to brief that as well at the same time. + +THE COURT: Anyone want to take this now? Or just wait? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I am happy to wait but it is clear to me that there are post-alleged-conspiracy statements that the government will attempt to introduce and I think we attach what were the representative samples of those statements. And so I don't think it should be a surprise, as we sit here today, what those statements may or may not be. I think whether or not you want to say that those statements go + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +to something alleged in the indictment doesn't change the 801(d)(2)(E) analysis and that is it has to be made in the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy. So post-event statements that don't have anything to do with furtherance of the conspiracy are simply hearsay and inadmissible. + +I think that's a pretty simple proposition, your Honor. + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, among other reasons why we would like time to think about this further and address it in more detail, is that Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is not limited to the charged conspiracy at trial, a statement said in furtherance of the conspiracy even if it is not the charged conspiracy. And so we would want to think through that as well. And we would also want to think through, even if a statement is offered by a co-conspirator, whether it is being offered under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) at all. And so we would just ask for additional time to think through that to make sure we give an accurate and thorough representation to the Court. + +THE COURT: So, I will stick with the process and schedule that I have indicated but I do think we will separate out statements that post-date the conspiracy as charged in the indictment and the government will indicate grounds for the specific introduction of any of those anticipated statements. OK, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants 2 is the admission of certain evidence outlined in the government's 404(b) letter dated October 11, 2021. First, as to the defense argument that there has been an inadequate notice under 404(b), I disagree because the government's letter and briefing between the government's letter and the briefing here, the defendant has "reasonable notice" of any 404(b) evidence so the question is whether the evidence can be properly admitted. I think there is two categories of evidence, the first goes to e-mails, and I will speak in the just general description which I think is appropriate. The government may have attempted to redact some general description and to the extent that you have, I disagree with that but I will speak generally -- I'm sorry, the defense requested redaction as to some general description but I don't think it's appropriate. So I'm going to ask the government, if this understanding is correct, that the e-mails reflect instances of the defendant setting up dates that involve women over the age of consent. + +21 22 23 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think as we noted in our briefing, for some of the documents it is unclear what the age range is. + +24 25 THE COURT: So you wouldn't be able to prove that it was under the age of consent? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. That's fine. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +4 5 6 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think it would be ambiguous from the evidence but we are not proffering them as evidence of conduct with respect to other minors. + +7 8 9 10 THE COURT: OK. So, let's just start with the following statement: You are seeking to introduce e-mails that involve the defendant setting up people on dates with women over the age of consent? + +11 12 MS. MOE: Your Honor, because we are not able to determine the age of those individuals -- + +13 14 15 16 THE COURT: Let's assume that you could for some of them. Right? Are you seeking to introduce those? It is clear that the women involved are over the age of the consent. Are you seeking to introduce those e-mails? + +17 18 MS. MOE: I think the e-mails that the defense has moved to preclude don't say one way or the other the age -- + +19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: You are fighting my hypo. So, to be clear, it is a hypothetical. If you have an e-mail involving the defendant setting someone up on a date with someone who the government knows is over the age of consent on the basis of the argument made here, are you seeking to introduce it? + +24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +25 THE COURT: And why? + +MS. MOE: Exactly, your Honor. + +THE COURT: For our purposes I think we need to assume over the age of consent, correct? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MOE: The government respectfully submits that although the defense is free to characterize these as dates, the tenor of the e-mail suggests that she is offering up women largely based on descriptions based on physical descriptions and not in sort of a matchmaking capacity. And so, I think the jury would be free to conclude from those e-mails that the defendant is serving a particular role with respect to the men that she is e-mailing with. + +THE COURT: Are you suggesting like some kind of financial arrangement? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +I think the issue, as reflected in our briefing, is that a jury may wonder at this trial about the relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein and why Ms. Maxwell would be willing to serve in a particular role with respect to Mr. Epstein, and it is probative of that issue that she is serving a similar role, albeit in a different context, with other men during that same time frame. + +THE COURT: On the e-mails, I am excluding them. + +The indictment charges the defendant with conspiring and aiding and abetting the transport and enticement of minors to engage in illegal sex acts and the commercial sex act e-mails setting up dates between non-minors or meetings, however you want to describe it, involving non-minors are not direct evidence of the crimes charged, they don't arise out of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offenses, they're not inextricably intertwined with the evidence nor necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. The government doesn't allege that the individuals in these e-mails have anything to do with the crimes charged nor could they on the assumption that they can't establish that any of the individuals are below the age of consent. + +As for 404(b), I am also not convinced. The government argues that the e-mails show motive, intent, plan, and knowledge. Any potential probative value here would be substantially outweighed by the possibility of confusing the jury. Thus, I grant the defendant's motion as to Government's Exhibits 401 through 404, 409, 410, and 413. + +The next category is the anticipated testimony that - and this involves someone who has knowledge based -- this goes to the post-date conspiracy charged. This is someone who, as I understand it, has knowledge that post dates the conspiracy alleged; is that right? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor; and that testimony will be proffered principally authenticate certain evidence relevant to the charged conduct. + +THE COURT: OK. + +Who is taking this? With respect to authenticating evidence, do you have an objection, Ms. Menninger? + +MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, because it is + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 post-dating the alleged conspiracy. For example, there are documents -- I don't know, they weren't specified which documents that this witness intends to authenticate, but among the documents that I believe the witness may attempt to authenticate, they are dated in 2005 and beyond. And so the question really is whether you can -- it is an authentication, one, whether that relates to the conspiracy or not. As we set forth in our reply, your Honor, there is a real concern because a number of, I think, the entire first series of exhibits, are largely taken from a period outside of the charged conspiracy. i think this witness may attempt to authenticate some of those exhibits and they haven't established why that will be relevant to the charged time period of the conspiracy. They really didn't argue 404(b) on this point and we asked for additional time in terms of the direct evidence because we had just received these 400 pages that relate to that particular witness, your Honor. + +18 19 20 21 THE COURT: So the basic contention would be if we have a document that, on its face, that post-dates the charged conspiracy. I mean that, alone, is I think the first point of your objection, right? + +22 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: The authentication issue aside. What is the relevance of a document that, on its face, post-dates the charged conspiracy? Let's start with that, Ms. Moe. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 10 11 THE COURT: The charged conspiracy ends and then Mr. Epstein maintains addresses of individuals alleged to be victims here. Is that the context? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor; but more specifically with respect to the two categories of exhibits, the first would include messages that were left at the residence during the time frame of the charged conspiracy, they are dated and include a name of a victim and her contact information and so this witness will be authenticating those. Those documents come from the time frame of the charged conspiracy and were created at the time frame of the charged conduct. + +20 With respect to a second category of information -- + +21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And you have a witness who would authenticate that they were created at the time of the charged conduct which, presumably, wouldn't be somebody who doesn't come onto the scene until after the time period of the charged conduct. Fair to say? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +The category of exhibits that this witness would be authenticating would include, among other things, contact information for the minor victims and so the fact that that contact information and messages from those victims was in Mr. Epstein's residence and, in part, in the defendant's possession is relevant regardless of the time frame and is corroborative of the other evidence at trial. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, those records would be authenticated through number of different witnesses; in part, law enforcement officer describing those exact records being seized from the residence in 2005 in their general description and format, witnesses describing the practice for maintaining those records contemporaneously and doing so in the course of their employment. + +THE COURT: Contemporaneous to what? + +MS. MOE: At the time the message was made. + +THE COURT: During the period of the conspiracy? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And that testimony would include testimony about the format of these documents, where they were kept, and the practice for keeping messages along these lines. We think that is consistent with the Second Circuit's rulings on authentication being based on the particulars of a document and their formatting and their contents. So I think this would come in through a number of witnesses and, collectively, at the conclusion of that testimony, we would offer those exhibits based on that foundation. + +THE COURT: And I don't think I can rule on that in advance until we hear the authentication evidence being offered. What you have proffered I think -- I will hear from the defense -- but it seems like those pieces could add up to authentication. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +But take the example, if you would, that a document that, on its face, post-dates the charged conspiracy, for what purpose would you be offering that? And let's use the address book as an example. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +With respect to that particular document, the testimony would be that that document belonged to the defendant and that she -- and the document itself would include contact information for some minor victims under a certain heading that has relevance to the case and organized in a certain way that is consistent with victim testimony. So, whether the defendant held on to that or maintained it following the conclusion of the charged conspiracy, it would nonetheless be relevant to establish the defendant's knowledge to confirm her contact with those victims and to be corroborative of other exhibits at trial. + +THE COURT: If the evidence were that it wasn't created or maintained until after the charged conspiracy, is it relevant? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +If, at the conclusion of the conspiracy, the defendant nonetheless memorialized that information about those victims, it would nonetheless be relevant to her knowledge to rebut arguments that she didn't know the victims or have contact with them and so certainly that would be relevant, your Honor. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I am a little confused but what I think I understand the government is saying is that knowledge after the conspiracy is relevant to the time frame of the conspiracy. I don't believe that the witness we are talking about, who didn't start working until after the time of the conspiracy for Mr. Epstein, would be able to set forth the foundation that they're claiming. I believe that this is more likely to be a trial-time testimony decision because I think there will be some pretty substantial objections to the ability of this witness to authenticate the document which I know your Honor is aware from other briefing, is what we consider to be from a very suspect source and obtained years later. There is a lot of notations and things on it that will not be anything that this witness can attest to. I think it is Exhibit 52. + +16 THE COURT: Yes. + +17 18 MS. MENNINGER: I don't think it is relevant to the time period of the conspiracy. + +19 THE COURT: Right. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 I guess the question, given the pieces of authentication that the government intends to offer through different witnesses and what sounds like lines of cross-examination as to those pieces, I think at that point I am potentially -- at least the government will have to proffer, put forward questions and get answers from the witness that + +THE COURT: Ms. Menninger? + +4 would go to authentication. I just don't know if I am in a position to rule at this point but let me ask both sides if anybody intends -- I mean, take Exhibit 52, is that going to be mentioned in opening? + +5 6 7 8 MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government doesn't anticipate opening with respect to Government Exhibit 52 but may address, in opening, other categories of exhibits, for example, the message pads that I just referenced. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's a problem. In terms of the message pads that have a post-conspiracy date on them without a witness who can authenticate them under any exception under hearsay in opening statements, we would strongly object to that. I still have not heard appropriate grounds to lay a foundation or relevance for those. + +15 16 THE COURT: Yes. Let's take the message pads. Who will authenticate? + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. MOE: Your Honor, a number of witnesses. I think we would be offering those messages at the conclusion of a series of witnesses laying foundation for their authenticity including law enforcement witnesses and employees talking about the circumstances under which messages were maintained but we don't anticipate offering messages in those message books that post-date the time frame of the charged conspiracy. + +24 25 THE COURT: OK. So the government will not mention any message pads that post-date the charged conspiracy in its opening. + +4 MS. MENNINGER: Nothing further on that, your Honor. + +5 THE COURT: OK. + +6 7 Anything further in this general category that needs to be addressed now, Ms. Menninger? + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MS. MENNINGER: If there is no other evidence that the government intends to offer via Rule 404(b), then no. There was a reference to another exhibit -- GX- 416 -- in the government's briefing. That was not one of the exhibits that was mentioned in the Rule 404(b) letter. I assume because it was not mentioned in that letter it cannot be offered through 404(b). It is of a same type and characteristic of the e-mail that your Honor has excluded so I don't know what the intent is there. + +17 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +18 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We didn't include that exhibit in our notice. We are offering it as direct evidence, unlike the other evidence which were included in our notice. That document is a series of notes. The metadata for that exhibit reflects that the defendant created exhibits outlined was directed at a that series of notes but, in our letter, it doesn't third-party as opposed to unlike the other appear that that Mr. Epstein, + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, anything further on that? + +although it is not clear from the document to whom it's directed. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MENNINGER: It relates to individuals in their 30s and 20s, your Honor. I'm just unclear how it relates to charged conduct or direct evidence of a conspiracy to abuse underage females. + +THE COURT: It seems like it falls within my -- it wasn't specifically moved for exclusion but because of the government not including it in its notice but I'm not seeing I am pulling it up but I'm not seeing a notice -- a basis, from what I am hearing, distinguishing it from my ruling on the e-mails. + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government submits that along with other exhibits at trial, which will establish the defendant's role with respect to Mr. Epstein and her role in particular in setting up sexualized massages for him, that this is corroborative of other exhibits and other testimony at trial that the defendant did in fact serve that role, was willing to do -- take steps along those lines. And so, for that reason -- + +THE COURT: But it involves, clearly, people over the age of consent? + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Let me just pull it up. + +For the same reasons, 416 is excluded. + +MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor. + +4 5 THE COURT: Next is Defendant's Exhibit 3 which is the motion to exclude the excerpt which, as I have indicated, we will take up at the Daubert hearing. + +6 Let's take a short comfort break. 10-minute break. + +7 (Recess) + +a (Continued next page) + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: Anything else on this? + +MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: We'll pick up with Defense 4. This is the issue of evidence related to alleged Victim-3. + +Defense seeks to exclude evidence related to this individual that's not probative of the charged conspiracy and inadmissible under 404(b) and 403. There are redactions issues here. Redactions of specific identifying information is permissible here. I don't think that redactions as to some general background information that does not reveal specific identifying information regarding the alleged victims is necessary, but we'll proceed bearing in mind the requested redactions. + +I want to begin this one with questions for the government. Ms. Moe, so it's a hypothetical. I gather there's statute of limitations issues, but setting the statute of limitations issue aside, if the only evidence in the case pertained to this individual, if all the testimony of this individual is accepted by the jury, could the defendant be found guilty of any crimes charged in the indictment? + +MS. MOE: With respect, just so I understand the hypothetical, if the only count in the indictment were the Act conspiracy -- + +THE COURT: No, any of the crimes charged, just stipulate to that, but if the only evidence pertains to this individual. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The answer is no. In + +4 5 particular, because with respect to -- that's why I was clarifying, your Honor. With respect to the Act conspiracies, the particular criminal sexual activity relates to a particular statute in New York. And with respect to the sex trafficking -- + +6 7 THE COURT: The particular statute in New York that the government here -- that's 130.053(a), right? + +8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +9 10 11 THE COURT: And that establishes 17 as the age of consent for the underlying sexual activity that's charged in the indictment. + +12 MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +13 14 15 THE COURT: So the Act is going to -- the case that the government is going to prove here is going to incorporate that as the illegal sexual conduct. + +16 MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +17 18 THE COURT: So couldn't be convicted with respect to that count. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. And that's among the many reasons why we submit there's very little potential prejudice of offering this testimony considering its relevance to the counts charged, because given the elements of the offense standing alone and the statute of limitations issue, we think there's no 403 issue here. + +25 THE COURT: Well, not just with respect to the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Act, there's no count charged in the indictment for which the defendant could be convicted -- again, setting aside -- I'm not dealing with the statute of limitations issue, put it out of your mind. So assuming no statute of limitations issue, could the defendant be convicted of any count charged in the indictment based on the evidence as it pertains to this? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor, we have not charged the case that way, and that testimony alone wouldn't satisfy those crimes charged. + +THE COURT: And is the government's position that this individual could be deemed a victim for restitution purposes or any legal purpose with respect to the crimes charged in this case and the case that the government is going to put on? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, with apologies, I haven't thought through the restitution issue. I would want to confer with my office about that. I'm not certain, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Well, if the defendant can't be indicted based on this conduct -- again, assuming no statute of limitations issue, assuming that the jury adopts and accepts all of the testimony as true, the defendant couldn't be convicted of any of the crimes charged based on that conduct, how could that individual be deemed a victim of the crime charged? + +MS. MOE: I understand the Court's point, your Honor. I guess my concern is that the distinction between charging + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +based on that conduct alone and the evidence based on that conduct alone, we submit that, given the course of conduct in the charged conspiracy, that Minor Victim-3 is a victim of an ongoing conspiracy, which is one of agreement and intent. + +We submit that her testimony alone wouldn't establish a violation of the Act, and without the other circumstances of other victim testimony, we couldn't establish that there was an ongoing intent to transport minor victims. But given that the crime here is conspiracy and one of agreements and mental states and not about attempts to violate certain statutes or agreements to do so, it's about the intention at the time of agreement during the course of a span of conduct. + +THE COURT: But it has to be an intention to engage in an illegal act. + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And so I think I need an answer to the question. There is a distinction, surely, between criminality and evidence of criminality. You have evidence of criminality, which is not itself criminality, for sure. You have 403 questions and the like. But I need to know the government's position I think for a number of things in issue, including Defendant's 4. So you have confirmed that the defendant couldn't be found guilty of any crimes charged based on the conduct alleged with respect to what you refer to as alleged + +Victim-3. + +4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: And you're not sure what the government's position is as to whether alleged Victim-3 could in any legal sense be deemed a victim of any of the counts charged, despite the I think necessary, but I wasn't sure of the government's position, with respect to the illegality of conduct involving the victim. + +9 10 11 12 MS. MOE: Your Honor, with apologies, may I have one moment to confer with my colleagues? I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the Court's question and want to confer with them about a specific issue. + +13 THE COURT: Okay. + +14 (Pause) + +15 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +16 17 18 THE COURT: One moment, because I want to pull up this portion of the government's briefing on this which triggered these questions. + +19 (Pause) + +20 THE COURT: Okay, go ahead. + +21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. As my colleagues have pointed out to me, the definition of a victim for purposes of the element of the statute and pursuant to the restitution statute are different. And part of our hesitation in speaking to issues of restitution is because that implicates the Crime + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Victims' Rights Act, so we want to confer with victims' counsel on that issue as well before we reach a conclusion on that. + +The definition set forth in the restitution statute, which is 18 USC 3663(a)(2), for purposes of the section, the term "victim" means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered. + +So that's the particular issue that we just want to think through before we reach a conclusion on in particular because we're mindful of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. So I apologize, it's not my intention, certainly, to fight the hypothetical, we wanted to be thoughtful about that issue. + +THE COURT: You will get me your views on that question with respect to restitution, but as I understand your initial point, for purposes, as you said, of the elements of establishing any of the offenses, the government's view is that this individual is not a victim in the sense -- granting that restitution's definition of "victim" could be broader than those for whom the government's proof of elements as to the charged account would show to be victims, I think that's the distinction you're trying to draw. + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, our position is that we recognize Minor Victim-3's testimony alone would not satisfy the elements of the conspiracy count in which the overt acts appear, our view is nonetheless that it's direct evidence. + +THE COURT: That's because the relevant age of consent for purposes of the case that the government is trying to prove is the New York statute, which sets 17 as the age of consent, and this individual was -- sorry, under 17 is the age of consent, and this individual, when the government understands sexual conduct to have occurred, was 17, correct? + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Okay. + +MS. MOE: It's nonetheless our position this is direct evidence for a number of reasons. First, it's -- + +THE COURT: Direct evidence of what? + +MS. MOE: Of the charged conspiracy. In part because this conduct occurred at the same time the defendant was engaged in conduct with respect to the other victims, and her testimony will establish a pattern that is corroborative of their testimony and demonstrates the defendant's knowledge and intent. + +With respect to the issue -- + +THE COURT: You've slid between direct evidence and 404(b), right, knowledge and intent? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. The government will certainly be required to prove at trial the defendant's knowledge and intent to commit these crimes. So the defendant's conduct with respect to this victim goes directly to that issue. In particular, I take the Court's point with + +4 respect to the issue of 17 or under 17, but more broadly, I think the question at trial will be about, among other things, the defendant's knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's preference for very young girls. + +5 6 THE COURT: Well, let's say this individual were 20, is it direct evidence of the crimes being charged? + +7 8 9 10 11 12 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, but for a different reason. Under those circumstances, it would nonetheless be our position, even if the victim were 18, 19 or 20, that the defendant's specific conduct towards that victim proves other aspects of the course of conduct. In other words, the particular pattern -- + +13 14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: This seems to move into the email issue, which I have excluded. That is to say, you wanted to put in emails of the defendant setting up individuals with other individuals over - and I have excluded distinguishing this in some cases well over the age of consent, that. So is there a basis for here? + +19 20 21 22 23 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, there certainly is for a number of reasons. Here, the course of conduct is closely intertwined. In other words, the defendant's interactions with this victim closely mirror actions with other victims, for example, introducing sexual topics in a slow and gradual way. + +24 25 THE COURT: When you say "victim" there, do you mean that in a legal sense? Because I still want to understand the + +point. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Now one might have all kinds of moral judgments and concerns, but is there a legal sense in which the government right now in talking to me is just identify the person, or is there a legal sense in which you're proffering this individual as an victim of the crimes charged, setting aside you don't have an answer yet as to whether they may meet some basis for restitution should the defendant be convicted. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, I'm using that term both for identification purposes and because I think, as the victim's testimony will illustrate, she will describe a course of unwanted conduct, and the way in which she came to engage in that conduct is as a direct result of the defendant's behavior in a way that closely mirrors the way the defendant secured access for Mr. Epstein to the other minor victims in this case. + +THE COURT: That is an argument about consent being the basis for which -- we have put it aside to 412, but as a general matter you have argued consent is irrelevant because the age of consent is the only thing in issue for these charges, but you're saying the relevance of this individual's testimony turns on the government establishing nonconsensual sexual conduct? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor, I'm simply explaining why we are using that term "victim," because that's the way she characterizes that experience, and I think that will come + +4 5 6 7 8 9 What I mean is not that the relevance turns on whether or not she consented to that conduct, but the way in which that occurred closely mirrors exactly how that occurred with other victims. So in terms of proving the methods of the conspiracy, the means they employed, the defendant's role in the conspiracy, all of which is direct proof of the defendant's guilt, this victim's testimony will be corroborative and establish the defendant's knowledge. + +10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: You're saying that would be true regardless of the age of this individual. I could keep doing a hypothetical, 25, 30, it doesn't matter, from your perspective, it would be relevant to establishing the conspiracy because it occurred at the same time? + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I could see universe in which there were an outer limit on the age a hypothetical victim where this would be relevant. Our view is that the age of this victim makes it particularly relevant, but it's the other aspects of the course of conduct which are corroborative and make this direct evidence. Here, this victim was 17, in close proximity to the age of the other victims, and so her testimony, among other things, establishes the defendant's knowledge and awareness of a certain sexual preference for girls under the age of 18. + +25 THE COURT: But under the age of 18 is legally + +across when she describes it. + +4 5 6 7 MS. MOE: That's certainly true with respect to the elements as to the other victims, but I think as a matter of common sense, a jury understanding that the defendant is willing to provide Epstein with a girl at the age of 17 would certainly speak to her knowledge of his sexual preferences. + +8 9 THE COURT: Why doesn't it speak to a knowledge of sexual preferences to someone just above the age of consent? + +10 11 12 MS. MOE: Well, your Honor, I think the close proximity of ages, it speaks to her knowledge about his preference for very young girls. + +13 14 15 I would also note that, although the age of 17 is relevant with respect to the Act counts, with respect to the trafficking counts, the applicable age is there is 18. + +16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: I began this whole series by asking, like eight times and very clearly, is there any sense in which this individual, the conduct that's -- assuming it to all be true with respect to this individual, could establish an element of any of the crimes charged? + +21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. With respect to that victim, that's certainly the case. But speaking to direct evidence of knowledge and preferences, it's certainly also direct evidence of the defendant's knowledge with respect to the sex trafficking counts where the age of consent there is + +irrelevant to the crimes charged, correct? Under the age of 17 is what is legally relevant. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +18. And so the fact that the defendant was taking these steps towards a girl who was 17 years old certainly speaks to her knowledge and willingness to provide such a girl to Epstein with respect to the sex trafficking counts as well. + +THE COURT: So to prove the sex trafficking count, we're talking Count Five and Count Six, right? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: On this one, for sex trafficking, you have to prove what with respect to H in order to get a conviction? + +MS. MOE: That the victims were less than 18 years old. + +I would note on that score, your Honor, with respect to the trafficking counts, the issue is about commercial sex acts in exchange for something of value involving individuals under 18. Minor Victim-3 would testify about participating in sexualized massages with Epstein at the defendant's urging and receiving compensation in part. And that's one of the many other reasons why her testimony is corroborative of other victim testimony in this case and direct evidence of the charged crimes. + +THE COURT: So the conduct took place -- the sexual conduct took place at the age of 17. Factually, this is an individual who says -- the government can't establish under the age of 18 for purposes of travel. I guess that goes to the Act, not to the trafficking count. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +So on trafficking, the government would seek to have this testimony as direct evidence with respect to the trafficking count, because the individual of legal age in all relevant jurisdictions was under the age of 18. You're going to have to spell it out for me. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. If the defense were to argue that the defendant didn't know that victims with respect to the trafficking count were under the age of 18 or wouldn't have done this if they were under 18 or that she did not know that Epstein had a preference for underage girls or his sexualized massages were with girls under the age of 18, this would certainly speak to that issue. + +In particular, if the defendant were to argue that she didn't know that the massages she was arranging were sexualized, I think the testimony of the victim speaking to that issue would certainly make that all the more relevant. + +THE COURT: Right. Okay. I'm not sure the government had previously argued this constituted direct evidence of the trafficking count, is that right? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, I would have to review our briefing. I believe we said that it was direct evidence of the charged crimes. I apologize if we were vague about that, but our view is the entire course of conduct speaks to the defendant's role and knowledge, and the proof here is mutually sufficient. + +4 5 6 I think your Honor hit it right on the head right from the outset, which is if all we had were allegations related to this particular individual, we would not have a charged crime here because there was no criminal activity at all. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The only basis for which -- I think the government has tried to articulate some basis for its relevance as direct evidence of the charged crimes is her subjective experience of what happened to her. She was of legal age in every single jurisdiction where these events allegedly took place. So the issue of consent, while we may have moral objections to this, it was entirely legal and the government can't prove otherwise. So all she's going to testify to, presumably, is how she felt about those instances, and that is not proof that is probative of the defendant's guilt of these charges. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 Moreover, your Honor, it is quite inflammatory and misleads the jury to hear when someone feels a certain way what happened to her, even though legally it doesn't make a difference, that is going to encourage them to feel sympathy for her and convict the defendant potentially on a false ground because there is no illegal conduct here. + +23 24 25 Your Honor, I think the government has articulated or at least tried to articulate at the Court's urging a basis why this may be direct evidence of the sex trafficking conspiracy. + +THE COURT: Who am I hearing from on this one? + +MR. EVERDELL: Me, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor. + +That really was not spelled out in the briefing. + +THE COURT: I think for sure it wasn't, because just nearing it for the first time, it strikes me as having 4 5 6 potential plausibility. That was not present in the papers, so I certainly will need briefing and to think about that question more. + +7 8 9 10 MR. EVERDELL: I can assure you if it had been really teed up, I would have addressed it. But I would note that there is a time difference between the Act conspiracies and the sex trafficking counts. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 The sex trafficking counts are 2001 to 2004, and this particular individual was well over the age of consent by the time 2001 to 2004 is going on. She's alleging events that took place in '94 and '95 when she's 17 and 18. 2001 to 2004 is well past the age of consent in any of these relevant jurisdictions. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 I don't see how it is probative of the defendant's intent -- when someone is presumably allegedly engaging in perfectly legal sex acts, how that is probative of intent, knowledge, or any of the above of a sex trafficking conspiracy. And by the way, there's no allegation that she got paid, so how are we talking about sex trafficking? + +23 24 25 It seems like the government is trying to take an episode of legal conduct and make it sound salacious for the jury and use it as direct evidence of conspiracies for which it + +4 5 6 7 8 9 So our view, Judge, is that her testimony should not come in as direct evidence of the conspiracy. At best, what the government has articulated -- they keep talking about pattern, intent, knowledge. That's classic 404(b). So if we're going to talk about this witness's testimony at all, we should be talking about it in terms of 404(b) and whether it meets that test. And it doesn't, your Honor. It is not probative of knowledge or intent. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For a crime that charges causing someone to travel to engage in a legal sex act as a minor, if that person is neither a minor, did not travel with the intent of doing something illegal because it was not illegal in any of those jurisdictions, whatever happened, according to her own testimony, it is not probative of any of those crimes and for 404(b) purposes, too. + +17 18 19 20 21 Pattern, Judge, if it's modus operandi, that need to be extremely specific before that can come in as modus operandi evidence. We can't talk about engaging in social pleasantries and polite conversation with someone as a pattern. That is not a pattern that passes muster. + +22 23 24 25 Furthermore, there are huge 403 issues with this witness's testimony. If she talks about how she felt about these experiences, that is eliciting sympathy from the jury. It is not legally probative and it will lead them to think that + +is entirely irrelevant, every single one of them. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +she felt, in her words, sexually abused in these circumstances, that she was in fact engaging in illegal conduct. And it raises a real problem that the jury will convict on a false premise, on a legally incorrect assumption that the conduct that was occurring was illegal when it wasn't. + +So your Honor, we object to her testimony for any purpose at this trial. + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Just to taking those points one by one, with respect to the time difference, we think that it is nonetheless relevant with respect to the sex trafficking counts. + +THE COURT: Am I right -- point me to the page. It's not argued in the papers. + +MS. MOE: I apologize, your Honor, we should have been more specific, and I do apologize about that. I do think that the way we framed it was about preference for girls under the age of 18 and about the course of conduct, but I apologize, we should have been more specific about that. + +But with respect to the timeframe and the course of conduct, I think the jury would be free to conclude, based on this direct evidence, that in 2002 and 2003 when Minor Victim-4 was being trafficked, that the defendant knew that Epstein had a preference for girls under the age of 18 and knew that he would engage in sexual contact with them because she knew in 1994 when she was involved in transporting Minor Victim-1 that + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +she knew about that preference because of her conduct with respect to Minor Victim-2 and with respect to Minor Victim-3. That course of conduct continued throughout a decade and is consistent. And I think the consistency of that is part of why that is powerful proof of her knowledge and intent and why it's direct evidence of the crimes charged. + +With respect to the question of prejudice, the government doesn't see any risk that this jury could convict on this conduct for a number of reasons. + +First, with respect to the concern that there's a risk that the jury would convict based on this conduct alone, I think we're confident that the Court's jury instructions will explain to the jury what the elements of the charges in the indictment are and what they aren't. And it's certainly the case in many trials that there's evidence of lawful conduct that is nonetheless offered as direct evidence of the charged crimes. For example, if this were a case involving a Hobbs Act robbery and there were evidence that on the morning of the robbery the defendant bought a ski mask, that would be lawful conduct but nonetheless offered as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and it would be peculiar to either exclude that evidence or introduce it with a limiting instruction that that is lawful conduct to suggest that in some way the Court endorses that conduct. + +THE COURT: The hypo is interesting. If the ski mask + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +is bought that day, it's direct evidence, if it's bought three years earlier or three years later, at best it's 404(b) evidence, not direct evidence. + +MS. MOE: Well, here the pattern would be much stronger, that the defendant participated -- again, to play out the analogy -- in a robbery in 1994 involving ski masks, and another robbery in 1995 involving ski masks, and again another robbery in which the defendant bought ski masks, and then a robbery years later in which the perpetrator was wearing a very similar ski mask. That's the pattern here and why this is direct evidence of the defendant's methods and her knowledge and intent. + +THE COURT: That's 404(b), evidence of methods, of MO. + +MS. MOE: Here, your Honor, the government certainly submits that this would otherwise be admissible under Rule 404(b), but here where the conduct is intertwined with the conduct on trial, that it speaks to her knowledge about preferences and the role that she played and the similarity, and the fact this happened during the course of the charged conspiracy the same time the defendant was involved in this conduct with respect to other -- + +THE COURT: During the time of the Act charged conspiracy. + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Not the trafficking charged conspiracy. + +4 5 THE COURT: So I need to get something in writing on the trafficking count, because you haven't raised it directly before and the defense hasn't had an opportunity to respond to it before. + +6 7 8 With respect to how this has been argued, I don't think there's a basis to exclude entirely, but let me tell you my thinking and I will hear a reaction to it. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The evidence related to alleged Victim-3, as the government describes her, is not direct evidence of the conspiracy charged in Counts One and Three of the indictment. Counts One and Three charge the defendant with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts and conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The parties agree that alleged Victim-3 was 17 at the time she was acquainted with the defendant and Epstein in London, England where the age of consent is 16. Moreover, she can't recall, and the government wouldn't be able to establish that she was invited to travel with the defendant when she was 17 or 18. And because the alleged victim was over the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions and, therefore, any alleged sexual activity was lawful, the alleged conduct does not arise out of the same transactions or series of transactions as the charged offense. It's not inextricably + +MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. + +4 intertwined with the evidence, again with respect to the Act, and it's not necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial, so I don't think it can be direct evidence of the Act counts. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 There's a prejudice analysis that I will get to in a moment, but as proffered, it strikes me the testimony may serve a proper purpose under 404(b) as relevant testimony of the defendant's knowledge, intent and alleged MO. For example, the proffered testimony could tend to establish that the defendant was aware of, for example, the sexualized nature of the alleged massages. So if the argument is massages are not sexual or there's no knowledge, this witness might have evidence and testimony that could refute that point. The testimony could support that the defendant asked the witness to recruit underage girls to engage in similar sexualized massages which tends to make the alleged MO more probable. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 The testimony that this witness was allegedly groomed by the defendant does not tend to establish the defendant's knowledge, intent or MO to groom minor victims alone without more, the kind of testimony I indicated, because this witness was not a minor pursuant to the age of consent laws in any of the relevant jurisdictions. + +23 24 25 I will say I think there may be room for 404(b) testimony, but there's a risk of a prejudice, the risk of confusing issues and misleading the jury. A limiting + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +instruction that makes clear that any alleged conduct was lawful and cannot form the basis of a conviction in this case certainly would be required to ensure that probative value is not substantially outweighed by potential prejudice. + +So that's my thinking. I'm going to need more from the government on the anticipated testimony. I want to see a proposed limiting instruction that would go to that, and I want briefing on whether there might be a basis for direct evidence as to the trafficking count. + +So I will ask the government here for a submission that outlines anticipated testimony that would be potentially 404(b) with respect to the Act counts, as I've indicated, a proposed limiting instruction in that regard, and to the extent the government does have I think a not-yet-reallythought-through argument about direct evidence as to the trafficking act, I'm open to hearing it. + +So let me look at the calendar. I will get briefing from the government and then a response time from the defense. + +> Government by the 5th, defense response by the 10th. Questions about that, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you. + +THE COURT: Mr. Everdell? + +MR. EVERDELL: No questions on this schedule or the Court's direction. We would like to clarify one thing, which I believe the Court said that the parties agree that this + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +particular individual was 17. We agree that she alleges that she was 17. It's quite possible, in fact likely, that she was older than that, but I wanted to clarify that. + +THE COURT: Fair enough. At least 17, the parties agree. Thank you. + +And I should say on that, Ms. Moe, I don't know if the government anticipated putting in evidence about the sort of subjective feelings of the individual. I can't say I see the relevance in light of the fact of the legality of the conduct here and my ruling, and certainly 403 prejudice would be a concern. So if that is something that the government is still contemplating, despite what I've indicated here, you'll have to include briefing with respect to that. + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. My point was simply I think it would be obvious based on the way that she presents that this is a difficult thing to discuss, and so that was my point on that issue. But I take the Court's point, if we were intending to elicit any testimony about that, we would certainly find that for the Court, particularly in light of the Court's ruling. + +THE COURT: You see the potential, given the legality of the conduct with respect to this individual, that the sort of feelings as to the immorality or wrongness or damage done to this individual, all of which may be true, would have the potential to prejudice the jury by convicting on a basis for + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +which conviction the government has conceded would be inappropriate, would be unlawful. + +MS. MOE: I understand the Court's concern and we certainly don't anticipate eliciting testimony about the victim's conclusions about the event or suggesting that it was unlawful or satisfied certain elements. My point was simply in describing it, which would be difficult for Minor Victim-3, that sort of her feelings about that or the circumstances that that -- in narrating the facts of the event would I think come to light at trial, but we certainly don't intend to elicit testimony about conclusions, about things like consent or whether it was lawful, and particularly in light of the Court's ruling, and in any event, we wouldn't be seeking to proffer legal conclusions from a witness. + +THE COURT: Okay. Anything further on that, counsel? + +MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. + +MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor, thank you. + +THE COURT: Defendant's 5 I think we determined is a non-issue. This goes to evidence that the defense was concerned in the government presenting regarding flight, and the government has represented that it will not offer evidence as to flight. Is that correct, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Anything else we need to address here? + +MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Defendant's 6 is evidence of the defendant's alleged false statements and regarding redacting allegations related to the perjury counts in the indictment, which I severed. The government has agreed not to introduce evidence of these alleged false statements and agrees to the proposed redaction. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Anything else that we need to address here, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor, thank you. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Defendant's 7 is Exhibit 52, which I think we have addressed. Do we need to discuss that any further at this point? + +MS. MOE: Nothing further from the government, your Honor, thank you. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think we do need to discuss this a little bit further. + +The problem that we have on the defense side of this is that the government says that we can establish a foundation for this, but I'm quite frankly very skeptical about the provenance of that foundation. + +This is an exhibit that surfaces in 2009, and we don't know how it surfaced. Assuming it was stolen by now deceased, twice convicted felon Alfredo Rodriguez and sold to the government, assume that for a moment, we don't know where it + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +left with: Yeah, we think we can admit this. Given this lack of evidentiary foundation, I think we should address this issue now. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +With respect to the particulars in the exhibit, the government has marked and produced to the defense excerpts from that book that it intends to offer at trial. So the defense knows the limited number of pages from that book that the government intends to offer at trial. + +THE COURT: What pages? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't have the exhibit numbers in front of me, but they're included in the subset that we provided to the Court. I think there are about -- I don't want to guess, but somewhere between four and six particular pages, one in particular relating to victims in this case. So we are happy to confer with the defense about those particular exhibits and then raise those issues to the Court if there is still confusion on that score. + +With respect to the question of authentication, I think the defense's argument confuses the question of chain of custody with the question of authentication. I know the Second Circuit has rejected essentially exactly the argument that the defense is advancing here. For example, in a case of United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F.App'x 21, (2d Cir. 2020), the defense argued the government shouldn't be able to offer + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +certain documents that were obtained by an FBI agent on a USB drive, and the authentication testimony was about the familiarity with the witnesses with things like handwriting on the documents, their structure and the like. The same will be true here. + +And in that case, the Second Circuit said although the government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) permits authentication based on the appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics of the items taken together with all the circumstances. And the government submits that the testimony at trial will satisfy all of the aspects of Rule 901 + +We're happy to submit additional briefing on this during the trial, but in particular, given we don't intend to offer any evidence from this book in our opening statement + +THE COURT: What is it going to be offered for? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, the evidence from that book will be offered in particular related to the minor victims in this case, so that's the relevance of those documents. + +THE COURT: But why? + +MS. MOE: It would be a page of that book that contains contact information for several victims, including their names, in a section marked "Massage" that includes the names of -- I think it's exclusively female girls with + +parentheticals like "Mom" or "Parents," showing that the contact number for the individuals in a section marked "Massage" is for people's parents. That list includes some of the minor victims in this case that the jury will learn about in this trial. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: It's not going to be talked about in openings, but before in front of the jury this full authentication process happens, I would like the government to put out specifically what it intends to enter into evidence with respect to this, and with specificity, who will provide authentication and the proffer as to that testimony. And you will deal with the timeframe questions that have been raised as well. + +MS. MOE: Certainly, your Honor. + +THE COURT: I need to see a little bit more than what's been suggested, and I need to have a better understanding of what is potentially being offered for. + +MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor, certainly. + +THE COURT: So when would you like to do that? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor, may I confer with my colleagues? + +THE COURT: Sure. + +(Pause) + +MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Could we possibly submit it on November 10, along with other briefing that date? + +THE COURT: That's fine. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine, your Honor. + +4 5 6 7 THE COURT: Defendant's 8 is the search, the El Brillo Way search. The defendant seeks to prohibit the introduction of any items seized during an October 2000 search of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 The defense raises concerns, including how and where the evidence was maintained, the lack of authenticating witnesses and the lack of relevance to the charges against Ms. Maxwell. Here, again, the government states that it intends to call witnesses to establish the authenticity of the evidence. + +14 So how do we take this up now, Ms. Moe? + +15 16 17 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The government submits that at trial law enforcement witnesses will discuss the search and lay a foundation for the admission of this evidence. + +18 19 THE COURT: So as to authentication, you have witnesses that did exactly what with respect to the search? + +20 MS. MOE: They were personally involved in the search. + +21 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. So they will describe the process by which they engaged in the search and the evidence that they obtained and how it was maintained and the like. + +24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +25 THE COURT: And the relevance of the search result + +THE COURT: Respond in the same timeframe. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MS. MOE: Your Honor, a number of exhibits were seized from that residence and there are a number of marked photographs from the interior of that residence which are relevant both to give context to the jury about what the interior looked like but in particular about certain decorations in the residence that are both consistent with what witnesses will describe but also illustrate for the jury the number of, for example, nude images in the house and otherwise that give context to sort of the knowledge that certain people would have while inside the house. I think all that will be corroborative of witness testimony and, for the same reasons, certain items seized from the residence will be as well. For example, a massage table was seized from that residence and is marked as a government exhibit. + +16 THE COURT: Okay. Who is taking this one? + +17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: This would be me, your Honor. Again, this is very, I suppose, aspirational by the government that they can lay these foundations. + +20 21 22 THE COURT: This sounds like pretty standard stuff. Law enforcement had a search warrant, engaged in a search, this is what they found, here's how they marked it, here it is. + +23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The affiant who conducted the search and who took the items into evidence is deceased. There are, I believe, two officers who participated in the search, but in a + +evidence is what? + +4 5 discrete fashion, and I believe they do not have knowledge about what the other officers did or didn't do as part of that search. So what we end up with is this piecemeal approach of: I was over here and did this, somebody over there did that, but I can't put it all together for you 20 years after the fact. + +6 7 8 9 10 And look, I understand if they have a witness who could say I was there, I saw this, I can authenticate, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But again, they haven't identified that witness or what pieces of this that witness is going to talk about. So that's problem number one. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Problem number two is the timing of this. This is an October 2005 search where they seized items that they're trying to now relate back to a 1994 to 2004 timeframe. What that table has to do with 1994, I don't know. 2004, I don't know. Whether it was there in 2004, we don't know. All we know is that in a moment in time, in October 2005, someone says these items were seized and that ends up on a search warrant inventory from a deceased detective that doesn't have any foundation to it. That's my problem, your Honor. + +20 21 22 23 24 And there may be discrete pieces of evidence that a certain witness might be able to identify, but I think we're just short shrifting the whole evidentiary process here with these proffers where they're saying we can do it, and I'm not convinced they can. + +25 THE COURT: We're not short shrifting because it + +4 5 6 Ms. Moe, obviously you're dealing with a time question, and it sounds like one of the primary investigators or law enforcement who engaged in the search is deceased. So what's the proffer to the Court as to what specifically the government will do to authenticate these items? + +7 8 9 10 11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. On this score, I would note there is a difference, certainly, between authentication and chain of custody. With respect to authentication, law enforcement witnesses who personally participated in the search will describe what they observed in the search and how they -- + +12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: The government's proffer to the Court is that even though one of the law enforcement relevant here is deceased, that you have other law enforcement who have personal knowledge of these items being found where they were and seized when they were, et cetera? + +17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I additionally note that the search was video recorded, that video has been produced to the defense, and so some of these items also appear on the video walk through of that search. And so our view is that their direct testimony about their experiences in the search satisfies our obligations with respect to authenticity. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm not going to prohibit this in limine, but questions remain as to the government's ability to authenticate the items, and there will be an opportunity for + +hasn't happened yet. What you're making are cross points. + +the defense to engage in the full set of questions that counsel has indicated, but for purposes of the in limine motion, it's denied. + +4 5 6 7 Defense 19. Here, the defense seeks to suppress alleged Victim-4's identification of Ms. Maxwell on the ground that the government used unduly suggestive photo array procedures that violate due process rights. + +8 9 10 11 I am prepared to deny this motion. Eyewitness identifications should be excluded when improper police conduct created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, (2012). + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. First, I must determine whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive. Some examples of suggestive procedures include using a very small number of photographs, making suggestive comments, or the display of the accused in a way that so stood out from all other photographs to suggest to an identifying eyewitness that the person was more likely to be the culprit. See, United States v. 983 F.2d 369, (2d Cir. 1992). + +22 23 24 25 Looking at the photo array, neither the photos used or the procedure itself was unduly suggestive. The array contained a sufficient number of photos larger than many arrays that courts have held were not unduly suggestive. Defense's + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +argument that the Ms. Maxwell's photo looks like a mugshot and is different from the others doesn't persuade me here. Alleged Victim-4 identified at least one other photo in the array that she thought could be Ms. Maxwell but she ultimately chose Ms. Maxwell's photo, and there were several photos in the array that were of roughly the same quality and angle as Ms. Maxwell's photo. + +The defense fails to identify any suggestive comments made during the identification that would deem the procedures unduly suggestive. The government appears to have asked whether the individual recognized anyone in the book. So I conclude the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. + +Even assuming the photo array was unduly suggestive, the identification here had independent reliability factors I must consider under the totality of circumstances that include the opportunity of the witness to view the individual at the time of the alleged crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the the witness's prior description of the individual, the level of uncertainty demonstrated, the length of time between the alleged crime and the confrontation. See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, (1972). + +Here, the alleged Victim-4 had the opportunity to view Ms. Maxwell. They interacted several times over the span of years. As the government points out, the alleged interactions + +with Ms. Maxwell make the alleged victim's identification more accurate than other instances where identification has been deemed admissible, like when a witness saw the defendant in the distance under street-lit illumination and was familiar with the individual seeing them in the neighborhood. + +(Continued on next page) + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: (Continuing) + +The government also correctly notes that the delay in time between the alleged misconduct and identification is not determinative because of the frequency of interactions between the alleged individual and Ms. Maxwell. Alleged Victim 4 was able to identify Ms. Maxwell when she got to the photo in the array with little hesitation. The argument that I will leave it at that. + +The defense requested an evidentiary hearing on this issue but I don't see facts put forward by the defense that puts, in genuine dispute, any facts that would support suppression of the identification so there would be nothing gained from an evidentiary rehearing, see United States v. , 784 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2019) so the request is denied. + +Defense 10. Expert testimony by law enforcement officers which the defense moves to exclude and the government has noticed intent to call three law enforcement officers as fact witnesses but not as experts. The government represents that it will not elicit expert testimony from any of them. + +So, the witnesses to the provide testimony which the officer provide testimony law enforcement officers can testify as fact facts that they personally perceived but not that summarizes parts of the investigation did not personally experience and may not that relies on specialized training and experience. The government's example of a law enforcement + +4 5 Anything to take up here from the defense, Ms. Menninger? + +6 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +7 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +8 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Defense 11 is anticipated testimony regarding an alleged rape by Jeffrey Epstein. Let me ask the government to explain what it intends to do with respect to this and for what purpose the testimony would be sought to be introduced. + +14 MS. MOE: Certainly, your Honor. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 As a threshold matter, your Honor, I would note that there is an overlap here between the arguments in the defendant's motion in limine and the 412 motion. I think one motion seeks to introduce some of this evidence but characterize it as consensual and the other motion seeks to preclude it, reference it to be non-consensual. And so, I would be happy to address that now, but it may be easier to address that issue in the context of the 412 briefing. + +23 THE COURT: Counsel, do you agree? + +24 25 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we can wait until the 412 briefing. + +officer testifying as to what the officer himself found and participated in while executing a search seems to me permissible fact testimony. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: So to the extent there is overlap in these issues, it's best to take it up in the 412 proceeding so that we can discuss the issues without violating that rule. + +Defendant's 13. This is a motion to preclude the admission of several exhibits. I'm going to grant the motion with respect to Exhibit 251 and 288. Based on the briefing before me, 401 403 prejudice. authentication relevance is minimal, at best, and outweighed by 294, so some of the same questions around the issue so I think that ruling holds. I won't otherwise preclude this evidence. It is potentially corroborative evidence of testimony and 403 prejudice does not rule out 401 but the defense can maintain the search and authentication issues that we have discussed. + +Exhibit 403 I won't preclude, it's potentially probative of the relationship between the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The government proffers that it will corroborate and that the photo would corroborate anticipated witness testimony and I don't -- so, there is 401 relevance and not substantially outweighed by any 403 prejudice. + +On this last one I may have said the wrong number. I had 403 on mine. So, Exhibit 313 is the photograph that I have indicated I am not excluding, it is potentially probative of the relationship between the defendant and Mr. Epstein and not outweighed by prejudice. + +And then 606, this is the issue on authentication and + +4 THE COURT: All right. + +5 Any questions about any of those rulings? + +6 7 MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank you. + +8 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +9 10 11 THE COURT: And about the time frames I have set on the different pieces that I require briefing on after everybody has. And, you will get the transcript. + +12 MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor. Thank you. + +13 THE COURT: All right. + +14 15 16 With that, I think we can pick up some outstanding logistics issues and I will hear from counsel as to any issues they want to raise. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, we begin our questionnaire process on Thursday. The government -- my will produce the copies as an original matter. The government will take the completed copies from the jury department -- the completed questionnaires with no identifying information and make copies for the defense and for the Court. My request is to give both a paper copy and an electronic copy. I think that will aid everybody's use of the document since we have got multiple people looking at them, and then of course return the originals to the Court. + +hearsay grounds that I have already indicated I'm going to have the parties address further, correct? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. + +Any questions from the government on its obligations there? + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: The video remarks, at our last conference, as we discussed, my plan is to video record the preliminary instructions to be played for each panel before the questionnaire. I sent the parties my script and there were no objections. I'm actually going to record that tomorrow. I just want, does either party request to see the video before it's played for the prospective jurors on Thursday? Obviously I'm going to record it exactly as stated in the script. + +12 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +13 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, unless you are wearing some funky t-shirt, no. + +15 THE COURT: It's just a robe. Thank you. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just in thinking ahead to the voir dire process, I have preliminary instructions that I'm drafting that I will give to each panel before they are individually brought in for the voir dire. Thinking ahead again, just for time-saving purposes, what I propose is we do another video of that so that it is played for each panel -- there is a morning panel and afternoon panel. And the logistics of all of this is complicated. So, what I propose I will send out, again, my script, let me know if you have any comments or objections, and once we all agree I will record it so that the jury staff can + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +4 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +5 MS. STERNHEIM: No. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: I think what I am also going to do, we haven't talked through the specifics of the logistics of the voir dire days -- I think I did generally -- but we are going to have a morning panel, the jurors are going to come in to a courtroom which is sort of the holding courtroom. The preliminary instructions will be played and then we bring them in one at a time. The afternoon panel is going to assemble somewhere else so there is no overlap, they'll be played the instructions. Once we are finished with the morning panel, they'll be brought in and the like. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We will do the individual voir dire, obviously if anyone is struck for cause following that they'll be excused. Those who are not struck for cause, what I propose is that we give them an instruction sheet that tells them where and when they're returning for the final stage of the process and remind them the basic instructions about media restrictions and the like just so they have that and they take it with them. Of course I would show you what I am thinking before we do it but that basic idea. + +25 I want to see if anybody has any concerns or + +just play it once each panel is assembled. + +Any concerns with that, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: I do think once we do that, the non-struck jurors, with that information, can then be excused for the day and returning on -- and obviously I haven't indicated yet the 19th or the 29th, those instructions. But they don't need to sit around for the rest of the day while we do the other individuals. + +10 Any objections to that process, Ms. Moe? + +11 MS. MOE: No. Thank you. + +12 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +13 MS. STERNHEIM: No, thank you. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: There are logistical issues we are dealing with for bringing the full panel back for the exercised peremptories as well as setting up the courtroom with distancing issues which turns, to some extent, on the vaccine status of the individuals because we have different spacing requirements under the current protocols for the vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Now, the parties have proposed that I ask that question in voir dire and I rejected that because I don't think there is any proper basis for striking based on vaccination status. But what I would propose, in order to facilitate the Court's logistical process which is complicated, is that for our non-struck jurors, as we give them the + +objections. + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +MS. STERNHEIM: No objection. + +instruction, they're handed a sheet of paper which says write your juror number and check a box, vaccinated, not vaccinated, I don't want to say, and the Court gets that but not the parties. And that way we can set up the courtroom, we can figure out where we are going to put everybody for peremptories and the like. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: The government has no objection to that, your Honor. + +MS. STERNHEIM: No objection. + +THE COURT: I do think we are going to do the peremptories on the 29th, as I have indicated. We are still working through the logistics. This piece helps. As I said, there are pros and cons to both, but I think that the safest course for proceeding with a full jury is to bring them back on the 29th -- I will give you my final resolution as to that when I have it -- but my thinking is we are in the courtroom, all of us. The panel, approximately 50 to 60 people who I will bring back are in two other courtrooms because we can't get them all in one place, with a video, in which I ask some very preliminary questions: Does anybody need to change any answers and has anybody had media exposure, etc. Hands raised. If anybody does raise their hands, we will have staff in each of those rooms who we can bring in one at a time to deal with. And assuming not, or once we deal with that, that's our panel, + +4 So, as I say, I am still working through the specific logistics of that but that's my thinking as to how we will do it. + +5 Any reactions, Ms. Moe? + +6 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +7 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +8 9 10 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. My only reaction is are we going to be able to see the jurors as they respond to the Court's questioning? + +11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: So, I think what we can do is have staff in each of the courtrooms, I will ask my question, anyone who raises their hand will be brought in individually. If you would like to have someone in each of those rooms for the hand-raising, that's fine with me. + +16 MS. STERNHEIM: OK. + +17 THE COURT: We would be happy to do that. + +18 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: But because there are other trials being selected on the 29th we can't use the jury assembly room and, in any event, it would slow us down. So I think this is the way to go logistically but that's what it will entail for the exercised peremptories. + +24 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +25 THE COURT: One of the obstacles to the jury selection + +the parties exercise the peremptories by list, and we are done. + +here is length of trial and the timing of trial. I would like 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the parties, in light of -- you have gotten some rulings, obviously not everything yet to think about whether what we include in the questionnaire is still the six-week time frame that we have indicated. And if it is, it is, but if there is any basis to suggest a lower estimate as the parties have continued preparing their cases and in light of any rulings, I would certainly be open to hearing it if we could safely put a shorter time frame in the questionnaire. Again, maybe we can't. So I just ask you to think about it and confer and put in a letter by November 2nd, on ECF, indicating whether the parties agree that there should be any different estimate to the trial length than what we have indicated in the current draft of the questionnaire. I recognize that may change after that but for jury selection purposes it won't help us if a few days later we decide that we could say four weeks instead of six weeks. So you will let me know and I will ask the parties to confer. You don't need to put in specific reasons, just if you can put in a joint submission as to the parties' best overall estimate of length of trial is to see if it can be realistically any shorter than what is in the questionnaire to help facilitate jury selection. + +23 24 That's what I have. I will hear from counsel any other issues. Ms. Moe? + +25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor; very briefly on two + +4 First, it is the practice in this district to place on the record at a final pretrial conference the status of plea discussions and so I just wanted to place on the record -- + +5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I guess I hadn't assumed this is our final pretrial conference and I do usually do that, but there is no point in not at least doing that now in case we don't get together again, which seems unlikely. But, go ahead. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor; for that reason we wanted to place on the record that the government has not issued any plea offers to the defense and the defense has not requested any plea offers from the government, and we would respectfully request that the Court confer with the defendant that that is accurate. + +15 THE COURT: OK. Ms. Sternheim? + +16 MS. STERNHEIM: Do you want to hear from me? + +17 18 THE COURT: I will hear from you first and then I will ask Ms. Maxwell. + +19 20 21 MS. STERNHEIM: That is correct. We take the position that our client has not committed a crime so plea bargaining was not an issue. + +22 23 THE COURT: Ms. Maxwell, what Ms. Sternheim indicated is accurate and correct? + +24 THE DEFENDANT: I have not committed any crime and -- + +25 THE COURT: And what Ms. Sternheim indicated is + +administrative items. + +accurate? + +4 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Just with respect to the second administrative item, the government has received the Court's order related to the Daubert hearing. Because the defense's Daubert briefing was focused on the question of grooming it would be helpful to understand the scope of the hearing and, in particular, whether the Court would like the government to present evidence with respect to the full scope of the expert's findings and conclusions that were addressed in the motions or whether the hearing would be focused on the question of grooming. + +14 15 THE COURT: I guess I think it goes to each of the proffered opinions being offered -- + +16 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. + +17 18 19 THE COURT: -- in part because of overlap in those issues. I don't know that it's obvious to me how to separate them out at this point. + +20 21 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. It is very helpful to know in advance of the hearing. + +22 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, anything on that? + +23 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge. + +24 25 These, I guess you put them under the housekeeping category and I know tomorrow the government is to respond to a + +THE DEFENDANT: II sorry. Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Anything else on that, Ms. Moe? + +4 letter that I raised concerning legal mail, but we still have the issue that Ms. Maxwell has not received trial-related discovery that is imperative for her to review to consult with counsel. It also has bearing on some of the issues -- + +5 THE COURT: What hasn't been received? + +6 7 8 MS. STERNHEIM: Recent disclosures that the government has made, she still has not received some of them. They're sent by the government to the MDC. + +9 10 THE COURT: Yes. But, specifically, what are you talking about? + +11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: 3500 material that we counsel received electronically the other day. + +13 14 THE COURT: And by the other day what do you mean, Ms. Sternheim? + +15 16 17 MS. STERNHEIM: It was Monday, Judge. She has still not received the production made by the government which I believe they send via federal express. + +18 19 THE COURT: So, Ms. Moe, the government made a 3500 production a week ago? + +20 21 22 23 MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government has been supplementing its 3500 productions on a rolling basis. I don't recall the exact date but we have been supplementing them and have made productions last week. + +24 25 THE COURT: And do you know why -- the representation is a production made a week ago has not made its way to + +4 MS. MOE: Thank you. + +5 (Counsel conferring) + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't have particular information about the series of disclosures we made last week and whether or not they've been processed by the MDC but we will certainly be conferring with the MDC in connection with a response to the defense's letter on Friday. Our understanding is that, generally, that drives have been received by MDC, processed through their warehouse, picked up by legal counsel and produced to the defense in regular time frame. I can't speak to any particular package that was mailed last week because I am hearing about it now for the first time. + +16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Well, OK. You will include in your letter -- I mean, I think at this point a week is too long. I think the representation in the prior letter was one to two days for legal mail, maybe this is different because this is different? + +21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: I don't believe so, your Honor. Part of the reason why I want to look into this and confer with my colleague is we are not quite sure whether the date was Monday or Wednesday that we produced this material to the defense and we want to just double-check the mailing date to make sure we + +Ms. Maxwell. Do you know anything about that? + +MS. MOE: Your Honor if I could have one moment? + +THE COURT: Sure. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Is there anything the government can do -- you know, there is going to be some time built in for the facilities screening process and it getting to the defendant. Obviously there are other individuals in the same situation pretrial, heading into trial, and there are a lot of inmates, but -- so you will address what's happening on the institution side in the letter. + +11 12 What can the government do to facilitate the process going forward? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we have been trying to produce materials as quickly as possible. We have been FedExing those materials promptly to the facility. When we do so, we notify the facility that, in particular, a disclosure for this defendant is in-bound to the facility so that legal counsel knows about it and can keep an eye out for it which I think is unusual but we are happy to continue to take that step in this case. + +21 22 23 24 25 My understanding is that materials have been received by the defendant at the facility. We will continue to check on that issue. I would note that our rolling productions are going to be frequent but also small as we continue to meet with witnesses and produce small amounts of rolling materials. I + +have all our facts straight about the exact timeline. So I am happy to address that in the letter. + +THE COURT: Yes, do address that in the letter. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +think the defense is well equipped to print those materials and meet with the defendant in person about it as they have been doing. They can certainly discuss those documents in the video conferences that they're having with the defendant. Our understanding is that this defense team has a large amount of access to video conferencing sessions with this defendant and so when the defense receives those materials, they're certainly free to review those with the defendant in real-time in their sessions. + +And so, we are taking every step that we can to ensure that the defense and the defendant have those materials but we think those steps are all that is required here and certainly more than is necessary to make sure the defendant is apprised of those materials in anticipation of trial. + +THE COURT: As to the steps, if you have a new submission we are talking about newly produced 3500 material, limited volume; correct, Ms. Moe? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And you are going to send that by FedEx - so overnight -- to the facility in each instance, correct? + +MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And you alert BOP counsel, MDC Legal counsel that something is coming for Ms. Maxwell so they can be on alert. Do you get indication back from legal counsel that it's been received and delivered? + +MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We have not been asking to do that mindful of their obligations towards all of the other inmates at the facility but we appreciate the steps they have 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 taken to be responsive to our alerts and about the defense's requests. For example, in some instances I think the defense has been e-mailing legal counsel noting certain tracking numbers and asking them to check at the particular warehouse. So that process seems to be working. I don't think we can create a system where the defendant is receiving, in jail, on a 24-hour basis, all disclosures. I don't think that is practical but I think especially because, in some instances, we may be uploading to the defense through a file sharing program certain disclosures on one day and they may be meeting with the defendant in person the very next day, they certainly have the ability to talk about those materials with the defendant, to provide her with paper copies if they wish, and I think that is more than sufficient. + +18 19 20 21 THE COURT: Well, you are not suggesting that instead of government sending the materials to the facility and working with the facility to facilitate timely movement of the materials to Ms. Maxwell, are you? + +22 MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. + +23 24 25 Our view is in combination of the fact that, in the short-term, the defense has the opportunity to talk to the defendant immediately about it if they wish to, and in longer + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: So in your letter tomorrow you will indicate your understanding of the time frame including the specific 3500 material sent last week because, again, the representation I have is that you sent it to the defense on Monday and we are here a week later and Ms. Maxwell hasn't received it. You will find out what the story is with that and inquire as to whether there are any additional steps that can be taken in light of where we are in advance of trial to further facilitate the speedy transmission of the materials to Ms. Maxwell. + +14 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +15 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the procedure is such that even if I were to hand-deliver it myself she would not get it. If the government hand delivers it, she will get it. And we have requested that if they are going to do late-breaking disclosures, given that we are within weeks now of trial, that it be hand-delivered with a call to the MDC legal department to facilitate that. + +23 24 25 I can't just give her papers. As the Court well knows, even when I put them in the legal mail box, there is an issue as to when she gets that. And I know the government will + +term the defendant will have those materials in a reasonable time frame. I think in combination with those efforts, that's sufficient. + +4 5 respond to those issues tomorrow. But this is an issue -- and I will give the government the benefit of the doubt -- they do not know what we do when we have a conference with Ms. Maxwell so to assume what we are doing is erroneous. But, I will complete that topic and move on to another one. + +6 7 THE COURT: I want to understand the specific suggestion. + +8 9 10 11 12 13 So, presumably now, on a daily basis, the government may be meeting with witnesses and taking notes. I mean, I get those notes, an additional 3500 material during trial, it is one or two pages of chicken scratch, handwriting. So your proposal is that every day that one of those is produced it's hand delivered to the MDC by government staff? + +14 15 16 17 18 MS. STERNHEIM: That would be ideal but I'm not asking that and I don't think it comes that way, I think it comes more in these clumps. I'm not asking for every single page to be hand-delivered but if they know they are making a substantial production, that should be hand-delivered. + +19 20 THE COURT: And what do you mean by substantial? Over a hundred pages? What are we talking about? + +21 22 MS. STERNHEIM: Look. You know, it is not the quantity, it is what is in it that may have significance here. + +23 24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, you have to be realistic on this. + +25 MS. STERNHEIM: I'm trying to be. + +4 5 MS. STERNHEIM: Every day I would like whatever they're producing to be hand-delivered. + +6 THE COURT: Well, I deny that request. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: I understand that. That's why I didn't raise it but I think there needs to be some mechanism either if a FedEx comes to the facility that it be speed-delivered to Ms. Maxwell. Boxes of legal materials that have been sent to her, when we follow the tracking, they are left in a facility, they're not being picked up. + +13 14 I am not privy to what the mail operation is there. Perhaps the government can get some insight. + +15 16 17 18 THE COURT: When you say they're not being picked up you are saying that there are some that she has never received? You are saying she is not receiving it in the one to two to three-day time frame that you are asking for. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: I submitted a letter to the Court the other day. In it there were four indications of items that were available for pickup. When I alerted the MDC to that, after the second request on Friday, they sent me back something, We are going to go pick them up. I shouldn't have to push them to go to the post office. I can't deliver the stuff myself because it's not going to be given to her. So you + +THE COURT: I mean, you have made a lot of this noise about not having received it, not having received it in time. I am asking for a specific request that's realistic. + +4 5 do it through the United States post office, I don't know what the situation is how the MDC receives its packages, but if the tracking information says available for pick up and days go by and it's not picked up, what am I to do to put a candle under the MDC to get those packages? + +6 7 THE COURT: I guess I'm still trying to understand what it is that you are asking the Court to do. + +8 9 10 11 MS. STERNHEIM: I'm asking the Court to have the MDC retrieve its mail in a timely manner. I will notify them if a next-day delivery is on the way, and that it be picked up for next-day and not languish in the post office. + +12 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +13 14 15 16 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we will confer with MDC legal about this issue and their practices and happy to provide the Court with additional information about our disclosures last week and the ongoing practices. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I can't speak to the particular mail sorting practices of the MDC, but I want to assure the Court we have been working diligently with the defense and with MDC legal on this issue and have been taking extraordinary efforts to disclosures are produced defendant quickly and we learn of a practical way make sure the promptly and that they're sent to the will continue to do of expediting this, be open to exploring that but that's all the have at this point. so. And if we we would certainly information that I + +4 Can I ask the government, if you have a substantial production, let's say over 50 pages of documents to review, can the government have those hand-delivered to the facility? + +5 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Respectfully, that is extremely resource intensive, it requires asking either a member of the prosecution team or their colleagues who are also working on cases to, instead of pursuing law enforcement activities or preparing for trial, spend the day driving to the MDC to hand deliver a drive to the defendant personally which is a remedy that I'm not aware of being implemented in any other case and would be sort of an extraordinary step for this defendant that would be out of step with the ordinary practice. + +15 16 17 18 THE COURT: We are a month away from trial but if we are a few days away from trial and suddenly the government has a substantial production of material for some reason, 50 pages, a hundred pages, would the government take those steps? + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, without having a sense of what those materials are, what their sensitivities are, whether it is sort of a relevant matter that we are producing in an abundance of caution or something that is sensitive that is urgent that is hard to troubleshoot that issue in advance but we are mindful of Court's concern and that, even as we approach trial, that the issue of timing is of particular concern and so + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +would be attentive to that issue in those circumstances but I think it is difficult assess that in a hypothetical. + +THE COURT: OK. I will wait for the government's 4 letter. + +5 Ms. Sternheim. + +6 7 8 MS. STERNHEIM: One other issue, Judge; it has to do going forward with the production of Ms. Maxwell to the court house. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 She is woken up at approximately 3:45. She is taken here and this morning she arrived at 5:38. She sits in a cellblock, very cold, she cannot bring any warmer garments. She is not allowed to look at her legal materials. She is given very little food and whatever she is given doesn't even have a utensil for her to use. And, she is shackled. Today she had to get on her hands and knees to climb into the van because her leg shackles would not permit her to step up. This is just not the right thing. The wear and tear on her going forward to trial five days a week -- + +19 THE COURT: What is the application, Ms. Sternheim? + +20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: The application is for her to be brought here later. The real application, obviously, is for her to be let out on bail but I'm not going to make that application right here, I will make it in writing, but these conditions are just terrible. And today, when she was nodding out, she was poked to be woken up just because she's the only + +4 5 Nutrition is important, sleep is important. We all are going to be fatigued but we all get to go home, and something needs to be done to ensure that she is not debilitated during the trial. + +6 7 THE COURT: Are you making any allegations of differential treatment as to Ms. Maxwell? + +8 9 10 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. I don't know any other client I have ever had who has been woken up every 15 minutes at night and then -- + +11 12 13 THE COURT: No, I'm talking about what you are talking about which is the transport to the court house for proceedings. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. STERNHEIM: I don't know any clients who have ever arrived that early. I can't speak to that. They've never been taken individually as she has so I don't have a big history about that. In other cases that I have had in this court house either the clients come from the MCC, which is no longer here and they're transported one way, or when I come here in the morning for a court proceeding or trial, and I will get here at 9:00, I'm told they haven't arrived yet. So, the differential between getting here at 5:38 and not being here at 9:00 for another defendant seems extraordinary. + +24 THE COURT: Ms. Moe? + +25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government is learning of + +person sitting in a cell. That's not necessary. + +4 5 this concern for the first time at this conference. I would be happy to reach out to both the MDC and the Deputy U.S. Marshal assigned to this particular trial to ask, as a general matter, what time they anticipate producing the defendant on trial days and can provide the defense with that information. + +6 7 8 9 THE COURT: Yes; and whether there is any differential treatment between Ms. Maxwell and other defendants being produced from the MDC to the court house under COVID protocols and currently. You will inquire as to that. + +10 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. + +11 12 13 THE COURT: As well as differential or not, what the timing issue is, availability of food and comfort items, as necessary, and the like. + +14 MS. MOE: Certainly, your Honor. + +15 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, anything further? + +16 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. No. + +17 THE COURT: Anything, Ms. Moe? + +18 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. + +19 THE COURT: We are adjourned. + +20 o0o + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b020b6b28b4ba9eaf63509733f5b74059e1d5b1e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890/EFTA02834890.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,4370 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02834890.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 127, + "chars": 171807, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 284.58, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 388.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 284.58, + 388.08416748046875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 117 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "Text", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 116 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 115 + ], + [ + "Line", + 58 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 110 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 118 + ], + [ + "Line", + 59 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02834890" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d961d3022e35519e3322710a03e2bd92efb55feb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AM + +USA / Plaintiff(s) + +v. case No.: 20 CR 330 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant(s) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL 'FIZANScRIPT + +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a )NFERENIC held on 11/1/21 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter. + +mcdaniel + +Court Reporter/Transcriber Date \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af92743403cbc9b58add000ff05d72835341b7e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017/EFTA02835017.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835017.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1439, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.87, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.224, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 66.42 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 96.363037109375 + ], + [ + 154.224, + 96.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL 'FIZANScRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.3, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 448.82086181640625, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 448.82086181640625, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 168.3, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835017" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d7bdb7a7a3136da246b0f6644e369f2652bb5fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.md @@ -0,0 +1,6597 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +5 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +6 Defendant. Hearing + +7 x + +8 9 New York, N.Y. November 10, 2021 9:20 a.m. + +10 Before: + +11 HON. ALISON J. NATHAN + +12 District Judge + +#### 13 APPEARANCES + +14 15 16 17 DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MAURENE COMEY ALISON MOE LARA POMERANTZ ANDREW ROHRBACH Assistant United States Attorneys + +18 19 20 21 22 HADDON AND Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL LAURA A. MENNINGER -andi3obbi C. Sternheim Attorney for Defendant + +23 24 25 Also Present: Sarah Drescher Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office Camille Delgado Paralegal, Haddon and + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, + +v. 20-cr-330 (AJN) + +4 5 6 MS. POMERANTZ: Good morning, your Honor. Lara Pomerantz, Andrew Rohrbach, Alison Moe, and Maureen Comey for the government. + +7 THE COURT: Good morning. + +8 For the defendant. + +9 10 11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: Good morning, Judge. Bobbi C. Sternheim appearing with Ghislaine Maxwell at counsel table, along with Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian Everdell. And we're assisted by Camille Delgado. + +13 14 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Thank you. Please be seated. + +15 16 All right. We are here for a number of things. Let me just get myself organized. + +17 18 19 This is a pretrial conference. Our jury selection process began on November 4th with the questionnaires, trial to commence on November 29th. + +20 21 22 23 24 Today, we will address the defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, the defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these motions, as we discussed at our last conference on November 1st. + +25 Just for clarity, I explained this in my order + +(Case called) + +THE CLERK: Counsel, please state your name for the record, starting with the government. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +regarding public access yesterday: The 412 piece of these proceedings will be sealed, as is expressly required by Federal Rule of Evidence 412. That rule requires certain categories of evidence to be discussed at a sealed, in camera hearing. My plan is to hold that part of the hearing last, do what we need to do with respect to logistical issues and Daubert here first, and then seal the courtroom, having everyone who is a nonparticipant leave and shutting down the overflow access at that point, as required by law. + +Given this, I want to address a few logistical issues at the outset, and then we'll move into Daubert. + +I should say, to the extent we run into any overlap during the Daubert hearing on any 412 issues, we have arranged space to do the equivalent of a sealed sidebar in the jury room, I believe. But, again, we can bifurcate. + +OK. Before I turn to the logistical issues, any matters I should take up with what I have indicated, Ms. Pomerantz? + +MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. + +THE COURT: OK. First, on logistics, as you know, counsel, we had a very successful return rate on the jury summons, and in the two days that the questionnaire has been filled out we had 565 prospective jurors fill it out. Given + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that, my plan is to just do the morning session on Friday, which would give us about another hundred or so people filling out the questionnaire, which is what the target was in the 6 to 7 hundred range, presumably about 650 or so. And that will give additional time for the parties to confer after they have reviewed and a fewer number of questionnaires to review, given that we got there sooner. + +Any concerns with that, Ms. Pomerantz? + +MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +MS. STERNHEIM: No. + +THE COURT: Great. Thank you. + +I did previously set a tentative hearing for November 15th, which is Monday, at 9:30. So that's firm. We'll have that hearing, to the extent we need to, to go over any pre voir dire process resolution of disputed questionnaires and the like if we need to, and talk about that process more. + +I'll also use it to address any outstanding motions in limine if I can. In particular I think I will then have full briefing, and hopefully be able to address defense motion 1, on co-conspirator statements; defense motion 4, regarding alleged victim 3; and defense motion 7, on Exhibit 52. + +If I'm able to, I'll also address the government's motions regarding exclusion of at least some testimony of Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz. + +And as I said, we'll discuss voir dire and take up questionnaire issues as needed. + +4 5 6 7 8 I would also like to just go ahead and schedule what will be our final pretrial conference for November 23rd, is what I propose, in the afternoon. I still need to work through the logistics and space and timing on that, use that to clear out any remaining issues or motions in advance of trial. + +9 Ms. Pomerantz, how does that sound to the government? + +10 MS. POMERANTZ: That all sounds fine. Thank you. + +11 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? + +12 13 MS. STERNHEIM: That sounds fine. I just have a question with regard to the commencement -- + +14 THE COURT: Could you pull up the mike. + +15 Sorry. + +16 17 With regard to the commencement of voir dire, what time will we begin on the 16th? + +18 19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: I believe 9, but I will confirm and see what time I believe -- what time we think the jurors will actually be ready to go, checked in and ready to go, and I'll work backwards from that, give us time to get set up and address any preliminary issues. So let's assume 9 and I'll confer with the jury department. + +24 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +25 Just a moment. + +So that's Monday, November 15th. + +Your Honor, Mr. Pagliuca has a hearing in Colorado. 4 Would it be permissible for him not to appear at the final pretrial conference? Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and I will be present. + +5 THE COURT: That's fine with me. + +6 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. + +7 8 9 THE COURT: And I do plan to put out a logistics order after today that confirms the details of the conferences I've just discussed and rooms and the like. + +10 11 Do the parties have any other logistical matters or questions to raise before we return to the motions? + +12 MS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor. + +13 MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. + +14 15 THE COURT: OK. So we can proceed to the Daubert with respect to the government's proposed expert. Ms. Pomerantz. + +16 17 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. The government calls Dr. Lisa Rocchio. + +18 19 20 THE COURT: I didn't catch -- I have been saying row "Rodocchio" in my head, but it sounds like that's not right. Could you say the name again? + +21 MS. POMERANTZ: It's "ROCK-ee-II," your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: Rocchio. + +23 24 And I will ask everyone, please speak into the microphones, because that's the only way we can all hear you. + +25 Counsel can question from the podium and remove masks. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +And the witness can come into the witness box and remove her mask as well. + +Dr. Rocchio + +II. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +LISA ROCCHIO, + +called as a witness by the government, + +having been duly sworn, testified as follows: + +THE COURT: And Dr. Rocchio, I know it's a little awkward; to the extent you can speak directly into the microphone, we can hear you. And I apologize if I have to remind you of that as we go, because the acoustics are challenging. + +THE WITNESS: OK. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: And, Ms. Pomerantz, you need that mike in front of you. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. + +Is this all right, your Honor? + +THE COURT: Yes, but point it directly at you. + +MS. POMERANTZ: OK. Thank you. + +DIRECT EXAMINATION + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Good morning, Dr. Rocchio. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Dr. Rocchio, can you please describe your educational background. + +A. I have a degree and a doctoral degree in clinical psychology. + +THE COURT: I need you to speak up. Sorry. + +A. I have a degree and a doctoral degree in clinical psychology. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Q. And taking a step back, before your degree and your other, and your Ph.D., did you receive an undergraduate degree? + +A. I have a bachelor's degree with a dual major in psychology and English. + +Q. Where did you receive your from? + +A. The University of Rhode Island. + +Q• And you mentioned your Ph.D. Where did you receive that from? + +A. That was also from the University of Rhode Island. + +Q. What is clinical psychology? + +A. Clinical psychology is the study of human thoughts and behaviors, both abnormal and normal. We also study psychopathology, treatment methods. But it's generally the study of human behavior. + +Q. Can you describe your coursework and training in connection with your and Ph.D. degree. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. Sure. So in a doctoral program such as the one I attended, it's the scientist-practitioner model. So I took about three to four years of coursework in a broad range of subject matters, such as assessment and treatment, psychopathology, ethics, professional practice, family systems, forensic psychology, tests and measurements, things like that, as well as specialty courses, electives, if you will, in areas of particular interest to me, which would have included at the time hostility and violence in the lives of women, psychology of poverty, forensic psychology. + +11 12 13 14 15 In addition to the structured coursework, we, during the graduate period, took courses in methods of practice, saw patients, and had clinical supervision, again in a variety of types of treatment. So individual therapy, marital couple therapy, for example. + +16 17 18 Q. During the course of your graduate studies at the University of Rhode Island, what if any topics in particular did you focus on? + +19 20 21 A. I focused in particular on areas related to social psychology, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and eating disorders. + +22 Q. What is traumatic stress? + +23 24 25 A. "Traumatic stress" refers to a stressor that overwhelms an individual's person ability to cope. In the DSM-V it's defined as a stressor that is severe enough, quite severe, and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +involves witnessing or experiencing an event that involves actual or threatened harm, threatened death, or sex -- and/or sexual violence. + +Q. You also mentioned interpersonal violence. What is interpersonal violence? + +A. Violence that one person does to another person. It's a term in the field that refers to things such as rape and sexual assault, intimate-partner violence, sexual harassment, child sexual abuse. And although it's an umbrella term, using the term "interpersonal violence," it also refers to dynamics related to coercion and emotional abuse or child abuse that may not necessarily involve violence in a way that is commonly understood. + +Q. And what is forensic psychology? + +A. Forensic psychology is the application of the science of psychology to a particular legal matter, so using -- using psychology to answer or to assist a court in answering a legal question. + +Q. As part of your work in your connection with your and Ph.D. degrees, did you perform clinical work with patients? + +A. I did. + +Q. About how much time did you spend working with patients? + +A. So prior to doing -- while I was taking my coursework and taking the classes and treating patients, I would say a minimum of 500 to 1,000 hours of face-to-face clinical time, and then, + +prior to receiving my degree, one of the requirements for my degree was a full-time one-year doctoral fellowship, which was roughly the equivalent of 1500 to 2,000 hours. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Approximately how many patients did you work with during your graduate studies? + +A. During my graduate studies, so that would have been over a period of about six years, hundreds. + +Q. What issues did you treat those patients for? + +A. A broad range. So issues related to eating disorders, grief, traumatic stress. I, during my internship, I also worked in both inpatient and partial hospital settings, so those individuals were dealing with sometimes major mental illness, issues pertaining to suicidality. A number of them had significant histories of traumatic stress and violence in their childhood and adult lives. + +Q. You mentioned a predoctoral fellowship. + +A. Yes. + +Q. Where did you do your predoctoral fellowship? + +A. At the Yale University School of Medicine. + +Q. During the course of your predoctoral fellowship at Yale, what kind of work did you do? + +A. I spent six months working at Yale New Haven Hospital in a partial hospital program treating adults who needed a high level of care and on an outpatient basis. Again, they presented with a wide range of issues. + +I then also spent another six months working at the Yale Psychiatric Institute on an inpatient and partial hospital unit, treating adolescents. In the course of that work, I also had some specialized training in the area of forensic psychology -- psychiatry. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. After you received your Ph.D., what did you do next in your career? + +A. I had a full-year equivalent of a postdoctoral fellowship. During that year I worked in a partial hospital program. I treated patients in an outpatient psychotherapy practice, and I taught courses at the college level in psychology. + +Q. Where did you do your postdoctoral fellowship? + +A. It was in Rhode Island. I worked in a private practice setting in Rhode Island, as well as Hospital. + +Specifically I worked in a partial hospital program that utilized dialectical behavior therapy in the treatment of women. + +Q. What issues did you focus on during your postdoctoral fellowship? + +A. So dialectical behavior therapy is the primary issue that I focused on, in terms of my training, and it's a treatment method that has been found -- there's a lot of evidence; it was developed and has been shown to be highly effective for a chronically suicidal and self-injurious population of women. It's since been generalized to a variety of populations. But + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that particular population is also known to have very high degrees of histories of childhood trauma of various kinds, including sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse. + +Q. During your postdoctoral fellowship, did you perform clinical work? + +A. I did. + +Q. During your postdoctoral fellowship, what if any research groups did you participate? + +A. I participated in an eating-disorder research group at Hospital. And then I also participated in an informal research group with a number of professionals from varying degrees. There was an attorney, there was a political science professor, and other practitioners, social worker, psychologist. And we would meet on a monthly basis to discuss issues relevant to the field of trauma psychology. + +Q. After your fellowship, what did you do next in your career? + +A. I founded an independent practice in psychology. + +Q. What is your role in that practice? + +A. I currently am -- I'm the owner. I am responsible for hiring both clinical and administrative staff, providing supervision, setting policies and procedures, and then of course treating patients. And within that setting I also maintain an independent forensic practice. + +Q. Approximately when did you start the practice? + +A. Upon becoming licensed, in -- just after becoming licensed, + +4 Q. How many employees do you have? + +5 6 A. I have seven clinicians who are working for me at the present time. + +7 8 Q. What are your responsibilities for supervising those employees? + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A. Providing them with education about the patients that they're seeing. They are all independently licensed themselves, but to on -- where issues involve some level the extent that they're treating patients come up that are particularly complex or of risk, they come to me and talk to me. I provide clinical and professional guidance on how to manage that. + +16 17 I also lead a weekly team meeting in which we discuss cases and review, review, review patient care. + +18 19 Q. Can you briefly describe the work you do in connection with your practice. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 A. So, in terms of my clinical work, I treat individual adult patients currently, although I've treated adolescents in the past. The majority of my personal caseload are patients who have experienced some form of traumatic stress, largely interpersonal violence, but I also treat other forms of traumatic stress, such as first responders or individuals who + +so around January of 1998. + +Q. Do you supervise anyone in your practice? + +A. I supervise all of my employees, yes. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +have been involved in motor vehicle accidents or traumatic loss, for example. And then I also have a smaller number of patients who are presenting due to issues in their life. They might be going through a transition. It might be a college student who's struggling to adapt, someone going through a divorcement general life issues, anxiety, depression, coping with a health problem, that sort of thing. + +Q. You mentioned a forensic practice. In your forensic practice, what sort of work do you do? + +A. I provide expert consultation, psychological, forensic psychological evaluations, and expert witness testimony in civil and criminal cases, most typically where traumatic stress and/or interpersonal violence are somehow related to the matter at hand, although I've also done other types of forensic work. + +Q. How does your clinical -- excuse me -- your forensic practice compare to your clinical practice? + +A. My forensic practice is very different. As a clinician, I'm working with individuals in the clinical room providing evidence-based treatment for the problems that they're presenting to me and developing a relationship over time. As a forensic psychologist, I'm taking on more of an investigative role, and my work is to answer some particular psycho-legal question from an objective perspective, and it involves certainly never taking what someone has to say at face value but, rather, a fairly well-established process of multiple + +4 A. I'm licensed to practice psychology currently in the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. + +5 Q. In your career, for approximately how many years -- + +6 7 8 THE COURT: Sorry. May I ask, Dr. Rocchio, that point you made about not taking what someone says at face value, you distinguish that as part of your forensic practice? + +9 THE WITNESS: Yes. + +10 THE COURT: And what about in your clinical practice? + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THE WITNESS: In my clinical practice, it's not -- I have to deal with what the patients tell me in the room. It's not my job to go out and verify any part of what's being told in the clinical room, but, rather, to hear what they're telling me and then relate that back to my other skills-training experience, the scientific literature. Someone, for example, might report to me symptoms of depression. I could ask them how that's manifesting in their life, but I don't go to their house to see if they're actually staying in bed all day. That kind of thing. + +21 THE COURT: Thank you. + +22 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +23 24 Q. Dr. Rocchio, in your career, for approximately how many years have you treated and assessed patients? + +25 A. 30, maybe slightly more than 30 years at this point. + +techniques to arrive at the -- my professional opinion. + +Q. What if any licenses do you have? + +Q. As a clinical psychologist, what issues or areas have you specialized in? + +4 5 6 A. Earlier in my career, as I said, I specialized in the assessment and treatment of eating disorders, and throughout my career I've specialized in the area of traumatic stress and interpersonal violence. + +7 8 Q. Since about when have you focused on traumatic stress and interpersonal violence? + +9 A. Since graduate school. + +10 11 12 Q. In the course of your career, have you treated and evaluated individuals who have experienced or reported experiencing childhood sexual abuse? + +13 A. I have. + +14 Q. What is childhood sexual abuse? + +15 16 17 18 19 20 A. "Childhood sexual abuse" refers to a process by which a child is involved, engaged in sexual activity by an adult or sometimes by a peer who's generally three to five years older than them, but it involves engaging the child in sexual activity when they either do not consent or are unable to consent. + +21 Q. And when you refer to "child," what are you referring to? + +22 A. Under the age of 18. + +23 24 Q. Approximately how many victims of childhood sexual abuse have you evaluated and treated in your career? + +25 A. I've treated hundreds upon hundreds of individuals who have 4 either reported to me that they've been sexually abused or have been referred to me after criminal proceedings have convicted a perpetrator. So those would be cases where it's been established that they've been abused. + +5 6 7 Q. During the course of your career, how old are the patients you've treated and evaluated who experienced childhood sexual abuse? + +8 9 A. I've treated, over the course of my career, individuals ages 13 and up. + +10 11 Q. And if this -- in your current practice, how old are the patients you treat? + +12 13 A. I'm currently working with individuals predominantly who are 18 and older. + +14 Q. In addition -- + +15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Sorry. What you're describing generally, is there a distinction to be made here in terms of your practice regarding childhood sexual abuse between your clinical side of your work and the forensic side? You're talking about your clinical work, I presume. + +20 21 22 23 24 THE WITNESS: I'm talking about my clinical work, but it is true that in both my clinical and forensic practice I have done a fair amount of work with adolescents as well as adults and that currently I am predominantly working in both settings with the evaluation of adults. + +25 THE COURT: OK. + +4 A. I do. + +5 Q. Where do you work? + +6 7 A. I'm on the voluntary faculty at University, Alpert School of Medicine, in the department of psychiatry. + +8 Q. What is your title? + +9 A. I'm a clinical assistant professor. + +10 11 Q. How long have you been at the Alpert Medical School of University? + +12 A. Since July 2020. + +13 14 Q. What are your current responsibilities in your employment there? + +15 16 17 A. I supervise psychiatry fellows in their efforts to learn how to conduct adult psychotherapy, and I also teach at some of the seminars that the psychiatry fellows attend. + +18 Q. What sorts of things do you teach on? + +19 20 A. When I'm asked to teach, I teach on areas related to traumatic stress and interpersonal violence. + +21 Q. Dr. Rocchio, I'd like to show you Government Exhibit 1. + +22 MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Durocher, can you pull that up. + +23 Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is that? + +24 A. My curriculum vitae. + +25 Q. Does it accurately describe your education and + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. In addition to your group practice, do you work anywhere else? + +qualifications? + +4 5 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government would offer Government Exhibit 1. + +6 THE COURT: No objection? + +7 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection for purposes of this hearing, your Honor. + +9 10 THE COURT: OK. For the purposes of this hearing, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted. Thank you. + +11 (Government's Exhibit 1 received in evidence) + +12 Q. Turning to page 4, what is listed there? + +13 A. Publications and professional presentations. + +14 15 Q. Can you summarize the subject of some of your published work. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. My published work generally deals in some way with traumatic stress, ethics, and professional practice issues. So a recent article was looking at the forensic assessment of individuals who have experienced complex trauma, childhood trauma, severe and repeated childhood trauma. I've also written issues related to ethics as part of a public service for education of junior members in the newsletter for the Rhode Island Psychological Association. + +24 25 Q. Have you had any public articles published in a peer-reviewed journal? + +A. It does, although it doesn't reflect my recent promotion at from clinical instructor to clinical assistant professor. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. So the peer-review process in my field involves generally people would either solicit or send -- either the journal would solicit requests for articles or people would submit articles to a journal for publication. The journal would -- editors would then take those articles and send them out to professionals in the field who have agreed to serve as reviewers, who have some sort of expertise related to the topic of the particular article. Generally in that process it's known as a blind review -- that is, the reviewers don't know who the author is, to help protect from bias. They then are asked to review and comment on the article, and then to make a recommendation regarding whether the article should be accepted, whether it should be -- whether the author should be asked to make either minor or major revisions to the article and then resubmit, or whether the article should be declined. + +19 Q. You also mentioned professional presentations. + +20 A. Yes. + +21 Q. Have you given any professional presentations? + +22 A. Yes, I have. + +23 24 Q. Focusing on pages -- sorry. Just let me back up one moment. What is a professional presentation? + +25 A. It's a presentation that is given at a professional + +A. I have. + +Q. What does it mean to be in a peer-reviewed journal generally? + +conference, where I'm providing either information and knowledge in the course of a presentation or I'm conducting a workshop, either by myself or as part of a symposium, a panel of presenters, on a given topic. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Are your professional presentations peer reviewed? + +A. Yes, they are. + +Q. What does it mean for a professional presentation to be peer reviewed? + +A. So it's the same peer-review process or it's analogous to the process I described for publication. In other words, people will submit, I would submit a presentation. There's a call for proposals. I would provide a proposal of what it is I would like to present to the program coordinator. They typically would have a team of individuals who then review all of the submissions and rate them. And then they would select those that they feel are most relevant and worthy and professional to present. + +Q. Focus on page 7 of Government Exhibit 1, have any of your professional presentations focused on trauma psychology or interpersonal violence? + +A. The vast majority of them have, yes. + +Q. Then turning to pages 7 and 8, have you given any invited addresses? + +A. I have. + +Q. What are invited addresses? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A. Those are talks where, rather than my submitting to a peer-review process, individuals or organizations and institutions have requested that I give a presentation within my areas of expertise. + +Q. Have any of your invited addresses focused on trauma psychology and interpersonal violence? + +A. The vast majority, yes. + +Q. You testified about the peer-review process. Have you ever served as a peer reviewer for publications? + +A. Yes. I serve as a peer reviewer for several. + +Q. What types of publications? + +A. I'm on the editorial board for the journal for the Division of Trauma psychology, so it's a trauma psychology journal, and my role there is to conduct regular peer reviews for that journal. I also serve as a peer reviewer, kind of as a guest peer reviewer, for a variety of other journals, when it's related to my topic matter. So I believe I've done that for psychological injury and the law as well as the journal of professional practice, recent -- journal -- professional journal research and practice, for example. + +Q. When did you start serving as a peer reviewer for publications? + +A. I've served as a peer reviewer for either professional presentations or publications for much of my career. I'm not sure when I first started doing it for journals, but I know + +I've been doing it for conferences from, you know, 20, 25 years minimally. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Do you have any other involvement in professional publications? + +A. I, apart from serving on the editorial board for the journal of trauma psychology, not at the moment, no. + +Q. Do you hold -- + +A. II, can I actually correct that answer? + +Yes. Actually, the other thing is that for the publication I recently had, in addition to submitting articles for peer review, I was an invited guest editor in that particular edition -- special issue of that journal, so that meant that I had to, with my co-editor, solicit articles and then review them for publication. + +Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations? + +A. I do. + +Q. Do you hold any leadership positions with those organizations? + +A. I do. + +Q. What are those leadership positions that you hold? + +A. I'm currently the president-elect for the division of trauma psychology for the American Psychological Association. + +I am also a member of the ethics committee for the American Psychological Association. I serve as a -- on the executive board of the Rhode Island Psychological Association, where I am + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +their counsel representative to the National American Psychological Association. + +I believe those are my current leadership roles. I've held others in the past. + +Q. What do you do in your capacity as the president-elect of the division of trauma psychology? + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, you've gotten a little quieter, so into the mike and speak up. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. + +Q. What do you do in your capacity as president-elect of the division of trauma psychology? + +A. So I was elected to the position. It's a three-year term. I serve as part of what's called the presidential trio, which consists of the past president, the current president, and the president-elect. So I'll begin my term as president next year. + +And then, during my presidential year, I'm responsible for planning the topic and organizing and -- the theme of the program -- our division's program at the annual conference for the American Psychological Association. + +I sit on the executive board. I work closely with the executive director, overseeing, managing things related to finance, policy, particular outstanding projects or projects that -- ad hoc projects that I wish to execute during my presidential year. + +(Continued on next page) + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +4 5 6 7 A. So the national organization for -- professional organization for psychology, within that organization, there are 56 separate divisions that each focus on a distinct area, specialized area of psychology. And I belong to a number of those divisions of psychology. + +8 9 Q. Have you served in a leadership position with other professional organizations? + +10 A. Yes, I have. + +11 Q. Can you briefly describe? + +12 A. I served on the Rhode Island psychological association. + +13 14 15 16 I've served on the committee for state leaders, which is an organization within the American psychological association dealing with various states and advocacy for issues related to psychology. + +17 18 Q. How do you keep up to date on the subjects in which you specialize? + +19 20 21 22 23 24 A. In a variety of ways. Certainly, I regularly review the scientific and legal literature. I attend programming. I consult with peers in my field. I attend trainings. And then of course, I bring that information back to my experience, both in clinical and forensic settings, and learn from my patients and the people that I evaluate in my experience. + +25 Q. In what areas have you received additional education and + +Q. What is the division of trauma psychology? + +4 5 A. Various treatment methods specific to treating individuals who have experienced various kinds of traumatic stress and personal violence, childhood abuse, complex trauma, specialized practice in forensic psychology, predominantly. + +6 Q. What kinds of training have you received? + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A. Attending numerous workshops conducted by reputable experts in the field that typically have been vetted so that I can receive continuing education credits and are required on an annual basis for various forms of licensure. Also, there have been some trainings that I have done online. For example, I participate in a weekly webinar on issues relevant to the signs and practice of forensic psychology that is conducted by experts in the field. I think that covers it. + +15 Q. In what way do you train others? + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I have done a variety of things. So I have been on the ethics committee for the psychological association and also on the American psychological association. So part of what I do is we have a call in opportunity for our members, and we provide education about ethical issues to -- and consultation to individuals who request that form of assistance. As I mentioned, I'm a clinical supervisor for psychology fellows in medical school at University. I do provide consultation, supervision to all of my employees. And there are also times where others in the field may contact me on a professional + +training? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +basis to consult with them on my area of expertise. A recent colleague who is a forensic psychologist, but not a forensic expert, contacted me to ask to teach her and talk with her about some of the traumatic stress issues that were involved in her case. + +Q. What types of training and presentations have you given in the area of childhood sexual abuse? + +A. I've given a number of trainings on complex trauma. And complex trauma refers to repeated abuse that occurs during childhood perpetrated generally by caregivers of the individual. I've also given -- so I've given trainings on for general clinicians -- on how to assess trauma and that may include assessing for a history of childhood sexual abuse. And I have given trainings, for example, at the Department of DCYF to investigators on how to manage the effects of being exposed to details related to traumatic stress in the course of their work. Those would be some examples of trainings I have done. + +Q. How do you keep up with the scientific literature in your field? + +A. So from my membership in a number of different divisions and, of course, international and national traumatic stress organizations, most of those journals have some combination - most of those organizations have professional journals, in which they publish literature, scientific peer review literature, or they also have newsletters. They also have + +listservs to provide communication, and then creating a healthy clinical picture as well. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, have you testified in court before? + +A. I have. + +Q. How many times? + +A. Twice. + +Q. Were you qualified as an expert when you testified previously? + +A. I was. + +Q. On what subject were you qualified as an expert? + +A. I was qualified as an expert in psychology with a specialized expertise in traumatic stress and complex trauma. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, I want to ask you about the specific opinions you have offered in this case. + +How are most instances of childhood sexual abuse committed? + +A. Majority are committed without the use of force. They're committed with the use of nonviolence, coercive and controlling tactics, but without the use of physical force and violence. + +Q. Are most instances of childhood sexual abuse committed by strangers or people known to children? + +A. They're generally committed by people known to the children in the context of a relationship between the perpetrator and the child. + +Q. Based on your experience, research and training, are you + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +familiar with the term grooming? + +A. I am. + +Q. What is grooming? + +A. Grooming is a term that is used in the professional literature and in the field to refer to a series of tactics and strategies that are commonly experienced by victims and utilized by offenders in the course of deceiving the child, building a relationship of trust, and then eventually sexually abusing the child. + +Q. Can you please describe specific grooming strategies? + +A. So various researchers have identified grooming strategies involving a series of tactics that typically fit into several stages. They typically involve strategies to identify a victim, strategies to have access and to isolate the victim. So for example, many offenders put themselves purposefully in situations where they're going to have a great deal of access, whether that's a boy scout troop or a school setting or that type of thing, a coach. And then there are various coercive and manipulative strategies that are utilized to develop a relationship of trust, prosocial behaviors, things that might be gift giving or letting the child know how special they are, showering the child with affection. There's been some comparison in the literature, a significant amount of comparison to strategies that are basically akin to what two adults might do in a courtship process. But basically the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +offender is trying to win over the trust and affection of the child. Then there's another stage where the child is gradually exposed to greater levels of physical touch and sexual content and material that slowly escalates over time, and then strategies that keep the relationship going and help to prevent exposure. + +Q. Based on your experience, research and training are you familiar with the term grooming the environment? + +A. I am. + +Q. What is grooming the environment? + +A. It's a term that applies to commonly recognized phenomenon and strategies, tactics, modus operandi used by perpetrators in the service of getting them access to victims and building that relationship of trust. So in addition to manipulating the child, they'll manipulate individuals or institutions in that child's life so that they're able to have greater access. So they might, for example, befriend a child's parent and hold themselves out as a trustworthy person who is going to help, say, a single mom and he'll serve as a father figure to the kid. Or they might groom an institution, they might work their way up through the boy scouts, for example, and become a leader there, become a pillar in the community to give them an air of respectability, disarming, gaining trust. + +Q. Are you familiar with the term attachment? + +A. I am. + +Q. What is that term? + +4 5 6 7 8 A. Attachment basically refers to the relationship between one person, one individual and another. The original research was conducted looking at the attachment as a connection between an infant and a caregiver, her mother. But since has expanded into talking about the relational dynamics between either children and caregivers, children and family members or, for example, two intimate partners as adults. + +9 10 Q. Can you please explain the relationship, if any, between attachment and grooming? + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. So when I talked about some of the strategies that are utilized, tactics, modus operandi in order to build that relationship within the context of childhood sexual abuse, the function and end result of that is to create a relationship or attachment and connection between the perpetrator and the child, whereby the child trusts and becomes dependent upon the perpetrator. + +18 19 Q. Based on your experience, research and training are you familiar with the term coercive control? + +20 A. I am. + +21 Q. What is coercive control? + +22 23 24 25 A. Coercive control refers to a strategic pattern of behavior that's designed to attain and maintain control in a relationship. So coercion means getting somebody to either do or not do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do otherwise. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +And it is combined with control tactics like isolation or building access to resources so that the power in the relational dynamic lies with the person who is using coercive control. + +It was initially developed and conceptualized to help understand part of intimate partner violent relationships, but has since been found to exist in multiple forms of victimization. + +Q. You mentioned specific grooming strategies earlier. Can you give examples or specific examples of specific grooming strategies? + +A. Gift giving, spending time alone, giving hugs, giving massages that gradually escalate to disrobing or more overtly sexualized behavior, talking about sex. Basically, normalizing behaviors and then over time -- normalizing sexualized behaviors and then over time moving that line of what's normal, what's appropriate, what's happening within this relationship closer and closer to sexual abuse. + +But the strategies that are utilized for the building of relationship are the same types of things that anyone might do to build trust and attachment. Again, giving attention, making the child feel special, gift giving, spending -- taking them out to special places, purchasing things for them. Also things that make them perhaps more dependent upon you. So if you are offering to pay for things and this person is in need + +of money, and if you are giving them something that will increase their dependency. Also the adult-child relationship, the power differential. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: The specific examples you are mentioning, are those found in the literature? + +THE WITNESS: They are. + +THE COURT: So you derive your views as to those specific examples from -- not from your clinical work or your forensic work or maybe both -- but the ones you have cited just now, you find in peer-reviewed literature? + +THE WITNESS: Yes. It's an interaction. So everything I'm talking about today is derived from my education and experience, as well as my knowledge of the literature. But yes, for many years, those specific tactics and strategies have been described in numerous peer-reviewed articles. + +And your Honor, if I may, it's also, I believe important to know that those are articles that have studied reports and behaviors that offenders talk about doing as well as things that victims have talked about experiencing. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, you gave an example of gift giving, how can you tell if that is grooming or innocent behavior? + +A. As I said, it depends on the context in which the gift giving is happening. And you have to look at the entire + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +relationship. As I said, child sexual abuse is a process. + +It's not an isolated event. To the extent that gift giving is + +being done in the service of increasing someone's dependency on + +you for the purposes of increasing your ability to coerce and + +control them, ultimately, for sexual abuse, then that gift + +giving would be considered part of -- to be part of the + +grooming process. + +Q. How long has the concept of grooming been in the scientific + +literature? + +A. Grooming itself has been in the scientific literature at + +least since the 80s. But the scientific literature that has + +looked at the relational components of child sexual abuse and + +the ways in which victims become coerced into, quote, unquote, + +complying with sexual activity by an adult has been well + +established in the study of child sexual abuse for quite some + +time. + +Q. At a high level, what are your opinions on grooming based + +on? + +A. They're based on the interaction between my education, my + +training, the skills I have developed over time, certainly my + +ongoing review of the scientific literature and my practice. + +Q. In your education, how did you learn about the concept of + +grooming? + +A. So again, in my education part of how I learned that, it + +was from my study of the process of child sexual abuse and both + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +what that typically entails, not just the sexual components, but also the psychological and emotional components and their effects. And also, certainly, in my reviews of the literature and things that we talked about in graduate school and in other trainings, what sorts of behaviors offenders commonly use in order to engage children in that relationship. + +Q. In your clinical practice, have you treated and evaluated patients who have reported being groomed in connection with sexual abuse? + +A. I have. Although they don't typically use that word. As I said, most patients, including patients I treat, who have been abused as children, have had abuse happen in the context of a relationship. The abuse hasn't involved explicit force. So to the extent that they talk about the ways that they came to know, love and depend upon the perpetrator, yes, they talk and describe at length the types of behaviors that would meet the definition of grooming. + +Q. Approximately how many patients have you treated, evaluated who have reported behaviors consistent with grooming? + +A. I would say the vast majority of patients I have treated who have reported childhood sexual abuse, again, that would be hundreds upon hundreds. + +Q. What are the ages of the patients you have treated who have reported behaviors consistent with grooming? + +A. I have treated patients who are adolescents and patients + +4 Q. Are you aware of other psychologists treating and evaluating patients that reported behaviors consistent with grooming? + +5 A. Absolutely. It's common in the field. + +6 Q. How do you know that? + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A. Through my review of the clinical research, it's something that's well documented in articles or books, chapters that have been written, for example, about how to provide treatment to patients. It's written in the literature around what sorts of symptoms might patients present with and why, what are some of the common difficulties. Of course, it's written in case studies. And then through my conversations with peers and, of course, trainings I have attended conducted by experts in the field. + +16 17 Q. In your forensic practice, have you evaluated survivors of childhood sexual abuse? + +18 A. I have. + +19 20 Q. What does forensic evaluation of someone who has reported childhood sexual abuse entail? + +21 22 23 24 25 A. So in general, a forensic evaluation is a multistep process. As I mentioned before, it's not just talking to someone. So a forensic evaluation, as I conduct it, involves first reading all of the relevant external collateral information relevant to the case. So if it's a criminal case, + +who are adults. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +that might be crime scene photos, autopsy photos, that might be transcripts of grand jury testimony, state police interviews. In a civil case, I might also look at things like medical records and psychotherapy records. So any and all documents relevant to the case. + +Then I typically do somewhere between eight and ten hours of face-to-face evaluation, that involves both psychological testing and clinical interviewing. I also conduct collateral interviews with others who have information that's relevant to the case and to the issues at hand. + +And then I synthesize all of that information. And if requested will prepare a report. Most cases don't end up going to trial. But if they do and I'm asked to testify, I would then testify in those cases. + +Q. Do you evaluate issues of grooming in connection with your forensic practice? + +A. Yes, I have. + +Q. Can you give me an example of a forensic evaluation that has involved grooming-related issues? + +A. Sure. So for example, in the civil arena where I am asked to -- say somebody has alleged that they've been sexually abused as a child or maybe we know that they have been sexually abused as a child because the perpetrator has been criminally convicted, I may be asked to assess, does this individual at the present time have any current psychiatric difficulties or + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +impairments. And if so, to what degree, if any, are those attributable in whole or in part to the alleged sexual abuse. + +So as part of that assessment, I'm looking at the dynamics in the relationship between the individual and the perpetrator. And we know that the grooming behaviors that induce that relationship of trust and attachment have a significant negative affect on an individual's psyche and can strongly and negatively impact their functioning afterwards. + +So those are things I'm looking for. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, to be clear, in your forensic work, do you assume that everything a victim reports is true? + +A. Absolutely not. + +Q. Can you explain that? + +A. My role in a forensic capacity is to provide an objective answer based upon my evaluation and my review of the literature. And it is not dependent on who is hiring me, for example. So as I mentioned, the reason that I look at all of these other documents and the reason I administer psychological tests and talk to third parties is precisely because I'm looking for consistencies and inconsistencies in what the individual is telling me in order to form an opinion. As part of my duty in that role is to investigate various hypotheses, in a forensic setting, it has to be that I'm not being told the truth. + +Q. To take a step back, to be clear, in your clinical work, do + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +you assume everything a victim reports is true? + +A. No, I do not. + +Q. Can you explain? + +A. So in a clinical setting, it is not my role to determine whether something is or is not true. Of course, when someone is telling me something, I'm using my skill and experience to take that information in and also to inquire, as I communicate to that individual and provide treatment. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't go out and try to see, well, this person is having trauma related to a motor vehicle accident or a shooting on the job, I don't go and ask them to provide me with newspaper articles to verify whether that event happened. + +Q. How do the grooming that you have seen in your forensic practice compare to what you have seen in your clinical practice? + +A. There's remarkable consistency in what I see in my work over time in my forensic practice, my clinical practice and what I have been trained and what's in the literature. + +Q. Can you describe at a high level the scientific literature upon which your opinions on grooming are based? + +A. So there have been a number of studies over time that have looked at the tactics, modus operandi, skill, manipulative techniques that have been used by perpetrators. And those studies have been published in peer-review journals. So there are studies that have done interviews with offenders, who have + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +been convicted and who admit to their crimes, asking them what sorts of techniques they utilized in order to perpetuate the sexual abuse. There have been studies that have been done with victims, in terms of asking them what sorts of experiences they had. There have also been studies that have been conducted with professionals in various ; law and human services and psychology about the types of tactics and strategies that have been used. + +Q. How do the results of those studies compare? + +A. There's remarkable consistency. And even though definitions may vary in studies, as they always do, there are common -- a clear set of common strategies, techniques and behaviors that have been identified in the literature across time and across various samples. + +Q. When you review articles about grooming, what sorts of things are you looking for to determine the quality of articles you are relying on? + +A. I'm looking at whether or not it's in a peer review journal. I'm looking at how a particular study was conducted. So for example, if they're doing content analysis of an interview, are they making sure that ways that that interview has been coded by multiple individuals to get some sort of consistency there. I'm looking at how they chose the sample size. I'm looking at if it's a review that summarizes the state of the literature, is the literature review + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +comprehensive. I might go back to some of the original sources cited in the reference list, for example, and look at those articles to see if in the article I'm reading, when they describe article X, when I read article X, is that actually what article X is saying. Also, there are researchers who have come to be known in a particular field, so I might look at who the authors are and where the research is being conducted. + +Q. Beyond what you have already described, can you give any examples of how studies are conducted? + +A. They're conducted in a variety of ways. So for example -- I think I may have already described it -- but there are a variety of ways people might interview offenders and ask them what they do, what strategies and tactics they use. There might be studies that look at victims reporting what their experiences are. Or there might be studies where you're looking at treatment of victims and what are some of the issues that patients are bringing to treatment that need to be addressed, so the strategies that they experienced might come out that way. Certainly, studies have been done interviewing various experts, asking them what are strategies. And then looking for what are the strategies that experts from a variety of different agree upon, to a degree of certainty, and what do these professionals agree are part of what they see. + +Q. Do studies use the same or different definitions of grooming? + +4 5 A. So the definitions can vary. They're all generally referring to the same process. But the specific definition may vary in different studies. So you have to be sure that the literature, when reviewing it, you have to understand what definition they're using. + +6 7 8 Q. How can you rely on the empirical studies when there is variance across the different definitions of grooming used in those studies? + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. To the extent they're talking about the same kind of process in the context of childhood sexual abuse. And again, grooming, not only may there be variances in definition of grooming, but the same patterns and behavior are sometimes referred to by different names. But what you really want to look for are the commonalities. So for example, are what offenders tell us they do, does that -- to what degree of overlap is there between that and what victims tell us that they have experienced. When professionals talk about the kinds of behaviors, how much overlap and agreement is there between professionals, say, in similar , but also in different in characterizing these common phenomenon, the common phenomenon. + +22 Q. Do studies look at samples of substantiated cases of abuse? + +23 A. Yes. + +24 Q. What does that mean? + +25 A. So some of the research has been done that has looked at + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +and interviewed individuals where the abuse has been known, either because the perpetrator has offended -- has admitted -- I apologize -- or has been found guilty. So that would be an example of a legally substantiated case. Other times, they find studies where it's been substantiated in other ways; there have been interviews done with children who presented in medical settings with gonorrhea and talking with them about sexual abuse or abuse with kids in real time. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Can you pull up Government Exhibit 2, please. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this? + +A. I do. + +Q. What is it? + +A. It's an article about coercive control. + +Q. Who is the author? + +A. Jacquelynn Duron, Laura , Gretchen Hoge and Judy Postmus. + +MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the government would offer Government Exhibit 2. + +THE COURT: Any objection? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Not for purposes of this hearing, your Honor. + +hearing. THE COURT: Government Exhibit 2 is admitted for the + +(Government's Exhibit 2 received in evidence) + +4 A. I did. + +5 Q. Is this one of the samples you provided? + +6 A. Yes. + +7 Q. Is this article peer-reviewed? + +8 A. Yes. + +9 Q. At a high level, can you describe this article? + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. So what this article did, it reviewed information provided by a variety of professionals who had expertise, specifically in offender behavior and tactics that are utilized by offenders in sexual abuse, professionals from a variety of . And it asked them to talk about some of the tactics used in furthering the relationship and developing a dynamic of coercive control. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 What was significant in particular about this article is not only did they look at coercive control as it applies to childhood sexual abuse, but they also looked at how coercive control, patterns of behavior play out in multiple forms of victimization; trafficking, elder abuse or pimp and sex worker relationships, intimate partner violence, rape, sexual assault, that sort of thing. + +24 Q. Does this article talk about grooming? + +25 A. It does. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, to prepare for this hearing, did you provide the government with samples of literature? + +4 5 And it looked for content analysis and commonalities in what these professionals reported were common behaviors and tactics that were used across types of victimization. + +6 7 Q. How, if at all, does that impact your assessment of the study and article? + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. It impacts it significantly. Because what this article is doing is not only is it replicating what has previously been found about tactics that are used, it's extending that literature and saying that these are common patterns of behavior that are used in the service of coercive control in a variety of types of victimization. So it's identifying a common tactic that's used in a number of settings to gain and maintain power and to coerce a victim into some form of behavior. + +17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Let me ask on that, one of the examples you gave was the pimp and sex worker relationship. In some of the literature and in the cases, trauma bonding is the phrase that's used? + +21 THE WITNESS: Yes. + +22 23 24 THE COURT: What's your understanding of the similarity, the overlap and prevalence of understanding of these two concepts in the field? + +25 THE WITNESS: In the field, there's significant -- so + +Q. Does this article use any particular sampling? + +A. The sampling was of professionals from a variety of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +trauma bonding is typically referring to a relationship of attachment and connection between the pimp and the sex worker. We know that the majority of sex workers are under some third-party control. And we know that the trauma bonding is often the means by which the pimp has coerced the sex worker to get them to do their bidding, similar to the kinds of techniques that traffickers might use. So there's a significant amount of overlap. And there has been actually some recent research -- this is one example -- but others have specifically looked at grooming as it applies to trafficking, for example. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio -- withdrawn. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Can we pull up Government Exhibit 3, please. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this? + +A. I do. + +Q. What is it? + +A. It's an article validating a model of child sexual abusers. + +Q. Who wrote this? + +A. Georgia Winters, Elizabeth Jeglic and Leah Kaylor. + +MS. POMERANTZ: The government offers Government Exhibit 3. + +4 (Government's Exhibit 3 received in evidence) + +5 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +6 7 Q. Dr. Rocchio, is this one of the articles you provided to the government? + +8 A. It is. + +9 Q. When was this article published? + +10 11 A. 2020 or 2021. I can't read the date right now. I think it was 2020. + +12 Q. Is this article peer reviewed? + +13 A. It is. + +14 15 It was published in October 2020. Thanks. I don't have my glasses on. + +16 Q. What was the conclusion of this study? + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. So what these authors did is a two-part study. So the first thing that they did is they did an extensive literature review to look for commonalities in the literature about what are the commonly described stages that a perpetrator engages in and what are the behaviors that are associated with those stages. So they did a very comprehensive literature review. They identified a number of specific behavioral and observable strategies that individuals have identified in the literature. + +25 They then got a group of recognized individuals in + +MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection. + +THE COURT: Government Exhibit 3 is admitted to the hearing record. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +various with a high level of expertise -- I believe there were about 18 professionals; 15 of them had doctoral degrees and they all had a significant number of publications having to do with offender behavior -- they did a scientific analysis, whereby they had the professionals rate the relevance of not only the stages of grooming to their understanding of tactics and strategies utilized by offenders, but also the specific developments of very specific behaviors. + +So they had each of those behaviors rated on a four point scale by all of the professionals. And then they conducted analysis to see which of the items for which there was a high level, statistically significant level of agreement between the professionals, as to which of these behaviors were relevant. And they then went back and they asked, of those behaviors, where was their agreement on which stages that these specific behaviors belonged to. + +So I think they were able, through that analysis, to get a statistically significant agreement about behaviors. I think they narrowed it down to about 43 specific behaviors in this particular model. + +Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 3. + +A. Okay. + +Q. What is this table? + +A. So this is a table that, if you can see, there are five stages of the model; the first being the victim selection, then + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +gaining access and isolation, trust development, desensitization, sexual contact and physical contact. And then beneath each stage level, there is a list of the behavioral and the observable and measurable behaviors where there was a high level of statistical significance in agreement among varying professionals as to the relevance both to the grooming process and to the stages. + +Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 4. What is this table? + +A. So these, as I mentioned, there was an original list of about 77 specific behaviors that have been found associated with grooming in the literature fairly consistently. These are the behaviors that were part of that original list, where perhaps there were more differences of opinion, but the level of agreement among the professionals in this particular study did not reach the level of statistical significance. + +Q. What is your takeaway from the study in the article? + +A. I think this is a study that has really done a good job of integrating what we know and pulling together the literature, and then putting it to an empirical test. There have been other ways to empirically understand and test what is referred to as grooming. I think this is another way that provides some validation of a proposed model of the ways in which grooming works. + +MS. POMERANTZ: You can pull that down. I'd like to + +4 A. I do. + +5 Q. What is it? + +6 7 8 9 A. It's an article on the construct of grooming in child sexual abuse that identifies both a summary of literature as well as some of the conceptual and measurement issues that were present at the time the article was written. + +10 Q. Who wrote this article? + +11 A. Natalie Bennett and William O'Donohue. + +12 MS. POMERANTZ: The government offers Exhibit 4. + +13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection. + +14 15 THE COURT: Thank you. Government Exhibit 4 is admitted into the hearing record. + +16 (Government's Exhibit 4 received in evidence) + +17 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +18 19 Q. Is this one of the articles that you provided the government? + +20 A. It is. + +21 Q. Why did you provide the government with this article? + +22 23 24 25 A. I think that this article does a really good job of summarizing much of the previous literature that has been published and peer-reviewed sources about the grooming process. It identified some of the issues and varying definitions. It + +show Dr. Rocchio Exhibit 4. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Do you recognize this? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +provided data supporting that this is a process that is well known and well established in the literature, and then it pointed to directions that were needed for future work. It pointed to some of the concerns about definitions and things that -- suggestions, basically, for issues that needed to be addressed in future research. + +Q. Do you agree with all of the conclusions of this article? + +A. I do not. + +Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 959. And I want to zoom in on the paragraph above current definitions. It's about four lines down. It starts with "Furthermore." + +A. Okay. + +MS. POMERANTZ: We can highlight those next two sentences. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, could you review the highlighted text. + +A. Okay. + +MS. POMERANTZ: And for purposes of the record, your Honor, I'm happy to read that. + +THE COURT: The sentence beginning with "Furthermore" and ending with "negatives." + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your reaction to this? + +A. I think it's incomplete and I disagree with the conclusion. + +Q. Can you explain? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A. Sure. I think that certain things -- some psychologists use clinical judgment on whether or not a perpetrator's behaviors are considered grooming. But that certainly doesn't at all reference the scientific literature to determine what is and is not considered grooming. In addition, we also have data that's been provided by offenders themselves. + +In terms of reliability and validity of these judgments, the validity in psychological science refers to the degree to which you are measuring this particular thing, what you think you're measuring. So for example, the degree to which there is significant overlap between what victims say they experience and what offenders say that they have done provides us with a measure of validity. + +The degree to which different groups of individuals, whether that's groups of professionals or groups of victims agree in studies what it is that -- the process, what kinds of behaviors, what's been done to the victim, behaviors are associated with the grooming extent those professionals agree, that's a what kinds of process, to the measure of reliability. Because you're getting different studies, different groups, different samples where there's significant overlap in what this dynamic and what this concept is. + +MS. POMERANTZ: I want to turn to Page 974. + +I want you to focus on the section under conclusions and the first two sentences, so "Currently." Q. + +4 MS. POMERANTZ: The first two sentences of that paragraph starting with "currently" and ending with "has occurred or is occurring." + +5 THE COURT: Thank you. + +6 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +7 Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your response to those two sentences? + +8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. Again, I think that I would not agree with those conclusions. I also think it's important to recognize that this article was published many years ago. And there's certainly been evolutions and additional literature since the time of publication. But even at the time of publication, I think it's a little misleading. If they're defining consensus there as universal agreement as to exact -- everything within the process of grooming, then sure. But when we're talking about any pattern of behavior or any phenomenon within the social science, it's a complicated phenomenon. You're never going to get universal agreement among experts. That's why you have to look at what's the particular definition used within a study. + +21 22 23 24 25 But most definitely, there's consensus within the scientific literature about the phenomenon not only of grooming, but the phenomenon of child sexual abuse itself, what the experiences are of the victim and what the behaviors are of the offender and also the impact of those behaviors, in terms + +THE COURT: Can you repeat that, please. + +4 5 6 7 of how it affects an individual. So if we know that it's a relationship of trust, for example, that typically results in feelings of shame on the part of the victim, obviously, we had to study how that trust was built up and how that relationship developed over time. That's well established. And there's consensus that that is a significant part of the dynamics of child sexual abuse. + +8 9 10 Q. I want to turn to the next two sentences starting with "The field possesses" and going through "does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard." + +11 A. Okay. + +12 Q. Do you see that, Dr. Rocchio? + +13 A. Mm-hmm. + +14 15 Q. What is your reaction to the statement that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings? + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. As I indicated, I think that it is absolutely part and parcel of a forensic evaluation to look at what are the behaviors, what is their impact and what was their function. So I think that to the extent that we have the ability in a forensic setting, in particular, to look for corroboration, to look for consistency among different data points, between what you are being told by an individual, between what other people have observed, for example, what people are reporting on measures and tests, what individuals have told in a contemporaneous setting. I think there are a lot of ways you + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +can get consistency. And it's a concept that is frequently referred to in forensic studies. + +Q. Do more recent articles respond to some of the concerns raised by this Bennett and O'Donohue article? + +A. They do. + +Q. Can you please explain? + +A. The article we looked at earlier by winters attempted specifically to address some concerns. So she attempted to validate the grooming model. And she very specifically wanted to see, okay, of course there's not going to be universal agreement on every single behavior, but she did a statistical study to find out specifically what behaviors do the professionals and the experts agree upon. And again, remembering that all of the behaviors -- even the ones that, in that particular study, didn't meet the statistical significance in that study, all of those behaviors were behaviors that have been commonly referred to and described in the literature. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, how do error rates factor into this literature? + +A. So I think when we talk about error rates within the field of psychology, the kind of gold standard is when you have a particular technique or a drug and you ideally would randomly assign people, one who receives the drug, one who doesn't receive the drug, and I would kind of compare whether -- how effective it is. For obvious reasons, you can't assign some + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +people as sexually abused and others not. So you have to look for other ways to assess acceptability within the scientific literature; peer review and general thoughts about concepts. And so that's where you look at the reliability as in what do the experts consistently agree to among themselves. You look at the degree of overlapping studies, perhaps studying it in different ways, but are they still coming up with the same clear description of the types of things that happen in the context of child sexual abuse. + +So for example, there was a content analysis done through interviews to pull out what some of those studies have found and to the degree that they're rated by multiple reviewers, and then compare the ratings of those reviewers, that's an indices of reliability. + +MS. POMERANTZ: I think we're done with Government Exhibit 4. + +Can we pull up Government Exhibit 5, please. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this? + +A. I do. + +Q. What is it? + +A. It's an article describing the evolution of the word grooming and how it's been used, as well as the term seduction, to describe this commonly understood pattern of behavior and the strategies used by child perpetrators in the service of sexual exploitation and abuse. + +4 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we move to admit Government Exhibit 5. + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection. + +6 THE COURT: Government Exhibit 5 is received. + +7 (Government's Exhibit 5 received in evidence) + +8 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +9 10 Q. Dr. Rocchio, did you provide the government with this article? + +11 A. I did. + +12 Q. Why did you provide the government with this article? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I was asked to provide examples to the government of literature in the field that I thought might be helpful to the court to understand the concepts that I'm talking about. This does a really nice job of pointing to the part that the terms grooming and seduction refer to a pattern of behavior that's widely known and well established to be part of the dynamics of sexual abuse. But in particular, I appreciated the author's emphasis later on in the article of some of the problems with the words seduction and some of the ways that much earlier literature erroneously used terminology that could inappropriately indicate a victim is blamed for the abuse that they have been subjected to. + +25 MS. POMERANTZ: Can you pull up Page 31, please. + +Q. Who wrote this article? + +A. Park Dietz. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. I wanted to direct your attention to the use of the term grooming, so in that top paragraph. If you could review the section of the article that starts with "If their use of the term grooming" and all the way to the end of that paragraph and let me know when you have had a chance to review it, please. + +A. Okay. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your response, reaction to this passage? + +A. It's a bit confusing as to the point that's being made. I feel like they're trying to -- the author here seems to be mixing different applications of the term that they use grooming, so it looks like in part he's talking about what is true in the literature, which is that we're not particularly good as a field of taking, frankly, many behaviors at all and predicting future behaviors. So he's saying accurately that we can't look at specific behaviors alone as predictors. + +And certainly, the use of the term grooming, again, is used to describe a process, a pattern of behaviors. I'm not here today to say that if somebody engages in any one of these particular behaviors, yes, we know you're a child abuser. So he's making that point. But I don't think anybody -- I don't think that -- if that's his point, I wouldn't disagree with that. Except that he's then going on -- I disagree where he says that grooming then can't involve behaviors that might in fact be prosocial or normal. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Again, we're talking about a use of a variety of strategies for the purpose of sexual abuse. So these are ways in which -- tactics, ways in which an offender might manipulate a child to developing a relationship of trust and attachment. Obviously, one can develop a relationship of trust and attachment in a variety of contexts. But when we're talking about grooming, the specific context, is when there's been coercive control and some form of organization. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, taking a step back -- + +MS. POMERANTZ: You can pull down Exhibit 5. + +Q. -- how have some of the behaviors you have seen in grooming literature compare to behaviors you have seen in your forensic practice and your clinical practice? + +A. Again, there's remarkable similarity in the impact of those behaviors. In my clinical practice victims talk about, I really trusted him, I thought he was a nice guy, he paid so much attention to me, he helped me out, he drove me places, he bought me sneakers when I didn't have any, he was the only person who cared about me. And that significantly -- in a clinical arena, that significantly impacts the individual's confusion and self-blame and often experiences of shame. + +Similarly, in a forensic setting, it can often contribute to an increase in the kinds of damage and harm that I need to assess that have stemmed from an incident. + +Q. In your view, is the concept of grooming generally accepted + +4 5 Q. Based on your experience, research and training, are certain individuals at higher risk of being sexually abused as children? + +6 7 A. There are certain groups who are more vulnerable and there's a higher prevalence of child sexual abuse, yes. + +8 9 Q. What factors contribute to increased risk or higher vulnerabilities? + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. So there are factors that have been studied and found in literature that have to do with the individual themselves. So for example, individuals who are particularly needy and vulnerable, individuals who have a prior history of victimization, you know, are at much higher risk of revictimization, individuals who are part of marginalized groups. For example, we know there's very high rates of sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse among especially minority children or among intellectually and cognitively disabled children. + +20 21 22 23 24 25 We know that individuals who come from certain types of family structures can be also at higher risk. For example, where there's only one parent, or children who come from home environments where there's abuse of other types going on in the home. So there might be other siblings who are being abused or the parents might be engaged -- one of the parents might be + +within the scientific community? + +A. Yes, absolutely. + +abusing another parent or another child, so where there's other violence, those groups are also at higher risk. + +There have been other studies that look at poverty as a risk factor. So those are just examples of the types of vulnerabilities that have been well established in the literature. + +(Continued on next page) + +4 5 A. My training and my education, certainly my clinical and forensic experience, as well as my review of the clinical and scientific literature. + +6 7 8 Q. In your education and training, did you learn about the concept of certain groups being at higher risk of childhood sexual abuse? + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. Yes, because, again, in the phenomenon of child sexual abuse in general, not -- we're looking at vulnerability factors, i.e., who's more at risk. So to the extent that I was learning about ways that you might want to target prevention, for example, where you might want to make those interventions, but then also, we know that an individual's prior vulnerabilities interact with their subsequent experiences of victimization and have a profound effect on the outcome, the adverse outcomes of the abuse itself. + +18 19 So it was covered in a number of different ways through the course of my education and training. + +20 21 Q. In your clinical practice, have you treat and evaluated patients who belong to higher-risk groups? + +22 A. Yes. + +23 Q. Can you please explain. + +24 25 A. In particular, we know that gender is a higher-risk group, and we know that women and girls are at higher risk for child + +Q. At a high level, what are your opinions on which individuals are at higher risk of child sexual abuse based on? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +sexual abuse. So to the extent that more of my patients are women than men, certainly that's a vulnerability. + +But also, because, especially now, I'm working with adults, I'm working with people who have been repeatedly victimized at various points in time in their lives. And you can really clearly see the pattern, and it's something I often have to address with patients because they inquire about it, they don't understand. You know, why is it that this has happened to me so many times. And, again, we know from the revictimization literature that when someone is abused, they are at higher risk of being abused at later points in time. + +Also, you know, sometimes the clinical literature individuals will talk about the specific issues in their family that perhaps increase their vulnerability: They were always alone. They, you know, their mom was sick and this person had lots of opportunity to kind of befriend the family and, you know, therefore had greater access as a result of that vulnerability, or perhaps they were desperate for attention, care, love, and concern from another person because those are common childhood needs and maybe they weren't getting that at home. + +So those are all the kinds of things that would come up in, and have come up in, my over 30 years of treating patients. + +Q. In your forensic practice, do you examine the impact of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +prior vulnerabilities with respect to childhood sexual abuse? + +A. I do. + +Q. Can you explain. + +A. So, again, I'll use an example in the civil arena. If I'm asked, as part of my forensic evaluation, to opine about the impact of an alleged event, say childhood sexual abuse, and the degree to which a person's current difficulties are related to that event, I have to take prior vulnerability into account, because part of what I'm looking at is, how can I determine which of these persons' current difficulties are related to the sexual abuse or maybe related to other things that have happened in their past. So we know, because of the vulnerability literature, that if somebody is being abused in adolescence, it wouldn't be at all unusual for them also to have a history of earlier childhood sexual abuse. + +So I have to look at the interaction of those prior vulnerabilities and ways in which those prior vulnerabilities both may have made the individual more vulnerable to the grooming behavior and to the subsequent sexual abuse, and also ways in which those prior vulnerabilities may have interacted with the abuse to create more adverse outcomes for the individual I'm evaluating. + +Q. How does what you have observed in your forensic practice compare to your clinical practice with respect to individuals in higher-risk groups? + +A. Again, it's highly, high consistent, in both my criminal and civil, civil practices. Even if I'm not -- even if the issues specific to the sexual abuse are not the issue at hand, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 certainly a history the kinds when I'm doing and people are of experiences a comprehensive evaluation, I'm taking describing their prior experiences, they talk about in the context of having experienced childhood sexual abuse, the relationship they've had with the perpetrator has done relationship for the consistent. perpetrator, the kinds of things that to kind of engage them into that purposes of sexual abuse are very the + +12 13 14 Q. Is there empirical data to support your view that certain groups of children are at higher risk of being sexually abused? A. There is. + +15 Q. Can you explain? + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Sure. When we're studying any phenomenon, I want to look at the prevalence, which is, you know, how often does this thing, in this case child sexual abuse, occur. We can never have a perfect understanding, because some people will deny, you know, not everybody will report. But to the degree that we can look at national samples and, you know, on average how often does this occur in a national sample and then how often -- what is the rate of occurrence in other subgroups, so, you know, is the rate of sexual abuse higher, for example, from a prevalence perspective, in some marginalized individuals. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +When you look at who reports that they've been sexually abused, is it reported more often by individuals who are members -- who are women versus men. Is it reported, you know, more often or found to have occurred more often, for example, in a group of individuals who are cognitively or intellectually disabled. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Durocher, can we pull up Government Exhibit 3, please. Can we turn to page 3. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, we looked at this table before. Can you please explain, what if anything does the table tell you about particular vulnerabilities. + +A. So the particular vulnerabilities in particular are most relevant to the first stage of the grooming model, which is the victim-selection model, in terms of looking at who are the individuals that offenders choose to abuse or who end up abusing. And, again, I think it's important to bear in mind that this whole list was initially established from literature looking at what offenders have told us they look for as well as what kinds of prevalence rates have occurred in certain populations. + +And then these, in that top section of victim selection, are the factors, vulnerability factors, that there has been statistically significant agreement by professionals factor into victim selection. + +Q. And when you say "the top section," you're referring to the -- what part of the table are you referring to? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A. I'm sorry. I'm referring to the list of behaviors specifically that are under the category entitled "Victim Selection." + +Q. Thank you. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Can we turn to page 4. + +Q. And directing your attention to the table on page 4, what does this table show and how does that impact your view on vulnerabilities? + +A. So this table shows, again, specific behaviors that there's widespread agreement in this particular group of professionals that are relevant to a particular stage of the grooming process. And, again, these are also behaviors that have been commonly and repeatedly found to exist in the scientific literature as being associated with the grooming process. + +Q. And how does the information on this table compare to the table we were just looking at? + +A. There are similar types of behaviors that can be done in the service of building a relationship of trust and attachment, and in -- and have been found to be utilized by offenders. But there was not as much agreement among the professionals that these specific behaviors -- about the relevance of these specific behaviors and/or the stage to which they were part of. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. Ms. Durocher, we can pull that down. + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, the defense has stated that your opinion that + +individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by sexual abuse is a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore derived from the frequent observation of highly vulnerable children among those children who allege sexual abuse, but it is not based on empirical data regarding the likelihood of abuse among children with varying degrees of vulnerability. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +What's your response to that? + +A. I believe that's a false statement. + +Q. Can you explain. + +A. As I just indicated, there are a variety of ways that we can look at whether or not individuals with particular vulnerabilities are targeted and/or at higher risk for being sexually abused. We can look at the prevalence data, the rates in which these behaviors occur. You can look at both allegations as well as crimes that are reported. You can look at what offenders tell us. There has been extensive interviewing that's been done and studies that have been done with offenders about what they look for. And, again, this would not just be offenders of childhood sexual abuse but, you know, there have been studies done with pimps, for example, on what they look for. So in a variety of forms of victimization. + +So there are multiple data sources that exist in addition to clinical experience that can substantiate this phenomenon. + +Q. How does what you've observed in your review of the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +literature compare to your clinical practice and your forensic practice with respect to the question of individuals with particular vulnerabilities being at higher risk of childhood sexual abuse? + +A. It's highly consistent. + +Q. The defense has argued that a victim's prior sexual behavior is relevant to the concept of grooming. What's your reaction to that? + +A. In what way? I mean, I've talked about, certainly their experiences of victimization can make them more vulnerable, but I'm not sure what you mean. + +Q. Does whether a person, whether or not a person has had sexual experience, putting aside prior victimization, make them more or less vulnerable to being groomed? + +A. I'm not aware of any literature on that issue, nor do I even understand how that would theoretically make sense. To the extent that you're suggesting that somebody who has been sexually active in the past can or cannot be groomed, I'm not, even theoretically, I don't understand why that would be the case. + +But, no, certainly I don't believe that there is any literature that would support that statement. + +THE COURT: So to the extent you've seen in your practice and studies the impact of prior sexual conduct on the phenomenon of grooming, you understand it to potentially + +increase the likelihood of grooming or susceptibility to grooming? Do I have that right? + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE WITNESS: No. I'm sorry. What increases susceptibility to grooming would be prior victimization. I believe I'm being asked here now about consensual sexual activity. And I'm not aware of any known or studied relationship between consensual sexual activity and grooming. + +THE COURT: Right. So to the extent prior sexual conduct of any kind that you're aware of impacts grooming, it's that prior victim -- prior victimization, prior subjecting to sexual abuse increases the likelihood of one being susceptible to grooming tactics. + +THE WITNESS: Can increase the likelihood of being sexually abused later, not necessarily susceptibility to grooming per se, but we know that it increases the likelihood of subsequent victimization. + +We also know that one of the effects of victimization in and of itself can be an increase in risky behavior. And for adolescents in particular that risky behavior can often take the form of risky sexual behavior. + +So I think that, to the extent that there might be a relationship between sexual abuse and grooming and sexual behavior, it's actually the inverse of what you've talked about, which is, you might see a lot of high-risk sexual behavior being engaged in, in someone who has been previously + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +groomed and victimized. + +THE COURT: So given that there's a history of prior sexual abuse, would that be relevant -- is that relevant for you to understanding whether grooming occurred? + +THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, because when I'm looking at whether or not grooming occurred and when the literature is looking about whether or not grooming occurred, they're going to look at the specific circumstances associated with whatever it is you're looking at. It's relevant in that I know that prior victimization could increase vulnerability, but just because someone is -- + +THE COURT: Well, vulnerability to what? + +THE WITNESS: Vulnerability to subsequent sexual abuse. But just because somebody is more vulnerable, that can provide me with some information, but it's not going to factor into my specific conclusions around the facts, say, in a forensic setting if I'm being asked. Did grooming occur here. I'm going to take into account prior victimization and vulnerability. But that prior victimization and vulnerability isn't going to tell me whether or not it happened here. + +THE COURT: I guess I just want to understand that piece. The point you made about prior sexual abuse can lead to certain kinds of behaviors, is there anything in that analysis that would impact how one understands whether grooming tactics would be successful or whether the individual might be + +4 5 THE WITNESS: To the degree that someone is engaging in risky sexual behavior, that could -- they could end up then being in circumstances where they're more vulnerable to being targeted by offenders. It could be in that way. + +6 7 THE COURT: No other way that you can think of, or have seen in the literature. + +8 THE WITNESS: No, not that I'm aware of right now. + +9 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +10 BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +11 12 13 Q. Dr. Rocchio, the defense has referred to a theory of grooming by proxy. Have you heard of that term in scientific or clinical literature? + +14 A. No, I have not. + +15 16 17 Q. Is there anything about what you're testifying about here today that says grooming can only be done for the benefit of the person doing the grooming? + +18 A. No, there's not. + +19 Q. What is your opinion based on? + +20 21 22 23 THE COURT: And just to clarify, the opinion, so that we not have a fight about terminology, the opinion is that the presence of another individual can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors. Is that the opinion? + +24 25 THE WITNESS: What, what I was asked was whether or not there's anything that, in what I've testified about the + +susceptible or not to grooming? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +tactics and strategies of the grooming process, that would preclude or require that those strategies be utilized for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing the grooming as opposed to a third party. And my answer to that question is no. + +THE COURT: OK. So you don't have an opinion on whether the presence -- let me just get the language -- the presence of a third -- of another individual can facilitate sexual abuse of minors. + +THE WITNESS: To the extent that we know that offenders do put themselves in situations where they're more likely to be viewed as trustworthy, surrounding themselves with individuals who a child or an intended victim might trust is going to increase the child's trust, perhaps. + +THE COURT: Is there any literature that you can point to that goes from that sort of broad statement about trustworthiness to the inclusion of a third individual in order to build that trust, any literature that you can point to that suggests that? + +THE WITNESS: The literature that just points to, more generally, perpetrators putting themselves in environments where they have a wider array of access or the grooming of institutions and other individuals for the purpose of getting greater access to the child. + +THE COURT: So, well, let me ask it this way. In your + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +experience, what is the frequency with which -- not in the institutional setting, but in your experience, in which the presence of another individual helps create -- a single individual, helped create that trustworthiness that facilitated the abuse? + +THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of a particular study that would investigate that specific situation. + +THE COURT: Or any discussion of that phenomenon in the literature, specifically, not more broadly. + +THE WITNESS: Specifically the use of a single individual, unless you're talking about a co-offender. I mean, there is some literature, obviously, on co-offenders. There's literature that looks at, for example, in the pimping and trafficking literature, it's very common for individuals to engage in group activity. But specifically looking at child sexual abuse and the presence of a single other adult, I'm not aware of particular studies about that exact point. + +THE COURT: And how about in your clinical and forensic experience? + +THE WITNESS: Certainly in my clinical and forensic experience I have definitely seen that. + +THE COURT: With what frequency? + +THE WITNESS: A high degree, because oftentimes offenders surround themselves with other people. So I'm thinking of a foren -- a Boy Scout case I did, where in + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +particular the person I was evaluating talked about how he thought that the person who eventually abused him was a really good guy because there was another older person involved in the troop, and they were best friends. And so he really thought this other guy was really cool, and that was how he, you know, came to kind of be introduced and involved in the relationship. + +I've There's a -- there was a -- in a clinical setting, certainly talked with individuals where, you know, I've talked about that part of, why they came to trust someone and initially started the relationship with them was because either they looked cool or they knew someone that they knew or they were introduced by a friend or a teacher. So in those settings certainly I've -- it's something that happens. + +THE COURT: Does it surprise you, then, there's no discussion in the literature of that specific phenomenon? + +THE WITNESS: I think that it's -- no, because I think what I'm talking about is specific ways in which individuals are kind of disarmed or come to trust others, so within the literature the phenomenon of what kinds of things, like -- can create an aura of trust and respectability, that is certainly discussed in the literature. But I think that the example you're asking me about is so highly specific, I think it would fall under the category of a number of things that are discussed, but I'm not aware of it having been discussed that specifically. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: So in a sense what the field, the scientific field tell us is that there are scenarios that help create an aura of trust and respectability, and then one could, using some common sense, figure out what specific examples might fall within that? + +THE WITNESS: Sure. Or there is literature to say, you know, where, for example, do we find that perpetrators access victims? And so we know that they end up in leadership roles in various kinds of child organizations counselors, schools, Boy Scouts, church. So -- + +THE COURT: But those phenomena are discussed in the literature. + +THE WITNESS: Those phenomena are discussed in the literature. + +THE COURT: OK. Thank you. Go ahead. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. + +Q. We've been talking about whether grooming only be done for the benefit of the person doing the grooming. What if anything in scientific literature addresses the concept of grooming not having to be done for the benefit of the person doing the grooming? + +A. So the article that we had spoken about earlier, looking at dynamics of coercive control, which refer to some of the strategies and dynamics that commonly occur in the context of grooming, we can see that coercive control, which are + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +describing the same kinds of strategies and tactics as grooming refers to, happens in a variety of other settings. So in the pimp-and-sex-worker relationship, we know, for example, that the grooming strategies are happening, and typically a pimp is working not for their own, necessarily, sexual gratification but to provide -- to procure and provide for the sexual gratification of another, for example. + +THE COURT: And that's how it's discussed in the field and has in the literature, that, to the extent that trauma been studied in the pimp-sex worker context, it is about, at least largely about, the coercive techniques used to facilitate sexual conduct with a third party. bonding plainly being + +THE WITNESS: Exactly. + +THE COURT: And, again, nothing like that in the grooming child sexual abuse context beyond sort of the institutional authority positions that you've discussed. + +THE WITNESS: There have been studies, though, that have looked at specifically comparing the behaviors associated with grooming for the purposes of sexual abuse and those being the same behaviors, techniques, and strategies as utilized by the pimps. So to the extent that what we're talking about are groups of behaviors, they're the same behaviors, so they're being -- you're describing behavior that doesn't depend on whose sexual gratification the behaviors are being done in service of. You're talking about principles of coercion and + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +manipulation to get somebody to do anything that you want them to do, for your benefit or for someone else's. And that's what the scientific literature talks about, that the grooming is really a pattern of coercive control, manipulative behavior, strategies and techniques that are done to increase one's ability to coerce another. + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, switching gears + +THE COURT: Let's actually break before we switch gears, to extend the metaphor. We'll take a ten-minute comfort break. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +(Recess) + +THE COURT: All right, proceed. And, Dr. Rocchio, you can take your mask off. + +THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, does the relationship of trust and attachment between a victim and a perpetrator impact disclosure? + +A. Yes. + +Q. How so? + +A. In a couple ways. First, in a relationship of trust and attachment between a victim and a perpetrator, that can and has been established to cause a great deal of confusion on the part of the victim about what is and is not abusive. So to the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +extent that someone doesn't recognize that what's happening to them or doesn't cognitively label it as abuse, obviously that's not something that can be reported. + +But then of course the relationship itself also functions to make disclosure less likely, because either the individual has been made, in the course of the relationship, to feel somewhat responsible, they might feel shame, or they may blame themselves; or to the extent that they've come to care for the person who's harming them, they may be afraid of getting that individual in trouble; or to the extent that the relationship as a whole clearly has positive elements to it apart from and distinct from the abusive elements, they may - it's fulfilling some need on the part of the victim, they may be fearful of losing those pieces. + +Q. Based on your experience, research, and training, are you familiar with delayed disclosure? + +A. I am. + +Q. What is delayed disclosure? + +A. "Delayed disclosure" is a term that's used in the literature to refer to telling about an experience of, well, in this case, sexual assault at some point after the event has occurred. + +Q. Does disclosure of childhood sexual abuse depend on the victim's age? + +A. So there have been a number of studies that have looked at + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +what are some of the predictors of delayed disclosure and to - the studies that have been done that have looked at different age groups have found that those ages 12 to 18, that is, adolescents, are much more likely to have a delayed disclosure, as opposed to adults. So rates of disclosure kind of match up closer to the time of event as somebody ages. + +Q. And in terms of adolescents, can you explain how common disclosure is and why. + +A. So the rates of delays disclosure have been studied a lot in various populations. And so we know most of the studies show that the majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse who are abused during adolescence don't disclose until sometime later, typically in adulthood. And there are other factors that are associated with delayed disclosure in adolescents, but in terms of age that would be one. + +Q. Can you explain why disclosure of childhood sexual abuse is not common among adolescents? + +A. Part of it has to do with the developmental life stage of an adolescent individually. I mean, they -- we know that even if an adolescent does tell, for example, anyone, they're likely, most likely to tell a peer. Adolescents tend not to like to talk to adults. + +Also, adolescents often like to think of themselves as older and more competent. To the extent that they are involved in a sexually abusive relationship with an older person, they + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +may not believe that relationship to be abusive. They may believe that the two of them are in love. They may have been deliberately misled to believe that it is somehow a love, a love relationship. So they, they don't identify it or label it as abuse. + +Also, there's, as with any form of sexual abuse, sexual assault, in childhood or otherwise, there's a great deal of shame and stigma, and adolescents are, again, developmentally as a group notoriously sensitive to fear of being judged. + +And then finally, they don't want to get in trouble. They don't want their freedom restricted. There are, you know, studies that have been done talking to teenagers or adults about why they did or didn't disclose at various points in time, have identified all of these as factors, among others. + +Q. Based on your experience, research, and training, how do people who have experienced childhood sexual abuse talk about or disclose the abuse? + +A. So this is something that's really been studied in terms of the literature looking at how and why do people disclose or not disclose. And one of the consistent findings is that disclosure most often takes place to appear not -- for an adolescent to appear and for adults -- to friends, not to formal agencies. + +I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? + +4 5 6 A. Basically that is something that occurs in the context of a relationship, and the disclosure comes out kind of over time in the context of that relationship. + +7 8 Q. What doctors contribute to how much a person discloses about the sexual abuse they experienced? + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. That will depend on the level of safety that they feel in the relationship. That will also depend on the response that they're getting from the person that they're making - beginning to make the initial disclosure to. So, for example, research that's been done on barriers to disclosure, as well as research that's been done to train and teach people on how to respond when receiving the disclosure, has found, you know, things that imply negative response disclosure quite you're responding any sort of blame, shame, minimization, or will certainly shut down the process of -- and think, you know, to the extent that empathically to the extent that you're listening and attending to disclosure is happening in trust and safety, then the over time. these, to the extent that that the context of a relationship of disclosure is more likely to evolve + +24 Q. How if at all does memory play a role in disclosure? + +25 A. So when we're talking about child sexual abuse, when we're + +Q. Yes. research, childhood The question was, when -- based on your experience, and training, how do people who have experienced sexual abuse talk about or disclose the abuse? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +talking about any event, there are general principles of memory, and those would apply to memory, general well-accepted principles of memory, that would apply to experiences of sexual abuse as well. + +So to the extent that we know everybody pays attention to and attaches significance to some aspects of an event more so than others, what a sexual abuse survivor discloses and the pieces of the story that they -- or their experiences, I'm sorry -- that they remember are going to be those things that were central details. They are going to have relatively good memory most of the time for the gist of the event and for the details that they attended to and were most significant to them. But their memory for peripheral details, we know, can fade away and weaken or change with time. + +Q. You just mentioned peripheral details. What do you mean by that? + +A. So in the memory literature, again, there is often a distinction made between what are considered to be central details and peripheral details. So the central details are subjectively defined as whatever it is an individual is paying attention to and attaching significance to at the time of an event. And those are the details that get encoded in memory and are then later available for retrieval at the time of recall. + +Q. Can you give an example. + +A. Sure. If we're talking about child sexual abuse, someone may have attended to the -- and known full well that they were being sexually abused and they may have very clear memory of certain sounds, certain smells, breath, certain physical sensations. Alternatively, someone who is dissociating and trying very hard not -- to not think and not attend to what's happening to them, they may have very vivid details of the swirls on the ceiling or the pattern on the wallpaper. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, how do the topics of memory that you just testified about fit into your expertise? + +A. So memory career as a psychologist, again, these general principles of are part of what I've been trained in throughout my and, as a trauma psychologist in particular, certainly how individuals what's happened memory. Again, absolutely part field of trauma more broadly. talk about their experiences, how they remember to them and what is typical, in terms of what are the general principles about memory is of the literature and the research within the psychology, as well as psychology generally, + +Q. In your education, did you learn about delayed disclosure? + +A. We taught -- we learned certainly about how people tell their stories. And certainly when I was trained in assessment techniques, for example, in my training, and I was taught about how to ask about abuse experiences, I was also told, you know, be mindful that if someone answers your questions, this may be + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +the first time they've ever talked about it. + +Similarly, through trainings and readings and in my graduate program, also being taught that when you make an assessment it's really important, when someone is talking about their experiences, to inquire of them what their experiences were like with disclosure, because that can be so impactful. + +Q. In your clinical practice, have you treated and evaluated patients who did not disclose sexual abuse they experienced as children but disclosed such abuse later? + +A. Yes. + +Q. Can you explain. + +A. I've, as I mentioned, when I do an assessment and I'm talking with people about experiences of child sexual abuse, one of the common and important questions I will ask is: and at the time that this was happening or at some point later, did you share your experiences with anyone; did you tell anyone. And as I said, in terms of a -- in a clinical setting, that information is very important. We know that the responses of the person that they told have significant impact on the adverse, potentially adverse outcomes. + +Also, of course we know that if people don't tell, then that also means they likely didn't get medical care or assistance at the time of the event. And that also is highly relevant. + +So I see that a lot in my clinical practice. And + +often I've had individuals who, as, you know, older adults, say to me, this is the first time I've ever told anyone, I've never told anyone that this happened. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. How common is delayed disclosure in the patients you treat and evaluate in connection with your clinical practice? + +A. It's very common. The majority of the patients that I work with who've -- who've experienced childhood sexual abuse, like all victims of child sexual abuse, the abuses, a majority that has occur, most likely will occur in the context of a relationship. And we know that the closer the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, the more delayed the disclosure is. + +So I would say that it's -- it's certainly not rare but it's not common necessarily that I am always the first person that the individual has told, but it's definitely more common than not that they did not tell someone at the time that it was occurring, that they told at some point significantly later in time. + +Q. When patients have disclosed that they experienced childhood sexual abuse to you for the first time, were your patients adults or children? + +A. I would say that when they're making an initial disclosure for the first time, they have been adults, although, when I was working in an inpatient setting at times I, I certainly worked with adolescents who had made disclosure while they were still + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +kids around the time, so not as much delayed. + +Q. Approximately what percentage of the patients you treated and assessed disclosed that they experienced childhood sexual abuse at the time of the abuse? + +A. A very, very small number. I, I can probably count on one hand the number of patients, in my private practice, who said that they told right away. With younger children in particular, we also know that it's more likely with very young children not so much that they're just going to spontaneously go to someone and tell them but that's it's going to be accidentally discovered or someone else finds out about it and then inquires, and that's how that information comes out. But, again, we know that most victims of childhood sexual abuse don't end up disclosing until some significant point in time after the event, and that's consistent with what I've experienced in my practice. + +Q. You just mentioned very young children. What are you referring to? + +A. We know that delayed disclosure happens over time. But we also know that the younger the child, the more likely it is that the disclosure or the discovery of the abuse happens accidentally. + +Q. Are you aware of other psychologists treating and evaluate patients who have delay disclosing childhood sexual abuse? + +A. Yes. + +Q. How? + +4 others or I'm participating in the training that's talking + +5 about what are some of the common themes and issues and things + +6 that you need to deal with in a psychotherapy and clinical and + +7 assessment context, we'll often talk about disclosure, and in + +8 particular things like, we also know that so many individuals + +9 of child sexual abuse but also of rape and sexual assault of + +10 all kinds don't necessarily label their experiences as such. + +11 So when I'm teaching, or ways that I've been taught and trained + +12 is to use behavioral descriptors of what I'm asking about. So, + +13 for example, there have been numerous studies that say, you + +14 know, if you ask a group of individuals, say college students, + +15 have you ever had an experience where someone physically forced + +16 you to engage in sexual activity against your will, they'll, + +17 you know, a certain percentage of them will say yes. And then + +18 if you follow you and say, have you ever been raped, no. So + +19 you have to use behavioral descriptors, because people for a + +20 variety of reasons don't necessarily label their experiences as + +21 abuse. And that's also true with varying kinds of violence as + +22 well. Have you been abused, versus, have these behaviors + +23 happened to you. + +24 Q. Is your clinical experience regarding disclosure consistent + +25 or inconsistent with that of other psychologists who treat and + +A. Through the clinical literature, through the training. + +Again, if either I'm conducting training and I'm teaching + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +evaluate patients who have delayed disclosing childhood sexual abuse? + +A. It's consistent with my peers and reports that I've read in the clinical literature, yes. + +Q. In your forensic practice, have you dealt with disclosure-related issues? + +A. I have. + +Q. Can you explain. + +A. Disclosure-related issues in a forensic setting can come up particularly, for example, when there are issues related to the statute of limitations. So in a recent case, I was asked to evaluate the time at which an individual reasonably came to be aware of a connection between their present difficulties or potential connection between their present difficulties and the alleged abuse. And part of that case involved my looking at, you know, were there any reports made about the abuse at the time, because I'm working with an adult who's alleging something during childhood, and if so to whom and under what circumstances. And, you know, even if the reports weren't made at the time of the abuse, for example, did this person talk about their experiences with their therapist or when they were hospitalized for substance abuse, what did they have to say. + +So I'm looking at what they disclosed, how they disclosed it. I'm obviously, in a forensic setting, comparing that to what they're telling me now and with what the fact + +4 A. Very. + +5 6 7 Q. How do the disclosure-related behaviors you've seen in your forensic practice compare to those you've seen in your clinical practice? + +8 A. Very similar. Very, very similar. + +9 10 Q. Are your opinions on review of the scientific disclosure based in part on your literature? + +11 A. Scientific and clinical literature, yes. + +12 13 Q. Can you describe at a high level the literature upon which your opinion is based? + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. So there's different the issue of disclosure. ways that the literature has looked at I spoke earlier about prevalence rates where you're asking people, often in anonymous surveys but sometimes in interview settings, but in research studies, about a variety of experiences. And typically in those studies, you will ask -- people are asked about their experiences with rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse. And so you can get some idea of what percentage of people in various studies across time report particular events in their lives. So you get an estimate of prevalence. + +24 25 You can compare that to look at disclosure in two different ways. You can look, for example, if you're talking + +pattern is from other data sources. + +Q. How common is it for you to consider disclosure-related issues in your forensic practice? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +about disclosure to formal agencies, you can then compare that with uniform crime reports and look at the statistics for what rate, what percentage, what is the prevalence of these particular crimes being reported to -- through, through the legal system. + +Also, when you're doing the interviews, you can look at asking individuals: and did you disclose, and if so, to whom. + +So there are lots of different studies that can look at disclosure. There's also research that's been done looking at, again, how people tell and, you know, closer in time, not just with adults looking back retrospectively, but times when there's been -- someone has been known to have been abused, and there have been studies that have been done looking at, do they tell or not. I referred earlier to the study of very young children who had presented with sexually transmitted diseases, for example, who were later asked about their experiences, and you can look at, in real time, studies of what they say and to whom. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, let's move to the next opinion. + +BY MS. POMERANTZ: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, does childhood sexual abuse create higher risks for victims? + +A. Yes, it does. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Can you please explain. + +A. So there's about been a lot of literature looking at what are some of the adverse outcomes in populations of individuals who have been sexually abused, among other adverse childhood events. So there's really two primary bodies of literature. One is the general well-established literature on adverse childhood events that -- of which childhood sexual abuse is one, that has documented that individuals who have had higher numbers of adverse events that have occurred to them during childhood are at much higher risk of a whole range of health difficulties -- gastrointestinal difficulties, heart problems, all kinds of health-related issues -- as well as psychological and psychiatric difficulties, in particular depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder. So there's that body of literature. + +And then there have been numerous studies that have looked more specifically at and narrowly at populations of individuals who have been sexually abused or who have reported to have been sexually abused. And then they have looked over time and found that individuals who have reported histories of childhood sexual abuse have both much higher frequencies of various psychiatric illnesses and difficulties, as well as higher severity of symptoms. + +And then, thirdly, the post-traumatic stress disorder literature has found that, when individuals have experienced a + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +traumatic event, which is part of the criteria for later developing post-traumatic stress disorder, those who experienced childhood sexual abuse and sexual abuse generally, as compared to those who have experienced other types of traumatic events, are at higher risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder. + +Q. Is there empirical data to support your views about the prevalence of adverse effects of childhood sexual abuse? + +A. Yes. There's a significant body of literature. + +Q. Can you explain briefly. + +A. Yes. The literature I just talked about, the adversechildhood-events literature, as well as the scientific study of consequences and sequelae of childhood sexual abuse. + +Q. When you review articles and studies about the adverse effects of childhood sexual abuse, what sorts of things are you looking for to determine the quality of the studies and articles that you're relying on. + +A. Things like, is it appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, how large was the sample, have the findings been replicated over time, have they been replicated in various studies. You want to know, is this something that is generally accepted within the scientific community as well as within the profession. And to the extent that those concepts then are recurring in the literature and the studies are continuing to advance our understanding and knowledge and finding similar + +4 5 MS. POMERANTZ: That's right, your Honor. If I may just have a moment to consult with my colleagues? + +6 THE COURT: You + +7 II. POMERANTZ: Thank you. + +8 (Counsel confer) + +9 10 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further from the government. + +11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +12 Mr. Pagliuca. + +13 MR. PAGLIUCA: May I inquire, your Honor? + +14 THE COURT: You may. + +15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. + +#### 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION + +17 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +18 19 20 Q. Dr. Rocchio, I just want to start with some process here. I show that you met with the government 14 times in the last year or so. Is that correct? + +21 22 A. If you're including telephone contacts, perhaps. I'm not sure how many times we've spoken. + +23 Q. OK. Does that sound about right, 14? + +24 25 A. It could be. A number of those were around scheduling and things, so sure. + +kinds of things over time and across populations. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, I have what I need on this opinion, which I think is the last? + +Q. OK. + +A. I'm not sure, though. + +4 Q• Have you reviewed any of the notes taken by the government during your interviews? + +5 A. No, I have not. + +6 Q. Did you take any notes during any of your interviews? + +7 8 9 A. Only on topics that I wanted to go and pursue, like subject headings of areas that they wanted me to speak about and educate the Court about. + +10 Q. And did you record those topics in some sort of file? + +11 A. No, I did not. + +12 Q. Do you have those notes? + +13 A. No, I do not. + +14 Q. What did you do with those notes? + +15 16 17 A. At the time that we were talking, I wrote, like, "grooming" as a subject matter, and then when I went and researched the literature, I threw those notes away. + +18 19 Q. OK. So is that your practice, to take notes and then throw them away? + +20 21 A. It depends on the purpose of the note. If the note is just a reminder to me, there's no reason for me to keep it. + +22 23 Q. And do you have a file in connection with your retention in this case? + +24 A. I do. + +25 Q. What do you have in your file? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A. I have a copy of the agreement, my agreement with the government, my engagement agreement. I have a copy of the time spent, the date and the time spent and what activity I engaged in. I have copies of various filings that the government has provided me with, relevant to this hearing today. + +Q. And did you review that file in anticipation of testifying here today? + +A. I can. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to ask for production of that file at this point, please. + +THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have one moment, please? + +THE COURT: You + +II. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government has produced the materials that were in the possession of the government, the notes that the government had taken in connection with its meetings and phone calls with Dr. Rocchio. That is what we are required to produce under the Jencks Act. + +And I would note, your Honor, that i just -- I don't have, in terms of what the defense counsel is requesting, as I noted, I would just -- it is about the Jencks Act, and we have produced the materials that are in the government's possession, including the notes, and have indicated what materials we + +provided to Dr. Rocchio. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you need a response from me, your Honor? + +4 THE COURT: Go ahead. + +5 6 7 8 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, I understand Jencks Act production, but this is a separate issue. She relied on this in preparation for her testimony today, and I believe that under Rule 16 I am allowed to examine whatever she relied on in anticipation and preparation for her testimony here today. + +10 11 This would be part of the bases for her opinion, your Honor. + +12 13 14 15 THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it is. Notes that have a subject heading "grooming," for example, that she threw away which are not in the file are not a bases for her opinion. So I don't know that the whole file is subject to that theory. + +16 17 18 The contract between her and the government is not a basis for opinion, but you've asked for that since she's included that in the file. + +19 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have that, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: Right. But you see the point. + +21 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. But I don't know what is in her file, is my point. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: Right. Well, so then the question, I think, is: What is in your file that forms the basis for your opinion? That will get us to where we need to get. + +4 5 6 7 8 A. There's nothing in my file that forms the basis of my opinion. What's in my file are, for example, the motion for today's hearing, a copy of the disclosure for some of the witnesses, a redacted copy of those sorts of things, but nothing from which I'm basing my opinion on today. + +9 10 Q. OK. You mentioned a contract. You're billing the government at a rate of \$450 an hour. Is that correct? + +11 A. That is correct. + +12 13 Q. And your initial government contract is from \$45,000. Is that right? + +14 A. Up to \$45,000. + +15 Q. And how much have you been paid up to today? + +16 A. Nothing. + +17 18 Q. And so you need to complete your contract before you receive your \$45,000; is that right? + +19 20 21 A. No. That's not my understanding. I need to prepare an invoice and provide it to the government. And I haven't had a chance to do that yet. + +22 23 Q. OK. And do you know what your final invoice will look like in terms of hours spent up till today? + +24 A. I don't at this point, no. + +25 Q. How many hours have you spent up till today? + +BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +Q. What is it in your file that forms the basis of your opinion? + +4 A. -- don't know for sure. + +5 About 25. + +6 Q. 25 hours. + +7 And do you keep time records of what you do? + +8 A. I do. + +9 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd ask for production of those time records, your Honor. + +11 It doesn't have to be today. + +12 THE COURT: On what grounds? + +13 14 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, it goes to the motive and bias of the witness, as a financial gain through this contract. + +16 17 18 THE COURT: It's a perfectly acceptable question in front of the jury. But what's your entitlement to the time records? + +19 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: So we know how much time she's spent on this and what her anticipated compensation is. + +21 22 23 THE COURT: I'm just asking, I mean, this sounds like broad-reaching discovery. Under what rule or other authority are you entitled to that? + +24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I believe, your Honor, I'm entitled to this under Brady and Giglio, because this is motive and bias + +A. I haven't tabulated them. I, I could make an estimate if you like, but I -- + +Q. Sure. + +for testimony. + +THE COURT: You can submit authority on that. I mean, 4 5 certainly appropriate grounds for cross. I'm not sure, absent some specific motion for discovery, that I've ever seen expert time records turned over. + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor. + +7 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +8 9 10 11 12 13 Q. Dr. Rocchio, I'd like to talk to you about some of the terms that you've been using here today. The first one I want to ask you about is the definition of "child." Do you recall, when you discussed this case with the government on April 9th of this year, that you defined "child" for the government as someone under the age of consent? Do you recall that? + +14 A. I don't specifically recall that, no, I'm sorry. + +15 16 Q. Is that a definition of "child," someone under the age of consent? + +17 18 A. I would -- I would define "child" as someone under the age of 18. + +19 20 Q. Well, I'm looking at page 3 of the interview notes produced in connection with your interview on April 9, 2021. + +21 THE COURT: Do you have a 3500? + +22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do, your Honor. I'm at page 3502-004. That's the beginning of this interview, April 9, 2021. And if we go to -- well, that's the page 3 of that interview. The top of the page. + +4 5 A. I don't have anything on the screen in front of me, so I -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. + +6 Q. I'm just asking if you recall that at this point. + +7 A. No. Sorry. I don't. + +8 9 Q. OK. Do you have any reason to believe that any of those AUSAs would take that down incorrectly? + +10 11 12 A. I'm not sure of the context under which it was taken. I think, you know, for -- I haven't reviewed it. I didn't have a chance to correct it. I, I really have no idea. + +13 14 Q. OK. Also, you used the term "sexual abuse," and that's nonconsensual sexual touch. Is that correct? + +15 16 A. That is one of the definitions, yes. It doesn't have to be. + +17 18 Q. Well, is that the definition that you gave the government in April of 2021; do you recall? + +19 20 A. I don't recall specifically what I said during the phone call in April, no. + +21 22 23 24 Q. Do you recall defining do you define "nonconsensual" as -- when someone says no or the person is too intoxicated to give consent or the person is below the age of consent, is that a definition of "nonconsensual"? + +25 A. Those are examples of "nonconsensual." It's not an + +Q• Did you recall discussing this with Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Rohrbach, and telling them that "child" is anyone below the age of consent? Do you recall that? + +4 A. In, in what you're reading to me? + +5 6 Q. You know that the age of consent varies from state to state and country to country, correct? + +7 A. Correct. + +8 9 Q. And so when you're talking about "below the age of consent," you're talking about a -- + +10 MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor. + +11 THE COURT: Overruled. + +12 Overruled. Go ahead. + +13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. + +14 15 16 17 Q. When you're talking about "below the age of consent," you're talking about whatever the age is in the particular jurisdiction for someone to be able to consent to sexual contact, correct? + +18 A. As one example, yes. + +19 20 21 22 Q. OK. You also talked about "trauma," which I understand you define as "exposure by either directly experiencing or witnessing serious bodily injury, death, or sexual violation." Is that correct? + +23 24 A. "Sexual violence," I believe. That's the definition in the DSM-V, criterion of trauma. + +25 Q. And that's the definition you've been using here today in + +exhaustive definition. + +Q. OK. And when you say "below the age of consent," you haven't defined that. Correct? + +4 5 Q. When you talk about "trauma," that's the definition you've been using, correct? + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A. Trauma is a continuum, so that is one of the definitions of "trauma," but other things have been found to be traumatic in individuals' experiences that do not necessarily rise to the level of criterion A in PTSD. For example, there's a whole 'nother section in the DSM called "Other Stressor and Trauma Disorders" that could refer to other traumatic events that don't fit that specific definition, but childhood sexual abuse is commonly understood to fall under the definition of "sexual violence." So to that degree, yes. + +15 16 17 Q. OK. You've described that you're a clinical psychologist, and that is someone who treats clients for presenting psychological issues, correct? + +18 A. That's part of what I do, yes. + +19 20 21 Q. Right. And the job of a clinical psychologist is to assess the client, treat the client with the expectation proving - improving that person, correct? + +22 23 A. In a treatment capacity, yes. But I do a lot of things as a clinical psychologist in addition to that. + +24 25 Q. Now, I know you've described this, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page, that your job as a clinical + +connection with your testimony, correct? + +A. It's one of the definitions I've been using here today in connection with my testimony, yes. + +4 A. In a treatment setting for the patients that I'm treating, yes, that's correct. + +5 6 7 Q. You don't go out and talk to witnesses or try to prove or disprove whatever your client is telling you in the treatment setting, correct? + +8 A. Correct. + +9 Q. It wouldn't be appropriate for you to do that, correct? + +10 A. Correct. + +11 12 13 14 Q. And generally, you're accepting what the client is telling you as the presenting problem and then you are trying to treat that presenting problem during the course of your therapy, correct? + +15 A. Yes. + +16 17 18 Q. I want -- you talked a bit about your job as a forensic psychologist. How many times have you testified as a forensic psychologist? + +19 A. In a courtroom or also in depositions? + +20 21 Q. Both. Let's start with courtroom. I think you said twice. Correct? + +22 A. Yes. + +23 24 Q. And one of those was a criminal case where you testified on behalf of the defendant; is that right? + +25 A. Yes. + +psychologist is to not independently investigate what the client may or may not be telling you, correct? + +4 5 6 Q. In either of those cases well, let me put it the other way. In neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert on grooming, correct? + +7 8 9 A. Grooming is part of the dynamic, well established to be under the rubric of interpersonal violence, so it would fall into the category in which I was declared an expert. + +10 11 12 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was, in neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert in the subject, the specific subject of grooming, correct? + +13 A. Correct. + +14 15 THE COURT: Did you testify about grooming in those instances? + +16 17 18 THE WITNESS: I testified about grooming in one of those, and I testified about coercive control and dynamics in a relationship in another. + +19 20 Q. And how many times have you been actually deposed in your role as a forensic psychologist? + +21 A. I believe four. I'm not positive, but around that. + +22 23 Q. So in your capacity as a forensic psychologist, you've testified maybe six times; is that right? + +24 A. Correct. + +25 Q. OK. Now, as a forensic psychologist, you are typically + +Q. And then the other one there was no transcript of; is that correct? + +A. That is correct. + +hired by a party in the litigation. Correct? + +A. Or in a criminal matter, yes. + +4 Q. Well, so that would either be the defendant or the prosecutor, right? + +5 A. Yes. + +6 Q. Which is a party in the litigation, correct? + +7 A. Yes. + +8 9 Q. OK. And in a civil case, you're going to be either hired by the plaintiff or the defendant's lawyer, correct? + +10 A. Correct. + +11 12 13 Q. Now, they don't tell you to go out and just do an independent investigation on your own and then report back to them, whoever hires you. True? + +14 15 16 A. I -- I'm asked to do an independent investigation as it pertains to the specific question I'm being asked to answer in the course of my evaluation. + +17 18 19 Q. Yes, I understand that. But whoever hires you gives you material to review and then asks you a specific question based on the material that that party has given you, correct? + +20 A. Not necessarily, no. + +21 22 23 24 Q. Have you ever had a lawyer who hired you just say, go out and do whatever you want to do, bill me however much you want to bill me, and then tell me what your findings are? Has that ever happened in your career? + +25 A. In that specific way, no. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. "Forensic psychology" refers to the professional practice by any psychologist when applying psychology to the law to assist to address legal matters. Is that the definition? + +A. Yes. + +Q. And forensic and therapeutic roles are very different, correct? + +A. Yes, they are. + +Q. And a therapeutic role typically is not going to involve a forensic component, correct? + +A. Correct. + +Q. And that would be somewhat of a boundary violation, correct? + +A. It would be a dual role. + +Q. OK. Do you consider yourself to be in a forensic capacity here? + +A. Here today, yes. + +Q. Yes. And so subject to the forensic guidelines by the APA, correct? + +A. That's correct. + +Q. On April 23rd, the government sent a letter outlining what the government said were your opinions in this matter. Did you review that letter before the government sent it? + +A. I've reviewed that letter, I'm not sure at what stage in the process. I believe so, though, yes. + +(Continued on next page) + +BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +4 5 6 Q. I want to talk a little bit about some of the opinions that are in your letter from the government of April 23rd, 2021. So I think the first opinion that I have identified relates to individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. + +7 Do you recall that? + +8 A. I do. + +9 10 Q. So let's identify some of the categories of people that have particular vulnerabilities. + +11 12 So that could include economically and disadvantaged people; right? + +13 A. Yes. + +14 15 Q. That would include people who don't have any family at all; correct? + +16 A. It could, sure. + +17 Q. It could include people who have one parent; correct? + +18 A. Yes. + +19 20 Q. It could include people who have two parents but one of them is abusive; right? + +21 A. Yes. + +22 23 Q. It could include people who have cognitive disabilities; correct? + +24 A. Yes. + +25 Q. It could include people who have emotional disabilities; 4 Q. How about a personality disorder? + +5 A. I'm sorry, so what is the question? + +6 7 Q. Would that be somebody who is in this vulnerable population? + +8 9 10 A. I'm not sure whether there's been specific research on personality disorder and risk of victimization, so I couldn't speak to that. + +11 Q. What about people who have unstable lives? + +12 A. Again, depending on the specific nature of the instability. + +13 14 Q. People with low self-esteem, would that fall under the category of particular vulnerabilities? + +15 16 17 A. Those have been spoken about in the literature. Again, I'm not sure about that particular construct and the degree to which it's been studied. + +18 19 Q. People who abuse drugs and alcohol, are they in a vulnerable position? + +20 21 22 23 24 A. Research in child and sexual abuse has looked more at the parental use of drugs and alcohol. I would have to go back to the science to look at an individual's personal use of drugs and alcohol as to whether that specifically is or is not found to be a risk factor. + +25 Q. People who have been previously sexually assaulted, are + +correct? + +A. Depending on the type of emotional disability. I would have to look at the literature, but it could. + +4 A. Yes. + +5 6 Q. There's not like a list I can go to to say, these are all vulnerable people who are more likely to be sexually abused? + +7 8 A. Actually, there are descriptions of lists of vulnerable populations in the scientific literature. + +9 Q. But they're not necessarily all the same; correct? + +10 A. I don't understand. + +11 THE COURT: I don't understand your question. + +12 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +13 14 15 16 17 Q. If I go to the DSM 5, for example, and I try to look up populations of people with particular vulnerabilities, I'm not going to find a list that the American Psychological Association has come up with to say that these are people with particular vulnerabilities; correct? + +18 19 A. There are a number of problems with that question. I can't answer it. + +20 21 Q. Do you have a list, a definitive list of the vulnerable population? + +22 23 24 25 A. To the extent that I have reviewed -- I haven't written it down. To the extent that I have knowledge and am informed by my education, background, skills and training, I'm aware of the vulnerable populations that have been consistently identified + +they in the particularly vulnerable category? + +A. They're at much higher risk for revictimization, yes. + +Q. So that's a yes? + +4 A. Depending on what you're talking about, sure. + +5 Q. Well, vulnerable population? + +6 A. Vulnerability implies higher risk, yes. + +7 8 Q. Vulnerable populations could be at higher risk for being physically assaulted; correct? + +9 10 11 A. Yes. But the research has differentially looked at risk for, for example, sexual victimization versus other kinds of victimization. + +12 13 Q. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for dropping out of school; right? + +14 A. Certain ones, sure. + +15 16 Q. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for substance abuse? + +17 A. Sure, yes. + +18 19 Q. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for health issues; right? + +20 A. Yes. + +21 22 23 Q. So being in a vulnerable population means basically that you're at a higher risk for something bad happening to you in the future; correct? + +24 25 A. No. Because you're using the term more generally than what I was trying to say in my opinion. So I'm looking at the + +in the literature to be at higher risk for sexual abuse. + +Q. And vulnerable populations are at higher risk for many things; correct? + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +literature around which specific vulnerabilities have been found to be associated with which particular outcomes or adverse outcomes. So it's not that every single vulnerability has been found to increase vulnerability for every potential outcome. There's a relationship between particular types of vulnerability and particular types of outcome. + +Q. It's also true that there can be more than one vulnerability in a human being? + +A. Of course, yes. + +Q. One can be a victim of sexual abuse and have other vulnerability factors; correct? + +A. Yes. + +Q. Or conversely, somebody can have vulnerability factors and then become a victim of sexual abuse; correct? + +A. Yes. + +Q. I want to turn now to some of your questions about grooming, okay, some of your opinions about grooming. + +What is your definition of grooming? + +A. The definition that's commonly used in the literature is + +Q. I didn't ask that question. + +THE COURT: You may answer. Go ahead. + +THE WITNESS: The term grooming refers to a set of deceptive strategies that are utilized by an individual to establish a relationship of coercion and control for the purposes of subsequent sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. + +4 5 A. It's my understanding of the definitions that have been talked about in the literature. I mean, I haven't written and published a specific set definition. It's a common definition and the one I'm using in my testimony, yes. + +6 7 Q. I was going to ask you that question. You have not published anything specifically about grooming; correct? + +8 9 A. Specifically about grooming, no. But I have certainly published and made reference to grooming. + +10 11 Q. And you have not done any metadata studies on your own to collect data about grooming; correct? + +12 A. Correct. + +13 14 15 Q. Grooming can consist of the actions that you're talking about, can consist of -- I think we saw a list of 77 things on it as part of your testimony; is that right? + +16 17 18 A. Those were 77 specific behaviors that had been identified in the literature as potentially being part of the grooming process, yes. + +19 20 Q. But I think we were talking about things like taking an interest in another human being could be considered grooming? + +21 22 A. Not in and of itself. It would depend on the pattern of behavior and the context in which it's occurring. + +23 24 25 Q. Let's talk about that for a second. Because what you're saying is, it depends on the groomer's intent in doing a specific act is what, in your view, makes it grooming or not + +Q. And is that your definition? + +4 5 6 A. So it -- grooming, the tactics you're referring to are a series of manipulative strategies. And to the extent that those manipulative strategies are being used to increase the likelihood of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, then we would describe it as sexual grooming. + +7 8 9 Q. Let me ask you a question. In order for something to become grooming, you are looking at the intent of the groomer relative to the act; correct? + +10 11 12 A. So the intent and the function of the behavior relative to the act has always been part of the definition of grooming, yes. + +13 Q. So the answer to my question is yes; is that right? + +14 A. Yes. + +15 16 Q. So absent the intent to sexually abuse someone, there are a myriad of actions that one could consider grooming? + +17 18 19 20 21 A. The actions themselves are in the function of the establishment of a relationship of trust and attachment or trauma bonding. So to the extent that those behaviors build a relationship, then yes, they could be in another context normative behaviors. + +22 Q. And normative behaviors being normal behaviors; right? + +23 A. It could be. + +24 25 Q. So for example, a parent wants to take an interest in their child; correct? + +grooming; is that correct? + +4 Q. And a parent wants their child to go to school; correct? + +5 A. Usually, yes. + +6 7 8 Q. And if a parent can afford for school or after-school activities, the parent wants to provide for those activities; correct? + +9 A. Many parents, yes. + +10 11 Q. And let's call them good parents, right, good parents want their children to eat; right? + +12 A. Yes. + +13 14 Q. Good parents want to buy their children appropriate presents; correct? + +15 A. Yes. + +16 17 Q. Good parents want everything they can get for their children in a positive way; correct? + +18 A. Good parents want good outcomes for their kids, yes. + +19 20 Q. None of that would be considered grooming absent an intent to use that conduct to manipulate the child; correct? + +21 22 23 24 A. Again, the grooming is about the coercion. So to the extent that those behaviors are not being done in a coercive, controlling context, they would not be considered grooming, correct. + +25 Q. Have you had mentors in your career? + +A. Yes. + +Q. And a parent wants to provide for their child; correct? + +A. Yes. + +4 5 Q. But they could be grooming you for a job, for example; right? + +6 7 A. Mentoring is probably the word I would use, but yes, to your point -- at least the point I think you're making -- sure. + +8 9 Q. It's a positive thing if I'm trying to groom someone to get ahead at work; correct? + +10 A. Yes. + +11 Q. Have you had mentees? + +12 A. I have. + +13 Q. Have you taken an interest in them? + +14 A. Yes. + +15 16 Q. And have you shown them special treatment because you're interested in their professional development? + +17 A. Yes. + +18 Q. And that's not bad grooming, is it? + +19 20 A. That wouldn't be grooming for the purpose of sexual exploitation or abuse, no. + +21 22 23 Q. Similarly, a teacher taking an interest in a student, unless it's for a sexual purpose, wouldn't be grooming, correct? + +24 A. Sexual and/or coercive purpose. + +25 Q. Lawyers and judges have law clerks, and they take an + +A. I have. + +Q. Are those mentors grooming you? + +A. Not for the purposes of sexual abuse, no. + +interest in their professional development. That's not grooming, is it? + +A. No. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. And the same would be true for grandparents; right? Taking a positive interest in your grandchildren, taking them to the zoo, buying them presents, being there for them, reading them books, having them sit on your lap, none of that would be considered grooming behavior unless it's for an improper sexual purpose; correct? + +A. Correct. + +Q. And the only way that you can back into this grooming opinion is if you assume that the conduct that's being done is being done for an improper sexual purpose; correct? + +A. Well, it's not an assumption. It's part of the definition. So if I'm looking at the dynamics of sexual abuse, then of course I'm looking at the behaviors that occurred in the context of that relationship. + +Q. And it assumes that sexual abuse occurred; correct? + +A. No. The definition says that it's for the purposes of sexual exploitation or abuse, but that could be attempted. It doesn't necessarily have to have occurred. + +Q. So it assumes that it's either attempted sexual abuse or actual sexual abuse or exploitation; correct? + +A. Yes. + +Q. And you're not there physically when any of these behaviors + +4 Q. So you are making an assumption that whatever you are hearing is accurate; correct? + +5 6 A. It depends on the context whether or not I'm making that assumption. + +7 8 Q. You would make that assumption in order to label it grooming; correct? + +9 10 11 12 A. I would, for example, in a forensic context, I wouldn't say this is grooming or grooming happened. I would say the individual described behaviors that are consistent with grooming, for example. + +13 14 15 16 17 Q. But for purposes of your testimony in this case, when you're talking about what you're describing as grooming, there's an underlying assumption that either there's an attempted sexual assault or exploitation or actual sexual assault or exploitation, otherwise it's not grooming; correct? + +18 19 A. I wouldn't agree that it's an assumption. It's part of the definition. So -- + +20 Q. We're kind of going circular here. + +21 22 23 THE COURT: Yes. So we'll move on. There are fruitful arguments in cross-examination here, I hope you'll get to that soon. + +24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. + +25 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +that you're describing occur; correct? + +A. Correct. + +Q. You also talked about delayed disclosures; correct? + +4 5 6 Q. Now, the studies vary over when disclosure occurs for a number of reasons. First, the definition of disclosure, the studies have disclosures to law enforcement, right, which is one definition of disclosure? + +7 8 A. That's generally referred to in the literature as reporting. + +9 Q. And then there's disclosure to a parent; right? + +10 A. Correct. + +11 Q. Then there's disclosure to a friend; right? + +12 A. Mm-hmm. + +13 Q. Disclosure to a teacher or other third person? + +14 A. Yes. + +15 16 Q. And there's really no set term of what disclosure in this context means; correct? + +17 A. No, that's not correct. + +18 Q. There's also no set term on what delay means; correct? + +19 A. No, that's not correct. + +20 Q. Well, some of the studies have one week as delay; right? + +21 A. Yes. + +22 Q. And some of the studies have one month as a delay; right? + +23 A. Yes. + +24 25 Q. Some of the studies have one year as delay, up to one year; right? + +A. Yes. + +4 5 A. Yes, many of the studies specifically look at disclosure that is delayed, as in not occurring at the time of the abuse. And then look at what are those rates at various points in time, so it could be a week later, it could be a month later, it could be a year later or five years later. + +6 7 Q. So those are all variables in this idea of when disclosure occurs; right? + +8 9 10 11 A. They are variables in the dynamics of the delay. They are all examples of delayed disclosure at various points in time. Because delayed disclosure refers to disclosure at some point after the incident that's being disclosed. + +12 13 Q. I want to ask you some questions about memory now, which is another area of your opinion. + +14 You agree with me that memory is a complex topic? + +15 A. I do. + +16 17 18 Q. Memory is generally regarded as the mental registration, retention and recollection of past experiences, sensations or thoughts; would you agree with that? + +19 A. I would. + +20 21 Q. And there are a number of parts of the brain that work in connection to form memories; would you agree with that? + +22 A. I would. + +23 Q. Do you know what those parts are? + +24 25 A. I'm not an expert on neuroscience, so I would not -- I could certainly go and review the literature and get back to 4 A. Yes. + +5 Q. You're not a neuropsychologist; correct? + +6 A. Correct. + +7 8 9 Q. Neuropsychology is the study of human behavior as it relates to the normal and abnormal functioning of the central nervous system, which includes the brain; right? + +10 A. Correct. + +11 Q. You're familiar with the term confabulation? + +12 A. I am. + +13 14 Q. And confabulation is a brain under certain circumstances will fill in gaps to make a whole picture; correct? + +15 A. An individual will fill in gaps, yes. + +16 Q. Their brain will do that; right? + +17 18 19 A. Their brain, their mouths. I mean, semantics at this point. But generally, the way I understand confabulation is consistent with your description, yes. + +20 21 Q. And those may or may not be accurate pieces of information, but the person actually believes them; right? + +22 A. Are you asking if that's possible? Yes. + +23 Q. That's part of what confabulation is; correct? + +24 A. That those gaps may or may not be accurate, yes. + +25 Q. I want to talk now about some of the exhibits that you + +you, but off the top of my head, no. + +Q. And would you agree with me that there are many things that can interfere with accurate memories? + +4 THE COURT: It's fine with me. + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 2. + +6 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +7 8 9 10 Q. This is the article that you talked about "Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence: Examining the Perceptions of Professionals About Common Tactics Used in Victimization." + +11 A. Yes. + +12 13 Q. This study involves 22 participants; do you see that in the abstract? + +14 A. Yes. N equals 22. + +15 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. + +16 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, the sample size in this particular study is 22. + +18 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +19 Q. And that's the total sample size here; right? + +20 21 A. The sample of professionals that were involved in this particular survey, yes. + +22 Q. And these are unidentified professionals; right? + +23 24 A. They're not identified by name. They're identified in other ways, though. + +25 Q. Well, there's no list of who the people are who are these + +reviewed with the government. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: If I could borrow Ms. Durocher, if that would be okay, to display these. + +professionals that are giving these answers; right? + +A. Again, not by name, but certainly there are descriptors of who these individuals are. + +4 5 6 Q. Well, if we go to those descriptors, we're just talking about a general description of the people that are involved in the study; right? + +7 8 9 10 11 A. I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to look at the article, but I believe there are descriptions about the basis for which they were identified as experts, their level of education and training and the foundation for their publications and areas of expertise. + +12 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: If we could go to Page 3 of this exhibit. + +14 Q. Do you see where it's talking about method there? + +15 A. I do. + +16 17 18 19 20 Q. So let's start first with this paragraph. "This qualitative study took a phenomenological approach based on data collected as part of a statewide initiative to understand predatory alienation -- a new term created by an advocacy group to describe" and this definition below it. + +21 Do you see that? + +22 A. I do. + +23 24 Q. Phenomenological means the psychological study of subjective experience; right? + +25 A. Yes. Q. And that is explaining the experience from the point of view of the subject; right? + +4 5 6 Q. And then they talk about why they're doing this study and it's to collect data to define a new term created by an advocacy group. + +7 Do you see that? + +8 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question. + +9 Q. Under method -- + +10 A. Yes. + +11 12 13 14 Q. -- it says that this study is this phenomenological study, it's data collected as part of a statewide initiative to understand predatory alienation -- a new term created by an advocacy group. + +15 Do you see that? + +16 A. Yes. + +17 18 19 Q. So that's what's being undertaken here, is this subjective study to determine this term created by an advocacy group in this study; right? + +20 21 22 23 A. I wouldn't call it a subjective study. I'd call it a qualitative study. But it's investigating the phenomenon of predatory alienation, which it looks like was a term created by an advocacy group. + +24 25 Q. If you go down to the second part here, it says, "All experts identified as cisgender females between early 20s and + +A. Yes. + +late 50s and identified as or Latina." + +Do you see that? + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +A. i do. + +Q. So those are the experts; right? + +A. Those are some of the qualities of the experts, yes, the demographics. + +Q. And then if we go down to the participants section here, the last part says, "A few professionals, those in law enforcement" -- on the next page -- "also worked with perpetrators of interpersonal abuse and coercion." + +Do you see that? + +A. I do. + +Q. And then we go on to talk about the professionals who were over the age of 40, et cetera, et cetera. So that's the identification of these folks in this article; right? + +A. Again, that's the description of their -- some of their backgrounds and demographics, yes. + +Q. And then in terms of how this data was collected, initially, if we go to data collection, which is the next paragraph, there were 33 professionals contacted by email, and only 22 of these people responded; right? + +A. Yes. + +Q. So we have a dropout rate here of roughly a third to begin with; correct? + +A. That wouldn't be referred to as a dropout rate in the field + +4 Q. So we have a response rate that's a third less than was asked; right? + +5 A. Yes. + +6 7 Q. And then I want to go to the Page 11 of this study that you're relying on here, which is the appendix. + +8 Do you see that? + +9 A. I do. + +10 11 12 Q. Now, this is the interview guide that was given to these 22 unidentified professionals to guide the interview of the subjects here; correct? + +13 14 15 A. No. I believe that it was the professionals, the experts who were interviewed. So I believe that the -- these are the questions that were asked of the experts + +16 Q. Right. + +17 A. -- in their interviews. + +18 Q. That's right. + +19 You know what a leading question is; right? + +20 A. As it's used, yes. + +21 Q. That was just a leading question; right? + +22 A. Yes. + +23 24 25 Q. So let's look at question seven here -- and these are nine questions that were given out as part of this study to ask for the data that was used for this study; right? + +of social science research. Because dropout rate refers to something else. This would be a response rate. + +4 5 6 Q. Right. Question seven: "How do online predators, human traffickers, con artists, gangs, cults, and other groups use predatory alienation (term used by interviewee) to isolate young adults and senior citizens?" + +7 Do you see that? + +8 A. I do. + +9 Q. That's a leading question; right? + +10 MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor. + +11 12 THE COURT: I'll sustain because I'm hoping you'll get to something that is helpful here. + +13 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +14 Q. Well, this study has serious flaws, does it not? + +15 16 A. I don't -- I don't think that the study has serious flaws. I think it has a lot of useful information. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 As I said, there's no study I would agree with every single part of. To the extent they're asking experts in the field about groups of behavior strategies, techniques and modus operandi that have been well established and studied and they're asking a group of experts to what degree and what ways have they observed these well-studied phenomena in their respective , I think that's an appropriate question that can elicit useful information. + +25 Q. And this is something you are relying on in support of your + +A. Nine questions that were asked during the interviews to elicit data, yes. + +4 But my opinions are not relying upon any one individual piece in its entirety, no. + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we turn to Exhibit 3, please. + +6 Again, thank you for doing this. + +7 8 Q. This is another study that you gave to the government that you're relying on as part of your opinions; correct? + +9 10 11 A. It's an example of the type of literature -- among a lot of literature -- that I'm using in the formation of my opinion, yes. + +12 13 14 Q. Well, let's look at the abstract for this exhibit. This was accepted May 19th, 2020, it's about a year old, this study; correct? + +15 A. Yes. + +16 Q. Let's read the first part of this abstract. + +17 18 19 20 21 "Sexual grooming has been deemed an integral part of the child sexual abuse process. However, there has yet to be a universally accepted model for this process and, as a consequence, there is no clear understanding of which behaviors constitute sexual grooming." + +22 Do you see that? + +23 A. I do. + +24 Q. That's the conclusion of this study; correct? + +25 A. That is an opinion of the author. That is not the primary + +opinions here today; is that right? + +A. It's one piece as an example of the scientific literature. + +conclusion of the study, no. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 A. I'm not saying this is the conclusion. The purpose of the study -- a conclusion generally refers to the concluding comments summarizing the main findings of the study. So this is actually not part of her -- their conclusion. It's part of their rationale for why this particular piece of research is important and needed in the field. + +10 11 Q. So let's go through the methodology of this particular study as well. + +12 13 14 THE COURT: We'll take about a 20-minute, 30-minute break for lunch. It's 12:55, I think we probably need 30 minutes, just logistically, so we'll resume at 1:25. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I do want to encourage you, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus your cross less on what you might do in front of a jury - because you are ably demonstrating to me so far that the points you made in your papers are cross-examination points so to the extent there are any of the opinions you want to focus on the underlying Daubert questions -- and you did a little bit at the end here -- the time would be much more effectively used. + +22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor. + +23 THE COURT: Thank you. We'll resume in 30 minutes. + +24 (Luncheon recess) + +25 + +Q. Well, are you just saying you ignore the conclusion of the author who did this study because you don't agree with it? + +# AFTERNOON SESSION + +1:25 p.m. + +LISA ROCCHIO, resumed. + +THE COURT: Mr. Pagliuca, you may proceed. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. + +CROSS EXAMINATION (Cont'd) + +BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +Q. Dr. Rocchio, we were talking about Exhibit 3, and as I understand it, this is the most recent attempt to validate the sexual grooming model of child sexual abusers; is that correct? + +A. That's the most recent attempt to validate this particular model, yes. + +Q. OK. Well -- + +A. Actually, it's a recent. I'm not sure what research has been done since that. + +Q. You were asked by the government to give the government whatever articles you thought were helpful with regard to your testimony here today. Is that correct? + +A. I was asked by the government to give examples of articles that pertained to the subject matter of my testimony today. + +Q. OK. And as I understand it, this is a hearing to determine whether or not there were scientifically valid principles under federal law to admit this testimony. You understand that. + +A. Yes, I do. + +Q. And one of the things that you did was provide the + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +government with this article, Exhibit 3, "Validation of Sexual Grooming Model of Child Sex Abusers," which I think you said that you thought that these authors, Winters and Jeglic, were credible. Is that right? + +A. I said I believed that they have done a lot of research in the field. I don't think I used the word "credible." + +Q. OK. It's something, though, that you provided to the government as support for your testimony here today. Is that right? + +A. It is some information pertaining to my testimony, yes. + +Q. So let's continue a little bit in terms of what this study involved. First of all, there were a total of 18 people that responded to this survey. Is that right? + +A. That was the second half, I believe, of the study that you're referring to. This was a two-part study. So my understanding is in the second part, there were 18 individuals who are experts in the field, yes. + +Q. All right. The pertinent one is the literature review. Right? + +A. It was done in a structured way, though. It wasn't just a summary of the literature. But, yes. The first part was a culling of scientific literature to identify particular behaviors that have been established in the literature to be associated with the process of various tactics, such as grooming and abuse by offenders. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 Q. Right. And the author, if we can go to page 17 of Exhibit authors conclude, "This study is the first to validate a model + +12 + +13 14 + +15 + +16 17 18 19 20 21 conclusion here. I'm going to pick it up in the middle of that paragraph. "This study has established the content validity of + +22 + +23 24 + +25 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Q. Yes. "The model should undergo rigorous testing to ensure the stages accurately represent the complex process of sexual grooming." Do you see that? + +A. I do. + +Q. "Further, a standardized measure of grooming behaviors should be developed based on behaviors and stages delineated in the SGM," which is what they're talking about here. Right? + +A. Yes. + +Q. So as we stand here today, there has been no further rigorous testing of this model that you're aware of. Correct? + +A. There is an enormous amount of testing and scientific study that led up to this particular model. I'm not aware -- I don't -- I can't speak as to whether or not they've done research subsequent to this, no. + +Q. But even these authors say that this isn't good enough for evidence-based grooming testimony. Right? + +A. That's not my reading of the paper, no. + +Q. OK. And you don't have you ever asked these authors about their opinion? + +A. No, I have not. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can turn to Exhibit 4, please. + +Q. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. You've talked about it. This is the Bennett and O'Donohue opinions, or article, in which Bennett and O'Donohue say that there's a lack of consensus regarding what grooming is and talk about it not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct? + +A. That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the article. + +4 Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right? + +5 6 7 8 A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my areas of expertise. + +9 10 Q. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature is Exhibit 3. Is that right? + +11 12 A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done and not the most recent, nor is it the only. + +13 14 Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the government in support of your testimony here today? + +15 16 17 18 19 A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would - certainly there have been articles published since that time. + +20 21 Q. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters study to move it forward, to validate it in any way? + +22 23 A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the moment no. + +24 Q. OK. Thank you. + +25 Exhibit 5 -- + +THE COURT: Can I ask, do you agree with the proposition that this was -- a version of it is that the meaning of grooming or an understanding of what constitutes grooming strategies and the like is contested in the literature? + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that it's contested. I would say that there's actually substantial agreement and there's more agreement than disagreement. So I would say that the concept is well accepted. Exactly how to define it is the piece that I think they're working on. And also which specific stages or what order and the process by which it happens, I think, is something that these authors -- well, the Winters authors -- are trying to move forward on. But I think the very concept of the idea that offenders use a variety of tactics, modus operandi, and behaviors in the process of developing a relationship with their intended victims is well established and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature and scientific community. + +THE COURT: To the extent you're familiar with the body of literature around trauma bonding in the sex-worker context, is there a comparable sort of dialogue and discussion among -- within the field as to what is an appropriate model, what counts as -- deemed strategies and the like? + +THE WITNESS: I'm aware of some research that's been done looking at the types of behaviors and groomings, which + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +would be various stages in the pimp and prostitute literature that are analogous to this. So, for example, how victims are targeted and selected, how the relationship develops over time, what sorts of behaviors are done to influence and coerce, and then to develop that trauma bond and attachment, which may get harder, for example, tactics that involve isolation and increased dependency and things like that. + +THE COURT: Do you have a sense, is the state of the literature on that subject more settled or more advanced than it is on the concept of grooming in child sexual abuse? + +THE WITNESS: I, I'm not sure that I can answer that. I think it's analogous literature. They're talking about the same things, so I'm not -- I can't comment on that area of the literature specifically. + +THE COURT: Go ahead. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. + +Ms. Drescher, if you could pull up Exhibit 5 for me, please. + +Q. This is the article that you talked about by Dr. Dietz. And, again, Dr. Dietz wrote this in 2017, published in 2018. Is that right? + +A. Yes. + +Q. And Dr. Dietz warns, on page 31, that "there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well-established predictors of + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +child sexual abuse." Do you see that? + +A. Yes. + +Q. So that's yet another expert's opinion in this field about there being problems with this grooming moniker. Correct? + +A. No. I wouldn't agree with that statement. + +Q. There are some other studies that you provided to the government that have not been introduced into evidence. And I just want to ask you if you recall these. There is the study "Sexual Grooming of Children: Review of Literature and Theoretical Considerations." Do you recall that? + +A. The title is familiar. I don't recall the contents of that specific article. + +Q. Do you recall the conclusion being that there is still no understanding about this phenomena when talking about grooming? + +A. Are you talking about the Craven article? + +Q. Yes. + +A. My understanding is that was written a long time ago. But, no, I couldn't sit here and tell you that I have a recollection of what specifically the conclusion of any of those specific articles were without having an opportunity to review them again. + +Q. Sure. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach the witness, your Honor? + +THE COURT: What are you identifying? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm identifying Defendant's Exhibit A, + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +which is this article. If I may approach your clerk and give your clerk some copies. + +THE COURT: That's fine. + +I have a copy? + +THE COURT: The government needs a copy. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I've got copies for everybody. + +THE CLERK: Do you have another copy? Do you have an extra copy for us? + +MR. PAGLIUCA: I do. + +BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +Q. This is, as you identified, the Craven article, correct? + +A. It is. + +Q. And in the introduction, Ms. Craven says that this phenomenon of grooming is little -- "there is little understanding about this phenomenon" correct? + +A. Where are you reading from? I'm sorry. + +Q. Introduction, middle of the page. Fourth line down. + +A. "About this phenomenon." Yes. + +Q. And that's the ultimate conclusion of this article, understanding that it was written in 2006. Right? + +A. And whether it was the ultimate conclusion, that is something that they posit in the introduction, yes. + +Q. May we go to page 11, to the conclusion. "Despite the wide acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not understood clearly, particularly in the public domain." Do you see that? + +A. Yes. + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach again with Exhibit B, your Honor? + +5 THE COURT: OK. + +6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I move to admit A, which has been tendered previously. + +8 THE COURT: Which has been entered previously? + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Tendered. + +10 THE COURT: II, tendered. + +11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. + +12 THE COURT: No objection? + +13 MS. POMERANTZ: No objection. + +14 15 THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit A is admitted to the nearing record. + +16 (Defendant's Exhibit A received in evidence) + +17 THE COURT: B we already have in, don't we? + +18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't believe so. + +19 THE COURT: OK. + +20 MS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor. + +21 THE COURT: Thank you. + +22 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +23 Q. Do you see Exhibit B, Doctor? + +24 A. I do. + +25 Q. This is yet another study that you provided to the 4 Winters and Jeglic. Right? + +5 A. Yes. + +6 Q. The abstract here -- this study was actually giving + +7 professionals a list, undergraduate students a list of + +8 potential grooming behaviors to see if they could identify + +9 grooming behaviors. And there were a total of 393 + +10 undergraduate students who were provided with this information. + +11 Do you recall that? + +12 A. I don't recall specifically. I recog -- I can recall. + +13 This was the article that -- in which -- they did two things. + +14 They developed the model, which they later tested. And then + +15 they created a scenario in which they attempted to see whether + +16 or not grooming behaviors could be predicted. + +17 Q. Right. And the results of this study were that grooming + +18 behaviors could not be predicted. Correct? + +19 A. Correct. + +20 Q. And this is what ended up with the 2020 attempt to validate + +21 the model, which they're still working on. Right? + +22 A. So you're talking about two different concepts. I can't + +23 really answer that question. + +24 Q. OK. Bottom line, "Nobody could predict grooming out of 364 + +25 people" -- "393 undergraduate students." Right? + +government in support of your testimony here today, correct? + +A. Partially in support, yes. + +Q. And this is by the same folks who did the 2020 study, + +4 5 6 7 Q. And we are talking about, in the conclusion and implications here, which is on page 9, "The present study found that individuals are not able to identify the potential predatory behaviors that a child molester may employ." + +8 Correct? + +9 10 A. Not able to identify it ahead of time, which is different than scientific literature looking at retrospective studies. + +11 12 13 But, yes, you're correct that this article found that we couldn't predict who is and is not, ahead of time, going to be a predator, based on certain behaviors and grooming. + +14 15 16 Q. Right. And the reason is, once you believe that someone sexually assaulted someone, then you can, in hindsight, go back and look at behavior and characterize it as grooming. Right? + +17 18 A. That's actually not what hindsight bias in the -- as referenced in the grooming literature refers to. + +19 20 Q. So I'd like to take a look at Exhibit 6 now, which has been admitted -- or? + +21 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if I admitted that, your Honor. But I move for the admission of Exhibit B. + +23 THE COURT: Without objection? + +24 MS. POMERANTZ: I'm so sorry. + +25 THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit B. + +A. That was the conclusion of the article, yes. + +Q. And this is in 2016, this article, correct? + +A. It was written in '16, published in '17 perhaps, yes. + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: If we could pull up Exhibit 6, please. + +5 THE COURT: Government 6? + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, please. + +7 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +8 9 Q. Exhibit 6 is the study that you appear to have relied on with regard to disclosure issues. Is that correct? + +10 A. It's something I submitted in part, yes. + +11 12 13 Q. Well, as you sit here today, can you tell us anything else that you submitted with regard to your testimony about delayed disclosure and supporting literature? + +14 15 16 17 18 A. I couldn't give you a list, but, again, my opinions are not based on any one article or even solely on my knowledge of the literature. It's based on an interaction of the totality of my education, training, skills, experience, and knowledge of the scientific and clinical and professional literature. + +19 20 21 Q. OK. So looking at Exhibit 6, this is a survey, essentially, of a number of publications that talk about barriers of disclosure. Correct? + +22 23 24 25 A. So my understanding is, this was a study that was looking at, understanding that delayed disclosure is very common, they were trying to determine what sorts of things present as barriers to disclosure and as facilitators of disclosure. + +MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor. + +THE COURT: Is admitted to the hearing record. + +(Defendant's Exhibit B received in evidence) + +4 A. I don't recall that as we sit here today, specifically, no. I'm sorry. + +5 6 7 Q. And if we can go to page 3 of Government Exhibit 6. Page 3 starts a table that has a summary of the various articles that were reviewed. Is that correct? + +8 A. That's my understanding, yes. + +9 10 Q. So let's look at some of the -- this study considered males and females, correct? + +11 A. Yes. + +12 13 Q. And you know that males tend to not report as frequently as females for a variety of psychological issues, correct? + +14 A. Correct. + +15 Either not report or delay further. + +16 Q. Right. + +17 18 A. So that would be one of the predictors or facilitators of delayed disclosure. + +19 20 Q. And you're aware -- are you aware that this case does not involve any allegation of delayed reporting by males? + +21 MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. + +22 THE COURT: What's the grounds? + +23 24 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, she doesn't know about this case, the specific details. + +25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I think that's my point, your + +Q. And do you recall that initially the authors considered 322 articles and selected 33 out of those 332? + +4 THE COURT: If the point is that she doesn't know any of the facts of the specific case and the government concedes that's true, we can move on. + +5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. + +6 7 8 9 10 I guess the other point, your Honor, which I can develop, is, these studies that are included and impact the statistics are really not relevant here because they deal with males or a combination of males and females, and there are only a few of them that deal with females specifically. + +11 THE COURT: OK. + +12 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: So when we're conflating these things, it conflates the numbers. + +14 May I proceed, your Honor? + +15 THE COURT: You may. + +16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. + +17 18 Q. So that the first study, which is in 2016, in the last column, is all males. Do you see that? + +19 20 A. Could you -- the page is upside down on my screen. Can we rotate it so that I can look at what you're seeing, please. + +21 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if Ms. Drescher can do that or not. + +23 24 THE WITNESS: Or I can look at a paper copy. But I - there's no way I can read that. + +25 THE COURT: I can't read it either. + +Honor, part of my point. + +4 MS. POMERANTZ: It should be under tab 6, your Honor. + +5 THE COURT: Tab 6. + +6 MR. ROHRBACH: And would your Honor like a copy of it? + +7 8 mike. THE COURT: I can't hear if you you're not using the + +9 10 well? MS. POMERANTZ: Would your Honor like a binder as + +11 THE COURT: Sure. + +12 All right. So we're looking at Government 6. + +13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct, your Honor, page 3 of 24. + +14 15 16 Q. I'm going to skip the next one, Dr. Rocchio, which deals with a discrete set of individuals. If we go to the third one down, if you go to the right-hand column, which is the summary. + +17 A. Yes. + +18 19 Q. This includes -- this is a 50 percent disclosure rate, as identified in this summary. Correct? + +20 21 A. 50 percent did not disclose until after the age of 19, I believe. + +22 23 Q. "Half of the participants had not disclosed their CSA experiences before the age of 19." Right? + +24 A. Yes. + +25 Q. That means half did. + +MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I believe there's a binder for Dr. Rocchio. + +THE COURT: OK. Is it in there? + +4 A. No. + +5 Q. 67 male and female adult survivors. Right? + +6 A. 76 percent of whom were identifying as female. + +7 8 Q. Right. So at least 50 percent disclosed before the age of 19 according to this study. Right? + +9 A. Correct. + +10 11 Q. And we don't know how delayed this reporting was or was not. + +12 A. You mean disclosures that were made prior to the age of 19? + +13 Q. Right. + +14 15 16 A. Again, not in this summary. I'd have to look to see whether that was addressed in the article itself. But, no, that's not referenced in the summary. + +17 18 Q. OK. But you didn't do that in preparation for your testimony here today, correct? + +19 A. This particular study? + +20 Q. Correct. + +21 A. No, I don't believe I did. + +22 23 24 Q. OK. The next one down, Leclerc and Wortley, 2015. Now, you spent some time talking about offender-generated data as part of the basis for your opinion, correct? + +25 A. Yes. + +A. Yes. + +Q. OK. And of that half, we've got 67 males in that population. Correct? + +4 5 "offender-generated data through self-reports because it could be subject to cognitive distortions -- minimization or exaggerations," correct? + +6 7 A. I think that they are identifying potential issues that could be present with offender-generated data. + +8 9 Q. Right. If we go to page 4, the McElvaney and Culhane article. + +10 11 A. The opinions in that study did continue. You didn't refer to all of their opinions, just part of them. + +12 13 Q. That's OK. The government can ask you questions on redirect if they'd like. + +14 A. OK. + +15 16 17 Q. In this opinion, in this, the findings are, "Majority of children told their mothers and their peers first." Do you see that? + +18 19 A. Of those who disclosed, the majority told mothers and peers, yes. + +20 Q. Right. Then the next study, 2014, when the -- + +21 22 23 A. So that study, though, was among -- everybody in that study had already disclosed. It was a study of children who had already disclosed, to look at who they disclosed to. + +24 Q. Right. + +25 Then we have the next study here, "220 minor victims" + +Q. All right. And if we go to the summary here, the author is critical of offender-generated data or questions + +4 5 6 A. I'm sorry. I would have to read where you're reading from. I'm not sure what -- can I take a moment to just read the opinion? + +7 THE COURT: Sure. + +8 A. This is the Dumont article? + +9 Q. Yes. + +10 A. OK. + +11 12 Q. All right. I'd like to turn to page 5, to the bottom of the page, the Schonbucher, Maier, Mohler-Kuo study. + +13 14 A. Did you just ask me a question about the article you just asked me to read? + +15 Q. Yes, 80 percent. + +16 17 18 A. When I said I had read it, I wasn't answering your question. Can you -- if you want an answer to the question, I'll need to hear it again. + +19 Q. That's fine. The Court can read this. + +20 THE COURT: So the question is withdrawn? + +21 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure, your Honor. Yes. This is admitted into evidence. + +23 24 THE COURT: And to the extent you asked a question about it, it's withdrawn? + +25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. + +allege -- when we're talking about people outside of the family, we have a 70 percent disclosure rate before one year as reported here, correct? + +4 A. Yes. + +5 6 7 Actually, you know what, it's on my screen properly now, so it's going to be easier for me to look there, because it's bigger. + +8 OK. + +9 10 11 12 Q. So I want to just highlight here one of the problems with these studies that you're relying on is, we've got a comment, "Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away." But we don't define what "right away" means, do we? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. So to be clear, the article that I submitted was a summary of the literature. I'm not saying that I have read and examined every study cited in this particular article. So I really can't speak as to how those in this article identified or defined "rate of disclosure." I would expect, however, that it would be defined in the full article itself. It's not defined here in the brief summary. But typically in scientific literature, it would -- the time period of disclosure that the authors were investigating, I would expect to find that in the article itself. + +23 24 Q. OK. But apparently you haven't gone back to look at the underlying data. Is that right? + +25 A. I have not gone back to look at every reference cited in + +THE COURT: OK. + +BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +Q. We're going down to the bottom of page 5. + +4 5 Q. OK. But this is the article you gave to the government in support of your testimony. Right? + +6 A. In partial support, yes. + +7 8 9 10 Q. OK. Page 7 of 24, the top, the Alaggia study, 2010. This one we have a -- this involves male -- it says, well, 36 percent. We have a 42 percent disclosure rate identified here during childhood. Do you see that? + +11 A. Yes. + +12 Q. And then 26 percent claimed repressed memory. Right? + +13 A. That's what it says there, yes. + +14 15 16 17 Q. I don't need to go through all of these. But fair to say that it's an overstatement, based on the literature, to claim that a majority of child alleged victims fail to report sex abuse during childhood. + +18 A. I would not agree with that, no. + +19 20 Q. Can you point to one study that supports your conclusion here, or your opinion here, that a majority fail to report -- + +21 22 A. A study you just cited, the Alaggia 2010, 46 disclosed -- 42 disclosed, which would mean 58 percent did not. + +23 24 25 Q. It says during childhood. We don't know exactly when the disclosure occurred or didn't. You're talking about substantial amounts in your government testimony here today, + +this particular article. I have extensively reviewed underlying data as it pertains to this subject over the course of my career. + +not the difference between 42 and 58 percent. + +A. I was talking about the majority. And they define there, I 4 5 believe in this article, again assuming this summary is accurate, that they were defining childhood as under the age of 18. + +6 Q. And I have two more of these I think we need to look at. + +7 8 THE COURT: Are we still on disclosure or another opinion? + +9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, we're on disclosure. + +10 THE COURT: I think you can wrap up disclosure. + +11 MR. PAGLIUCA: All right, your Honor. I get it. + +12 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: + +13 14 15 Q. So there are other reasons, outside of the statistics, that individuals who, at some point later in life, claim to be sexually assaulted make that claim. Correct? + +16 A. Outside of what statistics? + +17 18 Q. Well, you've been talking about delayed disclosure as a predictor of sexual assault. Is that correct? + +19 A. No, that is incorrect. + +20 21 Q. What is the significance, as far as you are concerned, with delays in disclosures as part of your opinions? + +22 23 24 THE COURT: If you'd like, Mr. Pagliuca, you don't have to, but you can take off your mask in the podium box if you like. + +25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I appreciate it. + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: And I would suggest that the microphone point directly at you. + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. + +THE COURT: Go ahead. + +A. So the significance of delayed disclosure as it relates to my opinion is, it is part of our understanding of phenomenology of child sexual abuse and the ways in which individuals tell. So I'm not identifying delayed disclosure as a predictor. I'm simply saying that it is a common phenomenon that is observed in the scientific literature to occur among children who are sexually abused. + +Q. Well, there are many other reasons why these reports may surface not immediately. Correct? + +A. Again, I'm commenting at this point my opinion is that delayed disclosure is common. I'm not -- do you have a question about the reasons why? + +Q. Yeah. There are many reasons why. There are allegations that are made months, weeks, years, after an alleged event. Correct? + +A. Correct. + +Q. And they may or may not have anything to do with the veracity of the allegation. Correct? + +A. The reasons may not have -- again, are you -- I mean, are you asking me, can people make false claims? + +Q. Yes. + +4 Q. And that could be outright lying, could be a reason? + +5 A. Could be. + +6 Q. False memories could be a reason, correct? + +7 A. Could be. + +8 Q. Intoxication could be a reason? + +9 10 A. Again, these are reasons that have been hypothesized to explain possibilities for false allegations, yes. + +11 Q. And they are accepted in the literature, correct? + +12 13 A. That lying exists, or that intoxication can lead to, to distorted claims? Sure. + +14 Q. Yes. Or a variety of psychiatric disorders, correct? + +15 16 A. Again, I'm not aware of the scientific research that has studied specifically these as predictors of false allegations. + +17 18 There's a very large body of scientific literature documenting of course that false allegations can occur, but they are -- + +19 represent a very small minority of allegations that are made. + +20 And I believe the article that you're reviewing, the authors + +21 are putting forth some hypotheses as to how or why that might + +22 occur. But I don't believe it's coming from a scientific + +23 study, and I'm not aware of one at this point. + +24 Q. OK. So wrapping up here -- + +25 THE COURT: I would again try to point it directly at + +A. Of course, yes. + +Q. For many reasons. Correct? + +A. Sure. + +you. + +4 MR. PAGLIUCA: All right. + +5 THE COURT: Thank you. + +6 7 Q. What is the study that you are relying on for your opinions about whether -- that has been tested here? + +8 9 A. There is no single study that I'm relying upon for my opinion. + +10 11 Q. OK. And what is the known potential rate of error for any of your opinions? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. It would depend on what you're -- how you're defining "error." So, for example, in the study where they had a bunch of professionals identify, for example, the relevance of particular behaviors to grooming, in that particular study, they looked for, I think the standard in the field was a .78 statistical significance or measure of agreement. So different studies use different measures. There are other studies that looked at inter-rater reliability. In other words, if someone is coding the content of a qualitative interview that's been done, they'll look at the degree of agreement and of course potential disagreement, which would be error, in differences of opinion, and attempt to address and resolve those. + +24 25 But, as I had indicated earlier, in this field, a pure error rate, as in many areas of the social sciences, cannot be + +MR. PAGLIUCA: OK. + +THE COURT: Try that. + +4 5 identified, because we can't randomly assign individuals to be sexually abused or not. So we have to look at other measures of testability and scientific ways to study these issues, as well as acceptance within the commun -- general and professional community. + +6 7 8 Q. And finally, what is the study that you're relying on to determine that this theory of grooming has gained general acceptance in the scientific community? + +9 10 A. As I've said, none of my opinions are based on any single study, alone. + +11 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: That's all I have, your Honor. Thank YOU. + +13 THE COURT: OK. Thank you. + +14 Anything, Ms. Pomerantz? + +15 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may we have a moment? + +16 THE COURT: You + +17 + +18 19 II. POMERANTZ: Nothing from the government, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. + +21 Dr. Rocchio, thank you very much. You're excused. + +22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. + +23 (Witness excused) + +24 25 THE COURT: I just, I have a couple of questions for the defense. Does the defense intend to impeach witness + +credibility based on failure to disclose at earlier time periods? + +4 5 THE COURT: And then do you intend to impeach any witnesses based on substance abuse? + +6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. + +7 8 THE COURT: OK. All right. I think I have what I need. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I'm going to give the reasons for my opinion, I think, probably, at our proceeding on Monday, but what I intend to do is deny the Daubert motion except with respect to the opinion that expresses that the presence of another individual can facilitate sexual abuse of minors. But otherwise the motion will be denied. And as I said, I'll give my reasons for the denial and the reason for the partial grant on Monday. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 OK. I think with that we can transition to the 412 proceeding. So we'll break for ten minutes. We will, as I said, have to seal the courtroom, as required by the rule, which will mean all nine party participants have to leave and the live feed will have to be turn off. And we'll confirm in the overflow rooms that those are off. + +22 So we'll break for ten. Thank you. + +23 (Recess) + +24 (Remainder of hearing sealed) + +25 + +MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. + +## INDEX OF EXAMINATION + +Examination of: Page + +LISA ROCCHIO + +4 Direct By Ms. Pomerantz 7 + +5 Cross By Mr. Pagliuca 95 + +6 Cross By Mr. Pagliuca 131 + +## 7 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS + +8 Exhibit No. Received + +9 1 20 + +10 + +2 44 + +3 48 + +11 + +4 51 + +5 58 + +### 12 DEFENDANT EXHIBITS + +13 Exhibit No. Received + +14 A 140 + +15 + +B 143 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e94ec1b7edfb924bf0570a37aed95285dd46ba9c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018/EFTA02835018.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,5551 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835018.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 158, + "chars": 196898, + "elapsed_seconds": 26.17, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "13 \nAPPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 372.6 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 388.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 52.019999999999996, + 388.08416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "16 \nCROSS-EXAMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 94, + "polygon": [ + [ + 53.855999999999995, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 227.5226593017578, + 451.9800000000001 + ], + [ + 227.5226593017578, + 466.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 53.855999999999995, + 466.08416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFTERNOON SESSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 130, + "polygon": [ + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 444.924, + 63.17999999999999 + ], + [ + 444.924, + 76.963134765625 + ], + [ + 201.96000000000004, + 76.963134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDEX OF EXAMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 157, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 63.99000000000001 + ], + [ + 403.7751770019531, + 63.99000000000001 + ], + [ + 403.7751770019531, + 76.83416748046875 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 76.83416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 157, + "polygon": [ + [ + 62.25, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 400.4552001953125, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 400.4552001953125, + 232.46417236328125 + ], + [ + 62.25, + 232.46417236328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "12 DEFENDANT EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 157, + "polygon": [ + [ + 54.97999572753906, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 396.70526123046875, + 349.11 + ], + [ + 396.70526123046875, + 361.8341979980469 + ], + [ + 54.97999572753906, + 361.8341979980469 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 124 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 47 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 123 + ], + [ + "Line", + 62 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 126 + ], + [ + "Line", + 63 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 124 + ], + [ + "Line", + 62 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 57 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 127, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 128, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 129, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 130, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 131, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 132, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 133, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 134, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 135, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 136, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 137, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 138, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 139, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 140, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 141, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 142, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 143, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 144, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 145, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 146, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 147, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 148, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 149, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 150, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 151, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 152, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 153, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 154, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 155, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 156, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 157, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835018" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..636deed6e662c2c4d0f89f394b2c053117e6aac0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AM + +USA / Plaintiff(s) + +Case No.: 20-cr-330 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant(s) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT + +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a )NFERENCheld on has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +11 /1 0/21 + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter. + +speer + +(lours Reporter/Transcriber Date \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbeadb8a801ed492edb42368c9b5067dd0bd4105 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176/EFTA02835176.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835176.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1434, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.92, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.224, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 418.669189453125, + 96.363037109375 + ], + [ + 154.224, + 96.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 168.3, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 448.919921875, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 448.919921875, + 322.4830627441406 + ], + [ + 168.3, + 322.4830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835176" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d60fac259b981600a9c96084183a2e6a3cc9286 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +212-243-1100 • Main 917-912-9698 • Cell 888.587-4737 • Fax + +Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States Circuit Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +November 15, 2021 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 batemheim@maccom + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +I write to inform the Court of the recurring problem regarding late delivery of mail by the government to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. Today, November 15, Ms. Maxwell received disclosures from the government under cover letter dated November 6. This is an excessively long delay, especially since trial commences in two weeks. Please direct the government to send disclosures to Ms. Maxwell via Federal Express Next Day Delivery on the same day they are provided to counsel and to provide tracking information to counsel. + +Your assistance in resolving this persistent problem is greatly appreciated. + +Very truly yours, + +cc: All counsel of record + +/s/ + +BOBBI C. STERNHEIM + +It appears that the mail referenced in this letter was sent prior to the Court's memo endorsement of the Government's November 8, 2021 letter. Dkt. Nos. 422, 425. In any event, as this matter is less than two weeks before trial, the Government is ordered to send materials via FedEx and provide the tracking number to defense counsel. SO ORDERED. + +11 /15/21 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85feebcfb2a4e626ffcca5d2b9edea18285c7859 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/EFTA02835177.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1389, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.352, + 26.4520263671875 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 26.4520263671875 + ], + [ + 543.1959228515625, + 53.017578125 + ], + [ + 89.352, + 53.017578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835177" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65abaaa428ae92dc113b4c04d7034516b89aae4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835177/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5c2078de23b1db591266b14b83f63291b2850026d6bfa408be5141a11df685d9 +size 11271 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64da173ec8d0d15107b35deb3b0e803b3fb64458 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +[PROPOSED] ORDER + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Court has ordered that certain witnesses will be permitted to testify either using pseudonyms or only using first names (the "Protected Witnesses"). See 11/01/21 Tr. at 11:13-17); + +WHEREAS to effectuate that order, it is necessary to prohibit courtroom sketch artists from drawing exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. That courtroom sketch artists — whether in the courtroom or overflow rooms — may not draw exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; and + +2. For avoidance of doubt, courtroom sketch artists may confer with the Court or counsel for either party to determine whether a witness is a Protected Witness. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York November , 2021 + +> HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc5c88428a80ab8aa49cfb060ee6cb37844bff68 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178/EFTA02835178.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835178.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 988, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835178" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..760d6dcdd02d54af3d19a2a51b6c3c2426eed388 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio 1 Mao Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New loth. New loth 10007 + +November 18, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Order (Dkt. No. 458), attached please find a proposed order regarding sketch artist depictions of certain witnesses. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +[PROPOSED] ORDER + +S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Court has ordered that certain witnesses will be permitted to testify either using pseudonyms or only using first names (the "Protected Witnesses"). See 11/01/21 Tr. at 11:13-17); + +WHEREAS to effectuate that order, it is necessary to prohibit courtroom sketch artists from drawing exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. That courtroom sketch artists — whether in the courtroom or overflow rooms — may not draw exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; and + +2. For avoidance of doubt, courtroom sketch artists may confer with the Court or counsel for either party to determine whether a witness is a Protected Witness. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York November , 2021 + +> HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4c98fdc228bd5b2fab6f747d7f74ecddec82c7c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/EFTA02835180.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 1767, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.89, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 26.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 463.9535217285156, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 318.85200000000003, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835180" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6b2961369f576a3ed5863f47db09f926d55dac7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835180/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4ab28b54b84b05f983921d306ac5dd5ceaab861886395c414510df31ab256917 +size 3456 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aead7b06bd20028347828d1a12f85799e7a45072 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x ESDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 11/18/21 + +(PROPOSED-I- ORDER S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: + +WHEREAS the Court has ordered that certain witnesses will be permitted to testify either using pseudonyms or only using first names (the "Protected Witnesses"). See 11/01/21 Tr. at 11:13-17); + +WHEREAS to effectuate that order, it is necessary to prohibit courtroom sketch artists from drawing exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; + +IT HEREBY IS ORDERED: + +1. That courtroom sketch artists — whether in the courtroom or overflow rooms — may not draw exact likenesses of the Protected Witnesses; and + +2. For avoidance of doubt, courtroom sketch artists may confer with the Court or counsel for either party to determine whether a witness is a Protected Witness. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: New York, New York +November 18, 2021 + +![]() + +--- + +HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b79c102780f94545e6d47680d49ea9711e2c3d5b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183/EFTA02835183.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835183.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1068, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.48, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 23 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835183" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a63b23d548cecbb12016e2657bdd181c6d65ccd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Villazor LIP 250 West 55th Street. 30th Floor New York. New York 10019 www.smithvillazor.com + +J. T 212.582.4400 + +I VILLAZOR + +November 18, 2021 + +BY E-MAIL to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We represent Jordana H. , the independent administrator of the Epstein Victims' Com ensation Program. As we explained in our letter to the Court dated November 15, 2021, SO ORDERED. Ms. intends to move to quash defendant Maxwell's subpoena directed to her. So that file papers on the ECF s stem as directed by the Court, we respectfully request that the Court approve Jordana H. being added to the ECF docket in this case as a "movant." We understand that if the Court approves this request, the S.D.N.Y. docketing clerk will add to the ECF system so that we may file her papers electronically at the appropriate time. + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC t: DATE FILED: 11/19/21 + +The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to add Jordana H. to the ECF docket in this case as a "movant." SO ORDERED. + +We are available should the Court have any questions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/~J. + +J. E i-Villazor LLP + +cc: AUSA Alison Moe, AUSA Maurene Comey, AUSA Andrew Rohrbach, AUSA Lam Pomerantz, Christian R. Everdell, Esq., Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq., Laura A. Menninger, Esq., Mark Stewart =, Esq., Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. (by e-mail) + +tie r + +11/19/21 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e64f97d0ed68e8e34ce0fe5075cd120d464dd595 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185/EFTA02835185.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835185.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1552, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835185" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..435ac5201659cb5ae9a20aaed13361ac9067c62a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion to quash the Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena. That motion has been filed temporarily under seal to allow the parties the opportunity to propose limited redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to file any proposed redactions on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, and to justify any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 19, 2021 New York, New York as Q + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6268b2a0f7e246dfb3a44ed981102036e7635956 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/EFTA02835186.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 843, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.78, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835186" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c895b47812837f31f02c46f72ddd032c195e412 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835186/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7e7dfa6ba4590cafd89a533bd304d0fa6b4cfbeffa12fe0e65298868807e0f93 +size 11485 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cdf0b067676126b73351a72a5e80d9b8dc0eafd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion dated November 18, 2021. That motion has been filed temporarily under seal to allow the parties the opportunity to propose limited redactions. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a response on or before November 20, 2021. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file any proposed redactions to the motion papers on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 19, 2021 New York, New York + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7555088baac6d412acf4cd154a50505afe4e530 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/EFTA02835187.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 911, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835187" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30d18a6f7c9a44b806ae2bd21df1ee39813a9258 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835187/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f0b49b9020c7456ecb59a421a0de2cfe13161fc35c4c648cb7bc3830eaeea0a5 +size 11761 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c51bae31304c19a2462e779553638e0026b76b91 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7600 ccvcrdcliCicohengresscr.com + +November 19, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +800 Third Avenue New York NY 1O022 +1 212 957 7600 phone wynvicchongrossor corn + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's email of November 15, 2021, the parties respectfully submit this joint letter to request video monitors with a live feed to the trial proceedings in each of the parties' counsel rooms. The parties have conferred and each side consents to the other's request. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GlFtESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcf5a6d8b81d41d77f5f782e353d33ffef85caeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/EFTA02835188.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 901, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.95, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 161.19 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 176.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 176.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835188" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce70615d0c39dafeefc87c9bcd3b051eaaafde93 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835188/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ee3c33d4d5adbea43f324fd2ff6bbf788f9aa14aae28488457d674c1f7f21e56 +size 1563 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..056e7d636bfcd7e9c4b8b7a9690c7c73518e8615 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY | +|----------------------| +| DOCUMENT | +| ELECTRONICALLY FILED | +| DOC #: | +| DATE FILED: 11/19/21 | + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's supplemental letter regarding Government Exhibit 52, Dkt. No. 457, and the Defendant's response, which has been temporarily filed under seal to allow the parties the opportunity to request limited redactions. The Government is hereby ORDERED to file a reply to Defendant's response on or before 12:00 p.m. on November 21, 2021. The letter reply should address the Defendant's argument that Employee-1 cannot authenticate Government Exhibit 52 because Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee, purportedly removed the document from the property before Employee-1 began working for Mr. Epstein. + +The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file any proposed redactions to the motion papers on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 19, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..475a14f45b4670475f527a457ffa635b6b0bcdd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189/EFTA02835189.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835189.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1393, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 73.71000000000001 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 99.63 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835189" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2b7a4ef61c44d5acd01e86fa6a79003d5e4930a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On October 29, 2021, Defendant filed a motion in limine "to exclude evidence related to Accuser-3." Dkt. Nos. 387, 444. The Court twice heard argument related to this motion, including extensive argument at the November 10, 2021 in camera hearing that was sealed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. See generally Nov. 1, 2021 Transcript; Nov. 10, 2021 Transcript. The Court has also considered supplemental briefing from the parties. That briefing has been filed temporarily under seal to permit the parties the opportunity to propose redactions in accordance with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +In a Memorandum Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant's motion. The Memorandum Opinion & Order lays out the permissible and impermissible testimony that may be offered by this witness based on Rules 412, 404, 401, and 403. + +The Court will send the temporarily sealed Memorandum Opinion & Order to the parties. By November 21, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks sealing or limited redactions of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order and of the supplemental briefing, justifying any such request by reference to Federal Rule of Evidence + +412(cX2) and/or the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +SO ORDERED. A0 n + +Dated: November 19, 2021 + +M" YVI + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8408008b509bb29e04cdeaba6b1f96220b318f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/EFTA02835190.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1744, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835190" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e64804219a19a8721af2e1b17278643f2282338 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835190/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b122e8d5989ced7bf673ea3e2d6c36553f280f279632da10362cb47b590bfdb9 +size 11427 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5283f386c4ff4e9f65f058c40b1821d2c1c79508 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio!. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plato New York. New York 10007 + +November 19, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government, with consent of defense counsel, respectfully requests that the Court allow the parties to arrange for the provision of secure high-speed wired Internet access in the courtroom in connection with trial in the above-captioned matter. The secure Internet connection will enable the trial teams in the courtroom to stay connected to their online case repositories and resources during critical moments of the proceedings. This will facilitate the effective and efficient presentation of evidence. In addition, the parties will be able to reduce the files they bring into the courtroom, as well as the traffic to and from the courtroom during proceedings. Although the parties understand that the courtroom also has Wi-Fi access, which is available for use, a high-speed wired connection ensures a faster Internet connection and will avoid connectivity issues. + +Subject to the Court's approval, the parties will retain Courtroom Connect to provide these services. Courtroom Connect does not require any court resources to provide service and currently maintains a network in the courthouse that is 100% independent of the Court's internal network. Set up, installation and service fees will be paid for by the parties at no cost to the Court. + +Other trials in federal courts have utilized a high-speed connection to the Internet in the courtroom, including United States v. Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK). The following describes how Courtroom Connect restricts access to the network and ensures compliance with court security and directives: + +- The network will be a hard-wired, secure physical network connection utilizing a firewall and other security provisions. + +- Onsite support, maintenance and other measures are provided to ensure the highest levels of security and reliability. +- The network is totally separate from the court's internal network; it is therefore physically impossible for information on the court's existing systems to be accessed or compromised. + +Courtroom Connect will make all necessary arrangements with the Court's District Executive office and computer networking personnel. + +If the Court is agreeable to these arrangements, the Government respectfully requests that the Court enter the enclosed proposed order permitting the parties to proceed. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +--------------------------x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Courtroom Connect, a Southern District of New York contracted vendor, may provide the parties in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), with an Internet connectivity feed for the duration of the trial proceedings, set to begin on Monday, November 29, 2021. Courtroom Connect should make proper arrangements with the District Executive Office of the Court and the official court reporter. + +SO ORDERED: + +Dated: November 2021 New York, New York + +> HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00b402c86447fd80de86aa861cfadf1abc34ac45 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/EFTA02835192.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3644, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 314.56800000000004, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 458.4520568847656, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 458.4520568847656, + 57.363037109375 + ], + [ + 314.56800000000004, + 57.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 81.396, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 130.92080688476562, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 130.92080688476562, + 212.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 81.396, + 212.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 75.276, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 286.669189453125, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 286.669189453125, + 118.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 75.276, + 118.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835192" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f98bb734c1a203f9647fa0623b95ad8d3b3b86c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835192/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8749995ecf94ac15f6efb2c6a9bd9e30a53d0ba92b6e7be53e9656d844aa9fe3 +size 3647 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a199d89f10400723d7a6906e231687aa91824f9b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +VILLAZOR + +November 15, 2021 + +BY E-MAIL to NathanNYSDChambers®nysd.uscourts.gov + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +United States District Judge + +Southern District of New York + +40 Foley Square + +New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 + +Villozor LIP 250 West 55th Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10019 www.smithvillozor.com + +\_ 2•\_ T 212 582 4400 + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +We represent Jordana H. the independent administrator of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, the litigation-alternative program established to confidentially resolve claims of sexual abuse against Jeffrey Epstein, his Estate, and other related individuals and entities. This afternoon we were informed by counsel for the government that the defendant has sought, and the Court intends to authorize, a subpoena directed to under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) for certain documents. We write to (i) inform the Court that we are authorized to accept service of the subpoena on behalf of and (ii) request a briefing schedule for anticipated motion to quash the subpoena. + +We understand that the government intends to file a motion to quash the subpoena, with a deadline of this Wednesday, November 17, 2021. Given that we have just learned of the subpoena today, the issues it presents, and mindful of the impending start date of trial, we respectfully request until November 23, 2021 to file a motion to quash on behalf. + +We are available should the Court have any questions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Is/ J. + +Ei J. Villazor LLP + +cc: AUSA Alison Moe, AUSA Maurene Comey, AUSA Andrew Rohrbach, AUSA Lam Pomerantz, Christian R. Everdell, Esq., Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq., Laura A. Menninger, Esq., Mark Stewart =, Esq., Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. (by e-mail) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d364475ab8d2d7a9f8539c4d74afeaf331584811 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195/EFTA02835195.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835195.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1762, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.99, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835195" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10a71b3c862f2a873742f2226be2031d21d7b603 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.md @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ +# EXHIBIT 1 + +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT + +for the + +Southern District of New York + +To: Jordana + +United States of America + +Ghislame Maxwell + +Defendant + +Case No. 20CR330 (MN) + +#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE + +(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) + +YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers, documents, data, or other objects: + +See Attachment A + +| Place: United States District Court
Southern District of New York, Courtroom 318
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 | Date and Time: 11/29/2021 8:30 am | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| + +Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(c)(2), relating to your ability to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. + +(SEAL) + +Date: + +CLERK OF COURT + +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ghislaine Maxwell , who requests this subpoena, are: + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, P.C., 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203, 303.831.7364, jpagliuca@hmflaw.com + +#### Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena + +Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to 1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the sub a either on notice or ex parte; 2) specify where the documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3) require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. + +Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order. + +case No. 20CR330 (AJN) + +#### PROOF OF SERVICE + +This subpoena for (name of individual and title. if any) was received by me on (date) + +O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: + +on (date) ; or + +O I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: + +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of + +My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00 + +Date: Server's signature + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. + +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: + +Printed name and title + +Server's address + +I Print Save As... Add Attachment Reset + +#### Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08) + +#### (c) Producing Documents and Objects. + +(I) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they arc to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the panics and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. + +(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. + +(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there arc exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object. + +(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least DI years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's witness-attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the subpoena. + +#### (e) Place of Service. + +(I) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. + +(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country. 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the subpoena's service. + +(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. 636(e). + +## DEFINITIONS + +- I. "You" or "Your" means any owner, shareholder, partner or employee of the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program ("EVCP"), and any former owner, shareholder, partner or employee of the EVCP. +- 2. " " " s " +- 3. Attorneys means legal counsel for any Accuser or the EVCP. +- 4. "Communication" means all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind. +- 5. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by an Accuser, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by an Accuser or their Attorneys, and any compensation received by an Accuser. + +# INSTRUCTIONS + +- 1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made in person to United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, Courtroom 318. +- 2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. +- 3. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition. +- 4. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. +- 5. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. +- 6. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in the ordinary course of business. +- 7. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business. +- 8. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. +- 9. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or + +become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Defendant. + +### DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED + +- I. Any and all EVCP Material submitted by each Accuser, not limited to Claim Forms and supporting submissions made by each Accuser; +- 2. Communications between the EVCP to each of the Accusers and/ or their Attorneys; +- 3. Copies of any payments to the Accusers and their Attorneys; +- 4. Any and All Releases executed by the Accusers. + +# EXHIBIT 1 + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. , a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-b -case basis in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with • As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or her representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +#### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer + +agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or a signed statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that a licensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +#### CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of a compensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +# Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +Attn: Jordana H. FM Administrator + +1050 Connecticut Ave., NW + +#65488 + +Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +# B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +# 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The + +Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant acompensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +# 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including lis pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +# 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All + +payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +#### C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential? By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- 1) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent + +&#x27; All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of Individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +### E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70f4b5c88099d90b52b612215308c599a275103e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196/EFTA02835196.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1402 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835196.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 32243, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 56.58087158203125 + ], + [ + 443.8427429199219, + 78.29827880859375 + ], + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 78.29827880859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR \nOBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 143.82, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 469.10870361328125, + 211.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 143.82, + 211.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.0205078125, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 439.0205078125, + 608.83056640625 + ], + [ + 173.19599999999997, + 608.83056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.765869140625, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 362.765869140625, + 97.97406005859375 + ], + [ + 249.08399999999997, + 97.97406005859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.2088928222656, + 68.03999999999999 + ], + [ + 490.2088928222656, + 82.7005615234375 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 82.7005615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(c) Producing Documents and Objects.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 89.91 + ], + [ + 190.7252960205078, + 103.232421875 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 103.232421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(e) Place of Service.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 119.81816101074219, + 304.2323913574219 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 304.2323913574219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTACHMENT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 374.8812255859375, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 374.8812255859375, + 54.3798828125 + ], + [ + 236.84400000000002, + 54.3798828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 87.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 87.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.788, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 373.39776611328125, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 373.39776611328125, + 345.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 274.788, + 345.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 456.57672119140625, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 456.57672119140625, + 139.863037109375 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 139.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 343.29901123046875, + 59.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 59.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.796, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 69.66 + ], + [ + 411.2301940917969, + 83.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 203.796, + 83.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 277.236, + 100.55029296875 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 100.55029296875 + ], + [ + 338.6748962402344, + 113.947021484375 + ], + [ + 277.236, + 113.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 169.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 238.84506225585938, + 182.947021484375 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 182.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.708, + 72.040283203125 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 72.040283203125 + ], + [ + 251.90597534179688, + 86.18701171875 + ], + [ + 66.708, + 86.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 103.68 + ], + [ + 220.1690673828125, + 117.3070068359375 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 117.3070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 314.1394958496094, + 486.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 121.78800000000001, + 486.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION. EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 500.0039999999999, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 500.0039999999999, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 131.22 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.06999969482422, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 154.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 104.06999969482422, + 154.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 120.69 + ], + [ + 360.2281188964844, + 120.69 + ], + [ + 360.2281188964844, + 137.18707275390625 + ], + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 137.18707275390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 310.0509948730469, + 460.0570373535156 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 460.0570373535156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 339.6283264160156, + 555.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 555.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 639.9000000000001 + ], + [ + 270.030029296875, + 639.9000000000001 + ], + [ + 270.030029296875, + 656.4521484375 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 656.4521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.8839111328125, + 146.60999999999999 + ], + [ + 182.8839111328125, + 160.43701171875 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 160.43701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 193.02223205566406, + 625.4370422363281 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 625.4370422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.80000305175781, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 112.8070068359375 + ], + [ + 103.80000305175781, + 112.8070068359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.16000366210938, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 236.232, + 347.9270324707031 + ], + [ + 102.16000366210938, + 347.9270324707031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 177.21142578125, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 177.21142578125, + 267.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 267.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 435 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835196" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3d97d46b5ae0424896d348e2f3099ba648d6f02 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x + +: S2 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +# MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin er HADDON, 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 P.C. + +Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell requests that the Court enter an Order authorizing her counsel to issue a subpoena under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) to Jordana H. + +Administrator, Epstein Victim's Compensation Program, for certain items identified in Attachment A to the proposed Subpoena, together attached as Exhibit 1 to this Motion, for the following reasons: + +### I. Background + +On October 11, 2021, the government began producing 3500 material to the defense. These rolling productions confirmed that the four Accusers referenced in the indictment applied for and received millions of dollars from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Ms. Maxwell requests the Court's assistance in subpoenaing documents submitted by the Accusers and the witnesses for use at trial. The documents should be returned to this Court for an in camera review and, subject to the Court's review, disclosed to the defense to be used for impeachment of the witnesses at trial. + +## H. Legal Standard + +Rule 17(c) permits subpoenas compelling the production of "books, papers, documents, data, or other objects" prior to trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). Most district courts in the Second Circuit, including this Court, apply the analysis set forth in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974). See United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (MN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*I —2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). The party requesting the information "must make a preponderance showing that the materials requested are relevant, specifically identified, admissible, and not otherwise procurable by the exercise of due diligence." Id. (quotations and citations omitted). + +#### III. Factual and Procedural History + +# A. The Allegations in the Superseding Indictment + +Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423(a). Count One alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice "one and more individuals" to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. (S2 Indictment 1111-13). Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport "an individual" in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). (Id. 1116-19). Counts One and Three allege overt acts purportedly involving Accusers 1, 2, and 4 and Witness-3.1 + +Count Two of the S2 Indictment alleges enticement to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Count Four alleges transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423. Counts Two and Four concern Accuser-1. + +Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein and others to recruit "a person" knowing that the person "had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). (Id. 1123-24). Count Six charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive violation of § 1591(a), claiming she "did recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, + +&#x27; Pursuant to the Court's ruling at the November 10, 2021 conference, we will refer to Accuser-3 as "Witness-3." However, for ease of reference, we will refer to these four women collectively as the "Accusers." + +and obtain by any means" individuals who were under the age of 18, including Accuser-4, "who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with Jeffrey Epstein." (Id. I 27). Both counts are based on the allegations of Accuser-4 and allege conduct that purportedly occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 2001. up to and including in or about 2004." (Id. 1123, 27). + +### B. The Accusers and The Epstein Victim Compensation Fund + +Ms. Maxwell was not mentioned in that lawsuit. Accuser-4 and Witness-3 applied to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. All four women chose to accept compensation from the Epstein Victim Fund. In its 3500 disclosures, the government has provided statements from the Accusers indicating + +The Protocol for receiving compensation is attached as 1 to Attachment A. The Protocol requires a written submission. The claims are evaluated per the Protocol which credits "[w]hether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency." Accordingly, the Protocol credits claimants who have had charges filed against Epstein or any employee of Epstein. The June 2019 indictment against Epstein did not include the allegations of the four Accusers that are contained in the S2 Indictment charging Ms. Maxwell. Under the terms of the Protocol, the Accusers here, and their civil lawyers, stood to benefit if the prosecution against Ms. Maxwell went forward. The Protocol also rewards Accusers who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim of sexual abuse against Epstein, or the Estate, which includes any employees or former employees of Epstein. Lawyers for + +were instrumental in creating and structuring the terms of the Protocol. See + +#### 1. Specificity + +The Protocol establishes a process that all claimants must follow. The "Claimant" must submit a "Claim Form" with documentation. These claims are then evaluated based on the criteria established in the Protocol. Any deficiencies in the claim are communicated to the Claimant. If a claim is approved, the Administrator sends the Claimant an offer letter and a release. Ms. Maxwell is requesting specific documents identified in the Protocol, including the Claim Form with any supporting documentation, correspondence between the Claimant (or her attorney) and the Administrator, a copy of the check issued to the Claimant, and a copy of the release signed by the Claimant. + +### 2. Admissibility + +There are no evidentiary impediments to admissibility. The documents are relevant, authentic, and an appropriate evidentiary foundation can be established under many rules of evidence. The Claim Form is a prior statement of the Accusers about the events alleged in the S2 Indictment. The Claim Forms and subsequent communications are admissible impeachment evidence at trial. + +# 3. Relevance + +As previously stated, + +Ms. Maxwell was not mentioned in that lawsuit. Accuser-4 and Witness-3 applied to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. All four women here chose to accept compensation from the Epstein Victim Fund. In its 3500 disclosures + +the government has provided statements form the Accusers indicating [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The Protocol for receiving compensation is attached as Exhibit 1 to Attachment A. The Protocol requires a written submission. The claims are evaluated per the Protocol which credits “[w]hether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, or other law enforcement agency.” Accordingly, the Protocol credits claimants who have had charges filed against Epstein or any employee of Epstein. The June 2019 indictment against Epstein did not include the allegations of the four Accusers that are contained in the S2 Indictment charging Ms. Maxwell. Under the terms of the Protocol the Accusers here, and their civil lawyers, stood to benefit if the prosecution against Ms. Maxwell went forward. The Protocol also rewards Accusers who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim of sexual abuse against Epstein, or the Estate, which includes any employees or former employees of Epstein. Lawyers for [REDACTED] were instrumental in creating and structuring the terms of the Protocol. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The documents sought are obviously relevant -- statements of the Accusers about what they claim happened for purposes of securing a settlement. Similarly, the amount of compensation is also relevant. “Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” *United States v. Malpeso*, 115 F.3d 155, 162–63 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 410). + +This trial will turn on the credibility of the individuals accusing Ms. Maxwell of these crimes. The Court should allow broad cross-examination during the trial on general issues of bias and motive for fabrication to protect Ms. Maxwell's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. A criminal defendant "states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that [s]he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness."' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.' Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (quoting-, 415 U.S. at 316-17). The possibility of an economic reward is classic impeachment material. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 684, (1985). + +Full and complete cross-examination of the Accusers is impossible without understanding the complete terms of the agreement with the Epstein Fund, including the claims concerning Ms. Maxwell, as well as others. Cf. Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235, 1244 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that witnesses' "application for victim compensation payments and application for and receipt of emergency victim compensation payments may well have been 'favorable' within the meaning of Brady," requiring government disclosure of exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants); payments and promises made to cooperating witnesses. See also, United States v. DeLeon, 428 F. Supp. 3d 675, 697 (D.N.M. 2019); and United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 898 (9th Cir. 2013), "Impeachment evidence is especially likely to be material when it impugns the testimony" of witnesses "critical to the prosecution's case." + +Dated: November 14, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) + +Laura A. Mennin er + +FIADDON, & P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Stemheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell + +#### Certificate of Service + +I hereby certify that on November 14, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ms. Maxwell's Motion for an Order Authorizing a Subpoena Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P 17(c)(3) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: + +Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lam Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov + +s/ Nicole \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21abca04ab99feef9e6660684ad82f40e678a254 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212/EFTA02835212.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,612 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835212.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 9, + "chars": 12100, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.39, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 299.33135986328125, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 299.33135986328125, + 102.49249267578125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 102.49249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A SUBPOENA \nPURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 75.888, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 536.4656372070312, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 536.4656372070312, + 333.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 75.888, + 333.86248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 179.87722778320312, + 210.60000000000002 + ], + [ + 179.87722778320312, + 225.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 225.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Legal Standard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 197.69583129882812, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 197.69583129882812, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Factual and Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.10809326171875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 288.10809326171875, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Allegations in the Superseding Indictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 390.882568359375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 390.882568359375, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Accusers and The Epstein Victim Compensation Fund", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 459.29388427734375, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 459.29388427734375, + 197.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 197.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Specificity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 212.18463134765625, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 212.18463134765625, + 170.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 170.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Admissibility", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 228.34976196289062, + 402.57 + ], + [ + 228.34976196289062, + 417.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 417.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Relevance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 211.07058715820312, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 211.07058715820312, + 582.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 582.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Certificate of Service", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.8318176269531, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 363.8318176269531, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835212" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c57edd2a06d67d9066f29ccb435c0d733c86cfb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio! Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 21, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Order at Dkt. No. 477, the Government is submitting today proposed redactions to the parties' supplemental briefing regarding Witness-3 and the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order resolving those motions. + +The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the parties' supplemental briefing and the Court's Opinion & Order are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of Witness-3, who has not identified herself on the record in this case, and who is a subject of the Court's pseudonym order. In addition, some of the proposed redactions reference sealed materials from the Rule 412 litigation, which are "related materials" within the meaning of Fed. It Evid. 412(cX2). + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Convey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f68ac1c9d5afe3cdd21eda8c9f88b7be159b33df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/EFTA02835221.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1586, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.6654968261719, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835221" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..758a11e7693962ef1a809ecfa66334b34cdb4d7d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835221/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:803eca840151b2bf55f0eecfc73b0f5c376dc2a7d0bfc95c6b4929d41efd4804 +size 3459 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e04b4846ab98e6edfd08b0cdb4bec6cc226cc18e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On November I, 2021, the Defense noticed eight expert witnesses. Def. Br., Ex. 1 ("Notice"). On November 8, 2021, the Government filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of two of those experts, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Gov't Br., Dkt. No. 424. The Defense filed a response via email on November 12, 2021, to permit the Government the opportunity to propose redactions. + +In an Opinion and Order temporarily filed under seal, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the Government's motion to preclude Dr. Dietz's testimony and DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the Government's motion to preclude Dr. Loftus's testimony. It does so after considering the admissibility of the anticipated testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Dauber: v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). + +The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By November 23, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks sealing or limited redactions of the Court's Opinion & Order, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date, the parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file + +any proposed redactions to the Defense's response brief and/or supporting exhibits on the public docket, again justifying any such request by reference to the *Lugosch* test. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 21, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..272bf034388797223150c9c4ceee8a488185ffde --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/EFTA02835223.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1779, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.5, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835223" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63f800876014dc4e04d2ae2587e917a7b5966d99 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835223/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:767539bbace39a62ad18d467952a29808a906a023cba74ee5599e226965fee62 +size 11643 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e1c0ab1a49aa27b49650b99b653e7efc290a78f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As noted at the November 10 conference, the Court will hold final pretrial conference on November 23, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 318 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. In accordance with its prior Order, the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family. Dkt. No. 344. + +In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, a number of pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper as managed by the District Executive's Office. Inhouse press will also be able to access the proceeding in overflow press rooms. The public will be able to access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 110, 506, 905, and 906 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the proceeding. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited. + +The Court anticipates seating capacity in the overflow rooms for at least 90 members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. Response to COVID-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a + +questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see . + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 22, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f3b0adf5fea3319674b406fdccf0f7ca857a14f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/EFTA02835225.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2417, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.28, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835225" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5b35fb8cfa29770738cc171247a6599c70ed984 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835225/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:92c610ff3fa625bd730da3b7ed2d0887d5a7682715ba77bd90aead5e34b0e71e +size 11710 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67a98cef0229ce1e3594326b024b20e8d16232be --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957.7600 ccvcrdcRicicohengresscr.com + +## BY ECF + +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cchengrossor corn + +November 19, 2021 + +To the extent that the Government is requesting that a video monitor be provided in a counsel room at 40 Foley Square, the request is granted to the extent the District Executive can accommodate the request. If the Government is requesting a video monitor in its own offices, the request is denied. The request is granted as to defense counsel's room. SO ORDERED. + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +A4. + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's email of November 15, 2021, the parties respectfully submit this joint letter to request video monitors with a live feed to the trial proceedings in each of the parties' counsel rooms. The parties have conferred and each side consents to the other's request. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GIFtESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c3dfdaf791e2c6524167bbe74cbdb0dc61ccf08 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/EFTA02835227.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1301, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 176.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 176.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835227" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2157ab26af2a25cbfd9368f237ee2463e88951af --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:562cf35ebd047dbf5230700766875d995758171668590a697358aa17712a0c50 +size 1582 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2620bb02772bdf7f0bc2b01585fc03e36466d3f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835227/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e284d370488198c1a9a51bc3fca7a49b6265fa3f7ade1897dcbd5267c77b9ead +size 11243 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..769b714f0967ddcbd864561dfcf06223efe37450 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's proposed redactions to the parties' supplemental briefing and the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order regarding the admissibility of the anticipated testimony of Witness-3. Dkt. No. 481; see also Dkt. No. 477. The Court concludes that the proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and narrowly tailored to protect the pre-trial privacy interests of an anticipated witness who is subject to this Court's pseudonym order. The redactions also properly protect materials related to the Rule 412 motion, which must remain sealed pursuant Rule 412. Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2); see also Advisory Committee Note-1994 Amendment. + +Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to file the redacted papers on the public docket by November 22, 2021, including the Government's supplemental letter regarding Witness-3 dated November 7, 2021 in response to Dkt. No. 417. The Court will file the redacted Memorandum Opinion & Order. + +SO ORDERED. + +A St. °Olt + +Dated: November 22, 2021 + +New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c30bc37553dc520eb627274c940dbc48c94c845 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/EFTA02835228.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1399, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835228" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7334ea3446fbbc5f8251f8fead7bfb0e6f00f98a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835228/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:389b81efdc2fd7962a8e362f42c9c3ff0fe3c990de30ad49669d45a978b25e85 +size 11201 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..041db1e11142f652b41e0b74a795cd9e45a62bb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 22, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Orders at Dkt. Nos. 473, 474, and 476, the parties are docketing today the Government's motion to quash the defendant's Rule 17(c) subpoena, proposed redacted versions of the Government's letter motion of November 18, 2021 and the defendant's response, and proposed redacted versions of the defendant's response relating to Government Exhibit 52 and the Government's reply. + +The defense has informed the Government that they are not seeking redactions to these filings. + +The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the parties' supplemental briefing and the Court's Opinion & Order are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the Minor Victims and witnesses, including individuals who have not identified themselves on the record in this case, and who are subjects of the Court's pseudonym order. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Convey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4553ad4ae084c14a08732058b9553c21f2a8d3d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/EFTA02835229.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1720, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835229" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9cdd10160bbad5e6324855544c0fdc51ac56cd18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835229/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:52d8ef9b8e3a72a1b94808013ee0966f640437438e9fdef32af1e4326614b43b +size 3513 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4818723f0288cf050205e2936555860a3f90cc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007 + +November 18, 2021 + +#### BY E-MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter motion to quash the defendant's Rule 17(cX3) subpoena to Jordana the administrator of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (EVCP). For the reasons set forth below, the subpoena should be quashed.' + +### I. Applicable Law + +As the defendant acknowledges, she bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (Def. Mot. at 1). Pursuant to that standard, the "party seeking issuance of [a Rule 17(c)] subpoena must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity." United States v. M, 2021 WL 912425, at •3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The proponent must also establish that the records sought "are not otherwise procurable." Id. (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700). + +For sake of simplicity, the Government uses the term "Minor Victims" to include Witness-3. The Government acknowledges the Court's order that Witness-3 should not be referenced at trial as a victim. + +The Nixon test is enforced strictly. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). It is not sufficient for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or admissible." United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2 ("The materials sought under Rule 17 must themselves be admissible at trial; it is not enough that they contain information which could be admissible." (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. RW Prof! Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (explaining that it is "insufficient" for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or may be admissible"). Similarly, the party requesting the subpoena must also show that the "the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. . 751 F. App'x 44, 46 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order).2 + +### II. Discussion + +The defendant has subpoenaed four categories of information: (1) copies of any payments to the Minor Victims and their counsel, and (2) "[a]ny and [a]l' [\*leases executed by the [Minor + +2 Although generally "production of impeaching evidence pursuant to Rule 17(c) is not required until after the witness testifies," Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2, in this case the Government expects each of the Minor Victims named in the subpoena to testify at trial. Accordingly, if the Court permits enforcement of the subpoena, the Government does not object to production of the records to the Court before the Minor Victims actually testify for the sake of efficiency. + +Victims];" (3) "[a]ny and all" material "submitted by each [Minor Victim]" to the EVCP; and (4) "communications" between the EVCP and the Minor Victims or their counsel. (Def. Mot. Attachment A). The subpoena should be quashed as to each of these categories.3 + +### A. Payment Records + +The first category—copies of payments made to the Minor Victims—concerns information already in the defendant's possession. Indeed, the defendant's motion cites the amounts received by the Minor Victims, which is reflected in their 3500 material (Def. Mot. at 3), and the Government expects the Minor Victims to testify to those amounts at trial. + +Accordingly, this information is "otherwise procurable." United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (MN), 2016 WL 8735699, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). The subpoena should therefore be quashed. At most, the Court should order production of that information to the Court so that it may be provided to the defense in the unlikely event that the Minor Victims testify inconsistently with their prior statements at trial. + +## B. Claim Release Forms + +The defendant makes no argument for the relevance of the release forms executed by the Minor Victims, and none is apparent to the Government. The Court should therefore quash the subpoena insofar as it calls for that category of information, at least until the defendant explains what relevant and admissible evidence is contained in the release forms. + +3 The Government has standing to challenge the subpoena because it targets information about anticipated Government witnesses, "based on the Government's `interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment of the witness and [her] family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility." United States v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 571 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)). The Government has provided notice of this subpoena to the Minor Victims and is informed that at least two victims expect to file submissions regarding the subpoena. + +### C. Any and All Material Submitted to the EVCP + +The defendant makes a further request for any and all submissions by the Minor Victims to the EVCP. This request would not generate relevant, admissible evidence for two reasons. + +First, the defendant has not identified a theory by which these materials are relevant and admissible. The defendant argues primarily that the materials contain relevant impeachment information because "[£lull and complete cross-examination is impossible without understanding the complete terms of the agreement with the Epstein Fund, including the claims concerning Maxwell, as well as others." (Del. Mot. at 6). Materials are not relevant and admissible at trial, as required by Nixon, simply because they aid the defendant's "understanding." And the defendant articulates only one theory by which EVCP materials may be admitted to show bias. According to the defendant, the May 2020 Protocol governing the EVCP states that claims are evaluated depending on whether "there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate .. . United States Attorneys' Office or other law enforcement agency." (Del. Mot. at 5). If this "prosecution against [the defendant] went forward," the argument goes, the Minor Victims and their lawyers would "benefit." (Id.) + +The defendant already has the information relevant to this argument. She has the protocol for the EVCP. The Government has "offered" no "information" or "findings" to the EVCP about the Minor Victims; to the extent the EVCP relied on publicly available information about this case to make its determination, such as the charging instruments in this case, that information is in the public record. And the Government has already disclosed to the defendant the settlement amounts—which the defendant cites in her motion. (Def. Mot. at 5). Thus, if these records are relevant at all, they are "otherwise procurable." Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at '2.4 + +The defendant also argues that the subpoenaed records contain prior statements of the Minor Victims, presumably suggesting that they may be admissible as prior inconsistent statements. (Def. Mot. at 4). This argument misses the mark. Any statements in the EVCP's files are unlikely to be inconsistent in light of the context in which they were made. See United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 123 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869, 875 (2d Cir. 1995) for the proposition that an omission in a prior statement "should have been admitted as an inconsistent statement because it would have been natural for the witness to include the fact" (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). In order to initiate a proceeding with the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, a victim must articulate a claim "directed against Epstein." (Indep. Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Protocol, Def. Mot. Ex. 1 Attachment A Ex. 1 at 3 (emphasis added)). And in that context, it would be wholly unsurprising if victims spoke at times about their experience with Epstein without discussing the defendant.5 Further, if it were true (as the defendant argues above) that EVCP funds will reveal the Minor Victims' bias because their recovery from the EVCP was aided by the Government's continued case against the defendant, one would expect that any statements by the Minor Victims to the EVCP regarding the defendant would be consistent with their statements to the Government and at trial. If the Minor + +Indeed, because all four Minor Victims identified in the subpoena have resolved their claims with the EVCP, there is no reason to think their trial testimony will be biased in order to advance their claims in a now-completed settlement process. + +Consider, for instance, if a victim met Epstein and the defendant together on a certain date. It would be entirely consistent for the victim to testify as much on the stand, and to tell the EVCP that she "met Epstein"—without mentioning the defendant—on that date. + +Victims' submissions to the EVCP did not discuss the defendant, a criminal case against the defendant would not advance their claims. + +Second, even if these subpoenas yielded marginally relevant impeachment material or marginally inconsistent statements notwithstanding their context, such evidence would not be admissible under Rule 403. At the November 1, 2021 conference, the defendant sought to preclude the Government from arguing that the Minor Victims' settlements with the EVCP reflects an endorsement of their claims, which "would be confusing to the jury" and "open the door to an explanation from the defense about what really happened in those proceedings," a request to which the Court and Government agreed. (11/01/21 Tr. at 43:7-46:3). It remains the Government's position that cross-examination highlighting the fact that the Minor Victims received large settlements for their claims would not open the door to a broader discussion of the Epstein Victims Compensation Program. + +If, however, the defendant engages in significant cross-examination about what Minor Victims did and did not say to the EVCP, and the reasons for those statements, it would create just that confusion and open just that door. If the defendant argues that a Minor Victim should have, but did not, make statements about the defendant to the EVCP, the Government will have to explain to the July the purpose of the EVCP and its adjudicative process in order to contextualize that omission. Similarly, if the defendant argues that the Minor Victims' testimony was biased by some interrelationship between the EVCP and this case, the Government will have to explain to the jury the absence of such an interrelationship, including the timeline of the Minor Victims' statements relative to the timeline of the EVCP. Indeed, it appears that the defendant anticipates arguing that some Minor Victims' bias is shown by the fact that their counsel was involved in structuring the EVCP, which would require further response from the Government about the + +operations of the EVCP. (Def. Mot. at 5 ("Lawyers for Accuser-2 and Witness-3 were instrumental in creating and structuring the terms of the Protocol.")). The risk of confusing the issues and wasting time at trial substantially outweigh any probative value in the evidence the defendant might obtain. + +This is not a trial about the scope and adjudicative process of the EVCP. All of this should be precluded, and therefore none of it is admissible under Nixon. The defendant is able to make arguments about bias and consistency without issuing a subpoena that is unlikely to yield relevant information—information that would be precluded at trial in any event.6 + +# D. Communications + +Finally, the subpoena calls for communications between EVCP and the Minor Victims and their counsel. The term "communications" is defined broadly, covering "all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text messages, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind." + +This subpoena request is a classic fishing expedition that the Court should quash. There is no reason to believe that the Minor Victim or their counsel would make substantive statements, which might be inconsistent, in emails and text messages. The defendant offers no reason why their theory of bias would find support in correspondence. Nor is one supported by logic: the theory is that the Minor Victims told false stories to the Government to advance the prosecution, not that they did or said biased things to the EVCP. This subpoena does not seek to "obtain identified evidence" but rather to engage in "a general `fishing expedition' that attempts to use the + +6 The defendant defines "EVCP Material" to include information regarding compensation received by Minor Victims and releases signed by them. (Def. Mot. Ex. 1 Attachment A). Those items should be treated identically to the specific requests for them, as discussed above. + +rule as a discovery device." United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980); see Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109. Such an expedition is precluded by Nixon. 418 U.S. at 700. + +### III. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should quash the defendant's subpoena.7 + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by email) + +7 In the event the Court does not quash the subpoena, the Government notes that it is returnable to the Court for in camera review. (Def. Mot. at 1). To the extent the Court releases any records from the EVCP to the defendant, it should only release those records that comply with the Nixon standard. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at \*2 ("To avoid delay in trial, courts sometimes require production of impeaching material to the court (but not to counsel), with the court reviewing these documents in camera and then disclosing any admissible documents only after the witness testifies."). For instance, if the Court identifies a prior inconsistent statement in only one document, no other records should be released to the defendant. And, in addition to evaluating whether any statement is relevant to show bias or as a prior inconsistent statement, the Court should consider whether it is precluded under Rule 403, for the reasons described above. See supra pp. 6-7. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74dd18cdee17102e742c5818b4793156771949b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/EFTA02835231.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,558 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 15229, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.24, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department ofJustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 26.55889892578125 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 40.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY E-MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 139.06729125976562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 139.06729125976562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 228.5406036376953, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 228.5406036376953, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 545.94 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 560.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 560.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Payment Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 219.34671020507812, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 219.34671020507812, + 174.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 174.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claim Release Forms", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 434.97 + ], + [ + 238.54408264160156, + 434.97 + ], + [ + 238.54408264160156, + 450.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 450.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Any and All Material Submitted to the EVCP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 77.76 + ], + [ + 362.5738220214844, + 77.76 + ], + [ + 362.5738220214844, + 91.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 91.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Communications", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 216.7518768310547, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 216.7518768310547, + 312.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 312.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 204.28225708007812, + 132.84 + ], + [ + 204.28225708007812, + 146.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 146.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835231" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c48eb8e469e578401031d414f650a002be0b4af6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835231/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cceb52408f1b81cc8ecd8bfe1805780dcadda772cd8973d4aa43ca43a6a32ff7 +size 3599 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131e5ad77ac536e9f0e0b4056f13e92d85dc5698 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio J. Mello Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 18, 2021 + +#### BY E-MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding birth certificates that are marked as Government Exhibits for trial.' By way of background, the Government has obtained and produced to the defense certified copies of the birth certificates for each of the Minor Victims. (See GX-11-16). Although the Government has asked the defense to stipulate to the authenticity of these records, and although the defense has identified no reason to doubt the authenticity of these records, the defense has not agreed to a stipulation. Accordingly, the Government seeks the relief in the instant motion, to which it is entitled under the law, and to avoid calling records custodians from five state agencies with custody over the birth certificates.2 + +The Government moves to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims, including victims who have not been publicly identified, and who are a subject of the Court's order granting the motion to let certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms, and third parties. + +2 The Government is coordinating with Department of Justice Office of International Affairs to further establish the predicates for self-authentication of Witness-3's birth certificate and will make the appropriate motion when it is ripe. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(3). + +For the reasons set forth below, the birth certificates are self-authenticating under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and no records custodian should be required to testify. The exhibits should be determined to be self-authenticating. + +#### I. Applicable Law + +Rule 902 contains a list of items that are "self-authenticating," that is "they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted." Fed. R. Evid. 902. Under Rule 902(4), that list includes: + +> Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by: + +- (A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or +- (B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. + +Rule 902(1), in turn, provides for self-authentication of the following: + +Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears: + +- (A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and +- (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation. + +Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 27 permits a party to "prove an official record . . . in the same manner as in a civil action." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(aX1), in turn, permits proof of a domestic "official record" that is "otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory" through + +a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record—or by the officer's deputy—and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal: + +. . . (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept. + +Fed. R Civ. P. 44(a)(1); see Fed. R. Evid. 902 Advisory Committee Notes ("Rule 44(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 27 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure have provided authentication procedures of this nature for both domestic and foreign public records."). + +# II. Discussion + +The Minor Victims' birth certificates are certified and sealed by the appropriate officials, and are therefore self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(4). See Ball v. A.O. Corp., 451 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The original transcript, which includes a certification by the court reporter, is self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(4)."); United States v. 439 F. App'x 837, 839 (11th Cir. 2011) ("We have held that to satisfy the requirements of Rule 902(4), a certification need only identify the legal custodian's position of authority, and that the copy is true and correct."). + +At the threshold, domestic birth certificates are "public records" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4). See Fed. R. Evid. 803(9) (providing a hearsay exception for "Public Records of Vital Statistics," including la] record of a birth . . . if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty."). + +Pursuant to Rule 902(4)(A), a copy of such a record is self-authenticating if "certified as correct by: . .. the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification." Fed. R. Evid. 902(4)(A). That is the case for each of the birth certificates: + +![](_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg) + +Each of these certifications is a certification by a custodian sufficient to satisfy the Rule. See Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dept, 178 F. Supp. 3d 118, 128 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (concluding that a transcript was self-authenticating based on a court reporter's certification that it contained a "true record"). + +The birth certificates are also self-authenticating under Rule 902(4XB). That rule permits self-authentication based on "a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court." This rule is satisfied in two ways. + +First, the certifications comply with Rule 902(1). Each certification bears "a seal purporting to be that of . .. any state ... ; a political subdivision ... ; or a department, agency, or officer o£' a state. Fed. R. Evid. 902(1XA). And each certification bears a "signature purporting to be an execution or attestation." Fed. R. Evid. 902(1)(B). The certifications on the birth certificates therefore meet the requirements of Rule 902(4XB). + +Second, as noted above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) explains that the evidence necessary to "evince° an official record" that is "kept within the United States[ or] any state" is "a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44(a)( I )(B); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 27 (incorporating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this subject). That certification must be "made under seal . . . by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44(a)(1)(BXii). Each of the certifications described above is by a public officer with official duties in the location where the birth certificate is kept, as stated in the certification, and each is sealed. That is sufficient. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that records of prior convictions, fingerprints, and other materials from prison were self-authenticating under Rules 902(2) and 902(4) and that "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(aX1), incorporated into Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 27, accords with our analysis."). + +### Ill. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should determine that the Minor Victims' birth certificates are self-authenticating. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 + +cc: Counsel of Record (by email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdb63259eecef02fb093ab042e08c6184e6067e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/EFTA02835239.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 8323, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.05, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 464.11505126953125, + 41.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 41.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY E-MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 139.06729125976562, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 139.06729125976562, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 228.5406036376953, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 228.5406036376953, + 174.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 174.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 255.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 255.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 200.43003845214844, + 271.10302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 271.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ill. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 203.8949737548828, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 203.8949737548828, + 91.863037109375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 91.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835239" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8b72ca9a1ff396782881ebb161f183e6c351248 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ee3c8c31a6dd7191abf522698de4018a29b0f4c62cc45118cecb2e8a5a125efc +size 3527 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37790b1d54622ee0a81de0d5a71f249e6407c4ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835239/_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9486251d84c60e7f8aef1fd4b1040a8e577d6a96a2d33b3ac268010bcef3f077 +size 40400 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a767900ccb02c8cb49c4ef42b7a92daca2b2bb8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +Christian R. ISscrrii +1 (212) 957.7600 ccstrdclitisohengrcsssr.c..01 + +November 20, 2021 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +EGO Thud Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone \*yaw cohenprevaruorn + +Re: United States it Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to the government's letter motion, dated November 11, 2021, requesting that the Court find that the birth certificates for the alleged Minor Victims (GX-11 through GX-16) are self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. + +We have reviewed the government's submission and, in the interests of facilitating an efficient trial, we are prepared to stipulate to the authenticity of the birth certificates for alleged Minor Victim-1 (GX-I2), Minor Victim-2 (GX-13), Minor Victim-4 (GX-1 I), Minor Victim-5 (GX-14), and Minor Victim-6 (GX-15). We will coordinate with the government to produce an appropriately worded stipulation as to the authenticity of these exhibits. + +However, the government itself concedes that it has not yet proffered a sufficient foundation to authenticate the birth certificate of Witness-3 (GX-16). See 11/11/2021 Gov't Ltr. at 1 n.2. According to GX-16, Witness-3 was born . In order for such a record to be self-authenticating as a foreign public document, the government must meet the requirements of Rule 902(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which it has not yet done. The + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 20, 2021 Page 2 + +defense is not prepared to stipulate to the authenticity of a document when the foundation for its authenticity has not yet been established. The defense is willing to reconsider its position if the government can produce the attestations and certifications required to authenticate GX-16 under Rule 902(3). + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian Everdell + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By Email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e17200fc45864d8b89f75a2a06e52ab1a8c4dfc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/EFTA02835245.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2195, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835245" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a45d89b390862b615cd17d05e93ad1d71a9583f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835245/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:736c1f90b5dccc37d803bae74b3ef842df1449700b59a0ca602040cf76946b14 +size 1577 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb9a49c4dee7ed34afcfcf2e09b4e554934412f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg) + +November 15, 2021 + +VIA EMAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +150 Eost 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliucaehmflaw.com + +Dear Judge Nathan, + +There are two fundamental flaws with the government's evidentiary proffer regarding proposed Exhibit 52. First, as a matter of fact, Government Exhibit 52 was not something that the cooperating government witness reviewed, used, or saw during her brief employment with Jeffrey Epstein. Records produced in discovery reflect that witness began working for Epstein in At that point, the suspect source of Government Exhibit 52, Alfredo Rodriguez, was not employed by Epstein because he had been fired in 2004. + +According to Mr. Rodriguez, when he left the Epstein home he took an address book, which he claimed was Epstein's book, and had it in his possession until 2009 when he tried to sell it to Brad for \$50,000.' The book was clearly altered by Mr. Rodriguez. The single + +Mr. Rodriguez knew the target ofhis intended sale which makes the likelihood of alteration all the more probable. Mr. was a lawyer with of the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Rothstein Rosenfelt Adler. The firm was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the + +November 15, 2021 + +Page 2 + +page that the government intends to offer has various handwritten notations on the copy. The book, as an entire document, contains numerous handwritten notations, added tabs, and additional handwritten pages. The government does not explain how the one selected page is authentic and does not identify any Fed, R. Evid 602 basis for the witness's testimony about the book. + +The evidentiary proffer by the government glosses over what limited facts the witness may have actual knowledge about: that she saw copies of address books in the Palm Beach Residence beginning in She cannot say that Exhibit 52 was one of these books and she cannot comment about the alterations made by Mr. Rodriguez. There is no other address book to compare with Exhibit 52. Other witnesses dispute the characterization of the books as proffered by the government. + +The party offering an exhibit must demonstrate "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). "The requirement under Rule 901 is satisfied 'if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.' " United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir.1991)). The government cannot meet this minimal threshold here. + +Ms. Maxwell respectfully suggests that this issue cannot be resolved by the Court without consideration of the evidence and the witness through whom the government will attempt + +Southern District of Florida for a \$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme, involving falsifying documents, including police reports and court pleadings, specifically against Epstein; blackmailing targeted defendants to settle false allegations of sexual harassment and abuse; and devising an investment scheme involving pre-trial funding in the guise of structured settlements. + +November 15, 2021 + +Page 3 + +authentication. Ms. Maxwell requests that the government be precluded from discussing the book at trial prior to a proper evidentiary foundation being established. In addition, the government should be required to produce the entire book for inspection at trial and counsel for Ms. Maxwell should be afforded an opportunity to conduct voir dire of the exhibit with the proffering witness. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Laura A. Mennin er + +HADDON, P.C. + +150 East 10th Avenue + +Denver, CO 80203 + +Phone: 303-831-7364 + +Christian R. Everdell + +& GRESSER LLP + +800 Third Avenue + +New York, NY 10022 + +Phone: 212-957-7600 + +Bobbi C. Sternheim + +Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim + +225 Broadway, Suite 715 + +New York, NY 10007 + +Phone: 212-243-1100 + +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9744e6fcbb6ae2d2718504c4d7be2b81f56e76a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/EFTA02835247.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4161, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.18, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835247" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe093915fb0ee8529af178be51b3146fd2d2a839 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835247/_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f768f713f7ce875711da898cfa52c52f4e35d55d99b23eba82aab3c72cfd3839 +size 6286 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d73fe393dfe3bee567e538310cc5dad35b4a568 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +## U.S. Department of Justice + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The SBWoJ. Moll° Budding One Saint Andrew's Pla:a New York. New York 10007 + +November 21, 2021 + +## BY E-MAIL + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in reply to the defendant's motion to exclude Government Exhibit 52. (See Dkt. No. 476). The Court ordered the Government to respond in particular to the defendant's argument that "Employee-1 cannot authenticate Government Exhibit 52 because Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee, purportedly removed the document from the property before Employee-I began working for Mr. Epstein." (Id.) + +The Second Circuit has "often commented that the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high." United States v. Al-Moyad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The "proponent of the evidence is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be." United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). All that is required is "sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." hi (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The "standard for authentication is one of `reasonable likelihood' and is 'minimal.' The testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard." United States v. , 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After this low bar is satisfied, "the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges to go the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility." United States v. Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphases in original). + +The defendant's argument suggests that Government Exhibit 52 is unique in a way unsupported by the evidence. Government Exhibit 52 is a bound, sewn, typed address book with a particular cover. Employee-1 will testify that, based on its appearance, contents, and distinctive characteristics, it appears to be a copy of the defendant's address book. She will also testify that other bound, sewn, typed copies of the same address book with the same cover were located in specific places in Epstein's Palm Beach house, as was the operating practice of Epstein's house. That testimony is corroborated by Government Exhibit 606, the household manual, which states that "A copy of Mr Epstein and Ms Maxwell's telephone directories must be placed to the right of each telephone (except for the Guestrooms)." (GX 606 at 7). And it is corroborated by Mr. Rodriguez himself, whose counsel said at sentencing in his case that the book he possessed was "a copy of the book, of which there were many copies, and Mr. Rodriguez had one as Mr. Epstein's house man." Sent. Tr. at 10, United States v. Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 80015 (KAM) (S.D.F.L. June 18, + +2010), Dkt. No. 32.1 + +Further, Employee-I observed the defendant's contact book in close temporal proximity to Mr. Rodriguez's departure. Mr. Rodriguez worked for Epstein in "2004 and 2005." Plea Agreement/Factual Proffer Statement ¶ 10(a), Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), Dkt. No. 25.2 Employee-1 worked for Epstein There was therefore no significant time gap between the day Rodriguez left Epstein's employment with a copy of the address book and when Employee-1 worked for Epstein and saw a copy of the address book. Consider if an employer gives a "history of the firm" book to each new employee. An employee who was aware of that practice and who starts in 2021 can authenticate a copy of that book, even if the particular copy was given to an employee who started in 2020. Or consider if the Yankees have distinctive teambranded water bottles spread across their locker room. A player who has seen the water bottles can authenticate one, even if the particular water bottle was taken from the locker room before that player joined the Yankees. The same is the case here. See United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21, 24-25 (2d Cir. 2020) (authenticating "handwritten letters" based on their contents and "considerable similarities between the handwriting" and known exemplars). Indeed, the fact that both Employee-I and Mr. Rodriguez have seen multiple copies of the same address book further confirms its authenticity. + +Finally, the authenticity of the address book does not rely exclusively on Employee-I 's testimony: it is also reinforced by its internal markings. Other evidence at trial will show that the address book in fact contains the information of persons listed therein who in fact knew the + +1 The Government is not currently planning to offer trial evidence regarding Mr. Rodriguez, although it may if the Court concludes that evidence is critical to the authentication question. + +2 The defendant erroneously suggests that Mr. Rodriguez stopped working for Epstein in 2004. (11/15/21 Def. Letter at 1). + +defendant at the time. *See United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd.*, 319 F.R.D. 459, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (describing “distinctive characteristics” for purposes of Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) to include “pages of ‘nonpublic information’”). [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +The Court can readily reject the defendant’s suggestion that Government Exhibit 52 is a forgery. The book is sewn, bound, and contains an extensive set of private information. The defense offers no theory for how Mr. Rodriguez could have generated that information and bound it together seamlessly in an address book that could fool Employee-1. Further, if the address book were a forgery, it would have provided Mr. Rodriguez with a complete defense in his criminal case: the defendant could not have impaired a grand jury investigation by “concealing” a forged document. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Instead, Mr. Rodriguez was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. + +Nor is there reason to believe that the book was altered in any significant way by Mr. Rodriguez. As the Court can see from the pages the Government has marked separately (*see* GX 52-A through G2-H), any handwriting is minimal and non-substantive, at least on the pages the Government intends to emphasize at trial. The “added tabs” the defendant mentions are literally sticky notes attached to certain pages, likely added by law enforcement after they seized the book from Mr. Rodriguez. And the “additional handwritten pages” to which the defendant refers are Mr. Rodriguez’s separate notes that are *not* part of Government Exhibit 52. *See* Plea Agreement/Factual Proffer Statement ¶ 10(f), *Rodriguez*, 10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), Dkt. No. 25 + +("During the meeting, the defendant produced a small bound book and several sheets of legal pad paper containing hand-written notes."). Again, the book is sewn and bound, like the other copies seen by Employee-1, and is not amenable to easy insertion of pages. These "alterations" do not undermine the authenticity of the book in the slightest, but at most, they go to weight and not admissibility. See Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38; cf. 506 F.3d 140, 151 ("Based on then testimony [that electronic communications were accurate], a reasonable juror could have found that the exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and online chats were editable."). + +The defense is correct that Employee-1 cannot say that she saw the specific address book that is Government Exhibit 52 while she worked for Epstein. But she can recognize Government Exhibit 52 as one of the many copies of the defendant's address book that she did see, and she can testify to the practice that, close in time to when Government Exhibit 52 left Epstein's house, the address book was regularly kept in specific places around Epstein's house. That testimony is enough to satisfy the low bar for authentication, and it is supported by Government Exhibit 606 and by testimony that corroborates private information inside the address book. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Convey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1053be552a0a1a3449ca94972cdbb8a7f92a45e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/EFTA02835250.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,289 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 8702, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 302.94, + 68.85000000000001 + ], + [ + 446.4520568847656, + 68.85000000000001 + ], + [ + 446.4520568847656, + 82.863037109375 + ], + [ + 302.94, + 82.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY E-MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 139.47601318359375, + 223.56000000000003 + ], + [ + 139.47601318359375, + 238.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 238.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835250" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fedabc994488eafff4093aaff1490ed94ed3c73b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835250/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9cf28b9a435557d472ffaa3375d61f0c4be1c147095cfc20a0ac2b1db413ae90 +size 3470 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ada4687747d3f11ab59f06ffba164c52037be45 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.md @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_114.jpeg) + +*United States Attorney +Southern District of New York* + +*The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007* + +November 5, 2021 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, New York 10007 + +**Re: *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)** + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in further opposition to the defense motion to exclude evidence of Minor Victim-3 (Dkt. No. 387), and as discussed at the conference on November 1, 2021. As set forth in greater detail below, the testimony of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offenses charged in the Second Superseding Indictment (the "Indictment") and, at a minimum, admissible under multiple bases enumerated in Rule 404(b).1 + +**I. Factual Background** + +The Government expects Minor Victim-3 to testify, in substance and in part, that she met the defendant in or about 1994, when she was approximately 17 years old. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +1 The Government moves to file a redacted version of this letter. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of Minor Victim-3, who has not been publicly identified, and who is a subject of the Court's order granting the motion to let certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms. + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +## II. Applicable Law + +Relevant evidence is “not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.” *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, “[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government’s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government’s proof of the charges can have that tendency.” *Id.* The Second Circuit has also repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are “not considered other crimes evidence under” Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they “arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,” (b) they are “inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,” or (c) they are “necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.” *United States v. Carboni*, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000); *see also United States v. Quinones*, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); *United States v. Baez*, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those + +circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is "appropriately treated as part of the very act charged, or, at least, proof of that act." Quinones, 511 F.3d at 309 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). + +Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows for the admission of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving criminal propensity, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit "has long adopted an inclusionary' approach to the admission of uncharged crime evidence, under which evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity." United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant claims her conduct has an innocent explanation, the admission of such evidence of other acts is particularly appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged."). And where Rule 404(b) evidence is offered to show the defendant's state of mind, all that is required is that the evidence be "sufficiently similar to the conduct at issue to permit the jury to draw a reasonable inference of knowledge or intent from the other act." United States v. Cadet, 664 F.3d 27, 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(6) may only be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is "substantially outweighed" by the danger of unfair prejudice. Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182; see Fed. R. Evid. 403. + +## III. Discussion + +Evidence relating to Minor Victim-3's testimony is direct evidence of the conspiracies + +charged in the Indictment. But even if it is not, it is certainly admissible under Rule 404(b). + +### A. Direct Evidence + +As the Government argued in its motion, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the Act conspiracies. The defendant's conduct regarding Minor Victim-3 overlaps in time and place with the other Minor Victims charged in the Act conspiracies: Counts One and Three charge conduct from 1994 to 2004 in New York and Palm Beach, and Minor Victim-3 began giving Epstein sexualized massages in 1994, traveling to meet Epstein and the defendant in both New York and Palm Beach. The Government expects the defendant's relationship with Epstein to be a "'critical factual dispute'"—specifically, whether that relationship included conspiring with him and aiding or abetting Epstein's sex crimes. United States v. 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012). Minor Victim-3's testimony will help establish that it did. + +Evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 also "fills in a narrative" about "why [the defendant] took actions to" arrange sexualized massages. United States v. Rodriguez, 727 F. App'x 24, 26 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). + +Finally, evidence related to Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence as corroboration for the other three Minor Victims. Those Minor Victims will describe a conspiracy that operated to recruit girls for the purposes of massage, groom them, and transform the massages into sexual encounters. The conspirators then traveled with the girls or invited girls to travel, and asked the girls to find others for Epstein. + +in the same time period, and in some of the same places. + +The fact that Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in relevant jurisdictions has no bearing on this analysis. Lawful activity may still be relevant evidence of a crime. For instance, evidence that the defendant was Epstein's girlfriend is relevant and probative even if it is also lawful. In a fraud case, evidence that a defendant had significant debts is relevant and probative even if those debts involved no illegal activity. Even the overt act requirement of a conspiracy can be satisfied with proof of innocent conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Abdullaev, 761 F. App'x 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order). This evidence is no different. Epstein's prurient interest in girls did not end when the clock struck midnight on their Irh birthday. The fact that the defendant helped him abuse a 17-year-old is direct evidence of the manner in which she conspired with him to abuse other young women as well, some of whom were in fact below the age of consent. Minor Victim-3's testimony is thus intertwined with the conspiracies charged in the case, probative of contested issues at trial, and no more sensational than the charged conduct. It is therefore admissible. Even if it is lawful when evaluated purely in isolation, it is still direct evidence. + +Evidence related to Minor Victim-3 is also direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts in the Indictment. It is direct evidence for similar reasons as for the Act counts: it speaks directly to the defendant's role in the conspiracy, her reasons for participating in it, and the conspiracy's operation. But it is also relevant for the additional reason that it demonstrates the reasons for a co-conspirator's participation in the conspiracy, which is also a central issue at this trial. Specifically, it shows that minors who gave sexualized massages to Epstein were compensated, and that Epstein was sexually attracted to girls of a certain age, typically under the age of eighteen. The former is evidence that the defendant and Epstein recruited and enticed girls + +to engage in commercial sex acts, an element of the offense. The latter is evidence that the defendant and Epstein engaged in sex trafficking of minors, which requires that the minor victim be under eighteen rather than seventeen. Minor Victim-3's testimony will show that she had sexual encounters with Epstein, and in combination with the testimony of other Minor Victims, the evidence will show that Epstein continually sought out girls under the age of 18 for sex from 1994 through the time period of the sex trafficking conspiracy.2 + +**B. Rule 404(b)** + +In any event, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is relevant for multiple purposes that are permissible under Rule 404(b). + +*First*, it is relevant to the defendant's knowledge that the massages were sexualized, an issue that is expected to be central at this trial. The Government anticipates that Minor Victim-3 will describe [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] A jury could conclude from each of these facts that + +[REDACTED] + +--- + +2 Evidence related to Minor Victim-3 is similarly relevant to the [REDACTED] Act counts. The [REDACTED] Act counts require that the victims be under seventeen, rather than eighteen. But evidence that Epstein had a sexual preference for women much younger than him, including seventeen-year-olds, is probative of whether he had a sexual preference for sixteen-year-olds. [REDACTED] + +the defendant knew that, when she arranged for a young girl—such as Minor Victim-1 or Minor Victim-4—to give Epstein a massage, that massage involved sexual contact. + +*Second*, the evidence is relevant to the defendant’s motive. The Government expects the defense to argue that the defendant had no reason to assist Epstein in obtaining sexualized massages, especially from young girls. Minor Victim-3 will testify that [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +*Third*, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 is probative of her intent. “Where intent to commit the crime charged is clearly at issue”—i.e., where it is an element of the crime—‘evidence of prior similar acts may be introduced to prove that intent.’” *United States v. Graham*, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (quoting *United States v. Caputo*, 808 F.2d 963, 968 (2d Cir. 1987)). The defendant is likely to argue that any steps taken to arrange massages were purely innocent conduct. *See id.* (“Prior act evidence is admissible to demonstrate intent ‘where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation.’” (quoting *Zackson*, 12 F.3d at 1182 (alterations omitted))). Evidence of the defendant’s knowledge that massages were sexualized and the defendant’s motives described above is probative of her intent to entice and transport minors for the purpose of sexual contact. Minor Victim-3’s sexualized massages began around the time the conspiracy started, yet the massages continued—with the defendant’s active involvement, as to Minor Victim-3 and other Minor Victims—for years. That is highly probative evidence of her intent as to each of the conspiracies charged in the Indictment. And Minor Victim-3’s testimony contains additional evidence of the defendant’s intent. For instance, + +the Government anticipates that Minor Victim-3 will testify that [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +*Fourth*, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is evidence of the conspiracy's plan or modus operandi. "[T]o establish a recurring *modus operandi* . . . it is enough that the characteristics relied upon are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." *United States v. Sliker*, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). The pattern here is highly idiosyncratic. The defendant identified Minor Victim-3, befriended her, and invited her over. [REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] All +this happened during the conspiracy, and at least one of the other Minor Victims will testify to each step in this pattern. "[T]aken together, they establish the existence of a pattern." *United States v. Carlton*, 534 F.3d 97, 102 (2d Cir. 2008). + +The defense argues that none of this is probative under Rule 404(b) because Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent, so evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is not probative of the defendant's "intent of doing something illegal," such as a sex act with a minor. (11/01/21 Tr. 82:8-16). That, however, is just a way of repeating that all the elements of the offense are not satisfied as to Minor Victim-3. But evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is probative of central questions about the defendant's knowledge, motive, intent, and role in the conspiracy. For instance, the Government expects that the defense may challenge (1) whether the defendant played a role in recruiting girls to give Epstein massages; (2) whether those girls were below or near the age of consent; (3) whether the defendant instructed those girls to give Epstein a massage, including by + +beginning with a foot massage; (4) whether the defendant knew those massages were sexualized; (5) whether she intended to arrange sexualized massages for Epstein; (6) whether she asked the girls to find additional girls to massage Epstein; (7) whether Epstein and the defendant invited people they had recruited for sexualized massages to travel; and (8) whether the defendant had any motive for doing any of this activity. If the defense wants to concede that she had this knowledge and intent, or that she played these roles, but only as to adults, it might reduce the probative value of evidence related to Minor Victim-3. See, e.g., United States v. Siddiqui, 699 F.3d 690, 702 (2d Cir. 2012) ("A defendant may ... forestall the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence by advancing a theory that makes clear that the object the Rule 404(6) evidence seeks to establish, while technically at issue, is not really in dispute.").3 But to the extent that the defense argues that the defendant was not aware at all that Epstein's massages were sexualized, for instance, or that she played no role in recruiting masseuses for Epstein at all, this evidence is highly probative to rebut those arguments.° + +At its core, the defense argument is that the fact that the defendant and Epstein recruited a seventeen-year-old in the United Kingdom to provide sexualized massages to Epstein and to travel with them is not probative of whether they recruited a minor in the United States to provide sexualized massages to Epstein and to travel with them. The argument is meritless. This evidence + +3 Either way, Minor Victim-3's testimony would still be relevant at least on the issue of motive. See Siddiqui, 699 F.3d at 702. + +4 To be clear, the evidence is admissible for the sex trafficking counts as well as the Act counts. See, e.g., Curley, 639 F.3d at 59 ("Although the incidents pre-dated the charged conduct by as much as fifteen years, collectively they demonstrate a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct."); United States v. Ulbricht, 79 F. Supp. 3d 466, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("While the duration of elapsed time between two events can detract from the probative value of the prior event, temporal remoteness of acts does not preclude their relevancy." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). + +is hardly so far afield of the conduct as to be irrelevant under Rule 404(b), and should be admitted' + +### C. Rule 403 + +The significant probative value of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. First and foremost, as all agree, in addition to a similar acts instruction, the parties' joint request to charge proposes that the jury be instructed that it cannot convict the defendant solely on the basis of evidence relating to Minor Victim-3, and that an element of the Act offenses is that the victim must be younger than seventeen. That is, the jury will be told in three different ways during the jury instructions that evidence relating to Minor Victim-3, on its own, cannot satisfy the elements of the offense. There is accordingly no risk that the jury will be confused and convict because they think the defendant's conduct with Minor Victim-3, in isolation, violated some law. + +In any event, the touchstone of Rule 403 prejudice analysis in this context is whether the evidence admitted under Rule 404(6) is "more sensational or disturbing" than the charged crimes. United States v. Rosemond, 958 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2020). That is not the case here. Minor Victim-3's account of sexual exploitation fits neatly into the pattern that the other Minor Victims will describe. It is not more sensational or disturbing—and even the defendant has not suggested otherwise. (See Def. Mot. 4 at 12-13, Dkt. No. 387; Def. Reply at 29-30, Dkt. No. 398; 11/01/21 Tr. at 82:22-83:5). + +Instead, the defense argues that it will be prejudiced if Minor Victim-3 states that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein. (Def. Mot. 4 at 13, Dkt. No. 387; see 11/01/21 Tr. at 82:22-83:5). According to the defense, this will suggest to the jury that the defendant engaged in illegal conduct + +5 The cases the defendant relies on to show that Minor Victim-3 is not direct evidence of the offense generally admitted that evidence under Rule 404(b). (See Gov't Opp at 48 n.11, Dkt. No. 397). + +as to Minor Victim-3, and it would elicit sympathy from the jury. Minor Victim-3 will not be asked to testify about a legal conclusion, nor will she do so. She will simply describe her factual experience. In its briefing, the Government often describes these events as "sexual abuse" and Minor Victim-3 as a "victim" because the sexual contact was unwanted and traumatic.6 But the Government will not seek to elicit that phrase from Minor Victim-3. + +Accordingly, in the Government's view, if this evidence is admitted under Rule 404(b) rather than as direct evidence, there is no reason for anything more than the normal Rule 404(b) instruction at the time this evidence is offered.? But the Government would not object to a limiting instruction that repeated the expected jury charge, namely, that the jury cannot convict the defendant on the basis of Minor Victim-3's testimony alone. + +An instruction that the defendant's conduct was legal at the time would seriously risk misleading the jury into thinking that, because it was "legal," it in no way tended to show the defendant's culpability of the charged crimes. And the defense has also not established that such an instruction is accurate. The defense has not briefed in detail whether the sexual contact was lawful under other U.K. laws concerning prostitution or nonconsensual sexual contact. Absent such a determination of foreign law, the Court should not instruct the jury that any conduct occurring overseas was or was not "legal." + +If the Court were to give such an instruction, however, the Government would request that + +6 As noted, the Government is previewing this in order to accurately describe the expected testimony for the Court. The relevance of Minor Victim-3's testimony does not turn on whether any sexual contact was consensual, because victim consent is not relevant to any crimes charged in the Indictment. (See 11/01/21 Tr. 75:9-76:9). + +7 The Government proposes the following text, adapted from Sand: "You may not consider this evidence as any kind of reflection on the defendant's character or propensity to commit the crimes charged in this indictment. This evidence may be considered by you only to the extent that it bears upon the defendant's knowledge, intent or motive to commit the acts charged in the indictment, or as evidence that the defendant engaged in a common plan." Sand, Instr. 5-25. + +the Court make sure the 'tin, understands its point: the instruction should say that Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent at all relevant times, but it should also say expressly that the jury can consider her evidence as direct evidence or for all of the permissible purposes under Rule 404(b). That result, and the admission of her testimony, is entirely proper. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By E-mail) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..407be86b1d7c09711192509be76422ed0784f472 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/EFTA02835256.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,670 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 13, + "chars": 21182, + "elapsed_seconds": 88.66, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_114.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 318.24, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 462.06000000000006, + 25.92 + ], + [ + 462.06000000000006, + 40.5 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 40.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Factual Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 452.79 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 466.55999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 393.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 393.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 407.43 + ], + [ + 106.48799999999999, + 407.43 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 668.25 + ], + [ + 200.39991760253906, + 683.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 683.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Direct Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 210.82859802246094, + 116.63999999999999 + ], + [ + 210.82859802246094, + 131.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 131.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Rule 404(b)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 187.272, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 187.272, + 268.92 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 268.92 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 174.58651733398438, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 174.58651733398438, + 131.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 131.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 46 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835256" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/_page_0_Picture_114.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/_page_0_Picture_114.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e3a2fbd6d9b09c96ec11c503c421a0be36c3b5d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835256/_page_0_Picture_114.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8366aa1f8bbd6f825784da2610d034e11efedab60224612bd7881194b14e10ef +size 3419 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d91222292e5a6353f007fe26934b68a6ff1cca3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andmr's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 7, 2021 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's order directing the Government to state its position as to whether Minor Victim-3 "could be deemed a victim of any of the crimes charged in the indictment for any legal purposes, including for purposes of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2)." The answer is yes. Minor Victim-3 suffered unwanted and traumatic sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein when she was 17 years old. In addition to making her a victim in the ordinary sense of that word, it makes her a victim of the charged Act conspiracies for at least the following provisions of federal law: the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771; the Victim and Witness Protection Act ("VWPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663; and Federal Rule of Evidence 412.' + +Both the CVRA and VWPA contain statutory definitions of the term "victim." The CVRA defines "victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). The VWPA similarly defines "victim" to mean "a person directly and proximately harmed by the commission + +Given the expedited briefing deadline, the Government has not addressed every provision of federal law that references victims, but would be happy to address any additional provisions the Court deems relevant. + +of an offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3663(aX2). That section also expressly includes, in conspiracy cases, "any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the ... conspiracy ...." Id. + +A person is "directly and proximately harmed" by a commission of an offense when the offense is a but-for and proximate cause of their harm. See, e.g., United States v. Goodrich, 12 F.4th 219, 229 (2d Cir. 2021) (describing the identical language in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A). The offense is a but-for cause if the defendant's conduct was "a necessary factor in bringing about the victim's harm." Id. And the offense is a proximate cause if the "harm was `foreseeable' to a defendant." Id. While the loss must "arise from the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction," id. at 228 (internal quotation marks omitted), in the case of a conspiracy where an individual is convicted for an "overarching scheme," restitution is appropriate for "actions that were within and necessary to that `single scheme.'" United States v. Seabrook, 968 F.3d 224, 236 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149, 171-72 (2d Cir. 2011)). That includes the "reasonably foreseeable actions" of co-conspirators, because "the defendant's `specific conduct' in a conspiracy includes his agreement to the `common plan of the conspiracy." Goodrich, 12 F.4th at 228. + +These definitions of "victims" encompass a broader set of individuals than the set of people who are injured when all elements of an offense are met. In Goodrich, for instance, a securities broker-dealer "pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to manipulate" the share price of a sham company. 12 F.4th at 231. His co-defendants "arranged the sale of [the company's] shares outside the public market in a private placement," and the broker-dealer challenged his order to pay restitution for losses in the private placement, because they were not victims of his offense. Id. at 223. The private placement was not mentioned in his indictment, plea agreement, or plea allocution, id. at + +225, and the broker-dealer had pleaded guilty to manipulate the share price "rather than to execute the private placement, id. at 231. But that was "not conclusive": "[t]he key question ... is whether the losses suffered by the private placement victims were 'directly and proximately' caused by the conspiracy to manipulate the public share price." Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2)); see id. at 234 (reversing because the record lacked adequate evidence of proximate causation); see also, e.g., United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152, 159 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming restitution for losses caused by fraudulent use of credit cards where defendant was convicted of possession of the cards with intent to defraud). + +Under these principles, Minor Victim-3 is a victim of the Act conspiracies. Those conspiracies operated through a pattern of recruiting minor girls, grooming them, asking them to massage Epstein, and then sexualizing the massages, from 1994 to 2004, across Epstein and the defendant's various properties. (See 11/05/21 Gov't Letter at 5-6, 9). It was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that she and Epstein's efforts to recruit the girls to whom Epstein was sexually attracted would include recruiting a seventeen-year-old—Minor Victim-3—in the course of that conspiracy. And but for that recruitment, Minor Victim-3 would not have been harmed. See United Sates v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ("The definition of victim under the CVRA is expansive. It is not limited to those, such as Jane Doe-1 and Jane Doe-2 who allegedly were victims of physical abuse."); cf., e.g., United States v. Battista, 575 F.3d 226, 231 (2d Cir. 2009) ("Although Battista did not defraud the NBA directly, we conclude that the district court properly characterized the NBA as a 'victim' . . . because the NBA was harmed by the conduct committed during the course of the conspiracy to transmit wagering information."). Consider, for instance, a robbery crew that conspired to commit Hobbs Act robberies. If the crew robbed a business that was not engaged in interstate commerce, the elements of the offense could + +not be satisfied as to that business. 13ut the hams to the business would be directly and proximately caused by actions taken in furtherance of the scheme, qualifying the business as a victim. So too here. + +It is no answer to say, as the defense has argued, that Epstein's conduct with respect to Minor Victim-3 was legal. For the purposes of setting forth the elements of the charged crime, the Court must of course draw a clear line at the age of consent! But the definition in the CVRA and VWPA "is certainly broad," Battista, 575 F.3d at 231, and is broader than the elements of the offense. Thus, in assessing whether Minor Victim-3 is a "victim" under these definitions—and in assessing the admissibility of her testimony—such a clear line is neither required nor proper. Epstein and the defendant were not checking victims' identifications at the door to ensure they were above the age of consent in whichever location they were at the time. Just as Epstein's prurient interest in girls did not switch off at midnight of their 17th birthday, neither did it toggle on and off as his plane crossed into jurisdictions with different ages of consent. Rather, Epstein and the defendant were engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to recruit girls for sexual abuse in multiple jurisdictions with differing ages of consent. The core of the conspiracy was the agreement to engage in the criminal conduct, and it does not matter whether the elements of the substantive crimes of transportation or enticement were completed or attempted to be completed as to Minor Victim-3. See Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997). That is why Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is properly included in the indictment and why Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3's testimony is direct evidence of the conspiracy. If Minor Victim-3 was directly and proximately + +2 It bears noting that the Act contemplates that children under the age of 18 are victims of the offense, though in this case that is limited by the New York object charged in the Indictment. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (criminalizing the transportation of an individual "who has not attained the age of 18" for purposes of illegal sexual activity). + +harmed by conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy—and she was—then she is a "victim" under the relevant statutes. + +Finally, Minor Victim-3 is also a "victim" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 412, because she is clearly someone who "can reasonably be characterized as a 'victim of alleged sexual misconduct." Fed. R. Evid. 412, Advisory Committee Notes (1994). Given Rule 412's broad application in not just criminal cases but also civil cases such as claims of sexual harassment, see Wolak v. Spucci, 217 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2000), it cannot be read to define victims as only those individuals whose victimization would alone satisfy all of the elements of a charged crime. As set forth above, Epstein's conduct with respect to Minor Victim-3 is plainly "alleged sexual misconduct," and therefore she is a victim as defined in Rule 412. + +For these reasons, Minor Victim-3 is a "victim" under the provisions of federal law discussed above. Moreover, the Government respectfully submits that even if its reading of these provisions is incorrect, that does not affect the admissibility of Minor Victim-3's testimony as direct evidence: evidence that does not itself establish every element of the charged crime may nevertheless be admissible as direct evidence. See, e.g., United States v. 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000). And Minor Victim-3's status as a "victim" under the foregoing provisions of law certainly does not affect the admissibility of her testimony under Rule 404(b), which permits the admission of other act testimony that almost by definition does not satisfy the elements of the charged crime. The testimony should be admitted. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6396e808baf7ae1e0daed201f3eeebbff379e00 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/EFTA02835269.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,270 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 10095, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.12, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department of Justice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.7020568847656, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835269" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2673abb9d2a4ee6ff63e06f419baa24ec01e92ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835269/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bf2991d1ee9a049ac50d5a375d5e9364158164bd054238d763917b28fea7f4df +size 3478 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53917d8db0d2be7b476dfa117e85820a15206020 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.md @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Christian R. Ever& +1 (212) 957-7600 ccvcrdcllticcihrngrcssrr.ciini + +November 11, 2021 + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +EGO Thud Avenue New York. NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone \*yaw cohenprener corn + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to (i) the government's November 5, 2021 letter in further opposition to Ms. Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 (Dkt. 387), and (ii) the government's November 7, 2021 letter in response to the Court's order, dated November 6, 2021, directing the government "to state its position as to whether this anticipated witness could be deemed a victim of any of the crimes charged in the indictment for any legal purpose." (Dkt. 417). For the reasons set forth below and in our prior motion, the evidence related to Accuser-3 is not direct evidence of any of the conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment and is improper propensity evidence that should be excluded under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. + +## I. Accuser-3's Evidence Is Not Direct Evidence of Any Conspiracy Charged in the S2 Indictment + +The Court asked the government to do two things at the November 1, 2021 pretrial conference concerning the admissibility of Accuser-3's evidence: (i) provide additional briefing on why Accuser-3's evidence could potentially be admitted as direct evidence of the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in Count Five, and (ii) outline in further detail Accuser-3's + +anticipated testimony that might be admissible as Rule 404(b) evidence with respect to the Act conspiracies and propose an appropriate limiting instruction. See 11/1/2021 Tr. at 88:5-16. Despite being given these clearly defined tasks, the government spends a significant portion of its November 5 letter rearguing its position that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is direct evidence of the Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three of the Indictment. See 11/5/2021 Ltr. at 5-6. The Court has already correctly determined that Accuser-3's evidence is not direct proof of the Act conspiracies and cannot be offered for that purpose: + +> The evidence related to alleged Victim-3, as the government describes her, is not direct evidence of the conspiracy charged in Counts One and Three of the indictment. Counts One and Three charge the defendant with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts and conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. + +> The parties agree that alleged Victim-3 was 17 at the time she was acquainted with the defendant and Epstein in London, England where the age of consent is 16. Moreover, she can't recall, and the government wouldn't be able to establish that she was invited to travel with the defendant when she was 17 or 18. And because the alleged victim was over the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions and, therefore, any alleged sexual activity was lawful, the alleged conduct does not arise out of the same transactions or series of transactions as the charged offense. It's not inextricably intertwined with the evidence, again with respect to the Act, and it's not necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial, so I don't think it can be direct evidence of the Act counts. + +11/1/2021 Tr. at 86:9-87:4 (emphasis added). In so finding, the Court rejected all of the reasons that the government offers (again) to admit this evidence as direct proof of the Act conspiracies. The government has given the Court no reason to change its initial finding and it should decline to do so. + +The government devotes only a single paragraph to explaining why Accuser-3's evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in Count Five. See November 5 Ltr. at 6-7. The few reasons the government does give are meritless. The government starts by asserting that Accuser-3's evidence is admissible to prove the sex trafficking conspiracy for the same reasons that it is admissible to prove the Act conspiracies — reasons which the Court has already rejected. See id. at 6. The government then makes the puzzling assertion that Accuser-3's evidence is admissible because it "demonstrates the reasons for a coconspirator's participation in the conspiracy." Id. Specifically, the government asserts that the evidence shows that (1) "minors who gave sexualized massages to Epstein were compensated," which the government contends is proof that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein "recruited and enticed girls to engage in commercial sex acts"; and (2) "Epstein was sexually attracted to girls of a certain age, typically under the age of eighteen," which the government contends is proof that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein engaged in sex trafficking of minors under the age of eighteen. Id. at 6-7. + +These arguments are misguided and unpersuasive. First, neither of the two specific bases for admission speaks to "the reasons for" Ms. Maxwell's alleged participation in the sex trafficking conspiracy, as the government claims. Second, the two specific bases for admission are legally and factually flawed. + +As to the issue of compensation, + +[REDACTED] + +[REDACTED] Hence, even if we assume for the sake of argument that everything Accuser-3 told the government is true (which we do not concede), her testimony would not in any way establish that “*minors* who gave sexualized massages to Epstein were compensated.” Accuser-3, quite simply, was not under the age of eighteen and was therefore not a minor (under any relevant federal or state statute) when she allegedly [REDACTED]. Second, as a factual matter, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. The government cannot offer Accuser-3’s testimony as proof of a sex trafficking conspiracy when [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] Accuser-3’s own statements therefore eliminate any basis for the admission of her testimony as direct evidence of Count Five. + +As to the issue of Epstein’s sexual attraction to young women, the government is once again impermissibly attempting to use an example of entirely legal conduct as proof of a conspiracy to engage in illegal conduct. Accuser-3’s evidence does not show that Epstein was attracted to *underage* girls. At most, it shows that he was attracted to young women above the age of consent, which is neither a crime nor evidence of a crime. The Court recognized this distinction at the November 1 conference in the discussion of Accuser-3’s evidence: + +MS. MOE: ... I think as a matter of common sense, a jury understanding that the defendant is willing to provide Epstein with a girl at the age of 17 would certainly speak to her knowledge of his sexual preferences. + +THE COURT: Why doesn’t it speak to a knowledge of sexual preferences to someone just above the age of consent? + +11/1/2021 Tr. at 77:3-77:9. The government could not answer the Court's question, which was exactly on point. Setting aside that proof of Epstein's "sexual preferences" is impermissible propensity evidence (discussed further below), at most, Accuser-3's evidence would show that Epstein was engaged in legal sexual activity with someone over the age of consent and that Ms. Maxwell allegedly knew that he was engaged in such legal activity. Hence, her evidence is no more admissible as direct proof of the sex trafficking conspiracy than it is of the Act conspiracies. The bases for admitting Accuser-3's evidence suffer from the same logical and legal defects that the Court already identified with respect to the Act counts. It should therefore not be admitted as direct evidence of Count Five. + +## 11. Accuser-3's Evidence is Improper Propensity Evidence that Is Inadmissible Under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 + +Accuser-3's evidence is also inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. Recognizing that Accuser-3's evidence will likely not be admissible as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies in light of the Court's prior findings, the government attempts to bootstrap her evidence into the case by arguing that it is admissible for various purposes under Rule 404(b). See November 5 Ltr at 7-11. Although the government tries to frame this evidence in terms of permissible 404(b) purposes, Maxwell's knowledge, motive, intent, etc., it is evident from the government's submissions and its comments at the last two court conferences that it intends to offer this evidence for an impermissible propensity purpose; namely to establish that Jeffrey Epstein had "sexual preference" for young girls and to argue that he acted in conformity with that preference with Accuser-3 and therefore must have done so as well with the other Accusers. See id. at 7 n.2; 11/1/2021 Tr. at 77:3-77:12. Such evidence is not admissible under + +Rule 404(b) and should be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) ("Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) evidence "serves a proper purpose so long as it is not offered to show the defendant's propensity to commit the offense"). + +The government has been completely candid that its primary purpose for introducing Accuser-3's evidence is to show Epstein's alleged "sexual preference" for young girls and Ms. Maxwell's purported knowledge of his sexual preference. In support of its argument, the government has frequently pointed to a particular anecdote in Accuser-3's testimony in which she claims that + +But this anecdote highlights why admitting Accuser-3's testimony for this purpose is both logically flawed and legally impermissible.' + +First, as a factual matter, this testimony does not show Epstein's "sexual preference" for underaged girls or Ms. Maxwell's knowledge of that alleged preference. + +I To be clear, the admissibility of Accuser-3's testimony about is a separate topic that has been separately briefed and argued. We discuss this anecdote here to re ute e admissibility of Accuser-3's testimony to prove Epstein's alleged "sexual preference" for young girls. + +While some may find this morally reprehensible, or even repugnant, it is perfectly legal and does not in any way establish a "sexual preference" for underage girls. Moreover, to the extent the government is seeking to introduce Accuser-3's evidence to show Epstein's sexual preference for "young girls"—which would include women who are young, but still above the age of consent like Accuser-3—that would mislead the jury and invite them to convict Ms. Maxwell based on a moral judgment of sexual activity which, in the case of Accuser-3, was entirely legal. + +Second, Epstein's "sexual preference" is impermissible propensity evidence that is inadmissible under Rule 404(b). Epstein's alleged "sexual preference" is evidence of his character. By its own admission, the government wants to use Accuser-3's testimony to prove this aspect of Epstein's character and argue that he acted in accordance with this character with the other Accusers. That is classic propensity evidence that cannot be admitted under Rule 404(b). See United States v. Buczkowski, No. 5:08-CR-I59-F, 2009 WL 10681888, at \*1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2009) (testimony that the victim began having sex with the defendant as an adult at age 16 "is relevant only to prove propensity of the Defendant's sexual preference for young females" and is inadmissible under Rule 404(b)). + +The government's proposed bases for admitting Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 404(b) are also unavailing. As previously argued, Accuser-3's evidence does not show that Ms. Maxwell knew Epstein engaged in sexualized massages with underaged girls. See November 5 Ltr. at 7-8. At most, it establishes that she allegedly knew that he engaged in sexualized massages with adult women. Similarly, her evidence does not show that Ms. Maxwell had a motive to obtain underaged girls to satisfy Epstein's sexual desires. See id. at 8. At most, it shows that she + +allegedly had a motive to obtain young women, but not underaged girls, to satisfy Epstein. + +Accuser-3's evidence is simply not probative of any proper 404(b) purpose. + +Furthermore, admitting Accuser-3's evidence for these purposes would conflict with the Court's preliminary rulings at the November 10th conference concerning the permissible scope of Accuser-3's testimony. The Court recognized that allowing Accuser-3 to testify about her sexual acts with Epstein would create a significant risk that the jury will convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper premise that these sex acts were illegal. Admitting Accuser-3's testimony to prove Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, intent, motive, etc. would be at odds with that ruling. For Accuser-3's testimony to be admitted as proof that Ms. Maxwell knew that Epstein's massages were sexualized, for example, Accuser-3 would have to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein during her massages. The same is true if her testimony is offered to show Ms. Maxwell's motive or intent, or the modus operandi of the charged conspiracies. Accordingly, Accuser-3's evidence should not be admitted under Rule 404(6). + +Finally, whatever minimal relevance (if any) that Accuser-3's testimony may have as 404(b) evidence is dwarfed by the significant prejudice Ms. Maxwell will suffer if it is admitted. The government has already advised the Court and the defense repeatedly that Accuser-3 feels that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein and that her sexual contact with Epstein was "unwanted and traumatic." November 5 Ltr. at 12; see also 11/1/2021 Tr. 75:23-76:01. The government has also cautioned that Accuser-3 will likely become emotional and upset if she allowed to describe these events to the jury. The defense does not doubt that this is true. That is precisely why the Court must exclude Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 403. As the Court has already recognized, such + +testimony will pose a significant risk that the jury will convict Ms. Maxwell based on their sympathy for Accuser-3, even though the conduct she alleges was legal. See 11/1/2021 Tr. at 89:21-90:02 ("You see the potential, given the legality of the conduct with respect to this individual, that the sort of feelings as to the immorality or wrongness or damage done to this individual, all of which may be true, would have the potential to prejudice the jury by convicting on a basis for which conviction the government has conceded would be inappropriate, would be unlawful."). Moreover, a limiting instruction would be insufficient to overcome the jury's likely strong emotional response to Accuser-3's testimony, leaving a substantial risk that the jury would misapply this evidence and convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper basis. See Curley, 639 F.3d at 60 (quoting United States 618 F.2d 934, 946 (2d Cir. 1980) ("limiting instructions cannot be regarded as a guaranty against prejudice")). Accordingly, the Court should exclude Accuser-3's evidence for any purpose. + +## HI. Should the Court Admit Accuser-3's Evidence, It Must Give the Jury An Appropriate Limiting Instruction + +Should the Court determine that Accuser-3's evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b), it must give the jury the following limiting instruction, as set forth in Ms. Maxwell's initial motion in limine: + +> You have heard testimony from this witness about sexual activity between her and Jeffrey Epstein that occurred in the United Kingdom when she was above the age of 16, in Florida when she was above the age of 18, and in the U.S. Virgin Islands when she was above the age of 18. + +For the purposes of your deliberations, I instruct you that at all times relevant to this case the legal age of consent for sexual activity in the United Kingdom was 16 years old, the legal age of + +> consent in Florida was 18 years old, and the legal age of consent in the U.S. Virgin Islands was 18 years old. + +> The alleged conduct that Accuser-3 has described in her testimony was therefore not illegal. If you find that these incidents took place, I instruct you that this sexual activity cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment. + +> I further instruct you that you cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on the basis of [Accuser-3's] testimony alone. You must find that other evidence satisfies each and every element of the crimes charged.2 + +Also, before Accuser-3 begins her testimony, the defense requests that the Court give the jury the following propensity instruction: + +> You will hear testimony from the next witness about sex acts between the witness and Jeffrey Epstein. You may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in this indictment. This testimony is being admitted for a limited purpose and you may consider the testimony only to the extent it bears on Ms. Maxwell's knowledge or intent and for no other purpose.3 + +Furthermore, if the Court admits Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 404(b), the defense requests that the Court redact all allegations concerning Accuser-3 from the S2 Indictment to ensure that the jury does not impermissibly consider her evidence as direct proof of the charged conspiracies. + +Finally, at the November 10th conference, the Court asked the defense to propose a limiting instruction addressing sexual conduct involving any witness that occurred after the relevant age of + +2 The last part of the proposed instruction incorporates the government's concession that Ms. Maxwell cannot be convicted based solely on Accuser-Vs evidence due to the statute of limitations. See November 5'h Ltr. at 12. + +h Adapted from Sand et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 5-25. + +consent. The defense proposes the following instruction, which is modeled on the proposed instruction for Accuser-3: + +> You have heard testimony from this witness about sexual activity between her and Jeffrey Epstein that occurred [choose all that apply: in Florida when she was above the age of 18; in the U.S. Virgin Islands when she was above the age of 18; in New York when she was above the age of 17; in New Mexico when she was above the age of 16; in the United Kingdom when she was above the age of 16]. + +For the purposes of your deliberations, I instruct you that at all times relevant to this case the legal age of consent for sexual activity [choose all that apply: in Florida was 18 years old; in the U.S. Virgin Islands was 18 years old; in New York was 17 years old; in New Mexico was 16 years old; in the United Kingdom was 16 years old]. + +If you find that the witness engaged in sexual activity after she was above the relevant age of consent, 1 instruct you that any such sexual activity was lawful and cannot be considered "illegal" or "criminal" or "unlawful" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment. + +## IV. Accuser-3 Cannot Be Considered a "Victim" for Any Legal Purpose + +The Court ruled at the November 10" hearing that Accuser-3 could not be considered a "victim" of the crimes charged in the S2 Indictment and that the government should not refer to her as a "victim" or a "minor." Accordingly, there is no need for the defense to respond to the government's November 7' Letter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor + +> New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 + +cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61b285b0d41a96f5ea971455a73eee56362ed9d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/EFTA02835275.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,555 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 19731, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.42, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "I. Accuser-3's Evidence Is Not Direct Evidence of Any Conspiracy Charged in the S2 \nIndictment", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 533.664, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 533.664, + 616.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 616.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "11. Accuser-3's Evidence is Improper Propensity Evidence that Is Inadmissible Under \nRule 404(b) and Rule 403", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 532.6814575195312, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 532.6814575195312, + 427.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 427.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. Should the Court Admit Accuser-3's Evidence, It Must Give the Jury An \nAppropriate Limiting Instruction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 483.17547607421875, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 483.17547607421875, + 509.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 509.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Accuser-3 Cannot Be Considered a \"Victim\" for Any Legal Purpose", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 459.94390869140625, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 459.94390869140625, + 509.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 509.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835275" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae300447671fae930a8750327716d205330ced3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835275/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4a8b49775b74e395b581beb7ddb7b8a2c86d8d8b3632d8294416af79a7e1e9df +size 1576 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..940995de68497e8bc653f3c69b10dcfdcfcd123d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +On November 1, 2021, the Defense noticed eight expert witnesses. Dkt. No. 418-1. On November 15, 2021, the Government filed a motion to preclude the testimony of six of the experts. See id. The Defense filed a response on November 19, 2021, and the Government filed a motion for leave to file a reply on November 22, 2021.1 The moving papers have been filed temporarily under seal to permit the parties the opportunity to propose sealing or limited redactions in accordance with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). + +In two Memorandum Opinions and Orders temporarily filed under seal, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion to preclude as to Dr. Ryan testimony and GRANTS the Government's motion to preclude as to Bennett Gershman's testimony. + +The Court will send the temporarily sealed Memorandum Opinions and Orders to the parties. By November 24, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks sealing or limited redactions of the Memorandum Opinions and Orders, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. + +The Court denies the Government's request to file a reply because the Government's motion to preclude and the Defendant's response are sufficient for this Court to rule on the motion. + +Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date, the parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file any proposed redactions to the moving papers and/or supporting exhibits on the public docket, again justifying any such request by reference to the Lugosch test. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 22, 2021 + +New York, New York A. p + +ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33bad5b690ba50d29af63e33cc2353c7d5f1ceeb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/EFTA02835287.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1927, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.04, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835287" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..017f4c741800a40a397f67c8312ca0cc2333036f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835287/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:98f6203d4d9bd364c166b32e46a2924e4c1bf60f23acc9a013fa8f852dfa2971 +size 12022 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24975f0d96c877ed527c9cc9eb08e6a5c417c370 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +—v— + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg) + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +The Court is in receipt of the Government's, Administrator and two anticipated witnesses' motions to quash the Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena. Dkt. No. 486. The motions to quash are DENIED.' + +The Court hereby ORDERS the Administrator of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to produce to the Court via electronic thumb drive any materials responsive to the subpoena as soon as possible, but no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 24, 2021. + +Upon receipt, the Court will determine whether the parties may "inspect all or part" of the materials. Fed. R. Crim. P. I 7(c)(I ). In that event, the Court may determine that an appropriate protective order is necessary for the parties' review of some or all of the materials. Review under a protective order may better facilitate the review process of the narrow, specific, and targeted materials and may better ensure no trial delay, as compared to a review process solely by the Court. Accordingly, the parties shall negotiate a protective order and submit the proposal for approval by the Court no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 24, 2021. + +SO ORDERED. + +&#x27; Administrator request for oral argument is accordingly denied. + +Dated: November 22, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]() + +--- + +ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c55812848e2bdde05d3fa79763c7a8ada91f1462 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/EFTA02835289.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1512, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.95, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835289" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2cf1afb8f95c72b330f6b7936b250cd3aca8c2d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835289/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:efe9505889dded07735fc3da20a254d95c7f1d22fef487588eff7b6689508db2 +size 11534 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f186a755758b2984f9052a4c296b1258c9a7554 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +United States of America, + +-v- + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Defendant. + +| USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/23/21 | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| + +20-CR-330 (AJN) + +ORDER + +ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: + +As discussed at today's conference, attached is the Court's draft preliminary instructions for the sworn jury. The Court has considered both parties' proposed instructions as to the Court's order that certain witnesses be permitted to testify or be referred to by first name only or pseudonym. Dkt. No. 432. The draft preliminary instructions include a limiting instruction regarding this process. + +The parties may suggest any proposed edits to the preliminary instructions by letter on or before November 27, 2021, or they shall indicate by that date that they have no objections or suggestions. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 23, 2021 +New York, New York + +![]()ALISON J. NATHAN +United States District Judge + +#### 1 Preliminan Instructions to the Sworn Jun + +#### 2 Order of Trial + +3 Now that you have been sworn, let me give you some instructions about 4 your duties as jurors. At the end of the trial I will give you more detailed 5 instructions, and those instructions will control your deliberations in this case. But 6 for now, let me explain how the trial will proceed. + +7 The first step in the trial will be opening statements. The government will 8 make an opening statement. After that, I expect the lawyers for the defendant to 9 make an opening statement as well. Those statements are not evidence. They 10 serve no purpose other than to give you an idea in advance of the evidence that the i 1 lawyers expect you to hear from the witnesses. Those statements permit the 12 lawyers to tell you a little bit of what the case is all about, but the only evidence 13 comes from the witnesses and the exhibits. + +14 After opening statements, the government will present its evidence. The 15 government's evidence will consist of the testimony of witnesses as well as 16 documents and exhibits. The government will examine the witnesses, and then the 17 defendant's lawyers may cross-examine them. Following the government's case, 18 the defendant may present a case if she wishes. Again, because of the presumption 19 of innocence, the defendant is not required to offer any proof. If the defendant + +I does present a defense case, the defense witnesses will testify, and the government 2 will have the opportunity to cross-examine them. + +3 After the presentation of evidence is completed, the parties will deliver their 4 closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence. Just as the parties' 5 opening statements are not evidence, their closing arguments are not evidence 6 either. + +7 Following closing arguments, I will instruct you on the law. Then, you will 8 retire to deliberate on your verdict, which must be unanimous and must be based 9 on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial. Your deliberations are 10 secret. You will never have to explain your verdict to anyone. + +ii As I've told you, under the law, a defendant in a criminal case is presumed 12 innocent and cannot be found guilty of the crimes charged unless a jury, after 13 having heard all of the evidence in the case, unanimously decides that the evidence 14 proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. + +In a criminal case the burden of proof remains with the prosecution — the I6 government. For the jury to return a verdict of guilty as to the defendant, the ►7 government must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A person charged with a crime has absolutely no burden to prove that she is not guilty, and if the defendant chooses not to present any proof, that decision cannot be held against her and may not enter into your deliberations at all. I will, + +i however, instruct you fully on the burden of proof after all of the evidence has 2 been received. + +3 + +### 4 The Judge's and Jury's Role + +5 Now, let me explain the jobs that you and I are to perform during the trial. I 6 will decide which rules of law apply to this case. I will decide that by making 7 legal rulings during the presentation of the evidence, and also — as I told you — in 8 giving the final instructions to you after the evidence and arguments are completed. + +9 In order to do my job, I may have to interrupt the proceedings from time to 10 time to confer with the parties about the rules of law that should apply here. 11 Sometimes we will talk here, at the bench, outside of your hearing. But some of 12 these conferences may take more time than others, so, as a convenience to you, I 13 may excuse you from the courtroom. I will try to avoid such interruptions as much 14 as possible, but please be patient and understand that these conferences are 15 necessary to ensure the fairness of the trial and often make the trial go faster. + +16 While I decide the law that applies to this case, you, ladies and gentlemen of 17 the jury, are the triers of fact. You will weigh the evidence presented and decide 18 whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 19 is guilty of the charges in the indictment. You must pay close attention to all of the + +I evidence presented, and you must base your decision only on the evidence in the 2 case and my instructions about the law. + +3 + +# 4 What Is and Isn't Evidence + +5 What, then, is evidence? Evidence consists only of the testimony of 6 witnesses, documents and other things admitted as evidence, or stipulations agreed 7 to by the parties. Some of you probably have heard the terms "circumstantial 8 evidence" and "direct evidence." Do not be concerned with these terms. You are 9 to consider all the evidence given in this trial. + +10 Certain things are not evidence and must not be considered by you. The I I following is a list of what is not evidence: + +12 First, arguments, statements, and questions by the lawyers are not evidence. 13 Nor are statements I make or questions I ask of a witness. + +14 Second, objections to questions are not evidence. The lawyers have an 15 obligation to make an objection when they believe evidence being offered is 16 improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the 17 objection or by my rulings on them. If the objection is sustained, ignore the 18 question and any answer that may have been given. If it is overruled, treat the 19 answer like any other. If you are instructed that some item of evidence is received 20 for a limited purpose only, you must follow that instruction. + +i Third, testimony that I have excluded or told you to disregard is not 2 evidence and must not be considered. + +3 Fourth, anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not 4 evidence and must be disregarded. You are to decide the case solely on the 5 evidence presented here in the courtroom. + +6 + +## 7 Evaluating the Evidence + +8 There is no formula to evaluate testimony or exhibits. For now, suffice it to 9 say that you bring with you into this courtroom all of the experience and 10 background of your lives. Do not leave your common sense outside the courtroom. 11 The same types of tests that you use in your everyday dealings are the tests that 12 you should apply in deciding how much weight, if any, to give to the evidence in 13 this case. + +The law does not require you to accept all of the evidence admitted at trial. 1 i In determining what evidence you accept, you must make your own evaluation of the testimony from each of the witnesses and the exhibits that are received in evidence. + +18 It is essential, however, that you keep an open mind until you have heard all 19 of the evidence in the case. A case can be presented only step by step, witness by 20 witness, before all evidence is before you. + +I As you know from experience, you can hear one person give his or her 2 version of an event and think it sounds very impressive or even compelling, and 3 yet, upon hearing another person's version of the same event — or even the same 4 person cross-examined with respect to the event — things may seem very different. 5 In other words, there may be another side to any witness's story. + +You should use your common sense and good judgment to evaluate each witness's testimony based on all of the circumstances. Again, I cannot emphasize too strongly that you must keep an open mind until the trial is over. You should not reach any conclusions until you have all the evidence before you. + +10 As I mentioned during jury selection, this case has received, and will i I continue to receive, significant attention in the media. To protect their privacy, I 12 have permitted witnesses, if they choose, to be referred to in open court by either 13 their first name or a pseudonym. The full names of the witnesses are known to the 14 Government, the defendant, and to the Court, and were shown to you during jury 15 selection. This process should not bear in any way on your evaluation of the 16 evidence in this case. + +### i Rules of Conduct + +2 Finally, let me caution you about certain rules and principles governing your 3 conduct as jurors in this case. First, you must not talk to each other about this case 4 or about anyone who has anything to do with it until the end of the case when you 5 go to the jury room to decide your verdict. The reason for this requirement is that 6 you must not reach any conclusion on the charges until all of the evidence is in. 7 As I have said, keep an open mind until you start your deliberations at the end of 8 the case. + +9 Second, do not communicate with anyone else about this case or about 10 anyone who has anything to do with it until the trial has ended and you have been ii discharged as jurors. Anyone else includes members of your family and your 12 friends. And no communicating about the case means no communicating on your 13 cell phone, iPhone, Blackberry, text messaging, websites, Internet chat rooms, 14 email, social media websites or applications (including Facebook, Instagram, 1i Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Reddit, etc.) — or by any other means. I know in this 16 day and age there is temptation to look to these devices or means of 17 communication, but with your oath you are making a commitment to resist that 18 temptation. You may tell your family and friends that you are a juror in a criminal 19 case, but you may not tell them anything else about it until you have been 20 discharged by me. + +2 3 4 5 6 Third, do not let anyone talk to you about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it. If any person should attempt to communicate with you about this case at any time throughout the trial, either in or out of the courthouse, you must immediately report that to my Deputy, and to no one else. will report it to me. When I say report that communication to no one else, I mean that you should not tell anyone, including your fellow jurors. + +7 8 9 10 11 To minimize the probability of any such improper communication, it is important that you go straight to the jury room when you come in in the morning and that you remain in the jury room for the duration of the trial day. You should not linger in the public areas of the courthouse, on this floor or elsewhere on your way in and out. + +12 13 14 15 16 Fourth, do not do any research or any investigation about the case or about anyone who has anything to with the case on your own. Don't go visit any place described in the trial. Don't read or listen to or watch any news reports about the case. Don't go on the Internet or use whatever digital or communications device it is you use to see what you can learn to inform yourself about this matter. + +17 18 19 20 Again, I know that in this day and age, there is temptation, but as I have made clear throughout the process so far, this rule is very very important. That is because your decision in this case must be made solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at the trial. In other words, all that you need to know will be + +presented here in open court by the parties. This is critically important to ensuring 2 a fair trial — which I know that all of you would want if you were a party in this 3 Court and I have no doubt is what you want for the parties who are here today. I 4 expect you to inform me immediately through if you become aware 5 of another juror's violation of these instructions. + +6 Finally, each of you has been given a notebook and pen. That is because I 7 permit jurors to take notes. But you do not have to take notes. Notes are just an 8 aid to your own recollection. The court reporters in this case record everything 9 that is said in the courtroom and any portion of the testimony can be read back to 10 you during your deliberations. If you do take notes, be aware that note-taking may 11 distract you from something important that is happening on the witness stand. 12 Whether or not you take notes, rely on your own recollections, and don't be 13 influenced by the fact that another juror has taken notes. If you do take notes, all 14 notes must be left each day in the jury room. will make sure that 15 they are secure. + +16 From this point until the time when you retire to deliberate, it is your duty 17 not to discuss this case with anyone and not to remain in the presence of other 18 persons who may be discussing this case-this includes discussions even with 19 members of your own family, and your friends. In this regard, please understand 20 that the parties and counsel in this case have been instructed to have no contact + +with any of you, not even to offer a friendly greeting. So if you happen to see any of them outside this courtroom, and they do not acknowledge you, say hello, or make small talk, please do not take offense. They are not being rude — they are simply following my instructions. + +# Conclusion + +That concludes my preliminary instructions to you. Now we will begin with the initial stage of the case, which, as I said to you, is opening statements, and we are going to begin with the government. + +10 Let me just note, as I said in the beginning of jury selection, we are in an i outfitted courtroom for COVID times. The witness will be in this Plexiglass box 12 that has a HEPA filter, and they will remove their mask to testify when we have 13 witnesses testify. The lawyer who will be questioning them and the lawyer during opening statements will be in that Plexiglass box with the HEPA filter, and they will be permitted to remove their mask while they provide opening statements, as well. + +So at this time I am going to ask all of you to give your undivided attention to the lawyers as they make their opening statements. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4eb6bcb9e26b7e3808a330c3c5817be7229e81cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291/EFTA02835291.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,623 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835291.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 14877, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.4, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 279.684, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 98.01 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 Preliminan Instructions to the Sworn Jun", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 48.40999984741211, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 438.8394470214844, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 438.8394470214844, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 48.40999984741211, + 93.15 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2 Order of Trial", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 44.676, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 162.92672729492188, + 106.92 + ], + [ + 162.92672729492188, + 121.93359375 + ], + [ + 44.676, + 121.93359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4 The Judge's and Jury's Role", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 44.676, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 246.9119110107422, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 246.9119110107422, + 185.75091552734375 + ], + [ + 44.676, + 185.75091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4 What Is and Isn't Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 239.1104736328125, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 239.1104736328125, + 185.75091552734375 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 185.75091552734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "7 Evaluating the Evidence", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 221.08847045898438, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 221.08847045898438, + 281.7509460449219 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 281.7509460449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i Rules of Conduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.288, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 179.2970428466797, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 179.2970428466797, + 89.0009765625 + ], + [ + 45.288, + 89.0009765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "6 Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 45.9, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 142.1771697998047, + 232.46999999999997 + ], + [ + 142.1771697998047, + 249.88092041015625 + ], + [ + 45.9, + 249.88092041015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Form", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835291" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e36b909d043f6e50f77d3391acf4563de626fdd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +United States Attorney Southern District of New York + +The Silvio Mono Building One Saint Andmv's Plaza New York. New York 10007 + +November 23, 2021 + +## BY ECF + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) + +Dear Judge Nathan: + +Pursuant to the Court's Order at Dkt. No. 482, the Government seeks redactions to Exhibit 1 to the defendant's response to the Government's motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the parties' supplemental briefing and the Court's Opinion & Order are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the Minor Victims and third parties, including individuals who have not identified themselves on the record in this case, and who are subjects of the Court's pseudonym order. + +The Government does not seek redactions to the defense response or the Court's Opinion & Order. The defense has informed the Government that it is not seeking any additional redactions. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DAMIAN United States Attorney + +By: s/ Maurene Convey Alison Moe Lam Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York + +Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..173266189876e25c48964d38fc9844a90634a419 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/EFTA02835302.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1617, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.69, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "U.S. Department ofJustice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 319.464, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 26.73 + ], + [ + 463.83685302734375, + 40.863037109375 + ], + [ + 319.464, + 40.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 118.92080688476562, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 183.06 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835302" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49b44c6806819b67eb2573668ef22030410e8363 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835302/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a8049634e2260fa50f32e0b52704fe5c1ba5ec5d46dc1b37a9e20c9aaefdb9d6 +size 3517 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.md b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f592c4dbd36f7f98ca198cc5b3e2c6f08b66d138 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.md @@ -0,0 +1,8582 @@ +# EXHIBIT 1 + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +November 1, 2021 + +VIA EMAIL + +Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 + +Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) + +Dear Counsel: + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com JPogliuca ghmflaw.com + +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell through counsel, submit the following summary pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(I)(C). + +# I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE + +A. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus + +Dr. Loftus is the Distinguished Professor of Psychological Science and Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Dr. Loftus is one of the nation's leading experts on the science of memory. In addition to her experience as an academic and clinical researcher, she has been an expert witness or consultant in hundreds of cases. Her extensive experience and credentials are recited in her curriculum vitae. Exhibit A. + +It is expected that Dr. Loftus, a psychologist who specializes in the study of memory, will focus on the memory aspects of this case. Based on her education, training, experience, and research, her testimony will concern the workings of human memory, the effects of suggestion on memory, the mechanism of creation of false memories, the characteristics of false memories, how memory fades and weakens over time, and how memory becomes more vulnerable to contamination. She will describe scientific research showing that false memories can be + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 2 + +described with confidence, detail, and emotion, just like true memories. This can occur when people come to believe in these experiences and are not deliberately lying. Dr. Loftus would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case. + +Suggestive activities can explain how it is that a person might go from having no memory of sexual abuse, and even denying sexual abuse, to later having "memories" for numerous abusive acts, if the memories are false. She will explain the mechanism by which false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence or the like. She will also testify about the characteristics of false and/or distorted memories. In particular "memories" can be described with confidence, detail and emotion, even when they are false. She will point out some of the suggestive activities that occurred in this case. She will explain how media coverage and other publications (including but not limited to newspaper and magazine articles, news reports, television shows, documentaries, books, podcasts, websites, etc.) and discussions/ conversations with others, can be sources of suggestion. She will explain how, in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories. + +# B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D. + +Dr. Park Dietz is a psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry with over 40 years of experience. He has been previously qualified as an expert in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. + +Dr. Dietz received a bachelor's degree in psychology and biology from the Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences (01) .ri M.D. degree from the Johns University School of Medicine (1975), a degree in Public Health from the Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health (1975), and a Ph.D. in sociologfrySe Johns University (1984). He completed psychiatric residency at the Johns Hospital (1975-77) and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (1977-78), where he was Chief Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry. He has been board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology since 1979. + +He is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the UCLA School of Medicine. From 1986 to 1989, he was a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law and a Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. From 1982 to 1986, he was an Associate Professor of Law and of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia Schools of Law and Medicine. From 1978 to 1982, he was an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In those positions he taught and lectured on forensic psychiatry for diverse audiences, including law students, practicing attorneys, law enforcement officers, psychiatry residents, forensic psychiatry fellows, and practicing forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. + +He is a Past President of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He has served on the editorial boards of the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, and other + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 3 + +professional publications. He has authored more than 100 articles and book chapters, primarily on forensic psychiatry. + +He has conducted more than 1,000 evaluations of persons charged with crime and, in his role as President of Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., has evaluated or supervised over 1,000 evaluations of allegations of sexual victimization. He has testified as an expert witness in forensic psychiatry on hundreds of occasions, including testimony in criminal matters in federal courts throughout the U.S. and the trial courts of nearly every state. + +Dr. Dietz will be qualified as an expert in the areas of psychiatry and behavioral science. Dr. Dietz's curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit B. Attached as Exhibit C is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz. + +His testimony may include, but will not be limited to, the following: + +# a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions + +The first use of the word "grooming" to refer to strategies that sometimes enable nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent sexual victimization of minors was the proposition that "the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are expertly applied" (Conte, 1984, p. 558). Since then, this usage has been widely adopted by social scientists, clinicians, journalists, and others. But this usage has some unintended consequences that threaten the integrity of the adjudicative process, including these: + +- (1) Because use of the term "grooming" commonly assumes that the grooming party is intentionally using these strategies to gain sexual access to children, to abuse them, and to prevent them from disclosing the abuse, the word "grooming" has acquired meaning beyond an objective description of behaviors; it imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either. +- (2) In the litigation context, "when 'grooming' is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are well established predictors of child sexual abuse," when they are not. Park Dietz, Grooming and Seduction, 33 J. Interpersonal Violence, 28, 31 (2018). Dr. Rocchio characterizes "grooming" as "a strategic pattern of behavior(] ... that can take a variety of forms and function to render the victims vulnerable to abuse, to obscure the nature of the abuse, and to build trust and attachment with their abuser." This vague opinion about "grooming" carries the risk of imputing motive and intent to the Defendant, when the determination of motive and intent is a task for the fact finder charged with determining the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the ultimate issues. Moreover, this opinion carries the risk of implying that innocuous and even desirable behaviors are associated with nefarious or criminal conduct. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 4 + +Moreover, grooming has no consistent definition, and concerns have been raised that "there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring." Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). + +In any particular population of alleged victims, patients, or plaintiffs—including those whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—the determination of whether grooming has occurred is a subjective judgment hinging largely on the credibility of the individuals. Such judgments have no known error rate and cannot be tested, verified, or reproduced. + +Although the Government's Expert Notice regarding Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of "grooming-by-proxy" to the Defendant, it is important to note that there is no generally accepted theory of grooming b.iird parties or empirical evidence regarding the prevalence, characteristics, or mechanisms of . Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself. Instead, the claim appears to be that Ms. Maxwell recruited and groomed minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein, which would amount to grooming-by-proxy. + +Dr. Dietz is aware of no authority—no journal articles, no studies, no tests, nothing—to support a theory of grooming-by-proxy. Such a theory has not gained any acceptance (let alone general acceptance) in the relevant community; it has not been peer-reviewed; it has not and cannot be tested; and there is no known or potential rate of error. + +Dr. Rocchio's opinion that "[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse" is a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore derived from the frequent observation of highly vulnerable children among those children who allege sexual abuse, but it is not based on empirical data regarding the likelihood of abuse among children with varying degrees of vulnerability. To the extent that less vulnerable children, such as those with intact families, attentive parents, good social support, little psychopathology, less prior trauma, no substance use, and higher resilience are less likely to allege abuse than the more vulnerable, the generalization could be proved weak or false, if only there were such empirical data. And even if there were such data, it would be important to devise a means of verifying that abuse did occur to those who allege it, which is a difficult task at best because of the pains so many abusers take to avoid confession, witnesses, or physical evidence. The clinical, criminal justice, and forensic populations from which the observation of prevalent vulnerabilities is derived—including those clients whom Dr. Rocchio has treated or evaluated—rarely represent groups in which all allegations of abuse have been verified by confession, witnesses, physical evidence, or other means. + +Other opinions put forth in the disclosure of Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony also rest on assertions that are untestable, cannot be reproduced, and have no known error rate. + +# b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias + +Hindsight bias must be considered when evaluating sex abuse allegations and or "grooming behavior." Many claims of sexual abuse of minors involve behaviors that are, in + +November I, 2021 + +Page 5 + +hindsight, labeled "grooming" or otherwise imputed as knowledge to onlookers. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable or foreseeable an event is after being informed about the outcome of an event. Simply put, knowledge of the outcome of the event, i.e. Epstein pleaded guilty to having sexual contact with post-pubescent minors, makes the importance of pm-conviction behaviors obvious. Retrospective judgments about the predictability or foreseeability of the outcome are systemically inflated or biased compared to judgments made without information about the outcome. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to overestimate how predictable an event is after learning the outcome of the event (Fischhoff, 1975). For example, after a political election, people believe their pm-election estimates of the outcome were closer to the outcome than they actually were (Blank, Fischer, & Erdfelder, 2003). Hindsight bias has been discussed in over 800 scholarly articles across a variety of different domains including medicine, financial decision making, consumer satisfaction, and within the legal domain (see Roese & Vohs, 2012; Arkes, 2013; Strohmaier et al., 2021) and using a variety of different experimental designs (Pohl & Erdfelder, 2016) and a variety of different stimuli such as written vignettes, visual stimuli (e.g., Bernstein & Harley, 2007), and auditory stimuli (e.g., Bernstein, Wilson, Pernat, & Meilleur, 2012). Even individuals with specialized training and expertise succumb to hindsight bias (Musch & Wagner, 2007). One notable study detected hindsight bias among actual judges making civil liability decisions, in which judges with outcome knowledge perceived the harm to be significantly more foreseeable than judges who did not receive outcome information and were thus more likely to render a finding of negligence (Oeberst & Goeckenjan, 2016). Another notable study detected hindsight bias in a sample of mental health professionals who gauged the dangerousness of a psychiatric patient; again, outcome knowledge affected the reported dangerousness and predictably of harm posed by the patient (Beltrani et al., 2018). + +Hindsight bias affects legal judgments. Civil or criminal prosecutions related to events occurring decades ago may be compromised by this bias in many ways, from the investigation either ignoring evidence or attributing significance in hindsight—through the presentation of evidence, to the deliberation of any factfinder. Awareness of the impact of the hindsight bias should temper any claims that so called "grooming" behaviors should have been noticed and either reported or avoided and that failing to do so constitutes knowledge or intent. + +# c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect + +The term "Halo effect" was coined by Thorndike (1920) a century ago. The Halo effect is a cognitive bias in impression formation whereby the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated. For example, one classic study found that physical attractiveness influenced evaluations of the target's personality, life satisfaction, and expected future personal and occupational success despite the fact that no information about any of these attributes was provided (Dion et al., 1972). Physical attractiveness has also been found to influence culpability judgments, with attractive individuals being held less-responsible than unattractive individuals (Dion, 1972; Efran, 1974). Halo effects have been found to be cued by factors other than attractiveness, such as the described status of the target (Wilson, 1968), the name of the target (Harari & McDavid, 1973), and even one's mood when evaluating the target (Forgas, 2011). Studies have documented + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 6 + +halo effects when making diagnoses of psychopathology, such that symptoms of one mental disorder influence the interpretation of other symptoms indicative of other mental disorders and vice versa (see e.g., DeVries, Hartung, & Golden, 2017). + +Halo effects are a means to achieving cognitive consistency, which roughly refers to a state in which attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, predictions, and thoul.sare aligned. Cognitive consistency serves many important goals. As noted by Read and (2012), cognitive consistency is "essential for reasons of parsimony and economy of effort, as well as to allow for the predictabili and hence adaptability to, subsequent encounters" (p. 67). Indeed, the noted psychologist I= Festinger "was convinced that the psychological need for cognitive consistency is as basic as hunger and thirst" (Gawronski, 2012, p. 652). But because the world is often not so neat, orderly, or unequivocal, humans engage in complicated reasoning processes to impose consistency. These processes involve bi-directional reasoning in which "decisions follow from evidence, and evaluations of the evidence shift toward coherence with the emerging decision" Snow, & Read, 2004, p. 814; Greenspan & Scurich, 2016). As a result, perceptions and decisions become highly skewed toward one interpretation while alternatives are neglected or dismissed, hence consistency is achieved. This reasoning process occurs unconsciously, i.e., outside conscious awareness, and is not intentional self-deception. + +Halo effects can have serious practical consequences. As noted by Forgas and Laham (2016): + +Once unjustified initial expectations are formed about a person, they can easily become self-perpetuating with serious implications for how a target is treated. If we expect a person to have positive characteristics, we may selectively look for and find such features from the rich array of information available (a self-fulfilling prophecy), and positive impressions may in turn lead to preferential treatment in a range of domains: + +interpersonal relations, the work place, the health and legal systems, and even for decision making and consumer choices. (p. 286) + +Like many people who achieve great power and wealth, Jeffery Epstein exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs. At the most primitive level, his wealth attracted those seeking for themselves some of what he had. At the most sophisticated level, others with halos of their own—through any combination of power, influence, fame, brilliance, attractiveness, social standing, or other positive characteristics—mingled with Epstein for reasons of their own, and being seen in their company empowered him and made him look above suspicion. In a videotaped interview with Steve Bannon, Epstein differentiated between different kinds of power—such as Bill Clinton's political power, wrestlers' and weight lifters' physical power, and Gerry Edelman's intellectual power—and acknowledged that he gravitated to people of power. [CONFIDENTIAL] SDNY\_GM\_SUPP\_00219000.mov. + +The materials reviewed reflect that Jeffrey Epstein was a brilliant man who was flawed by enduring personality traits familiar to psychiatrists as "Cluster B personality traits," found among those with antisocial, narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 7 + +American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 659-672. These flaws allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities. These were not his only flaws, and Dr. Dietz is also prepared to address Jeffrey Epstein's sexual behavior should it prove relevant. + +# d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault Allegations + +Studies concerning the accurate reporting of alleged sexual assaults undermine the assertions made by Dr. Rocchio to the extent they are based on uncorroborated allegations and are also otherwise relevant here. False allegations of sexual assault do occur, and there are multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault. + +Not all allegations of sexual assault are true. Unfortunately, there has been little work on understanding the prevalence of false allegations or pathways to these, particularly in a sample most relevant to a jury—currently adjudicated cases. A peer reviewed journal article has proposed 11 pathways to false allegations of sexual assault: (a) lying, (b) implied consent, (c) false memories, (d) intoxication, (e) antisocial personality disorder, (f) borderline personality disorder, (g) histrionic personality disorder. (h) delirium, (i) psychotic disorders, (j) dissociation, and (k) intellectual disability. Jessica and William O'Donohue, Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault, 12 J. Forensic Psychology Practice, 97. These pathways originate in the psychological proclivities or state of the individual making these false allegations. The descriptions of these pathways that follow include material drawn nearly verbatim from the article by and O'Donohue (2012), which was published before the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but nonetheless remains accurate in characterizing certain personality disorders. + +Lying: Lying involves the alleged victim knowingly making a false claim of sexual assault. Humans do lie, and their lies can be difficult to detect. Often, humans lie because of what they perceive as the favorable consequences for lying; for sexual assault these consequences could be: + +- **I. the severe negative consequences that the alleged perpetrator experiences,** +- **2. secondary gain from victim status,** +- **3. excusing behaviors or characteristics of the alleged victim (e.g., sexual activity, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases)** +- **4. financial gain.** + +**Implied Consent: A fact finder's determination of whether consent was competently given is often problematic, and some allegations are regarded as unfounded or false based on determinations regarding consent before cases reach the stage of adjudication. A false allegation** + +November I, 2021 + +Page 8 + +can arise when it was reasonable to believe consent was given but the alleged victim falsely believes that it was not. + +False Memory: The existence and prevalence of repressed memories is a source of controversy, and yet research does exist demonstrating the successful implantation of fabricated memories. In one of the first studies on the implantation of false memories, participants were given short narratives of childhood experiences, purportedly obtained from relatives, and asked to try to remember these experiences. Research by Elizabeth Loftus has revealed how subtle information introduced after an event may alter the memory of that event. Loftus and her students have conducted more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 participants demonstrating how misinformation introduced after an event can induce people into creating false memories. + +Intoxication: Intoxication can substantially increase the likelihood of a false allegation of sexual assault. Alcohol and other intoxicants pose a significant problem in sorting out the validity of a sexual assault allegation. The information-processing errors induced by intoxicating substances may cause confusion surrounding events that occurred while a person was intoxicated. A person who does not accurately recall events that occurred while he or she was under the influence or while experiencing the side effects of withdrawal from a substance may attempt to make sense out of the disjointed and seemingly incoherent memories of events that occurred while intoxicated. In an effort to make sense of and organize what memories are intact, a person may confabulate or fill in the memory lapses with events that seem probable or which for some reason they come to believe "must have" taken place. + +Antisocial Personality Disorder: The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of behavior that disregards and violates of the rights of others. It often begins in early childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. If an individual with antisocial personality disorder is likely to lie to achieve power and pleasure, a false allegation of sexual assault might be the means by which he or she attempts to achieve power over the falsely accused. Falsely claiming someone sexually assaulted you can be an aggressive act and a lack of remorse could allow the individual to file an allegation of sexual assault and maintain this allegation with few, if any, conflicts of conscience. Thus, a pathway to a false allegation of sexual assault can occur when an individual with antisocial personality disorder makes a false claim of assault. + +Borderline Personality Disorder: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental condition characterized by affective dysregulation, impulsiveness, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and difficulties with self-image. Of particular note is the rapid switching from idealization to devaluation, impulsivity, and manipulative features of borderline personality disorder. The instability of relationships experienced by an individual with BPD may be rooted in the tendency to quickly switch from idealizing significant others or lovers to devaluing them. This sudden change in conceptualization of a partner is often caused by feeling that the partner is not caring enough or giving enough or by suspicion of abandonment. The rapid shifting between idealizing and demonization may bring about a change in perspective such that a relationship that was viewed idealistically in the past is now seen through the devalued lens of abuse or mistreatment. Past events then may become construed as "abuse" and may lead a person + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 9 + +with BPD to believe he or she is a victim of sexual assault. Previous research has found that two of the three major motivations to file a false allegation of rape were attention-seeking and revenge. The switch from idealization to devaluation of the relationship and/or relationship partner may spur a desire for revenge for any past behaviors that are, in the devaluation phase, newly construed as mistreatment. Also, there is some evidence that individuals with BPD engage in behaviors that are viewed as "manipulative." Manipulative behaviors are often outside the conscious awareness of the individual and are learned through positive reinforcement, as manipulation frequently results in positive outcomes for the manipulator. Thus, an individual with BPD may use a sexual assault allegation as a way of impacting a third party for some desired outcome. + +Histrionic Personality Disorder: Diagnostic criteria for histrionic personality disorder include: 1) feeling uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention; 2) interactions with others are often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; 3) displaying rapidly shifting and shallow expressions; 4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to the self; 5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; 6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion; 7) is suggestible (i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances), and 8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. Other relevant behaviors include the tendency to play out stereotyped roles in their relationships with others; an intense desire for novelty and excitement; and the upset and depression that may follow periods in which they received little attention. Filing a false allegation of sexual assault may serve to benefit individuals with histrionic personality disorder in several important ways. The sexualized behavior of individuals with histrionic personality disorder can lead to sexual relationships that may be used to seek attention (e.g., having sex with a person and telling all of their friends about it). Filing a false sexual assault claim may regain lost attention, either from the desired partner or from other individuals, providing a novel and exciting environment that may be stimulating to a person who is histrionic. They may enjoy the large amounts of attention received for filing a sexual assault charge and for the "victim" role that can be played out in other relationships (a dynamic also common in false allegations by those with borderline personality disorder). In times when attention is not being received to the desired level, a false allegation of sexual assault may help to pull individuals with histrionic personality disorder out of their depressed state. + +Delirium: Delirium is a disturbance of consciousness that is accompanied by a change in cognition that cannot be better accounted for by a preexisting or evolving dementia. Relevant to this pathway are the perceptual disturbances that may be present, including misinterpretations, illusions, or even hallucinations. Many substances induce delirium, particularly in excessive doses. + +Psychotic Disorders: The term psychotic generally refers to conditions that are marked by delusions, hallucinations, or markedly illogical thinking. Such conditions cause gross impairments in functioning. Studies investigating the content of delusions have found delusions that are sexual in nature are not uncommon and occur more often in women than in men. Some cases of sexual delusions have been documented. These delusions may lead a person to claim adamantly that sexual relations or events occurred that may be impossible or highly improbable. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 10 + +Dissociation: Dissociation is `the lack of the normal integration of thoughts, feelings, and experiences into the stream of consciousness and memory. Dissociation involves a disruption or splitting off of memory, personality, identity, consciousness, or general perceptions of the self and surroundings; it can be recurring, gradual, or transient. It is likely associated with memory distortions. Thus, it is possible that in the event of a sexual assault, dissociation may cause a person to fill in the parts of the experience that are not clearly remembered with events that for them feasibly could have occurred. Of course, memory lapses will not necessarily be filled in with a confabulated event, let alone a sexual one. However, individuals who dissociate at a high frequency may seek to make their stories more coherent by adding details to an incomplete memory that would make sense to them when considered in the context of the event. Thus, these confabulations may lead to erroneous claims that have forensic relevance, including who the perpetrator was, what happened, where, and how many times. + +Intellectual Disability: Intellectual disability, is characterized by below average IQ and adaptive functioning. Limitations in functioning include deficits in the acquisition of social, occupational, academic, and general self-care skills. Intellectual disability has several etiologies that often are related to biological or pathological processes affecting the central nervous system. Many of the specific vulnerabilities that arise from intellectual disability overlap to some extent with other disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome) and individuals with other developmental disabilities may also have intellectual disability. Intellectually disabled individuals, compared to individuals without ID, have vulnerabilities related to memory and communication that the legal system may not be equipped to handle adequately. Individuals with moderate-to-profound ID may have significant difficulty communicating about the events that occurred because of language skills deficits or other communication-interfering conditions (e.g., related neurological conditions). Research findings indicate that communications skills are essential in filing a sexual assault charge; alleged victims with mild ID were more likely than individuals with moderate or severe ID not only to file sexual assault charges but to have their allegations confirmed. Difficulties with memory may also complicate the investigation process for individuals with ID. + +Changes in the core details of the allegation are often used by professionals as indices in determining the credibility of a victim's claims. Peace and colleagues (2015) conducted a narrative analysis of 147 sets of allegations of sexual assault across short (3 month) and long (6 month) intervals since the alleged event took place. In reviewing the existing literature, Peace and colleagues found that genuine traumatic experiences have a demonstrable resiliency to drastic impairments in recall. However, some inconsistencies especially in less core matters are to be expected due to some less important details fading or varying over time. In examining their sample of 147 allegations, the researchers discovered that truthful allegations contained more detail relative to false allegations at each of the assessment intervals. Specifically, the researchers found that fabricated allegations of traumatic experiences contained more inconsistent details both at 3 months and 6 months. The total amount of detail for each type of allegation (true or false) does tend to decrease over time. Additionally, as these figures suggest, the researchers found that the number of details present in genuine reports continued to decrease over time whereas fabricated stories 'levelled off in detail. + +November I, 2021 + +Page 11 + +Hunt and Bull (2012) reviewed signs that can be used to differentiate true allegations of sexual assault from false ones and concluded that the literature did not support the hypothesis that emotional distress was predictive of the truthfulness of the allegation. This is consistent across the literature, and emotional distress (e.g., crying) is not regarded as a reliable predictor of the accuracy or truthfulness of an allegation. Additional research is needed, but at this point there is little empirical support to indicate that being emotionally upset, distressed, or crying while reporting an assault indicates that the report is more likely to be true. This is likely due to the fact that such reactions can also occur in false allegations for various reasons, including a false memory or an attempt to mislead by those who know this sort of reaction would be expected of a true allegation. + +Individuals who have been sexually assaulted have higher rates of mental disorders than individuals who have not been sexually assaulted, and this includes significantly higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, drug use disorders, and alcohol use disorders. Emily R. Dworkin, Risk for Mental Disorders Associated with Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis, 21 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2020), pp. 1011-1028. Any of these mental disorders that occur more frequently among those who have been sexually assaulted can affect memory and recall, requiring assessment on a case-by-case basis. + +Varying degrees of post-traumatic stress symptomatology occur in significant proportions of victims following sexual assault and last for varying durations. Emily R. Dworkin, Anna E. Jaffe, Michele Bedard-Gilligan, and Skye Fitzpatrick, PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2021) https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211032213. A substantial number of people never fully remit from their PTSD even after many years, and variables associated with a longer time to remit from an episode of chronic PTSD include a history of alcohol abuse and a history of childhood trauma. Caron Zlotnick, Meredith Warshaw, et al., Chronicity in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Predictors of Course of Comorbid PTSD in Patients with Anxiety Disorders, l2 J. Traumatic Stress (1999), 89-100. + +Symptoms of PTSD include distressing memories of the event; intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; marked physiological reactions to cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; avoidance or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s); and avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s). American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (2013), pp. 271-272. Individuals with any of these symptoms are particularly unlikely to engage in continued communication or friendly gestures with an alleged perpetrator, to wear clothing provided by an alleged perpetrator, or to unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event, any of which would be expected to elicit intense distress. + +Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Rohrbach November 1, 2021 Page 12 + +C. Dr. Ryan. + +Dr. curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit D. His report is attached as Exhibit E. Attached as Exhibit F is a list of material reviewed by Dr... + +Dr.. is an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry and will offer opinions as such. He will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report, the bases for those opinions, and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions + +D. Bennett Gershman + +Professor Gershman is a Distinguished Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law of Pace University since its founding as the Pace Law School in 1976. He has also taught as a visiting professor at Cornell Law School and Syracuse Law School. Prior to coming to Pace, he was a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the New York State Anti-Corruption Office. Professor Gerslunan's extensive scholarship has had an essential role in establishing the study of prosecutorial misconduct, a subject at the intersection of criminal procedure and professional ethics. He is a leading authority on prosecutorial misconduct and the author of the treatise, Prosecutorial Misconduct, a preeminent resource for scholars and practitioners. + +We expect Professor Gershman to provide testimony on best practices to ensure the integrity of any prosecution, focusing on investigation, witness preparation, media contact, neutrality, obligations to provide accurate information, and relationship with crime victims, their counsel, and case-related civil litigation. His extensive experience and credentials are recited in his curriculum vitae, annexed as Exhibit G. + +E. Robert Kelso + +Mr. Kelso is CEO of Forensic Pursuit. He has over 25 years of experience in computer forensics, engineering and software technology. He holds Bachelor's and degrees from University of Colorado at Boulder in aerospace engineering and astrodynamics, respectively. He is currently an adjunct professor at University of Denver teaching computer forensics at the level. He holds multiple computer forensics certifications including EnCE, CHFI, ACE and AME. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit H. Mr. Kelso has previously testified in federal and state courts as an expert witness in computer forensics and has been appointed a "special =" by the court on multiple occasions. + +We anticipate that Mr. Kelso will testify about the user data associated with certain devices seized and searched by the government's team in this case, documents and photographs extracted from certain of those devices, and the metadata associated with certain documents and photographs. He may also testify generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of documents, storage and retrieval of digital documents and photographs, including + +November I, 2021 + +Page 13 + +the limits to the information that can be gleaned from the metadata. Mr. Kelso may testify in rebuttal to any testimony offered by the government through Stephen Flatley. As trial preparation proceeds, the defense will update the topics for Mr. Kelso if any arise. + +F. John + +Mr. was a Special Agent with the United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation ("IRS-CI") for over twenty-five years. During his tenure at IRS-CI, Mr. led the New York Asset Forfeiture Task Force and participated in numerous criminal investigations involving complex fraud, corruption, bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. Since retiring from the IRS in 2013, Mr. has worked as a financial investigator and consultant for several private investigation companies and government enforcement agencies. He currently runs his own private financial investigation and consulting company called JDL Services, Inc. Mr. holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Accounting and Finance from Pace University. His curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit I. + +It is expected that Mr. will testify about his review of certain financial records provided by the government in discovery. Specifically, Mr. will discuss various transfers of funds that are reflected in the financial records and explain the information contained in the financial records regarding those transfers.' + +G. Gerald LaPorte + +Mr. LaPorte is a Forensic Chemist and Document Dating Specialist with the firm Welch LaPorte &Associates Forensic Laboratories. He currently is the Director of Research Innovation for Florida International University, Global Forensic and Justice Center. Prior to that, he was the Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous cases and has multiple professional honors in this field. His curriculum vitae is attached. Exhibit J + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and documents received pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited to These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of creation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +The defense does not believe that the Court needs to qualify Mr. as an expert to offer the proposed testimony. Nevertheless, we hereby notice Mr. as a potential expert witness in an abundance of caution. + +November 1, 2021 + +Page 14 + +H. Jennifer Naso + +Ms. Naso is a Forensic Document Examiner who worked for and received specialized training from the United States Secret Service as a Document Analyst. Ms. Naso has a of Science in Forensic Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She has over 15 years of experience examining and determining authorship and authentication of documents. Her curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit K. + +Defendant anticipates the receipt of documents produced by the government and pursuant to defense subpoena included but not limited t . These documents may require analysis regarding the dates of citation, completeness, alteration and manipulation. When these documents are disclosed, Defendant will seek to have them analyzed and present testimony on the analysis as needed. + +# II. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS + +The defense reserves the right to amplify the disclosures contained herein based on testimony and other evidence presented during the government's case-in-chief. The defense also reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses and will promptly provide additional disclosure notice. + +### III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT + +Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement these opinions depending on the evidence produced at trial. To the extent that any accuser claims to have been "groomed" or otherwise testifies to the challenged opinions of Dr. Rocchio or other opinions properly rebutted by expert testimony Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to identify and rebut this testimony after the close of the government's case in chief. + +Very Truly Yours, + +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +Enclosures + +## ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS + +Distinguished Professor +University of California, Irvine + +2393 Social Ecology II +University of California, Irvine +Irvine, California 92697-7080 +USA + +Tel: (949) 824-3285 +Fax: (949) 824-3001 +email: [eloftus@uci.edu](mailto:eloftus@uci.edu) +web: + +### EDUCATION + +B.A., with highest honors in Mathematics and Psychology, UCLA, 1966 +M.A., Psychology, Stanford University, 1967 +Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University, 1970 + +### TEACHING EXPERIENCE + +#### **Permanent** + +Distinguished Professor, University of California, Irvine, 2002 – present +Psychological Science, 2002- +Criminology, Law & Society, 2002 – +Cognitive Sciences, 2002- +Fellow, Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 2002- +Founding Director, Center for Psychology & Law, 2005 - 2012 +School of Law, 2007- +Affiliate Professor, Univ. of Washington, Psychology Dept and School of Law, 2002 – 2016. +Assistant, Associate, Full Professor, University of Washington, 1973-2002 +Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Washington, 1984-2002 +Assistant Professor, The New School, Graduate Faculty, New York 1970-73 + +#### **Visiting** + +Harvard University, Seminar on Law and Psychology, 1975-76 +National Judicial College, University of Nevada, 1975-87 (summers) +Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, 1986 + +### HONORS AND AWARDS + +#### **Honorary Degrees** + +Doctor of Science, Miami University (Ohio), 1982 +Doctorate Honoris Causa, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 1990 +Doctor of Laws, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 1994 +Doctor of Science, University of Portsmouth, England, 1998 +Doctor of Philosophy, Honoris Causa, University of Haifa, Israel, 2005 +Doctor Honoris Causa, University of Olso, Norway 2008 +Doctor of Social Sciences Honoris Causa, Goldsmiths College, University of London 2015 +Doctor of Science Honoris Causa, Australian National University, Dec. 2020 (invited) + +Pi Mu Epsilon, National Mathematics Honorary, elected 1965 +Mortar Board, National Senior Women's Honorary, elected 1965 +Elected, Golden Key International Honour Society, honorary member, 2005 + +**Fellowships** + +Office of Education Traineeship, Stanford University, 1966-69 +National Institute of Mental Health Fellowship, Stanford University, 1969-70 +American Council on Education Fellowship in Academic Administration, Harvard University, 1975-76 +Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, 1978-79 + +**Grants, Contracts, Research Funding** + +National Institute of Mental Health, 1971-72; 1972-73; 1976-79 (Human Memory) +U.S. Department of Transportation, 1974-76 (Human Memory) +General Services Administration, 1974-75 (Communications--w/Keating) +National Bureau of Standards, 1976-77; 1980-82 (Communications--w/Keating) +National Science Foundation, 1978-85 (Human Memory) +National Science Foundation, 1980-83 (Jury Behavior--w/[REDACTED]) +National Science Foundation, 1983-85; (Hypnosis--w/[REDACTED]) +National Institute of Mental Health, 1984-86; 1986-89;1989-92 (Memory) +National Center for Health Services Research, 1986-88 (Survey Memory) +National Science Foundation, 1986-88; 1988-91 (Jury Comprehension--w/[REDACTED]-Goodman) +Fund for Research on Dispute Resolution, 1989-91 (Predictions of Success--w/Goodman) +National Institute of Health, 1991-95 (Cognition & Health--w/Croyle) +National Institute of Health, 1993-94 (Health/sex memory: subcontract from UCSF/Catania) +Leverhulme Trust, Postevent info and erasing memories, 1997-1999 (w/ Dan [REDACTED], Univ. of Bristol) +[REDACTED] Society of Edinburgh, Travel Grant, 2006 +Grawemeyer Award Funding given to UCI, 2005-present. +Newkirk Center for Science & Society, 2017-2019. + +**Awards & Honors** + +National Lecturer of Sigma Xi, 1978-80 +American Psychological Association nomination for the NSF Waterman Award for Outstanding Contributions to Science, 1977 and 1978 +National Media Award for *Eyewitness Testimony* (American Psychological Foundation, Distinguished Contribution, 1980) +Greyhound Research Award, 1987-88 +Honorary Fellow, British Psychological Society, 1991 (includes lifetime membership) +[REDACTED] E. [REDACTED] Professor, University of Richmond School of Law, 1995 +American Academy of Forensic Psychology, Distinguished Contributions to Forensic Psych Award, 1995 +American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology (AAAPP), Distinguished Contribution to Basic and Applied Scientific Psychology Award, 1996 +Association for Psychological Science, James McKeen Cattell Fellow ("For outstanding lifetime contributions to the area of applied psychological research"), 1997 +Oklahoma Scholar Leadership Enrichment Program Scholar 2001 +Association for Psychological Science, William James Fellow Award, 2001 ("For significant lifetime intellectual contributions to the basic science of psychology.") +Quad L Award (for "outstanding life-long contributions to our understanding of learning or memory processes" University of New Mexico) 2002 +National Academy of Sciences: Henry & Bryna David Lectureship, 2002 (inaugural award, for "application of the best social and behavioral sciences research to public policy issues") Speech delivered at NAS (2002). Article selected for inclusion in: *The Best American Science and Nature Writing*, (2003) +Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS), Contributions to Sexual Science Award, 2002 +American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, elected Thorsten Sellin Fellow, 2003 +Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology, American Psychological Assn, 2003. + +American Academy of Arts & Sciences, elected Fellow, 2003 +National Academy of Sciences, elected 2004. +Grawemeyer Prize in Psychology (for "Outstanding Ideas in the Science of Psychology"), 2005 +██████ Society of Edinburgh, Corresponding Fellow (Scotland's National Academy of Science & Letters, Est 1783). 2005 +Distinguished Member of Psi Chi (The National Honor Society in Psychology), 2005 +Lauds & Laurels, Faculty Achievement Award, University of California- Irvine, (for "great professional prominence in their field" in research, teaching and public service; 9th recipient in UCI history), 2005 +Ireland Distinguished Visiting Scholar Prize, 2006 +American Philosophical Society (U.S. oldest learned society, Est. 1745 by ██████ Franklin), 2006 +International Academy of Humanism, elected Humanist Laureate, 2007 (for "outstanding contributions to science, law, and academic freedom, and to the public understanding of the human mind") +McGovern Award Lecture, "honors outstanding behavioral scientists from around the world." American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, 2009 +Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law, American Psychology-Law Society, 2009. +██████ Priestley Award (for "achievement in the sciences"), Dickinson College, October, 2009. +Howard Crosby ██████ Medal, Society of Experimental Psychologists – Est. 1904, (for "significant contributions to the understanding of the phenomenology of human memory, especially its fragility and vulnerability to distortion") 2010 +American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility (for "the profound impact that your pioneering research on human memory has had on the administration of justice in the United States and abroad."), for year 2010, ceremony Feb, 2011 +Forensic Mental Health Assn of California, William T. Rossiter Award (for "exceptional global contribution to the field of forensic mental health"), 2012. +University of California, Irvine Medal (for "exceptional contributions to the vision, mission, and spirit of UC Irvine") 2012 +Foundation for Critical Thinking, Bertrand ██████ Scholar, 2013. +Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology. American Psychological Foundation. (for "extraordinary contributions to our understanding of memory during the past 40 years that are remarkable for their creativity and impact") 2013. +Cornell University: Law, Psychology & Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award ("In Recognition of a Distinguished Career of Pioneering Contributions in Legal Applications of Psychological Research"), 2015 +Isaac Asimov Science Award, American Humanist Association, 2016 +John Maddox Prize (for "promoting sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, with perseverance and courage""), 2016 +Western Psychological Association, Lifetime Achievement Award ("in recognition of Outstanding Career Contributions to Research and Teaching", 2018 +Albert Wolters Distinguished Visiting Professor ("in recognition of her world-class contributions to cognitive psychology"), University of Reading, 2018 +Ulysses Medal, University College Dublin, Ireland ("the highest honor bestowed by UCD") 2018 +Lifetime Achievement Award for Psychology, Australian National University, (for "pioneering research on the science of human memory") 2019 +American Philosophical Society's ██████ Suppes Prize in Psychology, "in recognition of her demonstrations that memories are generally altered, false memories can be implanted, and the changes in law and therapy this knowledge has caused", 2020 +International Union of Psychological Science, Lifetime Career Award, (for "distinguished and enduring lifetime contributions to advancing knowledge in psychology.") 2021 + +#### **Other Public Honors & Recognition** + +Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP): "In Praise of Reason" Award, 1994 (Renamed: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry – C.S.I.) +Sexual Sanity Award, Sexual Intelligence, 2001 +*OC Metro* magazine selection as one of the "Hottest 25 People in Orange County for 2002" + +Listed in One Hundred Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th century. #58. *Review of General Psychology*, 2002. + +University of Portsmouth (England) endowed a prize for the best research dissertation in their MSc Program in Forensic Psychology, naming it The Elizabeth Loftus Award, 2004. + +“The false memory diet”, “Most noteworthy ideas of 2005”, New York Times Magazine, 2005. + +University of Klagenfurt, Student Scientific Board selection- “Nobel Prize in Psychology”, Austria, 2005. + +Listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, Who’s Who in American Education, Who’s Who in Social Sciences Higher Education (WWSSHE), World Who’s Who of Women, and various others. + +Bethschrift Redux: Research Inspired by the Work of Elizabeth F. Loftus Special Issue of *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, edited by M. Garry & H. Hayne, Vol. 20, 2006. + +Fellow, German Skeptics Organization, GWUP, elected 2018 + +## PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS + +### Current: + +American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow; Board of Directors, 2013 - 2017) + +Association for Psychological Science (Formerly American Psychological Society; President 1998-99) + +Western Psychological Association (President, 1984; President 2004-2005) + +Psychonomic Society (Governing Board, 1990-1995) Lifetime Member + +Society of Experimental Psychologists, (1990 – ) + +British Psychological Society (1991, Lifetime Member) + +National Academy of Sciences, (2004 - ) + +American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2003 - ). + +██████████ Society of Edinburgh (2005 – Lifetime Corresponding Fellow) + +American Philosophical Society (2006 - ) + +### Past: + +American Psychological Association (Fellow-Div. 3, 35, 41; President, American Psychology-Law Society, Div. 41, 1985; President, Experimental Psychology Division, Div. 3, 1988) (1973-1996) + +Institute for the Study of the Trial (Board of Directors, 1979-81) + +Law and Society Association (1982-89) + +Eastern Psychological Assn, Elected Fellow 2011 + +## OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE + +Member, Psychology Education Review Committee, National Institute of Mental Health, 1977-79 +Associate Editor, *American Psychologist*, 1990-94 + +Editorial Board Member: + +*Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 1974-87 + +*Ethics and Behavior*, 1989-91 + +*Human Learning*, 1980-86 + +*Forensic Reports*, 1987-92 + +*Social Cognition*, 1981-92 + +*The Forensic Echo*, 1998-2000 + +*Law and Society Review*, 1982-86 + +*Psychology, Crime and Law*, 1992- + +*Information and Behavior*, 1983-90 + +*Psych Science in the Public Interest*, 1999- + +*American Journal of Psychology*, 1989-2008 + +*Canadian Psychology* 2001- + +*Justice Quarterly*, 1984-95 + +*Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 2005 - 2017 + +*Behavioral Sciences and the Law*, 1985-99 + +*Internat. J of Psychology*, Cons Ed, 2005 -12 + +*Applied Cognitive Psychology* 1987-93 +(Special Editorial Advisor, 1993- ) + +*Experimental Psychology*, 2008 - +*Psychology of Consciousness* 2012 – + +*Law and Human Behavior*, 1980-2005 + +*Memory, Mind & Media*, 2021 - + +Advisory Board Member: + +*British Journal of Psychology*, 1983-99(approx) + +*Psychology Today*, 1999-2003 + +American Psychological Association committee work: + +Member, Communications Committee, 1975-76; Member, Magazine Task Force, 1975-76; +Member, Finance Committee, 1976-78; Member, Comm. on Organization of APA, 1977-78; +Commission on Organization, 1978-82; Council of Representatives, Div. 3, 1982-85; +Executive Committee, Div. 41, 1981-85; Member, Ethics Committee, 1984; National +Policy Studies Oversight Committee, 1986; *Psychology Today*, Board of Directors, 1987-88; +Comm. on Division/APA Relations (CODAPAR), 1988-89, Public Information Comm. 1989-1992 +Task Force on Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-96 + +Association for Psychological Science (Formerly American Psychological Society) Committee work: +Fund for Advancement of Psychological Science, Board Member, 2003- . (Chair: Bequest +Subcommittee). + +Cattell Award Committee, 2001-05 . + +Association for Advancement of Psychology (AAP), Board of Trustees, 1981-85 + +Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences: + +Executive Committee, 1992-95 + +National Academies: (inc. National Academy of Sciences) + +Committee on ELF Radiation, 1976-77 + +Committee on Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1980-82 + +Committee on Use of Statistical Evidence in Court, 1982-85 + +Committee on Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology, 1982-83 + +Division of Behavioral & Social Sciences & Education (DBASSE) Executive Board, 2005 -2011 + +National Academy of Sciences, Class Membership Committee, 2005, 2006,. 2007 + +Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Physiological and +Cognitive/Neural Science Research, 2007 - 08. + +Board on Human-Systems Integration, NRC, 2014- 2017 + +Standing Committee on Advancing Science Communication Research and Practice 2018- present +American Philosophical Society + +TNG for Psychology, 2006-08 + +Social Sciences Research Council: + +Committee on Cognition and Surveys, 1985-90 + +Bureau of National Affairs, Advisory Committee on Complex Litigation, 1987-1990 + +Representative from University Faculty to State Legislature, 1976-78 + +Advisory Comm., Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Univ. of Illinois, 1987-1992 + +FMS Foundation Advisory Board, 1992-2019. + +NIMH Behavioral Sciences Task Force, 1993 + +Sage Series on Counseling Women, Advisor, 1995-96 + +Exploratorium, San Francisco's Science Museum, Advisor, 1990-91, 1996-98 + +Brain.com Corporation, Scientific Advisory Board, 1999-2001 + +Center on Wrongful Convictions, National Advisory Board, 2000- + +NewKirk Center for Science & Society, Advisory Board, 2002- + +International Institute of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health + +Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, (Affiliated faculty), Romania, 2003 - . + +Member, Board of Commissioners, American Judicature Society Commission on Forensic Science & +Public Policy, 2005-2010. + +Sage Cognitive Psychology Program, Consulting Board Member, 2006-2008 + +Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders (MIND), Advisory Board, 2009-2015 + +Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), Executive Council, 2011- present. + +National Science Communication Institute, Board of Directors, 2011-2014. + +Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), Board of Directors, 2012 – 2013 + +Federal Trade Commission, 1976-77 +Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco, 1979 +U.S. Department of Justice (National Crime Survey), 1980 +Consultant for attorneys and other members of the legal profession in 34 US states, +Canada, South Korea, Israel, Sweden, Japan, The Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Portugal +Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1981 +Westin Hotels, AT&T, Schering-Plough, L.A. Gear, and other corporations +Internal Revenue Service, 1984 +National Center for Health Statistics, 1985 +US Secret Service, 1986 +Unified Court System, NY., 1989-90 +Consultant to Canadian Government Officials re eyewitness testimony (Sophonow Inquiry), 2001 +Central Intelligence Agency, 2005 –2006. . +Veterans Education Association, Academic Advisory Board Member, 2006 . +Grawemeyer Award External Review Panel, 2008. + +## PUBLICATIONS + +### Books + +Mednick, S.A., Pollio, R. H. & Loftus, E.F. (1973). *Learning*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- █. +· Japanese edition: Iwanami Shoten Publishers, Tokyo. +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1976) *Human Memory: The Processing of Information*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. +· Japanese edition: University of Tokyo Press. +Bourne, L.E., Dominowski, R. L., & Loftus, E.F. (1979). *Cognitive Processes*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- █. +Loftus, E.F. (1979). *Eyewitness Testimony*. Cambridge, █: Harvard University Press.(National Media Award, Distinguished Contribution, 1980). (Reissued with new Preface in 1996). +· Japanese edition: Seishin Shobo, Tokyo. +Loftus, E.F. (1980). *Memory*. Reading, █: Addison-Wesley. (Reprinted by NY: Ardsley Press 1988). +· Swedish edition: Liber Forlag, Stockholm.; Hebrew edition: Or Am, Tel-Aviv.; █ edition: Le Jour, Editeur.; Spanish edition: Compania Editorial Continental.; Danish edition: Hernon Publishers. +Wortman, C.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1981). *Psychology*. New York: Random House (Knopf). +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). *Essence of Statistics*. Monterey, CA: █/ █. +Bootzin, R., Loftus, E., & Zajonc, R. (1983). *Psychology Today* (5th ed.). NY: Random House. +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1983). *Mind at Play*. New York: Basic Books. +· Japanese edition: Companion Shuppan Ltd. +Wells, G. & Loftus, E.F. (Eds.) (1984). *Eyewitness Testimony--Psychological perspectives*. NY: Cambridge University Press. +Wortman, C.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). *Psychology* (2nd ed.) NY: Random House (Knopf). +Bourne, L.E., Dominowski, R.L., Loftus, E.F., & █, A. (1986). *Cognitive Processes*. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- █. +Loftus, E.F. & █, J. (1987). *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. NY: Kluwer. +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1988). *Statistics*. New York: Random House. +Wortman, C.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1988). *Psychology* (3rd ed.). NY: Random House (Knopf). +Loftus, E.F. & Ketcham, K. (1991) *Witness for the Defense; The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial* NY: St. █ Press. +-Chinese Translation: Taiwan: Business Weekly Publications 1999; Spanish Translation: Barcelona, Spain: Alba 2010 +Wortman, C.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1992) *Psychology* (4th ed.) NY: McGraw █. +Loftus, E.F. & █, J.M. (1992) *Eyewitness Testimony - Civil and Criminal*. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Co. +Loftus, E.F. & Ketcham, K. (1994) *The Myth of Repressed Memory*. NY: St. █ Press. + +- -Dutch edition: Graven in het geheugen, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverji L.J. Veen (1995) +- · German edition: Die Therapierte erinnerung. (translated by Ingrid Klein): Hamburg: Verlag GmbH. (1995). +- · █████ edition: Le syndrome des faux souvenirs. Collection Regard Critique: Editions Exergue, (1997). Bastei Lubbe Publishing. +- · Taiwanese Translation: Yuan Liou Publishing. +- · Japanese edition: Seishin Shobo Publishers (2000). +- -Korean edition: Dosol Publishing (2008) +- -█████, second ed. (2012) Le syndrome des faux souvenirs. Paris: Editions Exergue. + +Loftus, E.F. & █████, J.M. (1997) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal*, 3rd edition. Charlottesville, Va: Lexis Law Publishing. + +Wortman, C.B., Loftus, E.F., & Weaver, C. (1999) *Psychology* (5th edition). NY: McGraw █████. + +Loftus, E.F., █████, J.M. & Dysart, J. (2007) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal*, 4th edition. Charlottesville, Va: Lexis Law Publishing. (482 pages) + +Loftus, E.F., █████, J.M. & Dysart, J.L. (2013) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal*, 5th edition. Charlottesville, Va: Lexis Law Publishing. (447 pages) + +Loftus, E.F., █████, J.M., Dysart, J. L., & Newirth, K.A. (2019) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal*, 6th edition. Charlottesville, Va: Lexis Law Publishing. (532 pages) + +## Articles and Chapters + +### 1968 + +- Fishman, E.F. (Loftus), █████, L., & Atkinson, R.C. (1968). Massed vs. distributed practice in computerized spelling drills. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 59, 290-296. +- · Reprinted in: R.C. Atkinson & H.A. Wilson (Eds.) (1969). *Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Book of Readings*. NY: Academic Press. + +### 1969 + +- Suppes, P., Loftus, E.F., & Jerman, M. (1969). Problem-solving on a computer-based Teletype. *Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 2, 1-15. +- · Reprinted in: E. Fishbein & E. Rasu (Eds.) (1971). *Invatamintul Matematic in Lumea Contemporana*. Bucharest: Editura Didactice si Pedagogica. + +### 1970 + +- Loftus, E.F. & █████, J.L. (1970). On predicting constrained associates from long-term memory. *Bulletin of Psychonomic Society*, 19, 357-358. +- Loftus, E.F., █████, J.L., & Loftus, G.R. (1970). Retrieval of words from subordinate and superordinate categories in semantic hierarchies. *Bulletin of Psychonomic Science*, 21, 235-236. +- Loftus, E.F. (1970). *An analysis of the structural variables that determine problem solving difficulty on a computer-based Teletype*. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. Also, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Technical Report No. 126, December 18, 1970. + +### 1971 + +- █████, J.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1971). Retrieval of words from long-term memory. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 10, 107-115. +- Loftus, E.F. & Scheff, R.W. (1971). Categorization norms for fifty representative instances. *Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph*, 91, 355-364. +- Loftus, E.F. (1971). Memory for intentions: The effect of presence of a cue and interpolated activity. *Bulletin of Psychonomic Science*, 23, 315-316. + +- Loftus, E.F. & Suppes, P. (1972). Structural variables that determine problem-solving difficulty in computer-assisted instruction. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 63, 531-542. +- Loftus, E.F. & █████, J.L. (1972). Effect of category-name frequency on the speed of naming an instance of the category. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 11, 343-347. +- Loftus, E.F. & Suppes, P. (1972). Structural variables that determine the speed of retrieving words from long-term memory. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 11, 770-777. + +Loftus, E.F. (1972). Nouns, adjectives and semantic memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 96, 213-215. + +**1973**Loftus, E.F. (1973). Category dominance, instance dominance, and categorization time. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 97, 70-74. + +Loftus, E.F. & Grober, E.H. (1973). Retrieval from semantic memory by young children. *Developmental Psychology*, 8, 310. + +Loftus, E.F. (1973). Activation of semantic memory. *American Journal of Psychology*, 86, 331-337. + +Loftus, E.F. (1973). Teaching young children how to use a computer-based Teletype as a desk calculator. *Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation*, 5, 204-208. + +**1974**Loftus, E.F. & Bolton, M. (1974). Retrieval of superordinates and subordinates. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 102, 121-124. + +Loftus, E.F. & Loftus, G.R. (1974). Changes in memory structure and retrieval over the course of instruction. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 66, 315-318. + +Grober, E.H. & Loftus, E.F. (1974). Semantic memory: Searching for attributes versus searching for names. *Memory and Cognition*, 2, 413-416. + +Loftus, E.F. & Keating, J.P. (1974, November). The psychology of emergency communications. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Fire Safety in High Rise Buildings*. + +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1974). The influence of one memory retrieval on a subsequent retrieval. *Memory and Cognition*, 2, 467-471. + +Loftus, E.F. (1974). On reading the fine print. *Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 26, 324. + +[REDACTED], J.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1974). Retrieval of words from well-learned sets. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 102, 1085-1091. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], W. (1974). Retrieving attribute and name information from semantic memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 102, 1116-1122. + +Loftus, E.F., Wiksten, S., & Abelson, R.P. (1974). Using semantic memory to find versus create a word. *Memory and Cognition*, 3, 479-483. + +Loftus, E.F. & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 13, 585-589. + +· Reprinted in: Neisser, U. (Ed.) (1982) *Memory Observed*. San Francisco: Freeman. + +Peter E. Morris & M. Conway (Eds.) (1993) *The International Library of Critical Writings in Psychology: Memory. NY: Academic Press*. + +Loftus, E.F., Senders, J.W., & Turkletaub, S. (1974). The retrieval of phonetically similar and dissimilar category members. *American Journal of Psychology*, 87, 57-63. + +Loftus, E.F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. *Psychology Today*, 8, 116-119. + +· Reprinted in: + +*Jurimetrics Journal*, 15, 1975, p188-193.; *The Cincinnati Post*, January 21, 1975; *Annual Editions: Readings in Psychology 75/76*. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1975; *Student Lawyer*, 3, 1975, 38-51.; *Psychologie Heute*, April, 1975; N.W. Peralta (Ed.) (1975). *Personal awareness in business: Readings, problems, and activities*. Chicago: Institute of Financial Education; *Police Officers Journal*, 1976.; J.R. Snortum & I. Hadar (Eds.) (1977). *Criminal justice: The actors and the action*. Pacific Palisades, CA: Palisades Publishers; P. Chance & T.G. Harris (1990) *The Best of Psychology Today*. New York: McGraw [REDACTED]. + +Loftus, E.F. (1974). Review of Lindsay and Norman's Human Information Processing. *Journal of Psycholinguistic Research*, 3, 180-184. + +Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. *Cognitive Psychology*, 7, 560-572. + +· Reprinted in: *Notable Selections in Psychology*, 2nd Ed., Pettijohn, T. F., Ed. (1996) Madison, WI: Dushkin Publishing. + +· Reprinted in part in: Hock, R. R. (1999) *Forty Studies that Changed Psychology*. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice [REDACTED], 115-123. + +■■■■■, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. *Psychological Review*, 82, 407-428. + +Loftus, E.F. & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 5, 86-88. + +Keating, J.P. & Loftus, E.F. (1975). People care in fire emergencies--psychological aspects.. Boston, ■■■■: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Technical Report 75-4, p 1-12. . + +Loftus, E.F., Altman D., & Geballe, R. (1975). Effects of questioning upon a witness's later recollections. *Journal of Police Science and Administration*, 3, 162-165. + +Loftus, E.F. (1975). Retrieval from semantic memory: Some data and a model. In T. Storer & D. Winter (Eds.), *Formal aspects of cognitive processes* [Volume 22 of G. Goos & J. Hartman (Eds.), *Lecture notes in computer science*]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. + +Loftus, E.F. (1975). Spreading activation within semantic categories. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 104, 234-240. + +Kasprzyk, D., Montano, D.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). Effect of leading questions on juror's verdicts. *Jurimetrics Journal*, 16, 48-51. (American Bar Association Journal devoted to science and the law). + +Loftus, E.F. (1975, April 4). Eyewitness testimony: Does the malleable human memory interfere with legal justice? *The Daily*, University of Washington. + +· Reprinted in: *Social Action and the Law*, Newsletter, 2, 5-9. + +Loftus, E.F. (1975, October). Eyewitness. *Puget Soundings*, pp. 32-37. + +Loftus, E.F. (1975). Review of Norman & Rumelhart's Explorations In Cognition. *American Journal of Psychology*, 88, 691-694. + +Loftus, E.F. (1976). Federal regulations: Make the punishment fit the crime. *Science*, 191, 521 [Lead editorial]. + +Loftus, E.F. (1976). Organization et recuperation de l'information sur les attributs et les noms Organization and retrieval of attribute and name information]. In S. Ehrlich and E. Tulving (Eds.), *La memoire semantique. Bulletin de Psychologie*, 69-75. + +Loftus, E.F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. *Law and Psychology Review*, 2, 93-98. + +■■■■■, D.G. & Loftus, E.F. (1976). Influencing memory for people and their actions. *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 7, 9-11. + +**1977**Loftus, E.F. (1977). Shifting human color memory. *Memory and Cognition*, 5, 696-699. + +Keating, J.P. & Loftus, E.F. (1977). Vocal alarm system for high-rise buildings--a case study. *Mass Emergencies*, 2, 25-34. + +Loftus, E.F. (1977). Show to catch a zebra in semantic memory. In R. ■■■■ & J. Bransford (Eds.), *Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward An Ecological Psychology*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. + +Loftus, E.F. (1977). Follies of affirmative action. *Society*, 13, 21-24. + +Loftus, E.F. (1977). Eyewitness reports: Psychological factors and expert testimony. In *Psychology and the litigation process*. Toronto, Canada: Law Society of Upper Canada. + +Loftus, E.F. & ■■■■, W. (1977). A century of thought [A review of Meyer, R. E., *Thinking and problem solving*. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co., 1977]. *Contemporary Psychology*, 22, 691-692. + +Loftus, E.F., ■■■■, D.G., & ■■■■, H.J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory*, 4, 19-31. + +· Reprinted in: + +Gross, R.D. (1990) *Key Studies in Psychology*. London: Hodder & Stoughton Publishers. + +Shanks, D. (1997). *Human Memory: A reader*. London: Arnold (NY: St. ■■■■ Press). p. 91-107. + +Balota, D.A. & Marsh, E. J. (2004) Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings. NY: Psychology Press. p 309-320 + +Dale, P.S., Loftus, E.F., & Rathbun, L. (1978). The influence of the form of the question on the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. *Journal of Psycholinguistic Research*, 7, 269-277. + +Groner, N., Keating, J.P., & Loftus, E.F. (1978). Development of coded emergency alarms through word-association tasks. *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 11, 139-140. + +Loftus, E.F. (1978). Memory. In G. Lindzey, C. [REDACTED], & R.F. Thompson, *Psychology*. NY: Worth Publishers. + +Groner, N.E., Loftus, E.F., & Keating, J.C. (1978). Calling nurse blaze: Tailoring programs to fit human behavior. *Hospitals*, 52 (Journal of the American Hospital Association), 111-115. + +Siegel, J.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1978). Impact of anxiety and life stress on eyewitness testimony. *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 12, 479-480. + +Fishman, D.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1978). Expert testimony on eyewitness identification. *Law and Psychology Review*, 4, 87-103. + +Hastie, R., Lansman, R., & Loftus, E.F. (1978). Eyewitness testimony: The dangers of guessing. *Jurimetrics Journal*, 19, 1-8. + +Loftus, E.F. (1978). Three forms of impaired memories. (A review of A.R. Luria, *The Neuropsychology of Memory*. Washington, DC: V.H. Winston & Sons, 1976). *Contemporary Psychology*, 23, 1-2. + +MacLeod, C.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1978). Memories are made of this... (A review of C.N. Cofer (Ed.), *The Structure of Human Memory*. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976). *Contemporary Psychology*, 23, 70-71. + +Loftus, E.F. (1978). Review of J. Tough. *The Development of Meaning*. (Bristol, UK: John [REDACTED] & Sons, Ltd. Also, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1977). *Modern Language Journal*, LXII, 80-81. + +Loftus, E.F. & Fries, J.F. (1979). Informed consent may be hazardous to your health. *Science*, 204, 11, (lead editorial). Reprinted several times. (Reply: *Science*, 1979, 205, 644-647). + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). The malleability of human memory. *American Scientist*, 67, 312-320. Reprinted several times. + +Powers, P.A., Andriks, J.L., & Loftus, E.F. (1979). The eyewitness accounts of females and males. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 64, 339-347. + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. *Memory and Cognition*, 7, 368-374. + +Fries, J.F. & Loftus, E.F. (1979). Informed consent: Right or rite? *Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians*, 29, 316-318. + +Gentner, D. & Loftus, E.F. (1979). Integration of verbal and visual information as evidenced by distortions in picture memory. *American Journal of Psychology*, 92, 363-375. + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). Insurance advertising and jury awards. *American Bar Association Journal*, 65, 68-70. [REDACTED], W.G. & Loftus, E.F. (1979). Incorporating new information into memory. *American Journal of Psychology*, 92, 413-425. + +Hilgard, E. & Loftus, E.F. (1979). Effective interrogation of the eyewitness. *International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis*, 27, 342-357. + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). Words that could save your life. *Psychology Today*, 13, 102-110, 136-137. + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). Eyewitness reliability. Review of *The Psychology of Person Identification* by B.R. Clifford & R. Bull. *Science*, 205, 386-387. + +Loftus, E.F. (1979). Review of *Social Psychology in Court* by M. Saks & R. Hastie, *Clinical Law Reporter*, 3, 31-33. + +Loftus, E.F. & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence. *American Psychologist*, 35, 270-283. + +Loftus, E.F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 56, 9-15. + +Loftus, E.F. (1980). Alcohol, marijuana and memory. *Psychology Today*, 13, 42-56, 92. + +Loftus, G.R. & Loftus, E.F. (1980). Visual perception: The shifting domain of discourse. *The Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 3, 391-392. + +Loftus, E.F. (1980). Psychological aspects of courtroom testimony. In F. [REDACTED], C. Bahn, & R.W. Rieber (Eds.), *Forensic psychology and psychiatry*. NY: New York Academy of Sciences. P 27-37. + +Loftus, E.F. & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. *American Psychologist*, 35, 409-420. + +--Reprinted in: Honeck, R.P. (Ed) (1994) *Introductory readings for Cognitive Psychology*, 2nd Ed. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group Inc., Chapter 12, p 1136-130 + +Loftus, E.F. (1980). The eyewitness on trial. *Trial*, 1980, 16, 30-35, 80-81. Expanded version in J. Taylor (Ed.), *Recent Developments in the Law of Evidence*. Vancouver: Butterworths. + +Loftus, E.F. (1980). Language and memories in the judicial system. In R. Shuy & A. Shnukal (Eds.), *Language use and the uses of language* (pp. 257-268). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], E., & [REDACTED], K.H. (1980). How deep is the meaning of life? *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 15, 282-284. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. *Law and Human Behavior*, 4, 323-334. + +[REDACTED], E., Manber, M., & Loftus, E.F. (1980). Witnesses to fires. In *Fire-related Human Behavior*. Washington, DC: Open Learning Fire Service Program. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1980). Review of *The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony* by A.D. Yarmey. The Free Press, 1979. *Journal of Criminal Justice*, 4, 264-266. + +**1981** + +Loftus, E.F. (1981). Reconstructive memory processes in eyewitness testimony. In B.D. Sales (Ed.), *The trial process* (pp. 115-144). NY: Plenum Press. + +[REDACTED], E. & Loftus, E.F. (1981) Distortions in eye witness memory. *Directions in Psychology*. Piscatay, NJ: Pro Scientia. + +Loftus, E.F. & Scott, G.R. (1981). *Memory, Yearbook of Science and Technology*. NY: McGraw [REDACTED]. + +Keating, J.P. & Loftus, E.F. (1981). The logic of fire escape. *Psychology Today*, 15, 14-19. + +Loftus, E.F. (1981). Natural and unnatural cognition. *Cognition*, 10, 193-196. + +Loftus, E.F. (1981). Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Research and Legal Thought. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), *Crime and justice--An annual review of research* (Vol. III, pp. 105-151). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. + +Loftus, E.F. (1981). Mentalmorphosis: Alterations in memory produced by the mental bonding of new information to old. In J.B. Long and A.D. Baddeley (Eds.), *Attention and performance, IX*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. + +Loftus, E.F. (1981). Hear ye, hear ye. (Review of Atkinson, J.M. & Drew, P. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1979). *Contemporary Psychology*, 26, 141-142. + +[REDACTED], E. & Loftus, E.F. (1981). The person-perceiver as information-processor. [Review of Hastie et al. (Eds.)], *Person Memory*. Erlbaum, 1980). *Contemporary Psychology*, 26, 343-345. + +**1982** + +Monahan, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). The psychology of law. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 33, 441-475. + +Loftus, E.F. (1982). Remembering recent experiences. In L.S. Cermak (Ed.), *Human Memory and Amnesia*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. + +Penrod, S., Loftus, E., & [REDACTED], J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony. A psychological perspective. In R. [REDACTED] and N. Kerr (Eds.), *The Psychology of the Courtroom*. NY: Academic Press. + +[REDACTED], E., Flynn, M.S., & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 21, 207-219. + +Loftus, E.F. (1982). Memory and its distortions. In A.G. Kraut (Ed.), *G. Stanley [REDACTED] Lectures* (pp. 123-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Assn. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], D.F. (1982). Memory changes in eyewitness accounts. In A. Trankell (Ed.), *Reconstructing the Past* (pp. 189-203). Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Sons. + +Deffenbacher, K.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? *Law and Human Behavior*, 6, 15-30. + +Loftus, E.F. (1982). Interrogating eyewitnesses--good questions and bad. In R.M. Hogarth (Ed.), *New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Question framing and response consistency* (pp. 51-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. + +[REDACTED], L.J. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Improving jurors' abilities to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. *Law and Society Review*, 17, 153-197. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], T.E. (1982). Mental shock can produce retrograde amnesia. *Memory and Cognition*, 10, 318-323. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], L.J. (1982). Improving jury instructions. *Washington State Bar Journal*, July, 16-19. + +[REDACTED], E. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Eyewitness testimony: Constructive processes in human memory. In *Advances in Psychology* (Vol. 1). Villanova, PA: ProScientia, Inc. + +Loftus, E.F. & Beach, L.R. (1982). Human inference and judgment: Is the [REDACTED] half empty or half full? *Stanford Law Review*, 34, 901-918. + +Loftus, E.F. (1983). Misfortunes of memory. *Philosophical Transactions of the [REDACTED] Society*. London, 302, 413-421. + +Loftus, E.F. (1983). Silence is not golden. *American Psychologist*, 38, 564-572. + +Loftus, E.F. (1983). Whose shadow is crooked? *American Psychologist*, 38, 576-577. + +Loftus, E.F. & Marburger, W. (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, did anyone beat you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark events. *Memory and Cognition*, II, 114-120. + +Loftus, E.F., Manber, M., & Keating, J.P. (1983). Recollection of naturalistic events: Context enhancement versus negative cueing. *Human Learning*, 2, 83-92. + +Loftus, E.F., Ketcham, K.E. (1983). The malleability of eyewitness accounts. In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), *Evaluating Witness Evidence* (pp. 157-172). London: Wiley. + +Loftus, E.F. (1983). *Memory. The World Book Encyclopedia* (Vol. 13, pp. 318-320). Chicago: World Book, Inc. + +Keating, J.P., Loftus, E.F., & Manber, M. (1983). Emergency evaluations during fires: Psychological considerations. In R.F. Kidd & M. J. Saks (Eds.), *Advances in Applied Social Psychology* (Vol 2. pp. 83-99). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. + +Loftus, E.F., Goodman, J., & Nagatkin, C. (1983). Examining witnesses--good advice and bad. In R.J. Matlon & R.J. Crawford (Eds.), *Communication Strategies in the Practice of Lawyering* (pp. 292-317). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1983). Review of "Reconstructing reality in the courtroom." *Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology*, 74, 315-328. + +[REDACTED], D.F. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). The fate of memory: Discoverable or doomed? In N. Butters & L. Squire (Eds.), *Neuropsychology of Memory* (pp. 25-32). NY: Guilford Press. + +[REDACTED], E. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). What's new in the news? The influence of well publicized news events on psychological research and courtroom trials. *Basic and Applied Social Psychology*, 5, 211-221. + +[REDACTED], L.J. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Improving criminal justice: Making jury instructions understandable for American jurors. *International Review of Applied Psychology*, 33, 97-119. + +Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Hunt, E.B. (1984). Broadbent's Maltese cross memory model: Something old, something new, something borrowed, something missing. *The Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 7, 73-74. + +[REDACTED], L., [REDACTED], E., & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. *Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology*, 75, 198-233. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], G.M. (1984). Distortions in the memory of children. *Journal of Social Issues*, 40, 51-67. + +Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Social science looks at witness examination. *Trial*, 20, 52-57. + +Loftus, E.F. (1984). Eyewitnesses: Essential but unreliable. *Psychology Today*, 18 (Feb.), 22-26. + +Wells, G.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Eyewitness research: Then and now. In G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (Eds.), *Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives* (pp. 1-11). NY: Cambridge University Press. + +[REDACTED], D.F., Loftus, E.F., & Tousignant, J.P. (1984). Post-event information and changes in recollection for a natural event. In G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (Eds.), *Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives* (pp. 124-141). NY: Cambridge University Press. + +Loftus, E.F. (1984). Expert testimony on the eyewitness. In G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (Eds.), *Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives*. NY: Cambridge University Press, 273-282. + +Loftus, E.F. & Yuille, J.C. (1984). Departures from reality in human perception and memory. In W. Weingartner & E.S. [REDACTED] (Eds.), *Human Memory Consolidation: Toward a Psychobiology of Cognition* (pp. 163-183). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. + +Fathi, D., Schooler, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Moving survey problems into the Cognitive Psychology Laboratory. *Proceedings of the Survey Research Section*. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 19-21. + +Loftus, E.F., Keating, J.P., & Manber, M. (1984). Communicating with people during emergencies. In L. Sproull & P. Larkey (Eds.), *Information Processing in Organizations* (pp. 33-44). Greenwich, CO: JAI Publishing. + +Wilson, L. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Now you will remember everything. *Contemporary Psychology*, 29, 462-463. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1984). Twelve angry people: The collective mind of the jury. *Columbia Law Review*, 84, 1425-1434. + +[REDACTED], D.E. & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Research on eyewitness testimony: Recent advances and current controversy. In D.J. [REDACTED], D.E. Blackman, & A.J. Chapman (Eds.), *Psychology and Law*, (pp. 199-213). London: Wiley. + +Loftus, E.F. & Schooler, J.W. (1984). Recoding processes in memory. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 7, 246-247. + +Loftus, E.F., Fienberg, S.E., & Tanur, J.M. (1985). Cognitive psychology meets the national survey. *American Psychologist*, 40, 175-180. + +Loftus, E.F., Schooler, J.W., & Wagenaar, W.A. (1985). The fate of memory. Comment on McCloskey & Zaragoza. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 114, 375-380. + +Loftus, E.F., Schooler, J.W., Loftus, G.R., & Glauber, D.T. (1985). Memory for events occurring under anesthesia. *Acta Psychologica*, 59, 123-128. + +Loftus, E.F. & Fathi, D. (1985). Retrieving multiple autobiographical memories, *Social Cognition*, 3, 280-295. + +[REDACTED], E. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. *Law and Human Behavior*, 9, 171-186. + +[REDACTED], R.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). Eyewitness performance in different psychological types. *Journal of General Psychology*, 112, 191-200. + +Loftus, E.F. (1985). To file, perchance to cheat. *Psychology Today*, 19, 34-39. + +[REDACTED], D.F. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). Recent advances in research on eyewitness testimony. In C.P. Ewing (Ed.), *Psychology, Psychiatry and the Law: A Clinical and Forensic Handbook* (pp. 417-439). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange. + +Loftus, E.F. & Goodman, J. (1985). Questioning witnesses. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), *The Psychology of Evidence and Courtroom Procedure* (pp. 253-279). Beverly Hills: Sage. + +[REDACTED], E., Schooler, J.W., & Loftus, E.F. (1985). Expert testimony. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), *The Psychology of Evidence and Courtroom Procedure* (pp. 201-228). Beverly Hills: Sage. + +Fienberg, S.E., Loftus, E.F., & Tanur, J.M. (1985). Cognitive aspects of health survey methodology. *Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly*, 63, 547-564. + +Fienberg, S.E., Loftus, E.F., & Tanur, J.M. (1985). Recalling pain and other symptoms. *Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly*, 63, 582-597. + +Fienberg, S.E., Loftus, E.F., & Tanur, J.M. (1985). Cognitive aspects of health surveys for public information and policy. *Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly*, 63, 598-614. + +Goodman, J., [REDACTED], E., & Loftus, E.F. (1985). What confuses jurors in complex cases. *Trial*, November, 65-74. + +Bell, B.E. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. *Journal of Personality Assessment*, 49, 659-664. + +Camper, P.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1985). The role of psychologists as expert witnesses: No more Daniels in the lions' den. *Law and Psychology Review*, 9, 1-13. + +Loftus, E.F. & Schooler, J.W. (1985). Information-Processing Conceptualizations of Human Cognition: Past, present, and future. In B.D. Ruben (Ed.), *Information and Behavior* (Vol. I, pp. 225-250). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. + +Schooler, J.W., Gerhard, D., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Qualities of the unreal. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition*, 12, 171-181. + +Tousignant, J.P., [REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading post-event information. *Memory and Cognition*, 14, 329-338. + +Schooler, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Individual differences and experimentation: Complementary approaches to interrogative suggestibility. *Social Behaviour*, 1, 105-112. + +Loftus, E.F. & Leber, D. (1986). Do jurors talk? *Trial*, 22, 59-60. + +Loftus, E.F. (1986). Ten years in the life of an expert witness. *Law and Human Behavior*, 10, 241-263. (Presidential Address, Div 41, APA). + +Franklin, K.C. & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Law errs in assumptions about memory. *Syllabus* (An American Bar Assn. Journal), March, 17, 7. + +Wilson, L., [REDACTED], E., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Beliefs about forensic hypnosis. *International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis*, 34, 110-121. + +Loftus, E.F. (1986). Experimental psychologist as advocate or impartial educator. *Law and Human Behavior*, 10, 63-78. + +Caddy, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Forensic Practice. In G. S. Tryon (Ed.) *The Professional Practice of Psychology*. p 130-159. New Jersey: Norwood. + +1987Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. *Law and Human Behavior*, 11, 55-62. + +Loftus, E.F., Schooler, J.W., Boone, S.M., & [REDACTED], D. (1987). Time went by so slowly: Overestimation of event duration by males and females. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 1, 3-13. + +[REDACTED], C.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1987). The memory of children. In S. Ceci, M. Toglia, & D. [REDACTED] (Eds.), *Children's Eyewitness Memory* (pp. 178-208). NY: Springer-Verlag. + +Schooler, J.W. & Loftus, E.F. (1987). Memory. In *Encyclopedia of Science and Technology* (Vol. 1, pp. 584-587). NY: McGraw-Hill. + +Loftus, E.F., Banaji, M.R., Schooler, J.W., & [REDACTED], R.A. (1987). Who remembers what? Gender differences in memory. *Michigan Quarterly Review*, 26, 64-85. + +[REDACTED], D.F., McFeaters, S.J., & Loftus, E.F. (1987). Alterations in recollection of unusual and unexpected events. *Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration*, 1, 3-10. + +Loftus, E.F. & Schneider, N.G. (1987). Challenging eyewitness testimony. *Trial*, 23, 40-44. + +Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1987). How to play to the jury you select--in complex and other cases. *Criminal Justice*, 2 (Spring), 2-5, 42-43. + +Christianson, S. & Loftus, E.F. (1987). Memory for traumatic events. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 1, 225-239. + +Loftus, E.F. (1987). Trials of an Expert Witness. *Newsweek* (My Turn Column), June 29, 10-11. + +Loftus, E.F. & Schneider, N.G. (1987). Behold with strange surprise: Judicial reactions to expert testimony concerning eyewitness testimony. *University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review*, 56, 1-45. (Based on Annual [REDACTED] Lectureship). + +· Reprinted in *Criminal Practice Law Review* (1988), 1, 1-51. + +Loftus, E.F. (1987). Psychology and law. In F. Farley & C.H. Null (Eds.), *Using Psychological Science: Making the Public Case* (pp. 69-78). Washington, D.C.: Federation of Behavioral Psychological Cognitive Sciences. + +Loftus, E.F. (1987) Eyewitness testimony and event perception. *University of Bridgeport Law Review*, 8, 7-13. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (1988). *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*, 1988 Supplement. Kluwer Law Books, 1-37. + +Bell, B. & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology*, 18, 1171-1192. + +Schooler, J.W., [REDACTED], R.A., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Some deleterious consequences of the act of recollection. *Memory and Cognition*, 16, 243-251. + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], K.D., [REDACTED], D.A., & Fiedler, J. (1988). Remembering "when": Errors in dating of autobiographical memories. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes (Eds.), *Practical Aspects of Memory* (pp. 234-240). NY: Wiley. + +Schooler, J.W., Clark, C., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Knowing when memory is real. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes (Eds.), *Practical Aspects of Memory* (pp. 83-88). NY: Wiley. + +Wells, G.L., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Eyewitness testimony. *International Encyclopedia of Communications*. Annenberg School of Communications and Oxford University Press. + +McSpadden, M., Schooler, J.W., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Here today, gone tomorrow: The appearance and disappearance of context effects. In G. [REDACTED] and D. Thomson (Eds.), *Memory in Context: Context in Memory* (pp. 215-229). Sussex, England. + +Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1988). The relevance of expert testimony on eyewitness testimony. *Journal of Interpersonal Violence*, 3, 115-121. + +Loftus, E.F., Bell, B.E., & [REDACTED], K.D. (1988). Powerful Eyewitness testimony. *Trial*, 24, 64-66. + +Loftus, E.F. & Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Lawyers' predictions of success. *Jurimetrics Journal*. (ABA Journal devoted to law, science, and technology), 28, 437-453. + +Bell, B. & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 56, 669-679. + +Loftus, E.F. & Hoffman, H.G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 118, 100-104. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (1989). *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 1989 Supplement. Michie Co.: Charlottesville, VA, 1-65. + +Loftus, E.F., Donders, K., Hoffman, H.G., & Schooler, J.W. (1989). Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held. *Memory and Cognition*, 17, 607-616. + +[REDACTED], E., Wilson, L., & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Impact of hypnotic testimony on the jury. *Law and Human Behavior*, 13, 61-78. + +Loftus, E.F. & Christianson, S.A. (1989). Malleability of memory for emotional events. In T. Archer & L. Nilsson (Eds.), *Aversively Motivated Behavior* (pp. 311-322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press. + +Loftus, E.F. (1989). Distortions in eyewitness memory from post-event information. In H. Wegener, F. Losel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), *Criminal Behavior and the Justice System: Psychological Perspectives* (pp. 242-53). NY: Springer-Verlag. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1989). Eyewitness identification. In W.G. [REDACTED] (Ed.), *The Encyclopedia of Police Science* (pp. 183-186). New York: Garland. + +Loftus, E.F., Korf, N., & Schooler, J.W. (1989). Misguided memories: Sincere distortions of reality. In J. Yuille (Ed.), *Credibility Assessment* (pp. 155-173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], E., & [REDACTED], J.M (1989). The psychology of eyewitness testimony. In D.C. [REDACTED] (Ed.), *Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence*, (Chap. 1, pp. 3-45). NY: Springer. + +Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Implications of facial memory research for investigative and administrative criminal procedures. In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (Eds.), *Handbook of Research on Face Processing* (pp. 571-579). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. + +Loftus, E.F. & Banaji, M. (1989). Memory modification and the role of the media. In V.A. Gheorghiu, P. Netter, H.J. Eysenck, & R. Rosenthal (Eds.), *Suggestibility: Theory and Research*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, p. 279-294. + +Loftus, E.F. & Goodman, J. (1989). Is the verdict in on the American jury? (Review of Kassin & Wrightsman). *Contemporary Psychology*, 34, 819-820. + +Goodman, J., [REDACTED], E., & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Runaway verdicts or reasoned determinations: Mock juror strategies in awarding damages. *Jurimetrics Journal*, 29, 285-309. + +Loftus, E.F. (1989). Mind games: China's rulers changing memories. *Sunday Times Union*, Albany, NY, p. D1, 6. + +Loftus, E.F., Klinger, M.R., [REDACTED], K.D., & Fiedler, J. (1990). A tale of two questions: Benefits of asking more than one question. *Public Opinion Quarterly*, 054, 330-345. + +Raitz, A., [REDACTED], E. Goodman, J., & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. *Law and Human Behavior*, 14, 385-395. + +Christianson, S., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Eyewitness testimony. In Eysenck, M. (Ed.), *The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology*. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell, Ltd, 142-144. + +Goodman, J., Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E. (1990). A matter of money: Voir dire in civil cases. *Forensic Reports*, 3, 303-330. + +Moran, G., Cutler, B.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. *Forensic Reports*, 3, 331-348. + +Christianson, S.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Some characteristics of peoples' traumatic memories. *Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society*, 28(3), 195-198. + +Jobe, J. [REDACTED], A.A., Kelley, C.L., Mingay, D.J., [REDACTED], M.J., & Loftus, E.F. (1990) Recall strategies and memory for health care visits., *Millbank Quarterly*, 68, 171-189. + +Wagenaar, W.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1990) Ten cases of eyewitness identification: logical problems and procedural problems. *Journal of Criminal Justice*, 18, 291-319. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (1990). *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 1990 Supplement. Michie Co.: Charlottesville, VA, 1-84. + +Christianson, S.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information. *Cognition and Emotion*, 5, 81-108. + +Loftus, E.F. (1991) Made in Memory: Distortions of recollection after misleading information. In G. Bower (Ed.) *Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, 27, 187-215. NY: Academic Press. + +Loftus, E.F. (1991) The glitter of everyday memory research...and the gold. *American Psychologist*, 46, 16-18. + +Christianson, S.A., Loftus, E.F., Hoffman, H., & Loftus, G.R. (1991) Eye fixations and accuracy in detail memory of emotional versus neutral events. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition*, 17, 693-701. + +Means, B. & Loftus, E.F. (1991). When personal history repeats itself: Decomposing memories for recurrent events. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 5, 297-318. + +Loftus, E.F. & Ceci, S.J. (1991). Research findings: What do they mean? In J. Doris (Ed.) *The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections*. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 129-133. + +Wells, G.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1991). Is this child fabricating?: Reactions to new assessment technique. In J. Doris (Ed.) *The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections*. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 168-171. + +Toland,K., Hoffman, H. & Loftus, E.F. (1991). How suggestion plays tricks with memory. In J.F.Schumaker, (Ed.) *Human Suggestibility: Advances in Theory, Research, and Application*. NY: Routledge, p. 235-252.. + +Jobe, J. & Loftus, E.F. (Eds.) (1991) Cognition and Survey Measurement. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 5 (special issue). + +Loftus, E.F. (1991) When words speak louder than actions: Suggestibility about what happened? In J. Doris (Ed.) *The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections*. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, p. 56-59. + +[REDACTED], E., Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1991) Jurors' attitudes about civil litigation and the size of damage awards. *American University Law Review*, 40, 805-820. + +Loftus, E.F. (1991) Resolving legal questions with psychological data. *American Psychologist*, 46, 1046-1048. + +Goodman, J. Loftus, E.F., Lee, M., & [REDACTED], E. (1991) Money, sex and death: Gender bias in wrongful death damage awards. *Law and Society Review*, 25, 263-285. + +Hoffman, H.G., Loftus, E.F., Greenmun, G.N. & Dashiell, R.L. (1991) Die Erzeugung von Fehlinformation (The generation of misinformation). *Gruppendynamik* 22 Jahrg., Heft 2. 161-173. + +Wertheimer, M., Hilgard, E.R., Spilka, B, Tyler, L.E., Norman, R.D., Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], M.B.. Ellis, H.C., Wollersheim, J.P., Kendler, H.H. (1991) A tale of two regions: The Rocky Mountains and the US Western. *Zeitschrift fur Psychologie*, 199, 107-119 and 191-204. + +Loftus, E.F., Levidow, B & Duensing, S. (1992) Who remembers best? Individual differences in memory for events that occurred in a science museum. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 6, 93-107. + +[REDACTED], L., Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1992) Inferring the Criminal Mind: Towards a bridge between legal doctrine and psychological understanding. *Journal of Criminal Justice*, 20, 15-27. + +Loftus, E.F. & Klinger, M.R. (1992) Is the unconscious smart or dumb? *American Psychologist*, 47,761-765. + +Loftus, E.F. & Leitner, R. (1992) Reconstructive Memory. In L.R. Squire, J.H. Byrne, L. Nadel, H.L. Roediger, D.L. Schacter & R.F. Thompson (Eds.) *Encyclopedia of Learning and Memory*. NY: MacMillan, Vol I. + +Abelson, R.P., Loftus, E.F. & Greenwald, A.G. (1992) Attempts to improve the accuracy of self-reports of voting. In J.M. Tanur (Ed.) *Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys*. NY: [REDACTED] Sage, 138-153. + +Croyle, R. & Loftus, E.F. (1992) Improving episodic memory performance on survey respondents. In J.M. Tanur (Ed.) *Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys*. NY: [REDACTED] Sage, 95-101. + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], K., Klinger, M. & Fiedler, J. (1992) Memory and mismemory for health events. In J.M. Tanur (Ed.) *Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys*. NY: [REDACTED] Sage, 102-137. + +Goodman, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1992). Judgment and memory: The role of expert testimony on eyewitness accuracy. In P. Tetlock and P. Suedfeld (Eds.), *Psychology and Social Policy*, 267-282. Wash, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. + +Christianson, S.A., Goodman, J. & Loftus E.F. (1992) Eyewitness memory for traumatic events: Methodological quandaries and ethical dilemmas. In Christianson, S.A. (ed.) *Handbook of Emotion and Memory*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 217-241. + +Fruzzetti, A.E., Toland, K., Teller, S.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1992). Memory and eyewitness testimony. In Gruneberg, M. & Morris, P. (Eds.) *Aspects of Memory*. London: Routledge, 18-50 + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], L. (1992) Why do traumatic experiences sometimes produce good memory (flashbulbs) and sometimes no memory (repression)? In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.) *Affect and Accuracy in Recall: The Problem of "Flashbulb" memories*. NY: Cambridge University Press, 212-223. + +Loftus, E.F., Hoffman, H., & Wagenaar, W.A. (1992). The misinformation effect: Transformations in memory induced by postevent information. In M.L. Howe, C.J. Brainerd, and V.F. Reyna (Eds.) *Development of Long-Term Retention*. NY: Springer. pp. 159-183. + +[REDACTED], K.D., Loftus, E.F., & Deffenbacher, K.A. (1992) Eyewitness evidence and testimony. In D.K. Kagehiro & N.S. Laufer (Eds.), *Handbook of Psychology and Law*. NY: Springer-Verlag, 141-166. + +Loftus, E.F. (1992) When a lie becomes memory's truth. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 1, 121-123. + +· Reprinted in: Honeck, R.P. (1998) *Introductory Readings for Cognitive Psychology*, 3rd Ed. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, chapter 12, 116-120. + +Berliner, L. & Loftus, E.F. (1992) Sexual abuse accusations: Desperately seeking reconciliation. *Journal of Interpersonal Violence*, 7, 570-578. + +Loftus, E.F. & Rosenwald, L.A. (1992) Damage Control: How to reduce guesswork and bias in jury awards. *Trial Diplomacy Journal*, 15, 183-188. + +Hoffman, H.G., Loftus, E.F., Greenmun, G.N. & Dashiell, R.L. (1992) The generation of misinformation. In Losel, F., Bender, D., & Bliesener, T. (Eds.) (1992) *Psychology and Law: International perspectives*. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p.292-301. (English translation of German publication from 1991). + +Loftus, E.F. (1993) Desperately seeking memories of the first few years of childhood: The reality of early memories. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 122, 274-277. + +Loftus, E.F. (1993) The reality of repressed memories. *American Psychologist*, 48, 518-537. + +· Reprinted in: Hertzig, M.E. & Farber, E.A. (Eds.) (1995) *Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development 1994: A selection of the year's outstanding contributions to the understanding and* + +Blake, T. (Ed.) *Enduring Issues in Psychology*. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. + +Croyle, R.T. & Loftus, E.F. (1993) Recollection in the kingdom of AIDS. In D.G. Ostrow & R. Kessler (Eds.) *Methodological Issues in AIDS Behavioral Research*. NY: Plenum. p 163-180. + +Croyle, R.T., Loftus, E.F., Klinger, M.R., & [REDACTED], K.D. (1993) Reducing errors in health-related memories. Progress and prospects. In J.R. Schement & B.D. Ruben (Eds.) *Between Communication and Information: Information and Behavior*, Vol IV, pp. 255-268. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. + +Schooler, J.W. & Loftus, E.F. (1993). Multiple mechanisms mediate individual differences in eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. In J.M. Puckett & H.W. Reese (Eds.). *Life-span Developmental Psychology: Mechanisms of everyday cognition*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p. 177-203. + +Loftus, E.F. & Rosenwald, L.A. (1993) Buried Memories/shattered lives. *American Bar Association Journal*, 79, 70-73. + +Loftus, E.F. & Rosenwald, L.A. (1993) The Rodney [REDACTED] Videotape: Why the case was not black and [REDACTED]. *University of Southern California Law Review*, 66, 1637-1645. + +Loftus, E.F. (1993) Repressed memories of childhood trauma: Are they genuine? *Harvard Medical School Mental Health Letter*, 9(9), 4-5. + +Loftus, E.F. (1993) The theory behind witnessing events, and the practice. In [REDACTED], G. & Logie, R. (Eds.) *Memory in Everyday Life*. North Holland, chapter 9, 402-407. + +Ernsdorff, G. & Loftus, E.F. (1993) Let sleeping memories lie?: Words of caution about tolling the statute of limitations in cases of memory repression. *Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology*, 84, 129-174. + +Loftus, E.F. (1993) Psychologists in the Eyewitness World. *American Psychologist*, 48, 550-552. + +Loftus, E.F., Weingardt, K.R., & Hoffman, H.G. (1993). Sleeping memories on trial: Reactions to memories that were previously repressed. *Expert Evidence: The International Digest of Human Behaviour Science and Law*, 2, 51-59. + +Loftus, E.F. (1993, June 27) You must remember this...or do you? How real are repressed memories? *Washington Post*, p.C1-C2. (Invited editorial). + +Garry, M. & Loftus E.F. (1993) Repressed memories of childhood trauma: Could some of them be suggested? *USA Today Magazine* (Society for the Advancement of Education), 122, 82-84. + +**1994** + +Weingardt, K.R., Leonesio, R.J., & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Viewing eyewitness research from a metacognitive perspective. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.) *Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 157-184. + +[REDACTED], R.A., Libkuman, T.M., Schooler, J.W., & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 8, 107-121. + +Loftus, E.F., Polonsky, S., & Fullilove, M.T. (1994) Memories of childhood sexual abuse: remembering and repressing. *Psychology of Women Quarterly*, 18, 67-84. + +[REDACTED], K.D. & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Eyewitness testimony. In Ramachandran, V.S. (Ed) *Encyclopedia of Human Behavior*, Vol I. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. + +Croyle, R.T. & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Psychology and the Law. In Colman, A.M. (Ed.) *Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology*, Vol. 2. London: Routledge, p. 1028-1045. + +· Reprinted in: Coleman, A.M. (Ed.) (1995) *Controversies in Psychology*. London: Longman, pp. 58-75. + +Loftus, E.F. (1994) Therapeutic recollection of childhood abuse: When a memory may not be a memory? *The Champion* (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), Vol. XVIII, 2, 5-10. + +Loftus, E.F. (1994) We need to be concerned about ‘altered’ memories. [REDACTED] *University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter*, April, 10, 3. + +Loftus, E.F., Garry, M., [REDACTED], S.W., & Rader, M. (1994) Near-natal memories, past-life memories, and other memory myths. *American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis*, 36, 176-179. + +Loftus, E.F., Garry, M., & [REDACTED], J. (1994) Forgetting sexual trauma. *Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology*, 62, 1177-1181. + +· Reprinted in: Baker, R.A. (Ed). (1998) Child sexual abuse and false memory syndrome. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. + +Loftus, E.F. (1994) The repressed memory controversy. *American Psychologist*, 49, 443-445. + +Loftus, E.F. (1994) Tricked by memory. In J. Jeffrey and G. Edwall (Eds). *Memory and History: Essays on recalling and interpreting experience*. NY: University Press of America. p. 17-29. + +Garry, M., Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], S.W. (1994) Memory: A river runs through it. *Consciousness and Cognition*, 3, 438-451. + +Belli, R.F. & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Recovered memories of childhood abuse: A source monitoring perspective. In [REDACTED], S.J. & Rhue, J. (Eds.) *Dissociation: Theory, clinical, and research perspectives*. NY: Guilford Press, p. 415-433. + +Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Pseudomemories without hypnosis. *International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol. XLII*, 363-378. + +Weingardt, K.R., Toland, H.K., & Loftus, E.F. (1994) Reports of suggested memories: Do people truly believe them? In D. [REDACTED], J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia (Eds.) *Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments*. NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 3-26. + +Ceci, S.J. & Loftus, E.F. (1994) "Memory work": A [REDACTED] road to false memories? *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 8, 351-364. + +· Reprinted in Honech, R.P. (1998) Introductory readings for Cognitive Psychology, 3rd Ed. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, Chapter 31, 267-277. + +Ceci, S.J., Loftus, E.F., Leichtman, M.D., & Bruck, M. (1994) The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. *International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol. XLII*, 304-320. + +Ceci, S.J., Huffman, M.L.C., [REDACTED], E., and Loftus, E.F. (1994) Repeatedly thinking about a non-event: Source misattributions among preschoolers. *Consciousness and Cognition*, 3, 388-407. + +Weingardt, K.R., Loftus, E.F., & Lindsay, D.S. (1995) Misinformation revisited: New evidence on the suggestibility of memory. *Memory & Cognition*, 23 (1), 72-82. + +Loftus, E.F., Milo, E.M., & Paddock, J.R. (1995) The accidental executioner: Why psychotherapy must be informed by science. *The Counseling Psychologist*, 23, 300-309. + +Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995) The formation of false memories. *Psychiatric Annals*, 25, 720-725. + +· Reprinted in: *Psykologia*, 1997, 32 (2). (Published in Finnish, pages 112a-112k). + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J., & Dashiell, R. (1995) The reality of illusory memories. In Schacter, D.L., Coyle, J.T., Fishbach, G.D., Mesulam, M.M., and [REDACTED], L.E. (Eds). *Memory Distortion: How minds, brains and societies reconstruct the past*. Cambridge, [REDACTED]: Harvard University Press, p. 47-68 + +Loftus, E.F. (1995) Remembering dangerously. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 19, 20-29. + +Loftus, E.F. (1995) Memory malleability: Constructivist and fuzzy-trace explanations. *Learning and Individual Differences*, 7, 133-137.. + +Clark, S.E. & Loftus, E.F. (1995) The psychological pay-dirt of space-alien abduction memories. Review of Mack, J. (1995) Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. *Contemporary Psychology*, 40, 861-863. + +Loftus, E.F. & Yapko, M. (1995) Psychotherapy and the recovery of repressed memories. In Ney, T. (Ed.) *Allegations in Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment and case management*. Brunner/Mazel, p. 176-191. + +Leichtman, M.D., Loftus, E.F., & Ceci, S.J. (1995) Current issues in early eyewitness memory. *Scalpel and Quill: Bulletin of the Pittsburgh Institute of Legal Medicine*, 30, 1-71. (Copies available from Pittsburgh Institute of Legal Medicine, 1200 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15219). + +Loftus, E.F. (1995, August 25) The truth, the whole truth and & nothing but the truth? *Los Angeles Times*, p. B 9. (Invited editorial; Reprinted in newspapers in Minneapolis, Buffalo and elsewhere) + +Loftus, E.F. (1995) Afterword to [REDACTED], C.A., *Satanic ritual abuse*. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 203-209. + +Loftus, E.F. & Rosenwald, L.A. (1995, Fall) Recovered memories: unearthing the past in court. *Journal of Psychiatry & Law*, 349-361. + +Garry, M., [REDACTED], C., Loftus, E.F., & Sherman, S.J. (1996) Imagination Inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. *Psychonomic Bulletin and Review*, 3, 208-214. + +Loftus, E.F., Paddock, J.R. & Guernsey, T.F. (1996) Patient-psychotherapist privilege: Access to clinical records in the tangled web of repressed memory litigation. *University of Richmond Law Review*, 30, 109-154. (Special issue devoted to [REDACTED] Chair recipients.) + +Belli, R.F. & Loftus, E.F. (1996) The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. In David C. Rubin (Ed.) *Remembering our past*, 157-179. NY: Cambridge University Press. + +Loftus, E.F., Coan, J.A. & Pickrell, J.E. (1996) Manufacturing false memories using bits of reality. In L. M. Reder (Ed.) *Implicit memory and metacognition*. Mahwah, NJ: [REDACTED] Erlbaum Associates, pp. 195-220. + +[REDACTED], C.G. & Loftus, E.F. (1996) Eyewitness testimony and memory distortion. *Japanese Psychological Research*, 38,5-13 (Invited Paper) + +Loftus, E.F. (1996) Repressed Memory Litigation: Court cases and scientific findings on illusory memory. *Washington State Bar News*, 50, 15-25. + +Loftus, E.F. (1996) The myth of repressed memory and the realities of science. *Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice*, 3, 356-362. + +Loftus, E.F. (1996) Memory distortion and false memory creation. *Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law*, 24, 281-295. + +[REDACTED], C.G. & Loftus, E.F. (1996) Memory. *McGraw-Harcourt*, 1997 *Yearbook of Science & Technology*. NY: McGraw-Harcourt, p. 299-301. + +Clark, S.E. & Loftus, E.F. (1996) The construction of space alien abduction memories. *Psychological Inquiry*, 7, 140-143. + +Loftus, E. F., & [REDACTED], J. M. (1996). *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 1996 Cumulative Supplement. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Company, 1-49. + +Mazzoni, G. A. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1996). When dreams become reality. *Consciousness & Cognition*, 5, 442-462. + +Gilligan, F. A., Imwinkelried, E. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1996) The theory of 'unconscious transference': The latest threat to the shield laws protecting the privacy of victims of sex offenses. *Boston College Law Review*, 38, p. 107-144. + +Hyman, I. & Loftus, E.F. (1997) Some people recover memories of childhood trauma that never really happened. In Paul S. Appelbaum, Lisa A. Uyehara, Mark R. Elin (Eds) *Trauma and Memory: Clinical and Legal Controversies*. NY: Oxford University Press. p. 3-24. + +Garry, M., Loftus, E. F., DuBreuil, S. C., & [REDACTED], S. W. (1997) Womb with a view: Memory beliefs and memory-work experiences. In D. G. Payne & F. G. Conrad (Eds.) *Intersections in Basic & Applied Memory Research*. Mahwah, NJ: [REDACTED] Erlbaum Associates, p. 233-255. + +Loftus, E. F. (1997) Commentary on anomolies of autobiographical memory. In J. D. Read and D. S. Lindsay (Eds.) *Recollections of Trauma: Scientific Research and Clinical Practice*. NY: Plenum Press, pp. 297-400. + +Loftus, E. F. (1997). Repressed memory accusations: Devastated families and devastated patients. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 11, 25-30. + +Loftus, E. F. & Rosenwald, L. (1997). Repressed Memories: Scientific Status. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J., Saks, & J. Saunders (Eds.) *Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony*. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, p. 535-550. + +Loftus, E. F. (1997, September). Creating false memories. *Scientific American*, 277, (3), 70-75. + +· Reprinted in Boyatzis, C. & Junn, E.N. (2000) *Child Growth and Development*. NY: McGraw-Harcourt, Chapter 8. + +Loftus, E. F. (1997). Memory for a past that never was. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 6, p. 60-65. + +Joslyn, S., Carlin, L., & Loftus, E. F. (1997) Remembering and forgetting childhood sexual abuse. *Memory*, 5, 703-724. + +Loftus, E. F. (1997). Dispatch from the (un)civil memory wars. In J. D. Read & D. S. Lindsay (Eds.) *Recollections of Trauma: Scientific Research and Clinical Practice*. NY: Plenum Press, pp. 171-198. + +Loftus, E.F. (1997). Creating childhood memories. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 11, S75-S86. + +Loftus, E.F., Nucci, M., & Hoffman, H. (1998) Manufacturing memory. *American Journal of Forensic Psychology*, 16, 63-75. + +Ceci, S. J., Bruck, M., & Loftus, E. F. (1998) On the ethics of memory implantation research. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 12, 230-240. + +■■■, E. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Psycholegal research on jury damage awards. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 7, 50-54. + +Mazzoni, G. A. L. & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Dreaming, believing, and remembering. In J. DeRivera and T. R. Sarbin (Eds.). *Believed in Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality*. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association Press. pp. 145-156. + +■■■, D.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) How memory research can benefit from CASM. *Memory*, 6, 467-474. + +Braun, K.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Advertising's misinformation effect. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 12, 569-591. + +Loftus, E.F. (1998) The private practice of misleading deflection. *American Psychologist*, 53, 484-485. + +Loftus, E.F. (1998) The price of bad memories. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 22, 23-24. + +Na, Eun-Young & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Attitudes towards law and prisoners, conservative authoritarianism, attribution, and internal-external locus of control: Korean and American law students and undergraduates. *Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology*, 29, 595-615. + +Loftus, E.F. (1998) Illusions of Memory. *Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society*, 142, 60-73. + +Loftus, E.F. (1998) Imaginary memories. In Conway, M.A., Gathercole, S.E., & Cornoldi, C. (Eds) *Theories of memory*. Vol II. East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press Ltd. p. 135-145. + +Mazzoni, G.A.L. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Dream interpretation can change beliefs about the past. *Psychotherapy*, 35, 177-187. + +Loftus, E.F. & Mazzoni, G.A.L. (1998) Using imagination and personalized suggestion to change people. *Behavior Therapy*, 29, 691-706. + +Loftus, E.F. (1998) Who is the cat that curiosity killed? *Skeptical Inquirer*, 22, 60-61. + +DuBreuil, S.C., Garry, M., & Loftus E.F. (1998) Tales from the Crib: Age regression and the creation of unlikely memories. In S.J. ■■■ & K.M. McConkey (Eds) *Truth in Memory*. NY: Guilford Press, pp. 137-160. + +■■■, D. B. & Loftus, E. F. (1998). How misinformation alters memories. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*, 71, 155-164. + +Lilienfeld, S.O. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Repressed memories and World War II: Some cautionary notes. *Professional Psychology: Research and Practice*, 29, 471-475. + +Paddock, J.R., ■■■, A.L., Chan, F.M., Terranova, S., ■■■, C., & Loftus, E.F (1998). When guided visualization procedures may backfire: Imagination inflation and predicting individual differences in suggestibility. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 12, S63-S75. (Special Issue) + +Billings, F.J. & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Havikuach al hazikaron hamudchak: Mishpatim umechkarim chadashim (The repressed memory controversy: recent court cases and recent research). *Psychologia*, 7, 24-32 (in Hebrew). + +Hyman, I.E. Jr & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Errors in autobiographical memory. *Clinical Psychology Review*, 18, 933-947. + +Alpert, J.L., ■■■, L.S., Ceci, S.J., Courtois, C.A., Loftus, E.F., & Ornstein, P.A. (1998) Final conclusions of the American Psychological Association Working Group on Investigation of memories of Childhood Abuse, *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, 4, 933-940. + +Ornstein, P.A., Ceci, S.J., & Loftus, E.F. (1998) Adult recollections of childhood abuse: Cognitive and Developmental Perspectives. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, 4, 1025-1051. (See also other commentaries & replies by Ornstein, Ceci, & Loftus in the same issue.) + +Loftus, E., Joslyn, S., & Polage, D. (1998) Repression: A mistaken impression? *Development & Psychopathology*, 10, 781-792. + +■■■, J.J., Miyamoto, J., & Loftus, E.F. (1999) Are actions regretted more than inactions? *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 78, 232-255. + +■■■, D.B. & Loftus, E.F. (1999) Measuring dissociation: Comparison of alternative forms of the dissociative experiences scale. *American Journal of Psychology*, 112, 497-519. + +Mazzoni, G.A.L., Lombardo, P., Malvagia, S., & Loftus, E.F. (1999) Dream interpretation and false beliefs. *Professional Psychology: Research and Practice*, 30, 45-50. + +Mazzoni, G.A.L., Loftus, E.F., Seitz, A., & [REDACTED], S.J. (1999) Changing beliefs and memories through dream interpretation. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 13, 125-144. + +Mazzoni, G. A. L., Vannucci, M., & Loftus, E. F. (1999). Misremembering story material. *Legal and Criminological Psychology*, 4, 93-110. + +Paddock, J.R., Noel, M., Terranova, S., Eber, H.W., [REDACTED], C., & Loftus, E.F. (1999). Imagination inflation and the perils of guided visualization. *Journal of Psychology*, 133, 581-595. + +Loftus, E.F. & Polage, D.C. (1999) Repressed memories: When are they real? How are they false? *The Psychiatric Clinics of North America*, 22, 61-71. (P. Resnick, Guest ed). + +Loftus, E.F. (1999) Lost in the mall: Misrepresentations and misunderstandings. *Ethics & Behavior*, 9, 51-60. + +Garry, M., Frame, S., & Loftus, E.F. (1999) Lie down and let me tell you about your childhood. In S. Della Sala (Ed) *Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain*. Chichester, England & NY: Wiley. 113-124. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (1999) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*, 1999. *Cumulative Supplement*. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-33. + +Busey, T.A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G.R., & Loftus, E.F. (2000) Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. *Psychonomic Bulletin and Review*, 7, 26-48. + +Loftus, E.F. (2000). Remembering What Never Happened. E. Tulving (Ed.), *Memory, Consciousness, and the Brain: The Tallinn Conference*. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 106-118. + +Tsai, A., Loftus, E.F., & Polage, D. (2000) Current Directions in False Memory Research. In Bjorklund, D. (Ed.) *False-Memory Creation in Children and Adults*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 31-44. + +Loftus, E.F. (2000) Suggestion, imagination, and the transformation of reality. In A.A. [REDACTED], J.S. Turkkan, C.A. Bachrach, J.B. Jobe, H.S. Kurtzman, & V.S. Cain (Eds) *The Science of Self-Report*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 201-210. + +Calvin, W. H. & Loftus, E.F. (2000, April) The poet as brain mechanic: A 2050 version of physics for poets. *Global Business Network Bulletin*, p.1-5. + +Loftus, E. L. and Castelle, G. (2000) Crashing Memories in Legal Cases. In P.J. van Koppen & N.H.M. Roos (Eds). *Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology*. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press. p. 115-127 + +Loftus, E.F. (2000) The most dangerous book. *Psychology Today*, 33, p 32-35, 84 + +Mazzoni, G.A.L., Loftus, E.F., Kirsch, I. (2001) Changing beliefs about implausible autobiographical events. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 7 (1), 51-59 + +[REDACTED], D.B., Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], M. (2001) Now you see it; Now you don't; Inhibiting recall and recognition of scenes. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 15, 471-482. + +Castelle, G. & Loftus, E.F. (2001) Misinformation and wrongful convictions. In S.D. Westervelt & J.A. Humphrey (Eds). *Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on failed justice*. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, p 17-35 + +Hoffman, H.G., Granhag, P.A., Kwong See, S.T. & Loftus, E.F. (2001). Social influences on reality monitoring decisions. *Memory & Cognition*, 29, 394-404. + +Joslyn, S., & Loftus, E.F., McNoughton, A., & Powers, J. (2001) Memory for memory. *Memory and Cognition*. 29, 789-797. + +Loftus, E.F. & Calvin, W.C. (2001, April) Memory's future. *Psychology Today*, 34, p 55-58, 83. + +Loftus, E.F. (2001) Imagining the past. *The Psychologist*, 14, 584-587. + +[REDACTED], D., Loftus, E.F., & Follette, W.C. (2001) How, when, and whether to use informed consent for recovered memory therapy. *Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law*, Vol. 29, (2), p. 148-159 + +Loftus, E. F. (2001) When scientific evidence in the enemy. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 25, #6, p 14-15 + +Loftus, E.F. & Garry, M. (2001, Aug 31) Disneyland with the Queen? I recall it well. *The Times Higher Education Supplement*, p. 22-23. + +Garry, M., Rader, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2001) Classic and contemporary studies on the impact of misleading information. Watanabe, Yasui; Ichinose, Keiichiro, Itsukushima, Yukio, & Hamada, Sumio + +(Eds) *The study of eyewitness testimony: Seeking for the bridge between law and psychology*. Tokyo: Kitaohji publishers, p. 185-200. (Chapter published in Japanese). + +**2002** + +Loftus, E.F. (2002) Memory faults and fixes. *Issues in Science and Technology (Publication of the National Academies of Science)*, 18, # 4, pp 41-50. (Selection for:: *The Best American Science and Nature Writing*, (2003) Richard Dawkins, guest editor; Tim Folger, series editor. NY: Houghton Mifflin --Reprinted in Roesch, R. & Gagnon, N. (Eds) (2007) Psychology and law. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. + +Hyman, I.E., & Loftus, E.F. (2002) False childhood memories and Eyewitness Memory Errors. In M. L. Eisen, J. A. Quas & G.S. Goodman, (Eds). *Memory and Suggestibility in the Forensic Interview*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, p 63-84 + +■■■, A.K. & Loftus, E.F. (2002) Creating bizarre false memories through imagination, *Memory & Cognition*, 30, 423-431. + +Braun, K.A., Ellis, R. & Loftus, E.F. (2002) Make My Memory: How Advertising Can Change Our Memories of the Past. *Psychology and Marketing*, 19, 1-23. + +Bernstein, D. M., Whittlesea, B. W.A. & Loftus, E. F. (2002) Increasing confidence in remote autobiographical memory and general knowledge: Extensions of the revelation effect, *Memory & Cognition*, 30, 432-438. + +Pickrell, J. & Loftus, E.F. (2002) Balancing with the players stacked against you. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 16, 365-366 (Book Review). + +Loftus, E.F. & ■■■, M. (2002) Who Abused Jane Doe?: The Hazards of the Single Case History. *Skeptical Inquirer*. Part I. Vol 26, #3 (May/June), Pp. 24-32. + +Loftus, E. F. & ■■■, M. J. (2002) Who Abused Jane Doe? Part II. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 26, #4 (July/Aug), p. 37-40, 44. + +Garry, M., Sharman, S.J., ■■■, J. Marlatt, G.A., & Loftus, E.F. (2002). Examining memory for heterosexual college students' sexual experiences using an electronic mail diary. *Health Psychology*. 21, 6, 629-634 + +Loftus, E.F. (2002) Dear Mother *Psychology Today Magazine*, vol. 35, p 68-70 + +Loftus, E.F. & ■■■, D. (2002) Dispatch from the Repressed-memory legal front. *Psychiatric Times*, vol. XIX, p 44-45, 50-51. + +Kanter, J. W., Kohlenberg, R. J., and Loftus, E. F. (2002). Demand Characteristics, Treatment Rationales, and Cognitive Therapy for Depression. *Prevention and Treatment.*, 5, Article 41. Available at + +van de Wetering, S., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2002) Public education against false memories: A modest proposal. *Cognitive Technology*, 2, #2, p 4-7. + +Bernstein, D.M. & Loftus, E.F. (2002) Lingering difficulties distinguishing true from false memories. *Neuro-Psychoanalysis*, 4, #2, p 139-141. + +Loftus, E.F. (2003) Our changeable memories: Legal and practical implications. *Nature Reviews: Neuroscience*, 4, 231-234. + +Loftus, E.F. (2003) Make-believe Memories. *American Psychologist*, 58, 864-873, + +Loftus, E. F. (2003) The Dangers of Memory. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed). *Psychologists Defying the Crowd*. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association Press. Pp. 105-117. + +Loftus, E. F. (2003) Memory in Canadian Courts of Law. *Canadian Psychology*, 44, 207-212. + +■■■, S. J., Lock, T., Loftus, E.F., Krackow, E., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2003) The Remembrance of Things Past: Problematic Memory Recovery Techniques in Psychotherapy. In S.O. Lilienfeld, J.M. Lohr, & S.J. ■■■ (Eds) *Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology*. NY; Guilford. pp 205-239. + +Loftus, E.F. & ■■■, J.M. (2003) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2003 Cumulative Supplement. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-40.. + +Loftus, E.F. (2003) False memory. In Nadel, L. (Ed). *Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science*. Vol 2. London: Nature Publishing Group., p 120-125. + +■■■, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Loftus, E.F. (2003) Exploring the role of repetition and sensory elaboration in the imagination inflation effect. *Memory & Cognition* 31, 630- 640. + +Nourkova, V.V., Bernstein D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2003) Echo of explosions: Comparative analysis of recollections about the terrorists attacks in 1999 (Moscow) and 2001 (New York City). *Psychological Journal*, 24, #1, 64-72 (Published in Russian: PSIKHOLOGICHESKII ZHURNAL 24 (1): 64-72 JAN-FEB 2003). + +Bernstein, D.M. & Loftus, E.F. (2003) Reconstructive Memory. J.H. Byrne (Ed.) *Learning and Memory, 2nd Edition* (MacMillan Psychology Reference Series). New York: MacMillan, p 558-561. + +Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E.F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. A. M. [REDACTED] (Ed.) *Handbook of Psychology. Vol 11 Forensic Psychology* (I.B. Weiner, Editor-in-Chief). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp 149-160 + +[REDACTED], S. J., Loftus, E. F., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Lock, T. (2003) Memory Recovery Techniques in Psychotherapy: Problems and Pitfalls. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 27, 40-46.. + +Loftus, E.F. (2003, Fall) On science under legal assault. *Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences)*, 132 (4), 84-86. + +[REDACTED], D. and Loftus, E. F. (2003). What's good for the goose cooks the gander: Inconsistencies between the law and psychology of voluntary intoxication and sexual assault. In W. T. O'Donohue, & E. Lewensky (Eds.) *Handbook of Forensic Psychology*. Boston: Academic Press (or Amsterdam: Elsevier), p 997-1032 + +Loftus, E. F. (2004) Dispatch from the (un) civil memory wars. *Lancet*, 364, 20-21. + +Bernstein, D. M., Godfrey, R., Davison, A., & Loftus, E. F. (2004) Conditions affecting the revelation effect for autobiographical memory. *Memory & Cognition*. 32, 455-462. + +Loftus, E.F. (2004) Memories of things unseen. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 13, 145-47. + +Nourkova V.V., Bernstein D.M., Loftus E.F. (2004) Altering traumatic memory. *Cognition & Emotion*. 18, 575-585. + +[REDACTED], G. M., Sageman, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2004) A Historical Note on False Traumatic Memories, *Journal of Clinical Psychology*. 60, 137-139. + +Nourkova V.V., Bernstein D.M., Loftus E.F. (2004) Biography becomes autobiography: Distorting the subjective past. *American Journal of Psychology* 117, 65-80. + +[REDACTED], S.J., Knox, J. A., Fassler, O., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) Memory, trauma, and dissociation. In G.M. [REDACTED] (Ed) *Posttraumatic stress disorder: Issues and controversies*. NY: Wiley, p 163-186 + +Pickrell, J. E., Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2004) The Misinformation Effect. In Pohl, R. F. (Ed.). *Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory*. Hove, UK & NY: Psychology Press., p. 345-361. + +Loftus, E. F. (2004) The Memory Wars. *Science & Spirit*. Vol 15, 28-34 + +Kanter, J. W., Kohlenberg, R. J. & Loftus, E. F. (2004) Experimental and Psychotherapeutic Demand Characteristics and the Cognitive Therapy Rationale: An Analogue Study. *Cognitive Therapy and Research*, 28, 229-239. + +Braun-LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S., Pickrell, J. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) How (and When) advertising can influence memory for consumer experience. *Journal of Advertising*. 33,7-25. + +Bernstein M. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) Memories, false. In R.L. Gregory (Ed). *The Oxford Companion to the Mind, 2nd Edition*. Oxford University Press, p 559-560. + +Tsai, A.C., Morsbach, S., K. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) In Search of Recovered Memories. In W. T. O'Donohue, Wm. & E. Lewensky (Eds.) *Handbook of Forensic Psychology*. Boston: Academic Press (Amsterdam: Elsevier), p 555-577. + +Levine, L. J. & Loftus, E. F. (2004) Eyewitness testimony. In Spielberger, C.D. *Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology*. San Diego: Elsevier Science (USA) + +Loftus, E. F. (2004) Forward in G.D. Lassiter (Ed) *Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment*. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, p ix-xiii. + +Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) I am Freud's brain. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 28,#3, p 16-18. + +Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2004) Brainstorm in a teacup. *The Psychologist*, 17, 280-281. + +Loftus, E.F. & Bernstein, D. M. (2004) Strong memories are made of this. Review of McGaugh's Memory and Emotion. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*. 8, p 199-201. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], S. A. (2004, May 14) Contaminated Evidence. *Science*, 304, p 959. (Essay) + +Loftus, E.F. (2004) The devil in confessions. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*. 5, i-ii (editorial on The Psychology of Confessions) + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (2004) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2003 Cumulative Supplement. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-41. + +Bernstein, D.M., Laney, C., Morris, E.K. & Loftus, E.F. (2005) False memories about food can lead to food avoidance. *Social Cognition*, 23, 10-33. + +Loftus, E. F. (2005) Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. *Learning and Memory*. 12, 361-366. + +Bernstein, D.M., Laney, C., Morris, E.K. & Loftus, E.F. (2005) False beliefs about fattening foods can have healthy consequences. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 102, 13724-13731. + +Loftus, E.F. & Bernstein, D. M. (2005). Rich False Memories: The [REDACTED] Road to Success. In A. F. [REDACTED] (Ed) *Experimental Cognitive Psychology and its Applications*. Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press, p 101-113. + +Loftus, E.F. (2005) Searching for the neurobiology of the misinformation effect *Learning & Memory*,, 12, 1-2. + +Gerrie, M.P., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2005) False memories. In [REDACTED], N. & [REDACTED], K.D. (Eds) *Psychology and law: An empirical perspective*. NY: Guilford, p 222-253. + +van de Wetering, S., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2005) Advertising as information or misinformation? *Cognitive Technology*. 10, 24-28 + +Loftus, E. F. (2005) The malleability of memory. In H. Minkowich (Ed) *Neuroscientific and Psychoanalytic perspectives on memory*. London: International Neuro-Psychoanalysis Society, p 55-71. + +Loftus, E.F. (2005) Distortions of memory and the role of time. In A-N Perret-Clermont (Ed.) *Thinking Time: A Multipdisciplinary perspective on time*. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. p 39-44. + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2005) Traumatic memories are not necessarily accurate memories. *Canadian Journal of Psychiatry*, 50, 823-828. + +[REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E. F. (2005). Age and functioning in the legal system: Perception memory and judgment in victims, witnesses and jurors. In Y. I. Noy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), *Handbook of Forensic Human Factors in litigation*. (pp. 11-1-11-53). New York: CRC Press. + +[REDACTED], A. & Loftus, E.F. (2005) Eyewitness memory: Getting more accurate information. *Gazette*, 67, #4, p 30-31. (Magazine of the [REDACTED] Canadian Mounted Police). + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (2005) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2004 Cumulative Supplement. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-51. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], D. (2006) Recovered Memories. *Annual Review of Clinical Psychology*. 2, 469-498. + +Schmechel, R.S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Beyond the Ken: Testing Juror's Understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. *Jurimetrics Journal*, 46, 177-214. + +Pizarro, D.A., Laney, C., Morris, E.K., & Loftus, E.F. (2006). Ripple effects in memory: Judgments of moral blame can distort memory for events. *Memory & Cognition*, 34, 550-555. + +Morris, E.K., Laney, C., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Susceptibility to memory distortion: How do we decide it has occurred? *American Journal of Psychology*. 119, 255-276. + +Croyle, R.T., Loftus, E.F., & Berger, S.D, Sun, Y, Hart, M., & Gettig, J. (2006) How Well Do People Recall Risk Factor Test Results? Accuracy and Bias Among Cholesterol Screening Participants *Health Psychology*, 25, 425-432. + +Takarangi, M. K. T., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Dear diary, Is plastic better than paper? I can't remember. *Psychological Methods*. 11, 119-122. + +[REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Psychologists in the forensic world. In Donaldson, S. I., Berger, D.E. & Pezdek, K. (Eds.). *Applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,, p 171-200. + +Loftus, E.F., Wolchover, D., & Page, D. (2006) *Witness Testimony: Psychological, investigative and evidential perspectives*. In A. [REDACTED]-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & + +D. Wolchover (Eds) *Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives*. Oxford, Eng: Oxford University Press, 7-22. + +Braun-LaTour, K.A., LaTour, M.S. & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Is that a finger in my chili?: Using affective advertising for postcrisis brand repair. *Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly*, 47, 2, 106-120. + +Braun-LaTour, K. A., Grinley, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Tourist memory distortion. *Journal of Travel Research*, 44, 360-367. + +Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2006) Reading into the soul of science. *The General Psychologist*, 41, #2, 11-12 (Essay). + +Hayne, H., Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2006) On the Continuing Lack of Scientific Evidence for Repression. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 29, 521-522. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], J.M. (2006) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2005 Cumulative Supplement. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-55. + +[REDACTED], A.K., Hannula, D.E. & Loftus, E. F. (2007) How self-relevant imagination affects memory for behaviour. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*,, 21, 69-86. + +[REDACTED], C. A. III, Hazlett, G., Baranoski, M., Doran, A., Southwick, S., & Loftus, E.F. (2007) Accuracy of eyewitness identification is significantly associated with performance on a standardized test of face recognition. *International Journal of Law & Psychiatry*, 30, 213-223. + +Loftus, E. F. (2007) Elizabeth F. Loftus (Autobiography) In Lindzey, G. & Runyan, W. M. (Eds) *History of Psychology in Autobiography* Vol. IX Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. p 198-227. + +Wade, K.A., Sharman, S.J., Garry, M., Memon, A., Mazzoni, G., Merckelbach, H., & Loftus, E.F. (2007) False claims about false memory research. *Consciousness & Cognition*, 16, 18-28. + +Sacchi, D. L. M., Agnoli, F. & Loftus, E.F. (2007) Changing history: Doctored photographs affect memory for past public events. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*,, 21, 1005-1022. + +[REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2007) Internal and external sources of misinformation in adult witness memory. In M.P. Toglia, J.D. Read, D.F. [REDACTED], & R.C.L. Lindsay (Eds). *Handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol I). Memory for events*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. p 195-237. + +Loftus, E.F. & Cahill, L. (2007) Memory distortion: From misinformation to rich false memory. In Nairne, J.S. (Ed.) *The Foundations of Remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger, III*. New York: Psychology Press. p 413-425. + +Clark, S.E. & Loftus, E. F. (2007) In [REDACTED], J. (Ed.) *Eyewitness Evidence. Encyclopedia of Police Science, 3rd edition*. p 491-495. NY: Routledge, + +Loftus, E. F. (2007) Forgetting: The fate of once learned, but "forgotten", material.. In H.L. Roediger, Y. Dudai, & S. M. Fitzpatrick (Eds) *Science of Memory: Concepts*. NY: Oxford University Press, 321-324. + +Loftus, E. F. (2007) Memory Distortions: Problems Solved and Unsolved. In Garry, M. & Hayne, H (Eds). *Do Justice and Let the Skies Fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science, law and academic freedom*. Mahwah, NJ: [REDACTED] Erlbaum Associates, p 1-14. + +Clifasefi, S.L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2007) Setting the record (or video camera) straight on memory: the video camera model of memory and other memory myths. In S. Della Sala (Ed) *Tall tales about the mind and brain*. Oxford, England & NY: Oxford University Press., p 60-75. . + +Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2007) Repressed memory. In Clark, D.S. (Ed) *Encyclopedia of Law and Society*. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publishers. p. 1307-1309. + +Loftus, E. F. & Steinberg, R.L. (2007, March 9). If memory serves. *Wall Street Journal*, p. A14.(Op-ed) + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Emotional content of true and false memories. *Memory*, 16, 500-516. + +Geraerts, E., Bernstein, D.M., Merckelbach, H., Linders, C., Raymaekers, L., & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Lasting false beliefs and their behavioral consequences. *Psychological Science*, 19, 749-753 + +Sharman, S. J., Garry, M., Jacobson, J.A., Loftus, E. F. & Ditto, P.H. (2008) False memories for end-of-life decisions. *Health Psychology*, 27, 291-296. + +Laney, C., [REDACTED], N.B., Nelson, K.J., Bernstein, D. M. & Loftus, E.F. (2008) The persistence of false beliefs. *Acta Psychologica* 129, 190-197 + +Berkowitz, S.R., Laney, C., Morris, E.K., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2008) Pluto Behaving Badly: False beliefs and their consequences. *American Journal of Psychology*. 121, 643-660. + +[REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Eyewitness Memory. In [REDACTED], G. and Conway, M.A. (Eds) *Memory* + +*in the Real World*, 3rd Edition. Hove and New York: Psychology Press., p 91-106. + +Laney, C., Kaasa, S. O., Morris, E.K., Berkowitz, S.R., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2008) The Red Herring technique: A methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics. *Psychological Research*. 72, 362-375. + +Laney, C., Morris, E.K., Bernstein, D.M., Wakefield, B.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Asparagus, a love story: Healthier eating could be just a false memory away. *Experimental Psychology*. 55, 291-300. + +[REDACTED], D., Loftus, E.F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008) "Unconscious Transference" can be an Instance of "Change Blindness." *Applied Cognitive Psychology*. 22, 605-623. + +Loftus, E.F. (2008) [REDACTED] & Me. In Gluck, M.A., [REDACTED], J.R. & Kosslyn, S M., (Eds.) *Memory and Mind: A Festschrift for [REDACTED] H. Bower*. New York:: [REDACTED] Erlbaum Associates. p 49-58. + +Loftus, E.F. (2008) Graduate School: Advice for all times. In Amanda C. Kracen & Ian J. Wallace (Eds) *Applying to Graduate School in Psychology*. p 51-54. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. + +Loftus, E.F. (2008, May) Perils of Provocative Scholarship. *Observer* (Publication of Association for Psychological Science), Vol 21, #5. 13-15. (with G. Geis). + +Loftus, E.F., Garry, M., & Hayne, H. (2008) Repressed and recovered memory. E. Borgida & S.T. Fiske (Eds.) *Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom* Oxford, UK & Malden, [REDACTED]: Blackwell Publishing, p 177-194. + +Loftus, E.F. & Fries, J. (2008). The Potential Perils of Informed Consent. *McGill Journal of Medicine*, *11*, 217-218. + +Takarangi, M.K.T., Polaschek, D.L.L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Psychological science, victim advocates, and the problem of recovered memories. *International Review of Victimology*, *15*, 147-163. + +Loftus, E.F. (2008, October) Characters. Special Issue. Psychology Today, #2, p., 5 (published in Polish as Charaktery. Wydanie specjalne. Psychologia Dzia) - Essay + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J.M. & Dysart, J.E. (2008) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2008 *Cumulative Supplement*. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, 1-25. + +Loftus, E. (2008). Crimes da memoria: memorias falsas e justice social. In A.C. Fonseca (ed.). *Psicologia e justice* (pp. 331-339). Coimbra: Nova Almedina (published in Portuguese) + +Kaasa, S., O. & Loftus, E.F. (2008). False memories. In Frederick T. Leong (Ed). *Encyclopedia of Counseling*. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, p 161-163. + +[REDACTED], N.B., Nelson, K.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2008) Repressed and recovered memories. In Cutler, B. L. (Ed), *Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law*. Volume 2, p 688-691, Thousand Oaks, Ca.,: Sage. + +Bernstein, D.M., Nourkova, V., & Loftus, E.F. (2008). From individual memories to oral history. In A.M. Columbus (Ed.). *Advances in Psychology Research*. vol 54, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. pp. 157-181. + +Bernstein, D.M. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) The consequences of false memories for food preferences and choices. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *4*, 135-139. + +Peterson, T., Kaasa, S., O. & Loftus, E.F. (2009). Me too! : Social Modeling Influences on Early Autobiographical Memories. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*. 23, 267-277. + +Geis, G. & Loftus, E. F. (2009) Taus v. Loftus: Determining the Legal Ground Rules for Scholarly Inquiry. *Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice*. 9, 147-162. + +Bernstein, D.M., Rudd, M. E., Erdfelder, E., Godfrey, R., & Loftus, E.F. (2009) The revelation effect for autobiographical memory: A mixture-model analysis. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, *16* (3), 463-468 + +Bernstein, D. M. & Loftus, E. F. (2009) How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *4*, 370-374. + +Bernstein, D.M., Godfrey, R.D., & Loftus, E.F. (2009). False Memories: Plausibility and autobiographical belief. In K. Markman, W. Klein, & J. Suhr (Eds.). *Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation*. : Psychology Press. p. 89-102 + +[REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (2009) The Scientific Status of "Repressed" and "Recovered" Memories of Sexual Abuse Skeem, J.S., Douglas, K.S., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (Eds). *Psychological Science and Non-science in the Courtroom*. New York: Guilford. P 55-79. + +[REDACTED], L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2009) False Memories: A kind of confabulation in non-clinical subjects. In Hirstein, W. (Ed.) *Confabulation: Views from Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Psychology, Neurology, and Philosophy*. Oxford, Oxford University Press. P 35-68. + +[REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Expectancies, emotion and memory reports of visual events: In J. R. Brockmole (Ed.), *The Visual World in Memory*. Hove & NY: Psychology Press, p 178-214. + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Eyewitness memory. In R.N. Kocsis (Ed). *Applied Criminal Psychology: A guide to forensic behavioral sciences* (pp. 121-145). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Publishers. + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Memory, Distortions of. In Bayne, T., Cleeremans, A., & Wilken, P., (Eds) *The Oxford Companion to Consciousness*. (p 426-27) Oxford University Press. + +Bernstein, D.M. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Memory distortion. In M.D. Binder, N. Hirokawa, & U. Windhorst (Eds). *The encyclopedia of neuroscience*. Springer\_Verlag, GmbH Berlin Heidelberg (pp 2325-2328). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-29678-2\_3415. + +Peterson, T. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Memory: Reconstructive. In A. Jamieson & A. Moenssens (Eds) *Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*. Chichester, UK: Wiley. p 1709-1712 + +Nelson, K.J., Bowman-[REDACTED], N., Berkowitz, S. R., & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Eyewitness Testimony. In A. Jamieson & A. Moenssens (Eds) *Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*. Chichester, UK: Wiley. P 1075-1079. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa264 + +Loftus, E. F. (2009) Forward to Munsterberg's *On The Witness Stand*. (Reissued in Classics in Psychology) Greentop, Mo: Greentop Academic Press, p. 7-11. + +Peterson, T. & Loftus, E.F. (2009) Reconstructive Memory. In Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) *The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology*. (p 428-429) Cambridge University Press., + +Bowman-[REDACTED], N., Nelson, K. J., & Loftus, E. F., (2009). Memory: Repressed, In A. Jamieson & A. Moenssens (Eds) *Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*. Chichester, UK: Wiley p 1712-1716 + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J.M. & Dysart, J.E. (2009) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2009 *Cumulative Supplement*. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing. + +[REDACTED], B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Lin, C., He, Q., Chen, C, Li, H., Xue, G., Lu, Z., Dong, Q. (2010) Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Cognitive Factors. *Memory*. 18, 543-555. + +Stark., C.E.L., Okado, Y., & Loftus, E.F. (2010) Imaging the reconstruction of true and false memories using sensory reactivation and the misinformation paradigms. *Learning and Memory*, 17, 485-488. + +[REDACTED], B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Lin, C & Dong, Q. (2010) Treat and Trick: A new way to increase false memory. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 24, 1199-1208. + +Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P.A., Hartwig, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2010) Insightful or wishful: Lawyers' ability to predict case outcomes. *Psychology, Public Policy, & Law*, 16, 133-157. + +[REDACTED], B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Lin, C, He Q., Chen, C., Moyzis, R..K., Lessard, J., Dong, Q. (2010) Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Personality characteristics and their interactions with cognitive abilities. *Personality and Individual Differences*. 48, 889-894. + +Loftus, E.F. (2010) Foreward to Granhag, P.A. (Ed.) *Forensic Psychology in Context: Nordic and international approaches*. Pp. xv- xvi. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2010). Change blindness and eyewitness testimony. In G. M. [REDACTED] & D. B. [REDACTED] (Eds.), *Current Issues in Applied Memory Research*. NY: Psychology Press, p 142-159. + +Loftus, E.F. & Frenda, S.J. (2010) Bad theories can harm victims: Review of Susan A. Clancy's "The Trauma Myth, Basic Books, 2010. *Science*. 327, 1329-1330. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2010). False memory. In J. M. [REDACTED] & E.A. [REDACTED] (Eds.), *The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology* (pp. 187-194). NY: Cambridge University Press. + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2010) Truth in emotional memories. In B.H. Bornstein & R.L. Wiener (Eds.) *Emotion and the law: Psychological perspectives*. NY: Springer. (Also *Nebraska Symposium on Motivation*. 56, 157-183) + +Loftus, E.F. (2010) Catching Liars. (Editorial) *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 11, 87-88. + +Steblay, N., & Loftus, E.F. (2010). Eyewitness memory. In [REDACTED], E.B. (Ed) *Encyclopedia of Perception*. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. + +Loftus, E.F. (2010) Why parapsychology is not yet ready for prime time. Afterword for Krippner, S., [REDACTED], H.L. *Debating psychic experience: Human potential or human illusion*. (Pp. 211-214) Santa Barbara, Ca: Praeger. + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J.M. & Dysart, J.E. (2010) *Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal*. 2010 *Cumulative Supplement*. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing. + +Nelson, K.J., Laney, C., Bowman-[REDACTED], N., Knowles, E., [REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (2011) Change blindness can cause mistaken eyewitness identification. *Legal and Criminological Psychology*. 16, 62-74. + +Kaasa, S.O., Morris, E.K., & Loftus, E.F. (2011) Remembering Why: Can people consistently recall reasons for their behavior? *Applied Cognitive Psychology*. 25, 35-42. + +Loftus, E. F. (2011) Intelligence gathering post 9/11. *American Psychologist*. 66., 532-541. + +Frenda, S.J., Nichols, R.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2011) Current issues and advances in misinformation research. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 20, 20-23. + +Loftus, E. F. (2011) Crimes of Memory: False Memories and Societal Justice. In M.A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds). *Psychology and the Real World: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society*. pp. 83-88. New York: Worth Publishers. + +[REDACTED], E.J., Berkowitz, S.R., Nelson, K.J., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2011) Attitudes about memory dampening drugs depend on context and country. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 25, 675-681. + +Mantonakis, A., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2011). Attributions of Fluency: Familiarity, Preference, and the Senses. In P.A. Higham & J.P. Leboe (Eds). *Constructions of Remembering and Metacognition. Essays in Honour of Bruce Whittlesea.*, Hampshire, England: Palgrave MacMillan, p 40-50. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E. (2011). Eyewitness Testimony. *Oxford Bibliographies Online: Criminology*. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0086 + +Loftus, E.F. (2011) How I got started: From semantic memory to expert testimony. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 25, 347-348. + +Loftus, E.F. (2011, March 5-6) In the Memory Palace. (Review of J. Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything). *Wall Street Journal*. p C8. + +Loftus, E.F. & Geis, G. (2011) Collaborating to deter potential public enemies: Social science and the law. *Univ of California- Irvine Law Review*, 1, 175-186. + +Bernstein, D.M., Pernat, N., & Loftus, E.F. (2011). The false memory diet: False memories alter food preference. In V.R. Preedy, R.R. [REDACTED], & C.R. [REDACTED] (Eds.). *Handbook of behavior, food, and nutrition*. New York: Springer (pp. 1645-1663). DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-92271-3\_107. + +Loftus, E.F. (2011, September 1) The risk of ill-informed juries. *New York Times* (Editorial) + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J.M., & Dysart, J.E. (2011) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal*. 2011 *Cumulative Supplement*, p 1-37. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, + +[REDACTED], B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., He, Q., Chen, C., Lei, X., Lin, C., & Dong, Q. (2012) Brief exposure to misinformation can lead to long-term false memories. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 26, 301-307. + +[REDACTED], E.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2012) Clarkian Logic on Trial. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 7, 260-263. + +[REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2012). Inconsistencies Between Law and the Limits of Human Cognition: The Case of Eyewitness Identification. In Nadel, L. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W.P. (Eds) *Memory and Law*. NY: Oxford Univ. Press., p 29-58. + +[REDACTED], J.L., Huthwaite, T., Yesberg, J.A., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2012) Repetition, not number of sources, increases both susceptibility to misinformation and confidence in the accuracy of eyewitnesses. *Acta Psychologica*. 139, 320-326. + +[REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2012) The dangers of eyewitnesses for the innocent: Learning from the past and projecting into the age of social media. *New England Law Review*. 46, 769-809. + +[REDACTED], E.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2012) Updating Ebbinghaus on the Science of Memory, *Europe's Journal of Psychology*. 8, 209-216. + +[REDACTED], J.L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2012) Repeated information in the courtroom. *Court Review*, 48, 45-47. + +Loftus, E.F. & [REDACTED], E.J. (2012, December 23). The malleability of memory. *U-T San Diego*, p. B2 + +Frenda, S. J., Knowles, E. D., Saletan, W. & Loftus, E.F. (2013) False memories of fabricated political events. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 49, 280-286. + +Schacter, D.L. & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Memory and Law: What can Cognitive Neuroscience contribute? *Nature Neuroscience*. 16 (2), 119-123. + +██████████, C.A., Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. *International Journal of Law and Psychiatry*. 36, 11-17. + +Loftus, E.F. (2013) Eyewitness testimony in the Lockerbie Bombing case. *Memory*, 21, 584-590. . + +██████████, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Lin, C., & Dong, Q. (2013) The relationship between DRM and misinformation false memories. *Memory and Cognition*, 41, 832-838. + +Steblay, N.K. & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Eyewitness Identification and the Legal System. In Shafir, E. (Ed). *The Behavioral Foundations of Policy*. Princeton University Press, p 145-162 + +Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E.F. (2013). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In R.K. Otto and & I.B. Weiner (Eds) *Handbook of Psychology*. (2nd Ed., Vol. 11: Forensic psychology) (pp. 617-629). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. + +Lappas, S.T. & Loftus, E.F. (2013) The rocky road to reform: State innocence studies and the Pennsylvania story. In C. R. Huff & M. Killias (Eds) *Wrongful Convictions and miscarriages of justice*. P 309-327. NY: Routledge + +Loftus, E.F. (2013) Psychological memory science and legal reforms. Association for Psychological Science *Observer* 26, 10-11. + +Berkowitz, S.R. & Loftus, E.F. (2013) A skeptical view of repressed memory evidence. *California Litigation*, 26, 18-23. + +Mantonakis, A., Wudarzewski, A., Bernstein, D.M., Clifasefi, S.L., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) False beliefs can shape current consumption. *Psychology*, 4, 302-308. + +Patihis, L., Tingen, I.W., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Memory myths. *Catalyst*: 23 (3), p 6-8. + +Clifasefi, S.L., Bernstein, D.B., Mantonakis, A. & Loftus, E.F. (2013). "Queasy does it": False alcohol beliefs and memories lead to diminished alcohol preferences. *Acta Psychologica*, 143, 14-19 + +██████████, E.J., Klemfuss, J. Z., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Repressed memories. In *McGraw-██████████ Yearbook of Science & Technology*. p. 321-323. NY: McGraw-██████████ + +Kaasa, S.O., Cauffman, E., Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) False accusations in an investigative context: Differences between suggestible and non-suggestible witnesses. *Behavioral Sciences and the Law*, 31, 574-592. + +Loftus, E. F. (2013) 25 years of Eyewitness Science....Finally Pays off. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 8, 556-557. + +██████████, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Moyzis, R.K., Dong, Q., Lin, C., (2013) True but not false memories are associated with the HTR2A gene. *Neurobiology of Learning and Memory*. 106, 204-209. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases. In Diener, E. & Diener, C. (Eds) (2013) *Knowledge Evolved: Psychology Edition*. Noba (online textbook: ) + +Lewandowsky, S., ██████████, M. E., Bauld, L., Hastings, G., & Loftus, E. F. (2013, November 1). The subterranean war on science. *APS Observer*, online only. Retrieved from: + +Patihis, L., Frenda, S.J., LePort, A.K.R., Petersen, N., Nichols, R.M., Stark, C.E.L., McGaugh, J.L., & Loftus, E.F. (2013) False memories in highly superior autobiographical memory individuals. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110, 20947-20952 + +Patihis, L., Ho, L.Y., Tingen, I.W., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Are the "Memory Wars" over? A scientist-practioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. *Psychological Science*.25, 519-530. + +██████████, S.J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Merckelbach, H., Giesbrecht, T., McNally, R.J., Loftus, E.F., Bruck, M., Garry, M., Malaktaris, A. (2014) *The trauma model of dissociation: Inconvenient truths and stubborn fictions*. *Psychological Bulletin*. 140, 896-910. + +Frenda, S.J., Patihis, L., Loftus, E.F., ██████████, H.C., & Fenn, K.M. (2014) Sleep deprivation and false + +memories of event details. *Psychological Science*. 25, 1674-1681. + +Strange, D. , Dysart, J., & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Why alibi errors are not necessarily evidence of guilt. *Zeitschrift fur Psychologie*. (Special issue on Applied Memory Research), 222, 82-89. + +Turgeon, J., Francis, E., & Loftus, E. (2014, Sept-Oct) Crafting model jury instructions for evaluating eyewitness testimony. *The Pennsylvania Lawyer*, Vol 36, p 49-52. + +Michael, R.B., Braniff, G., Garry, M. & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Thinking about regret: Number of memories and ease of retrieval influence judgments about regret. *Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research & Practice*, 1, 329-338.. + +Patihis, L., Lilienfeld, S.O., Ho, L.Y. & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Unconscious repressed memory is scientifically questionable. *Psychological Science*, 25, 1967-68 (Commentary) + +Wylie, L. E., Patihis, L., McCuller, L. L., [REDACTED], D., Brank, E. M., Loftus, E. F., & Bornstein, B. H. (2014). Misinformation effects in older versus younger adults: A meta-analysis and review. In M. P. Toglia, D. F. [REDACTED], J. Pozzulo, & E. Pica (Eds) *The Elderly Eyewitness in Court*, UK: Taylor & Francis., p 38 -66. + +Loftus, E.F. (2014, Feb. 14) Unknown: What happened in the attic; Known: memory is malleable. *National Law Journal*. (opinion) + +Grady, R.H. & Loftus, E.F. (2014, Dec. 24) (Mis)remembering sexual assault. *Daily Journal* (op-ed) + +Loftus, E. F. (2014) Illusions of Memory. In Crangle, C.E., de la Sienra, A.G., & Longino, H.E. (Eds). *Foundations and methods from mathematics to neuroscience: Essays inspired by [REDACTED] Suppes*. CSLI Publications., Stanford, Calif. (Center for the Study of Language and Information). p 225-229. + +Patihis, L., [REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Memory. In T.R. Levine (Ed.) *Encyclopedia of Deception*. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, p 656-658. + +Patihis, L., [REDACTED], D., & Loftus, E.F. (2014) Repressed memories. In T.R. Levine (Ed.) *Encyclopedia of Deception*. Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage, p. 814-817. [REDACTED], E. J., Frenda, S. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2014). False Memories. In *Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice* (pp. 1555-1563). NY: Springer + +Loftus, E.F. (2015) Crimes of memory: False Memories and Societal Justice, In M.A. Gernsbacher & J.R. Pomerantz (Eds) *Psychology and the Real World*. 2nd Ed. NY: Worth, p 87-93. + +Nichols, R. M., Bogart, D., and Loftus, E. F. (2015). False Memories. In *International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences* 2nd Ed. (Vol 8, pp 709-714) Oxford, UK: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.51034-4 + +Berkowitz, S.R., Enright, K., Bowman-[REDACTED], N., & Loftus, E.F. (2015) Eyewitness Testimony. In A. Jamieson & A.A. Moenssens (Eds) *Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*. John Wiley: Chichester. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa264.pub2 + +Loftus, E.F., [REDACTED], J.M., & Dysart, J.E. (2015) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal. 5th Ed. 2015 Cumulative Supplement*, p 1-22. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, [REDACTED], D. & Loftus, E.F. (2015) Repressed Memories. In R.L. Cautin & S.O. Lilienfeld (Eds) *The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. P 1-3* NY: Wiley DOI: 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp270 + +Cochran, K.J., Bogart, D.F., Peterson, T., & Loftus, E.F. (2015) Memory: Reconstructive. *Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*, p 1-5 DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa607.pub2. + +Bogart, D.F. & Loftus, E.F. (2015) Memory: Repressed. *Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science*, p 1-7. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa283.pub2 + +Patihis, L. & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Crashing Memory 2.0: False memories in adults for an upsetting childhood event. *Applied Cognitive Psychology* 30, 41-50. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3165 + +Takarangi, M. K. & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Suggestion, placebos and false memories. In A. Raz & C.S. Harris (Eds) *Placebos Talks: Modern perspectives on placebos in society*. Oxford Univ Press. p 204-226. + +Kaplan, R. L., Van Damme, I., Levine, L.J., & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Emotion and false memory. *Emotion Review*, 8, 8-13. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2016) History of forensic interviewing. In O'Donohue, W.T. & Fanetti, M. (Eds). *Forensic Interviews Regarding Child Sexual Abuse – A guide to evidence-based practice*. NY Springer. (pp 1-17). + +■■■, D., & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Remembering disputed sexual encounters. *Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology*, 105, 811-851. + +Loftus, E.F. (2016) Memory Matters. In Sternberg, R., Fiske, S., Foss, D. (Eds) *Scientists Making a Difference*. NY: Cambridge University Press., p 136-139. + +■■■, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., He, Q., Lei, X., Dong, Q., & Lin, C. (2016) Hippocampal size is related to short-term true and false memory, and right fusiform size is related to long-term true and false memory. *Brain Structure & Function*, 221, 4045-4057. + +Loftus, E. F. (2016) Illusions of Memory. *Skeptical Inquirer*, 40, 22-23. (Honorary Doctorate Acceptance Speech) + +Frenda, S.J., Berkowitz, S.R., Loftus, E.F., & Fenn, K.M. (2016) Sleep deprivation and false confessions. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 113, 2047-2050. + +Cochran, K., Greenspan, R., Bogart, D., & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Memory Blindness: Altered memory reports lead to distortions in eyewitness memory. *Memory & Cognition*, 44, 717-726. + +Berkowitz, S.R., Frenda, S.J., Loftus, E.F., & Fenn, K.M (2016) Feeling sleepy? You might be at risk of falsely confessing to a crime you did not commit. *The Conversation* + +Grady, R.H., ■■■, B.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2016) What should happen after an officer-involved shooting? Memory concerns in police reporting procedures. *Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition*, 5, 246-251. + +■■■, E. J., Frenda, S.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2016) Memory as Reconstructive. In H.L. ■■■, Jr. (Ed) *Sage Encyclopedia of Theory in Psychology*. (Vol 2, p 545-549) Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage + +Loftus, E.F. (2016) To enhance justice: The risk and reward of studying memory. *The Humanist* (Isaac Asimov Science Award acceptance speech) vol 76, #6, p 29-32. + +Loftus, E.F., ■■■, J.M., & Dysart, J.E. (2016) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal. 5th Ed. 2016 Cumulative Supplement*, p 1-26. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, + +Loftus, E.F. (2017) Eavesdropping on Memory. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 68, 1-18. + +Van Damme, I., Kaplan, R., L., Levine, L.J., & Loftus, E.F. (2017) Emotion and false memory: How goal-irrelevance can be relevant for what people remember. *Memory*, 25, 201-213. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1150489. + +Berkowitz, S.F. & Loftus, E.F. (2017). Misinformation in the Courtroom. In H. Otgaar & M.L Howe (Eds) *Finding the truth in the courtroom*. Oxford Univ Press. + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E.F. (2017) False memories matter. In R. A. Nash & J. Ost (Eds) *False and Distorted Memories*. NY & London: Routledge., p 143-155. + +Nash, RA., Wade, K.A., Garry, M., Loftus, E.F., & Ost, J. (2017) Misrepresentations and flawed logic about the prevalence of false memories. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 31, 31-33. + +Pickrell, J., McDonald, D., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2017) Misinformation effect. In R.F. Pohl (Ed) *Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment, and memory (2nd ed)*. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp 406-423. + +Crozier, W., Strange, D., & Loftus, E.F. (2017) Memory errors in alibi generation. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*.35, 6-17. + +Loftus, E.F. & Greenspan, R.L. (2017) If I'm certain, is it true? Accuracy and Confidence in eyewitness memory. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 18, 1-2 + +Loftus, E.F., Dysart, J.E. & Newirth, K.A. (2017) *Eyewitness testimony: Civil & Criminal. 5th Ed. 2017 Cumulative Supplement*, p 1-31. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing, + +Bogart, D. & Loftus, E. (2017) Eyewitness testimony: A US case study. *Psychology Review*, Vol 23,7, 2-5 + +■■■■■, B. & Loftus, E.F. (2018) Discrepancy detection in the retrieval-enhanced suggestibility paradigm. *Memory*, 26, 483-493. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1371193 + +Cochran, K. J., Greenspan, R. L., Bogart, D. F., & Loftus, E. F. (2018). (Choice)Blind justice: Legal implications of the choice blindness phenomenon. *University of California Irvine Law Review*, 8, 85-96. + +Rakoff, J.S. & Loftus, E.F. (2018) The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification. *Daedalus*, 147, 90-98. + +Patihis, L., Frenda, S.J., & Loftus, E.F. (2018) False memory tasks do not reliably predict other false memories. *Psychology of Consciousness*, 5(2), 140-160. + +Pena, M.M., Klemfuss, J.Z., Loftus, E.F., & Jafary, A.M. (in press) Source credibility, misinformation and memory. *Psychology of Consciousness*. + +Loftus, E.F. (2018) Eyewitness Testimony: An Eyewitness Report. In T. Grisso & S.L. Brodsky (Eds) *The Roots of Modern Psychology and Law*. Oxford University Press. p. 31-43. + +Loftus, E.F. (2018) Eyewitness science and the legal system. *Annual Review of Law and Social Science*, 14, 1-10. + +Patihis, L., Ho, L.Y., Loftus, E.F., & Herrara, M.E. (2018) Memory experts' beliefs about repressed memory. *Memory*. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2018.1532521 + +Laney, C. & Loftus, E. (2018) "False Memory." In *Oxford Bibliography in Psychology*. Ed. ■■■■ S. Dunn. New York: Oxford University Press. + +Bell, R., Maxcey, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2018) Crime Solving: Can you correctly report what you saw? *Frontiers for Young Minds*. + +■■■■, b., Chen, C., Loftus, E.F., Dong, Q., Lin, C., & Li, J. (2018) Intellectual factors in false memories of patients with schizophrenia. *Psychiatry Research*, 265, 256-262 + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2018). Current directions in false memory research. In K. Shigemasu, S. Kuwano, T. Sato, & T. Matsuzawa (Eds.), *Diversity in Harmony: Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Psychology* (pp. 343-357). Wiley. + +Laney, C., & Loftus, E.F. (2018). Eyewitness memory. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), *Applied criminal psychology: A guide to forensic behavioral sciences* (2nd ed.; pp. 199-228). Charles C. ■■■■■. + +■■■■■, D. & Loftus, E.F. (2018) Eyewitness Science in the 21st Century. *Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience*. Vol 1: Learning and Memory. 4th Ed. Wiley + +2019Loftus, E.F. & Teitcher, J. (2019) Invasion of the Mind Snatchers: A Nation full of Traumatic Memories. *Clinical Psychological Science*, 7, 25-26. + +■■■■, B., Chen, C., Shao, X., Liu, W., Ye, Z., Zhuang, L., Zheng, L., Loftus, E.F., & Xue, G. (2019) Multiple interactive memory representations underlie the induction of false memory. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 116, 3466-3475 + +Loftus, E.F. (2019) Eyewitness Testimony. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 33, 498-503. + +Urban, E.J., Cochran, K.J., Acevedo, A.M., Cross, M.P., Pressman, S.D., & Loftus, E.F. (2019) Misremembering pain: A memory blindness approach to adding a better end. *Memory & Cognition*, 47, 954-967. + +Nichols, R.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2019) Who is susceptible in three false memory tasks? *Memory*, 27, 962-984. + +Otgaar, H., Howe, M.L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., ■■■■, S.J., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Loftus, E.F. (2019) The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long forgotten trauma. *Perspectives on Psychology Science*. 14, 1072-1095. + +■■■■, G., Loftus, E.F., Grady, R.H., Levine, L.J., & ■■■■, C.M. (2019) False memories for fake news during Ireland's abortion referendum. *Psychological Science*, 30, 1449-1459. + +■■■■, D. & Loftus, E.F. (2019) Title IX and "trauma-focused" investigations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. *Journal of Research on Memory and Cognition*, 8, 403-410. + +McClure, K.A., McGuire, K.L. & Loftus, E.F. (2020) Officers' memory and stress in virtual lethal force simulations. *Psychology, Crime, & Law*, 26, 248-266. + +■■■■, E. V., Loftus, E. F. (2020). Punishing the crime of forgetting. *Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition*, 9, 24-28. + +Otgaar, H., Wang, J., Howe, M.L., Lilienfeld, S.O., Loftus, E.F., ■■■■, S.J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2020) Belief in unconscious repressed memory is widespread: A comment on Brewin et al. *Journal* + +*of Experimental Psychology: General. 149, 1996-2000.* + +Kloft, L., Otgaar, H., Blokland, A., Monds, L.A., Toennes, S.W., Loftus, E.F., & Ramaekers, J.G. (2020) Cannabis increases susceptibility to false memory. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.* 117, 4585-4589 + +■■■, D. & Loftus, E.F. (2020) Recovered memories and false memories. In Geddes J.R., Andreasen N.C. and Goodwin, G.M. (Eds). *New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry* 3ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 884-893. + +Greenspan, R.L. & Loftus, E.F. (2020) Eyewitness confidence malleability. *Law and Human Behavior, 44.* 194-208. + +■■■, G., Loftus, E.F., Grady, R., Levine, L., & ■■■, C. (2020) Fool me twice: How effective is debriefing in false memory studies? *Memory, 28.* 938-949. + +■■■, G., Loftus, E.F., Grady, R., Levine, L., & ■■■, C. (2020) Misremembering Motives: The unreliability of voters' memories of the reasons for their vote. *Journal of Applied Research on Memory and Cognition.*, 9, 564-575. + +Otgaar, H., Wang, J., Dodier, O., Howe, M.L., Lilienfeld, S.O., Loftus, E.F., ■■■, S.J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2020) Skirting the issue: What does believing in repression mean? *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149,* 2005-06. + +## 2021 and in press + +Feeling, N., ■■■, D.P., Speller, L.F., Koenig, J., Loftus, E.F., & Thayer, J.F. (2021) Resting state heart rate variability and false memories. *International Journal of Psychophysiology.* 159, 17-22. + +Berkowitz, S.R., Garrett, B.L., Fenn, K.M., & Loftus, E.F. (in press) Convicting with confidence. *Memory.* + +Greenspan, R. L. & Loftus, E.F. (2021) Pandemics and infodemics: Research on the effects of misinformation on memory. *Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3,* 8-12. + +Otgaar, H., Howe, M.L., Dodier, O., Lilienfeld, S.O., Loftus, E.F., ■■■, S.J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2021) Belief in unconscious repressed memory persists. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16,* 454-460. + +Kenchel, J., Domagalski, K., ■■■, B., & Loftus, E.F. (in press) The messy landscape of eye movements and false memories. *Memory.* + +■■■, N.A., Olaguez, A.P., Klemfuss, J.Z., & Loftus, E.F. (2021) Tactics for increasing resistance to varying amounts of misinformation. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35,* 863-872. + +Levine, L.J., ■■■, G., Lench, H.C., ■■■, C.M., Loftus E.F., Tinti, C., ■■■, S., Muzzulini, B., Grady, R.H., Stark, S.M. & Stark, C.E.L. (in press) Remembering facts versus feelings in the wake of political events. *Cognition & Emotion.* + +Greenspan, R. L. & Loftus, E.F. (in press) What happens after debriefing? *Memory & Cognition* + +Wixted, J.T., Wells, G.L., Loftus, E.F., & Garrett, B.L. (in press) Test a witness's memory of a suspect only once. *Perspectives on Psychological Science.* + +Grady, R.H., Ditto, P.H. & Loftus, E.F. (in press) Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: Fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. *Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.* + +Greenspan, R.L. & Loftus, E.F. (in press) Patterns in use of best practices for eyewitness identification in the field. *Psychology, Crime, & Law.* + +Loftus, E.F. (in press). Tricked by Memory. *Reflections of Pioneering Women in Psychology.* Bookwala, J. & Newton, N. (Eds), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. + +■■■, Q. C., London, K., & Loftus, E.F. (In press). The politics of sexual misconduct allegations: A memory science framework. In C. L. Frisby, W. T. O'Donohue, S. O. Lilienfeld, & R.E. Redding (Eds.), *Political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions.* Springer. + +## INVITED ADDRESSES + +### 1969 + +Civil Service Commission for the Education Program in Systematic Analysis, Wash DC + +### 1972. + +Conference on Formal Aspects of the Cognitive Process, University of Michigan Eastern Verbal Investigator's League (EVIL), New York + +Johns ■■■ University Harvard University +Columbia University +University of Colorado +Conference on Cognition, Perception, and Adaptation, University of Minnesota +Bell Laboratories +Perception Consortium of New York + +University of Oregon +University of Kansas +Washington Defense Counsel, Seattle + +**1975** + +University of Lethbridge +Kansas State University +Evergreen State College +University of Wisconsin, Madison +██████ University +Harvard University +New School for Social Research +Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, +Vancouver +Massachusetts Defenders Committee, Boston +Harvard Law School + +**1976** + +Ohio State University +University of Pittsburgh +University of Massachusetts, Boston +University of Toronto +McMaster University +Wheaton College +University of Utah +Brandeis University +Oklahoma State University +State University of New York, Buffalo +Assn of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) +National College of Advocacy, Reno/Boston +United States Attorneys, Seattle +Oklahoma County Bar Assn, Oklahoma City +Connecticut Trial Lawyers Assn, Hartford +Judge Advocate General's School, +Charlottesville, Virginia +Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto +Florida Bar Assn, Tampa and Miami +Bolt, Beranek & ██████, Cambridge +Colloquium on New Ways of Analyzing +Variation in English, Georgetown University +Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, +New York + +**1977** + +University of Western Ontario +Bowling ██████ State University +██████ Fraser University +ATLA, Fifth Circuit Seminar, New Orleans +New York State Bar Association, New York +Washington State Patrol, Shelton, WA +Criminal Justice Training Commission +Seminar, Issaquah, Washington; Seattle +Advocacy Education Seminar, Burlington VT +ATLA, National College of Advocacy, Reno, +NV +ATLA, National Convention, Washington, DC +Oregon Criminal Defense Association, Seaside +ATLA, First Circuit Seminar, Boston + +**1978** + +Kearney State College, Nebraska +University of Michigan +University of Minnesota +Stanford University +University of California, San Diego +North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, +Charlotte +Washington State Bar Assn, Continuing Legal +Education, Olympia +ATLA, Mid-Winter Meeting, Monte Carlo, +Monaco +29th Annual Advocacy Institute, University of +Michigan +National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA), +NW Regional, University of Oregon +Federation of Law Societies of Canada, +Criminal Evidence Program, Toronto +Louisiana Trial Lawyers Assn, New Orleans +ATLA Seminar on Trial Tactics, Camp +Pendleton, CA +American Judges Association Annual Meeting +SAFECO Insurance Company Continuing +Education Program +Law and Society Assn, Univ of Minnesota + +**1979** + +California State University, Chico +Carnegie-Mellon University +Yale University (one week) +██████ University +University of California, Santa Barbara +California State University, Fullerton +University of California, Berkeley +State University of New York, Stony Brook +Hope College +University of Nebraska, Omaha +Canadian Bar Association, Vancouver +Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Assn, +Philadelphia & Pittsburgh +Montana Trial Lawyers Assn, ██████ +West Virginia Trial Lawyers Assn, Charleston +National College of Advocacy, Hastings Law +School +Public Defender Office, Santa Clara Cty, CA +Nebraska Assn of Trial Attorneys +Standard Oil (AMOCO Research Center), +Chicago, IL +Montsanto, St. Louis, MO +New York Academy of Sciences +Conference on Memory and Amnesia, +Lebanon, NH +Conf: Developmental and Experimental +Approaches to Human Memory, U. of +Michigan + +**1980** + +University of Victoria +██████ College +McGill University + +██████████ Houston State University +Trent University (Canada) +University of Toronto +Washington State University +Idaho State University +University of California, Riverside +Oklahoma State University +University of Missouri, Columbia (3 days) +University of Wisconsin, La Crosse +Nova Scotia Barrister's Society, Dalhousie +Law School, Halifax +University of British Columbia Law School, +Vancouver +California Public Defenders Assn., Asilomar +Tennessee Trial Lawyers Assn, Nashville +Kansas District Judges Assn +Kansas Bar Assn +Hastings Law School +Washington DC Public Defender's Office +Memphis State Trial Lawyers +American Bar Assn/ATLA, Las Vegas +Maryland Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting, +Ocean City +New York Bar Assn Advocacy Course, New +York City +Hoffmann-LaRoche, Nutley, NJ +American Institutes of Research, Wash., DC +Canadian Psychological Association Annual +Meeting, Calgary +Attention and Performance, IX, Cambridge, +England +Council for Advancement of Science Writing, +Durham + +1981 +University of South Florida +Northwestern University, Business School +Stanford University +University of Texas, El Paso +Claremont Graduate School +University of Illinois +Copenhagen University +University of Stockholm +Federal Defenders Annual Meeting, San Diego +Oregon Trial Lawyers, Portland +California Attorneys for Criminal Justice +Hastings Law School, San Francisco +ABA/ATLA Seminar, Las Vegas +Northwestern Law School, Chicago +Inner Circle of Advocates, Sun Valley +Annual Institute, Georgetown University Law +Center, Washington, DC +Professional Institutes Seminar, Puerto Rico +National College of Juvenile Justice, San +Francisco +S.S.R.C. Conference on Law and Psychology, +Oxford, England +Chaucer Club, MRC Applied Psychology + +Unit, Cambridge, England +British Psych Society, Guildford, England +AT&T Corporate Security +Chautauqua Institution, Science Week +G. Stanley ██████████ Lecture, APA + +1982 +Rice University +Texas A&M +University of Texas, Austin +Union College +SUNY, Plattsburgh +University of Texas, Arlington +James Madison University +University of Virginia +University of Colorado (3 days) +Miami University (Ohio) +Canadian Bar Assn., Alberta Branch, Calgary +Washington State Judges, Yakima +McGeorge School of Law (High Table) +Oklahoma County Bar +Northwestern Law School +Harvard Law School +Georgetown Law School +Indiana Trial Lawyers Assn +West Palm Beach County Bar +Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore +Clover Park Administrators + +1983 +University of Cincinnati +UCLA +██████████ College +San Diego State University +Ohio State University +University of Houston +Eastern Washington University +Nebraska Wesleyan University (Psychology +Fair Speaker) +University of Denver +American Assn of Law Schools, Cincinnati +Oregon Trial Lawyers Assn +Northwestern Law School +Atlanta Bar Assn Seminar +Washington Assn of Technical Accident +Investigators (WATAI) +Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory +Council, Phoenix +Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Miami +Medical Disciplinary Board, State of +Washington +The ██████████ Society, London +American Psychological Assn, Anaheim +Max Planck Institute, West Berlin +American Society of Criminology, Denver +Merrill ██████████, Palm Springs + +1984 +University of British Columbia +University of Toronto + +██████████ College (IBM Lectureship) +Roanoke College (██████████ Lectureship) +Hebrew University, Jerusalem +Maryland Bar Association, Baltimore +California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Los Angeles +Canadian Bar Assn, Ontario Branch +ATLA, Annual Meeting +Northwestern Law School +Philadelphia Public Defender's Office +Seattle Public Defender's Office +Nova Scotia Barristers, Halifax +Science and Public Policy Seminar, Federation, Washington, DC +California State University Administrators +Conference on Computers & Education +Continuing Medical Educ, U. of Washington + +**1985** + +California State University, Long Beach +Vanderbilt/Peabody, Nashville +North Carolina Psychological Conference, North Carolina State +Ohio Wesleyan University +Minnesota Psychology Conference +Creighton University, Nebraska +Florida State University +Leiden University, The Netherlands +San Diego Defenders +New Mexico Trial Lawyers +Tennessee Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers +Northwestern Law School +Washington Association of Defense Counsel +ATLA Criminal Seminar, Houston +Court Appointed Special Advocate Assn +Northwest Women's Law Center +Colorado Defense Lawyers Association +American Association of Law Libraries, NY +University of Bridgeport Law School +Texas Research Institute, Houston +German Psychological Society (Law & Psychology Division), Braunschweig, FRG +Institute for Perception, TNO, Soesterberg, The Netherlands + +**1986** + +SUNY, Stony Brook +Oregon State University +University of Michigan (Survey Research) +University of Maryland +██████████ University +Johns ██████████ University +Judicial Studies Program (California Judges) +Michigan Judicial Institute (Michigan Judges) +Texas Assn. of Defense Counsel, San Francisco +All-Star Seminar, Atlanta Bar, Atlanta +US Census Bureau, Washington, DC +Annenberg School of Communication + +Women and Memory, University of Michigan +American Assn. of Public Opinion Res., Wash., DC +Federal Judicial Center +Capitol Area Social Psychological Assn +Bureau of Labor Statistics +Washington DC Public Defenders +Smithsonian Institute + +**1987** + +University of Nevada, Reno +University of North Dakota +California Judicial Studies +Harvard Law School +██████████ Law School +University of South Carolina Law School +Annual ██████████ Lectureship, University of Missouri, Kansas City +British Psychological Society, Brighton, England +US Court of Military Appeals Conf, Wash, DC +National Academy of Arbitrators, New Orleans +Judicial Conference of Washington, DC +University of UMEA, Sweden +Cleveland-Marshall Law School, Cleveland +Indiana University Law School, Bloomington +Indiana University Psychology Department +Hebrew University, Jerusalem +Cornell University +Washington Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers +Tennessee Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers +Recorder's Court, Detroit + +**1988** + +California Judicial Studies (Judges) +Washington Criminal Justice Training Committee (Police) +ATLA, New York +New York University +Northwestern Law School +Ohio Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Cincinnati +Baylor University, Waco, Texas (Oral History & Memory) +Southeastern Louisiana Univ. (Scholar in Residence) +Haverford College +Arizona State University (Psychology Department and Law School) +Rocky Mountain Psychological Assn (Keynote) +University of Oregon +North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, Greensboro +Lane County Law Forum, Oregon +NATO Advanced Study Institute, Maratea, Italy +ATLA, Annual Meeting, Kansas City + +Northwestern Law School for prosecutors and defense attorneys +██████ County Public Defenders +International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia (Keynote) +Medico Legal Society of Queensland, Australia +Brigham Young University Law School +BYU Psychology Department +Baylor University Law School +University of California, San Diego +University of Washington Law School + +**1989** + +Yale University Law School +Yale Psychology Department +University of Michigan +University of California, San Diego +Northern Kentucky University +Southern Indiana University, Evansville (Mid-America Conference, Keynote) +Northwestern Law School +Western Psychological Association, Reno +Northwestern Law School for prosecutors and defense attorneys, Chicago +American Bar Assn, Litigation Sect, Honolulu +British Psychological Society, Cognitive Section, Cambridge, England + +**1990** + +Leiden University, the Netherlands +Emory University, Flashbulb Memory conf +American Bar Association, Satellite Seminar on Jury Comprehension, Washington, DC +University of West Virginia, Practical Cognition Conference +ABA Litigation Sec, Trial Practice Committee, Phoenix +Annenberg Conference on Selecting Impartial Juries, Washington DC +University of Pittsburgh +Northwestern Law School +European Conference on Law & Psychology, Nuremberg, Germany +University of Minnesota Law School + +**1991** + +National Institute on Teaching of Psych, Fl +ABA (American Bar Foundation) +Ontario Psychological Association, Toronto +Ryerson College, Canada, 11th Annual +Psychology Lecture +Arkansas Annual Psych Conference (Keynote) +Seattle Rotary +Northwestern University Law School +University of Lethbridge, Canada +Banff Conference on Cognitive Science, Canada +Society of British Columbia, Continuing Legal Education + +Fordham University, NY +Legal Aid Society, NY +AIDS Survey Research Methodology Conference, Rockville, MD +Course for prosecuting and defense attorneys, Northwestern Law +American Psych Assn, San Francisco, CA +University of Toronto +Ontario Science Centre +Chief Executive Organization Forum, Vancouver +University of Georgia (Wm. ██████ Annual Lectureship) +8th International Conference on Multiple Personality/Dissociative States (Plenary Speaker), Chicago +Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington State + +**1992** + +International Listening Association (Keynote) +University of Tennessee, Knoxville +Mississippi State University +Federal Defenders Assn, San Diego +██████ College +Portland Community College +University of California, Santa Cruz +Augustana College, Illinois (██████ Memorial Lecture) +Canadian Bar Association, Toronto +University of Toledo +NATO Conference, Lucca, Italy +Criminal Justice Act Seminar (Keynote), San Diego +Psi Chi/Fredrick Howell ██████ Distinguished lecture, APA, Washington DC +Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington Medical School +Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs +Faculty Auxiliary, University of Washington +University of Stockholm, Sweden +Swedish Psychological Association (Keynote Speaker) +Gruter Institute, Squaw Valley +██████ University (Wisconsin, Convocation Speaker) +FJC Criminal Procedure Seminar for Federal Judges, Palm Beach + +**1993** + +McGill University (D.O. Hebb Lecturer) +American Psychiatric Assn, San Francisco +Law-Psychology Symposium (Keynote Speaker), California State Univ., Fullerton +New Mexico Psychological Assn/New Mexico Trial Lawyers, Santa Fe +FMS Foundation Conf, Valley Forge, PA +Young President's Organization Alumnus (YPOA), Seattle + +Pacific Northwest Writers, Seattle +Midwestern Psychological Assn, Chicago +NACDL/ATLA College of Trial Advocacy +Seminar, Las Vegas +American Academy of Forensic Psychology, +Continuing Education, Invited Workshop +Mystery Writers of America +Colorado Psychological Assn, Aspen +Swiss Memory Psychology Program, Vals, +Switzerland +Medical-Legal Society of Toronto +American Psychological Association, Invited +Presidential Debate, Toronto +Midwest Conference on Child Sexual Abuse & +Incest, Madison, Wisconsin +Clark Univ., Conf on Trauma and Memory + +**1994** + +Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe Retreat, +Silverado +Mercer Island Rotary +Seattle Forensic Institute +Bay State Medical Center, Trauma and +Memory Conference, Springfield, █ +University of New Mexico Medical School +(Grand Rounds) +Red River Undergraduate Conference, Fargo, +North Dakota (Keynote) +Leiden University, The Netherlands +National Association of Criminal Defense +Lawyers, Washington, DC +Washington Assn of Criminal Defense +Attorneys +University of San Diego, School of Law, CLE +Missoula Psychiatric Services, Conference on +Law and Psychiatry, Missoula, Montana +Mind/Brain/Behavior Program, Memory +Distortion Conference, Harvard University +Georgia Psychological Assn Continuing +Education, Atlanta +█ Fraser University, (Keynote speaker, +conference on Memories of Sexual Abuse), +Vancouver, Canada +7th Annual Dual Disorder Conference, +Bellevue, Washington +Stanford University, Psychology Colloquium +Stanford University Medical School, +Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds +American Psychological Society (Teaching +Institute), Wash. DC +Committee for the Scientific Investigation of +Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) +Psych Methods in the Investigation and Court +Treatment of Sexual Abuse, Tromso, +Norway +American Assn of Public Welfare Attorneys, +Seattle +Japanese Psych Assn (keynote), Tokyo + +Japan Federation of Bar Associations, Tokyo +University of Colorado, Denver +Current Topics in Mental Health & Law, +Seattle +Criminal Lawyers' Assn, Toronto +Criminal Trial Lawyers Assn, Alberta, Canada +Johns █ Medical School/FMS +Foundation Conf on Memory and Reality, +Baltimore, Md (keynote) + +**1995** + +University of Washington Medical School, +Pain Grand Rounds +University of California at Los Angeles +American Academy of Forensic Sciences, +Annual Meeting +█ County Detectives, Special Assault Unit +University of Pittsburgh +Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges +University of California, San Francisco, +Department of Psychiatry Grand Rounds +University of Kansas Medical Center +(Childhood sex abuse and memories +conference) +Indiana University, South Bend (keynote to +commemorate 175th year anniversary of IU) +Rice University, Houston +Battig Memorial Lecturer, Rocky Mountain +Psychological Assn, Boulder +National Judicial Institute, Seminar for Judges, +Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada +University of Illinois, Chicago, Distinguished +Lecture - Midwestern Psychological Assn. +Carnegie Mellon University, 27th annual +conference, Pittsburgh +National Association of Legal Investigators, +Annual Convention, Portland +American Psychological Society (Invited +speaker), New York +Charter Behavioral Health System of Dallas +Workshops on Memory, Sexual Trauma & +the Law, (Invited speaker), Seattle, San +Francisco, San Diego +Council of Appellate Staff Attorneys (ABA +Seminar), Blaine, Washington +American Academy of Forensic Psychology, +Distinguished Contributions Award address, +APA annual meeting, New York City +University of Pennsylvania Medical School, +Department of Psychiatry (Grand Rounds) +Assn for Advancement of Behavior Therapy +Annual meeting, Washington DC (keynote) +California Public Defenders Assn, Napa, CA +Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard Medical School, +Psychiatry Grand Rounds (honoring F. +Frankel) +Fourth Annual Conference on Mental Health +and the Law, Orlando, Florida + +International Society for the Study of Dissociation, Lake Buena Vista, FL +California State University, Humboldt Co., CA +Western Humanities Conference, Santa Barbara (keynote: Illusions of Memory) +Washington State Psychological Association, Annual meeting (Featured Speaker), Tacoma +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (Luncheon keynote: Memory Distortion), Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington +Criminal Lawyers Association, Toronto +University of Kansas (Ferne-Fischer-Formann Lecturer), ██████████, Kansas +Judgment & Decision Making Conference, Annual meeting, Los Angeles (keynote) +Adelphi University, Consciousness Symp., Centennial Speaker, Garden City, NY +Washington University Medical School, Psychiatry (Gildea Lecture), St. Louis + +**1996** + +Calvin College, The January Series, Grand Rapids, Michigan +University of Calif, ██████████, Neuroscience Colloquium +Interval Research Corporation, Palo Alto +Pacific Sociological Assn , Annual Meeting, Seattle +John ██████████ Medical Institute/FMSF, San Diego +Southwestern Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, Houston (keynote) +Memory Retrieval Controversy Conference, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario +Tenth National Conference on Undergraduate Research, University of North Carolina, Asheville, (keynote) +American Philosophical Society, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia +NATO International Conf, Recollections of trauma, France (main speaker) +Second International Conference on Memory, University of Padova, Italy (keynote) +International Conference on Centenary of Piaget's Birth, Universite de Neuchatel, Switzerland +Grinnell College, Scholars' Convocation speaker, Grinnell, Iowa +University of Texas, Houston, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences +University of California, Riverside, Memory Recovery & Creation Conference (keynote) +Ohio University, Athens, ██████████ +University of South Florida, Sarasota, Conference on Child Abuse in Our Time +Seattle Forensic Institute, Conference on Sexual Abuse and its Recollection +National Guild of Hypnotists, Pacific NW + +Chapter and the Washington Hypnosis Assn +American Psychological Society, Annual meeting, San Francisco (Presidential Symposium speaker) +Emory University, Atlanta +University of Texas, Austin +National Child Abuse Defense & Resource Center, 5th Internat Conf, Las Vegas, NV +Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa +Nebraska Psychological Association, Omaha +Washington University, St. Louis +Exploratorium (Science Museum), San Francisco +National Institute of Health, Conference on Self-Report, Bethesda, MD +California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, San Francisco + +**1997** + +Justice Committee, Conference on "Day of Contrition," Salem, ██████████ +National Institute of Health, Conference on Undue Influence, Bethesda, MD +American Association for Advancement of Science, Annual Meeting +Washington University, St. Louis (Assembly Speaker) +University of Arizona +Penn State Univ, Inaugural Herschel W. and Eileen W. Leibowitz Lecture, Univ Park, PA +Johns ██████████ University Medical School, Baltimore, MD +False Memory Syndrome Foundation Conference, Baltimore, MD +██████████ Univ, Centennial Speaker, Peoria, IL +American College of Forensic Psychology, Main Speaker, Vancouver, Canada +Western Psychological Assn, Invited speaker, Seattle, WA +National Inst on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD +International Women's Forum, Wash. DC. +Center for Inquiry--Rockies, Conference on Gender Politics of Science, Boulder, CO +Memory Conference (keynote), Bar Ilan University, Israel +National Child Abuse Def & Resource Center, 6th International Conference, Las Vegas, NV +University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands (Studium Generale) +Lecture, Heymans Institute for Fundamental Psychologic Research, Univ. of Groningen +Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands +University of Maastricht, The Netherlands +The Whidden Lectures, McMaster University, ██████████, Canada + +**1998** + +Conference on False Memory Creation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton + +Conference on Recovering Repressed Memories or Creating False Ones, Florida Atlantic Univ. +The Marian Jane Girard Memorial Lecture, Scripps College, CA +American Psychology-Law Society (Major invited address), Redondo, CA +Florida Cognition Conference (Keynote speaker), Florida International University +8th Annual National Symposium on Mental Health & Law, Miami, FL +The SPES Society, Naples, FL +University of Michigan -Cognitive Psych Group +State Bar of Michigan, Litigation Section (featured guest speaker), Ann Arbor, MI +Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Annual Meeting +Baldwin-Wallace College, Harrington Visiting Professor (HVP), Ohio +National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA +Connecticut Bar Assn, Eyewitness Testimony & False Memories (Special Guest Speaker), Hartford, CT +Conference On Memory, Consciousness, Brain (Tulving Conference), Tallinn, Estonia +Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Marco Island +Conference on Reconstructing the Past, Stockholm, Sweden +Conference on Psychology of Testimony, Portsmouth, England (Keynote) +University of Portsmouth, England 1998 +Commencement +University of Bristol, Bristol, England +2nd World Skeptics Congress, University of Heidelberg, Germany (Keynote address) +Paul McReynold's Lecturer, Univ. of Nevada, Reno +Conference "Embracing Science in an Irrational World", Center for Inquiry Institute, Bellevue, WA +National Child Abuse Def & Resource Center, 7th International Conference, Las Vegas, NV +Conference "Memory & Suggestibility in psychotherapeutic relationships", Psychoanalytic Institute, St. Louis, MO +National Conference On Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University Law School, Chicago +The Exploratorium (Science Museum), San Francisco + +1999 + +Seattle University School of Law, Tacoma +University of California, Irvine and Irvine +Health Foundation + +Ohio Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Davton +██████████ Fox University, Oregon: Social Sciences Conference (Keynote speaker) Newberg, OR +Idaho Neurological Institute, Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, Boise, Id +Idaho Psychological Association, CE, Coeur D'Alene +National Legal Aid & Defender Assn, Death Penalty Conference, Atlanta, GA +West Virginia Psychology Conference, Marshall University, Huntington, WV., (Keynote) +Eastern Psychological Assn, Providence, RI (Presidential Speaker) +6th Annual California State Univ. Psychology Research Fair, San Marcos, CA(Keynote) +West Virginia State Bar Assn, Morgantown, WV +New York Skeptics Society, NY (Isaac Asimov Lecture Award) +Northwest Cognition Conference, Victoria, B.C. (Keynote) +Iowa Public Defender's Annual Meeting, Dubuque, IO +West Virginia Public Defender's Annual Meeting, Canaan Valley, WV +Clark County Bar Assn CLE, Las Vegas, NV +Tennessee Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Nashville, TN +Indiana University, Bloomington (Patten Lecturer) +New Hampshire Public Defender's Association, Manchester +Dartmouth University, Hanover (Symposium on the Future of Psychological and Brain Sciences, at dedication of Moore ██████████) +8th International Conference on Allegations of Child abuse, Las Vegas, NV +Ernest Becker Foundation +University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Harriet Elliot Lecture Series +Federal Bureau of Investigation, Agents Training Conference +Indiana Public Defender Council, Indianapolis + +2000 + +Stanford University (Zimbardo Millenium) +University of Northern Colorado, Greeley +Wrongful Conviction Conference, Newport Beach, CA +University of North Florida, Jacksonville +California State University, Sacramento +New York Medical College, Westchester, NY +Memory and Reality Conference, FMS Foundation, ██████████ Plains, NY +Innocence Project Conference, Cavanaugh's, + +Seattle, WA +██████████ Memorial Lecture, Minnesota +Psychology Undergraduate Conference, +Macalester College, MN +National Association of Criminal Defense +Lawyers (NACDL), Tuscon, AZ +Vrije Universiteit (Free University), +Amsterdam, Netherlands +American Psychological Society, Teaching +Institute, Miami, FL +Oregon Association of Criminal Defense +Lawyers, Bend, OR +Columbia University, Department of +Psychiatry, Grand Rounds, NY +Georgia Indigent Defense Council, Atlanta +New Zealand Psychological Society (keynote), +██████████, NZ +Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand +University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ +University of Wisconsin, Parkside +University of Tennessee Law School, +Knoxville +National Child Abuse Def. & Resource Center, +Kansas City +University of Tennessee Psychology Colloq +Barristers, Solicitors, Psychiatrists: +Fitzwilliam hotel, Dublin, Ireland +William & Mary Law School, Williamsburg, VA +Psychology Dept, William & Mary College, VA + +2001 +California Public Defenders Association, Palm +Springs, CA +University of Oklahoma, Norman +National Association of Criminal Defense +Lawyers, Las Vegas +National Legal Aid and Defender Assn, +Albuquerque, NM +University of California, Irvine +Science & Technology, Flaschner Judicial +Institute, Brandeis University +Rochester Inst. of Technology, Rochester, NY +New York Academy of Medicine (& Anna +Freud Centre), New York +██████████ Mason Law School, Institute for +Judges, Tucson, AZ +██████████ University, Harold Schlosberg +Colloquium Lecturer, Providence, RI +Oregon Health Sciences Univ., School of +Medicine, Portland (Saslow Lecturer) +Ontario Ministry of Health & Mental Health +Center, Penetanguishene, Canada +Future of Psychopathology, Bar-Ilan +University, Israel +Superior Court Judges, State of Georgia, St. +Simons Island, GA +Tennessee Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers, +Nashville + +British Association for Advancement of +Science, Glasgow, Scotland +British Psych Society, Cognitive Section & +European Society of Cog Psych, Edinburgh, +Scotland +University of Michigan, Institute for Social +Research +Federal Defender Program & III. Assn of +Criminal Defense Lawyers, Chicago +Louisiana State University, (Memory & +Narrative), Baton Rouge, Louisiana +University of Portland, Oregon + +2002 +Cleveland-Marshall Law School, Cleveland, +██████████ +SSSS Western Region Conference (key +invited), Manhattan Beach, CA +Harvard Law School, Wrongful Convictions +conf. +University of Wyoming +Womens' University Club, Seattle +Midwestern Psychological Assn (Psi Chi, +Invited Speaker), Chicago +National Academy of Sciences, Washington +DC (Henry & Bryna David Award Lecture) +Northwestern University +Annual Whistleblower Investigators +Conference, Baltimore, MD, +Trauma and Memory, Continuing Legal +Education, Seattle, WA +World Association of Detectives, Seattle, WA +False Memory Syndrome Foundation +Conference, Chicago, IL + +2003 +National Institute on Teaching of Psychology, +St. Petersburg, FL (keynote) +Center for Inquiry, Los Angeles, CA +American Assn for Advancement of +Science, Denver. +National Legal Aid & Defender Assn, Austin, +TX. +Prevent Child Abuse-Orange Cty Orange, CA +McGeorge School of Law (Lou Asch +Memorial Lecture), Sacramento, CA +New Century, Salon Speaker, Newport Beach, +CA +Newport Harbor Bar Assn, Newport Beach, +CA +University of Washington Law School, Seattle +Biola University, La Mirada, CA +CEO Roundtable, Half Moon Bay, CA +Tenth Annual Undergrad Research +Symposium (keynote), Irvine, CA +University of California, San Diego, CA +(Norman ██████████ Endowed Lectureship) +University of Colorado, Festschrift for Bourne, +Kintsch, Landauer, Boulder, CO + +American Psychological Society (Keynote), +Atlanta + +Center for Inquiry-West, Inaugural Event +keynote speaker, Los Angeles, CA +Society for Applied Research in Memory and +Cognition, Aberdeen, Scotland (keynote) +European Psychology & Law Conference, +Edinburgh, Scotland + +American Psychological Association +(Distinguished Award Address), Toronto +Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX +Harbor Ridge Women's Group, Newport +Beach, CA + +Lifelong Learning Academy, Irvine, CA +Science and Evidence Conf, City ██████, Irvine +Calif. Attorneys for Criminal Justice, SF, CA + +**2004** + +University of Lusiada, Lisbon, Portugal +University of California, Los Angeles, CA +Claremont Graduate University - Conference +on Applied Psychology +University of Southern California, CA +Town & Gown, Newport Beach, CA +Advanced Trial Skills Inst, Calif. Public +Defenders Assn, Palm Springs, CA +Catholic Univ. of Leuven, Belgium +L'Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences +Sociales (EHESS), Paris +Colorado College (██████████ Lecture), Colorado +Springs, CO +University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. +Rocky Mountain Psychological Assn, +Distinguished Speaker, Reno, NV +Western Psychological Association, Psi Chi +Distinguished Speaker, Phoenix, AZ +State Legislative Leaders Foundation & +University of Chicago, Chicago, IL +University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL +Center for Neurobiology of Learning & +Memory, Evening to Remember Talk. +National Child Abuse Defense & Resource +Center Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV. +University Synagogue (Holocaust Memories) +CA. +Arizona State University Law School, Tempe +Arizona State University Psychology Dept, AZ + +**2005** + +Orange County Stanford Assn, Newport, CA +SARMAC Bethschrift Meeting, Wellington, +New Zealand +RoddyFest, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN +University of Louisville, Grawemeyer Award +Speech, Louisville, KY +Persistence of Memory Conf. (Keynote), +Niagara City CC, NY. + +Western Psychological Assn (Presidential +Address), Portland, OR +Stanford University (Festschrift for ██████████ +Bower), Palo Alto, CA +University of Haifa, Israel +Sacred Heart Medical Center, Psychiatry, +(Bakker Retirement) Spokane, WA +Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Psychiatry, +Grand Rounds, CA. +Calif. Judicial Branch Conf, San Diego, CA +San Diego Stanford Association, CA +Pavlovian Society, 50th Anniversary Meeting, +(keynote), CA +Athenaeum Lecture, Claremont McKenna, CA +National Academy of Sciences Sackler Colloq +on Forensic Sciences, Wash, DC. + +**2006** + +Bureau of Jewish Education, Laguna, CA +University of San Diego, Michael Haney +Distinguished Lecturer, Ca. +Calif. State University, Long Beach, Ca. +Inaugural Quinn Lecturer in Memory & +Consciousness, University of British +Columbia +Ireland Scholar Award Lecturer, University of +Alabama – Birmingham +Harvard University +National Academy of Sciences, Forensic +Science, Washington D.C. +Western Psych Assn, Palm Springs, Ca. +Association for Behavior Analysis, +Presidential Scholar Address, Atlanta, Ga +UC-Irvine-Commencement Address, Social +Ecology +University of Aberdeen, Scotland +John Damien Lecturer, University of Stirling, +Scotland +Mexican Congress of Psychology, Puerto +Vallarta, Mexico (plenary) +Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ +Beyond Belief, Salk Institute, Ca. (Invited +speaker), La Jolla, CA +Grand Rounds, Dept of Neurology, UCI- +Medical, Orange, CA +University of Calif, Office of the President, +Oakland, CA + +**2007** + +Western State Univ College of Law, Fullerton, +CA +Newkirk Center, Forensic Science, Costa +Mesa, CA +University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ +Munsterberg Conf, John Jay College of Crim +Justice, NY +Academic & Professional Women, UCI +National Academy of Sciences, Distinctive +Voices, Beckman Center, CA. + +Serena Yang Distinguished Lecture, +University of Hong Kong +Women In Leadership, Annual Meeting, +Newport Beach, CA +Calif. State University - Long Beach, +Psychology Day Keynote Speaker, CA +Stanford University, Symbolic Systems +Distinguished Speaker, CA +Schneiderman Memorial Bioethics Lecture, +Biological Sciences, Beckman Center, CA +Federation of Defense & Corp Counsel, +Annual Meeting, Sun Valley, ID +██████████ Sperling Festschrift, UCI, CA., +██████████ Memorial Lecturer, Univ. of New +Hampshire, NH. +Forensic Science Conference, Public +Defenders, Los Angeles +International Women's Forum, Chicago +Behavioral Foundations of Policy Conf, +Princeton University, NJ +American Association of Universities, CA +NY State Judicial Institute, ██████████ Plains, NY +Centre Social I Cultural, Lleida, Spain. +CosmoCaixa Museum of Science, Madrid, +Spain. + +**2008**Calif. State University, Northridge (Richard +W. ██████████ Lecturer). +Univ. of South Florida, Doug Nelson +Festschrift, Tampa, FL. +Arizona State Univ. Law School, Tempe +Western Psych Assn, Irvine, CA +Nebraska Symposium on Motivation – +Emotion & Law, Lincoln, NE +International Conf on Investigative +Interviewing, Quebec Nationale Police +Academy, Nicolet, Canada. +██████████ Pappas Sexual Tort Sem., Tampa, FL. +European Association of Psychology & Law +(keynote), Maastricht, Netherlands +Annual Celebration Speech "Illusions of +Memory", University of Oslo, Norway +Psychology Department, University of Oslo +University of Louisville +Northern Lights Psychology Conference +(keynote), Grand Forks, ND +Tel-Aviv University, School of Law +Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel +██████████ Mason Law School – Science in the +Courts Program for Judges, Fl + +**2009**Midwest Institute for Students & Teachers of +Psychology (Opening Key), Glen Ellyn, Il. +American Assn for Advancement of Science +(McGovern Award lecture), Chicago, IL. +American Psychology Law Society +(Presidential Speaker), San Antonio, TX + +Teachers of Psychology, London +South West Psychology Conference (keynote) +London +Center for Inquiry, 12th World Congress, +Bethesda, Md. +Princeton University, NJ +Littler Class Action Conference, Phoenix, AZ +Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting, +(Keynote) Pittsburgh, PA +Canadian Psychological Assn (keynote), +Montreal +Chautauqua Institution, NY +UCI Foundation retreat, San Diego, CA. +University of Geneva (450th anniversary), +Aspen Institute , CO +Federal Bureau of Investigation, Virginia +Messe Memorial Lecture, Michigan State +Univ. +Trendsetters, Jewish Federation, Newport +Beach, CA. +Dickinson College (2009 ██████████ Priestley +Award) PA +Canadian Lawyers, Toronto, Canada + +**2010**National Seminar on Forensic Evidence, San +Diego, Ca. +Memory & Law Workshop, Tucson, Az +ARCS Foundation, Irvine, Ca. +California Institute of Technology (William & +Myrtle Harris Distinguished Lectureship in +Science and Civilization), CA. +University of Texas, Austin +Society of Experimental Psychologists +(██████████ Medal talk) Philadelphia, PA +University of Nevada, Reno +University Bonn, Germany +Institute of Community & Family Psychiatry, +McGill, Montreal, Canada. +Denison University (██████████ Lecture), +Granville, ██████████ +CIA/BoozAllen: Face Recog, Herndon, VA. +Bronowski Art & Science Forum, The +Neurosciences Institute, La Jolla, CA +University of Southern California + +**2011**University of California, Santa Barbara +Orange County Stanford Assn, Newport, CA +Eastern Psychological Assn (Psi Chi +Distinguished Lecturer), Boston, ██████████ +Law and the Brain conference, New York +Law & Memory Conf, Stanford Law School +UCLA School of Law, CA +Rocky Mountain Psych Assn., (Psi Chi +Distinguished Lecturer) Salt Lake City, UT + +British Psychological Society annual meeting, +Glasgow, Scotland (keynote) +Salon, The Pacific Club, CA +South West Psychology Conf. (keynote) +London +British False Memory Society, London +Clacton County High School, England +Univ of Sheffield, England +Assn of Teachers of Psychology, Hatfield, +England +The Amazing Meeting (TAM), Las Vegas +North Orange County Bar Assn, Ca. +Roosevelt University, Chicago +Japanese Psychological Assn, Tokyo (keynote) +Law School, University of Calif, Berkeley + +**2012** + +Pennsylvania Bar Institute +Nova Southeastern Univ, Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. +Distinguished Writing Lecture Series, UCI +Penn Conf of State Trial Judges, PA +Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA +Correctional Services Canada, Toronto +Suppes Symposium, Stanford, CA +Forensic Mental Health Assn of California, +Monterey, CA +Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) +University of Ottawa +U.S. District Court of Nevada Annual Conf, +Reno +Ohio State University (Greenwald lecture) +Fraser University, Canada +Kwantlen Polytech University, Canada +Center for Advanced Study Summit, Stanford +International Congress of Psychology, +(keynote- Cape Town, South Africa) +Monash South Africa University. Johannesburg +Orange County Traffic Investigators Assn +Grand Rounds, Dept of Psychiatry, UCI +FMSF Tribute, Philadelphia, PA +CSIcon 2012, Nashville +Claude Bernard Univ., Lyon, France +Mode d'Emploi Festival, Villa Gillet, Lyon, +France + +**2013** + +National Institute on the Teaching of +Psychology, FL +Harbor Ridge Women's Group, CA +Univ. of California, [REDACTED] +University of Washington ([REDACTED] Lecture) +SouthWest Psychology Conf, , London +Goldsmiths, Univ of London +South Bank University, London +National Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers, +Las Vegas +Midwestern Psych Assn, Chicago +Association for Psych Science, Wash DC +TedGlobal2013, Edinburgh, Scotland + +European Congress of Psychology (keynote- +Stockholm 2013). +Int. Conf. on Critical Thinking and Education +Reform, Berkeley, Ca. +American Psych Assn, Award acceptance, HI +La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia +TedX-Orange Coast, Newport Beach, CA +University of Missouri, Columbia, MO +Town & Gown, Irvine, Ca. +Psychonomic Society, Toronto (keynote) + +**2014** + +American Assn of Law Schools, NY +National Research Council Eyewitness +Committee (via videolink) +University of Michigan (Weinberg Neurolaw) +Southwestern Psychological Assn, San +Antonio, TX (keynote) +The California Club, Los Angeles +Northwestern Law School, Chicago +The Amazing Meeting (TAM), Las Vegas, NV +Foundation for Critical Thinking (Nader +event), Berkeley, Ca +Federal Court Clerk Assn, Seattle, WA +Trauma & Memory, Stockholm, +Sweden +What Matters To Me, and Why (UC-Irvine) +University of Arizona + +**2015** + +[REDACTED] University (via Skype) +Justice & Injustice Conf., UCI law +American Assoc.of Advancement of Science, +San Jose, CA +Society for Consumer Research, Phoenix +SouthWest Psychology Conf, , London +Goldsmiths University, London +Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Award +lecture) +TedX-CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), Va +Radcliff Institute, Harvard Univ, ([REDACTED] +Lecture), [REDACTED] +University of Akron ([REDACTED] Lecture), [REDACTED] +John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY +NAS-YouTube, Science Speed Date, Los +Angeles, CA +Foundation for Critical Thinking, Berkeley CA +SymposiumTraumatic Memories, Forensic +Psychiatry Center & Hogrefe Publishers, +Helsinki, Finland +American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, +Newport Beach, CA +Forensic Psych Institute Launch, Goldsmiths, +University of London +Berlin Graduate School of Mind & Brain, +Humboldt University, Germany +United States District Court, Eastern District +Conference, Olympic Valley, CA + +West Point Military Academy, NY (Class of 1951 Distinguished Lecturer) +UC Conf on Social Science & Law +Grawemeyer Celebration, Univ of Louisville +CEM, International Congress, Tunisia +(Honorary Chair) – via videoconference + +**2016** + +California State Univ, Dominguez Hills +Western Psychological Assn (Distinguished speaker) +Imagine No Religion, Vancouver, BC +Contacts of Orange County, Irvine, CA +American Humanist Assn, award speech, Chicago, IL +Phi Beta Kappa Initiation, UCI +Ilex2016, Atlanta, Ga +International Congress of Psychology, Yokohama, Japan 2016 +FBI, Violent Crime Beh Analysis, LA, CA +Colorado State Univ, CO +CsiCon Conference, Las Vegas, NV. +Assn of Workplace Investigators, San Francisco, CA +Univ of London, Goldsmiths +Council of Scientific Society Presidents, DC + +**2017** + +SARMAC, Sydney, Australia +LogiCal, Los Angeles, CA +American Assoc for Advancement of Science +SouthWest Psych Conf, London, +Midwestern Psych Assn, Distinguished Psi Chi lecturer, Chicago +UCEmeriti Assn +International Congress on Social Responsibility, Universidad Santo Tomas, Bogota, Columbia +Douglas College, Vancouver, Canada. +Vancouver International Conf on Teaching of Psych, Vancouver, Canada +Inn of Court, CA +DRI Asbestos Medicine Conf, Las Vegas +Internat Society for Neuroethics, Wash DC +Erickson Foundation, Evolution of Psychotherapy Conf, , CA + +**2018** + +Rice University, Bochner Lecture, Austin, Tx +Exploratorium, San Francisco +Univ of Miami, SEEDS speaker, FL +Western Univ of Health Sciences, Ca +Cal State University, Fullerton (Psych Day!) +Houston Bar Assn BarBench Conf, TX +CNLM Conf, Huntington Beach (plenary) +Western Psychological Assn, Portland, OR +Albert Wolters Distinguished Lecture, Univ of Reading, England +APS Teaching Conf., San Francisco, CA +Max-Planck, Berlin, Germany + +National Academy of Sciences BBCSS, counterfeiting, CA +Amer Psych Assn annual meeting, San Fran +Sierra College, Sacramento, Ca +Millsaps College, Moreton Lecture, MS. +Univeridad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina +Universidad Nacional Villa Maria, Argentina +(police & prosecutors) +Univ. of Iowa, Neuroscience Day (keynote) +NACDL, Las Vegas, NV +Wagenaar-Crombag Memorial, Netherlands +University of Dublin, Ireland + +**2019** + +Jeeves Lecture, St. Andrews Univ, Scotland +SouthWest Psychology Conf, London +Origins Project Podcast, Phoenix, AZ +University of Nevada, Reno +Western Psych Assn, Pasadena, CA +Science of Magic Assn, Chicago, IL +Australian National University, Canberra +Canberra Writers Festival, Australia +Waikato Univ., New Zealand +CSICon, Las Vegas, Nv. +Stanford Alumni Assn, Orange Cty, CA + +**2020 (most via zoom)** + +Georgia Tech Univ, Atlanta +Heterodox Academy, New York +APA TOPSS (Teachers of Psychology in Secondary School) +Newport Beach Public Library Fdn, Ca. +Western Psych Assn annual meeting (keynote) +University of California, San Francisco, (Fresno) Psychiatry Grand Rounds. +University of New Mexico Health Sciences +Erickson Foundation, Evolution of Psychotherapy, CA + +**2021 (most via zoom)** + +SouthWest Psychology Conf, London +Prosecutors/Public Defenders, Haifa, Annual meeting, Israel +NAS, Science & Entertain Exchange +American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia +Assoc for Behavior Analysis International-ABAI, (B.F. Skinner Lecture) +Arizona State Bar Annual Convention +International Congress of Psych, Prague, Czech + +**Forthcoming** + +National Assn of Crim Defense, Las Vegas +Mt Sinai Psychiatry Dept, NY +Bay Area Skeptics Conference +Erickson Foundation +██████ University (██████ Lecture), Indiana +Aspire Psychology Conference, Doha, Qatar +Australian National University +Commencement + +Revised: September. 2021 + +# PARK DIETZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. + +Forensic Experts + +### Administrative Offices + +2906 Lafayette Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tel: 949.723-2211 Fax: 949.723-2212 Email: expert@parkdietzassociates.com Website: www.parkthetzassociates.com + +- Forensic Psychiatry +- Forensic Psychology +- Forensic Pathology +- Forensic Neurology +- Forensic Social Work +- Criminology +- Security + +# CURRICULUM VITAE (July 15, 2021) + +Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. + +# CURRENT POSITIONS: + +1996- President, Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., Newport Beach, California, and Washington, DC (Employer ID: 33- 0690184) (PD&A is a multidisciplinary forensic firm that grew out of a forensic psychiatry practice begun in 1978.) 1990- Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Neuropsychiatric Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles 1987- President, Threat Assessment Group,® Inc., Newport Beach, California (Employer ID: 54-1423864) (TAG is a workplace violence prevention firm offering training, products, and consulting services to mitigate behavioral risks.) 1987- Forensic Psychiatry Consultant, Forensic Sciences Unit, New York State Police, Albany, New York 1981- Consultant, Critical Incident Response Group, Behavioral Science Unit, Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit, Behavioral Analysis Units, and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia + +# EDUCATION: + +1970 A.B. Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences Honors Program in Psychology, 1969-1970 Alpha Epsilon Delta, 1969 (Vice President) + +Phi Beta Kappa, 1970 + +Phi Kappa Phi, 1970 + +A.B. cum laude in Psychology and With Distinction in All Subjects, 1970 + +1975 M.D. Johns University School of Medicine Alpha Omega Alpha, 1975 + +1975 M.P.H. Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health + +1984 Ph.D. Johns University (Sociology) + +# POSTGRADUATE TRAINING: + +# Residencies: + +1975-1977 Assistant Resident, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hospital + +1977-1978 Resident, Department of Psychiatry, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania + +# Fellowships: + +1973-1977 M.D.-Ph.D. Fellow M.D.-Ph.D. Program in Behavioral Sciences, Johns University (National Institute of General Medical Sciences Training Grant) + +1976-1977 Robert Foundation Clinical Scholar, Johns University + +1977-1978 Robert Foundation Clinical Scholar, University of Pennsylvania + +# FULL-TIME ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS: + +1975-1977 Fellow, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns University School of Medicine + +1977-1978 Chief Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry, Center for Studies in Social-Legal Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine + +1978-1982 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, at the McLean Hospital 1982-1986 Associate Professor of Law and of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Virginia Schools of Law and Medicine 1986-1989 Professor of Law and Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Virginia + +# VISITING AND ADJUNCT APPOINTMENTS: + +1975-1978 1980-1983 1981- 1983-1989 1987-1988 2001-2010 Lecturer in the Department of Public Health Administration, Division of Forensic Pathology, Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health Lecturer in the Department of Health Services Administration, Division of Forensic Pathology, Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health Guest Lecturer, Behavioral Science Unit and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia Lecturer in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns School of Hygiene and Public Health Adjunct Scholar, Foundation for American Communications (FACS), Los Angeles, California Member, Research Advisory Board, Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia 2003 Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, University of Hawaii John A. School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii 2006 Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, University of Hawaii John A. School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii 2014-15 Distinguished Fellow, Center for Psychology & Law, School of Social Ecology, University of California, + +# Irvine + +2015-16 Distinguished Fellow, Center for Psychology & Law, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine + +# HOSPITAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS: + +1978-1982 1978-1980 1978-1982 1982-1988 1983-1989 1987-1988 1987-1990 Assistant Psychiatrist, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts Director of Forensic Psychiatry, McLean/Bridgewater Project, Bridgewater State Hospital, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater Director, Medical Criminology Research Center, McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School Medical Director, Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University of Virginia Psychiatrist, University of Virginia Hospitals Associate Director (Public Policy), University of Virginia Center for the Prevention of Disease and Injury Advisory Board, Johns Injury Prevention Research Center + +# INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: + +McLean Hospital Director, Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program, 1978-1980 Member, Subcommittee on Clinical Research, Long Range Planning Committee, 1980 Member, Subcommittee on New Frontiers, Long Range Planning Committee, 1980 Chairman, Committee for the Scientific Review of Research, McLean/Bridgewater Program, 1978-1980 University of Virginia School of Law Academic Review Committee, 1984-1988 Academic Policy and Grading Committee, 1985-1987 Calendar Committee, 1984-1986 + +Catalog Committee, 1984-1987 Law Enforcement Liaison Committee, 1986-1987 Library Committee, 1983-1988 + +University of Virginia School of Medicine Director, Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program, 1982-1988 + +# LICENSURE (MEDICINE AND SURGERY) AND CERTIFICATION (PSYCHIATRY): + +1975-1988 Maryland State Board of Medical Examiners License No. D18304 (currently on inactive status) 1977-2004 Pennsylvania State Board of Medical Education and Licensure Certificate No. MD-019311-E (currently on inactive status) 1978-1988 Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine Registration No. 043550 (currently on inactive status) 1979- American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (Psychiatry) Certificate No. 19765 1982- Virginia State Board of Medicine License No. 0101- 034874 + +# AWARDS AND HONORS: + +1975 First Prize Award, John P. Rattigan Student Essay Competition, American Society of Law and Medicine 1977 Wendell Muncie Award, Maryland Psychiatric Society and Maryland Association of Private Practicing Psychiatrists 1979 Corresponding Member, Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences 1979 Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences 1981 Honorary Member, Asociacion Mexicana de Medicina Legal + +1984 Alumni Lecturer, Robert Foundation Clinical Scholars Program Annual Meeting 1986 Krafft-Ebing Award, Psychiatry Section, American Academy of Forensic Sciences 1986 Fellow, American Psychiatric Association 1988-89 Sesquicentennial Associate, Center for Advanced Studies, University of Virginia 1992-93 Selected for The Best Doctors in America in the categories of "Forensic Psychiatry" and "Violence" (inaugural edition) 1992 Kenneth G. Gray Memorial Lectureship, Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, Montreal, Quebec, (sponsored by the Kenneth G. Gray Foundation, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto) 1993 Outstanding Service Award, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 1993 Citation for "Exceptional Service in the Public Interest," Louis Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003 Distinguished Fellow, American Psychiatric Association 2009 Citation as one of the "Top 25 Most Influential People in the Security Industry," Security magazine 2010 "Seymour Pollack Award for Distinguished Contributions to Education in Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2013 G. Stanley MI Distinguished Lecture in Clinical Psychology, Johns University (sponsored by the Psi Chi Honors Society) 2014 Keynote Address, University of Pennsylvania Medical Alumni Weekend, May 16, 2014 + +# NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ACTIVITIES: + +1980-1982 Task Force on Families of Catastrophe (Mobilization I, The Iranian Hostage Crisis), The Family Research Institute, Purdue University 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986 Committee on Trauma Research, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences Commissioner, Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, United States Department of Justice United States Delegate, Chancellor Helmut Kohl's Neurosciences and Ethics Conference, Bonn and Klostergut Jakobsberg, Federal Republic of Germany + +### EDITORIAL BOARDS: + +1974-1977 1974-1988 1979-1990 1979-1994 1982-2000 1984-1985 2012- Assistant Editor, Johns Medical Journal Editorial Board, Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Assistant Editor,1974-1978; Associate Editor, 1978-1988) Editorial Board, Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa Editorial Board, Journal of Forensic Sciences Editorial Board, Behavioral Sciences and the Law Associate Editor, Legal Aspects of Psychiatric Practice Editorial Board, Journal of Threat Assessment and Management + +Editorial consultant/reviewer for: + +Accident Analysis and Prevention American Journal of Epidemiology American Journal of Psychiatry American Journal of Public Health Archives of General Psychiatry Behavioral Sciences and the Law + +# Biological Psychiatry + +Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +Hospital & Community Psychiatry + +Journal of Forensic Sciences + +Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences + +Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease + +Journal of Psychiatric Research + +Journal of Studies of Alcohol + +Journal of Threat Assessment + +Journal of Trauma + +Law and Human Behavior + +Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa + +Psychosomatics + +# PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIPS, OFFICES, AND COMMITTEES): + +American Academy of Forensic Sciences + +Member, 1977-present + +Fellow, 1979-present + +Elective Offices: + +Chairman, Psychiatry Section, 1979-1982 (three terms) + +Fellow-at-Large, Psychiatry Section, 1982-1985 + +Executive Committee, 1982-1985 + +Annual Meeting Program Committee, 1979-1981 + +Council, 1979-1982 + +Nominating Committee, 1979-1982 + +Membership Committee, 1979-1982 + +Joint Committee on Accreditation of Training Programs in + +Forensic Psychiatry, 1980-1986 + +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +Member, 1977-present + +Elective Offices: + +Secretary, 1979-1983 (two terms) + +Councilor (Executive Council), 1983-1984 + +Vice President, 1984-1985 + +Councilor (Executive Council), 1990-1993 + +President-Elect, 1993-1994 + +President, 1994-1995 + +Immediate Past-President, 1995-1996 + +Awards Committee, 1985-1987 + +Budget Committee, 1995-1996 + +Committee on Criminal Behavior, 1985-1990 (Chairman, 1985- + +1990) + +Committee on International Relations, 1982-1984; 1989-1992 (Chairman, 1982-1984) + +Education Committee, 1977-1981 + +Ethics Committee, 1980-1982 + +Executive Council, 1983-1996 (Chairman, 1994-1995) + +Long Range Planning Committee, 1996-1998 + +Nominating Committee, 1983-1984, 1990-1997 (Chairman, 1994- 1995) + +Committee on Liaison with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 1989-1994 + +Committee on Research, 1984-1987 + +Joint Committee on Accreditation of Training Programs in Forensic Psychiatry, 1980-1986 + +Program Chairman, 10th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, October 25-28, 1979 + +Program Committee, 1977-1980 (Chairman, 1978-1979) + +Rappeport Travel Fellowship Committee, 1984-1985 + +Task Force on Videotaping, 1993-1999 + +American Association for the Advancement of Science + +Member, 1981-1983, 1988-1993 + +American Psychiatric Association + +Member, 1977-present + +Fellow, 1986-2003 + +Distinguished Fellow, 2003-2007 + +Distinguished Life Fellow, 2007-present + +Consultant, Task Force on the Right to Treatment, 1974-1977 + +Committee on Misuse and Abuse of Psychiatry in the United States, 1979-1980 + +Committee on Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry and Psychiatrists in the United States, 1980-1987 (Chairman, 1984-1986) + +Advisory Committee on the Paraphilias, Task Force on + +Nomenclature and Statistics (DSM-III-R), 1985-1987 + +Advisory Committee on Disorders of Impulse Control Not Elsewhere Classified, Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics (DSM-III-R), 1985-1987 + +Adviser, Sexual Disorders, DSM-IV + +Adviser, Sexual Disorders, DSM-IV-TR + +American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41, American Psychological Association) + +Member-at-Large, 1979-unknown date + +American Public Health Association Member, 1974-1978 + +American Society of Criminology Member, 1974-1995 + +American Society of Law and Medicine Member, 1974-1987 + +American Sociological Association Member, 1975-1984 Publications Committee, Medical Sociology Section, 1977-1978 + +Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy Member, 1974-1979 + +Association of Directors of Forensic Psychiatry Fellowships Founding Member, 1986-1988 Elective Office: Vice President, 1986-1988 + +Forensic Mental Health Association of California Member, 1989-unknown date + +Forensic Science Society (Great Britain) Member, 1973-unknown date + +Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry Member, then Corresponding Member, 1980-2015 Committee on Psychiatry and Law, 1980-unknown date + +International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship Affiliate Member, Unknown date - present + +Johns Medical and Surgical Association Member, 1975-present + +Maryland Psychiatric Society Member, 1977 + +Massachusetts Psychiatric Society Member, 1978-1982 Judicial Action Committee, 1979-1982 Orange County Psychiatric Society Member, 1990-present + +Psychiatric Society of Virginia (formerly the Neuropsychiatric Society of Virginia) Member, 1982-1990 + +Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society Member, 1977-1978 + +Society for the Study of Social Problems Member, 1970-1986 + +Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy Member, 2005-unknown date + +# RESEARCH GRANTS: + +"Battery and Murder Defendants: A Psychiatric and Criminological Study," funded through a subcontract from the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Criminal Violence at the University of Pennsylvania, funded by National Institute of Justice grant No. 79-NI-AX-0127, November 15, 1980, through September 30, 1982 (\$13,146). + +"Psychiatrists and Their Settings: Effects on Services," National Center for Health Services Research grant No. 1R03-H504414-01, May 1, 1981, through April 30, 1982 (\$27,834). + +"Violence and Mental Disorder: The Choice of Public Figures as Victims," National Institute of Justice grant No. 83-NI-AX-0005, October 1, 1983, through September 30, 1988 (\$399,813). + +"Crimes against the Children and Families of Public Figures: Stalking, Threats, Kidnapping, and Murder," anonymously funded research, February 26, 2003, through August 30, 2004. + +# RESEARCH ADVISORY POSITIONS: + +1978-1981 Consultant, "Longitudinal Study of Biosocial Factors Related to Delinquency and Crime" (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant to the University of Pennsylvania; Principal Investigator: Marvin Wolfgang) 1979 Technical Review Committee for Advocacy Demonstration Project, National Institute of Mental Health 1979-1981 Advisory Committee, "The Movement of Offender Populations Between Mental Health and Correctional Institutions" (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant to the University of California Irvine, and the New York Department of Mental Hygiene; Principal Investigators: John Monahan and Henry J. Steadman) 1979-1981 Advisory Committee, "The Utilization of Psychiatric and Psychological Services by Criminal Court Judges" (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant to the Forensic Sciences Foundation; Principal Investigator: Jonas R. Rappeport) 1980-1981 Consultant, "Research on the Use of Children in Pornography" (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect grant to Boston University; Principal Investigator: Ann Wolbert Burgess) 1984- 1992 Board of Trustees, Forensic Sciences Foundation (Vice President, 1985-1986) 2001- Research Advisory Board, Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia + +# SELECTED NOTABLE CASES THAT ARE PUBLIC INFORMATION: + +1981-1982 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., in U.S. v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. (attempted assassination of President Reagan) 1982- Consultant to the F.B.I., the National Food Processors Association, and various corporations in product tampering cases, beginning with the Chicago Tylenol murders 1982- Consultant to the F.B.I. on unsolved serial homicides, serial bombings, serial rapes, and other active investigations + +1987-1988 Consultant to the District Attorney of the County of New York, New York, in People v. Robert ("the Preppy Murder Case") 1988 Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, in the Grand Jury Investigation into allegations arising out of the matter of Miss Tawana Brawley ( law enforcement officials accused by Rev. Al Sharpton of kidnapping and raping African-American adolescent) 1988 Consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency in Mrs. David Orlikow et al. v. United States of America (alleged CIA-funded brainwashing of mental patients from 1957-61) 1990 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, New York, in U.S. v. Dial Information Services Corporation of New York (Dial-a-porn case; 2nd Circuit Opinion: 938 F.2d 1535 (2nd Cir. 1991)) 1989-1990 Consultant to the United States Attorne 's Office, Los Angeles, California, in U.S. v. Michael Shields (threats by stalker against Stephanie Zimbalist) 1990 Consultant to the District Attorney of Monroe County, New York, in People v. Arthur Shawcross (serial murders of prostitutes) 1990-1991 Consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice in U.S. v. Walter Leroy Moody, Jr. (VANPAC case: mail bombs killing U.S. Circuit Court Judge Robert Vance of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Birmingham, AL, and a civil rights lawyer in Savannah, GA) 1991 Consultant to the Office of the Public Defender of Los Angeles County, California, in People v. Robert Bardo (murder of actress Rebecca Schaefer) 1991 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, San Diego County, California, in People v. Elizabeth Broderick (murder of ex-husband and his new wife) + +1991-1992 Consultant to the California Department of Justice in William Bonin v. Vasquez (federal habeas petition of "the Freeway Killer"; 9th Circuit Opinion: 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995)) 1991-1992 1992-1995 1992-1999 1993-1995 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in State v. Jeffrey L. Dahmer (serial murders of men) Consultant to the plaintiff in Gary Ramona v. Marche Isabella, M.F.C.C., Richards M.D., et al. (induction of false memories is malpractice) Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, State of California, in People v. Charles Ng (serial murders with Leonard Lake) Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Nassau County, New York, and Office of the District Attorney, Suffolk County, New York, in People v. Joel Rifkin (serial murders of prostitutes) 1994 Consultant to the Office of County Attorney, Lancaster County, Nebraska, in People v. Arthur McElroy (attempted mass murder on campus of University of Nebraska, Lincoln) 1994 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., in U.S. v. James E. Swann, Jr. (serial murders by the "Shotgun Stalker") 1994-1995 1994-1995 1994-1995 Consultant to the defense in People of New York v. Ricardo Caputo (serial murders of lovers) Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, in U.S. v. Earl H. Fiqley and U.S. v. Michael T. Stevens (serial mail bombings and homicide) Consultant to the Office of the District Attorne , Nassau County, New York, in People v. Colin (mass murder on the Long Island Railroad) + +1994-1995 Consultant to the Solicitor for the 16th Circuit, SC, in People v. Susan (mother rolled car into lake, drowning her two children) 1994-1996 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Sonoma County, California, in People v. Richard MI (abduction and murder of Polly Klaas) 1994-1996 Consultant to the defense in People of California v. Ernesto Anguiano (homicides of defendant's nephew and mother in the belief they were vampires) 1994-1996 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Los Angeles, California, in People v. Lyle and Erik Menendez (double murder of parents) 1994-1996 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, New York, New York, in People v. William Tager (murder of NBC stage hand outside the "Today" show) 1994-1997 Consultant to the Office of the Public Defender, Orange County, California, in People v. John Famalaro (abduction and murder of woman whose body was kept in a freezer for years) 1995-1996 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Norfolk County, Massachusetts, in Commonwealth v. John Salvi (murders at abortion clinics) 1995-1997 Consultant to the defense in Estate of Shane Curry v. The Armada Inn (Ohio civil suit alleging negligent security in the death of NFL football player) 1996-1997 Consultant to the plaintiffs in v. O.J. Sim son civil suit for the murder of Ronald and Nicole Simpson) 1996-1997 Consultant to the Office of the United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in U.S. v. John Bennett, Jr. (the New Era Philanthropy fraud case) 1996-1997 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, San Diego County, California, in People v. Joshua Jenkins (juvenile murdered five family members) + +1996-1997 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. )ohn duPont (murder of Olympic wrestler Dave 1996-1998 1996-1998 1996-2000 1997-1998 1997-1998 1998-1999 1998-2000 1998-2000 1998-2005 Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, Delaware, in Delaware v. Amy Grossberq (neonaticide) Consultant to the United States Department of Justice in U.S. v. Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabom case) Consultant to the defense, Schaeffer v. Vera Wanq Bridal Salon and Hotel Carlyle (negligent security claim against bridal salon victimized by armed robbers) Consultant to the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office in New Jersey v. Melissa Drexler (the "Prom Mom" case) Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Queens County, New York, in People v. Heriberto Seda ("Zodiac killer") Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Madison, Wisconsin, in Wisconsin v. Salim Amara (defendant threw gasoline on bus passengers and ignited it) Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Westchester County, New York, in People v. Michael Laudor (Yale Law School graduate killed fiancé in the deluded belief she was a robot) Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Dutchess County, New York, in New York v. Kendall Francois (serial killings of prostitutes, whose bodies were found in the defendant's parents' home) Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., in U.S. v. MfleSpii (killings of two officers of the U.S. Capitol Police at the U.S. Capitol) + +1999 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Lane County, Oregon, in Oregon v. Kipland Phillip Kinkel (school shootings) 1999 Consultant to the defense, Amedure v. Warner Bros. et al. ( show murder case) 1999-2000 Consultant to the United State's Attorney's Office, Fresno, California, in U.S. v. Cary Anthony Stayner (Yosemite murders) 1999-2000 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Rockdale Count Judicial Circuit, Georgia, in Georgia v. AnthonyB. Jr. (school shooting) 1999-2000 Consultant to the Office of the Public Defender, Orange County, California, in People v. Steven Abrams (killing of two children at preschool) 1999-2000 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorne Riverside County, California, in People v. Neale (attempted murder of the mayor and city council) 1999-2000 Consultant to the defense, Hawaii v. Byran Uyesugi (mass murder at Xerox by employee) 1999-2001 Consultant to the United State Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California, in U.S. v. Buford Furrow, Jr. (shootings of children at the Jewish Community Center and murder of a mail carrier by Aryan Nations associate) 2000-2001 Consultant to the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, San Francisco, California, in People v. Jonathan Haynes (homicides of hair colorist and plastic surgeon because they traded in "fake Aryan cosmetics") 2000-2001 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Orange County, California, in People v. Edward Allawav (restoration of sanity of man acquitted by reason of insanity for 1976 mass murder at California State University, Fullerton) + +- 2000-2002 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Jefferson County, Colorado re. the Columbine Psychiatric Autopsy Project (mass murder and suicides by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine High School in April 1999) 2000-2002 Consultant to the Mariposo County, California, District Attorney's Office in People v. Cary Anthony Stavner (murder of three tourists in Yosemite) 2001-2006 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Harris County, Texas, in Texas v. (mother charged with drowning her five children) 2002-2004 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in U.S. v. Helder (serial mailbox bombings in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa) 2003 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Prince William County, Virginia, in Commonwealth of Virginia +- v. John Muhammad (sniper shootings) 2003 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Fairfax County, Virginia, in Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Lee Malvo (sniper shootings) 2003 Consultant to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, re. U.S. v. Brian David Mitchell (Elizabeth Smart kidnapping) 2003-2005 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Birmingham, Alabama, in U.S. v. Eric Rudolph (serial bombings) 2004-2008 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office Kansas City, Missouri, in U.S. v. Lisa I (alleged fetus abduction homicide) 2005-2010 Consultant to the Habeas Corpus Resource Center re. Troy Ashmus v. Warden (sexual homicide of child) + +2006-2009 Consultant to the Maricopa County District Attorney's Office, Phoenix, Arizona, in People of Arizona v. Samuel Dieteman and Dale Hausner (sniper shootings) 2007-2009 Consultant to the California Attorney General's Office re. Douglas Daniel Clark v. Warden (serial killings known as the work of the "Sunset Slasher" or "Sunset Slayer") 2008-2009 Consultant to the California Attorney General's Office re. Michael Dee v. Warden (serial killings) 2008-2009 Consultant to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office in People of California v. Roger Kibbe (the "I-5 Strangler" serial murders) 2009 Consultant to the Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney, Mt. Vernon, WA, in People of Washington v. Isaac Zamora (mass murder) 2010- 2010-2015 2010-2014 2010-2014 2010-2011 2011-2012 2011-2013 Consultant to the Boys Scouts of America in civil suits alleging inappropriate conduct by participants in scouting Consultant to appellant in Re.: Cory Morris (postconviction relief for New Mexico serial killer accused of necrophilic motive) Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, St. Louis, MO, in US v. Edward Bagley, Sr., et al. (sadomasochistic sex trafficking) Consultant to the defense in U.S. v. David H. collar crimes) Consultant to the plaintiff in Stevens v. U.S. (anthrax attack) Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Tucson, AZ, in U.S. v. Jared Loughner (Tucson mass murder and assassination attempt) Consultant to the defense in litigation filed against PG&E in connection with an explosion and fire in San =, CA. + +- 2011- 2017 Consultant to the Orange County, CA, District Attorney's Office, and Office of the California Attorney General in People of California v. Scott Dekraai (mass murder) 2011-2015 Consultant to the defense in Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe v. Phillip C. McGraw, CBS Television Distribution Group F/K/A/ CBS Paramount Domestic Television, Peteski Productions, Inc., et al. (civil suit alleging defamation of the Kalpoe brothers for their involvement in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba) 2012 Consultant to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, in U.S. v. Israel Keyes (serial murder, including the abduction and murder of Samantha Koenig) 2012-2013 Consultant to the Orange County, CA, District Attorney's Office in People of California v. Itzcoal Ocampo (serial murders) 2012-2013 Consultant to the County, CA District Attorney's Office in People of California v. Naso (serial murders, 1970s-1990s) 2012-2014 Consultant to the Federal Defenders of New York in U.S. +- v. Gilberto Valle (alleged "cannibal cop") 2012-2014 Consultant to the defense in the Miramonte School Case (allegations of teacher feeding semen to elementary school children) 2012-2018 Consultant to the Orange County, CA, District Attorney's Office in People of California v. Andrew Urdiales (serial murders) 2014-2015 Consultant to the defense in U.S. v. Ulbricht (prosecution of alleged founder of Silk Road) 2014-2015 Consultant to the defense in People of New York v. Gigi Jordan (homicide of autistic child by mother) + +2014-2015 Consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boston, M, in U.S. v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon Bombing mass murder) 2014- Consultant to the Orange County, CA, District Attorney's Office in People of California v. Franc Cano and Steven (serial murders) 2015-2019 Consultant to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Washington, D.C., in U.S. v. Diana Lalchan (domestic homicide) 2016-2017 Consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's Office, Charleston, S.C., in U.S. v. Dylann Storm Roof (mass murder at the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Charleston, S.C.) 2017 Consultant to the NCAA in Paterno v. NCAA (alleged defamation) 2017 Consultant to the defense in Leath Rothman v. Peteski Productions, Inc., CBS Studios, Inc., Dr. Phil McGraw, et al. (civil suit alleging false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress) 2017-2019 2018-2019 2018-2019 Consultant to Montana Attorney General's Office in People v. Lloyd Barrus (murder of Sheriff Deputy and fatal shoot out with law enforcement by antigovernment man) Consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's Office, Peoria, IL, in U.S. v. Brendt Christensen (kidnapping and murder of Chinese graduate student) Consultant to the Federal Public Defender's Office, District of Alaska, in U.S. v. James Wells (double homicide on Coast Guard base) 2018- Consultant to the defense in Estate of Childress v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al. (fugitive's suicide by cop) + +2018-2021 Consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, in U.S. v. Jarvis Wayne Madison (capital murder uxoricide) 2018- Consultant to Monmouth County, NJ, Prosecutor's Office re. People v. Scott Kologi (familicide by 16 year old) 2018- Consultant to U.S. Attorney's Office re. U.S. v. Ryan Phillip Schlesinger (murder of U.S. Marshal) 2019- Consultant to Douglas County, Colorado, District Attorney's Office in People v. Devon Erickson and Maya Elizabeth McKinney a/k/a Alec McKinney (fatal school shooting) 2019- Consultant to U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division re. U.S. v. Robert Dear (mass murder at Planned Parenthood) 2020- Consultant to U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division re. US v. Robert T. Brockman (tax evasion) + +# EXPERT TESTIMONY, APRIL 1990-PRESENT: + +Joanne v. Sol I. and Gladys L. (Bangor, Maine) Testified at deposition, 4/2/90 + +Armijo vs. Border Area Mental Health (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Testified at deposition, 5/1/90 + +U.S. v. Dial Information Services Corporation of New York (New York, New York) [2nd Circuit Opinion: 938 F.2d 1535 (2nd Cir. 1991)] Testified at deposition, 5/13/90 Testified in court (trial or hearing), 5/14/90 + +Jane Doe v. Stuart M.D. (San Diego, California) Testified by deposition, 6/6/90 + +Carin vs. Richard Ph.D. (Houston, Texas) Testified at deposition, 5/25/90 Testified at deposition, 6/27/90 + +v. Mount Diablo Council, Boy Scouts of America (Los Angeles, California) + +Testified at deposition, 8/14/90 + +Izbicki v. Ridgeview (Atlanta, Georgia) + +Testified at deposition, 8/27/90 + +Rima v. Kaiser Permanente (Fairfax, Virginia) + +Testified at deposition, 8/17/90 + +U.S. v. Shields (Los Angeles, California) + +Testified at sentencing hearing, 10/25/90 + +People v. Arthur J. Shawcross (Rochester, New York) + +Testified at trial, 11/90 and 12/90 + +U.S. v. Walter Leroy Moody (Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; + +and Savannah, Georgia) + +Testified at trial, 12/13/90 + +McNeil v. P.F.I. (New York, New York) + +Testified at deposition, 1/15/91 + +U.S. v. Keith Ham, et al. (Wheeling, West Virginia) + +Testified at trial, 3/14/91 + +U.S. v. Randy Ryan (Birmingham, AL) + +Testified at hearing, 3/15/91 + +Teresa Janus, Individually and as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Adam Janus, Deceased, vs. McNeil Consumer Products Company, a Division of McNeil-PPC, Inc.; and McNeilab, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota) + +Testified at deposition, 4/19/91 + +Vance v. Krause (DeKalb County, Georgia) + +Testified at trial, 5/17/91 + +State of New Mexico v. Chester, M.D. (Albuquerque, NM) + +Testified at trial, 8/5/91 + +People of California v. Robert John Bardo (Los Angeles, California) + +Testified for 6 days, ending 10/24/91 + +Mertz v. Brzeski (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) + +Testified at deposition, 10/30/91 + +People of California v. Elizabeth Broderick (San Diego, California) Testified at trial, 11/26/91 and 11/27/91 + +Senyard v. Radisson Hotel Stemmons (Dallas, Texas) Testified by telephone deposition, 1/3/92 + +William Bonin v. Vasquez (Los Angeles, California) Testified at federal habeas hearing, 1/29/92 + +State of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey L. Dahmer (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) Testified at trial, 2/12/92 and 2/13/92 + +Greciorio =, et al. v. Ayala of Texas, Inc., et al. (Houston, Texas) Testified at deposition, 1/21/92 Testified at trial, 3/10/92 and 3/11/92 + +Moore et al. v. Serrano (Houston, Texas) Testified at trial, 4/30/92 + +McWhorter and Daneker v. Burroughs Wellcome Company (Seattle, Washington) Testified at deposition, 5/28/92 + +U.S. v. Loren Bellrichard (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Testified at sentencing, 6/29/92 and 6/30/92 + +K.P./S.D. v. YMCA of Greater Miami (Miami, Florida) Testified at deposition, 11/23/92 + +State of South Carolina v. Johnnie Kenneth Register, II (Conway, South Carolina) Testified at trial, 1/22/93 + +Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kenneth G. Seguin (Cambridge, Massachusetts) Testified at trial, 1/27/93 and 1/28/93 + +People of California v. Dale Akiki (San Diego, California) Testified at trial, 11/1/93 + +Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Betty Ann Haste, et al. (Springfield, Missouri) Testified at deposition, 11/18/93 + +Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mad Molasky (Doylestown, Pennsylvania) + +Testified at trial, 1/6/94 + +People of California v. Tiffany N. Sandeffer (Vista, California) + +Testified at trial, 3/14/94 and 3/23/94 + +Gary Ramona v. Richard et al. (Napa Valley, California) + +Testified in depositions, 2/5/92, 6/24/92, and 8/5/92 + +Testified at evidentiary hearing, 4/22/93 and 4/23/93 + +Testified at trial, 3/29/94 and 3/30/94 + +People of New York v. Joel Rifkin (Mineola, New York) + +Testified at trial, 5/3/94, 5/4/94, and 5/5/94 + +R.M., etc., et al. v. A & M Industries et al. (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) + +Testified at deposition, 5/27/94 + +Crews v. Wake County Hospital System and ServiceMaster (Wake + +County, New Carolina) + +Deposition by telephone, 6/28/94 + +U.S. v. James E. Swann, Jr. (Washington, D.C.) + +Testified at trial, 9/26/94 + +A.H. et al. v. Mercy Hospital of Laredo et al. (Laredo, Texas) + +Testified at deposition, 10/28/94 + +Nebraska v. Arthur McElroy (Lincoln, Nebraska) + +Testified at trial deposition, 11/11/94 + +People of California v. Richard A. (Santa Rosa, California) + +Testified at pretrial hearing, 6/5/95 + +Testified at trial, 5/21/96 + +People of California v. LaBerge (Vista, California) + +Testified at motion hearing, 6/12/95 + +In the Matter of the Appeal by John (Sacramento, California) + +Testified at administrative hearing, 6/29/95 + +Jerner v. Allstate (Orlando, Florida) + +Testified at evidentiary hearing, 9/1/95 + +Am. Natl. Fire Ins. Co. v. Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. (Houston, Texas) Testified at deposition, 10/4/95 + +People of CA v. Erik Menendez (Los Angeles, California) Testified at trial, 2/8/96 and 2/9/96 + +Young v. Johnny's Hot Dog Stand (Los Angeles, California) Testified at deposition, 2/16/96 Testified at deposition, 8/23/96 + +v. (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Testified at deposition, 2/26/96 + +People of CA v. Sally McNeil (San Diego, California) Testified at trial, 3/13/96 + +Fuscardo v. Lorello (Weirton, West Virginia) Deposition testimony, 4/19/96. + +Klanika v. Stop 'N Go Markets of Texas (Dallas, Texas) Testified at deposition, 5/10/96 Testified at trial, 6/27/96 + +Kathleen v. US West Communications (Denver, Colorado) Testified at arbitration, 5/17/96 + +Galligan v. Pyramid Management Group, et al. (Boston, Massachusetts) Testified at deposition, 6/5/96 + +Estate of Shane Curry v. The Armada Inn (Cincinnati, Ohio) Testified at deposition, 6/6/96 + +IMM v. O.J. Simpson (Los Angeles, California) Testified at deposition, 8/22/96 Testified at hearing, 11/7/96 + +State of Wisconsin v. Clark (Baraboo, Wisconsin) Testified at trial, 9/17/96 + +Monney v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co (San Antonio, Texas) Testified at deposition, 10/1/96 + +People of California v. Ernesto Anguiano (San Mateo, California) Testified at trial, 10/8/96 and 10/9/96 + +Tracy/Vanderpool v. Holiday Inns (Long Beach, California) Testified at deposition, 10/24/96 Testified at trial, 5/15/98 and 5/18/98 + +U.S. v. Gerard Gallant (Sacramento, California) Testified at trial, 11/20/96 + +U.S. v. Norman Yazzie (Phoenix, Arizona) Testified at trial, 12/18/96 + +Commonwealth of PA v. John duPont (Media, Pennsylvania) Testified at trial, 2/12/97 and 2/13/97 + +v. Roman Catholic of Portland (Portland, Maine) Testified at deposition, 3/11/97 + +People of CA v. Joshua Jenkins (Vista, California) Testified at trial, 3/19/97, 3/20/97, and 3/21/97 + +U.S. v. John Bennett (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Testified at trial, 9/18/97 + +Cannon v. Marriott (St Louis, Missouri) Testified at trial, 10/3/97 + +Ryan v. Kempner (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) Testified at deposition, 10/21/97 + +v. City of Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa, California) Testified at deposition, 10/28/97 + +Sears Canada Coroner's Inauest (Chatham, Ontario, Canada) Testified at inquest, 11/13/97 + +Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. James C. Johnston, M.D. (Houston, Texas) Testified through deposition by written questions, 11/25/97 and 11/26/97 + +WI v. Gerald Turner (Madison, Wisconsin) Testified at trial, 1/26/98 and 1/27/98 + +Sara Stump and Andrew M. Ocrant v. Daryl G. Gates, et al. (Denver, Colorado) + +Testified at trial, 3/26/98 + +CA v. Robert Mark (Santa Ana, California) + +Testified at sentencing trial, 4/13/98 + +Allman v. Union Butterfield (Ashville, North Carolina) + +Testified at deposition, 9/18/98 + +Testified at trial, 4/23/99 + +Schaeffer v. Vera Wanq (New York, New York) + +Testified at deposition, 9/11/98 + +Testified at deposition, 10/19/98 + +CA v. (Santa Ana, California) + +Testified at sentencing, 11/10/98 + +MI v. McRae (Lansing, Michigan) + +Testified at trial, 12/10/98 + +CA v. (Santa Ana, California) + +Testified at trial, 2/10/99 + +Amedure v. Warner Bros. (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan) + +Testified at trial, 5/3/99 and 5/4/99 + +CA v. Jules Delpy (Vista, California) + +Testified at trial, 7/28/99 + +Testified at re-trial, 02/03/04, 02/04/04, and 02/24/04 + +Testified at re-trial, 5/18/04 and 5/19/04 + +Jensen v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) + +Testified at trial, 8/26/99 + +Testified at trial, 2/29/00 and 3/1/00 + +CA v. Brandon Wilson (Vista, California) + +Testified at trial, 9/24/99 + +Pedraza v. City of San Jose (San Jose, California) + +Testified at deposition, 10/28/99 + +U.S. v. Steven Gene Chase (Eugene, Oregon) Testified at detention hearing (telephonic), 12/20/99 + +HI v. Uvesugi (Honolulu, Hawaii) Testified at trial, 5/30/00 + +Gallego v. Woodford (Oakland, California) Testified at deposition 6/8/00 Testified at trial, 12/6/00 + +v. Equity Residential Properties Management (Atlanta, Georgia) Testified at deposition, 7/21/00 + +Johnston v. North Orange County Community College District (Santa Ana, California) Testified at deposition, 8/22/00 Testified at trial, 9/5/00 + +Epps v. Preventative Security, Inc. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Testified at trial, 8/25/00 + +CA v. Neale (Riverside, California) Testified at trial, 11/20/00 + +CA v. Rex Allan Krebs (Monterey, California) Testified at penalty phase, 05/03/01 + +Saunders v. City of Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa, California) Testified at deposition, 6/27/01 Testified at trial, 1/30/02 + +v. U.S. (Spokane, Washington) Testified at deposition, 6/28/01 + +v. AIG Life Insurance Company (Washington, D.C.) Testified at deposition (telephonic), 7/11/01 + +WA v. Brodie Walradt (Port Orchard, Washington) Testified at trial, 8/1/01 and 8/2/01 + +U.S. v. Dieter Vogt (Key West, Florida) Testified at sentencing hearing, 8/8/01, 8/9/01, and 8/10/01 + +Waddell v. Lockheed (San Jose, California) + +Testified at deposition, 10/12/01 + +Testified at trial, 10/31/01 + +Leanza v. McDonald Oil and Johnny Lovell (Columbus, Georgia) + +Testified at deposition, 10/19/01 + +Cabrera v. Patino and Lievano (Miami, Florida) + +Testified at deposition, 3/11/02 + +TX v. Andrea Pia (Houston, Texas) + +Testified at trial, 3/7/02, 3/8/02 and 3/9/02 + +Testified at trial, 7/13/06, 7/14/06 and 7/17/06 + +U.S. v. SPC Lillie (Mannheim, Germany) + +Testified at trial, 4/10/02 + +U.S. v. Aauilia Marcivicci Barnette (Charlotte, NC) + +Testified at trial, 8/8/02 + +CA v. Cary Anthony Stayner (San Jose, CA) + +Testified at trial, 9/4/02, 9/5/02, 9/9/02, and 9/10/02 + +CO v. Steven Michael Stagner (Glendwood Springs, CO) + +Testified at hearing, 10/8/02 + +Holsey et al. v. Georgia Department of Human Resources et al. + +(Atlanta, Georgia) + +Testified at deposition, 10/19/02 + +Cabrera et al. v. Eller Media Corp. et al. (Miami, FL) + +Testified at deposition, 11/21/02 + +FL v. Jeffrey Schlosberq (West Palm Beach, FL) + +Testified at deposition, 12/21/02 + +Testified at trial, 4/15/03 + +Troy T. v. Does 1,2,3 (San Bernardino, CA) + +Testified at deposition, 4/22/03 + +NY v. Christine Wilhelm (Troy, NY) + +Testified at trial, 7/1/03, 7/2/03 + +CA v. Vincent Henry (Ventura, CA) + +Testified at trial, 8/25/03, 8/26/03 + +# City of Redondo Beach v. Stephen Shoemaker and Stephen McDonald (Los Angeles, CA) + +Testified at trial, 9/19/03 + +FL v. Keith (West Palm Beach, FL) + +Testified at deposition, 9/22/03 + +Testified at trial, 1/15/04 + +VA v. John • Muhammad (Virginia Beach, VA) + +Testified at hearings, 10/8/03, 10/9/03 + +Good, et al. v. Fluor Daniel Corp., et al. (Seattle, WA) + +Testified at deposition, 10/30/03 + +US v. Wesley Purkey (Kansas City, MO) + +Testified at trial, 11/17/03 + +CA v. Scott Erskine (San Diego, CA) + +Testified at trial, 12/1/03 and 12/2/03 + +Testified at re-trial, 5/27/04 + +v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, et al. (Seattle, WA) + +Testified at deposition, 12/9/03 + +Testified at trial, 2/10/04 + +FL v. Michael Connelly (Tampa, FL) + +Testified at trial, 3/9/04 + +Wiley v. Frazer Center Inc., et al. (Atlanta, GA) + +Testified at deposition, 3/20/04 + +IL v. Andrew Urdiales (Pontiac, IL) + +Testified at trial, 5/6/04 and 5/20/04 + +WA v. Ronald (Seattle, WA) + +Testified at trial, 8/11/04 and 8/12/04 + +CA v. (San Diego, CA) + +Testified at trial, 10/19/04 and 10/20/04 + +US v. O.C. (Memphis, TN) + +Testified at trial, 1/25/05 CO v. Rebekah Amaya (Lamar, CO) Testified at trial, 1/31/05 + +CA v. Alejandro Avila (Santa Ana, CA) Testified at trial, 5/11/05 + +US v. Scott Blackstone (Fort Bliss, TX) Testified at trial (telephonic), 5/11/05 + +CA v. Edgar Omar Osorio (Santa Ana, CA) Testified at trial, 5/17/05 + +In re: Loren Huss (Des Moines, IA) Testified at trial, 5/19/05 and 5/20/05 + +Ronald Lee Deere v. Jeanne Woodford (Los Angeles, CA) Testified at deposition, 11/11/05 and 2/14/06 Testified at hearing, 9/27/07 + +IL v. Paul Runge (Chicago, IL) Testified at trial, 2/9/06 + +CA v. Patricia (San Diego, CA) Testified at trial, 4/4/06 + +CA v. (San Bernardino, CA) Testified at trial, 5/31/06, 6/1/06 and 6/7/06 + +Plaintiffs v. Masonic Homes of California, et al. (Pomona, CA) Testified at trial, 9/21/06 and 9/22/06 + +Ortego v. Diocese of Lafayette. et al. (Lafayette, LA) Testified at deposition, 2/8/07 + +Rister v. Archdiocese of San Diego, et al. (San Diego, CA) Testified at deposition, 2/9/07 + +Buser v. Archdiocese of Los Angeles, et al. (Los Angeles, CA) Testified at deposition, 5/29/07 + +Hewlett-Packard Company v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (New York, NY) Testified at deposition, 7/19/07 + +O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner (Boston, M) Testified at trial, 8/23/07 and 8/24/07 + +AZ v. Samuel Dieteman and Dale Hausner (Phoenix, AZ) Testified at trial, 9/28/07 + +US v. Lisa (Kansas City, MO) Testified at trial, 10/17/07 and 10/18/07 + +U.S. v. 2nd Lieutenant Eric (Washington, DC) Testified at competency hearing (telephonic), 1/23/08 + +CA v. Sidney Nathaniel Landau (Santa Ana, CA) Testified at trial, 7/16/08, 7/17/08, 7/21/08, 7/22/08, and 7/23/08 + +v. Pasadena Police Department (Pasadena, CA) Testified at administrative hearing, 7/25/08 + +CA v. Skylar Deleon (Santa Ana, CA) Testified at sentencing trial, 11/3/08 + +CA v. Michael (San Diego, CA) Testified at trial, 2/19/09 + +Douglas Daniel Clark v. Warden (Newport Beach, CA) Testified at deposition, 3/24/09 Testified at deposition, 1/24/12 + +Michael Dee v. Warden (Los Angeles, CA) Testified at trial, 3/26/09 + +CA v. Jason (San Diego, CA) Testified at trial, 4/6/09, 4/7/09 + +Troy Ashmus v. Warden (San Francisco, CA) Testified at trial, 1/26/10 + +CA v. Ian Alex Suazo (San Diego, CA) Testified at trial, 4/5/10, 4/6/10 + +Chauncey M. DePree, Jr. v. Martha D. Saunders as President of the University of Southern Mississippi (Hattiesburg, MS) Testified at deposition, 4/20/10 + +WA v. Daniel J. Mustard (Port Orchard, WA) + +Testified at hearing, 8/31/10 and 9/1/10 + +Testified at trial, 12/1/10, 12/2/10, 12/3/10, and 12/8/10 + +Regina v. Sandra Rinella and Alexander Petraitis (Toronto, Canada) + +Testified at voir dire, 10/27/10 and 10/28/10 + +Testified at trial, 11/2/10 and 11/3/10 + +CA v. Eric Andreasen (Vista, CA) + +Testified at trial, 3/22/11 + +Stevens v. U.S. (West Palm Beach, FL) + +Testified at deposition, 6/30/11 + +Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe v. Phillip C. McGraw, CBS Television Distribution Group F/K/A/ CBS Paramount Domestic Television, Peteski Productions, Inc., et al. + +Testified at deposition, 10/19/11 + +CA v. Brendan O'Rourke (Vista, CA) + +Testified at trial, 3/12/12 + +CA v. Naso (San Rafael, CA) + +Testified at pre-trial hearing, 4/19/13 + +Testified at sentencing, 9/13/13 + +US v. David (Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY) + +Addressed Court at sentencing, 8/12/13 + +CA v. Sidney Nathaniel Landau (Santa Ana, CA) + +Testified at deposition, 10/4/13 + +Testified at trial, 11/7/13, 11/12/13, 11/13/13 + +Michael Keister v. YMCA of Western North Carolina (Asheville, NC) + +Testified at deposition, 3/13/14 + +Testified at trial deposition, 3/14/14 + +Judith Cox and Charles Cox v. State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services (Tacoma, WA) + +Testified at deposition, 5/9/14 + +Testified at trial (by Zoom), 7/27/20, 7/28/20 + +US v. Wesley Paul Coonce, Jr., and Charles Michael. (Springfield, MO) Testified at trial, 5/28/14, 5/29/14 + +Does v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Los Angeles, CA) Testified at deposition, 5/30/14 + +In re. Linde (Miami, FL) Testified at deposition, 10/1/14 Testified at trial, 10/6/14 + +John David Couzens v. Archdiocese of Kansas City (Kansas City, MO) Testified at trial, 10/9/14 and 10/10/14 + +A.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. (Los Angeles, CA) Testified at deposition, 10/17/14 and 10/23/14 + +People of California v. Bryan Chang (Vista, CA) Testified at trial, 11/3/14 + +v. Briar Bay Community Association, et al. (West Palm Beach, FL) Testified at deposition, 6/8/16 + +Juania Ardizzone v. Jerry Ardizzone, et al. (Newport Beach, CA) Testified at deposition, 12/22/16 + +Leath Rothman v. Peteski Productions, Inc., CBS Studios, Inc., Dr. Phil McGraw, et al. Testified at deposition, 8/23/17 + +John Cl Doe v. Roman Catholic Marrilac Catholic Church, Fr. Testified at deposition, 10/23/17 of Los Angeles, St. Louis de Cunningham, et al. + +Hillary Lawson, et al. v. Howard Rubin, et al. (New York, NY) Testified at deposition, 1/17/19 + +U.S. v. Brandon Michael Fleury (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Testified at trial, 10/7/19 + +Doe v. Board of Education of Prince \_Co., et al. Testified at virtual deposition, 1/14/21 + +# PUBLICATIONS: + +# Journal: + +- 1. Dietz PE, Baker SP: Drowning: Epidemiology and prevention. American Journal of Public Health 64:303-312, 1974. +- 2. Rubin RR, Elkes J, Maris RW, Dietz PE: Medicine and the behavioral sciences: The Johns M.D.-Ph.D. Program. Johns Medical Journal 136:268-270, 1975. +- 3. Dietz PE: Clinical approaches to teaching legal medicine to physicians: Medicolegal emergencies and consultations. American Journal of Law and Medicine 2:133-145, 1976. +- 4. Dietz PE: Toward a scientific forensic psychiatry. Journal of Forensic Sciences 22:774-780, 1977. +- 5. Dietz PE: Social discrediting of psychiatry: The protasis of legal disfranchisement. American Journal of Psychiatry 134:1356- 1360, 1977. +- 6. Dietz PE: Victim-precipitated criminal homicide. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 5:367-370, 1977. +- 7. Dietz PE: Cosmetic surgical treatment of offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 5:465-469, 1977. +- 8. Rappeport JR, Dietz PE: Professional activities of Maryland and U.S. psychiatrists. Maryland State Medical Journal 27:45-48, March 1978. +- 9. Dietz PE: Forensic and non-forensic psychiatrists: An empirical comparision. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 6:13-23, 1978. +- 10. Dietz PE: Access to medical literature in medical criminology. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 6:110-117, 1978. +- 11. D, Dietz PE: Labeling theory and the family dynamics of schizophrenia: A theoretical synthesis. Child Psychiatry Quarterly 11:83-97, 1978. + +- 12. Dietz PE: Measuring the impact of Isaac Ray: A citation analysis. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 6:249-255, 1978. +- 13. Dietz PE: Male homosexual prostitution. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 6:468-471, 1978. +- 14. Dietz PE: Educating the forensic psychiatrist. 3 Forensic Sciences 24:880-884, 1979. +- 15. Baker SP, Teret SP, Dietz PE: Firearms and the public health. 3 Public Health Policy 1:224-229, 1980. +- 16. Dietz PE, Dvoskin JA: Quality of life for the mentally disabled. Forensic Sciences 25:926-931, 1980. +- 17. Dietz PE: Psychiatrists who use and do not use ECT: A comparative study. Hillside J Clin Psychiatry 3:149-162, 1981. +- 18. Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE, Burgess AW: The investigation of autoerotic fatalities. 3 Police Sci and Admin 9:404-411, 1981. (Reprinted, with revisions, in Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE Burgess AW: Autoerotic Fatalities, pp. 121-138. Lexington, Lexington Books, 1983.) +- 19. Dietz PE: Threats or blows? Observations on the distinction between assault and battery. International 3 Law and Psychiatry 4:401-416, 1981. +- 20. Dietz PE, Rada RT: Battery incidents and batterers in a maximum security hospital. Arch Gen Psychiatry 39:31-34, 1982. +- 21. Dietz PE, Rada RT: Risks and benefits of working with violent patients. Psychiatric Ann 12:502-508, 1982. +- 22. Mendelson 3I-I, Dietz PE, Ellingboe 3: Postmortem plasma luteinizing hormone levels and antemortem violence. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17:171-173, 1982. +- 23. Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE, Burgess AW: Sexual fatalities: Behavioral reconstruction in equivocal cases. 3 Forensic Sciences 27:763-773, 1982. (Reprinted, with revisions, in Hazelwood RR, + +Dietz PE, Bur AW: Autoerotic Fatalities, pp. 139-153. Lexington, M: Lexington Books, 1983.) + +- 24. Dietz PE, B: Pornographic imagery and prevalence of paraphilia. Am 3 Psychiatry 139:1493-1495, 1982. +- 25. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: Atypical autoerotic fatalities. Med & Law 1:307-319, 1982. (Reprinted, with additional material, in Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE Burgess AW: Autoerotic Fatalities, pp. 101-119. Lexington, : Lexington Books, 1983.) +- 26. Dietz PE: Victim consequences and their control. Victimology 7:181-186, 1982. +- 27. Dietz PE, Cooke G, Rappeport JR, Silvergleit IT: Psychojargon in the psycholegal report: Ratings by judges, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Behav Sci & Law 1:77-84, 1983. +- 28. Dietz PE, Rada RT: Seclusion rates and patient census in a maximum security hospital. Behav Sci & Law 1:89-93, 1983. +- 29. Harry B, Dietz PE: Offenders in a silent world: Hearing impairment and deafness in relation to criminality, incompetence, and insanity. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 13:85-96, 1985. +- 30. Dietz PE: Why the experts disagree: Variations in the psychiatric evaluation of criminal insanity. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 477:84-95, 1985. +- 31. Dietz PE, Harry B, Hazelwood RR: Detective magazines: Pornography for the sexual sadist? 3 Forensic Sciences 31:197- 211, 1986. (Reprinted in Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1986, 1:55-69; excerpted in Spitzer RL et al., DSM-III-R Case Book, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1989, pp. 32-35.) +- 32. 3, Dietz PE: Death and injury by firearms: Who cares? JAMA 255:3143-3144, 1986. +- 33. Dietz PE: Mass, serial, and sensational homicides. Bull NY Acad Med 62:477-491, 1986. + +- 34. Dietz PE, Reese JT: The perils of police psychology: Ten strategies for minimizing role conflicts when providing mental health services and consultation to law enforcement agencies. Behav Sci & Law 4:385-400, 1986. Reprinted in Reese JT (ed.): Behavioral Science in Law Enforcement. Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1987, pp. 81-96. +- 35. Dietz PE: The forensic psychiatrist of the future. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 15:217-227, 1987. +- 36. Dietz PE, Baker SP: Murder at work. Am J Public Health 77:1273-1274, 1987. +- 37. Dietz PE: Dangerous information: Product tampering and poisoning advice in revenge and murder manuals. J Forensic Sciences 33:1206-1217, 1988. +- 38. Dietz PE, Sears AE: Pornography and obscenity sold in "adult bookstores": A survey of 5132 books, magazines, and films in four American cities. Michigan Journal of Law Reform 21:7-46, 1987/1988. +- 39. Dietz PE: Abnormal consumer behavior. Mobius: The Journal of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business 8:14- 15, Spring 1989. +- 40. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR, J: The sexually sadistic criminal and his offenses. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 18:163- 178, 1990. +- 41. Dietz PE, DB, Van Duyne C, DA, Parry CDH, Stewart T, J, Crowder JD: Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood celebrities. 3 Forensic Sciences 36:185-209, 1991. +- 42. JI, Fitch WL, Dietz PE, Rosenfeld BD: Criminal offense, psychiatric diagnosis, and psycholegal opinion: An analysis of 894 pretrial referrals. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 19:63-69, 1991. +- 43. Dietz PE, DB, DA, Stewart T, Hrouda DR, 3: Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Members of the United States Congress. Journal of Forensic Sciences 36:1445-1468, 1991. + +- 44. Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE, 3: The criminal sexual sadist. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 61(2):12-20, February 1992. (Reprinted in Hazelwood RR, Burgess AW (eds.): Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp. 361-371.) +- 45. Dietz PE: Product tampering: Crimes and complaints. Process (Newsmagazine of the National Food Processors Association) 3(2):8-10, Spring 1992. +- 46. DA, Dietz PE: Mentally disordered offenders who push or attempt to push victims onto subway tracks in New York City. Archives of General Psychiatry 49:472-475, 1992. (Reprinted in Lundberg GD, Young RK, Flanagin A, Koop CE (eds.): Violence, Chicago: American Medical Association, 1992, pp. 399-402.) +- 47. Dietz PE: Mentally disordered offenders: Patterns in the relationship between mental disorder and crime. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 15:539-551, 1992. +- 48. O'Halloran RL, Dietz PE: Autoerotic fatalities with power hydraulics. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38:359-364, 1993. +- 49. Hazelwood R, 3, Dietz P: Compliant victims of the sexual sadist. Australian Family Physician 22:474-479, 1993. +- 50. Dietz PE: The quest for excellence in forensic psychiatry. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 24:153-163, 1996. +- 51. 3, Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE: The sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Sciences 41(6):970-974, 1996. +- 52. Pitt SE, Spiers EM, Dietz PE, Dvoskin JA: Preserving the integrity of the interview: The value of videotape. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44:1287-1291, 1999. +- 53. Murrie DC, 3I, Kristiansson M, and Dietz P: Asperger's syndrome in forensic settings. Int. J. Forensic Mental Health, 1:59-70, 2002. +- 54. Rivard 3M, Dietz P, M, D, Widawski, M: Acute dissociative responses in law enforcement officers involved in critical + +shooting incidents: The clinical and forensic implications. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(5):1-8, 2002. + +- 55. 31, Murrie DC, Chauhan P, Dietz PE, Morris ]: Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: An examination of 5,175 pre-trial evaluations. Behav Sci & Law, 22:171-186, 2004. +- 56. 31, Murrie DC, Stejskal W, Colwell LH, Morris ], Chauhan P, Dietz P: Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: A review of 8,000 evaluations. Behav Sci & Law, 24:113-132, 2006. +- 57. Dietz P, Kenan J: Children and violence. Pediatric Research 62:119, 2007. +- 58. Kaplan D, Dietz P: Use employee assistance to manage risk. Occupatjpnal Health & Safety, 76:82-85, July 2007. +- 59. Dietz P, DA: Approaching and stalking public figures: A prerequisite to attack. J Amer Acad Psychiatry Law, 38:341- 348, 2010. +- 60. Dietz P: Documenting a suspect's state of mind. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 81(11):13-18, November 2012. +- 61. 31, Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: The collectors: Serial sexual offenders who preserve evidence of their crimes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18:666-672, 2013. +- 62. Lanning KV, Dietz P: Acquaintance molestation and youthserving organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15):2815-2838, 2014. +- 63. Fischer CA, Beckson M, Dietz P: Factitious disorder in a patient claiming to be a sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(3):822-826, 2017. +- 64. JI, Wellbeloved- JM, Dietz PE, & Millspaugh, SB:. Gender and violence risk assessment in prisons. Psychological Services. Advance online publication. (2017, November 27). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ser0000217 + +- 65. Dietz P: Grooming and seduction. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(1):28-36, 2018. +- 67. Dietz P: Denial and minimization among sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(6):571-585, 2020. +- 68. 3I 3, Leviton ACR, Millspaugh SP, Dietz P, AA, Isom AN, Shelton JLE, Lybert K: The lethality of non-familial child abductions: Characteristics and outcomes of 565 incidents involving youth under the age of 18 years. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 39(3):262-278, 2021. +- 69. Scurich N, Guney S, Dietz P: Hindsight bias in assessing the foreseeability of child sexual abuse. Submitted for publication. +- 70. Chopin 3, Beauregard E, Dietz P: Death in sadistic sexual crimes: A neural network analysis of factors associated with a lethal outcome. Submitted for publication. + +# Books and Reports: + +- 1. Hazelwood RR, Dietz PE, Burgess AW: Autoerotic Fatalities. Lexington, M: Lexington Books, 1983. (Excerpted in Spitzer RL et al., DSM-III-R Case Book, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1989, pp. 14-15.) (Re rinted in paperback by Houghten Mifflin Publishing Co., Boston, M) +- 2. Dietz PE: Psychiatrists and Their Treatments: A Study in the Sociology of Psychiatry. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1984. +- 3. Dietz PE: The Mad and the Bad: Mentally Disordered Offenders. Report submitted to the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Criminal Violence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1985. +- 4. Dietz PE, DA: Mentally Disordered Offenders in Pursuit of Celebrities and Politicians. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, 1989. + +# Book Chapters: + +- 1. Dietz PE: Mental health, criminal justice, and social control. In: Ayd FJ, Jr. (Ed.): Medical,al d Legal Issues in Mental Health Care. Baltimore: & Wilkins, 1974, pp. 204-210. +- 2. Dietz PE: Social factors in rapist behavior. In: Rada SI I1.): Clinical Aspects of the Rapist. New York: Grune & 1978, pp. 59-115. +- 3. Dietz PE, Platman 5, D: The organization and delivery of mental health services. In: Balis GU, Wurmser L, McDaniel E, Grenell RG (Eds.): The Behavioral and Social Sciences and the Practice of Medicine. Boston: Butterworth, 1978, pp. 607-619. +- 4. Baker SP, Dietz PE: Injury prevention. In: The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences: Healthy People: The Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Background Papers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979 (DHEW (PHS) Publication No. 79-5507lA), pp. 53-80. +- 5. Baker SP, Dietz PE: The epidemiology and prevention of injury. In: Zuidema GD, Rutherford RB, Ballinger WF (Eds.): The Management of Trauma, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1979, pp. 794-821. +- 6. Dietz PE: Sex offenses: Behavioral aspects. In: Kadish SH (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: Free Press, 1983, pp. 1485-1493. +- 7. Dietz PE, Rada RT: Interpersonal violence in forensic facilities. In: Lion JR, Reid WH (Eds.): Assaults Within Ps chiatric Facilities. New York: Grune & 1983, pp. 47-59. +- 8. Dietz PE: Sex offender profiling by the FBI: A preliminary conceptual model. In: Forensic Science Research and Training Center, FBI Academy: Proceedings of a Forensic Science Symposium on The Analysis of Sexual Assault Evidence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1985, pp. 179- + - 187. (Reprinted, with revisions, in Ben-Aron MH, Hucker SJ, Webster CD (Eds.): Clinical Criminology: The Assessment and Treatment of Criminal Behaviour, pp. 207-219. Toronto: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 1985.) + +- 9. Dietz PE: Hypothetical criteria for the prediction of individual criminality. In: Webster CD, Ben-Aron MH, Hucker Si (Eds.): Dangerousness: Probability and Prediction, Psychiatry and Public Policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 87-102. +- 10. Dietz PE: Aversion therapy. In: Kuper A, Kuper 3 (Eds.): The Social Science Encyclopedia. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, pp. 58-59. +- 11. Dietz PE, Cox DJ, Wegener S: Male genital exhibitionism. In: W3, McGarry AL, Shah SA (Eds. Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. Philadelphia: F.A. 1986, pp. 363-385. +- 12. Dietz PE: Signed statement in the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1986, 1:37-53. +- 13. Dietz PE: Patterns in human violence. In: Hales RE, Frances AJ (Eds.): Psychiatric Update: American Psychiatric Association Annual Review. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 6:465-490, 1987. +- 14. Dietz PE: What motivates the tamperer? In: Product Tampering and the Threat to Tamper. Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications, 1987, pp. 4-6. +- 15. Dietz PE: Combating the "madness of crowds." In: FORTUNE: Crosscurrents in Corporate Communications, Number 17, 1988, pp. 60-64. +- 16. Dietz PE: Defenses against dangerous people when arrest and commitment fail. In: RI (Ed.): American Psychiatric Press Review of Clinical Psychiatry and the Law. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1:205-219, 1989. +- 17. Dietz PE: The proliferation of product tampering. In: Product Tampering: A Worldwide Problem. Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications, 1993, pp. 9-11. +- 18. Dietz PE: Criminal profiling and crime victim litigation. In: National Crime Victim Bar Association: Civil Actions for Criminal + +Acts. Washington, DC.: National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005, pp. 156-165. + +- 19. Dietz PE: The serial killer who ticked: A diagnostic debate in criminal court. In: Spitzer RL, First MB, JBW, Gibbon M (eds.): DSM-IV-TR® Case Book: Experts Tell How They Treated Their Own Patients, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2006, pp. 413-419. +- 20. Dietz P: Threat assessment, workplace. In: Jamieson A, Moenssens A (eds.): Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009, pp. 2460- 2465. +- 21. Scurich N, Dietz P: Psychological barriers to the detection of child sexual abuse. Forthcoming in: DeMatteo D, Scherr K (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law. + +# Committee Publications: + +- 1. Task Force on the Right to Treatment of the American Psychiatric Association: Position statement on the right to adequate care and treatment for the mentally ill and mentally retarded. Am J Psychiatry 134:354-355, 1977. +- 2. Committee on Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry in the U.S. of the American Psychiatric Association: Position statement on employment-related psychiatric examinations. Am 3 Psychiatry 142:416, 1985. +- 3. Committee on Trauma Research of the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine: Injury in America. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985. +- 4. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice, 1986. +- 5. Committee on Psychiatry and the Law, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry: The Mental Health Professional and the Legal System. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1991. +- 6. Task Force on Videotaping Forensic Interviews, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: Videotaping of forensic + +psychiatric evaluations. 3 Am Acad Psychiatry Law 27:345-358, 1999. + +# Audiotace Journal Lectures: + +- 1. Rada RT, Dietz PE, Abel GG, Sadoff RL: "The Dangerous Myth of the 'Typical' Rapist," Audio-Digest Psychiatry 5(16), 23 August 1976. +- 2. Dietz PE: "Defenses Against Dangerous Patients," Audio-Digest Psychiatry 20(6), 25 March 1991. +- 3. Dietz PE: "Keeping Your Private Life Private," Audio-Digest Psychiatry 20(7), 15 April 1991. + +# Edited Works: + +- 1. Ps chothera and the Human Predicament: A Ps chosocial Approach by Jerome D. . New York: Schocken Books, 1978. +- 2. "Crime and Sexuality," Vol. 6, No. 3, of Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (1978). +- 3. "Psychological Aspects of Violence," Vol. 12, No. 5, of Psychiatric Annals (May 1982). + +# Brief Essays and Letters to the Editor: + +- 1. Dietz PE: Passive death. Lancet 2:150-151, 1973. +- 2. Dietz PE: Ethics and law in medical education. Private Practice 5:65, August 1973. +- 3. Dietz PE: Letter describing varieties of klismaphilia. Am 3 Psychotherapy 28:322-323, 1974. +- 4. Dietz PE, Baker SP: Evitable injuries. Lancet 2:963-964, 1974. +- 5. Dietz PE: Injury: Intent and change. Am 3 Public Health 65:184-185, 1975. +- 6. Dietz PE: Child poisoning and tablet containers. Lancet 1:1427, 1975. + +- 7. Dietz PE: The Maryland Psychiatric Treatments Survey. The Maryland Psychiatrist 3:8, October 1976. +- 8. Rappeport JR, Dietz PE, Taylor I3, Shave DW, Hitchman IL: The Maryland Psychiatric Treatment Survey: I. Impetus and design. The Maryland Psychiatrist 4:12-14, Summer 1977. +- 9. Dietz PE: Mechanism of rapists' arousal. Med Aspects Human Sexuality 11:77, 83, August 1977. +- 10. Dietz PE: SCUBA and Alcohol Don't Mix. Med Times 105:116, October 1977. +- 11. Dietz PE, Rappeport JR: Demographic and training characteristics of Maryland and U.S. psychiatrists. The Maryland Psychiatrist 5:4-5, February 1978. +- 12. Dietz PE: Insanity defense. Psychiatric News 14:2, March 16, 1979. +- 13. Dietz PE: Transsexual vs homosexual. Med Aspects Human Sexuality 16:54z, December 1982. +- 14. Dietz PE: Violence and the clinician. Psychiatric Annals 12:5:501, 1982. +- 15. Dietz PE: Long-term effect of rape. Med Aspects Human Sexuality 18:251, March 1984. +- 16. Dietz PE: Fears of a rape victim. Med Aspects Human Sexuality 21:58, 60, January 1987. +- 17. 3, Dietz PE: Response to 3M. JAMA 256:2195, 1986. +- 18. Dietz PE: Television-inspired autoerotic asphyxiation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:528-529, 1989. +- 19. Dietz PE: Archeology and looting: Preserving the record. Science 251:498, 1 February 1991. +- 20. Dietz PE: Response to Chaffin DS. Clinical Psychiatry News, 20:6, March 1992. + +- 21. Dietz PE: A stalker could be anyone. USA Today, January 11, 1995, p.11A. +- 22. Dietz P: Commonalities with the insider threat. Security Technology & Design, October 2008, p. 26. +- 23. Dietz P: Avoiding misconduct by insiders. Security Technology Executive, in press. + +# Book Reviews: + +- 1. Dietz PE: Review of "Hustling: Prostitution in our Wide-Open Society" by Gail Sheehy. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1:294- 295, 1973. +- 2. Dietz PE: Review of "Indecent Exposure" by John M. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2:57-59, 1974. +- 3. Dietz PE: Review of "The Early Diagnosis of the Acute Abdomen" by Sir Zachary Cope. Arch Intern Med 133:878-879, 1974. +- 4. Dietz PE: Review of "Deviant Reality: Alternative World Views" by Robert W. Winslow and Virginia Winslow. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2:199-201, 1974. +- 5. Dietz PE: Review of "Heritage of Excellence: The Johns Medical Institutions, 1914-1947" by B. Turner, Johns Magazine 26:6-8, January 1975. +- 6. Dietz PE: Review of "The Case on Cloud Nine" by Lucy Freeman. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 3:114-115, 1975. +- 7. Dietz PE: Review of "The Madman Theory" by Ellery Queen. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 3:115-116, 1975. +- 8. Dietz PE: Review of "Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products: Acute Poisoning" by Robert E. Gosselin et al. Johns Med 3 139:129-130, 1976. +- 9. Dietz PE: Review of "Adolescent Suicide" by Jerry Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 4:364-366, 1976. + +- 10. Dietz PE: Review of "The Doctor-Patient Relationship" by Kevin Browne and Paul Johns Med 3 140:80-81, 1977. +- 11. Dietz PE: Review of "Becoming Psychiatrists" by Donald Light. N Engl 3 Med 304:796, 1981. +- 12. Dietz PE: Review of "Disposable Patients" by Daryl Psychiatry 44:280-281, 1981. +- 13. Dietz PE: Review of "Biobehavioracts of Aggression" edited by David A. Hamburg and l l B. Trudeau. N Engl J Med 306:1557-1558, 1982. +- 14. Dietz PE: Review of "The Perspectives of Psychiatry" by Paul R. McHugh and Phillip R. Slavney. N Enql 3 Med 310:1198-1199, 1984. +- 15. Dietz PE: Sex offender treatment: Art, science, and politics. Review essay of "The Sexual Aggressor: Current Perspectives on Treatment" edited by Joanne G. Greer and Irving R. Stuart. Contemp Psychiatry 3:167-172, 1984. + +# ORIGINAL PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS:1 + +- 1. Dietz PE, Baker SP: "Drowning: Etiologic Factors and Preventive Approaches," American Public Health Association, San Francisco, California, November 5, 1973. +- 2. Dietz PE, Rappeport JR, Lion JR, et al.: "Maryland Psychiatric Treatments Survey: II," American Psychiatric Association, Miami Beach, Florida, May10, 1976. +- 3. Dietz PE: "A Sociological Perspective of the Siege of Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Francisco, California, October 24, 1976. +- 4. Dietz PE: "Toward a Scientific Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Diego, California, February 17, 1977. + +1 Records for 1995-2001 are incomplete as a result of a hard-drive failure. + +- 5. Dietz PE: "Forensic Psychiatrists: Are They Different?," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 23, 1977. +- 6. Dietz PE: "Behavioral Aspects of Vehicular Violence," Plenary Session Presentation, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, St. Louis, Missouri, February 22, 1978. +- 7. Dietz PE: "Homicide Motives Reconsidered," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, St. Louis, Missouri, February 23, 1978. +- 8. Dietz PE, Fillinger H: "Sexual Fatalities," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, St. Louis, Missouri, February 23, 1978. +- 9. Dietz PE: "Psychiatrists Young and Old: A Comparative Study," American Psychiatric Association, Atlanta, Georgia, May 12, 1978. +- 10. Dietz PE: "Victim Consequences and Their Control," American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 29, 1978. +- 11. Dietz PE: "Medical Criminology and Homicide Control," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 20, 1978. +- 12. Dietz PE: "A Comparative Study of Users and Non-Users of Electroconvulsive Therapy," Robert Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Scottsdale, Arizona, November 3, 1978. +- 13. Dietz PE: "Educating the Forensic Psychiatrist," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Atlanta, Georgia, February 14, 1979. +- 14. Dietz PE: "Prostitutes as Victims, Offenders, and Entrepreneurs," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Atlanta, Georgia, February 15, 1979. +- 15. Dietz PE: "Research Methods in Forensic Psychiatry," Special Lecture to the Psychiatry Section, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Atlanta, Georgia, February 16, 1979. + +- 16. Dietz PE: "Sampling Bias and the Case Mort: The Example of Postmortem Cesarean Section," Robert Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Scottsdale, Arizona, November 16, 1979. +- 17. Dietz PE: "Quality of Life for the Mentally Disabled," Plenary Session Presentation, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 21, 1980. +- 18. Dietz PE, Rada RT: "Battery Incidents and Batterers in a Maximum Security Hospital," Fifth International Congress of Law and Psychiatry, Banff, Alberta, Canada, January 24, 1981. +- 19. Dietz PE: "Patterns in Drug Fatalities: Propoxyphene, Opiates, and Sedative-Hypnotics," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Los Angeles, California, February 19, 1981. +- 20. Dietz PE: "Crimenes Sexuales," Sexto Symposium Internacional de Graduacion en Medicina Legal Asociacion Mexicana de Medicina Legal, Mexico City, Mexico, September 2-4, 1981. +- 21. Dietz PE: "Responsabilidad Criminal," Sexto Symposium Internacional de Graduacion en Medicina Legal Asociacion Mexicana de Medicina Legal, Mexico City, Mexico, September 2- 4, 1981. +- 22. Dietz PE: "El Papel de la Psiquiatria en la Investigacion Criminal," Sexto Symposium Internacional de Graduacion en Medicina Legal Asociacion Mexicana de Medicina Legal, Mexico City, Mexico, September 2-4, 1981. +- 23. Dietz PE: "La Violencia en el Sistemo Carcelario," Sexto Symposium Internacional de Graduacion en Medicina Legal Asociacion Mexicana de Medicina Legal, Mexico City, Mexico, September 2-4, 1981. +- 24. Ressler R, Dietz PE: Full-day course on "Psychological Analysis of Crime Scenes," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Orlando, Florida, February 11, 1982. +- 25. Dietz PE, Rada RT: "Interpersonal Violence in Forensic Facilities," American Psychiatric Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 19, 1982. + +- 26. Dietz PE: "The Hinckley Trial," 3rd Australian Congress of Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, Melbourne, Australia, November 4-7, 1982. +- 27. Dietz PE: "Autoerotic Deaths," 3rd Australian Congress of Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, Melbourne, Australia, November 4-7, 1982. +- 28. Dietz PE: "The Prediction of Intolerable Crimes," 3rd Australian Congress of Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, Melbourne, Australia, November 4-7, 1982. +- 29. Dietz PE: Keynote Address on "The Forensic Evaluation of the President's Assailant," 6th Annual Symposium on Mental Health and the Law, Charlottesville, Virginia, March 14, 1983. +- 30. Dietz PE: "Future Directions in Clinical Criminology," Symposium on Clinical Criminology: Current Concepts, Clarke Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, April 29, 1983. +- 31. Dietz PE: "Sex Offender Profiling by the FBI: A Preliminary Conceptual Model," Forensic Science Symposium on the Analysis of Sexual Assault Evidence, Forensic Science Research and Training Center, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, July 8, 1983. +- 32. Dietz PE: "Sexual Bondage Behavior: A Descriptive Overview and a Proposal for the Diagnosis of Cordophilia," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, Oregon, October 28, 1983. +- 33. Dietz PE: "The Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of John Hinckley, Jr.," National Association of Medical Examiners, Williamsburg, Virginia, November 17, 1983. +- 34. Dietz PE: "Pract•Medicine Without Patients," Alumni Lecture, Robert Foundation Clinical Scholars Program Annual Meeting, Howey-in-The-Hills, Florida, October 30, 1984. +- 35. Dietz PE, KL: "The Analysis of Suicide Notes," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 15, 1985. + +- 36. Dietz PE: "Offensive Behavior on College and University Campuses: Preliminary Results of a Survey of Institutions Belonging to the National Association of College and University Attorneys," National Association of College and University Attorneys Workshop: Protecting the Ivory Tower: Campus Crime and the Use and Misuse of Campus Facilities, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1985. +- 37. Dietz PE: "The Charcot and Krafft-Ebing Schools of Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from John Doe, John Hinckley, and Other Defendants," National Organization of Forensic Social Work, Charlottesville, Virginia, March 28, 1985. +- 38. Dietz, PE: "Analysis of Threatening and Obsessional Letters," AMEDD Forensic Psychiatry Course, Walter Army Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, April 2, 1985. +- 39. Dietz PE: "Sexual Offenders and Their Treatment," AMEDD Forensic Psychiatry Course, Walter Army Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, April 3, 1985. +- 40. Dietz PE: "Mass, Serial and Sensational Homicides," Symposium on Homicide as a Public Health Problem, New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York, October 3, 1985. +- 41. Dietz PE, Ressler RK: "Sexual Offenders," American College of Legal Medicine and American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 10, 1985. +- 42. DA, Dietz PE: "Mental Disorder and Threats Against Public Figures: Preliminary Research Results," American Society of Criminology, San Diego, California, November 15, 1985. +- 43. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: "Research Collaboration Between Law Enforcement and Mental Health: The Study of Masochism and Sadism," World Conference on Police Psychology, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, December 18, 1985. +- 44. Dietz PE: "Pornography, Health, and Human Rights: Legislative Recommendations from the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography," National Conference of State Legislatures, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 5, 1986. + +- 45. Dietz PE: "Role Conflicts in Psychiatric Consultation to Law Enforcement," Symposium on Psychiatry and Law Enforcement, Police Staff College, Bramshill, Hartley Witney, Hants, England, October 22, 1986. +- 46. Dietz PE: "Sexual Deviation: Classification and Relation to Offences," The State of Forensic Piridatry: A Joint Conference of the Institute of Psychiatry, the College of Psychiatrists, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, London, England, October 23, 1986. +- 47. Dietz PE: "Sadism and Sexual Offences," The State of Forensic Ii iatry: A Joint Conference of the Institute of Psychiatry, the College of Psychiatrists, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, London, England, October 23, 1986. +- 48. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: Terrorism or Madness?", Annual Educational Conference, Food and Drug Law Institute and Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., December 10, 1986. +- 49. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: The Nature of the Problem," Los Angeles Times and Foundation for American Communications Conference on Product Tampering: Terrorism in the Marketplace, Los Angeles, California, December 12, 1986. +- 50. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: Terrorism or Madness?", Food Marketing Institute's 11th Annual Loss Prevention Conference, Tempe, Arizona, February 23, 1987. +- 51. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: An Overview," Dallas Morning News and Foundation for American Communications Conference on Product Tampering: Terrorism in the Marketplace, Dallas, Texas, March 20, 1987. +- 52. Dietz PE: "Patterns in Human Violence," Psychiatry Update Symposium on Violence and the Violent Patient at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 13, 1987. +- 53. Dietz PE: "Preserving Behavioral Evidence," National Food Processors Association Conference on Using Evidence in Claims and Tampering Cases, Washington, D.C., May 22, 1987. + +- 54. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering," Advanced National Seminar, Packaging Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, May 25, 1987. +- 55. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: Who Does It? Who Threatens to Do It? And Why?", Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati Post, and Foundation for American Communications Conference on Product Tampering, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 4, 1987. +- 56. Dietz PE: "Threat Assessment / Product Tampering," 39th Annual Conference of the Harvard Associates in Police Science, Williamsburg, Virginia, June 23, 1987. +- 57. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering: What Motivates the Tamperer?," International Association for Identification, Alexandria, Virginia, August 6, 1987. +- 58. Dietz PE: "Dealing with Public Fears of Science and Technology," Foundation for American Communications and Northwestern University Schools of Journalism, Management, and Law Conference on Corporate Communications: Risk and the Public's Fear of the Unknown, Chicago, Illinois, October 20, 1987. +- 59. Dietz PE: "Who are These People and Why are They Doing This?", Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune Foundation, and Foundation for American Communications Conference on Product Tampering and the Threat to Tamper, Chicago, Illinois, October 21, 1987. +- 60. Dietz PE: "Scene Assessment/Threat Assessment," Colonel Henry F. Homicide Seminar, New York State Police Academy, Albany, New York, November 12, 1987. +- 61. Dietz PE: "Creating Risk Perceptions," Associated Press and Foundation for American Communications Conference on Implementing Proposition 65: A Conference for Journalists, San Francisco, California, January 22, 1988. +- 62. Dietz PE: "Product Tampering as a Terrorist Tactic," 6th Annual Government/Industry Conference on Terrorism, American Society for Industrial Security, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1988. + +- 63. Dietz PE: "Behavioral Aspects of Mass Murder Investigation," Megaviolence: Major Violent Incident Control and Response Conference, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Nashville, Tennessee, May 19, 1988. +- 64. Dietz PE: "Child Pornography," National Obscenity Task Force Conference, U.S. Department of Justice, Crystal City, Virginia, May 24, 1988. +- 65. Dietz PE: "Psychiatric Aspects of Serial Murder Investigation," International Homicide Symposium, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia, June 20, 1988. +- 66. Dietz PE: "Public Figure Threats, Harassment, and Attacks," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Francisco, California, October 20, 1988. +- 67. Dietz PE: "Abnormal Consumer Behavior," Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 25, 1988. +- 68. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR, JI: "Sexual Sadism," Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1989. +- 69. Dietz PE: "Forensic Psychiatry," Col. Henry F. Homicide Seminar, New York State Police Academy, Albany, New York, September 19, 1989. +- 70. Dietz PE: "Sexual Sadism and Serial Crime," Conference of Sexual Sadism and Serial Murder sponsored by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Tri-State Chapter and the New York Criminal and Supreme Courts Forensic Psychiatry Clinic, New York, New York, January 20, 1990. +- 71. Dietz PE, Fitch LW, Crowder 3D, JI: "Exorcism, Death, and the Criminal Law," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Coronado, California, October 27, 1990. +- 72. Ressler RK, Dietz PE: "Serial, Mass and Sexual Homicide: Selected Case Studies," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Anaheim, California, February 19, 1991. + +- 73. Dietz PE: Special Seminar on "Celebrity Stalkers and Assassins," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Anaheim, California, February 21, 1991. +- 74. Dietz PE, Fitch LW, JI: "Mass Media Hit Man," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Lake Buena Vista Florida, October 17, 1991. +- 75. Poklemba JJ, Ryan J, Dietz PE, Baden MM: "Forensic Evidence in the Tawana Brawley Case," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 19, 1992. +- 76. Ressler RK, EE, Levine U, Dietz PE: "Portrait of a Serial Killer: John Joubert," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 21, 1992. +- 77. Dietz PE: "Mental Defenses: From Hinckley to Dahmer," Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation, Newport Beach, California, August 6, 1992. +- 78. Dietz PE: "Le meutre, la folie et les medias," Canadian Psychiatric Association, Montreal, Quebec, September 18, 1992. +- 79. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR, JI: "The Sexually Sadistic Criminal: A Case Study," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Massachusetts, October 16, 1992. +- 80. Dietz PE: "Psychiatric Aspects of Serial Murder Investigation," International Homicide Symposium, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia, March 15, 1993. +- 81. Dietz PE, Sucik R: "The Jeffery Dahmer Case," International Homicide Symposium, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia, March 15, 1993. +- 82. Dietz PE: "Assessing Threats to Public Officials," Threat Management Conference, Anaheim, California, May 13, 1993. +- 83. Dietz PE: "Workplace Violence," International Security Management Association, La Paloma, Arizona, January 20, 1994. +- 84. Dietz PE, Ressler RK: "Behavioral Aspects of Crime Investigation for Criminal and Civil Litigation," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Antonio, Texas, February 15, 1994. + +- 85. Dietz PE: "Workplace Violence: Can it be Prevented?," American Society for Industrial Security Workshop, "Workplace Violence-Strategies to Communicate," Tempe, Arizona, February 28, 1994. +- 86. Dietz PE: "Identifying and Dealing with the Potentially Dangerous Employee in the Workplace," American Bar Association Committee on Employee Rights and Responsibilities, Mid-Winter Meeting, Scottsdale, Arizona, March 10, 1994. +- 87. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: "Offender Profiles and Premises Liability Litigation," Premises Liability for Violent Crimes Seminar, Defense Research Institute, Dallas, Texas, April 15, 1994. +- 88. Dietz PE: "Mass Murder Investigations," 12th Annual Advanced Homicide Investigators Seminar," Metropolitan Toronto Police Homicide Squad, Toronto, Ontario, June 21, 1994. +- 89. Dietz PE: "Workplace Violence: An Intensive One-day Violence Prevention Seminar Designed for To Executive and Human Resource Management," Rogers & Hazelgrove, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, June 17, 1994. +- 90. Dietz PE: Plenary Session: "Avoiding Workplace Violence," Seyfarth, MINI Fairweather & Geraldson, The 1994 Labor Law Symposium, Beverly Hills, California, October 13, 1994. +- 91. Dietz PE: "Violence in the Workplace," Western States Bank Security Directors Meeting, San Diego, California, October 14, 1994. +- 92. Dietz PE: "Preventing Violence in the Workplace: What Can the Employer Do?", Seyfarth, IS Fairweather & Geraldson seminar, "Understanding, Preventing, and Responding to Workplace Violence," Chicago, Illinois, November 16, 1994. +- 93. Dietz PE: "Violence in the Workplace: What Can the Employer Do?," California Employment Law Council Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, November 18, 1994. +- 94. Dietz PE: "Countermeasures to Workplace Violence," Federal Occupational Health Agency Conference, "The Prevention of + +Workplace Violence: A Contemporary Public Health Crisis," San Francisco, California, November 30, 1994. + +- 95. Dietz PE: "Changes in Workplace Violence: The Increasing Standard of Care," Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Committee, Tort and Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association, San Diego, California, March 18, 1995. +- 96. Dietz PE: Keynote Address: "Overview of Workplace Violence and Countermeasures," Threat Management Conference, Central Intelligence Agency, McLean, Virginia, August 22, 1994. +- 97. Dietz PE: "Unsolicited Communications to Government Officials and Agencies: The Need to Report, Assess, and Avoid Counterproductive Responses," Threat Management Conference, Central Intelligence Agency, McLean, Virginia, August 23, 1994. +- 98. Dietz PE: "Summary of Countermeasures Against Lone Assailants," Threat Management Conference, Central Intelligence Agency, McLean, Virginia, August 23, 1994. +- 99. Dietz PE: "The Serial Killer," New York State Police Homicide Symposium, Albany, New York, September 27, 1994. +- 100. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: "Criminal Profiling," Association of Trial Lawyers of America, National College of Advocacy, Premises Liability: Inadequate Security & Violent Crimes seminar, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 15, 1994. +- 101. Dietz PE: "Managing the Sexual Misconduct Case," Physicians Insurers Association of America, San Antonio, Texas, November 3, 1994. +- 102. Dietz PE, McCrary GO: "Offender Profiles and Premises Liability Litigation," Premises Liability for Violent Crime Seminar, Defense Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, May 25, 1995. +- 103. Dietz P: Presidential Address: "The Quest for Excellence in Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Seattle, Washington, October 19, 1995. + +- 104. Dietz PE, Harry B: "Serial Killers in Health Care," Johns Medical and Surgical Association Biennial Meeting and School of Medicine Reunion Weekend, Baltimore, Maryland, June 9, 2001. +- 105. Rivard 3M, Dietz PE, DM: "Acute Dissociative Responses in Law Enforcement Officers," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Massachusetts, October 25, 2001. +- 106. Dietz PE: "The Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Andrea l= UCLA Annual Review, Los Angeles, California, October 11, 2002. If +- 107. Dietz PE: "Workplace Violence Prevention," College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, Southwestern Regional Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 29, 2003. +- 108. Dietz PE: "Criminal Investigative Analysis ("Profiling") in Civil Litigation," Association of Trial Lawyers of America, San Francisco, California, July 21, 2003. +- 109. Pitt SE, Dietz PE, Dvoskin JA, Spiers EM, RP, Kurtis B: "Columbine: Understanding Why," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Antonio, Texas, October 17, 2003 +- 110. Dietz PE: "Strategies for Understanding and Responding to Claims of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," Complex Medicine for Trial Lawyers Seminar, Defense Research Institute, Miami, Florida, November 13, 2003 +- 111. Dietz PE: "Pedophile Profile," Sexual Torts Seminar, Defense Research Institute, Chicago, IL, November 14, 2003 +- 112. Dietz PE: "Assessing Threats of Violence: Posturing or About to go Postal?" Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Law Conference, Seattle, WA, May 13, 2004 +- 113. Dietz PE: "Criminal Profiling and Crime Victim Litigation," The National Crime Victim Bar Association, Washington D.C., June 21, 2005 +- 114. Dietz PE: "Mentally Competent to Stand Trial," Col. Henry F. Homicide Seminar, Albany, New York, September 20, 2005. + +- 115. Dietz PE: "Harassment and Stalking by Psychiatric Patients," Canadian Academy of Psychiatry and Law, Vancouver, Canada, November 4, 2005. +- 116. Dietz PE: "Violencia criminal en el ambito familiar," Congreso Psiquiatria Legal XIV Congreso Nacional, Baiona, Spain, November 17, 2005. +- 117. Dietz PE: "Sex Offenders," Judge Advocate General's School 29th Criminal Law New Developments Course, Charlottesville, VA, November 29, 2005 +- 118. Dietz PE: "The Criminal Mind," The Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, February 7, 2006 +- 119. Dietz PE: "Assessing Criminal Behavior," National Crime Victims' Rights Week Conference, Anaheim, CA, April 7, 2006 +- 120. Dietz PE: "Current Mental Health Issues," Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation's 27th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, August 5, 2006 +- 121. Dietz P: "Staff Professional Development Training," FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Quantico, VA, September 6, 2006 +- 122. Dietz P: "Violencia en el medio laboral," XV Congreso Nacional de Psiquiatria Legal, Guadalajara, Spain, October 5, 2006 +- 123. Dietz P: "Criminal Behavior in the Community, the Workplace, and the Media," Fennemore Craig Annual Retreat, October 14, 2006 +- 124. Dietz P: "Prevention of Campus Threats and Violence," National Association of College and University Attorneys, San Diego, CA, June 29, 2007 +- 125. Dietz P: "Behavioral Aspects of Notice, Negligence, Causation, and Damages in Sexual Misconduct Cases," Federation Defense and Corporate Counsel, Sun Valley, ID, July 27, 2007 + +- 126. Dietz P: "Bullying and the Spectrum of Workplace Misconduct," Employee Assistance Roundtable, San Diego, CA, October 24, 2007 +- 127. Dietz P: "The Sexual Tortfeasor: Implications for Litigation and Prevention," Pappas' Sexual Tort Seminar, Tampa, FL, June 26, 2008 +- 128. Dietz P: "Behavioral Warnings of Attacks on Public Figures and Their Families," Keynote Address, 2008 Executive Security International Alumni Conference, Las Vegas, NV, August 9, 2008 +- 129. Dietz P: "Current Mental Health Issues," 2008 Summer Conference of the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation, San Francisco, CA, August 30, 2008 +- 130. Dietz P: "The Role of Forensic Expertise in Capital Crimes Litigation," U.S. Department of Justice, Capital Crimes Symposium, Columbia, SC, November 14, 2008 +- 131. Dietz P: "The Mind: Investigating and Preparing for Mental Defenses and Mitigation," National District Attorneys Association Forensic Evidence Course, San Francisco, CA, December 10, 2008 +- 132. Dietz P: "Evidence-Based Forensic Psychiatry," 2nd World Thematic Conference on Legal & Forensic Psychiatry, Spanish Society of Legal Psychiatry and World Psychiatric Association, Toledo, Spain, June 17, 2009 +- 133. Dietz P: "Evidence-Based Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, WA, February 25, 2010 +- 134. Dietz P: "New Insights into Columbine," American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA, March 6, 2010 +- 135. Dietz P: "Preparing for Mental Defenses," International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship, Myrtle Beach, SC, May 3, 2010 +- 136. Dietz P: "Dangerous Delusions: When Fans are a Threat," National District Attorneys Association, Napa, CA, July 14, 2010 +- 137. Dietz P: Keynote Address: "Health Care Workers as Victims of Threats and Stalking," International Association for Healthcare + +Security & Safety and Emergency Nurses Association, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, July 26, 2012. + +- 138. Dietz P: Keynote Address: "Health Care Workers as Victims of Threats and Stalking," International Association for Healthcare Security & Safety and Emergency Nurses Association, Stanford University Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, July 27, 2012. +- 139. Dietz P: "Unusual Syndromes and Defenses," National District Attorneys Association Homicide Course, San Francisco, CA, December 10, 2012. +- 140. Dietz P: "Sexual Sadism: When Lust and Cruelty Merge," G. Stanley Distinguished Lecture in Clinical Psychology, Johns University, Baltimore, MD, April 24, 2013. +- 141. Dietz P: "Interviewing the I-5 Strangler," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Coronado, CA, October 24, 2013. +- 142. Dietz P: "Why It Takes So Long to Identify Sex Offenders," Defense Research Institute Sexual Torts Seminar, Coronado, CA, November 14, 2013. +- 143. Dietz PE: "Preventing Violence in Educational Institutions," The Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, December 3, 2013. +- 144. Dietz PE: "Sexual Sadism: A Coping Strategy Model," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, Washington, February 21, 2014. +- 145. Dietz P: "Inside the Mind of a Killer," National District Attorneys Association Prosecuting Homicide Cases Seminar, San Francisco, CA, February 24, 2014. +- 146. Dietz P: "Safe from Evil," American College of Trial Lawyers, La Quinta, CA, March 8, 2014. +- 147. Dietz P: "Safe from Evil," Keynote Address, University of Pennsylvania Medical Alumni Weekend, May 16, 2014. +- 148. Dietz P: "Sexual Thought Crimes," Keynote Address, Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry, Hong Kong, August 14, 2014. + +- 149. Dietz P: "DSM-5: Changes Impacting Capital Litigation," Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation, San Diego, CA, August 23, 2014. +- 150. Dietz P: "Emotional Injury Claims and Significant Changes in DSM-5," Complex Medicine Seminar, Defense Research Institute, San Diego, CA, November 13, 2014. +- 151. Dietz P: "Frauds and Other Criminals," Keynote Address, 26th Annual Anti-Fraud Conference, Monterey, CA, April 1, 2015. +- 152. Dietz P: "Inside the Minds of Killers," National District Attorneys Association Forensic Evidence Course, Savannah, GA, December 8, 2015. +- 153. M, Dietz P, DA: "Resiliency and Trauma: An Interdisciplinary Team Approach to the Evaluation of Individuals in Mass Tort Cases," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 17, 2017. +- 154. Dietz P: "Paraphilia and Mental Health: Inside the Mind of the Perpetrator," National District Attorneys Association Prosecuting Sexual Assault and Related Crimes Course, Long Beach, CA, August 15, 2017. +- 155. Dietz P: "Sexual Serial Killers," National District Attorneys Association Prosecuting Sexual Assault and Related Crimes Course, Long Beach, CA, August 15, 2017. +- 156. Dietz P: Keynote Address: "Mental Health Crises in the Workplace: Trends in Private Sector Efforts," Security Summit: Managing Mental Health Crises in the Workplace, Twin Cities Security Partnership, Minneapolis, MN, September 20, 2017. +- 157. Dietz P: Keynote Address: "Pathways to Violent Extremism," 11th Annual Security500, Arlington, VA, November 13, 2017. +- 158. Dietz P: "Rebuttal of Mitigation Experts," Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation's 39th Annual Conference, Washington, DC, August 9, 2018. +- 159. Dietz P: "Preventing Harm to Your Employees, Guests, and Brand," Foodservice Industry Risk Management Association, Risk + +Management Workshop, Cal State Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, May 30, 2018. + +- 160. Dietz P: "Cannibal Cop," International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, VA, September 27, 2018. +- 161. Dietz P: "Pathways to Extremist Violence," International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship, F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, VA, September 27, 2018. +- 162. Dietz P: "Challenges to Threat Assessment and Workplace Violence Prevention Programs," Global Security Executives Roundtable, Twitter Headquarters, San Francisco, CA, October 3, 2018. +- 163. Dietz P: "Domestic Violence and the Workplace," National Multidisciplinary Conference On Domestic Violence, National District Attorneys Association, Long Beach, CA, October 30, 2018. +- 164. Dietz P: "Domestic Violence Mass Murder," National Multidisciplinary Conference On Domestic Violence, National District Attorneys Association, Long Beach, CA, October 30, 2018. +- 165. Dietz P: "Rebutting Mitigation Evidence," Evidence for Prosecutors Course, National District Attorneys Association, San Diego, CA, March 26, 2019 +- 166. Dietz P: "Workplace Violence," Industrial Environmental Association Conference, Coronado, CA, October 1, 2019 + +# PANEL PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL MEETINGS:2 + +- 1. Rada RT, Dietz PE, Abel GG, Sadoff RL: "Clinical Aspects of the Rapist," American Psychiatric Association, Miami Beach, Florida, May 11, 1976. + +2 Records from October 1995 to December 2000 are incomplete as a result of a harddrive failure. + +- 2. Dietz PE, Freeman L, Goldzband MG, Halleck S, Mullany P, Tanay E: "The Psychiatrist's Role in Criminal Investigation," American Psychiatric Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 3, 1977. +- 3. Frazier SH, Gaughan CW, Romanowicz 3, Gilligan IF, Dietz PE: "Corrections, Psychiatry and the Violent Patient," American Psychiatric Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 15, 1979. +- 4. Dietz PE, Sadoff RL, Gilligan 3F, Borenstein NM, SB: "Practical Problems in Forensic Psychiatry," American Psychiatric Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 17, 1979. +- 5. Ciccone JR, Barry DJ, Cavanaugh IL Jr., Dietz PE, Rada RT, Sadoff RL: Workshop on "Teaching Forensic Psychiatry to Residents," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, Maryland, October 27, 1979. +- 6. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR, Fillinger H, Burgess AW, Groth AN: "Autoerotic Deaths," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, Maryland, October 27, 1979. +- 7. Dietz PE, Labowitz DI, Keefe 3F, Issac G, Sadoff RL, Koson DF: Seminar on "The Psychiatrist as an Expert Witness," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 23, 1980. +- 8. Dietz PE, Wack RC, Howard L, Light D Jr., Steadman HJ: "Institutional Structure and Psychiatric Treatment," American Psychiatric Association, San Francisco, California, May 8, 1980. +- 9. Robitscher 3, Dietz PE, Zagel 3: "Resolved: Psychiatrists Should Not Participate in the Death Sentence Process," The Great Debate, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1980. +- 10. Rosner R, Cavanaugh 3L Jr., Ciccone JR, Dietz PE, Rappeport JR, Sadoff RL, Zonana H: "Fellowship Programs in Forensic Psychiatry: Accreditation," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, Illinois, October 18, 1980. +- 11. Reid WH, Barry DJ, Ciccone JR, Halpern A, Dietz PE, Mills MJ: "DSM-III in Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Coronado, California, October 17, 1981. + +- 12. Rosner RR, Barry DJ, Bradford JMW, Pollack S, Rappeport JR, Dietz PE, Resnick P3, Weiner B: "Fellowship Programs in Forensic Psychiatry: Accreditation II," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Coronado, California, October 18, 1981. +- 13. Harry B, Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR: "Bloody Instructions: Intolerable Crimes in Mass Market Magazines," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, New York, New York, October 24, 1982. +- 14. Zwerling I, U, Harding G, Dietz PE, Lymberis M, Sadoff RL: "The Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry in the United States," American Psychiatric Association, New York, New York, May 3, 1983. +- 15. Showalter CR, Bonnie RJ, Dietz PE: "Psychiatric Participation in the Capital Sentencing Process," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, Oregon, October 29, 1983. +- 16. Harry BE, Dietz PE, Hucker SI "Clinical Criminology as a Practice Paradigm in Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, Oregon, October 30, 1983. +- 17. RD, Dietz PE, HL, Sadoff RL: "Harassment of Psychiatric Expert Witnesses," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Nassau, Bahamas, October 26, 1984. +- 18. Rappeport JR, Dietz PE, Basham O: "Trends in the Standards for the Insanity Defense (Including the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984)," AMEDD Forensic Psychiatry Course, Walter Army Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, April 2, 1985. +- 19. Carparelli R, Rappeport JR, Dietz PE, Taylor VE, Thwing JB: "Mock Trial," AMEDD Forensic Psychiatry Course, Walter Army Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, April 2, 1985. +- 20. Fitch WL, Dietz PE, Deitz SR, Showalter CR, N "Forensic Reform Through Statewide Training," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 11, 1985. +- 21. Labowitz DI, Dietz PE, Farr W, Flaherty NS, Froede RC, DeAH: "Media Relations for the Forensic Scientist," American + +- Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Diego, California, February 17, 1987. +- 22. Hazelwood RR, Lanning K, Dietz PE: "Criminal Sexuality," a 3 hour nationwide law enforcement teleconference sponsored by the F.B.I. and the Kansas City Police Department, September 29, 1987. +- 23. Resnick PJ, Rosman J, Dietz PE, Hucker S: "Necrophilia, Murder and Insanity," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, October 16, 1987. +- 24. Kalt JP, Dietz PE, Cox JE Jr.: Economics and the Environment: New Challenges for Business and the Media," FORTUNE Magazine Corporate Communications Seminar, La Quinta, California, March 22, 1988. +- 25. Adelman R, Dietz PE: "Interaction Between Psychiatry and Law," American Bar Association Appellate Judges Seminar Series, St. Louis, Missouri, May 25, 1988. +- 26. Dietz PE, Hazelwood RR, JI: "The Psychopathic Sexual Sadist," Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1989. +- 27. Adelman R, Dietz PE: "Interaction Between Psychiatry and the Law," American Bar Association 1989 Appellate Judges Seminar, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, August 22, 1989. +- 28. JT, Davidson KL, Novoselsk DA, Reese WS, Lane FA, Dietz PE, Steffan TL, McMorrow M, Quinlan WR: "Liability of Not-for-Profit Youth Organizations for Sexual Misconduct by Adult Volunteers of Minors," Appellate Advocacy Committee and Employer-Employee Relations Committee, American Bar Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, August 8, 1990. +- 29. Harpold J, Wells D, Wells K, Dietz PE: "Victims Surviving Violent Crimes," National Organization for Victim Assistance, Anaheim, California, August 12, 1991. +- 30. Lanning K, Dietz PE, Ressler R: Discussion of "Silence of the Lambs," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, October 17, 1991. + +- 31. AD, Binder RL, Dietz PE, Markman RA: "Ethical Dilemmas in Forensic Practice," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, October 18, 1991. +- 32. Kausch O, Resnick PJ, Dietz PE, Berlin FS, Fosdal FA, Wahlstrom CM Jr.: "Jeffrey Dahmer: Sick or Sane or Both?" American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Massachusetts, October 15, 1992. +- 33. Corcoran WB, Dietz PE, Lombardi JH, Thompson JD, KL, JL: "Workplace Violence: Strategies to Communicate," American Society for Industrial Security, Tempe, Arizona, March 1, 1994. +- 34. Hempel AG, Felthous AR, Dietz PE, Tardiff K, Ostrov E: "Assessing Dangerousness: A Case Report of a Hostage-Taking Patient," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Maui, Hawaii, October 20, 1994. +- 35. Rand JA, Meloy JR, Ash P, Dietz PE, Crowder JD: "The Stalking Syndrome of Pathological Attachments," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Maui, Hawaii, October 22, 1994. +- 36. Wettstein RM, Dietz P: "Peer Review of Expert Psychiatric Testimony," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Seattle, Washington, October 19, 1995. +- 37. Gutheil TG, Dietz P, Beahrs JO, Moen S, Roe R: "Mock Trial: No Thanks for the Memories," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Seattle, Washington, October 19, 1995. +- 38. Dietz P: "The Quest for Excellence In Forensic Psychiatry," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Seattle, Washington, October 19, 1995. +- 39. RI, Rappeport JR, Gutheil TG, Dietz P, Tanay E: "Traveling Smart: Forensic Psychiatrists on the Road," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Seattle, Washington, October 21, 1995. +- 40. Dietz PD, Adelman R, MT, Maginnis JP, Pasano MS: "The use and Abuse of Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence in Criminal Cases," American Bar Association, San Francisco, California, August 2, 1997. + +- 41. Resnick PJ, Ciccone JR, Sadoff RL, Dietz PE, Bozievich CA: "The Insanity Trial of John Dupont," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Denver, Colorado, October 23, 1997. +- 42. Pitt SE, RTM, DePrato DK, Dietz PE, Anfang SE: "Forensic Psychiatry and the Media," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1997. +- 43. RTM, Dietz PE: "Consulting to Law Enforcement," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, October 20, 2000. +- 44. Dvoskin, 3, Baden M, Dietz P: "The Intent of the Decedent: Determining Manner of Death in Equivocal Cases," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, October 21, 2000. +- 45. C, R, S, Dietz P: "The Role of Mental Health Professionals in Hostage Negotiation," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Massachusetts, October 27, 2001. +- 46. Resnick P, Dietz P: "The Andrea Insanity Trial," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Newport Beach, CA, October 26, 2002. +- 47. Dietz PE, Emanuel W, Drucker J, Hajjar A: "Threat Assessments in the Union Shop: Thorny Problems, Practical Solutions," Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Law Conference, Seattle, WA, May 13, 2004. +- 48. Dietz PE, Gripon EB, Resnick P3, Reid WH, CS: "Maternal Filicide in Texas," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Scottsdale, AZ, October 21, 2004. +- 49. Dietz PE, Pitt SE, Dvoskin JA, Spiers EM: "The Importance of Video Recording Forensic Examinations," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Scottsdale, AZ, October 22, 2004. +- 50. Dietz PE: "Threat Assessment: Past, Present and Future" (Keynote Address), Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Anaheim, CA, August 16, 2006. + +- 51. SC, O'Shaughnessy RJ, Schetsky DH, Dietz PE: "Juvenile Murderers Grow Up: Challenges and Dispositions," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, IL, October 26, 2006. +- 52. Bingham M, 3, Dedman JM, Dietz PE, Galvin M: "Experts + - When and Why," National District Attorneys Association Summer Conference, Portland, OR, August 1, 2007. +- 53. A, Dietz P, Carpenter WT Jr, Adelman RM, RTM: "The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.: A Retrospective," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, MD, October 29, 2009. +- 54. Restivo K, Nelson EM, Dietz P, Nicholson C: "Threat Assessment in the Medical School Environment," Association of American Medical Colleges, Western Regional Conference, May 7, 2013. +- 55. Stoneking L, Kambam P, Thompson CR, Dietz P: "School Mass Shootings," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Coronado, CA, October 25, 2013. +- 56. Bradford 3, Dietz P, Mullen P.Sskoff JRP: "The Personal Impact of Working on Sex Crimes," = Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry, Hong Kong, August 14, 2014. +- 57. Dietz P, et al.: "Managing, Reducing, and Preventing Fear of Violence," National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Virtual Platform, July 21, 2020. +- 58. Knoll JL IV, Fisher KL, Dietz P: "Performance Crimes & Social Media," American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Virtual Annual Meeting, October 24, 2020. + +# OTHER LECTURE SITES (CORPORATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL):3 + +Laboratories Annenberg Washington Program, Northwestern University ARCO Arkansas Psychiatric Society Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation + +3 Records for 1995-2001 are incomplete as a result of a hard-drive failure. + +Association of Trial Lawyers of America Atascadero Forensic Mental Health Center, Atascadero, California Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, U.S Bureau of Prisons Augusta Mental Health Institute, Augusta, Maine California Association of Hostage Negotiators California District Attorneys Association California District Attorneys Association National Homicide Symposium Central Intelligence Agency Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association, Virginia Charter Hospital, Long Beach, California Charter Westbrook Hospital, Virginia Beach, Virginia Chesapeake Bay Chapter, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Chesapeake Bay Chapter, Institute of Food Technology Children's Institute International Conference of Major Superiors of Men Conference of Personal Managers Cornell University County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey Defense Research Institute Dow Chemical Company Corporate Headquarters F.B.I. Academy F.B.I. Field Office, Los Angeles Focus on the Family, Inc. Forensic Mental Health Association of California Georgetown University, Department of Psychiatry Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Harrisburg State Hospital, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Mental Health Center Harvard School of Public Health Hawaii State Hospital Hawaii State Law Enforcement Officials Association I.B.M.Corporate Headquarters Johns University, Department of Sociology Johns University, School of Hygiene and Public Health Kansas County and District Attorneys Association Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, Island, New York Kraft General Foods Special Situation Roundtable, Chicago Kraft General Foods Special Situation Roundtable, San Francisco Kraft, Inc., Corporate Headquarters Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, Florida Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, Hawaii + +Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, New Jersey Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, Texas Los Angeles Criminal Justice Inns of Court Los Angeles Police Department Threat Management Unit Louisiana District Attorneys Association Medical College of Virginia, Department of Legal Medicine Minnesota Employment Law Counsel Minnesota State Bar Association Criminal Justice Institute Minnesota State Bar Association Employment Law Institute National College of District Attorneys National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Center Newport Beach (CA) Police Department North Texas District Attorneys Office of the District Attorney, County of Fresno, California Orange County Bar Association Orange County Bar Association Employment Law Section Orange County District Attorney's Office Orange County Homicide Investigators Association Orange County Inns of Court Packaging Institute International Paramount Studios Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia Richmond Psychiatric Society Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation San Diego Psychiatric Society South Beach Psychiatric Center, New York, New York Southern California Chapter, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Southeastern Prosecutors Institute Space Coast Institute of Legal Medicine, Orlando, Florida Saint John's Hospital and Health Center, Santa Monica, California St. Louis University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Forensic and Environmental Pathology State Bar of California Target Texas District & County Attorneys Association Tulane University School of Public Health United States Secret Service, Intelligence Division United States Department of Justice University of Alberta Forensic Pathology Fellowship University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California, Irvine, Program in Psychology and Law University of California, Irvine, Program in Social Ecology University of California, Irvine, School of Law + +University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine University of California, San C, School of Medicine University of Hawaii, John A. School of Medicine University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital University of Pennsylvania, Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Department of Psychiatry University of Toronto, Clarke Institute University of Vermont School of Medicine University of Virginia Department of Psychology University of Virginia School of Law University of Wisconsin Virginia Association of Law Libraries Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Hospital Westbrook Hospital, Richmond, Virginia Western State Hospital, Staunton, Virginia Weston, Ltd., Corporate Headquarters G. N. Wilcox Memorial Hospital, Lihue, Hawaii Women's Jonathan Club, Los Angeles, CA Zausner Foods + +# TEACHING EXPERIENCE: + +1974-1975 1976-1977 1976 1976-1977 "Applications of Sociology to Clinical Medicine," a 27 hour course for 18 freshman medical students, at the Johns University School of Medicine (with Daryl M.D.) Small group instruction on the mental status examination and on principles of psychiatric interviewing for medical students at Johns University "Issues in Medical Criminology," a tutorial for students at the Johns University Supervisor and medical consultant to non-physician psychothera ists, Psychiatric Outpatient Department, Johns Hospital + +1977-1978 1978-1979 1978-1981 1979-1980 1979-1981 1979-1981 1981 1981 Organized and lectured in "Topics in Forensic Psychiatry" and "Center for Studies in Social-Legal Psychiatry Seminar Series," University of Pennsylvania "Reading Seminar in General Criminology," Medical Criminology Research Center, McLean Hospital "The Legal Regulation of Psychiatric Practice," a course directed by Robert L. Sadoff, M.D., at the Annual Meetings of the American Psychiatric Association "Forensic Psychiatry," a 12-session seminar for residents at the McLean Hospital (with Arthur J.D.) Small group instruction on forensic psychiatry and on sexual deviations and offenses for Harvard medical students Organized "Faculty Seminar in Forensic Psychiatry," Harvard Medical School Lectures on forensic psychiatry for the Social Psychiatry Seminar for residents at McLean Hospital Organized "Clerkship in Social Medicine and Psychiatric Criminology," Department of Social Medicine and Health Policy, Harvard Medical School (with Wendy K. Mariner, J.D., M.P.H.) 1981 "Forensic Practice in Massachusetts," a seminar for trainees at Harvard teaching hospitals 1981 Organized and taught in Human Aggression Unit of "Behavioral Sciences in Medicine" (Psychiatry 700a), Harvard Medical School 1981-1982 "Scientific Foundations of Clinical Criminology," a 12 session seminar for trainees and faculty of Harvard teaching hospitals 1982 "Law, Psychiatry and the Mental Health Process," University of Virginia School of Law (with John Monahan, Ph.D., and C. Robert Showalter, M.D.) + +- 1982-1988 "Psychiatry and Criminal Law" (with Elizabeth S. Scott, J.D., or W. Fitch, J.D.) 1982-1988 Teaching and supervision of Fellows in Forensic Psychiatry, University of Virginia School of Medicine 1983 "Sociology of Psychiatry," a seminar for residents in the Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Virginia School of Medicine 1983 "Law and Medicine," University of Virginia School of Law (with Walter I Wadlington, LL.B., and Kenneth R. Crispell, M.D.) 1983-1986 "Law and Psychiatry," University of Virginia School of Law (with Willis Spaulding, J.D.) 1984-1986 "Crimes of Violence," University of Virginia School of Law 1985 Directed "Mental Disability Benefits," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dallas, Texas, May 21, 1985 1985 Directed "Mental Impairment Subsequent to Psychic Trauma," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 11, 1985 1986 Directed "Mental Disability Benefits," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., May 14, 1986 1986 "Selected Competency Issues," a course directed by +- W. Fitch, J.D., at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 18, 1986 1986 Directed "Mental Impairment Subsequent to Psychic Trauma," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 19, 1986 + +1987 "Law and Public Health," University of Virginia School of Law (with Richard 3. Bonnie, LL.B.) 1987 Directed "Mental Impairment Subsequent to Psychic Trauma," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, October 17, 1987 1986-87 Organized and directed weekly Forensic Psychiatry Teaching Rounds, University of Virginia School of Medicine 1988 "Health and Safety Regulation," University of Virginia School of Law (with Richard 3. Bonnie, LL.B.) 1988 "Criminal Behavior and Public Policy," University of Virginia School of Law 1989 "Symposium at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime," a course for the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, October 19, 1989, held at the F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, VA (organized with SSA Robert K. Ressler and Richard Ratner, M.D.) 1990 - Teaching and supervision of Fellows in Forensic Psychiatry, Fellows in Child Psychiatry, and Residents, UCLA School of Medicine 1994 "Behavioral Aspects of Crime Investigation for Criminal and Civil Litigation," a course at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Antonio, TX, February 15, 1994 (with Robert K. Ressler). 2005 "Forensic Evaluation and Expert Testimony in Criminal Cases," a course for the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta, GA, June 23, 2005. 2009 "The Use of Forensic Mental Health Experts in the Investigation and Prosecution of Sex Crimes and Violent Crimes," a course for the Maricopa County District Attorney's Office and invited Arizona law enforcement agencies, Phoenix, AZ, February 6, 2009 + +2010 "PTSD and Other Mental Damages Claims," a seminar for claims managers and defense counsel, Farmers Insurance • , Agoura Hills, CA June 20, 2010 (with Dan Esq., and Susan Esq.) 2014 "Sexual Sadism and Sexual Masochism," a course for the Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry, Hong Kong, August 12, 2014 + +# THREAT ASSESSMENT GROUP® WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION TRAINING PACKAGES, VIDEOS, AND E-LEARNING COURSES SCRIPTED BY DR. DIETZ: + +1995 Supporting a Nonviolent Workplace: A Training Program for Managers and Supervisors (with Sheryl Niebuhr, Ph.D., a facilitated training program developed for 3M Company), and later editions thereof 1999 Gatekeeper Safety: How to Deal with Unwanted Letters, Calls and Visits (training video with Ann Coppel for Safeco Corporation) 2003 Managing Troubled Employees (training video) 2003 Managing Troubling Situations (training video) 2003 Your Role in Workplace Violence Prevention (training video) 2015 Principles of Workplace Violence Prevention (training video) 2015 Investigation (training video) 2015 Assessing and Managing Workplace Threats (training video) 2015 Intimate Partner Violence and the Workplace (training video) 2015 Stalking (training video) + +2015 Cyberstalking and Related Misconduct (training video) 2015 Life Stress, Personality Disorder, and Substance Abuse (training video) 2015 Mental Illnesses and Suicide Prevention (training video) 2015 Safe Termination (training video) 2015 Problematic Former Employees (training video) 2015 Managing Unwanted Communications and Visits (training video) 2015 Preparing for Active Shooter Incidents (training video) 2015 Managing Troubled People (training video) 2015 Managing Troubling Situations (training video) 2015 Introduction to Violence Prevention (training video) 2015 Interviewing (training video with William Irwin (FBI, ret.)) 2015 Managing Unwanted Communications and Visits (training video) 2015 Active Shooter Response (training video) 2015 Your Role in Workplace Violence Prevention (training video) 2015 Gatekeeper Safety: How to Deal with Unwanted Writings, Calls and Visits (training video) 2017 Principles of Workplace Violence Prevention (e-learning course) 2017 Investigation (e-learning course) 2017 Assessing and Managing Workplace Threats (e-learning course) + +2017 Intimate Partner Violence and the Workplace (e-learning course) 2017 Stalking (e-learning course) 2017 Cyberstalking and Related Misconduct (e-learning course) 2017 Life Stress, Personality Disorder, and Substance Abuse (elearning course) 2017 Mental Illnesses and Suicide Prevention (e-learning course) 2017 Safe Termination (e-learning course) 2017 Problematic Former Employees (e-learning course) 2017 Managing Unwanted Communications and Visits (elearning course) 2017 Preparing for an Armed Attack (e-learning course) 2017 Managing Troubled People (e-learning course) 2017 Managing Troubling Situations (e-learning course) 2017 Responding to an Armed Attack (e-learning course) 2017 Your Role in Workplace Violence Prevention (e-learning course) 2017 Gatekeeper Safety: How to Deal with Unwanted Writings, Calls and Visits (e-learning course) 2019 Managing Troubled People (e-learning course) 2019 Managing Troubling Situations (e-learning course) 2019 Responding to an Armed Attack (e-learning course) 2019 Your Role in Workplace Violence Prevention (e-learning course) + +2019 Gatekeeper Safety: How to Deal with Unwanted Writings, Calls and Visits (e-learning course) + +2020 Staying Safe During Protests (video) + +2020 Domestic Violence (e-learning course) + +# THREAT ASSESSMENT GROUP® WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION COURSES TAUGHT BY DR. DIETZ:4 + +"Workplace Violence: Myths, Facts, and Corporate Prevention," Newport Beach, CA, December 16-18, 1993 + +Whirlpool, Nashville, TN, March 22, 1994 + +"Workplace Violence II: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies," Newport Beach, CA, April 28-30, 1994 + +Motorola, Phoenix, AZ, May 1, 1994 + +Bankers Trust, New York, NY, June 14, 1994 + +Motorola, Phoenix, AZ, July 8, 1994 + +General Electric, Ossining, NY, July 14-15, 1994 + +Temple Inland, Irving, TX, August 17-19, 1994 + +Boise Cascade, Boise, ID, September 12-13, 1994 + +Sea World, San Diego, CA, September 19-20, 1994 First Bank System, Minneapolis, MN, September 28, 1994 + +IDS Financial Services, Minneapolis, MN, September 29, 1994 + +Norwest, Minneapolis, MN, September 30, 1994 + +Warner-Lambert, Park, NJ, October 11-12, 1994 + +Courses at specific companies and universities include various courses for executives and senior management. This list does not include courses designed by Dr. Dietz and taught by other TAG experts under Dr. Dietz's supervision, all of which are listed in the TAG Training document. + +Kraft, Northbrook, IL, November 28-29, 1994 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, December 2, 1994 + +Kraft, Northbrook, IL, December 9, 1994 + +American Express, New York, NY, December 14, 1994 + +American Express, New York, NY, January 24-26, 1995 + +Motorola (EAP), Chicago, IL, April 6, 1995 + +"Workplace Violence III: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 24-26, 1995 + +Boise Cascade, Boise, ID, May 2-5, 1995 + +Philip Morris, Tucker's Town, Bermuda, May 10, 1995 + +First Data, Denver, CO, June 8-9, 1995 + +Corning, Inc., Corning, NY, June 14-15, 1995 + +GE Capital, Stamford, CT, June 20, 1995 + +3M Company, Monticello, MN, July 20-21, 1995 + +National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA, August 22, 1995 + +American Express, Chaska, MN, September 12-13, 1995 + +Motorola, Phoenix, AZ, November 6-10, 1995 + +Motorola, Schaumburg, IL, November 27-28, 1995 + +Companies, Tulsa, OK, December 12-13, 1995 + +First Data, Omaha, NE, March 11-12, 1996 + +First Data, Omaha, NE, March 25-26, 1996 + +Companies, Tulsa, OK, April 1-2, 1996 + +General Mills, Minneapolis, MN, April 10-11, 1996 + +"Workplace Violence 4: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 24-26, 1996 + +American Express, Greensboro, NC, May 23, 1996 + +& New Brunswick, NJ, May 28-29, 1996 + +American Express, Phoenix, AZ, June 13, 1996 + +Virco Manufacturing, Torrance, CA, July 29-30, 1996 + +3M Company, Minneapolis, MN, August 1, 1996 + +Mead Corp, Dayton, IM, Sept. 18-19, 1996 + +Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., Cincinnati, a December 2, 1996 + +American Express, New York, NY, December 3, 1996 + +Philip Morris, New York, NY, December 12-13, 1996 + +Mead Corporation, Dayton, 5 February 20, 1997 + +McDonnell-Douglas, Long Beach, CA, Feb. 24-28, 1997 + +3M Company, Minneapolis, MN, March 4-7, 1997 + +"Workplace Violence 5: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 16-18, 1997 + +American Express, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, May 14, 1997 + +Motorola, Schaumburg, IL, June 17-18, 1997 + +Sears Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 14-15, 1997 + +Levi Strauss, San Francisco, CA, August 12, 1997 + +U.S. West, Inc., Denver, CO, August 21, 1997 + +Federated Dept. Stores, San Francisco, CA, August 25-26, 1997 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, August 28, 1997 + +Corning, Inc., Corning, NY, October 30, 1997 + +New York Times, New York, NY, November 4-5, 1997 + +Motorola, Schaumburg, IL, November 11, 1997 + +State Farm, Costa Mesa, CA, November 17-18, 1997 + +Levi Strauss, San Francisco, CA, November 20-21, 1997 + +U.A.W.-Chrysler, Detroit, MI, January 13, 1998 + +U.S. West, Inc., Denver, CO, January 14-15, 1998 + +Sears Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 2-3, 1998 + +Visa International, City, CA, March 10-11, 1998 + +Motorola, Chicago, IL, March 23-25, 1998 + +"Workplace Violence 6: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 27-29, 1998 + +Union Carbide, Houston, TX, May 19, 1998 + +Retail Council/Sears Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 2, 1998 + +Unilever United States, New York, NY, June 18, 1998 + +Punch Productions, New York, NY, June 18, 1998 + +Federated Department Stores, Hasbrouck Heights, NJ, July 15- 16, 1998 + +U.A.W.-Chrysler, Detroit, MI, August 3-5, 1998 + +Caterpillar, Peoria, IL, August 10-11, 1998 + +Levi Strauss, San Francisco, CA, September 9, 1998 + +American Express, Newark, NJ, October 20-21, 1998 + +Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, November 17-18, 1998 + +Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, December 1-3, 1998 + +Darden Restaurant Group, Orlando, FL, December 14-15, 1998 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, December 16, 1998 MediaOne, Denver, CO, January 13, 1999 + +Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX, January 14-15, 1999 + +Caterpillar, Newport Beach, CA, January 18-19, 1999 + +Safeco, Seattle, WA, February 3-4, 1999 + +Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, February 18-19, 1999 + +American Express, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 23, 1999 + +Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, April 7, 1999 + +"Workplace Violence 7: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 26-28, 1999 + +MediaOne, Denver, CO, June 24-25, 1999 + +Stores, Palo Alto, CA, July 8, 1999 + +PCS Health Systems, Scottsdale, AZ, July 16, 1999 + +Wellpoint, Thousand Oaks, CA, July 22-23, 1999 + +Corning, Inc., Corning, NY, September 23 1999 + +Motorola, Madrid, Spain, October 4-5, 1999 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, October 14, 1999 + +Schering-Plough, Newark, NJ, October 21-22, 1999 + +Boise-Cascade, Newport Beach, CA, October 29, 1999 + +Motorola, Hong Kong, China, November 16-17, 1999 + +PSE&G, Edison, NJ, November 30, 1999 + +Cox Enterprises, Atlanta, GA, January 25, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (Rich's, Lazarus, Goldsmith), Atlanta, GA, January 26-27, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (FACS), Cincinnati, la February 8-9, 2000 + +Oracle, Redwood Shores, CA, February 23, 2000 + +PaineWebber, Weehawken, NJ, March 7, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (Macy's East), New York, NY, March 23-24, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (Bon Marche), Seattle, WA, April 3-4, 2000 + +"Workplace Violence 8: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 10-12, 2000 + +Motorola, Oak Hills, IL, April 25-26, 2000 + +U.A.W.-DaimlerChrysler, Detroit, MI, May 2-4, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (Burdine's), Miami, FL, May 16-17, 2000 + +Motorola, Mesa, AZ, June 1-2, 2000 + +American Express, Greensboro, NC, June 14, 2000 + +Federated Department Stores (Bloomingdale's), New York, NY, June 15-16, 2000 + +Mead Corporation, Dayton, ■, **July 11-12, 2000** + +**Organization Resource Counselors (Corporate Medical Directors), Washington, DC, August 1, 2000** + +**"Workplace Violence 8 East: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," New York, NY, October 2-4, 2000** + +**"Investigation, Interviewing, and Termination," New York, NY, October 5-6, 2000** + +**PaineWebber, Weehawken, NJ, December 12-14, 2000** + +**American Express, Phoenix, AZ, February 20, 2001** + +**"Workplace Violence 9: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 23-25, 2001** + +**Thomson Legal & Regulatory, Egan, MN, April 15-16, 2001** + +**Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, May 31, 2001** + +**Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, June 5, 2001** + +**AT&T Broadband, Englewood, CO, June 14, 2001 Jefferson County, Colorado, Golden, CO, June 15, 2001** + +**Federated Department Stores (Arizona Mail Order), Tucson, AZ, June 19-20, 2001** + +**Corning, Inc., Corning, NY, September 11, 2001** + +**Federated Department Stores (Federated Marketing Group), New York, NY, November 15-16, 2001** + +**PaineWebber, Weehawken, NJ, November 19-20, 2001** + +**"Workplace Violence 10: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 15-17, 2002** + +**Tribune Company, Chicago, IL, May 15, 2002** + +Caterpillar, Peoria, IL, May 20-21, 2002 + +Tribune Company, Chicago, IL, September 11, 2002 + +"Workplace Violence 10 East," Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 7-8, 2002 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, November 11-12, 2002 + +Raytheon, Bedford, M, December 3-4, 2002 + +Discover Financial, Chicago, IL, February 10-11, 2003 + +Federated Department Stores (Federated Marketing Group), New York, NY, March 25-26, 2003 + +Tribune Company, Chicago, IL, April 2-3, 2003 + +"Workplace Violence 11: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 7-9, 2003 + +Takeda Pharmaceuticals NA, Lincolnshire, IL, September 4-5, 2003 + +Business Intelligence Advisors, Bellevue, WA, September 11, 2003 + +Charter One Bank, Cleveland, M, September 29, 2003 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, January 19, 2004 + +Visa International, City, CA, April 13-14, 2004 + +"Workplace Violence 12: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 19-21, 2004 + +Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, April 29, 2004 + +Motorola, Schaumburg, IL, May 25-26, 2004 + +Federated Department Stores (Federated Marketing Group), New York, NY, September 22-23, 2004 + +General Dynamics, Falls Church, VA, October 12, 2004 + +Lockheed M, Bethesda, MD, October 26-27, 2004 + +Tribune Company, Chicago, IL, December 8, 2004 + +ConAgra Foods, Omaha, NE, January 27, 2005 + +ConAgra Foods, Omaha, NE, February 15, 2005 + +"Workplace Violence 13: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 18-20, 2005 + +CUNA Mutual, Newport Beach, CA, April 21, 2005 + +Darden Restaurants, Orlando, FL, October 10, 2005 + +Lockheed =, Orlando FL, October 19, 2005 + +"Reading People," sponsored by Threat Assessment Group, Park Dietz & Associates, and the Paul Ekman Group, Las Vegas, NV, October 12-14, 2005 + +FedEx Corporate, Memphis, TN, March 28-30, 2006 + +"Workplace Violence 14: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 24, 2006 + +TAG Advanced Case Management Seminar, Newport Beach, CA, April 25-27, 2006 + +3M Company, Minneapolis, MN, May 17-18, 2006 + +Twin Cities Security Partnership, May 18, 2006 + +Ameriprise Financial, Minneapolis, MN, May 24-26, 2006 + +3M Company, Minneapolis, MN, May 17-18, 2006 + +"Workplace Violence 14: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Chicago, IL, October 24, 2006 + +TAG Advanced Case Management Seminar, Chicago, IL, October 25-27, 2006 + +PepsiCo, Plano, TX, November 14, 2006 + +Tribune Company, Chicago, IL, November 15, 2006 + +McDonald's, Oakbrook, IL, November 16, 2006 + +Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA, December 1-2, 2006 + +"Workplace Violence 15: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, April 23, 2007 + +Macy's Inc., St. Louis, MO, June 19-21, 2007 + +Macy's Inc., New York City, NY, July 10-12, 2007 + +Macy's Inc., Los Angeles, CA, July 31- August 2, 2007 + +Macy's Inc., Minneapolis, MN, August 7-9, 2007 + +Macy's Inc., Atlanta, GA, August 28-30, 2007 + +USAA, San Antonio, TX, September 18-19, 2007 + +Laboratories, Park, IL, February 5, 2008 + +Motorola, Chicago, IL, February 6, 2008 + +"Workplace Violence 16: An Intensive Course Designed for Fortune 500 Companies and Selected Private and Government Organizations," Newport Beach, CA, June 2-4, 2008 + +Laboratories, Park, IL, June 27, 2008 + +3M, Minneapolis, MN, October 1, 2008 + +Johns Institutions, Baltimore, MD, December 1, 2008 + +DRS Technologies, Palm Beach, FL, January 29, 2009 + +Laboratories, Newport Beach, CA, February 10, 2009 + +Executive Resource Center, Oklahoma City, OK, July 16, 2009 + +Laboratories, Park, IL, September 15, 2009 + +Health Care Partners, Los Angeles, September 24-24, 2009 + +Laboratories, Park, IL, October 13-14, 2009 + +Lockheed M, Fort Worth, TX, May 5-6, 2010 + +Air Liquide, Newport Beach, CA, July 28-29, 2010 + +"Workplace Violence 17: Prevention of Workplace Misconduct and Violence," Newport Beach, CA, March 28-29, 2011 + +"Mental Disorder and the Workplace," Newport Beach, CA, March 30, 2011 + +Pitney Bowes, Stamford, CT, May 3-4, 2011 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Monitoring and Assessing Written Communications, August 12, 2011 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Suicide and Suicide Prevention, January 25, 2012 + +"Workplace Violence 18: Prevention of Workplace Misconduct and Violence," Newport Beach, CA, March 19-21, 2012 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Safe Termination, July 11, 2012 + +Air Liquide, Newport Beach, CA, August 7-8, 2012 + +3M, Minneapolis, MN, November 5, 2012 + +Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, November 30, 2012 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Preparing for Difficult Conversations, January 23, 2013 + +Apollo Group, Phoenix, AZ, February 21, 2013 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Mental Disorders in the Workplace, April 17, 2013 + +Discover, Webinar: Domestic Violence and the Workplace, May 29, 2013 + +Southern California Edison, Rosemead, CA, June 5, 2013 + +"Intensive Private Seminar on Workplace Violence Prevention," Washington, DC, September 16-17, 2013 + +Corning, Inc., Corning, NY, September 19, 2013 + +"Intensive Private Seminar on Workplace Violence Prevention," Newport Beach, CA, October 7-8, 2013 + +BASF, Florham Park, NJ, October 10-11, 2013 + +Frito-Lay, Coronado, CA, November 4, 2013 + +Gatekeeper Safety Training, Teague, Seattle, WA, December 10, + +Executive Briefing, Teague, Seattle, WA, December 10, 2013 + +Federal Express, Webinar: Assessing and Managing Threats, January 29, 2014 + +Young Presidents' Organization, Las Vegas, NV, February 11, 2014 + +Managing Troubled Employees and Troubling Situations, Teague, Seattle, WA, February 19, 2014 + +American Express, Webinar: Principles of Violence Prevention, April 9, 2014 + +Ameriprise Financial, Professional Course Training, Minneapolis, MN, April 23-24, 2014 + +Labs, Webinar: Assessing and Managing Threats, July 17, 2014 + +Labs, Webinar: Intimate Partner Violence, August 5, 2014 + +American Express, Webinar: Safe Termination of End Stage Employees, September 18, 2014 + +Labs, Webinar: Managing Mentally III Employees, October 1, 2014 + +MGM Resorts, Las Vegas, NV, February 26-27, 2015 + +Allied Intelligence, Course: Social Media Threat Assessment, St. Louis, MO, March 4-5, 2015 + +PepsiCo/FritoLay Security, Huntington Beach, CA, April 30, 2015 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, May 11-12, 2015 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, August 17-18, 2015 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, October 19-20, 2015 + +TE Connectivity, Webinar: Violence in the Workplace: Prevention, Detection, and Response, December 17, 2015 + +TE Connectivity, Webinar: Violence in the Workplace: Prevention, Detection, and Response, December 21, 2015 + +Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Webinar: Principles of Workplace Violence, February 18, 2016 + +Herbalife, Los Angeles, CA, March 17-18, 2016 + +FedEx, Webinar: Case Escalation, April 6, 2016 + +Packaging Corporation of America, "Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, April 19-20, 2016 + +Capital Group, Irvine, CA, May 13, 2016 + +Executive Briefing, General Atomics, Poway, CA, June 30, 2016 + +General Atomics, Torrey Pines, CA, September 7-8, 2016 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, October 17-18, 2016 + +Macy's, Webinar: "Macy's Workplace Violence Prevention Program" (with Rochelle O'Day, for Asset Protection Department), November 11, 2016 + +3M Company, St. Paul, MN, November 28-30, 2016 + +Capital Group, Irvine, CA, December 14, 2016 + +CF Industries, Deerfield, IL, February 28 - March 1, 2017 + +Publicis Media, New York, NY, March 13 and March 15, 2017 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, April 13-14, 2017 + +Nike, Beaverton, OR, May 1-2, 2017 + +Quest Diagnostics, Tampa, FL, May 4-5, 2017 + +Publicis Group, Executive Briefing, Chicago, IL, August 9, 2017 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, October 16-17, 2017 + +Western Digital Corporation, Executive Briefing, San Jose, CA, August 24, 2018 + +Allstate, 2-Day Senior Leadership Team Training, Chicago, IL, September 11-12,2018 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, October 15-16, 2018 + +Western Digital Corporation, 2-Day Specialist Training, Irvine, CA, November 28-29, 2018 + +Allstate, Senior Leadership Training, Chicago, IL, December 12, 2018 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," hosted by Allstate, Northbrook, IL, May 9-10, 2019 + +"Workplace Violence Advanced Instruction and Certification," Newport Beach, CA, October 21-22, 2019 + +Ducommun, 1-Day Live Training: "Workplace Misconduct Mitigation," Santa Ana, CA, December 17, 2019 + +"TAG Virtual Advanced Training in Workplace Violence Prevention," April 26-30, 2021 + +# FILMOGRAPHY:5 + +Law & Order (TV Series) (technical advisor - 169 episodes) + +- Rubber Room (2010) +- Love Eternal (2010) +- Immortal (2010) +- The Taxman Cometh (2010) +- Crashers (2010) +- Brazil (2010) +- Brilliant Disguise (2010) +- Boy on Fire (2010) +- Steel-Eyed Death (2010) +- Blackmail (2010) +- Human Flesh Search Engine (2009) +- Dignity (2009) +- The Drowned and the Saved (2009) +- Skate or Die (2009) +- Exchange (2009) +- All New (2009) +- Promote This! (2009) +- Take-Out (2009) +- Flaw (2005) + +5 Based on information published by IMDb as of 7/15/21, available at: tittos://www,imdbrcom/name/nm0226352/?ref =fn al nm 1 + +- Red Ball (2005) +- In God We Trust (2005) +- Publish and Perish (2005) +- Tombstone (2005) +- Sects (2005) +- Dining Out (2005) +- License to Kill (2005) +- The Sixth Man (2005) +- Fluency (2005) +- Ain't No Love (2005) +- Fixed (2004) +- Enemy (2004) +- All in the Family (2004) +- Cry (2004) +- Gunplay (2004) +- Coming Down Hard (2004) +- The Brotherhood (2004) +- The Dead Wives Club (2004) +- C.O.D. (2004) +- Caviar Emptor (2004) +- Gaijin (2004) +- Vendetta (2004) +- Nowhere Man (2004) +- Evil Breeds (2004) +- City (2004) +- Darwinian (2004) +- Embedded (2003) +- Bounty (2003) +- Bodies (2003) +- Sheltered (2003) +- Suicide Box (2003) +- B\*tch (2003) +- Star Crossed (2003) +- Absentia (2003) +- Under God (2003) +- Chosen (2003) +- Open Season (2002) +- Tragedy on Rye (2002) +- Patriot (2002) +- Oxymoron (2002) +- Attorney Client (2002) +- Dazzled (2002) +- Slaughter (2002) +- Equal Rights (2002) + +- - Girl Most Likely (2002) +- - Born Again (2002) +- - DR 1-102 (2002) +- - Undercovered (2002) +- - The Collar (2002) +- - Possession (2001) +- - For Love or Money (2001) +- - Armed Forces (2001) +- - Deep Vote (2001) +- - School Daze (2001) +- - All My Children (2001) +- - Whiplash (2001) +- - A Losing Season (2001) +- - Whose Monkey Is It Anyway? (2001) +- - Hubris (2001) +- - Burn Baby Burn (2000) +- - Return (2000) +- - Standoff (2000) +- - Stiff (2000) +- - High & Low (2000) +- - Black, ██████ and Blue (2000) +- - Trade This (2000) +- - Fools for Love (2000) +- - Panic (2000) +- - Sundown (1999) +- - Blood Money (1999) +- - Patsy (1999) +- - Marathon (1999) +- - Justice (1999) +- - Merger (1999) +- - DNR (1999) +- - Killerz (1999) +- - Gunshow (1999) +- - Shield (1999) +- - Harm (1999) +- - Sideshow (1999) +- - Hunters (1999) +- - Haven (1999) +- - Ramparts (1999) +- - Punk (1998) +- - Flight (1998) +- - Bait (1998) +- - DWB (1998) +- - Cherished (1998) + +- - Monster (1998) +- - Tabloid (1998) +- - Bad Girl (1998) +- - Disappeared (1998) +- - Stalker (1998) +- - Carrier (1998) +- - Divorce (1998) +- - Faccia a Faccia (1998) +- - Grief (1998) +- - Expert (1998) +- - Under the Influence (1998) +- - Ritual (1997) +- - Blood (1997) +- - Baby, It's You (1997) +- - Nullification (1997) +- - Harvest (1997) +- - Navy Blues (1997) +- - Denial (1997) +- - Thrill (1997) +- - Terminal (1997) +- - Past Imperfect (1997) +- - Passion (1997) +- - We Like Mike (1997) +- - Double Down (1997) +- - Mad Dog (1997) +- - Showtime (1997) +- - Turnaround (1997) +- - D-Girl (1997) +- - Working Mom (1997) +- - Matrimony (1997) +- - Barter (1997) +- - Menace (1997) +- - Legacy (1997) +- - Entrapment (1997) +- - Deadbeat (1996) +- - Double Blind (1996) +- - Corruption (1996) +- - Survivor (1996) +- - I.D. (1996) +- - Causa Mortis (1996) +- - Aftershock (1996) +- - Homesick (1996) +- - Pro Se (1996) +- - Girlfriends (1996) + +- - Slave (1996) +- - Atonement (1996) +- - Deceit (1996) +- - Savior (1996) +- - Custody (1996) +- - Charm City (1996) +- - Trophy (1996) +- - Corpus Delicti (1996) +- - Remand (1996) +- - Blood Libel (1996) +- - Angel (1995) +- - Paranoia (1995) +- - Hot Pursuit (1995) +- - Jeopardy (1995) +- - Savages (1995) +- - Rebels (1995) +- - Bitter Fruit (1995) +- - Nurture (1994) + +Law & Order: Criminal Intent (TV Series) (technical advisor - 108 episodes) + +- - Three-in-One (2010) +- - Inhumane Society (2010) +- - Palimpsest (2010) +- - The Mobster Will See You Now (2010) +- - True Legacy (2010) +- - Lost Children of the Blood (2010) +- - Disciple (2010) +- - Traffic (2010) +- - Love on Ice (2010) +- - Love Sick (2010) +- - Abel & Willing (2010) +- - Gods & Insects (2010) +- - Delicate (2010) +- - Broad Channel (2010) +- - Loyalty: Part 2 (2010) +- - Loyalty: Part 1 (2010) +- - Seeds (2007) +- - Renewal (2007) +- - Bombshell (2007) +- - Rocket Man (2007) +- - Silencer (2007) +- - Players (2007) + +- 30 (2007) +- Brother's Keeper (2007) +- Flipped (2007) +- Albatross (2007) +- Privilege (2007) +- World's Fair (2007) +- Weeping Willow (2006) +- Blasters (2006) +- The War at Home (2006) +- Siren Call (2006) +- Tru Love (2006) +- Vacancy (2006) +- Dramma Giocoso (2006) +- Wrongful Life (2006) +- Wasichu (2006) +- Proud Flesh (2006) +- Watch (2006) +- Slither (2006) +- Scared Crazy (2005) +- Saving Face (2005) +- In the Wee Small Hours: Part 2 (2005) +- Acts of Contrition (2005) +- Prisoner (2005) +- Diamond Dogs (2005) +- Consumed (2004) +- D.A.W. (2004) +- Fico Di Capo (2004) +- Ill-Bred (2004) +- Conscience (2004) +- The Saint (2004) +- Shrink-Wrapped (2004) +- Mis-Labeled (2004) +- Pas de Deux (2004) +- Unrequited (2004) +- Mad Hops (2004) +- F.P.S. (2004) +- Happy Family (2003) +- Sound Bodies (2003) +- A Murderer Among Us (2003) +- Stray (2003) +- Pravda (2003) +- But Not Forgotten (2003) +- The Gift (2003) +- Gemini (2003) + +- Undaunted Mettle (2003) +- A Person of Interest (2003) +- Graansha (2003) +- Blink (2003) +- Cherry Red (2003) +- Legion (2003) +- Cold Comfort (2003) +- Cuba Libre (2003) +- Monster (2003) +- Probability (2003) +- See Me (2003) +- Suite Sorrow (2003) +- Baggage (2003) +- Con-Text (2003) +- Shandeh (2002) +- The Pilgrim (2002) +- Tomorrow (2002) +- Malignant (2002) +- Chinoiserie (2002) +- Best Defense (2002) +- Anti-Thesis (2002) +- Bright Boy (2002) +- Dead (2002) +- Tuxedo . (2002) +- Faith (2002) +- Badge (2002) +- Maledictus (2002) +- Yesterday (2002) +- Seizure (2002) +- Phantom (2002) +- Semi-Professional (2002) +- The Insider (2002) +- The Third Horseman (2002) +- Enemy Within (2001) +- The Good Doctor (2001) +- The Pardoner's Tale (2001) +- Poison (2001) +- The Extra Man (2001) +- The Faithful (2001) +- Smothered (2001) +- Art (2001) +- One (2001) + +Law & Order: LA (N Series) (forensic technical advisor - 18 episodes, 2010 - 2011) (medical technical advisor - 18 episodes, 2010 - 2011) + +- Plummer Park (2011) +- Angel's Knoll (2011) +- Big Rock Mesa (2011) +- Hayden Tract (2011) +- Runyon Canyon (2011) +- Reseda (2011) +- Benedict Canyon (2011) +- East Pasadena (2011) +- Silver Lake (2011) +- Zuma Canyon (2011) +- Playa Vista (2010) +- Ballona Creek (2010) +- Hondo Field (2010) +- Pasadena (2010) +- Sylmar (2010) +- Harbor City (2010) +- Echo Park (2010) +- Hollywood (2010) + +Kiss the Girls (movie) 1997 (technical advisor) + +Murder One (N Series) (technical advisor - 1 episode) + +- Chapter Eighteen, Year Two (1997) + +Women's Murder Club (N Series) (2008) (technical consultant - 1 episode) + +Never Tell (2008) (technical consultant) + +# Writer Credit and On-Camera Appearance as Self: + +Profiling Evil: Confessions of the I-5 Strangler (N Movie) 2012 (Writer) + +# Listed On-Camera Appearances as Self: + +Judgment with Ashleigh Banfield (N Series) + +- California v. Elizabeth Broderick (2020) + +Mind of a Monster (TV Series documentary, 2020) + +- Jeffrey Dahmer (2020) + +Crazy, Not Insane (Documentary) 2020 + +Waco Inferno: The Untold Story (TV Movie documentary) 2018 + +Dahmer on Dahmer: A Serial Killer Speaks (TV Mini-Series documentary) (2017) + +- Part 2 (2017) + +- Part 1 (2017) + +Campus Killer: Santa Barbara (TV Movie documentary) (2014) + +The Virgin Killer (TV Special documentary) (2014) + +Behind Mansion Walls (TV Series documentary) + +- The Perfect Crime (2011) + +Wicked Attraction (TV Series documentary) + +- Shoot to Thrill (2010) + +Starsuckers (Documentary) (2009) + +Women on Death Row (TV Movie documentary) (2006) + +The Iceman and the Psychiatrist (TV Movie documentary) (2003) + +Investigative Reports (TV Series documentary) + +- Columbine: Understanding Why (2002) + +Serial Killers: Profiling the Criminal Mind (Video documentary) (1999) + +The Unexplained (TV Series documentary) + +- Dangerous Obsessions (1998) + +Biography (TV Series documentary) + +- Ted Bundy: The Mind of a Killer (1995) + +# America Undercover (TV Series documentary) + +- Murder 9 to 5 (1994) + +- Acts of Violence (1985) + +# Viewpoint '93 - Murder in Mind (TV Movie documentary) (1993) + +# American Justice (TV Series documentary) + +- Dahmer: Mystery of a Serial Killer (1992) + +# Archive footage: + +The Trial of Jeffrey Dahmer: Serial Killer (Video documentary) (1992) + +- Self - Psychiatrist for the Prosecution (as Dr. Park Dietz) + +E! True Hollywood Story (TV Series documentary) (2005) + +- Andrea ... Self (as Dr. Park Dietz) + +Crimes of the Century (TV Mini-Series documentary) (2013) + +- The State of Texas vs. Andrea (2013) ... Self - Psychiatrist (as Dr. Park Dietz) + +# Materials Provided for Review: + +# Documents/Audio/Video: + +![](_page_166_Picture_3.jpeg) + +![](_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg) + +![](_page_168_Picture_4.jpeg) + +![](_page_169_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Ryan C. W. M.D., DFAPA + +Updated 10/11/21 + +### TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRESENT POSITION | 2 | +|----------------------------------------|----| +| EDUCATION | 2 | +| MEDICAL LICENSE | 3 | +| CERTIFICATION | 3 | +| ADDITIONAL TRAINING | 3 | +| SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS. PAST AND PRESENT | 5 | +| INVITATIONAL OFFICES AND ORGANIZATIONS | 5 | +| EDITORIAL POSITIONS | 6 | +| COMMITTEES | 6 | +| HONORS | 9 | +| PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES | 10 | +| REVIEWER | 11 | +| BOOK REVIEWS | 12 | +| PUBLICATIONS | 12 | +| NEWSLETTERS | 19 | +| ABSTRACTS POSTERS | 21 | +| AND INVITATIONAL ACADEMIC LECTURES | 22 | +| VIRTUAL LECTURES | 33 | +| MEDIA | 37 | + +NAME: Ryan Chaloner Winton ■, **M.D.** + +**DATE OF BIRTH: May 10, 1976** + +**PLACE OF BIRTH: Titusville, Florida** + +**MARITAL STATUS: Married** + +### **PRESENT POSITION:** + +**08/01/17 - Present Psychiatrist Ryan C. W. •, MD, PA 2500 West Lake Mary Blvd; Ste 219 Lake Mary, FL 32746 Ph: 407.322-8199** + +**07/2008 - 08/01/2017 Psychiatrist Richard C. W. M, MD, PA 2500 West Lake Mary Blvd; Ste 219 Lake Mary, FL 32746** + +**10/19/2017 06/30/2022 Associate Professor of Psychiatry University of Central Florida College of Medicine Department of Psychiatry** + +**03/03/2009 - 10/19/2017 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry University of Central Florida College of Medicine Department of Medical Education** + +**08/01/2016- 07/31/2022 Affiliate Associate Professor University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences** + +**10/17/2009 - 07/31/2016 Affiliate Assistant Professor University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry** + +**2010 - 2021 Adjunct Faculty Member — Law & Psychiatry Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Orlando** + +### **EDUCATION:** + +**1995 - 1999 Johns University Baltimore, Maryland Double Major - Biology and Psychology B.A. Degree, graduated Phi Beta Kappa with honors** 1999 - 2003 Georgetown University School of Medicine Washington, DC M.D. Degree + +2003 -2004 Internal Medicine Internship Sinai Hospital of Baltimore/Johns Baltimore, Maryland + +2004 -2007 Psychiiiaidency Johns Hospital Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Baltimore, Maryland + +2007 - 2008 Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio + +### MEDICAL LICENSE: + +2004 Maryland — D62746 - Inactive 2007 Ohio — 89483 - Inactive 2007 Florida — ME99792 2021 New Mexico — FELMD2021-063 (Federal Emergency MD)-Inactive 2021 -2022 New Mexico — MD2021-0674 + +### CERTIFICATION: + +2008 Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, #58286 2009 with added qualifications for Forensic Psychiatry + +2009-2018 Certified Forensic Physician American College of Forensic Examiners Institute + +2011-2014 Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Medicine, #111779 American College of Forensic Examiners Institute + +2015- 2018 Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, #111779 + +07/19/2015 - 07/31/2023 Diplomate, National Board of Physicians and Surgeons for Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry, #001999 + +04/23/2018 Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, #58286 and Forensic Psychiatry, #1735, Maintenance of Certification + +### ADDITIONAL TRAINING: + +2006 Forensic Psychiatry Review Course + +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, IL + +2007 Forensic Psychiatry Review Course American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Miami Beach, FL + +2008 Florida Forensic Examiner Training University of South Florida College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, Ft. Lauderdale, FL + +2012 MMPI-2-RF: Basic Overview, with Yossef S. Ben-Porath,1-hr Webinar via Readytalk.com. (Overview, scales, documentation and standard procedures for administration and scoring) Psych Corp (Pearson): February 15, 2012 + +2012 MMPI-2-RF: Forensic Practice Briefing, with Yossef S. Ben-Porath,1-hr Webinar via Readytalk.com. (Overview, Using the MMPI-2-RF in Forensic Assessments, Admissibility, and Discussion) PsychCorp (Pearson): March 20, 2012 + +2013 Use of the MMPI-2-RF in Police & Public Safety Assessments, with Yossef S. Ben-Porath. 1-hr Webinar via Readytalk.com. (Overview, Assessing Public Safety Candidates, and Fitness for Duty Evaluations) PsychCorp (Pearson): April 9, 2013 + +2014 Evaluation of Malingered Psychosis: Testing and Testifying. C Scott and B McDermott. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, October 24, 2014 + +2015 Psychological Testing for Psychiatrists. C Dike and M Baranoski. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, October 22, 2015 + +2015 Psychological Testing of Claimed Amnesia: A Guide to Remember. C Scott and B McDermott, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, October 24, 2015 + +2016 MMPI-2-RF: Use in Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders with Paul Arbisi, PhD, ABAP, ABPP. 1-hr Webinar via Readytalk.com. PsychCorp (Pearson): February 25, 2016 + +2017 Forensic Psychiatry Review Course, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law; Denver, CO; October 23-25, 2017 + +12/02/20-12/02/22 Certificate of Completion of Montreal Cognitive Assessment administration training course. www.mocatest.org. Certified by Ziad Nasreddine, MD. + +### SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT: + +Member, Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine Distinguished Fellow, American Psychiatric Association Member, Maryland Psychiatric Society Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Member, American Medical Association Member, Ohio Psychiatric Association Member, Florida Psychiatric Society Fellow, Southern Psychiatric Association Member, The American College of Psychiatrists Member, Florida Medical Association Member, Seminole County Medical Society Member, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute Member, Physicians Society of Central Florida + +### INVITATIONAL OFFICES AND ORGANIZATIONS: + +2009 - 2012 Secretary/Treasurer, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2012 - 2014 Councilor, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2012 - 2013 Vice President, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2013 - 2014 President-elect, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2012 - 2015 Councilor, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2013 - 2014 Physician Leadership Academy, Florida Medical Association + +2013 - 2019 Member, Specialty Society Section (SSS) Governing Council, Florida Medical Association + +7/2014-8/2021 Council on Legislation, Florida Medical Association + +2014 - 2015 President, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2015 - 2016 Secretary, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2016 - 2017 Treasurer, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2017 - 2018 Treasurer, Seminole County Medical Society + +2017 - 2018 Vice President, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2018 - 2019 President-Elect, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2018 - 2019 Vice President, Seminole County Medical Society + +2019 - 2020 President, Florida Psychiatric Society 2018 - 2019 President, Seminole County Medical Society 2019 - 2020 Vice Chair, Specialty Society Section (SSS) Governing Council, Florida Medical Association 2019 - 2020 President-Elect, Physicians Society of Central Florida 2020 - 2021 President, Physicians Society of Central Florida 2020 - 2021 Immediate Past-President, Florida Psychiatric Society 2020 - 2021 Immediate Past-President, Physicians Society of Central Florida 2021 - 2024 Chairman, Specialty Society Section (SSS) Governing Council, Florida Medical Association + +### EDITORIAL POSITIONS: + +Editorial Board, Clinical Geriatrics (ended 06/2014) 2016-2020 2011-2020 Associate Editor, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter Faculty Reviewer/Faculty Advisor for First Aid for the USMLE Step 1, psychiatry chapter + +### COMMITTEES: + +2005 - 2007 2005 - 2007 2005 - 2007 2005 - 2007 2007 - 2009 2008 - 2009 2007 - 2019 Public Relations Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society Legislative Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society Disaster Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society Resident and Fellows Committee, Maryland Psychiatry Society Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, American Psychiatric Association Member, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric Association Psychopharmacology Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2007 - 2021 Research Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2009 - 2010 Chairman, Early Career Psychiatry Committee, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2009 - 2010 Chairman, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2009 - 2010 Member, Constitution and Bylaws Committee, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2010 YPS Reference Committee, AMA House of Delegates-YPS, Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, June + +2010 - 2011 Various YPS Handbook Review Committees (e.g, Constitution & Bylaws, Committee E) AMA Meetings, San Diego, CA; Chicago, IL + +2009 - 2022 CME Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2009 - 2019 Forensic Psychiatry Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2009 - 2012 Academic Affairs Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2010 - 2019 Ethics Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2010 - 2011 Member, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2010 - 2011 Member, Nominating Committee, Seminole County Medical Society + +2011 Chairman, AMA-YPS Handbook Review Committee, AMA Interim Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November + +2012 - 2020 Member, Rappeport Fellowship Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2012 YPS Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws, AMA House of Delegates-YPS, Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, June, and Interim Meeting, Honolulu, HI + +2012 - 2017 Member, Legislative Issues Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2013 - 2016 Member, Committee on Finance, The American College of Psychiatrists + +2013 Chairman, AMA-YPS HOD Handbook Review Committee for the + +Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws, AMA Interim Meeting, National Harbor, MD, November + +2014- 2015 Member, Nominating Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2014 Member, AMA-YPS HOD Handbook Review Committee, AMA-YPS Annual Meeting, Chicago + +2014 Member, AMA-YPS HOD Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws, AMA Interim Meeting, Dallas + +2014 Chairman, AMA-YPS HOD Handbook Review Committee for the Reference Committee B (Legislative Advocacy), AMA Interim Meeting, Dallas + +2014 - 2018 Member, Geriatric Psychiatry Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2016 - 2020 Member, AIER Research Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Institute for Education and Research + +2016 - 2017 Chair, Long Range Planning Committee, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2016 - 2017 Chair, Nominating Committee, Southern Psychiatric Association + +2017 - 2018 Executive Committee, Seminole County Medical Society + +2017 - 2018 Physician Wellness Task Force, Orange County Medical Society + +2018 - 2019 Oversight Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2018 Reference Committee I — Health, Edu. & Public Policy, Florida Medical Association + +2019 - 2021 Committee on Physician Wellness, Florida Medical Association + +2019 - 2021 Legislative and Regulatory Issues Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2019 Reference Committee — Science and Public Health, Florida Medical Association's Delegate at the AMA's Interim Meeting + +2019 - 2021 Chair, Forensic Psychiatry Committee, Florida Psychiatric Society + +3/2020 - 2/2024 Committee on the Award for Research in Geriatric Psychiatry, The American College of Psychiatrists + +2020- 2021 Member, MOC Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2020- 2021 Member, Transparency Task Force, Physicians Society Central Florida + +2021 Member, Reference Committee II, Florida Medical Association + +### HONORS: + +1999 Phi Beta Kappa, Johns University + +2004 "Superior" performance rating, 1st-year residency, by Sinai Hospital Department of Medicine's Clinical Competency and Evaluation Committee + +2005 Dorfman Award, presented by The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine for best review article of the year for Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3):195.202, May-June 2005. + +2007 - 2008 Rappeport Fellowship, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +2009 - 2020 Selected by peers to be included in Best Doctors in America + +2010 Day TR, RCW: Déjà vu: From Comic Books to Video Games: Legislative Reliance on "Soft Science" to Protect Against Uncertain Societal Harm Linked to Violence v. the First Amendment. Oregon Law Review, 89(2):415-452, 2010. Selected as one of the best law review articles published in the field of entertainment, publishing, and the arts in 2010 by Thomson Reuters (West) + +2010 - 2019 The Best Doctors in Orlando - Orlando Magazine + +2014 Appointed, Fellow, American Psychiatric Association + +2014 Certificate of Appreciation for recognition of service for interviewing applicants, University of Central Florida College of Medicine + +2015 Selected as Practitioner of the Year for Florida Psychiatric Society + +2016 Appointed, Distinguished Fellow, American Psychiatric Association + +2018 Approved provider for FL Top Docs + +2018 Friendship Award recipient, Florida Psychiatric Society + +2019 2020 2020 Superior Public Service Award, Broward County Crime Commission Appointed, Fellow, The American College of Psychiatrists (to be inducted at 2022 meeting) Listed in Top Doctors and Premier Doctors - Orlando Magazine + +### PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: + +2008 Written testimony on Elder Abuse in support of bills H8873/S8501 Criminal Law- Crimes Against the Elderly or Persons with a Disability- Penalties, pre§gratOSMaryland Ho i i Committee for Delegate Kramer, District 19 r County, Maryland. Hearing March 4. + +2009 Central Florida Psychiatric Society representative to Florida Psychiatric Society's Council Meeting, January 10. + +2009 Testified before the Florida Senate Banking and Insurance Committee (SB 354) on Mental Health Parity. March 17. + +2009 Florida Psychiatric Society delegate to Florida Medical Association's annual meeting + +2010 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law's Young Physician Delegate to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates meetings - Young Physicians Section Reference Committee member + +2010 Area V Assembly Representative to the American Psychiatric Association's Assembly + +2010 - 2019 Florida Psychiatric Society delegate to the Florida Medical Association's annual meeting + +2011 Area V Council Representative + +2011 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law's Young Physician Delegate to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates meetings + +2011 Area V Assembly Representative to the American Psychiatric Association's Assembly + +2012-2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law's Young Physician Delegate to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates meetings + +2013- present Interviewer of prospective medical school candidates University of Central Florida College of Medicine + +2017 - FIRE Research Mentor, University of Central Florida College of Medicine + +2017 Specialty Advisor for forensic and general psychiatry University of Central Florida College of Medicine + +2018 Simulation Leader, Global Health Conference: Healthcare as a Human Right, University of Central Florida College of Medicine + +2019 Florida Medical Association's Alternate Delegate to the American Medical Association's House of Delegates + +2019 Foundation Board of Directors, Physicians Society of Central Florida + +2020 Participant in Florida Division of Emergency Management's Rehabilitative Services Working Group on Coronavirus + +2020 Participant in University of Central Florida College of Medicine's AORTA admissions program + +2020 Florida Medical Association's representative to Florida's Suicide Prevention Coordinating Council (SPCC) + +2021 Virtual Forensic Psychiatry discussion with UCF PsychSign group on April 12, 2021 + +# REVIEWER: + +-AIMS Neuroscience -American Journal of Disaster Medicine -Archives of Internal Medicine -Clinical Geriatrics -Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness -European Psychiatry -Journal of Adolescent Health -Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology -Journal of Ethics -Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health -Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience -Mayo Clinic Proceedings -Nature Clinical Practice Neurology + +-Neurology India -Oxford University Press (advisor on a book proposal) -Psychosomatics -Social Science & Medicine -The American Journal on Addictions -The Forensic Examiner -Violence and Victims -World Journal of Surgical Oncology + +### BOOK REVIEWS: + +- 1. Clark MR and Treisman GJ: Pain and Depression: An Interdisciplinary, Patient-Centered Approach. Psychosomatics, July-August 2006, 47(4)365-366. +- 2. K, Beech A, Craig L, Chou S: Assessment in Forensic Practice: A Handbook. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, July 2018, 24(4):305 +- 3. M, G: Dying to be III: True Stories of Medical Deception. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law +- 4. Houdek V, Treating Sexual Abuse and Trauma with Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A Workbook for Clinicians. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law + +### PUBLICATIONS: + +- 1. RCW, Dunlap PK, RCW, CA, Blakey RE, J: Thyroid disease and abnormal thyroid function tests in patients with eating disorders and depression. The Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Inc. 82(3)187-192, 1995. +- 2. RCW, RCW: Anxiety and Endocrine Disease. In Popkin, MK, Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry 4(2)72-83, 1998. +- 3. RCW, DE, RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts. Psychosomatics 40:(1)18-27, 1999. +- 4. RCW.. RCW: Long-term Psychological and Neurological Complications of Lindane Poisoning. Psychosomatics 40(6)513-517, 1999. +- 5. RCW,F. RCW: False Allegations: The Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist. Journal of sychiatric Practice 7(5)343.346, September 2001. +- 6. RCW, RCW: Principles of Physician Recruiting. In Handbook of Mental Health Administration and Management; Reid WH and Silver S (ed.): Brunner-Routledge, New York, NY: Chapter 34:440-448, 2003. + +- 7. RCW, Ill RCW, Chapman M: Identifying Geriatric Patients at Risk for Suicide and Depression. Clinical Geriatrics 11(10)36-44, October 2003. +- 8. IN RCW, . RCW: Establishing Liaison Before Disaster Strikes. http://www.psych.org/disasterpsych/pdfs/apadisasterhandbk.pdf; Chapter 2:12-19. 2004. +- 9. RCW, **RCW, Chapman MJ: Emotional and Psychiatric Effects of Weapons of Mass Destruction in First Responders. In: Bioterrorism: Psychological and Public Health Interventions; Ursano RJ, Norwood AE & Fullerton CS (eds). Cambridge University Press:Cambridge; Chapter 14:250-273; 2004.** +- **10. El RCW, Appleby B, RCW: Atypical Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome Presenting as Fever of Unknown Origin in the Elderly. Southern Medical Journal 1(98) 114-117, January 2005.** +- **11. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Exploitation of the Elderly: Undue Influence as a Form of Elder Abuse. Clinical Geriatrics 13(2)28-36, February 2005.** +- **12. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3)195-202, May-June 2005.** +- **13. RCW, RCW: Abuse of Supraphysiologic Doses of Anabolic Steroids. Southern Medical Journal, 98(5)550-555, May 2005.** +- **14. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse. Psychosomatics, 46(4)285-290, July-August 2005.** +- **15. El RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties caused by Conventional and Radiological (Dirty) Bombs. General Hospital Psychiatry, 28(3):242-248, May-June 2006.** +- **16. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Postconcussional Syndrome: A Work in Progress (Response to Dr. ). Letter to the Editor. Psychosomatics, 47(3):272, May-June 2006.** +- **17. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome in the Elderly: Diagnostic Criteria, Incidence, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, and Treatment. (CME article) Clinical Geriatrics, 14(5):39-46, 2006.** +- **18. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, Part I: Medical and Psychiatric Complications of Bombings and Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear Attacks. Clinical Geriatrics, 14(8):26-35, 2006.** +- **19. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, Part 2: Posttraumatic Stress, Acute Stress, and Affective Disorders. Clinical Geriatrics, 14(9):17-24, 2006.** + +- 20. RCW, **RCW: Malingering of PTSD: forensic and diagnostic considerations, characteristics of malingerers and clinical presentations. General Hospital Psychiatry, 28(6):525-535, 2006.** +- **21. RCW, RCW: A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(4):457-471, 2007.** +- **22. RCW, RCW: Detection of Malingered PTSD: An Overview of Clinical, Psychometric, and Physiological Assessment: Where Do We Stand? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52(3):717-725, 2007.** +- **23. RCW, Macvaugh GS III, Merideth P, J: Commentary: Delving Further Into Liability for Psychotherapy Supervision. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(2):196-9, 2007.** +- **24. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Effects of Terrorism: Medical and Societal Implications of Recent Attacks. In: Focus on Terrorism, Vol. 9; Linden EV (ed), Nova Science:New York; Chapter 11, Publication date: 3rd Quarter, 2007.** +- **25. RCW, RCW: The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak Model of virus properties on system capacity and function: A lesson for future viral epidemics. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 2(5):270-276, 2007** +- **26. El RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part (— Causative Agents, Presentation, and Differential Diagnosis. Clinical Geriatrics, 15(12):18-25, 2007.** +- **27. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part II Pathophysiology, Drug Interactions, and Treatment. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(1):24-28, 2008** +- **28. El RCW, Resnick PJ: Psychotherapy Malpractice: New Pitfalls. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 14(2):119.121. 2008** +- **29. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part I Occurrence in Forensic/Criminal Situations, Partner Relationships, and Sexual Offenses. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(5):27-32, 2008** +- **30. El RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part II — Occurrence in Hospitals and Pharmacological/Behavioral Treatment of Agitation, Aggression and Violence. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(6):28-32, 2008.** +- **31. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ. The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak: lessons hospitals and physicians can apply to future viral epidemics. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct:30(5):446-52. Epub 2008 Jul 23** +- **32. RCW, SH: Drug Diversion Program Rights. Legal Digest. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(4):579-580, 2008** + +- 33. RCW, **RCW, Chapman MJ: Nursing Home Violence: Occurrence, Risks, and Interventions. Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(1):25-31, 2009** +- **34. Paul RK, Lockey C, RCW, Bursztajn H: Practice Management: Managing Risks When Practicing in Three-Party Care Settings. Psychiatrictimes.com, 26(2), Feb. 3, 2009.** +- **35. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Letter to the Editor response re: Nursing Home Violence: Occurrence, Risks, and Interventions) Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(1):25-31, 2009), Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(4):17-21, 2009.** +- **36. RCW, RCW, Myers W, Chapman M: Testamentary Capacity: History, Physicians' Role, Requirements, and Why Wills are Challenged. Clinical Geriatrics, 17(6):18-24, 2009.** +- **37. RCW, RCW, Chapman M: Anticholinergic Syndrome: Presentations, Etiological Agents, Differential Diagnosis, and Treatment. Clinical Geriatrics, 17(11):22-28, 2009. 38.. RCW: Somatoform Disorders. In First Aid for the Neurology Boards: An Insider's Guide. Rafii MS; Cochrane TI; and Le T (eds), McGraw-. Medical:New York, Chapter 17, Pps 451-460, 2010.** +- **39. RCW: Somatoform Disorders. In First Aid for the Psychi=c Boards: An Insider's Guide. Azzam A, Yanofski J, Kaftarian E, Le T (eds), McGraw-. Medical:New York, Chapter 10, Pps 122-135, 2010.** +- **40. Day TR.. RCW: Deja vu: From Comic Books to Video Games: Legislative Reliance on "Soft Science" to Protect Against Uncertain Societal Harm Linked to Violence v. the First Amendment. Oregon Law Review, 89(2):415-452, 2010.** +- **41. Appleby BS, Appleby KK, RCW, Wallin MT: D178N, 129Val and N171S, 129Val Genotype in a Family with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 30:424-431, 2010. 42.. RCW, Day T, RCW: A Plea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science. Mayo Clin Proc, 86(4):315-321, 2011.** +- **43. Paul RK, Lockey C, RCW, Bursztajn HJ: Managing Risks When Practicing in Three-Party Care Settings. Psychiatric Times, 28(4):18-22, 2011.** +- **44. Gould NF, McKibben JB, R, Corry NH, Amoyal NA, Mason ST, McCann UD, Fauerbach JA. Peritraumatic Heart Rate and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients with Severe . Psychiatrist.com, Oct 19, 2010 [Epub ahead of print] and J Clin Psychiatry, 72(4):539-547, 2011.** +- **45. RCW, Day T, RCW: Reply to A Plea for Concern Regarding Violent Video Games. Letter to the Editor, Mayo Clin Proc, 86(8):821-823, 2011.** + +- 46. RCW, RCW: Plaintiffs Who Malinger: Impact of Litigation on Fake Testimony. I Ufrseerspectives on Faking in Personality Assessment. Ziegler M, MacCann C, R (eds), Oxford:New York, Chapter 16, Pps 255-281, 2012. +- 47. Nucifora FC, RCW, Everly G: Reexamining the Role of the Traumatic Stressor and the Trajectory of Posttraumatic Distress in the Wake of Disaster. Editorial, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 5:suppl 2:S172-175, 2011 +- 48. RCW, RCW: Compensation Neurosis: A Too Quickly Forgotten Concept? J Amer Acad Psychiatry Law, 40(3):390-398, 2012. +- 49. RCW: Civil War. In Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health, Loue S and Sajotovic M (eds.) Springer, Pps 445-447, 2012. +- 50. RCW: Radicalization. In Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health, Loue S and Sajotovic M (eds.) Springer, Pps 1264-1266, 2012. +- 51. RCW: Terrorism. In Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health, Loue S and Sajotovic M (eds.) Springer, Pps 1413-1416, 2012. +- 52. Myers WC, RCW, Tolou-Shams M: Prevalence and Assessment of Malingering in Homicide Defendants Using the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Rey 15- Item Memory Test. Homicide Studies, 17(3):314-328, August 2012. +- 53. Hatters S, RCW: Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy: How to Avoid Clinical and Legal Pitfalls. Current Psychiatry, 12(2):10-16, 2013 +- 54. RCW, RCW: Biological and Pharmacological Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Older Adults. Clinical Geriatrics, 21(8), 2013. Published online August 22, 2013 at www.clinicalgeriatrics.com. +- 55. RCW, RCW: Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Clinical Geriatrics, 21(9), 2013. Published online September 24, 2013 at www.clinicalgeriatrics.com. +- 56. RCW, Hatters S: Guns, Schools, and Mental Illness: Potential Concerns for Physicians and Mental Health Professionals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(11):1272-1283, November 2013 +- 57. Hatters S, RCW, Sorrentino R: Commentary: Women, Violence and Insanity. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 41(4):523-528, 2013 +- 58. Hatters S, RCW: Teaching Psychopathology in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: The Light Side of the Force. Academic Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;39(6):719-25. Epub 2015 May 2. +- 59. RCW, Hatters S: Psychopathology in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: The Use of Star Wars' Dark Side in Teaching. Academic Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;39(6):726- + +32. Epub 2015 May 6. + +- 60. RCW: Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders (formerly Somatoform Disorders). In First Aid forth Neurology Boards. Second Edition. Rafii MS; Cochrane TI; and Le T (eds), McGraw-. Medical:New York, Chapter 17, Pps 439-447, 2015. +- 61. RCW: Mental Status Examination. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Jamieson A and Moenssens AA (eds), John Wiley: Chichester. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa287.pub2. (online), June 2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa287.pub2/full +- 62. RCW, Soliman S: Elderly and Pharmacological Trea m nt of PTSD. In: Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. C, Preedy V, Patel V (eds), Springer International: Switzerland, ISBN: 978-3-319-08613-2 (Online), March 2015. +- 63. Day TR, IN RCW: PTSD and Tort Law. Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. C, Preedy V, Patel V (eds), Springer International: Switzerland, ISBN: 978-3-319-08613-2 (Online), March 2015. +- 64. Hatters S, Collier S, **RCW: PTSD Behind Bars: Incarcerated Women and PTSD. Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. C, Preedy V, Patel V (eds), Springer International: Switzerland, ISBN: 978-3-319-08613-2 (Online), March 2015.** +- **65. Hatters S, RCW: Using Star Wars' Supporting Characters to Teach about Psychopathology. Australasian Psychiatry, Epub June 23, 2015; print Aug 2015; 23(4):432-4.** +- **66. Soliman S, RCW: Forensic Issues in Medical Evaluation: Competency and End of Life Issues. In Balon R, Wise TN (eds): Clinical Challenges in the Biopsychosocial Interface. Update on Psychosomatics for the 21st Century. Adv Psychosom Med. Basel, Karger, 2015, vol 34, pp 36-48.** +- **67. RCW, Hatters S, Jain A: Pregnant Women and the Use of Corrections Restraints and Substance Use Commitment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 43(3):359-68, 2015.** +- **68. Shand J. RCW: Consent in Psychiatric Emergencies: What Clinicians Need to Know. Psychiatric Times, 32(11):17-20, 2015.** +- **69. Myers W, RCW, Marshall R, Tolou-Shams M, Wooten K: Frequency and Detection of Malingering in Homicide Defendants Undergoing Criminal Responsibility Evaluations Using the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality: A Feasibility Study. SAGE Open, April-June 2016, vol 6:1.8. http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/spsgo/6/2/2158244016638131.full.pdf** +- **70. RCW, Myers WC: Challenges and Limitations to Treat ADHD in Incarcerated Populations. Commentary. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 44(2):164-170, 2016** + +- 71. Sorrentino R, Hatters S, RCW: Gender Consideration in Violence. In. Knoll JL (ed): Violence. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. Elsevier, NY; 39(4):701- 10, 2016. +- 72. Hatters- S, RCW: Star Wars: The Force Awakens Forensic Teaching About Patricide. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 45(1):128-130, 2017 +- 73. RCW, RCW: Torture and Psychiatric Abuse: Definition, Ethics, and Assessment. In: Rosner R, Scott C (eds): Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, 3rd Edition. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group:Boca Raton, FL; 2017, Cpt 82, pp 845-854. +- 74. Lee J, RCW: The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? Psychiatric Times. 36(6):16C-16E, 2017 +- 75. Hatters S, **RCW: Competencies in Civil Law. In: Gold L, Frierson R (eds): Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry, 3'd Edition. American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, VA; 2017, Cpt 13, pp 185-200** +- **76. S, RCW, Appel JM: The Last Jedi Takes His Own Life: Rational Suicide and Homicide-Suicide in Star Wars. Acad Psychiatry; published online May 24, 2018: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-018.0938-y; August 2018. Volume 42 (4): 503- 509** +- **77. Hatters- S, RCW, Sorrentino R: Involuntary Treatment of Psychosis in Pregnancy. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 46(2):217.223, 2018** +- **78. Cooke B.. RCW, Hatters S. Jain A, Wagoner R: Professional Boundaries in Corrections. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 47(1):91-98, 2019** +- **79. Lee J, RCW: The Impact of Gliomas on Cognition and Capacity. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 47(3):350-359, 2019** +- **80. RCW, SH, Sorrentino R, Lapchenko M, Marcus A, Ellis R: The myth of school shooters and psychotropic medications. Behav Sci Law, 1-19, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2429** +- **81. Hatters S, Tamburello A, Kaemph A, RCW: Prescribing for Women in Corrections. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 47(4): 476-85, 2019.** +- **82. RCW, Hatters S: I'm [Virtual] Batman: Violence and Video Games. In: Packer S and Fredrick D (eds): Welcome to Arkham Asylum: Essays on Psychiatry and the Gotham City Institution. McFarland & Company:Jefferson, NC; 2020, pps 55-64** +- **83. Hatters S, RCW: Deadly and Dysfunctional Family Dynamics: When Fiction Mirrors Fact. In: Packer S and Fredrick D (eds): Welcome to Arkham Asylum: Essays on Psychiatry and the Gotham City Institution. McFarland & Company:Jefferson, NC; 2020, pps 65-75** + +- 84. RCW, Hatters S: Don't Laugh at the Comics: A Modern Take. Academic Psychiatry,44(4) 476-482, 2020, 0O1 10.1007/s40596-020-01257-2 +- 85. RCW, Hatters S: Comic Books, Dr. Wertham, and the Villains of Forensic Psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 48(4) 563-544, 2020 +- 86. RCW, Tardif I: Florida Law Enforcement Policies for and Experience with Tarasoff-Like Reporting. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 49(1):77-86, and online, 2021. DOI:10.29158/JAAPL.200065-20. +- 87. Hatters S. RCW: Avoiding malpractice while treating depression in pregnant women. Current Psychiatry, 20(8):30-36; 2021 August; doi:10.12788/cp.0154 +- 88. RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment for Individuals Involved in the Legal System. In: Kelley E and Flood F (eds): Suicide and Its Impact on the Criminal Justice System. American Bar Association's ABA Publishing: Chicago, IL; Cpt 11: pps 155-172, 2021. + +Boldface indicates Ryan C. W.., MD + +# NEWSLETTERS: + +- 1. RCW, RCW: Fee-Splitting: Ethical Implications and Principles for Practice Management. Florida Psychiatric Society's Transference, (2)14, 1999. +- 2. RTM, Wall B, Frisher K, **RCW, Zonana H: American Medical Association 2010 Interim Meeting Highlights. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 36(1):27-29, 2011.** +- **3. S, Yang S, RCW: Why Research Matters in Expert Testimony. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 36(2):1-21, 2011.** +- **4. RCW, Davidson C, Levine H: Serotonin Syndrome in Children: A Potentially Toxic Clinical and Legal Entity. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 36(2):18-26, 2011.** +- **5. RTM, Wall B, Frisher K, RCW, Zonana H: American Medical Association 2011 Annual Meeting Highlights. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 37(1):25, 2012.** +- **6. Hatters S, RCW: Treatment of Mental Illness in Pregnancy and Malpractice Concerns. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 37(2):21-22, 2012** +- **7. Hatters S. El RCW, Kenedi C, Knoll IV J: "Your Drugs Made Me Do It." American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 39(3): 24-29, 2014** + +- 8. RCW, Hatters S, Jain A, Sorrentino R: Guns and Mental Illness. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 39(3): 26-29, 2014 +- 9. Wall B, RCW, Piel J: American Medical Association 2014 Interim Meeting Highlights. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 39(1):18, 2015 +- 10. Hatters S. **RCW, Glezer A, Jain A, Wisner K: Ethical and Legal Issues in Treatment of Mental Illness in Pregnancy. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 39(1):23, 28, 2015** +- **11. Wall B, RCW, Piel J: American Medical Association 2015 Annual Meeting Highlights. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 40(3):1, 2, 27, 2015** +- **12. RCW: Where is Board Certification going? Southlands, Newsletter of the Southern Psychiatric Association, Volume 2(1), Dec 2015** +- **13. RCW: AAPL at the APA Awards. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 41(3):1-2, 2016** +- **14. Cheng J, RCW: What Toxicology Screens May Miss: Dextromethorphan. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 41(3):23, 28, 2016** +- **15. Cheng J, RCW: A Primer on Kratom. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 42(2):24, 32, 2017** +- **16. Hatters S, RCW, Cooke B, Jain A, Wagoner R, Sorrentino R: Boundary Violations in Correctional Psychiatry. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 42(3):16, 2017** +- **17. Ellis R, Cheng J, RCW: What was Old is New Again: Ketamine in 21\$' Century. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 42(3):23, 31, 2017** +- **18. RCW: Mr. Anthony Graves: Graves Injustice. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 43(1):7, 2018.** +- **19. El RCW, Levine H: Updating the Marijuana Use History: "Doc, I treat my depression with Incredible Hulk." American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 43(2):18, 24, 2018** +- **20. RCW: Brief review of Gabapentin Abuse Potential. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 44(2):14, 23, 2019** +- **21. RCW, Hatters S, Sorentino R: Evolving Policy Topics of Interest for Institutions of Higher Learning. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 44(2):16, 25, 2019** +- **22. M RCW: Is Your "Fat Burner" Dietary Supplement Really Fertilizer? American** + +Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 44(3):9, 27, 2019 + +- 23. Tardif I, **RCW: Moon Rocks: The Caviar of the Cannabis Industry? American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 44(3):19, 28, 2019** +- **24. Liu C, Romeus L, RCW: 13 Reasons Why and Media's Interest in Suicide. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 45(1): 11, 25, 2020.** +- **25. RCW: Update on the Parkland Shooting Civil Cases. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 45(3): 21, 25, 2020.** +- **26. Sarmiento B, RCW: Georgia County Sheriff's Attempt to Protect Trick-or-Treaters. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 45(3): 30, 32, 2020.** +- **27. RCW: All Rise, the Judge has Entered the Zoom Call. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter, 46(1): 13, 30, 2021.** + +**• Boldface indicates Ryan C. W.** ■, **MD** + +### **ABSTRACTS/POSTERS:** + +- **1. RCW, Hazard SC, RCW, CA, Blakey RE, J: Thyroid Disease in Eating Disordered and Depressed Patients. -146th Annual Meeting, American Psychiatric Association, May 25, 1993, San Francisco, CA, P.1.57 (Poster Session).** +- **2. RCW, RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts: Evaluation of Suicide Risk in a Time of Managed Care.** + - **Psychiatric Practice and Managed Care, American Psychiatric Association, Vol. 5, No. 5, P 12, Sept-Oct 1999.** +- **3. RCW, Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J: The Role of Morphine in the Development of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients with Severe Burn Injury.** + - **4151 Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009.** +- **4. Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J, RCW: Peri-traumatic Heart Rate as a Predictor of Acute Stress Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Patients with Burn Injury.** + - **4151 Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009.** +- **5. Marriner B, Tseng T, Rich W, RCW: Investigating the Factors Influencing the** + +### Prescription of Antidepressants with No FDA-Approved Indication in the United States Between 2006 — 2009. + +- Annual Meeting, American College of Clinical Pharmacy, Hollywood, FL, Oct 22, 2012. +- 6. Marriner B, Rich W, A,. RCW, Tseng T: Provider Characteristics Influencing the Prescription of Antidepressants without a Psychiatric Diagnosis in the United States, 2006-2009. + - 140th Annual Meeting & Expo, American Public Health Association, San Francisco, CA, Oct 29, 2012. +- 7. Padalia Kill RCW: Change in Use of Suicidality Assessment Tools Since the 2004 FDA Suicidality Black Box Warning on Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents. -FIRE Module, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Feb 23, 2017 +- 8. Kiguradze T,. RCW: Glucocorticosteriods, Psychosis, and Legal Culpability + - The Mickey Finn Defense? A Cross-sectional Retrospective Analysis of the FDA-FAERS Database. -FIRE Module, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Feb 22, 2018 +- 9. Mayet M,. RCW: The Balance of Free Speech in Medicine: A Literature Review. -FIRE Module, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, March 5, 2021 +- 10. Sarmiento B,. RCW: Cannabis Use and Mental Health Status in Florida College Students: A 5-Year Survey Analysis. -FIRE Module, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, March 5, 2021 + +' Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. MD + +### PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND INVITATIONAL ACADEMIC LECTURES: + +- 1. RCW, Hazard SC, Dunlap PK, . RCW, CA, Blakey RE, J: Thyroid disease and abnormal function tests in patients with eating disorders and depression. Poster Session - American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 25, 1993 + +- 2. **RCW, RCW: Management of Hostage Situations. Psychiatric Responses to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999** +- **3. RCW, RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective — Part I. Psychiatric Responses to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999** +- **4. RCW, RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective - Part II. Psychiatric Responses to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999** +- **5. RCW, RCW, DE: Impact of Managed Care on Suicide Risk Assessment. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, October 15, 1999** +- **6. RCW, RCW: Ethical Issues in Managed Care. American Psychiatric Association, 1999 Ethics Workshop, Washington, DC, November 3, 1999** +- **7. RCW, RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Disaster Aftermath and Long-term Effects on Survivors. Cycle of Violence: Assessment and Management of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, February 26, 2000** +- **8. RCW, RCW: Bioterrorism Dealing with Medical and Psychiatric Consequences of Victims and Responders. Cycle of Violence: Assessment and Management of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, February 26, 2000** +- **9. RCW, RCW: Psychiatric Consequences of Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Disaster. Rocky Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment Center, Kalispell, MT, June 29, 2000** +- **10. II RCW, RCW: Suicide in an Era of HMO's and Managed Care. Rocky Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment Center, Kalispell, MT, June 30, 2000** +- **11. RCW, RCW: Psychological Response to Disasters and Terrorism. International Society of Political Psychology, 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, WA, July 4, 2000** +- **12. In RCW, RCW: Biological Warfare Attack Scenarios, Response to Terrorist Attacks, and Sources of Conflict. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16.26, 2000** +- **13. II RCW, RCW, Chapman M: Workplace Violence. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000** + +- 14. RCW,. RCW: Biological Warfare: Attack Scenarios and Public Health Issues. Grand Rounds, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, December 8, 2000 +- 15. **RCW,. RCW: Bioterrorism: A Short History of Biowarfare & Analysis of the Threat. Grand Rounds, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, August 15, 2001** +- **16. II RCW,. RCW: Situational Suicide. Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, FL, September 13. 2001** +- **17. RCW,. RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, FL, September 14, 2001** +- **18. RCW,. RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Assault with Anthrax as a Biological Weapon. -Florida Psychiatric Society, Fall Meeting, Coconut Grove, FL, November 4, 2001 -Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, January 30, 2002** +- **19. RCW,. RCW: Smallpox. Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, January 30, 2002** +- **20. RCW,. RCW: Psychopharmacology Forensic Risk and Clinical Practice: Things the clinician must know. Apopka Community Health Center, Apopka, FL, March 13, 2002** +- **21. RCW,. RCW: Overview of Terrorism and Bioterrorism. Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002** +- **22. RCW,. RCW: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and Occupations at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002** +- **23. RCW,. RCW: Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002** +- **24. IN RCW,. RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Southern Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, Tucson, AZ, October 3, 2002** +- **25. RCW,. RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Mandatory Madness, Halifax Medical Center, Daytona USA, Daytona Beach, FL, December 14, 2002** +- **26. RCW,. RCW, Chapman MJ: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and Occupations at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003** + +- 27. **RCW, RCW: Medical and Psychological Sequelae of Bombings: Implications for First Responders and Critical Government Staff. Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003** +- **28. RCW, RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Florida Psychiatric Society Spring Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 5, 2003** +- **29. RCW, RCW: Terrorist Bombings: Medical and Psychiatric Impact. Southern Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, October 11, 2003** +- **30. RCW, RCW: Terrorism, Bombings, and Psychiatric Casualties. University of Florida, Department of Psychiatry, Visiting Professor Program, November 7, 2003** +- **31. RCW, RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Tampa Bay Psychiatric Society, Tampa, FL, sponsored by Pfizer, January 29, 2004** +- **32. I. RCW, RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004** +- **33. RCW, RCW: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties of Terrorist Bombings. Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004** +- **34. RCW, RCW: Medical and Psychological Consequences of Bombings. Grand Rounds, Tulane University, Department of Psychiatry, New Orleans, LA, January 28, 2005** +- **35. RCW, RCW: Psychological Sequelae of Weapons of Mass Destruction on First Responders. South Central Center for Public H I h Preparedness/Alabama Department of Public Health, AL, Satellite Conference, May 6, 2005** +- **36. I. RCW, RCW: Medical and Psychological Aspects of Terrorist Bombings. Grand Rounds, Sinai Hospital, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, June 2, 2005** +- **37. RCW, RCW: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician-Patient Relationship: The New Realities. (Abbreviated version) Forensic Psychiatry Fellows and Residents, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 24, 2006** +- **38. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician-Patient Relationship: The New Realities. Presidential Address. Southern Psychiatric Association, Baltimore, MD, September 30, 2006.** +- **39. RCW, RCW: When the System is Overwhelmed: Protecting the Provider during Biodisaster. Satellite Conference, University of Alabama Birmingham South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness/Alabama Department of Public Health/Tulane University School of Public Health, AL, February 27, 2007.** + +- 40. El RCW: Testamentary Capacity from Isaac Ray to Anna NIL& Grand Rounds, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, March 28, 2008 +- 41. RCW, RCW, Rundell JR, Winstead DK: Psychiatrists' Role in Disaster Management: Lessons Learned. Course 14, American Psychiatric Association, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 3, 2008. +- 42. El RCW: Violence in the Elderly: Forensic and Treatment Concerns. Forensic Forum, Florida Psychiatric Society, ChampionsGate, FL, September 20, 2008. +- 43. RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole =. Southern Psychiatric Association, September 25, 2008. +- 44. RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole-. Forensic Psychiatry Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, January 29, 2009. +- 45. RCW, **RCW: Domestic Violence as Portrayed in Film A Realistic Appraisal? Florida Psychiatric Society, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, March 20, 2009.** +- **46. RCW, Silberman E, Preven D, Weissman S (chairperson): Indications for the Use of Combined Talking Therapy and Pharmacotherapy and How to Teach in Residency. Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, CW16, American Psychiatric Association, San Francisco, CA, May 19, 2009.** +- **47. RCW, RCW: Serotonin Syndrome. Southern Psychiatric Association, Destin, FL, September 24, 2009** +- **48. RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole Florida Psychiatric Society, Orlando, FL, October 11, 2009.** +- **49. RCW, RCW: Avoiding Psychiatric Malpractice in a Litigious Environment. Florida Psychiatric Society, Orlando, FL, October 11, 2009.** +- **50. RCW, Appleby B: Research on Young-Onset Dementia and Forensic Implications. Workshop, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, MD, October 29, 2009** +- **51. RCW, RCW: Terrorist Bom •• al and Psychiatric Impact. Alabama Psychiatric Society meeting, , AL, April 24, 2010.** +- **52. RCW: Serotonin Syndrome. Alabama Psychiatric Society meeting, alit, April 24, 2010.** +- **53. RCW, RCW: Geneva Conventions and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Florida Psychiatric Society's Forensic Psychiatry Committee meeting, Tampa, FL, April, 30, 2010** + +- 54. RCW, RCW: Epidemics Bureaucracy and Why Governments Fail in Times of Crisis, Southern Psychiatric Association, Asheville, NC, September 30, 2010 +- 55. Levine H, Bradford, J, **RCW, Kaye N, Levin A: Do Practice Guidelines Belong In Court? Where Do They Belong? American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Tucson, AZ, October 21, 2010** +- **56. Dinwiddie SH, RCW, Harlow M. S. Yang S: Why Research Matters: Applying Science to Cases. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Tucson, AZ, October 21, 2010** +- **57. RCW, RCW: Terrorist Bombings: Medical and Psychiatric Impact-Implications for Law Enforcement. Orange County Sheriffs Office senior leadership team, Orlando, FL, November 4, 2010** +- **58. RCW.. RCW: Head Trauma: Psychiatric Sequelae and Malingering. Bell & Roper, PA, Law Seminar, Orlando, FL, November 5, 2010** +- **59. RCW: Pedophiles: Definition, Characteristics, Patterns, and Technology. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Conference (Investigation unit), Orlando, FL, December 2, 2010** +- **60. RCW: Pedophiles: Definition, Recidivism, Technology, and Treatment Options. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Conference (Prosecution unit), Orlando, FL, December 2, 2010** +- **61. RCW: Serotonin Syndrome: Diagnosis, Treatments and Societal Impact. Grand Rounds, University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry, Tampa, FL, December 16, 2010** +- **62. RCW: The Psychology of Aging. Newcomers Group. Lake Mary, FL, January 20, 2011** +- **63. RCW, RCW: The Culture of Domestic Violence? Florida Psychiatric Society, Spring Meeting, Sarasota, FL, April 8, 2011** +- **64. Pasternack S, C, Barnett D, RCW: Guns and Medical Practice: Why does a physician need to inquire? Panel, Florida Psychiatric Society, Spring Meeting, Sarasota, FL, April 9, 2011** +- **65. RCW: Compensation Neurosis. Hot Topics in Forensic Psychiatry. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, April 17, 2011** +- **66. RCW: Offender Behavior. National District Attorneys Association, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, Unsafe Havens I: Investigation and Prosecution of Technology-Facilitated Child Sexual Exploitation, Portland, OR, June 23, 2011** + +- 67. El RCW, **RCW: The Evaluation and Future of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Southern Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, Annapolis, MD, September 17, 2011** +- **68. RCW, RCW: Assessment of Violence Potential: Are there any neural factors? Florida Psychiatric Society, Orlando, FL, September 24, 2011** +- **69. Levine H, RCW, Kaye N: Black Box or Pandora's Box How Black Boxes Affect o r Field. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Boston, October 27, 2011** +- **70. Myers W, RCW, Tolou-Shams M: Malingering in Homicide Defendants: Use of the MMSE and.U.T. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Boston, M, October 27, 2011** +- **71. RCW: Compensation Neurosis. Florida Psychiatric Society, Orlando, FL, April 14, 2012** +- **72. IN RCW, RCW: Hostage C : A Psychiatric and Geopolitical Analysis. Southern Psychiatric Association, Sulphur Springs, WV, October 5, 2012** +- **73. A, Mossman D, RCW, Trestman R: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Evidence-Based Expert Opinions. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 25, 2012** +- **74. Kaye N, Hatters S, RCW, Janvier A: Legal, Ethical, and Risk Implications of Psychotropic Treatment in the Pregnancy/Perinatal Period. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 26, 2012** +- **75. RCW, Day T: Landmark Cases and Supreme Court's Decision on Healthcare. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 26, 2012** +- **76. RCW, Day T: Violent Video Games and the Battle of the Social Science Experts. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 26, 2012** +- **77. RCW, RCW: Chechen Terrorists: Quick Overview. Meridian Club, Maitland, FL, May 8, 2013** +- **78. Sorrentino R, Hatters- S, Jain A, RCW: The Mentally Ill and Guns: A Perfect Target? American Psychiatric Association, Annual Meeting, Workshop 134, San Francisco, CA, May 22, 2013** +- **79. RCW: Offender Characteristics. Safety Net: Multidisciplinary Investigation and Prosecution of Technology-Facilitated Crimes Against Children. National Center for** + +Prosecution of Child Abuse, National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, VA, June 5, 2013 + +- 80. RCW: Sanity. Defender Summer School, sponsored by Robert Wesley, Public Defender, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orlando, FL, August 6, 2013 +- 81. **RCW: Violent Video Games: vs. Entertainment Merchants Association: A Precursor to the Current Debate. Southern Psychiatric Association, Destin, FL, August 19, 2013** +- **82. Myers W, RCW, Scott C: 10 Reasons Why Psychiatrists Should Do Their Own Psychometric Testing. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Diego, CA, October 24, 2013** +- **83. A, Candilis P, RCW, Kolla N, Mossman D: What Should Forensic Fellows Learn About Research? American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Diego, CA, October 26, 2013** +- **84. Hatters S, RCW, Kenedi C, Knoll J: Not Guilty by Reason of Medication: Your Drugs Made Me Do It. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Diego, CA, October 27, 2013** +- **85. RCW: What Psychiatrists Need to be Careful of with the Gun Violence Debate. Florida Psychiatric Society, March 29, 2014** +- **86. RCW: Video Game Violence and the Supreme Court. Forensic Psychiatry Conference, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, April 12, 2014** +- **87. Jain A (chair), RCW, Hatters- S, Sorrentino R: Mental Illness, Guns, and Public Policy in Symposium 7: Taking Aim at a Loaded Issue: Guns, Mental Illness, and Risk Assessment. American Psychiatric Association, New York, NY, May 3, 2014** +- **88. RCW: Death Penalty Ramifications of v. Florida. Southern Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, LA, September 12, 2014** +- **89. Hatters S, Wisner K, Jain A, Glezer A, II RCW: Ethics and Forensics in the Treatment of Pregnant Women. Workshop, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, IL, October 26, 2014** +- **90. RCW: Competency. University of Central Florida's Learning Institute for Elders (LIFE) program, Orlando, FL, January 13, 2015** +- **91. IN RCW: Death Penalty: IIII v. Florida. Florida Psychiatric Society's Forensic Luncheon, Orlando, FL, April 18, 2015** +- **92. RCW: What Psych n to know about Ebola. Alabama Psychiatric Physicians Association, , AL, April 24, 2015** + +- 93. RCW: Presidential Address: What We as Psychiatrists Need to be Careful of with the Gun Violence Debate: An Update. Southern Psychiatric Association, Chattanooga, TN, October 3, 2015 +- 94. RCW, Cooke B, Johnston L, Strauss A: Forensics in Florida: Hot Topics for the Sunshine State. Panel. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, October 23, 2015 +- 95. RCW, Piel J, Wall B: AMA Resolutions which Focused on Corrections. Panel. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, October 24, 2015 96.. RCW, Hatters S: Using Star Wars to Teach Psychopathology. American Psychiatric Association, Atlanta, GA, May 16, 2016 +- 97. Jain A,. RCW, Hatters S, Sorrentino: Sex Ed: A Psychiatric Primer on Managing Patients' Sexual Behaviors. American Psychiatric Association, Atlanta, GA, May 17, 2016 +- 98. RCW. When the Toxicology Screen is Not Enough. Panel. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, OR, October 30, 2016 +- 99. RCW. Physician Wellness. Seminole County Medical Society, Longwood, FL, October 15, 2016 +- 100. RCW. Florida Political & Legislative Update. Seminole County Medical Society, Altamonte Springs, FL, February 21, 2017 +- 101. RCW. Competency. Barry Law School's Health Law Society, Orlando, FL, March 30, 2017 +- 102. RCW. Divorce and Domestic Violence. Florida Psychiatric Society, Orlando, FL, March 31, 2017 +- 103. RCW. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Diagnosis and Application in Criminal Court. 2017 Federal Criminal Practice Seminar, Orlando, FL, April 6, 2017 +- 104. RCW (chair), Hatters S (co-chair), Wagoner R, Sorrentino R, Jain A, Cooke B. Boundary Violations in Correctional Settings. American Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 22, 2017 +- 105. RCW. Video Game Violence. Gang Intervention and Prevention Summit. Florida Gang Investigators Association, Daytona Beach, FL, June 12, 2017 +- 106. RCW. Forensic Issues at Universities. Florida Psychiatric Society, Sarasota, FL, October 7, 2017 + +- 107. IN RCW (chair), Hatters- S, Sorrentino R, Jain A: Outpatient Violence Risk Assessment — What Clinicians Need to Know. American Psychiatric Association, New York, NY, May 5, 2018 +- 108. RCW: Marijuana Issues at Universities. The Maitland Men's Club, Maitland, FL, June 29, 2018 +- 109. RCW: Guns, Schools and Mental Illness. Orange County Health Department, Public Health Grand Rounds, August 14, 2018 +- 110. RCW, Hatters- S, Jain, A, Sorrentino R, Landess J: Current Policy Topics on University Campuses. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Austin, TX, October 27, 2018 +- 111. Greenspan M, Cooke B, Levin A, RCW, Gage B: Forensic Considerations of Treatment When You Haven't Seen the Patient. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Austin, TX, October 28, 2018 +- 112. RCW: Guns, Schools and Mental Health. Florida Department of Health, Cross City, Florida, November 29, 2018 +- 113. **RCW: Sanity. Spring Training Mental Health Panel, hosted by Robert Wesley, Public Defender, 9'h Judicial Circuit, Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Orlando, FL, March 5, 2019** +- **114. RCW, Sorrentino R, Jain A, Cooke B Waggoner R: Burnout: Doctors and Lawyers and Other Professionals. . .. My. American Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 19, 2019** +- **115. Packer S, RCW, Forcen F, Hatters S: The Profound and Long-Term Impact of Arkham Asylum on Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 21, 2019** +- **116. IN RCW: New Controversies or Just a Repeat? Featuring Batman. Indienomicon, Melrose Center, Orlando, June 6, 2019** +- **117. RCW: Retail E-Prescribing is Coming. Florida Psychiatric Society's Leadership Conference, Jensen Beach, FL, June 22, 2019** +- **118. RCW, Kass E: Comic superheroes: A Mental Health Crisis. Florida Psychiatric Society's Annual Meeting, September 20, 2019** +- **119. Kolla N, Candilis P, G, RCW: What Forensic Psychiatrists Need to Know: Recent Research Findings. Workshop. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, MD, October 25, 3019** +- **120. Tamburello A, Hatters S. RCW: Prescribing for Women in Corrections. Panel Discussion. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Baltimore, MD, October 26, 3019** + +- 121. **RCW: Parricide: Why Kids Kill Their Parents. Broward County Crime Commission's 5'h Annual Juvenile Crime Conference, Delray Beach, November 22, 2019** +- **122. RCW: Trauma in Depth. (PTSD). Ninth Circuit Public Defender's Spring Schedule, Orlando, FL March 2, 2020** +- **123. El RCW: PTSD. University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Tampa, FL, March 20, 2020 (done via online platform due to coronavirus social distancing)** +- **124. RCW: Testamentary Capacity. University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Tampa, FL, March 20, 2020 (done via online platform due to coronavirus social distancing)** +- **125. Kass E, RCW, Strauss A. Insanity by Malpractice: A Mock Trial exploring issues of Mental Health in the Justice System. Presenters, Florida Psychiatric Society annual meeting (via online platform due to coronavirus social distancing), September 25, 2020.** +- **126. RCW. Battered Women That Kill. Broward County Crime Commission's 4th Annual Societal Violence Webinar, September 30, 2020** +- **127. RCW. The Myth of School Shooters and Psychotropic Medications. Loyola University School of Medicine Grand Rounds, via Zoom, February 11, 2021** +- **128. El RCW. Background and Basics of the Official MeToo Movement and Its General Impact. APA virtual Annual Meeting, taped on 03/17/21** +- **129. RCW. The Need For Competency. University of Central Florida College of Medicine, by Zoom, 03/30/21** +- **130. RCW. Panel I Domestic Violence: Why Men Torture Animals to Hurt Spouses and Partners. Broward County Crime Commission's Animal Cruelty Webinar, April 8, 2021** +- **131. RCW: Risk Assessment. University of Central Florida College of Medicine, by Zoom, 04/13/21** +- **132. RCW: PTSD. University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Tampa, FL, April 22, 2021 (done via online platform due to coronavirus social distancing)** +- **133. RCW: Testamentary Capacity. University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Tampa, FL, April 22, 2021 (done via online platform due to coronavirus social distancing)** + +- 134. **RCW: Don't Laugh At the Comics: a modern take regarding mental health. Loyola University School of Medicine Grand Rounds, via Zoom. September 2, 2021** + +**Boldface indicates Ryan C. W.., MD** + +### **VIRTUAL LECTURES:** + +**USMLERX.COM First Aid Step 1 Express Video Review Courses, May 2012** + +- **1. Types of studies** +- **2. Clinical trial** +- **3. Meta-analysis** +- **4. Evaluation of diagnostic tests** +- **5. Prevalence vs. incidence** +- **6. Odds ratio vs. relative risk** +- **7. Precision vs. accuracy** +- **8. Bias** +- **9. Statistical distribution** +- **10. Statistical hypotheses** +- **11. Error types** +- **12. Power (1 p)** +- **13. Standard deviation vs. standard error** +- **14. Confidence interval** +- **15. t-test vs. ANOVA vs. X2** +- **16. Correlation coefficient (r)** +- **17. Disease prevention** +- **18. Reportable diseases** +- **19. Leading causes of death in the United States by age** + +- 20. Health care payment +- 21. Core ethical principles +- 22. Informed consent +- 23. Exceptions to informed consent +- 24. Consent for minors +- 25. Decision-making capacity +- 26. Written advance directive +- 27. Confidentiality +- 28. Exceptions to confidentiality +- 29. Malpractice +- 30. Good Samaritan law +- 31. Ethical situations +- 32. Apgar score +- 33. Low birth weight +- 34. Early developmental milestones +- 35. Piaget's stages of cognitive development +- 36. Tanner stages of sexual development +- 37. Changes in the elderly +- 38. Grief +- 39. Kiibler-= grief stages +- 40. Stress effects +- 41. Sexual dysfunction +- 42. Body-mass index (BMI) +- 43. Sleep stages + +- 44. REM sleep +- 45. Narcolepsy +- 46. Circadian rhythm +- 47. Intelligence quotient +- 48. Simple learning +- 49. Classical conditioning +- 50. Operant conditioning +- 51. Reinforcement schedules +- 52. Transference and countertransference +- 53. Freud's structural theory of the mind +- 54. Oedipus complex +- 55. Social learning +- 56. Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial development +- 57. Ego defenses +- 58. Infant deprivation effects +- 59. Child abuse +- 60. Child neglect +- 61. Anaclitic depression (hospitalism) +- 62. Regression in children +- 63. Childhood and early-onset disorders +- 64. Pervasive developmental disorders +- 65. Neurotransmitter changes with disease +- 66. Orientation +- 67. Amnesia types + +- 68. Delirium +- 69. Dementia +- 70. Hallucination vs. illusion vs. delusion vs. loose association +- 71. Hallucination types +- 72. Schizophrenia +- 73. Delusional disorder +- 74. Dissociative disorders +- 75. Manic episode +- 76. Hypomanic episode +- 77. Bipolar disorder +- 78. Major depressive episode +- 79. Sleep patterns of depressed patients +- 80. Atypical depression +- 81. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) +- 82. Risk factors for suicide completion +- 83. Panic disorder +- 84. Specific phobia +- 85. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) +- 86. Post-traumatic stress disorder +- 87. Generalized anxiety disorder +- 88. Malingering +- 89. Factitious disorder +- 90. Somatoform disorders +- 91. Personality + +- 92. Cluster A personality disorders +- 93. Cluster B personality disorders +- 94. Cluster C personality disorders +- 95. Keeping "schizo" straight +- 96. Eating disorders +- 97. Gender identity disorder +- 98. Substance dependence +- 99. Substance abuse +- 100. Substance withdrawal +- 101. Signs and symptoms of substance abuse +- 102. Heroin addiction +- 103. Alcoholism +- 104. Delirium tremens (DTs) + +APA On Demand, March 30, 2020 + +- 1. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Anabolic Androgenic Steroid (AAS) Use Depicted in Comics/Using Comics to Teach: Workshop Exercise + +# MEDIA: + +- 1. Time Magazine, Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional Syndrome, May 16, 2005 +- 2. Reach MD XM Radio, Pedophilia (Types and Classifications, Profile of Victims of Pedophilia, Treatment for Pedophiles and their Victims, and Pedophilia Research). May 14, 2007 +- 3. MD Consult. Doug . Joint telephone interview with Richard C. W. ■, **MD, Pedophilia. May 2, 2007** +- **4. The Korean Broadcasting System, KBS Special, Pedophilia. March 11, 2008.** +- **5. Tony Pipitone, WKMG-TV Channel 6, Mothers Who Kill Their Children. October 28,** + +2008. + +- 6. J. L. Orlando Medical News. Cyberchondriacs. November 13, 2008. +- 7. Fox 35 News, Orlando. Forensic Implications of Anthony case. December 11, 2008. +- 8. Fox 35 News, Orlando. The Anthony Case: DNA Evidence. December 12, 2008. +- 9. Jessica , WKMG-TV Channel 6. The Anthony Case: Baker Act and Stressors. January 23, 2009. +- 10. Nam Nae Won and Jihyun Song. Korea Educational Broadcasting System. Pedophilia. March 30, 2009. +- 11. Keith Landry, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress and Financial Strain. June 15, 2009. +- 12. Heidi Hatch, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress on Families. June 16, 2009. +- 13. Zac Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Child pornography. January 8, 2010. +- 14. Florida Psychiatric Society. Brief Conversations with Experts, Public Service Announcement. Legal Competency. January 23, 2010. +- 15. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC Radio, Up To Speed, with host Margaux Watt, Pedophilia. April 5, 2010. +- 16. Chilean newspaper, Third Voice, phone interview. Pedophiles. April 13, 2010. +- 17. Roberto Schiattino, Caras Magazine, Chile: Pedophilia, April 19, 2010 +- 18. Cris Barrish, Delaware News Journal, Pedophiles, June 5, 2010 +- 19. Steve Blow, The Dallas Morning News. Pedophiles. September 2, 2010 +- 20. Karen Lusky, MSN, RN, EliHealthcare.com. Serotonin Syndrome vs. Anticholinergic Syndrome. September 7, 2010 +- 21. http://www.katenagroup.org/expertsspeak/RYANaMD\_DOMESTIC\_VIOLENC E\_SEPT2011.mp3 +- 22. Donna Leinwand Leger, USA Today. Misconceptions make sex abuse offenders difficult to detect. November 16, 2011 +- 23. http://www.katenagroup.org/expertsspeak/RYANaMD CHILD SEX ABUSE NOVEMBER2011.mp3 + +- 24. Renee Stoll. WFTV Channel 9 News. Psychosis/Affect in Potential Violent Crimes. March 30, 2012 +- 25. The Discovery Channel. Wills: Etta James. April 26, 2012 +- 26. Marisol Bello, USA Today. Sandusky child sex abuse case offers important lessons. June 23, 2012 +- 27. Channel 13, Orlando. Stop the Bullying. Town symposium. September 18, 2012 +- 28. Brandon Keim, NOVA. Videogames and Violence. January 9, 2013 +- 29. Jo Ciavaglia, Bucks County Courier Times (PA). Anabolic Steroids Withdrawal. January 18, 2013 +- 30. http://www.katenagroup.org/expertsspeaWRYANaMD\_VIDEO\_GAME\_VIOLE NCEJAN2013.mp3 +- 31. Gwen Knapp, www.sportsonearth.com. General comments on Anabolic Steroids for "Did Oscar Pistorius Have 'Roid Rage?" February 21, 2013 +- 32. Maia Szalavitz, TIME.com. Video games and behavior. July 2, 2013 +- 33. Erin Brodwin, Scientific American. Guns, Schools, and Mental Illness. October 25, 2013 +- 34. Andrew Pollock, New York Times. Ebola (as a bioweapon). August 15, 2014 +- 35. Abigail Ohlheiser, Washington Post. Ebola. October 2, 2014 +- 36. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, Foxnews.com. Ebola (as a bioterrorist threat). October 3, 2014 +- 37. Rich Zeoli, Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, Philadelphia. Ebola as bioterrorist threat. October 3, 2014 +- 38. Naseem , Internal Medicine News. Ebola. October 3, 2014 +- 39. Amy Ohoheiser. The Washington Post. It's highly unlikely you'll become infected with Ebola, So what are you afraid of? October 5, 2014 +- 40. Laura , WTTG-FOX5 Washington, DC. Ebola. via Skype. October 8, 2014 +- 41. Sue , Dallas Morning News. Ebola. October 14, 2014 +- 42. Carpenter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Ebola (Public discussions of). October 15, 2014 + +- 43. Andy New York Times. Pedophilia. May 6, 2015 +- 44. Wes Judd, Pacific Standard. Teaching Psychopathology in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: The Light Side of the Force, May 27, 2015 +- 45. Tori The Ledger. Local movie theaters respond to recent attacks with more security. August 18, 2015 +- 46. Michael Greshko, National Geographic. The Real Science Inspired By Star Wars. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151209-star-wars-science-movie-film/ December 9, 2015 +- 47. Adam Hochron, MD Magazine. Using Star Wars to Teach Psychopathology 3. May 16, 2016 +- 48. Elizabeth Bachmann, Catholic News Service. Video games and mass shootings. August 5, 2019 +- 49. Joel . Tampa Bay Times. Psychiatrists acting in dual roles (forensic experVtreater). January 6, 2020 +- 50. Danielle Prieur, 90.7 WMFE Orlando. COVID-19 testing. March 5, 2020 +- 51. Fox 35 Orlando. On-air medical panel regarding the Coronavirus. March 6, 2020 +- 52. Panelist for Physicians Society of Central Florida's COVID-19 Virtual Town April 9, 2020 +- 53. Naseem , Orlando Sentinel. Pressure mounts on doctors as COVID-19 hospitalizations climb again. December 22, 2020 + +![](_page_211_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_212_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_213_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_214_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_215_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_216_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_217_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_218_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_219_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_220_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_221_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_222_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_223_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_224_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_225_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_226_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_227_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_228_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_229_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_230_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_231_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_232_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_233_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_234_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_235_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_236_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_237_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_238_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_239_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_240_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_241_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_242_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_243_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_244_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_245_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_246_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_247_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_248_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_249_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_250_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_251_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_252_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_253_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_254_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_255_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_256_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_257_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_258_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_259_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_260_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_261_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_262_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_263_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_264_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_265_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_266_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_267_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_268_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_269_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_270_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_271_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_272_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_273_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_274_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_275_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_276_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_277_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_278_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_279_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_280_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_281_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_282_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_283_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_284_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_285_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_286_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_287_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_288_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_289_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_290_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_291_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_292_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_293_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_294_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_295_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_296_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_297_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_298_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_299_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_300_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_301_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_302_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_303_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_304_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_305_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_306_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_307_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_308_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_309_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_310_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_311_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_312_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_313_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_314_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_315_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_316_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_317_Picture_6.jpeg) + +![](_page_318_Picture_6.jpeg) + +### Materials Provided for Review: + +#### Documents: + +[REDACTED] + +3. Affidavit of Dr. [REDACTED] (SDNY\_GM\_01986418) + +#### 3500 Materials: + +3505-001 +3505-005 +3505-026 +3505-027 +3505-028 +3505-030 +3505-031 +3505-034 +3505-035 +3505-036 +3505-043 +3505-044 +3505-058 +3505-059 +3505-068 +3505-074 +3505-076 +3505-079 +3505-081 +3505-088 +3505-089 +3505-090 +3505-091 +3505-092 +3505-097 +3505-100 + +# BENNETT L. GERSHMAN + +Pace Law School + +78 North Broadway + +Plains, NY 10603 + +Tele: (914) 422.4255 + +Email: Bgershman@law.pace.edu + +# EDUCATION + +New York University School of Law, J.D. 1966 + +Princeton University, B.A. cum laude 1963 + +# TEACHING EXPERIENCE + +Courses taught: Constitutional Law, Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Trial Advocacy, Criminal Justice Seminar, Prosecutorial Ethics, Judicial Ethics, Death Penalty Litigation, Law and Film. + +Professor of Law (Tenured) 1976-85, 1988-present + +Pace Law School Plains, New York + +James D. Professor of Law (2009-2011) + +Pace Law School Plains, New York + +Visiting Professor 1999 (Spring) + +University College Faculty of Laws 2002 (Spring) London, England + +Visiting Professor 1984 (Spring) + +Syracuse College of Law Syracuse, New York + +Visiting Professor 1982-83 + +Cornell Law School Ithaca, New York + +### PUBLICATIONS + +### Books + +The Law School Experience: Law. Legal Reasoning. and Lawyering (with Lissa n (2000) + +Trial Error and Misconduct (2d ed. 2007) (supplemented annually) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct (2d ed. 1999) (supplemented annually) + +Trial Error and Misconduct (1997) (supplemented annually) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct (1985) + +# Book Chapter + +The Prosecutor's Contribution to Wrongful Convictions. J. Acker et al.. Examining Wrongful Convictions — Moving Back. Stewing Forward (Carolina Academic Press 2014). + +### Law Review Articles + +Threats and Bullying by Prosecutors, 46 Loyola University Law Review327 (2014) + +Subverting Brady v. Maryland and Denying a Fair Trial: Studying the Schuelke Report, 64 Mercer Law Review 683 (2013).. + +Pre-Plea Disclosure of Impeachment Evidence, 65 Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc 141 (2012). + +Educating Prosecutors, and Supreme Court Justices, on Brady v. Maryland, 13 Loyola New Orleans Public Interest Law Journal 517 (2012). + +Judicial Interference with Effective Assistance of Counsel 31 Pace Law Review 560 (2011) + +Prosecutorial Decision-Making and Discretion in Charging Decision, 62 Hastings Law Journal 1259 (2011) + +The Zealous Prosecutor as Minister of Justice, 48 San Diego Law Review 151 (2011) + +"Hard Strikes and Foul Blows"— Berger v. United States 75 Years After, 42 Loyola Chicago Law Review 177 (2010). + +Bad Faith Exception to Prosecutorial Immunity for Brady Violations. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Amicus, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, August 2010. + +Privacy Revisited: GPS Tracking as Search and Seizure. 30 Pace Law Review 927 (2010). + +Confronting Scientific Reports Under Crawford v. Washington, 29 Pace Law Review 479 (2009). + +The Most Dangerous Power of the Prosecutor — James D. Memorial Lecture 29 Pace Law Review 1 (2008). + +Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play 57 Case Western Law Review 531 (2007). + +Reflections on Brady v. Maryland, 47 South Texas Law Review 685 (2006). + +Prosecutorial Ethics and Victim Rights, 9 & Clark Law Review 559 (2005). + +How Juries Get It Wrong — Anatomy of the Detroit Terror Trial, 44 Washburn Law Journal 327 (2005). + +The Problem of Jury Misconduct 50 South Dakota Law Review 322 (2005). + +Misuse of Forensic Evidence by Prosecutors 28 Oklahoma City University Law Review 17 (2003). + +Witness Coaching By Prosecutors 23 Cardozo Law Review 829 (2002) + +The Prosecutor's Duty to Truth 14 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 309 (2001Xreprinted in Chengchi Law Review, No. 116, August 2010). + +Child Witnesses and Procedural Fairness 24 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 585 (2001). + +Mental Culpability and Prosecutorial Misconduct, 26 American Journal of Criminal Law 121 (1998). + +The Gate is Open But the Door is Locked: Habeas Corpus and Harmless Error, 51 Washington & Lee Law Review 115 (1994) + +Supervisory Power of the New York Courts 14 Pace Law Review 41 (1994) + +The New Prosecutors, 53 Pittsburgh Law Review 393 (1992) [reprinted in Criminal Practice Law Review (Michie Company, 1993)) + +A Moral Standard for the Prosecutor's Exercise of the Charging Discretion 20 Fordham Urban Law Journal 513 (1993)[reprinted in The Jury Trial in Criminal Justice (Koski ed. 2003)] + +A Tribute to Thurgood Marshall 13 Pace Law Review 297 (1993) + +Justice William J. M, Jr.: The Moral Force of His Language II Pace Law Review 509 (1991) + +The Thin Blue Line: Art or Trial in the Fact-Finding Process? 9 Pace Law Review 275 (1989) + +Proving the Defendant's Bad Character 11 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 477 (1988)(reprinted in Criminal Practice Law Review, Michie Company (1989)] + +Entrapment. Shocked Consciences and the Staged Arrest 66 Minnesota Law Review 567 (1982) + +Abscam. the Judiciary and the Ethics of Entrapment, 91 Yale Law Journal 1565 (1982) + +The Perjury Tray, 129 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 624 (1981) + +# Book Reviews + +Clarence Darrow, The Story of My Life, Trial, p. 80 (April 1997) + +Wendy Kaminer, It's All the Rage Trial, p. 85 (September 1995) + +David Von Drehle, Among the Lowest of the Dead: The Culture of Death Row New York Law Journal, p. 2 (May 16, 1995) + +Friedland, The Death of Old Man Rice Trial, p. 90 (March 1995) + +Hans Zeisel, The Limits of Law Enforcement 33 Journal of Legal Education 745 (1983) + +Abscam Ethics: Moral Issues and Deception in Law Enforcement (M. Caplan ed.), 52 Washington Law Review 166 (1983) + +# Other Published Articles + +The Eyewitness Conundrum, 81 New York State Bar Journal 24 (2009). + +Now You See It. Now You Don't: Depublication and Nonpublication of Opinions Raise Motive Ouestions, 73 New York State Bar Journal 36 (2001)[reprinted in The Champion, June 2002, p. 20] + +The Election and the Supreme Court, The Reporter Dispatch (October 15, 2000) + +Burdening Constitutional Rights Criminal Justice Journal, p. 51 (Summer, 2000) + +Use of Race in "Stop-and-Frisk" 72 New York State Bar Journal 42 (2000) + +Race and Justice in Great Britain New York Law Journal, p. 2 (March 11, 1999) + +Prosecutorial Turf Wars, National Law Journal, p. A36 (November 18, 2002) + +Busing and Desegregation, National Law Journal, p. A24 (October 18, 1999) + +Lie Detection: The Supreme Court's Polygraph Decision, 70 New York State Bar Journal 34 (1998) + +Perverting the First Amendment, New York Law Journal, p.2 (January 8, 1998) + +Prosecutorial Interference with Judicial Independence, New York Law Journal, p. 2 (April 8, 1998) + +Defining Perjury Can Be Very Complex, The Reporter Dispatch (October 4, 1998) + +Judicial Interference with Effective Advocacy by the Defense, 33 Criminal Law Bulletin 424 (1997) + +Charging Crime: A Postscript, New York Law Journal, p. 2 (May 22, 1997) + +When Enough is Enough, New York Law Journal, p. 2 (November 6, 1997) + +Jurors Who Nullify New York Law Journal, p. 2 (June 12, 1997) + +Prosecuting Prosecutors, New York Law Journal, p. 2 (December 20, 1996) + +Race. Crime and Punishment in New York New York Law Journal, p. 2 (April 24, 1996) + +The Governor's Misguided Attempt to Change the Exclusionary Rule, New York Law Journal, p. 2 (February 5, 1996) + +Judicial "Conservatism" New York Law Journal, p. 2 (June 21, 1995) + +Federal-State Debate Put in Perspective, The Reporter Dispatch (February 2, 1995) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct in Presenting Evidence — Backdooring Hearsay 31 Criminal Law Bulletin 99 (1995) + +Forfeiture and the Constitution, New York Law Journal, p. 1 (January 11, 1994) + +Second Circuit Evidentiary Ruling Includes Caution to Prosecutors New York Law Journal, p. 1 (April 1, 1994) + +Abuse of Power in the Prosecutor's Office 6 The World and I 476 (1991) [reprinted in Criminal Justice, Annual Editions (1992-93)] + +Themes of Injustice: Wrongful Convictions, Racial Prejudice, and Lawyer Incompetence, 29 Criminal Law Bulletin 502 (1993) [reprinted in L. Stolzenberg & S. D'Alessio, Criminal Courts for the 21m Century, p. 354 (1998)] Defending the Poor, Trial, p. 47 (March, 1993) + +Update on Rape Law in New York New York Law Journal, p.1 (June 9, 1993) + +Reforming New York Criminal Discovery New York Law Journal, p. 1 (January 27, 1993) + +Tricks Prosecutors Play, Trial, p. 46 (April, 1992) + +Will the Real Jim Garrison Please Stand Up? New York Law Journal, p. 2 (January 27, 1993) + +Entrapment Revisited, New York Law Journal, p. 1 (January 27, 1993) + +Supervising Prosecutorial Misconduct in Grand Juries New York Law Journal, p. I (August 3, 1992) + +Disqualifying Judges for Bias: The Sarokin Case, New York Law Journal, p. 1 (September 21, 1992) + +Justice Must Temper Zeal in Death Cases, The Reporter Dispatch (May 24, 1992) + +Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, 27 Criminal Law Bulletin 291 (1991) [reprinted in L. Stolzenberg & S. D'Alessio, Criminal Courts for the 21M Century, p. 289 (1998)] + +State Constitutionalization of Criminal Procedure and the Prosecutor's Disclosure Obligations, 18 Westchester Bar Journal 101 (1991) + +Understanding and Challenging DNA Proof, 17 Westchester Bar Journal 91 (1990) + +The New Omnibus Crime Bill,New York Law Journal, p. 1 (December 27, 1990) + +Capital Punishment Fails Economic Test The Reporter Dispatch (April 10, 1990) + +The Prosecutor's New Power in Sentence Reduction 5 Criminal Justice 2 (Fall, 1990) + +IRS Form 8300, 5 Criminal Justice 22 (Spring, 1990) + +The Right to Evidence 61 New York State Bar Journal 52 (1989) + +Prosecutorial Suppression of Evidence 16 Westchester Bar Journal 275 (1989) + +Lawyers Shunning Death Row Cases 16 Westchester Bar Journal 17 (1988-89) + +The Prosecutor as a "Minister of Justice", 60 New York State Bar Journal 8 (1988) [reprinted in Criminal Justice, Annual Editions 1989-90] + +The Prosecutor's Obligation to Grant Defense Witness Immunity 24 Criminal Law Bulletin 14 (1998) + +The Harmless Error Rule: Overlooking Violations of Constitutional Rights, 14 Westchester Bar Journal 291 (1987) + +Reflections on Client Perjury, 59 New York State Bar Journal 30 (1987) + +Why Prosecutors Misbehave, 22 Criminal Law Bulletin 131 (1986) [reprinted in G. L. Mayes, P.R. Gregware, Courts and Justice, 268 (1995); reprinted in M. Braswall, B. R. McCarthy, B. J. McCarthy, Justice, Crime, and Ethics 163 (1991)] + +The Burger Court and Prosecutorial Misconduct 21 Criminal Law Bulletin 217 (1985) + +Judicial Misconduct: Civil Rights Immunities and Liabilities Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees Handbook 111 (1985) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct: Civil Rights Immunities and Liabilities,Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees Handbook 103 (1985) + +Sanctioning Prosecutorial Misconduct, Bronx County Bar Journal 19 (Winter, 1985) + +U.S. Supreme Court Deals with Prosecutorial Misconduct, New York Law Journal, (October 18, 1995) + +Capital Punishment and Guilty Pleas, Journal News — June 14, 2003. + +Prosecution Double Standards Journal News — October 26, 2003. + +Kelly Case Undermines Pirro Image, Journal News — February 16, 2004 + +Bush Will Lose `Presidential Power' Cases, Journal News — June 13, 2004 + +Religious McCarthyism Hearsay, Winter 2004. + +# Recent Blogs + +Preet Bharara Talks Too Much Slate, March 2, 2015 + +Smartphones, Smart Ruling, Huffington Post, June, 2014 + +Cruel Justice — The Case of Don Siegelman, Huffington Post, June, 2014 + +New Commission to Regulate Prosecutorial Misconduct Huffington Post, May 2014 + +Don't Let the Prosecutor Off the Hook, Huffington Post, May, 2014 + +Hurricane Carter's "Pig Circuis" Trials Huffington Post, May, 2014 + +Smartphones and Befuddled Justices April, 2014 + +The Senate's 7 Cowards. Huffington Post, March, 2014 + +Dumb District Attorneys, Huffington Post, March 2014 + +Refusing to Defend Unjust Laws: Prosecutorial Discretion or Prosecutorial Nullification?, Buffington Post, February, 2014 + +Licensing Crimes, Huffington Post, May 2013 + +CIA's Paranoid Response on Drones. Huffington Post, March, 2013 + +Coos Are Stupid But Prosecutors Are Smart, Huffington Post, April, 2011 + +Why Barry Bonds?, Huffington Post, April, 2011 + +Clocking Trials Huffington Post, May, 2011 + +"Rats" — Why Juries Believe Them Huffington Post, May, 2011 + +DSK and Bail: But Aren't the Right? Huffington Post, May, 2011 + +Ashcroft Perverted Federal Law, the Supreme Court Blinked Huffington Post, June 2011 + +When a Judge Stumbles, Do Appearances Matter? Huffington Post, June 2011 + +DSK and the Rest of Those on the Criminal Docket Huffington Post, July, 2011 + +Was' Anthony's Jury Misled (By the Prosecutors)?, Huffington Post, July 2011 + +Did Lawyers Abet the Phone Hacking Scandal?, Huffington Post July, 2011 + +The Case for Prosecuting Strauss-Kahn: Or Should Prosecutors Play God?, Huffington Post August, 2011 + +Let's Get Real About Eyewitness Identifications, Huffington Post September, 2011 + +"Tent City" Is Protected Speech, Huffington Post October, 2011 + +Ticket-Fixing: It Isn't "Professional Courtesy," It's Racketeering, Huffington Post October, 2011 + +"Big Brother" is Really Watching You -- GPS Surveillance in the Supreme Court, Huffington Post November, 2011 + +'See No Evil, Hear No Evil': Joe Patemo, Kitty Genovese, and the Crime of Silence Huffington Post November, 2011 + +Let's Kill All the Law Students Huffington Post November, 2011 + +Campus "Justice" Shows a Culture of Complacency, Huffington Post November, 2011 + +Shining a Light on Britain's "Gutter Press", Huffington Post December, 2011 + +Gingrich And The Constitution, Huffington Post December, 2011 + +Punishing Cops for Hate Speech, Huffington Post December, 2011 + +"Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough", Huffington Post January, 2012 + +Pardoning Criminals — Appropriate Mercy or Perverting Justice?,Huffington Post January, 2012 + +Immigration Justice: Biased, Irrational, Unfair Huffington Post January 2012 + +How Immigration Courts Contaminate American Justice,Huffington Post January, 2012 + +Criminalizing Lies -- An Unusual Free Speech Case in Supreme Court,Huffington Post, February, 2012 + +It's Not About Conscience, It's About Bullying Huffington Post February, 2012 + +51st State -- "Tranquility" or Puerto Rico?, Huffington Post, February, 2012 + +Law Schools in the Dock,Huffington Post, March, 2012 + +Charging Zimmerman: Whv Bypass the Grand Jury? Huffington Post April 2012 + +Were Trayvon Witnesses Coached? Huffington Post, May 2012 + +When Rabbis Muzzle Sex Crimes Victims, Huffington Post, May 2012 + +Corruption. Bribery, and the Quid Pro Quo Conundrum, Huffington Post, June 2012 + +The District Attorney and the Penn State Scandal Huffington Post, July 2012 + +Teaching Tolerance to Boy Scouts Huffington Post, July 2012 + +Why Hasn't Lance Armstrong Been Prosecuted? Huffington Post, October 2012 + +Did Puerto Rico Really Vote for Statehood? Huffington Post, November 2012 + +### Recent Op Ed Pieces + +The Eric Gamer Case Cries Out for Disclosure, Newsday, December 9, 2014 + +Gun Owners have a Responsibility, Journal News, December 29, 2012 + +Alas, Assembly Scandal Nothing New, Journal News, September 9, 2012 + +Police Did Not Need to Kill Kenneth Journal News, May 13, 2012 + +Silencing Amicus Curiae National Law Journal, March 21, 2011 + +When Procedure Trumps Justice,National Law Journal, November 2, 2009 + +Jurisprudence of Labels, National Law Journal, March 30, 2009 + +Bell Shooting Critics Are Mistaken National Law Journal, June 2, 2008. + +Why a Public Outing? National Law Journal, February 21, 2008 + +Tankleff Case Needs Special Prosecutor Newsday, December 30, 2007 + +The Stinger Missile Sting,Slate, December 12, 2007 + +Use Common Sense to Evaluate Ridley Shooting, The Journal News, April 30, 2009 + +Westchester County and Equality The Journal News, March 5. 2009 + +Separate and Unequal — The Paradox of 2008 Election The Journal News, November 12, 2008 + +No Guaranteed Right to Own Firearms The Journal News, December 3, 2007 + +Client Choices and the Role of Arent Fox,National Law Journal, November 12, 2007 + +When to Fault Client Choices National Law Journal, October 8, 2007 + +Justices Go Hollywood,National Law Journal, August I, 2007 + +High Time The Hands-Off Approach to Prosecutorial Misconduct Changes, The San Jose Mercury News, July 1, 2007 + +Challenges to Justice,National Law Journal, June 18, 2007 + +No Gate Keeper of Justice, National Law Journal, February 19, 2007 + +Latest Exoneration Proves Experts' Lack of Credibility, January 31, 2007. + +Cleansing a Candidate's Sins...by Re-Electing Him, November 23, 2006 + +Hussein Trial Lessons National Law Journal, November 13, 2006 + +Independent Inquiry is Needed in Deskovic Case The Journal News, October 15, 2006 + +Pirro Failed to Follow Prosecutorial Rules, The Journal News, September 17, 2006 + +At Last, A Citability Rule. National Law Journal, May 22, 2006 + +Reporters Under Subpoena, National Law Journal, January 10, 2005 + +Cracking Justice's Facade, National Law Journal, October 11, 2004 + +Let's Untie Judicial Hands National Law Journal, August 9, 2004 + +Independent Labs Are Best, National Law Journal, June 14, 2004 + +Prosecutors Tell Lies. Too National Law Journal, March 22, 2004 + +The Spin. Confidentially, National Law Journal, July 21, 2003 + +Prosecutors' Tug of War, National Law Journal, November 18, 2002 + +# Scholarly Payers at Conferences and Symposia + +Sentence Structure: The Elements of Punishment, Loyola University Chicago School of Law (April 4, 2014) + +Prosecutorial Ethics and Brady v. Maryland: Mercer Law School (October 5, 2012). + +Prosecutorial Immunity: Deconstructing Connick v. Thompson\_— Loyola University New Orleans Law School (November 4, 2011). + +The Most Dangerous Power of the Prosecutor — James Memorial Lecture — Pace Law School (Oct. 6, 2008) + +Prosecutorial Ethics and the Right to a Fair Trial — Case Western School of Law (January 26, 2007) + +Reflections on Brady v. Maryland — South Texas Law School (November 4, 2005). + +Prosecutorial Ethics and Victim Rights — & Clark Law School (March 11, 2005) + +Misuse of Forensic Evidence By Prosecutors — (March 6, 2003) Oklahoma City University Law School + +Problems of Cooperating Witnesses — 2000) Cardozo Law School (November 30, The Prosecutor's Duty to Truth, Georgetown Law Center, Symposium on Government Ethics (March 30, 2000) + +The "Term Limits" Case — Conference on the Supreme Court and Local Government Law: The 1994-95 Term — Touro Law School (October 6, 1995) + +Urban Criminal Justice — Is It Fair? Does It Appear Fair? Center for Ethics and Public Interest Law — Fordham University School of Law (November 18, 1992) + +The Expanding Criminal Law — CATO Institute, Washington, D.C. (November 15, 1990) + +Prosecutorial Discretion — Conference on Municipal Law, Brigham Young Law School, Salt Lake City, Utah (March, 1987) + +The Struggle for Justice - Law Day Keynote Speech, Rockland County Bar Association (May 1, 1992) + +How Just Are Our Courts? - The League of Women Voters, Ossining, New York (September 12, 1991) + +Grand Jury Abuse,- League of Women Voters, Bronxville, New Work (November, 1985) + +The Hinckley Trial and the Insanity Defense - Cornell Law School (March, 1983) + +# Lectures at Training Programs for Judges and Lawyers + +ABA Symposium for Judges and Prosecutors on Victims' Rights, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (January 19-21, 2011) + +ABA Roundtable on Revisions to Criminal Justice Standards, Texas law School November 19, 2010 + +Criminal Discovery in New York State, New York State Judicial Institute, November 54, 2010 + +Missouri Office of Prosecutorial Training, Osage Beach, MO (March 21, 2008) + +Update on New York State Criminal Law, Judicial Institute (January 8, 2004). + +Orientation Program for Newly-Elected and Newly-Appointed Judges and Justices, N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration (1994-present) + +Summer Judicial Seminar for New York State Trial Judges (1995, 1996) + +Confronting and Handling Judicial Misconduct, Annual Meeting, New York State Defenders Association (September 22, 1995) + +Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy, New York State Bar Association (October 21, 1992) + +Evidence Update, Practice Skills Seminar, Duchess County Bar Association (March, 1992) + +Current Trends in Criminal Law — Public Defender Training Program, Montpelier, Vermont (June, 1991) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct — Practice Skills Seminar, New York State Defenders Association, Poughkeepsie, New York (January 1, 1991) + +Closing Arguments to a Jury — Practice Skills Seminar, New York State Bar Association, Poughkeepsie, New York (September 16, 1987) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct — National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, Washington, D.C. (December, 1985) + +Prosecutorial Misconduct — Erie County District Attorney's Office, Buffalo New York (September, 1985) + +Driving While Intoxicated, Westchester County Bar Association (September, 1984) + +Undercover Police Investigations, Onondaga County Bar Association (May, 1984) + +Search and Seizure, Monroe County Bar Association (October, 1983) + +Program Coordinator, Sing Sing Correctional Facility Paralegal Program. Taught and administered courses in evidence, criminal law, and criminal procedure to inmates and correctional staff at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Ossining, New York (1984-1988) + +Cornell Institute on Organized Crime, Lecturer (Summer, 1976) + +# Other Recent Sneaking Engagements + +Keynote Speaker, Innocence Symposium, Albany Law School, April 23, 2015 + +Editorial Spotlight, Journal News. Future of Gun Laws, December 20, 2012 + +Debate Over Gun Control, League of Women Voters — Ridgefield Ct, September 13, 2012 + +American Bar Association, Annual Litigation Meeting, Panel on Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington D.C. April 17, 2008 + +Victims and the Criminal Justice System, Judicial Institute — April 4, 2008 + +USA Patriot Act - Hudson River Museum — June 10, 2003. + +Forensic Evidence — Moderator - Judicial Institute - May 22, 2003. + +Lawyers and Media - Public Relations Association of America — Sept. 10, 2003. + +The Brady Rule Forty Years After — Annual Mid-Hudson Trainer — November 14, 2003. + +USA Patriot Act — Plains Democratic Committee — December 3, 2003. + +Religious McCarthyism — Cardozo Society — December 8, 2003. + +The Bill of Rights — 212'h Anniversary — St. Paul's Church — December 15, 2003. + +Terrorism and Civil Liberties — Sarah College — March 6, 2004. + +# Expert Opinion, Testimony, and Consultation + +Bozella v. County of Dutchess (deposition) + +Donald Eugene Gates v. The District of Columbia (deposition) + +State Bar of Arizona v. M, Aubuchon, and Alexander (Aug. 30, 2011)(deposition) + +Jovanovic v. City of New York et al., (2009Xexpert report) + +Kevin Fox v. Will County (October 18, 2007)(deposition) + +Harrington v. Pottawattamie County (January 22, 2007Xdeposition) + +New York State Assembly Codes Committee, Hearing on New York State's Death Penalty (January 21, 2005Xtestimony) + +U. S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform (February 25, 2002) (Amendment to 18 U.S.C. §1503Xtestimony) + +U.S. Congress, House Judiciary Subcommittee (July 27, 2000) (Testimony on H.R. 4015: Fair Justice Act of 2000)(testimony) + +State of Louisiana v. Kyles (October 31, 1997)(testimony) + +State of Connecticut v. Valentin (March, 1995)(testimony) + +Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Davidson (April, 1992)(testimony) + +Matter of Anonymous, Grievance Committee, Massachusetts Bar Council (March, I 986)(testimony) + +# PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES + +Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Criminal Law Bulletin. + +Consultant, New York State Board of Bar Examiners (2000-2012) + +# LITIGATION EXPERIENCE + +# Prosecutorial Work + +Office of the New York State Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (1973-76) + +Chief, Appeals Bureau, Special Assistant Attorney General (1974-76) + +Chief, Bronx Anti-Corruption Unit (1973-74) + +Argued cases in state and federal courts involving public and political officials charged with corruption. (See, e.g., Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314 (1976); Nigrone v. Murtagh, 36 N.Y.2d 421 (1975); People v. Mackell 40 N.Y.2d 59 (1976) + +Office of S. Hogan, District Attorney, New York County (1967-72) + +Assistant District Attorney, Homicide, Rackets, and Appeals Bureaus. Investigated, tried and argued on appeal hundreds of felony cases, including murder, kidnapping, and corruption cases. Conducted major rackets investigations (e.g., municipal loan scandal and organized crime) + +Member, Mayor's Committee for the Enforcement of Law During Civil Disorders (1969) + +# Criminal Defense Litigation + +Author of Amicus Brief in Matter of Robert Gorghan v. DeAngelis et al.. New York State Court of Appeals (September, 2006). + +Author of Amicus Brief in People v. Angel Mateo New York State Court of Appeals (February, 2004) + +Author of Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. United States 503 U.S. 540 (1992) on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers + +Argued numerous federal and state criminal appeals involving significant criminal defense issues (See. e.g.. People v. Brims, 66 N.Y.2d 61 (1985) (confessions); Hynes v. Karrasik 47 N.Y.2d 659 (1979) (stealing records); People v. Ellis, 62 A.D.2d 469 (1978) (judicial misconduct); United States v. DiTommaso 817 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1987) (right to counsel); People v. Howard, 513 N.Y.S.2d 973 (1987) (discovery); Hoff v. Kelly, (unreported) (2d Cir. 1987) (speedy trial); People v. Saraireh 134 A.D.2d 464 (1987) (accomplice corroboration); People v. Mezon, 80 N.Y.2d 155 (1992) (suppression of evidence) + +Defended murder, conspiracy, and other complex federal and state felony indictments (1976-present) + +Panel member, Federal Criminal Justice Act Panel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1985-1992) + +Panel member, Homicide, Felony, and Appellate panels, First Department, New York State Supreme Court (1976-present) + +Assisted in death penalty litigation with Southern Prisoners Defense Committee, Atlanta, Georgia (1989-90) + +Supervised law students on death penalty appeal, Alabama v. Duncan, 575 So.2d 1198 (1990) (remanded) + +Assistant Public Defender, Rockland County (1984-85) + +# AWARDS + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 23, 2004) + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 18, 2003) + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 19, 2002) + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 20, 2001) + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 21, 2000) + +Pace Law School Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (May 31, 1998) + +New York State Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section Award for Outstanding Work in Criminal Law Education (January 24, 1991) + +![](_page_338_Picture_3.jpeg) + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 + +OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +# SPECIALIZED Certified Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) ID: ECC918204 —January 2007 + +# TRAINING - EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE) ID: 15-0809-3218 — August 2009 + +# CERTIFICATIONS - + +# LICENSES AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE) ID: 109179 — May 2012 + +### Computer Forensics — Specialized Training + +| • Windows 8 forensics | • Smart device app analysis | +|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| +| • Android malware detection | • Link file analysis | +| • Decrypting protected user data in browsers | • USB history analysis | +| • Documenting Chain of Custody | • Creating and using forensic boot disks | +| • Forensic Tool Kit (FTK) and EnCase | • Linux and Macintosh computer | +| • Recovery of Windows file metadata | • Recovery of internet usage data | +| • Recovering data from slack space | • Forensics on FAT and NTFS file systems | +| • Court findings presentation process | • Hidden file recovery techniques | +| • Windows registry forensics | • Recovery on swap/ temporary files | +| • Recovering email | • Data carving from unused space | + +### Licensed Private Investigator in Colorado and Texas + +Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, License No. P12.0000213 Texas Department of Public Safety, License No: A17132 + +### E-Discovery and Evidence Best Practices + +Colorado Bar Association, Continuing Legal Education + +# EDUCATION Graduate Degree + +Graduated in May 1993 with a of Science in Aerospace Engineering specializing in Astrodynamics from the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. + +# Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +# PUBLICATIONS + +# TESTIFYING - + +# APPOINTMENTS - + +HONORS + +![](_page_339_Picture_3.jpeg) + +### Undergraduate Degree + +Graduated in May 1989 with a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. + +"Moving to Secure the Image" Valuable Data May Be Overwritten Forever Law Week Colorado — Week of Aug 13, 2007 + +### Republished in De Novo + +Vol. 11, No. 6 September 20O8 + +### Expert Witness Testimony + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado + +Virginia Frazer-Abel, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda High Home Contractors Inc. Retained by Plaintiff Case No. 2020CV031015 Date: 9/2/2021 v. Mile + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Harris County, Texas, 295thJudicial District Baron Real Property Holdings LLC v. AMLI/BPMT Town Square Partnership Retained by Defendant Cause No. 2017-24217 Date: 2/9/2020 + +Trial testimony for the District Court, Mesa County, Colorado, Division 10 Jonathan Hathaway, M.D. v. Dino-Peds Management Group, LLC Retained by Defendant Case No. 2018CV30319 Date: 2/3/2020 + +Deposition testimony for the District Court, Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District Baron Real Property Holdings LLC v. AMLI/BPMT Town Square Partnership Retained by Defendant Cause No. 2017-24217 Date: 12/18/2019 + +Arbitration testimony for the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), Johannesburg, South Africa Thokozani Zulu v. KZN Retained by Plaintiff Case No. KNDB5512-16 Date: 7/8/2019 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court in and for Okmulgee County, State of Oklahoma Jennifer J. Bakkala vs. Marcos Becerra Mora Retained by Defendant + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 I DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +Case No. CJ-2017-175 Date: 5/2/2019 + +![](_page_340_Picture_3.jpeg) + +### Trial testimony for County Court, Boulder County, Colorado + +People of the State of Colorado vs. Nathan Eugene + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 18M1076 Date: 1/23/2019 + +### Trial testimony for the District Court, Denver County, Colorado + +Stephen Strecker vs. Carr Healthcare Realty + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 17cv030673 Date: 11/6/2018 + +### Hearing testimony for the District Court, Natrona County, Wyoming, Seventh Judicial District + +The State of Wyoming vs. Tony Scott Cercy + +Retained by Defendant + +Criminal Action No. 20871-A Date: 9/27/2018 + +### Deposition testimony for 131" Judicial District Court, Sandoval County, New Mexico + +Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Linda Stromei, et al. + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. D-1329-CV-2015-01328 Date: 8/23/2018 + +### Trial testimony for the District Court, El Paso County, Colorado + +State of Colorado v. Bosher + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. D212016CR6176 Date: 8/22/2018 + +### Hearing testimony for the District Court, Blaine County, Idaho + +C&M Investment Group et al. v. Neil David et al. + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case No. CV-12-407 Date: 5/15/2018 + +### Hearing testimony for the District Court, Weld County, Colorado + +Reilly v. Dustin Tixier et al. + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case No. 2016CV30894 Date: 11/30/2017 + +### Hearing testimony for the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 I DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +![](_page_341_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Hearing testimony for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles The People of the State of California v. Gary Klein Retained by Defendant Case No. SA088820 Date: 8/14/2017 + +Deposition testimony for the United States District Court, District of Colorado Johns Manville Corp v. Knauf Insulation, LLC Retained by Defendant Case No. 1:15-cv-00531 Date: 4/21/2017 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado Atlantic Building Systems (d/b/a Armstrong Steel) v. Great Western Building Systems, et al. Retained by Plaintiff Case No. 2016CV33066 Date: 3/1/2017 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado Tarco, Inc. v. Conifer Metropolitan District Retained by Defendant Case No. 12CA0250 Date: 9/29/2016 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Boulder County, Colorado People of the State of Colorado vs—Jeffrey Arthur Colson Retained by Defendant Case No. 14CR1304 Date: 5/2/2016 + +Trial testimony for the District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico State of New Mexico vs. Steven Stewart; Charge: First-Degree Murder Retained by Defendant Case No. D-202-CR-2014-01356 Date: 11/30/2015 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Arapahoe County Chris Bermel v. Blueradios, Inc. and Mark Kramer Retained by Defendants Case No. 2014CV032139; Division 15 Date: 10/16/2015 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court Douglas County In re the Marriage of: Petitioner: Landin; Respondent: David Landin Retained by Petitioner Case No. 11 DR 530; Division 4 Date: 5/27/2015 + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +![](_page_342_Picture_3.jpeg) + +,,, ronesic ri - PURSUIT T le Gun:, t L' E ec tip e Evycle ce + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Weld County + +Michael v. Julie M. Hillyard, et. al. + +Retained by Defendant + +Civil Action No. 2013CV235 Date: 5/1/2015 + +Deposition testimony for the District Court, Weld County + +Michael v. Julie M. Hillyard, et. al. + +Retained by Defendant + +Civil Action No. 2013CV235 Date: 2/27/2015 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Boulder County + +Mindy Sue Olkjer v. Paul Krueger + +Retained by Respondent + +Case No. 2006DR1186 Date: 1/26/2015 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court, Denver County + +District Court Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. + +D. Michael McNeill v. Digital Folio, Inc. + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case No. 13CV33108 Date: 9/18/2014 + +Hearing testimony for the District Court. Denver County + +Premium Pet Health, LIC vs. All American Pet Proteins, LLC + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 2014cv31356 Date: 5/22/2014 + +Trial testimony for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County + +Justice Honorable Emily Pines + +Vincent Ugenti vs. DCS Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Datascan + +Retained by Defendant + +Index No. 10-19177 Date: 5/12/2014 + +Trial testimony for the Denver County District Court + +Denver District Court Judge Elizabeth Starrs + +The People of Colorado vs. Gustav Ray Eicher, Charles Douglas Belcher, and + +Matthew Stotz + +Retained by Prosecution + +Case No. 13 CR 00467, 13 CR 00464, 13 CR 00466 Date: 3/27/2014 + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +![](_page_343_Picture_3.jpeg) + +"Microtek" + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Civil Action No. 11-CV-01685-CMA-MJW Date: 3/25/2014 + +### Deposition testimony for the Eagle County District Court + +William I. Sterett, M.D. vs. Steadman Hawkins Clinic + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 2011CV674 Date: 1/7/2014 + +### Hearing testimony for the State of Colorado Office of Administrative Courts + +Harriett vs. Elitch Gardens and Pacific Indemnity Company + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case No. 4-893-657 Date: 12/9/2013 + +### Trial testimony at the County District Court + +Leyland Industries, LLC vs. L. Amos + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 12 CV 30240 Date: 9/27/2013 + +### Trial testimony at the Jefferson County District Court + +People of the State of Colorado vs. Scott + +Retained by Defendant + +Case No. 13M988 Date: 6/12/2013 + +### Deposition testimony for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division + +New Hampshire Insurance Co vs. Blackjack Cove, LLC + +Retained by Plaintiff + +No. 3:10-cv-0607 Date: 6/11/2013 + +### Trial testimony at the Douglas County District Court + +District Court Judge Richard Caschette + +Colette et. al. v. Allstate Sweeping, LLC and Paul Mescarenas + +Co-retained by Plaintiff and Defendant + +Case Number: 2011CV2398 Date: 3/27/2013 + +### Hearing testimony at the County District Court + +Guillermo Barriga, et. al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case Number: 2011CV765 Date: 1/22/2013 + +### Deposition testimony for the United States District Court, District of Colorado + +Kevin MI vs. Rozek Company, d/b/a "Microtek" + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +![](_page_344_Picture_3.jpeg) + +### Trial testimony at the Denver District Court, Colorado + +District Court Judge Edward D. Brofin MVisiontek, LLC v. 420 Wellness, et. al. Retained by Plaintiff Case No: 11CV2231 Date: 8/16/2012 + +### Hearing testimony before the Foreign Service Grievance Board + +Retained by Plaintiff Washington, D.C. Case No: FSGB-2012-004 Date: 8/15/2012 + +### Hearing testimony at the United States District Court, Boulder Colorado + +United States District Judge Philip A. Brimmer LaserCycle USA, Inc. v. Alan L. Balcourt Retained by Plaintiff Case No: 11-cv-01995-PAB-CBS Date: 7/21/2011 + +### Hearing testimony at the Judicial Arbitor Group + +Judge William Meyer, Arbiter FCRA v. Howshar Retained by Plaintiff JAG Case No. 10-1731A Date: 7/26/2011 + +### Hearing testimony at the Denver District Court, Colorado + +Retained by Defendant Heaven Elizabeth v. LLMJ, LLC d/b/a DC-10 Lounge Case No. 08-CV 9554 Date: 5/25/2010 + +### Hearing testimony at the Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado + +Retained by Defendant Donald R. Vehlhaber, Jr. v. GenuTech, Inc. Case No. 09-CV-1694 Date: 10/21/2009 + +### Hearing testimony at the United States District Court, Colorado + +United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty Kara Hughes v. Titan Technology Partners, Ltd. Retained by Defendant Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02099-WYD-MEH Date: 6/30/2009 + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 I DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +# INSTRUCTOR - FACULTY MEMBER + +![](_page_345_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Trial testimony at the City and County Court of Denver, Colorado + +Honorable Judge Robert L. McGahey + +Monica David Vickery v. Evelyn Trumble and Merry Gayle Vickery + +Retained by Plaintiff + +Case No: 07 CV 7674 Date: 1/6/2009 + +### Special Appointments + +United States District Court for the District of Colorado + +United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty + +Civil Action No: 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Date: 11/7/2012 + +District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado + +Case No: 2010 CV 2203 Date: 3/23/2011 + +District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado + +Case No: 2005 CV 1944 Date: 7/19/2010 + +United States District Court for the District of Colorado + +Kristen L. Mix, United States Magistrate Judge + +Civil Action No: 09-cv-01099-MSK-KLM Date: 1/21/2010 + +District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado + +Case No: 2009 CV 1694 Date: 9/9/2009 + +District Court, County, Colorado + +Case No: 08DR1992 Date: 6/3/2009 + +District Court City and County of Broomfield + +Case No: 2006 DR 60 Date: 9/13/200s + +### Honors + +Selected by the Republican National Committee to act as the local (Denver) computer forensics expert on call to respond to any instances of voter machine problems or other irregularities associated with computer security. + +- Adjunct Faculty Member at the University of Denver Current instructor of Computer Forensics as part of the University of Denver's of Science degree in Computer Security Architecture. + +# Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, Sinn 1 l DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +# PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS + +# PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE + +![](_page_346_Picture_3.jpeg) + +### • Primary Instructor + +Creator of the accredited class "E-Discovery and Computer Forensics" which has been taught to hundreds of attorneys in Colorado at the following venues: + +| Benson & Case | Colorado Defense Lawyers Association | +|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| +| Stevens Littman, Biddison Tharp & Weinberg | American Inns of Court | +| Donelson Ciancio Goodwin & Juarez | Larimer Coun Bar Association | +| Kelly Garnsey Hubbell & Lass | Broomfield County Bar Association | +| 2008 Family Law Conference | CO Association of Litigation Support Managers | +| Baker & Hostetler | Wheeler Trigg Kennedy | +| Tschetter Sulzer | Pitkin County Bar Association | +| Burg Simpson | Overturf McGath Hull and Doherty | +| McConaughy & Sarkissian | Elwyn Schaefer & Associates | +| Hunnicutt & Appelman | Kennedy Childs & Fogg | +| Godfrey & Lapuyade | Hensley & Holzer | +| Dewhirst & Dolven | Law Firm | +| Burg Simpson | Grimshaw & Harring | +| lin & Schauer | Gregory R. Giometti and Associates | +| Lowe Fell & Skogg | McConaughy & Sarkissian | +| Hutchinson Black and | Franke Greenhouse List & Lippitt | +| Little Soran | Isaacson & Rosenbaum | +| Gutterman | Lowe Fell & Skogg | +| Hutchinson Black and | & Repucci | +| Bernard, Gaddis & Kahn | Dill Dill Carr Stonbraker & Hutchings | +| Crosse & Barfield | Hale Friessen | +| Arckey & Reha, LLC | Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek | +| Dude & Lebel | Stettner & Cohn | + +### • Guest Lecturer + +DeVry University, Denver, Colorado + +of Science in Organizational Leadership program + +- Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Gold Member +- Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program (Chamber 100) +- Colorado Human Resources Association +- Patron of the Bar Colorado Bar Association +- Colorado Association of Legal Support Staff +- Notary Public State of Colorado (commission expires 8/25/2019) + +Chief Executive Officer Lead Computer Forensics Investigator Forensic Pursuit, LLC + +Forensic Pursuit provides full-service computer forensic services to attorneys, businesses, and individuals. Single and complex computer investigation problems are both + +Robert P. Kelso + +### FORENSIC PURSUIT + +2000 ARAPAHOE STREET, SUITE 1 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 OFFICE (303)495.2082 I EMAIL ROBERT.KELSO@FORENSICPURSUIT.COM + +![](_page_347_Picture_3.jpeg) + +addressed in the same detailed, professional manner using the latest in cutting-edge tools and the best, most widely accepted analysis techniques. + +Forensic Pursuit uses the following techniques EVERY TIME to ensure complete media protection and future court admissibility: + +- Strict chain of custody enforced all data handled as evidence +- Thorough documentation of process +- Verified forensic images made of all computer media +- Court approved methods and industry best practices used +- All analysts are certified computer forensic investigators +- Client computer media protected in a secure facility +- Complete privacy of all of our clients ensured +- Cognizant of differences between consulting and testifying experts + +ENGINEERING Principal - Kelso Interactive Inc. + +EMPLOYMENT January 2002 to Present + +HISTORY Kelso Interactive is a small software engineering company with clients in London England, Atlanta Georgia, Naples Florida, and throughout Colorado. Kelso Interactive specializes in internet-based software, database solutions, and software integration. + +Lead Software Engineer - MatchLogic, Inc. + +November 1996 to October 2001 + +Managed a group of S software engineers and performed development work on email delivery systems, internationalization, internet-based reporting systems, and userinterface design. + +Senior Engineer - Lockheed Astronautics + +May 1989 to November 1996 + +Designed and implemented a graphical user interface to control mission analysis trajectory simulations for the Atlas launch vehicle. Performed mission analysis and trajectory design for Atlas/Centaur and Titan IV space launch programs. + +References available upon request + +John D. + +![](_page_348_Picture_2.jpeg) + +450 Old Courthouse Road, Manhasset Hills NY 11040 (516) 365-07341 Cell: (516) 749-4987 1 Email: jd111Pootonline.ne1 + +# Financial Investigator + +### WORK EXPERIENCES: + +### JDL Services Inc. — Enrolled Agent + +June 2013 - Present + +- Conducted confidential investigations in conjunction with Kostelanetz & Fink LLP. +- Conducted confidential investigations in conjunction with Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP. +- Conducted confidential investigations in conjunction with B2B Investigations Inc. +- Represented clients at IRS Audits with Revenue Agents involving complex income tax issues. +- Represented clients at IRS Collection meetings with Revenue Officers involving various complex collection issues. +- Represented clients at IRS Collection Due Process (CPD) Hearings and other proceedings in order to withdraw income tax liens wrongfully placed against individuals in addition to stopping asset seizures and other aggressive IRS Collection tactics. +- Represented clients with the IRS Whistleblower Program and Form 211, Claim for Reward matters. + +### Special Projects and Consulting Assignments + +### MSN Solutions Inc. — Enrolled Agent, Financial Investigator and Private Investigator + +October 2014 — Present + +- Conducted and assisted with investigations involving asset identification, employee theft, income tax, money laundering and asset forfeiture matters. +- As an independent consultant, conducted confidential investigations in conjunction with Thacher Associates for The Governor's Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) program which included extensive background investigations, contractor screening, subject, witness and third party interviews in addition to threat & risk assessments, site surveys and surveillance at numerous GOSR Office locations. +- Anti-Money Laundering Compliance and Training. +- Consulted on numerous active criminal and civil investigations involving income tax, money laundering and other financial crimes. + +### Consulting Group LLC — Alert Investigator and Case Investigator Supplemental SAR Reviewer and QA Mashreq Bank — NYC (Correspondent Banking) + +February 2019 — December 2019 + +- Examined uncharacteristic client wire transfers, international wires, transfers that lacked economic substance or involved high risk jurisdictions. +- Investigated various alerts on transactions based on parameters established by the bank. +- Performed enhanced due diligence by researching and utilizing public and third party data sources. +- Performed name and account based research on the existence of money laundering activities and utilized all functions of Sharepoint. +- Prepared RFI's with the appropriate questions, when needed to decision a case. +- Document all research and prepare reports to support my findings and conclusions. +- Utilized all functions of Actimize in the review of financial transactions. +- Conducted case investigations on escalated alert investigations. +- Reviewed expanded scope of activity on focal entities and counterparties to determine if activity warranted further review by AMLC Committee. +- Review cases and alerts to make certain of Quality Assurance. + +### Alix Partners + +April 2018 — August 2018 + +- As an Independent consultant for Alix Partners, provided criminal tax investigative services and prepared reports to support my findings and conclusions to clients and their counsel. +- Research persons of interest, persons holding power of attorney and entities of interest. +- Research best current and specified time period addresses of persons of interest, persons holding power of attorney and entities of interest. +- Research citizenship status and financial broker status of persons of interest. +- Research entity of interest operations. + +### GRC Risk Solutions Inc. — Money Laundering and Transaction Consultant — Apple Bank for Savings, NYC (Retail Banking) + +October 2017 — February 2018 + +- Examined uncharacteristic client wire transfers, domestic and international wires, transfers that lacked economic substance or involved high risk jurisdictions. +- Investigated various alerts on transactions based on parameters established by the bank. +- Performed enhanced due diligence by researching and utilizing public and third party data sources. +- Performed name and account based research on the existence of money laundering activities utilized all functions of Sharepoint. +- Prepared RFI's with the appropriate questions, when needed to decision a case. + +- • Document all research and prepare reports to support my findings and conclusions. +- • Performed research for 314 (a) law enforcement inquiries involving third parties. +- • Reviewed Internal Referral Client Cases and performed enhanced due diligence to determine if the bank should exit their relationship with that client. +- • Prepared Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for escalation in accordance to FINCEN Standards. + +### **Navigant Consulting Inc.** + +May 2016 – December 2016 + +- • As an Independent consultant for Navigant's Global Investigations & Compliance practice, provided investigative, forensic accounting, anti-money laundering, criminal tax investigative services, and prepared reports to support my findings and conclusions to clients and their counsel. +- • Traveled abroad and conducted on-site file reviews of KYC files and transactional information to assess the money laundering and tax evasion risk of customers. +- • Performed enhanced due diligence by researching and utilizing public and third party data sources. +- • Performed name and account based research on the existence of money laundering activities. +- • Reviewed wire transactions involving returned payments, transshipments in sanctioned countries, unusual spike in wire activity and nesting activities. + +### **Guidepost Solutions LLC.** + +January 2016 + +- • As an independent consultant, assisted in a forensic investigation involving the home office of a recently deceased retailer and entrepreneur in the fast food industry. Services included a forensic inventory and examination of corporate and personal books and records, bank records, emails, travel documents, credit card expenses, project development proposals, employment and other various records. + +### **Executive Office of the President of the United States** + +### **New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area - Financial Investigator** + +June 2013 – December 2015 + +- • Reviewed a variety of reports, raw data, documents, and records for useful information relating to suspicious financial activity and analyzed results for use in potential criminal investigations, prosecutions and civil seizures. +- • Provided investigative support and asset identification on financial investigations for the DEA, FBI, ICE, USSS, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor and Racketeering, the U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. +- • Proficient in FINCEN, Accurint, E-Justice, Iso Claims and Microsoft Office and many other applications. +- • Prepared lesson plans and provided classroom instruction to local, state and federal law enforcement investigators on money laundering and asset forfeiture investigative techniques. + +**Remma Investigations Inc. – Enrolled Agent, Financial and Private Investigator** + +June 2013 – October 2014 + +- • As an independent consultant, performed Anti-Money Laundering Compliance for potential high level Government cooperators. +- • Conducted confidential investigations including but is not limited to asset identification, extensive background investigations, pre-employment screening, marital legal issues (custody, alimony, and child support), cheating spouse, recovery of lost/stolen property, counterfeit trademark infringement and litigation support. +- • Performed Protective and Corporate Security including but not limited to executive protection, threat & risk assessments, site surveys, technical surveillance counter measures. + +**United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service:** + +**Criminal Investigation Division, Criminal Investigator - Special Agent** + +New York Field Office – April 1988 – May 2013 + +- • Initiated and was the Project Manager of the New York Asset Forfeiture Task Force (NYAFTF) in partnership with various law enforcement agencies in the New York area including the United States Attorney's Office, EDNY, Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Division. This initiative generated high-level tax and money laundering investigations with asset forfeiture potential. The task force was responsible for the investigation, prosecution and conviction of more than 150 individuals and the seizure/forfeiture of assets that exceeded \$350 million. The task force was used as a national model for other IRS Criminal Investigation initiatives. +- • Planned, conducted, supervised and assisted in all aspects of criminal investigations involving violations of federal statutes including money laundering, bank secrecy act and tax evasion in addition to analyzing documents and tracing financial transactions, exhibits, interviewing of witnesses and subjects of investigations, surveillances, undercover operations, execution of arrest and search warrants and coordinating multi-agency involvement and executing criminal and civil forfeitures. +- • Assisted in the preparation of indictments and search warrant affidavits relating to complex money laundering and financial investigations which utilized convoluted and sophisticated financial transactions. +- • Provided consulting and investigative assistance on money laundering investigations the U.S. Attorney's Office, Office of International Affairs, Foreign Governments, DEA, FBI, ICE, USPS, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor and Racketeering and scores of state and local law enforcement agencies. +- • Prepared comprehensive written reports documenting complex money laundering schemes and other financial crimes which recommended criminal prosecution on multiple targets and entities. +- • Recognized for my investigative work by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York numerous times in addition to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DEA, USPIS and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. + +- Instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and conducted seminars/presentations relating to search warrants, money laundering, Asset Forfeiture and the Bank Secrecy Act to various Federal, State and Local law enforcement officers. +- Trained, conducted, and participated in armed escorts and dignitary protection including U.S. Secret Service protection details for foreign dignitaries and other designated officials. + +### Revenue Agent Auditor — Brooklyn District + +June 1987 — April 1988 + +- Performed and completed all requirements of the Revenue Agent Phase I, Phase II and Phase III programs. + +### EDUCATION: + +PACE UNIVERSITY - New York City Campus + +Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) - Accounting and Finance - 1986 + +### SPECIALIZED TRAINING & ASSIGNMENTS: + +Federal Law Enforcement Training Center + +U.S. Secret Service Dignitary Protection Training + +Basic Instructor and Facilitation Training + +Special Agent Basic Training Redesign Task Force + +Emergency Vehicles Operations Course (EVOC) Training + +Revenue Agent Phase I, Phase II and Phase III Training + +### PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: + +Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association + +# GERALD M. LAPORTE Curriculum Vitae + +Positions: Forensic Chemist & Document Dating Specialist Welch LaPorte & Associates Forensic Laboratories Lansing, Michigan USA + +### Director of Research Innovation + +Florida International University — Global Forensic and Justice Center + +United States Department of Justice and United States Secret Service (RET) + +Education: University of Alabama at Birmingham (1994) Birmingham, Alabama USA of Science in Forensic Science (M.S.F.S.) + +> University of Windsor (1992) Windsor, Ontario Canada Bachelor of Commerce in Business Administration + +University of Windsor (1990) Windsor, Ontario Canada Bachelor of Science in Biology (B.Sc.) + +Professional Experience: Florida International University (FIU), Global Forensic and Justice Center Director of Research Innovation (07/19 — Present) + +Duties: Oversee activities at the Global Forensic and Justice Center, which is an innovative resource for education, research, training and policy initiatives related to criminal justice, cyber and emerging forensic sciences. + +U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (03/09 — 07/19) Director, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences + +Duties: Provide expert analysis and advice on agency-wide programs or issues of national impact relating to forensic science; provide expert advice to top management officials; identify reasons for the nature and/or extent of programrelated problems that arise and investigate area in need of improvement; write comprehensive resolution recommendations; formally present findings before large and diverse audiences, such as Federal, state, and local government representatives, special interest groups, the scientific community, and the media. Testify in Congress on behalf of the Department of Justice. + +# United States Secret Service (04/01 — 03/09) + +### Chief Research Forensic Chemist (11/0743/09); Senior Document Analyst (06/05-11/07); Document Analyst (04/01-06/05) + +Duties: Serve as the technical liaison and research chemist for the United States Secret Service pertaining to issues related to the chemistry of documents and fingerprints; coordinating clandestine tagging programs; direct all research projects within the Forensic Services Division. + +Laboratory Duties: perform physical and chemical examinations on a variety of documents to determine how they were produced, where they may have originated from, and if they are authentic. These types of documents include anonymous letters (e.g., threatening, kidnapping, and extortion), suspected counterfeit identifications and financial documents (e.g. travelers checks, credit cards), contracts, and other miscellaneous written materials. Chemical examinations are conducted using thin layer chromatography (TLC), gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS), infrared spectroscopy (IR), scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray analysis (SEM/EDXA); perform chemical tests on unknown (e.g. miscellaneous powders) and controlled substances; testify in court as an expert witness. + +# Marymount University (08/08 — 01/09) + +# Adjunct Professor of Forensic Science + +Arlington, VA + +Duties: Prepare and conduct lecture material in various areas of the forensic sciences and prepare all laboratory exercises and examinations for graduate students + +United States Secret Service, Washington, DC (04/01 — 03/09) + +# Virginia Division of Forensic Science, Richmond, VA (11/99 — 04/01) + +# Forensic Scientist + +Duties: analyze evidence for the presence or absence of controlled substances using a variety of chemical and instrumental tests; utilize sophisticated instrumentation such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; testify in court as an expert witness + +# Anne Arundel County Police Department Crime Lab, Millersville, MD (01/99 -11/99) + +# Forensic Chemist + +Duties: similar to the duties specified for Virginia Division of Forensic Science + +# Government Scientific Source (GSS), Vienna, VA (09/9841/99) + +# Technical Specialist + +Duties: serve as technical specialist in the sales of scientific and laboratory supplies and equipment. + +# Accu-Chem Laboratories, TX (07/96 - 09/98) Forensic and Clinical Toxicology Specialist + +Duties: supervisor of toxicology department; sales and marketing of drug testing and occupational and environmental toxicology testing; serve as a liaison to physicians and personnel responsible for forensic urine drug testing; testify in court as an expert witness in the area of forensic urine drug testing + +### Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner Office, Birmingham, AL (09/93 - 07/96) + +### Autopsy Assistant/Forensic Technician + +Duties: identify, collect, preserve, and document any potential evidentiary material; eviscerate all human organs and document any relevant findings; perform histological examinations + +### University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (01/94 — 07/96) Guest Forensic Science Lecturer + +Duties: lecture on areas related to forensic pathology and death investigation to undergraduate and graduate students + +# Honors/Professional Affiliations: + +- American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) +- Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists (MAAFS) +- American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) +- **American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justices Section** +- **Guest Reviewer for the Journal of Forensic Sciences** +- **Guest Reviewer for the Journal for the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners** +- **Contributing member and Technical Contact in the Scientific Working Group for Questioned Document Examiners (SWGDOC)** +- **Contributing member in the European Document Examiners Working Group (EDEWG) and the International Collaboration for Ink Dating (INCID)** +- **Recipient of the "2005 Forensic Scientist of the Year" by the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists** +- **Recipient of the United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of Virginia "Law Enforcement Public Service Award"** +- **Recipient of the FBI Director's Award of Excellence for Outstanding Scientific Advancement** + +**Professional and Scientific Committees:** + +1. 1. Co-Chair of the Standards, Practices, and Protocols Inter-Agency Working Group – **Executive Office of the President of the United States/Office of Science and Technology Policy/National Science and Technology Council/Committee on Science/Subcommittee on Forensic Sciences** +2. 2. Participating member in the Expert Working Group for Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis +3. 3. Participating member in the Expert Working Group for AFIS Interoperability +4. 4. Participating member in the Expert Working Group for the Preservation of Biological Evidence +5. 5. Commissioner on the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) +6. 6. Chair of the Forensic Document Examination Subcommittee on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) +7. 7. Co-Editor for the Journal for the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners + +**INSTRUCTIONAL COURSES CONDUCTED** + +1. 1. **Workshop Instructor.** “How Chemical Examinations of Inks and Paper Can Corroborate and Supplement Forensic Document Examinations.” Presented at the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners (SWAFDE) Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. October 11, 2019. +2. 2. **Workshop Instructor.** “How Chemical Examinations of Inks and Paper Can Corroborate and Supplement Forensic Document Examinations.” Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Morgantown, WV. May 8, 2019. +3. 3. **Workshop Instructor.** “Color and Light Theory: Applications for the Forensic Examination of Documents.” Presented at the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners (SWAFDE) Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. April 26, 2014. +4. 4. **Workshop Instructor.** “Questioned Document Examination and Enhancement of Evidence and Interpretation of Evidence Using Various Light and Filter Technique.” Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. February 18, 2014. +5. 5. **Workshop Instructor.** “Inkjet Technology and Forensic Examinations.” Presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE). Dearborn, MI, August 2009. +6. 6. **Workshop Instructor.** “Inkjet Technology and Forensic Examinations” at the Annual Meeting for the Southern Association of Forensic Document Examiners (SAFDE). Peach Tree City, GA, April 8, 2009. +7. 7. **Workshop Instructor.** “Inkjet Technology and Forensic Examinations” at the Skill-Task Training Assessment & Research (ST2AR) Fall Workshop. Las Vegas, NV, October 22-23, 2008. +8. 8. **Workshop Instructor.** “Applications of Light and Color Theory in Forensic Document Examinations” at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. February 18, 2008. + +- 9. Workshop Instructor. "Methods Used for Authenticating Questioned Documents" at the Mid-Western Association of Forensic Scientists (MAFS) Annual Meeting, Traverse City, MI. September 25, 2007. +- 10. Workshop Instructor. "Methods Used for Authenticating Questioned Documents" at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) Annual Meeting, Boulder, CO August 13-14, 2007. +- 11. Instructor for the Midwest Forensic Resource Center (MFRC) Recorded Training. Questioned Documents and the Crime Scene, Ames, IA, July 18, 2007. +- 12. Instructor at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Academy Forensic Document Examiner Training Seminar, Quantico, VA. "An Analytical Approach to Forensic Document Examination." April 17, 2007. +- 13. Instructor at the Washington University, Washington, DC. "An Analytical Approach to Forensic Document Examination." February 28, 2007. +- 14. Instructor at Marymount University, Arlington, VA. An Analytical Approach to Forensic Document Examination." November 14, 2006. +- 15. Workshop Instructor. "Authenticating Documents." Presented at the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). Las Vegas, NV, November 6-7, 2006. +- 16. Instructor at the Washington University, Washington, DC. "An Analytical Approach to Forensic Document Examination." October 18, 2006. +- 17. Workshop Instructor. "The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced with Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology." The International Association for Identification (IAI) 91" International Education Conference, Boston, M, July 3, 2006. +- 18. Workshop Instructor. "Security Features in Documents. " Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, May 3, 2006. +- 19. Instructor at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Academy Forensic Document Examiner Training Seminar, Quantico, VA. "The Forensic Examination of Inks." April 5, 2006. +- 20. International Instructor in Doha, Qatar. "The Examination of Counterfeit Documents." March 27-28, 2006. +- 21. Instructor at Marshall University, Huntington, WV. "Forensic Science at the United States Secret Service." March 15, 2006. +- 22. Instructor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. "Forensic Science at the United States Secret Service." December 12, 2005. +- 23. Workshop Instructor. "The Forensic Examination of Printing Processes." American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). Las Vegas, NV, November 7-8, 2005. +- 24. Instructor at the Washington University, Washington, DC. "The Forensic Examination of Printers and Copiers." December 1, 2004. +- 25. Instructor at the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario Canada. "Questioned Document Examinations." November 10, 2004. +- 26. Instructor at the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario Canada. "Forensic Science at the United States Secret Service." November 9, 2004. +- 27. Instructor at the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario Canada. "Forensic Drug Chemistry and Toxicology." November 8, 2004. +- 28. Instructor at Washington University. "The Forensic Examinations of Inks and Paper." Washington University, October 27, 2004. + +- 29. Workshop Instructor. "The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced By Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology." Northeastern Association of Forensic Sciences, September 30, 2004. +- 30. Instructor at Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. "The Forensic Examination of Printers and Copiers" and "The Forensic Analysis of Inks and Paper." Brunswick, GA. June 21, 2004. +- 31. Guest Speaker at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory. "Forensic Chemistry and Questioned Document Examinations." Quantico, VA. May 5, 2004. +- 32. Instructor at Forest Park High School. "Applications of Forensic Chemistry." Woodbridge, VA. May 18, 2004. +- 33. Workshop Instructor. "The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced By Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology." Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Sciences, April 20, 2004. +- 34. Instructor at I Washington University. "The Forensic Examination of Printers and Copiers." Washington University, November 20, 2003. +- 35. Instructor at Washington University. "Ink and Paper Chemistry." Washington University, October 30, 2003. +- 36. Instructor at Marshall University. "Ink and Paper Chemistry" and "Counterfeit Identification Examinations." Huntington, WV. September 23, 2003. +- 37. International Instructor. International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). "Ink and Paper Chemistry" and Counterfeit Document Examinations." Pretoria, South Africa. May 19-20, 2003. +- 38. Instructor at Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. "Printing Processes" and "Physical and Chemical Analysis of Inks and Paper." Brunswick, GA. June 22, 2003. +- 39. International Instructor. International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). "Ink and Paper Chemistry" and Counterfeit Document Examinations." Pretoria, South Africa. May 19-20, 2003 +- 40. International Instructor. International Criminal Investigative Training Program (ICITAP), U.S. Department of Justice, "Counterfeit Document Examinations" and "Ink and Paper Chemistry." Sophia, Bulgaria. January 16-17, 2003. + +# PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS + +- I. National Best Practices for Sexual Assault Kits: A Multidisciplinary Approach, August 2018: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/250384.pdf. +- 2. Faraco, C. and LaPorte, G. National Institute of Justice Investing in Innovation for the Identification, Collection, and Analysis of Sexual Assault Evidence. Forensic Science Review; Volume 30 (2); July 2018: 113-117. +- 3. Chase, R and LaPorte, G. The Next Generation of Crime Tools and Challenges: 3D Printing. NU Journal No. 279, September 2017: https://www.nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/next-generation-of-crime-tools-and-challenges-3d-printing.aspx. +- 4. Weiss, D. and LaPorte, G. Uncertainty Ahead: A Shift in How Federal Experts Can Testify. NIJ Journal No. 279, September 2017: https://wwsv.nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/a-shift-in-how-federal-scientific-experts-cantestify.aspx. + +- 5. Wagstaff, I. and LaPorte, G. The Importance of Diversity and Inclusion in the Forensic Sciences. NIJ Journal No. 279, September 2017: https://www.nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/importance-of-diversity-and-inclusion-inforensic-sciences.aspx. +- 6. LaPorte, G. Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations: Understanding the Role of Forensic Science. NIJ Journal No. 279, September 2017: https://nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/wrongful-convictions-and-dna-exonerations.aspx. +- 7. Waltke, H., LaPorte, G., Weiss, D., Schwarting, D., Nguyen, M. and Scott, F. Sexual Assault Cases: Exploring the Importance of Non-DNA Forensic Evidence. NIJ Journal No. 279, September 2017: https://nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/non-dna-evidence-insexual-assault-cases.aspx. +- 8. Dutton, G. LaPorte G., Wagstaff, I. and Spivak, Cultivating the Next Generation of Forensic Scientists Through Science, Technology. Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Journal of Forensic Research 2017,8:4; DOI: 10.4172/2157-7145.10000384. https://www.omicsonline,org/open-access/cultivating-the-next-generation-of-forensicscientists-through-sciencetechnology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-2157-7145- 1000384.pdf +- 9. Gresham, K., LaPorte, G.., B. and Weiss, D. Using Innovative Technology to Investigate Targeted Mass Violence: What the Future Holds (May 2017) http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/using-irmovativetechnology/#sthash.bPcOad34.dpuf. +- 10. la N., & LaPorte, G. (Eds.) (2017). 2017 National Institute ofJustice Forensic Science Research and Development Symposium. (RTI Press Publication No. CP-0004- 1705). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2017.cp.0004.1705. +- 11. LaPorte, GM. (2015) Chemical analysis for the scientific examination of questioned documents, in Forensic Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications (ed J. A. Siegel), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118897768.ch8. +- 12. Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence. Biological Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Policy Makers (April 2015) (http://nvIpubs.nist.govinistpubs/ir/2015/NIST.IR.8048.pdt). +- 13. Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation. The Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook: Best Practice for Evidence Handlers. April 2013 (http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/BiologicalEvidencePreservationHandbook.pdf) +- 14. Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. February, 2012 (http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm). +- 15. Houlgrave, S., LaPorte, G., & Stephens, J. The Classification of Inkjet Inks Using AccuTOPm DART\*"' (Direct Analysis in Real Time) Mass Spectrometry - A Preliminary Study. Accepted for Publication in the Journal of forensic Science on February 25, 2012. +- 16. LaPorte, G. & Stephens, J. Analysis Techniques Used for the Forensic Examination of Writing and Printing Inks in The Forensic Chemistry Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, 2012. + +- 17. Houlgrave, S., LaPorte, G., & Stephens, J. The Use of Filtered Light for the Evaluation of Writing Inks Analyzed Using Thin Layer Chromatography. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 56 (3), May 2011. +- 18. LaPorte, C., Stephens, J, and Beuchel, A. The Examination of Commercial Printing Defects to Assess Common Origin, Batch Variation, and Error Rate. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 55 (1), January 2009. +- 19. Bicknell, D & LaPorte, G. Documents, Forgeries and Counterfeit' in The Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. +- 20. Arredondo, M., LaPorte, G., Wilson, J., McConnell, T., =, D., & Stain, M. Analytical Methods Used for the Discrimination of Substances Suspected to be Bar Soap: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 51 (6), November 2006. +- 21. LaPorte, G., Arredondo, M., McConnell, T., Stephens, J., Cantu, A., & =, D. An Evaluation of Matching Unknown Writing Inks with the United States International Ink Library. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 51 (3), May 2006. +- 22. LaPorte, G. Modern Approaches to the Forensic Analysis of Inkjet Printing Physical and Chemical Examinations. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, Volume 7, Number 1, June 2004. +- 23. LaPorte, G. The Use of an Electrostatic Detection Device to Identify Individual and Class Characteristics on Documents Produced by Printers and Copiers — A Preliminary Study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 49 (3), May 2004. +- 24. LaPorte, C.., Wilson, J, & Cantu, A. The Identification of 2-Phenoxyethanol in Ballpoint Inks Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 49 (1), January 2004. +- 25. Wilson, J, LaPorte, G, & Cantu, A. Differentiation of Black Gel Inks Using Optical and Chemical Techniques. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 49 (2), March 2004. +- 26. LaPorte, G. Published Book Review, "Advances in the Forensic Analysis and Dating of Writing Ink." Journal of Forensic Identification Volume 53(6), 2003\735. +- 27. LaPorte, C, Wilson, J, Mancke, S. Amanda, Payne, J, Ramotowski, R, & Fortunato, S. The Forensic Analysis of Thermal Transfer Printers, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 48 (5), September 2003. +- 28. LaPorte, G & Ramotowski, R. The Effects of Latent Print Processing on Questioned Documents Produced by Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology and Toner, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 48 (3), May, 2003. +- 29. Lovett Doust, J & LaPorte, G (1991). Population Sex Ratios, Population Mixtures and Fecundity in a Clonal Dioecious Macrophyte, Vallisneria Americana. Journal of Ecology. 79: 477-489. + +# PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS + +- 1. LaPorte, C.M., B. and L.S. Schaeffer. "Nll's NamUs and FBI Laboratory Collaboration: Using Next Generation Identification to Solve Unidentified Persons Cases." American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2018 Annual Scientific Meeting, February 19-24, 2018, Seattle, WA. Program, p. 176, https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018FINALPROGRAM.pdf. +- 2. LaPorte, G. Strengthening Forensic Science: The Changing Landscape. Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Fall Meeting, Mackinac Island, Michigan, September 24, 2015. +- 3. LaPorte, G. Strengthening the Science in Forensic Science: An Update on Research and Development. Presented for the American Bar Association: 5th Annual Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics, Fordham University, New York, New York, June 6, 2014. +- 4. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Non-Original Documents and Images: Is it Reliable to Make Conclusions About the Printing Process and the Type of Ink Used to Create the Original Document? Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 21, 2013. +- 5. LaPorte, G. The Challenges of Translating Forensic Science Research into Practice. Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 21, 2013. +- 6. LaPorte, G. Forensic Science: A Discussion on the Importance of Research and Practical Applications in High Profile Cases. Presented at Penn State University, State College, PA, October 25, 2012. +- 7. LaPorte, G. A Validated Approach to Ink Dating Using Solvent Analysis. Presented at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) Annual Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, August 21, 2012. +- 8. LaPorte, G. and Stephens, J. The Importance of Validating and Verifying a Standardized Method: Envelope Examinations and the Anthrax Investigation. Presented at the NIJ/FBI Impression and Pattern Evidence Symposium, Clearwater, FL. August 7, 2012. +- 9. Taylor, M., , M, and LaPorte, G. Expert working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Presented at the 7'h International Symposium on Fingerprints at the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), Lyon, France, April 25, 2012. +- 10. Taylor, M., , M, and LaPorte, G. Expert working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Presented at the Chesapeake Bay Division for the International Association of Identification. Cambridge, MD, March 28, 2012. +- 11. LaPorte, G. and IIII, K. Artificial Aging of Documents. Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, February 23, 2012. +- 12. LaPorte, G. Trace Evidence Moving Forward. Presented as part of a plenary panel at the 2011 Trace Evidence Symposium: Science, Significance, and Impact. Kansas City, MO, August 9, 2011. +- 13. LaPorte, G. The National Academy of Sciences Report: 2 Years Later. Presented at the Chesapeake Bay Division for the International Association of Identification. Cambridge, MD, March 21, 2011. +- 14. LaPorte, G. Forensic Science: The Importance of Research for Practical Casework. Presented as a Keynote Speech at the Is' Annual World Congress of Forensic Science. Dalian, China, October 21, 2010. + +- 15. LaPorte, G. The Importance of Validating and Verifying a Standardized Method: Envelope Examinations and the Anthrax Investigation. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting. Hunt Valley, MD, May 8, 2009. +- 16. LaPorte, G. Questioned Documents and Homicide Investigations. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Virginia Homicide Investigators Association. Norfolk, VA, October 6, 2008. +- 17. LaPorte, G. Questioned Documents and the Sub-Disciplines. Presented at the Symposium on Special Topics in Questioned Document Analysis. Ankeny, IA, September 30, 2008. +- 18. LaPorte, G. An Overview of the Forensic Examinations on Documents Produced Using Inkjet and Thermal Printing Devices and the Increasing Need for Security. 31" Annual Global Inkjet Printing Conference, Budapest, Hungary, March 12, 2008. +- 19. LaPorte, C, Beuchel, A, and Stepehns, J. The Examination of Commercial Printing Defects to Assess Common Origin and Batch Variation. Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 22, 2008. +- 20. LaPorte, G. Exonerations and Incarcerations: The Key Role of the Forensic Sciences Questioned Documents. Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 19, 2008. +- 21. LaPorte, C, Holifield, A, and Stephens, J. The Black Money Scam. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May + - 24. 2007. +- 22. EM, R. and LaPorte, G. The Effects of Common Environmental Variables on the Infrared Luminescence Properties of Writing Inks. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 25, 2007. +- 23. Holifield, A and LaPorte, G. Artificially Aged Documents. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 25, 2007. +- 24. Voiles, R., Stephens, J., and LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Documents Using Print Quality Analysis Software. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 25, 2007. +- 25. LaPorte, G. Forensic Applications of Chromatography at the United States Secret Service. Presented for the Minnesota Chromatography Forum. Minneapolis, MN, March 27, 2007. +- 26. LaPorte, G. The Necessity of Security Printing for the Forensic Scientist. Presented at the 30th Annual Global Inkjet and Thermal Conference. Prague, Czech Republic, March 2, 2007. +- 27. LaPorte, G., Stoker, D., MI, Y, Stephens, J, and =, D. The Analysis of 2- Phenoxyethanol for the Dating of Documents. Presented at the 59'h Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Antonio, TX, February 22, 2007. +- 28. =, D., Stephens, J. LaPorte, G. A Comparison of the Physical and Chemical Characterization of Conventional Toners vs. Chemically Prepared Toners. Presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Antonio, TX, February 23, 2007. +- 29. Nelis, E., LaPorte, G., and M, Y. The Use of Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry for the Identification of Controlled Substances. Presented at the 59'h Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Antonio, TX, February 23, 2007. + +- 30. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced on Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology. Presented at the California Association of Criminalistics Fall Workshop Meeting, October 12, 2006. +- 31. LaPorte, G. The Physical and Chemical Examinations of Documents Produced Using Inkjet Technology. Presented at the 41h Meeting of the European Document Experts Working Group, The Hague, Netherlands, September 28, 2006. +- 32. Schuler, R., Treado, P.J., Gardner, C., LaPorte, G., Stephens, J. Chemical Imaging for Questioned Document Examination. Presented at the 4'h Meeting of the European Document Experts Working Group, The Hague, Netherlands, September 29, 2006. +- 33. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced Using Inkjet Technology. Presented at the Imaging Materials Seminar: Inkjet Ink, Rochester, NY, May2, 2006. +- 34. Layman, M. and LaPorte, G. Questioned Documents and the Crime Scene. Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, WA, February 23, 2006. +- 35. D, Stephens, J., and LaPorte, G. The Characterization of Envelopes for Questioned Document Examinations. Presented at the 58'h Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, WA, February 23, 2006. +- 36. Stephens, J. and LaPorte, G. The Use of Hyperspectral Contrast Imaging for the Examination of Writing Inks. Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, WA, February 23, 2006. +- 37. LaPorte, G. and Layman, M. The Use of Supplementary Testing in Forensic Document Examinations. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, Montreal, Quebec, August 15, 2005. +- 38. LaPorte, G., Arredondo, M, McConnell, Cantu, A. The Static Method of Dating Writing Inks — A Preliminary Assessment of the United States International Ink Library. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, May 19, 2005. +- 39. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Documents Produced Using Inkjet and Thermal Technology. Presented at the 28'h Global Inkjet and Thermal Printing Conference, Barcelona, Spain, March 16, 2005. +- 40. LaPorte, G. The Examination of Inkjet Printed Documents What's on the Frontier? Presented at the 57'h Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, New Orleans, LA, February 24, 2005. +- 41. =, D. and LaPorte, G. Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis at the United States Secret Service. Scanning: The Journal of Scanning Microscopies, Volume 26(2), March/April, 2004. +- 42. Arredondo, M and LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Paper. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Wilmington, DE, April 23, 2004. +- 43. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Documents and Counterfeit Identifications Related to Terrorism and Financial Crimes. International Conference on Asian Organized Crime and Terrorism. Honolulu, HI, April 10-16, 2004. +- 44. Cochran, J., Glisson, F., and LaPorte, G. Characterization of Inks by Solid Phase Microextraction — Gas Chromatography/Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. Pittconn 2004, Chicago, IL. + +- 45. LaPorte, G. Analyzing Bar Soaps by Utilizing a Variety of Optical and Chemical Techniques. Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, TX, February 20, 2004. +- 46. LaPorte, G. The Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ballpoint Inks Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometery. Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, TX, February 19, 2004. +- 47. LaPorte, G. Inkjet Technology: The Need for Security and Forensic Traceability. Presented at the Annual European Inkjet Printing Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, November 10, 2003. +- 48. LaPorte. G. Cold Cases in Forensic Science. Presented to the Virginia Homicide Investigators Association (VHIA). October 6, 2003. +- 49. LaPorte, G. The Use of an Electrostatic Detection Device (EDD) to Identify Class Characteristics on Documents Produced by Printers and Copiers. Presented at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners Annual Meeting. August, 2003. +- 50. Wilson, J & LaPorte, G. The Differentiation of Gel Inks using Various Optical and Chemical Techniques. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Annapolis, MD, May 8, 2003. +- 51. LaPorte, G. The Analysis of 2-Phenoxyethanol in Ballpoint Inks Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, Annapolis, MD, May 8, 2003. +- 52. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Thermal Transfer Printing. Presented for Information Management Institute: The 14th Annual Thermal Printing Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, April 28-30, 2003. +- 53. LaPorte, G. The Use of an Electrostatic Detection Device (EDD) to Identify Class Characteristics on Documents Produced by Printers and Copiers. Presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, February, 2003. +- 54. LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet and Toner Technology. Presented for Information Management Institute: The 10'h Annual European Ink Jet Printing Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, October 28-30, 2002. +- 55. Payne, J & LaPorte, G. The Forensic Examination of Thermal Transfer Printers. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Frederick Maryland, April 25, 2002. +- 56. LaPorte, G & Ramotowski, R. The Effects of Latent Print Processing on Questioned Documents Produced by Office Machine Systems Utilizing Inkjet Technology and Toner. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Frederick Maryland, April 25, 2002. +- 57. LaPorte, GM & G.G. (1995). A Retrospective Study of the Incidence of Drugs in Decomposed Remains in Jefferson County, Alabama. Presented as an oral presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. +- 58. Gruszecki, A, , GG, LaPorte, GM & CA (1995). The Incidence of Corresponding Presence of Cocaine and Cocaethylene in Both Hair and Routine Postmortem Biological Samples. Presented as a poster at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. + +# COURT AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY + +I have testified approximately 35-40 times in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Texas and Maryland on issues related to forensic urine drug testing, forensic chemistry, and controlled substance analysis. + +I have provided testimony over 75 times in matters related to forensic document examinations in State, Federal, and International courts as follows: + +- 1. Tax Court of Canada vs L.D.G. 2000 Incorporated Montreal, Quebec Canada +- 2. USA v William Bartmann United States District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma +- 3. USA v Clayton Lee Waagner United States District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania +- 4. Matter of Singh, Atvar (A76-676-494) U.S. Department of Homeland Security — Immigration and Customs Enforcement +- 5. USA vs Paul hue, Jr. United States District Court — Northern Indiana +- 6. State v Matthew C. Case # 2NO-5O3-821 CR Nome, Alaska +- 7. USA v Sylvester Richards Gayekpar United States District Court — District of Minnesota +- 8. State v Matthew , Case # 2NO-S03-821 CR Kotzebue, Alaska +- 9. USA v Robert Sterling-United States District Court -Western District of Texas Austin, Texas, Case#A-05-CR-247 SS +- 10. USA v Hector R. Lugo-Rios United States District Court, Judicial District of Puerto Rico San Juan, Puerto Rico, Case#05-354 (JAF) +- 11. USA v Nancy Harlow Northern District of Texas Dallas, TX Case#3:06-CR-011-D +- 12. USA v Hector R. Lugo-Rios et a! United States District Court Judicial District of Puerto Rico San Juan, Puerto Rico, Case#05-354 (JAF) +- 13. State of New Jersey v Alfred Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Burlington Mt. Holly, NJ, Case#05-1988 +- 14. USA v Cleveland Kilgore U.S. District Court For the District of Maryland Baltimore, MD, Case#RDB-06-0115 April 9, 2002 October 17, 2003 December 2, 2003 July 16, 2004 September 9, 2004 January 27, 2005 October 12, 2005 November 2, 2005 April 26, 2006 May 24, 2006 July 18, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 31, 2006 September 21, 2006 + +- 15. USA v Isidore Nouthong et al U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria, VA, Case#:1:06cr305 October 26, 2006 +- 16. USA v Isidore Nouthong et al U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria, VA. Case#:1:06cr305 February 7, 2007 +- 17. USA v Clyde U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Tennessee Memphis, TN April 10, 2007 +- 18. USA v Jerrnain Betea Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria, VA, Case#1:06cr305 May 3, 2007 +- 19. USA v Crist Dauberman Eastern District of Virginia Richmond, VA, Case#3:07CR040 May 8, 2007 +- 20. USA v Jose Padilla et al U.S. District Court For the Southern District of Florida Miami, FL, Case#04-60001-CR-Cooke July 12, 2007 +- 21. Commonwealth of Kentucky v Quincy Omar Cross Hickman Circuit Clinton, KY, Case#08-CR-00001 April 2, 2008 +- 22. Blau v. Schaefer, MD (Docket MID-L-3015-05) New Jersey (Deposition) July 25, 2008 +- 23. People of the State of NY v Stacey Castor County of Onondaga Syracuse, NY, DR#05-359834/07-402152 January 21, 2009 +- 24. International Arbitration. Bank Julius Baer Co. Ltd v Waxfield Ltd LIc Bbcfd Sa G 04-6668-Cv 424 F.3d 278, New York, NY. June 11, 2009 +- 25. USA v Mark A. O'Hair, Et al Northern District of Florida Pensacola, FL, Case #3:08cr75/LAC July 28, 2009 +- 26. Giorgio v. Gibbens, M.D., et al File No. 2392/S New Jersey (Deposition) August 26, 2009 +- 27. International Center for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID); Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8 World Bank- Washington, DC November 3, 2009 +- 28. Lake Forest Homeowner's Association v. Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture, et a! Seminole County Case No. 07-CA-1867-16-L (Deposition) March 19. 2010 +- 29. Lake Forest Community Association v. Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture, Orlando Lake Forest Inc., NTS Mortgage Case No. 07-CA-1867-L Seminole County, FL March 25, 2010 + +- 30. Yakov Shlimovich, Derivatively on Behalf of Rightime Enterpirse, Inc. v. Mikhail Cheban The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District, Case Number BC 408095 (Deposition) February 28, 2011 +- 31. USA v Raogo Ouedraogo U.S. Western District of Michigan Case No. I :08-CR-68 Grand Rapids, MI March 10, 2011 +- 32. Yakov Shlimovich v. Mikhail Cheban, et a! Case No. BC408095 Superior Court of the State of California Los Angeles, CA March 25, 2011 +- 33. USA v. Rami Saba U.S. Western District of Michigan Case No. I :08-CR-68 Grand Raids May 20, 2011 +- 34. Susana Badaracco v. Ricardo Badaracco, Hermes Investment C. Inc ., Atrukay, Inc., Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida (Deposition) September 23, 2011 +- 35. Pactool International, Ltd v. Kett Tool Company, Inc., United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-05367-BHS (Deposition) October 14, 2011 +- 36. Todd Basilone v. Ryan Basilone Superior Court for the State of Alaska Third Judicial District at Anchorage Case Number: 3AN-08-10257 CI April 30, 2012 +- 37. Underhill v. APG Security-RI, LLC, The Asset Protection Group, LLC, and Dennis M. Kelly Superior Court of Rhode Island Case Number: C.A. No. PB 10-6489 September 18, 2012 +- 38. Paul D. Ceglia v. Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Individually, and Facebook, Inc, United States District Court Western District of New York, Civil Action No. : 1:10-cv-00569-RJA (Deposition) July 26, 2012 +- 39. Cott Beverages, INC v. Americann CO-Pack, Inc. and Automated Process and Packaging, LLC. Fourth Judicial District Court Civil No.: 100402774 September 24, 2012 +- 40. Shanna K Bever et al v. Estate of James R. Freudenberg, In The Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, Case No. II CY-CV10505 (Deposit. 11 October 26, 2012 +- 41. Aequitas Solutions, Inc. v. Larry , Gary P. Lloyd, and C Innovation, Inc. + +- In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware Case No. 7249-ML November 27, 2012 +- 42. Shanna K. Bever et al v. Estate of James R. Freudenberg, In The Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, Case No. IICY-CV 10505 November 28, 2012 +- 43. Gerald Morawski v. Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc., James Cameron United States District Court for the Central District of California Civil Action No. CV-I I-10294 MMM (Deposition) December 20, 2012 +- 44. In the Matter of Certain Opaque Polymers United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC Investigation No. 337-TA-883 (Deposition) April 22, 2014 +- 45. Compania General Financiera Y Desarollo, S.A. + - v. La Banque Nationale de Paris In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial District, Miami, FL Case No.: 11-17213 CAtiposition) June 2, 2014 +- 46. LPG Warehouses, Ltd., Grigsby and Peniel Investments + - v. Storrie Street Investments, Ltd. and Michael Hogan In the 26th District Court of Williamson County, TX Cause No.: 10-1284-C26 June 13, 2014 +- 47. Al Maya Trading Establishment v. Global Export Marketing Co. Ltd (Deposition) In the Southern District of New York Case No. 14-cv-0275 July 18, 2014 +- 48. Korff v. Corbett, et al (Deposition) Supreme Court of the State of New York Index No. 601425/03 July 25, 2014 +- 49. Fawzy amer Deghedy v. Viztek, Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa Case No. 3:12-cv-00048-CRW-TJS September 16, 2014 +- 50. Method Of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems ('858) Patent Litigation (Deposition) United States District Court For the Southern District Of Indiana Case 1:10-m1-2181-UM-DML December 11, 2014 +- 51. Lela M. Kratz et al v. Sheri Meeks et al Iowa District Court — Linn County Case No. EQCV 79541 January 15, 2015 +- 52. Compania General Financiera Y Desarrollo v. La Banque National De Paris Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit Miami-Dade County, Florida Case No. 11-17213 CA 30 January 28, 2015 +- 53. Debra Wear v. Todd S. Newell, III, M.D. and Todd S. Newell III. M.D., F.A.C.S. LTD (Deposition) Circuit Court of = County, Illinois Case No. 10 L002261 "E" June 2, 2015 +- 54. In Re: Method Of Processing Ethanol Byproducts + +And Related Subsystems ('858) Patent Litigation Southern District of Indiana - Indianapolis Division + +Case No.: 1:10-m1-02181-LJM-DML + +55. WCA Logistics, LLC. v. Cyndi Carpenter, NKA + +Cyndi Dibert + +In The Municipal Court of Champaign County, Ohio Civil Division + +Case No.: 15 CV F227 + +October 6, 2015 + +January 22, 2016 + +56. Beatty v. Oak Grove Technologies, LLC, et a! + +In The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia + +Case No: CL-20I5-6923 March 14, 2016 + +57. Phosint Limited, Cyprus v. National Bank Trust, Pjsc, Russia + +The International Commercial Arbitration Court at + +the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation + +Arbitration Case No. 159/2015 September 6, 2016 + +58. Nite Glow Industries Inc., I Did it, Inc. and + +Marni Markel! Hurwitz vs. Central Garden & + +Pet Company & Four Paws, d/b/a Four Paws Products, Ltd. + +United States District Court, District of New Jersey + +Case No.: 2:12-cv-04047-KSH-CLW (Deposition) October 11, 2016 + +59. Lincoln Studios, LLC, et aL v. DLA, et al.; + +P6 LA MF Holdings. LLC vs. NMS Capital Partners I, LLC + +And Related Cross-Actions + +Superior Court of the State of California + +County of Los Angeles, Central District + +Case No.: BC551551 (Related Case BC 550227) October 14/18, 2016 + +60. William Baker, Sr., Individually, and as an Heir of the Estate + +of Frederick Tyrone Baker, and Candice Renae Bryan as + +of Frederick Tyrone Baker, Deceased vs. Timothy Eichenlaub + +Individually, Las Vegas Pain Institute and Medical Center, LLC + +dba Comprehensive Urgent Care; Las Vegas Pain Institute, LLC + +District Court, Clark County, NV + +Case No.: A-15-714369-C (Deposition) November 18, 2016 + +61. Girish Dahyabhai Pate! v. + +Yashwant Dahyabhai Pate! + +In the High Court of Justice + +Chancery Division Probate + +Case No.: HC-2015-002485 + +London, England November 24, 2016 + +62. International Center for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) + +Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited (Claimant) + +v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Respondent) + +Case No. Arb/12/I + +Paris, France February 22, 2017 + +63. Bruce v. Bank of America + +United States District Court + +Southern District of Florida + +Case No. 15-24585-CV-UNGARO (Deposition) October 12, 2017 + +64. McClain/Plum v. David'. Gehring, M.D., et al + +New Jersey Superior Court, + +Glouster County + +Docket No.: GLO-L-414-15 + +Conventus No.: 101755-1 (Deposition) November 9, 2017 + +65. USA v. Kaleil Isaza Tuzman and + +Omar Amanat + +United States District Court + +Southern District of New York November 20, 2017 + +66. Mt. Charleston Investments, LLC v. Huerta, et al + +District Court, Clark County, NV + +A-15-715918-B + +Las Vegas, NV November 21, 2017 + +67. Estate of Frederick Tyrone Baker et at v. + +Timothy Eichenlaub et at + +District Court, Clark County, NV + +A-15-714369 + +Las Vegas, NV January 12, 2018 + +68. International Center for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) + +BSG Resources Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) and BSG + +Resources (Guinea) SARL v. Republic of Guinea + +Case No. Arb/14/22 + +Paris, France March 26-27, 2018 + +69. Ida Mae Lee, LLC v. Icor, Ltd. et at + +Docket No.: 2017 CAR 004289 + +Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division Washington, DC + +(Hearing; Plaintiff Stipulated to Expert Findings) July 3, 2018 + +70. Chen Jinhui v. Wong Kam San; Huang Yuexia; + +Line Power Ltd; Trengei Development Ltd; + +Hawkins Development Ltd; Superfine Group Ltd. + +In the High Court of the Hong Kong + +Special Administrative Region + +Court of First instance + +Action No. 1524 of 2012 January 23-24, 2019 + +71. United States of America v. Rao Desu + +United States District Court, District of New Jersey + +Criminal No. 18-C11.613 (BRM) + +Trenton, New Jersey October 16, 2019 + +- 72. U.S. Bank National Association v. Harry H. Morall, Jane E. Carey; et al Case No. 09CA3175 In the Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit Orange County, FL January 3, 2020 +- 73. Harold and Jill v. David E. Taylor, and Joshua Media Ministries International, Inc. Case No. 18SL-CCO2174 In the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis State of Missouri St. Louis, MO (Deposition) February 27, 2020 +- 74. Paul Atkinson & Glyn Mummery (as joint liquidators of Grosvenor Property Developers Limited) v. Grosvenor Property Developers Limited (In Liquidation)/Mr. Siddhant Varma CR-2018-006183 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (Chd) London, England June 23, 2020 +- 75. Le Dec Investments 1800, LTD, et at v. Alberto Kamhazi, et at Court Case No. 2018-017377-CA-44 In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, FL (Deposition) July 31, 2020 +- 76. Duane Fox v. Richard Fox & Joanne Krebs Case No. 19-CV-42 State of Wisconsin — Circuit Court County, WI (Deposition) August 4, 2020 +- 77. Peerenboom v. Perlmutter, Case No. 2013-CA-015257 The 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Palm Beach County, FL (Deposition) October 23, 2020 + +Jennifer L. Naso + +Welch LaPorte & Associates + +PO Box 80225 + +Lansing. MI 48908-0225 + +### Education + +University of New Haven (2006) + +West Haven, CT + +Masters of Science in Forensic Science (M.S.F.S) + +Yale University (2004) + +New Haven. CT + +Bachelor of Arts (BA.) in Psychology + +### Work Experience- + += Welch LaPorte & Associates (10/I I — Present) + +New York. NY + +### Forensic Document Examiner + +Duties: Complete handwriting examinations to determine common authorship or authentication. examination of signatures, indented writing, obliterations, determine method of production, document authentication, and review casework completed by other examiners. + +United States Secret Service (05/06 — 10/1O + +Washington. DC + +### Document Analyst + +Duties: Complete handwriting examinations to determine common authorship or authentication. examination of signatures. indented writing, obliterations, determine method of production. document authentication, and review casework completed by other examiners. + +Connecticut State Forensics Laboratory (03/05 —04/06) + +Meriden. CT + +### Apprentice + +Duties: Participate in individual training program in the Questioned Document and Special Revenue Departments; gain experience in handwriting comparison, indented writing, simulated writing, and using laboratory equipment; conduct research projects. + +Connecticut State Forensics Laboratory (06/03 — 08/03) + +Meriden. CT + +### Forensic Intern + +Duties: Assist forensic scientists in each discipline in various tasks, organize and prepare a teachers conference, and aid in processing crime scenes. + +Suffolk County Medical Examiners Office (06/01 - 08/01) + +Hauppaugue, NY + +### Intern + +Duties: Assist the medical examiners with different aspects of the autopsies, collect data, take measurements. and prepare and clean-up the autopsy room. + +### Specialized Training + +United States Secret Service: Questioned Document Examiner Training (5/2006 — 11/2008) + +Mark Hofmann — Forger and Murderer workshop, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. Park City. UT 2018. + +Latin American Writing Workshop, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, Park City, UT 2018. + +Preparing a Digital Signature File for Forensic Analysis Workshop. American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, San Diego. CA 2017. + +Forensic Science Research: Your Mission to Propose, Innovate, and Collaborate — Workshop, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. San Diego. CA 2017. + +Chinese Handwriting and Signatures Workshop: "Hanzi" through the eyes of the Forensic Document Examiner. American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. San Diego. CA 2017. + +Leveraging Technology for QD Courtroom Presentations Workshop, Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Hunt Valley, MD 2009 + +Arabic Immersion Program, Gulf Arabic Program, Professional Training Institute, Buraimi, Oman 2008 + +Charred Documents Workshop. by Gabe Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Huntington, WV 2008 + +Expert Witness Testimony Workshop. Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Huntington, WV 2008 + +Preparing for Daubert Hearing Workshop. Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Huntington. WV 2008 + +Beginning Modern Standard Arabic Level IV. Ibrahim Elgendy. Middle East Institute. Washington. D.C. 2008 + +Arabic Immersion Program. American Language Institute in Fes. Fes, Morocco 2007 + +Intermediate Arabic 1. Aisha Sherbiny, Arlington Adult Education Center. Arlington VA 2007 + +Infrared and Ultraviolet Imaging Workshop, by Chandra Janney, International Association for Identification. San Diego. CA 2007 + +Forensic Identification of Print Processes, hosted by the United States Secret Service and the Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 2007 + +Chemically Prepared Toner Workshop, by Graham J. Galliford, Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Science, Washington, DC 2007 + +Beginning Arabic Level II, Aisha Sherbiny, Arlington Adult Education Center, Arlington, VA 2007 + +Fundamentals of Handwriting, hosted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Forensics Laboratory, Quantico, VA 2007 + +Beginning Arabic Leven. Aisha Sherbiny, Arlington Adult Education Center, Arlington. VA 2006 + +Authenticating and Dating Methods Used in Forensic Document Examination, by Gerry Laporte, American Board of Forensic Document Examiners Annual Meeting. Las Vegas. NV 2006 + +Simulated and Disguised Signatures, by Derek Hammond. American Board of Forensic Document Examiners Annual Meeting. Las Vegas. NV 2006 + +Papermaking Training and Tour, hosted by Appleton Paper Mill, Appleton, PA 2006 + +Print Processes Training and Tour, hosted by De La Rue Printing Facility. Dulles. VA 2006 + +Fine and Subtle Features Workshop, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR 2006 + +### Presentations/Teaching + +"Forensic Document Capabilities." New York Chapter of Fraud Examiners, Conference, New York, NY. October 2016. + +Instructor, Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Fall Workshop, "Production of Counterfeit Materials", United States Secret Service headquarters, Washington, D.C., Ocotober 2010 + +Adjunct Professor, "Examination of Questioned Documents" graduate level class. The Washington University. Spring 2009 — Spring 2010. + +Instructor, "Print Process Identification and Image Analysis for Forensic Document Examiners". Rochester Institute of Technology. November 2009. June. 2010. + +"Arabic Writing and the Non-Native Speaking Examinee' Adapted. American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. Annual Meeting. Asheville. NC. August 2008. + +"Arabic Writing and the Non-Native Speaking Examiner." Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Huntington, WV 2008 + +"The Diminishing Presence of the Cursive Alphabet." American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE), Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, August 2005. Poster presentation. + +### Profession Organizations + +Diplornate — American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) + +Member — American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) + +Member — ASTM International (Formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) + +Contributing member in the Scientific Working Group for Questioned Document Examiners (SWGDOC) + +I have been accepted by and testified in federal and county court as an expert witness in both criminal and civil cases. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.metadata.json b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abb89376a28417f723ad394d1e7062bf322192a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/EFTA02835304.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,20229 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 375, + "chars": 557886, + "elapsed_seconds": 168.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_166_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_168_Picture_4.jpeg", + "_page_169_Picture_1.jpeg", + "_page_211_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_212_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_213_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_214_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_215_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_216_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_217_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_218_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_219_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_220_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_221_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_222_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_223_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_224_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_225_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_226_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_227_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_228_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_229_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_230_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_231_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_232_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_233_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_234_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_235_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_236_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_237_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_238_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_239_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_240_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_241_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_242_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_243_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_244_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_245_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_246_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_247_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_248_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_249_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_250_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_251_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_252_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_253_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_254_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_255_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_256_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_257_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_258_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_259_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_260_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_261_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_262_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_263_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_264_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_265_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_266_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_267_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_268_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_269_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_270_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_271_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_272_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_273_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_274_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_275_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_276_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_277_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_278_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_279_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_280_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_281_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_282_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_283_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_284_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_285_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_286_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_287_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_288_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_289_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_290_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_291_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_292_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_293_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_294_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_295_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_296_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_297_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_298_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_299_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_300_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_301_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_302_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_303_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_304_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_305_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_306_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_307_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_308_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_309_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_310_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_311_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_312_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_313_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_314_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_315_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_316_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_317_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_318_Picture_6.jpeg", + "_page_338_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_339_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_340_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_341_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_342_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_343_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_344_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_345_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_346_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_347_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_348_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.124, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 370.17 + ], + [ + 423.1201477050781, + 413.8464660644531 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 413.8464660644531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. EXPERT DISCLOSURE BY THE DEFENSE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 343.3531494140625, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 343.3531494140625, + 517.9335327148438 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 517.9335327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., PH.D.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 329.66999999999996 + ], + [ + 296.90509033203125, + 346.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Opinions about Dr. Rocchio's Disclosed Opinions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 298.89 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 298.89 + ], + [ + 418.143798828125, + 314.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 314.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Opinions About Hindsight Bias", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 667.4399999999999 + ], + [ + 325.80999755859375, + 684.3630142211914 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 684.3630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "c. Opinions Related to the Halo Effect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 346.9503479003906, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 346.9503479003906, + 553.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 553.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "d. Opinions Related to the Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault \nAllegations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.9876403808594, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 489.9876403808594, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 264.7345886230469, + 303.3630065917969 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 303.3630065917969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 252.43125915527344, + 396.363037109375 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 396.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 98.01 + ], + [ + 392.904, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 114.20999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 264.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 219.096, + 322.38 + ], + [ + 219.096, + 336.96 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 336.96 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Permanent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 111.384, + 341.82 + ], + [ + 111.384, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 354.78000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Visiting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 503.01 + ], + [ + 96.084, + 503.01 + ], + [ + 96.084, + 516.78 + ], + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 516.78 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HONORS AND AWARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 570.24 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 570.24 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 585.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 585.6299999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Honorary Degrees", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 148.71599999999998, + 604.26 + ], + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 604.26 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Honorary Societies", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 720.09 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 720.09 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 733.86 + ], + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 733.86 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Fellowships", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 115.05599999999998, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 115.05599999999998, + 106.11000000000001 + ], + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 106.11000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Grants, Contracts, Research Funding", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 43.452, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 176.57999999999998 + ], + [ + 43.452, + 176.57999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Awards & Honors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 417.96 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 417.96 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Public Honors & Recognition", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 694.17 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 694.17 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 240.57 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 240.57 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Current:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 91.8, + 243.81 + ], + [ + 91.8, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 256.77 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Past:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 392.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 405.81000000000006 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 298.65599999999995, + 480.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 298.65599999999995, + 494.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 494.90999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "American Psychological Association committee work:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 61.56 + ], + [ + 315.79200000000003, + 61.56 + ], + [ + 315.79200000000003, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 75.33 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GOVERNMENT AND OTHER CONSULTING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 43.452, + 716.04 + ], + [ + 336.6, + 716.04 + ], + [ + 336.6, + 730.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 43.452, + 730.6200000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 146.88, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 146.88, + 268.92 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 268.92 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 39.78, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 39.78, + 286.74 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Articles and Chapters", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 50.79600000000001, + 307.79999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1968", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 310.23 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 310.23 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 323.19 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 323.19 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1969", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 392.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1970", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 448.74 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 460.89 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 460.89 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1971", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 569.4300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1972", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 651.24 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 651.24 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 664.1999999999999 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 664.1999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1973", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 90.72 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1974", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 185.49 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 198.45000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1975", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 657.72 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 657.72 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 670.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 670.6800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1976", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 324.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 324.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 337.77 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1977", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 472.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1978", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 618.84 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 618.84 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1979", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 298.89 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 298.89 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1980", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 575.91 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 575.91 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 588.87 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 588.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1981", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 234.09 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 247.04999999999998 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 247.04999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1982", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 498.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 498.15000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1983", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 169.29 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 169.29 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1984", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 459.2699999999999 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 459.2699999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1985", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 299.70000000000005 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1989", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 260.01 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1990", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 692.55 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 692.55 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 705.51 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 705.51 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1991", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 63.647999999999996, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 272.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1994", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 441.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 441.45000000000005 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1995", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 338.58 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 338.58 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1996", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 666.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 666.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 680.4 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 680.4 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1997", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 389.61 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 389.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1998", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 705.51 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 705.51 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 718.47 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 718.47 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2000", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 247.86 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 260.01 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 260.01 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2001", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 471.41999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2002", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 78.57000000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 90.72 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 90.72 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2003", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 537.0300000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2004", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 298.89 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 298.89 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2005", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 153.09 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2006", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 520.02 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 532.1700000000001 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 532.1700000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2009", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 500.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 500.5799999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2015", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 422.01000000000005 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 422.01000000000005 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 434.97 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 434.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2016", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 650.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 663.39 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 663.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2017", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 477.09000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2021 and in press", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 255.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 129.132, + 255.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 129.132, + 269.73 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 269.73 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVITED ADDRESSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 617.22 + ], + [ + 200.124, + 631.8 + ], + [ + 50.184000000000005, + 631.8 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1969", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 649.6200000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1972.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 676.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 676.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 689.31 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 689.31 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1973", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 649.6200000000001 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 649.6200000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1974", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 59.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1975", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 110.97 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1976", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 257.58 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 257.58 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1977", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 549.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 560.52 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 560.52 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1978", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 731.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 731.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 743.58 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 743.58 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1979", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.224, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 350.73 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 350.73 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1980", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.224, + 690.12 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 690.12 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 701.46 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 701.46 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1985", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 267.3 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 267.3 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1986", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 569.4300000000001 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 582.39 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 582.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1987", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.224, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 134.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 147.42000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1988", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 307.224, + 437.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 437.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 450.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1989", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 207.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1990", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 378.27 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 390.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 390.41999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1991", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 573.48 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 585.6299999999999 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 585.6299999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1992", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 279.45 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1993", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 630.1800000000001 + ], + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 630.1800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1994", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 254.34 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1995", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 157.95 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 170.91 + ], + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 170.91 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1996", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 279.45 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 290.78999999999996 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1997", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 266.49 + ], + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 266.49 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1998", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 701.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 701.46 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 713.61 + ], + [ + 306.61199999999997, + 713.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2004", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 264.06000000000006 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2005", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 625.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 625.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 638.2800000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2006", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 254.34 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 254.34 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2007", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 618.03 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 618.03 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2008", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 349.92 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 349.92 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 362.07 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 362.07 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2009", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 653.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 653.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 665.8199999999999 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 665.8199999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2010", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 325.62 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 338.58 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 338.58 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2011", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 618.84 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 618.84 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2012", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 248.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 248.67000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2013", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.72, + 575.0999999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 575.0999999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 588.06 + ], + [ + 36.72, + 588.06 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2014", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 171.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 183.87 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2015", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 379.89 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 379.89 + ], + [ + 334.15200000000004, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 392.04 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2016", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 135.27 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 135.27 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2017", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 355.59000000000003 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 369.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2018", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.108, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 600.21 + ], + [ + 36.108, + 600.21 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2019", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 193.59 + ], + [ + 334.764, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 207.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2020 (most via zoom)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 341.01 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 341.01 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 354.78000000000003 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 354.78000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2021 (most via zoom)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 487.62 + ], + [ + 417.9960000000001, + 501.39 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 501.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forthcoming", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 306.0, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 376.992, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 376.992, + 636.66 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 636.66 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PARK DIETZ & ASSOCIATES, INC.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 456.6517028808594, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 456.6517028808594, + 55.85406494140625 + ], + [ + 175.64399999999998, + 55.85406494140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Administrative Offices", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 184.3417205810547, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 184.3417205810547, + 110.3624267578125 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 110.3624267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRICULUM VITAE (July 15, 2021)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 416.6046447753906, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 416.6046447753906, + 218.04998779296875 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 218.04998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRENT POSITIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 244.19647216796875, + 259.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 244.19647216796875, + 276.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 276.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 639.09 + ], + [ + 179.51858520507812, + 639.09 + ], + [ + 179.51858520507812, + 655.6800079345703 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 655.6800079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "POSTGRADUATE TRAINING:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 282.1731872558594, + 246.24 + ], + [ + 282.1731872558594, + 262.29998779296875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 262.29998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Residencies:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.96115112304688, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 167.96115112304688, + 291.5499572753906 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 291.5499572753906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Fellowships:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 166.55519104003906, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 166.55519104003906, + 408.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 408.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FULL-TIME ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 359.84259033203125, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 359.84259033203125, + 582.9199981689453 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 582.9199981689453 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VISITING AND ADJUNCT APPOINTMENTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 217.89000000000004 + ], + [ + 376.77001953125, + 217.89000000000004 + ], + [ + 376.77001953125, + 233.36248779296875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 233.36248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Irvine", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 175.03199999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 218.13507080078125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 218.13507080078125, + 87.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 175.03199999999998, + 87.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HOSPITAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 439.3426208496094, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 439.3426208496094, + 174.91998291015625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 174.91998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 396.5722961425781, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 396.5722961425781, + 510.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 510.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LICENSURE (MEDICINE AND SURGERY) AND CERTIFICATION \n(PSYCHIATRY):", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 505.6480407714844, + 174.14999999999998 + ], + [ + 505.6480407714844, + 204.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 204.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AWARDS AND HONORS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 254.36875915527344, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 254.36875915527344, + 466.29998779296875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 466.29998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ACTIVITIES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.54449462890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 363.54449462890625, + 87.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 87.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDITORIAL \nBOARDS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 234.90048217773438, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 234.90048217773438, + 320.8000183105469 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 320.8000183105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Biological Psychiatry", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 69, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 233.17721557617188, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 233.17721557617188, + 87.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 87.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIPS, OFFICES, AND \nCOMMITTEES):", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 69, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 492.21124267578125, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 492.21124267578125, + 305.7999572753906 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 305.7999572753906 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESEARCH GRANTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 229.23146057128906, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 229.23146057128906, + 320.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 320.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESEARCH ADVISORY POSITIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 328.19647216796875, + 610.74 + ], + [ + 328.19647216796875, + 627.1800079345703 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 627.1800079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SELECTED NOTABLE CASES THAT ARE PUBLIC INFORMATION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 510.1003723144531, + 508.68 + ], + [ + 510.1003723144531, + 524.7999877929688 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 524.7999877929688 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXPERT TESTIMONY, APRIL 1990-PRESENT:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 83, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 390.11395263671875, + 392.04 + ], + [ + 390.11395263671875, + 408.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 408.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "City of Redondo Beach v. Stephen Shoemaker and Stephen McDonald \n(Los Angeles, CA)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 92, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 515.8956298828125, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 515.8956298828125, + 116.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 116.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 97, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 202.1236114501953, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 202.1236114501953, + 87.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 87.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Journal:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 97, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 138.924, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 138.924, + 116.41998291015625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 116.41998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books and Reports:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 103, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 211.2630615234375, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 211.2630615234375, + 364.29998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 364.29998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Book Chapters:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 104, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 186.11395263671875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 186.11395263671875, + 87.54998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 87.54998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Committee Publications:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 106, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 239.72634887695312, + 333.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 239.72634887695312, + 350.04998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 350.04998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Audiotace Journal Lectures:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 107, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 261.4924011230469, + 115.83 + ], + [ + 261.4924011230469, + 131.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 131.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Edited Works:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 107, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 177.4896240234375, + 289.17 + ], + [ + 177.4896240234375, + 306.17999267578125 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 306.17999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Brief Essays and Letters to the Editor:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 107, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 323.52862548828125, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 323.52862548828125, + 481.29998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 481.29998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Book Reviews:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 109, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 181.1630096435547, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 181.1630096435547, + 233.04998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 233.04998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORIGINAL PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND \nINTERNATIONAL MEETINGS:1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 110, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 412.6492614746094, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 412.6492614746094, + 437.04998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 437.04998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PANEL PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL MEETINGS:2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 126, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 437.55999755859375, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 437.55999755859375, + 568.6800079345703 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 568.6800079345703 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OTHER LECTURE SITES (CORPORATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL):3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 132, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 521.5700073242188, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 521.5700073242188, + 597.5500030517578 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 597.5500030517578 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 135, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.8343200683594, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.8343200683594, + 437.41998291015625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 437.41998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THREAT ASSESSMENT GROUP\u00ae WORKPLACE VIOLENCE \nPREVENTION TRAINING PACKAGES, VIDEOS, AND E-LEARNING \nCOURSES SCRIPTED BY DR. DIETZ:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 139, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 521.301025390625, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 521.301025390625, + 276.91998291015625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 276.91998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THREAT ASSESSMENT GROUP\u00ae WORKPLACE VIOLENCE \nPREVENTION COURSES TAUGHT BY DR. DIETZ:4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 142, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 462.3994140625, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 462.3994140625, + 203.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 203.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FILMOGRAPHY:5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 156, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 202.02000427246094, + 332.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 202.02000427246094, + 349.67999267578125 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 349.67999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Writer Credit and On-Camera Appearance as Self:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 163, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 427.8545227050781, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 427.8545227050781, + 568.6800231933594 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 568.6800231933594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Listed On-Camera Appearances as Self:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 163, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 359.22454833984375, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 359.22454833984375, + 641.4199981689453 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 641.4199981689453 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "America Undercover (TV Series documentary)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 371.68280029296875, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 371.68280029296875, + 131.41998291015625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 131.41998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Viewpoint '93 - Murder in Mind (TV Movie documentary) (1993)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 479.14581298828125, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 479.14581298828125, + 203.79998779296875 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 203.79998779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "American Justice (TV Series documentary)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 350.663330078125, + 217.07999999999998 + ], + [ + 350.663330078125, + 233.41998291015625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 233.41998291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Archive footage:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 165, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.2095184326172, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 205.2095184326172, + 291.5500183105469 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 291.5500183105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Materials Provided for Review:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 166, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 421.6409912109375, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 421.6409912109375, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 117.44999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Documents/Audio/Video:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 166, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 240.71051025390625, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 240.71051025390625, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 175.76999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRICULUM VITAE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 170, + "polygon": [ + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 364.0666198730469, + 356.4 + ], + [ + 364.0666198730469, + 371.83056640625 + ], + [ + 248.47200000000004, + 371.83056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 171, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 367.6761779785156, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 367.6761779785156, + 84.4541015625 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 84.4541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRESENT POSITION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 172, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 185.4524383544922, + 197.64 + ], + [ + 185.4524383544922, + 212.221435546875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 212.221435546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 172, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 143.45799255371094, + 611.55 + ], + [ + 143.45799255371094, + 626.2214202880859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 626.2214202880859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEDICAL LICENSE:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 173, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 178.6636505126953, + 296.46 + ], + [ + 178.6636505126953, + 310.4470520019531 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 310.4470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 173, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 162.5279541015625, + 396.90000000000003 + ], + [ + 162.5279541015625, + 411.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 411.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ADDITIONAL TRAINING:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 173, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 647.19 + ], + [ + 200.77853393554688, + 647.19 + ], + [ + 200.77853393554688, + 661.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 661.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 175, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 326.7755432128906, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 326.7755432128906, + 85.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 85.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INVITATIONAL OFFICES AND ORGANIZATIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 175, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 271.35 + ], + [ + 325.2718505859375, + 271.35 + ], + [ + 325.2718505859375, + 285.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 285.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDITORIAL POSITIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 323.19 + ], + [ + 199.65174865722656, + 323.19 + ], + [ + 199.65174865722656, + 337.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 337.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMMITTEES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 176, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 151.2748565673828, + 463.32 + ], + [ + 151.2748565673828, + 477.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 477.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HONORS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 179, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 126.91096496582031, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 126.91096496582031, + 184.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 184.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 180, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 227.39614868164062, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 227.39614868164062, + 209.947021484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 209.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REVIEWER:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 181, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 137.4080810546875, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 137.4080810546875, + 523.0670471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 523.0670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BOOK REVIEWS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 182, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 165.15869140625, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 165.15869140625, + 210.68701171875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 210.68701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 182, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 160.28897094726562, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 160.28897094726562, + 413.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 413.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NEWSLETTERS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 189, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 358.83 + ], + [ + 161.41168212890625, + 358.83 + ], + [ + 161.41168212890625, + 373.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 373.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ABSTRACTS/POSTERS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 191, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 335.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 200.8344268798828, + 335.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 200.8344268798828, + 350.2214050292969 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 350.2214050292969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prescription of Antidepressants with No FDA-Approved Indication in the United \nStates Between 2006 \u2014 2009.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 192, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 541.0303344726562, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 541.0303344726562, + 97.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 97.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND INVITATIONAL \nACADEMIC LECTURES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 192, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 526.1986083984375, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 526.1986083984375, + 617.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 617.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIRTUAL LECTURES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 203, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 187.70999145507812, + 147.42000000000002 + ], + [ + 187.70999145507812, + 161.6014404296875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 161.6014404296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEDIA:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 207, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 492.48 + ], + [ + 113.40599060058594, + 492.48 + ], + [ + 113.40599060058594, + 507.68701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 507.68701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Materials Provided for Review:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 319, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 420.4440000000001, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 420.4440000000001, + 117.44999999999999 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 117.44999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Documents:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 319, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 170.74800000000002, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 170.74800000000002, + 148.23 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 148.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3500 Materials:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 319, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 189.72, + 216.27 + ], + [ + 189.72, + 230.84999999999997 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 230.84999999999997 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BENNETT L. GERSHMAN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 320, + "polygon": [ + [ + 230.724, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.9214782714844, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 380.9214782714844, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 230.724, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 320, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 345.2860107421875, + 195.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 345.2860107421875, + 210.363037109375 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 210.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TEACHING EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 320, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 382.91400146484375, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 382.91400146484375, + 334.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 334.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 321, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.00439453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 355.00439453125, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Books", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 321, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 105.87025451660156, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 105.87025451660156, + 127.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 127.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Book Chapter", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 321, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 141.7515411376953, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 141.7515411376953, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Law Review Articles", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 321, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 177.1730194091797, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 177.1730194091797, + 430.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 430.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Book Reviews", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 323, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 145.53854370117188, + 443.07 + ], + [ + 145.53854370117188, + 458.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 458.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Published Articles", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 324, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 194.0096893310547, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 194.0096893310547, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Recent Blogs", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 327, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 139.25039672851562, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 139.25039672851562, + 306.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 306.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Recent Op Ed Pieces", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 329, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 176.25933837890625, + 552.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 176.25933837890625, + 567.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 567.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Scholarly Payers at Conferences and Symposia", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 331, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 300.77685546875, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 300.77685546875, + 334.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 334.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Lectures at Training Programs for Judges and Lawyers", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 332, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 338.7407531738281, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 338.7407531738281, + 458.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 458.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Recent Sneaking Engagements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 333, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 253.9918670654297, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 253.9918670654297, + 610.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 610.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Expert Opinion, Testimony, and Consultation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 334, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 293.7607421875, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 293.7607421875, + 444.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 444.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 335, + "polygon": [ + [ + 218.484, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 393.3460998535156, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 393.3460998535156, + 265.863037109375 + ], + [ + 218.484, + 265.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LITIGATION EXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 335, + "polygon": [ + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 387.035400390625, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 387.035400390625, + 376.10302734375 + ], + [ + 224.60399999999998, + 376.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prosecutorial Work", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 335, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 168.37159729003906, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 168.37159729003906, + 403.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 403.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Criminal Defense Litigation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 335, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 690.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 210.11322021484375, + 690.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 210.11322021484375, + 706.8630142211914 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 706.8630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AWARDS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 336, + "polygon": [ + [ + 276.012, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 336.16973876953125, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 336.16973876953125, + 596.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 276.012, + 596.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 94.77000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 94.77000000000001 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 157.14000000000001 + ], + [ + 136.476, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 170.1 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIALIZED Certified Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) ID: ECC918204 \u2014January 2007", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.19000244140625, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 562.7694091796875, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 562.7694091796875, + 172.5841064453125 + ], + [ + 77.19000244140625, + 172.5841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 174.96 + ], + [ + 132.192, + 174.96 + ], + [ + 132.192, + 187.11 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 187.11 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TRAINING - EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE) ID: 15-0809-3218 \u2014 August 2009", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.04000091552734, + 177.653076171875 + ], + [ + 468.7552795410156, + 177.653076171875 + ], + [ + 468.7552795410156, + 195.4541015625 + ], + [ + 77.04000091552734, + 195.4541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATIONS -", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 159.6185302734375, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 159.6185302734375, + 207.0841064453125 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 207.0841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "LICENSES AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE) ID: 109179 \u2014 May 2012", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.68000030517578, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 442.8644104003906, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 442.8644104003906, + 223.9541015625 + ], + [ + 77.68000030517578, + 223.9541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Computer Forensics \u2014 Specialized Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 359.1418151855469, + 231.66 + ], + [ + 359.1418151855469, + 246.0841064453125 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 246.0841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Licensed Private Investigator in Colorado and Texas", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 401.54766845703125, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 401.54766845703125, + 555.4540710449219 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 555.4540710449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E-Discovery and Evidence Best Practices", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 349.0741271972656, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 349.0741271972656, + 607.9540710449219 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 607.9540710449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 638.2800000000001 + ], + [ + 134.64000000000001, + 652.0500000000001 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 652.0500000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION Graduate Degree", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 338, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.51000213623047, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 248.58750915527344, + 637.47 + ], + [ + 248.58750915527344, + 654.4540710449219 + ], + [ + 77.51000213623047, + 654.4540710449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Robert P. Kelso", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 51.70343017578125 + ], + [ + 199.45974731445312, + 51.70343017578125 + ], + [ + 199.45974731445312, + 77.2811279296875 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 77.2811279296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 150.15487670898438, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 150.15487670898438, + 226.67999267578125 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 226.67999267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TESTIFYING -", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 304.56 + ], + [ + 142.2668914794922, + 304.56 + ], + [ + 142.2668914794922, + 320.3341064453125 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 320.3341064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPOINTMENTS -", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 163.1236114501953, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 163.1236114501953, + 337.214111328125 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 337.214111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Undergraduate Degree", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 277.8374938964844, + 156.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 277.8374938964844, + 169.9541015625 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 169.9541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Republished in De Novo", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 282.46563720703125, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 282.46563720703125, + 263.714111328125 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 263.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Expert Witness Testimony", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 339, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 290.0143737792969, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 290.0143737792969, + 317.3340759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 317.3340759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony for County Court, Boulder County, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 436.872314453125, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 436.872314453125, + 225.4541015625 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 225.4541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony for the District Court, Denver County, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 451.4928283691406, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 451.4928283691406, + 292.214111328125 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 292.214111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony for the District Court, Natrona County, Wyoming, Seventh Judicial \nDistrict", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 549.966064453125, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 549.966064453125, + 372.4540710449219 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 372.4540710449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Deposition testimony for 131\" Judicial District Court, Sandoval County, New Mexico", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 540.7560424804688, + 426.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 540.7560424804688, + 439.5840759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 439.5840759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony for the District Court, El Paso County, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 450.3728332519531, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 450.3728332519531, + 507.0840759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 507.0840759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony for the District Court, Blaine County, Idaho", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 560.52 + ], + [ + 447.01031494140625, + 560.52 + ], + [ + 447.01031494140625, + 573.8340759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 573.8340759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony for the District Court, Weld County, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 458.62750244140625, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 458.62750244140625, + 640.9540863037109 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 640.9540863037109 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony for the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 340, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 694.98 + ], + [ + 478.122314453125, + 694.98 + ], + [ + 478.122314453125, + 708.0840835571289 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 708.0840835571289 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 341, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 342, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Deposition testimony for the Eagle County District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 423.14697265625, + 198.45000000000002 + ], + [ + 423.14697265625, + 211.5841064453125 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 211.5841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony for the State of Colorado Office of Administrative Courts", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 508.0617370605469, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 508.0617370605469, + 278.714111328125 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 278.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony at the County District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 396.89697265625, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 396.89697265625, + 345.8340759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 345.8340759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony at the Jefferson County District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 399.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 407.39697265625, + 399.3299999999999 + ], + [ + 407.39697265625, + 412.5840759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 412.5840759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Deposition testimony for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 514.3646850585938, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 514.3646850585938, + 480.0840759277344 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 480.0840759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony at the Douglas County District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 533.79 + ], + [ + 401.7723083496094, + 533.79 + ], + [ + 401.7723083496094, + 547.2140808105469 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 547.2140808105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the County District Court", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 412.2769775390625, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 412.2769775390625, + 627.4540710449219 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 627.4540710449219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Deposition testimony for the United States District Court, District of Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 343, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 681.21 + ], + [ + 517.4923706054688, + 681.21 + ], + [ + 517.4923706054688, + 694.9540863037109 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 694.9540863037109 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.58 + ], + [ + 117.65495300292969, + 95.58 + ], + [ + 117.65495300292969, + 107.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Trial testimony at the Denver District Court, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 410.5478820800781, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 410.5478820800781, + 197.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 197.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony before the Foreign Service Grievance Board", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 451.1783142089844, + 264.87 + ], + [ + 451.1783142089844, + 278.59759521484375 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 278.59759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the United States District Court, Boulder Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 491.5478820800781, + 332.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 491.5478820800781, + 345.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 345.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the Judicial Arbitor Group", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 383.07830810546875, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 383.07830810546875, + 425.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 425.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the Denver District Court, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 425.515869140625, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 425.515869140625, + 506.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 506.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 560.52 + ], + [ + 471.2978820800781, + 560.52 + ], + [ + 471.2978820800781, + 574.0976104736328 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 574.0976104736328 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Hearing testimony at the United States District Court, Colorado", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 344, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 453.6678771972656, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 453.6678771972656, + 640.8376007080078 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 640.8376007080078 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 345, + "polygon": [ + [ + 38.556, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 38.556, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTOR -\nFACULTY \nMEMBER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 345, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 661.77 + ], + [ + 145.04399999999998, + 661.77 + ], + [ + 145.04399999999998, + 711.0840835571289 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 711.0840835571289 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Special Appointments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 345, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 306.4591979980469, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 306.4591979980469, + 265.214111328125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 265.214111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Honors", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 345, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 574.29 + ], + [ + 205.0868377685547, + 574.29 + ], + [ + 205.0868377685547, + 587.3340759277344 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 587.3340759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Robert P. Kelso", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 51.2120361328125 + ], + [ + 199.60122680664062, + 51.2120361328125 + ], + [ + 199.60122680664062, + 77.3975830078125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 77.3975830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 117.79403686523438, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL \nASSOCIATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 151.25119018554688, + 564.5699999999999 + ], + [ + 151.25119018554688, + 596.7140808105469 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 596.7140808105469 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL \nEXPERIENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 664.1999999999999 + ], + [ + 151.25119018554688, + 664.1999999999999 + ], + [ + 151.25119018554688, + 696.8340835571289 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 696.8340835571289 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Primary Instructor", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 165.24, + 158.76 + ], + [ + 267.9286193847656, + 158.76 + ], + [ + 267.9286193847656, + 171.8341064453125 + ], + [ + 165.24, + 171.8341064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "\u2022 Guest Lecturer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 346, + "polygon": [ + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.7773742675781, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.7773742675781, + 516.0840759277344 + ], + [ + 172.58399999999997, + 516.0840759277344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FORENSIC PURSUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.944, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 95.5330810546875 + ], + [ + 118.16819763183594, + 107.714111328125 + ], + [ + 37.944, + 107.714111328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 144.432, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 144.432, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 364.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 146.268, + 369.36 + ], + [ + 146.268, + 381.51 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 381.51 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 347, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 120.56400000000001, + 398.52 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 398.52 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Financial Investigator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 348, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 371.3603515625, + 133.65 + ], + [ + 371.3603515625, + 148.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 148.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "WORK EXPERIENCES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 348, + "polygon": [ + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 190.28091430664062, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 190.28091430664062, + 190.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 64.25999999999999, + 190.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JDL Services Inc. \u2014 Enrolled Agent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 348, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 292.6946716308594, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 292.6946716308594, + 227.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 227.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Special Projects and Consulting Assignments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 348, + "polygon": [ + [ + 179.928, + 445.5 + ], + [ + 427.2056579589844, + 445.5 + ], + [ + 427.2056579589844, + 459.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 179.928, + 459.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MSN Solutions Inc. \u2014 Enrolled Agent, Financial Investigator and Private \nInvestigator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 348, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 483.09881591796875, + 477.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 483.09881591796875, + 504.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 504.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Consulting Group LLC \u2014 Alert Investigator and Case Investigator \nSupplemental SAR Reviewer and QA \nMashreq Bank \u2014 NYC (Correspondent Banking)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 349, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.6619873046875, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.6619873046875, + 122.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 122.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Alix Partners", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 349, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 179.34323120117188, + 368.55 + ], + [ + 179.34323120117188, + 383.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 383.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GRC Risk Solutions Inc. \u2014 Money Laundering and Transaction Consultant \u2014 Apple \nBank for Savings, NYC (Retail Banking)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 349, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 563.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 563.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Navigant Consulting Inc.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 350, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 238.06800000000004, + 188.73000000000002 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 188.73000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Guidepost Solutions LLC.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 350, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 386.37 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 400.14 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Executive Office of the President of the United States", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 350, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 387.396, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 387.396, + 507.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 507.06000000000006 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area - Financial Investigator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 350, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 506.25 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 520.83 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 520.83 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Remma Investigations Inc. \u2013 Enrolled Agent, Financial and Private Investigator", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 351, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 521.424, + 70.47 + ], + [ + 521.424, + 84.24 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 84.24 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 351, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.072, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 521.424, + 249.48 + ], + [ + 521.424, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 126.072, + 264.06000000000006 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Criminal Investigation Division, Criminal Investigator - Special Agent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 351, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 468.79200000000003, + 281.88 + ], + [ + 468.79200000000003, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 294.84000000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Revenue Agent Auditor \u2014 Brooklyn District", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 352, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 325.2088623046875, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 325.2088623046875, + 193.447021484375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 193.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EDUCATION:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 352, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 144.1666717529297, + 242.18999999999997 + ], + [ + 144.1666717529297, + 256.447021484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 256.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIALIZED TRAINING & ASSIGNMENTS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 352, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 302.4068908691406, + 298.08 + ], + [ + 302.4068908691406, + 312.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 312.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 352, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 250.65792846679688, + 412.29 + ], + [ + 250.65792846679688, + 426.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 426.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GERALD M. LAPORTE \nCurriculum Vitae", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 353, + "polygon": [ + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 51.84 + ], + [ + 410.07135009765625, + 51.84 + ], + [ + 410.07135009765625, + 94.66033935546875 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 94.66033935546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Director of Research Innovation", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 353, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 312.7280578613281, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 312.7280578613281, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "United States Secret Service (04/01 \u2014 03/09)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 368.9170837402344, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 368.9170837402344, + 74.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 74.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Chief Research Forensic Chemist (11/0743/09); Senior Document Analyst \n(06/05-11/07); Document Analyst (04/01-06/05)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 526.266357421875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 526.266357421875, + 102.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 102.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Marymount University (08/08 \u2014 01/09)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 343.3755187988281, + 334.53 + ], + [ + 343.3755187988281, + 350.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 350.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Adjunct Professor of Forensic Science", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 341.9898681640625, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 341.9898681640625, + 364.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 364.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Virginia Division of Forensic Science, Richmond, VA (11/99 \u2014 04/01)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 496.7970886230469, + 444.69000000000005 + ], + [ + 496.7970886230469, + 460.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 460.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forensic Scientist", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 237.504150390625, + 458.46 + ], + [ + 237.504150390625, + 474.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 474.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Anne Arundel County Police Department Crime Lab, Millersville, MD \n(01/99 -11/99)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 509.4179992675781, + 541.08 + ], + [ + 509.4179992675781, + 571.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 571.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forensic Chemist", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 568.62 + ], + [ + 236.82339477539062, + 568.62 + ], + [ + 236.82339477539062, + 584.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 584.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Government Scientific Source (GSS), Vienna, VA (09/9841/99)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 470.3741455078125, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 470.3741455078125, + 626.6030120849609 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 626.6030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Technical Specialist", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 354, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 248.75473022460938, + 623.7 + ], + [ + 248.75473022460938, + 640.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 640.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Accu-Chem Laboratories, TX (07/96 - 09/98) \nForensic and Clinical Toxicology Specialist", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 355, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 443.9170837402344, + 58.31999999999999 + ], + [ + 443.9170837402344, + 88.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 88.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner Office, Birmingham, AL \n(09/93 - 07/96)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 355, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 508.824951171875, + 155.52 + ], + [ + 508.824951171875, + 185.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 185.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Autopsy Assistant/Forensic Technician", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 355, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 346.4422302246094, + 183.87 + ], + [ + 346.4422302246094, + 198.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 198.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (01/94 \u2014 07/96) \nGuest Forensic Science Lecturer", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 355, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 516.6670532226562, + 251.91 + ], + [ + 516.6670532226562, + 281.60302734375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 281.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Honors/Professional Affiliations:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 355, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 243.7879638671875, + 321.57000000000005 + ], + [ + 243.7879638671875, + 337.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 337.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Professional and Scientific Committees:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 356, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 276.624, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 72.9 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONAL COURSES CONDUCTED", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 356, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 313.956, + 307.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 313.956, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 320.76 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 358, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 403.3605041503906, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 403.3605041503906, + 502.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 502.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 361, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 417.24114990234375, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 417.24114990234375, + 74.60302734375 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 74.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COURT AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 365, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 60.75 + ], + [ + 422.68115234375, + 60.75 + ], + [ + 422.68115234375, + 75.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 75.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CURRICULUM VITAE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 372.55670166015625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 372.55670166015625, + 86.6214599609375 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 86.6214599609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Education", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 119.04161071777344, + 143.37 + ], + [ + 119.04161071777344, + 155.96759033203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 155.96759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Work Experience-", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 151.164, + 256.77 + ], + [ + 151.164, + 270.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 270.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forensic Document Examiner", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 238.46780395507812, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 238.46780395507812, + 316.83758544921875 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 316.83758544921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Document Analyst", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 189.8016815185547, + 383.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 189.8016815185547, + 397.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 397.09759521484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Apprentice", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 464.93999999999994 + ], + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 477.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 477.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Forensic Intern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 177.8797149658203, + 545.13 + ], + [ + 177.8797149658203, + 557.9676208496094 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 557.9676208496094 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Intern", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 138.45626831054688, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 138.45626831054688, + 626.9676055908203 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 626.9676055908203 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Specialized Training", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 372, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 658.53 + ], + [ + 163.44088745117188, + 658.53 + ], + [ + 163.44088745117188, + 673.0976028442383 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 673.0976028442383 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Presentations/Teaching", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 374, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 175.17813110351562, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 175.17813110351562, + 198.71759033203125 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 198.71759033203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Profession Organizations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 374, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.932, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 182.440185546875, + 450.36 + ], + [ + 182.440185546875, + 463.09759521484375 + ], + [ + 67.932, + 463.09759521484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 37 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 98 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 85 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 41 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 53 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 107 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 91 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 66 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 103 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 7 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 88, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 89, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 90, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 91, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 92, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 93, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 94, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 95, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 96, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 97, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 98, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 99, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 100, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 101, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 102, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 103, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 104, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 105, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 106, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 107, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 108, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 109, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 110, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 111, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 112, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 113, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 114, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 115, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 116, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 117, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 118, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 119, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 120, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 121, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 122, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 123, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 124, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 125, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 126, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 127, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 128, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 129, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 130, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 131, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 132, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 133, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 134, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 135, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 136, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 137, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 138, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 139, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 140, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 141, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 142, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 143, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 144, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 145, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 146, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 147, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 148, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 149, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 150, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 151, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 152, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 153, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 154, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 155, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 156, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 157, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 158, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 159, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 160, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 161, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 44 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 162, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 163, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 164, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 165, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 166, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 167, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 168, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 169, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 170, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 171, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 172, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 173, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 174, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 175, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 176, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 177, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 178, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 179, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 180, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 181, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 182, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 183, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 184, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 185, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 186, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 187, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 188, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 189, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 190, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 191, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 192, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 193, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 194, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 195, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 196, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 197, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 198, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 199, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 200, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 201, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 202, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 203, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 20 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 204, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 205, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 206, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 207, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 19 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 208, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 209, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 210, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 211, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 212, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 213, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 214, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 215, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 216, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 217, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 218, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 219, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 220, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 221, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 222, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 223, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 224, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 225, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 226, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 227, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 228, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 229, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 230, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 231, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 232, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 233, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 234, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 235, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 236, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 237, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 238, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 239, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 240, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 241, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 242, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 243, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 244, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 245, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 246, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 247, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 248, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 249, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 250, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 251, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 252, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 253, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 254, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 255, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 256, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 257, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 258, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 259, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 260, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 261, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 262, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 263, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 264, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 265, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 266, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 267, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 268, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 269, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 270, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 271, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 272, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 273, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 274, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 275, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 276, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 277, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 278, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 279, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 280, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 281, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 282, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 283, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 284, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 285, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 286, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 287, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 288, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 289, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 290, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 291, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 292, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 293, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 294, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 295, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 296, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 297, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 298, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 299, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 300, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 301, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 302, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 303, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 304, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 305, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 306, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 307, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 308, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 309, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 310, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 311, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 312, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 313, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 314, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 315, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 316, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 317, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 318, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 319, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 320, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 321, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 322, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 323, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 324, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 325, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 326, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 327, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 21 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 328, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 329, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 330, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 331, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 332, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 333, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 334, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 335, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 336, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 337, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 338, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 113 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 339, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 340, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 341, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 342, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 38 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 343, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 344, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 345, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 346, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 54 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 347, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 348, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 349, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 350, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "ListGroup", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 351, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 352, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 353, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 354, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 355, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 356, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 357, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 358, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 359, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 360, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 361, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 362, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 363, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 49 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 364, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 365, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 120 + ], + [ + "Line", + 61 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 366, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 367, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 368, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 369, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Text", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 370, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Text", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 371, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 372, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 373, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 374, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02835304" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_166_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_166_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e75ac7a3f862f1b9b15ed904f942af8b82c77d7d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_166_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:06f4bc12fb437575cd90157d6cbae8b1afa592de1823dc454cb9015cfeb37ea6 +size 38336 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1df66c48c2949a25fce30e8c5bf4e9d6d4daa838 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c7af4686be2902c2c5a56c4e43d15171de0ad2304c0bbb36ca926c910d768c55 +size 45520 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_168_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_168_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85ae037f7bccd96e5c5547e0c9857b1020fbe659 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_168_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b52a2f10f2c068ab7e4b3c42378c170d95a759e377b30931432d2e1971bccfa2 +size 22029 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_169_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_169_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7698fe5c72f385451f795d19048ed335b220dc55 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_169_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ab138027804a3a9edb5b49c21df3569acad89942782cebdb88b3ac26f307182f +size 11032 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a7772b22217165297a5823d4a0017839c313ed4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:df1a949fc6f68bcab3834e023637f3a35ad2f16e4481a95338e06ace8027110b +size 6365 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_211_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_211_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..800a7b969a2d69c90694002936f88097275d0c2b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_211_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1230218ace92cf70f8213bd383da7c7a9650a04647f7931e71ee5d836ed3a173 +size 68504 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_212_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_212_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1b5d2308a99981a82e502f6f7f7240e51a143a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_212_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b0cc07fe5ce440bc09a9c80f694f27cd73d607b83450cf608cff8df92b247a63 +size 68483 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_213_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_213_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35b63fd96b1bc454b7b9d3973fbb10f76b298e3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_213_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:80d89b38d3ff94e10992163a31fd30d3fd8d79c4601adc70b83d91f0b1b11b62 +size 68393 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_214_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_214_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c63c5290a49d2bd452f8fe8c897978b35154523 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_214_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:253d52a73d49dc3f122e5c136915d18392dd35cd5f720029d60eca7422317cee +size 68466 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_215_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_215_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af36d9f135d9eae1f5025fe86fda17ae11b2562d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_215_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bb74c24f2365f806a93a983b8ec03a5eebaea819205332d344ea8028166abf86 +size 68466 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_216_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_216_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35669e11ecb8c680b3852389846e3bca6eafe400 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_216_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5ded5fa636e0337c07b1de7bc6dbbd8fae8d6b7b47f6f91571cc2f169c1a97b8 +size 68523 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_217_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_217_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..381666e98ec4fb82c0ca632aa0f1f48e1dd855c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_217_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5f746dd55e6c2508018a2c82114f0521d1375cf7d533f7011d1a6ed9dcb597ba +size 68455 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_218_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_218_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5026179d08b16cbab32c66d9668e97037662871a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_218_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ed8d287cd5e242b713e3ee69d91aec4ab676e01e17d1daa1c1f26a03bdb24e3a +size 68581 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_219_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_219_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d03953b8803b5d20da42ee33ad145c7c97d909a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_219_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f7d17e3c10e438260ddf17b735146ae6cd262ea96d39d4b39ca34c0a4e86140d +size 68579 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_220_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_220_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee7a6ce18501e3c1db8cfb29637b0771f3d03a0d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_220_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c1c11387bd4e04dcf9f99c600fa4ef3344bf1faf8d4e3a080eed752fb36a9bca +size 68543 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_221_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_221_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f634e7b990ebb613f82d3c0e6a654b59671cc89 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_221_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c57ad50a19578a7570dfc7fcdbd040badf8d215dddf7fc74333fbebbb66756c4 +size 68601 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_222_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_222_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bfebac41a164dee5e97deff867351a95e83865d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_222_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:35d5df270d168af2519ab97b6ffbb38ba71994d573eb271e48be87a86f7a5d0b +size 68582 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_223_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_223_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c911bb6af62f377c8583e67b407d64eb04e0da0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_223_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c699a0a208844dd131a9af49509d8ab1c76fe818950ef00dcaa719bfb2bff666 +size 68519 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_224_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_224_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccd23c8b476f8c8fe88a2a78f2467a596f7ce978 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_224_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eb033c17331a61790d9e224bf6870620369f926a5b39374859471851195ad874 +size 68567 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_225_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_225_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67ef4ace3824c5f789b206626876d9318a93055d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_225_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:89d3383a05d6074ef85df28ed1a28e66a472fedede7fb65dc52309c186915724 +size 68584 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_226_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_226_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21efd00aca761b70f1d84616f76d91107599a4e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_226_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1f7836341010fe477fe0fc80f201963fb6565bbc2e9cd03a4bb587ac2d62fb07 +size 68542 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_227_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_227_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..519f8f16da89a3c0847b85eb4d6350699134f153 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_227_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:754caef2e17ac9628e401c20e9c2ec4b1855b08dc5bc3694ab9d8860411b8741 +size 68471 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_228_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_228_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..785c366e5a87b138e72e98b990cb0318e64e0563 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_228_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2ae6d6332388c8fbf3c2ca6af8a5585a62b97cb0a2070d7716b1876a8f258b9c +size 68599 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_229_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_229_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..18d685e832bd374f068c8c51d6f2016f7072de64 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_229_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e41ac2a53a93f9de3d35681bc66fbd59e0dd3f56988f38d20ee89a8b11621a05 +size 68591 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_230_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_230_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6debec12f39008b60aaa591b31a004a81adfdc0a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_230_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:906c2e90a406940f0b4afb0deb5a59ad36f51f6a53ceb461e404dc12b2cc13e5 +size 68561 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_231_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_231_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1d8fba1d1bd9153bcce35e74ccc386c17614a34 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_231_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b0d238f82a496bbe3de14547a003abcbf75f839da192965df159481f7f857e4d +size 68591 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_232_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_232_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01ff1414d8995fb221335a0accf5a270170541ea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_232_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6f61716e24a3db927f086d9e4109c796065916bddf97d3375c2ff626eb61af57 +size 68584 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_233_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_233_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6744d7fbce3158bca18679b938e5775080972ec1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_233_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4338be3341604677280072f17dd18bf45e682a678ea6a49ed06938db9c4223d4 +size 68538 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_234_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_234_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c69325920e7b38f889c30a23ef52693e2acedd14 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_234_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:43bfc3db6124d723bba6e9bb24e9d9b1f22f73916e7bb507ba3e4bf6890e7538 +size 68571 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_235_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_235_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60400fe1b5a4ba227212e7a664c87925a586b32d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_235_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ea2f9b0c0d8a514b5bbdc0a7e4ae2b3f8993346c1750b401c50e93f729589f3d +size 68573 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_236_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_236_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca866e87244502d4e19b6d5c1b9911f53ee3b737 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_236_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8e7bc13c189663a41b7402e235ec081ce7bb5416f3e4f76500b64e97bf74f8ae +size 68485 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_237_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_237_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..521a2a41e35fabd304aead9211f4210df3dbef61 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_237_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:86b570a0d169aa0f10712e942e56726f3fe8628c58f7b37ed195a3aecc79dbec +size 68401 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_238_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_238_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff4270291bfa5354684851b357d3d1a410ae2475 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_238_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ead55e18ff85855cce7d749225bd5412578a74529c59ea55a137aad644c0dfe6 +size 68531 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_239_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_239_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec37e4313b184792756fd25a739c1bbb37371bf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_239_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1804b6415f6e23dbd24fe1c52c8a1f7786fdad197d07c0497b8d9b81bc3c16f8 +size 68525 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_240_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_240_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d3bbc29aab38d2024c1c083c7b6dcdc5a127e18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_240_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:80b34461cd02eb016c8e6462e3aba23a0057c4f2f7be0fb209a9a32ad03f6b38 +size 68452 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_241_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_241_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbab97c1f2ccfe17e5fcff2f2c4f596c174afaef --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_241_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6113966483623fe8e7308cb7597045bc3ce77d259ca41709332558eb065ab4ce +size 68525 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_242_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_242_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66d806cef66d78af5e7d030b1f982836b5604284 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_242_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e2c37c7935c2547a4d419f216baf2c9425e8a7d4003dcfc8c36de16f78593e73 +size 68533 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_243_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_243_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..884abb0730daff80c1ea8d4c3a8fd3c6a63a12df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_243_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:375f5da7c739da41a83566cbed5f9e6e6a58acc9fed1b18deda3c03c208f81ae +size 68438 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_244_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_244_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e82be61c16e991e1ebd1bf1f7eaea8b5c55c9ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_244_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:187adb478074fa61e353043b5521d99d9eb6cb2ec989db1093aac2eea591c987 +size 68494 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_245_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_245_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54b671b64453ca240c5f8aafb6ff1e014ebd92e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_245_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9706b071d6cb3cb40c9a32bbbe71574ba44150672a7553d3bf5cdf51f6595f99 +size 68511 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_246_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_246_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c01ba51bc322c4fd4776642431174431306b02bc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_246_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b3f83d62a43410691813369bfbaa0ab2b4c5fcd3e18b1c161bd71cdb507a5ba4 +size 68548 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_247_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_247_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a86f61da0d3f7e046cdfcc3c395ce93760e9cb8e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_247_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:027378d872a9e3855aaa94fa948a40e488fd105641c0e6ef301e2719400a9fb7 +size 68494 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_248_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_248_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a71c7adf668a39b4b954e78f0e3ef0739f458abb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_248_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:687c9904993f11b091a2a19cde54e4b5ae4471afd506fc2ecef91b9f324ef520 +size 68596 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_249_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_249_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f0f78cf49193e818373b846cbab1777b4b124da --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_249_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:04f45c8001e2152269615a42ebb24cec351b719e9d854b8385f83839a60b61c5 +size 68603 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_250_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_250_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..069ccc49a303bc641ec6fad1079df1fc1b58590f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_250_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f0e81e8f4532e18cf1d36112ae3f25895dc86158c6b980d5de75abf3a910ad42 +size 68567 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_251_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_251_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cf92e63a1e8ca001c143667385f15546a8f3127 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_251_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4f46d3196c5dde3bedec43e17de8d4ded92fb38e05835564e25a26c1c6356d47 +size 68592 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_252_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_252_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ce38edefbb2afb81e8fe35308d23bdb903d048a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_252_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e0bccba3988c72f3c1463f257b9a664f9ca098330c3cb9d72176666bba2c17c8 +size 68612 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_253_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_253_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5962a8d2965fec3efffcc8b7229b7991f3d2f0b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_253_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:144389ebeea477a6bcaf2ce636ac7d53bfb20bd9fb9a0ca05bfc99e918a6809d +size 68538 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_254_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_254_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..572f14fd8916f8ba9cccc36f41682283a7a6bf13 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_254_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9d1a9fc6a0ec41ffbee9e38c8e254cc0e5cc045765183d7fa774623bfcfb9702 +size 68600 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_255_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_255_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67c03b433f2eda1264094cd99b44fa68aefc9b60 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_255_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1fca5a67b81eba667c3fea9b5825cecc446468ea3cd1d7177623555be79b4bf3 +size 68591 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_256_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_256_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8e123396e43cc46900b544156f8248b4253c32d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_256_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:39a78d9fdb86f429451f8d2ed81b9f4652bea8ad7d60e515e4bdf0070684f44a +size 68534 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_257_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_257_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81ea32ee4cba380b2e75735a04ef2d08e277e577 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_257_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0dc3406d7770e970124face63ebb42d5bd8bd129c2fad02c1fb06ee3a2ed6e81 +size 68488 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_258_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_258_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3479d9d9c23f79860632ebb8c8ac407009ddb08c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_258_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1d4f53c26b54a6f757894b9bcdc2eef6fbc155606d72e44e5ebe0ce499d36876 +size 68597 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_259_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_259_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9896ffb39861871fa1ea891488546fc2c3f3347c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_259_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a9a08e94799a9a37fe4abe8a62ddac87b90e6a3620a207109b1f64d5cf90ef8f +size 68584 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_260_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_260_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b4402e742631ced02a4a0a5c1f445d3410b5d85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_260_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8ec955492310135694af3d740d66f5bdad331e3f2cfcf9bf415cb6e236c4415e +size 68564 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_261_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_261_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a23cb465673626faf27e3f7a8b5588593a362771 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_261_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:60b21b2bfddb03a829df810d5de262252fcfbc624cce173f5e7a5fdefe3f8cf9 +size 68604 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_262_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_262_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..290375418da501b15018bd284f7459d0f9e08571 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_262_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1f7574b819e419757c2ceb284b78a8974cfd6d04fc42addd3114e4a8adcc5e75 +size 68598 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_263_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_263_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..216ff0fc6d152d3a151b7cb297d04207ca93ce41 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_263_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:932486a71ad598d171d2434efceb878f1cbd8ba049bd136feec9a4f875afa09e +size 68531 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_264_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_264_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c04439ff0e3eaed141130634093a1b03d665ad0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_264_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7e7498835ccc5767825c8e20741e58b7d6d931e9dc2cff50fb1cd723c3007e08 +size 68578 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_265_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_265_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff53cdf68c0e2cf405d44b55a00905e4950a2722 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_265_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c8107e8368818aac0e17c69e709ebf35d05d850e9c615a6beb6acdf782987133 +size 68587 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_266_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_266_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d2299f13b854ec65ceef6be255553f7ce243251 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_266_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b1a692a01a96e62effd7401ccad5df9d0f3782cb08065bcfce87ed5db5f89730 +size 68520 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_267_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_267_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..542ec4d21f13155f9257bbd06c802bc3c89a352f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_267_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:219c34d2b39c9edf559a5520b2ead4e79f235331cccc2a1acc62259797221f0b +size 68444 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_268_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_268_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb58123c5c3e59529540ae6caa2342907fd448ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_268_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e3ce194077650106acaf77c0bd85aa338a73dfbb81f200c9e685119c25394608 +size 68571 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_269_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_269_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d869ebec48aeb781309cbdc00693e49d3a61bd96 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_269_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:262f533076a6128f0cdc15b03ab38267d29939e4273ec65a0bc5582bd8b7ec1b +size 68568 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_270_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_270_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3bf38c341f76bec4c6d1932517c2e5ffc671132 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_270_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4a4ce8187e7e3cb2e41adffaf84c27df80e88c42280574e4611acbf52779d6d9 +size 68532 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_271_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_271_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05b0f28c1519083853af107f64f874876ef49a18 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_271_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:853ba9443a0448f190ff27fd452e23492ebbf6e880f5aac83599589f08dee080 +size 68563 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_272_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_272_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0c9932f7db063c7f9877b5ac8307f8d8b969b09 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_272_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:05cd0aa92d793534f9b741a2869cbb58dcced9786230270f79f871879033aa61 +size 68572 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_273_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_273_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99f4612a8214addeda84e3c16121235177bc8234 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_273_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b5a4bfcfe3563648e4c17754c5f966249479317b477c1fa5ba7eea20db48ee25 +size 68452 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_274_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_274_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..680de7d6463e044fcc981472d41e103bda413c2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_274_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8730538750f2ff46d4875e3b3cb1c9b9d2ba76a08b471ba9752cf390435e9ea6 +size 68555 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_275_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_275_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac0b7c3571437ed0c9e76e97233abeee6e7ea7a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_275_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b36c40d2f12390d53d68cbad741a1276b35c246e620d0a00d83ddf6e96efd00a +size 68548 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_276_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_276_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22db3f9eba9d7a5f65b9dd1bb236d8037e81b032 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_276_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0359500936adc20de287870612b76ce2613da527b7f85fd2cde12e3e69cd3a2e +size 68532 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_277_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_277_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ab9589edf61efeea5bf5a714d9b1e4a3bee77fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_277_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e98c5106c22747e86d8106cb75f835e321450ebed0f4e62815be30ef339c26f9 +size 68484 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_278_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_278_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbf7e18797528464f1751c9cff547718822d7fdd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_278_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ee7117de7d33da4615c8eb6fc9494dc78646e56534e40d8fbfe5427bb9642608 +size 68592 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_279_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_279_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81c679e74cc38600ff61d117cd70607d6f75bc85 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_279_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1e7b9d40ea133b2286f2523c4badd278159fb278a4600e7d53317573197d2f39 +size 68596 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_280_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_280_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06e911e212729033d1dccd8e27ec0313207ba7ba --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_280_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:063f4ab5b24fa9fecef4fe84dcdfbe6b057cd9d0b96bbb0d95217d47b7d05397 +size 68551 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_281_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_281_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37dba1ee0e92c8beb4594c27fd47de747924ef23 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_281_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:359874d8b34afcac394dcb67217d896edbee69cbab92fbc63bdfe0747168f0f0 +size 68611 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_282_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_282_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12c30332715cdacbd3f7954b2b745347fabe65c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_282_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:078b6edff1f3c745b3c556f25e7e29b6851d9f5b57ec92bb453f3c5ca058d28a +size 68603 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_283_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_283_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea48789ccda76e90e46400946cd3a1abd8828918 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_283_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:38a85a1937036d2b2652c888897d786d6c8b02b753d79561a6ec54449e3a99e0 +size 68550 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_284_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_284_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca4e290ad7eccaf40630e00320df82b739dadc5b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_284_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6071eff0a35ddfd26c3a6e7665a1873ab1ff805b875852601337a2178a3fa9f5 +size 68589 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_285_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_285_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d66092c7cea9959ec07ccdd06e276583573a3a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_285_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2db2316c7b4ae6203f31212b378ec615184e7ff03fb38ef128bd0bdc65b9a501 +size 68576 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_286_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_286_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dcb3c3f9d1523a075a60ed5a7208ce7695ebfaa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_286_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e93c53c534bd501787fb7bb47fab418352859cf287732d13d9c502963dbbdadf +size 68559 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_287_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_287_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d5cff815c0bfd06c68d871cc592c279c87720c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_287_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:03f874814285e1ef23fb77f584e666d6f59f4292d399042340c0e15aea3165b0 +size 68492 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_288_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_288_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4fa906cfa71c0b1bdc32af57c38bf80220c2dc3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_288_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c96fba77161234cc69fb9a7c4fced212b705082873173770987d04ffc7b2870b +size 68602 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_289_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_289_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38dc3d22a08cdf3b40441efd6eb571fef5ce9f2b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_289_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:75187fefbc39469b90ac63b079b7eb3aac13067651e8ab77cc62c1c31d50526d +size 68595 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_290_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_290_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e2b5b6e0bfd55267c66844f8467aab959df30bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_290_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:96cedfcc0e3d9f802343b540e09ce891f4864e717b9a5ea9349f7847cc33e601 +size 68572 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_291_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_291_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0fe1666681eecd7ef9e0512d182e33701eddf76 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_291_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:148fbf707ac8a653d51e7fdbc20196c39004ddeecd576d7f0329740f35e36ecd +size 68622 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_292_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_292_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6076f054a34f8257e70d93d3c1a6cd56b58ed1f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_292_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5df2e4cac5772aeb4d021487d850a4869b03070086409d65082a634f523a8b20 +size 68599 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_293_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_293_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e298cb7261c486ff66532912fda12fbe3f78aee1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_293_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5b579863649785021726591097a721b6f033008e0ee2c997629241154c963c53 +size 68530 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_294_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_294_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5746e3cbb02665a961878f88a238bbbeca89ce4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_294_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a88e0f3806f3ad51c935eac6b5d7d5f47ca0c2add1c975067711aca7fc93dd75 +size 68579 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_295_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_295_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91eff6026a75c168e3e85b8a60aee8538da0c0e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_295_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cd0c4290045fd358246ede1b18822ff56bf447bd76f155fca5a0114a90ce0a95 +size 68583 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_296_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_296_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8e72fb62fde78e6d6ca961b4b72b63ba58eb988 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_296_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:78ffbf3bdf20dcf461777590314ba4e3405d3c49a296a691a2cdd2fe759709be +size 68516 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_297_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_297_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fcc3954d95407e0836c49145a64705585897dfe --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_297_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:70c48b3537c9acf45303c3646fde95bdb05346d2d2df2251ac136548a9e55c93 +size 68456 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_298_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_298_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec7cae8f2e380815ff2994b275704e3d04cb1007 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_298_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cf8f3137b6502689930bcf19e60a7de7800102f9a95ee44f116ae300b17881c5 +size 68558 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_299_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_299_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b076a24d8c21a415d7b40b88fe1aa5bfa64f341 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_299_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4269133eaecf208706c2051cfd2d1eccb08e7181e40e9b3dea61c972dc71fc70 +size 68559 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_300_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_300_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1aafffbcaea039f192ffda24f6a6bcf6a8b57973 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_300_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5216209715a80ad11dd80aa07190d0c9f00f9cd198363ed88bcc899e6e532bfe +size 68528 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_301_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_301_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0235e8c834ecf46d5507a024ec3dd35bbd118f4a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_301_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ffb22bf19645544cbb5ffca9b318fac0961b340aed9acefa39e0ceb19547fd10 +size 68579 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_302_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_302_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c604417d0e9e8a511fae2cb02bb218dea26a691 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_302_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dc890a7a4163169239dcacf7283f539229aea4d3f98cb6e9c4d95bf68e1cafbf +size 68556 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_303_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_303_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ae8f46b6eeee444b070d1b95e6a324c1ed830d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_303_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:de7c082998d80954d707aa92982fad119bc0f4d24e90a1f5f661a810b8b81a8e +size 68497 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_304_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_304_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22eea5c3331dfb5f28728d662babc95e22bbb165 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_304_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b8266faedfad073fdced28b91abe6d951418e1bdad128c8d2011e23a04d9f424 +size 68552 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_305_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_305_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f58e3fa25909f83c0d22c3cbb66159a570d086e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_305_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:84e6eaa55ee88f3c835394a43534d978a0aad6f302c2a27f093de02289eaa52d +size 68544 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_306_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_306_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..181a4ff315c3db6809fc0a78d9a96a682e13d28d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_306_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:74425b08e31f17d3b2ab26e2084f59f8f3ee7603dbac412a97df9127f64b5750 +size 68444 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_307_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_307_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f56971f07a41c722da6af9654ba6b33da9039c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_307_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:12d4daac298936099c5057acb307212a66da3efae4950d966ef7a0870e9fe2c8 +size 68336 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_308_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_308_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..960915a4888944f57abdad967ef98a5462f22086 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_308_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:09a420b494da884d345fbab38832ef86fbddd9163a8d56cf48ac3daf981c8693 +size 68495 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_309_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_309_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf0a70179f12bf7d02b620b831bbcc4ac2940f90 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_309_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d4760757ebaeecf40d9cb3ddd299b63b13d0d724c7e25173655d1508ab0a13fd +size 68488 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_310_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_310_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81e106fa448bcced6c6c2ddbd26f3b14d4f8f688 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_310_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d7b3c9e42937054b973624e04987753c153c1cf30e4dd839966b2dea98d0eda9 +size 68415 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_311_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_311_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5de7aed89069255ce03fb22f9c5b8369600604b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_311_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cad736ac0bf7a2b1d8b5ed8e0d2301e7f1083d19222267bc552d275ffd2f3165 +size 68494 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_312_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_312_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55bc88bc34b508b940b62559ee3630dac45cfdbc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_312_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a960069aae61152e8694bf3c5e7b9d41b50055422b7d84d6e48b1025bfbe8cd5 +size 68486 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_313_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_313_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8913b7b15ca51f013fd388901a9b5d1b32eecd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_313_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:767650753a3cd2ac4c8fc80b06bfc992424232c1d6ee17e45075361915a4e484 +size 68397 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_314_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_314_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e5189b64ea97881dbcc9cb286f96e1b06666430 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_314_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:896c39fd9abef8fc40eb3cbeeda167f1d348255a243a85fd2ea52fc2c15b14a4 +size 68470 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_315_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_315_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fa61e49f1ac9ea7b68d62582cec10c80380c0bf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_315_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c19273c652b250c411720576d92ed4c8cd82c54970cecc69482fa7748e2f130e +size 68477 diff --git a/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_316_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_316_Picture_6.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..398ddf2751502f7d67f551a9223f71528e82fca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-us-v-maxwell-cr/EFTA02835304/_page_316_Picture_6.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b310ecfa39d2fe36555bf2c4d006043c23a8108e44bd885d6cc0274b941c37db +size 68514